A Literature Review on Leadership in the Early Years
April 2008
Aline-Wendy Dunlop
This Literature Review updates the review undertaken in 2005 by Aline-Wendy Dunlop
supported by Colleen Clinton. It is based on key documents, conference presentations,
research studies and other relevant data published since 2000. A few key references prior
to that date are included. An overall summary of findings is offered, supported by a
précis of some key first-hand sources referred to in the summary.
Contents
Contents
Introduction
Overview
Definitions of Leadership in the Early Years
Leadership and Gender in the Early Years
Leadership and Professionalism
Effective Educational Leadership in Early Years – Models and Key Aspects
The Need for Training in Leadership in the Early Years
Relating Early Childhood Leadership to the Early Years of Primary School
The Wider Leadership Literature
Conclusions
Key Points Emerging from the Literature on Leadership in the Early Years
Sources Reviewed
References
Further Bibliography
Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 4
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 18
Page 19
Page 21
Page 25
Page 27
Page 29
Page 40
Page 51
1
Introduction
This literature review aimed to locate the national and international research and
documentary evidence relating to leadership in the early years sector. A wide-ranging
search was undertaken, including electronic databases and search engines such as ERIC,
Google Scholar, a range of websites including research associations and government
sites, as well as a trawl of printed and electronic journals on leadership and early years.
The choice of material to include was based on clear management, leadership and early
years criteria. As we found the literature to be limited, we approached particular authors
known to have published in this area to enquire after further sources – this has allowed us
to tap into a number of theses and unpublished papers: where we have done so we have
relied on the research records of the authors as validation of the sources: their research
methodology and a clear evidence base for any claims made was important. While
articles in peer-reviewed journals form a major part of reviewed materials, there was
much of interest to be found in conference papers, books, professional journals and
research reports, and we have therefore included materials from these sources as well.
We present an overview of findings, followed by key points to be drawn out of the
review. We finish with a section which provides a summary of each of our sources.
Overview
‘Good leadership is critical to a successful school. Success comes from aiming high with the clear vision, ethos and communication that good leadership brings. We will act to support high quality school leadership and inspired, ambitious school communities.’ (Ambitious, Excellent Schools – Our Agenda for Action, Scottish Executive, 2004, p5)
The Scottish Executive states that it ‘sees the role of leadership in schools and the wider
educational community growing in importance’ (Scottish Executive, 2005, p2). The
importance the Executive attaches to leadership and development of leadership capacity
is reflected in the leadership agenda set out in Ambitious, Excellent Schools (Scottish
Executive, 2004a; Scottish Executive, 2005). These documents make the link between
effective leadership, leadership development and pupils’ school success. The stated
intention is that by assisting schools in their leadership work, not adding to their
workload (Scottish Executive, 2005), schools will be more able to develop pupils’
2
‘capacities as successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective
contributors to society’ (A Curriculum for Excellence, Scottish Executive, 2004).
This literature review reveals that before our new Scottish initiative to address the
curriculum 3–18, leadership in the early years sector has been virtually ignored at
governmental level – this is an international rather than a purely Scottish phenomenon,
and is reflected most strongly in the growing literature on leadership in early childhood
emerging from New Zealand (McLeod, 2003; Meade, 2003; Scrivens, 2003, 2004;
Thornton, 2005). It should be acknowledged that the New Zealand context for early
childhood services is different from our own. In Scotland since 2000 early childhood
education has become a duty of provision on local authorities, and the connection with
the statutory school sector is a long established one, whereas in New Zealand state
provision of early childhood services is relatively new and not yet universal. Where
experience converges is in the complex and different nature of leadership in early
childhood by comparison with the statutory school sector, and the importance of early
childhood services being managed in informed collaborative, co-operative and
community-oriented ways.
Leadership in the early years assumes great importance in this context and earlier
assumptions that a focus on early years leadership was unnecessary because of the
existing team approaches which mark early childhood services can be seen through
evidence reported in this review to be no longer tenable. Indeed, the academic sector in
Scotland continues to respond to this need through provision of undergraduate and
postgraduate early childhood (0–8) degrees (eg University of Strathclyde, BA in
Childhood Practice, BA in Education and Social Services, and Postgraduate Certificate,
Diploma and MSc in Early Childhood Studies). Such courses promote reflection, enquiry
and self-evaluation, all qualities of effective leadership (Harris and Lambert, 2003), and
provide important opportunities for leadership development. In England these have
become more specific through the advent of the Early Excellence Centres, and
opportunities such as the MA in Leadership and Management in Early Childhood
(Whalley, 2003) and the National College for School Leadership (2005) courses. A few
main texts also support practitioners, particularly Jillian Rodd’s book, now in its third
3
edition (2005), and Sadek and Sadek (2004), whose book is specifically written for
Vocational Qualifications’ Level 3 (practitioner) and 4 (lead practitioner) students and
those working in management within a childcare setting.
The relationship between effective leadership and pupils’ achievement is strongly
evidenced through school inspection. Effective leadership has a perceptible impact on
pupils’ learning (HMIE, 2000). While leadership has been found to be central to
successful schools, equally there is scope for improving the quality of that leadership
(HMIE, 2000): managers often focused overly on the day-to-day without being strategic
in the longer term. The complementary nature of leadership and management is often
assumed; however, in the educational literature a distinction is clearly drawn: leadership
is perceived to include vision, based on shared values. Leaders are better placed to
provide both motivation and direction to colleagues (HMIE, 2000).
Key aims of SEED’s broad leadership programme include increased collaboration among
the key groups who contribute to the development of leadership capacity in Scottish
education and developing excellence and capacity building across the educational system.
Leadership development priorities should be identified, innovation generated, expertise
and new approaches developed in order to contribute to a general strengthening of
leadership capacity (Scottish Executive, 2005).
This link between leadership and effective provision is also true for early childhood
settings, where research indicates that leaders play an important part in the provision of
quality services. Effective leadership has been found to be a key element of effective
early childhood provision (Muijs et al, 2004; Harris et al, 2002; Rodd, 2005). Other
factors that have contributed to the focus on leadership include pressure for increasing
professionalisation and accountability from within and outside the profession (Rodd,
2005).
Definitions of Leadership in the Early Years
Traditionally leadership in the early years has been associated with individual skills
characteristics and personal qualities in the leader (Nivala and Hujala, 2002). A more
4
recent view of leadership is that it is not an isolated activity invested in a single person,
but rather that a variety of people contribute to effective leadership, and that leadership is
therefore distributed. If this is the case, then preparation for leadership has to go beyond
individual management training since leadership capacities will need to be more widely
developed in the team: how then can leadership qualities be developed? Currently in
England the National College for School Leadership is actively promoting development
opportunities. As part of its Community Leadership Strategy it has introduced the first
national programme to address the needs of leaders within multi-agency early years
settings. The new qualification is called the National Professional Qualification in
Integrated Centre Leadership (National College for School Leadership, 2005): it
recognises that leadership in the early years has a distinctive focus, particularly as
integrated services develop and mixed staffing models continue to be a feature of early
childhood work.
A view that leadership is about personal attributes and therefore about a single person
playing a leadership role into which is built notions of competition and power (Thornton,
2005) does not sit easily with the collaborative approaches upon which early childhood
practice is predicated. Early years prior-to-school services are often non-hierarchical and
most employees are women (Ebbeck and Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 2005). This fairly
flat structure means that distributive leadership models tend to be preferred in early
childhood settings, though the Pen Green website (Pen Green, 2005) asserts that if we are
to transform children’s life chances this can only be done through ‘visionary leadership’.
The early childhood sector is growing and a vast majority of our families now take
advantage of pre-school education (Scottish Executive, 2004a). Childcare and early
education settings are diverse, including nursery classes, primary schools, private and
voluntary settings (Dunlop, 2003; Muijs et al, 2004; Solly, 2003). These different settings
often have contrasting philosophies, structures and a range of quality assurance models:
Muijs et al (2004) report that they are inspected by different bodies. In Scotland there has
been an integration of Care Commission and HMIE inspection through the joint
inspection process.
5
A study conducted by Solly (2003) found that there was a difference in who was seen as
a leader in various types of early childhood settings. In nursery classes, primary schools,
private and voluntary settings, respondents saw the official leader (owner, headteacher)
as the only leader, but responses from nursery schools and excellence centres gave
broader interpretations. Early years educators interpret their leadership differently
according to the setting in which they are based. For example, Osgood reports that
private-sector providers were more likely to apply business principles to the management
of their settings, while those managing voluntary-sector settings were much less
comfortable with an entrepreneurial agenda (Osgood, 2004). Private nursery managers
tend to have a less collaborative and community-centred approach to leadership because
of fears of competition (Osgood, 2004) endangering making profits.
In a study of nursery teachers’ concepts of leadership conducted in the West of Scotland,
nursery teachers working predominantly in nursery schools and nursery classes see
themselves with a strong leadership obligation that is not always recognised by their
managers: they draw a distinction between leadership and management (Dunlop, 2002;
Dunlop, 2005). These teachers recognise distinctive areas of work on which they lead
including teaching, planning, observing children, undertaking assessments, evaluation,
identification of team development needs, record keeping, working with and reporting to
parents, organising time, space and resources, and organisation of people. They also
identify a responsibility to report to the head of establishment to keep that person
informed of current work in the nursery class: this last activity is confined to teachers in
nursery classes, as opposed to a nursery teacher in a free-standing nursery where the sole
focus of effort is on early years provision. Nursery teachers reported a role ambiguity, as
they were expected to perform a day-to-day role as both team members and team leaders
whilst not being accorded a specific leadership or management role.
The early years workforce comprises a wide range of personnel, each with different
experience, training and qualifications. Solly (2003) highlights the number of young and
inexperienced staff working in the sector and emphasises that the specific leadership
context is multi-professional, primarily female, and socially and culturally varied. In June
2004 a news release on the Review of the Early Years Workforce in Scotland showed
6
that the number employed in the early years nursery sector had risen to over 30,000
people in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004). Focusing on five key areas, this review
aimed to:
examine and define the role and responsibilities of staff in all areas of the early
years and childcare workforce
improve workforce planning, to ensure that there are adequate staff numbers in
each area
simplify and modernise the early years and childcare qualifications system
provide greater opportunities for staff in one area of the workforce to move to
another
consider the potential implications of this work for pay and conditions.
Role definition is reported in the literature to be problematic in terms of leadership in the
early years. The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project found a strong
relationship between the ‘qualifications of the centre manager and quality of service
provision in early childhood settings’ (Muijs et al, 2004, p7). The diversity of this
workforce makes a particularly complex arena for leadership (Osgood, 2004; Rodd,
2005). Additionally there is a serious lack of leadership training for early childhood
managers: it is likely that many are significantly under-prepared for this role. Research
based on and drawing from the work of early childhood practitioners suggests that too
often positions of leadership in early childhood settings tend to be held by ‘accidental
leaders’ with minimal training to carry out their responsibilities (Ebbeck and
Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 2005). Ebbeck and Waniganayake call for clear definitions
of roles and lines of responsibility, and in turn explore ways in which obstacles to
effective leadership and management can be identified and overcome.
Characteristics traditionally associated with effective early childhood leaders include
kindness and warmth. The study conducted by Solly (2003) showed that parents who
entrust their young children to staff must see them as warm and gentle, thereby adding to
the perception that the early years phase is the phase before ‘real education’. Solly found
that the early years phase appeared to educators and others outside as lacking academic
7
rigour, based on the perception that society perceives the education of older children to
be more difficult and more academically demanding. The huge range of qualifications,
multi-professional career structure and conditions of service, together with the stigma of
early years only being about ‘play’, may have created a divide between early years and
later school education. In Scotland, where primary teachers have traditionally been
trained to work with children aged 3–12 years, the current volume of teachers in initial
teacher education (ITE) has led to difficulties in placing ITE students in pre-school
settings staffed by qualified teachers: a situation exacerbated by government initiatives
that have opened the door to a notion of teacher ‘presence’ that may not be full-time.
Leadership and Gender in the Early Years
Leadership in early years services very often (though not exclusively) resides in female
heads of centre. The gender of leadership may be a way in which leadership in early
childhood is set apart from other sectors of education. According to Rodd (2005), women
have problems identifying the concept and need for leadership: they may lack
understanding of what leadership may mean in an early childhood service. In this sector
the concept of leadership can involve sets of reciprocal relationships (Dunlop, 2005) and
these have more in common with the early childhood pedagogical approaches than with
traditional business concepts of leadership. There is a view that suggests that leadership
styles differ between male and female leaders: recent studies do not provide the evidence
to support this (Muijs, 2004).
However, Solly (2003) found that the vast majority of early childhood leaders in her
study thought there was a difference in leadership styles between their sector and others.
A social constructivist model of learning is often advocated in early years, and Solly
finds that early childhood leaders’ own positive learning dispositions enable others.
Participants saw their strengths as advocacy, inspiration, passion and enthusiasm along
with being a lifelong learner and having a team ethos (Solly, 2003).
In Osgood’s study the sample was almost exclusively female. They voiced concerns
based on perceptions that government’s push towards commercial models of childcare
8
management favoured masculinised entrepreneurialism over an ethic of care. The
emphasis on caring amongst managers in early childhood settings was paramount.
However, Osgood (2004) found that managers in early childhood settings believe that
their commitment to care and to the local community and parents could embrace more
commercial approaches provided these were feminised and took account of their
emotional investment and commitment to work. They wish to enhance their
professionalism, whilst maintaining an ethic of care and resisting a form of
entrepreneurship that in their view might be detrimental to provision (Osgood, 2004) and
overly masculinised. Past models and traditional leadership theories may not have been
appropriate to the early childhood field in that they reflected a hierarchical, top-down,
male-oriented orientation (Kagan and Bowman, 1997) mostly adopted from those used in
the business world.
The majority of practitioners in Osgood’s studies thought that businesslike approaches to
management were inappropriate in childcare. The importance of collaboration and mutual
support was stressed and this is more in concert with new theories on leadership: in the
voluntary sector this extended to managers of voluntary sector provision working within
their own settings and with other provision to develop collaborative practices (Osgood,
2004). In these studies women saw the importance of ‘emotional’ management skills –
essential in the nurturing environments which are children’s right. Many women in early
childhood education thus feel that most ‘masculinised’ leadership models are
inappropriate to early childhood education as they do not recognise and respect the
collaborative aspect crucial to this phase (Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).
Leadership and Professionalism
Dalli (2005) in reflecting on professionalism in the early years highlights the importance
of relationships and responsiveness in effective early childhood practice. She asserts that
the discourse of early childhood professionals has changed from childcare workers to
educators and that this is part of constructing a scholarly base for the early childhood
profession. She voices ‘love’ as a legitimate part of early childhood practice. In arguing
for a new definition of professionalism to fit early childhood work, by extension the
implication is for new concepts of leadership as well. She conducted a survey of ethics
9
and professionalism (2003) which aimed to establish a grounds-up definition of
professionalism, and found three key themes in childcare teachers’ statements about what
matters in professionalism in the early childhood field in New Zealand: these were
pedagogy, professional knowledge and skills, and collaborative relationships including
management. In this last theme teachers felt it was important to be able to demonstrate
leadership by exhibiting management knowledge and skills, being able to articulate
concerns in a confident manner, demonstrating a knowledge of current educational
research, and being aware of the educational political environment.
Additionally, Scrivens, also working in New Zealand, highlights that women prefer a
model of leadership which, citing Hall (1996), embraces ‘power for’ rather than ‘power
over’ someone. Nevertheless, women in leadership roles appear both to be able to share
leadership and to take the lead when required (Scrivens, 2002).
Effective Educational Leadership in Early Years – models and key aspects
Beyond early childhood there is a growing consensus about the methods and approaches
which contribute to effective educational leadership development (Scottish Executive,
2005). There is a wide range of theories on leadership (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, ed,
2002). Many of the authors writing in Nivala and Hujala argue that leadership, change,
collaboration and improvement will happen only if there is interaction between leaders
and followers. Leadership is realised in relationships between the leader and the
followers and is not just a personal quality but happens in a social context. Leaders set
the standards and the expectations for others to follow. The more recent statements
around educational leadership sit well with perceptions held within early childhood that
effective early childhood leaders need characteristics and skills which are related to team
work, motivation, support, role definition and goal setting (Rodd, 2005). Building
relationships, shared decision-making and empowerment of others are seen as important
characteristics of good leadership in early years (Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).
According to Bloom (2000) early childhood leaders need to be competent in three key
areas:
10
knowledge, including group dynamics, organisational theory, child
development, and teaching strategies
skills, including technical, human and conceptual skills (eg budgeting)
attitudes, including moral purpose,
and should demonstrate the following characteristics:
being goal-oriented, using planning, assertiveness, vision, and confidence (this
was a change from earlier research, where these factors had not been identified)
having good working relationships with staff, who participate in leadership
being responsive to parents’ needs and able to communicate with them.
Bloom’s three areas and key characteristics overlap significantly with the ways in which
Dalli highlights that leadership in early childhood can be demonstrated. Although the
importance of leadership across most educational levels is widely recognised and well
researched, the research on leadership in early childhood settings is still limited.
Furthermore, Muijs et al find that most of the leadership research in this area is more
narrowly informed by theorising about early childhood contexts and qualities and
avoiding the broader field of research studies (Muijs et al, 2004).
A clear definition of an early education leader does not exist although leadership
conventionally has been equated with management. A need for a broader definition has
arisen as responsibilities of early leaders have expanded. Professionals in the early years
have viewed themselves first and foremost as educators and child developers. They have
held a narrow view of their role, mainly as practitioners, and do not fully recognise that
their roles have expanded to include financial and leadership responsibilities (Muijs et al,
2004; Rodd, 1998; Rodd, 2001; Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002; Morgan in Kagan
and Bowman, 1997). By interpreting the meaning of activities, one can categorise them
into five different frames: educational, caring, managing, practical and personal.
(Rosemary and Puroila in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).
11
According to Solly (2003), we need to develop high-calibre leaders in the early years
who can both ‘maintain’ and ‘enhance’, but studies (Rodd, 2005; Bloom, 1997, in Muijs
et al, 2004) show that most leaders in early childhood settings in the UK found that roles
most common to their work could be described as focusing more on maintenance than
development; there was more emphasis on management than on leadership (Muijs et al,
2004). Scottish nursery teachers saw leadership as an essential element of their role while
acknowledging that they did not themselves hold management positions (Dunlop, 2002).
The concept of ‘lead-practitioner’ as someone who promotes shared values and ethos in
early years is increasingly articulated in Scotland (Adams, 2005).
An important part of early childhood leadership is co-ordination between different
players or interest groups (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, 2002), including family, school
and community (Muijs et al, 2004; Osgood, 2004). These interest groups have their own
view on early childhood education (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, 2002). Practitioners see
themselves as contributing to the cohesion and strength of local communities (Osgood,
2004) and adopt collaborative approaches to management. There is a strong emphasis on
working with parents in early childhood leadership (Muijs et al, 2004). However,
leadership studies in New Zealand report a downplaying of the importance of this kind of
work – a perspective that the EPPE project outcomes can be understood to refute.
As part of the International Leadership Project (ILP), a research project on leadership in
early childhood context established between 1998 and 2000 by five countries including
England, Nivala proposes a contextual leadership model in early childhood education, in
which four contextual elements seem to be important for a successful leadership in the
early years. These elements are: paradigms, actions, education in the substance meaning
of early childhood education, and environment- it is asserted that the more the interest
groups in early childhood education share the meaning of these elements, the better the
everyday reality of leadership will function (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).
The importance of community-orientated provision does not match with an
entrepreneurial managerial approach (Osgood, 2004) nor with masculinist constructs of
leadership associated with aggressiveness, forcefulness, competitiveness and
12
independence (Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002). Kagan speaks of collaborative
leadership, which fits with a systems theory and integrated services that conceptualises
work across agencies and disciplines (Kagan, 1993).
Multi-agency working in early childhood requires co-ordination and the ability to deal
with conflict (Muijs et al, 2004). Muijs et al cite an audit undertaken by Atkinson et al
(2001, 2002), in which it was found that the key to success of early childhood
programmes like Sure Start involved effective leadership and multi-agency work. The
early childhood field is complex because of its diversity and scale but also because of the
aspect of community leadership (Muijs et al, 2004; Waniganayake in Nivala and Hujala,
2002). Kagan and Hallmark (2001) make a focus on community aspects of early
childhood leadership; their model embraces five styles of leadership, shows the need for
different types of leaders, and emphasises the need for training and development in these
aspects:
Community leadership
Pedagogical leadership
Administrative leadership
Advocacy leadership
Conceptual leadership.
More detail of these styles is given in the synopses of research that follow. Like Dalli
(2003), they see a need for early years leaders to be educationally and politically aware.
Additionally they see community leadership as a core capacity for development.
Shared leadership models, promoted in several studies of leadership within the sector,
provide a contrast with the assumption in much of the literature that leadership is linked
to a role, and open up the possibility that several people within a centre/service may be
involved in leadership. Louise Hard (2004) has proposed the concept of formal and
informal leaders. She suggests that the formal leader is recognised because of their
position whereas the informal leader is one who shows leadership qualities even though
they may not hold a recognised leadership position. This accords well with Scottish
teachers’ concepts of leadership as reported by Dunlop (2002).
13
Janet Moyles’s publication Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years is a
research-based text which draws from the project ‘The Effective Leadership and
Management Scheme for the Early Years’. The project produced ELMS – a tool for those
who are in leadership and management roles in early years settings so that they may
evaluate their effectiveness. It is claimed that the purpose of evaluation of leadership and
management is to ensure the best possible experiences for children and early educators;
in other words, effective leadership and management are central to the quality agenda.
Moyles highlights leadership qualities, management skills, professional skills and
attributes, and personal characteristics and attitudes. She endorses Ebbeck and
Waninganayake’s (2002) view that ‘there are few publicly acknowledged leaders and no
set of common expectations for leaders in early childhood’. Moyles juxtaposes leadership
and management, whereas Rodd (2005) distinguishes between them: her typology of
what managers and leaders do includes the following aspects:
Managers plan, organise, co-ordinate and control, whereas leaders are typified as people
who give direction, offer inspiration, build teamwork, set an example and gain
acceptance. Often the literature reinforces the view that leadership and management are
separate but related concepts.
In their Effective Leadership in the Early Years Study (ELEYS), Siraj-Blatchford and
Manni (2006) highlight the effective leadership practices identified in the settings that
took part in the study:
Identifying and articulating a collective vision
Ensuring shared understandings, meanings and goals
Effective communication
Encouraging reflection
Commitment to ongoing, professional development
Monitoring and assessing practice
Distributed leadership
Building a learning community and team culture
Encouraging and facilitating parent and community partnerships
Leading and managing: striking the balance
14
Here the idea of striking a balance between leadership and management is highlighted.
The work drew from the REPEY study – also part of the wider EPPE project.
Nupponen (2006a, 2006b) also considers that effective leadership is vital to quality
services for young children. Effective leadership frameworks are needed as a starting
point towards ensuring quality. Nupponen emphasises the complex external social
environment in which early childhood settings operate (Bergin-Seers and Breen, 2002)
and the consequent need for self- reflection. As elsewhere she finds that there has been
little Australian research that focuses on the leadership and management role of heads
(directors) of centre-based child care. National figures of children entering childcare is
unavailable in Australia (OECD Country Note, 2001), but in Queensland where she was
researching, more children attend private provision rather than community-managed
centres. Her study included case studies of directors of child care centres, based on
interviews with them. She concludes that training and experience in business
management and leadership is needed in order to enhance the competence of centre
managers.
Solly (2003) highlights enthusiasm, passion, inspiration and advocacy as leadership
qualities. Whalley (2005) emphasises influence rather than authority as an important
element of leadership. What comes through most sources is that there is a high potential
for leadership activity in the field of early childhood. What is less clear in the literature is
who provides quality leadership, and agreement about who might do so in early
childhood services in the future is still more elusive and under-researched. The paucity of
research into early childhood leadership in the UK is beginning to be addressed through
studies led by Janet Moyles (2004) and Carol Aubrey (2007). The new Scottish
workforce categories include ‘Lead Practitioner’ and herald a need for research into the
roles played by the various professionals responsible for early childhood services,
integrated services and schooling in Scotland.
There is however ample research cited to support the claim that the higher the quality of
early childcare and education, the greater the contribution to positive learning outcomes
for children (Vandell and Wolfe, 2000). Such evidence supports education and training
15
initiatives that aim to raise the level of education of practitioners, and to include a
leadership level in that training. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory offers the
idea that children’s development takes place through the interrelationships between the
various levels of environment they occupy and interactions with others who form part of
their environment. It is possible to reflect that unless those out-of-home environments are
led by practitioners with ‘formal leadership training or credentials’, quality is less likely
to be sustained. Since most early childhood settings are presently led by practitioners who
have lacked until now the opportunity to engage in leadership training – a crucial variable
in ensuring quality (Nupponen, 2003b), a political commitment or culture is required, so
creating the opportunity for improvement in the quality of early childhood services as
newly trained leaders become agents for change.
Bella and Bloom (2003)’s study Zoom: The Impact of Early Childhood Leadership
Training on Role Perceptions, Job Performance, and Career Decisions was conducted
with a sample of 182 participants who took part in two different models of leadership
training up until 2003. The study set out to look at the impact of the forms of training on
role perceptions, job performance and career decisions in the sample group. Self-report
questionnaires were used as well as follow-up interviews. The research questions guiding
this study were clustered into four areas:
1. current job status and motivations for staying or in leaving the field
2. perceived short- and long-term outcomes from having participated in leadership
training
3. subsequent professional development experiences and knowledge of professional
development resources
4. feedback on the design and delivery of training.
Participants reported the link between their sense of empowerment following training,
their consequent raised sense of self-esteem and the impact of both on their leadership
role. This new confidence had been sustained and continued to allow participants to take
on new challenges. Ratings of ‘novice’, ‘capable’ and ‘master’ were used in this study to
provide data for change in feelings of competence. The percentage viewing themselves as
16
‘master’ changed from 10% to 50% as a result of the ‘Taking Charge of Change’ model
of leadership training.
In this study further statistical analyses were undertaken to establish which background
variables correlate strongly with participants’ perceptions of competence in a leadership
role. It was found that perceptions of competence are linked most strongly to the level of
education of the participant and less to years of experience either in the field or in an
administrative role. New perspectives on their leadership role allowed individuals to
move beyond ‘nitty-gritty’, day-to-day matters, and to adopt a more strategic role in
which they developed a vision of what they wanted their service to become and a strong
sense of what this meant in their community.
In terms of job performance, the results of the Zoom study (Bella and Bloom, 2003)
found that respondents agreed they had improved their management skills, were more
reflective about their leadership behaviour, and felt they had practical resources to help.
In terms of career decisions, 86% remained working in early childhood, which seems to
endorse the renewed focus leadership training brings, as well as the potential for change –
‘The rich empirical and anecdotal evidence from respondents provides compelling
evidence of how leadership training can change the early childhood profession from the
inside out and from the bottom up, through changes in early childhood educators
themselves. The results of this study underscore the need for systematic, intensive, and
relevant training focused on the unique needs of early childhood directors.’ (p2)
They noted four clusters of skills that helped them in their leadership role:
1. interpersonal communication skills
2. group facilitation skills (mostly conducting effective meetings)
3. decision-making skills (particularly participative management)
4. staff development skills.
Their findings match the findings from Sylva et al’s EPPE study in which it was found
that the higher the qualifications of managers, the higher the quality of the curriculum
17
experiences, the better the programme structure and the relationships with and between
staff and parents (Sylva et al, 2004).
The need for training in leadership in the early years
The Standard for Headship in Scotland has set out the key aspects of professionalism and
expertise which the Scottish education system requires of those who are appointed to
headship (The Standard for Headship in Scotland – The Scottish Qualification for
Headship, 2001). Take-up from the early childhood pre-sector in this scheme is
reportedly low, with little active recruitment and some reporting of doubts about the
relevance of the scheme to early years practice, by sponsoring authorities rather than by
individual participants (Dunlop, 2004).
A lack of training for leaders in early childhood settings is highlighted by Muijs et al
(2004) as leadership training and development has historically not been deemed
necessary in the early childhood context. However, there is a demand for it; for example,
about two thirds of the respondents in a study undertaken by Rodd (1997 in 2005) wanted
specific training related to leadership and management issues. Many early childhood
leaders do not feel prepared for the responsibilities of their role (Jorde-Bloom and
Sheerer, 1992). Rodd (2001) sees early childhood leadership made up of three elements:
technical knowledge and skills, including pedagogical and curriculum leadership;
conceptual ability, which involves critical thinking and advocacy; and interpersonal
skills. Rodd suggests that these elements can be developed through training. Paula Jorde
Bloom (2003, p5) uses a similar framework to Rodd when she describes ‘the technical,
human and conceptual skills that define effective leadership’. She further categorises
these skills into four areas: communication skills; decision-making and problem-solving
skills; interpersonal skills; and organisational skills. Bloom comments that defining
leadership in terms of skills broadens the view of leadership to include those outside
specific leadership positions.
Training is essential to provide relevant knowledge and skills for leadership roles in early
years services (Dunlop, 2002; Sylva et al, 2002). Data from the 12 case study settings in
the Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) research project found a strong
18
relationship between the qualifications and training of the centre manager and quality of
service provision in early childhood settings (Sylva et al, 2004). These centres revealed
‘strong leadership and long serving staff’ (p35). All managers were reported as taking a
strong lead, particularly in the areas of curriculum, planning, educational focus, adult-
child interaction and the engagement of children in learning. Additionally ‘In most of the
settings the strong leadership was characterised by a strong philosophy that was shared
by everyone working in the centre’ (p35). The strong relationship between the
childcare/education qualifications of the leader/manager and the effectiveness of the
EPPE settings revealed in Sylva et al’s work supports a view that those who manage and
lead early years services should have high level qualifications: in view of these research
findings a case is being argued in England for having trained teachers in leadership
positions (Muijs et al, 2004).
Early childhood managers make an enormous commitment to the profession and are
willing to make personal sacrifices, ie low pay, long hours and absence of benefits
(Osgood, 2004). However, despite the lack of reward and limited training opportunities
available for the leadership role, many early childhood professionals want to heighten
their levels of professionalism and aspire to becoming a leader in their field (Osgood,
2004; Rodd, 2005).
Specific training programmes are now being developed; however, they are small-scale
(Muijs et al, 2004). Where training is provided, effects appear positive (Muijs et al, 2004;
Jorde-Bloom and Sheerer, 1992). Whalley’s team at Pen Green leads the National
Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership.
Relating Early Childhood Leadership to the Early Years of Primary School
Hard and O’Gorman’s work is included in this Leadership Review as it resonates with
current developments in the Early Level of Curriculum for Excellence 3–18 to introduce
active learning into Primary 1. Writing about developments in Queensland, Australia,
where a full-time Preparatory Year has been introduced to replace the former part-time
19
pre-school provision, Hard and O’Gorman’s discussions have centred around how their
Early Years Curriculum, which is play-based, might influence the nature of schooling in
early primary. Tied into such discussions is the role the early childhood world might play
in leadership of change in early primary schooling. The two research studies that inform
Hard and O’Gorman’s article are reported in the ‘Sources Reviewed’ section that follows.
These studies find that the creation of full-time preparatory classes within primary
schools is allowing greater interaction between early educators, the possibility of greater
movement of staff between sectors, and promotion of a greater interrelationship between
different pedagogies. The balance of ‘child-responsive practices’ and ‘teacher-directed
whole group approaches’ (p52) is interrogated. Early childhood approaches are defined
by the researchers as ‘active learning, child initiation, the use of concrete materials and
real life learning opportunities underpinned by the scope for children to exercise choice’
(p52). These terms link to the Scottish Early Level definition of active learning as:
Spontaneous play Planned, purposeful play Investigating and exploring Events and life experiences Focused learning and teaching
and to the view that in the early primary school active learning might be:
‘A true building on experiences in nursery. Hands-on independent play with appropriate skilled intervention/teaching.’
‘Children learn by doing, thinking, exploring, through quality interaction, intervention and relationships, founded on children’s interests and abilities across a variety of contexts. All combining to building the four capacities for each child.’
‘Environments that offer differential play and challenge, staff who are well informed and able to challenge learning, child-centred and building on previous experiences, fun absolutely essential, children planning and evaluating their learning.’
(Building the Curriculum 2, 2007, p6)
A broad agreement about what constitutes ‘active learning’ seems to emerge. In the
20
Queensland study the importance of leadership of early years pre-primary (preparatory)
and early primary education being undertaken by professionals with early childhood
qualifications emerges strongly, as does the need for those professionals who would
promote an early childhood philosophy to grasp the opportunity to influence primary
school developments through their leadership: Hard and O’Gorman write of ‘the interplay
of school reform and leadership, and its particular relationship to the ECEC field’ (p54).
They see early childhood leadership as both challenging and contentious.
Hard and O’Gorman cite a number of authors as they consider the leadership challenge,
including MacBeath (2004), Lingard et al (2003) and Stamopolous (2003) to emphasise
the ambiguities of leadership, leadership and learning links, and the association of good
leadership and change, respectively (p55). The importance of those providing leadership
of early childhood settings attached to primary schools having a strong knowledge and
understanding of the early levels of the curriculum is emphasised by Stamopolous, who
writes of specialised staff and resolution of philosophical differences; she states:
‘Inadequate leadership may have serious implications for program quality, accountability,
student learning and staff training’ (p200). In the Scottish case this could translate firstly
to encouraging early childhood educators to consider the co-operation they might offer in
terms of distributed leadership to their colleagues in early primary education as
‘purposeful well planned play’ becomes a reality; secondly it points to the need for
primary school heads having a strong knowledge of the Early Level 3–6 if they are going
to provide effective and appropriate leadership for that stage of education at a time of
curriculum reform.
Hard (2005) writes of two concepts that may be helpful as we consider leadership for the
Early Level in Scotland: interpreted professional identity, and interpreted leadership
capacity. The first is how early childhood professionals perceive themselves – in the light
of how others perceive them. For some early childhood practitioners the message that
working with the youngest children is not as highly regarded as working with older
children, and that the status afforded to early childhood workers is low, influences their
professional identity negatively. The second concept – interpreted leadership capacity –
refers to the ways in which these same professionals view their own capacity to lead.
21
Hard claims these two concepts are interwoven, and that study participants conceived of
leadership in early childhood as a shared and team-based process. Hard refers to
participants’ understandings of leadership as a ‘discourse of niceness’ and suggests that
this discourse militates against leaders standing out. She and O’Gorman (p58)
recommend four areas of knowledge that are essential if early childhood leaders are going
to be able to relate to the early years of primary and share approaches:
Know yourself – what skills and knowledge do I have and what is my leadership capacity?
Know your field – what do I know about leadership in an ECEC setting and can I use it in a school setting?
Know your context – what is the school setting like and how is leadership enacted?
Know your challenge – what do I want to articulate and what do I value?
The Wider Leadership Literature
If we look beyond early childhood literature much has been written about school
leadership and wider educational leadership. In a comprehensive review of successful
school leadership, the authors claim that a great deal is known about leadership
behaviours and practices: there is an abundant literature on what constitutes good
leadership in education (Leithwood et al, 2006). Leithwood et al write about ‘core
leadership practices’ which are: setting directions; developing people; redesigning the
organisation; and managing the teaching programme (p22–23). They offer a warning
that ‘We have instructional leadership, transformational leadership, moral leadership,
constructivist leadership, servant leadership, cultural leadership, and primal leadership
(Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2002). A few of these qualify as leadership theories and
several are actually tested leadership theories. But most are actually just slogans’ (p7),
rather than conceptually coherent ideas supported by evidence that shows the effects of
such approaches on pupils and schools.
Different types of research evidence exist on educational leadership – case studies, large-
scale quantitative studies of leadership effects, similarly large-scale studies of specific
leadership practices, a literature on pupil engagement in relation to leadership, and
leadership effects at the school and district level. The literature on leadership focuses
22
more on the values, beliefs, skills and knowledge held by or perceived to be important for
good leadership, rather than on actual leadership practices. Leithwood et al warn in
particular against unwarranted assumptions made about leadership that they find are
evident in leadership standards which list skills, dispositions and knowledge that are
assumed to be necessary for effective leadership – the authors claim that the literature on
leadership says much less about what is needed for successful leadership and a great deal
more about effective leadership practices. They highlight the lack of published empirical
studies on teacher leadership and distributed leadership and suggest that ‘both teacher
leadership and distributed leadership qualify as movements driven much more by
philosophy and democratic values than by evidence that pupils actually learn more if a
larger proportion of school leadership comes from non-traditional sources’ (p9).
Leithwood et al also question the concept of ‘leaderfulness’ (Sergiovanni, 1999) and are
critical of the idea of ‘the more leadership the better’ and that ‘everyone is a leader’.
In his book The Motivated School (2003), the Scottish educational psychologist Alan
McLean writes about leadership, and its importance in developing a motivating school. In
writing of the ways in which leaders ‘download’ their mindsets to staff, he asserts that the
principles can be applied equally to motivating colleagues and to working with parents.
In referring to four ‘drivers’, McLean argues that managers may move from a control
culture to a focus on self-motivation in colleagues that encourages an optimistic view
about learning. Heads of lower performing schools have a ‘more rigid dissonant style’ by
comparison with heads of high performance schools, who are more likely to take on a
‘flexible and resonant style’ (p115). Engagement, stimulation, structure and feedback
form the basis of change. He asserts that where leadership engages staff successfully it is
transformational in nature, and asks the following questions:
What kinds of engagement might characterise transformational leadership?
What kinds of stimulation might characterise transformational leadership?
What kinds of structures might characterise transformational leadership?
What kinds of dialogue and feedback might characterise transformational leadership?
23
According to the Yukl and Chavez (2002) evidence, the most influential tactics are
rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration and inspirational appeal; these are tactics
embedded in most conceptions of transformational leadership, and rely too on trust as a
basis.
Links can be made between distributed leadership and democratic leadership (Woods,
2004). The one is characterised by action at all levels on a basis of direction-setting
strategies, the other, democratic leadership, implies consultation and participation.
The existing literature reveals overlaps between several forms of leadership identified, for
example: shared leadership (Pearce and Conger, 2003), collaborative leadership
(Wallace, 2002), democratic leadership (Woods, 2004) and participative leadership
(Vroom and Yago, 1998) – all leadership concepts cited in Leithwood et al (p47–48).
‘This accumulation of allied concepts means that distributed leadership has sometimes
been used as a shorthand way to describe any form of devolved, shared or dispersed
leadership practice in schools. It is this catch all use of the term that has resulted in both
the misrepresentation of the idea and the common misunderstanding that distributed
leadership means that everyone leads (Bennett et al, 2003)’, rather than it meaning that
the form of leadership practice is distributed beyond the single hierarchical leader or
manager. Leithwood et al find that the evidence as a whole points to leadership having a
very significant effect on two elements – the quality of pupil learning and the quality of
school organisation. They write about the strengths of transformational leadership.
Many definitions of leadership exist. However, none is clearly defined for early
childhood practice. If 'Future leaders need to be proactive rather than reactive' (Bass,
2000, p22), then not only is training necessary but also a theoretical understanding of
concepts of leadership. Theories of leadership such as Transformational Leadership
(Bass, 1985), Contextual Leadership (Kagan and Hallmark, 2001), Shared Leadership
(Fletcher and Kaufer, 2003), and Distributive Leadership (Harris et al, 2002) that can be
considered when looking at leadership within early childhood services. Nupponen (2006)
finds that transformational leadership and distributed leadership are concepts suited to
early childhood contexts; transformational leaders recognise that people are motivated
less by cognitive factors and more by affective factors (Crawford, 2003). Their approach
24
is empowering as it motivates people to make their own decisions and take responsibility.
By contrast, shared leadership embeds leadership within the social system of the setting;
here teamwork and the group predominates rather than the individual (Locke, 2003).
Both seem to be valid concepts for leadership in the early years.
Conclusions
Early childhood education and care has received unparalleled political attention in the last
decade and remains in the vanguard of current government policy. This is accompanied
by a need to evaluate the effectiveness of such attention and expenditure. This review of
the literature makes a clear case for a relationship between appropriate leadership in early
years services and the effectiveness of those services: this means that two initiatives
should be to the fore – the investigation of early years leadership practice in Scotland,
and the development of sound leadership training, which could be more widely
embedded in undergraduate and postgraduate early childhood courses.
Relating early childhood leadership to current developments in Scotland means thinking
about leadership in the context of A Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Executive,
2004c, 2006a, 2006b), the National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce
(Scottish Executive, 2006c), Guidance on Involvement of Teachers in Pre-school
Education (Scottish Executive Education Department, 2002), reports such as A Literature
Review of Models of Curriculum Change (Dunlop et al, 2007) and A Literature Review of
Models of Curriculum Architecture (Dunlop et al, 2007), Improving Scottish Education
(HM Inspectorate of Education, 2006), and the Early Years Parliamentary Inquiry
(Scottish Parliament, 2006).
Improving Scottish Education draws renewed attention to leadership in the pre-school
sector and states that the quality of leadership needs to be improved, particularly in a
substantial proportion of centres in the private and voluntary sectors. Across all pre-
school settings, managers/headteachers should more consistently focus their leadership
on improving the quality of children’s learning and the skills of staff in promoting it.
25
The Early Years Parliamentary Inquiry (August 2006) sets out a 10-year vision for
universal care and education for Scotland’s children:
‘In ten years time, we want Scotland to have an early years sector that gives all children
the best possible start in life, that values and develops them and is aspired to by the rest
of the world.’
It also states:
‘We endorse the need for upskilling the early years workforce as part of the same agenda
as our call for an expansion of the number of teachers into disadvantaged areas. We want
to see qualification and skill levels driven upwards as research indicates that this is likely
to result in better outcomes for children, especially in disadvantaged areas.’
The National Review of the Early Years Workforce promotes a central leadership role for
the lead practitioner/manager of a service, as shown in the Roles and Responsibilities
Framework. The lead practitioner/manager has a role in, for example: assisting their staff
to appreciate how they, as an individual and a service, are contributing to the Vision for
children (see Annex A); facilitating partnership working with other occupational groups;
and encouraging, advising and mentoring staff to develop their own skills and
knowledge.
The early years research studies reported show leadership in early childhood to be very
complex and the need for role clarity towards effective leadership as an area for
development – as regardless of the form of childcare and early education the parents
choose, the needs of the child remain the same (Rodd, 2005). For the range of early
childhood services to be equally valued and effective, good leadership is essential.
Some key issues and key questions arise as a result of this review. Key questions are:
What do successful leaders do?
How are their practices distributed?
What is the source of successful leadership?
How do good leadership practices transform children’s experiences?
26
Key Points emerging from the literature on Leadership in the Early Years
Leadership in early years practice is not clearly defined.
Many studies have explored leadership as a ‘micro concept’– investigating leaders
themselves or the immediate environments in which they work, rather than viewing
leadership as a cultural system.
Leadership is a key element of quality early childhood provision.
Leadership views of workers in the early childhood sector nationally and internationally
are consistently reported to be unclear.
Leadership is seen to be complex.
Leadership is relatively unexplored in early childhood.
Leadership is an ‘accidental’ rather than a thought-through idea.
There is a lack of research activity and a lack of leadership development in early
childhood.
The transition to a leadership role is isolating and challenging to early years practitioners.
The early childhood sector needs a contextual model of leadership, since it differs in
nature, ideals, philosophies and curriculum from other forms of education.
Leadership models such as transformational leadership and shared leadership link well to
a contextual model for early childhood.
27
The significance of leadership in the context of early childhood services should not be
underestimated given the documented importance of early childhood experience to later
school success.
In the context of the Early Level of Curriculum for Excellence, early childhood leaders
could espouse a potential leadership role in relation to active learning in the early years.
Traditionally the guidance, supervision and mentoring of staff are not linked well to the
leadership role in early childhood.
Leadership approaches are more strongly developed in ‘stand-alone’ services than in, for
example, nursery classes, where role ambiguity dominates.
Leadership in early childhood embraces advocacy, community, collaborative and
political dimensions.
Leadership models that are effective for early years are reciprocal, empowering for staff,
parents and children, shared and distributed.
28
Sources reviewed
Of the many studies cited 20 or so are presented here in a little more detail as they
develop some of the key points drawn out of the literature in this review.
Aubrey, C (2007), Leading and Managing in the Early Years, London: Sage Publications
In this book Carol Aubrey proposes that the early childhood context demands skilled and
effective leadership. Her book is underpinned by research mainly undertaken in 2005,
and draws on two principal sources – a British Educational Research Association
(BERA) symposium paper presented in 2006 (Aubrey et al), and a research report (Dahl
and Aubrey, 2005). The book offers early childhood practitioners a rich insight into the
theory and practices of leadership.
Australian Journal of Early Childhood – Management and Leadership, 25 (1), March 2000
This themed edition of the Australian Journal of Early Childhood presents the theories
and research behind practical leadership in early childhood settings.
It includes articles ranging from women's styles of leadership in the childcare sector to
health promotion, postmodernist approaches to training and ethical leadership.
Contents:
Editorial, Jacqueline Hayden and Helen Gibson Children's services: A vision for the future, Denise Fraser Women's models of leadership in the child care sector, Libby Henderson-Kelly
and Barbara Pamphilon Leadership in child care centres: Is it just another job? Manjula
Waniganayake, Romana Morda and Anthoula Kapsalakis A postmodernist approach to culturally grounded training in early childhood
care and development, Jessica Ball and Alan Pence Leadership and change: A dialogue of theory and practice, Elspeth Humphries
and Beres Senden Health promotion: A new leadership role for early childhood professionals,
Jacqueline Hayden and John J Macdonald Ethical leadership or leadership in ethics? Linda Newman
29
Boardman, M (2003), ‘Changing times: Changing challenges for early childhood leaders’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28 (2), pp 20–25
The last 10 years have brought changing roles for school leaders, teachers and their
communities. The diversity and complexity of change within school management
practices is recognised. Early childhood leaders in school settings have not been exempt
from the impact of these changes as they have striven to accommodate rapid social and
educational challenges within their leadership role. This article reports on a survey
undertaken with Tasmanian early childhood teachers and leaders to investigate the nature
and diversity of challenges faced by leaders with responsibilities in kindergarten to Grade
2 leadership. Analysis of the data, concerning the most challenging aspects of early
childhood leadership, revealed that both teachers and leaders perceived there were
significant, diverse and complex educational changes being faced by leaders. Also, there
were pressing organisational dilemmas associated with time available for teaching and
leading. Further, teachers perceived there were key challenges inherent in the area of
leaders’ knowledge and relationships which were impacting negatively on the leadership
provision in schools.
David, T (2003), What do we know about teaching young children? A professional user review of UK research based on the BERA Academic Review ‘Early Years Research: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Adult roles, Training and Professionalism’
This review set out to engage with the research undertaken in the UK in relation to
pedagogy, curriculum, and adult roles, professional development, training and the
workforce. The review focused on research about practice rather than policy. It
highlighted the role that qualified teachers play and their influence on the pedagogy of
differently qualified colleagues. They conclude that more research is needed on the
different outcomes for children associated with different staff training. While they do not
use the word leadership, they report that studies of the perceptions of staff about role and
role difference suggest that staff often perceive themselves as doing the same job, whilst
observational studies provide opposing data, revealing that qualified teachers engage with
children in ways that focus on their cognitive development.
30
Duncan, J (2001–2002) Aiming away: New Zealand childcare supervisors' responses. Paper presented to the Eighth Early Childhood Convention, Palmerston North, 22–25 September, 2003
Researchers in New Zealand made a significant contribution to an International
Leadership Project: Cross-cultural reflections of leadership in early childhood education
– An ILP (International Leadership Project) reflective survey, which was based at Oulu
University, Finland, and overseen by Professor Eeva Hujala, Dr Veijo Nivala and Anna-
Maija Puroila. The survey was conducted in 18 countries over the years 2001–2002.
These countries were: Europe: Norway, Estonia, Germany, France (4); North and Middle
America: Canada, Mexico (2); South America: Brazil, Uruguay (2); Oceana: New
Zealand, Philippines (2); Asia: China, Taiwan, India, Japan, Malaysia (5); Africa:
Tanzania, Namibia, South Africa (3).
The first part of this international project had been carried out examining childcare
settings in Russia, Finland, USA, Australia, and the United Kingdom. This earlier phase
of the research questioned supervisors as to what thought they did in these settings and
the problems and issues for them. They also included focus group interviews to
investigate what supervisors, parents, government officials and teacher educators actually
thought leadership in childcare centres was. There have been several publications from
this earlier phase (Hujala, and Puroila, 1998; Nivala and Hujala, 2002; Waniganayake,
Morda, and Kapsalakis, 2000).
In this paper Duncan discusses preliminary findings drawn from data generated during
the second phase of this international study, by asking 79 childcare practitioners ‘to
identify the main aims of their service and then early childhood services in general’ (p1).
The phase 2 aims were therefore to:
1. investigate the leadership issues of early childhood centre supervisors in
Aotearoa/New Zealand
2. deepen the cultural understanding of leadership in early childhood education in
different cultural contexts (by being part of an 18-country international reflective
survey on leadership in early childhood).
31
The research questions which frame the international study and this research project
centred around:
1. Has leadership in early childhood education a unique character and how is it
defined?
2. How do leaders in early childhood settings define the work of their centres and
themselves as a leader within that centre?
3. What support or supervision do early childhood leaders receive in their work?
Early childhood provision in New Zealand is separate from the statutory school sector,
and respondents were therefore early childhood leaders in their own right, rather than, as
is often the case in UK studies, staff deployed in early childhood services attached to the
rest of school education and managed by primary school headteachers. All respondents
were however qualified to degree level as early childhood teachers. Duncan reports in her
discussion that the ‘notions of competent and confident learners’ seems to fit very well
with the early childhood supervisors’ responses. Whilst some leaders did not mention
children and families in their aims, others placed importance on children and families
together through clear community aims: according to Duncan these differences in
response may suggest a continuing ambivalence on the part of early childhood leaders
about early childhood settings being a place for families as well as for children. Further
she highlights Moss and Petrie’s work on ‘children’s spaces’ rather than ‘children’s
services’ (Moss and Petrie, 2002) as significant.
Dunlop, A-W (2002), Scottish Nursery Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Paper presented at the Third Warwick International Early Years Conference, University of Warwick, March 18–20, 2002
A cohort of 176 nursery teachers studying on a specialist nursery education postgraduate
certificate programme and in the DIPEE evening programme between 1998 and 2002
were sampled on their concepts of leadership in nursery education settings. Leadership in
nursery education is a much debated concept which is firmly related to role definition.
The nursery school teacher often finds clearer role definition than does the teacher in the
nursery class attached to primary schools. It is likely that the work of the nursery teacher
32
is better conceptualised and understood in settings where the raison d’être of the whole
establishment is directed towards work with young children and their families, and the
wellbeing, learning and development of those children is the main priority. Within
nursery classes, which are often viewed as an ‘add-on’ to existing primary school
provision, the purposes of nursery education are not always fully understood and the
work can be seen as less important; there can be a sense of not being valued, and of being
isolated. The advent of increased funding for pre-school education in Scotland from 1996
onwards brought renewed requests for specialist training for people working in pre-
school settings.
During their Professional Development module students voiced many queries about the
role of the nursery teacher, the differences and overlaps between a management and a
leadership role, review of practice, undertaken with tutor support, and management of
change. Discussions were particularly lively when the status, role and challenges of
nursery teaching were the focus. Students had reported practice concerns about their
widening role and the challenges of working with others. Numbers of them had expressed
concern about not knowing what others expected of them, about juggling administrative
and reporting roles, and about the amount and quality of time spent in being a teacher for
children. As a result of such discussions during the Professional Development module
delivery, it was decided to sample recent graduates of the Postgraduate Certificate in
Early Education (nursery) offered at Strathclyde University on their concepts of nursery
teacher role and of leadership issues. This paper reports the results of the survey and
considers the implications for teaching on the Professional Development module of this
postgraduate programme.
The language of teacher educators now revolves around such terms as reflective teaching,
reflection in action, and teacher as researcher. There has been a shift from the general
expectation that teachers should act as technical thinkers to an expectation that teachers
need to operate as higher order or ‘better’ thinkers.
In this context teachers were sampled on their views. Key findings included the role
variety and complexity of nursery teaching, a lack of clarity of role definition, and a gap
33
between management expectations of nursery teachers in terms of the job they were
expected to do and the status accorded. Respondents frequently stated ‘You’re told
you’re just one of the team’, which they linked to a consequent ‘playing down’ of
teachers’ education and training. The majority of respondents reported a view that the
position they occupied was one of simultaneously being team member and team leader:
in free-standing nursery schools and centres this was less ambiguous than in nursery
classes, where being perceived of as simply one of the team led to ‘leadership without
authority’ or ‘leadership without status’ whilst their primary school headteacher-
managers were often perceived to occupy a position of ‘authority without knowledge’ vis
à vis nursery education.
Dunlop, A-W, A (2005), Scottish Early Childhood Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Interim Report of Research in Progress, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde
The research reported in Dunlop (2002) is ongoing. An additional 60 teachers (n= 236)
were added to the survey questionnaire sample at the end of their period of study. A 53%
return rate allows insight into the images held by Scottish early childhood teachers of the
ways in which they see themselves as leaders or managers in early childhood settings.
During this time the rescinding of the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 (2003) Item 2a has
begun to have an impact, and not all local authorities remain committed to employing
graduate teachers in nursery education on a full-time single-setting basis. It is
increasingly common to have teachers employed on a ‘teacher presence’ or peripatetic
basis, and returns suggest that teachers feel they are seen by others to have a leadership
role in terms of children’s education, but not necessarily a team leadership role nor a
managerial role in the wider context of early childhood provision. The HMIE Report
Improving Scottish Education (HMIE, 2006) highlights the need for strong and effective
leadership in children’s learning – perhaps teacher contribution remains important to
ensure appropriate planning for children’s learning. As new qualifications are developed
for early childhood practitioners, attention to the complementarity of different
professional roles will be important.
34
Ebbeck, M, and Waniganayake, M (2003), Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney: MacLennan and Petty
Ebbeck and Waniganayake (2003) provide a number of possible definitions of leadership
and provide a number of theoretical models – they propose new ways of understanding
leadership in early years provision. In their view leadership in early childhood has many
faces: it is connected with administration and management: they therefore emphasise that
effective leadership is informed by and dependent on defining and through definition,
understanding the key concepts of administration, management and leadership. An
integration of these elements would allow for improved leadership approaches.
Through addressing obstacles to effective leadership, the authors show why traditional
leadership theories do not work in early childhood. They make the point that discussions
about leadership have been too restricted by the traditional tendency to align leadership to
the position of the manager of a setting. Waniganayake proposes a new model for
distributive leadership – in her model she proposes that several people can
simultaneously fulfil a leadership role in the same early childhood pre-school setting. In
proposing a distributed leadership model for early childhood these researchers are
exploring new ways of defining leadership in early childhood: their work reflects
changing views of such leadership.
Hard, L, and O’Gorman, L (2007) ‘Push-Me or Pull-You’? An Opportunity for Early Childhood Leadership in the Implementation of Queensland’s Early Years Curriculum, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), 50–60
Two research projects inform this discussion: the first is a study of parental views of the
newly introduced preparatory year which was accompanied by an upward adjustment of
six months to the start of statutory schooling; the second looks at ideas of leadership held
by 26 early childhood professionals including pre-school heads, early childhood students,
academics, day care heads, family based day care providers and providers of support
services to early childhood education and care. Subjects were drawn from four of the
Australian territories. Interviews, focus groups and artefacts were used in the study and
methods used a symbolic interactionism, with data analysis being informed by feminist
theory. By considering both studies the authors create a space to think about the influence
35
of early childhood philosophy upon early primary school practice: they consider the role
played by early childhood leadership in promoting such a philosophy and find a link
between personal-professional identity and enactment of a leadership role.
Hujala, E (2004), ‘Dimensions of Leadership in the Childcare Context’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), February 2004
This article presents ‘contextual leadership’ as a way to interrogate leadership issues in
early childhood contexts. This theory provides a frame in which leadership is perceived
of as socially constructed, situational and interpretive in nature. The purpose of the study
reported was to establish how leadership is seen in context by those who work in
childcare, so teasing out the roles, responsibilities and significance attached to leadership
through sampling the views of those people who are involved with it. The focus group
method was used to gather data for the study. The results showed that the context of the
leadership role defines the role through the language used and the culture of the setting.
In most focus group discussions leadership was described as ‘the position of a leader’.
Centre directors were seen to have multiple role positions. Overall the study concluded
that the tasks and duties connected to leadership on all contextual levels were unclear.
Kagan, S L, and Hallmark, L G (2001), ‘Cultivating leadership in early care and education’, Child Care Information Exchange, 140: 7–10
Community aspects of leadership are emphasised by Kagan and Hallmark, who suggest
that leadership in the early years can take the following forms:
Community leadership, which connects early childhood education to the
community through informing and constructing links among families, services,
resources and the public and private sectors
Pedagogical leadership, forming a bridge between research and practice
through disseminating new information and shaping agendas
Administrative leadership, which includes financial and personnel
management
Advocacy leadership, creating a long-term vision of the future of early
childhood education. This involves developing a good understanding of the field,
legislative processes and the media, as well as being a skilled communicator
36
Conceptual leadership, which conceptualises early childhood leadership
within the broader framework of social movements and change.
The authors stress that these different elements may require contrasting styles of
leadership, and different types of leaders. They show that more training in these areas is
needed. They see a strong political role for leaders in the early childhood sector, and
envisage community leadership as a core competency.
Larkin E (1999), ‘The Transition from Direct Caregiver to Administrator in Early Childhood Education’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(1), February 1999, pp 21-32(12)
A summary of this paper is included though it precedes the date of review set at 2000, as
it raises an issue not much touched upon elsewhere. The author addresses the fact that
many managers and leaders in early childhood settings enter such roles with little formal
preparation in educational leadership, and do not find the transition easy. The paper is
based on a research study of 16 pre-school directors who moved into promoted positions
after working as early childhood teachers. Their leadership role is recognised to be
complex. Learning the role was at its most difficult in terms of their own lack of
preparation, although respondents were not advocates of formal educational
administration courses. The most challenging aspects of leadership were to do with
professional isolation from a peer group. The separateness of their role caused them
tension, especially as they were working to be responsive and nurturing at the same time
as having to be an authority figure. The author concludes by recommending ways to
improve the preparation of ‘child care administrators’. Someone to act as a sounding
board and someone to act as a mentor would have been valuable assets as they learned
their new roles. A combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience was
perceived to be helpful.
Moyles, J (2004), Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years, Maidenhead: Open University Press: McGraw-Hill Education
This book is based on a study of effective leadership and management in the early years.
It conceptualises effective leadership and provides a typology for self-evaluation. The
study focused on private and voluntary, maintained and non-maintained settings in three
37
different authorities in the eastern region of England. Two consultants worked with 16
practising heads of settings. They worked on leadership qualities, management skills,
professional attributes, and personal characteristics and attitudes. The focus on leadership
and management drew from discussions, diaries, activities and the literature. Participants
were able to consider their strengths and challenges and to identify their training needs.
Muijs, D, Aubrey, C, Harris, A, and Briggs, M (2004), ‘How do they manage? A review of the research on leadership in early childhood’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 157–160
This article reviews the research on leadership in early childhood, highlighting the
‘paucity of research’ in a context where there is a heightened potential for leadership
development. Reporting that effective leadership is widely held to influence outcomes for
children, the authors find that research on leadership in the early childhood sector is
limited. The authors attribute this lack of research in part to the context of early
childhood itself, where role definitions even for those in leadership positions reinforce
the need to be good practitioners, educators and ‘child developers’ first.
Muijs et al find that theorising about leadership in early childhood is limited and does not
naturally connect to leadership theory from other educational sectors, nor to a market or
business model. A distinctive early childhood approach to leadership is called for by the
literature they have reviewed. Further they find that the complexity of the early childhood
sector and recent developments in this field call strongly for effective leadership
strategies, not least because of the evidence that children attending early childhood
settings show better long-term outcomes. They report that a number of studies show that
organisational climate is strongly related to leadership.
Nivala, V, and Hujala, E (2002) (eds), Leadership in Early Childhood Education, Cross Cultural Perspectives, Oulu, Finland: Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, University of Oulu
This book consists of presentations given at the Open Forum at the University of Oulu in
March 2001. The book focuses on the contextual approach taken to leadership in early
childhood. The articles presented are organised into three sections. The first section,
‘Introduction to leadership in early childhood education’, looks at leadership issues in
38
general. The theoretical and the gender perspectives of leadership in early childhood are
introduced. The second section, ‘Comparative perspectives to leadership’, introduces
culturally based differences between the work of Finnish and Russian directors. It
addresses the importance of the director's work in a childcare centre as well as the
meaning of government regulations and administration. In the third section, ‘Leadership
in the national context’ points out the significance, roles and responsibilities of day care
directors in Finland. It also takes us into the middle of the dilemmas, tensions and
constraints with which female early childhood leaders struggle in New Zealand. This
section introduces good communication as the basis of leadership and asks whether
anyone can become a leader with training. Finally, it challenges the managers and other
practitioners of early years settings to promote a change to the present discourse of
parental involvement.
Osgood J (2004), ‘Time to get down to business? The Responses of Early Years Practitioners to Entrepreneurial Approaches to Professionalism’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 5–24
This article looks at implications of policies introduced in the early childcare and
education sector by the New Labour Government after its election in 1997. Included in
the Government’s agenda are guidelines to embrace more commercial approaches to
childcare management to ensure childcare services remain financially viable and
sustainable. It is shown that the (almost entirely female) sample of childcare
professionals in Osgood’s two studies are opposed to ‘these masculinized’, ‘new
managerialized’ policies and that this commercial approach is deemed to be inappropriate
in the early childhood sector. It is argued that the quality of childcare provision would
suffer if business principles of profit making and competitiveness were applied. It is
suggested that the top-down application of business approaches to the management of
early childhood care and education settings does not do justice to the community-
oriented, collaborative and caring nature of this sector.
The author articulates that recent government policies promote individualism and
competitiveness and that these are in conflict with the non-competitive, collaborative
community-orientated approach adopted by early childhood practitioners. The study
39
shows that private nursery managers tend to have a less collaborative and community-
centred approach to leadership because of fears of competition endangering making
profits. It was found that early childhood practitioners are highly dedicated to their
profession and are willing to make sacrifices when it comes to pay and benefits. They are
devoted to enhancing their professional skills and knowledge and are keen to attend
training. An emphasis on care, enhancing child development and supporting local
communities as opposed to developing business skills and making profit is paramount.
Practitioners feel they play a significant role in the local community and adopting
business approaches in the field would be detrimental to encouraging community-
orientated practice. Although they contest the entrepreneurial policies favoured by the
Government, practitioners feel powerless and think they are unable to resist adoption of
commercial approaches in the long run.
Rogoff, B, Turkanis, C D, Bartlett, L (2001), ‘Community of learners; Adults provide leadership and encourage leadership in children as well, in Learning Together: Children and Adults in a School Community, New York: Oxford University Press
Rogoff et al highlight the importance of adults in a school community:
Sharing a philosophy of practice: to establish what a leader and his or her team
believe is important
Considering the trade-offs between efficiency and the time and energy needed for
collaborative learning and decision making
Finding ways to use conflicting views and change as learning opportunities.
Scrivens, C (2001), Leadership in early childhood: National reflections. Paperpresented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education AnnualConference, Christchurch, NZ, 5–8 December, 2001
Scrivens reports on a research study undertaken in New Zealand as part of the
International Leadership Project which is being administered in 18 countries worldwide.
The author states that views documented in this report can be linked to other studies in
early childhood leadership research; the early childhood leader is found to be supportive,
collaborative and professional. In addition, early childhood professionals work in concert
40
with an ethics of care; for children, staff, families and the community. This paper
specifically documents on the responses of New Zealand early childcare leaders in
relation to the following questions:
What do you see as the most important tasks and responsibilities of the leader?
How would you describe leadership in the context of an early childhood education
service?
Replies to these questions could be divided into two overall clusters: support and
teamwork and professionalism. The support and teamwork cluster covered both support
for staff and support for parents and children. Many supervisors emphasise the
importance of supporting staff, teamwork and working with parents. In connection with
professionalism, the author cites James Raths, who speaks of three facets of
professionalism: knowledge, colleagueship and advocacy. These aspects were manifest in
the responses of supervisors in this study as value enhancing and developing their
knowledge and skills. They deem their own and their staff’s personal and professional
development to be of crucial importance to improving the quality of the service they
provide. Working collaboratively is also referred to as being essential. Finally, advocacy
for the centre’s children, families and staff is seen as imperative.
Scrivens, C, and Duncan, J (2003) What decisions? Whose decisions? Issues for team leaders in decision-making in New Zealand childcare centres. Paper presented at Our Child, The Future, Adelaide, Australia, 5–8 May 2003
Scrivens and Duncan report on their project which looks at the process and issues of
decision-making by team leaders in New Zealand childcare centres. Early childhood
leaders were asked two main questions:
Describe the decision-making that you are responsible for in your own centre.
Do you feel that you should have more responsibility or opportunity to make
independent decisions concerning your service?
It was found that responses from leaders could be divided into three overarching
categories: decisions concerning people (to be split up further into decisions about staff
and about families/community); programmes, policies and practices, and plant.
Issues in the decision-making process that came to the fore were lack of time, limited
understanding and difficult relationships with staff and parents.
41
It is suggested that knowledge about and involvement in the outcomes of the decisions is
crucial for staff to be engaged in the decision-making process.
The report illustrates the wide range of decisions supervisors are involved in. As a result
of the different parties involved (supervisors, staff, parents and community) it is
suggested that leadership and decision-making in early childhood settings should have a
more consultative nature rather than making decisions by using a consensus model and
wanting to reach a compromise.
Siraj-Blatchford, I, Sylva, K, Muttock, S, Gilden, R, and Bell, D (2002), Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years, London: DfES
This report looks at the features which make for effective pedagogy in the early years, as
found in the effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project (EPPE) (Sylva et al). All
of the case study settings in this study were found to have sound leadership, good
communications, and shared and consistent ways of working amongst the staff. Where
parents became involved in educational leadership and worked with children’s learning at
home, child outcomes were strong. The EPPE Project found a strong relationship
between the qualifications of the centre manager and quality of service provision in early
childhood settings.
Whalley, M (2002), Early years leaders involving parents in their children’s learning, Creative Waves. Discussion Paper on Future Schools, National College for School Leadership, presented at BERA, 2002
This paper explores the idea of parents and early years educators working together to
benefit children’s development and learning. Parents are their child’s primary educator
and are involved in and dedicated to their child’s development. When parents and early
childhood professionals create an equal partnership in which their knowledge and
experiences are shared, a stimulating and encouraging situation is created, which is
advantageous for the child’s progress. Research evidence shows that knowledge and
experiences of both parties are essential and should be seen as complementary. The
author articulates that early care and education settings ought to support parental
involvement; however, it is not always recognised by early childhood leaders in what
way parents’ competencies can contribute to children’s learning.
42
The recent early years curriculum has encouraged both children and professionals to be
more reflective on their own experiences. Subsequently, this National College for School
Leadership research aimed at creating an understanding between parents and
professionals and to develop an effective dialogue and partnership between them to make
them reflect on one another’s competencies to enhance children’s learning.
The leaders involved in the project agreed that engaging parents in the early years was
crucial to children’s achievements and in spite of some practical constraints in attending
training and implementing interventions aimed at parental involvement, all had taken
notice of significant improvements after doing so.
The report states that it is crucial for leaders and staff to be reflective and to be willing to
cultivate their own practice. Improved co-operation of early childhood professionals with
parents as part of that will mean a big step forward for children’s learning and
development.
Whalley, M, Whitaker, P, Wyles, G, and Harris, P (2005), An Enquiry into the Impact of a Leadership Development Programme on Leaders of Integrated Early Years Centres, Derby: Pen Green
Innovators in the field of early childhood, Pen Green Research Centre, under the
leadership of Margy Whalley, developed a Leadership Programme. This study
investigates the effects that the programme had on those integrated centre leaders who
took part. Further, the study sought to establish the impact of their learning on the centres
they lead.
43
References
Adams, K (2005), Personal conversation
Aubrey, C (2007), Leading and Managing in the Early Years, London: Sage Publications
Australian Journal of Early Childhood (2000), Management and Leadership, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25 (1), March
Bass, B M (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York: Free Press
Bass, M (2000), ‘The future of leadership in learning organisations’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), pp 18–40
Bella, J, and Bloom, P J (2003), Zoom. The Impact of Early Childhood Leadership Training on Role Perceptions, Job Performance, and Career Decisions, The McCormick Tribune Foundation, The Illinois Department of Human Services, Wheeling, ILL: The Center for Early Childhood Leadership
Bennett, N, Harvey, J A, Wise, C, and Woods, P A (2003), Distributed leadership: A desk study. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org.uk/literaturereviews
Bergin-Seers, S, and Breen, J (2002), ‘The performance of long day care centres in rural and remote areas’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(1), pp 24–32
Boardman, M (2003), ‘Changing times: Changing challenges for early childhood leaders’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), pp 20–25
Bloom, P J (2000), ‘How do we define director competence?’, Child Care Information Exchange, 138, pp 13–18
Bloom, P J (2003), Leadership in action: How effective directors get things done, Lake Forest: New Horizons
Boyd, B, Dunlop, A-W, Mitchell, J, Seagraves, L, Clinton, C, and Deuchar, R (2008 forthcoming), Curriculum Architecture – a Literature Review. Report for The Scottish Executive Education Department to inform the implementation of A Curriculum for Excellence
Crawford, M (2003), ‘Inventive management and wise leadership’, in Bennett, N, Crawford, M, and Cartwright, M (eds), Effective educational leadership, London: Paul Chapman, pp 62–73
Dalli, C (2003), Professionalism in early childhood practice: thinking through the debates, Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the European Early Childhood
44
Education Research Association, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 3–6 September 2003
Dalli, C (2005), Reflecting on Professionalism in Early Years Teaching: Relationships, Responsiveness and Curriculum, Early Years Lecture Series, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 6 September 2005
David, T (2003), What do we know about teaching young children? A professional user review of UK research based on the BERA Academic Review, Early Years Research: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Adult Roles, Training and Professionalism
Duncan, J (2003), Aiming away: New Zealand childcare supervisors' responses, Paper presented to the Eighth Early Childhood Convention, Palmerston North, 22–25 September, 2003
Dunlop, A-W (2002), Scottish Nursery Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Paper presented at the Third Warwick International Early Years Conference, University of Warwick, 18–20 March, 2002
Dunlop, A-W (2005), Scottish Early Childhood Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Interim Report of Research in Progress, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde
Dunlop, A-W, Boyd, B, Skinner, D, Deuchar, R, Mitchell, J, and Smith, I (2008 forthcoming), A Literature Review of Models of Curriculum Change, Report for the Scottish Executive Education Department to inform the implementation of A Curriculum for Excellence
Ebbeck, M, and Waniganayake, M (2003), Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow, Sydney: MacLennan and Petty
Fletcher, J, and Kaufer, K (2003), ‘Shared leadership’, in Pearce, C, and Conger, J (eds), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, London: Sage, pp 21–47
Hard, L (2004), ‘How is leadership understood in early childhood education and care?’, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(1), pp 123–131
Hard, L (2005), ‘Would the leaders in early childhood education and care please step forward?’, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 12, pp 51–61
Hard, L, and O’Gorman, L (2007), ‘‘Push-Me or Pull-You’? An Opportunity for Early Childhood Leadership in the Implementation of Queensland’s Early Years Curriculum’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), pp 50–60
Harris, A, Day, C, Hadfield, M, Hopkins, D, Hargreaves, A, and Chapman, C (2002), Effective Leadership for School Improvement, London: Routledge
45
HM Inspectorate of Education (2000), Improving Leadership in Scottish Schools, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department. Retrieved on 3.11.05 from http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/ilss.pdf
HM Inspectorate of Education (2006), Improving Scottish Education, A report by HMIE on inspection and review 2002–2005, Livingston: HMIE
Hujala, E (2004), ‘Dimensions of Leadership in the Childcare Context’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), February
Jorde-Bloom, P, and Sheerer, M (1992), ‘The effect of leadership training on child care program quality’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, pp 579–594
Kagan, S L, and Hallmark, L G (2001), ‘Cultivating leadership in early care and education’, Child Care Information Exchange, 140, pp 7–10
Larkin E (1999), ‘The Transition from Direct Caregiver to Administrator in Early Childhood Education’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(1), February, pp 21–32(12)
Leithwood, K, Day, C, Sammons, P, Harris, A, and Hopkins, D (2006), Successful School Leadership – What it is and How it Influences Pupil Learning, Nottingham: DfES publications RR800
Lingard, B, Hayes, D, Mills, M, and Christie, P (2003), Leading Learning, Maidenhead: Open University Press
Locke, E (2003), ‘Leadership: Starting at the top’, in Pearce, C, and Conger, J (eds), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, London: Sage, pp 271–284
MacBeath, J (2004), The Leadership File: twenty-five definitions of leadership with activities to help you recognize their relevance to school practice, Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education
McLean, A (2003), The Motivated School, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
McLeod, L (2003), ‘Organisational culture: A closer look at its effect on children’, Early Education, (32), pp 17–23
Meade, A (2003), ECE Centres of innovation in New Zealand, Paper presented at the Leadership and Management in the Early Years Conference, Pen Green Leadership Centre, Corby, Northamptonshire, October 2003
Moyles, J (2004), Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years, Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education
46
Muijs, D, Aubrey, C, Harris, A, and Briggs, M (2004), ‘How do they manage? A review of the research on leadership in early childhood’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), pp 157–160
National College for School Leadership (2005), retrieved on 20.10.05 from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/community_leadership/communityleadership-index.cfm
Nivala, V, and Hujala, E (eds) (2002), Leadership in early childhood education, Cross-cultural perspectives, Oulu, Finland: Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, University of Oulu, retrieved on 20.08.05 from http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514268539/isbn9514268539.pdf
Nupponen, H (2006a), ‘Framework for Developing Leadership Skills in Child Care Centres in Queensland, Australia’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(2), pp 146–161
Nupponen, H (2006b), ‘Leadership concepts and theories: Reflections for practice for early childhood directors’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), March 2006, pp 43–50
OECD (2001) Australia (OECD Country Note, 2001)
Osgood, J (2004), ‘Time to get down to business? The Responses of Early Years Practitioners to Entrepreneurial Approaches to Professionalism’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), pp 5–24
Pearce, C L, and Conger, J A (eds) (2003), Shared Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Pen Green (2005). Retrieved on 30.10.05 from Publications http://www.pengreen.org
Rodd, J (2001), ‘Building leadership expertise of future early childhood professionals’, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 22, 9–12
Rodd, J (2005), Leadership in Early Childhood (3rd edition), Maidenhead: Open University Press
Rogoff, B, Turkanis, C D, Bartlett, L (2001), ‘Community of learners; Adults provide leadership and encourage leadership in children as well’, in Learning Together: Children and Adults in a School Community, New York: Oxford University Press
Sadek, E, and Sadek, J (2004), Good Practice in Nursery Management (2nd edition), Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes
Scottish Executive Education Department (2002), Guidance on Involvement of Teachers in Pre-school Education, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department
47
Scottish Executive (2004a), Ambitious, Excellent Schools – Our Agenda for Action, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department
Scottish Executive (2004b), Review of the early years workforce. Retrieved on 31.10.05 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/06/5622
Scottish Executive (2004c), A Curriculum for Excellence: Ministerial Response, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive (2005), Ambitious, Excellent Schools – Leadership, A Discussion Paper, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department
Scottish Executive (2006a), A Curriculum for Excellence, Progress and Proposals, A Paper from the Curriculum Review Programme Board, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive (2006b), A Curriculum for Excellence, Building the Curriculum 1: The contribution of curriculum areas, Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland
Scottish Executive (2006c), National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive (2007), A Curriculum for Excellence, Building the Curriculum 3–18 (2), Active learning in the early years, Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland
Scottish Parliament (2006), Early Years Parliamentary Inquiry, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Education Committee
Scrivens, C (2001), Leadership in early childhood: National reflections, Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Christchurch, NZ, 5–8 December, 2001
Scrivens, C (2002a), ‘Redefining leadership for early childhood services’, Delta, 54 (1&2), pp 43–56
Scrivens, C (2002b), ‘Constructions of leadership: Does gender make a difference? – Perspectives from an English speaking country’, in Nivala, V, and Hujala, E, Leadership in Early Childhood Education, Cross Cultural Perspectives, Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu
Scrivens, C (2003), ‘Educational leadership: What might we learn from research in schools?’ Early Education, 31, 29–35
Scrivens, C (2004), Leadership in early childhood services: How can we discover what matters for children? Paper presented at the New Zealand Early Childhood Research Symposium, Wellington, 23 November, 2004
48
Scrivens, C, and Duncan, J (2003), ‘What decisions? Whose decisions? Issues for professional leaders in decision-making in New Zealand childcare centres’, 2003, Early Education, 33, pp 29–37
Sergiovanni, T (1999), Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles, Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development
Siraj-Blatchford, I, and Manni (2006), Effective Leadership in the Early Years Sector (ELEYS) Study – Research Report, London: Institute of Education, University of London/General Teaching Council for England. Available at: www.gtce.org.uk
Siraj-Blatchford, I, Sylva, K, Muttock, S, Gilden, R, and Bell, D (2002), Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years. London: DfES
Solly, K (2003), What do early years leaders do to maintain and enhance the significance of the early years? A paper on a conversation with Kathryn Solly held at the Institute of Education on 22 May 2003
Stamopolous, E (2003), ‘Elucidating the Dilemma of P1 in Western Australian Schools: towards a solution’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(2), pp 188–217
Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I, and Taggart, B (2004), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DfES 1997–2004
Thornton, K R (2005), Courage, Commitment and Collaboration: Notions of Leadership in the New Zealand ECE ‘Centres of Innovation’, Victoria: University of Wellington (unpublished M.Ed thesis)
Vandell, D L, and Wolfe, B (2000), Child Care Quality: Does it Matter and Does it Need to Be Improved? Institute for Research on Poverty Special Report no. 78, Institute for Research on Poverty, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved on 14.03.07 from www.wcer.wisc.edu/childcare/statements.html
Vroom, V, and Yago, A (1998), ‘Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leadership participation’, in Dansereau F, and Yammarino, F (eds), Leadership: the multiple-level approaches, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, pp 145–160
Wallace, M (2002), ‘Modelling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: Primary school senior management teams in England and Wales’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), pp 163–186
49
Whalley, M (2002), Early years leaders involving parents in their children’s learning, Creative Waves, Discussion Paper on Future Schools, National College for School Leadership, Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference
Whalley, M (2003), The Pen Green leadership centre: Developing leadership learning and growing learning communities, Paper presented at the Eighth Early Childhood Convention, Palmerston North, 22–25 September, 2003
Whalley, M, Whitaker, P, Wyles, G, and Harris, P (2005), An Enquiry into the Impact of a Leadership Development Programme on Leaders of Integrated Early Years Centres, Derby: Pen Green
Woods, P A (2004), ‘Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), pp 3–26
Yukl, G, and Chavez, C (2002), ‘Influence tactics and leader effectiveness’, in Neider, L L, and Schriesheim, C (eds), Leadership, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing
50
Further Bibliography
Ashman, C, and Green, S (2004), Managing People and Teams, London: David Fulton Publishers
Ashman, C, and Green, S (2004), Planning, Doing and Reviewing, London: David Fulton Publishers
Bass, M (2000), ‘The future of leadership in learning organisations’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), pp 18–40
Bennis, W G (2004), ‘The seven ages of the leader’, Harvard Business Review, 82(1), pp 46–53, 112
Bishop, A, and Lunn, P (2002), ‘Nursery teachers as leaders and managers: A pedagogical and subsidiary model of leadership’, Research in Education, 67, pp 13–22
Bloom, P J, and Bella, J (2005), ‘Investment in leadership training: The payoff for early childhood education’, Young Children, 60(1), pp 32–40
Carter, M (2000), ‘What do teachers need from their directors?’, Child Care Information Exchange, 136, pp 98–101
Cohen-Vogel, L, and Herrington, C D (2005), ‘Introduction: Teacher and Leadership Preparation and Development: No Strangers to Politics’, Educational Policy, 19(5), pp 5–17
Daly, M, Byers, E, and Taylor, W (2004), Early Years Management in Practice: a Handbook for Early Years Managers, London: Heinemann
Dubois Davey, L (2000), ‘Teaching for leadership and advocacy in early childhood: Exploring messages in a college classroom’, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 21, pp 179–184
Dunlop A-W (2006), ‘A focus on leadership in the pre-school sector’, Presentation based on A Literature Review of Leadership in the Early Years, Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland, HMIE Pre-school Conference, Lauder College, 22 August 2006
Freeman, N K, and Brown, M H (2000), ‘Evaluating the child care director: The collaborative professional assessment process’, Young Children, 55(5), pp 20–6
Gaffney, J S, Hesbol, K, and Corso, L (2005), Is your School fit for Literacy? 10 areas of action for Principals, Naperville, ILL: Learning Point Associates
Geijsel F, Sleegers P, Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2003), ‘Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform’, Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), pp 228–256
51
Harris, A (2004), ‘Distributed leadership: Leading or misleading?’, Educational Management and Administration, 32(1), pp 11–24
Harris, A (2002), Distributed leadership in schools: Leading or misleading?. Retrieved on 22.11.04 fromwww.icponline.org/feature_articles/f14-0.2htm
Harris, A (2003), ‘Teacher leadership: A new orthodoxy’, in B Davies and J West-Burnham (eds), Handbook of educational leadership and management, London: Pearson Education, pp 44–50
Harris, A, and Lambert, L (2003), Building leadership capacity for school improvement. Retrieved on 22.11.04 fromwww.ncsl.org.uk/index.cfm?pageid=nlg-nlc-resources-leadership
Hatherley, A, and Lee, W (2003), ‘Voices of early childhood leadership’, New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 18, pp 91–100
Isles-Buck, E, and Newstead, S (2003), Essential Skills for Managers of Child-centred Settings, London: David Fulton
Kagan, S L (1993), Leadership training for collaboration, Paper presented at the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Regional Early Childhood Forum, October 3, 1993
Knapp, M S, Copland, M A, Plecki, M L, and Portin, B S (2006), Leading, Learning, and Leadership Support, A Research Report in collaboration with the Wallace Foundation, Washington, DC: University of Washington – Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved on 3.05.07 fromhttp://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html
Knapp, M S, Swinnerton, J A, Copland, M A, and Monpas-Huber, J (2006), Data-informed Leadership in Education, A Research Report in collaboration with the Wallace Foundation, 2006. Retrieved on 3.05.07 fromhttp://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html
Ministry of Education (2003), A logic model for the evaluation of Pathways to the Future – Ngä Huarahi Arataki, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education (unpublished paper)
Ministry of Education (2002), Pathways to the Future – Ngä Huarahi Arataki: A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education
Mitchell, L (2002), Differences between community owned and privately owned early childhood education and care centres: A review of evidence, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research (unpublished paper)
52
Moss, P (2002), ‘Time to say farewell to ‘early childhood’?’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3 (3), pp 435–438
Moss, P, and Petrie, P (2002), From children's services to children's spaces: Public policy, children and childhood, London: RoutledgeFalmer
Muijs, D, and Harris, A (2006), ‘Teacher Led School Improvement: Teacher Leadership in the UK’, Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 22, 8, pp 961–972
Osgood, J, and Sharp, C (2000), Developing Early Education and Childcare Services for the 21st Century, Slough: NFER
Osgood, J, and Stone, V (2002), Assessing the Business Skills of Early Years, Childcare and Playwork Providers, London: Department for Education and Skills
Payne, M (2000), Teamwork in Multi-Professional Care, London: Palgrave
Portin, B S, Alejano, C R, and Knapp, M S (2006), Redefining Roles, Responsibility, and Authority of School Leaders, A Research Report in collaboration with The Wallace Foundation, Washington, DC: University of Washington – Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved on 3.05.07 fromhttp://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html
Portin, B S, Feldman, S, and Knapp, M S (2006), Purposes, Uses, and Practices of Leadership Assessment in Education, A Research Report in collaboration with The Wallace Foundation, Washington, DC: University of Washington – Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved on 3.05.07 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html
Shin, M S, Recchia, S L, Lee, S Y, Lee, Y J, and Mullarkey, L S (2004), ‘Understanding early childhood leadership: Emerging competencies in the context of relationships’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2 (3), pp 301–16
Smith, M (2005), ‘Strategies for successful fellowships: Nurturing early childhood leaders’, Young Children, 60 (1), pp 12–18
Sotolongo, J (2004), Intensive Technical Assistance Assessment Tool, Community Systems Edition, Raleigh, NC: Smart Starts National Technical Assistance Center, 2004
Spillane, J, Halverson, R, and Diamond, J (2004), ‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2004, 36 (1), pp 3–34
Teddlie, C, and Reynolds, D (2000), ‘The processes of school effectiveness’, in Teddlie, C, and Reynolds, D (eds), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, pp 134–159, London: Falmer Press
53
Van Tassel Baska, J, and Stambaugh, T (eds) (2007), Overlooked Gems: A National Perspective on Low-Income Promising Learners, Conference Proceedings, Washington: National Association for Gifted Children
Waniganayake, M, Morda, R, and Kapsalakis, A (2000), ‘Leadership in child care centres: Is it just another job?’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25 (1) pp 13–19
54
