conceptualizing teacher leadership in a chinese, policy-driven context: a research agenda

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 10 November 2014, At: 22:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An International Journalof Research, Policy and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20

Conceptualizing teacher leadershipin a Chinese, policy-driven context: aresearch agendaDora Ho a & Leon Paul Tikly ba Hong Kong Institute of Education , Tai Po, NT, Hong Kong SAR ,Chinab University of Bristol , Bristol , UKPublished online: 22 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Dora Ho & Leon Paul Tikly (2012) Conceptualizing teacher leadershipin a Chinese, policy-driven context: a research agenda, School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 23:4, 401-416, DOI:10.1080/09243453.2012.678861

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678861

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09243453.2012.678861

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678861

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Conceptualizing teacher leadership in a Chinese, policy-driven context:

a research agenda

Dora Hoa* and Leon Paul Tiklyb

aHong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China; bUniversity of Bristol,Bristol, UK

In recent years, the Western discourse on distributed leadership has attractedincreased attention in Chinese societies that have traditionally relied on highlycentralized administrative systems in which power is located in the person of theschool principal or other unit leader. This article explores the implications ofapplying the concept of distributed leadership in a Chinese context and outlines aresearch agenda for future work in this area. The article focuses specifically onteacher leadership in early childhood education in Hong Kong as an illustrativecase. It suggests that change agentry, collaboration, collegiality, power, andauthority are key aspects of discourse on teacher leadership in a Chinese, policy-driven context. It is argued that existing studies of leadership have failed torecognize the complexity of employing teacher leadership in hierarchical, policy-driven, high power distance, collectivist cultural contexts.

Keywords: Chinese culture; early childhood education; teacher leadership

Introduction

The international literature on educational leadership is moving beyond a focus on asingle head and towards multiple leaders (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford,2000; Gronn, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 2003; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008;Murphy, 2005; Ngcobo &Tikly, 2010). The promotion of decentralized, democratic,and inclusive forms of leadership is often associated with school improvement (e.g.,Leithwood, Mascall, & Strauss, 2009; Macbeath & Cheng, 2008). In the global age,the governments of East Asian countries, such as China, including Hong Kong,Japan, South Korea, and Singapore have initiated educational reforms to equip theirfuture generations of youth for participation in a new knowledge-based economy(Carnoy, 2003; P. Chen, 2008; Cheng, 2003, 2005; Mok, 2006).

Educational reform is a long-term process that attempts to bring about asystemic change in educational practices for sustainable outcomes. To this end,many countries in the Asia Pacific region have sought to apply ideas developed inWestern, developed countries, including the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia. Forexample, many of these Asian countries have identified strategies to promote

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Vol. 23, No. 4, December 2012, 401–416

ISSN 0924-3453 print/ISSN 1744-5124 online

� 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678861

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

distributed leadership as part of the educational reform agenda (Hallinger, Walker,& Bajunid, 2005). Teacher leadership can be understood as a useful example ofdistributed leadership. As educational models are culture bound (Dimmock &Walker, 2000; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998; Hallinger et al., 2005), these Westernexperiences must be critically reviewed if they are to be successfully adapted for otherpolitical and cultural contexts. This article explores the implications of applying themodel of teacher leadership in Hong Kong and sets out a research agenda for futurework in this area.

Teacher leadership in Hong Kong early childhood education is used as anillustrative case for discussion. First, the background of local early childhoodeducation will be introduced in order to elaborate on its features as a Chinesecultural context for leadership practice. Second, the construct of teacher leadership isexamined through a critical review of recent research. We argue that existingperspectives on distributed leadership fail to recognize the complexity of teacherleadership that is driven by educational reform policies and shaped by hierarchical,high power distance, collectivist cultural norms. These are the two sources ofinfluence that must be investigated in order to develop a more comprehensiveglobally relevant model of teacher leadership.

Hong Kong early childhood education as a context for leadership

In this section of the article, we describe the context for our analysis of teacherleadership practice. The key features around which we organize this analysis ofcontext are Chinese culture, educational reform policies, and professionalsocialization.

Chinese culture

Recent literature on school effectiveness indicates societal culture has a directinfluence on organizational culture, leadership practice, and organizationalprocesses. Culture has been defined in many ways. Schein (2004) provides a widelyrecognized definition of culture as

. . . a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved itsproblems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enoughto be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way toperceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 17).

As such, societal culture refers to a set of values, beliefs, assumptions, andpractices that is shared by members in the society; and organizational culture referslargely to a specific organization’s norms and practices which are products of theseshared values and belief systems (Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars, 1994; Walker &Kwan, 2010). Recent studies have attempted to understand the leadershipphenomenon in terms of some assumptions related to societal and organizationalculture, the interaction between the two (e.g., Cheng, Mok, & Chow, 2003). Asubstantial body of literature on school leadership documented the links betweensocietal and organizational culture (e.g., Walker, Hallinger, & Qian, 2007). Asidentified by Hofstede (2001), there are four cultural dimensions across nations inaccordance with specific values and expectations: individualism versus collectivism,masculinity versus femininity, tolerance versus intolerance of uncertainty, and power

402 D. Ho and L.P. Tikly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

distance versus power equalization. Research on school leadership in Asian countrieshas identified high power distance and collectivism as cultural forces influencing thedevelopment of distributed leadership at the school level (Hallinger et al., 2005).These Asian countries, such as Japan, Singapore, Korea, and China, including HongKong, share the same cultural heritage of Confucianism. For the root cause, it isimportant to discuss how Confucianism as a cultural factor influences the aspects ofpower distribution and in-group interpersonal relationship in the process ofimplementing teacher leadership in Hong Kong early childhood education. Thesetwo aspects of cultural force are discussed in turn below.

The current trend of globalization has set up a new focus for deliberation in thecultural aspect of leadership power. According to Hofstede (2010), power distancerefers to ‘‘the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations andinstitutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally’’. Hofstede andBond (1988) suggest that the hierarchical relationship among people is a core valueof Confucianism. The Five Codes of Ethics, Wu Lun, proposed by Confucius, is thebasic principle that regulates human relationships. It refers to ‘‘the relationshipbetween: ruler/subject, father/son, husband/wife, older brother/younger brother, andfriends’’. These relationships are assumed to be hierarchical and complementary(G.M. Chen & Chung, 1994, p. 95). The application of Wu Lun to the organizationalmanagement leads to paternalistic relationships (Hwang, 1989). Subordinates areexpected to owe their leaders respect and obedience; and leaders owe theirsubordinates consideration and protection. Elements of this leadership style havebeen generally found to be pervasive in Hong Kong society (Cheng, 2000). Thus, anoteworthy feature of local school culture is high power distance (Dimmock &Walker, 2000). The School Management Initiatives issued by the Education Bureau(formerly the Education Manpower Branch and Education Department) in 1991described the leadership style of school principals as hierarchical and centralized.The document stated that some principals perceived their post as an opportunity toexercise dictatorial power in school. The high degree of authority is vested in thehead, and orders are passed down through hierarchical structures. This feature isdescribed as one of characteristics of bureaucracy (Hoyle, 1996). Althoughpreschools have relatively few bureaucratic structures, they are administered inbureaucratic style because of the general culture of education in Hong Kong. Thepolicy document advocated a more participative style of leadership. Over the past 20years, there has not been much change in leadership practice in early childhoodeducation. Several local studies have confirmed that the exercise of school leadershipis highly centralized in a single headship (Lee & Yin, 2007; Wong, 2003). Ho (2010a)also found that the hierarchical superior/subordinate relationship existed in localpreschools; and the centralized power and authority held by the school principalswas uncritically accepted by their subordinates. After 1997, the Hong Konggovernment made efforts to speed up the pace of upgrading teacher education andqualifications. All preschool teachers will have received professional training athigher diploma level, and all principals will be qualified at degree level by 2011–2012.Receiving more professional training and higher qualifications, preschool teachershave become aware of their leading roles and responsibilities in the educationalprocess. Teacher participation in decision making is therefore more complicated anddynamic in local preschools, where the professional autonomy of teachers is oftenundermined by the centralized leadership style of the school principal. The preschoolteachers’ desire for greater autonomy and the principals’ leadership practice in a

School Effectiveness and School Improvement 403

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

top-down style create tensions that make the process of curriculum change acomplex one.

Closely coupled with high power distance culture, collectivism as an importanttraditional aspect of Chinese culture is rooted in the pervasive influence ofConfucius. The respect for formal authority is characterized by complete devotion tothe leader and acknowledgement of the need to work collaboratively amongsubordinates. Collectivism versus its opposite, individualism, refers to ‘‘the degree towhich individuals are integrated into groups’’ (Hofstede, 2010). Drawing onHofstede’s definition, Dimmock and Walker (1998) use the notion of collectivismto address the in-group relationship in organizational life. ‘‘In collectivist societies,people place group goals above their personal goals; they are brought up to be loyaland integrate in strong cohesive groups’’ (p. 560). Collectivism is like social cementthat fixes members of a group in the structure of hierarchical relationships. In thecontext of education, Cheng (1996) argues that ‘‘the appreciation of the collectivewell-being and submission of individual freedom to the collective good’’ is evident inEast Asian schools (p. 97). Collectivism is characterized by harmony building,relationship maintenance, and group cohesiveness (Felfe, Yan, & Six, 2008). Aterritory-wide survey on Hong Kong preschools conducted by Opper in 1992indicated that 84% of teachers indicated their relationship with the children was thearea of greatest job satisfaction, followed by social relations with colleagues for 69%.The findings suggested that preschool teachers value the close relationship with theircolleagues. Over the past 2 decades, collectivism can be still employed as a usefulconcept for interpreting relationships between and among people in local context ofearly childhood education. For example, case studies of two local preschoolsconducted by Ho (2012) indicated that the power was not equally shared between theschool principals and teachers. The school principals leveraged harmoniousrelationships as a power source to bring to the surface conflicts and support moralefor collective actions while the teachers subordinated themselves to the group as afocal social unit and demonstrated a high level of group cohesiveness. As discussedin detail in the next section, the Guide to Pre-Primary Curriculum issued by theEducation Bureau (2006) demanded a change in the role of teachers for greaterresponsibility for leading curriculum change. A practice of teacher leadership istherefore emerging in the local context of early childhood education. Redistributingpower and authority in school’s hierarchical structures has been the subject of muchdebate ever since. In discussing teacher participation in decision making, Ho (2010b)argues that collegial relationships in such participative processes are no longersimply social. Teachers need to deal with differences in opinions, or even conflicts,between and among their colleagues. To minimize the risk of collegial disfavor, theytend to use avoidance, compromise, and compliance as strategies to prevent anddiffuse conflicts. However, the notion of teacher leadership promotes democraticpractices in decision-making processes through which teachers have the right tovoice out individual concerns and allow others to share insight and ideas. In nature,democratic participation entails a large amount of independence, liberty, socialequity, and self-direction. This raises questions around how teacher leadership as aform of democratic participation for curriculum change is interpreted and developedin local preschools where they are predominated by the ideologies of collectivism.

In particular, we attempt to highlight two important issues relevant to earlychildhood education in Hong Kong. The first issue is ‘‘voice’’, relating to the abilityof teachers to engage in meaningful discussion and the opportunity given to diverse


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

individuals to make themselves heard. This is closely linked to how multiple viewsand interests can be recognised and contribute to decision making in the traditionalpower structures and collectivist culture in local preschools. The second issue is thetension that arises from the adversarial process in democratic participation, whichrelates to the potential conflict arising from a clash of interests, values, views, ordirections. Situations of conflict may result in negative and/or positive effects. Howthat dialectic is addressed and managed is critical to the development of teacherleadership in local preschools, where harmonious relationships are often used as asource to resolve conflicts. Therefore, the process and practice of decision making forcurriculum change should be scrutinised in order to systematically depict thephenomenon of teacher leadership mediated by collectivism in local preschools. Thiswill be discussed in the last section of this article.

Educational reform policies

Both global and local forces have long been shaping the development of education inHong Kong (Cheng, 1999, 2003). The result has been a hybridized organizationalcontext in which predominantly Western-oriented reforms have been implemented ina Chinese cultural context (Cheng, 2005; Dimmock & Walker, 2005; Lam, 2003;Law, 2004; Mok, 2006). These include reforms such as student-centered learning,school-based management, and school self-evaluation. While this is not uniqueduring this era of globalization, Hong Kong’s location as a crossroad between theEast and West has traditionally made it one of the early adopters of Westerneducational reforms in East Asia. Thus, for example, school-based management wasfirst initiated in Hong Kong as early as 1991 (Cheng, 1999; Hallinger, 1998).

These characterizations are equally true with respect to early childhoodeducation in Hong Kong. In recent years, the quality of local preschools hasbecome a major concern of policymakers. The search for quality education haspresented new challenges for preschool principals and teachers. Influenced byWestern ideologies of decentralization in education, the Education Bureau has overthe last decade initiated policy-driven change in all levels of school education,including early childhood education. Since 2000, a number of reform policies havebeen brought forward for enhancing the quality of service provision (Cheng, 2005).These policies include issuing a curriculum guide, implementing a quality assurancemechanism, and introducing an education voucher scheme. They have a commonfocus on driving changes in local preschools and promoting teacher leadership as asolution for school improvement, and this is set out either explicitly or implicitly inthese policy documents. These three policies will be examined in detail.

Over the past few decades, there has been a shift from a centrally determinedcurriculum towards the structural decentralization that has been associated witheducational reform in many English-speaking countries, such as the UK, the USA,Canada, and Australia (Abu-Duhou, 1999; Cheng, 2003, 2005). This trend has beenknown as school-based curriculum development. As defined by Skilbeck (2005) in hisrecent work, school-based curriculum development means ‘‘that major decisionsabout the design, content, organization, and presentation of the curriculum, aboutpedagogy and about assessment of learning will be taken at the school level’’ (p.118). Adopting the ideology of structural decentralization of curriculum selection,the Education Bureau (2006) issued a Guide to the Pre-Primary Curriculum. Thedocument addresses the importance of the philosophies of child-centeredness and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

learning through play, and the particular form and content of education tailored tothe needs and interests of individual children. Preschools are urged to develop theirown curriculum based on the Guide and to involve teachers in workingcollaboratively for curriculum change, instead of relying on the learning packagessupplied by local publishers. In response to the new curriculum policy, manykindergarten principals have set up functional groups of teachers to coordinate andlead curriculum change. In order to support local preschools in this policy initiative,the Education Bureau set up a Pre-Primary Education Support Team in 2006 tocoordinate and promote partnership between local preschools and higher educationinstitutions. Through the scheme of university-school support programmes, servicesare hired from higher education institutions to provide consultancy support forindividual schools on quality improvement. With consultancy support from thehigher education institutions, a practice of teacher leadership is emerging in HongKong early childhood education.

To accelerate the pace of quality improvement, the new curriculum policy isclosely coupled with the implementation of two other reform policies, namely theQuality Review (QR) and Pre-Primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS). TheEducation Bureau (2000) published the first edition of Performance Indicators in2000 with the purpose of assuring the quality of local preschools. Schoolperformance is graded at four levels through external school inspection:unsatisfactory, acceptable, good, and excellent. The summary reports of qualityassurance inspections are published to inform the public of the general performanceof the schools inspected. In addition to the external school inspection, the EducationBureau piloted the QR in 2004 and formally implemented it in 2007. The QR is builton the work of quality assurance inspection with use of the Performance Indicators.It aims to nurture a quality culture and promote continuous self-improvement inlocal preschools. Under the QR, schools must carry out self-evaluation and compiletheir school reports and annual school plans for validation by the Education Bureau.All preschools are required to make their QR reports accessible to the public, so thatparents have up-to-date information when making school choices. The new qualityassurance policy demands a more stringent standard in the quality of serviceprovision. It advocates active participation of various school stakeholders indecision-making processes, and, in particular, teacher involvement in all aspects ofschool operation is identified as a critical factor for effective management and qualityimprovement. We note the similarity of these recent reforms to those beingimplemented at other levels of schools education in Hong Kong (Cheng, 2005;Cheng & Walker, 2008).

In the past, early childhood education in Hong Kong was not a subsidized sector.The local government’s control of the monitoring of service quality was thereforehighly constrained. Service providers merely needed to comply with the statutoryrequirements for school operation, such as registration, safety, sanitation, and staffqualifications. They were not obliged to follow the Education Bureau’s recommen-dations on programme quality. To a certain extent, the preschool sector has beensubject to laissez-faire attitudes.

The introduction of the PEVS in 2007 by the local government was linked withthe new curriculum policy and quality review framework. This represents a majorpolicy shift from minimal intervention to legitimized control. Under the PEVS,direct fee subsidies are provided for parents with young children, from the age of 3 to6, who attend preschools. Parents can use the vouchers as payment for schooling


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

from eligible preschools. Only those preschools that have met the prescribedstandards set out by the Education Bureau may redeem the vouchers. All localpreschools are private, and most rely on fees for their funding. For most preschools,qualifying for the PEVS is critical to their survival, as is demonstrated by the factthat 802 out of 907 preschools had already joined the PEVS by 2010. Strategically,the implementation of PEVS is a move to increase the government’s control ofstandards and to engage the preschools in a change process. As a consequence of thisreform, it is imperative for those schools joining the PEVS to give teachers greaterresponsibility in coordinating and leading changes for school improvement.

Professional socialization

Education in Hong Kong has long been characterized by a centralized and top-downstyle of leadership which reflects the organizational culture of Hong Kong schools(Dimmock & Walker, 2005; Lam, 2003; Mok, 2006). In discussing leadershippractice in preschool settings, it is necessary to examine its historical roots, in orderto understand the formation and nature of the organizational context in a deeperand more complex way. For this, professional socialization is an area in particularthat needs to be addressed.

This analysis of professional socialization focuses on the ways that teachers andleaders learn their roles in the school culture of the Hong Kong education system. Ingeneral, professional socialization refers to how novices are inducted into a commoncore of professional values, norms, and role definitions (Barretti, 2004). Professionalpreparation is one of the critical factors shaping the process of developing anindividual’s understanding of what it means to be a professional (Barr, 2000). Theway that local preschool teachers are socialized into their profession affects theirattitudes toward professional autonomy. In the past, those who had 9 years of basiceducation could register as permitted teachers in preschools without any formalprior training. That is to say, no professional preparation was required for entry intothe teaching career. The professional entry requirement was not raised to 1 year offull-time pre-service training until 2003. The majority of preschool teachers wereoriginally ‘‘trained’’ in a modified form of apprenticeship (Ho, 2006, p. 307). Theirpractice was largely drawn from the experiences of those serving in the front line.The process of learning to become a teacher seldom required novice teachers toexercise independent judgment. Preschool teachers therefore are not fully aware ofthe importance of their own participation in curriculum and pedagogical decisionmaking for student outcomes. They often perceive their roles and responsibilities tobe limited to implementing the curriculum plan imposed by the school management.They seldom think that the meaning of professionalism entails a sense of self-direction, independence, and autonomy (Freidson, 2001).

With this mindset, preschool teachers tend to uncritically accept the centralizedpower and authority exercised by school principals. On the other hand, many schoolprincipals use a top-down approach in decision making. For example, manypreschool principals tailor the curriculum to the preferences of parents by usinglearning packages produced by local publishers. Teacher participation in decision-making processes is restricted by the hierarchical structure. The current situationremains more or less the same, despite the pace of upgrading teacher qualifications inrecent years. Li (2006) found that the majority of local preschool principals andteachers involved in his study were using learning packages rather than developing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

their own school-based curriculum. The respondents stated that lack of curriculumexpertise and an absence of effective support from school management were thebarriers to school-based curriculum development. This reflects the fact thatpreschool teachers who have been professionally trained might still perceive theirrole to be one of merely implementing curriculum plans, and school managementcannot effectively empower teachers or provide them with greater control over theeducational process. These mutually reinforced perceptions and practices have aprofound influence on shaping teacher leadership for curriculum change in HongKong early childhood education.

Researching teacher leadership

With the implementation of the Guide to Pre-Primary Curriculum in 2006, a notion ofteacher leadership is emerging in local preschools (Education Bureau, 2006). Anumber of researchers have pointed out that educational leadership theories areculture bound. For example, Tikly (2011) argues that there are major issues in anyuncritical transfer of educational policy and practice from one sociocultural contextto another. It is, therefore, problematic to develop policy and practice relating to localearly childhood education on the basis of knowledge of other cultural contexts. Thereis a need to develop new conceptions and possible reinterpretations of Westernmodels of teacher leadership as a key to school improvement. In the followingsections, recent research is examined that has pioneered the discourse of teacherleadership. On that basis, a new space for researching teacher leadership in HongKong early childhood education will be identified, where educational reform policiesdrive a process that is shaped by a hierarchal, high power distance, collectivist culture.

Change agentry

Teacher leadership is increasingly viewed as a key factor determining the quality andeffectiveness of modern schools. Often associated with the terms distributed, demo-cratic, participative, and shared, teacher leadership can be broadly defined as ‘‘thecapacity for teachers to exercise leadership for teaching and learning within and beyondthe classroom, to identify with and contribute to a community of teacher learners andleaders, and to influence others towards improved educational practice’’ (Harris &Muijs, 2005, p. 18). Although there is no agreement as to the definition of teacherleadership, many empirical studies demonstrate that teacher leadership is essentially aform of ‘‘change agentry’’ (Frost & Durrant, 2002; Lieberman & Miller, 2004).

The term ‘‘agentry’’ means ‘‘those individuals or groups of individuals who arecharged with responsibilities for leading school-level change’’ (Harris & Muijs, 2005,p. 135). It is commonly understood to comprise both the formal and informalleadership roles that teachers undertake in discharging their management andpedagogical responsibilities. In this sense, the role of teachers in modern schools isno longer confined to the context of teaching in the classroom. It extends to schoollevel and includes areas such as curriculum development, staff development, schoolimprovement, personnel matters, school administration, and policymaking. Thereare three implications of adopting the notion of teachers as change agents in earlychildhood education in Hong Kong. First, in relation to the structural aspects ofschool organization, and the way in which formal and informal structures arecreated, implemented, and maintained so as to serve as a platform on which teacher


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

leadership can be developed and enacted through interactions. The above definitionof teachers as change agents also refers to those who actively serve on the front linesof school reform and promote ideas for initiating change and coping with challengesin their schools to achieve a better vision of the future (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas,1996). The second implication relates to the capability and capacity of teachers toinitiate and lead changes. These two terms have different connotations to someextent, but have in common the sense that they involve the potential growth anddevelopment, so that teachers can move beyond technical training and becomecatalysts for systemic, institutional, social, and cultural transformation (Stone,2006). The third implication relates to role perception. A study conducted by Edlow(2008) indicates that the attitudes and perceptions of the principal and the schoolstaff relating to the leadership roles of teachers are important factors influencing thedevelopment of teacher leadership. The notion of change agentry, therefore, is notonly about capability and capacity but also about role perception and the sense ofbeing a change agent. Role perception is an essential component of professionalidentity and results from the interplay between past experience and its interpretation(Gaziel, 1989).

Historically, preschool teaching in Hong Kong has been viewed as a preparationfor primary education and/or as a service of custodial care (Opper, 1992). Preschoolteachers were trained in a form of apprenticeship, as mentioned above. They seldomaspired to contribute to the betterment of society through their own practice ofupholding the highest standards of professionalism at work. Therefore, preschoolteachers are likely to be identified as at most semiprofessionals, or often justchildcare workers, in Hong Kong. These images are deeply rooted in the mindsets ofboth the public and preschool teachers, and they weaken the professional identity ofthe teaching force (Ho, 2006). This raises questions about whether the emergingpractice of teacher leadership in Hong Kong early childhood education can beconceptualized as change agentry as it is described in the literature cited earlier.Moreover, we argue that this literature has adopted a rather narrow perspective,which has an exclusive focus on teacher leaders as change agents. From a broaderperspective, change agents could well refer to anybody who plays a key role insupporting, stimulating, or catalyzing change. This could include those both insideand outside the school system. Parents, as service buyers, government departments,and school consultants can all be considered to be outside change agents in thissense. As the reform in local preschools got underway, these outside change agentshave directly and indirectly influenced the change process at school level.

In 2007, the local government implemented the Pre-Primary Education VoucherScheme (PEVS) for funding the sector of early childhood education. Parents canhave a strong influence on the shape of the provision of preschooling by exercisingschool choice. In this regard, Ho (2008) conducted a study of preschool leadership intwo case study schools that were rated excellent in the quality assurance inspection ofthe Education Bureau. She found that the schools had to formulate strategies thatfound a compromise between professional values and parental preferences. Thisfinding shows that parental preference has the potential to influence the decisionmaking of school management and teachers in the area of programme quality.

As mentioned earlier, the Hong Kong government had a very limited scope ofcontrol on the service provision of preschools as early childhood education is not afully funded sector (Koo, 2001). Preschools were under no legal obligation to followthe advice and recommendations on curriculum planning, teaching approaches, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

school administration given by the inspectors from the Education Bureau. Since theintroduction of the Performance Indicators in 2000, the quality assurance reports arepublished to inform the public about school performance. This can be interpreted asa means through which the government exercises its control on the quality of earlychildhood education. The Education Bureau has begun to take a more active role aschange agents in the reform process at school level. By giving advice on overallschool performance in the quality assurance inspection, the Education Bureau hasdirectly exerted its influences on service provision in local preschools.

Support from higher education in Hong Kong mainly consisted of the provisionof training courses and workshops. This kind of provision seldom addressed thechanging needs in the practical context of preschools. It also rarely targeted atengaging in reflective practice, strengthening quality teaching capacity, and buildinga community of learners. Nowadays, consultancy services hired from the localtertiary education institutions have to work closely with schools to tackle thecomplicated education problems imposed by internal and external forces. Providingschool-based support with an emphasis on building the capacity of teachers for thesustainable development of schools has been placed high on priority. Research onteacher leadership needs to explore how teacher leadership as inside change agentryis mediated by the influence of these outside change agents, and what tensions andpotentials might exist in the change process.

Collaboration and collegiality

Recent studies of effective leadership point to the importance of teacher leadershipfor school improvement and demonstrate how teachers influence organizationalcapacity, professionalism, curriculum innovation, and student learning (Ngcobo &Tikly, 2010; Smylie, Conley, & Marks, 2005; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Muijs andHarris (2003) found that teachers who became intrinsically motivated inparticipative decision making could see both the personal and professional benefitsof taking up the role of teacher leader. There are four different roles for teacherleaders: (1) a brokering role ensuring that links within schools are secure for teacherdevelopment, (2) a participative role fostering more collaborative ways of workingamong teachers, (3) a mediating role enabling the school to draw upon additionaland external resources and expertise for change, and (4) a role forging closerelationships for learning communities among individual teachers (Harris & Muijs,2005, pp. 23–24). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p. 196) state thatcommunities of teachers working together go through five stages of development asthey commit to school improvement: preparation, launching, expansion, consolida-tion, and transformation. In short, teacher leadership is characterized by teachersperforming multiple leadership roles in a collaborative and collegial process. Indeed,the school improvement literature suggests that a high degree of teachercollaboration and a high level of collegiality are key indicators of successful change(Holden, 2002; Silins & Mulford, 2002). Collaboration and collegiality are key terms,often used interchangeably, but sometimes having a variety of distinct connotations.

Little (1990) addresses the complexity of collaboration in her typology ofcollegial relations among teachers in schools. She refers to collaboration as acontinuum of interpersonal relationships running from independence to interdepen-dence. On the other hand, Hoyle (1996) refers collegiality to ‘‘the power relationshipentailed in teamwork’’ (p. 20). It can vary from a strong form of democratic


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

procedures of equal participation to a weak form of minimal influence by professionalstaff in the context where their collaboration is constrained by authority. As statedabove, local preschools are urged to establish internal mechanisms for curriculumchange. Now, teachers are required to work closely together and participate in thedecision-making process. A case study of curriculum change conducted by Ho (2005)indicated that preschool teachers enjoyed their social relationships and tended toavoid dealing with differences of opinion and conflict in the collaborative process. Toa certain extent, that reflects harmony building, relationship maintenance, and groupcohesiveness as various forms of collectivism are dominant in local preschools. Thereare questions about how collaboration and collegiality are interpreted both byteachers and school leaders in the process of democratic participation for decisionmaking. Furthermore, the work of Ho (2010b) indicates that if schools are underexternal pressure for greater teacher participation, so-called ‘‘shared’’ decisionmaking in centralized management structures is merely an attempt to create theillusion that democratic participation exists. This will probably lead to a culture thatHargreaves (1994) describes as ‘‘contrived collegiality’’. He suggests that contrivedcollegiality serves the purposes of administration and is implementation oriented. Itexists as a state in opposition to a culture of collaboration. Jarzabkowski (1999)argues that contrived collegiality and collaborative culture coexist. Her study ofteacher collaboration in a regular, middle-sized Australian primary school indicatedthat both these states work side by side in one school. The relevance of collaborationand collegiality as indicators of teacher leadership need to be examined in the localcontext of early childhood education which is strongly driven by reform policies andinfluenced by collectivist cultural norms.

Power and authority

Research on teacher leadership indicates that there are various factors promoting orimpeding the development of teacher leadership at school level. Buildingparticipative structures, the support of the principal, open communication, anunderstanding of organizational culture, and redistribution of power and authorityin school systems are the factors supporting teacher leadership (Barth, 1999; Boles,1992; Ovando, 1994). On the other hand, the findings of teacher leadership studiesindicate that a top-down leadership model, lack of status, and absence of authorityare the organizational barriers for teacher leaders to exercise their leadership in thechange process (Boles, 1992; Little, 2002). Therefore, teacher leadership should beapproached as an organizational matter rather than simply as an issue of individualempowerment (Smylie, 1995).

While the various studies may appear to contradict one another, in fact theyshare similar perspectives on the importance of cultural and organizational factors,such as power, authority, and structure, in mediating teacher leadership at schoollevel. In general, power is the ability to influence others to get the outcomes onewants. The exercise of power can be understood as an interactive process whereinbehaviour is situationally adaptive between the leader and the followers. On thedimension of legitimate authority, the leader is a person who has power ‘‘over’’followers (Busher, 2006). In discussing the exercise of teacher leadership, Gronn(2000) identifies two key points. First, power is ‘‘the exercise of structural authority,and influence’’. Second, authority ‘‘is always the locus of overall organizationalresponsibility and legitimacy, and anchors the role system of an organization’’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

(p. 322). He argues that teacher leadership, as one form of distributed leadership, canbe created within a non-hierarchical collaborative network which is separate fromthe managerial power. Further, Harris (2003) argues that, ‘‘Teacher leadership ispremised upon a power redistribution within the school, moving from hierarchicalcontrol to peer control. In this leadership model, the power base is diffuse and theauthority dispersed within the teaching community’’ (p. 77).

Hatcher (2005), however, comments that, in the context of teacher leadership,power and authority that can operate independently is mistaken: ‘‘The head occupiesthe dominant position in the power structure and therefore the privileged site ofinfluence . . . . Thus, officially sanctioned ‘distributed leadership’ is always delegated,licensed, exercised on behalf of and revocable by authority’’ (p. 256). In his thinking,teacher leadership is just a form of pseudo-democratic leadership.

Teacher leadership is now promoted as a key to school improvement in HongKong early childhood education. Attention therefore must be paid to that byattempting to import Western conceptions of teacher leadership into a Chinesecontext we may be ignoring the cultural conditions. Preschools in Hong Kong havehistorically been characterized by a centralized, top-down style of leadership. Thedistribution of power between teachers and their head is strongly asymmetrical. Aspart of the process of educational reform, teachers are now expected to assumegreater power in decision making and more authority for leading curriculum change.This leads to a potential shift in the role of teachers from top-down centralizedleadership to bottom-up decentralized leadership. There is a need to understand thephenomenon of teacher leadership in terms of the assumptions related to thedimensions of power and authority in Hong Kong early childhood education, whichhas a hierarchical, high power distance, collectivist culture.

Implications for future research

Analytical frameworks for theorizing teacher leadership have been derived from abody of empirical data from school development projects in Western contexts. Theevidence from these projects shows that it is feasible for teacher leaders to act as agentsto initiate changes for school improvement, to function on the basis of non-hierarchical modes of collaboration, and to share decision-making power among theteaching staff. Currently, early childhood education in Hong Kong is strongly drivenby the educational reform policies and is predominantly characterized by ahierarchical, high power distance, collectivist culture. Preschool principals are requiredto involve teachers in leading roles and greater responsibilities in the change processfor quality service. It is therefore important to consider carefully the differences in thepolitical and cultural dimensions of local early childhood education if Western modelsof teacher leadership are advanced as solutions for school improvement.

As little is known about teacher leadership in early childhood education in HongKong, it would be appropriate for future research in this area to employ an inductiveapproach using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Adopting agrounded theory approach, the proposed research would have two phases:exploratory and confirmatory. The first phase of the research should explore thephenomenon of teacher leadership in a sample of preschools that have been rated as‘‘excellent’’ under the Performance Indicators implemented in 2000. As mentionedpreviously, Performance Indicators identifies teacher involvement in all aspects ofschool operation as a critical factor for effective management and quality


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

improvement. Therefore, selecting those preschools rated as excellent for study willshed light on how teacher leadership is conceptualized and operates in local earlychildhood education. Qualitative case study methodology should be used toinvestigate the views of teacher leadership held by principals and teachers as keyactors in the internal processes of curriculum change. Future research should focuson the concepts of change agentry, collaboration, collegiality, power, and authorityunderpinning the theories of teacher leadership. The findings of the first phase of theresearch could then be used as the hypothetical basis for a territory-wide quantitativequestionnaire. The ultimate goal is to capture a fuller picture of teacher leadership inearly childhood education in Hong Kong, and critique the way in which Westernmodels of teacher leadership are being put forward as solutions in a Chinese, policy-driven context. It is also important that the applicability of teacher leadership topreschool settings in Hong Kong should be systemically explored. In this way, thepotential and difficulties that may help or hinder teachers acting as leaders can beidentified, and possible strategies for future development can be defined. This willprovide a useful basis for understanding the uniqueness of teacher leadership in localpreschools and that could help early childhood educators move towards a healthydevelopment of teacher leadership as part of the reform agenda.

In conclusion, this article has set out a discussion of how analyses of aspects ofchange agentry, collaboration, collegiality, and power and authority can be placedmore firmly in the foreground of research into teacher leadership in a Chinese,policy-driven context. Ways of reframing the dominant Western perspective, thatdecentralized forms of teacher leadership are the key to school improvement, havealso been indicated. This discussion has begun to flesh out the fundamental issues ofteacher leadership in political and cultural dimensions, providing direction for futureleadership inquiry. We conclude by proposing future research in Hong Kong earlychildhood education. Research of this type will not only be of value to policymakers,teacher educators, and school leaders in their efforts to support the development ofteacher leadership in local preschools but also will contribute to the construction of amore viable model of teacher leadership.

Acknowledgements

This article is adapted from an original research proposal submitted to the Research GrantsCouncil of the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China. Theproject, entitled Effective Teacher Leadership for Curriculum Change in Early ChildhoodEducation (GRF project no. 840810), was successfully funded in 2010.

References

Abu-Duhou, I. (1999). School-based management. Paris, France: International Institute forEducational Planning, UNSECO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118487E.pdf

Barksdale-Ladd, M.A., & Thomas, K.F. (1996). The development of empowerment in readinginstruction in eight elementary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 161–178.

Barr, H. (2000). Inter-professional education: 1997–2000 A review. London, UK: CAIPE.Barretti, M. (2004). What do we know about the professional socialization of our students?

Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 255–283.Barth, R. (1999). The teacher leader. Providence, RI: The Rhode Island Foundation.Boles, K. (1992, April). School restructuring by teachers: A study of the teaching project at the

Edward Devotion School. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118487E.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118487E.pdf

Busher, H. (2006). Understanding educational leadership: people, power and culture. Maiden-head, UK: Open University Press.

Carnoy, M. (2003). Globalization and education reform. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman(Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 43–61). Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield.

Chen, G.M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizationalcommunication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93–105.

Chen, P. (2008). Strategic leadership and school reform in Taiwan. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, 19, 293–318.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism fordevelopment. London, UK: Falmer Press.

Cheng, Y.C. (1999). The pursuit of school effectiveness and educational quality in HongKong. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 3–9.

Cheng, Y.C. (2000). The characteristics of Hong Kong school principals’ leadership: Theinfluence of societal culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 68–86.

Cheng, Y.C. (2003). Trends in educational reform in the Asia-Pacific region. In J. Keeves & R.Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia Pacific (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Cheng,Y.C. (2005). Globalization and educational reforms in Hong Kong: Paradigm shift. InJ. Zaida, K. Freeman, M. Geo-JaJa, S. Majhanovich, V. Rust, & R. Zajda (Eds.), Theinternational handbook on globalization and education policy research (pp. 165–187).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Cheng, Y.C., Mok, M.M.C., & Chow, K.W. (2003). Organization and management ofeducation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Development, reform, and growth. In J. Keeves &R. Watanabe (Eds.), The handbook on educational research in the Asia-Pacific Region(Section 6, pp. 915–930). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cheng, Y.C., & Walker, A. (2008). When reform hits reality: The bottleneck effect in HongKong primary schools. School Leadership & Management, 28, 505–521.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in timesof change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998). Comparative educational administration: Developing across-cultural conceptual framework. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 558–595.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). School culture and school leadership: Charting the wayahead. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 110–116.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). School leadership in context: Societal and organizationalcultures. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.), The principles and practice of educational management(pp. 70–85). London, UK: Paul Chapman.

Edlow, J.M. (2008). Teacher leadership in the urban community: Teachers becoming a changeagent in the school system? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University,Prescott Valley, AZ.

Education Bureau. (2000).Performance indicators. HongKong: HongKongGovernment Printer.Education Bureau. (2006). Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Kong

Government Printer.Education Manpower Branch and Education Department. (1991). School management

initiatives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.Felfe, J., Yan, W.H., & Six, B. (2008). The impact of individual collectivism on commitment

and its influence on organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover in three countries.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8, 211–237.

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2002). Teacher-led development work: Guidance and support. London,

UK: David Fulton.Gaziel, H.H. (1989). Effects of in-service training programme upon professional identity and

role perception of school administrators. Higher Education Policy, 2, 27–30.Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 28, 317–338.Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second

international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hallinger, P. (1998). Educational change in Southeast Asia: The challenge of creating learningsystems. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 492–509.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2003). Understanding the contribution of leadership to schoolimprovement. In M. Wallace & L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in educationalleadership and management (pp. 215–235). London, UK: Sage.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture onleadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126–151.

Hallinger, P., Walker, A., & Bajunid, I. (2005). Educational leadership in East Asia:Implications for education in a global society. UCEA Review, 46(1), 1–4.

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

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C. Day, D.Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves, & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership forschool improvement (pp. 73–83). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Maidenhead,UK: Open University Press.

Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal ofSociology of Education, 26, 253–267.

Ho, C.W.D. (2005). On curriculum change: The developing role of preschool heads in HongKong. International Journal of Educational Management, 19, 48–58.

Ho, C.W.D. (2006). Understanding the complexity of preschool teaching in Hong Kong: Theway forward to professionalism. International Journal of Educational Development, 26,305–314.

Ho, C.W.D. (2008). Exploring the definitions of quality early childhood programmes in amarket driven context: Case studies of two Hong Kong preschools. International Journalof Early Years Education, 16, 223–236.

Ho, C.W.D. (2010a). Leadership for school improvement: Exploring factors and practices inthe process of curriculum change. Early Education & Development, 21, 263–284.

Ho, C.W.D. (2010b). Teacher participation in curriculum and pedagogical decisions: Insightsinto curriculum leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38,613–624.

Ho, D. (2012). The paradox of power in leadership in early childhood education. PeabodyJournal of Education, 87(2), 253–266.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, andorganizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2010). Dimensions of national cultures. Retrieved from http://www.geerthofstede.nl/culture/dimensions-of-national-cultures.aspx

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M.H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots toeconomic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5–21.

Holden, G. (2002, June). Towards a learning community: The role of teacher-led development inschool improvement. Paper presented at the CELSI British Council Leadership in Learningconference, London, UK.

Hoyle, E. (1996). Professional collaboration in schools: An essay.Curriculum Forum, 5(2), 17–30.Hwang, K.K. (1989). Confucian thoughts and modernization: Theory analysis and empirical

study. China Tribune, 319, 7–24.Jarzabkowski, L.M. (1999, November). Commitment and compliance: Curious bedfellows in

teacher collaboration. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research inEducation and New Zealand Association for Research in Education joint Conference(AARE-NZARE), Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/jar99227.htm

Koo, W.S. (2001). Institutionalization of preschool education and services in Hong Kong(Unpublished master’s thesis). The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Lam, Y.L.J. (2003). Balancing stability and change: Implications for professional preparationand development of principals in Hong Kong. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping thelandscape of school leadership development: A global perspective (pp. 175–188). Lisse, TheNetherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Law, W.W. (2004). Translating globalization and democratization into local policy: Educa-tional reform in Hong Kong and Taiwan. International Review of Education, 50, 497–524.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.geerthofstede.nl/culture/dimensions-of-national-cultures.aspx

http://www.geerthofstede.nl/culture/dimensions-of-national-cultures.aspx

http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/jar99227.htm

http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/jar99227.htm

Lee, J.C.K., & Yin, H.B. (2007). Characteristics of effective kindergarten principals andteachers in Hong Kong. Preschool Education, 5, 8–11 (in Chinese).

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful schoolleadership. School Leadership & Management, 28, 27–42.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). New perspectives on an old idea: A shorthistory of the old idea. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributedleadership according to the evidence (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.

Li, H. (2006). School-based curriculum development: An interview study of ChineseKindergartens. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 223–229.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Little, J.W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiatives in teachers’

professional relations. Teacher College Record, 91, 55–56.Little, J.W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up

problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,917–946.

Macbeath, J., & Cheng, Y.C. (2008). Leadership for learning: International perspectives.Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Mok, K.H. (2006). Education reform and education policy in East Asia. London, UK: Routledge.Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Improvement through empowerment?

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31, 437–448.Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.Ngcobo, T., & Tikly, L. (2010). Key dimensions of effective leadership for change: A focus on

township and rural schools in South Africa, Educational Management Administration &Leadership, 38, 202–228.

Opper, S. (1992). Hong Kong’s young children: Their preschools and families. Hong Kong:University of Hong Kong Press.

Ovando, M. (1994, October). Effects of teachers’ leadership on their teaching practices. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of the University Council of EducationalAdministration, Philadelphia, PA.

Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood & P.

Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administra-tion (pp. 561–612). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Skilbeck, M. (2005). School-based curriculum development. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The rootsof educational change (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Smylie, M.A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal,96, 3–7.

Smylie, M.A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. (2005). Exploring new approaches to teacherleadership for school improvement. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study ofEducation, 101(1), 162–188.

Stone, R. (2006). Best practices for teacher leadership: What award-winning teachers do for theirprofessional learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low-incomecountries. Comparative Education, 47, 1–24.

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business.London, UK: The Economist Books.

Walker, A., Hallinger, P., & Qian, H. (2007). International handbook of school effectiveness andimprovement. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Walker, A., & Kwan, P. (2010). Leadership in diverse cultures. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (pp. 824–831). Oxford, UK:Elsevier.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guideto managing knowledge. Storrs, CT: Harvard University Press.

Wong, W.Y. (2003). The dilemma of early childhood teachers required to carry out a curriculumimplementation process: Case studies. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 43–53.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings fromtwo decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255–316.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

48 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

conceptualizing teacher leadership in a chinese, policy-driven context: a research agenda

Documents