Distributed leadership and the Malaysia Education Blueprint. From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralised context
| Pages | 279-295 |
| Published date | 13 May 2019 |
| Date | 13 May 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0206 |
| Author | Tony Bush,Ashley Yoon Mooi Ng |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Distributed leadership and the
Malaysia Education Blueprint
From prescription to partial school-based
enactment in a highly centralised context
Tony Bush
School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and
Ashley Yoon Mooi Ng
University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss the findings from research on the relationship
between leadership theory and policy reform in Malaysia. Distributed leadership is normatively preferred in
the Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB), the country’s major policy reform document. The research was
conducted in two dissimilar Malaysian states (Selangor and Sarawak).
Design/methodology/approach –The research was a multiple case-study design, with 14 schools (seven
in each state). Sampling was purposive, with schools selected from the different bands used to categorise
school performance in Malaysia. Within each school, interviews were conducted with principals (secondary
schools), headteachers (primary schools) and a range of teachers, middle leaders and senior leaders, to achieve
respondent triangulation.
Findings –The findings confirm that the MEB prescribes distributed leadership as part of a strategy to
move principals and head teachers away from their traditional administrative leadership styles. While there
were some variations, most schools adopted a modified distributed leadership approach. Instead of the
emergent model discussed and advocated in the literature, these schools embraced an allocative model,
with principals sharing responsibilities with senior leaders in a manner that was often indistinguishable
from delegation.
Research limitations/implications –A significant implication of the research is that policy prescriptions
in major reform initiatives can lead to unintended consequences when applied in different cultural contexts.
While distributed leadership is presented as “emergent”in the international (mostly western) literature, it has
been captured and adapted for use in this highly centralised context, where structures and culture assume a
top-down model of leadership. As a result, distributed leadership has taken on a different meaning, to fit the
dominant culture.
Practical implications –The main practical implication is that principals and head teachers are more likely
to enact leadership in ways which are congruent with their cultural backgrounds and assumptions than to
embrace policy prescriptions, even when unproblematic adoption of policy might be expected, as in this
centralised context.
Social implications –The main social implications are that policy change is dependent on socio-cultural
considerations and that reform will not be whole-hearted and secure if it is not congruent with the values of
institutions such as schools, and the wider society which they serve.
Originality/value –The paper is significant in exploring a popular leadership model in an unfamiliar
context. Beyond its importance in Malaysia, it has wider resonance for other centralised systems which have
also shown interest in distributed leadership but have been unable and/or unwilling to embrace it in the ways
assumed in the literature. This leads to theoretical significance because it adds to the limited bodyof literature
which shows that allocative distributed leadership has emerged as a device for accommodating this model
within centralised contexts.
Keywords Malaysia, Distributed leadership, Centralization, Educational reform
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many countries are seeking to improve their education systems in order to enhance their
competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. Referring to Asia’s tiger economies,
Hallinger (2004, p. 63) argues that “global economic competition has raised the stakes for
educational attainment, individually and collectively. Consumers now define the meaning of
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 57 No. 3, 2019
pp. 279-295
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0206
Received 1 November 2018
Revised 14 January 2019
5 March 2019
22 March 2019
Accepted 28 March 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
279
Distributed
leadership and
the MEB
quality education globally, rather than locally or nationally”. The growing importance of
international comparisons of student learning outcomes, notably the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA), increases the visibility of different levels of
performance and often informs national reform initiatives.
Many countries use international comparisons, such as PISA, as levers to evaluate their own
education against other systems. Malaysia is one such country and its educational reform
agenda is informed by the PISA scores. The Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB) ( Ministry of
Education, 2013) is the major policy document driving reform. It is explicit about benchmarking
Malaysian student performance against international norms. According to Ministry of
Education (2013, E6), ‘other systems are improving student performance more rapidly, and have
found ways to sustain that momentum. The gap between Malaysia’s system and these others is
therefore growing. However, Hallinger (2010, p. 409) cautions against policy borrowing when
seeking school improvement. Some “education reforms have travelled around the globe far from
their points of origin and often appear ‘foreign’upon arrival in South-East Asia”.
The MEB outlines an ambitious vision to raise Malaysia’s learning outcomes from their
current position in the bottom quartile of PISA scores in reading, mathematics and science:
All children will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education that is uniquely Malaysian
and comparable to the best international systems. The aspiration is for Malaysia to be in the top
third of countries in terms of performance in international assessments, as measured by outcomes
in […] PISA, within 15 years. (Ministry of Education, 2013, E-14).
The blueprint identifies eleven “shifts”to achieve this vision. Shift five focuses on school
leadership and aims to “ensure high performing school leaders in every school”(Ministry of
Education, 2013, E-20). It notes that the quality of school leaders is the second biggest
school-based factor in determining school outcomes (Ministry of Education, 2013, E-27),
echoing international research findings (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006).
Shift five foreshadows three significant leadership policy changes. First, all new
principals will be required to complete the National Professional Qualification for
Educational Leaders (NPQEL), a major step towards professionalising school leadership.
Second, they will receive induction and support from an experienced principal or a school
improvement partner (SIP). Third, principals who consistently underperform will be
redeployed to a teaching position in another school (Ministry of Education, 2013, E27-28).
The Blueprint claims that “the aspiration is to create a peer-led culture of professional
excellence wherein school leaders mentor and train one another, develop and disseminate
best practices and hold their peers accountable for meeting professional standards”
(Ministry of Education, 2013, E28).
The Blueprint also stresses that principals should not focus on administrative leadership
(Ministry of Education, 2013, E-27) and intends that future leaders will lead in a different
way. However, this is challenging to achieve as administrative leadership is the norm in
highly centralised systems such as Malaysia, for example in neighbouring Thailand
(Hallinger and Lee, 2014). “Despite new system expectations […], the predominant
orientation of Thai principals remains largely unchanged”(Hallinger and Lee, 2014, p. 6).
The Blueprint makes several references to the significance of distributed leadership in
achieving the Ministry’s aims, stating that “in line with international best practices, the
Ministry will move towards a model of distributed leadership where effective, high-quality
school leadership permeates the entire organisation of all schools”(MEB, 2013, p. 18).
However, this model, and most of contemporary leadership theory, was developed and
honed in Western contexts, raising questions about its suitability for Asian contexts,
including Malaysia, where education systems are highly centralised (Walker and Hallinger,
2015). This prompted the authors to conduct research on whether, to what extent, and in
what ways, distributed leadership is practiced in Malaysian schools.
280
JEA
57,3
To continue reading
Request your trial