Editorial

Citation

Ross Thomas, A. (2011), "Editorial", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2011.07449baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Educational Administration, Volume 49, Issue 2

Editorial Advisory Board

There have been several changes of recent to the Editorial Advisory Board.

Jack Lam, Professor at Brandon University in Canada, has resigned from the Board. He has assisted the journal in many ways, especially in the evaluation of quantitatively developed research. We have profited greatly from his decade of service and are indebted to him particularly for his cheerful donation of time and energy in supporting the journal.

Paul Begley joined the Board in 2005 in his capacity as Professor at the Pennsylvania State University. Just two years ago he returned to his native Canada to a position at Nipissing University. Professor Begley’s retirement from the Board coincides with his retirement from Nipissing. His contribution to the journal has been of great value, especially his incisive evaluations of submissions dealing with the ethics of educational leadership.

Wayne Hoy of Ohio State University is also retiring from his academic position and from the Board. Professor Hoy is one of our longest-serving members – he joined the Board in 1984 – and one who has contributed immensely to the status and quality of JEA. He has also published frequently in the journal, addressing an extensive and impressive array of research themes. In recognition of such, Professor Hoy will be a key contributor to the 50th anniversary special issue of the journal in early 2012 (Vol. 50 No. 1).

Bill Mulford, recently retired from the University of Tasmania, is also stepping down from the Board. He too joined the Board in 1984 and has contributed immensely to the quality of this journal. Professor Mulford has been identified as the most widely published Australian scholar in the field of educational administration and leadership (1977-2007), and several of his many articles were published in Journal of Educational Administration. He too will contribute a key article to the anniversary special issue of the journal.

I extend my gratitude and thanks to these four retiring Board members.

With pleasure I welcome to the Board Neil Cranston who, in 2010, was appointed to the Chair in Education at the University of Tasmania. Professor Cranston has often published in JEA, and in many other ways has been a very strong and determined supporter of the standard and reputation of this journal.

Invited reviewers

Each submission to this journal is assessed by at least three readers. Members of the Editorial Advisory Board participate actively in this operation but they alone cannot evaluate the 100 or so manuscripts submitted each year. Accordingly, I must approach other professors in the field of educational leadership to assist in this onerous task. Appearing in this issue is a listing of these reviewers who have, throughout the past two volumes, given so willingly of their time, energy and expertise to ensure that only the best of scholarship appears in JEA. Publisher, Board members and Editor are indeed indebted to them and most grateful for their contribution.

This issue

There are six articles in this issue of the journal, the first of which is one that I sadly penned in recognition and memory of a close friend and colleague, supporter of JEA, and superb professor in policy and politics of education – William Lowe Boyd. Bill Boyd’s death in late 2008 was a very sad occasion and one that has left a huge gap in our ranks.

The five articles that follow have been written by authors in Australia, USA and Israel. In the first of these, Hallinger reviews 40 years of research into leadership for learning and presents a model that encapsulates such. Hallinger argues that the field has made substantial progress in identifying the ways in which leadership contributes to learning and also to the improvement of schools. The model reflects four specific dimensions of leading for learning:

1. 1.

   values and beliefs;

2. 2.

   the focus of leadership;

3. 3.

   contexts in which leadership takes place; and

4. 4.

   the sharing of leadership.

In the next article, which is conceptual in design, Schechter investigates a key component of education for leadership in principal preparatory programs. The author reviews the core leadership capacities for present and future principalship and uses these to challenge contemporary preparation programs. Most important are the author’s descriptions and critical analyses of problem-based and success-based learning. He asserts that focusing on both forms of learning may better develop prospective principals’ capacities for leadership.

Principal preparation is also the core of the following article by Clarke, Wildy and Styles, who report on their contribution to the International Study of Principal Preparation (ISPP). The novice principals in Western Australia studied in this project identified in particular the most severe challenges that confronted them during their first three years in office, for example dealing with poorly performing staff, achieving a work/life balance, managing system paper work, and balancing system imperatives with local needs. They then reflected on the adequacy of their preparation to equip them to confront these challenges.

Kimber and Ehrich next report another study relevant to Australian education. Using the theory of democratic deficit (as developed to examine the restructuring of the Australian public service in the 1990s) as a framework, the authors review and analyse recent literature on school-based management. The three components of the theory – the weakening of accountability, the denial of the roles and values of public employees, and the emergence of a “hollow state” – are seen to be present. The authors argue that the democratic principles on which public schooling in Australia was founded are being eroded by managerial and market practices (although perhaps not as severely as in the UK, for example).

The continuing challenge of teacher retention in the USA is the theme of the final article. In this, Sass, Seal and Martin report on their use of structural equation modelling in examining relationships among teacher stress, teacher support, job dissatisfaction and eventual intention to quit. Three models were assessed, the most parsimonious of which indicated that student stressors completely mediated the relationship between teacher efficacy related to student engagement and job dissatisfaction. Social support superiors and student stressors were the best predictors of job dissatisfaction. Teacher workload stressors and social support from colleagues did not contribute significantly to the models.

A book review then completes this issue.

A. Ross Thomas