Abstract
This chapter aims to offer a theoretical discussion on the changing landscape of leadership and explores the emerging practice of teacher leadership in ECE in China. In 2010, the central government of China introduced several waves of policies relating to teacher professional development to improve and promote the quality of ECE. The global discourses mainly developed in the West have indicated that school leadership plays an important role in promoting teachers’ professional development and the quality of education. These discourses have influenced the agenda for educational reform in China as reflected in the recent strategies formulated for the development of school leadership in ECE. Historically, ECE teachers have been viewed as babysitters rather than as educators, and preschool principals have been considered policy implementers and school managers rather than school leaders of innovation and change. This chapter discusses the changing landscape of school leadership in China’s ECE and how it is influenced by a hierarchical culture. It is argued that the practices of school leadership have been largely centralised in the hands of preschool principals, alongside of which there has been an emergence of teacher leadership co-exercised with principalship in home-school networks and teaching research groups.
Keywords
- China
- early childhood education
- education policy
- leadership
- quality education
1. Introduction
Research on the relationship between the quality of early childhood education (ECE) and child outcomes has shown that government policy and management have been important influencing factors [1]. Government support is necessary to ensure high-quality education for young children [2, 3]. The positive impacts arising from government support for better student outcomes include the acquisition of pre-literacy skills [4], improved socio-emotionality [5], academic performance, language skills and classroom behaviour [3]. High-quality ECE has also been proven to benefit the family and society as a whole. In terms of family development, high-quality ECE can raise female employment rates. It can also promote positive parenthood and relieve mothers’ stress. In terms of social capital development, the results of the Perry Preschool Project indicated that the rate of return on investment for ECE is 1:7.16 by the time a child reaches 27 years of age [6]. With growing awareness of ECE’s importance, the Chinese central government has focused on its development in the past decade [7]. The year 2010 is considered the ‘New Spring Time’ of ECE. The State Council issued two policy documents:
2. Early childhood education in China
Since the late 1970s, China has engaged in an open-door policy to reform its economic system. The central government has regarded education as a force driving China to prosper, enhancing its national strength. As a result, ECE has been one of the priorities of the reform agenda. ECE in China broadly refers to the care and education of children from birth to 6 years old [20]. Preschool refers to ECE institutions that are run by different service providers. There are two main types of preschool: government and non-government organisations. In terms of school governance, all preschools in China are macro-controlled by the central government and micro-regulated by the local government of each province.
2.1 The governance of ECE
In 1978, the central government established the Department of ECE and Special Education in the General Education Division [21], signifying the beginning of the comprehensive reform of ECE. In 1979, the State Council established the ‘Leading Children’s Caring Work Team ECE’, consisting of teams from 13 departments, including the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the Federation of Trade Unions [22]. Local governments, including provincial governments, city governments and the governments of the autonomous regions, followed the policy of the central government and set up ECE departments to govern and lead local preschools. In the same year, the MOE (1979) published
Since 1989, the management system of Chinese preschools has fallen under the domain of the
In general, the principal has the central administrative and managerial power to operate the preschool. The principal is the legal representative of the preschool and the chief administrative officer, empowered by law to exercise decision-making, administrative command, human resource management and financial management [27]. Since 1989, the principal’s responsibilities have changed from passively managing the preschool to actively directing it. Preschools have shifted from being externally controlled by the central and local governments to being internally controlled by the principal. Autonomy has been given to the principals for school-based management, and they are also accountable for the quality of the service provision. As a result, there has been a quest by principals to learn how to exercise their power and authority to lead daily operations within a decentralised system.
2.2 Teacher professional development policy
Before 1976, only one institution offered teacher education programmes: Nanjing Normal College (renamed Nanjing Normal University). In 1978, the MOE published the
Since 2010, teacher education policies have focused on improving teachers’ professional development. Through teacher education, teachers have been equipped with professional knowledge, skills and attitude [29], which has contributed to improving the quality of ECE [30, 31]. There have been three types of training programme: short-term concentrated training, job-transfer training and backbone teacher1 exchange off-job training. By 2013, a total of 310,000 preschool teachers had participated in these programmes. To further enhance teacher professional development and the quality of ECE, two policy documents,
Similarly influenced by Western ideologies on teachers as change agents, developing teacher leadership has recently been recognised as one of the key reform initiatives needed to improve educational quality. In this regard, the MOE issued two policy documents in 2012:
The reform initiatives have revealed that although preschool teachers in China have been expected to take on various leadership roles, they have remained confined to classroom teaching. Research has also shown that teachers who assume that leadership roles have a higher level of professionalism are willing to take on roles in promoting curriculum innovation, student learning and organisational development [35]. Therefore, it is imperative that preschool principals empower teachers to take on leadership roles outside the classroom.
2.3 The ECE teaching force
Sustaining ECE in China is dependent on effective management systems, sufficient financial inputs and the quantity and quality of professionally trained teachers [36]. However, there have been issues with the management systems of local governments, including ill-defined functions and responsibilities, mismatched personnel allocation and insufficient financial inputs [37]. In addition, the weak professional identity and the low social status of teachers negatively influence the development of the ECE teaching force in China [38].
Another issue is China’s shortage of preschool teachers, which is a major challenge to ECE development. Figure 2 shows that the number of teachers increased from 1,315,634 in 2011 to 2,432,138 in 2017, and the teacher-child ratio gradually improved from 1:26 to 1:19 (Figure 3). Nonetheless, a severe shortage of preschool teachers is predicted over the next few years. According to the
Due to low professional entry qualifications, preschool teachers’ professional status has not been well recognised in China [42]. As shown in Figure 4, the rate of educational attainment (for example, an Associate degree or above) gradually increased from 2011 to 2017, but in 2017, only 21% of preschool teachers had obtained an undergraduate degree or above. This may lead to preschool teachers’ poor self-image and low level of professionalism [42, 43]. Indeed, teachers in Chinese preschools often consider teaching and taking care of children as their sole function. This perception is rooted in the belief that preschool teachers in China are followers who do not take responsibility for anything other than teaching and caring inside the classroom. However, several previous studies have indicated that teachers play a key role as change agents for school development and improvement [32, 44]. Teachers with a strong professional identity perceive themselves to be effective leaders and active participants in decision-making, and
3. Chinese culture
Fan described culture as ‘the collection of values, beliefs, behaviours, customs and attitudes that distinguish a society’ ([46] p3). Societal culture is a complex and multidimensional concept. It has also been viewed as an important factor influencing leadership practices and how leadership is conceptualised [47].
China is a developing country with 5000 years of history and the largest population in the world. With its long historical development, it is axiomatic that school leadership practices would be affected by Chinese culture. There have been numerous studies on school leadership in the Chinese cultural context. For example, Bush and Qian generalised four types of Chinese culture, representing the different stages of history: traditional culture, socialist culture, enterprise culture and patriarchal culture [48]. Traditional culture is rooted in the pervasive influence of Confucianism for over 2500 years. In the school context, traditional culture is often associated with centralised authority, collectivism and harmony. Socialist culture has become influential since the Chinese Civil War in 1945–1949. This type of culture has politicised the centralised power and authority of school principals in decision-making. Enterprise culture has promoted the importance of marketization in education system since the implementation of Open Door Policy for transforming China’s economy since the late 1970s. Patriarchal culture has influenced how people in Chinese societies understand, perceive and enact the role of men and women in school leadership. In addition, Hofstede identified four dimensions of cultural values: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity [49]. Some have suggested that Hofstede’s work on individualism versus collectivism and power distance would have been better defined in terms of loyal involvement and utilitarian involvement, representing varying orientations towards the continuity of group membership, just as conservatism and egalitarian commitment represent different orientations towards the obligations of social relationships [50]. Schwartz undertook detailed work on cultural values, defining six types: conservatism, intellectual and affective autonomy, harmony, egalitarian commitment, mastery and hierarchy [51]. In addition to the dimensions of cultural values mentioned above, Confucianism has commonly been relied on to describe leadership cultures in the Chinese context [32, 52]. Cultural values in China are highly complex. These cultural values are deeply embedded in leadership practices. A plethora of research has focused on school leadership in China. From this, three mainstream Chinese cultural systems have been captured: Confucianism, collectivism and Chinese communism [52]. A study conducted by Ho has found that the leadership practices and collegiality are shaped by the presence of collective, harmonious relationships under the influence of Confucianism [43]. Fu and Tsui depict that ‘hard working, devoted, action-oriented, determined, servicing, abide by principles, collectivistic, corruption resistant, democratic, optimistic, relying on followers, self-sacrificing, value driven, and visionary’ are unique characteristics of leadership in the Chinese context ([53] p442). These characteristics are perceived as compatible with the communist ideologies. Research on how the moral integrity of school principals is influenced by the Chinese communism has been a focus of educational leadership since the late 1990s [54, 55].
Cultural contexts shape the ways in which leaders enact leadership practices [56]. That is, leadership concepts and behaviours that appear similar can be interpreted differently due to their different socio-cultural contexts [57]. The interpretation of leadership concepts and behaviours in the Chinese context has been influenced by the Chinese culture. Hence, there is a need to understand the practices of school leadership through the lens of the Chinese cultural system rather than solely through Western theoretical perspectives [48].
Since the 1990s, scholars working in the school leadership field have argued that when applying the theories and practices of school leadership across cultures, special attention should be paid to socio-cultural contexts (e.g., [58–60]). Culture influences the thinking and behaviour of various school stakeholders, including students, teachers, principals, administrators, parents and policy makers [59]. However, the recent literature (e.g., [61–63]) has indicated that the cultural factors have not yet been adequately addressed by relevant studies on school leadership [64]. Indeed, school leadership studies conducted in Asia, including China, have been criticised for being full of ‘cultural borrowing’ [63].
Because leadership is a value-laden concept [65, 66] influenced by social, political, cultural and economic contexts [33, 48], when looking at Chinese schools, it is important to understand the influence of Chinese culture on leadership concepts and behaviours through the lens of cultural values. Numerous studies have attempted to identify the influence of Chinese culture on leadership concepts and practices (e.g., [52, 59]). This must now be extended to include the Chinese educational stakeholders in ECE and how the Chinese culture influences their interpretations of leadership concepts and behaviours.
4. The changing landscape of school leadership
As previously mentioned, since 1989, the management system of preschools in China has fallen under the domain of the
4.1 Centralised leadership
Staff-management has been identified as a key component of school leadership [78]. In ECE in China, it has mainly been the province of preschool principals. They seldom involve their subordinates in staff management. In other words, the exercise of power and authority is largely centralised in the hands of preschool principals and in a form of single leadership.
Under centralised leadership, principals have absolute power and authority over staff management; it is a top-down management approach [79, 80]. This type of leadership practice has been commonly accepted by the subordinates in Chinese preschools who have agreed that ‘only the principal has the final say’ [69]. In Confucian society, the sovereign-subject relationship required followers to obey their leaders’ orders. Based on that tradition, preschool principals in China today are responsible for handling all vital decisions. Teachers rarely assume leadership roles at the organisational level. In this situation, it is common for teachers to perceive themselves as followers and hold passive attitudes towards decision-making in staff management, hesitating to take on leading roles [80].
4.2 Co-existing leadership
In preschool organisational structures, the parent-school committee and party branch are parallel to the principals. By establishing a party branch, the Communist Party ensures its policies are implemented and political education is provided to the faculties and students [81]. Normally, there are two vice principals. One is the leader of the teaching research group (TRG). The other oversees logistics and is the secretary of the party branch [82]. Modelled after the Soviet Union in the 1950s, all schools in China began to establish TRGs as a formal functional group within the organisational structure. The responsibility of the TRGs is to coordinate teachers so they can implement the educational policies stipulated by local governments, work together on the curriculum and pedagogical innovations and participate in professional development and exchange [83]. Although the central government has defined TRGs as teacher professional learning communities instead of administrative organisations [84], TRGs not only work on teacher professional development and teaching issues, but also address teachers’ affairs beyond teaching and learning. For example, they prepare teachers for job promotions, help resolve their personal problems and endeavour to improve their interpersonal skills [85]. To this extent, TRGs partly share the administrative tasks of teacher management [86, 87]. Due to their dual role in leading curriculum development and teacher management, TRGs are able to promote collaborative work among teachers and encourage them to learn from each other, nurturing a democratic, positive, harmonious and open-minded subculture within the group. TRGs harmoniously enact collegiality within the hierarchical and bureaucratic system and provide a countervailing influence to the power of the principals [88].
In ECE, the leaders of TRGs are generally regarded as formal leaders in curriculum development [86]. The roles of TRG leaders in China’s preschools vary, depending on their positions within the organisational structure and their responsibilities. A number of studies on TRGS have revealed that their leaders play a key role in facilitating communications between senior leaders and classroom teachers [89–91]. Because they work closely with principals, they are regarded as principals’ think tanks and assistants [90]. The leaders of TRGs play multiple roles in school management and leadership. Niu and Liu claimed that TRG leaders act as consultants to principals in school decisions [91]. Further, TRG leaders work as experts on the curriculum, pedagogy and educational research. They are both the coordinators of staff interpersonal relationships and external liaisons. They are managers of school administration and the internal trainers for staff professional development [92]. Shi and Xie found that the roles of TRG leaders had been changing from information conveyers to professional experts, from managers to leaders of learning and research and from teachers to self-reflective practitioners and researchers [93].
Recently, there has been a shift in attention from focusing on the personal traits and characteristics of TRG leaders to emphasising TRG leadership practices. For example, Gu argued that effective TRG leaders should have a sense of risk-taking, an awareness of teamwork and collaboration, an innovative mind-set and a strong commitment and dedication to education quality [94]. Bai asserted that a capable TRG leader is innovative and academically knowledgeable, good at organisational coordination and communication skills and embraced the spirit of teamwork [95]. Wang and Xin concluded that the characteristics of an effective TRG leader can be categorised into three areas [96]:
Having high moral standards: clearly know the responsibilities, seek truth from the facts, have integrity in politics; dare to take responsibility, adhere to principles and persist to the bottom line of moral standards; sensibly treat the promotion.
Being professional in work: able to lead teaching and research work and be leaders in professional development.
Having a clear role identity of a TRG leader and being able to carry out its role and functions.
A study conducted by Guo showed that TRG leaders are good at teaching, communication and self-management. However, they are weak in curriculum planning, scientific research and coordination [85]. The reason for this is the lack of professional development and empowerment opportunities for TRG leaders.
4.3 Decentralised leadership
In the notion of teacher leadership, the teacher acts as the leader, influencing others to produce better educational practices and student outcomes [97, 98]. In ECE, parents are the key stakeholders. The involvement of parents in home-school committees can be understood as a vehicle for promoting teacher leadership because teachers have to work closely with parents for children’s learning and development [99, 100]. As Greenlee argued, teachers are the school personnel who work most closely with parents day-to-day [101]. Teachers are willing to take on a leading role when working with parents for home-school collaboration in order to promote the holistic development of young children.
In China’s ECE, the home-school committee is a common form of home-school collaboration. Within the network, the teacher leaders share their professional knowledge and child-rearing methods with parents. In turn, parental involvement plays a key role in school development [102]. Indeed, teacher leaders are expected to assume leadership roles to improve parental involvement [103]. It has been argued that compared with school principals, who are more concerned with administrative duties, classroom teachers have more opportunities to work with parents on the development of preschool children.
A study conducted in China indicated that classroom teachers are given the autonomy to engage in home-school committees, which is recognised as one type of teacher leadership practice [104]. This result reflects the introduction of two national policies, the
5. Concluding remarks
This chapter aims to offer a theoretical discussion on the changing landscape of leadership and explores the emerging practice of teacher leadership in ECE in China. Since 2010, the Chinese central government has introduced several waves of policies related to teachers’ professional development, aimed at improving and promoting the quality of ECE. The global discourses mainly developed in the West have shown that school leadership plays an important role in promoting both teacher professional development and educational quality. These global discourses have influenced the reform agenda of the Chinese central government as reflected in the recent strategies formulated to develop school leadership in ECE. Against this background, the ECE teaching force has been recognised as the key to school improvement and development. Historically, ECE teachers have been viewed as babysitters rather than educators, and principals have been recognised as policy implementers and school managers rather than school leaders of innovation and change. As a result, preschool leadership has been placed as one of the top priorities in the reform agenda of ECE.
As previously discussed, school leadership practices in China’s ECE have been influenced by the Chinese hierarchical culture and the management system of
To summarise, since the 1970s, the Chinese central government has implemented a comprehensive educational reform to improve various aspects of ECE, such as universal education, school governance, school management, financial resources, teacher education and professional development. Educational reform has been shaping the landscape of school leadership from a centralised to both of a co-existing and a decentralised form. The practice of teacher leadership has been emerging in the area of home-school committees and teaching research groups. This has suggested that the role of ECE in China is changing from babysitting to developmental nurturing. Preschools act as important institutions that help nurture and develop young generations. To conclude, the above discussion has begun to flesh out the fundamental issues of school leadership practices in political and cultural dimensions, providing direction for future leadership inquiry.
References
- 1.
Rao N, Li H. Quality matters: Early childhood education policy in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care. 2009; 179 (3):233-245 - 2.
Tout K, Starr R, Soli M, Moodie S, Kirby G, Boller K. The Child Care Quality Rating System (QRS) Assessment: Compendium of Quality Rating Systems and Evaluations. Washington, DC: Child Trends & Mathematica Policy Research; 2010 - 3.
Zellman GL, Perlman M, Le VN, Setodji CM. Assessing the Validity of the Qualistar early Learning Quality Rating and Improvement System as a Tool for Improving Child-Care Quality. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2008 - 4.
Sabol TJ, Pianta RC. Validating Virginia’s quality rating and improvement system among state-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2015; 30 :183-198 - 5.
Thornburg KR, Mayfield WA, Hawks JS, Fuger KL. The Missouri Quality Rating System School Readiness Study: Executive Summary. Kansas City, MO: Center for Family Policy & Research University of Missouri and the Institute for Human Development University of Missouri; 2009 - 6.
Heckman JJ. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science. 2006; 312 (5782):1900-1902 - 7.
Qin XF, Wang M. Value analysis on generalized policy of preferences for preschool education [in Chinese]. Educational Research. 2011; 12 :28-31 - 8.
Liu ZL. Making preschool education universal should improve the quality simultaneously [in Chinese]. Studies in Preschool Education. 2010; 10 :18-22 - 9.
Wang M, Qin X. The value foundations and choice of generalized policy of preference of preschool education [in Chinese]. The Modern Education Journal. 2014; 5 :25-29 - 10.
Qin XF, Wang M. The shackle and breakthrough of construction in generalized kindergarten [in Chinese]. Early Education. 2013; 3 :23-26 - 11.
Sun M. The Concept of Tizhi (system) in Chinese Education. Liaoning people’s House: Shenyang, China; 2004 - 12.
Kent AM. Improving teacher quality through professional development. Education. 2004; 124 (3):427-435 - 13.
Wang M, Hong X, Pang L. Focus on the development of non-government kindergarten teaches in China: Issues, influence factors and policy suggestions [in Chinese]. Teacher Education Research. 2015; 27 (3):36-42 - 14.
Berry B, Johnson D, Montgomery D. The power of teacher leadership. Education Leader. 2005; 62 (5):56-60 - 15.
Danielson C. Teacher Leadership that Strengthens Professional Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2006 - 16.
Frost D. From professional development to system change: Teacher leadership and innovation. Professional Development in Education. 2012; 38 (2):205-227 - 17.
Hallet E. ‘We all share a common vision and passion’: Early years professionals reflect upon their leadership of practice role. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 2013; 11 (3):312-325 - 18.
Muijs D, Harris A. Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2006; 22 (8):961-972 - 19.
Poekert PE. Teacher leadership and professional development: Examining links between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional Development in Education. 2012; 38 (2):169-188 - 20.
Ministry of Education. Guidance on Learning and Development for Children Aged 3-6 [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 2012 - 21.
Tang S, Qian Y, Du LJ, Zheng Y. The 60-year chronicle of early childhood education of the people’s Republic of China (first part) [in Chinese]. Studies in Preschool Education. 2009; 9 :68-71 - 22.
Ministry of Education. Urban Kindergarten Work Regulations [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1979 - 23.
State Council of People Republic China. Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of Education System [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1985 - 24.
Zhang Y. Management in early childhood education [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press; 2009 - 25.
Li H. School-based curriculum development: An interview study of Chinese kindergartens. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006; 33 (4):223-229 - 26.
Liu LF. Preschool principal leadership research in the background of educational reform [in Chinese][dissertation]. Shenyang, China: Northeastern University; 2015 - 27.
Wang HC. Discussion about the two misunderstanding in the implementation of the principal responsibility system [in Chinese]. Studies in Preschool Education. 2000; 6 :47-48 - 28.
Ministry of Education. Some Opinions on the Reform and development of Teacher Education [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1996 - 29.
Fukkink RG, Lont A. Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2007; 22 (3):294-311 - 30.
Kelley RC, Thornton B, Daugherty R. Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education. 2005; 126 (1):17-26 - 31.
Riley DA, Roach MA. Helping teachers grow: Toward theory and practice of an “emergent curriculum” model of staff development. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006; 33 (5):363-370 - 32.
Ho D, Tikly LP. Conceptualizing teacher leadership in a Chinese, policy-driven context: A research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2012; 23 (4):401-416 - 33.
Wang J, Elicker J, McMullen M, Mao S. Chinese and American preschool teachers’ beliefs about early childhood curriculum. Early Child Development and Care. 2008; 178 (3):227-249 - 34.
Zhu J, Zhang J. Contemporary trends and developments in early childhood education in China. Early Years. 2008; 28 (2):173-182 - 35.
Ngcobo T, Tikly LP. Key dimensions of effective leadership for change: A focus on township and rural schools in South Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2010; 38 (2):202-228 - 36.
Qin XF, Wang M. A theoretical analysis & practical construction of the standard of generally beneficial kindergarten [in Chinese]. Theory and Practice of Education. 2014; 34 (9):36-38 - 37.
Pang LJ, Fan ML. Problems and challenges in the management system of early childhood education in current China [in Chinese]. Research in Educational Development. 2012; 4 :39-43 - 38.
Zhang AR, Wang M. “Personnel agency”: A new personnel management model for temporary kindergarten teachers [in Chinese]. Teacher Education Research. 2015; 27 (4):21-26 - 39.
Zhang HR, Huang YY, Li L. Study on the demand of rural-urban early childhood education resources in China: Based on the prediction of school-aged population [in Chinese]. Educational Research. 2013; 5 :60-66 - 40.
Liang WY, Wang WW, Shi YM. Analysis on the change trend of pre-school age population and education demand after population policy changed [in Chinese]. Global Education. 2014; 43 (9):82-91 - 41.
Feng W, Tian P, Jiang H. Research on the progress and optimizing way of the allocation of kindergarten teachers of district: Based on the empirical analysis of the data from 2010 to 2015 in Beijing [in Chinese]. Teacher Education Research. 2017; 29 (3):39-45 - 42.
Zhang L, Yu S. “I am not a babysitter”: A case study of five Chinese mainland early childhood teachers’ identity. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2017; 43 (1):117-119 - 43.
Ho D. The paradox of power in leadership in early childhood education. Peabody Journal of Education. 2012; 87 (2):253-266 - 44.
Biesta G, Priestley M, Robinson S. The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching. 2015; 21 (6):624-640 - 45.
Freidson E. Professionalism, the Third Logic: On the Practice of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago press; 2001 - 46.
Fan Y. A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 2000; 7 (2):3-10 - 47.
Ayman R, Korabik K. Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. The American Psychologist. 2010; 65 (3):157 - 48.
Bush T, Qian H. Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2000; 20 (2):58-67 - 49.
Hofstede G. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Reading in Psychology and Culture. 2011; 2 (1):2-26 - 50.
Smith PB, Dugan S, Trompenaars F. National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1996; 27 (2):231-264 - 51.
Schwartz SH. Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994 - 52.
Lin C. Demystifying the chameleonic nature of Chinese leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 2008; 14 (4):303-321 - 53.
Fu PP, Tsui AS. Utilizing printed media to understand desired leadership attributes in the People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2003; 20 (4):423-446 - 54.
Hui HC, Tan CK. The moral component of effective leadership: The Chinese case. In: Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Elsevier; 1997 - 55.
Walker A, Hu R, Qian H. Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2012; 23 (4):369-399 - 56.
Leithwood K, Patten S, Jantzi D. Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2010; 46 (5):671-706 - 57.
Qian H, Walker A, Li X. The west wind vs the east wind: Instructional leadership model in China. Journal of Educational Administration. 2017; 55 (2):186-206 - 58.
Bajunid IA. Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Administration. 1996; 34 (5):50-73 - 59.
Hallinger P, Leithwood K. Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education. 1998; 73 (2):126-151 - 60.
Wong KC. Culture and moral leadership in education. Peabody Journal of Education. 1998; 73 (2):106-125 - 61.
Hallinger P, Bryant D. Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and management in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration. 2013; 51 (5):618-637 - 62.
Khalifa MA, Gooden MA, Davis JE. Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86 (4):1272-1311 - 63.
Walker A, Hallinger P. A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration. 2015; 53 (4):554-570 - 64.
Truong TD, Hallinger P, Sanga K. Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2017; 45 (1):77-100 - 65.
Gronn P. Leadership configurations. Leadership. 2009; 5 (3):381-394 - 66.
Sergiovanni T. Leadership: What’s in it for Schools.? London: Routledge; 2005 - 67.
Beachum F, Dentith AM. Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. The Educational Forum. 2004; 68 (3):276-286 - 68.
Spillane JP, Diamond JB. A distributed perspective on and in practice. Distributed Leadership in Practice. 2007:146-166 - 69.
Wang M, Ho D. Making sense of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2018; 24 :1-5 - 70.
Chow AW. Teacher learning communities: The landscape of subject leadership. International Journal of Educational Management. 2016; 30 (2):287-307 - 71.
Muijs D, Harris A. Teacher leadership in (in) action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2007; 35 (1):111-134 - 72.
Hobson LD, Moss L. Analysis of teacher leadership as a teacher development model: An opportunity for reform and improved practice. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal. 2010; 27 (2):28-42 - 73.
Olujuwon O, Perumal J. The impact of teacher leadership practices on school management in public secondary schools in Nigeria. In: 59th Year Book on Teacher Education. Japan: A publication of the International Council on Education for Teaching and Naruto University of Education; 2015 - 74.
Nudrat F, Akhtar MS. Assessing potential for teacher leadership: The case of prospective teachers. Journal of Research & Reflections in Education. 2014; 8 (2):105-115 - 75.
Hulin CL, Judge TA. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 12. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2003 - 76.
Taylor WA. Leadership challenges for smaller organisations: Self-perceptions of TQM implementation. Omega. 1997; 25 (5):567-579 - 77.
Demir K. The effect of organizational trust on the culture of teacher leadership in primary schools. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2015; 15 (3):621-634 - 78.
Kwan P, Walker A. Vice-principalship in Hong Kong: Aspirations, competencies, and satisfaction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2008; 19 (1):73-97 - 79.
Alegado PJE. The challenges of teacher leadership in the Philippines as experienced and perceived by teachers. International Journal of Educational Research. 2018; 6 (6):291-302 - 80.
Ho D. Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education programmes. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2011; 14 (1):47-59 - 81.
Sun M. Education system reform in China after 1978: Some practical implications. International Journal of Educational Management. 2010; 24 (4):314-329 - 82.
Law WW. Educational leadership and culture in China: Dichotomies between Chinese and Anglo-American leadership traditions.? International Journal of Educational Development. 2012; 32 (2):273-282 - 83.
Shen Y. Thoughts and practices on the construction of the teaching and research team of kindergartens [in Chinese]. New Countryside. 2011; 5 :4-6 - 84.
Ministry of Education. Secondary School Provisional Regulation [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1952 - 85.
Guo CY. Defining the roles of the leaders of teaching-research groups in new curriculum [In Chinese]. Contemporary Educational Science. 2007; 1 :33-36 - 86.
Hu Y. Empirical study on the nature of teaching and research group in secondary schools in China: A case study of secondary in the Urban Area of Beijing [in Chinese]. Journal of Educational Studies. 2012; 8 (6):78-89 - 87.
Wang R. Roles of the leaders of teaching research groups in school transformation and reform [in Chinese]. Kecheng Yu Jiaoxue Guanli. 2011; 12 :40-41 - 88.
Jarvis A. The necessity for collegiality: Power, authority and influence in the middle. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2012; 40 (4):480-493 - 89.
Li YG, Yang HK. The roles of teaching research groups in leading teaching training [in Chinese]. Teacher Development. 2006; 3 :56-60 - 90.
Liang P. Leaders of teaching research groups and their authority building [in Chinese]. New Study. 2009; 3 :28-32 - 91.
Niu LL, Liu XR. Characteristics of leaders of teaching research groups [in Chinese]. Teachers’ World. 2012; 6 :19 - 92.
Ma LQ. Roles of teaching research team leaders and professional development training [in Chinese]. Teacher’s World. 2007; 2 :66-68 - 93.
Shi JD, Xie XJ. The changing of roles of leaders of teaching research groups [in Chinese]. Exploration Horizon. 2009; 8 :50-53 - 94.
Gu Q, Sammons P, Mehta P. Leadership characteristics and practices in schools with different effectiveness and improvement profiles. School Leadership and Management. 2008; 28 (1):43-63 - 95.
Bai R. The excellent leaders of teaching research groups in schools [in Chinese]. Teaching and Learning. 2013; 4 :43 - 96.
Wang Y, Xin QX. What is a good teaching research group leader in school? [in Chinese]. New Study. 2014; 6 :22-24 - 97.
Katzenmeyer M, Moller G. Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2001 - 98.
York-Barr J, Duke K. What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research. 2004 Sep; 74 (3):255-316 - 99.
Ho D. Exploring the definitions of quality early childhood programmes in a market-driven context: Case studies of two Hong Kong preschools. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2008; 16 (3):223-236 - 100.
Svanbjörnsdóttir BM, Macdonald A, Frímannsson GH. Views of learning and a sense of community among students, paraprofessionals and parents in developing a school culture towards a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education. 2016; 42 (4):589-609 - 101.
Greenlee BJ. Building teacher leadership capacity through educational leadership programs. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders. 2007; 4 (1):44-74 - 102.
Barr J, Saltmarsh S. “It all comes down to the leadership” The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2014; 42 (4):491-505 - 103.
Lindahl R. Shared leadership: Can it work in schools.? The Educational Forum. 2008; 72 (4):298-307 - 104.
Wang M. Perceptions and its influencing factors of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China [dissertation]. Hong Kong: Education University of Hong Kong; 2018 - 105.
Murphy J. Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2005 - 106.
Rieckhoff BS, Larsen C. The impact of a professional development network on leadership development and school improvement goals. School-University Partnerships. 2012; 5 (1):57-73
Notes
- The term ‘backbone teachers’ refers to those teachers whose performance in teaching and peer professional support is considered excellent in the eyes of other teaching staff.