As we move from the 32nd to 33rd volume of the journal, may I take this opportunity to thank all our reviewers, authors and specifically the editorial board and publishers for all their work over the past year. The year 2013 brings with it some exciting developments. In order to further develop the reputation of the journal, the editorial team has been working on suggestions from the editorial board to revise the aims and scope of the journal. We are pleased to confirm our new aims and scope are:
School Leadership and Management is an international peer-refereed journal that publishes articles based on theoretically and/or empirically rigorous research into leaders and leadership practices.
While schools are the focus, the journal particularly welcomes:
| • | articles on the leadership of educational change and reform across education systems; | ||||
| • | articles exploring leadership at different levels. Specifically, those focusing on issues within and between organisations, with a specific focus on the management of change and reform in education; | ||||
| • | articles that challenge and explore alternative, critical and reconceptualised notions of educational leadership and management; and | ||||
| • | state of the art reviews on issues pertaining to educational leadership, change and reform. | ||||
We believe the refocusing of the aims and scope of the journal, including encouraging the submission of alternative and critical perspectives and state-of-the-art reviews will strengthen academic rigour of and cement the journal's place as one of the leading scholarly publications in the field. Furthermore, expanding the scope of interest to explicitly include a focus on the exploration of leadership, change and reform within and between organisations will broaden our appeal and ultimately increase and readership of the journal. We look forward to monitoring how these exciting developments progress and encourage both past and new authors to submit their work to the journal.
The first article of this volume by Harris and colleagues focuses on the variable ‘take up’ of school effectiveness and improvement findings by policy-makers and practitioners. This is an article developed from a keynote state-of-the-art session presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement in Malmo 2012. The second article, a commentary on the previous article by Schreens discusses the article from the perspectives of research utilisation, the robustness of the knowledge base and issues of transmission and implementation.
The third article by Pisapia and Sun-Keung Pang explores whether Chinese school principals use influence actions differently from principals in the USA. The findings from this study suggest some practices are universal while others are culturally sensitive with local rather than societal values determining the influence actions used by principals. The fourth article by Bottery and colleagues also compares school leadership across international boundaries. This article investigates the perceptions of English head teachers and Hong Kong principals, interestingly in contrast to the previous article the authors explore the extent to which leaders felt their governments were affecting their leadership. The findings highlight although there is significant variation between individuals they all prioritise local concerns and care for children. The English head teachers were more embattled with, and critical of government policy while the Hong Kong principals favoured the development of creativity.
The fifth article by Range, Young and Hvidston article focuses on teachers' perceptions of professional development, specifically, pre- and post-observation conferences during extended lesson observation cycles. The authors highlight interesting differences in perceptions between new and experienced teachers. Webster, Blatchford and Russell also examine the classroom level, focusing on the role of teaching assistants by exploring how best this additional resource might be used to support student achievement and wider school improvement.
The final article by Arar and Oplatka explores Muslim teachers' constructions of masculinity and femininity of the school principal. The article argues that teachers' preferences for the ‘ideal’ principal are based on leadership qualities rather than constructions of gender.
Once again many thanks to all of you who contribute to the work of the journal and I look forward to receiving your support and manuscripts over the forthcoming year.