Open access peer-reviewed chapter

The Changing Landscape of Leadership in Early Childhood Education in China

Written By

Dora Ho, Mo Wang and Pan He

Submitted: September 18th, 2018 Reviewed: January 29th, 2019 Published: March 5th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84799

Chapter metrics overview

1,688 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

This chapter aims to offer a theoretical discussion on the changing landscape of leadership and explores the emerging practice of teacher leadership in ECE in China. In 2010, the central government of China introduced several waves of policies relating to teacher professional development to improve and promote the quality of ECE. The global discourses mainly developed in the West have indicated that school leadership plays an important role in promoting teachers’ professional development and the quality of education. These discourses have influenced the agenda for educational reform in China as reflected in the recent strategies formulated for the development of school leadership in ECE. Historically, ECE teachers have been viewed as babysitters rather than as educators, and preschool principals have been considered policy implementers and school managers rather than school leaders of innovation and change. This chapter discusses the changing landscape of school leadership in China’s ECE and how it is influenced by a hierarchical culture. It is argued that the practices of school leadership have been largely centralised in the hands of preschool principals, alongside of which there has been an emergence of teacher leadership co-exercised with principalship in home-school networks and teaching research groups.

Keywords

  • China
  • early childhood education
  • education policy
  • leadership
  • quality education

1. Introduction

Research on the relationship between the quality of early childhood education (ECE) and child outcomes has shown that government policy and management have been important influencing factors [1]. Government support is necessary to ensure high-quality education for young children [2, 3]. The positive impacts arising from government support for better student outcomes include the acquisition of pre-literacy skills [4], improved socio-emotionality [5], academic performance, language skills and classroom behaviour [3]. High-quality ECE has also been proven to benefit the family and society as a whole. In terms of family development, high-quality ECE can raise female employment rates. It can also promote positive parenthood and relieve mothers’ stress. In terms of social capital development, the results of the Perry Preschool Project indicated that the rate of return on investment for ECE is 1:7.16 by the time a child reaches 27 years of age [6]. With growing awareness of ECE’s importance, the Chinese central government has focused on its development in the past decade [7]. The year 2010 is considered the ‘New Spring Time’ of ECE. The State Council issued two policy documents: Compendium for China’s Mid- and Long-Term Education Development (2010–2020) and State Council’s Several Suggestions Regarding Developing ECE, both addressing ECE as the foundation of basic education. In these two documents, the central government set out its plans to achieve universal ECE by 2020. As a result, there has been a rapid increase in the number of students enrolled in ECE. In 2009, 51% of children of preschool age were enrolled in ECE. This increased to 80% in 2017. As a result of concern over the rapidly growing number of pre-schoolers, researchers have urged the central government to pay attention to the impact of the implementation of universal ECE on the overall quality of ECE [8, 9]. Since 2010, most local governments have initiated comprehensive reforms for ECE by establishing political authorities, increasing financial input, and supporting teacher training programmes [10]. Among these reforms, the teacher professional development policy has been widely considered to be the key factor in promoting the quality of ECE [11]. Under the policy, teachers are regarded as catalysts for educational reform [12] and the guardians of sustainable development in schools [13]. In particular, the notion of teacher leadership in promoting teachers’ professional development has received considerable attention [1419]. However, under the influence of a hierarchical culture in China, ECE leadership is largely centralised in the hands of preschool principals. There have thus been questions about how teachers can take on leadership roles in school change and development as advocated by the central government. This chapter aims to offer a theoretical discussion on the changing landscape of leadership and explores the emerging practice of teacher leadership in ECE in China.

Advertisement

2. Early childhood education in China

Since the late 1970s, China has engaged in an open-door policy to reform its economic system. The central government has regarded education as a force driving China to prosper, enhancing its national strength. As a result, ECE has been one of the priorities of the reform agenda. ECE in China broadly refers to the care and education of children from birth to 6 years old [20]. Preschool refers to ECE institutions that are run by different service providers. There are two main types of preschool: government and non-government organisations. In terms of school governance, all preschools in China are macro-controlled by the central government and micro-regulated by the local government of each province.

2.1 The governance of ECE

In 1978, the central government established the Department of ECE and Special Education in the General Education Division [21], signifying the beginning of the comprehensive reform of ECE. In 1979, the State Council established the ‘Leading Children’s Caring Work Team ECE’, consisting of teams from 13 departments, including the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the Federation of Trade Unions [22]. Local governments, including provincial governments, city governments and the governments of the autonomous regions, followed the policy of the central government and set up ECE departments to govern and lead local preschools. In the same year, the MOE (1979) published Urban Preschool Work Regulations to guide local governments’ work on ECE. In 1985, a policy document, Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of Education System was issued [23]. In the document, the central government stated that authority and power had been given to local governments to regulate ECE in their own provinces and it gave autonomy to preschool principals for school-based management and innovation. To decentralise school governance, the central government issued a series of policy documents to provide guidance for ECE institutions. These policy documents covered areas such as the distribution of autonomy to principals, the development agendas for ECE, improvement of teachers’ professional development and financial subsidies to preschools and children.

Since 1989, the management system of Chinese preschools has fallen under the domain of the Preschool Director’s Responsibility [24]. Under this system, preschool principals are responsible for handling all vital concerns and decisions, such as the school’s mission, training schemes and teacher employment; teachers rarely take on leadership roles. In China, the organisational structure of a preschool is generally hierarchical [25]. Liu described the typical organisational structure in China [26] (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The typical organisational structure of a preschool in China (Liu, 2015; [26]). (* A teaching research group (TRG) is a type of a professional learning community in a preschool that provides a platform for teachers to work together on curriculum innovation and pedagogy.

In general, the principal has the central administrative and managerial power to operate the preschool. The principal is the legal representative of the preschool and the chief administrative officer, empowered by law to exercise decision-making, administrative command, human resource management and financial management [27]. Since 1989, the principal’s responsibilities have changed from passively managing the preschool to actively directing it. Preschools have shifted from being externally controlled by the central and local governments to being internally controlled by the principal. Autonomy has been given to the principals for school-based management, and they are also accountable for the quality of the service provision. As a result, there has been a quest by principals to learn how to exercise their power and authority to lead daily operations within a decentralised system.

2.2 Teacher professional development policy

Before 1976, only one institution offered teacher education programmes: Nanjing Normal College (renamed Nanjing Normal University). In 1978, the MOE published the Opinions on Strengthening and Developing Teacher Education to require teacher education colleges and universities to establish ECE departments and increase their student intake. In 1980, the MOE issued two policy documents, the Opinions on Operating Secondary Normal Education and the Teaching Plans of Early Childhood Normal Education. These reiterated the importance of professional education for preschool teachers. As a result, the number of teacher education institutions providing preschool teacher education programmes increased from 1 in 1978 to 21 in 1980. In 1982, the State Council presented the Government Work Report to the National People’s Congress (NPC), highlighting the importance of ECE development as the top priority. Improving the quality of preschool teacher education programmes offered by those institutions was identified as a strategy for developing ECE. In 1988, the MOE issued the Opinions on the Further Development of Programmes of Preschool Teachers in Vocational Secondary Schools. In this document, the government highlighted the importance of teacher education and professional development and stipulated the eligibility requirements for offering preschool teacher training programmes, the specifications for programme structure and content and student enrolment. In 1995, the MOE issued the Teaching Project for Three-year Programme of Secondary Preschool Teacher Normal Education. In this document, the government provided the objectives and curriculum models for preschool teacher education. The next year, the MOE (1996) issued Some Opinions on the Reform and Development of Teacher Education [28]. In 2003, the State Council issued Guides of the Reform and Development of Early Childhood Education. In the latter two documents, the central government stated that preschool teacher education needed to be reformed and suggested that preschool teachers should receive both formal and informal teacher education.

Since 2010, teacher education policies have focused on improving teachers’ professional development. Through teacher education, teachers have been equipped with professional knowledge, skills and attitude [29], which has contributed to improving the quality of ECE [30, 31]. There have been three types of training programme: short-term concentrated training, job-transfer training and backbone teacher1 exchange off-job training. By 2013, a total of 310,000 preschool teachers had participated in these programmes. To further enhance teacher professional development and the quality of ECE, two policy documents, Preschool Teachers’ Professional Standards (PTPS) and the Guide for 3–6-Year-Old Children’s Learning and Development (GCLD) were issued by the MOE in 2012. The PTPS highlighted three basic concepts: child-focused teacher ethics, the ability for heavy learning and lifelong learning. There were also three frames of essential content: professional, philosophical and ethical; professional knowledge; and professional competencies. The GCLD aimed to provide preschool teachers with a better understanding of the basic characteristics and milestones of child development. Conforming to the regulations of The Guidance of ECE (trial version) issued in 2001, the GCLD divided the content of ECE into five subject areas: health, science, society, language and art. In addition, it provided 87 guidelines on good child-rearing practices for preschool teachers and parents to reference. The GCLD was influenced by Western theories, namely child-centredness, learning through play, school self-evaluation and school-based management. However, these Western theories would have to be critically reviewed before they could be successfully adapted to the preschools in China [3234].

Similarly influenced by Western ideologies on teachers as change agents, developing teacher leadership has recently been recognised as one of the key reform initiatives needed to improve educational quality. In this regard, the MOE issued two policy documents in 2012: Preschool Teachers’ Professional Standards and Preschool Job Directive Rules. The former highlighted four basic concepts for preschool teachers: a morality-first standard, a child-focused approach, an emphasis on teacher competence and the pursuit of lifelong learning. There were also three frames of essential content: professional philosophy and ethics, professional knowledge and professional competencies. The latter addressed the roles of preschool teachers in seven domains: (a) establishing a learning environment, (b) organising and caring for children, (c) support and guidance during play activities, (d) planning and implementation of education activities, (e) evaluation and motivation, (f) communication and collaboration and (g) reflection and development. The Preschool Job Directive Rules issued in 2016 highlighted the roles of preschool teachers as follows: (a) providing and implementing an education work plan, (b) establishing the learning environment, (c) guiding and cooperating with childcare workers, (d) keeping in touch with parents, (e) participating in vocational study and research activities on care and education and (f) evaluating the outcomes of child care and education.

The reform initiatives have revealed that although preschool teachers in China have been expected to take on various leadership roles, they have remained confined to classroom teaching. Research has also shown that teachers who assume that leadership roles have a higher level of professionalism are willing to take on roles in promoting curriculum innovation, student learning and organisational development [35]. Therefore, it is imperative that preschool principals empower teachers to take on leadership roles outside the classroom.

2.3 The ECE teaching force

Sustaining ECE in China is dependent on effective management systems, sufficient financial inputs and the quantity and quality of professionally trained teachers [36]. However, there have been issues with the management systems of local governments, including ill-defined functions and responsibilities, mismatched personnel allocation and insufficient financial inputs [37]. In addition, the weak professional identity and the low social status of teachers negatively influence the development of the ECE teaching force in China [38].

Another issue is China’s shortage of preschool teachers, which is a major challenge to ECE development. Figure 2 shows that the number of teachers increased from 1,315,634 in 2011 to 2,432,138 in 2017, and the teacher-child ratio gradually improved from 1:26 to 1:19 (Figure 3). Nonetheless, a severe shortage of preschool teachers is predicted over the next few years. According to the Compendium for China’s Mid- and Long-Term Education Development (2010–2020), there will be a 75% increase in the number of preschool-aged children by 2020. An additional 155,200 preschool teachers will be required by then [39]. The new challenge is tied to the Two-child Policy, implemented in 2016. Couples are now permitted to have more children and are expected to do so. It is projected that such population growth will have an impact on ECE development. For example, the shortage of ECE teachers is predicted to reach 2.4 million by 2020 [40]. There are several reasons for this, including teachers’ low wages, low social status and job insecurity [13]. In the past, this has led to a high attrition rate and wastage among preschool teachers in China. For example, in Beijing, one out of three teachers in private preschools resigns each year [41].

Figure 2.

Number of teachers and student enrolment in 2011–2017.

Figure 3.

Preschool teacher-child ratio in 2011–2017.

Due to low professional entry qualifications, preschool teachers’ professional status has not been well recognised in China [42]. As shown in Figure 4, the rate of educational attainment (for example, an Associate degree or above) gradually increased from 2011 to 2017, but in 2017, only 21% of preschool teachers had obtained an undergraduate degree or above. This may lead to preschool teachers’ poor self-image and low level of professionalism [42, 43]. Indeed, teachers in Chinese preschools often consider teaching and taking care of children as their sole function. This perception is rooted in the belief that preschool teachers in China are followers who do not take responsibility for anything other than teaching and caring inside the classroom. However, several previous studies have indicated that teachers play a key role as change agents for school development and improvement [32, 44]. Teachers with a strong professional identity perceive themselves to be effective leaders and active participants in decision-making, and vice versa [43]. Freidson stated that professionalism enables teachers to cultivate a sense of self-direction, independence and autonomy [45]. It is therefore important for the public to openly recognise preschool teachers’ professionalism. This is one of the ways teachers could be influenced to assume leadership roles in school development and improvement.

Figure 4.

Educational attainment of ECE teachers in 2011–2017.

Advertisement

3. Chinese culture

Fan described culture as ‘the collection of values, beliefs, behaviours, customs and attitudes that distinguish a society’ ([46] p3). Societal culture is a complex and multidimensional concept. It has also been viewed as an important factor influencing leadership practices and how leadership is conceptualised [47].

China is a developing country with 5000 years of history and the largest population in the world. With its long historical development, it is axiomatic that school leadership practices would be affected by Chinese culture. There have been numerous studies on school leadership in the Chinese cultural context. For example, Bush and Qian generalised four types of Chinese culture, representing the different stages of history: traditional culture, socialist culture, enterprise culture and patriarchal culture [48]. Traditional culture is rooted in the pervasive influence of Confucianism for over 2500 years. In the school context, traditional culture is often associated with centralised authority, collectivism and harmony. Socialist culture has become influential since the Chinese Civil War in 1945–1949. This type of culture has politicised the centralised power and authority of school principals in decision-making. Enterprise culture has promoted the importance of marketization in education system since the implementation of Open Door Policy for transforming China’s economy since the late 1970s. Patriarchal culture has influenced how people in Chinese societies understand, perceive and enact the role of men and women in school leadership. In addition, Hofstede identified four dimensions of cultural values: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity [49]. Some have suggested that Hofstede’s work on individualism versus collectivism and power distance would have been better defined in terms of loyal involvement and utilitarian involvement, representing varying orientations towards the continuity of group membership, just as conservatism and egalitarian commitment represent different orientations towards the obligations of social relationships [50]. Schwartz undertook detailed work on cultural values, defining six types: conservatism, intellectual and affective autonomy, harmony, egalitarian commitment, mastery and hierarchy [51]. In addition to the dimensions of cultural values mentioned above, Confucianism has commonly been relied on to describe leadership cultures in the Chinese context [32, 52]. Cultural values in China are highly complex. These cultural values are deeply embedded in leadership practices. A plethora of research has focused on school leadership in China. From this, three mainstream Chinese cultural systems have been captured: Confucianism, collectivism and Chinese communism [52]. A study conducted by Ho has found that the leadership practices and collegiality are shaped by the presence of collective, harmonious relationships under the influence of Confucianism [43]. Fu and Tsui depict that ‘hard working, devoted, action-oriented, determined, servicing, abide by principles, collectivistic, corruption resistant, democratic, optimistic, relying on followers, self-sacrificing, value driven, and visionary’ are unique characteristics of leadership in the Chinese context ([53] p442). These characteristics are perceived as compatible with the communist ideologies. Research on how the moral integrity of school principals is influenced by the Chinese communism has been a focus of educational leadership since the late 1990s [54, 55].

Cultural contexts shape the ways in which leaders enact leadership practices [56]. That is, leadership concepts and behaviours that appear similar can be interpreted differently due to their different socio-cultural contexts [57]. The interpretation of leadership concepts and behaviours in the Chinese context has been influenced by the Chinese culture. Hence, there is a need to understand the practices of school leadership through the lens of the Chinese cultural system rather than solely through Western theoretical perspectives [48].

Since the 1990s, scholars working in the school leadership field have argued that when applying the theories and practices of school leadership across cultures, special attention should be paid to socio-cultural contexts (e.g., [5860]). Culture influences the thinking and behaviour of various school stakeholders, including students, teachers, principals, administrators, parents and policy makers [59]. However, the recent literature (e.g., [6163]) has indicated that the cultural factors have not yet been adequately addressed by relevant studies on school leadership [64]. Indeed, school leadership studies conducted in Asia, including China, have been criticised for being full of ‘cultural borrowing’ [63].

Because leadership is a value-laden concept [65, 66] influenced by social, political, cultural and economic contexts [33, 48], when looking at Chinese schools, it is important to understand the influence of Chinese culture on leadership concepts and behaviours through the lens of cultural values. Numerous studies have attempted to identify the influence of Chinese culture on leadership concepts and practices (e.g., [52, 59]). This must now be extended to include the Chinese educational stakeholders in ECE and how the Chinese culture influences their interpretations of leadership concepts and behaviours.

Advertisement

4. The changing landscape of school leadership

As previously mentioned, since 1989, the management system of preschools in China has fallen under the domain of the Preschool Director’s Responsibility [24]. Within this domain, preschool principals are responsible for handling all vital concerns and decisions. However, ECE in China has been changing rapidly due to a number of factors, such as the introduction of universal ECE, changed government policy, increasing student enrolment rates, improved standards regarding teacher qualifications and professional development. In this changing context, the practice of school leadership has been evolving. It has been argued that teacher leadership is a key factor in the success of school change [67, 68]. Teacher leadership in ECE has been emerging in the context of educational reform [69]. Teacher leadership has a close relationship with teachers’ professional development [16, 17, 19, 70]. It also leads to higher levels of job satisfaction and teacher retention [71], promotes continuing professional development [72, 73] and drives teachers to exciting endeavours [74]. Hulin and Judge noted that teachers who engage in leading roles have better job satisfaction [75]. This is beneficial to their psychological well-being. Research has found that teachers with greater job satisfaction are more willing to participate in school decision-making [76]. Given that teacher leadership is critical to teachers’ job satisfaction and teacher retention, it is important to explore the practices of ECE teacher leadership in China. In this way, a sustainable and high-quality teaching force can be promoted and built. Recent studies on school development have focused on the relationship between teacher leadership and continuing professional development. It has been found that continuing professional development could build a teacher’s capacity to lead his or her colleagues to change [19, 77]. This implies that it is important to build teachers’ leadership capacity. Through such a process, teachers can develop self-direction, independence and autonomy. To formulate a theoretical framework that can be used in the foreground of research into school leadership in ECE in China, we conceptualise three types of leadership practices: centralised, co-existing and decentralised.

4.1 Centralised leadership

Staff-management has been identified as a key component of school leadership [78]. In ECE in China, it has mainly been the province of preschool principals. They seldom involve their subordinates in staff management. In other words, the exercise of power and authority is largely centralised in the hands of preschool principals and in a form of single leadership.

Under centralised leadership, principals have absolute power and authority over staff management; it is a top-down management approach [79, 80]. This type of leadership practice has been commonly accepted by the subordinates in Chinese preschools who have agreed that ‘only the principal has the final say’ [69]. In Confucian society, the sovereign-subject relationship required followers to obey their leaders’ orders. Based on that tradition, preschool principals in China today are responsible for handling all vital decisions. Teachers rarely assume leadership roles at the organisational level. In this situation, it is common for teachers to perceive themselves as followers and hold passive attitudes towards decision-making in staff management, hesitating to take on leading roles [80].

4.2 Co-existing leadership

In preschool organisational structures, the parent-school committee and party branch are parallel to the principals. By establishing a party branch, the Communist Party ensures its policies are implemented and political education is provided to the faculties and students [81]. Normally, there are two vice principals. One is the leader of the teaching research group (TRG). The other oversees logistics and is the secretary of the party branch [82]. Modelled after the Soviet Union in the 1950s, all schools in China began to establish TRGs as a formal functional group within the organisational structure. The responsibility of the TRGs is to coordinate teachers so they can implement the educational policies stipulated by local governments, work together on the curriculum and pedagogical innovations and participate in professional development and exchange [83]. Although the central government has defined TRGs as teacher professional learning communities instead of administrative organisations [84], TRGs not only work on teacher professional development and teaching issues, but also address teachers’ affairs beyond teaching and learning. For example, they prepare teachers for job promotions, help resolve their personal problems and endeavour to improve their interpersonal skills [85]. To this extent, TRGs partly share the administrative tasks of teacher management [86, 87]. Due to their dual role in leading curriculum development and teacher management, TRGs are able to promote collaborative work among teachers and encourage them to learn from each other, nurturing a democratic, positive, harmonious and open-minded subculture within the group. TRGs harmoniously enact collegiality within the hierarchical and bureaucratic system and provide a countervailing influence to the power of the principals [88].

In ECE, the leaders of TRGs are generally regarded as formal leaders in curriculum development [86]. The roles of TRG leaders in China’s preschools vary, depending on their positions within the organisational structure and their responsibilities. A number of studies on TRGS have revealed that their leaders play a key role in facilitating communications between senior leaders and classroom teachers [8991]. Because they work closely with principals, they are regarded as principals’ think tanks and assistants [90]. The leaders of TRGs play multiple roles in school management and leadership. Niu and Liu claimed that TRG leaders act as consultants to principals in school decisions [91]. Further, TRG leaders work as experts on the curriculum, pedagogy and educational research. They are both the coordinators of staff interpersonal relationships and external liaisons. They are managers of school administration and the internal trainers for staff professional development [92]. Shi and Xie found that the roles of TRG leaders had been changing from information conveyers to professional experts, from managers to leaders of learning and research and from teachers to self-reflective practitioners and researchers [93].

Recently, there has been a shift in attention from focusing on the personal traits and characteristics of TRG leaders to emphasising TRG leadership practices. For example, Gu argued that effective TRG leaders should have a sense of risk-taking, an awareness of teamwork and collaboration, an innovative mind-set and a strong commitment and dedication to education quality [94]. Bai asserted that a capable TRG leader is innovative and academically knowledgeable, good at organisational coordination and communication skills and embraced the spirit of teamwork [95]. Wang and Xin concluded that the characteristics of an effective TRG leader can be categorised into three areas [96]:

  1. Having high moral standards: clearly know the responsibilities, seek truth from the facts, have integrity in politics; dare to take responsibility, adhere to principles and persist to the bottom line of moral standards; sensibly treat the promotion.

  2. Being professional in work: able to lead teaching and research work and be leaders in professional development.

  3. Having a clear role identity of a TRG leader and being able to carry out its role and functions.

A study conducted by Guo showed that TRG leaders are good at teaching, communication and self-management. However, they are weak in curriculum planning, scientific research and coordination [85]. The reason for this is the lack of professional development and empowerment opportunities for TRG leaders.

4.3 Decentralised leadership

In the notion of teacher leadership, the teacher acts as the leader, influencing others to produce better educational practices and student outcomes [97, 98]. In ECE, parents are the key stakeholders. The involvement of parents in home-school committees can be understood as a vehicle for promoting teacher leadership because teachers have to work closely with parents for children’s learning and development [99, 100]. As Greenlee argued, teachers are the school personnel who work most closely with parents day-to-day [101]. Teachers are willing to take on a leading role when working with parents for home-school collaboration in order to promote the holistic development of young children.

In China’s ECE, the home-school committee is a common form of home-school collaboration. Within the network, the teacher leaders share their professional knowledge and child-rearing methods with parents. In turn, parental involvement plays a key role in school development [102]. Indeed, teacher leaders are expected to assume leadership roles to improve parental involvement [103]. It has been argued that compared with school principals, who are more concerned with administrative duties, classroom teachers have more opportunities to work with parents on the development of preschool children.

A study conducted in China indicated that classroom teachers are given the autonomy to engage in home-school committees, which is recognised as one type of teacher leadership practice [104]. This result reflects the introduction of two national policies, the Preschool Teachers’ Professional Standard and Preschool Job Directive Rules, which have encouraged teachers to become involved in home-school committees and have emphasised that communication with parents is one of the teachers’ leadership roles. In this regard, teacher leadership has emerged within China’s ECE.

Advertisement

5. Concluding remarks

This chapter aims to offer a theoretical discussion on the changing landscape of leadership and explores the emerging practice of teacher leadership in ECE in China. Since 2010, the Chinese central government has introduced several waves of policies related to teachers’ professional development, aimed at improving and promoting the quality of ECE. The global discourses mainly developed in the West have shown that school leadership plays an important role in promoting both teacher professional development and educational quality. These global discourses have influenced the reform agenda of the Chinese central government as reflected in the recent strategies formulated to develop school leadership in ECE. Against this background, the ECE teaching force has been recognised as the key to school improvement and development. Historically, ECE teachers have been viewed as babysitters rather than educators, and principals have been recognised as policy implementers and school managers rather than school leaders of innovation and change. As a result, preschool leadership has been placed as one of the top priorities in the reform agenda of ECE.

As previously discussed, school leadership practices in China’s ECE have been influenced by the Chinese hierarchical culture and the management system of Preschool Director’s Responsibility. To a certain extent, the changing ECE context has indicated that leadership practices are gradually transforming from centralised to decentralised. In a Chinese hierarchical culture, there are questions about the extent to which principals can delegate power and authority to teachers. It has been argued that preschool principals take control of staff management and rarely distribute power and authority to their subordinates. School principals solely depend on middle-level leaders, or even on themselves. Further, research has indicated that teachers perform teacher leadership practices at the school level based on the premise of principals’ power and authority [104]. Therefore, school principals should empower teachers to take on leadership roles at the school level. For example, school principals could empower teachers to provide suggestions on how to improve efficiency in the use of school operating funds, because teachers understand how such expenditures can promote teaching and learning. Doing so contributes to teachers’ self-efficacy and morale [105] and flattens the hierarchical structure [106].

To summarise, since the 1970s, the Chinese central government has implemented a comprehensive educational reform to improve various aspects of ECE, such as universal education, school governance, school management, financial resources, teacher education and professional development. Educational reform has been shaping the landscape of school leadership from a centralised to both of a co-existing and a decentralised form. The practice of teacher leadership has been emerging in the area of home-school committees and teaching research groups. This has suggested that the role of ECE in China is changing from babysitting to developmental nurturing. Preschools act as important institutions that help nurture and develop young generations. To conclude, the above discussion has begun to flesh out the fundamental issues of school leadership practices in political and cultural dimensions, providing direction for future leadership inquiry.

References

  1. 1. Rao N, Li H. Quality matters: Early childhood education policy in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care. 2009;179(3):233-245
  2. 2. Tout K, Starr R, Soli M, Moodie S, Kirby G, Boller K. The Child Care Quality Rating System (QRS) Assessment: Compendium of Quality Rating Systems and Evaluations. Washington, DC: Child Trends & Mathematica Policy Research; 2010
  3. 3. Zellman GL, Perlman M, Le VN, Setodji CM. Assessing the Validity of the Qualistar early Learning Quality Rating and Improvement System as a Tool for Improving Child-Care Quality. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2008
  4. 4. Sabol TJ, Pianta RC. Validating Virginia’s quality rating and improvement system among state-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2015;30:183-198
  5. 5. Thornburg KR, Mayfield WA, Hawks JS, Fuger KL. The Missouri Quality Rating System School Readiness Study: Executive Summary. Kansas City, MO: Center for Family Policy & Research University of Missouri and the Institute for Human Development University of Missouri; 2009
  6. 6. Heckman JJ. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science. 2006;312(5782):1900-1902
  7. 7. Qin XF, Wang M. Value analysis on generalized policy of preferences for preschool education [in Chinese]. Educational Research. 2011;12:28-31
  8. 8. Liu ZL. Making preschool education universal should improve the quality simultaneously [in Chinese]. Studies in Preschool Education. 2010;10:18-22
  9. 9. Wang M, Qin X. The value foundations and choice of generalized policy of preference of preschool education [in Chinese]. The Modern Education Journal. 2014;5:25-29
  10. 10. Qin XF, Wang M. The shackle and breakthrough of construction in generalized kindergarten [in Chinese]. Early Education. 2013;3:23-26
  11. 11. Sun M. The Concept of Tizhi (system) in Chinese Education. Liaoning people’s House: Shenyang, China; 2004
  12. 12. Kent AM. Improving teacher quality through professional development. Education. 2004;124(3):427-435
  13. 13. Wang M, Hong X, Pang L. Focus on the development of non-government kindergarten teaches in China: Issues, influence factors and policy suggestions [in Chinese]. Teacher Education Research. 2015;27(3):36-42
  14. 14. Berry B, Johnson D, Montgomery D. The power of teacher leadership. Education Leader. 2005;62(5):56-60
  15. 15. Danielson C. Teacher Leadership that Strengthens Professional Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2006
  16. 16. Frost D. From professional development to system change: Teacher leadership and innovation. Professional Development in Education. 2012;38(2):205-227
  17. 17. Hallet E. ‘We all share a common vision and passion’: Early years professionals reflect upon their leadership of practice role. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 2013;11(3):312-325
  18. 18. Muijs D, Harris A. Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2006;22(8):961-972
  19. 19. Poekert PE. Teacher leadership and professional development: Examining links between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional Development in Education. 2012;38(2):169-188
  20. 20. Ministry of Education. Guidance on Learning and Development for Children Aged 3-6 [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 2012
  21. 21. Tang S, Qian Y, Du LJ, Zheng Y. The 60-year chronicle of early childhood education of the people’s Republic of China (first part) [in Chinese]. Studies in Preschool Education. 2009;9:68-71
  22. 22. Ministry of Education. Urban Kindergarten Work Regulations [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1979
  23. 23. State Council of People Republic China. Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of Education System [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1985
  24. 24. Zhang Y. Management in early childhood education [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press; 2009
  25. 25. Li H. School-based curriculum development: An interview study of Chinese kindergartens. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006;33(4):223-229
  26. 26. Liu LF. Preschool principal leadership research in the background of educational reform [in Chinese][dissertation]. Shenyang, China: Northeastern University; 2015
  27. 27. Wang HC. Discussion about the two misunderstanding in the implementation of the principal responsibility system [in Chinese]. Studies in Preschool Education. 2000;6:47-48
  28. 28. Ministry of Education. Some Opinions on the Reform and development of Teacher Education [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1996
  29. 29. Fukkink RG, Lont A. Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2007;22(3):294-311
  30. 30. Kelley RC, Thornton B, Daugherty R. Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education. 2005;126(1):17-26
  31. 31. Riley DA, Roach MA. Helping teachers grow: Toward theory and practice of an “emergent curriculum” model of staff development. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006;33(5):363-370
  32. 32. Ho D, Tikly LP. Conceptualizing teacher leadership in a Chinese, policy-driven context: A research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2012;23(4):401-416
  33. 33. Wang J, Elicker J, McMullen M, Mao S. Chinese and American preschool teachers’ beliefs about early childhood curriculum. Early Child Development and Care. 2008;178(3):227-249
  34. 34. Zhu J, Zhang J. Contemporary trends and developments in early childhood education in China. Early Years. 2008;28(2):173-182
  35. 35. Ngcobo T, Tikly LP. Key dimensions of effective leadership for change: A focus on township and rural schools in South Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2010;38(2):202-228
  36. 36. Qin XF, Wang M. A theoretical analysis & practical construction of the standard of generally beneficial kindergarten [in Chinese]. Theory and Practice of Education. 2014;34(9):36-38
  37. 37. Pang LJ, Fan ML. Problems and challenges in the management system of early childhood education in current China [in Chinese]. Research in Educational Development. 2012;4:39-43
  38. 38. Zhang AR, Wang M. “Personnel agency”: A new personnel management model for temporary kindergarten teachers [in Chinese]. Teacher Education Research. 2015;27(4):21-26
  39. 39. Zhang HR, Huang YY, Li L. Study on the demand of rural-urban early childhood education resources in China: Based on the prediction of school-aged population [in Chinese]. Educational Research. 2013;5:60-66
  40. 40. Liang WY, Wang WW, Shi YM. Analysis on the change trend of pre-school age population and education demand after population policy changed [in Chinese]. Global Education. 2014;43(9):82-91
  41. 41. Feng W, Tian P, Jiang H. Research on the progress and optimizing way of the allocation of kindergarten teachers of district: Based on the empirical analysis of the data from 2010 to 2015 in Beijing [in Chinese]. Teacher Education Research. 2017;29(3):39-45
  42. 42. Zhang L, Yu S. “I am not a babysitter”: A case study of five Chinese mainland early childhood teachers’ identity. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2017;43(1):117-119
  43. 43. Ho D. The paradox of power in leadership in early childhood education. Peabody Journal of Education. 2012;87(2):253-266
  44. 44. Biesta G, Priestley M, Robinson S. The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching. 2015;21(6):624-640
  45. 45. Freidson E. Professionalism, the Third Logic: On the Practice of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago press; 2001
  46. 46. Fan Y. A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 2000;7(2):3-10
  47. 47. Ayman R, Korabik K. Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. The American Psychologist. 2010;65(3):157
  48. 48. Bush T, Qian H. Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2000;20(2):58-67
  49. 49. Hofstede G. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Reading in Psychology and Culture. 2011;2(1):2-26
  50. 50. Smith PB, Dugan S, Trompenaars F. National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1996;27(2):231-264
  51. 51. Schwartz SH. Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994
  52. 52. Lin C. Demystifying the chameleonic nature of Chinese leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 2008;14(4):303-321
  53. 53. Fu PP, Tsui AS. Utilizing printed media to understand desired leadership attributes in the People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2003;20(4):423-446
  54. 54. Hui HC, Tan CK. The moral component of effective leadership: The Chinese case. In: Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Elsevier; 1997
  55. 55. Walker A, Hu R, Qian H. Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2012;23(4):369-399
  56. 56. Leithwood K, Patten S, Jantzi D. Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2010;46(5):671-706
  57. 57. Qian H, Walker A, Li X. The west wind vs the east wind: Instructional leadership model in China. Journal of Educational Administration. 2017;55(2):186-206
  58. 58. Bajunid IA. Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Administration. 1996;34(5):50-73
  59. 59. Hallinger P, Leithwood K. Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education. 1998;73(2):126-151
  60. 60. Wong KC. Culture and moral leadership in education. Peabody Journal of Education. 1998;73(2):106-125
  61. 61. Hallinger P, Bryant D. Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and management in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration. 2013;51(5):618-637
  62. 62. Khalifa MA, Gooden MA, Davis JE. Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research. 2016;86(4):1272-1311
  63. 63. Walker A, Hallinger P. A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration. 2015;53(4):554-570
  64. 64. Truong TD, Hallinger P, Sanga K. Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2017;45(1):77-100
  65. 65. Gronn P. Leadership configurations. Leadership. 2009;5(3):381-394
  66. 66. Sergiovanni T. Leadership: What’s in it for Schools.? London: Routledge; 2005
  67. 67. Beachum F, Dentith AM. Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. The Educational Forum. 2004;68(3):276-286
  68. 68. Spillane JP, Diamond JB. A distributed perspective on and in practice. Distributed Leadership in Practice. 2007:146-166
  69. 69. Wang M, Ho D. Making sense of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2018;24:1-5
  70. 70. Chow AW. Teacher learning communities: The landscape of subject leadership. International Journal of Educational Management. 2016;30(2):287-307
  71. 71. Muijs D, Harris A. Teacher leadership in (in) action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2007;35(1):111-134
  72. 72. Hobson LD, Moss L. Analysis of teacher leadership as a teacher development model: An opportunity for reform and improved practice. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal. 2010;27(2):28-42
  73. 73. Olujuwon O, Perumal J. The impact of teacher leadership practices on school management in public secondary schools in Nigeria. In: 59th Year Book on Teacher Education. Japan: A publication of the International Council on Education for Teaching and Naruto University of Education; 2015
  74. 74. Nudrat F, Akhtar MS. Assessing potential for teacher leadership: The case of prospective teachers. Journal of Research & Reflections in Education. 2014;8(2):105-115
  75. 75. Hulin CL, Judge TA. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 12. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2003
  76. 76. Taylor WA. Leadership challenges for smaller organisations: Self-perceptions of TQM implementation. Omega. 1997;25(5):567-579
  77. 77. Demir K. The effect of organizational trust on the culture of teacher leadership in primary schools. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2015;15(3):621-634
  78. 78. Kwan P, Walker A. Vice-principalship in Hong Kong: Aspirations, competencies, and satisfaction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2008;19(1):73-97
  79. 79. Alegado PJE. The challenges of teacher leadership in the Philippines as experienced and perceived by teachers. International Journal of Educational Research. 2018;6(6):291-302
  80. 80. Ho D. Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education programmes. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2011;14(1):47-59
  81. 81. Sun M. Education system reform in China after 1978: Some practical implications. International Journal of Educational Management. 2010;24(4):314-329
  82. 82. Law WW. Educational leadership and culture in China: Dichotomies between Chinese and Anglo-American leadership traditions.? International Journal of Educational Development. 2012;32(2):273-282
  83. 83. Shen Y. Thoughts and practices on the construction of the teaching and research team of kindergartens [in Chinese]. New Countryside. 2011;5:4-6
  84. 84. Ministry of Education. Secondary School Provisional Regulation [in Chinese]. Beijing: Author; 1952
  85. 85. Guo CY. Defining the roles of the leaders of teaching-research groups in new curriculum [In Chinese]. Contemporary Educational Science. 2007;1:33-36
  86. 86. Hu Y. Empirical study on the nature of teaching and research group in secondary schools in China: A case study of secondary in the Urban Area of Beijing [in Chinese]. Journal of Educational Studies. 2012;8(6):78-89
  87. 87. Wang R. Roles of the leaders of teaching research groups in school transformation and reform [in Chinese]. Kecheng Yu Jiaoxue Guanli. 2011;12:40-41
  88. 88. Jarvis A. The necessity for collegiality: Power, authority and influence in the middle. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2012;40(4):480-493
  89. 89. Li YG, Yang HK. The roles of teaching research groups in leading teaching training [in Chinese]. Teacher Development. 2006;3:56-60
  90. 90. Liang P. Leaders of teaching research groups and their authority building [in Chinese]. New Study. 2009;3:28-32
  91. 91. Niu LL, Liu XR. Characteristics of leaders of teaching research groups [in Chinese]. Teachers’ World. 2012;6:19
  92. 92. Ma LQ. Roles of teaching research team leaders and professional development training [in Chinese]. Teacher’s World. 2007;2:66-68
  93. 93. Shi JD, Xie XJ. The changing of roles of leaders of teaching research groups [in Chinese]. Exploration Horizon. 2009;8:50-53
  94. 94. Gu Q, Sammons P, Mehta P. Leadership characteristics and practices in schools with different effectiveness and improvement profiles. School Leadership and Management. 2008;28(1):43-63
  95. 95. Bai R. The excellent leaders of teaching research groups in schools [in Chinese]. Teaching and Learning. 2013;4:43
  96. 96. Wang Y, Xin QX. What is a good teaching research group leader in school? [in Chinese]. New Study. 2014;6:22-24
  97. 97. Katzenmeyer M, Moller G. Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2001
  98. 98. York-Barr J, Duke K. What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research. 2004 Sep;74(3):255-316
  99. 99. Ho D. Exploring the definitions of quality early childhood programmes in a market-driven context: Case studies of two Hong Kong preschools. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2008;16(3):223-236
  100. 100. Svanbjörnsdóttir BM, Macdonald A, Frímannsson GH. Views of learning and a sense of community among students, paraprofessionals and parents in developing a school culture towards a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education. 2016;42(4):589-609
  101. 101. Greenlee BJ. Building teacher leadership capacity through educational leadership programs. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders. 2007;4(1):44-74
  102. 102. Barr J, Saltmarsh S. “It all comes down to the leadership” The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2014;42(4):491-505
  103. 103. Lindahl R. Shared leadership: Can it work in schools.? The Educational Forum. 2008;72(4):298-307
  104. 104. Wang M. Perceptions and its influencing factors of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China [dissertation]. Hong Kong: Education University of Hong Kong; 2018
  105. 105. Murphy J. Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2005
  106. 106. Rieckhoff BS, Larsen C. The impact of a professional development network on leadership development and school improvement goals. School-University Partnerships. 2012;5(1):57-73

Notes

  • The term ‘backbone teachers’ refers to those teachers whose performance in teaching and peer professional support is considered excellent in the eyes of other teaching staff.

Written By

Dora Ho, Mo Wang and Pan He

Submitted: September 18th, 2018 Reviewed: January 29th, 2019 Published: March 5th, 2019