Search

This paper analyses the composition, distribution, and history of school funding in Australia through a spatial lens (Soja 2010). We explore multi-scalar school funding policy through three layers of economic maldistribution. We sketch the funding disparities between the three school sectors (public, Catholic, and independent) exposing a spatial injustice in policies of school choice; the spatial and economic maldistribution between state jurisdictions; and the economic maldistribution within state public systems, including the ability of their school communities to contribute funds. Spatial injustice is uncovered in economic maldistribution within and across these policy layers, adding nuance to existing school funding debates. The Australian case is relevant to international explorations of school funding as an example of 'unjust practice' in the hierarchies between schools across sectors, between jurisdictions, and within systems of public [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schools for specific purposes (SSP) are and have been a significant feature of the education ecosystem since the roll out of mass schooling in Australia and elsewhere. SSPs serve some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. While their social and emotional worth to their communities (students, educators, families) is rarely questioned, the role of SSP in the pursuit of equity and inclusivity remains contested. This has significant implications for those charged with leading such schools, particularly principals. Drawing on the emerging field of relational studies, this paper undertakes a relational inquiry into the provision of education (RIPE) analysis of specific purpose schools for students with moderate and high support needs in the Australian state of New South Wales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As cross-country comparisons of education systems have become increasingly important for policy-making, different structural arrangements have attracted attention in the pursuit of equity and excellence. One area of interest has been instructional time in formal schooling. Missing in such comparisons is the role instruction outside of formal/compulsory schooling. Supplementary education in its many forms has a long history, global reach, and is increasingly attracting scholarly attention. Asia is a notable location and particularly China, where there has been rapid expansion, intensification, and visibility. In this paper, we mobilise Eacott's relational approach to argue that supplementary education, at least in the highly competitive urban centres, is no longer supplementary and that orthodox approaches to understanding it based on a perceived separation from compulsory education cannot adequately describe the contemporary condition. Our argument is that orthodox approaches conceive of the problem of supplementary education as one of access. We seek to unsettle orthodoxy by re-casting supplementary education as not supplementary at all and instead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There remains strong political support for school autonomy reform within Australian public education despite evidence linking this reform to exacerbating school and systemic inequities. This paper presents interview data from key education stakeholders gathered from a broader study that is investigating the social justice implications of school autonomy reform across three Australian states. We focus on the concerns these stakeholders raise about the plight of principals and particular schools when policies of school autonomy converge with market imperatives of economic efficiency, competition and public accountability. Such concerns reflect the significance of education systems providing greater and more nuanced support for principals and schools to manage the extra responsibilities of greater school autonomy and accountability. While these aspects of support are central, we argue that systemic reform that is driven by educative, rather than market, imperatives is necessary for creating a context where school autonomy can be mobilised for social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a response to Richard Niesche’s recent JEAH paper claiming a ‘theory turn’ in educational leadership. Bringing Niesche’s argument into conversation with recent work on social epistemology in the field, I argue that any claim for a theory turn is premature and arguably requires further nuancing of enduring issues. Framed around the relational methodology, the argument articulates my own complicity with the proposed theory turn, before problematising the idea of a turn and highlighting the importance of time and space. Importantly, I seek to go beyond the analytical dualism of theoretical and atheoretical categories for the purpose of offering a productive contribution for advancing understanding in the field. This is not to refute Niesche’s argument, rather to highlight some of the problems and possibilities it identifies and to the push the ideas further in the interest of scholarly dialogue and debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Principals’ time use has emerged as a serious policy problem in an era of reported decline in school outcomes - both organisational and individual student - and with difficulties in attracting quality candidates for vacancies. The contemporary crisis of the principalship is centred on an ever increasing workload (volume and complexity) and a deficit of time for instructional leadership. Units of the clock are the orthodox version of time in modern Western society. This however is not a universal and is based on an external measure of practice. This paper presents a theoretical intervention for the field by proposing an alternate conceptualisation of temporality built on relational theorising that sees practice not as having time but generating time and space. It does not assume a single version of time and instead opens a fruitful scholarly direction for recasting principals’ time use literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a field of knowledge production, educational administration and leadership scholars do a substantial amount of talking past one another. These parallel monologues are a major issue for the advancement of knowledge. Original contributions can only be made in relation to others. That is, the innovation or significance of scholarship is an act of (social) scientific distinction. This means purposely engaging with the other. In this paper, I argue that the knowledge frontiers of educational administration and leadership are highly fragmented and siloed. I do not, however, see diversity of scholarship as a fatal flaw nor do I argue for a form of knowledge centrism. Rather, my intervention is to propose a social epistemology for moving knowledge claims. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Contemporary discourses in educational administration have exponentially grown the number of adjectival leaderships, challenged traditional organisational structures, and offered autonomy as a solution to performance issues. In this theoretical paper, I askwhat does the principalship look like after autonomy?Despite the range of objections that could be raised in relation to thinking with and through an organisational role, it is the contention of this paper that it is in the principalship that we find important resources for theorising educational administration, even if, at first sight, these resources appear to bear little connection to, or resonance with, contemporary discourses of ‘leadership’ in education. Working within a relational approach to educational administration that I am advancing, my argument is built around three key markers: the centrality of temporality, the (im)possibility of the local, and the imposition of ‘quality’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Knowledge production in educational leadership, management and administration has been, and continues to be, seduced by fads. One of the most significant trends in recent decades has been the ascendancy of ‘leadership’. In this introductory paper, I both introduce the contributions to this special issue and, more importantly, locate this collection within the intellectual tradition of disruptive Australian scholarship and the discourses of JEAH. Specifically, I argue that this collection of papers provides new ways for thinking about leadership, leaders and leading grounded in histories not bounded by historical categories, images and metaphors. This issue is however not the final word, and I encourage the reader to think with, beyond and where necessary against what is argued in the spirit of the intellectual enterprise. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Despite the ‘practice’ turn in the broader management literature, very little work in educational administration has engaged in a theoretical discussion about what constitutes leadership practice. Theoretically informed by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, this paper contributes to the long-established critical tradition in the educational administration literature, to argue that: (i) ‘leadership’ is a label of the managerialist project of the state; (ii) leadership should be thought of as a disruptive practice; and (iii) Bourdieusian theory can enable this thinking, but not as it is frequently mobilised in the educational administration literature. The alternative put forth in this paper is not merely replacing one external narrative (managerialism) with another (Bourdieusian), but rather advancing a theoretical position on what is leadership that paves a way forward for a research programme. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The preparation of educational leaders is a global phenomenon. Education systems have developed numerous means by which current and aspiring leaders are prepared for the role. Through the example of a large public school system in Australia, this paper argues that the doxa of school leadership establishes a particular identity of the principalship. One which constructs the principal as the deliverer of state initiated reforms. Theoretically informed by Bourdieu, this paper argues for an alternate way of thinking about leadership preparation, one based on introducing participants to the conversation of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the ubiquity of programmes in educational administration and leadership little is known about the resources used to teach them. This article reviews the sources currently employed in such programmes in Australia by examining the textbooks, book chapters and journal articles specified for 53 separate units (papers) offered at 15 of the key institutions that responded to requests for copies of their reading lists. Surprisingly, few of the units prescribed textbooks (35), relying instead on book chapters (243) and journal articles (362). While there was a very eclectic spread of sources across institutions, 10 major themes emerged. However, there appeared to be little emphasis on Australian research on educational leadership and little reference to major Australian authors of the previous decades. This may be because the field has become global. The second part of the article therefore examines an audit of the contributions made by Australian authors to the global literature represented by leading journals in the field. The audit shows that during the period 1977-2007 an average of 12-13% of papers in key journals were contributed by Australian authors, perhaps more than might be expected given the comparative size of the Australian community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]