8085 Discussion 1

profileUnique1961
res1.pdf

Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti   Journal  of  Early  Childhood  Education  Research     Vol.3,  No.1,  2014,  65−81  

  ©  2014  Suomen  Varhaiskasvatus  ry.  –  Early  Childhood  Education  Association  Finland.     Peer-­‐review   under  responsibility  of  the  editorial  board  of  the  journal     ISSN  2323-­‐7414;     ISSN-­‐L  2323-­‐7414     online  

65  

  Being  and  Becoming  Early  Childhood  

Leaders:  Reflections  on  Leadership  Studies   in  Early  Childhood  Education  and  the   Future  Leadership  Research  Agenda  

   

Manjula  Waniganayake    

Institute  of  Early  Childhood,  Macquarie  University,  Sydney,  Australia   e-­‐mail:  [email protected]  

     

ABSTRACT:   In  Australia,  educational  leadership  studies  emerged  as  a  core  area  of   study   within   early   childhood   bachelor   degree   courses   during   the   1990s.   This   inclusion  was  supported  by  findings  from  newly  emerging  research  on  leadership   involving  early  childhood  educators.  A  handful  of  Australian  and  Finnish  scholars   joined  researchers  based  in  the  USA  to  actively  research  leadership  focusing  on  the   early  childhood  sector.  In  this  paper,  reflections  on  what  has  been  achieved  over  the   past  two  decades  in  promoting  leadership  studies  in  the  early  childhood  sector  is   analysed  as  a  starting  point  to  evaluate  learning  and  stimulate  further  discussion  on   additional  work  necessary  in  preparing  future  leaders.  This  analysis  will  be  based  on   exploring  key  assumptions  about  distributed  leadership  models  being  favoured  by   policy   planners   and   practitioners.   In   identifying   gaps   in   our   knowledge   base,   possibilities   for   further   research   are   presented   by   drawing   on   developments   in   Australia  and  elsewhere  as  appropriate.  

 

  Keywords:  early  childhood  leadership,  leadership  research,  leadership  preparation.    

 

 

Theorising  leadership  in  early  childhood  

Leadership  is  a  word  used  all  around  the  world.  Its  abstract  nature  has  however  meant   that  there  is  no  single  universal  definition  or  agreement  on  what  leadership  is  and  how   it  can  be  assessed  and  understood.  Researching  leadership  is  also  challenging  because  it   is  difficult   to   identify,  quantify  or  observe,  and  as  Rodd  (2013)  declares,   sometimes,  

66  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

“effective   leadership   is  enacted  by  standing  back,   saying  or  doing  nothing.”   (p.  233).   Nevertheless,  leadership  is  often  identified  as  a  key  element  in  delivering  high  quality   early   childhood   programs   (Hujala,   Waniganayake   &   Rodd,   2013).     In   effect,   conceptualisations  of   leadership  are  best  understood  when  nuanced  within   the   local   contexts  of  enactment.  

Writing  about   leadership  within  early  childhood  settings   in  Australia,  Waniganayake,   Cheeseman,   Fennech,   Hadley   and   Shepherd   (2012,   p.11)   have   suggested   that   when   exploring  leadership  one  must  take  into  account  the  person  (the  leader),  the  position   (authority  to  make  decisions)  and  the  place  (the  organisational  setting).  Which  of  these   three  elements  are  emphasised  or  prioritised  within  the  daily  practice  of  early  childhood   leadership  is  however,  highly  variable  and  context  specific.  This  view  is  encapsulated  in   the  definition  of  early  childhood  leadership  presented  by  Nivala  (1999  cited  in  Hujala,   2013,  p.  53)  as  “a  socially  constructed,  situational  and  interpretive  phenomenon.”  These   Finnish   early   childhood   scholars   are   pioneer   researchers   who   recognised   the   importance   of   context   in   researching   leadership.   Their   contextual   leadership   model   integrates   the   structural   components   of   early   childhood   organisations   by   drawing   attention   to   the   vision,   mission,   core   tasks   and   responsibilities   of   early   childhood   leaders.  

This  article  aims  to  present  critical  reflections  about  the  importance  of  preparing  early   childhood   educators   for   leadership   enactment.     Given   the   increasing   complexity   of   challenges  encountered  by  today’s  early  childhood  educators  in  the  frontline  of  service   delivery,   it   is   imperative  that  those   in   leadership  roles  are  well  prepared  in  order  to   respond  effectively  to  support  the  education  and  wellbeing  of  children  and  families  in   their  communities.     Adopting  a  contextual  approach,  pathways  to  being  and  becoming   leaders   in   Early   Childhood   Education   (ECE)   are   examined   against   a   backdrop   of   developments  in  Australia  and  other  countries  as  appropriate.    

Changing  profile  of  the  early  childhood  educator  

Globally,  there  is  no  consensus  or  clarity  on  what  is  expected  of  ECE  graduates  at  the   time  of  graduation  from  a  three  or  four  year  bachelor  degree.  The  Australian  Children’s   Education  and  Care  Quality  Authority  (ACECQA)  is  responsible  for  the  accreditation  of   course  content  in  this  country.  The  pay  and  conditions  of  employing  ECE  graduates  are   linked  to  industrial  awards  but  this  system  is  fragmented  due  to  the  involvement  of  a   mix  of  trade  unions  with  inadequate  national  coordination.  The  limited  recognition  of   masters  degrees  within  the  current  awards  is  a  particular  concern  as  there  is  no  formal   approval  of  the  value  of  undertaking  postgraduate  studies  reflected  in  the  pay  scales,   leaving  it  to  employers  to  validate  staff  achievements  through  advanced  studies.  Overall,   the  absence  of  a  national  professional  registration  system  for  ECE  graduates  has  also   meant   that   there   is   no   systematic   way   of   assessing   the   employment   expectations   of   these   graduates.   In   effect,   there   has   been   limited   movement   in   addressing   issues   of   public   visibility   and   validation,   career   pathways   linked   to   formal   studies,   as   well   as  

67  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

professional  registration  and  licensure,  as  identified  particularly  in  terms  of  leadership   development  nearly  two  decades  ago  (Waniganayake,  1998).  

The  roles  and  responsibilities  of  ECE  graduates  working  in  childcare  centres  have  varied   overtime.  About  thirty  years  ago,  being  a  teacher  of  young  children  was  clearly  defined   as   an   autonomous   role   carried   out   by   an   ECE   graduate   who   was   responsible   for   designing   and   delivering   an   education   program   for   pre-­‐schoolers.   In   contrast,   the   contemporary  profiles  of  ECE  graduates  incorporate  education  and  care  responsibilities   more  explicitly  and  cover  a  wider  age  range  of  children  birth  to  five  years.  Government   policy,  through  the  National  Quality  Standard  (ACECQA,  2012)  and  its  predecessor,  the   Quality  Improvement  and  Accreditation  System  (QIAS)  in  1993,  has  reinforced  this  open   profile  since  the  1990s.  The  emphasis  on  working  in  partnership  with  families  and  the   wider   community   and   the   inclusion   of   service   management   and   leadership   responsibilities  (ACECQA,  2012)  reflects  the  expanding  roles  of  ECE  graduates,  requiring   engagement   with   a   wide   range   of   stakeholders.   The   once   clearly   defined   teacher   responsibilities  focusing  exclusively  on  the  education  of  young  children,  has  therefore   widened   in   scope   with   increasing   demands   from   parents,   government   and   other   professionals  working  in  different  ways  with  children  in  early  childhood  settings.  

As   reflected   in   Figure   1,   traditionally,   in   Australia,   those   graduating   with   an   ECE   Diploma  or  Degree,   found  employment   in  a  preschool  or  kindergarten  working  with   children  between  three  to  five  years  age.  Since  the  1980s  however,  with  the  large  scale   expansion  of  childcare  centres  employment  opportunities  for  early  childhood  graduates   emerged   in   settings   catering   for   children   from   birth   to   five   years.     Traditional   preschools   or   kindergartens   offered   half-­‐day   educational   programs,   and   are   closed   during  school  holidays.  In  contrast,  childcare  centres  are  open  for  longer  hours,  often   from  7am  to  6pm  and  remain  open  for  at  least  48  weeks  of  the  year  in  order  to  obtain   government  funding.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

Traditional  Profile             Contemporary  Profile  

Pre-­‐1980s                 Since  the  1990s                                                                                                                                                                                  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE  1     Changing  profile  of  ECE  graduates  

 

Research  conducted  during  the  1990s  on  exploring  workplace  responsibilities  of  early   childhood  educators   is   limited.   Initial   leadership  studies  conducted  by   those  such  as   Hayden   (1997),   Rodd   (1998),   and   Waniganayake,   Morda   and   Kapsalakis   (2000)   suggested  that  soon  after  graduation  with  little  or  no  work  experience  in  the  sector,  but   as  the  highest  qualified  person,  ECE  graduates  were  frequently  expected  to  jump  into   the   role   of   a   centre   director/manager.   Reflecting   on   these   studies   now   it   becomes   apparent  that  unenviable  demands  were  placed  on  new  and  inexperienced  graduates  in   managing  and   leading  as  a   childcare   centre  director.  This   situation  was  exacerbated   further   for   teaching   directors   of   small   centres   where   the   director’s   responsibilities   included   regular   classroom  work  with   children.   Importantly,   research  by  Rosier  and   Lloyd-­‐Smith  (1996,  p.  i)  revealed  that  "low  pay  and  low  status  relative  to  high  level  of   responsibility  inherent  in  the  job"  contributed  significantly  to  staff  dissatisfaction  and   high   turnover   rates   (cited   in   Waniganayake,   1998,   p.111).   This   pattern   was   also   reflected   in  other  countries  such  as  the  USA,  where  Jorde-­‐Bloom  (1994)  reported  on   concerns  on  expecting  teacher  education  graduates  to  take  on  broader  responsibilities   without  adequate  preparation  for  leading  and  managing  centres.  

Almost   two  decades   later,   the  assessment  of  workplace  demands  on  early  childhood   graduates  I  made  in  1998  still  stands:  

For   many   child   care   centre   directors   in   Australia,   the   responsibilities   they   shoulder  as   the   'chief  executive  officer'  of  a  small  business  enterprise  are  not   reflected   in   their   job   descriptions,   wages   nor   conditions   of   employment.   Observing  similar  trends  in  Europe,  those  such  as  Oberhuemer  and  Ulich  (1997)   as  well  as  Abbott  and  Pugh  (1998)  call  for  a  review  of  early  childhood  training   which  takes  into  account  contemporary  realities  of  wider  societal,  economic  and   political  contexts  which  require  early  childhood  professionals  to  have  skills  far  

AUTONOMOUS  

• Well  defined  as  a   teacher  of  young   children  

• Self  contained  to   the  setting    

OPEN/UNBOUNDED  

• Ill-­‐defined  as  a  teacher/   manager/leader/other?  

• Multiple  roles  involving   children,  families,  staff,  

and  community    

69  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

beyond  working  with  young  children  in  small  isolated  settings.    

        (Waniganayake,  1998,  p.  117)  

The  nationalization  of  early  childhood  policy  reforms  in  Australia  during  2007-­‐2013,  has  also   placed  increasing  demands  on  centre  directors  (Productivity  Commission,  2011).  Their   role   today   includes   not   only   providing   pedagogical   leadership   in   supporting   the   implementation   of   the   national   curriculum   known   as   the   Early   Years   Learning   Framework  (DEEWR,  2009),  but  also  satisfying  compliance  with   legal  responsibilities   and   managing   the   centre   as   a   viable   business.   Whilst   in   school   education   it   is   well   understood  that  small  schools  “are  not  miniature  versions  of  large  schools”  (Mohr,  2000   cited  in  Dinham  et  al,  2011,  p.  149)  this  is  not  yet  fully  appreciated  in  the  early  childhood   sector.   Accordingly,   it   is   not   surprising   that   a   pattern   of   accidental   managers   in   leadership   positions   which   emerged   in   the   1990s,   continues   in   practice   today.   The   challenge  remains,  how  to  grow  early  childhood  leaders  who  can  perform  diverse  and   complex  functions  and  do  it  well,  and  how  to  produce  sufficient  numbers  of  leadership   capable   graduates,   quickly.   The   sense   of   urgency   was   captured   in   the   Productivity   Commission’s  Report  (2011)  which  was  cognizant  of  the  flow  on  effects  of  the  national   reforms   requiring   both   a   review   of   existing   qualifications   and   the   need   for     “a   substantial  volume  of  training  to  be  delivered  in  a  short  time  frame”  (p.  xxxiv).  

School   leadership   research   shows   that   effectiveness   of   leadership   can   be   assessed   against  student  learning  outcomes  and  indeed,  high  stakes  testing  of  school  performance   highlights   the   key   role   school   principals   play   in   student   achievement   (Dinham   et   al,   2011;  Marsh,  Waniganayake,  &  De  Nobile,  2013).  Within  ECE,  there  is  no  longitudinal   research  on  measuring  the  impact  of  leadership  on  children’s  learning  other  than  linking   it  with  broader  service  quality  as  reflected  in  research  by  Siraj-­‐Blatchford  and  Manni   (2008).  

The   Early   Childhood   Development   Workforce   Research   Report   prepared   by   the   Productivity   Commission   (2011)   informed   the   Australian   government’s   strategic   directions  in  supporting  the  development  of  its  Early  Years  Workforce  Strategy  (DEEWR,   2012).  Since  the  change  of  government   in  2013,  the  status  of  this  strategy  in  driving   future   directions   is   unclear.     Nevertheless,   under   the   National   Quality   Framework   (ACECQA,  2011)  ‘an  educational  leader’  is  defined  as  someone  who  “is  suitably  qualified   and   experienced   …   to   lead   the   development   and   implementation   of   the   education   program  (curriculum)   in   the  service”   (p.85).  Nupponen  (2006,  p.92)  refers   to   leader   behaviour   being   important   in   “empowering   staff   and   motivating   them   to   have   more   responsibility   in   their   decision-­‐making.”   Likewise,   Fennech   (2013)   argues   that   the   identification  of  an  educational   leader  position  through  national  policy  standards  is  a   step  in  the  right  direction.  Obviously,  centre  directors  can  play  a  key  role  in  attracting   and  retaining  staff.  The  high  levels  of  casualization  of  the  early  childhood  workforce  and   the  shortage  of  well  qualified  staff  however  presents  challenges   in   terms  of  building   teams,  promoting  innovation  and  achieving  consistency  in  practice  within  a  centre.    

70  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

In   Australia,   until   recently,   the   availability   of   professional   development   courses   targeting  leadership  responsibilities  in  the  early  childhood  sector  has  been  sparse  and   inadequate.  Some  key  stakeholder  organisations  have  noted  this  by  way  of  stating  that     “there   is   no   systematic   mentoring   and   leadership   programs   to   provide   genuine   professional  support  to  staff.”  (KPV,  2011,  sub.  72,  p.7,  as  cited  by  Fennech,  2013).  A   cumulative  body  of  research-­‐based  evidence  has  however  strengthened  the  global  call   for   the   systematic  provisioning  of   continuous  professional  development  and  support   (PD&S)  for  early  childhood  educators  (OECD,  2006;  2012).  Exploration  of  connectivities   between  quality  outcomes  for  children  and  staff  PD&S,  provided  the  focus  for  a  national   research   study   involving   childcare   centre   directors/managers   in   Australia   (Waniganayake  et  al,  2008).   In   identifying   leadership  and  management  as  an  area  of   high  priority  for  professional  development,  the  participants  in  this  study  also  indicated  a   strong  preference  for  customised  sessions  delivered  to  all  staff  at  their  own  centres  as   being  more  beneficial  than  participating  in  one-­‐off  external  sessions  attended  by  some   (but  not  all)  staff  on  an  ad  hoc  basis.  These  findings  are  being  reinforced  through  recent   research  by  Colmer  (2013)  who  has  found  that  distributed  leadership  flourishes  through   collective   engagement   in   professional   development   linked   with   practitioner   inquiry   projects  conducted  within  early  childhood  centres.    

In   analysing   leadership   within   the   USA   contexts,   Kagan   and   Bowman   (1997)   were   among   the   first   to   clarify   the   importance   of   developing   leadership   theories   that   are   relevant  and  meaningful  to  early  childhood  audiences.  Although  others  have  reinforced   this  view  over  time  (eg.  Ebbeck  &  Waniganayake,  2003;  Rodd,  1998;  2006;  2013),  to   date,   the   level   of   theorizing   continues   to   lag   behind   other   sectors,   especially   in   comparison   to   school   leadership.   In   seeking  an  explanation,  many  would  agree  with   Mujis   et   al   (2004)   that   the   diversity   of   organisational   settings   exacerbates   the   complexities  of  advancing  theoretical  explanations  within  ECE.  They  also  refer  to  the   relatively   small   organizational   size,   as   well   as   the   predominance   of   women   in   management/leadership  positions  within  early  childhood  centres.  Their  assessment  that   a   gender-­‐based   argument   may   not   be   fully   supported   by   referring   to   the   work   by   head-­‐teachers  in  UK  schools,  however,  requires  further  investigation  –  especially  from  a   cross-­‐cultural  perspective,  based  on  research  in  a  wider  sample  of  countries.    

  Preparation  of  early  childhood  leaders  

Inclusion   of   leadership   and   management   units   in   ECE   bachelor   degree   programs   in   Australia  can  be  traced  back  to  the  1990s.  This  trend  parallel  the  expansion  of  childcare   centres  and  the  growing  interest  in  quality  assurance,  entrepreneurship  and  corporate   involvement   in   early   childhood   service   provision   (Brennan,   1998;   Sumsion,   2007).   Focus  on  centre  administration  in  the  1970s,  shifted  to  business  management  during  the   1980s,  which  in  turn  merged  into  leadership  in  the  1990s  (Waniganayake  et  al,  2012).   Throughout  this  period,  ECE  bachelor  degrees  retained  their  primary  focus  on  teacher   preparation  and  attention  on  leadership  development  was  at  best  ad  hoc  and  limited  to  

71  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

raising   awareness   of   potential   challenges   instead   of   an   adequate   preparation   for   a   vigorous  role  in  leading  an  early  childhood  organisation.    

Much   has   been   written   about   early   childhood   teachers’   reluctance   to   embrace   leadership  roles  (Dunlop,  2008;  Ebbeck  &  Waniganayake,  2003;  Hayden,  1997;  Mujis,   Aubrey,  Harris  &  Briggs,  2004;  Rodd,  2006).  Mujis  et  al  (2004,  p.161)  were  also  struck   by   participants’   emphasis   on   “maintenance”   or   management   roles   in   contrast   to   “development”   or   leadership   tasks.   Confusion   between   centre   management   issues   concerned  with  day-­‐to-­‐day  functions  often  meant  a  limited  focus  on  long-­‐term  strategic   planning,  involving  an  emphasis  on  organisational  development  through  a  shared  vision   and  mission   that   require   leadership   (Waniganayake  et  al,  2012).  Much  of   the  1990s   research   in   essence,   reflects   a   focus   on   management   rather   than   leadership   responsibilities.    

There  is  now  substantive  research  evidence  to  show  that  high  quality  early  childhood   service   provision   is   built   upon   having   a   well-­‐qualified   workforce   (Adamson,   2008;   OECD,   2006;   2012).   Formal   qualifications   in   ECE   can   also   make   a   difference   in   supporting   leadership   decision-­‐making.     Wagner   (2008)   however   believes   that   teachers,   unlike   any   other   professionals   such   as   architects,   engineers,   doctors   or   lawyers,  have  not  been  adequately  prepared   to  analyse  and  solve  every  day   routine   problems  encountered  during  their  professional  practice.   Instead,  teachers  have  been   regulated   to   be   responsive   and   compliant   to   external   steering,   reinforced   through   working   in   isolation   within   organizational   settings   that   validate   individual   teacher   performance.  The  changing  nature  of  early  childhood  organizational  contexts  however,   reflects   the   importance   of   collaboration   and   teamwork   and,   demands   a   reconceptualization  of  workforce  responsibilities.  Innovation  also  demands  taking  risks,   and  making  use  of  opportunities  to   learn  from  both  successes  and  failures.  Likewise,   instead  of  simply  being  reactive  consumers  of  knowledge,  leadership  means  becoming   knowledge  producers  who  can  design  variable  strategies  to  deal  with  the  ambiguities   and  complexities  of  today’s  society.      

Teachers   in   Finland   have   professional   autonomy   and   accept   responsibility   for   their   decision-­‐making.   These   are   characteristics   that   Hargreaves   and   Shirley   (2011)   also   found   in   high   performing   school   systems   in   other   countries   such   as   Singapore   and   Canada.  Sahlberg  (2013,  p.37)  writes  “Teachers  in  Finland  enjoy  what  they  do”,     and   job  satisfaction  is  connected  with  the  absence  of  external  control  and  monitoring  that   can   restrict   professional   freedom   in   everyday   practice.   Accordingly,   Sahlberg   (2013,   p.40)  declares   that  “Professional   leadership  will  only   flourish  among  teachers   if   they   have  the  autonomy  to  influence  what  and  how  they  teach  and  to  determine  how  well   their  students  are  performing.”    

In  Australia,  there  is  no  mandated  leadership  preparation  for  either  school  principals  or   early  childhood  centre  directors.  In  Singapore,  those  aspiring  to  become  early  childhood   principals   or   centre   directors   are   expected   to   have   completed   an   early   childhood   leadership  diploma  in  addition  to  a  teaching  diploma.  Accumulating  research  evidence  

72  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

from   studies   conducted   in   the   UK   and   New   Zealand   may   have   also   influenced   the   recognition  and  support  for  leadership  development  for  early  childhood  practitioners  by   these  Governments.  For  instance,  in  the  ‘Educational  Leadership  Project’  conducted  in   New  Zealand,  Hatherley  and  Lee  (2003)  report  on  leaders  having  a  vision  and  building   stronger   links   with   local   neighbourhood   communities,   reflecting   a   change   towards   taking  leadership  roles  beyond  the  confines  of  one’s  own  organizational  setting.      

  The  early  childhood  leadership  research  agenda  

As  noted  by  those  such  as  Rodd  (2013)  and  Waniganayake  et  al  (2012),  about  three   decades  ago,  a  handful  of  Australian  and  Finnish  scholars  joined  researchers  based  in   the   USA   to   actively   research   leadership   focusing   on   the   early   childhood   sector.   Previously,  in  reflecting  on  this  initial  body  of  scholarly  endeavour,  Mujis  et  al  (2004)   contend   that   findings   from   these   early   studies   on   leadership   in   ECE   can   assist   in   explaining  the   limited  nature  of  research  growth  in  this  sector.  This  explanation  also   suggests  that   it   is  easy  to  understand  how  and  why  that  time  and  again,  researchers   (such   as,   Jorde-­‐Bloom,   1992;   1994;   Hayden,   1997;   Rodd,   1996;   1998;   2006;   Waniganayake,  Nienhuys,  Kapsalakis,  &  Morda,  1998)  found  that  participants  expressed   reluctance   in   embracing   leadership   roles   expected   of   them   as   centre   directors,   highlighting  a  preference  to  work  directly  with  children  and  families.  It  appears  that  a   mix  of   factors   including   the   lack  of  personal   interest  or  self   confidence   in   imagining   themselves   as   leaders,   or   an   awareness   of   the   complexities   of   modern   leadership   enactment  with  little  or  no  financial  remuneration  can  drive  people  away  from  taking  on   leadership  roles  or  positions.    

In  part,  the  above  pattern  in  resisting  leadership  enactment  by  university  qualified  ECE   graduates  may  also  be  a  reflection  of  the  fact  that  these  graduates  came  through  teacher   education   courses   where   leadership   content   was   somewhat   limited   in   quantity   and   quality.  Even  today,  formal  training  of  early  childhood  leaders  is  not  mandatory  in  most   OECD   countries.   Where   national   standards   exists,   as   in   the   case   of   the   Leadership   Capabilities  Framework  developed  by  Early  Childhood  Australia  (2013),  its  application  is   voluntary,  making  it  difficult  to  know  the  extent  to  which  these  frameworks  are  being   used  in  guiding  every  day  practice  or  informing  policy  development  within  centres.    

On  the  other  hand,  since  2007,  the  Early  Years  Professional  Status  (EYPS)  established  a   national   standard   in   England,   and   its   application   has   been   wide   ranging,   with   a   government   funded   professional   development   program   implemented   throughout   the   country.   Its   usefulness   as   a   postgraduate   qualification   has   also   been   systematically   evaluated   (Teacher   Agency,   2012),   and   has   since   been   revised   as   the   Teachers’   Standards  (Early  Years);  and  its  continuation  as  a  national  policy  framework  augurs  well   in  terms  of  adopting  a  planned  approach  to  growing  future  leaders.  Likewise,  the  merger   of  teaching  and  leadership  development  under  a  single  agency,  the  National  College  for   Teaching  and  Leadership   (http://www.education.gov.uk/nationalcollege)  also   reflects   the  inextricable  connectivity  between  teaching  and  leading  in  early  childhood  centres.  

73  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

Independent  research  findings  such  as  the  study  by  John  (2008)  shows  the  importance   of  active  engagement   in  mentoring  as  a  way  of  developing  and  sustaining   leadership   capabilities  which  can,  in  turn,  contribute  new  understandings  on  leader  preparation.    

Research  on  educational  leadership  has  rarely  included  the  voice  of  the  learners  in  the   settings.   In  early   childhood   leadership   research  conducted   in  Australia,   there  are  no   publications  that  incorporate  children’s  perceptions  of  adults  demonstrating  leadership.   One  study,  conducted  by  Morda  (2012)  was  aimed  at  investigating  the  development  of   children’s  leadership  capabilities  within  an  early  learning  centre  in  Melbourne.  It  did  not   however   seek   to   explore   children’s   perceptions   of   leadership   being   enacted   by   the   adults  at  their  centre.  Given  the  power  of  role  modelling,  it  would  be  interesting  to  ask   children  about  what  they  have  learnt  about  leadership  from  the  adults  in  their  lives  –   both  within  their  family  contexts  as  well  as  from  staff  at  the  early  childhood  centres.  

When  conducting  research   in  early  childhood  settings,  one  must  be  cognisant  of   the   influence   leaders   can   have   on   everyone   present   –   children   and   adults.     Indeed   by   evoking  Reggio  Emilia’s  philosophy,  in  delivering  her  keynote  address  at  the  Unpacking   Conference  in  Sydney  recently,  Giamminuti  (2014)  reminded  everyone  of  the  centrality   of  children  in  early  childhood  research:  “a  simple,  liberating  thought  came  to  our  aid,   namely   that   things   about   children   and   for   children   are   only   learned   from   children”   (Malaguzzi,  1998,  p.  51).  This  potential  of  new  perspectives  emerging  through  the  eyes   of   the   children   offers   exciting   possibilities   for   future   research   in   early   childhood   leadership.  Creating  a  holistic  and  inclusive  research  culture  with  child  researchers  can   also  enable  the  expansion  of  research  methodologies  to  study  educational  leadership  in   ways  that  has  not  been  tested  to  date.  

Of  necessity,  it  is  prudent  to  remember  that  endeavours  involving  children  in  particular   take   time   to   establish   trusting   relationships.   When   dealing   with   an   abstract   phenomenon   such   as   educational   leadership,   it   is   also   wise   to   consider   the   vista   of   techniques  and  tools  used  in  pedagogical  documentation  in  early  childhood  settings  to   get  closer  to  the  participants.  This  approach  offers  possibilities  in  capturing  children’s   perspectives  of   leadership  both   “frozen   in   time   (through  photographs,  drawings  and   descriptions)   and   continuing   to   unfold   over   time   (enabling   the   revisiting   and   reconceptualising   of   experience   under   construction)”   (Fleet,   Patterson   &   Robertson,   2013,  p.  3).  As  a  dynamic  process  without  an  end  point  as  such,  leadership  enactment   also   reflects   a   “pedagogy   of   possibility”,   and   pedagogical   documentation   affords   harnessing  both  unexpected  and  routine  exchanges  amongst  children  and  adults  (Fleet,   Patterson  &  Robertson,  2013,  p.  5).  These   types  of  methodologies  may  also  assist   in   exploring  organizational  cultures  within  early  childhood  settings  as  places  that  promote   or   inhibit   leadership   functioning.   In   keeping   with   the   importance   of   deepening   our   understanding   about   the   relational   nature   of   leadership   enactment,   the   continuing   absence   of   research   focusing   on   gender,   sexuality   and   cultural   dimensions   of   early   childhood  staff  also  require  urgent  investigation.    

 

74  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

Application  of  distributed  leadership  

The   theory   of   distributed   leadership   applicable   in   early   childhood   settings,   as   conceptualised  by  me  in  2000,  was  centred  on  placing  specialist  knowledge  at  the  heart   of  organisational  culture  (see  Ebbeck  &  Waniganayake,  2003,  p.  34).  This  approach  to   early   childhood   leadership   was   founded   on   a   platform   of   valuing   the   collective   intelligence  created   through   the  amalgamation  of  expertise   that   individual  educators   bring   to   the   organization.   Moreover,   distributed   leadership   is   often   perceived   as   relational  (Duigan,  2006;  Spillane  &  Coldren,  2011),  and  aims  to  capture  the  multiple   spheres  of   influence  reflected   in   the  structures  and  contexts  of  each  early  childhood   setting   (Waniganayake   et   al,   2012).   This   perspective   is   elucidated   further   by   Siraj-­‐Blatchford  and  Manni  (2007,  p.  20)  as  follows:    

‘Distributed’,   ‘participative’,   ‘facilitative’  or   ‘collaborative’  models  of   leadership   call  for  a  shift  away  from  the  traditional  vision  of  leader  as  one  key  individual   towards   a   more   collective   vision,   one   where   the   responsibility   for   leadership   rests  within  various  formal  and  informal  leaders.  

The   actual   stakeholders   participating   in   a   distributed   way   within   any   given   early   childhood  setting  however,  will  of  course  vary  and  the  dynamics  of  leadership  power   sharing  is  specific  to  each  context.  

More  recently,   Shonkoff   (2014)  has  proposed  a  model  of  distributed   leadership   that   incorporates   the   macro   contexts   of   early   childhood   environments,   bringing   together   early   childhood   educators   with   stakeholders   community   wide   and   including   researchers,   policy   makers   and   investors.   In   his   model,   Shonkoff   emphasized   the   importance  of  adopting  a   long-­‐term  strategic  approach   in  translating   inspiration   into   concrete  goals  and  plans  developed  collaboratively  and  specific  to  each  community.  The   development   of   alliances   through   networking   is   one   of   the   anticipated   outcomes   of   Shonkoff’s  approach  to  strategic  planning  in  promoting  play-­‐based  learning  during  early   childhood.    

By  incorporating  both  the  micro  perspective  located  within  an  early  childhood  centre,   and   the   macro   perspective   of   the   environment   beyond   the   centre,   a   new   model   of   distributed   leadership   has   been   conceptualized   as   indicated   in   Figure   2.   In   this   conceptualization  also,  the  centrality  of  knowledge  sharing  has  been  retained,  as  various   stakeholders  bring  with   them  their  specialist  knowledge  and  skills,  and  demonstrate   leadership  in  the  application  of  their  expertise  in  shared  projects  that  benefit  children   and   families   in   their   community.   In   effect,   centres   are   perceived   as   the   hub   or   the   nucleus  that  drive  child  centred  action  within  a  community.  What  is  now  different  in  this   conceptualization  is  the  boundaries  of  interactions  have  been  widened  and  the  nature  of   interactions   between   stakeholders   will   also   involve   learning   across   disciplines   as   reflected   in   the   professional   backgrounds   and   workplace   orientations   of   the   diverse   stakeholders  involved  in  each  community.  

75  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

  K  =  KNOWLEDGE:  that  is  shared  and  made  explicit  

Leadership  is  distributed  across  multiple  spheres  of  activity  

  FIGURE  2     Distributed  leadership  in  early  Childhood  reconceptualised  

 

Dinham  et  al  (2011,  p.  145),  contend  that  transformation  cannot  be  achieved  through   responding  to  centralized  control  or  by  acting  alone.  Instead,  by  allocating  appropriate   resources,  including  sufficient  personnel,  “to  energise  and  sustain”  networks,  schools  in   the  UK  and  Australia  have  been  successful  in  pooling  expertise  and  seeking  solutions  to   problems  together  in  comprehensive  ways.  Accordingly,  by  conceptualising  “leadership   as   capital   formation”   Dinham   et   al   have   reframed   the   preparation   and   professional   development  of  school  leaders  as  intellectual,  social,  spiritual  and  financial  capital  (pp.   145-­‐147).  This   framework  represents  another   form  of  distributed   leadership,  as   it   is   also   reliant   on   collective   wisdom   and   collaboration   and   this   can   be   applied   to   ECE   contexts  as  well.  Accordingly,  it  is  proposed  that  interactions  between  stakeholders  as   represented   in  Figure  2,  reflects  this   type  of  shared   learning  with  the  anticipation  of   achieving  a  shared  vision  and  action  plan  on  whatever  the  community  plans  to  do  in   upholding  “the  best  interests  of  children”  (Article  3,  UNICEF,  1989).  

76  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

Overall,  distributed  leadership  may  be  perceived  as  being  either  too  easy  or  too  difficult   to  implement,  and  tensions  arise  because  there  is  insufficient  attention  placed  on  the   communications   necessary   to   bring   about   effective   collaboration.   According   to   Hirsh-­‐Pasek     (2014)  the  five  essential  21st  century  skills  required  by  all  professionals   consist  of   ‘collaboration,  communication,  content,  critical   thinking  and  confidence’.   In   redressing  the  gaps   in  early  childhood  teacher  preparation   identified  earlier,   this   list   could   be   expanded   also   by   adding   ‘creative   problem   solving’   skills,   essential   in   transferring   theory   into   practice   (Wagner,   2014).   Although   Wagner   (2007)   has   endorsed  the  use  of  case  studies   in   learning  about  problem  solving,   it   is  argued  that   authentic  experiential  learning/teaching  opportunities  encountered  during  professional   placements  in  early  childhood  settings  can  strengthen  the  development  of  essential  21st   century  skills  in  more  meaningful  ways.  An  important  challenge  is  finding  better  ways  of   accommodating  these  skills  in  leadership  preparation  within  future  teacher  education   courses  and  this  requires  further  investigation  and  close  scrutiny  of  evolving  ECE  course   design  and  development.    

In   Finland,   a   “Masters   degree   is   the   basic   academic   requirement   for   permanent   employment  in  a  school.”  (Sahlberg,  2013,  p.  38)  The  extent  to  which  this  is  a  mandated   requirement  of  those  teaching  in  early  childhood  centres  is  difficult  to  know.  Admission   into  teacher  education  courses  is  also  strictly  controlled  to  ensure  quality  at  the  point  of   entry  and     “it  is  difficult  to  become  a  teacher  in  Finland  without  a  high  level  of  general   knowledge,   good   social   skills   and   clear   moral   purpose”   (Sahlberg,   2013,   p.   38).   Accordingly,   it   means   having   more   than   a   single   unit/module   on   leadership   and   adopting  an  integrated  approach  where  professional  placements  focus  on  both  teaching   and   leading  responsibilities.  This  may   in  effect   require  a   clear  demarcation  between   bachelor   degrees   focusing   on   teacher   preparation   and   masters   degrees   emphasising   leadership   development.     Importantly,   participation   in   continuous   professional   development  and  learning  is  essential  for  all  regardless  of  whether  they  are  performing   teaching  and/or  leadership  functions.      

Challenges  of  enacting  distributed  leadership  

Torrance   (2013)   writes   eloquently   about   the   popularity   of   distributed   leadership   in   school  contexts  as  evidenced  in  education  policy  in  the  UK.  As  noted  earlier,  publications   of   empirical   studies   written   in   English   and   located   within   early   childhood   settings   investigating   distributed   leadership   in   practice   are   rare.   Drawing   on   her   study   of   Scottish  primary  schools,  Torrance  challenges  five  generally  held  assumptions  about  the   practice  of  distributed  leadership.   In  this  paper,  by  considering   its  application  within   early  childhood  settings  each  assumption  is  briefly  critiqued  further  as  follows:  

• Assumption  1:   “that  every  staff  member   is  able  to   lead”   (Torrance,  2013,  p.  362).   In  her   research,  Torrance  (2013,  p.363)  found  evidence  to  the  contrary  suggesting  that  it  was  in   essence   “unrealistic   to   conceive   that   all   teachers   can   engage   in   leadership   roles   consistently”   due   to   factors   such   as   personality,   competence   and   confidence.   There   is   anecdotal  evidence  which  suggests  that  some  directors  subscribe  to  the  view  that  ‘we’re  

77  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

all   leaders’   at   our   centre.   As   noted   previously,   however,   research   in   early   childhood   leadership   confirms   that   lack   of   formal   preparation   on   leadership   can   hinder   its   enactment.  Given  the  high  proportion  of  staff  without  at  least  a  bachelor  degree  in  ECE,  it   is  also  difficult  to  support  the  notion  that  anyone  can  be  a  centre  leader.  

• Assumption  2:  “that  every  staff  member  wishes  to  lead”  (Torrance,  2013,  p.  363).  As  in  the   case   of   other   school   leadership   scholars,   findings   by   Torrance   (2013)   also   reflected   a   pattern  of  resistance  amongst  staff  in  her  study  in  embracing  leadership  roles.  This  type  of   culture  of   leadership  aversion  has  also  permeated  the  highly  feminised  early  childhood   sector  (see  Aubrey,  2011;  Rodd,  2013;  Waniganayake  et  al  2012).    

• Assumption  3:  “that  the  leadership  role  of  staff  is   legitimised  simply  by  the  head  teacher’s   endorsement”   (Torrance   2013,   p.   364).   In   reality,   findings   from   the   study   by   Torrance(2013)  indicated  that  peer  approval  or  endorsement  of  leadership  capacity  made   a  difference   in   terms  of   successful   implementation  of   leadership.  Tensions  arose  when   support  staff  performed  leadership  roles  especially  as  teacher  leadership  was  assumed  as   based  on  expertise   in  teaching.  Absence  of  adequate  research  literature  which  explores   staff   dynamics   and   staffing   arrangements   at   centres   both   horizontally   and   vertically,   makes  it  difficult  to  assess  the  relevance  of  this  assumption  to  the  early  childhood  sector.  

• Assumption  4:  “that  a  distributed  perspective  occurs  naturally”  (Torrance,  2013,  p.  364).  It   was  clear  from  the  leadership  narratives  of  the  head  teachers  participating  in  Torrance’   study  (2013)  that  it  took  time  and  planning  to  organise  the  distribution  of  leadership  in   purposeful  ways.  Whilst  staff  in  early  childhood  settings  often  worked  in  small  teams,  the   legitimation  of  positional  power  to  centre  directors  in  particular,  goes  against  the  natural   flow  of  distributing  leadership  to  others.    

• Assumption  5:  “that  a  distributed  perspective  is  unproblematic”  (Torrance,  2013,  p.  365).   There  were  a  number  of  tension  points  identified  by  Torrance  (2013)  ranging  between   teacher  identity,  autonomy  and  control  and  a  lack  of  a  shared  definition  of  leadership  and   management.  These  tensions  can  also  be  found  within  early  childhood  settings  and  the   extent   to   which   factors   such   as   the   gender,   ethnicity,   age,   and   religion   as   well   as   the   number  of  staff,  their  qualifications  and  experience  in  the  sector  can  have  an  impact  on   distributing   leadership   in   both   school   and   early   childhood   settings   require   further   investigation.    

This  analysis  makes  it  clear  that  enactment  of  distributed  leadership  requires  dialogue,   planning   and   policy   systems   as   well   as   strategies   to   monitor   its   progress.   This   understanding   is   reinforced   by   emerging   findings   from   research   conducted   by   both   Colmer  (2013)  and  Heikka  (2014)  who  have  argued  for  greater  recognition  of  teacher   leadership   particularly   in   relation   to   leading   pedagogy,   a   core   function   of   early   childhood  centres.  In  keeping  with  the  expanding  role  of  early  childhood  educators,  the   proposed   model   in   this   paper   goes   beyond   pedagogical   leadership   within   early   childhood   settings   to   exploring   new   opportunities   for   distributed   leadership   in   connecting  with  the  wider  community.  

It   is  a  mistake  to  ignore  the  contextual  nature  of  distributed  leadership  enactment  as   differing  social,  political,  historical  and  cultural  forces  at  play  within  each  community  

78  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

can  shape  the  programs  available  at  each  setting.  Importantly,  the  interactions  between   these   diverse   factors   and   stakeholders   create   complexities   which   leaders   must   be   cognisant  about   in   the  application  of  discipline  specific  knowledge  when  articulating   strategic  plans.  Accordingly,   it  behoves   leaders  to  seek  ways  of  establishing  a  shared   understanding  before  implementing  any  changes  in  policy  or  practice.  

 

 

 

References    

Adamson,  P.  (2008)  The  child  care  transition:  a  league  table  of  early  childhood  education  and  care   in  economically  advanced  countries.  Innocenti  Report  Card,  8.  Paris:  UNICEF.    

Aubrey,  C.  (2011).  Leading  and  managing  in  the  early  years.  (2nd  edition)  London:  Sage   Publications.  

Australian  Children's  Education  and  Care  Quality  Authority.  (2011).  The  National  Quality   Standard.  Sydney.   http://www.acecqa.gov.au/storage/1%20Guide%20to%20the%20NQF.pdf  

Brennan,  D.  (1998).  The  politics  of  Australian  childcare:  Philanthropy  to  feminism  and  beyond.   (Rev.  ed.).  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Colmer,  K.  (2013).  Leading  for  professional  development  and  learning.  Presentation  at  the   “Leadership  Perspectives  from  Near  and  Far  –  From  Australia  and  Europe”,  An  International   Leadership  Research  Symposium.  13  December,  Sydney.  

Department  for  Education  (2014).  Establishment  of  the  National  College  for  Teaching  and   Leadership.  London.  http://www.education.gov.uk/nationalcollege    

Department  of  Education  Employment  &  Workplace  Relations  (DEEWR).  (2012).  Early  Years   Workforce  Strategy.     https://education.gov.au/early-­‐years-­‐workforce-­‐strategy  

Department  of  Education  Employment  &  Workplace  Relations  (DEEWR).  (2009).  Belonging,  being   and  becoming:  The  Early  Years  Learning  Framework  for  Australia.   http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Documents/Final%2 0EYLF%20Framework%20Report%20-­‐%20WEB.pdf  

Dinham,  S.,  Anderson,  M.,  Caldwell,  B.  &  Weldon,  P.  (2011).  Breakthrough  in  school  leadership   development  in  Australia.  School  Leadership  and  Management.  31(2):  139-­‐154.  DOI:   10.1080/136.32434.2011.560602.  

Duigan,  P.  (2006).  Educational  leadership:  Key  challenges  and  ethical  tensions.  Melbourne,  Victoria:   Cambridge  University  Press.  

Dunlop,  A.  (2008).  A  literature  review  of  leadership  in  the  early  years.     www.educationscotland.gov.uk/.../leadershipreview_tcm4-499140.doc  

Early  Childhood  Australia  (2013).  Leadership  Capability  Framework  for  Early  Childhood  Education   and  Care  and  School  Age  Care:  Leadership  practices  in  contexts  of  education  and  care,  

79  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

diversities  and  complexities.  Canberra.           http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/eca-­‐leadership-­‐capability-­‐framework.html  

Ebbeck,  M.,  &  Waniganayake,  M.  (2003).  Early  Childhood  professionals:  Leading  today  and   tomorrow.  Sydney:  MacLennan  &  Petty.  

Fennech,  S.  (2013).  Leadership  development  during  times  of  reform.  Australasian  Journal  of  Early   Childhood,  38(1),89−94.  

Fleet,  A.,  Patterson,  C.  &  Robertson,  J.  (2012).  (Eds).  Conversations:  Behind  early  childhood   pedagogical  documentation.  Sydney:  Pademelon  Press.  

Giamminuti,  S.  (2014).  Dwelling  in  Reggio  Emilia:  Research  as  an  ethic  of  welcome  and  relationship.   Keynote  presentation  at  the  Unpacking  Conference,  15  March,  Macquarie  University,   Sydney.  

Hargreaves,  A.  and  Shirley,  D.  (2011).  The  global  fourth  way:  The  quest  for  educational  excellence.   Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Corwin  Press.  

Harris,  A.  (2004).  Distributed  Leadership:  Leading  or  misleading.  Educational  Management  and   Administration,  32(1),  11−24.  

Hatherley,  A.  &  Lee,  W.  (2003).  Voices  of  early  childhood  leadership.  New  Zealand  Journal  of   Educational  Leadership,  18,  91−100.  

Hayden,  J.  (1997).  Directors  in  Early  Childhood  services:  Experience,  preparedness  and  selection.   Journal  of  Australian  Research  in  Early  Childhood  Education,  1,  49−61.  

Heikka,  J.  E.  (2014)  Distributed  pedagogical  leadership  in  Early  Childhood  Education  in  Finland.   Unpublished  PhD  thesis,  Macquarie  University,  Sydney,  Australia  and  the  University  of   Tampere,  Finland.  

Hirsh-­‐Pasek,  K.  (2014).  Inspiring  great  ideas.  A  conversation  with  Mitch  Resnick.     Redefining   Play.  Reimagining  learning.  The  IDEA  Conference.  The  LEGO  Foundation.  8-­‐10  April,   Billund,  Denmark.  http://www.theideaconference.com/  

Hujala,  E.  (2013).  Contextually  defined  leadership.  in  E.  Hujala,  M.  Waniganayake,  &  J.  Rodd,  (eds).   Researching  leadership  in  early  childhood  education.  Tampere,  Finland:  Tampere   University  Press.  

Hujala,  E.,  Waniganayake,  M.  &  Rodd,  J.  (Eds)  (2013).  Researching  leadership  in  early  childhood   education.  Tampere,  Finland:  Tampere  University  Press.  

Hujala,  E.  &  Puriola,  A.  (eds)  (1998).  Towards  Understanding  Leadership  in  Early  Childhood   Context.  Cross-­‐cultural  perspectives,  ACTA  Universitatis  Ouluensis,  Scientie  Rerum   Socialium,  E35,  Oulu  University  Press,  Oulu.  

John,  K.  (2008).  Sustaining  the  leaders  of  children's  centres:  The  role  of  leadership  mentoring.   European  Early  Childhood  Education  Research  Journal,  16(1),  53−66.     DOI:10.1080/13502930801897012  

Jorde-­‐Bloom,  P.  (1992).  The  childcare  centre  director:  A  critical  component  of  program  quality.   Educational  Horizons,  70(3),  138−45.  

Jorde-­‐Bloom,  P.  (2000).  How  do  we  define  director  competence?  Child  Care  Information  Exchange,   138,  13−18.  

80  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

Kagan,  S.L.  &  Hallmark,  L.G.  (2001).  Cultivating  leadership  in  early  care  and  education.  Child  Care   Information  Exchange,  140,  7−10.  

Malaguzzi,  L.  (1998a).  History,  ideas,  and  basic  philosophy:  An  interview  with  Lella  Gandini.  In  C.   Edwards,  L.  Gandini  &  E.  Forman  (Eds.),  The  hundred  languages  of  children:  The  Reggio   Emilia  approach  -­‐  advanced  reflections.  Westport,  CT:  Ablex.  

Marsh,  S.,  Waniganayake,  M.  &  De  Nobile,  J.  (2014).  Improving  learning  in  schools:  the   overarching  influence  of  ‘presence’  on  the  capacity  of  authoritative  leaders,  International   Journal  of  Leadership  in  Education,  17(1),  23-­‐39.  DOI:10.1080/13603124.2013.778334  

Muijs,  D.,  Aubrey,  C.,  Harris,  A.  &  Briggs,  M.  (2004).  How  do  they  manage?  A  review  of  the  research   on  leadership  in  early  childhood.  Journal  of  Early  Childhood  Research.  2,  157-­‐169.  

Nupponen,  H.  (2005).  Exploring  Management  Practices  in  Child  Care  Centres  in  Australia,   Queensland  from  a  Social  Systems  Framework,  Child  Care  in  Practice,  11(2),  April,  135  –   160.  

OECD  (Organisation  for  Economic  Co-­‐operation  and  Development)  (2012).  Starting  Strong  III:   Early  Childhood  Education  and  Care.  Paris:  OECD  Publishing.  

OECD  (Organisation  for  Economic  Co-­‐operation  and  Development)  (2006).  Starting  Strong  II:   Early  Childhood  Education  and  Care.  Paris:  OECD  Publishing.  

Productivity  Commission.  (2011).  Early  Childhood  Development  Workforce,  Research  Report.  

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/113907/early-­‐childhood-­‐report.pdf  

Rodd,  J.  (2013).  Leadership  in  Early  Childhood.  The  pathway  to  professionalism  (4th  edition).   Sydney:  Allen  and  Unwin.  

Rodd,  J.  (1998).  Leadership  in  Early  Childhood.  London:  Buckingham  Open  University  Press.    

Rodd,  J.  (1997).  Learning  to  be  leaders:  perceptions  of  early  childhood  professions  about   leadership  roles  and  responsibilities.  Early  Years:  An  International  Journal  of  Research  and   Development.  18(1),  40-­‐44.  

Rodd,  J.  (1996).  Towards  a  typology  of  leadership  for  the  early  childhood  professional  of  the  21st   century.  Early  Childhood  Development  and  Care.  120,  119-­‐126.  

Sahlberg,  P.  (2013).  Teachers  as  leaders  in  Finland.  Educational  Leadership,  October,  36-­‐40  

Shonkoff,  J.  (2014).  The  need  for  strategy:  translating  inspiration  into  concrete  goals  and  plans  we   develop  together.  Keynote  presentation  at  The  IDEA  Conference.  The  LEGO  Foundation.   8-­‐10  April,  Billund,  Denmark.  http://www.theideaconference.com/  

Siraj-­‐Blatchford,  I.,  &  Manni,  L.  (2007).  Effective  leadership  in  the  early  years  sector:  The  ELEYS   study.  London:  Institute  of  Education,  University  of  London.  

Spillane,  J.  P.  &  Coldren,  A.  F.  (2011).  Diagnosis  and  design  for  school  improvement.  New  York:   Teachers  College  Press.  

Sumsion,  J.  (2006).  From  Whitlam  to  economic  rationalism  and  beyond:  A  conceptual  framework   for  political  activism  in  children's  services.  Australian  Journal  of  Early  Childhood,  31(1),   1-­‐9.    

Teaching  Agency  (2012).  Review  of  the  Early  Years  Professional  Status  Standards.  London.   https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/18095 7/TA-­‐00084-­‐2012.pdf  

81  

 

 

Waniganayake     —     Varhaiskasvatuksen  Tiedelehti     —     JECER     3(1)  2014,  65–81.   http://jecer.org/fi      

Torrance,  D.  (2013).  Distributed  Leadership:  Challenging  five  generally  held  assumptions.  School   Leadership  and  Management:  Formerly  School  Organisation,  33:4,  354-­‐372.   DOI:10.1080/13632434.2013.813463.  

UNICEF  (1989).  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child.  http://www.unicef.org/crc/  

Wagner,  T.  (2014).  From  play  to  purpose.  An  interactive  keynote.  Keynote  presentation  at  the   IDEA  Conference.  The  LEGO  Foundation.  8-­‐10  April,  Billund,  Denmark.         http://www.theideaconference.com/  

Wagner,  T.  (2007)  Leading  for  Change.  Five  ‘habits  of  mind’  that  count.  Education  Week,  August.   http://www.tonywagner.com/resources/leading-­‐for-­‐change  

Waniganayake,  M.,  Cheeseman,  S.,  Fenech,  M.,  Hadley,  F.  &  Shepherd,  W.  (2012).  Leadership:   Contexts  and  complexities  in  Early  Childhood  Education.  South  Melbourne:  Oxford   University  Press.  

Waniganayake,  M.,  Harrison,  L.,  Cheeseman,  S.,  Burgess,  C.,  De  Gioia,  K.  &  Press,  F.  (2008).  Practice   Potentials:  Impact  of  participation  in  professional  development  and  support  on  quality   outcomes  for  children  in  childcare  centres.  A  national  research  report  prepared  for  the   Professional  Development  and  Support  Coordinators  and  FACSIA.  Sydney:  Access   Macquarie.    

Waniganayake,  M.  (2002).  “Leadership  Training:  With  training  can  anyone  become  a  leader?’”  in   V.  Nivala  &  E.  Hujala  (eds).  Cross-­‐cultural  perspectives  on  Leadership.  ACTA  Universitatis   Ouluensis,  Scientie  Rerum  Socialium,  E57,  Oulu:  Oulu  University  Press.    

Waniganayake,  M.,  Morda,  R.  &  Kapsalakis,  A.  (2000).  Leadership  in  child  care  centres:  Is  it  just   another  job.  Australian  Journal  of  Early  Childhood.  25  (1),  13-­‐19.  

Waniganayake,  M.,  (1998).     “Leadership  in  early  childhood  in  Australia:  A  national  review”     in   E.     Hujala  &  A.  Puroila  (eds).  Towards  understanding  leadership  in  early  childhood   contexts.  Cross-­‐cultural  perspectives,  ACTA  Universitatis  Ouluensis,  Scientie  Rerum   Socialium,  E35,  (pp.  95  –  108).  Oulu:  University  Press.  

Waniganayake,  M.,  Nienhuys,  T,  Kapsalakis,  A.  &  Morda,  A.  (1998).     “An  international  study  of   leadership  in  early  childhood:  the  Australian  perspective”  in  E.     Hujala  &  A.  Puroila  (eds).   Towards  understanding  leadership  in  early  childhood  vontexts.  Cross-­‐cultural  perspectives.   ACTA  Universitatis  Ouluensis,  Scientie  Rerum  Socialium,  E35,  (pp.  109  –  128).  Oulu:  Oulu   University  Press.