Review Article: Finding Alternatives and/or following global trends for school leaders: Reflection of Educational Administration Management in Japan

Review Article: Finding Alternatives and/or following global trends for school leaders: Reflection of Educational Administration Management in Japan

 

The research article entitled “Finding Alternatives and/or following global trends for school leaders: Reflection of Educational Administration Management in Japan. It was written by the two authors Hiroki Suematsu, Tokyo Gakugie University, Tokyo, Japan, and Kemma Tsujino, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan.

The research aims to learn if there is a certain gap between what school leaders say and what they actually think and do. And to answer their questions: how is a headteacher able to impact and affect the school? and what kind of relationships are there among various voices that are involved in the actual process to improve the school? Under or against the political mainstream, a “grass-rooted” dialogue between school leaders and researchers is conducted to find alternatives either or follow global trends. That is why the researchers define first what is a school leader. According to the research, the school leader is defined as the head teacher or the principal. Some researcher tends to think that school leadership is a kind of behavior (Hallinger et al., 1983). It includes the teachers and other staff, who are trying to bring about a positive movement to their school. Newman (2013) stated school leadership by pointing to universal leadership skills, practices, and professional knowledge as well as a range of contextual factors that describe leadership.

The ambiguity of the meaning of the school leader and the implication that will adhere to it cannot be underestimated. The concept or ideas of a school leader varies from place to place. It is because of the environment. The environment is one of the factors that assess the type of management that will be used, should it be a top-down approach or policy-led approach. Mincu (2022) stated that failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling is unfortunate and must be redressed. Leadership is fundamentally about organized agency and collective vision, not managerialism since it is an organizational quality, not merely a positionality attribute. We cannot give the exact meaning or give the correct definition but rather we only give the best possible meaning. Lumby et al. (2009) said that our view in the relation to school leadership views the field of influences as a wider, not just contributing to the effectiveness of the organization, but also directly interacting with and contributing to the community.

The result of the research is based on formal and informal continuous interviews and observations for a period of time. All the data gathered were analyzed and simplified. The top-down instruction is often seen as suppressive. However, Team Asana (2021) stated that it eliminates confusion, reduces risk, and keeps initiatives organized. Most of the new employee was struggling at the beginning due to the diffident culture of having a school that has given more freedom than an institution that uses top-down approach management. The research stated that academic achievement was often simplified by test scores. The more the headteacher is familiar with the management of the school, the gap between the administration and the teachers will be lessened. We must remember that the administrator has the power to change the direction of the school and what kind of approach to use.

One way to understand the way of thinking of the teachers is to conduct a survey or a school evaluation. Love (2010) said that evaluation is being used to measure student progress, reform education systems, and enhance accountability for the outcomes.  Duran (2010) stated also that educational evaluations are intended to provide evidence-based arguments about whether educational outcomes can be improved based on the implementation of intervention strategies. That is why an administrator must be open-minded. Doney and Wegerif (2017) noted that open-mindedness could also be expressed as openness to others. Therefore, the administrator will be able to see and change what is needed in order to attain academic achievement.

The research indicated in the reflection on educational management how diffident conditions exist from region to region and the possible ways for the corresponding school management to be particularly context-based. As the one in power known as the school administrator, they have the ability to organize and intervene in the teachers or staff’s way instead of supporting them. The research noted how can we approach the reality of school management as it is extremely complex. According to the research, it is impossible to approach the reality of school management without looking at least from the following statements: First, the diverse intentions within the organization. Second, the various contributions outside the school. Third, a rotational system of the personnel. Fourth, a delicate balance of school management between sustainability and innovations. Fifth, a careful mutual understanding with educational administration. And Last, the sharing of insight into social change including its unpredictable elements.

            Looking for the best solution on how realistically school management can be described, there will be a remaining question of which direction the school should proceed. Every administrator has their ideals and principles meaning that they focused on what can benefit their schools or their community. As I said earlier, the state of the school defers from place to place. Administrator has their own will to improve the quality of education and services of the school. According to the research, even rapid global changes that affect society or the lives of the student will not appear spontaneously. That is why an analytic perspective towards educational administration or management is necessary for the development of education and that education will be able to catch up to adapt to the current time.

 

 

References

Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Well, M., Mesa, R. P. and Mitman, A. (1983) “Identifying the Specific Practices, Behaviors for Principals”, NASSP Bulletin

Newman, M. (2013). Conceptualizations of School Leadership among High School Principals in Jamaica. Journal of International Education and Leadership. Vol. 3 Is. 3

Mincu, M. (2022). Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts. Prospects 52, 231–242. 

Lumby, J., Walker, A., Bryant, M., Bush, T., & Björk, L. (2009). Research on leadership preparation in a global context. In M. Young, G. Crow, J. Murphy, & R. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 157–194). London: Routledge.

Team Asana. (2021). Top-down approach vs. bottom-up approach: What’s the difference? Asana. Retrieve from https://asana.com/resources/top-down-approach

Love, A.J. (2010). Understanding Approaches to evaluation. International Encyclopedias of Education 3rd Edition. 

Duran, R.P. (2010). Cultural Issues that can Affect the Validity of Educational Evaluation. International Encyclopedias of Education 3rd Edition.  

Doney, J. and Wegerif, R. (2017). Measuring Open-Mindedness: An evaluation of the impact of our school dialogue programme on students’ open-mindedness and attitudes to others. Tony Blair Intitute for Global Change.