This article was downloaded by: [Hong Kong Institute of Education]
On: 25 April 2013, At: 23:58
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Leadership in
Education: Theory and Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20
Leading for quality improvement: a
comparative research agenda in early
childhood education in England and
Hong Kong
Caroline Leeson , Verity Campbell-Barr & Dora Ho
Version of record first published: 28 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Caroline Leeson , Verity Campbell-Barr & Dora Ho (2012): Leading for quality
improvement: a comparative research agenda in early childhood education in England and Hong
Kong, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15:2, 221-236
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2011.644327
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION,
APRIL–JUNE
2012, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 221–236
Leading for quality improvement: a comparative
research agenda in early childhood education in
England and Hong Kong
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
CAROLINE LEESON, VERITY CAMPBELL-BARR AND
DORA HO
This paper discusses the changing concepts of leadership in early childhood education
(ECE) in England and Hong Kong during a period of significant education reform. We
seek to illustrate the interplay between the impact of the policy agenda and the emerging
quality leadership perspectives found in the theoretical literature, by first considering the
recent education reform context in both England and Hong Kong, before examining the
importance of leadership for quality provision given the constraints and drivers of policy
expectation. The paper explores transformational, distributed and authentic models of
leadership in the ‘New Leadership’ paradigm and uses these constructions to examine the
developing problems and opportunities for quality leadership as expected by the current
policy reform agenda and understood by the practitioners. In conclusion, we raise questions about the interplay between policy agendas and the development of theoretical models of leadership for ECE in England and Hong Kong.
Introduction
It is apparent that the leadership of early childhood education (ECE) settings1 is a critical factor in facilitating and developing quality (Pence and
Moss 1994, Melhuish 2004, Osgood 2004, Siraj-Blatchford and Manni,
2006). The leader is regarded as responsible for creating the culture and
conditions for quality ECE provision and is accountable to the community
and/or the government for their leadership of the quality agenda. A constant stream of national strategies, government initiatives and related policies (Ho et al. 2010), have signalled a move towards a more rigorous
Caroline Leeson is an associate professor in early childhood studies at the University of Plymouth,
Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK. Email: cleeson@plymouth.ac.uk. Her research interests
include leadership in early years, children’s rights and the experiences of children in the care of
the local authority and children with a parent in prison. Publications include Child & Family
Social Work and International Journal of Early Years Education. Verity Campbell-Barr is a lecturer in
early childhood studies at University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK. Email:
verity.campbell-barr@plymouth.ac.uk Her research and teaching interests are focussed on the
provision of early childhood education and care, with particular interests in exploring understandings of quality, the interplay between leadership and quality and the mixed economy of provision
in countries such as the UK and Hong Kong. Dora Ho is an assistant professor in early childhood
education at the Department of Early Childhood Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education,
10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Email: doraho@ied.edu.hk.
Her research interests include school leadership, education policy, curriculum and pedagogy, and
early childhood education. She has written extensively on issues of school leadership, curriculum
change, quality improvement and teacher professionalism.
International Journal of Leadership in Education
ISSN 1360-3124 print/ISSN 1464-5092 online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2011.644327
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
222
C. LEESON ET AL.
approach to delivering integrated and high quality ECE services for children and families in many countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, China including Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. However, it
appears that assumptions may have been made by policy makers about the
relationship between quality and leadership, as there seems to be little
agreement or clarity as to what are the dynamics between these two
concepts as shaped by policy agendas and as understood by practitioners.
In this paper, leadership for quality improvement in ECE in England and
Hong Kong is used as an illustrative case for discussion. A number of different countries could have been selected as illustrative cases. However,
the comparative similarities in the history of policy developments between
England and Hong Kong, alongside their more recent focus on developing
quality and leadership, albeit in differing ways, helps to generate discussion. Aiming at identifying issues for future comparative studies, we will
be looking at some fundamental questions regarding leadership and its
inter-relationship with quality ECE provision in both administrations.
In the following sections, we explore the various policy drivers that
shape what a leader might be and do. We then offer a critical examination
of the theoretical models in the ‘New leadership’ paradigm that are currently being proposed as well as engaging in a debate on the link between
quality and leadership and whether a model of effective leadership can
ever be created that will ensure quality ECE.
For clarification, our reference to quality refers to the quality frameworks designed by governments in both England and Hong Kong,
although we are troubled by the preference for measurable outcomes over
the many, non-measurable factors that may also indicate a worthwhile
experience for young children and their families. Thus, we acknowledge
the complexity of seeking a clear, agreed definition of quality (see Ho
et al. (2010) for discussion concerning quality in ECE).
Policy development in relationship to leadership
Both England and Hong Kong offer state entitlements to parents to
access ECE. In England, parents are now able to access a free early years
education place for 15 hours a week, for 38 weeks a year for their threeand four-year-olds. The new Coalition Government in the UK (Conservative/Liberal Democrat, elected in May 2010) has signalled their plans to
legislate for early years education to be extended to all two-year-olds living in disadvantaged areas (HM Treasury 2010). In Hong Kong, the government implemented the education voucher scheme in 2006, whereby
parents of children at 3–6 years-old are entitled for fee assistance in form
of an education voucher. Within the funding of ECE places in both England and Hong Kong, there is a quest for quality as a target for policy
development which has been increasing in intensity in the recent years
(Ho et al. 2010). In response, both England and Hong Kong have witnessed a number of developments that have had implications for both the
quality and the leadership of ECE provision, including new curriculum
guidelines and upgrading teacher qualifications. In addition, Hong Kong
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
223
has implemented a quality assurance mechanism and made moves to harmonize pre-primary education services, whilst in England there have been
moves towards integrating education and care and a greater emphasis on
the use of quality assurance mechanisms (see Ho et al. 2010). For both
England and Hong Kong, these policy developments have rapidly taken
place in the last decade and have posed new demands on pre-school principals, managers, head teachers and ‘leaders’.2
Prior to the last decade of rapid policy developments, both England
and Hong Kong had witnessed a relative calmness in ECE policy. Only
minimal support in the areas of legislation, finance, inspections, teacher
training and curriculum was provided for pre-schools in either administration, pre-school education being what Opper (1992) described as the
‘Cinderella’ of the education system. The minimal intervention approach
adopted by both England and Hong Kong led to ECE provision evolving
via a mixed market approach resulting in a dominance of private and voluntary sector providers, which is still evident in the supply of ECE today.
In England, the Coalition Government look set to continue this focus on
the mixed market to deliver the free early years education entitlement
(HM Treasury 2010: 34). In particular, the Coalition has signalled their
support for capacity building in the voluntary and community sector, as a
part of their wider ‘Big Society’ agenda. In England, 58% of three-yearolds attended ECE in the private and voluntary sector, 37% in the maintained sector and 4% in independent schools (Department for Children,
Schools and Families [DCSF] 2009). The figures alter for four-year-olds
where 78% attended ECE in the maintained sector. This is largely
accounted for by the number of schools that have started to offer places
to four-year-olds, but are still not willing to offer places to three-year-olds.
In Hong Kong, all pre-school provision is privately run and relies on
school fees as the major source of funding for operation. Though ECE is
not compulsory in Hong Kong (the same as in England), about 90% of
children aged 3–6 years old attend pre-schools for the purpose of custodial care and preparation for primary education (Census and Statistics
Department 2006). The implications of this mixed market in the case of
leadership are that ECE settings are left with a variety of leadership structures. Settings can operate under a head teacher or principal who has
responsibility for a school or nursery school, a cooperative structure, voluntary management committee or a private management board. Each of
these structures will have different implications for the leadership of ECE.
Further, the mixed market is underpinned by the principles of school
choice and market forces. Thus, leaders are responding to the demands of
policy makers and parents; and leading quality becomes about meeting
their demands rather than ensuring a good and worthwhile experience for
children.
Whilst those who are leading ECE settings may be operating in a variety of structures, they all share a similar history in the discursive production of who is a member of the ECE workforce. The attributes of a
member of the ECE workforce were largely entwined with concepts of
mothering. Generally, some aspects of maternal duties, such as feeding
and hygiene, which are recognized as the domain of families, are part of
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
224
C. LEESON ET AL.
the responsibilities of ECE institutions. For this reason, pre-school teaching has been viewed as an extension of mothering in both England and
Hong Kong. However, the maternal base to ECE has been widely criticized, largely because it is not seen as sufficient to ensure quality practice.
For both England and Hong Kong, quality of ECE was and is central to
the policy reforms. Part of the rapid policy developments in developing
ECE in both administrations has been centred on the quality of the
provision (particularly in relation to staff qualifications). However, the
drivers behind these changes vary. In Hong Kong, due to the rapid
decrease of the birth rate in the mid-1990s, the public view on the function of ECE institutions began to shift from child rearing to developmental nurturing (Ho 2008). During the 1990s, dissatisfaction with the
quality of ECE provision was broadly shaped by the criticisms that the
education services provided by pre-schools no longer satisfied parental
expectations on developmental nurturing. The public perceived that the
roots of poor quality pre-school services were explained purely by minimal
and inappropriate professional training and a lack of effective leadership.
In England, the evidence-based policy making rhetoric of the former
Labour Government has led to a focus on ‘what works’ (Ball 2008) in
terms of improving the quality of ECE provision. The findings of studies
such as the effective provision of pre-school education study (Sylva et al.
2004) have dominated debates around the need to up-skill and professionalize the workforce. Given the established link between quality ECE
and an improvement in child outcomes, highly qualified staff and effective
leadership are assumed to be central to ensuring good quality provision—
being a mother is no longer regarded as sufficient qualification to work in
ECE.
The criticisms of the quality of pre-school provision have given an
impetus in both England and Hong Kong Governments to prioritize ECE
reform on the policy agenda. The central focus of the reforms is to raise
service standards and increase accountability. In Hong Kong, the 1997
Policy Address stipulated that pre-school principals must have advanced
training at higher diploma level, viewed as an initial move to address the
problems of ineffective leadership in ECE provision. In 2000, the introduction of a quality assurance mechanism to monitor the service quality
of pre-schools signifies the role of the Local Government shifting from
lassiez faire to legitimated control (Ho 2007). Following this, upgrading
the professional qualification to one-year pre-service training at certificate
level in 2003, then requiring all teachers to obtain the two-year higher
diploma and principals to receive the bachelor degree by 2012 are evidence of the Hong Kong Government’s commitment to building up the
principals’ and teachers’ capacity for fundamental, internal change at
school level.
In England, a first step in the drive to improve quality was to consolidate the qualifications on offer, whilst also responding to their relative low
level (Cameron et al. 2001, Owen 2002, Bennett 2003, Miller 2008,
Osgood 2011). However, policy developments have focused on professionalization in ECE primarily in terms of increasing qualification levels
and as a result various measures have been introduced to this end, e.g. to
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
225
ensure that there is a graduate leader in all full day care settings by 2015.
Funding has been made available to support the training agenda, such as
the Transformation Fund and the Graduate Leader Fund, both of which
are particularly targeted at the creation of early years professionals (EYPs)
(DCSF 2007). However, the agreement to professionalize the workforce
did not come with an agreed definition of what is a professional. The
focus on training has resulted in questions about how those with
significant experience of working with children will relate to the agenda
(Miller 2008), whether the drive for qualifications could restrict entrants
to the workforce (Moss 2000) and if the new roles are being implemented
too quickly, with too little input from those working in the sector (Osgood
2006, 2011, McGillivray 2008, 2011, Miller 2008). The imposition of
training is considered to be evidence of Central Government imposing
tighter controls and demanding higher quality on a predominantly private
and voluntary sector market (Rao and Li 2009). However, under the
Coalition Government, the role of leaders in ECE looks uncertain, with
the potential subsequent loosening of some of these controls. The Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), the organization
responsible for the professionalization agenda across the children’s workforce, has now been subsumed into the Department of Education. Children’s Centres (one of the many types of providers offering ECE in
England) no longer have to hire someone with both qualified teacher and
an EYP status. Rather, the Department for Education has signalled a
move towards giving (all) professionals more autonomy. One aspect of
which is to allow Children’s Centres to use their professional judgment to
determine the appropriate level of graduate support needed in their early
years setting. Whilst previous initiatives have been to consolidate the variation in who leads ECE settings, there is a question as to whether we will
now see more fragmentation developing.
However, whilst there has been an explosion in policy interest in
establishing the qualification levels of those working in ECE, there has
not been the same priority given to understanding and developing effective models of leadership. A strong leadership identity and heritage would
seem essential at this point in time as increased government attention, the
pressures towards globalization and ‘the growing hold of “neo-liberal
agendas” leading to corporatization’ (Woodrow and Busch 2008: 84)
insists that ECE leaders are clear sighted and visionary and make a stand
for the communities they serve. Early discussions about ECE leadership
in England initially centred on the substantial portfolio of evidence and
theory of educational leadership. Models of educational leadership, whilst
moving towards collaborative styles of working were more typically characterized as minimizing collegiate behaviour in favour of a more top-down
approach (Harris 2001). A shift in thinking occurred in 2004, when early
years specific training was provided that began to explore people-centred
models of leadership rather than those that were regarded as bureaucratic
and/or hierarchical (Dunlop 2008, Whalley 2011). This shift in emphasis
has created an international debate on the best leadership models for
ECE. However, we can see that there is still a significant tension between
the recognition of the need for visionary leaders and the day-to-day
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
226
C. LEESON ET AL.
demand for more bureaucratic, business models of leadership that enables
the essential managerial decisions to be made that balance the books and
achieve identified outcomes (Dunlop 2005). Such tensions inhibit the
development of credible ECE leadership models and create a complex
paradox that is difficult for new leaders to surmount. The development of
effective leadership models is now entering a period of the unknown as
ECE practitioners wait to see what will happen under the Coalition
Government. There are questions around whether different leadership
styles will evolve under different graduate professionals and between different sectors, as well as questions as to who will be the advocates of
ECE professionals now that CWDC has lost its Non-Departmental Public
Body status.
In Hong Kong, although pre-schools have relatively simple management structures, it has usually been administered in a bureaucratic style.
Leadership has long been exercised in a form of centralized and top-down
practice. Before 1997, the majority of pre-school teachers entered the profession with 11 years of basic education and without prior professional
training. Most of their so-called ‘training’ was done on the job while
working as class teachers. They were trained in a form of apprenticeship
(Ho 2006: 307). This appears to be deeply rooted in the mindsets of preschool teachers who seldom play a role in initiating and leading changes.
Instead, they tend to define their role and responsibilities as being limited
to teaching and strictly implement the decisions of the school management. In its turn, school management tends to tailor its curriculum design
in favour of parental preferences with a strong market orientation (Opper
1992, Li 2006). The professional training policies after 1997 have given
momentum to the processes of quality improvement in pre-schools
focused on the bottom-up change led by teachers. The teachers’ desire
for professional autonomy in curriculum and pedagogical decisions potentially has created tensions in the relationship with school management.
The Hong Kong Government introduced the education voucher scheme
tightly coupling with the new curriculum policy and quality school review
framework in 2006. The education voucher scheme further promotes
school choice and competition in ECE which have been already shaped
by market forces. The new quality review policy represents an important
change in the role of teachers, who are now expected to be actively
involved in a ‘bottom-up approach’ to enhancing the service quality.
These three policy agendas can be understood as a shifting focus of public
and political attention in ECE highlighting a flow of new ideologies
imported from western developed countries, such as UK, USA, Canada
and Australia. A bureaucratic, centralized style of leadership is now criticized for not being able to adequately meet and tackle the complexity of
educational problems. The Hong Kong Government advocates a change
in principals’ leadership style from a bureaucratic, centralized to a more
collaborative, participative style. In order to obtain the funding for school
operation under the education voucher scheme, school principals are
required to meet the new policy objectives on improving leadership practice. Effective leadership is now defined in Hong Kong as quality oriented, effective and efficient, responsive, participatory, transparent,
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
227
equitable and inclusive (Education and Manpower Bureau 2000). However, there are questions around the relevance of quality leadership for
the various school stakeholders as the quality criteria can vary depending
on an individual’s values and interests in a particular cultural context.
This is evidenced in a study of effective leadership in Hong Kong preschools. The study indicated a paradox of power in leadership which was
characterized by the tension between the dichotomy of centralization and
decentralization in the change process. The relationship between the
school principal and various school stakeholders incorporated a concept
of harmony in collectivist culture that functioned as a powerful tool for
releasing the tension embedded in shared decision-making (Ho forthcoming). The study also revealed that perspectives on quality criteria are mediated, filtered and shaped by cultural context. As educational models are
culture-bound, the western ideologies of leadership must be critically
examined if they are to be successfully transferred to other cultural contexts.
The new leadership paradigm
In recent years, there has been a search for models of leadership that
promote the importance of relationships (Rodd 2006, Walker et al. 2007,
Santer and Cookson 2009, West-Burnham 2009) and are more transformational in nature. Using Hall’s (1996) findings to support her theorizing
of leadership, Rodd (2006) argues for a female style of leadership in early
childhood that was highlighted as power for rather than power over. It
emphasizes building relationships and empowering others for individual
growth and group development. It also creates an organizational culture
characterized by trust, openness, collaboration and involvement. The models that would seem to fit these requirements best for leadership of ECE
are relatively new, forming a ‘New Leadership’ paradigm (Northouse
2010). They include transformational leadership (Bass 1985, Bass and
Avolio 1993), distributed leadership (Harris 2004, 2007, Spillane 2005)
and authentic leadership (Terry 1993, Begley 2001, Avolio and Gardner
2005). These three models of leadership are strikingly similar as they all
concentrate on the importance of relationship with considerable investment
in emotional literacy and the personal development of the staff team. The
degree to which they differ is the differing emphasis they place on key
aspects of leadership such as the sharing of leadership tasks and duties.
Transformational leadership (developed through research conducted
by Burns (1978) into political leaders in the USA) was the first iteration
of a model of leadership that emphasizes the importance of emotional literacy and personal development and has been significant in shaping leadership practice (Bolman and Deal 1997). Extending the work of Burns,
Bass (1985) explored that a transformational leader is required to identify
the emotions, values, ethics and goals of the individuals involved in the
work, and, using that knowledge, to encourage their followers to take control and responsibility, thereby accomplishing far more than they might
otherwise. Transformational leadership is therefore closely linked to
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
228
C. LEESON ET AL.
enhancing the autonomy and professional freedom of followers, to
improve personal development and the realization of an individual’s full
potential. Transformational leadership is regarded as effective in a variety
of different situations, promoting a shared philosophy in moral dimensions to work and creating a culture of putting aside self-interests for the
good of others; the organization or the community (Northouse 2010).
However, Northhouse (2010), in his review of leadership models warns
that there is a risk that transformational leadership might be abused with
followers being encouraged to adopt a vision that may not be right or
appropriate. Such criticism is particularly concerning given the lack of
clarity over whether the vision is developed by the leader, the management committee, the community or policy makers in both the England
and Hong Kong context.
In the complex, multi-professional world of ECE, it is not hard to see
why distributed leadership has been embraced (Spillane 2005, National
College 2006). Earley and Weindling’s (2004) synthesis of research has
demonstrated that it is flexible, negotiable and adaptable. Whilst Aubrey’s
(2007) empirical work has demonstrated that distributed leadership allows
for effective collaboration, interaction and interdependence as well as the
development of powerful and sustainable learning communities. Distributed leadership (Gronn 2002) emphasizes the sharing of leadership
responsibilities by many individuals within the organization, often at different levels and in different positions, using strengths and availability
rather than hierarchical position, thus enhancing the personal development of staff members. However, reviews of literature on distributed leadership have strongly criticized it as a fashionable trend lacking conceptual
clarity (Harris 2007, Hartley 2007) and for being too flexible to be taken
seriously as a substantial model of leadership. Aubrey (2007) also finds
that an egalitarian distributed leadership framework would be of limited
use in a crisis situation where a more assertive style of leadership would
be called for. Furthermore, it would appear that the cuts in social spending and the fragmentation concerns raised earlier in an English context,
may lead to an emphasis on a superficial understanding of distributed
leadership that sees an opportunity for one leader to be responsible for
many settings leaving poorly positioned staff to manage the best they can
without proper training, support or systems rather than the development
of an effective collaborative model. As discussed earlier, the Hong Kong
Government put forward the agenda on decentralizing leadership through
the introduction of new curriculum policy and quality school review
framework in 2006. This leads to a potential shift in the role of teachers
from top-down centralized leadership to bottom-up decentralized leadership. However, the existing perspectives of local policy makers on distributed leadership might fail to recognize the complexity of distributed
leadership that is driven by educational reform policies and shaped by
hierarchical, top-down leadership styles in local ECE contexts.
Authentic leadership takes its inspiration from the work of Goleman
(1998) amongst others. Reviews of authentic leadership have found that it
is relatively new and therefore still in development (Northouse 2010) and
defined as ‘leadership from within’ (Avolio and Gardner 2005). It focuses
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
229
on the authenticity of the leader rather than on issues of followership,
emphasizing an ethic of care in practice. Champy (2009) in his case study
of the Authentic tea Company, finds that authentic leadership relies upon
an internalized moral perspective that requires self-awareness and relational transparency, all of which enables a leader to be immune to the
pressures of the role by giving them the facility of being true to themselves. Thus, as Avolio and Gardner (2005) raise in their review, authentic leaders are deeply aware of themselves and how they lead as well as
having an excellent awareness of their staff and responsibilities, placing
a clear emphasis on achieving an emotionally literate environment.
Northouse’s (2010) review adds that a model of authentic leadership
offers the potential for a leadership that can be trusted through the explicit expectation of a high moral value led approach to work. Hoffman’s
empirical work (2008) finds that authentic leaders care about their staff
and are able to articulate their ethic of care through the structures and
processes they put in place. They work hard at developing enduring relationships and may not be as charismatic as their transformational counterparts (Avolio and Gardner 2005). Authentic leadership has therefore
become attractive to those concerned that other models do not effectively
support leaders as they attempt to guide their settings and communities
through tough, ever changing times (Hofman 2008). However, this may
be the model that causes the most concern to management structures,
external quality assurance bodies and policy makers as it suggests the
potential for behaviour that may be viewed as maverick and therefore
dangerous. Given the deeply controversial cuts in ECE spending in England, maverick leaders are least likely to be encouraged although are probably best placed to withstand the pressure of guiding a setting through the
changes to come. Earlier discussion on the market-driven nature of ECE
in Hong Kong raises questions on the relevance of a model of authentic
leadership in local pre-schools. A study conducted by Ho (2008) indicated that the pre-schools in Hong Kong were caught between professional values on learning through play and parental preferences on
academic learning. Under these circumstances, pre-schools have to put
much more efforts into sharpening their competitive edge to attract parents in the education market place. It is a big challenge for pre-school
principals to act as an authentic leader to maintain a good balance
between professionalism and parental choice.
Any one of the theories mentioned above may be regarded as a useful
framework for leadership in ECE in England or Hong Kong. However,
how far a leader is able to fully articulate these principles will be dictated
by external drivers such as social policy, market forces, management structures such as management committees and/or quality assurance bodies.
We should note that all three of the leadership models explored above are
western in origin and we express concern that Asian models of leadership
are not as well known or debated at international level in the era of globalization. Currently, the global trend has set up a new focus for deliberation
on the cultural dimensions of school leadership. The leadership phenomenon can be understood in terms of some assumptions related to societal
culture. For example, Hofstede et al. (2010) suggest that collectivism vs.
230
C. LEESON ET AL.
individualism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance and power
distance are useful cultural dimensions when discussing the effectiveness
of the leadership models across cultures. Key issues in leading for quality
improvement will be discussed in the following section which attempts to
pave the way for comparative studies of quality in early years settings and
contribute to the boarder discussion on the influences of western ideologies on Asian school systems and leadership practices.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
Issues in leading for quality improvement
It is apparent that leading an ECE setting, in England and Hong Kong,
has become increasingly complex during a period of education reform
(Earley and Weindling 2004, Dunlop 2008, Jones and Pound 2008, Ho
et al. 2010). Whichever theoretical model of leadership in the new paradigm is used, it appears there are common themes emerging from
research into what constitutes effective leadership in an ECE context
(Leeson 2010) as well as developing problems for the leadership for quality as manifested in the changing policy context in both England and
Hong Kong. Under these circumstances, the interplay between the impact
of the policy agenda and the emerging leadership found in the theoretical
literature mentioned earlier should be examined in detail. In the following, we identify some common issues in ECE in both England and Hong
Kong.
A substantial body of literature indicates the existence of a shared
philosophy between leaders, followers and the community (Siraj-Blatchford and Manni 2006, Whalley 2006, Jones and Pound 2008). In transformational leadership, the idea of a shared philosophy of what is
important to the community and how that is going to be articulated in
practice enables community empowerment and engagement and facilitates creative, responsive service provision that is culturally sensitive and
highly contextual. A shared philosophy in transformational leadership is
attractive to policy makers in England and Hong Kong as we engage in
discussions concerning the involvement of communities/school stakeholders in the running of settings, their direction and ethos, but we ask
how free are leaders to represent the views and needs of their communities/school stakeholders? Furthermore, in England, what pressures will
leaders be under in the coming months, to espouse a specified vision of
services as spending cuts bite? Those settings that have management
committees overseeing the work of leaders may also set limits and
restrict the development of vision and shared philosophy that is child/
family/community centred (Woodrow 2011). Similarly, in Hong Kong,
what pressures will leaders be under in the introduction of education
voucher scheme in 2006 through which parental choice and market
forces have been promoted as means for regulating the quality of ECE
provision.
Distributed leadership recognizes the importance of followership,
emphasizing the power distribution in a non-hierarchical structure (Bloom
2000, Nivala and Hujala 2002, West-Burnham 2009), that a leader can
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
231
only lead if they have people behind them who are actively involved in
the decision-making processes of the organization (Haslam and Platow
2001). Ideas about followership do not appear to be articulated in the
policy surrounding leadership of ECE. However, a recent serious case
review (Plymouth Safeguarding Children Board 2010) into the actions of
Vanessa George, (a nursery nurse in a voluntary pre-school in England,
who was found guilty of child abuse) highlights the urgent need for effective mechanisms that enable leadership to be challenged and for all staff
to share responsibility for the development of organizational culture.
Again, in line with the principles of followership, of valuing relationships
and connections, effective ECE leaders are regarded as those who enable
others to do parts of the task, to have a shared ownership in developing
both the vision and the path (Moyles 2006, Siraj-Blatchford and Manni
2006, Aubrey 2007, Jones and Pound 2008). Indeed, writers such as Ancona et al. (2007) would argue that leaders should not be encouraged to
know it all, that being ‘incomplete’ is a strength, not a weakness, a concept that is not as clearly articulated through the literature on business
leadership. As mentioned earlier, in Hong Kong, the distributed leadership model has been identified as a solution for school improvement. It is
based on the assumption that redistributing influence and power in
schools can encourage teachers to actively participate in decision-making
process. However, as educational models are culture-bound, the model of
distributed leadership which was developed in the West must be critically
reviewed to generate locality-specific knowledge and practice for a particular sociocultural context (e.g. Tikly et al. 2003). Under different circumstances, what is an increasingly popular mode of working in England is
the leadership of several settings being held by one person, to save costs
in times of austerity through an economy of scale. Such schemes require
a distribution of tasks as one leader cannot possibly do everything in every
setting, but raises concerns regarding the maintenance of a strong vision
and ethos, good quality care and meaningful followership as well as questions about the effective training and support for staff left to run individual settings without the day to day presence of the leader.
Recent studies have shown that the existence of an ethic of care
(Osgood 2004, Curtis and Burton 2009) within authentic leadership promotes an environment in which the experience of care is regarded as
important for human beings to flourish (Williams 2001) and placed at the
heart of the organization (Sevenhuijsen 2000). It should be debated
whether this would ever be a key aim of governments whose central concern would seem to be to meet the demands of working parents and commercial markets. An ethic of care has been found to sit uneasily with the
commercial need to be viable and sustainable, but there is potential for a
care and business ethos to be combined (Campbell-Barr 2009). Research
by Osgood (2004) calls for the value of an ethic of care being recognized
as an essential aspect of ECE provision. In order to achieve this, mechanisms must be put in place that encourage an environment of genuine,
reciprocal care between staff, children and families which enhances social
cohesion and the development of personal resilience (Elfer and Dearnley
2007). In line with a concept of an ethic of care, leadership that focuses
232
C. LEESON ET AL.
on the quality of relationships; that expresses interest and value in the
everyday connections between people is regarded as offering the highest
quality for ECE. Again, it is unclear whether this is similarly important to
policy makers who seem to have concentrated on increasing the professionalization of staff possibly at the expense of their closeness and their
ability to articulate the care for the children and families they work with
(Elfer and Dearnley 2007, McGivillray 2011).
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
Conclusion
The main difficulties for leaders of early years provision in either England
or Hong Kong is the lack of theoretical models keeping pace with the
requirements of educational reform policy and/or local settings as well as
the absence of a clear link between models of leadership and assurance of
quality. Business models of leadership that rely upon the identification of
specific, predetermined or desired traits or styles (Neugebauer 1985) are
now regarded as having limited usefulness in leading ECE, where work is
seen as more person-centred, focusing on the quality of interpersonal relationships rather than goal-orientated (Dunlop 2008) behaviour which is
focused on the product rather than the process. As stated earlier, it had
been assumed that the ‘New leadership’ paradigm would be a useful
source of theoretical model of leadership for the ECE sector with its
strong orientation to achieving a more person-centred style, transformational in nature. However, the increased managerialism that has been
required by leaders with an emphasis on measurable outcomes that do
not necessarily encompass well being or community cohesion has rendered these models less attractive for settings. Nevertheless, they remain
compelling for policy makers as they offer the potential for nationally driven, global measures of quality assurance. The changes in the ECE landscape that are being discussed and developed by the Coalition
Government in England and the Local Government in Hong Kong may
put further pressure on the development of effective models of leadership.
We would argue that leadership happens within a cultural context and
therefore an overarching, favoured model of leadership is probably impossible or even undesirable to apply (Fleer 2003, Tobin 2005). Thus, whilst
England and Hong Kong share many similarities in their drive to ensure
quality ECE and effective leadership, offering the potential for cross-cultural learning, we have to acknowledge that there is a need to develop
models of leadership that are culturally sensitive. Diversity and responsiveness to local needs, expectations and cultural identity should always be the
imperative (Tikly et al. 2003, Hallinger et al. 2005, Walker and Kwan
2010). Leaders should be regarded as firmly situated within their local
context and the concepts of quality and leadership that are used should
reflect local values and not be imposed from a central point in a belief that
‘one size fits all’. Thus, leaders take on a variety of roles that are context
specific and approved, even expected by local communities (Mujis et al.
2004). Our argument highlights the substantial tension that exists between
policy drivers and quality as defined by policy makers and consumers on
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
233
the one hand and the development of models of ECE leadership on the
other. It could be argued that models of leadership are meaningless or
even pointless if they do not reflect the policy drivers of the administration
in which they operate as it is the policy makers who define the quality standards they expect leaders to demonstrate through their work (Macpherson
2009). However, we would argue that this is erroneous as we have seen
the development of unique models of ECE leadership that are bottom-up,
grounded in the needs of communities and the strengths and vision and
authenticity of committed ECE leaders from a variety of professional
backgrounds and perspectives (Whalley 2006). Thus, if we accept that settings are unique, formed and identified within their communities, there is
a need to investigate this tension further and critically explore the interrelationship between policy, quality and leadership.
Notes
1. We define ECE settings as those providing education and care for children of a pre-school age
(2–5 in England and 3–6 in Hong Kong): nurseries, kindergartens, pre-schools and children’s
centres.
2. We are using the generic term of leader throughout this paper, whilst acknowledging the many
different terms that are used for the person in charge of an ECE setting.
References
Ancona, D., Malone, T. W., Orlikowski, W. J. and Senge, P. (2007) In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 92–100.
Aubrey, C. (2007) Leading and Managing in the Early Years (London: Sage).
Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. L. (2005) Authentic leadership development: getting to the roots of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
Ball, S. (2008) The Education Debate (Bristol: Policy Press).
Bass, B. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation (New York, NY: Free Press).
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993) Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques (New York,
NY: Free Press).
Begley, P. (2001) In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International Journal Leadership
in Education, 4(4), 353–365.
Bennett, J. (2003) Starting strong: the persistent division between care and education. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 1(1), 21–48.
Bloom, P. J. (2000) How do we define director competence? Child Care Information Exchange, 138,
13–18.
Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice and Leadership (San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Burns, J. (1978) Leadership (New York, NY: Harper and Row).
Cameron, C., Owen, C. and Moss, P. (2001) Entry retention and loss: a study of childcare students
and workers. DfES Research Report 275 (Norwich: HMSO).
Campbell-Barr, V. (2009) Care and business orientations in the delivery of childcare: an exploratory
study. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7, 76–93.
Census and Statistics Department (2006) Hong Kong Statistics on Population and Vital Events. Available online at: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?tableID=145&ID=&subjectID=1.
Champy, J. (2009) Authentic leadership. Leader to Leader, 54(Autumn), 39–44.
Curtis, L. and Burton, D. (2009) Naı̈ve change agent or canny political collaborator? The change in
leadership role from nursery school to children’s centre. Education, 3, 287–299.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
234
C. LEESON ET AL.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2007) Early Years Professional Status Standards (London: DCSF).
Department for Children Schools, Families (DCSF). (2009) Provision for children under five years of
age in England: January 2009, Statistical First Release 11/2009 (London: DCSF).
Dunlop, A.-W. (2005) Scottish Early Childhood Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership. Interim Report of
Research in Progress (Glasgow: University of Strathclyde).
Dunlop, A.-W. (2008) A Literature Review on Leadership in the Early Years. Available online at: http://
www.ltscotland.org.uk/earlyyears/resources/publications/resourcesresearch/leadershipreview.asp.
Earley, P. and Weindling, D. (2004) Understanding School Leadership (London: Sage).
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2000) Performance Indicators (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer).
Elfer, P. and Dearnley, K. (2007) Nurseries and emotional well being: evaluating an emotionally containing model of continuing professional development. Early Years: An International Journal of
Research and Development, 27(3), 267–279.
Fleer, M. (2003) Early childhood education as an evolving ‘Community of Practice’ or as lived ‘Social
Reproduction’: researching the ‘taken-for-granted’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(1),
64–79.
Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence (London: Bloomsbury).
Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451.
Hall, V. (1996) Dancing on the Ceiling: A Study of Women Managers in Education (London: Paul Chapman).
Hallinger, P., Walker, A. and Bajunid, I. (2005) Educational leadership in East Asia: implications for
education in a global society. UCEA Review, 1, 1–4.
Harris, A. (2001) Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership and Management,
21(3), 261–270.
Harris, A. (2004) Teacher leadership and distributed leadership: an exploration of the literature.
Leading and Managing, 10(2), 1–10.
Harris, A. (2007) Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International
Journal Leadership in Education, 10(3), 315–325.
Hartley, D. (2007) The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of
Educational Studies, 55(2), 202–214.
Haslam, S. A. and Platow, M. J. (2001) The link between leadership and followership: how affirming
social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11),
1469–1479.
HM Treasury. (2010) Spending Review (London: The Stationary Office).
Ho, C. W. D. (2006) Understanding the complexity of preschool teaching in Hong Kong: the way
forward to professionalism. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(3), 305–314.
Ho, C. W. D. (2007) Policy of quality assurance in Hong Kong preschools. Early Child Development
and Care, 177(5), 493–505.
Ho, C. W. D. (2008) Exploring the definitions of quality early childhood programme in a market-driven context: case studies of two Hong Kong preschools. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 16(3), 223–236.
Ho, D., Campbell-Barr, V. and Leeson, C. (2010) Quality improvement in early years settings in
Hong Kong and England. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3), 241–256.
Ho, D. (Forthcoming) The paradox of power in leadership in early childhood education. Peabody
Journal of Education.
Hofman, R. E. Jr. (2008) A conscious—authentic leadership approach in the workplace. leading from
within. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 18–31.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind
(New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).
Jones, C. and Pound, L. (2008) Leadership and Management in the Early Years: From Principles to Practice (Maidenhead: Open University Press).
Leeson, C. (2010) Leadership in early childhood settings’ in Parker-Rees, in: R. Leeson, C. Willan
and J. Savage (eds) Early Childhood Studies: An Introduction to the Study of Children’s Worlds and
Children’s Lives (Exeter: Learning Matters), pp. 112–124.
Li, H. (2006) School-based curriculum development: an interview study of Chinese kindergartens.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4), 223–229.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
LEADING QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
235
Macpherson, R. (2009) The professionalisation of educational leadership: implications of recent international policy research in leadership development for Australasian education systems. Journal
of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 24(1), 53–117.
McGillivray, G. (2008) Nannies, nursery nurses and early years professionals: constructions of professional identity in the early years workforce in England. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 16(2), 242–254.
McGivillray, G. (2011) Constructions of professional identity, in: L. Miller and C. Cable (eds) Professionalization, Leadership and Management in the Early Years (London: Sage), pp. 93–106.
Melhuish, E. (2004) A literature review of the impact of early years provision on young children, with emphasis
given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, Prepared for the National Audit Office by the
Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues (Birkbeck: University of London).
Miller, L. (2008) Developing professionalism within a regulatory framework in England: challenges
and possibilities. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 255–268.
Moss, P. (2000) Workforce Issues in Early Childhood Education and Care (New York, NY: The Institute
for Child and Family Policy, Columbia University). Available online at: http://www.childpolicyintl.org/publications/Workforce%20Issues%20in%20Early%20Childhood%20Education%
20and%20Care_Peter%20Moss.pdf (accessed 11–12 May 2000).
Moyles, J. (2006) Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years (Maidenhead: Open University Press).
National College (NCSL). (2006) National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership
(Nottingham: NCSL).
Neugebauer, R. (1985) Are you an effective leader? Child Care Information Exchange, 46, 18–26.
Nivala, V. and Hujala, E. (eds) (2002) Leadership in Early Childhood Education, Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Oulu: Early Childhood Education, University of Oulu).
Northouse, P. G. (2010) Leadership: Theory and Practice (London: Sage).
Opper, S. (1992) Hong Kong’s Young Children: Their Preschools and Families (Hong Kong: University
of Hong Kong Press).
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.
Osgood, J. (2006) Professionalism and performativity: the feminist challenge facing early years practitioners. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 26(2), 187–199.
Osgood, J. (2011) Contested constructions of professionalization within the nursery, in: L. Miller and
C. Cable (eds) Professionalization, Leadership and Management in the Early Years (London:
Sage), pp. 93–106.
Owen, S. (2002) Training and Workforce Issues in the Early Years, in: , G. Pugh and B. Duffy (eds)
Contemporary Issues in the Early Years, 4th edn (London: Paul Chapman).
Pence, A. and Moss, P. (1994) Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services: New Approaches to Defining
Quality (London: Paul Chapman).
Plymouth Safeguarding Children Board (2010). Serious Case Review Overview Report Executive
Summary in respect of Nursery Z (Plymouth: Plymouth Safeguarding Children Board.
Rao, N. and Li, H. (2009) Quality matters: early childhood education policy in Hong Kong. Early
Child Development and Care, 176(3), 233–245.
Rodd, J. (2006) Leadership in Early Childhood (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Santer, J. and Cookson, L. (2009) Early years, child care and every child matters, in: R. Barker (ed.)
Making Sense of Every Child Matters: Multi-Professional Guidance (Bristol: Policy Press).
Sevenhuijsen, S. (2000) Caring in the third way: the relation between obligation, responsibility and
care in third way discourse. Critical Social Policy, 20(1), 5–37.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Manni, L. (2006) Effective Leadership in the Early Years Sector (ELEYS) Study
(London: Institute of Education, University of London).
Spillane, J.P. (2005) Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(winter), 143–150.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2004) The Effective
Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report (London: Dfes/Institute of Education, University of London).
Terry, R. W. (1993) Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).
Tikly, L., Crossley, M., Dachi, H., Lowe, J. and Mukabaranga, B. (2003) Globalisation and Skills for
Development in Rwanda and Tanzania (London: DfID).
Tobin, J. (2005) Quality in early childhood education: an anthropologist’s perspective. Early Education & Development, 16(4), 421–434.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 23:58 25 April 2013
236
C. LEESON ET AL.
Walker, A., Hallinger, P. and Qian, H. (2007) Leadership development for school effectiveness and
improvement in East Asia, in: T. Townsend (ed.) International Handbook of School Effectiveness
and Improvement (Dordrecht: Springer).
Walker, A. and Kwan, P. (2010) Leadership in diverse cultures, in: P. Peterson, E. Baker and
B. McGaw (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Education (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 824–831.
West-Burnham, J. (2009) Rethinking Educational Leadership: From Improvement to Transformation
(London: Continuum).
Whalley, M. (2006) Leadership in integrated centres and services for children and families—a community development approach: engaging with the struggle. Childrenz Issues, 10(2), 8–13.
Whalley, M. E. (2011) Leading and managing in the early years, in: L. Miller and C. Cable (eds) Professionalization, Leadership and Management in the Early Years (London: Sage), pp. 93–106.
Williams, F. (2001) In and beyond new labour: towards a new political ethic of care. Critical Social
Policy, 21(4), 467–493.
Woodrow, C. (2011) Challenging identities: a case for leadership, in: L. Miller and C. Cable (eds)
Professionalization, Leadership and Management in the Early Years (London: Sage), pp. 93–106.
Woodrow, C. and Busch, G. (2008) Repositioning early childhood leadership as action and activism.
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(1), 83–93.