Knowledge management in schools

The awareness of knowledge management’s importance in organizations arose approximately in 1990. It means those strategies and processes, which are designed to identify, capture, structure, value, leverage and share an organization's intellectual assets to enhance its performance and competitiveness.

Daniel Hislop (2013) has argued that the concept of information has usually been viewed from objectivist perspective, where explicit information can be separated from both the sender and the receiver. From objectivist point of view, information exists independently of humans in encrypted form. It can exist an sich and it can be owned. It can occur in many forms:  images, documents, statistics or other of the same type. This point of view is strongly connected with positivistic paradigm of science. Those who has the objectivistic view of knowledge keep strict distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge

Hislop(2002) has proposed a ‘practice’-based philosophy of knowledge. According to it all knowledge has both tacit and explicit components and it is to some extent embodied in human brains and bodies and is embedded in organizational routines, practices and contexts. According to that philosophy the information cannot be treated as a separate entity, and, therefore, cannot be separated from its handler. Some of the supporters of this view consider information as “knowing”.

Hislop (2013) presents a variety of typologies of knowledge management strategies  One of the first classifications were developed in the late 1990s, and it separated the strategy based on  codification of information and strategy based on personalization of information. Codification strategy is essential for organizations with a competitive advantage based on the use of the encoded data. Such organizations want to develop their activities as data warehouses and databases where information is readily available in encrypted form. By contrast, personalization based, tacit information strategy is essential for companies whose competitive advantage is based on the processing of information and creation of knowledge. This strategy assume that a sizable part of the data is the so-called tacit or hidden information that is specific to the individual employee's property and cannot be encoded, so it focuses on face to face knowledge sharing.(Hislop 2013.)

The more complex classification of knowledge management has been developed by Michael Earl (2001). In his classification the management has been divided in three distinct schools of thought groups that are either technocratic, economistic or behavioristic. The first technocratic school is a systemic school of thought that focuses on databases to encode data, which data is then searchable. Another school of thought, which is based on information technology, is a cartographic school, where the information systems are used to create links between persons who are in the organization's activities in terms of relevant expertise. For example, through the creation of expert data banks that store contact information of experts with expertise in a given area. The third technocratic school of thought is an engineering school, where information technology is used for transmission of information of an organization's processes and practices by encoding the information in databases. Commercial approach to knowledge management is the only school of thought in the economistic school of thought group. Its view is that knowledge management is to effectively monetize your organization -owned data in order for an organization to achieve measurable economic benefits. Thus, in this school of thought IT is focused on producing products and services that generate added value and as a result, an attempt to protect these data management advantages, for example, by patenting or trademarks. Organizational School is the first school of thought in behavioral approaches group. It is essential that enable the creation of information networks between all the people that have something in common interests and who can benefit from the sharing of knowledge and experiences with each other. Communication can take place face to face or via information technology. Next one of behavioral approaches is a spatial school of thought, which is focused on creating a virtual as well as physical places and spaces that allow people to have mutual interaction and thus allow for the sharing of experience and knowledge of people. Last behavioristic approaches is a strategic school of thought that focuses on forming the attitudes and values which enable efficient data management, rather than taking the direct management by the information processes.




Michael Earl’s classification of knowledge management

  

Knowledge management has become an increasingly important part of the principal’s work area. For example, Debbi Smith and Phil Wild (2001) argued that, if schools want to operate more efficiently in the future, they should take the model of organizations that have successfully changed their behavior, so that they are able to take full account of the opportunities offered to them in information age. When the importance of knowledge management grows, it becomes increasingly more essential, what information is available, how knowledge is formed, and how it should be optimally utilized.

Bajec, Krisper, and Rupnik (2001)  have specified information system properties of future schools  in more detail. They say that in the future we will   need to develop systems, which are more easily adaptable to different environments, end- users will be involved in the design and the end-user must be able to control and to define the rules under which the information system operates and end-user needs to get to try different functions of the software easily. Moreover Tatnall & Davey (2001) have argued that because schools are different, their information needs are also different and that is why the school information system should be open systems that allow easy integration of new third party software. The documentation on the operation and design of the system should also be clear and should be written at several different levels suitable for users.

Computer-based school information systems make the monitoring of the operation of teachers easier and more efficient and principals seem to prefer this feature, when the information system it so handily offers to them. This may also mean that pedagogical leadership focuses on the direction of instructional leadership and tighten the bonds between individual teachers and the principal. In other words, the teacher does not act in the way, which is justified in her/his own opinion, but she/he acts in the way, the principal believes that he should act.

Distributed leadership requires that not only the principal has easy access to the information about the organization and its current status, but also teachers ought to have the same possibility. This is also related to the fluent flow of information and good communication possibilities in general. In these fields computer-based school information system is an excellent tool. 

REFERENCES

Bajec, M., Krisper, M. & Rupnik, R. (2001). Developing software for School Administration and Management. In C.J. Patrick Nolan, A. Fung, Margaret Brown (Eds.) Pathways to Institutional Improvement with Information Technology in Educational Management: IFIP TC3/WG3.7 Fourth International Working Conference on Information Technology in Educational Management July 27–31, 2000, Auckland, New Zealand. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Press, pp 45–58

Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy. JoumatofManagemenitnformation Systems 18,(1), pp. 215-233

Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information technology. Journal of Information Technology  17, (3), pp 165–177

Hislop, D. 2013. Knowledge management in organizations a critical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (3. Edition).

Tatnall, A. & Davey, B. (2001) Open ITEM Systems are Good ITEM Systems. . In C.J. Patrick Nolan, A. Fung, Margaret Brown (Eds.) Pathways to Institutional Improvement with Information Technology in Educational Management: IFIP TC3/WG3.7 Fourth International Working Conference on Information Technology in Educational Management July 27–31, 2000, Auckland, New Zealand. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Press, pp 59–70

Leadership styles and school leadership

There are several definitions and categories of leadership styles. There is a simple dichotomy of autocratic and democratic leadership styles, where autocratic leadership refers to coerciveness, authoritarianism, leader-based decision making and to emphasize goals. Democratic leadership refers to consultation, consensus, sharing power and authority, and facilitating interactions. (Bass 1990.)

Moreover, Bass proposed that leadership can range from highly involved active leadership to passive laissez-faire leadership.

Daniel Goleman (2000) categorizes six leadership types: commanding, visionary, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching. Commanding leadership works best in a situation, where there is a crisis and a kick start is needed for a turnaround. Visionary leadership works best, when changes require a new vision or when a clear direction is needed. Affiliate leadership is needed to heal rifts in a team or to motivate people during stressful circumstances. Democratic leadership refers to building buy-in or consensus or getting input from valuable employees. Pacesetting leadership refers to getting quick results from highly motivated and competent team. Coaching refers to helping an employee to improve performance or to develop long-term strengths.

Gayle Avery (2004) connects a particular leadership style with a particular leadership paradigm. Within classical paradigm, which has low priority of followers’ ideas, emotions, wishes, and needs, function for example Great men theories, which assume that the capacity for leadership is inherent, that great leaders are born, not made, Traits theories, which assume that people inherit certain qualities or traits make them better suited to leadership. Behavioral theories, which are based on the belief that great leaders are made, not born, the leader-member exchange(LMX) approach, which is based on the observation that followers form relationships of varying  intensity and quality with their leader, socio-cognitive theories, where leadership is in the eye of beholder and leader actions and behaviors, not hierarchical positions, underlie whether people attribute leadership to them, and Fiedler’s Contingency Model, which proposes that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match between a leader’s style and the leadership situation.

According to Avery (2004) in the transactional leadership paradigm, where followers’ significance has somewhat increased compared to the classical leadership paradigm, as the  takes account of workers’ skills, needs, and motives in the process of influencing them.  In general transactional leadership focus on the exchanges that occur between leaders and their followers. Under transactional leadership paradigm useful leadership models are Great men theory, Traits theory, behavioristic theories, LMX theories, socio-cognitive theories, situational leadership theory, which proposes that leaders choose the best course of action based upon situational conditions or circumstances, Fiedler’s Contingency Model, and House’s Path-goal theory, which is another contingency approach in which the key role of a leader is to clear way for others to accomplish goals.

Avery links the visionary paradigm, with strong emotional aspects and a view of desired future, but where the leader is dependable on followers, who will accept and help to accomplish the vision, to Great men theories, Traits theories, behavioristic theories, the LMX theory, socio-cognitive theories, and the House’s path-goal theory. Fourth leadership paradigm in Avery’s classification is the organic leadership paradigm. Under this paradigm only socio-cognitive approach of leadership is a successful leadership model.

Transformational theory of leadership was introduced by James V. Downton in 1973. It’s emergence as important approach to leadership was due to political sociologist James. M. Burns. (Northouse 2004.) Burns distinguished between two types of leadership: transactional and transformational leadership, which focus on the connections formed between leaders and followers. In transformational approach leadership is the process by which a person engages with others and is able to “create a connection” that results in increased motivation and morality in both followers and leaders. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task. These leaders are focused on the performance of group members, but also on each person to fulfilling his or her potential. Leaders of this style often have high ethical and moral standards.

In addition Amanchukwu et al. (2015) distinguish six different leadership styles. 1. First there is the Autocratic leadership style, which is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have complete power over staff. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these are in the best interest of the team or organization. 2. Second leadership style is bureaucratic style. Bureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their staff also follow procedures precisely. This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved. 3. Third leadership theory describes what to expect from both leaders and followers. This charismatic leadership is a leadership style that is identifiable but may be perceived with less tangibility than other leadership styles. 4. Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but include team members in the decision-making process. They encourage creativity, and team members are often highly engaged in projects and decisions. 5.  Laissez-faire leaders abdicate responsibilities and avoid making decisions, they may give teams complete freedom to do their work and set their own deadlines. Laissez-faire leaders usually allow their subordinate the power to make decisions about their work.

Nowadays many scholars have shifted from traditional trait theories or other personality-based theories, which often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics that are shared by leaders, to a situation theory, which dictates that the situation in which leadership is exercised is determined by the leadership skills and characteristics of the leader.

In the context of school organization there is a managerial view where transactional leadership and transactional leadership stand at opposite ends of a continuum and then there is the educational view where instructional leadership and pedagogical leadership stand at opposite ends of a continuum. Instructional leadership is often seen as the sole domain of school principals and it is firmly connected with New Public Management idea of a manager who can solve all problems. Likewise it might seem tempting as a staff-member to continue to hold the top responsible for whether or not change happens. And that is apt to disempower the staff even more leading to an “I just work here” attitude. 

According to MacNeill et al. (2006) instructional leadership focus on teacher instruction and is driven by mandated curriculum, is classroom-centered and managerial. Whereas pedagogical leadership focus on student learning, emphasizes distributed leadership and instead of being managerial emphasizes building a professional learning community. The pedagogic principal leader is driven by the moral and social notions of developing the whole child, while acknowledging the socio-political contexts of learning.

Managerial aspect (transactional-transformational continuum) of school leadership and educational aspect of school leadership (instructional-pedagogical continuum) could be comprised as a fourfold table;

REFERENCES

Amanchukwu, R.,  Stanley, G., & Ololube, N (2015). A Review of Leadership Theories, Principles and Styles and Their Relevance to Educational Management. Scientific & Academic Publishing, 5(1), 6-14

 Avery, G. (2004). Understanding Leadership. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi: SAGE Publications

Bass, B. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 3^rd edn. New York, NY: Free Press.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harward Business Review, March – April 2000.

MacNeill, H, Cavanagh, R.F. & Silcox, S. (2005).  Pedagogic Leadership: Refocusing on Lear­ning and Teaching. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 9 (2).

Northouse, P. (2004) Leadership. Theory And practice. 3^rd edn. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGE Publication

What is a pedagogical leader

Usually and especially in the English speaking world the concept of pedagogical leadership is connected with upbringing and teaching young children, but at least in secondary level of schooling the word pedagogy is replaced with instruction and in literature scholars are writing about instructional leadership instead of pedagogical leadership when they mean teacher or student or learning related tasks of principals. So it is pedagogy if you refer early childhood education, but it is instruction if you refer educating students. However there is a fundamental distinction between the two concepts. Whereas instructional leadership focus on teachers, teaching, and try with proper instructions to alter students’ behavior, pedagogical leadership emphasizes collaboration in organization and focuses on students and learning. In other words, pedagogical leadership is based on dialogue, not monologue and the learners are essential participants in the discussion. Moreover it covers a wider range of aspects of the teaching act than instruction.

.

Pedagogical leadership consists strategic elements which involve a wide set of stakeholders in pedagogical improvement. In his classical writing on pedagogical leadership, Sergiovanni (1998, p. 37) states that the inclusion of “visionary leadership” among bureaucratic functions and “entrepreneurial leadership” views are unsuccessful as strategies to gain change and better results in schools. Furthermore visionary or otherwise exceptional leaders are hard to find so “the hope of transforming schools through the actions of individual leaders is quickly fading” (Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammons, & Hopkins 2007).  So to build a transformational organization needs cooperation of teachers. Also according to Sergiovanni pedagogical leadership is an alternative concept of leadership that aims to develop the human capital of schools, involving both teachers and learners (Sergiovanni 1998). Compared to instructional leadership, where the emphasis is on school management and there is an administrative aspect in charge and the school management is accountable to the provider or to the upper level of the administration, pedagogical leadership has the emphasis on building a professional learning community with prior accountability to the learners.

Although the term pedagogy is still relatively uncommon in the use of teaching in upper levels, but is currently being used more frequently in publications and teachers' discourse. According to MacNeill et al. (2005) there appears to be at least five, inter-related clusters of meaning of pedagogy in the literature: First there is an epistemological aspect  of pedagogy as the transmission of knowledge, second the socio-ideological aspect of pedagogy as a political tool for enculturating students, third a social aspect of pedagogy as social practice and as  a relationship that produces knowledge, fourth there is the pedagogic act, which consists the mechanical aspects of how knowledge is  transmitted and pedagogy as an inclusive view of all aspect teaching, but not simply instruction, and fifth there is pedagogy separated from didactics, the European view of culture and learning as didactics refer to the subjects to be taught.

Unlike instructional leadership, pedagogical leadership specifically recognizes the cultural, moral, and societal aspects of what is learned and why it is learned. Pedagogy acknowledges aspects of learning that were previously described as the hidden curriculum. Pedagogy peels back the veneer of teaching methodology to expose the conscious and unconscious decisions made by school leaders as the communities’ agents of enculturation. A pedagogical leader emphasizes distributed decision-making and acknowledges the fact that leader is not the only person, who has the expertise or facts in the particular organization.

REFERENCES

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 337-347.

MacNeill, H, Cavanagh, R.F. & Silcox, S. (2005).  Pedagogic Leadership: Refocusing on Lear­ning and Teaching. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 9 (2).

  

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 37–46.

New thinking about instructional leadership is the emperor’s new clothes

Traditionally instructional leadership has meant focusing on teachers and teaching. For example Gupton (2003, 32) delineated the term as “direct or indirect behaviors that significantly affect teacher instruction and, as a result, student learning.” In my opinion there is an implied behavioristic approach to learning, when you speak about instructional leadership as if we intend to change student behavior to be better in our point of view instead of transforming learning to be better.

Unfortunately  much of the current research on the topic of educational management is overshadowed by the concept of instructional leadership, which is deeply embedded in American educational literature. The term instructional leadership has an almost oxymoronic quality, where the instruction is problematic and the leadership aspect is often ignored or misunderstood.

Many scholars in American educational literature use instruction as a synonym for teaching or pedagogy, but instruction is a limiting, clinical term that relates to one part of the teaching and learning cycle (MacNeill, Cavanagh & Silcox 2005) . In my opinion, learning in schools should be a cooperative and collaborative thing, but the word “instruction” is contaminated with pejorative connotations of power. The command, “I instruct you to do X,” leaves a second party in no doubt about the power relationship between the speaker and the person being spoken to.

While a new view of instructional leadership emphasizes organizational management for instructional improvement rather than day-to-day teaching and learning, there still is a danger of teachers becoming little more than deprofessionalized piece workers in a Taylorist culture of scientific management. Concentrating on instruction can lead to a de-professionalization of teaching accompanied by a push to employ untrained and partly trained teachers and in the whole disempower the staff even more leading to an “I just work here” attitude. An organization filled with such workers is not an expert learning organization, where a staff-member is capable of self-assessment.

New thinking about instructional leadership promotes strong organizational managers. Strong managers develop the organizational structures for improved instruction more than they spend time in classrooms or coach teachers. Strong organizational managers are said to be effective in hiring and supporting staff, allocating budgets and resources, and maintaining positive working and learning environments, but for example the support concerns only those goals that are decided by the principal or in the upper level of the administration and if you fail in your own effort in teaching you’ll soon become a persona non grata or even ex-teacher. So instruction does not promote academic risk taking or the experiments of your own. In all, instructional leadership is actually instructional management and a manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

REFERENCES

Gupton, S.L. (2003). The instructional leadership toolbox: A handbook for improving practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

MacNeill, H, Cavanagh, R.F. & Silcox, S. (2005).  Pedagogic Leadership: Refocusing on Lear­ning and Teaching. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 9 (2).

Instructional leadership vs. pedagogical leadership

Instructional leadership is often seen as the sole domain of school principals and it is firmly connected with New Public Management idea of a manager who can solve all problems. Likewise it might seem tempting as a staff-member to continue to hold the top responsible for whether or not change happens. And that is apt to disempower the staff even more leading to an “I just work here” attitude.

Pedagogical leadership is a broader concept than instructional leadership. While instructional leadership is classroom-centered and driven by a mandated curriculum, pedagogical leadership is determined by the needs of students and is moral and facilitative in nature. The real focus of education is student learning, not instruction. In order to facilitate this, pedagogical leaders ensure that educators have time and methods to reflect on their own practice, study pupils and explore multiple perspectives.

Unfortunately, for example, OECD TALIS survey treats principal leadership as instructional leadership added with administrative accountable and bureaucratic management. However, in my opinion change and movement towards transformation can only occur in such schools, where pedagogical leadership exists

with pedagogical leadership towards educational change

with pedagogical leadership towards educational change

Instructional management is not leadership

The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), which was last carried out in 2013, brings together a variety of principals’ leadership styles in different countries. Based on the results of TALIS survey management techniques were divided into 1) management for school goals, 2) instructional management, 3) direct supervision of instruction in the school, 4) accountable management, and 5) bureaucratic management. This OECD survey considered principal’s pedagogical tasks as instructional leadership, which is usually related to management style, which includes acting among teachers and students and strictly guide teaching and education, as well as extending principal’s influence into classrooms. On the other hand TALIS survey recognizes that there is no such thing as instructional leadership, only instructional management.  While management and leadership must go hand in hand, there is still a fundamental difference between the two concepts: The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people. The term instructional management confuses these concepts totally.

Instructional leadership as a concept is, however, an internationally well-known form for the school's educational management and also more common than pedagogical leadership (Liusvaara 2014, 35). So especially in English speaking countries everything apart from accountable management and bureaucratic management is seen as instructional leadership, because management for school goals and direct supervision of instruction in the school are actually considered as essential parts of instructional leadership. When you are talking about instructrional leadership, it is administrative management in charge and instructional management serves admistration of school and it is totally accountable to upper administration levels


Figure School management according to TALIS survey (Honkanen 2012, 18)

In my opinion the term “instruction” brings a drill sergeant into my mind, but a school is a learning institution, not an army barrack. Further perceptions connected with the term are “obedience”, “control”, “surveillance” etc.



REFERENCES

Honkanen, M. (2012). Rehtorit ja oppilaitosjohtaminen. [Principals and leading an institution of education]. Helsinki. Opetushallitus [Finnish National Board of Education], muistiot 2012:8

Liusvaara, L. (2014). Kun vaan rehtori on korvat auki. Koulun kehittämisellä pedagogista hyvinvointia.[If only the principal has the ears open – Pedagogical wellbeing through school development] U niversity of Turku, Faculty of Education / Department of Education: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C388.