Educational Leadership Management

Educational Leadership Management

There have been several efforts to separate leadership from management. Leadership was defined as a creative and free process. Bush (1998) demonstrated that leadership is linked with leader character, values, purpose and moral capacity. On the other hand, management means being sure that the system is working well through staff (Tranter, 2000). Leadership is linked to change because leaders create the goals and motivations that require skills and energy while management is related to maintenance and technical issues (Cuban, 1988; Bush, 1998). Bush et al. (2010) found that there is a relationship between leadership and learning that is very important to reach the effectiveness of educational institutions. For students exploring these concepts further, seeking eeducation dissertation help can provide valuable insights and guidance.

Educational leadership and management have grown globally in the past years. Leithwood et al. (2006) and Robinson (2007) clarified that the impact of leaders would be great if it is contracted directly with teachers to improve the classroom practices and student achievements. Besides, student achievements will be damaged when leadership will be separated from learning (Bush et al., 2009). Leithwood et al. (2006) pointed out that educational leadership is a key factor for the success of teaching in the classroom and that it leads to improving pupils learning. For that, reasons head teachers and principals are encouraged to know the impact of their roles and accountability to improve the teaching and learning process.

This essay intends to analyse the importance of instructional leadership in education, the different styles of educational leadership according to Gunter (2009), the relationship between the economy and educational leadership underpinning the PISA (International student achievement) exam explanations. Further, this essay will analyse the Bush theories of educational leadership and the concept of instructional leadership in teacher leadership using arguments and evidence.

Instructional leadership and the way to develop this form of leadership for teachers will also be analysed. This essay is going to look into teachers as leaders, the metaphor of teachers as leaders and the barriers which prevent teachers’ creativity and professionalism. Lastly, a conclusion about the key findings from this essay will be provided. Instructional leadership is important in education. The significant differences between the effectiveness of a school and students’ result are created through the quality of leadership and leaders’ exercise. Moreover, the global economy will be increased by skilled leaders (Bush, 2007; Leadwood and Steinbach, 2002).

Therefore, it is clear that educational leadership is important to facilitate the success of a school, students’ performance, and the economy. Instructional leadership stands for a school or institutional leaders’ behaviours (Hoy, Hoffman, Sabo and Bliss, 1996). Hoy, Hoffman, Sabo, and Bliss (1996) claim that instructional leadership has various dimensions. In this regard, an instructional leader can define as well as communicate and share objectives or goals. They can also provide and monitor learning and teaching processes. Further, through instructional leadership, professional development is promoted in the entire school.

An instructional leader often encourages his or her co-workers to know more about the achievements of their students through analysis of data and offers opportunities for professional development which coincide with their school goals (Hoy, Hoffman, Sabo, & Bliss, 1996). Instructional Leadership establishes a connection between student achievement and teaching. Extended research encourages the vision of the importance of educational leadership as an element of a successful school (Department of Education and Training, 2005). Under instructional leadership, there are theories that leader teachers can apply to ensure a student centred learning and the success of their institutions.

There are various instructional leadership models which were proposed by Gunter (2009). These instructional leadership models can be implemented in education to facilitate the success of schools. One of the models under instructional leadership which Gunter (2009) highlighted which is preferred in westernized democracies is the instrumental leadership model. This model offers an approach which is effective and is a culture that allows performance management that is site-based and is functional. In this model, holders of various posts are considered leaders and the effective leaders’ behaviours become defined making it a popular model in management (Halpin, 1990).

The scientific model estimates the causal effect of head-teachers as post holders or leaders on functions, follower behaviour, emotions, and on student learning outcomes. Therefore, the approach makes it possible to acquire statistical evidence on the relationship between practice and policy. This approach backs leadership abstraction skills and attributes which can become instrumental via listing the effective measures in bullet points thereby providing a snapshot of what is essential or useful (Halpin, 1990). Gunter (2009: 95) says that ‘‘the instrumental model offers a cultures and an effective systems that enable site-based management of performance that can be operationalized.’’

Gunter (2009) also provided a suitable policy formulation strategy under the transformational leadership model. Gunter (2009) claims that this instructional leadership approach is the preferred approach in England as it puts its focus on head-teachers with a vision as well as those can develop follower commitment. Forde et al. (2000) also claim that currently, there is an increased emphasis put on the application of knowledge production and theories which has resulted in the promotion of instructional leadership models and research which are based on what works.

Creation of knowledge also is increasingly becoming based on commercial consultancies instead of research professionals in colleges or schools. Gunter (2009) points out the humanistic position that is based upon an epistemology of biographical narrative via which school heads can tell their stories about how it feels like to be leaders as well as exercise instructional leadership within a specific setting in a given period (Tomlinson et al., 1999). Additionally, Day et al. (2000) claim that using instructional leadership models, the experienced, the dilemmas and tension which head-teacher encountered in their work get revealed. This model is used to offer case studies which can help improve education Standards (Day et al., 2000).

However, because the current policy emphasis is put on action, contextual and longitudinal professional experiences are viewed as too immeasurable and subjective to improve educational standards (Day et al., 2000). Another instructional model is the crucial-model that is based on social sciences to evaluate the relationship between structures and the role of a firm (Gunter, 2009). This model allows educators to reflect on their practise and their future activities. Therefore, they can relate their actions to the larger picture outside their current activities. Gunter (2009) says that through the issues of power and professional practise, teachers can refuse, interpret, and generate different measures and alternatives of working besides those prescribed by the government (Gunter, 2009).

Besides the instructional leadership models highlighted by Gunter (2009), which are proving to be essential for educators in establishing a successful learning process, Bush (2007) analysed various educational theories which are also helpful in developing a learner centred and holistic teacher practise. One of these theories is the instructional leadership theory. According to Bush (2007), instructional leadership not only increases its emphasis on managing learning but also promotes teaching as the main activity for schools.

This is a centred learning kind of leadership theory. Instructional leadership commonly leaders mainly concentrate on their behaviour when they are taking part in activities which directly affects student growth (Bush, 2007; Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach 1999). The word ‘instructional leadership’ here represents leadership which is learner centred. According to Rhodes and Brundrett (2010), instructional leadership has the potential to influence student and school outcomes. Using this approach, teachers explore the shift from an instructional type of leadership which promotes teaching quality, to a kind of leadership that fosters learning and incorporates a variety of leadership activities to support learning and the results which are attained. Instructional leadership here represents giving attention to learning (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009).

According to MacBeath and Dempster (2009) instructional leadership is based on a distributed leadership which involves shared stress. Instructional leadership is the opposite of centric leadership. Instructional leadership also focuses on learning. Leadership for learning and instructional leadership focus primarily on the purpose and direction of leaders and focuses on student learning through their teachers (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009). Another theory under instructional leadership as proposed by Bush (2007) is managerial leadership. In this model, leaders focus on tasks, behaviours, and functions of their employees.

The success caused by the functions one employee in the firm also facilitates the success in the activities of other employees at the workplace. Bush (2007: 395) says that managerial leadership considers the characteristics or behaviour of firm members to be significantly rational. According to Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999), influence comes mostly from the formal leadership based on the status of individuals occupying various organisational positions. Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) claim that power that comes from occupied positions in collaboration with formal procedures and policies entails managerial leadership.

Bush (2007) also pointed out another form of instructional leadership theory known as transformational leadership where the main focus is the capacities and commitments of all the workers. Higher personal commitment levels to the firm’s goals and meeting targets can result not only in high productivity but also in extra effort (Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach 1999). According to Kirkbride (2006), there is a relationship between the effectiveness of leadership and this transformational model. This model offers a normative method of school leadership (Kirkbridge, 2006). The approach concentrates on the procedure which leaders can follow to achieve better results in their schools instead of the direction or nature of outcomes.

Other instructional leadership theories worth noting as proposed by Bush (2007) are the authentic and moral leadership which concentrate on the beliefs, ethics, and values leaders hold. These theories propose that the influence and authority should come from conceptions which are defensible and on the right thing (Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach, 1999). This approach assumes that all leaders follow integrity drawn on professional and personal values. Bush (2007: 396) says that this leadership form involves leaders who are more concerned about the capacities and commitments of their workers. In this regard, they can inform their school’s mission and vision as they underpin these virtues in decision-making processes.

Furthermore, Bush (2007) discussed the distributive leadership approach which is also under instructional leadership and focuses on involving professionals wherever they are in the organisation instead of seeking their roles or formal position. According to Harris (2004), successful head-teachers recognise weaknesses within the singular leadership model. They thus adopt a type of leadership which allows joint or collaborative working. Furthermore, Bush (2007) pointed out the teacher leadership concept where active steps are required to develop teams and assign each teacher a role. A culture of collaboration and trust is essential in this concept.

The model leads to the formation of a vision that is shared and a clear management structure with robust programs of leadership management. Moreover, there is the system leadership approach through which schools are portrayed as units that are independent or prime inside a structure which is hierarchical. Hargreaves (2010) claim that this model focuses on schools self-improvement particularly on their leadership systems. Through system leadership, leaders or educators can extend beyond the schools they work. Lastly under instructional leadership, Bush (2007) highlighted contingent leadership which considers the response of leaders as being the important.

This last theory focuses on how individuals respond to unique organisational problems or circumstances. Bush (2007) says that there are various leadership contexts which can challenge the efficiency of a leader. Therefore, leaders need different responses during such challenging circumstances. In this regard, leadership need efficient problem diagnosis followed by appropriate response to the situation (Morgan, 1997). Bush (2007: 402) claims that ‘‘this approach assumes that what is important is how leaders respond to the unique organizational circumstances or problems.’’

As a teacher, I understand that teachers need these instructional leadership models and also need to be reflective regarding handling various challenges within the school. These models are essential especially when there are problems or leadership turbulence when a leader is in need of assessing situations carefully. These models can help leaders make relevant reactions to a situation appropriately instead of depending on conventional leadership models. Besides, leaders need contingent approaches which can aid in countering the normative characteristics of the other models. Leaders can thus respond appropriately by adopting the right model in their various schools particularly instructional leadership.

Besides the models proposed by Gunter (2009) and the instructional leadership theories proposed by Bush (2007), other researchers also discussed various instructional leadership theories. For instance, Stogdill (1948) provided some important models for teachers in establishing a leaner centred approach of teaching. Stogdill (1948) discussed the trait theory which demonstrated that the capacity of leadership is determined by an individual’s characteristics like intelligence, physical attributes, personality, temperament, skills, and motives. The trait theory focus mainly on differentiating non-leaders and leaders.

Additionally, there is the leadership behaviour model which provides the basis or framework for studying leaders’ behaviour. This approach hypothesises that leadership behaviours which are identifiable distinguishes an ineffective leader from an effective leader. The leadership behaviour conceptualisation is thus focused on two major characteristics: the first one is behaviours that are task oriented and those that are interpersonal relations oriented (Hoy and Miskel, 2000). There is also the effective leadership contingency theory which seeks to elaborate the intervening or moderating variables which showcase the behaviour of a leader across various circumstances (House, 1971).

This theory embraces traits of leadership, features of a circumstance as well as how the leader’s efficiency is affected by these situations. The path-goal approach also falls under instructional leadership theories as it elaborates how the behaviour of a leader affects the performance, motivation, and satisfaction of their subordinates (House, 1971). There is also the charismatic leadership approached formed by Max Weber (1974). Weber (1974) argued that charisma is a leader’s impact or influence on a follower’s view that a leader has exceptional qualities. Weber (1974) claims that charisma emerges when a leader is viewed as having exceptional qualities and offers a vision for a good future.

His or her followers are thus drawn to this leader, and they become loyal. Lastly, there is the transformational leadership proposed by Burns (1978). Transformational leadership entails a process through which followers and leaders motivate one another (Burns, 1978). Therefore, instructional leadership is an essential feature in an efficient or effective school or organisation. This note is also supported by Edmonds (1979). Furthermore, Bath (1990) argues that the head-teacher is essential to establishing an excellent learning institution. The educational program quality rely on the school head. Therefore, the school head or principal is the reason that teachers are either stifled or grow on their work.

The head-teacher, thus, remains a potent element in determining the climate of a school. Research on the effectiveness of schools reinforces these arguments as demonstrated by the various researchers and leadership models. Under instructional leadership, it is important for educator leaders and their institutions to develop visions and missions to be followed by every employee and learners as they try to meet their objectives. However, these visions and missions must be developed before they are followed. The Educational Leadership task force (2003) says that efficient instructional educational leaders can help the schools in which they work to formulate as well as endorse visions which embody good notions about learning and teaching.

School heads inspire others to fulfil their ambitious goals (The Educational Leadership, 2003). A school requires a vision which all of its members recognise as their growth direction and which inspires them to become better. An efficient vision announces to students and parents where they are headed as a team and why they should move together. With no vision, the school does not have direction. A common destination allows the stakeholders of a school to align the efforts of improvement (The Educational Leadership, 2003).

Therefore, creating a vision for the school is an essential responsibility for any head teacher or leader, and they need to invite others to participate in the development of this vision (The Educational Leadership, 2003). The Educational Leadership (2003) claim that since a vision is essential, it should be kept alive to get the most out of it. Further, all barriers that make it difficult to make the vision a vibrant and integral face of the entire school community should be removed. Peterson (1995) says that the mission brings schools to the desired destination or harbour. Peterson (1995) reports that it guides the organisation’s momentum and travel. Moreover, it provides educators with stronger motivation and parents a more unobstructed view of the values of their children’s school.

A common mission and clearer vision which identifies with the type of learning which is to be attained can aid keep the institution and its staff efforts as well as the students on the right course concerning objectives or goals (Peterson, 1995). Mission statements direct schools on how to act on their plans and achieve the vision. They prompt growth and change. The mission helps school leaders and their team determine if their planned actions are appropriate and are happening (Peterson, 1995). There are steps that teachers can follow in setting up routine in the classroom which can help in instructional leadership. Teachers first need to explain the intended routine to the class (Education.gov.gy. 2018).

Here students are told why the specific routine is essential and what they are expected to do. For instance, if a teacher wants students to enter quietly into the classroom and read a storybook in the morning, this ought to be explained to them particularly how this routine will help them start their day quickly. Education.gov.gy (2018) claim that without clarification, students might not understand what should be done and why it should be done.

Further, teachers are recommended to allow their students to ask questions concerning the expectations and the routine. Secondly, teachers should model their expectations. Teachers should act out their expectations in details like what students are expected of while undertaking the routine. The teacher needs to break their routine down. Each step of the routine and how it is completed must be outlined clearly. Thirdly, teachers should have their students practise the established routine. This can become achieved by selecting some well-behaved students to show how the routine is completed allowing the whole class to follow how these students complete it (Education.gov.gy. 2018).

Once each student understands the expectations, the entire class can now be allowed to practise the established routine. Younger students can benefit from finishing the developed routine in a stepwise manner before getting involved in the whole process. Teachers can then have all students to practise their routine until the entire class is comfortable to complete their routine without a teachers’ help (Education.gov.gy. 2018). Besides, teachers can then implement their routine each day once all students understand the process. Students can now be allowed to complete the routine each day.

As a teacher executes a particular routine, students should be reminded of the process and the expectations making the reminders as easy or less detailed to allow them to complete the tasks without help. The routine should then be reviewed appropriately. When the class is having challenges in remembering the routine or completing it, the expectations can be reviewed until it can become adequately completed. Looking at teachers as leaders, there are metaphors and theories used in this context. The traditional thought of educational leadership reviewed the role of the managers as a critical controller of school leadership and educational experiences (Education.gov.gy. 2018).

In recent years the concept of instructional leadership has changed from focusing on one person to a joint leadership among a group of people as (Lai, 2014) explained. Additionally, in school coordination’s the evolution of teacher leadership have been the “Distributed leadership” (Muijs and Harris, 2003). Therefore, it is hard to mention, “Distributed leadership” without teacher leadership which means the awareness of teachers about their effect at work and away from external authorities (Bush and Glover, 2014). Teacher Leadership has no limited time. It is about planning for the future in the moral attitude as Crowther (1997) explained.

It seems that educational instructional leadership is not exclusive to principles; it could be shared with teachers and school stuff, to raise the level of professionalism and creativity in the school. The school development is supported via teacher leadership in various fields. For examples, teaching skills and student achievement fields because teacher instructional leadership will influence student learning through the growth of teaching practices. As Poekert (2012) claimed, there is a reciprocal connection between teachers’ instructional leadership and evolution, so teacher instructional leadership is a reason and result of teacher growth. It is clear that teacher leadership demand the development of teacher effectiveness and provide chances for teachers to improve teaching and pupils’ learning.

Similar results were also found by Muijs and Harris (2003) who investigated the link between teacher leadership and pupils and found that teacher leadership is useful for pupils, teachers, and schools. To further elaborate on the importance of instructional leadership for teachers, I will discuss a famous poem translated from the Arabic language "Stand up for the teacher and glorify him, he could have been a messenger" according to (Shawqi, 1932). This section of poetry includes higher values that encourage knowledge and education and raises the teachers’ status among individuals.

Messenger is a metaphor in a sense, because it carries the message of knowledge and ethics, everyone who has this description is a messenger. In this sense, he must take responsibility for generations and teaching pupils’ rights and welfare. This is the case under instructional educational leadership. First, they needs knowledge and determining of values. Secondly, they need to collaborate with team members. Thirdly, they takes responsibility for the matters. Finally, they have problem-solving skills.

However, there are various barriers preventing teacher creativity and professionalism as well as stopping them from becoming instructional leaders. The first barrier is Performativity. There are three elements as Ball (2003) mentioned that control the educational reform and will create an advanced environment. For examples, performativity, market, and managerialism. The public sector is affected by performativity, which means: a new pattern of organization that requires practitioners to organize themselves as a response to goals and indicators to success (Ball, 2003). Therefore, a new political issue created a conflict between several parties to control governance and evaluation. I believe that these personal things are varying from one person to another.

They also vary according to the extent and pressure of the school principal to apply policies strictly without flexibility, personal inclination and the amount of love for work and desire, the level of ambition, mental and physical health. This is what we see from the disparity between teachers and the levels of variation of their professionalism and works. Neoliberalism is another barrier to instructional leadership. According to Ball (2006), there has been a lot of emphasis on driving competitiveness of the national economy as well as education standards in many states. Ball (2006) points out that there has been a need for regulating and monitoring teaching and schools in such systems. This notion has led to narrow accountability policies with stiff market competition among learning institutions.

This kind of framework in education where there are standardisation and blame is powerful in encouraging a quasi-market of education but is damaging and dangerous to values of education as it reduces the professional autonomy of teachers (Ball, 2006). Further, marketisation also affects teacher creativity and professionalism. Jarl, Fredriksson, and Persson (2012) claim that the current focus on market logic significance and bureaucratic logic work collaboratively in devaluing licensed autonomy and professionalism. The overall school choice and marketization outcomes have decreased teacher autonomy because of altered power relationships, diminished control and increased segregation. Hierarchy becomes strengthened where school heads get more power while the teacher’s professional judgement and independence are reduced.

Jarl, Fredriksson, and Persson (2012) say that professionalization increases power for principals as many governments support it at the expense of the power of teachers. For instance, alterations of pay and time regulations provide managers with priority regarding time distribution and salary setting interpretation to the extents which are unprecedented. Many teachers thus regard primary administrative systems as untrustworthy and arbitrary thus adding to the uncertainty caused by the quick change that is already taking place.

Another barrier to teachers’ professionalism and creativity is managerialism. Bates (1996) points out two ideologies linked to managerialism. The first one is effective management which can solve many problems. The second ideology is based on practises which are relevant for the private sector firms’ conduct which can also be used by public organisations. The results of managerialism comprise of reduced local control, increased labour force control, economic efficiency measurements, less emphasis on equitable access to empowered and quality teachers. The overburdening and hyper-rationalisation of schools with introduced accountability measures may reduce performance through decreasing the effort and time teacher spend in teaching.

Additionally, the impact of resource competition and market forces establish a social and cultural difference through punishing need via resource withdrawal and rewarding the lack of any specific need (Bates, 1996). Modernity also affects teachers’ creativity and professionalism significantly. McCabe (2017) claim that many students flourish within systems where they are now anonymously assessed through universal exams particularly those having financial means to access additional tuitions. However, these system serves to result in standardised curricula which develop the notion that information is hard and rare to acquire.

McCabe (2017) say that this notion is not real and that these tests create a culture where students assume that the real world will remain like it was in the past yet new trends and change majorly characterise the world. These exams that are standardised are thus one-dimensional and does not show the diversity of modern cultures as well as does not prepare the students for the real world with constant change. The increased pressure to go through many curricula at a high rate also means that professionals or teacher have to decide between the number of activities to cover and level of interaction with their students (McCabe, 2017).

Moreover, Professionalization also inhibit establishing instructional leadership. Burns (2015) says that it is hard to work in conditions with gender bias, low status and where teaching is done in a hierarchical manner. These conditions often force teachers to look for different working methods or alternatives or resist attempts to raise professionalism like professional development mainly where teachers do not get paid for extra effort or time covered in work. They may also reject these efforts when they view such professional developments as not leading in their improvement or promotion (Burns, 2015). Education systems that are rigid and hierarchical affect teachers through poor treatment and their voice and input are not heard.

The teacher’s concerns about their working conditions and safety are also dismissed. The lack of teacher professionalism usually demonstrates that the specific education systems lack professionalism. Teachers become exhausted by such systems and resist any systematic initiatives brought forward or the new ideas as they are more focused on emotional or physical survival in the many adversities in which they are working (Burns, 2015). Lastly, globalisation also hampers teacher professionalism and creativity significantly. According to Canli and Demirtaş (2017), teachers become affected by globalisation especially when it changes tasks and renders them ignorant and lack skills to carry out the new responsibilities brought by globalisation.

Some changes may not be transferred into practise making it hard for a teacher to carry out their duties (Canli and Demirtaş, 2017). Hanushek and Kimko (2000) found a relationship between educational leadership and the economy with particular interests in PISA exams. Hanushek and Kimko (2000) say that over the previous decade, growth in empirical studies has demonstrated that significant education quality measured through learned cognitive skills, changes the role of assessment of the economic development. When applying data from PISA or ‘international student achievement tests’ since 1991 to develop educational quality measures. Hanushek and Kimko (2000) say that an economically significant and positive effect is observed mainly because of the quality of education which has grown.

Hanushek and Kimko (2000) studied economic growth from 1960 to 1990 and claimed that this growth dwarfed the relationship between education quantity and growth. Hanushek and Kimko (2000) argue that concerning individual earnings the education, ignoring the differences in quality misses the real value of education for purposes of economic growth. Hanushek and Kimko (2000) demonstrated 47 test-score points on the 2000 PISA mathematics, a country-level standard deviation.

They say that this test performance can produce approximately 1% point more rates of annual growth. Additionally, the link between economic growth and rankings were demonstrated by Ramirez, Luo, Schofer, and Meyer (2006). These researchers confirmed that previous research on the relationship between international achievement rankings on science, mathematics and the future growth of the economy exist. On the other hand, studies conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau (2000) demonstrated that high levels of personal education equated to higher lifelong monetary earnings.

Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (2002) claim that personal income has averagely increased by 10% for each year of additional schooling. Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (2002) point out that for impoverished states, these earnings have been seen to increase by 20% for every year of additional schooling. Regarding the success of schools due to its leadership, Bush (2007) discussed various theories that can be applied in the institutions.

In conclusion, teachers needs a conducive working environment where they can interact freely with their students whenever they can and spend time with them as they offer teaching services to their students. Systems which give more power to school heads and deny teachers the power to conduct their activities freely within the requirements of their profession not only limit their creativity and professionalism but also fail to prepare students sufficiently. These systems also do not prepare them to take on challenges they will face in the real world. These issues have been demonstrated by the above barriers which limit teacher creativity and professionalism. In summary, school heads or principals can adopt various instructional models of leadership to ensure the success of their schools.

Furthermore, teachers ought to develop learner-centred classroom routines and ensure that students follow them to achieve success by understanding the importance of the created routines. School head and teachers also need to understand the barriers of teacher creativity and professionalism whenever intending to create an enabling teaching and learning environment for both teachers and students.

References

• Ball, A.F., 2006. Introduction. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105(2), pp.1-13.
• Ball, S.J., 2003. The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18(2), pp.215-228.
• Bates, M.J., 1996. Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary scholars and students.
• Bath, C., 2009. Learning to belong: exploring young children's participation at the start of school. Routledge.
• Brundrett, M. and Rhodes, C., 2010. Leadership for quality and accountability in education. Routledge.
• Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership. NY.
• Bush, T. and Glover, D., 2014. School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), pp.553-571.
• Bush, T., 1998. The National Professional Qualification for Headship: the key to effective school leadership? School Leadership & Management, 18(3), pp.321-333.
• Bush, T., 2007. Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy and practice. South African journal of education, 27(3), pp.391-406.
• Bush, T., Bell, L. and Middlewood, D., 2010. The principles of educational leadership & management. Sage Publications.
• Canlı, S. and Demirtaş, H., 2017. The Impact of Globalization on Teaching Profession: The Global Teacher. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(1), pp.80-95.
• Collinson, D. and Lancaster University Management School. Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), 2007. Researching leadership in the learning and skills sector: by the sector, on the sector, for the sector: volume.
• Crowther, F., 1997. Teachers as leaders-an exploratory framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(1), pp.6-13.
• Cuban, L., 1988. The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Suny Press.
• Day, D.V., 2000. Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), pp.581-613.
• Department of Education and Training, 2005. Department of Education and Training |. Available at: https://www.education.gov.au/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018].
• Edmonds, R., 1979. Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational leadership, 37(1), pp.15-24.
• Education.gov.gy, 2018. How to Establish Classroom Routines. Available at: https://education.gov.gy/web/index.php/teachers/tips-for-teaching/item/1886-how-to-establish-classroom-routines [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018].
• Ellen McCabe, 2017. Our rigid education system is killing creativity in the classroom. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/our-rigid-education-system-is-killing-creativity-in-the-classroom-1.3244672. [Accessed 8th Dec 2018]
• Gronn, P. and Ribbins, P., 1996. Leaders in context: Post positivist approaches to understanding educational leadership. Educational administration quarterly, 32(3), pp.452-473.
• Gunter, H., 2009. Critical approaches to leadership in education. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), pp.1-9.
• Halpin, D., 1990. The sociology of education and the national curriculum. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(1), pp.21-35.
• Hanushek, E.A. and Kimko, D.D., 2000. Schooling, labour-force quality, and the growth of nations. American economic review, 90(5), pp.1184-1208.
• Hargreaves, A., 2010. Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: The legacy of Dan Lortie’s schoolteacher: A sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), pp.143-154.
• Harris, A., 2004. Teacher leadership and distributed leadership: An exploration of the literature. Leading and managing, 10(2), p.1.
• House, R.J., 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, pp.321-339.
• Hoy and Miskel, 2000. Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Hoy, W.K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D. and Bliss, J., 1996. The organizational climate of middle schools: The development and test of the OCDQ-RM. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), pp.41-59.
• Jarl, M., Fredriksson, A. and Persson, S., 2012. New public management in public education: A catalyst for the professionalization of Swedish school principals. Public administration, 90(2), pp.429-444.
• Kirkbride, P., 2006. Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in action. Industrial and commercial training, 38(1), pp.23-32.
• Lai, E., 2014. Principal leadership practices in exploiting situated possibilities to build teacher capacity for change. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(2), pp.165-175
• Leadwood and Steinbac, 2002. A reinforcement-learning approach to power management (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
• Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D., 2006. What it is and how it influences pupil learning.
• Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R. and Jantzi, D., 2002. School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), pp.94-119.
• Lumby, J., Walker, A., Bryant, M., Bush, T. And Björk, L.G., 2009. Research on leadership preparation in a global context. In Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 171-208). Routledge.
• MacBeath, J. and Dempster, N., 2009. Connecting leadership and learning: principles for practice.
• Mary Burns, 2015. Not all barriers can always be addressed, but some can. https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/4-barriers-teachers-professional-development-fragile-contexts. [Accessed 8th Dec 2018]
• Max Weber 1974. The Theory of Modern Politics. London: Allen & Unvvin.
• Morgan, D.C., 1997. Finding a Constitutionally Permissible Path to Sex Equality: The Young Women's Leadership School of East Harlem. NYL Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 14, p.95.
• Muijs, D. and Harris, A., 2003. Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management & Administration, 31(4), pp.437-448.
• Peterson, M.W., 1995. Images of university structure, governance and leadership: Adaptive strategies for the new environment. Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly, pp.140-158.
• Poekert, P.E., 2012. Teacher leadership and professional development: Examining links between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional development in education, 38(2), pp.169-188.
• Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H., 2002. Returns to investment in education: a further update World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2881. World Bank: Washington.
• Ramirez, F.O., Luo, X., Schofer, E. and Meyer, J.W., 2006. Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113(1), pp.1-29.
• Robinson, V., 2007. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: Making sense of the evidence.
• Rose 1989. Nationwide survey of postsecondary education services for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 56(3), pp.236-245.
• Shawqī, A., 1932. Aswāq al-dhahab. Maṭbaʻat al-Hilāl.
• Stogdill, R.M., 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of psychology, 25(1), pp.35-71.
• The Educational Leadership, 2003. Archived Educational Leadership. Available at: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/archived-issues.aspx [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018].
• Tomlinson, J., 1999. Globalization and culture. University of Chicago Press.
• Tranter, S., 2000. From teacher to middle manager: Making the next step. Pearson Education.
• U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Census 2000 Gateway - U.S. Census Bureau. Census.gov. Available at: https://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018].
• Weber, 1974. The Bosses. Forum Press.