School Leadership Development

CHAPTER 69

School Leadership Development

PHILIP HALLINGER Mahidol University, Chiang Mai, T hailand

1. INTRODUCTION Since the early 1990s, the status of education in the Asia-Pacific region has changed dramatically. Once an afterthought of government policymakers, education has assumed centre-stage in recent years. The result has been the passage of significant legislation aimed at aligning educational policies and practices with evolving social, political and economic aims (Caldwell, 1998; Cheng & Townsend, 2000; Hallinger, 1998; Rahimah, 1998). This global love affair with educational reform has not, however, been without disappointments. With the ever-increasing rate and scope of global changes, governments are finding it ever more difficult to put their new policies into practice (Cheng & Townsend, 2000; Dimmock & Walker, 1998; Hallinger, 1998; Lam, in press). The implementation of change in educational practice that is directed by policy decisions demands effective leadership of schools and educational institutions. This article considers trends and directions for future research and development in the field of school leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. The need to increase effectiveness of reform implementation has refocused policymakers’ attention on school principals. This rediscovered interest in the principal’s role in policy implementation has coincided with research findings that consistently point to the key leadership role of the principal in school improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1997). The confluence of these trends has led to a new focus on the preparation, training and development of school leaders internationally (Caldwell, in press; Hallinger, in press; Huber, in press). While this trend is apparent throughout the world (e.g., Caldwell, in press; Hallinger, in press; Huber, in press; Murphy & Shipman, in press) it is especially evident in East and Southeast Asia. Since 1990, a wave of interest in school leadership development has swept the Asia-Pacific region including the United States (Hallinger, 1992; Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Murphy & Shipman, in press), Malaysia (Abdullah, 1999; Bajunid, 1995, 1996), Australia (Caldwell, in press), Hong Kong (Lam, in press; Walker, Bridges, & Chan, 1996), People’s 997 International Handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region, 997–1009 John P. Keeves and Ryo Watanabe (eds.) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

keeves0069 18-02-03 14:05:39 Techniset, Denton, Manchester 0161 335 0399

998

Hallinger

Republic of China (Li, 1999), Singapore (Chong, Stott, & Low, in press; Gopinathan & Kam, 2000; Low, 1999), Thailand (Hallinger, 2000; Hallinger & Kantamara, 2000a, 2000b; Ministry of Education-Thailand, 1997a, 1997b), and the People’s Republic of China (Fwu & Wang, 2001; Ministry of EducationROC, 1998; Yang, 2001). This focus on school leader preparation and development reflects an optimistic belief in both the impact of leadership on school improvement as well as in the capacity of school systems to develop more effective school leaders. This article focuses on a subset of Asia-Pacific education systems: Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Hong Kong. All four represent traditionally centralised education systems. Yet, each is moving towards the implementation of educational reforms that would change many features of management, teaching and learning. All four assert the desire to transform their education systems into so-called ‘learning organisations’ and their nations into ‘knowledge-based societies’ (e.g., Chong et al., in press; Ministry of Education-R.O.C., 1998). This evolving vision would require a changing role of the school principal. Thus, school leader preparation is now high on national agendas for educational reform. Three questions frame this chapter: What do we know about principal effectiveness and how does this knowledge base transfer to the Asian context of schooling? What trends have emerged in school leadership development in East and Southeast Asia over the past decade? What are emerging issues and directions for practice and research in school leadership development in Southeast and East Asia? 2. THE STATE OF THE ART ON PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS The issue of principal effectiveness has been addressed at length elsewhere (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1997). In brief, research conducted over the past 20 years finds that school leaders influence the capacity of schools to change and improve. More specifically, the research base also finds that principals exercise a positive, measurable, indirect effect on student learning outcomes. While it may be comforting to know that empirical research supports conventional wisdom, this finding is of limited utility without elaboration of how leadership contributes to school effectiveness. Though far from complete, researchers have begun to describe the avenues through which principals and other school-level leaders enhance school effectiveness. Principals achieve these positive effects through their efforts to create a shared vision and mission for the school; restructure the formal organisation of the school (e.g., class schedules, teacher’s time, grade/unit organisation) in order to support instructional effectiveness and enhance staff collaboration, decision-making and communication around teaching and learning; provide stimulation and individualised support for development of the teaching, and learning capacities of staff; and reshape the school culture in order to emphasise norms of continuous learning and collaborative work (Hallinger & Heck, 1997).


School L eadership Development

999

These conclusions imply that professional preparation for school leaders should address both ‘management’ and ‘leadership’ competencies. Management competency involves making the school run efficiently. This has been the traditional focus of training for school leaders, especially in Asia. However, in this era of rapid change, management competency alone is insufficient (Hallinger, 1998). If schools are to keep pace with changing societal demands, it will also require leadership. Leadership represents the capacity building, creative, and innovative roles of the school principal (Caldwell, in press; Hallinger, 1998). 3. APPLICATION OF THIS KNOWLEDGE BASE TO EAST ASIA The knowledge base that underlies the practice of school management and leadership globally is incomplete and ever changing. Yet, the breadth and depth of empirical research on school leadership in East Asia appears to lag behind that of Western nations. How well does the trend of Western findings on school leadership transfer to the Asian region? A quick scan of the literature reveals that the trend of empirical research in East Asia supports the general pattern of international research findings. For example, empirical studies conducted in Hong Kong have examined the role of the principal in school effectiveness (Cheng, Y. C., 1991, 1994, 2001; Cheng, K. M., 1994, 1995; Cheng, K. M., & Wong, 1996; Dimmock & Walker, 1998; Pang, 1998). In general terms, these results confirm the general direction of findings concerning the impact of school leadership. Research on principal leadership in East Asian system’s reports is also beginning to generate interesting findings concerning the avenues through which school leaders achieve desired results. Such research has been conducted in Thailand (e.g., Hallinger & Kantamara, 2000a, 2000b), Hong Kong (Dimmock & Walker, 1998), Malaysia (Bajunid, 1995, 1996) and Singapore (Gopinathan & Kam, 2000). Although it is too early to generalise, this emerging body of work does suggest several propositions worthy of further exploration. (1) Principals in East Asian educational systems have an impact on the effectiveness of their schools and that effect is mediated by internal school factors as well as contextual factors. (2) Principal leadership in East Asian systems is strongly shaped by the cultural and institutional context of their schools. There is a tradition of strong hierarchical authority complemented by cultural norms that support the centralisation of power and authority. On the one hand, these forces limit the systemic authority of principals. On the other hand, the same contextual factors increase the day-to-day influence East Asian principals’ exercise over their schools. (3) East Asian principals achieve results through similar avenues (i.e., goals, school structure, people and culture) as principals in the West. However, the day-to-day practices by which principals enact leadership through these variables differ in response to the cultural and institutional context.


1000 Hallinger

East Asian principals operate within a traditional system role as bureaucratic administrators rather than as school leaders. Their institutional norms and policies shape their behaviour as administrators whose role is to implement orders rather more than as leaders of programs or change at the school level. This change in role conception may prove to be the most important target for efforts at training and development in East Asian school systems. 4. EMERGING TRENDS IN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN EAST ASIA In this section I will discuss general trends in school leader preparation and development as they have emerged over the past decade in East and Southeast Asia. I will accomplish this through a quick tour of several countries that have been active in this domain. 4.1. Malaysia Malaysia’s foray into school leader preparation began during the 1980s with funding from the World Bank. The Institute Ahminuddin Baki (IAB) was established as a central training centre for school administrators from throughout Malaysia. It boasts a central campus with dormitories and a large staff comprised of managers, trainers, curriculum developers and evaluators. Over time the IAB has developed an extensive curriculum that incorporates both international and local topics (Bajunid, 1996). This curriculum is delivered cyclically in both pre-service and in-service formats to the administrators of Malaysia’s schools. As an arm of the Ministry of Education, the IAB has the authority to implement mandatory training programs. During the 1990s Malaysia further developed its capacity as an institution of higher learning. In this period the IAB was granted the authority to offer Masterlevel training. Subsequently, the IAB has awarded hundreds of Master degrees in educational administration. This was a significant development in that it began to raise the standard expected of educational administrators in this country. In 2000, Malaysia further expanded its provision of leadership preparation and development through the opening of a National Principals’ Centre at the University of Malaya. This centre is taking primary responsibility for Masters degree training of educational administrators. The location of this centre in a university also signals the recognition of a need for more research and development to underlie the training of educational managers in Malaysia. Malaysia, which has perhaps the longest formal experience in school leadership development in the region, offers an instructive perspective on the development of its school leaders. Bajunid, Director of the IAB for over a decade, has made among the most cogent cases internationally for using indigenous (i.e., locally generated craft knowledge or wisdom of practice) as well as global (i.e., generally empirically derived knowledge from the West) sources of knowledge for school


School L eadership Development 1001

leadership development. His assertions echo the views of Barth, founder of the Principals’ Centre Movement in the United States, who has long asserted that craft knowledge represents a key foundation of the knowledge base of school leaders. However, Bajunid goes further as he makes the case that craft knowledge must be derived from within the local context With the forces of globalization and internationalization and competition, there is a trend to achieve world standards. This aspiration for world class standards is casting new meaning towards the indigenization efforts. It is likely that such world standards criteria will be tempered and coloured by unique national and cultural local nuances. (Bajunid, 1996, p. 272) This is significant and represents the most salient contribution made by the leadership development experience in Malaysia. Under Bajunid’s intellectual leadership, the IAB initiated a research and development effort designed to generate useful cases and perspectives on indigenous and global leadership practices and perspectives. This knowledge base was intended to shape leadership development as well as the role of school administrators in Malaysia. This is an agenda that needs to be extended further. 4.2. T hailand Thailand initiated its preparation for school administrators during the early 1980s under similar funding as in Malaysia. The Institute for the Development of Educational Administrators (IDEA) was initially comprised of a central campus outside of Bangkok with dormitories and instructional facilities. Following the same model as the IAB in Malaysia, IDEA has an instructional and curriculum development staff responsible for delivery of pre-service and in-service training school administrators throughout Thailand. Over time, regional training centres have been set up nationwide under the overall supervision of IDEA. These centres as well as the home campus are responsible for providing a wide range of administrative preparation and development programs. These include programs designed to prepare staff for the assumption of new roles as well as programs designed for general development purposes. Similar to the IAB, IDEA is viewed primarily as a policy implementation arm of the Ministry of Education. Both nations share a similar tradition of centralised bureaucracy in education. The IDEA’s role has explicitly revolved around the goal of transferring to school administrators the knowledge needed to implement national educational polices. The underlying conception of administrative preparation has been explicitly managerial in nature with school leaders viewed very much as order-takers and system maintainers. This vision of the role of Thai school administrators is beginning to change, at least in the national rhetoric of reformers. Educational reforms such as schoolbased management, student-centred learning, learning technologies and parental and community involvement are quickly becoming part of the Thai language of


1002 Hallinger

school reform (Hallinger, 2000). To the extent that these reforms actually move forward towards implementation, the role and capacities of school leaders will need to undergo dramatic changes. One recent research and development effort was undertaken to explore school improvement in Thailand and has generated some data that complements findings on indigenous knowledge from Malaysia. Hallinger and Kantamara (2000a, 2000b, 2001) studied the relationship of school leadership and school improvement in a series of case studies. Their findings suggest the following conclusion. In closing we are cognizant of the fact that we have only begun to scratch the surface of the most intriguing aspect of this topic: the interaction between the traditional cultural norms that shape behaviour in Thai schools and external change forces. We assert that future leaders in all nations will need to be adept at negotiating the norms of the traditional culture and the global culture. The extent to which the norms of the local culture differ from the global norms will determine the types of adaptation. Our experience in Thailand suggests that this dual set of skills is in short supply. This suggests an important challenge for the future for those engaged in school improvement research and practice. (Hallinger & Kantamara, 2000b, p. 45) 4.3 Singapore Singapore’s efforts in school leadership development reflect the city-state’s longstanding commitment to human resource development (Low, 1999). During the 1980s this effort was encompassed in a university-delivered diploma program in educational administration. Chong, Stott and Low (in press) note: For over fifteen years, the Diploma in Educational Administration (DEA) was known for its excellence in training school leaders. Indeed, many of Singapore’s senior educators, including superintendents and directors have passed through this prestigious programme. It was a programme characterised by executive skills training and learning from excellent principals through a mentoring process. (in press) With the advent of 1990s, however, Singapore’s educational policymakers recognised the need for a broader and deeper program aimed at raising the knowledge and skills of its school administrators. At that time, Singapore was undertaking a new set of educational reforms organised around the framework of learning organisations. As a country, Singapore had conceived of a new goal encapsulated in the phrase, ‘Thinking Schools, a Learning Nation’. This conveyed a new conception of the role of schools in society. It also implied new forms of school organisation and delivery of educational services. Together these new conceptions led to a new role for school leaders. As Chong, Stott and Low (in press) have articulated: Indeed, the new educational agenda demanded a new type of school leader,



one who could cope proactively with a dynamic, complex and sometimes uncertain context. The old leadership thrived on conformity. The new leadership had to be ambitious and independent, innovative, and able to succeed in conditions that were less clearly defined ... . It was also clear as we talked to educators both in Singapore and abroad that the new principal would have an expanded and more intellectually demanding role. We needed to train principals who could ‘think’ their way through complex, sometimes unique, and often persistent issues in schools. Such individuals would need – as we said earlier – to guarantee high degrees of quality in teaching and learning, orchestrate the strategic agenda and direct operations at the school-community interface. (in press) This recognition demanded an expanded approach to the development of Singapore’s school leaders. This led to the opening of the Singapore Principals’ Executive Centre (PEC) in 1996. The PEC is operated through the joint efforts of the National Institute of Education (NIE) at Nanyang Technological University and the Ministry of Education. Since its opening, the PEC has built on the earlier efforts to reshape the landscape of school leadership development in Singapore. Today a full range of preparation and development programs is offered for Singapore’s school leaders from pre-induction through all phases of career development. The PEC and other programs offered at NIE represent the core delivery mechanism. These programs combine the advantages of university’s intellectual assets with the focus and support of the Ministry of Education. The PEC’s programs are strongly linked to the delivery structure of Singapore’s schools. For example, the PEC’s programs support clusters of Singapore schools, a feature of recent educational reforms. Yet, it does this within the context of a strongly held, shared vision of the role of school education. This represents perhaps the strongest feature of Singapore’s efforts in this domain. They have integrated school leadership preparation and development into a broader systemic model of educational reform rather than as a separate entity. School leadership development is linked to the system’s vision of lifelong learning and productive personal, professional development. If successfully implemented, Singapore’s model of school leadership development addresses the core tension in system-led attempts at school leader preparation. This concerns how to meet system needs while honouring the aspirations and needs of individual school leaders. While the results of this approach remain anecdotal, the approach itself is worthy of both emulation and further study. 4.4. Hong Kong Up until the year 2000, the Hong Kong Education Department held no systemwide expectations for the training of school leaders. Lam summarises the situation: Rising through the teaching rank and file, most did not receive formal


1004 Hallinger

training in administration or leadership. Most will have attended a few workshops provided by the Department of Education. These ad hoc sessions would have focused primarily on clarifying education policies, curricular matters and foreign educational concepts. What we think of as true professional development opportunities for them are few and far between. Further studies beyond the basic degree are not required; therefore, only a handful have pursued graduate studies on their own. (Lam, in press)

Although the Education Department is responsible for the overall standard and curriculum of education in Hong Kong, it supervises an unusual mix of government-controlled and independent schools. Its power over the independent schools, which serve a significant percentage of the population, is more limited than in Thailand, Singapore or Malaysia. This was reflected in their ad hoc approach to the preparation and development of school leaders. Several Hong Kong universities have offered preparation programs in educational administration for many years. As suggested by Lam (in press), however, participation in these programs was entirely voluntary. Moreover, in contrast to Singapore for example, there have never been links between training and promotion, certification or system goals in Hong Kong. In 1999, under the leadership of a new Director, the Education Department placed school leader preparation and development in the spotlight. The Director of Education asserted that the city’s aspirations for educational reform would be for naught unless the system’s school principals were able to operate at a higher level of effectiveness. Indeed she made an explicit assertion that the limited leadership capacity of the current cohort of school principals represented an impediment to system-wide reform. This led to a series of initiatives aimed at upgrading the professional preparation, training, selection and certification of principals. In response several universities have since established centres called ‘educational leadership centres’. The mission of these centres is still unclear and will probably remain so until greater clarity emerges from the Education Department itself. Lam (in press) notes that

The government has attempted to rectify the situation by making professional training mandatory for principals at different stages of their careers. In the blueprint, which is being developed and refined, three categories of individuals are recognised: ‘aspiring’ principals, ‘newly appointed’ principals, and ‘experienced’ principals’ (Lam, in press). Unfortunately, as is too often the case, system priorities have shifted as the Director who was providing the impetus for this reform has been promoted and some momentum has been lost. It is too soon to tell whether Hong Kong will be able to meet the challenge of implementing its ambitious goals for school leader preparation and development.



5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE IN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT This brief review of trends in school leader preparation in East and Southeast Asia suggest several recommendations for the organisation and practice of school leader preparation and development. These derive from the past decade of emerging efforts among practitioners and researchers in this field in the Asian region. (1) New globally-derived, research-based findings as well as indigenous craft knowledge about teaching and learning and leading schools represent legitimate subjects for learning among prospective and practising school leaders. As noted above, a knowledge base drawn from the fields of leadership (inside and outside of education) as well as from teaching and learning provides the basis for forthcoming leadership development efforts. There is knowledge and there are skills worthy of mastery by school leaders and that knowledge base is not static. The lessons learned from each of the education systems mentioned in this chapter emphasise the need to localise the curriculum. This is true even as global issues (e.g., student-centred learning, use of IT in management and in teaching and learning) also increase in salience. (2) T he changing knowledge base and context for school leadership makes lifelong learning a fundamental facet of the professional role. Annual attendance at a convention no longer suffices as a leader’s efforts at professional development. Lifelong learning has become a necessary and fundamental facet of the school leader’s role. Encouragement of a norm of lifelong learning stands as one of the hallmark achievements of the principal’s centre movement started at Harvard University in the early 1980s. It would be a serious mistake for Asian systems to stop their efforts at leadership development at the end of the preparation and induction stages. (3) T he process of leadership development should actively engage learners and be organised, at least in part, around the problems that school leaders face in their work. One innovation of the 1990s in professional education generally, as well as in school leadership was problem-based learning (PBL). PBL places the academic disciplines and formal knowledge base at the service of the profession and provides an active means of instruction that respects and builds upon the prior knowledge of learners (Bridges & Hallinger, 1995). Moreover, PBL seems highly adaptable as a means of responding to the need to integrate indigenous craft knowledge into the training for school leaders (e.g., Hallinger & Kantamara, 2001; Walker et al., 1996).


1006 Hallinger

Moreover, other non-traditional approaches to professional learning have found their way into practice in recent years. For example, apprenticeships and mentorships also have the potential to develop dimensions of leadership that are seemingly immune to traditional lecture and discussion on leadership topics (Chong, Stott, & Low, in press; Low, 1999). Simulations and the use of information technology likewise have the potential to reenergize learning and develop the thinking of school leaders (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). (4) Implementation of new knowledge and skills requires a flexible combination of on-site coaching and networks of support in the schools that function as and within learning organisations. Evaluations of leadership development efforts find that exposure to new knowledge through training bears only a small relationship to change in practice at the school (Hallinger, 1992). Leadership development intended for behavioural change must include a support component that all too often is absent. The operative principle is that school leaders need the same support for behavioural change as teachers: motivation to learn, time to learn, resources for learning, a model, a coach and opportunities for practice. To the extent that twenty-first century schools can foster the norms and practices of learning organisations, they can mitigate some of the obstacles to professional learning. Again Singapore’s attempt to develop ‘‘thinking schools and a learning society’’ exemplifies this approach (Chong, Stott, & Low, in press). (5) Professional development of school leaders must take place in a broader context of professionalisation of education. The past two decades have seen demonstrable progress in the attitude of school leaders towards the notion of lifelong learning. This must, however, be strengthened further through government policy as well as through the active engagement of the profession in charting the course of professional learning. Local school authorities need to examine the implicit expectations conveyed by the system, as well as formal policies with respect to professional development: Does the system expect school leaders to engage in ongoing development? Do governmental units provide resources to support both learning and implementation? Do policies provide a framework of support for prospective and current leaders? The time has come for school leaders to engage with parties inside the profession (e.g., universities, research institutions and professional associations) as well as outside the profession (e.g., governments, corporations and community institutions) to define the agenda for professional learning and development in the coming years (Caldwell, 1998, in press; Davis, 1999). 6. EMERGING DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH As suggested in the body of this chapter, there is much to be learned from empirical research into school leadership development in the Asia-Pacific region.



A framework for thinking about important areas and questions for research in this domains is required. W ho participates? Although descriptive research on the nature of participants is not an obvious topic, this would prove to be useful information. There is little information available across the region about who is participating in pre-service and in-service preparation and development. Gender, years of experience and other personal variables, when combined with patterns of participation and career advancement through the system, would represent interesting data. Curriculum, delivery, organisation and governance. As suggested above, dual goals for system change and personal, professional development create tension for providers and school leaders. Better information is needed on curricula, instructional methods in use, delivery methods and forms of governance. A data bank of such information would be invaluable to local providers in the region who often find themselves reinventing the wheel. Research on the impact of training and development. A weakness internationally in studies of leadership development is the tendency to stop at descriptive studies. There is a clear need for empirical studies that examine the impact of training on knowledge, skills and attitudes of learners. This is unfamiliar territory for many students of educational administration. Heck (in press) offers useful examples. In particular, longitudinal studies that also explore transfer of learning seem appropriate here. Impact on the system. Research that examines system changes that result from leadership development efforts is also needed. One clear lesson from learning organisations is that training alone does not bring about substantial changes. It is only when implemented in concert with other reforms that the impact can be adequately assessed. This is especially true when reference is made to the education system. Next generation studies of the impact of leadership development, therefore, ought to be both micro-studies and macro-studies. Micro-studies would examine the impact on individuals. Macro-studies would explore effects of training along with other variables that would combine to create effects on the education system. Outcomes variables of interest would include professionalism, change capacity and impact on teachers. This article has sought to provide an overview of trends in school leadership development in the Asia Pacific region. More specifically, the article has focused on the challenges of preparing school leaders to assume the tasks of educational reform and improvement in East and Southeast Asian education systems. This is an exciting time full of challenges and opportunities in this domain of educational development. It is hoped that the profession will take advantage of these opportunities for the benefit of the region’s youth.


1008 Hallinger

REFERENCES Abdullah, A. S. (1999). T he school management and leadership directions in Malaysia for the 21st century. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Asian Symposium on Educational Management and Leadership, Penang, Malaysia. Bajunid, I. (1995). The educational administrator as a cultural leader. Journal of the Malaysian Educational Manager, 1(1), 16–29. Bajunid, I. A. (1996). Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Education Administration, 34(5), 50–73. Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1995). Implementing problem-based leadership development. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse for Educational Management. Caldwell, B. (1998). Strategic leadership, resource management and effective school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 445–461. Caldwell, B. (in press). A blueprint for successful leadership in an era of globalisation in learning. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Cheng, K. M. (1994). Quality of education as perceived in Chinese culture. In T. Tanaka (Ed.), Quality of Education in the Context of Culture in Developing Countries (pp. 67–84). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Cheng, K. M. (1995). The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in educational administration. In K. C. Wong & K. M. Cheng (Eds.), Educational L eadership and Change: An International Perspective (pp. 87–104). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Cheng, K. M., & Wong, K. C. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia: Concepts, origins and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32–49. Cheng, Y. C. (1991). Leadership style of principals and organisational process in secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2), 25–37. Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance: Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools. School eVectiveness and school improvement, 5(3), 299–317 Cheng, Y. C. (2001). Multi-models of education quality and principal leadership. In K. H. Mok & D. Chan (Eds.), T he Quest for Quality Education in Hong Kong: T heory and Practice. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Cheng, Y. C., & Townsend, T. (2000). Educational change and development in the Asia Pacific region: Trends and issues. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational Change and Development in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for the Future (pp. 317–344). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Chong K. C., Stott, K., & Low, G. T. (in press). Developing Singapore school leaders for a learning nation. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Davis, B. (1999, June). Credit where credit is due: T he professional accreditation and continuing education of school principals in V ictoria. Paper presented at the Conference on Professional Development of School Leaders, Centre for Educational Leadership, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998). Transforming Hong Kong’s schools: Trends and emerging issues. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 476–491. Fwu, B. J., & Wang, H. H. (2001). Principals at the crossroads: Profiles, preparation and role perception of secondary school principals in T aiwan. Paper presented at the International Conference on School Leader Preparation, Licensure, Certification, Selection, Evaluation and Professional Development, Taipei, ROC. Gopinathan, S., & Kam, H. W. (2000). Educational change and development in Singapore. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational Change and Development in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for the Future (pp. 163–184), Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Hallinger, P. (1992). School leadership development: Evaluating a decade of reform. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 300–316.


School L eadership Development 1009 Hallinger, P. (1998). Educational change in the Asia-Pacific region: The challenge of creating learning systems. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 492–509. Hallinger, P. (2000). The changing context of Thai education: New challenges for school leaders. Chulalongkorn Educational Review, 7(1), 1–13. Hallinger, P. (in press). School leadership development: Global challenges and opportunities. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1997). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness. School EVectiveness and School Improvement, 8(4), 1–35. Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2000a). Educational change in Thailand: Opening a window onto leadership as a cultural process. School L eadership and Management, 20(1), 189–206. Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2000b). Leading at the confluence of tradition and globalization: The challenge of change in Thai schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 45–57. Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Learning to lead global changes across cultures: Designing a computer-based simulation for Thai school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(3), 197–220. Hallinger, P., & McCary, M. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 90–108. Heck, R. (in press). Examining the impact of professional preparation on beginning school administrators. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Huber, S. (in press). School leader development: Current trends from a global perspective. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Lam, J. (in press). Balancing stability and change: Implications for professional preparation and development of principals in Hong Kong. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Li, W. C. (1999, June). Organizing Principal T raining in China: Models, Problems and Prospects. Paper presented at the Conference on Professional Development of School Leaders, Centre for Educational Leadership, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong. Low, G. T. (1999, June). Preparation of aspiring principals in Singapore: A Partnership Model. Paper presented at the Conference on Professional Development of School Leaders, Centre for Educational Leadership, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Ministry of Education-R. O. C. (1998). T owards a L earning Society. Republic of China: Ministry of Education, Taipei. Ministry of Education-Thailand. (1997a). Introducing the OYce of the National Primary Education Commission. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education-Thailand. (1997b). T he Experience from the Basic and Occupational Education and T raining Programme. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Education. Murphy, J., & Shipman, N. (in press). Developing standards for school leadership development: A process and rationale. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the L andscape of School L eadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Pang, N. S. K. (1998, April). Organisational Cultures of Excellent Schools in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. Rahimah, H. A. (1998). Educational development and reformation in Malaysia: Past, present and future. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 462–475. Walker, A., Bridges, E., & Chan, B. (1996). Wisdom gained, wisdom given: Instituting PBL in a Chinese culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 34 (5), 98–119. Yang, C. L. (2001). T he changing principalship and its implications for preparing, selecting and evaluating principals. Paper presented at the International Conference on School Leader Preparation, Licensure, Certification, Selection, Evaluation and Professional Development, Taipei, ROC.
