Advertisement

Successful Leadership Based on Democratic Values

  • Jorunn MØller
  • Astrid Eggen
  • Otto L. Fuglestad
  • Gjert Langfeldt
  • Anne-Marie Presthus
  • Siw SkrØvset.
  • Else StjernstrØm
  • Gunn VedØy
Chapter
Part of the Studies In Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 5)

This chapter aims at identifying the qualities and the characteristics of successful leadership practice within the Norwegian elementary and secondary school system. We used multi-site case study methods (Yin, 1989; Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000), including quite extensive observation in twelve selected schools. We have chosen a perspective that looks at leadership as grounded in activity and interaction rather than in position or role Our findings demonstrate that successful leadership in our case schools is almost entirely practiced through collaboration and team efforts. A learning-centered approach is the focal point for the schools’ philosophy as well as for its practice. Respect for the individual student and colleague in the building of professional communities of practice seems to be a guiding norm of conduct. It involves enabling others in a way that allows them, in turn, to become enablers (Foster, 1986). These democratic principles are also values included in the national policy documents for Norwegian primary and secondary education. These principles imply that one of the main responsibilities of a school principal is to build educational institutions around central democratic values, for example, promoting equity and social justice in school as well as in the wider community. Focusing on social justice implies a concern for the welfare of others and for the dignity and rights of individuals. Therefore acting in accord with democratic values set the foundation for recognizing leadership as successful in Norwegian schools

Keywords

Leadership Team School Leadership Successful School Leadership Practice Team Effort 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, G. (1996). The cultural politics of schools: Implications for leadership. In K. Leithwood, J.Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger & A.e Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp.947–966). Book 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, R. (1990). Educational administration and the management of knowledge. (first published in 1983, reprinted in 1990) Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools. Lessons from the chalk face. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blase, J., Blase, J., Anderson, G., & Dungan, S. (1995). Democratic principal in action. Eight pioneers. Housand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Court, M. (2002, October). International approaches to sharing school leadership. Co-heads and teacher leadership collectives. A paper presented at the National College for School leadership 1st Invitational International Conference. Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (1996). Reforming the practice of educational administration through managing dilemmas. In S. L. Jacobson, E. S. Hickcox & R. Stevenson (Eds.), School administration: Persistent dilemmas in preparation and practice (pp. 3–18). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and educational administration, in Education today. Edited and with a foreword by Joseph Ratner. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  12. Fuglestad, O. L., & Lillejord, S. (2002). Culture as process: Leadership challenges in the construction of productive learning cultures. In L. Calitz, O. L. Fuglestad, & S. Lillejord (Eds.), Leadership in education. Sandown: Heinemann Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Gronn, P., & Hamilton, A. (2004). ‘A bit more life in the leadership’: Co-principalship as distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Teaching in a box: Emotional geographies of teaching. In C. Sugrue & C. Day (Eds.), Developing teachers and teaching practice: International research perspectives (pp.3–26). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  17. Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003, April). What do we already know about successful school leadership? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,IL.Google Scholar
  19. Møller, J. (1996). Reframing educational leadership in the perspective of dilemmas. In S. L. Jacobson, E. S. Hickcox, & R. Stevenson (Eds.), School administration: Persistent dilemmas in preparation and practice (pp. 207–226). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Møller, J. (2002). Democratic leadership in an age of managerial accountability. Improving Schools, 5(2), 11–21.Google Scholar
  21. Møller, J. (2005). Old metaphors, new meanings: Being a woman principal. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), Passionate principalship: Learning from life histories of school leaders (pp. 42–57). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  22. Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293–307.Google Scholar
  23. Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. (1976). Group processes in the classroom. 2nd edition. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  24. Smulyan, L. (2000). Balancing acts. Women principals at work. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.Google Scholar
  26. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorunn MØller
    • 1
  • Astrid Eggen
    • 1
  • Otto L. Fuglestad
    • 1
  • Gjert Langfeldt
    • 1
  • Anne-Marie Presthus
    • 1
  • Siw SkrØvset.
    • 1
  • Else StjernstrØm
    • 1
  • Gunn VedØy
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations