The fourth issue of this volume has two major foci. The first two articles focus on issues of reform while the following four articles explore leadership issues from a range of methodological and conceptual perspectives. This issue also includes contributions from practitioners, which I believe adds an additional dimension to this particular issue.
The first article by Hopkins examines the research and policy evidence relating to educational reform and unpacks 10 key ‘myths’ associated with reform efforts over the past 30 years. The second article provides a link between Hopkins's ‘myths’ and the following four articles which focus more specifically on leadership issues. Lai and Cheung examine the introduction of a new senior secondary curriculum in Hong Kong and the leadership characteristics and practices enacted by the principals charged with implementation of this reform.
The third article by Torrance explores the concept of distributed leadership. Drawing on data collected in Scottish primary schools Torrance argues the concept is more problematic and complex than often portrayed in the literature to challenge five generally held assumptions about distributed leadership.
In the fourth article Hendriks and Scheerens report the findings of a quantitative analysis of 14 leadership effect studies. The results indicate that the total effect sizes based on indirect-effect studies appear to be low and comparable to the meta-analyses of direct effect studies. The authors argue the combination of conceptual and research analyses suggest educational leadership should be conceptualised as detached and ‘lean’ meta-control which maximises the use of resources.
The final two articles of this issue include contributions from practitioners. The fifth article by Marsh, Waniganayake, and De Nobile presents the findings from a mixed methods study investigating ‘Leadership for Learning’ in Australia. The findings reinforce the established literature by highlighting the central importance of developing a shared language about leadership and learning, the importance of collaboration in schools and the importance of the role of the principal. The final article by Morrison provides an interesting insight into the disconnect between theory and practice. Morrison argues leading educational change is undermined by structural constraints and this can lead to unpredicted outcomes.
As we look forward to the final issue of this volume may I take this opportunity to remind potential authors and colleagues that we welcome proposals for special issues of contemporary interest and also to thank all our reviewers who continue to offer their time and insight so generously and make such an important contribution to the success of this journal.
Christopher Chapman
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK