Page 112 - Educational Leadership in a Changing World

Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević

consists of six modules: Introduction to Leadership, Theories of Orga-
nizations and Leadership, Planning, People in Organizations, Principal
as Pedagogical Leader, and Legislation (Šola za ravnatelje, n.d.). These
module titles have remained almost the same since 1996. The continu-
ation of the required, licenced programme focuses more on soft skills,
such as developing learning networks, supervising teachers, and pro-
viding constructive feedback. The rhetoric emphasizes that principals
need to inspire, motivate, and, as the president of the principals’ as-
sociation suggests, ‘protect’ teachers. This discussion reflects a recur-
ring theme: protective principals and disempowered teachers. Despite
recent shifts in rhetoric, the legal framework and existing legislation
defining principals’ roles and obligationshavenot changedsubstan-
tially. We now observe new challenges for school principals that neces-
sitate a rethinking of principalship, though empirical research in this
area remains limited.
The question of whether ‘school principalship’ can be used as a syn-
onym for ‘leadership’ is, hence, not merely rhetorical. Our choice of lan-
guage and concepts reshapes and defines the meaning of our practices.
By understanding the everyday experiences of principals, we encourage
them to identify themselves as leaders. However, various factors, in-
cluding legal frameworks and cultural contexts, influence the roles and
practices of principals.
Bush (2007) highlights the diverse epistemologies and disciplines
that shape the field of educational leadership and management. His
systematic literature and research review draws from both interna-
tional and South African sources. In 2003, Bush developed a typology
of educational management and leadership models. He divided them
between management and leadership models and drew a correspon-
dence between them (Bush, 2007, p. 394). For example, for the collegial
management model, he found corresponding leadership models, such
as transformative, interpersonal and participative; for the subjective
management model he identified the post-modern leadership model,
and for the cultural management model, moral and instructional lead-
ership models were identified. Such a typology has two implications.
Firstly, it shows that models are not unique to management or lead-
ership. They carry similar features. Secondly, redundancy is unavoid-
able, and so are the barriers between management and/or leadership
models.
Typologies and theories of educational leadership have been exten-

112