Abstract
This study examined if and how the learning-centred leadership of rural school principals in China impacted teachers’ trust and agency, as well as their engagement in professional learning. In contrast to prior research, however, this mixed methods study sought to illuminate the impact of ineffective leadership on teachers and school improvement. Quantitative data analysis affirmed that learning-centred leadership was associated with more active teacher engagement in professional learning, and that these effects were partially mediated by teacher trust and agency. However, additional quantitative analyses revealed that rural principals in our sample exercised significantly weaker learning-centred leadership than their urban counterparts, and that this was associated with lower levels of teacher trust, agency and professional learning. This quantitative analysis set the stage for a case study of one rural school principal whose school was unsuccessful in implementing a reform aimed at building teacher capacity. The qualitative data illuminate how sociocultural norms shaped interactions not only between the principal and his teachers (e.g. hierarchy), but among the teachers themselves (e.g. hierarchy and collectivism). Finally, the case study illustrates how ineffective leadership engenders mistrust and resistance among teachers, making them wary of assuming ownership of change.
Notes on contributors
Shengnan Liu is a lecturer at Ocean University of China in Qingdao, China. She holds a PhD in Educational Management from East China Normal University (ECNU) in Shanghai, China. Her research concentrations include teacher professional learning and educational leadership.
Philip Hallinger is a professor of Management at the College of Public Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. He is also a distinguished visiting professor in the Dept. of Educational Leadership and Management at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He received his EdD from Stanford University. His research interests include school leadership effects, instructional leadership, school improvement and leadership development.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Although this paper reports quantitative results from 31 urban and rural schools, the full sample of 38 schools also contained seven suburban schools. These schools were not included in the analyses reported in this paper.