Abstract:
There is an accumulating body of critical educational leadership scholarship (Gunter, 1997, 2001; Thrupp & Willmott, 2003) that shows that the prevailing model of leadership is still that of the single and “single-minded principal” (Thomson, 2004). As such, it has “a pervasive instrumental rationality, which treats people as means to the ends of organizational and societal systems” (Woods & Gronn, 2009, p. 447). In this context, differing views are seen as resistance with a sense of “failure” reflected in the absence of harmony and a nagging doubt for principals about their own practice and effectiveness in the role. The view of the “single leader” assumes a level of harmony and agreement that underestimates the divergence and diverse views and perspectives of staff. A range of business strategies and techniques are used to “manage” educational issues in a way that is largely uncritical and unproblematic, assuming harmony and minimising the ability of people to challenge institutionalised expectations. Leadership here is “something that is done to someone else, whether they like it or not” (Gronn, 1996 p.21), “something performed by superior, better individuals … and as something done to or for other inferior, lesser people” (p.12).
Rather than being dominated by business management concepts which obscure the educative character of the work of the school principal, being an educational leader means being both educative and pedagogic (Evans, 1999 p.xiii). It might be more important to find “a way of empowering teachers to develop in autonomous ways … as a consequence of dialoguing, intellectualising and theorising about their work” (Smyth, 1985 p.186). Through an Arendtian lens, I argue that the recognition of the plurality of teachers is essential for acting “in concert” (Arendt, 1958 p.179) in a space for ongoing dialogue and thinking, which is how teacher professional learning might be seen—supported by teachers “who are themselves trusted and respected partners in the educational process” which is both “conceived and implemented in dialogue with teachers” (Hart et al., 2004 p.266).
Educational leadership, then might be seen as bringing communities together to discuss what education might mean (Coulter & Wiens, 1999 p.7) and cultivating a democratic, dialogic public space (Wiens, 2000 p.300) which includes thinking and judging in relation to the common project: the responsibility for preparing young people for renewing a common world (Arendt, 1961 p.196).
Rather than being dominated by business management concepts which obscure the educative character of the work of the school principal, being an educational leader means being both educative and pedagogic (Evans, 1999 p.xiii). It might be more important to find “a way of empowering teachers to develop in autonomous ways … as a consequence of dialoguing, intellectualising and theorising about their work” (Smyth, 1985 p.186). Through an Arendtian lens, I argue that the recognition of the plurality of teachers is essential for acting “in concert” (Arendt, 1958 p.179) in a space for ongoing dialogue and thinking, which is how teacher professional learning might be seen—supported by teachers “who are themselves trusted and respected partners in the educational process” which is both “conceived and implemented in dialogue with teachers” (Hart et al., 2004 p.266).
Educational leadership, then might be seen as bringing communities together to discuss what education might mean (Coulter & Wiens, 1999 p.7) and cultivating a democratic, dialogic public space (Wiens, 2000 p.300) which includes thinking and judging in relation to the common project: the responsibility for preparing young people for renewing a common world (Arendt, 1961 p.196).