Leadership and Management in Rural Contexts - Literature review Example

Leadership and Management in Rural Contexts Name University Introduction A good leadership formation calls for sustainable leadership and this important in a rural educational context. Hargreaves (2003) defines sustainable leadership as leadership that spreads, lasts and fundamentally ensures enduring and widespread improvement of a school (p.7). With the continuous educational reforms in many global contexts, the concept or ideal of sustainable leadership is of great importance. As such, various leaders approach sustainability in differing ways, for instance: how they approach the implementation of deep and useful learning in their institutions; how they sustain and encourage their staff in the process; how they avoid overexertion and possible burnout of both staff and students; and how they make sure that the improvements experienced do last, even after their leadership tenure is over. The relevance of looking at the leadership management of rural schools is due to challenges that the leaders of these institutions encounter as they engage with the accentuated complexities of implementing sustainable improvement in the rural context (Clarke, 2002, p.32). The Body There are many reasons for focusing on the educational leadership in rural contexts. Firstly, rural schools are numerically significant: more than a quarter of the schools in Queensland state educational system are rural, where they cater for a small number of students and thus the principals have quite substantial commitments (Lester, 2001, p.19). Majority of such schools are found in isolated, remote environments. The same situation can be found in Southern Australia, Western Australia and in other states to a lesser extent (Wildy & Clarke, 2005, p.45). Such schools face difficulties that are otherwise absent in city schools and hence are favourable as the basis of this essay. The second reason for the interest in rural schools is the potential impact of leadership in such institutions. Mohr (2000) argues that in the North American context, the principals of relatively small rural schools are very actively involved in the daily running of their institutions as compared to their counterpart heads in larger urban schools (p.141). This is chiefly because of the unique way in which the rural communities relate with the school leadership (Weston, 2000, p.22). According to the Office of Standards in Education, the leaders in small rural schools usually have a very direct influence on the quality of learning offered and this gives them good opportunities to cause meaningful improvement. It is important to note that when a school is isolated or remote, as is the case with the rural schools herein discussed, the institution is vulnerable to situations such as decline in infrastructure and employment opportunities in the particular community (Barty et al., 2005, p.13). Another issue is the prevalent inequity issues borne from the traditional difficulty of adequate staffing in rural schools. Therefore, social justice demands a lot from the leaders of rural schools, in that, they are driven by the inherent circumstances to find opportunities to implement change, since the students and their parents have little power in such matters and can only accept the offered educational provisions from their local learning institutions. At this stage, one can ask “what are the Challenges faced individually by an educational leader in developing sustainable leadership in the rural setting?” The distinctive circumstances associated to a particular rural school affects and influences the Principal’s effectiveness in sustaining and improving his/her institution. The new trends of decentralization, where management is moving away from centralized system of education management to school-based systems of management only means that the school leaders are now subject to increased expectations, increased accountability demands from policy makers, parents and other system administrators (Hatton 2001, p.123). Given that principals spend some substantial time in the classroom; these added administration demands imposed on principals form a new work load, which usually manifests as tension between the new management demands and the professional teaching concerns, a major challenge (Southworth, 2004, p.41). Such competing work demands on school leaders and the engendered tensions were showcased in a survey on the work practices of 137 Queensland School Heads. These principals said that the time spent on management and administrative tasks was increasing by the day. Most affirmed that they spent a lot of time outside the school day working on issues indirectly connected to curriculum, learning and teaching. Additionally, the introduction of an outcome-based system of education automatically make its necessary for teaching heads to use more sophisticated methods of curriculum implementation to attain favourable outcomes (Clarke et al., 2004, p.34). The isolation of most rural schools accentuates the pressures arising from the double load the principal has to bear. Due to the remote location of their schools, such principals have reduced opportunities to exchange views and attend educational forums far away from their schools. The problems of fewer staff allocation and the tyranny of distance and time only allows these heads to attend only the most important, mandatory meetings, and even this is quite a hustle (Hogden & Wylie, 2005, p.55). Isolation, in itself, debilitates the most noble of efforts towards sustainable leadership. Since rural schools play a very vital role in the immediate communities, the process of implementing sustainable leadership will likely be affected by the cultural expectations, behavioral expectations and understandings that are particular to the community (Clarke et al., 2006, p.62). For instance, isolation usually fosters conservative leanings that are not conducive to most reform. Such a scenario is accentuated by the fact that most staff in rural schools is sourced from the surrounding community and some are long-serving. Therefore, new principals often encounter traditional ways of doing things, which have evolved into a mediocre culture of comfort and non-performance (Clarke & Stevens, 2004, p.57). Principals who exhibit difficulty in displaying behaviours expected in rural settings are at great risk of social-cultural thwarting and dislocation of their noble attempts to interact with the immediate community. In earlier times, women school heads have found it more difficult to engage with the community, given the male-oriented ethos prevalent in rural environments (Lunn, 1997, p.19). Rural schools thus need to find opportunities to build professional capacity to ensure sustained improvement and flexibility despite of leadership changeovers (Michael, 1996, p.33). How can a good leader implement change given the circumstances discussed above? Empirical studies and debates persistently point out the role of school leaders in learning effectiveness and sustainable improvements. As such, a leader grows a particular culture by imposing their values, techniques, knowledge and assumptions on the whole group. Even though many leadership theories have been explored, the contemporary argument is that a school leader ought to be transformational, that is; provide cultural, structural and individual support to the staff, capture a clear vision for the school, offer continuous intellectual stimulation and communicate the expectations for improved performance (Schein, 2004, p.41). A leader is thus expected to constantly update the inherent practices of the school to be abreast with rapid changes in the education sector. In order to implement any meaningful change and offer sustainable leadership, the principal must engage fully with the teachers and have expectations of them. With the aim of improving the development of the students, the head must first improve the standing of individual teachers and this relationship must be enduring (Macbeath, 2005, p.351). To achieve outlined aims, and in full understanding of the challenges and limitations of the particular rural context, the school leader should ask for nothing less than systematic, proper planning from all teachers, including schemes of work, lesson plans and teaching aids. Additionally, the teachers should be expected to assume leadership roles and responsibilities whenever the need arises. Regular staff meetings as well as individual meetings should be convened and the teachers given the opportunity to expound their plans, voice challenges and contribute to the improvement strategy in the face of rural challenges (Macbeath, 2005, p.355). A good school leader needs to share authority and also ensure open communication with parents, teachers and students. In a rural setting, it is paramount to inform parents on new practices and educate them so that they will not only make sense of what the school is trying to achieve, but also to rally their support of the same. The principal must also engage with the community since he/she is now not just a principal, but is a member of the larger community (Clarke & Stevens, 2004, p.77). The leader, however, must be careful to balance the engagements of school, community and private life and be cognizant of the need to be accepted by the community if sustainable leadership is to be achieved. This is informed by the fact that small rural communities are quite conservative and people usually take their time to determine who you are, what you bring and whether you are trustworthy with their kids. All in all, the community will affect the implementation of leadership policies, and the School leader should better be in the community’s good books (Clarke & Stevens, 2004, p.82). Conclusion Summarily, research describes the myriad of social and cultural challenges faced by rural community based schools, usually informed by the impact of diversity, poverty and inequity. Research additionally points out that the educational leaders in such contexts have significant roles towards their teachers, towards instruction and the expected outcomes as outlined in the vision of the institution. The presented dynamics call for rethinking of leadership strategies which are both responsive and flexible to the rural contextual circumstances. References Barty, K., Thomson, P., Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2005). Unpacking the issues: Researching the shortage of school principals in two states of Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 1–14. Clarke, S. (2002). The teaching principal: From the shadow lands to a place in the sun. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(1), 23-37. Clarke, S., & Stevens, E. (2004). Small schools leadership study. Leading and teaching in small schools: Confronting contextual complexity in work practices. Report prepared for Education Queensland. Clarke, S., Stevens, E., & Wildy, H. (2006). Rural rides in Queensland: Travels with novice teaching principals. The International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 75-88. Hatton. E. (2001). School development planning in a small primary school. Addressing the challenge in rural NSW. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 118-133. Hargreaves,A., & Fink, D. (2003). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from www.bc.edu/~hargrean/docs/seven_principles.pdf Hodgen, E., & Wylie, C. (2005). Stress and wellbeing among New Zealand principals. Report to the New Zealand Principals’ Federation. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research Te Rünanga O Aotearoa Mö Te Rangahau I T E Mätauranga Lester, N. (2001). Teaching principals: Their background, experience and preparedness for the role. The Practicing Administrator, 23(4), 17-21. Lunn, S. (1997). Rural strategies project. Brisbane: Priority Country Area Program. Southworth, G. (2004). Primary school leadership in context: Leading small, medium 40 and large sized schools. London & New York: Routledge Falmer. MacBeath, J. (2005) Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice. School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 349-366. Michael, A. (1996). Issues facing women as principals in rural and remote areas. Report prepared for the Queensland Teachers Union. Mohr, N. (2000). Small schools are not large schools. Potential pitfalls and implications for leadership. In W. Ayers, M. Klonsky, & G. Lyon (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 139-158). New York: Teachers College Press. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: JOSSEY-BASS. Weston, P. (2000). Working together in partnership. Collaboration, confederation or federation: What’s best for small primary schools in Leicestershire. Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.pqa.org.uk/small_schools.htm Wildy, H., & Clarke, S. (2005). Leading the small rural school: The case of the novice principal. Leading & Managing, 11(1), 43–56. Read More