Leadership Dynamics in the Ecosystems of School Reform in Taiwan

• In Event: Leading Schools Toward Ecosystems for Learning and Flourishing

Abstract

Objectives
The change literature emphasizes the crucial role of network relationships at reform (Daly & Finnigan, 2016) as well as leadership influence upon members throughout the school system (Shaked & Schechter, 2019; Spillane et al., 2018). In response, this study aims to understand school leadership from systems and networks perspectives in the context of ecosystems of school reform. The study asserts that school leadership can be best understood by examining the interconnected school networks that facilitate collaboration among individuals working towards transformative change. Thus, leadership is viewed as a system-level social phenomenon, intricately woven and shaped by interactions among members at various levels within the school systems.

Framework
This study draws on social network theory (Daly, 2010) and systems thinking in school leadership (Shaked & Schechter, 2019) to examine how leadership unfolds on three levels of a school’s social system: macro level on whole school network, meso level on subgroups, and micro level on relational ties between dyads of actors. Understanding school leadership spread at multiple levels offers a systemic view of leadership landscapes and reform ecosystems.

Data and Methods
This quantitative-oriented multi-case network study design involves two urban public elementary schools in Taiwan that assimilate in all counts but differ in their principal leadership style (prescriptive vs discretionary). The sample included all school teachers and administrators from two K-6 public schools in Taipei, who completed an annual survey during March and April in 2019 (baseline), 2020, and 2021. The survey asked respondents to assess the interaction with their school colleagues who has expertise and overall positive influence on their work in going about implementing schoolwide reform. The study employs network cohesion measures (density, fragmentation, degree centralization, dyad reciprocity, and transitivity) to describe the whole school network, core-periphery analysis to measure the subgroup structure, and the stochastic actor-oriented modeling (Snijders et al., 2010) using RSiena (Ripley et al., 2020) to characterize the change in relational ties around reform-related expertise.

Results
The prescriptive leadership approach positions the principal, who is actively involved with his initiation teams, at the center of the reform network directly connected with the teams, whereas the discretionary approach leaves the principal, who appoints the Head of C&I to lead the reform, at the periphery of the core network that is loosely connected with his administrative team. Serving on curriculum development committee and being in the same positional role seem to be dominating how ties are formed in the prescriptive case, whereas in the discretionary case ties are formed based on PLC membership and PLC leadership role.

Significance
This study provides evidence on leadership social landscape through examining peer influence networks on three levels of a school’s ecosystem of reform. Understanding these networks can unveil the footprint of leadership influence and how such patterns reflect organizational expectations and infrastructures, thus informing leadership approaches that promote equity and inclusivity. The study’s implications can act as a catalyst, inspiring school leaders to proactively engage in creating an ecosystem that fosters leadership opportunities within the context of educational reform.

Author

• Yi-Hwa Liou, National Taipei University of Education