Principal leadership in an era of accountability: a perspective from the Hong Kong context

Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools

“…To investigate the multifaceted nature of principal leadership, most researchers have used leadership International Journal of Leadership in Education models from which constituent leadership components are derived (Dupont, 2009;Ogawa & Hart, 1985). For example, the Walker and Ko's (2011) study with a sample from Hong Kong secondary schools conceptualized principal leadership into a hierarchical structure of seven core areas of principal practices. The core areas are Strategic Direction and Policy Environment, Teaching, Learning and Curriculum, Leader and Teacher Growth and Development, Staff Management and Resource Management, Quality Assurance and Accountability, and External Communication and Connection. The same hierarchical structure is used in the Ko et al, (2012) study with Hong Kong primary schools.…”

“…In Hong Kong, principals had to shape their practices to respond to the demanding and pressing accountability system over the past decades (Ko, Hallinger, & Walker, 2012). Among the pool of generic principal practices, the Walker and Ko (2011) propose that principals' effort on instructional leadership (teaching, learning and curriculum) and teacher professional development represent the ends but not the means of school education, and are therefore high stake. In contrast, principals' management work regarding staff and resources management and external communication are peripheral to educational purposes.…”

The Evolution of Instructional Leadership

“…Like in the USA, management reforms introduced penalties for principals who failed to meet government accountability targets (Bell et al 2003;Bolam 2003;Bush and Glover 2003;Leithwood 2001;Southworth 2002;Tomlinson 2003). A similar trend emerged, over time, as well in East Asia (e.g., Hallinger 2003Lee 2013, 2014;Huber 2004;Walker and Ko 2011). In this changing policy context, some scholars asserted that school accountability policies were transforming instructional leadership from an option into a necessity.…”

“…This changing policy discourse was also evident in growing global interest among scholars in understanding the ways in which school leaders contribute to school improvement and student learning (Hallinger and Heck 2011a). This broadening scholarly interest in instructional leadership can be traced in the chronology of research publications that emerged from the UK (e.g., Bell et al 2003;Day et al 2010;Hunter Foundation 2005;MacBeath and Cheng 2008;Southworth 2000Southworth , 2002, continental Europe (Hall and Southworth 1997;Krüger et al 2007;Lindberg and Vanyushyn 2013;Scheerens 2012;van de Grift and Houteen 1999;Witziers et al 2003), East Asia (Hallinger and Lee 2013;Walker and Ko 2011) and Australia/New Zealand (Caldwell 2003;Silins 2003, 2009;Robinson et al 2008).…”

“…Recent syntheses of the global literature on educational leadership support the conclusion that, among these competing models, instructional leadership has demonstrated the strongest empirically-verified impact on student learning outcomes (e.g., Bell et al 2003;Hallinger 2011b;Leithwood et al 2006;Robinson et al 2008;Southworth 2003). In the context of a global trend towards strengthened school accountability (Leithwood 2001;Walker and Ko 2011), this conclusion has further enhanced the prominence of instructional leadership as a focus for school policymakers and practitioners. It also provides a rationale for why school personnel should focus on enhancing capacities for instructional leadership as a lever for school improvement (Hallinger 2003(Hallinger , 2011bHeck andHallinger 2009, 2014;Leithwood et al 2011;Printy, no date;Robinson et al 2008).…”