Our support for non-confirmatory educational theory is also based on the fact that this approach, as will be shown, is at the heart of the Western, modern tradition of educational theory developed by “the classics.” The third of the questions (c) mentioned above that needs to be answered by a contemporary theory of education is that of cosmopolitanism.
Aim of This Chapter
First, we review curriculum/didactic theory and educational leadership studies, including a discussion of strengths and limitations. The first two sections analyze the literature from two different fields, educational leadership and curriculum/didactics theory.
Theorizing in Didaktik and Curriculum Studies
Also, contemporary developments on one of the continents may pass relatively unnoticed in the other. In the German-Nordic tradition, the discipline of education (Erziehungswissenschaft, Pädagogik), including Didaktik, identifies a difference between teaching activity (Ge.
Didaktik, Curriculum and Educational Leadership
Ultimately, in Westbury's analysis, the American curriculum tradition and Didaktik differ substantially according to their focus on the core of teaching, the role of the teacher and relationships between the individual (subject) and society. Our intention is to capture the process of curriculum; in the construction and implementation process there is educational leadership at various levels from classrooms to transnational levels.
Educational Leadership: Theoretical Roots and Empiricism
Therefore, our intention in what follows is to return to, but expand on, the theoretical base in order to re-theorize educational leadership (Uljens and Ylimaki 2015; Ylimaki and Uljens 2017). We will describe these empirical generalizations further when we explore the empirical turn in the field of educational leadership in the next section.
Social Reproduction and Social Transformation
At the same time, we argue that much of the development of educational leadership theory since the 1970s has been empirically based, framed in seminal leadership studies that were explicitly grounded in structural functionalist perspectives and organizational theories. Conceptualizing effective schools as "open systems", Lezotte and others argued that the school organization always maintains effectiveness and efficiency through its formal structures, functions and purposes of these, while at the same time recognizing and serving the various aspects of the external circumstances. . Such leadership studies emphasize instructional leadership as the role of the principal in educational organizations (schools), including practices such as supervision that affect classroom improvement and indirectly affect student outcomes (e.g.
In this literature from the 1980s, it is important to note that there was relatively little mention of teachers, department heads or assistant principals as instructional leaders; there has been little emphasis on instructional leadership as a distributed construct or function to be shared. While Hallinger and Murphy's (1985) instructional leadership model has been extensively tested and applied worldwide since the 1980s, we argue that this model is based on empiricism and the language of organization and administrative functions within it, with little of the language of pedagogy, of education or educational ontology.
Critical, Transformative Oriented Approaches
A number of researchers (e.g. Johnson 2007; McKenzie et al. 2008; Theoharis 2007) have studied leaders with a social justice orientation and identified ideals for leaders such as the importance of a critical perspective, self-awareness, ideological clarity and inclusiveness pedagogical practices. Other researchers (e.g., Bogotch 2002; Brooks et al. 2008) have similarly framed social justice leadership studies with a combination of previous transformative leadership models and their own empirical findings. Despite critical perspectives on pedagogical influence, these social justice leadership approaches include principals' pedagogical influence on teachers' use of inclusive classroom practices or critical pedagogy as well as resistance strategies.
Others have documented similar leadership preparation processes aimed at developing social justice-oriented leaders seeking equity and excellence in schools (e.g., Brunner et al. 2006; Miller and Martin 2015). Here, social justice is an object to be realized after teachers teach students how to achieve social transformation by changing the material conditions of students, parents, colleagues, and community members (Bogotch et al. in press).
Interpretive or Hermeneutic Approaches
Educational leadership as practiced at the national-state level by governments, central administration and municipalities is different from that of leadership in classrooms and schools – leadership is governing within organizations at the system level. Moos (2013) and others examine educational leadership in new forms of governance and policy emerging from neo-liberal states. Another approach that is receiving increasing attention in North American and European educational leadership research is actor network theory (Czarniawska and Sevón Czarniawska 2014; Latour 2005; Law 1986; Koyama 2011; Nyvaller 2015) inspired by Bruno Latour's sociology and Scandinavian institutionalism.
According to Rövik et al., the translational approach in educational management is 2014), an instrumentalization of Scandinavian-French organizational theory inspired by Latour (1986) and developed by Czarniawska and Sevon (2005). Based on our review of strengths and limitations in educational leadership studies, we make several points.
Conclusions Regarding Curriculum, Didaktik and Educational Leadership
Contemporary curriculum theory in the US is treated as separate from theories of teaching and learning, as well as separate from educational leadership and policy. Educational leadership as an organic part of the school system at different levels is a long-standing feature in the European tradition of "thick" states, i.e. In this contribution, the understanding of educational leadership is to see how curriculum and leadership are intertwined and connected to a broader understanding. of the school as a social institution.
By grounding empirical work in an underlying theory of education, we argue that educational leadership studies will more fully explain the current descriptive influence practices prevalent in much of the research. We argue that a simple amalgamation of curriculum-theoretical pedagogical leadership studies is not possible.
Non-affirmative Education Theory: Bridging Traditions and Grounding Comparative Research
In the German-Nordic tradition, a distinction is made between educational theory and educational theory (Benner 1991). The challenge for the theory of "education" (Pädagogik) is to explain how these two phenomena, the process of Bildung and the activity of Erziehung, are related to each other. On one level, non-affirmative educational theory is much less familiar in the North American context than in Nordic/European contexts.
In this respect, this project contributes to supporting a transcontinental dialogue on Bildung theory and related concepts of education, now including educational leadership. It is also very "modern" in recognizing the difficulty of education, which arises from a non-teleological social development, according to which we must educate ourselves for a future we do not know and cannot know.
Three Questions as Core Topics
We believe that it is not unproblematic to say "the process and the goal of education are the same thing" (Dewey 1992), but at this stage of our project it will suffice to say that it can of course contribute to studying Dewey to read him through the conceptual apparatus sketch here and elsewhere (English 2013). The idea of 'the autonomous individual in the independent nation-state', most often based on language, has been an explicit organizing principle of state-building for about two centuries in many parts of the world. In his Foundations of natural right Fiche p. 102) defines the original right as follows: "The principle of every judgment of right is that each individual must limit his freedom, the sphere of his free actions, through the concept of the freedom of the other (so the other, who free) in general can also exist”.
Calls to Self-Activity The concept of calls explains how a teacher or principal plays a mediating role to the Other in maintaining and developing the Other's self-relationships. Third, however, the leaders and teachers are expected not only to interpret the world for themselves, but also to explain or communicate their understanding to the students – the culture is mediated by the educator.
Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal
But the position also recognizes the necessity of the subject's own action as a necessary requirement for transcending the given state. The effects of the curricular activity are clearly also in the hands of the receivers who realize these intentions. By introducing these concepts, we create a more coherent language for school/district and curricular work, educational leadership and school development activity, using the same concepts that are important in describing the core subject of curriculum theory and Didactics, teaching, study-learning process.
In the first part of the problem we encounter the dilemma of cosmopolitanism as an educational ideal. Hegel, in turn, defended the necessity of the nation-state as the embodiment of ethical existence. Education for a life and living together on earth surpasses traditional education for community and society framed by an idea of the nation-state.
As Helfenbein (2010) reminds us, we need to think simultaneously on the scale of the universal and the particular. Wallerstein argued that every social phenomenon in the present should be studied in context.
Overview of Book Structure
At the same time, we recognize that much of the theoretical and empirical work on educational leadership is constructed for relations within the nation-state. Thus, we asked a third question derived from the ongoing crisis of the nation-state due to what we have called globopolitanism. For over 200 years, independent nation-states in many parts of the world have developed education based on the idea of culturally unifying the 'autonomous individual', most often through a common language.
While we see contemporary educational theory and its central concepts as essential to relations within and between levels of the nation-state, we need to consider the extent to which these central concepts are sufficient to understand the increasingly transnational level of educational leadership and curriculum. working relationships. One of the recurring themes in the chapters is a call for a renewed cross-national and cross-disciplinary/disciplinary dialogue about curriculum theorizing/didactics and leadership in an era we call globopoliticism.
Countering the Idea of Colorblind Leadership: A Reflection on Race and the Growing Pressure of Urban Headship. Roots and issues of the beginning conversation between European Didactics and the American curriculum tradition. School leadership and leadership development: Adaptation of leadership theories and development programs to values and the core purpose of school.
The character of curriculum studies: Bildung, currere, and the recurring question of the subject. Although the global perspective has been present as an educational ideal for centuries and we have been familiar with policy borrowing for hundreds of years, the scale, nature and practice of how curriculum development, educational leadership and policy are connected to transnational developments - the globopolitan state - is required a new reconceptualization.
Transnational Developments Challenging Leadership and Curriculum
In Part II of this book, we asked authors to explicitly consider the contemporary social and policy changes resulting from globalization. The reason for this is that educational leadership as well as curriculum theory and Didaktik have typically been framed and developed from a nation-state perspective. However, in Didaktik and curriculum theory, curriculum objectives, content and methods have been theorized within and in relation to the morally autonomous subject in the autonomous nation-state as the grand narrative for more than 200 years.
However, as we demonstrated in Part I of this volume, today we face an increasing challenge to develop a conceptual language suitable for understanding the global issue. The authors in this part of the volume expand in four different ways the global perspective relevant to curriculum, didactics and leadership, and expand the argument that the renewed global developments require us to treat leadership and curriculum as related.
