journal article educational leadership

EL Magazine: By Educators, for Educators

Since 1943, educational leadership has been a trusted source of evidence-based, peer-to-peer guidance and inspiration..

Recent Issues

February 2024, december 2023, november 2023, october 2023, september 2023, featured articles.

Back On Track with Climate Science

Leading for a new vision of science teaching, teaching beyond the single story of stem, featured column, the problem of nominal change.

EL Topic Selects

Free, Downloadable Resources for School Teams

Introducing a new line of free topic packs to address the needs of educators and students. Each collection is curated by Educational Leadership 's editors and designed to provide insight, context, and solutions on a specific area of school leadership or instruction.

Online Exclusives

Listen & learn, write for el magazine.

Share your writing with more than 90,000 educators. Get a feel for our upcoming themes and writing guidelines.

Other Ways to Contribute

  Need advice on an edtech dilemma or challenge? Submit your question to "Ask Our EdTech Expert."  

  Have a practice-related story to tell? Review our upcoming questions for “Tell Us About.”  

To process a transaction with a Purchase Order please send to [email protected]

Advertisement

Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts

• Viewpoints/ Controversies
• Open access
• Published: 31 October 2022
• Volume 52 , pages 231–242, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Monica Mincu 1 , 2  

9726 Accesses

8 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling is unfortunate and must be redressed. Leadership is fundamentally about organized agency and collective vision, not managerialism, since it is an organizational quality, not merely a positionality attribute. Most important, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur uniquely at the individual teachers’ level. School organization is fundamental to circulating and consolidating new innovative actions, cognitive schemes, and behaviors in coherent collective practices. This article engages with the relevance of governance patterns, school organization, and wider cultural and pedagogical factors that shape various leadership configurations. It formulates several assumptions that clarify the importance of leadership in any organized change. The way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, while their ability to act with agency is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change. A hierarchical imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teachers’ views on effective classroom management: a mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high schools

Effect of school leadership on student academic achievement: school level path variables

The “new normal” in education

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In recent years, transformation has emerged as a high priority in key policy documents (OECD, 2015 , 2020a , 2020b ; Paterson et al., 2018 ; UNESCO, 2021 ) and been recognized as a major pillar on which the very future of education is based. A galvanized international scene has put transformation at the top of the agenda. One reason is found in the recent Covid-19 emergency and the need to recover, and possibly to “build back better”. Other reasons are longer-term and relate to dissatisfaction with the quality of education in many parts of the world. Major international agencies have been directly involved in reform and have variously endorsed “educational planning” (e.g., Carron et al., 2010 ), systemic reform in highly centralized countries, school autonomy (framed as school-based management or decentralization), systemic adjustment and restructuring (e.g., Carnoy, 1998 ; Samoff, 1999 ), and accountability (Anderson, 2005 ), as well as capacity building and development (De Grauwe, 2009 ). However, in practice, only segments of reforms have been enacted, focusing on one aspect of the school system while neglecting others, without considering the larger governance and school architecture, and local pedagogical cultures. Some agencies have also expressed a renewed interest in innovation and the possibility to measure it (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019 ), from a rather managerial perspective.

The transformation of education is a trendy movement nowadays, with the potential to generate lasting change through wide-reaching actions, not just stylistically or in local projects. Transformation of this kind will occur when structural and organizational conditions are in place in a range of different settings. When this happens, transformation as a revamped concept of change can be wholeheartedly embraced. Nonetheless, both academic and development-oriented NGO research has long dedicated itself to and learned from systemic change, improvement, and reform, based on what have been defined as effective practices (Ko & Sammons, 2016 ; Townsend, 2007 ). The school effectiveness findings are typically transversal principles of what has proved valuable despite contextual variation, whilst noting the local variability of such principles (Teddlie & Stringfield, 2017 ) especially in low and middle income countries (Moore, 2022 ) and even in similar areas of education development (Boonen et al., 2013 ; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008 ). Some variability often occurs between consolidated and less consolidated school systems. School improvement has been based on scholars’ findings on school effectiveness, as these two areas can merge up to a certain point (Creemers & Reezigt, 2005 ; Stoll & Fink, 1996 ). Reform at the top and improvement at the ground level have long been trialed in different national and organizational settings and with different school populations, with the aim of establishing generalizability or local variation. Quality teaching (Bowe & Gore, 2016 ; Darling-Hammond, 2021 ; Hattie, 2009 ) or teachers (Hanushek, 2010 , 2014 ; Mincu, 2015 ; Akiba & LeTendre, 2017 ), as well as equitable effective practices (Sammons, 2010 ) have also been classic research topics that have emerged center-stage in any change project.

In order for quality-promoting endeavors such as change, improvement, and reform to produce a transformed education, several assumptions are indispensable: (a) recognize the larger school and organizational context as crucial, alongside school architecture and processes, (b) define what quality education means across a variety of country contexts and with regard to specific structural arrangements and pedagogical cultures, (c) distinguish the degree and type of autonomy for schools and teachers, and estimate the effectiveness of their mixed interactions, (d) understand and cope from a change perspective within a variety of school cultures, (e) recognize the structural limitations faced by school leadership, as well as the margins to produce local, gradual improvement that can pave the way to radical transformation, and (f) start any significant change at the school level, in the interaction of leaders and teachers.

What is school leadership and how can it bring about change? On the one hand, leadership is about a vision of change, collectively shaped and supported. In this sense, radical change—i.e., transformation—cannot occur without leaders and especially school leaders. In addition, an effective vision about a desired change grows from the interactions of the school actors and is stimulated and orchestrated by the school leadership. An imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation, nor its subsequent stability or growth, given that some grass roots changes happen accidentally, in limited school areas. In fact, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur at the individual teachers’ level, as then it cannot be circulated and consolidated in stable, coherent collective practices. Action at the school level is fundamental for change to occur and last, as well as for individual teachers to be encouraged, supported, and rewarded for their innovative behavior. On the other hand, change is often conceptualized as a gradual process of a series of stages (Fullan, 2015 ; Kotter, 2012 ), carefully incorporating structural and cultural adjustments (Kools & Stoll, 2016 ). Transformation, a less orthodox and robust concept, incorporates the desire for more abrupt and radical change. It is imagined as a possibility to “leapfrog”. This desire to move rapidly forward resonates with the “window of opportunity” phase when big changes can occur more smoothly. However, at the school and even systemic level, complex changes resulting in net improvements are most often gradually prepared and stimulated, since any change is cultural in essence, and as such it needs time to occur. Another relevant aspect is related to leadership as an ingredient and quality, not just a positionality attribute. Both assumptions suggest the inevitability of its role to any change in education as an organized endeavor.

Larger contexts and school organizations are key in any transformation

Education does not occur in an organizational vacuum, since deschooling, mass home-schooling, or online-only paradigms are neither implemented nor envisioned. In addition, a concept of education exclusively posed in philosophical and theoretical terms, especially when aimed at transforming the status quo, neglects to take into account that schooling is enmeshed with different organizational and governance forms, at times in contradiction with its own theoretical bases. Most important, forms of sociality such as those sustained by schools have not declined in relevance but increased, in the aftermath of the global online experiment of the pandemic emergency. At the same time, improvements and even radical changes in education have been embraced and actively promoted in certain parts of the world. For instance, in Norway, renewed weekly timetables are in place, allowing for deep learning as well as better integration with virtual knowledge in high-stakes exams. One should not forget that most pupils around the world are educated in environments displaying significant structural convergences across countries, despite locally diverse values. Such teaching-oriented settings are characterized by the centrality of the adult as teacher, and most often by textbook-based education. The organizational arrangements are linear, based on daily subjects and teachers’ contractual time, mainly dedicated to teaching activities (the stavka system, see Steiner-Khamsi, 2016 , 2020 ) or to ad hoc self-help actions in extreme emergency contexts. Linked to these, school cultures can be both hierarchical (rules are delivered “from above”) and fragmented, since class teachers may be left to themselves without adequate professional support. Whilst the reality is nuanced and school typologies are in any case sociological abstractions, most systems can still be described as basically centralized or decentralized, depending on the level of autonomy granted to schools or local authorities. The larger school contexts as well as the local ones are even today very diverse in these two cases, despite a global increase in diversified combinations of centralization of some aspects and decentralization of others. What Archer ( 1979 ) theorized in her landmark work is still a key valid explanation of how school organizations usually operate and change. With renewed categories, a centralized system is largely characterized by “hierarchies”, real or perceived, and less by “networks and markets”, whilst in the case of decentralized systems, the opposite is true. The same differences can be highlighted in more comprehensive or selective school types, whose visions and ways of functioning are coherent with their structural patterns and influence, and in turn, with how leaders perceive their role and mission.

In terms of leadership, differing configurations will bring differing consequences. Centralized countries with weak school autonomy approach the role of school leaders in a rather formalist way: as primus inter pares or as administrative and legal head. In these settings, the intermediate level is also very weak and largely based on ad hoc tasks. Flat organizations may not support leadership as an essential element in the school’s operational life, and instead focus primarily on teaching, which is mainly viewed as an individual endeavor. School organizations at odds with leadership as a system quality, both in organizational and instructional terms, often exhibit forms of fragmentation (Mincu & Romiti, 2022 ), even in societies that may share a collectivistic or communitarian ethos, such as in East Asia. In countries with significant school autonomy, leadership structures are more manifestly in place, given the increased tasks performed by schools. Often, an excess of hierarchical leadership is a major negative outcome. However, the school context can be characterized by mixed combinations of types of governance (hierarchies, networks, markets) (Mincu & Davies, 2019 ; Mincu & Liu, 2022 ), which have a significant influence on the way leadership is oriented and how it accomplishes its visionary, organizational, and instructional functions within the school and in relation to society. School leadership is both a processual quality and a positional trait, and thus it can be variously performed in high autonomy school systems. In the case of centralized arrangements, it can be much harder to identify leadership as process where there is just some form of leadership positionality: a legal school head or the existence of subject-matter departments. School contexts and organizations around the world are also diverse in terms of leadership configurations and roles: some schools may share the same leader (Italy), some may not provide many leadership positions at all (India), and others may specify a headship position which does not in fact offer any leadership or cohesion in organizational and pedagogical matters. Indeed, leadership may be entirely missing from certain school systems.

To summarize, the way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, along with the quality, direction, and margins of power that can be exerted by leadership at the school and intermediate levels. Nevertheless, schools are large organizations, and as such a certain amount of alignment and direction is needed, which is what leadership provides.

The autonomy of schools and that of teachers are not mutually exclusive

Closely related to the first assumption, for a functional and dynamic school organization, a certain amount of school autonomy is required to adequately balance teachers’ autonomy. In high school autonomy systems, there is a tendency to assume that teachers’ autonomy is quite reduced, and this is certainly the case if the education model is accountability-oriented and leadership is hierarchical. In less autonomous systems, huge resistance to instill more autonomy at the school level is usually deployed—for example, in strongly unionist cultures, which aim to extend and expand teachers’ independence. This translates into quite radical teachers’ autonomy on pedagogical matters, as is the case in certain European school systems (Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

An excess of teachers’ autonomy is detrimental to coherence and alignment at the school level and affects both quality and equity. The metaphors of teachers in their classes as eggs in their egg crates or lions behind closed doors, in the words of a ministry official in Italy, are particularly telling about flat, non-collaborative structures. The idea that high teacher autonomy may automatically support collegiality in flat organizations is not supported by the reality on the ground in certain school systems. In sociological terms, any human organization requires a certain amount of hierarchy and collegiality. In fact, a certain quantity of school autonomy is beneficial in many ways and can enhance teachers’ agency: (a) it emphasizes the role of leaders, including the possibility for teachers to act with leadership, (b) it offers a direction that can be shared, (c) it stimulates people to come together in effective ways (communities of practice) whilst presenting the risk of some contrived collegiality, and (d) it encourages teachers to feel more supported in their own work and professional development.

In a nutshell, leadership’s margins of influence are shaped not only by overall system governance, but also by the amount of school autonomy they enjoy. In addition, the extent of organizational autonomy is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change.

School cultures converge and diverge in multiple ways within and across countries

Pedagogical transformation is about a change in cultural assumptions, which entails a slow process of cognitive and emotional modification that has to be supported beyond school walls by concerted social and economic actions. Structural change will not be successful without an adjustment in people’s cognitive schemes about their practices and values. How teachers conceive of teaching and learning, and of equitable and inclusive approaches, is not essentially a matter of “lack of training”, for which more preparation may be the solution. It is instead a matter of deep pedagogical beliefs, whose roots are shared and societal. How to discipline class misbehavior, for example, and even what inappropriate classroom behavior is, varies widely across societies: it denotes (generational at times) power distance, gender relations, assumptions about individuality and collectivistic entities, as well as merit recognition and social envy avoidance. For Hargreaves ( 1994 ), school culture is the result of the intertwining of attitudes such as individualism, collaboration, contrived collegiality, and “balkanization”, i.e., fragmentation of ethical goals. Stoll ( 2000 ) herself describes schools in terms of social cohesion and social control as traditional, welfarist, “hothouse”, or anomic. In contrast, for Hood ( 1998 ), there are four possible combinations of social cohesion and regulation: (a) fatalistic: compliance with rules but little cooperation to achieve results, (b) hierarchical (bureaucratic): social cohesion and cooperation and a rules-based approach, (c) individualist: fragmented approaches to organizing that require negotiation among various actors, and (d) egalitarian: very meaningful participation structures, highly participatory decision-making, a culture of peer support.

In reality, mixed combinations of two, three, or more types of cultures can be found and supported by a variety of factors within and beyond schools as organizations. Some Southern European realities, as well as some Eastern European systems, belong to the individualist typology: weak collaboration and weak hierarchy, given the absence of a teaching career structure with levels of preparation and strong autonomy of the individual teacher. Some aspects of institutional “fatalism” are present, because a certain culture of respect for rules nevertheless exists, and of egalitarianism of a rather formal type. In fact, while the collegial culture on a formal level may appear robust—given the presence of collegial bodies—in practice organizational coherence remains very weak. The reason lies in the fact that these bodies can also decide not to agree on any systemic solution and defer decisions to the individual teacher, since teacher autonomy is still the superior criterion governing informal culture in schools. In the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian school systems, for example, schools express more coherent and cohesive cultures that oscillate between very hierarchical and more participatory models, with more diffuse leadership (Seashore-Louis, 2015 ). Even though these latter school systems favor a mostly cohesive ethos, it is not uncommon to find fragmented and inconsistent schools with weak leadership.

As an example of how school cultures work, a culturally well-rooted premise that teachers “are all good” is very much at work in certain flat hierarchical or Confucian-oriented school cultures, meaning they are equally effective because morally oriented for the profession. This is, in fact, a convenient belief allowing those within it to oppose forms of evaluations (including between peers and in the wider community of parents and stakeholders) and to resist more school autonomy and cohesiveness measures that might be envisioned by school or system leadership. Whilst teachers may be reluctant to work together and observe each other (as in a lesson study format) in most countries, this may be particularly the case where teachers’ autonomy is quite radical, where collaboration and mentoring are not common practices, or where stimulated by school arrangements and work contracts (e.g., in Italy; see Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

Another way to characterize pedagogical cultures is with reference to formalism (respect for rules and social distances, focus on adults’ role and transmissive pedagogies) or to progressivism (more egalitarian interactions and a focus on the learner and their way of acquiring and creating knowledge). There are many ways in which various school cultures can be appropriately characterized, offering plenty of nuances and details of social, economic, and cultural stratifications and contradictions: for instance, in certain East Asian contexts, there is a combination of Confucianism, socialist egalitarianism, and revised individualism of consumption or of possession, based on previous rural forms of it. However, along the lines of centralized/decentralized typologies that are still valid for describing school functioning and structures, the reality of countries around the world allows scholars to characterize school cultures as formalist versus progressivist. It is legitimate to do so in spite of the local nuances and anthropological cultures that may filter and support such pedagogies (Guthrie et al., 2015 ).

Any cultural change imposed from above or from abroad may be doomed to failure if the hardware is that of centralized systems and if school actors are not allowed to engage in a cultural exercise of adaptation, adequately supported with infrastructural measures. Whilst there is no single model, there are some pillars of good teaching and some key lessons about how to produce change. A major premise is that any change must reach the school level and be able to activate and energize its school actors. School systems may be distinguished therefore in terms of formalist/progressivist typologies, which is coherent with other types of systemic characteristics, including lack of leadership (be it hierarchically formalized, legally representative only, or peer-oriented) that may preclude any effort of cultural transformation.

Without leadership, individual teachers may act as a loosely connected group, without vision and motivation to produce an expected and socially praised change. The expectation to encourage reforms from the regional and district level, when not from the top, is purely utopian. Schools remain remote realities in such change models. Most systems in poorly resourced contexts are entangled in hierarchical school models and grounded in traditional power distance and colonial legacies. Without significant leadership processes stimulated by school principals at the very heart of such systems, cultural and new structural processes cannot be expected. To produce cultural change, the top leadership stratum must create the proper conditions, such as salaries, workload, and other incentives for training and knowledge dissemination; but action and cognitive schemes characterize the school level and teachers cannot be blamed for what they cannot do by themselves.

Defining quality for present times education in context

We cannot move toward possible futures without deeply understanding what good education can be in our present societies, in a variety of localities around the world. Research has long dedicated itself to the task of defining quality in education, particularly in the fields of school effectiveness and school improvement. Meta-research has become a bestseller scholarly genre (Hattie, 2009 ), and the drive toward evidence-based knowledge has been equally impressive, across universities, NGOs, and other major international players. Research studies distinguish between quality teachers (their attributes, amount of preparation, and years of experience) and teaching quality, based on dimensions of quality teaching that produce effective learning. Since structures and cultures can be effectively encapsulated in categories (centralized/autonomous, formalist/progressivist, etc.), quality teaching is also condensed (a) in key dimensions, for instance by Bowe and Gore ( 2016 ), subsuming further aspects, or (b) as rankings of most effective factors in terms of learning.

Mistrust of evidence-based and best-practice research traditions is justified when ready-made solutions are implemented without adaptations and the engagement of those involved. Even the adoption of South-South solutions can be ineffective at times (Chisholm & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008 ). Since problems in education are messy and “wicked” (Ritter & Webber, 1973 ) changes must be systemic and cultural.

Anderson and Mundy, 2014 proved that improvement solutions and practices in two groups of countries—developed and less developed—are very much convergent. Both developing and developed countries present a series of common challenges: the need for fewer top-down approaches, for instance, and for approaches less narrowly focused on the basics. Comparative evidence and perspectives on student learning in developing countries converge on a common cluster of instructional concepts and strategies: (a) learning as student-centered, differentiated, or personalized, associated with using low-cost teaching and learning materials in the language which students understand, and (b) the appropriate use of small group learning in addition to large group instruction. This enables regular diagnostic and formative assessment of student progress to guide instructional decision-making, clear directions, and checking student understanding of the purpose of learning activities. It also involves personalized feedback to students based on assessments of their learning, and explicit teaching of learning skills to strengthen students’ problem-solving competencies. With the possible exception of low-cost learning materials, these prescriptions for good teaching are consistent with international evidence about effective instruction (Anderson & Mundy, 2014 ). But quality teaching and teachers equally assume specific contextual meanings. For instance, Kumar and Wiseman ( 2021 ) indicate that traditional measures of quality (teacher preparation and credentials) are less relevant in India compared to non-traditional measures such as teachers’ absenteeism and their attitude/behavior toward their students.

Teachers alone cannot make a better school

Teachers and their actions at the classroom level are key to inspiring learning and students’ progress. Nonetheless, a misreported finding from an OECD ( 2010 ) study that “the quality of an education system can never exceed the quality of its teachers” is only partially correct. In fact, the full quotation said that the system’s quality cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and leaders. The incomplete quote mirrors a common misconception that teachers alone can and should improve the system. Instead, teachers are part of organizations, and as such they behave and respond to dynamics in place in those contexts, and not as individuals, or as a professional group, not even in the most unionized countries. The quality of a public service cannot be attributed solely to its members, but also to their organization and to specific choices made by its leadership, which is responsible for organizational vision and translating theories into action. Launching heartfelt calls for teachers to change their practices is both naive and sociologically inaccurate regarding how people act and behave in social organizations, such as schools. The presence of leadership as a processual and qualitative dimension at the school level also indicates the existence of the structures of school leadership teams and middle managers, in which leadership is robustly in place as positionality.

In this sense, the quote indicates the relevance of teachers’ work in carefully designed organizations, in which hierarchy and horizontal interactions of collaboration between peers are in a functional equilibrium. In other words, schools and teachers’ autonomy reciprocally reinforce one another.

Whenever teachers are required to act with leadership, autonomy, and innovation, the larger system and school culture should be carefully considered. Teachers cannot by themselves be directly responsible for systemic changes. National-level teams of experts cannot blame teachers for a lack of change when the necessary knowledge and resources are not cascaded effectively to the school level. As the end point of the chain of change, teachers cannot be accused for a lack of success and adequate culture to facilitate innovation when decision makers do not consider the school architecture and how leaders are prepared and ready to support a change in culture. This has been the case with reforms in less resourceful countries around the world, often in highly centralized systems, where more progressivist changes are expected from teachers in the absence of proper consideration of the school architecture, long-standing interactions with the school leaders, and the overall pedagogical culture. Unfair blame for these teachers is expressed at times by international or national teams of experts, unrealistically expecting individual teachers to produce significant structural and cultural changes, otherwise they play the part of “those who wait on a bus” for a change to happen. The possibility to develop, to act innovatively, and to be motivated for teaching depends largely on the organizational support received by teachers at the school level from their head teacher and the wider environment. Professional development is a key ingredient that impacts teacher quality (Cordingley, 2015 ), and its effectiveness and provision depends heavily on the school leadership. Without support from the larger school context and leadership, even the most autonomous teachers may not act with the necessary teaching quality that can make a difference, as clearly illustrated by TALIS 2020.

Leadership, as an organizational quality, is indispensable

The final assumption involves the idea that one cannot crudely distinguish between teachers and leaders, especially middle managers and more informal leaders. Obviously, there is a continuum between such roles: teachers themselves can act with agency and leadership, formally or informally, and head teachers may draw upon their experience as teachers.

Since schools are organizations and not collections of individuals, the field of school effectiveness and school improvement has incontrovertibly identified the influence of leadership as vital: “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (Leithwood et al., 2008 ). Through both organization and instructional vision (Day et al., 2016 ), effective leadership significantly enhances or diminishes the influence that individual teachers have in their classes. Regardless of cultural considerations, when teachers’ work is uncoordinated and fragmented, the overall effect in terms of learning and education cannot be amplified and adequately supported. A lack of coherence within organizations is unfavorable to more localized virtuous dynamics that may be diminished or suffocated.

Moreover, unjustified allegations of managerialism and the striking absence of this topic from key policy documents, including those of UNESCO ( 2021 ), should be highlighted. Whilst the “executive” components implicit in any leadership function must be in place in organizations enjoying wide autonomy, this does not necessarily translate into managerialism and quasi markets. It is indeed the larger school context that can make an autonomous school perform in a managerial way or simply, with broader margins of action, that can facilitate good use of teachers’ collective agency, as in some Scandinavian countries. In order to produce even modest change, let alone radical transformation, we must overcome the widely held misconception that leadership has to do with managerial tasks, competition, and effectiveness from a highly individualistic stance. Whilst this can be the case in certain country contexts and with particular disciplinary approaches, educational leadership does not simply overlap with managerialism as a technical ability. It is essentially about vision and collaboration around our global commons, as well as locally defined school goals.

School leadership is correctly identified as a key strategy to improve teaching and learning toward SDG4 (the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action adopted by the World Education Forum 2015). A specific task assigned to school leadership is an increase in the supply of qualified teachers (UNESCO, 2016 ). At the same time, the need to transform schools is sometimes decoupled from the potential of school and system leadership to ensure such transformation. Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling must be rectified. A humanistic vision and a focus on the global public good cannot be at odds, programmatically, with a field dedicated to understanding how contemporary schools are organized and how they operate.

Conclusion: Leadership is about organized agency, not managerialism

Innovations in education are complex because they can often be incremental and less frequently radical, but some have the potential to be truly transformative. The more effective tend to be small micro-context innovations that diffuse “laterally” through networks of professionals and organizations but need facilitation and effective communication from above to be deep and long-lasting. They are never just technical or structural, but rather cultural and related to visions about education. In this context, leadership and leaders are crucial in a variety of aspects, but foremost in shaping a coherent organization and engaging collectively to clarify and make explicit key pedagogical and equity assumptions, which has a dramatic direct and indirect influence on the effectiveness of the school. Most significantly, school leadership at all levels is the starting point for the transformation of low-performing (and) disadvantaged schools.

We should not underestimate the impact that the larger political, social, and economic context has on schools and leaders around the world. A variety of autonomous schools can perform in a managerial way or simply make good use of teachers’ collective agency, and a variety of less autonomous organizations may dispose or not of a certain dose of organizational coherence and leadership (Keddie et al., 2022 ; Walker & Qian, 2020 ).

What has proved valuable in most contexts may not always be effective in every case; a balance has to be struck between cultural awareness related to pedagogies in contexts and lessons learned across cultural boundaries. Available universal solutions have to be pondered, and adaptations are always required. It can be the case that, in certain conditions, we borrow not only solutions but the problems they address, in the way these are rhetorically framed. However, since convergences occur in structures and cultures, problems may also converge across contexts. In addition, micro-changes occur fluidly at any time, but for transformation to emerge, we need to draw on the accumulated wisdom and the potential implicit in system and school leadership. Last but not least, the complexity lying at the heart of learning from others and from comparison should not be assumed to be insuperable.

Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2017). International handbook of teacher quality and policy . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education . UNESCO IIPE.

Anderson, S., & Mundy, K. (2014). School improvement in developing countries: Experiences and lessons learned . Aga Khan Foundation Canada.

Google Scholar  

Archer, M. (1979). Social origins of educational systems . Routledge.

Boonen, T., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2013). Teacher effects on student achievement in first grade: Which aspects matter most? School Effectiveness and School Improvement . https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.778297 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowe, J., & Gore, J. (2016). Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 352–366.

Carnoy, M. (1998). Globalisation and educational restructuring. Melbourne Studies in Education, 39 (2), 21–40.

Carron, G., Mahshi, K., De Grauwe, A., Gay, D. (2010). Strategic planning. Organisational arrangements . UNESCO IIPE.

Chisholm, L., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). South-South transfer: Cooperation and unequal development in education . Teachers College Press.

Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford Review of Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1020105 .

Creemers, B., & Reezigt, G. (2005). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: The background and outline of the project School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 16 (4), 359–371.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080 .

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.

De Grauwe, A. (2009). Without capacity there is no development . UNESCO.

Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change . Teachers College Press.

Guthrie, G., Tabulawa, R., Schweisfurth, M., Sarangapani, P., Hugo, W., & Wedekind, V. (2015). Child soldiers in the culture wars. Compare, 45 (4), 635–654.

Hanushek, E. (2010). The difference is teacher quality. In K. Weber (Ed.), Waiting for “Superman”: How we can save America’s failing public schools (pp. 81–100). Public Affairs.

Hanushek, E. (2014). Boosting teacher effectiveness. In C. E. Finn & R. Sousa (Eds.), What lies ahead for America’s children and their schools (pp. 23–35). Hoover Institution Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age . Cassell.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Routledge.

Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state, culture rhetoric and public management . Clarendon Press.

Keddie, A., MacDonald, K., Blackmore, J., Boyask, R., Fitzgerald, S., Gavin, M., et al. (2022). What needs to happen for school autonomy to be mobilised to create more equitable public schools and systems of education? Australian Education Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00573-w .

Ko, J. & Sammons, P. (2016). Effective teaching. Education Development Trust.

Kools, M. & Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation ? OECD.

Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change . Harvard Business Review Press.

Kumar, P., & Wiseman, A. W. (2021). Teacher quality and education policy in India: Understanding the relationship between teacher education, teacher effectiveness, and student outcomes . Routledge.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, A. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28 (1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060 .

Mincu, M. (2015). Teacher quality and school improvement: What is the role of research? Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1023013 .

Mincu, M., & Davies, P. (2019). The governance of a school network and implications for Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Education Policy, 36 (3), 436–453.

Mincu, M. & Granata, A. (2021). Teachers’ informal leadership for equity in France and Italy during the first wave of the education emergency. Teachers and Teaching , Special Issue, 1–21.

Mincu, M., & Liu, M. (2022). The policy context in teacher education: Hierarchies, networks and markets in four countries. In R. Tierny & F. Rizvi (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia in Education . Elsevier.

Mincu, M., & Romiti, S. (2022). Evidence informed practice in Italian education. In C. Brown & J. Malin (Eds.), The Emerald international handbook of evidence-informed practice in education . Emerald.

Moore, R. (2022). Variation, context, and inequality: comparing models of school effectiveness in two states in India. School Effectiveness and School Improvement . https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2089169 .

OECD (2010). PISA 2009. Results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume 4) . https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en

OECD (2015). Schooling redesigned . OECD.

OECD (2020a). What students learn matters. Towards a 21st century curriculum . OECD.

OECD (2020b). Back to the future of education: Four OECD scenarios for schooling, educational research and innovation . OECD.

Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111–140.

Paterson, A., Dumont, H., Lafuente, M., & Law, N. (2018). Understanding innovative pedagogies . OECD.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Sammons, P. (2010). Equity and educational effectiveness. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 51–57). Elsevier.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Samoff, J. (1999). Education sector analysis in Africa: Limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development, 19 (4–5), 249–272.

Seashore-Louis, K. (2015). Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. Nordic Journal in Educational Policy, 3, 7–15.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Teach or perish: The stavka system and its impact on the quality of instruction. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow , National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2, 14–39.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2020). Prefazione [Foreword]. In M. Mincu (Ed.), Sistemi scolastici nel mondo globale . Mondadori.

Stoll, L. (2000). School culture. Professional Development, 3, 9–14.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement . Open University Press.

Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2017). A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 52 (1), 15–24.

Townsend, T. (2007). International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement . Springer.

UNESCO (2016). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation for Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning. UNESCO.

UNESCO (2021). Futures of education: Learning to become . UNESCO.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education: A journey to the future . OECD.

Walker, A., & Qian, H. (2020). Developing a model of instructional leadership in China. Compare, 52 (1), 147–167.

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Turin, Palazzo Nuovo, Via Sant’Ottavio, 20, 10124, Torino, TO, Italy

Monica Mincu

Institute of Education, UCL, Centre for Educational Leadership, London, United Kingdom

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Mincu .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Mincu, M. Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts. Prospects 52 , 231–242 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09625-6

Download citation

Accepted : 16 October 2022

Published : 31 October 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09625-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School leadership
• Transformation of education
• School effectiveness
• Cultural contexts
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, strategy and strategic leadership in education: a scoping review.

• 1 Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Research Centre for Human Development, Porto, Portugal
• 2 Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal

Strategy and strategic leadership are critical issues for school leaders. However, strategy as a field of research has largely been overlooked within the educational leadership literature. Most of the theoretical and empirical work on strategy and strategic leadership over the past decades has been related to non-educational settings, and scholarship devoted to these issues in education is still minimal. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide a comprehensive overview of relevant research regarding strategy and strategic leadership, identifying any gaps in the literature that could inform future research agendas and evidence for practice. The scoping review is underpinned by the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley . The results indicate that there is scarce literature about strategy and that timid steps have been made toward a more integrated and comprehensive model of strategic leadership. It is necessary to expand research into more complex, longitudinal, and explanatory ways due to a better understanding of these constructs.

Introduction

Strategy and strategic leadership are critical issues for school leaders ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2011 ). However, strategy as a field of research has largely been overlooked in educational leadership literature ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). Most of the theoretical and empirical work on strategy and strategic leadership over the past decades has been related to non-educational settings, and scholarship devoted to these issues in education is still very limited ( Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ).

The concept of strategy appeared in educational management literature in the 1980s; however, little research was produced until the 1990s (cf. Eacott, 2008b ). Specific educational reforms led to large amounts of international literature mostly devoted to strategic planning ( Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Eacott, 2011 ). For a long period, the concept of strategy was incomplete and confusing. The word “strategy” was often used to characterize different kinds of actions, namely, to weight management activities, to describe a high range of leadership activities, to define planning, or to report to individual actions within an organization ( Eacott, 2008a ).

Strategy and strategic planning became synonymous ( Eacott, 2008b ). However, strategy and planning are different concepts, with the strategy being more than the pursuit of a plan ( Davies, 2003 , Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Both phases of plans’ design and plans’ implementation are related, and the quality of this second phase highly depends on planning’ quality ( Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Eacott, 2011 ; Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019 ). Planning and acting are related and must emerge from the strategy. As stated by Bell (2004) .

Planning based on a coherent strategy demands that the aims of the school are challenged, that both present and future environmental influences inform the development of the strategy, that there should be a clear and well-articulated vision of what the school should be like in the future and that planning should be long-term and holistic (p. 453).

Therefore, it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and holistic framework of strategy, considering it as a way of intentionally thinking and acting by giving sense to a specific school vision or mission ( Davies, 2003 , 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ).

The works of Davies and colleagues ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and Eacott (2008a , 2008b) , Eacott (2010a , 2011) were essential and contributed to a shift in the rationale regarding strategy by highlighting a more integrative and alternate view. Davies and colleagues ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) developed a comprehensive framework for strategically focused schools , comprising strategic processes, approaches, and leadership. In this model, the strategy is conceptualized as a framework for present and future actions, sustained by strategic thinking about medium to long term goals, and aligned to school vision or direction.

Strategic leadership assumes necessarily a relevant role in strategically focused schools. Eacott (2006) defines strategic leadership as “leadership strategies and behaviors relating to the initiation, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of strategic actions within an educational institution, taking into consideration the unique context (past, present, and future) and availability of resources, physical, financial and human” (p. 1). Thereby, key elements of strategic leadership can be identified as one that: 1) acts in a proactive way to contextual changes; 2) leads school analysis and response to changing environment; 3) leads planning and action for school effectiveness and improvement in face of contextual challenges and; 4) leads monitoring and evaluation processes to inform decision making strategically ( Cheng, 2010 ). This brings to the arena a complex and dynamic view of strategic leadership as it is a complex social activity that considers important historical, economic, technological, cultural, social, and political influences and challenges ( Eacott, 2011 ).

Along with these authors, this paper advocates a more comprehensive and contextualized view of strategy and strategic leadership, where strategy is the core element of any leadership action in schools ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). Here, strategic leadership is not seen as a new theory, but an element of all educational leadership and management theories ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ). Even so, these concepts can inform and be informed by diverse leadership theories, a strategy-specific framework is needed in the educational field.

Considering all the above, strategy can be identified as a topic that is being researched in education, in the recent decades. Nonetheless, there is still scarce educational literature about this issue ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ). After 10 years of Eacott’s analysis of literature on strategy in education, it seems that this educational construct is being overlooked as there is still no consensual definition of strategy, different studies are supported in diverse conceptual frameworks and empirical studies about this topic are scarce ( Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ). Moreover, despite the interest of a multidisciplinary vision of strategy and strategic leadership, we agree with Eacott (2008b) about the need for a meaningful definition of strategy and strategic leadership in education, as it is a field with its specifications. Hence, research is needed for a clear definition of strategy, an integrated and complete framework for strategic action, a better identification of multiple dimensions of strategy and a comprehensive model of strategic leadership that has strategic thinking and action as core elements for schools improvement (e.g., Eacott, 2010a ; Hopkins et al., 2014 ; Reynolds et al., 2014 ; Harris et al., 2015 ; Bellei et al., 2016 ). This paper aims to contribute to the field offering a scoping review on strategy and strategic leadership in the educational field.

A clear idea of what strategy and strategic leadership mean and what theory or theories support it are of great importance for research and practice. This scoping review is an attempt to contribute to a strategy-specific theory by continuing to focus on ways to appropriately develop specific theories about strategy and strategic leadership in the educational field, particularly focusing on school contexts.

This study is a scoping review of the literature related to strategy and strategic leadership, which aims to map its specific aspects as considered in educational literature. Scoping reviews are used to present a broad overview of the evidence about a topic, irrespective of study quality, and are useful when examining emergent areas, to clarify key concepts or to identify gaps in research (e.g., Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Tricco et al., 2016 ). Since in the current study we wanted to explore and categorize, but not evaluate, information available concerning specific aspects of strategy in educational literature, we recognize that scoping review methodology serves well this purpose.

In this study, Arksey and O’Malley (2005) five-stage framework for scoping reviews, complemented by the guidelines of other authors ( Levac et al., 2010 ; Colquhoun et al., 2014 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Khalil et al., 2016 ), was employed. The five stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework are 1) identifying the initial research questions, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) study selection, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results. In the sections below, the process of this scoping review is presented.

Identifying the Initial Research Questions

The focus of this review was to explore key aspects of strategy and strategic leadership in educational literature. The primary question that guided this research was: What is known about strategy and strategic leadership in schools? This question was subdivided into the following questions: How should strategy and strategic leadership in schools be defined? What are the main characteristics of strategic leadership in schools? What key variables are related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools?

Identifying Relevant Studies

As suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) , keywords for the search were defined, and databases were selected. Key concepts and search terms were developed to capture literature related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools, considering international perspectives. The linked descriptive key search algorithm that was developed to guide the search is outlined in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Key search algorithm.

Considering scoping review characteristics, time and resources available, inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed. Papers related to strategy and strategic leadership, published between 1990 and 2019, were included. Educational literature has reported the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership since the 1980s ( Eacott, 2008a ; 2008b ). However, it gained expansion between 1990 and 2000 with studies flourishing mostly about strategic planning ( Eacott, 2008b ). Previous research argues that strategy is more than planning, taking note of the need to distinguish the concepts. Considering our focus on strategy and strategic leadership, studies about strategic planning were excluded as well as papers specifically related to other theories of leadership than strategic leadership. A full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria is outlined in Table 2 .

TABLE 2 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The following six electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed literature: ERIC, Education Source, Academic Search Complete, Science Direct, Emerland, and Web of Science. Additionally, a manual search of the reference lists of identified articles was undertaken, and Google Scholar was utilized to identify any other primary sources. The review of the literature was completed over 2 months, ending in August 2019.

Study Selection

The process of studies’ selection followed the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement ( Moher et al., 2009 ). Figure 1 illustrates the process of article selection.

FIGURE 1 . PRISMA chart outlining the study selection process.

With the key search descriptors, 1,193 articles were identified. A further number of articles were identified using Google Scholar. However, a large number of articles were removed from the search, as they were duplicated in databases, and 231 studies were identified as being relevant.

The next phases of studies’ selection were guided by the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented above. A screening of the titles, keywords, and abstracts revealed a large number of irrelevant articles, particularly those related to strategic planning (e.g., Agi, 2017 ) and with general ideas about leadership (e.g., Corral and Gámez, 2010 ). Only 67 studies were selected for full-text access and analyses.

Full-text versions of the 67 articles were obtained, with each article being reviewed and confirmed as appropriate. This process provided an opportunity to identify any further additional relevant literature from a review of the reference lists of each article (backward reference search; n = 2). Ultimately, both with database search and backward reference search, a total of 29 articles were included to be analyzed in the scoping review, considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. During this process of study selection, several studies were excluded. As in the previous phase, examples of excluded papers include studies related to strategic planning where the focus is on the planning processes (e.g., Bennett et al., 2000 ; Al-Zboon and Hasan, 2012 ; Schlebusch and Mokhatle, 2016 ) or with general ideas about leadership (e.g., FitzGerald and Quiñones, 2018 ). Additionally, articles that were primarily associated with other topics or related to specific leadership theories (e.g., instructional leadership, transformational leadership) and that only referred briefly to strategic leadership were excluded (e.g., Bandur, 2012 ; Malin and Hackmann, 2017 ). Despite the interest of all these topics for strategic action, we were interested specifically in the concepts of strategy, strategic leadership, and its specifications in educational literature.

Data Charting and Collation

The fourth stage of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review framework consists of charting the selected articles. Summaries were developed for each article related to the author, year, location of the study, participants, study methods, and a brief synthesis of study results related to our research questions. Details of included studies are provided in the table available in Supplementary Appendix S1 .

Summarising and Reporting Findings

The fifth and final stage of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review framework summarises and reports findings as presented in the next section. All the 29 articles were studied carefully and a content analysis was taken to answer research questions. Research questions guided summaries and synthesis of literature content.

In this section, results are presented first with a brief description of the origin and nature of the studies, and then as answering research questions previously defined.

This scoping review yielded 29 articles, specifically devoted to strategy and strategic leadership in education, from eleven different countries (cf. Figure 2 ). The United Kingdom and Australia have the highest numbers of papers. There is a notable dispersion of literature in terms of geographical distribution.

FIGURE 2 . Number of papers per country.

A large number of these articles were published by Brent Davies and colleagues ( N = 9) and Scott Eacott ( N = 6). Without question, these authors have influenced and shaped the theoretical grounding about strategy and strategic leadership in educational literature. While Davies and colleagues have contributed to design a framework of strategy and strategic leadership, influencing the emergence of other studies related to these topics, Eacott provided an essential contribution by exploring, systematizing, and problematizing the existing literature about these same issues. The other authors have published between one and two papers about these topics.

Seventeen papers are of conceptual or theoretical nature, and twelve are empirical research papers (quantitative methods–7; qualitative methods–4; mixed methods–1). The conceptual/theoretical papers analyze the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership, present a framework for strategic leadership, and discuss implications for leaders’ actions. The majority of empirical studies are related to the skills, characteristics, and actions of strategic leaders. Other empirical studies explore relations between strategic leadership and other variables, such as collaboration, culture of teaching, organizational learning, and school effectiveness.

How should Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools be Defined?

The concept of strategy is relatively new in educational literature and, in great part, related to school planning. In this scoping review, a more integrated and comprehensive view is adopted ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Davies (2003) defined strategy as a specific pattern of decisions and actions taken to achieve an organization’s goals (p. 295). This concept of strategy entails some specific aspects, mainly that strategy implies a broader view incorporating data about a specific situation or context ( Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). It is a broad organizational-wide perspective , supported by a vision and direction setting , that conceals longer-term views with short ones ( Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). It can be seen as a template for short-term action . However, it deals mostly with medium-and longer-term views of three-to 5-year perspectives ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). In this sense, a strategy is much more a perspective or a way of thinking that frames strategically successful schools ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies and Davies, 2005 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ).

Eacott (2008a) has argued that strategy in the educational leadership context is a field of practice and application that is of a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary nature. More than a single definition of strategy, what is needed is a conceptual understanding and articulation of its fundamental features, which removes the need to answer, “what is a strategy?” Understanding strategy as choosing a direction within a given context, through leadership, and articulating that direction through management practices ( Eacott, 2008a , p. 356) brings to the arena diverse elements of strategy from both leadership and management. From this alternative point of view, a strategy may be seen as leadership ( Eacott, 2010a ). More than an answer to “what is a strategy?”, it is crucial to understand “when and how does the strategy exist?” ( Eacott, 2010a ), removing the focus on leaders’ behaviors and actions per se to cultural, social, and political relationships ( Eacott, 2011 ). Hence, research strategy and strategic leadership oblige by acknowledging the broader educational, societal, and political contexts ( Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ).

Strategic leadership is a critical component of school development ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ). However, to define leadership is challenging considering the amount of extensive, diverse literature about this issue. Instead of presenting a new categorization about leadership, the authors most devoted to strategic leadership consider it as a key dimension of any activity of leadership ( Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ). Barron et al. (1995) stressed the idea of change. As mentioned by the authors, implementation of strategic leadership means change: change in thinking, change in the way schools are organized, change in management styles, change in the distribution of power, change in teacher education programs, and change in roles of all participants ( Barron et al., 1995 , p. 180). Strategic leadership is about creating a vision, setting the direction of the school over the medium-to longer-term and translating it into action ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). In that sense, strategic leadership is a new way of thinking ( Barron et al., 1995 ) that determines a dynamic and iterative process of functioning in schools ( Eacott, 2008b ).

In their model of strategic leadership, Davies and Davies (2006) consider that leadership must be based on strategic intelligence, summarised as three types of wisdom: 1) people wisdom, which includes participation and sharing information with others, developing creative thinking and motivation, and developing capabilities and competencies within the school; 2) contextual wisdom, which comprises understanding and developing school culture, sharing values and beliefs, developing networks, and understanding external environment; and 3) procedural wisdom, which consists of the continuous cycle of learning, aligning, timing and acting. This model also includes strategic processes and strategic approaches that authors define as the centre of this cycle ( Davies and Davies, 2006 , p. 136).

To deeply understand strategic leadership, it is necessary to explore strategic processes and approaches that leaders take ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ). In this sense, strategic leadership, strategic processes, and strategic approaches are key elements for sustainable and successful schools, which are found to be strategically focused. Davies (2006) designed a model for a strategically focused school that may be defined as one that is educationally effective in the short-term but also has a clear framework and processes to translate core moral purpose and vision into an excellent educational provision that is challenging and sustainable in the medium-to long-term (p.11). This model incorporates 1) strategic processes (conceptualization, engagement, articulation, and implementation), 2) strategic approaches (strategic planning, emergent strategy, decentralized strategy, and strategic intent), and 3) strategic leadership (organizational abilities and personal characteristics). Based on these different dimensions, strategically focused schools have built-in sustainability, develop set strategic measures to assess their success, are restless, are networked, use multi-approach planning processes, build the strategic architecture of the school, are strategically opportunistic, deploy strategy in timing and abandonment and sustain strategic leadership ( Davies, 2004 , pp.22–26).

What Are the Main Characteristics of Strategic Leadership in Schools?

Davies (2003) , Davies and Davies (2005) , Davies and Davies (2006) , Davies and Davies (2010) discuss what strategic leaders do (organizational abilities) and what characteristics strategic leaders display (personal characteristics). The key activities of strategic leaders, or organizational abilities, are 1) create a vision and setting a direction, 2) translate strategy into action, 3) influence and develop staff to deliver the strategy, 4) balance the strategic and the operational, 5) determine effective intervention points ( what, how, when, what not to do and what to give up ), 6) develop strategic capabilities, and 7) define measures of success ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ). The main characteristics that strategic leaders display, or their characteristics, are 1) dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present, 2) absorptive capacity, 3) adaptive capacity, and 4) wisdom.

Two specific studies explored the strategic leadership characteristics of Malaysian leaders ( Ali, 2012 ; Ali, 2018 ), considering the above-mentioned model as a framework. For Malaysian Quality National Primary School Leaders, the results supported three organizational capabilities (strategic orientation, translation, and alignment) and three individual characteristics of strategic leadership (dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present, absorptive capacity, and adaptive capacity). For Malaysian vocational college educational leaders, the results were consistent with seven distinct practices of strategic leadership, such as strategic orientation, strategic alignment, strategic intervention, restlessness, absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and leadership wisdom.

Other studies were also focused on the characteristics of strategic leadership with different populations and countries. Chatchawaphun et al. (2016) identified the principles, attributes, and skills of the strategic leadership of secondary school administrators from Thailand. The principles identified within the sample of principals included appropriate values, modern visionary, future focusing strategy, empirical evidence focus, intention toward accomplishment, decency, and making relationships. The attributes found were strategic learning, strategic thinking, and value push up. The skills were learning, interpretation, forecasting, planning, challenge, and decision making. Chan (2018) explored strategic leadership practices performed by Hong Kong school leaders of early childhood education and identified effective planning and management, reflective and flexible thinking, and networking and professional development as variables. Eacott (2010c) investigated the strategic role of Australian public primary school principals concerning the leader characteristics of tenure (referring to the time in years in their current substantive position) and functional track (referring to the time in years spent at different levels of the organizational hierarchy). These demographic variables have moderating effects on the strategic leadership and management of participants. These five studies seem to be outstanding contributions to solidify a framework of strategic leadership and to test it with different populations in different countries.

Additionally, Quong and Walker (2010) present seven principles for effective and successful strategic leaders. Strategic leaders are future-oriented and have a future strategy, their practices are evidence-based and research-led, they get things done, open new horizons, are fit to lead, make good partners and do the “next” right thing—these seven principles of action seem related to the proposal of Davies and colleagues. Both authors highlighted visions for the future, future long-term plans, and plans’ translation into action as important characteristics of strategic leaders.

One other dimension that is being explored in research relates to ethics. Several authors assert that insufficient attention and research have been given to aspects related to moral or ethical leadership among school leaders ( Glanz, 2010 ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ; Kangaslahti, 2012 ). The seventh principle of the Quong and Walker (2010) model of strategic leadership is that leaders do the “next” right thing. This relates to the ethical dimension of leadership, meaning that strategic leaders recognize the importance of ethical behaviors and act accordingly. For some authors, ethics in strategic leadership is a critical issue for researchers and practitioners that needs to be taken into consideration ( Glanz, 2010 ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Glanz (2010) underlined social justice and caring perspectives as required to frame strategic initiatives. Kangaslahti (2012) analyzed the strategic dilemmas that leaders face in educational settings (e.g., top-down strategy vs. bottom-up strategy process; leadership by authority vs. staff empowerment; focus on administration vs. focus on pedagogy; secret planning and decision making vs. open, transparent organization; the well-being of pupils vs. well-being of staff) and how they can be tackled by dilemma reconciliation. Chen (2008) , in case study research, explored the conflicts that school administrators have confronted in facilitating school reform in Taiwan. The author identified four themes related to strategic leadership in coping with the conflicts accompanying this school reform: 1) educational values, 2) timeframe for change, 3) capacity building, and 4) community involvement. These studies reinforce the idea that school improvement and success seem to be influenced by the way leaders think strategically and deal with conflicts or dilemmas. Researchers need to design ethical frameworks or models from which practitioners can think ethically about their strategic initiatives and their dilemmas or conflicts ( Chen, 2008 ; Glanz, 2010 ; Kangaslahti, 2012 ).

Despite the critical contribution of Davies’ models ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and subsequent works, Eacott (2010a) questions the production of lists of behaviors and traits. This is likely one of the main differences between Davies’ and Eacott’s contributions in this field. While Davies and colleagues include organizational abilities and personal characteristics in their model of strategic leadership, Eacott (2010a , 2010b) emphasizes the broader context where strategy occurs. These ideas, however, are not contradictory but complementary in the comprehension of strategy as leadership in education since both authors present a comprehensive and integrated model of strategic leadership. Even though Davies and colleagues present some specific characteristics of leaders, these characteristics are incorporated into a large model for strategy in schools.

What Are Other Key Variables Related to Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools?

Other studies investigated the relationship between strategic leadership and other key variables, such as collaboration ( Ismail et al., 2018 ), the culture of teaching ( Khumalo, 2018 ), organizational learning ( Aydin et al., 2015 ) and school effectiveness ( Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ).

One descriptive survey study presented teacher collaboration as a mediator of strategic leadership and teaching quality ( Ismail et al., 2018 ). The authors argue that school leaders who demonstrate strategic leadership practices can lead to the creation of collaborative practices among teachers and thus help to improve the professional standards among them, namely, teaching quality ( Ismail et al., 2018 ). One cross-sectional study identified positive and significant relations among the variables of strategic leadership actions and organizational learning. Transforming, political, and ethical leadership actions were identified as significant predictors of organizational learning. However, managing actions were not found to be a significant predictor ( Aydin et al., 2015 ). One other study establishes that strategic leadership practices promote a teaching culture defined as the commitment through quality teaching for learning outcomes ( Khumalo, 2018 ). These three studies provide essential highlights of the relevance of strategic leadership for school improvement and quality. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that in a research survey that examined the effect of leadership factors of administrators on school effectiveness, the authors concluded that the direct, indirect, and overall effects of the administrators’ strategic leadership had no significant impact on school effectiveness ( Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ). These studies introduce important questions that need to be explored both related to strategy and strategic leadership features and its relations and impacts on relevant school variables. Such studies stimulate researchers to explore these and other factors that relate to strategic leadership.

The knowledge about strategy and strategic leadership is still incomplete and confusing ( Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ). From the 29 studies selected, divergent data and multiple concepts of strategy can be identified which reinforces the confusion about these issues. Some integrative clarification is still needed about the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership as about its core features. In this section, it is intended to contribute to the clarification and integration of the concepts considering the studies selected.

The emergence of politics and reforms related to school autonomy and responsibility in terms of efficacy and accountability brings the concept of strategy to the educational literature ( Eacott, 2008b ; Cheng, 2010 ). It first appeared in the 1980s but gained momentum between 1990 and 2000. However, the main focus of the literature was on strategic planning based upon mechanistic or technical-rational models of strategy. Authors have criticized the conceptualization of strategy as a way for elaborating a specific plan of action for schools ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). These same authors adopted a more comprehensive and holistic model of strategy. The concepts have been developed from a more rational and mechanistic view related to planning processes to a more comprehensive and complex view of strategy and leadership that take into consideration a situated and contextual framework. Considering the contribution of these studies, strategy incorporates three core dimensions, articulated with a schoolwide perspective 1) Vision, mission and direction (e.g., Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ) 2) Intentional thinking (e.g., Barron et al., 1995 ; Davies, 2003 ; Davies and Davies, 2005 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ): and; 3) Articulated decision-making and action (e.g., Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ).

Strategic leaders have an important role in strategy but, even considering this comprehensive and holistic concept of strategy, research poses the question of what are the main characteristics of strategic leaders in schools? From the literature reviewed, specific abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics may be identified. Looking for an integrated picture of strategic leadership, Table 3 represents the main contributions of the studies selected.

TABLE 3 . Strategic leadership: Main features.

Despite the contribution of these studies to deep knowledge about strategic leadership, the discussion here considers whether it is worthwhile to produce lists of behaviors and traits for strategic leaders in the absence of an integrated model that acknowledges the broader educational, societal and political context ( Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ). Eacott (2011) argues that strategy, as constructed through analysis, is decontextualized and dehumanized and essentially a vacuous concept with limited utility to the practice that it seeks to explain (p. 426). Without a comprehensive and contextual model of strategy and strategic leadership, supported by research, the topics may still be overlooked and misunderstood. With this in mind, Figure 3 attempts to represent the core dimensions of strategy from a comprehensive perspective.

FIGURE 3 . Strategy and core dimensions from a comprehensive perspective.

As this is a scoping review, we tried to display a general view of the literature that can serve as a basis for a specific strategy theory in education and to more in-depth studies related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools. Nevertheless, we need to identify some methodological limitations of this study. As a scoping review, methods and reporting need improvement ( Tricco et al., 2018 ) and we are aware of this circumstance. Also, our search strategy may have overlooked some existing studies, since grey documents (e.g., reports) and studies from diverse languages than English were not included, that can misrepresent important data. Besides, inclusion criteria focused only on studies specifically devoted to strategy (not strategic planning) and strategic leadership (no other theories of leadership), but we acknowledge important contributions from this specific literature that were excluded. Finally, in our study there is no comparative analysis between the western and eastern/oriental contexts. However, we are aware that these contexts really differ and a context-specific reflection on strategy and strategic leadership in education would be useful. More research is needed to overcome the limitations mentioned.

Besides, the pandemic COVID19 brought new challenges in education, and particularly, to leaders. This study occurred before the pandemic and this condition was not acknowledged. However, much has changed in education as a consequence of the pandemic control measures, these changes vary from country to country, and schools’ strategies have changed for sure. Future research needs to explore strategy and strategic leadership in education considering a new era post pandemic.

With this scoping review, the authors aimed to contribute to enduring theories about strategy and strategic leadership in education. From our findings, it appears that this issue is being little explored. Despite the important contributions of authors cited in this scoping review ( Aydin et al., 2015 ; Chatchawaphun et al., 2016 ; Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ; Ali, 2018 ; Chan, 2018 ; Ismail et al., 2018 ; Khumalo, 2018 ), minor advances seem to have been made after 2010. This is intriguing taking into account the leaders’ role in the third wave of educational reform, where strategic leadership pursues a new vision and new aims for education due to maximizing learning opportunities for students through “ triplisation in education’ (i.e., as an integrative process of globalization, localization and individualization in education)” ( Cheng, 2010 , p. 48). It was expected that research moved from rational planning models towards a more complex view of strategy in education ( Eacott, 2011 ). This review brings the idea that some timid and situated steps have been made.

Since the important review by Eacott, published in 2008, a step forward was made in the distinction between strategy and planning. Despite the significant number of papers about planning that were found during this review, the majority were published before 2008 (e.g., Nebgen, 1990 ; Broadhead et al., 1998 ; Bennett et al., 2000 ; Beach and Lindahl, 2004 ; Bell, 2004 ). Also, most of the papers selected adopt a more integrative, comprehensive, and complex view of strategy and strategic leadership (e.g., Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Ali, 2012 ; Ali, 2018 ; Chan, 2018 ). More than identifying the “best of” strategy and strategic leadership, alternative models understand strategy as a way of thinking ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and a work in progress ( Eacott, 2011 ).

This also resonates with the educational literature about loosely coupled systems . There is evidence that loosely coupled educational organizations continue to exist and that resistance to change is a characteristic of school organizations ( Hautala et al., 2018 ). Strategic leadership gains relevance since leaders need to consider how to manage their loose and tight configurations and, hence, reinforce simultaneous personal and organizational dimensions related to school improvement. It is time to expand the research into more complex, longitudinal, and explanatory ways due to a better understanding of the constructs. This scoping review was an attempt to contribute to this endeavor by integrating and systematizing educational literature about strategy and strategic leadership.

Author Contributions

MC-collected and analyzed data, write the paper IC, JV, and JA-guided the research process and reviewed the paper.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) for the support to this publication (Ref. UIDB/04872/2020).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.706608/full#supplementary-material

Agi, U. (2017). School Development Planning: A Strategic Tool for Secondary School Improvement in Rivers State, Nigeria. J. Int. Soc. Teach. Educ. 21 (1), 88–99.

Google Scholar

Al-Zboon, W., and Hasan, M. (2012). Strategic School Planning in Jordan. Education 132 (4), 809–825.

Arksey, H., and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aydin, M., Guclu, N., and Pisapia, J. (2015). The Relationship between School Principals’ Strategic Leadership Actions and Organizational Learning. Am. J. Educ. Stud. 7 (1), 5–25.

Bandur, A. (2012). School‐based Management Developments: Challenges and Impacts. J. Educ. Admin 50 (6), 845–873. doi:10.1108/09578231211264711

Barron, B., Henderson, M., and Newman, P. (1995). Strategic Leadership: A Theoretical and Operational Definition. J. Instructional Psychol. 22, 178–181.

Beach, R. H., and Lindahl, R. (2004). A Critical Review of Strategic Planning: Panacea for Public Education?. J. Sch. Leadersh. 14 (2), 211–234. doi:10.1177/105268460401400205

Bell, L. (2004). Strategic Planning in Primary Schools. Manag. Educ. 18 (4), 33–36. doi:10.1177/08920206040180040701

Bellei, C., Vanni, X., Valenzuela, J. P., and Contreras, D. (2016). School Improvement Trajectories: An Empirical Typology. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 27 (3), 275–292. doi:10.1080/09243453.2015.1083038

Bennett, Megan Crawford, Rosalind L, N., Crawford, M., Levačić, R., Glover, D., and Earley, P. (2000). The Reality of School Development Planning in the Effective Primary School: Technicist or Guiding Plan? Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 20 (3), 333–351. doi:10.1080/13632430050128354

Broadhead, P., Hodgson, J., Cuckle, P., and Dunford, J. (1998). School Development Planning: Moving from the Amorphous to the Dimensional and Making it Your Own. Res. Pap. Educ. 13 (1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/0267152980130102

Chan, C. W. (2018). Leading Today's Kindergartens. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 46 (4), 679–691. doi:10.1177/1741143217694892

Chatchawaphun, P., Julsuwan, S., and Srisa-ard, B. (2016). Development of Program to Enhance Strategic Leadership of Secondary School Administrators. Ies 9 (10), 34–46. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n10p34

Chen, P. (2008). Strategic Leadership and School Reform in Taiwan. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 19 (3), 293–318. doi:10.1080/09243450802332119

Cheng, Y. (2010). A Topology of Three-Wave Models of Strategic Leadership in Education. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. 38 (1), 35–54.

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., et al. (2014). Scoping Reviews: Time for Clarity in Definition, Methods, and Reporting. J. Clin. Epidemiol. , 67(12), 1291–1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

Corral Granados, A., and Granados Gámez, G. (2010). Sustainability and Triple Bottom Line: Key Issues for Successful Spanish School Principals. Intl Jnl Educ. Mgt. , 24(6), 467–477.doi:10.1108/09513541011067656

Davies, B. (2004), Developing the Strategically Focused School, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 11–27. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172796

Davies, B., and Davies, B. J. (2005). Strategic Leadership Reconsidered. Leadersh. Pol. Schools , 4(3), 241–260. doi:10.1080/15700760500244819

Davies, B., and Davies, B. (2010). The Nature and Dimensions of Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 5–21.

Davies, B. (2007). Developing Sustainable Leadership. Manag. Educ. , 21(3), 4–9. doi:10.1177/0892020607079984

Davies, B. J., and Davies, B.(2004), Strategic Leadership, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 29–38. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172804

Davies, B. J., and Davies, B. (2006). Developing a Model for Strategic Leadership in Schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. , 34(1), 121–139. doi:10.1177/1741143206059542

Davies, B. (2006). Processes Not Plans Are the Key to Strategic Development. Manag. Educ. , 20(2), 11–15. doi:10.1177/089202060602000204

Davies, B. (2003). Rethinking Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. , 31(3), 295–312. doi:10.1177/0263211x03031003006

Dimmock, C., and Walker, A. (2004). A New Approach to Strategic Leadership: Learning‐centredness, Connectivity and Cultural Context in School Design, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 39–56. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172813

Eacott, S. (2006). Strategy: An Educational Leadership Imperative, Perspect. Educ. Leadersh. , 16(6), 1–12.

Eacott, S. (2008b). An Analysis of Contemporary Literature on Strategy in Education. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. , 11(3), 257–280. doi:10.1080/13603120701462111

Eacott, S. (2010b). Lacking a Shared Vision: Practitioners and the Literature on the Topic of Strategy. J. Sch. Leadersh. , 20, 425–444. doi:10.1177/105268461002000403

Eacott, S. (2011) Leadership Strategies: Re-conceptualising Strategy for Educational Leadership. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 31 (1), 35–46. doi:10.1080/13632434.2010.540559

Eacott, S. (2010a). Strategy as Leadership: an Alternate Perspective to the Construct of Strategy. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 55–65.

Eacott, S. (2008a). Strategy in Educational Leadership: In Search of unity, J. Educ. Admin. , 46(3), 353–375. doi:10.1108/09578230810869284

Eacott, S. (2010c). Tenure, Functional Track and Strategic Leadership. Intl Jnl Educ. Mg.t , 24(5), 448–458. doi:10.1108/09513541011056009

FitzGerald, A. M., and Quiñones, S. (2018). The Community School Coordinator: Leader and Professional Capital Builder. Jpcc , 3(4), 272–286. doi:10.1108/JPCC-02-2018-0008

Glanz, J. (2010). Justice and Caring: Power, Politics, and Ethics in Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 66–86.

Harris, A., Adams, D., Jones, M. S., and Muniandy, V. (2015). System Effectiveness and Improvement: The Importance of Theory and Context. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 26(1), 1–3. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.987980

Hautala, T., Helander, J., and Korhonen, V. (2018). Loose and Tight Coupling in Educational Organizations - an Integrative Literature Review. Jea , 56(2), 236–255. doi:10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0027

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., and Mackay, T. (2014). School and System Improvement: A Narrative State-Of-The-Art Review. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 25(2), 257–281. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885452

Ismail, S. N., Kanesan, A., Kanesan, A. G., and Muhammad, F. 2018). Teacher Collaboration as a Mediator for Strategic Leadership and Teaching Quality. Int. J. Instruction , 11(4), 485–498. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11430a

Kangaslahti, J. (2012). Mapping the Strategic Leadership Practices and Dilemmas of a Municipal Educational Organization. Euromentor J. - Stud. about Educ. , 4, 9–17.

Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., and Parker, D., (2016). An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. , 13(2), 118–123. doi:10.1111/wvn.12144

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khumalo, S. (2018). Promoting Teacher Commitment through the Culture of Teaching through Strategic Leadership Practices. Gend. Behav. , 16(3), 12167 -12177.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., and O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology. Implement Sci. , 5(1), 69–9. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1748-5908-5-69.pdf . doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Malin, J. R., and Hackmann, D. (2017). Urban High School Principals' Promotion of College-And-Career Readiness. Jea , 55(6), 606–623. doi:10.1108/JEA-05-2016-0054

Meyers, C. V., and VanGronigen, B. A. (2019). A Lack of Authentic School Improvement Plan Development, J. Educ. Admin , 57(3), 261–278. doi:10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0154

Mohd Ali, H. b., and Zulkipli, I. B. (2019). Validating a Model of Strategic Leadership Practices for Malaysian Vocational College Educational Leaders. Ejtd 43, 21–38. doi:10.1108/EJTD-03-2017-0022

Mohd Ali, H. (2012). The Quest for Strategic Malaysian Quality National Primary School Leaders. Intl Jnl Educ. Mgt. , 26 (1), 83–98. doi:10.1108/09513541211194392

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. BMJ , 339, b2535–269. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535

Nebgen, M. K. (1990). Strategic Planning: Achieving the Goals of Organization Development. J. Staff Dev. , 11(1), 28–31.doi:10.1108/eum0000000001151

Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Soares, C., Khalil, H., and Parker, D., (2015). Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews . The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual . Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute .

Prasertcharoensuk, T., and Tang, K. N. (2017). The Effect of Strategic Leadership Factors of Administrators on School Effectiveness under the Office of Maha Sarakham Primary Educational Service Area 3. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. , 38(3), 316–323. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.09.001

Quong, T., and Walker, A. (2010). Seven Principles of Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 22–34.

Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie, C., et al. (2014). Educational Effectiveness Research (EER): A State-Of-The-Art Review. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 25(2), 197–230. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885450

Schlebusch, G., and Mokhatle, M. (2016) Strategic Planning as a Management Tool for School Principals in Rural Schools in the Motheo District. Int. J. Educ. Sci. , 13(3), 342–348. doi:10.1080/09751122.2016.11890470

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., et al. (2016). A Scoping Review on the Conduct and Reporting of Scoping Reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. , 16(15), 15–10. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. 2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. , 169(7), 467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850

Keywords: strategy, strategic leadership, school leadership, scoping review, education

Citation: Carvalho M, Cabral I, Verdasca JL and Alves JM (2021) Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Education: A Scoping Review. Front. Educ. 6:706608. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.706608

Received: 07 May 2021; Accepted: 23 September 2021; Published: 15 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Carvalho, Cabral, Verdasca and Alves. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Marisa Carvalho, [email protected]

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue

Latest Issue

Advancing the scholarship and practice of leadership education.

JOLE engages scholars and practitioners who advance leadership education and development. Scholar-practitioners represent various fields to include Education, Training and Development, and Corporate Education. To provide an evidence-based environment for discussion and promotion of new and best practices, all JOLE manuscripts are grounded in Leadership Theory. The journal serves as a forum to share teaching and learning advancements, research innovations, and applications.

JOLE provides opportunities for evolving discourse, and engagement about the discipline of leadership education.  The journal serves as a forum to share teaching and learning advancements, and research innovation & application.

The Journal of Leadership Education is committed to promoting policies, practices, editorial activities, and published content that support diversity, equity, and inclusion in the discipline of leadership education.

Become a JOLE Author

Learn more about becoming a JOLE author.

Become a JOLE Reviewer

Learn more about becoming a JOLE reviewer.

Submit a Manuscript

Learn more about submitting a manuscript to JOLE.

Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

ISSN#: 2473-2826

Mission and Scope

The Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (JELPS), ISSN#: 2473-2826, is an international peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research studies, and conceptual articles on educational leadership development, and school success. The mission of the JELPS is to recognize, acknowledge and publish the scholarly works of a global network of scholars, policymakers, and educational leaders, whose purpose is to improve schools as well as student achievement through research-supported leadership strategies and policies.

JELPS seeks articles on timely and critical issues from educators, researchers, and policymakers in all educational settings, including K-12 schools, higher education, and governmental and non-governmental institutions. After a rigorous peer-review process, JELPS publishes original primary research, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method empirical analyses, literature reviews, or new conceptualizations of educational policy and leadership practice.

JELPS is indexed by Education Resources Information Center

Term Issues

Jelps volume 7, fall 2023 issue.

1. An Exploration of the Impact of School Discipline on Student Achievement Shanda Young-Gnintendem, Shelby County Schools Aarek Farmer, Hardeman University

2. Leadership Challenges Facing Academic Deans in the Post-pandemic Environment: Observations and Strategies Coll, Former Dean, University of Nevada Ruch, President Emeritus, Boise State University

3. Unravelling Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ WPACK and CDL Levels for Their Professional Development through Technology Acceptance Rabia Ölmez, Ministry of National Education,| Nurdan Kavaklı Ulutaş, Izmir Demokrasi University

4. Children’s Challenging Behaviors in an At-Risk Environment in Türkiye Yasemin Fırat, PhD. in Classroom Teaching, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa Ayşegül Metindoğan, Bogazici University

5. The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions of School Principals' Emotion Management Competence and Teachers' Organizational Commitment Kaan Çömrü, Serinhisar, Ministry of National Education Yaşar Yavuz, Dokuz Eylul University

6. Understanding School Principals' Actions Regarding the Implementation of Education for Sustainable Development Marah C. Lambert, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte Dawson R. Hanock, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte Kaitlyn O. Holshouser, Gardner-Webb University

7. Challenges, Practices, and Recommendations of Schools with Refugee Students Mehmet Fatih Karacabey, Harran University Remzi Başkent, Ministry of National Education

8. The Relationship Between the Influence Tactics Used By Secondary School Principals and Teachers’ Organizational Trust Levels Serdar Koçak, Ministry of National Education Salih Paşa Memişoğlu, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversit

9. Exemplary Leadership: A Study of Award-Winning School Leaders Douglas M. DeWitt, Salisbury University

10. Views on Problems Faced by Somali Novice School Principals Mohamed Ahmed Nur Sh Ali, PhD Student, Dokuz Eylul University Necla Şahin FIRAT, Dokuz Eylul University

11. The Impact of School Happiness on Student Leadership Erkan Göktaş, Selcuk University Muhammet İbrahim Akyürek, Selcuk University

12. Lessons Learned from a Successful Middle School Principal in Türkiye: Insights into Effective Leadership Practices Sema Dika Kayabaşı, Ministry of National Education Ramazan Cansoy, Karabük University

13. The Relationship Between Organizational Climate and Organizational Happiness Pınar Çakır, PhD Student, Dokuz Eylul University Yaşar Yavuz, Dokuz Eylül University

JELPS Volume 7, Spring 2023 Issue

1. A Policy Analysis of Compulsory English Classes in Japanese Universities Philip Gurney, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies Matthew Michaud, University of the Fraser Valley Justin Richardson

2. Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): A Nationwide Analysis Jingyuan Zhang, Purdue University Ronald C. Martella, University of Colorado Sungwoo Kang, Purdue University Busra Yilmaz Yenioglu, Purdue University

3. Leading Amidst COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Higher Education Research Studies Craig R. Hadley, Northwestern Michigan College

4. School Disparities in Teacher Trust in Students: What Can Principals Do? Curt M. Adams, University of Oklahoma

5. An Exploration of the Relationship between School Happiness and School Effectiveness Muhammet İbrahim Akyürek, Selcuk University Ahmet Aypay, Nazarbaeyev University

6. The Relationship Between the Instructional Leadership Behaviours Used by the School Principals and Their Readiness Level for Change Kalender İlbeyiilingi, Karaisalı Atatürk Secondary School Yusuf İnandı, Mersin University

7. Kaleidoscope Career Model Scale: Adaptation Study Esra Töre, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University Gülsu Naiboğlu, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University

8. The Unique Needs of Generation Z in the Educational Work Environment Nila J. Burt, Muscogee County School District Joseph R. Jones, Gordon State College

9. One More Disadvantage: Distance Education Experiences of Immigrant and Refugee Students in the Current Pandemic Fatih Gün, Makbule Orman Secondary School Abdullah Selvitopu, Karamaoglu Mehmetbey University

10. Urban High School Faculty Members Speak Up: What They Need from a School Counseling Program from School Counselors and Principals Eric Graf, Central High School Olcay Yavuz, Southern Connecticut State University

11. The Effect of Informal Learning Environments on Students' Achievement and Attitude Levels of Religious Culture and Moral Knowledge (RCMK) Course Zeynep Ekinci, RCMK Teacher, Istanbul Kamil Arif Kırkıç, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University

12. Student Members of the School Board Exercising Student Voice in Education Policy Jerusha O. Conner, Villanova University Zachariah Sippy, Princeton University Andrew Brennen, Kentucky Student Voice Team

13. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Paid Teachers in Turkey Selma Saydam, Ministry of National Education Fatih Yılmaz, Ministry of National Education

14. Exploring the relationships between perceived transformational leadership and transactional leadership and teachers' intellectual style Peng Liu, University of Manitoba Lili Liu, East China Normal University Yalong Bo, University of Hong Kong Hui Yang, East China Normal University

15. Driven by Justice: Exploring the Work of School District Equity Directors Jessica R. Weiler, Western Carolina University Darrius A. Stanley, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities

16. A Critical Examination of Effective Leadership in Early Childhood Education Wanling Fu, Insititue of Education University College London

17. Publication Fetishism at Higher Education: Academicians' Views Aydın Balyer, Yıldız Technical University Erkan Tabancalı, Yıldız Technical University

JELPS Volume 6, Fall 2022 Issue

1. The Research Gap: Social Justice Leadership in Suburban Schools Kristine Reed Woleck, University of Bridgeport

2. Creating and Sustaining Positive School Climate During COVID- 19 Pandemic Corinne Brion, University of Dayton Bilgen Kiral, Aydin Adnan Menderes University

3. Teacher Opinions on School Improvement and Professional Development Dilara Demirbulak, Yeditepe University Arda Bayraktar, Sabancı University Ayse Yilmaz Virlan, Marmara University

4. Building Strength in Chicago: Setting the Local and National Computer Science Agendas Mark Johnson, The Learning Partnership John Wachen, The Learning Partnership Steven McGee, The Learning Partnership

5. Teachers' Person-Organization Fit and Turnover Intentions: The Role of Psychological Well-Being Başak Coşkun, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Emre Toprak, Erciyes University Sevda Katıtaş, Cumhuriyet Secondary School Mete Sipahioğlu, Samsun University

6. Faculty Mentoring and Financial Support of Graduate Students Joseph Milosch, Pacific University Jane M. Tram, Pacific University

7. E Examining the Reflection of Social Media on School Administration: A Qualitative Research Abdullah Balıkçı, Istanbul University - Cerrahpasa Tarık Ünlü, Selçuklu Adnan Akgül, Special Education Vocational High School Fatih Bayram, Meram 15 Temmuz Milli Birlik Elementary School Selman Üzüm Meram Sare Özkaşıkcı Regional Boarding Secondary School Halil Yavuz Ezginci, Meram Çomaklı Elementary School

8. Fighting Fit: Developing Racially Diverse Principal Pathways in Historically Homogeneous Communities Christopher Benedetti, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

9. School Administrators' Attitudes towards Technology: Do They Resist to Change? Nejla Burcu Yücel, Yenişehir Belediyesi Art and Science Center Fahrettin Gılıç, Yenişehir Belediyesi Art and Science Center Yusuf İnandı, Mersin University

10. Determining the Order of Importance of Stress Factors Caused by School Administration Sümeyra Dilek Uylas, Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education Ayça Kaya, Haliç University

11. Being a Teacher at University: Perceptions, Feelings, and Efforts Elif İlhan, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Fatih Demir, Erzincan Binali Yildirim University

JELPS Volume 6, Spring 2022 Issue

1. What Might We Learn From 25 Years of Research on Education Deans? Shelley B. Wepner, Manhattanville College William A. Henk, Marquette University

2. Mediating Role of Cognitive Distortions in Negative Future Expectations That Are Affecting Occupational Anxiety Mustafa Özgöl, Bayburt University Mustafa Şahin, Izmir Kâtip Celebi University İsmail Sarikaya, Bayburt University

3. The Impact of COVID-19 on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and School Culture Corinne Brion, University of Dayton

4. The Relationship Between School Administrators’ Empowering Leadership Behaviors and Teachers’ Perceptions of Organizational Citizenship Ramazan Ertürk, Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education

5. The relationship between principals' instructional leadership and teachers' positive instructional emotions: Self-efficacy as a mediator Ümit Dilekçi, Batman University İbrahim Limon, Sakarya Mithatpaşa Anatolian High School

6. Nebraska Principals’ Perceptions Regarding ‘Future-Ready’ Schooling and Their Concurrent Support Needs Cailen M. O’Shea, North Dakota State University Scott McLeod, University of Colorado_Denver

7. Are Social-Emotional Learning Focused Schools Deliberately Developmental Organizations? James A. Bailey, Walden University Randy Weiner, Daily SEL Leader

8. Developing Innovative School Leadership Scale And Teachers' Views on Innovative School Leadership Muhammet İbrahim Akyürek, Ankara Etimesgut Science and Art Center Ersoy Karabay, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University

9. School Principal As An Environmentally Sustainable Leader Pınar ÖZKAN, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University

10. A Qualitative Research on Bureaucracy from the Perspective of Vice Principals in Türkiye Abdullah Balıkçı, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Hasan Ali Yücel Faculty of Education

11. The Opinions of Primary School Teachers Who Taught In Multi-Grade Classrooms On Multigrade Class Instructional Practices Pınar Çakır,Dokuz Eylül University Necla Şahin Fırat, Dokuz Eylül University

12. By Social Network Analysis Natural Leaders and Their Qualities Mehmet Ali YARIM, Ministry of National Education Sabri ÇELİK, Gazi University

13. Teachers’ Perceived Social Capital in Schools and Their Attitudes toward Professional Collaboration Fatih Mutlu Özbilen, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Osman Çekiç, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University

14. Administrators’ Perceptions of Evaluating Science Teaching: A Case Study Erikka Brown, Principal, North Callaway Middle School James Concannon, Professor, School of Education, William Woods University Patrick Brown, STEM and CTE Execitive Director, Ft. Zumwalt School District

JELPS Volume 5, Fall 2021 Issue

1. The Influence of Principal Retention and Principal Turnover on Teacher Turnover David G. Buckman, Kennesaw State University

2. A Systematic Review of Distributed Leadership Research from 2000 to 2020 Ahmet Aypay, Anadolu University Muhammet İbrahim Akyürek, Etimesgut Science and Art Center

3. School Leadership for Social Justice Steinunn Helga Lárusdóttir, University of Iceland Eileen O‘Connor, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

4. For Free or Not for Free: Do College Students Understand the Price of COVID-19 Vaccinations? Zachary W. Taylor, The University of Texas at Austin Joshua Childs, The University of Texas at Austin

5. The Effect of Agile Leadership on Teachers’ Professional Development and Performance Elif Yalçın, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University Mustafa Özgenel, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University

6. The Link between Perceived Leadership Style and Institutional Readiness for Change in the Public Universities of Ethiopia Befekadu Zeleke, Addis Ababa University

Spring 2021: JELPS Volume 5, Issue 1

1. Editorial Olcay Yavuz, Southern Connecticut State University

2. Mediating Effect of Organizational Identification on the Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Commitment among Primary School Teacher Müzeyyen Petek Dincman, Hacettepe University

3. Improving Equitable Student Outcomes: A Transformational and Collaborative Leadership Development Approach Donna Braun, Center for Leadership and Educational Equity, Johnson & Wales University Felice D. Billups, Johnson & Wales University Robert K. Gable, University of Connecticut, Johnson & Wales University Kirsten LaCroix, Center for Leadership and Educational Equity Barbara Mullen, Providence Public Schools, formerly Center for Leadership and Educational Equity

4. Universal Mental Health Screening in Schools:  A Primer for Principals Brandon J. Wood, University of Toledo  Kellie R. Cooper-Secrest, Ball State University Megan Kirk, Vigo County School Corporation Sally Walter, Indiana State University

5. Investigation of Parents' Authenticity Levels in terms of Need for Social Approval, Self-Liking, Self-Competence and Some Variables Şura Çetin, Sakarya University Eyüp Çelik, Sakarya University

6. Evaluation of Innovative Approaches in Education and Training Practices and Solution Offers Ferah Güçlü Yılmaz, T. R. Ministry of Education

7. Understanding Coaches’ Access to Support Teaching and Learning: Three Coach-principal Dyads’ Perspectives Evthokia Stephanie Saclarides, University of Cincinnati

8. Perceptions of Educators about Teacher Placement and Appraisal in the Charter School Model Ayşen BAKİOĞLU, Marmara University Özge KARAEVLİ, Şehit Öğretmen Nuriye Ak Public School

Spring 2021: JELPS EYFOR Special Issue

1. Editorial Spring 2021:  JELPS EYFOR Special Issue Muzaffer Alkan, Kafkas University Olcay Yavuz, Southern Connecticut State University

2. Investigation of State Test Anxiety in University Students According to Success and Social Based Variables Aylin Saltürk, Afyon Kocatepe University

3. The Effect of School Culture on Teachers' Organizational Commitment Serdar Özçetin, Akdeniz University Ebru Burcu Cimili Gök, Ministry of Education

4. Examining The Relationship Between Organizational Culture Model and Management Practices Vicdan Altınok, Gazi University

5. Values Education in Foreign Language Curriculum through the Eyes of Pre-Service Teachers Yasemin Kırkgöz. Çukurova University

6. Implementation of STEM in Preschool Education Asena Türk, Ministry of Education Nur Akcanca, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

7. Examining the Effect of Orienteering on the Development of Attention, Metacognitive Awareness and Problem-Solving Skills of Primary School Students with ADHD Fatmagül Uzuner, Kafkas University Mustafa Şahin, Trabzon University

8. Perspectives of University Students on the Efficiency of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Murat Tolga Kayalar, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University

Fall 2020: JELPS Volume 4, Issue 1 

2. School Administrators’ Perceptions on Effectiveness of School Counselor Evaluation: A National Study Renae D. Mayes, University of Arizona Nicholas P. Elam, Ball State University Rachel Louise Geesa, Ball State University Kat R. McConnell, Marquette University Kaylee M. McDonald, Ball State University

3. Transforming into Entrepreneurial Universities: EU-OECD as a Framework for Saudi Universities Azala M. Alghamdi, Albaha University

4. Excellent Leadership Theory in Education Erkan Kıral, Aydın Adnan Menderes University

5. Preparing Suburban School Leaders to Recognize Everyday Narratives that Promote Opportunity Gaps Deirdra Preis, Sacred Heart University

6. Effects of Administrator Evaluation Policy on Teacher Working Conditions and Turnover Regression Theodore Kaniuka, Fayetteville State University 

7. Improving Teacher Retention through Support and Development James V. Shuls, University of Missouri Joshua M. Flores, University of Missouri

8. Transforming Systems of Single Best Practices to Educational Equity Quantum Ten: An Equity Framework Talisa Sullivan, Transformational Leadership Consulting

9. How to Develop Adult Educators’ Technological and Andragogical Knowledge: A Case Study in a Private Night High School Afra N. Aksoy, Middle East Technical University Meral Aksu, Middle East Technical University

10. Effects of Principal’s Gender, Leadership, and Teacher’s Certification Type on Teacher Self-Efficacy LaShonda Ford, Louisiana State University Shreveport Ozlem Gumus, Louisiana State University Shreveport John D. Harrison, Louisiana State University Shreveport Cory J. Coehoorn, Louisiana State University Shreveport

Fall 2020: JELPS Special Issue on Educational Leadership Policy Briefs: Perspectives of Doctoral students

1. Educational Leadership Policy Briefs: Perspectives of Doctoral Students Norris Haynes and Olcay Yavuz Southern Connecticut State University

2. Overview of the Policy Cycle in Educational Leadership Norris M. Haynes, Ph.D. Southern Connecticut State University

3. Policy Brief: Additional English Learner Course Requirements for Preservice Teachers Jeanine Pocoski and Kelly Michel

4. Urban School District Financing Policy Brief Sir Snowden, Southern Connecticut State University

5. Policy Brief: Connecticut General Assembly Statute: Public Act 15-96 An Act Concerning Out-of-School Suspensions and Expulsions for Students in Preschool and Grades Kindergarten to Two Michelle Bibeau

6. Teacher Disproportionality Policy Brief Keely Garden

7. Aligning ESL Pedagogy with Best Practices in Connecticut Community Colleges William Key

8. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Literacy Education in Marginalized Classrooms Elijah E. Dunbar

9. Dress-Coded: How current dress codes undermine cultural, gender, and socio-economic equity Margaret Dimauro

Spring 2020: JELPS Special Issue #3 on Educational Leadership and Social Justice

1. The Adaptive Challenge of Social Justice in Educational Leadership Sousan Arafeh, Ph.D., Editor, JELPS Special Issue #3 on Educational Leadership and Social Justice Southern Connecticut State University

2. Framing Implicit Bias Impact Reduction in Social Justice Leadership Gina Gullo, Ed.D., Seton Hall University Floyd Beachum, Ed.D., Lehigh University

3. School Leaders’ Sense-Making and Use of Equity-Related Data to Disrupt Patterns of Inequality Moses Chikwe, Ph.D., Catholic Archdiocese of Owerri in Nigeria Robert Cooper, Ph.D., UCLA

4. Rethinking Social Justice: Promoting SEL Opportunities to Achieve a More Just Society Raquel Muñiz, J.D., Ph.D., Boston College

5. The Case for Dual Language Programs as the Future of Public Education Jacob Werblow, Ph.D., Central Connecticut State University Luke Duesbery, Ph.D., San Diego State University Helen Koulidobrova, Ph.D., University of Connecticut

Summer 2019: JELPS Special Issue #2 on Educational Leadership and Social Justice

1. Editorial: Further Work on Educational Leadership and Social Justice Sousan Arafeh, Ph.D., Editor, JELPS Special Issue #2 on Educational Leadership and Social Justice Southern Connecticut State University

2. Aspiring Administrators’ Knowledge and Leadership Capacity to Mitigate Issues of Poverty and Homelessness in Schools Heidi B. Von Dohlen, Western Carolina University Jan Moore, SERVE.org Lisa J. Von Dohlen, Licensed Clinical Social Worker Beth E. Thrift, SERVE.org

3. LGBT Educators’ Perceptions of Safety and Support and Implications for Equity-Oriented School Leaders Tiffany Wright, Millersville University Nancy J Smith, Millersville University Erin Whitney, Millersville University

4. In Pursuit of Socially Just and Socio-Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership Preparation: One Ed.D. Program’s Process of Transformation Brad Porfilio, San Jose State University Katie Strom, California State University, East Bay

5. Principal and Counselor Collaboration for Social Justice Advocacy: A Standards Alignment Kendra Lowery, Ball State University Renae D. Mayes, Ball State University Marilynn M. Quick, Ball State University Lori G. Boyland, Ball State University Rachel L. Geesa, Ball State University Jungnam Kim, Ball State University

6. Subversion or Cooptation? Tactics for Engaging in Diversity Work in a Race-Adverse Climate Sosanya Jones, Howard University

7. An Urban-defined School Implements a Grassroots Oral History Course and Study Abroad Program for Social Justice Equity, Social Consciousness, and Student Advocacy Aaron J. Griffen, DSST Public Schools Nneka M. Greene, Regent University

8. An Alternative ESL/Dual-Language Approach: Narrowing Achievement Gaps for Newly-Arrived Hispanic Students? José A. Cardoza, University of North Carolina Kathleen M. Brown, University of North Carolina

Spring 2019: JELPS Special Issue on Educational Leadership and Social Justice

1. Editorial: Educational Leadership and Social Justice Sousan Arafeh, Editor, JELPS Special Issue on Educational Leadership and Social Justice Southern Connecticut State University

2. A Developmental Lens on Social Justice Leadership: Exploring the Connection Between Meaning Making and Practice Eleanor Drago-Severson, Columbia University Jessica Blum-DeStefano, Bank Street Graduate School of Education

3. Compound Fractures:  Healing the Intersectionality of Racism, Classism and Trauma in Schools with a Trauma-Informed Approach as Part of a Social Justice Framework Michael Lorenzo McIntosh, Virginia State University

4. Voices for Change: Social Justice Leadership Practices Donna Kowalchuk, University of Toronto

5. A Proposal for Building Social Capital to Increase College Access for Low-Income Students Kayla J. Crawley, Rutgers University Christine T. Cheuk, Educational Testing Service Anam Mansoor, Rutgers University Stephanie M. Perez, Rutgers University Elizabeth Park, Educational Testing Service

Fall 2018: JELPS Volume 2, Issue 1

I. Lessons Learned from a Training of Trainers Model in Africa Corinne Brion and Paula A. Cordeiro University of San Diego

II.  Dropping Out Is Not an Option Carol Dahir and Daniel Cinotti New York Institute of Technology

III.  The First Year: Assistant Principals in Title I Schools Grant Clayton, Andrea J. Bingham University of Colorado

IV.  Expressive Ties and the School Reform Efforts of an Urban School District Jackie Mania-Singer Oklahoma State University

Spring 2018: JELPS Volume 1, Issue 2

I. Striving Toward the Promise of P-16 Reform: Political, Organizational, and Leadership Challenges Stefani Thachik and Katherine Cumings Mansfield The University of North Carolina

II.  School Climate and Academic Growth: Investigating One State’s School Performance Report Samuel F. Fancera William Paterson University

III.  Program Development within Authentic Partnerships Jennifer E. McGarry, Jesse Mala, Michael Corral University of Connecticut

IV. The ‘Push And Pull’ Factors of Distributed Leadership: Exploring Views of Headteachers Across Two Countries Dampson Dandy George and Frempong Evelyne The University of Northampton

Spring 2018: JELPS Special Issue II: Honoring All Individuals with Special Needs

Preface Arthur C. Evans American Psychological Association Page………………….……………………………5

Editorial: Servicing Students with Special Needs: A Social and Emotional Imperative Norris Haynes and Olcay Yavuz Southern Connecticut State University Page………………….……………………………6

I. Commentary Developmental Pathways: A School Leadership Framework for Addressing the Needs of All Students James P. Comer Yale University Page………………………………………………7 

II. Leading a Multi-Tiered Approach to Bringing Social-Emotional and Character Development to Regular and Special Education Students Maurice J. Elias Rutgers University Sarah L. DeMarchena University of Missouri Francine Luce Page……………………………..………………11

III. Access versus success: Services for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education Kari Sassu Southern Connecticut State University Page……………………………..………………19

IV. Learning Dysfunction, Disability and Diversity as the New Normal in Education Reform Camella Rhone Fanon Group of Research Scholars Page……………………………………...………25

V. Autism in Africa: The Critical Need for Life Saving Awareness Ugoji A. Eze Esq United Nations Page…………………………………...…………34

VI. Addressing Violence among Students with Disabilities in Schools Donna Ivery University of Pennsylvania Michael A. Endicott USSS – Ret. Page………………………………..……………39

VII. Eight Principles to Connect Preservice Educators to Urban Schools and Classrooms Angela Rhone Florida Atlantic University Lori Dassa Florida Atlantic University Vanessa Hotchkiss Florida Atlantic University Page……………………………...………………48

VIII. School Leader Preparedness for Addressing Student Mental Health Dorothy P. Papa, CT State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education Page…………………………………...…………60 

IX. Commentary: Inclusion of Students with Disabilities Timothy Shriver, Special Olympics and Senior Scholar in the Practice of SEL, CASEL Gary N. Siperstein, Center for Social Development and Education Page……………………………...………………77

Fall 2017: JELPS Volume I and Issue I

Editorial Olcay Yavuz Southern Connecticut State University Page………………….……………………….…………………….…………………………….……5

I. Resistance to Change: A Speed Bump on the Road to School Improvement? David Dolph University of Dayton Page………………….……………………….…………………….…………………………….……6

II. Organizational Structure and Design Fred C. Lunenburg Sam Houston State University Page………………….……………………….…………………….………………………….………21

III. Leadership Practices to Increase Equity through Closing Intraschool Achievement Gaps Donna Braun and Felice D. Billups Johnson & Wales University Robert K. Gable Emeritus Professor, University of Connecticut Page………………….……………………….…………………….……………………………….…44

IV. Principals’ Perceptions and Enactment of Tasks Related to Changes to Teacher Evaluation Tiffany Wright, Millersville University Suzanne McCotter, College of New Jersey Page………………….……………………….…………………….…………………………….……64

Fall 2017: Special Inaugural Issue

Editorial: Providing Social Equity and Social Justice for All Norris Haynes and Olcay Yavuz Southern Connecticut State University Page………………….……………………………4

I. Assessment for Learning: What is to be done? Edmund W. Gordon, Emeritus Professor, Yale University and Columbia University Page………………………………………………7

II. Ecomentation: The Synergy of Ecological Influences on Learning Norris M. Haynes, SCSU Edmund W. Gordon Emeritus Professor Yale University and Columbia University Page……………………………..………………11

III. Dynamic Pedagogy: An Integrative Model of Assessment, Curriculum and Instruction in the Service of Learning Eleanor Armour Thomas Queens College Page……………………………..………………22

IV. The Relentless Pursuit for Educational Equity: The Importance of Educational Leadership When Addressing Racial Inequities in Special Education Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides Touro College Page……………………………………...………39

V. A Sufficiency-Based Model of Education: Toward “An Education on Equal Terms” Cynthia McCallister New York University Page…………………………………...…………49

VI. Exploring Successful Teachers’ Conceptions of Student Achievement through a Relational Theory of Teaching: Applications for Practice Cynthia McCallister New York University Page………………………………..……………65

VII. The Marginalization of the “Any” Learner Lori Grace Southern Connecticut State University Page……………………………...………………75

VIII. School Leadership: Commitment to Social Justice Cynthia McDaniels and Norris Haynes Southern Connecticut State University Page…………………………………...…………92

IX. Social Justice in Higher Education: Interdisciplinary Approaches Across the Curriculum Cynthia McDaniels, and Norris Haynes Southern Connecticut State University Page……………………………...………………99

X. School Climate and Social Emotional Learning Measurement Systems Jonathan Cohen Columbia University Amrit Thapa, University of Pennsylvania Ann Higgins-D’Alessandro, Fordham University Page…………………………….………………117

International Editorial Board

Jelps founding editor-in-chief.

Dr. Olcay Yavuz (March 2022 – March 2027) Southern Connecticut State University

JELPS Editorial Advisory Board

Dr. Sousan Arafeh (March 2022 – March 2027) Southern Connecticut State University

Dr. Jami Berry (March 2022 – March 2027) University of Georgia

Dr. Rachel Geesa (March 2022 – March 2027) Ball State University

Dr. Norris M. Haynes (March 2022 – March 2027) Southern Connecticut State University

Dr. Charles J. Russo (March 2022 – March 2027) University of Dayton

JELPS International Reviewer Board

Dr. S. C. Abosede Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria

Dr. Felice D. Billups Johnson & Wales University

Dr. Marsha Bryant Central Connecticut State University

Dr. Julie Uí Choistealbha Marino Institute of Education, Ireland

Dr. Danette V. Day Fitchburg State University

Dr. Courtney Donovan University of Colorado

Dr. Dave Dolph University of Dayton

Dr. Wangari Gichiru Central Connecticut State University

Dr. Jess L. Gregory Southern Connecticut State University

Dr. Sally Grapin Montclair State University

Dr. Gulcin Gulmez Middle East Technical University | Northern Cyprus Campus

Dr. Shirley Harris University of Canterbury, International College, New Zealand

Dr. Taiyi Huang University of North Texas

Dr. Ken Imperato American International School

Dr. Eli Jones University of Memphis

Dr. Mehmet Durdu Karsl Eastern Mediterranean University

Dr. Nurdan Kavakl Izmir Democracy University

Dr. Micere Keels University of Chicago

Dr. Ken Kempner Southern Oregon University

Dr. Kristin Kew New Mexico State University

Dr. Erkan Kiral Adnan Menderes University

Dr. Matt Kilich Rutgers State University

Dr. Diana J. LaRocco Goodwin College

Dr. Gladys Labas Southern Connecticut State University

Dr. Fred Lunenburg Sam Houston State University

Dr. Rui Li Shanghai Jiguang Polytechnic University

Dr. Peter Madonia Southern Connecticut State University

Dr. Belinda McFeeters Walden University

Dr. James K. Nageldinger Elmira College

Dr. Funda Nayir Denizli Pamukkale University

Jocelyn Novella, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Fairfield University

Dr. Nicholas Pace University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Dr. Dara Marin Prais University of Colorado

Dr. Gail Prelli University of Bridgeport

Dr. Somayyeh Radmard Istanbul Aydin University

Dr. Marian A. Robinson George Washington University

Dr. Quintin L. Robinson Santa Clara University

Dr. Gamze Sart Istanbul University

Dr. Nicholas J Sauers Georgia State University

Dr. Susan H. Shapiro Touro College

Dr. Daniel Teodorescu Clark Atlanta University

Dr. Christopher E. Trombly Southern Connecticut State University

Dr. Kamala Qahramanova Eurasia University

Dr. Elmina Qedirova Baku State University

Dr. Zeynep Ugurlu Sinop University

Dr. Patricia M. Virella University of Connecticut

Dr. Laurel Walsh Walden University

Dr. Yushan Wang Jiangyin Normal University, China

Dr. Jacob Werblow Central Connecticut State University

Submission Guidelines

Double Blind Peer Review Policy Manuscript Submissions to JELPS Frequency Audience Quality Assurance Publication Ethics Open Access Policy Publication Charges Copyright Notice Template

Double Blind Peer Review Policy

JELPS employs a rigorous peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process before publication. Particularly, JELPS utilizes a three-stage review process: (1) editorial office, (2) external/expert review and (3) editors’ decision.

Stage 1. Editorial Review

In the first place, a submitted manuscript is reviewed by the JELPS editorial office to ensure that it aligns with the aim and scope of the JELPS before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for the following: (a) Scope, (b) Originality and Plagiarism Check, (c) English Language, (d) Recent Reference Check.

State 2: Double Blind or Anonymous Peer Review

Once a manuscript successfully completes the editorial office review process, it proceeds to the second stage. A double-blind peer-review process is where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. Therefore, the manuscript is reviewed by at least two external expert reviewers with scholarly affiliation. The author's identity is unknown to the reviewer. Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide constructive feedback to enable the author(s) improve the content of the manuscript.

Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the educational leadership field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestions about the manuscript;

• Accept with no revision
• Accept with minor revision
• Accept with moderate revision
• Accept with major revision
• Reject: Not suitable for further processing.

State 3: Editors’ Decision

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ initial evaluations, the editorial office reviews the comments. If there are significant differences among two reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript is re-sent to a third reviewer. The review process is usually completed between two to six weeks. Using the reviewers’ and editors’ feedback, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. Based on the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes the final decisions for a publication.

Manuscript Submissions to JELPS

Manuscripts will be sent to Dr. Yavuz, Editor-in Chief, Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies for initial review at  [email protected] .

JELPS is published semiannually by Southern Connecticut State University

Educational leaders, educational policymakers, teachers, school leader educators, teacher educators, curriculum specialists, administrators, practitioners, and others interested in educational leadership and policy studies.

Quality Assurance

The Southern Connecticut State University’s SafeAssign plagiarism software is used for the verification of original work.

Publication Ethics

JELPS is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’  International Standards for Authors . Authors are reminded to check their proofs carefully to confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence and contact details are correct, if any, are accurate. Please note that if there are any changes to the author list at this stage all authors will be required to complete and sign a form authorizing the change.

Open Access Policy

The JELPS uses Open Access Policy that enables the dissemination of manuscripts to the global community without restriction through the internet. Thus, all articles published in the JELPS can be accessed by anyone with internet connection around the world. JELPS strongly supports the Open Access initiative. Abstracts and full texts of all articles published by the JELPS are freely accessible to everyone immediately after publication

Publication Charges

There are no submission fees or page charges for this journal.

Copyright Notice

Authors hold the copyright to any article they publish in JELPS. Before the article is published, each author must provide full consent for the publication agreement. Credit as original publisher should be given to JELPS if reprints are made and include the URL of the JELPS publication. Anyone can copy any article(s) found within JELPS as along as credit is given and copies of the article are not sold.

ERIC Selection Policy

The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) is an online bibliographic and full-text digital library of education research, including journal articles and non-journal materials. ERIC is a program administered by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). ERIC’s mission is to select, index, and make quality education research widely available and searchable through a user-friendly website. Based on the ERIC Selection Policy, JELPS articles will be selected to be indexed in ERIC. Selection standards and criteria are determined by the official ERIC authorization. Authors can review ERIC Selection Policy at the ERIC website:

Please download the following template.

Download the Template

Dr. Yavuz Editor-in Chief, Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Southern Connecticut State University 203-392-5442 [email protected]

In the 125 years of SCSU History, JELPS became the first and only Indexed journal.

501 Crescent Street, New Haven, CT 06515 • (203) 392-SCSU

501 Crescent Street, New Haven, CT 06515 (203) 392-SCSU

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts

Monica mincu.

1 Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Turin, Palazzo Nuovo, Via Sant’Ottavio, 20, 10124 Torino, TO Italy

2 Institute of Education, UCL, Centre for Educational Leadership, London, United Kingdom

Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling is unfortunate and must be redressed. Leadership is fundamentally about organized agency and collective vision, not managerialism, since it is an organizational quality, not merely a positionality attribute. Most important, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur uniquely at the individual teachers’ level. School organization is fundamental to circulating and consolidating new innovative actions, cognitive schemes, and behaviors in coherent collective practices. This article engages with the relevance of governance patterns, school organization, and wider cultural and pedagogical factors that shape various leadership configurations. It formulates several assumptions that clarify the importance of leadership in any organized change. The way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, while their ability to act with agency is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change. A hierarchical imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation.

In recent years, transformation has emerged as a high priority in key policy documents (OECD, 2015 , 2020a , 2020b ; Paterson et al., 2018 ; UNESCO, 2021 ) and been recognized as a major pillar on which the very future of education is based. A galvanized international scene has put transformation at the top of the agenda. One reason is found in the recent Covid-19 emergency and the need to recover, and possibly to “build back better”. Other reasons are longer-term and relate to dissatisfaction with the quality of education in many parts of the world. Major international agencies have been directly involved in reform and have variously endorsed “educational planning” (e.g., Carron et al., 2010 ), systemic reform in highly centralized countries, school autonomy (framed as school-based management or decentralization), systemic adjustment and restructuring (e.g., Carnoy, 1998 ; Samoff, 1999 ), and accountability (Anderson, 2005 ), as well as capacity building and development (De Grauwe, 2009 ). However, in practice, only segments of reforms have been enacted, focusing on one aspect of the school system while neglecting others, without considering the larger governance and school architecture, and local pedagogical cultures. Some agencies have also expressed a renewed interest in innovation and the possibility to measure it (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019 ), from a rather managerial perspective.

The transformation of education is a trendy movement nowadays, with the potential to generate lasting change through wide-reaching actions, not just stylistically or in local projects. Transformation of this kind will occur when structural and organizational conditions are in place in a range of different settings. When this happens, transformation as a revamped concept of change can be wholeheartedly embraced. Nonetheless, both academic and development-oriented NGO research has long dedicated itself to and learned from systemic change, improvement, and reform, based on what have been defined as effective practices (Ko & Sammons, 2016 ; Townsend, 2007 ). The school effectiveness findings are typically transversal principles of what has proved valuable despite contextual variation, whilst noting the local variability of such principles (Teddlie & Stringfield, 2017 ) especially in low and middle income countries (Moore, 2022 ) and even in similar areas of education development (Boonen et al., 2013 ; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008 ). Some variability often occurs between consolidated and less consolidated school systems. School improvement has been based on scholars’ findings on school effectiveness, as these two areas can merge up to a certain point (Creemers & Reezigt, 2005 ; Stoll & Fink, 1996 ). Reform at the top and improvement at the ground level have long been trialed in different national and organizational settings and with different school populations, with the aim of establishing generalizability or local variation. Quality teaching (Bowe & Gore, 2016 ; Darling-Hammond, 2021 ; Hattie, 2009 ) or teachers (Hanushek, 2010 , 2014 ; Mincu, 2015 ; Akiba & LeTendre, 2017 ), as well as equitable effective practices (Sammons, 2010 ) have also been classic research topics that have emerged center-stage in any change project.

In order for quality-promoting endeavors such as change, improvement, and reform to produce a transformed education, several assumptions are indispensable: (a) recognize the larger school and organizational context as crucial, alongside school architecture and processes, (b) define what quality education means across a variety of country contexts and with regard to specific structural arrangements and pedagogical cultures, (c) distinguish the degree and type of autonomy for schools and teachers, and estimate the effectiveness of their mixed interactions, (d) understand and cope from a change perspective within a variety of school cultures, (e) recognize the structural limitations faced by school leadership, as well as the margins to produce local, gradual improvement that can pave the way to radical transformation, and (f) start any significant change at the school level, in the interaction of leaders and teachers.

What is school leadership and how can it bring about change? On the one hand, leadership is about a vision of change, collectively shaped and supported. In this sense, radical change—i.e., transformation—cannot occur without leaders and especially school leaders. In addition, an effective vision about a desired change grows from the interactions of the school actors and is stimulated and orchestrated by the school leadership. An imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation, nor its subsequent stability or growth, given that some grass roots changes happen accidentally, in limited school areas. In fact, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur at the individual teachers’ level, as then it cannot be circulated and consolidated in stable, coherent collective practices. Action at the school level is fundamental for change to occur and last, as well as for individual teachers to be encouraged, supported, and rewarded for their innovative behavior. On the other hand, change is often conceptualized as a gradual process of a series of stages (Fullan, 2015 ; Kotter, 2012 ), carefully incorporating structural and cultural adjustments (Kools & Stoll, 2016 ). Transformation, a less orthodox and robust concept, incorporates the desire for more abrupt and radical change. It is imagined as a possibility to “leapfrog”. This desire to move rapidly forward resonates with the “window of opportunity” phase when big changes can occur more smoothly. However, at the school and even systemic level, complex changes resulting in net improvements are most often gradually prepared and stimulated, since any change is cultural in essence, and as such it needs time to occur. Another relevant aspect is related to leadership as an ingredient and quality, not just a positionality attribute. Both assumptions suggest the inevitability of its role to any change in education as an organized endeavor.

Larger contexts and school organizations are key in any transformation

Education does not occur in an organizational vacuum, since deschooling, mass home-schooling, or online-only paradigms are neither implemented nor envisioned. In addition, a concept of education exclusively posed in philosophical and theoretical terms, especially when aimed at transforming the status quo, neglects to take into account that schooling is enmeshed with different organizational and governance forms, at times in contradiction with its own theoretical bases. Most important, forms of sociality such as those sustained by schools have not declined in relevance but increased, in the aftermath of the global online experiment of the pandemic emergency. At the same time, improvements and even radical changes in education have been embraced and actively promoted in certain parts of the world. For instance, in Norway, renewed weekly timetables are in place, allowing for deep learning as well as better integration with virtual knowledge in high-stakes exams. One should not forget that most pupils around the world are educated in environments displaying significant structural convergences across countries, despite locally diverse values. Such teaching-oriented settings are characterized by the centrality of the adult as teacher, and most often by textbook-based education. The organizational arrangements are linear, based on daily subjects and teachers’ contractual time, mainly dedicated to teaching activities (the stavka system, see Steiner-Khamsi, 2016 , 2020 ) or to ad hoc self-help actions in extreme emergency contexts. Linked to these, school cultures can be both hierarchical (rules are delivered “from above”) and fragmented, since class teachers may be left to themselves without adequate professional support. Whilst the reality is nuanced and school typologies are in any case sociological abstractions, most systems can still be described as basically centralized or decentralized, depending on the level of autonomy granted to schools or local authorities. The larger school contexts as well as the local ones are even today very diverse in these two cases, despite a global increase in diversified combinations of centralization of some aspects and decentralization of others. What Archer ( 1979 ) theorized in her landmark work is still a key valid explanation of how school organizations usually operate and change. With renewed categories, a centralized system is largely characterized by “hierarchies”, real or perceived, and less by “networks and markets”, whilst in the case of decentralized systems, the opposite is true. The same differences can be highlighted in more comprehensive or selective school types, whose visions and ways of functioning are coherent with their structural patterns and influence, and in turn, with how leaders perceive their role and mission.

In terms of leadership, differing configurations will bring differing consequences. Centralized countries with weak school autonomy approach the role of school leaders in a rather formalist way: as primus inter pares or as administrative and legal head. In these settings, the intermediate level is also very weak and largely based on ad hoc tasks. Flat organizations may not support leadership as an essential element in the school’s operational life, and instead focus primarily on teaching, which is mainly viewed as an individual endeavor. School organizations at odds with leadership as a system quality, both in organizational and instructional terms, often exhibit forms of fragmentation (Mincu & Romiti, 2022 ), even in societies that may share a collectivistic or communitarian ethos, such as in East Asia. In countries with significant school autonomy, leadership structures are more manifestly in place, given the increased tasks performed by schools. Often, an excess of hierarchical leadership is a major negative outcome. However, the school context can be characterized by mixed combinations of types of governance (hierarchies, networks, markets) (Mincu & Davies, 2019 ; Mincu & Liu, 2022 ), which have a significant influence on the way leadership is oriented and how it accomplishes its visionary, organizational, and instructional functions within the school and in relation to society. School leadership is both a processual quality and a positional trait, and thus it can be variously performed in high autonomy school systems. In the case of centralized arrangements, it can be much harder to identify leadership as process where there is just some form of leadership positionality: a legal school head or the existence of subject-matter departments. School contexts and organizations around the world are also diverse in terms of leadership configurations and roles: some schools may share the same leader (Italy), some may not provide many leadership positions at all (India), and others may specify a headship position which does not in fact offer any leadership or cohesion in organizational and pedagogical matters. Indeed, leadership may be entirely missing from certain school systems.

To summarize, the way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, along with the quality, direction, and margins of power that can be exerted by leadership at the school and intermediate levels. Nevertheless, schools are large organizations, and as such a certain amount of alignment and direction is needed, which is what leadership provides.

The autonomy of schools and that of teachers are not mutually exclusive

Closely related to the first assumption, for a functional and dynamic school organization, a certain amount of school autonomy is required to adequately balance teachers’ autonomy. In high school autonomy systems, there is a tendency to assume that teachers’ autonomy is quite reduced, and this is certainly the case if the education model is accountability-oriented and leadership is hierarchical. In less autonomous systems, huge resistance to instill more autonomy at the school level is usually deployed—for example, in strongly unionist cultures, which aim to extend and expand teachers’ independence. This translates into quite radical teachers’ autonomy on pedagogical matters, as is the case in certain European school systems (Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

An excess of teachers’ autonomy is detrimental to coherence and alignment at the school level and affects both quality and equity. The metaphors of teachers in their classes as eggs in their egg crates or lions behind closed doors, in the words of a ministry official in Italy, are particularly telling about flat, non-collaborative structures. The idea that high teacher autonomy may automatically support collegiality in flat organizations is not supported by the reality on the ground in certain school systems. In sociological terms, any human organization requires a certain amount of hierarchy and collegiality. In fact, a certain quantity of school autonomy is beneficial in many ways and can enhance teachers’ agency: (a) it emphasizes the role of leaders, including the possibility for teachers to act with leadership, (b) it offers a direction that can be shared, (c) it stimulates people to come together in effective ways (communities of practice) whilst presenting the risk of some contrived collegiality, and (d) it encourages teachers to feel more supported in their own work and professional development.

In a nutshell, leadership’s margins of influence are shaped not only by overall system governance, but also by the amount of school autonomy they enjoy. In addition, the extent of organizational autonomy is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change.

School cultures converge and diverge in multiple ways within and across countries

Pedagogical transformation is about a change in cultural assumptions, which entails a slow process of cognitive and emotional modification that has to be supported beyond school walls by concerted social and economic actions. Structural change will not be successful without an adjustment in people’s cognitive schemes about their practices and values. How teachers conceive of teaching and learning, and of equitable and inclusive approaches, is not essentially a matter of “lack of training”, for which more preparation may be the solution. It is instead a matter of deep pedagogical beliefs, whose roots are shared and societal. How to discipline class misbehavior, for example, and even what inappropriate classroom behavior is, varies widely across societies: it denotes (generational at times) power distance, gender relations, assumptions about individuality and collectivistic entities, as well as merit recognition and social envy avoidance. For Hargreaves ( 1994 ), school culture is the result of the intertwining of attitudes such as individualism, collaboration, contrived collegiality, and “balkanization”, i.e., fragmentation of ethical goals. Stoll ( 2000 ) herself describes schools in terms of social cohesion and social control as traditional, welfarist, “hothouse”, or anomic. In contrast, for Hood ( 1998 ), there are four possible combinations of social cohesion and regulation: (a) fatalistic: compliance with rules but little cooperation to achieve results, (b) hierarchical (bureaucratic): social cohesion and cooperation and a rules-based approach, (c) individualist: fragmented approaches to organizing that require negotiation among various actors, and (d) egalitarian: very meaningful participation structures, highly participatory decision-making, a culture of peer support.

In reality, mixed combinations of two, three, or more types of cultures can be found and supported by a variety of factors within and beyond schools as organizations. Some Southern European realities, as well as some Eastern European systems, belong to the individualist typology: weak collaboration and weak hierarchy, given the absence of a teaching career structure with levels of preparation and strong autonomy of the individual teacher. Some aspects of institutional “fatalism” are present, because a certain culture of respect for rules nevertheless exists, and of egalitarianism of a rather formal type. In fact, while the collegial culture on a formal level may appear robust—given the presence of collegial bodies—in practice organizational coherence remains very weak. The reason lies in the fact that these bodies can also decide not to agree on any systemic solution and defer decisions to the individual teacher, since teacher autonomy is still the superior criterion governing informal culture in schools. In the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian school systems, for example, schools express more coherent and cohesive cultures that oscillate between very hierarchical and more participatory models, with more diffuse leadership (Seashore-Louis, 2015 ). Even though these latter school systems favor a mostly cohesive ethos, it is not uncommon to find fragmented and inconsistent schools with weak leadership.

As an example of how school cultures work, a culturally well-rooted premise that teachers “are all good” is very much at work in certain flat hierarchical or Confucian-oriented school cultures, meaning they are equally effective because morally oriented for the profession. This is, in fact, a convenient belief allowing those within it to oppose forms of evaluations (including between peers and in the wider community of parents and stakeholders) and to resist more school autonomy and cohesiveness measures that might be envisioned by school or system leadership. Whilst teachers may be reluctant to work together and observe each other (as in a lesson study format) in most countries, this may be particularly the case where teachers’ autonomy is quite radical, where collaboration and mentoring are not common practices, or where stimulated by school arrangements and work contracts (e.g., in Italy; see Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

Another way to characterize pedagogical cultures is with reference to formalism (respect for rules and social distances, focus on adults’ role and transmissive pedagogies) or to progressivism (more egalitarian interactions and a focus on the learner and their way of acquiring and creating knowledge). There are many ways in which various school cultures can be appropriately characterized, offering plenty of nuances and details of social, economic, and cultural stratifications and contradictions: for instance, in certain East Asian contexts, there is a combination of Confucianism, socialist egalitarianism, and revised individualism of consumption or of possession, based on previous rural forms of it. However, along the lines of centralized/decentralized typologies that are still valid for describing school functioning and structures, the reality of countries around the world allows scholars to characterize school cultures as formalist versus progressivist. It is legitimate to do so in spite of the local nuances and anthropological cultures that may filter and support such pedagogies (Guthrie et al., 2015 ).

Any cultural change imposed from above or from abroad may be doomed to failure if the hardware is that of centralized systems and if school actors are not allowed to engage in a cultural exercise of adaptation, adequately supported with infrastructural measures. Whilst there is no single model, there are some pillars of good teaching and some key lessons about how to produce change. A major premise is that any change must reach the school level and be able to activate and energize its school actors. School systems may be distinguished therefore in terms of formalist/progressivist typologies, which is coherent with other types of systemic characteristics, including lack of leadership (be it hierarchically formalized, legally representative only, or peer-oriented) that may preclude any effort of cultural transformation.

Without leadership, individual teachers may act as a loosely connected group, without vision and motivation to produce an expected and socially praised change. The expectation to encourage reforms from the regional and district level, when not from the top, is purely utopian. Schools remain remote realities in such change models. Most systems in poorly resourced contexts are entangled in hierarchical school models and grounded in traditional power distance and colonial legacies. Without significant leadership processes stimulated by school principals at the very heart of such systems, cultural and new structural processes cannot be expected. To produce cultural change, the top leadership stratum must create the proper conditions, such as salaries, workload, and other incentives for training and knowledge dissemination; but action and cognitive schemes characterize the school level and teachers cannot be blamed for what they cannot do by themselves.

Defining quality for present times education in context

We cannot move toward possible futures without deeply understanding what good education can be in our present societies, in a variety of localities around the world. Research has long dedicated itself to the task of defining quality in education, particularly in the fields of school effectiveness and school improvement. Meta-research has become a bestseller scholarly genre (Hattie, 2009 ), and the drive toward evidence-based knowledge has been equally impressive, across universities, NGOs, and other major international players. Research studies distinguish between quality teachers (their attributes, amount of preparation, and years of experience) and teaching quality, based on dimensions of quality teaching that produce effective learning. Since structures and cultures can be effectively encapsulated in categories (centralized/autonomous, formalist/progressivist, etc.), quality teaching is also condensed (a) in key dimensions, for instance by Bowe and Gore ( 2016 ), subsuming further aspects, or (b) as rankings of most effective factors in terms of learning.

Mistrust of evidence-based and best-practice research traditions is justified when ready-made solutions are implemented without adaptations and the engagement of those involved. Even the adoption of South-South solutions can be ineffective at times (Chisholm & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008 ). Since problems in education are messy and “wicked” (Ritter & Webber, 1973 ) changes must be systemic and cultural.

Anderson and Mundy, 2014 proved that improvement solutions and practices in two groups of countries—developed and less developed—are very much convergent. Both developing and developed countries present a series of common challenges: the need for fewer top-down approaches, for instance, and for approaches less narrowly focused on the basics. Comparative evidence and perspectives on student learning in developing countries converge on a common cluster of instructional concepts and strategies: (a) learning as student-centered, differentiated, or personalized, associated with using low-cost teaching and learning materials in the language which students understand, and (b) the appropriate use of small group learning in addition to large group instruction. This enables regular diagnostic and formative assessment of student progress to guide instructional decision-making, clear directions, and checking student understanding of the purpose of learning activities. It also involves personalized feedback to students based on assessments of their learning, and explicit teaching of learning skills to strengthen students’ problem-solving competencies. With the possible exception of low-cost learning materials, these prescriptions for good teaching are consistent with international evidence about effective instruction (Anderson & Mundy, 2014 ). But quality teaching and teachers equally assume specific contextual meanings. For instance, Kumar and Wiseman ( 2021 ) indicate that traditional measures of quality (teacher preparation and credentials) are less relevant in India compared to non-traditional measures such as teachers’ absenteeism and their attitude/behavior toward their students.

Teachers alone cannot make a better school

Teachers and their actions at the classroom level are key to inspiring learning and students’ progress. Nonetheless, a misreported finding from an OECD ( 2010 ) study that “the quality of an education system can never exceed the quality of its teachers” is only partially correct. In fact, the full quotation said that the system’s quality cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and leaders. The incomplete quote mirrors a common misconception that teachers alone can and should improve the system. Instead, teachers are part of organizations, and as such they behave and respond to dynamics in place in those contexts, and not as individuals, or as a professional group, not even in the most unionized countries. The quality of a public service cannot be attributed solely to its members, but also to their organization and to specific choices made by its leadership, which is responsible for organizational vision and translating theories into action. Launching heartfelt calls for teachers to change their practices is both naive and sociologically inaccurate regarding how people act and behave in social organizations, such as schools. The presence of leadership as a processual and qualitative dimension at the school level also indicates the existence of the structures of school leadership teams and middle managers, in which leadership is robustly in place as positionality.

In this sense, the quote indicates the relevance of teachers’ work in carefully designed organizations, in which hierarchy and horizontal interactions of collaboration between peers are in a functional equilibrium. In other words, schools and teachers’ autonomy reciprocally reinforce one another.

Whenever teachers are required to act with leadership, autonomy, and innovation, the larger system and school culture should be carefully considered. Teachers cannot by themselves be directly responsible for systemic changes. National-level teams of experts cannot blame teachers for a lack of change when the necessary knowledge and resources are not cascaded effectively to the school level. As the end point of the chain of change, teachers cannot be accused for a lack of success and adequate culture to facilitate innovation when decision makers do not consider the school architecture and how leaders are prepared and ready to support a change in culture. This has been the case with reforms in less resourceful countries around the world, often in highly centralized systems, where more progressivist changes are expected from teachers in the absence of proper consideration of the school architecture, long-standing interactions with the school leaders, and the overall pedagogical culture. Unfair blame for these teachers is expressed at times by international or national teams of experts, unrealistically expecting individual teachers to produce significant structural and cultural changes, otherwise they play the part of “those who wait on a bus” for a change to happen. The possibility to develop, to act innovatively, and to be motivated for teaching depends largely on the organizational support received by teachers at the school level from their head teacher and the wider environment. Professional development is a key ingredient that impacts teacher quality (Cordingley, 2015 ), and its effectiveness and provision depends heavily on the school leadership. Without support from the larger school context and leadership, even the most autonomous teachers may not act with the necessary teaching quality that can make a difference, as clearly illustrated by TALIS 2020.

Leadership, as an organizational quality, is indispensable

The final assumption involves the idea that one cannot crudely distinguish between teachers and leaders, especially middle managers and more informal leaders. Obviously, there is a continuum between such roles: teachers themselves can act with agency and leadership, formally or informally, and head teachers may draw upon their experience as teachers.

Since schools are organizations and not collections of individuals, the field of school effectiveness and school improvement has incontrovertibly identified the influence of leadership as vital: “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (Leithwood et al., 2008 ). Through both organization and instructional vision (Day et al., 2016 ), effective leadership significantly enhances or diminishes the influence that individual teachers have in their classes. Regardless of cultural considerations, when teachers’ work is uncoordinated and fragmented, the overall effect in terms of learning and education cannot be amplified and adequately supported. A lack of coherence within organizations is unfavorable to more localized virtuous dynamics that may be diminished or suffocated.

Moreover, unjustified allegations of managerialism and the striking absence of this topic from key policy documents, including those of UNESCO ( 2021 ), should be highlighted. Whilst the “executive” components implicit in any leadership function must be in place in organizations enjoying wide autonomy, this does not necessarily translate into managerialism and quasi markets. It is indeed the larger school context that can make an autonomous school perform in a managerial way or simply, with broader margins of action, that can facilitate good use of teachers’ collective agency, as in some Scandinavian countries. In order to produce even modest change, let alone radical transformation, we must overcome the widely held misconception that leadership has to do with managerial tasks, competition, and effectiveness from a highly individualistic stance. Whilst this can be the case in certain country contexts and with particular disciplinary approaches, educational leadership does not simply overlap with managerialism as a technical ability. It is essentially about vision and collaboration around our global commons, as well as locally defined school goals.

School leadership is correctly identified as a key strategy to improve teaching and learning toward SDG4 (the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action adopted by the World Education Forum 2015). A specific task assigned to school leadership is an increase in the supply of qualified teachers (UNESCO, 2016 ). At the same time, the need to transform schools is sometimes decoupled from the potential of school and system leadership to ensure such transformation. Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling must be rectified. A humanistic vision and a focus on the global public good cannot be at odds, programmatically, with a field dedicated to understanding how contemporary schools are organized and how they operate.

Conclusion: Leadership is about organized agency, not managerialism

Innovations in education are complex because they can often be incremental and less frequently radical, but some have the potential to be truly transformative. The more effective tend to be small micro-context innovations that diffuse “laterally” through networks of professionals and organizations but need facilitation and effective communication from above to be deep and long-lasting. They are never just technical or structural, but rather cultural and related to visions about education. In this context, leadership and leaders are crucial in a variety of aspects, but foremost in shaping a coherent organization and engaging collectively to clarify and make explicit key pedagogical and equity assumptions, which has a dramatic direct and indirect influence on the effectiveness of the school. Most significantly, school leadership at all levels is the starting point for the transformation of low-performing (and) disadvantaged schools.

We should not underestimate the impact that the larger political, social, and economic context has on schools and leaders around the world. A variety of autonomous schools can perform in a managerial way or simply make good use of teachers’ collective agency, and a variety of less autonomous organizations may dispose or not of a certain dose of organizational coherence and leadership (Keddie et al., 2022 ; Walker & Qian, 2020 ).

What has proved valuable in most contexts may not always be effective in every case; a balance has to be struck between cultural awareness related to pedagogies in contexts and lessons learned across cultural boundaries. Available universal solutions have to be pondered, and adaptations are always required. It can be the case that, in certain conditions, we borrow not only solutions but the problems they address, in the way these are rhetorically framed. However, since convergences occur in structures and cultures, problems may also converge across contexts. In addition, micro-changes occur fluidly at any time, but for transformation to emerge, we need to draw on the accumulated wisdom and the potential implicit in system and school leadership. Last but not least, the complexity lying at the heart of learning from others and from comparison should not be assumed to be insuperable.

is an associate professor in comparative education with the Department of Philosophy and Education, University of Turin, and a lecturer in educational leadership with the Institute of Education, University College, London. She has acted as a consultant with UNESCO and other major Italian NGOs. She engages with education politics and governance from a social change and equity perspective.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Akiba M, LeTendre G. International handbook of teacher quality and policy. Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education . UNESCO IIPE.
• Anderson S, Mundy K. School improvement in developing countries: Experiences and lessons learned. Aga Khan Foundation Canada; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer M. Social origins of educational systems. Routledge; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boonen T, Van Damme J, Onghena P. Teacher effects on student achievement in first grade: Which aspects matter most? School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2013 doi: 10.1080/09243453.2013.778297. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowe J, Gore J. Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2016; 23 (3):352–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnoy M. Globalisation and educational restructuring. Melbourne Studies in Education. 1998; 39 (2):21–40. doi: 10.1080/17508489809556316. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carron, G., Mahshi, K., De Grauwe, A., Gay, D. (2010). Strategic planning. Organisational arrangements . UNESCO IIPE.
• Chisholm L, Steiner-Khamsi G. South-South transfer: Cooperation and unequal development in education. Teachers College Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cordingley P. The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford Review of Education. 2015 doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1020105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creemers B, Reezigt G. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: The background and outline of the project School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. 2005; 16 (4):359–371. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond L. Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2021 doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2016; 52 (2):221–258. doi: 10.1177/0013161X15616863. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Grauwe, A. (2009). Without capacity there is no development . UNESCO.
• Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guthrie G, Tabulawa R, Schweisfurth M, Sarangapani P, Hugo W, Wedekind V. Child soldiers in the culture wars. Compare. 2015; 45 (4):635–654. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2015.1045748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. The difference is teacher quality. In: Weber K, editor. Waiting for "Superman": How we can save America’s failing public schools. Public Affairs; 2010. pp. 81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. Boosting teacher effectiveness. In: Finn CE, Sousa R, editors. What lies ahead for America's children and their schools. Hoover Institution Press; 2014. pp. 23–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargreaves A. Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Cassell; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood C. The art of the state, culture rhetoric and public management. Clarendon Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keddie A, MacDonald K, Blackmore J, Boyask R, Fitzgerald S, Gavin M, Heffernan A, Hursh D, McGrath-Champ S, Møller J, O'Neill J, Parding K, Salokangas M, Skerritt C, Stacey M, Thomson P, Wilkins A, Wilson R, Wylie C, Yoon E-S. What needs to happen for school autonomy to be mobilised to create more equitable public schools and systems of education? Australian Education Research. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s13384-022-00573-w. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ko, J. & Sammons, P. (2016). Effective teaching. Education Development Trust.
• Kools, M. & Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation ? OECD.
• Kotter J. Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar P, Wiseman AW. Teacher quality and education policy in India: Understanding the relationship between teacher education, teacher effectiveness, and student outcomes. Routledge; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins A. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management. 2008; 28 (1):27–42. doi: 10.1080/13632430701800060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M. Teacher quality and school improvement: What is the role of research? Oxford Review of Education. 2015; 41 (2):253–269. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1023013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M, Davies P. The governance of a school network and implications for Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Education Policy. 2019; 36 (3):436–453. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1645360. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu, M. & Granata, A. (2021). Teachers’ informal leadership for equity in France and Italy during the first wave of the education emergency. Teachers and Teaching , Special Issue, 1–21.
• Mincu M, Liu M. The policy context in teacher education: Hierarchies, networks and markets in four countries. In: Tierny R, Rizvi F, editors. International Encyclopaedia in Education. Elsevier; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M, Romiti S. Evidence informed practice in Italian education. In: Brown C, Malin J, editors. The Emerald international handbook of evidence-informed practice in education. Emerald; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore R. Variation, context, and inequality: comparing models of school effectiveness in two states in India. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2022 doi: 10.1080/09243453.2022.2089169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2010). PISA 2009. Results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume 4) . 10.1787/9789264091559-en
• OECD . Schooling redesigned. OECD; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2020a). What students learn matters. Towards a 21st century curriculum . OECD.
• OECD (2020b). Back to the future of education: Four OECD scenarios for schooling, educational research and innovation . OECD.
• Palardy GJ, Rumberger RW. Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008; 30 :111–140. doi: 10.3102/0162373708317680. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson A, Dumont H, Lafuente M, Law N. Understanding innovative pedagogies. OECD; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittel HW, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973; 4 (2):155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sammons P. Equity and educational effectiveness. In: Peterson P, Baker E, McGaw B, editors. International encyclopedia of education. 3. Elsevier; 2010. pp. 51–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samoff J. Education sector analysis in Africa: Limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development. 1999; 19 (4–5):249–272. doi: 10.1016/S0738-0593(99)00028-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seashore-Louis K. Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. Nordic Journal in Educational Policy. 2015; 3 :7–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Teach or perish: The stavka system and its impact on the quality of instruction. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow , National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2, 14–39.
• Steiner-Khamsi G. Prefazione [Foreword] In: Mincu M, editor. Sistemi scolastici nel mondo globale. Mondadori; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll L. School culture. Professional Development. 2000; 3 :9–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll L, Fink D. Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Open University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teddlie C, Stringfield S. A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. The Journal of Classroom Interaction. 2017; 52 (1):15–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend T. International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Springer; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2016). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation for Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning. UNESCO.
• UNESCO (2021). Futures of education: Learning to become . UNESCO.
• Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education: A journey to the future . OECD.
• Walker A, Qian H. Developing a model of instructional leadership in China. Compare. 2020; 52 (1):147–167. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1747396. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Educational Management Administration & Leadership is covered by the Social Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Report-Social Science edition.

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership is an international peer-reviewed journal which publishes original and significant contributions on educational administration, management and leadership from all over the world. This includes primary research projects located in schools, and in further, vocational and higher education institutions.

All issues of Educational Management Administration & Leadership are available to browse online .

This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership is an international peer-reviewed journal which publishes original and significant contributions on educational administration, management and leadership, in its widest sense, from all over the world. This includes primary research projects located in schools, and in further, vocational and higher education institutions.

Submit an article http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

• Academic Search Premier
• British Education Index
• Business Source Corporate
• Business Source Premier
• Contents Pages in Education
• Current Contents / Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Current Contents/ Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Current Index to Journals in Education
• ERIC - Educational Management
• Education Journal
• Educational Administration Abstracts
• Educational Management Abstracts
• Educational Research Abstracts Online - e-Psyche
• Health Source
• International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
• Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences
• Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition
• Journal of Economic Literature (and JEL on CD)
• MasterFILE Premier
• Periodical Abstracts
• ProQuest: Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)
• Professional Development Collection
• Research Into Higher Education Abstracts
• Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
• Social Services Abstracts
• Sociological Abstracts
• The Educational Journal
• Vocational Search
• Worldwide Political Science Abstracts

This Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics

Please read the guidelines below then visit the Journal’s submission site  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal to upload your manuscript. Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines may be returned. Remember you can log in to the submission site at any time to check on the progress of your paper through the peer review process.

Only manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of Educational Management Administration & Leadership will be reviewed.

There are no fees payable to submit or publish in this Journal. Open Access options are available - see section 3.3 below.

As part of the submission process you will be required to warrant that you are submitting your original work, that you have the rights in the work, and that you have obtained and can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by you, that you are submitting the work for first publication in the Journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere. Please see our guidelines on prior publication and note that Educational Management Administration & Leadership  may accept submissions of papers that have been posted on pre-print servers ; please alert the Editorial Office when submitting (contact details are at the end of these guidelines) and include the DOI for the preprint in the designated field in the manuscript submission system. Authors should not post an updated version of their paper on the preprint server while it is being peer reviewed for possible publication in the journal. If the article is accepted for publication, the author may re-use their work according to the journal's author archiving policy. If your paper is accepted, you must include a link on your preprint to the final version of your paper.

If you have any questions about publishing with Sage, please visit the Sage Journal Solutions Portal

• What do we publish? 1.1 Aims & Scope 1.2 Article types 1.3 Writing your paper
• Editorial policies 2.1 Peer review policy 2.2 Authorship 2.3 Acknowledgements 2.4 Declaration of conflicting interests 2.5  Research Data
• Publishing policies 3.1 Publication ethics 3.2 Contributor's publishing agreement 3.3 Open access and author archiving
• Preparing your manuscript 4.1 Formatting 4.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics 4.3 Supplemental material 4.4 Reference style 4.5 English language editing services
• Submitting your manuscript 5.1 ORCID 5.2 Information required for completing your submission 5.3 Permissions
• On acceptance and publication 6.1 Sage Production 6.2 Online First publication 6.3 Access to your published article 6.4 Promoting your article
• Further information

1. What do we publish?

1.1 Aims & Scope

Before submitting your manuscript to Educational Management Administration & Leadership , please ensure you have read the Aims & Scope .

1.2 Article Types

Educational Management, Administration & Leadership publishes articles that include original primary research that can be empirical, literature reviews, or new conceptualisations of policy and practice.

Your articles should be no more than 8,000 words, including references.

Authors are also able to provide a translation of their article in a language of their choice. Please indicate at submission if a translation of your article exists. This translated version should be uploaded as Supplemental Material ( see 4.3 ) when uploading the final version of your article. Please note that only the English version will be subject to peer review.

1.3 Writing your paper

The Sage Author Gateway has some general advice and on  how to get published, plus links to further resources. Sage Author Services also offers authors a variety of ways to improve and enhance their article including English language editing, plagiarism detection, and video abstract and infographic preparation.

1.3.1 Make your article discoverable

When writing up your paper, think about how you can make it discoverable. The title, keywords and abstract are key to ensuring readers find your article through search engines such as Google. For information and guidance on how best to title your article, write your abstract and select your keywords, have a look at this page on the Gateway: How to Help Readers Find Your Article Online .

Back to top

2. Editorial policies

2.1 Peer review policy

The journal adheres to a rigorous double-anonymize reviewing policy in which the identity of both the reviewer and author are always concealed from both parties. Each manuscript is subject to initial review by the Editor. All papers are then reviewed by at least two referees.Guidelines for referees are available here . All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, and an editorial decision is generally reached within 6-8 weeks of first submission. Translations of articles uploaded as Supplemental Material are not peer reviewed.

2.2 Authorship

All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.

Please note that AI chatbots, for example ChatGPT, should not be listed as authors. For more information see the policy on Use of ChatGPT and generative AI tools .

2.3 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Please supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review.

2.3.1 Third party submissions

Where an individual who is not listed as an author submits a manuscript on behalf of the author(s), a statement must be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript and in the accompanying cover letter. The statements must:

•    Disclose this type of editorial assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input  •    Identify any entities that paid for this assistance  •    Confirm that the listed authors have authorized the submission of their manuscript via third party and approved any statements or declarations, e.g. conflicting interests, funding, etc.

Where appropriate, Sage reserves the right to deny consideration to manuscripts submitted by a third party rather than by the authors themselves.

2.4 Declaration of conflicting interests

Educational Management Administration & Leadership encourages authors to include a declaration of any conflicting interests and recommends you review the good practice guidelines on the Sage Journal Author Gateway .

2.5 Research Data

The journal is committed to facilitating openness, transparency and reproducibility of research, and has the following research data sharing policy. For more information, including FAQs please visit the Sage Research Data policy pages .

Subject to appropriate ethical and legal considerations, authors are encouraged to:

• share your research data in a relevant public data repository
• include a data availability statement linking to your data. If it is not possible to share your data, we encourage you to consider using the statement to explain why it cannot be shared.
• cite this data in your research

3. Publishing Policies

3.1 Publication ethics

Sage is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ International Standards for Authors and view the Publication Ethics page on the Sage Author Gateway .

3.1.1 Plagiarism

Educational Management Administration & Leadership and Sage take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article, for example, is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.

3.1.2 Prior publication

If material has been previously published it is not generally acceptable for publication in a Sage journal. However, there are certain circumstances where previously published material can be considered for publication. Please refer to the guidance on the Sage Author Gateway or if in doubt, contact the Editor at the address given below.

3.2 Contributor's publishing agreement

Before publication, Sage requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. Sage’s Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement is an exclusive licence agreement which means that the author retains copyright in the work but grants Sage the sole and exclusive right and licence to publish for the full legal term of copyright. Exceptions may exist where an assignment of copyright is required or preferred by a proprietor other than Sage. In this case copyright in the work will be assigned from the author to the society. For more information please visit the Sage Author Gateway .

3.3 Open access and author archiving

Educational Management Administration & Leadership offers optional open access publishing via the Sage Choice programme and Open Access agreements, where authors can publish open access either discounted or free of charge depending on the agreement with Sage. Find out if your institution is participating by visiting Open Access Agreements at Sage . For more information on Open Access publishing options at Sage please visit Sage Open Access . For information on funding body compliance, and depositing your article in repositories, please visit Sage’s Author Archiving and Re-Use Guidelines and Publishing Policies .

4. Preparing your manuscript for submission

4.1 Formatting

The preferred format for your manuscript is Word. LaTeX files are also accepted. Word and (La)Tex templates are available on the Manuscript Submission Guidelines page of our Author Gateway.

4.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics

For guidance on the preparation of illustrations, pictures and graphs in electronic format, please visit Sage’s Manuscript Submission Guidelines.

Figures supplied in colour will appear in colour online regardless of whether or not these illustrations are reproduced in colour in the printed version. For specifically requested colour reproduction in print, you will receive information regarding the costs from Sage after receipt of your accepted article.

4.3 Supplemental material

This journal is able to host additional materials online (e.g. datasets, podcasts, videos, images, translations etc) alongside the full-text of the article. For more information please refer to our guidelines on submitting supplementary files .

4.4 Reference style

Educational Management Administration & Leadership adheres to the Sage Harvard reference style. View the Sage Harvard guidelines to ensure your manuscript conforms to this reference style.

If you use EndNote to manage references, you can download the Sage Harvard EndNote output file

4.5 English language editing services

Authors seeking assistance with English language editing, translation, or figure and manuscript formatting to fit the journal’s specifications should consider using Sage Language Services. Visit Sage Language Services on our Journal Author Gateway for further information.

5. Submitting your manuscript

Educational Management Administration & Leadership is hosted on Sage Track, a web based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal to login and submit your article online.

IMPORTANT: Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for the journal in the past year it is likely that you will have had an account created.  For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit ScholarOne Online Help.

As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process Sage is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID . ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized. 

The collection of ORCID IDs from corresponding authors is now part of the submission process of this journal. If you already have an ORCID ID you will be asked to associate that to your submission during the online submission process. We also strongly encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID ID to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account and our systems are automatically updated. Your ORCID ID will become part of your accepted publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID ID is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.

If you do not already have an ORCID ID please follow this link to create one or visit our ORCID homepage to learn more.

5.2 Information required for completing your submission

You will be asked to provide contact details and academic affiliations for all co-authors via the submission system and identify who is to be the corresponding author. These details must match what appears on your manuscript. The affiliation listed in the manuscript should be the institution where the research was conducted. If an author has moved to a new institution since completing the research, the new affiliation can be included in a manuscript note at the end of the paper. At this stage please ensure you have included all the required statements and declarations and uploaded any additional supplementary files (including reporting guidelines where relevant).

5.3 Permissions

Please also ensure that you have obtained any necessary permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. For further information including guidance on fair dealing for criticism and review, please see the Copyright and Permissions page on the Sage Author Gateway .

6. On acceptance and publication

6.1 Sage Production

Your Sage Production Editor will keep you informed as to your article’s progress throughout the production process. Proofs will be made available to the corresponding author via our editing portal Sage Edit or by email, and corrections should be made directly or notified to us promptly. Authors are reminded to check their proofs carefully to confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence and contact details are correct, and that Funding and Conflict of Interest statements, if any, are accurate.

6.2 Online First publication

Online First allows final articles (completed and approved articles awaiting assignment to a future issue) to be published online prior to their inclusion in a journal issue, which significantly reduces the lead time between submission and publication. Visit the Sage Journals help page for more details, including how to cite Online First articles.

6.3 Access to your published article

Sage provides authors with online access to their final article.

6.4 Promoting your article

Publication is not the end of the process! You can help disseminate your paper and ensure it is as widely read and cited as possible. The Sage Author Gateway has numerous resources to help you promote your work. Visit the Promote Your Article page on the Gateway for tips and advice. 

7. Further information

Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the manuscript submission process should be sent to the Educational Management Administration & Leadership editorial office as follows:

Professor Tony Bush Editor Educational Management Administration & Leadership The University of Nottingham School of Education Jubilee Campus Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB UK

email: [email protected]

Technical queries: Louise England

email:  [email protected]

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Print Only

School Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.