Leadership: Part 1 - Pick and mix

Leadership as a concept is a relatively new phenomenon in the early years. Leadership theory has been around since Plato (who spoke of a guardian class) and has evolved from a focus on character traits to effecting transformational change in organisations. Much of this is written with very different business models in mind from those we see in the early years sector.

The role of a ‘leader’ is also subject to many different interpretations – often heavily influenced by current policy. And in the early years, which deals in the emotive subject of children and their chances in life, the expectations and accountability of leaders are increasing.

In this article, we consider both the challenges of leadership and the potential solutions. We do not believe there is one model of leadership. The best way forward is for leaders to select as required from the many models offered to suit their tastes and skills.

Apart from knowledge of models, what else can be drawn upon to guide leaders? If we think of knowledge as a basket, containing information, ideas, experiences, cultural views, etc, then Ofsted requirements and legislation should be included. The expectations of colleagues, parents and children should also be factored in. The models of leadership are a form of knowledge that leaders can pick and choose from to fit a particular situation at any given time.

EXPECTATIONS

The interest in the early years and its leaders has evolved from the increasing evidence that the sector can help get more parents into work, as well as providing the foundations for a child’s lifelong learning; both key policy objectives. This has resulted in intensified attention on the quality of early childhood education and care (ECEC). A growing research base demonstrates the centrality of quality, especially for children from socio-economically deprived backgrounds, in the provision of ECEC services. Quality is not an easily defined construct; it is a slippery term that is frequently used and rarely defined. This focus on quality has multiple consequences and is well illustrated by the twin key challenges of inspection and school-readiness.

Ofsted is an easy object for criticism. A national inspection body is never going to be popular, and there are concerns with the inspection process (the time between inspections, their duration, the subjectivities of inspectors, etc). The model of quality currently present in the inspection framework is just one of many possible. It follows the predefined ideological expectations of current policy-makers. Ofsted represents an increased regulatory focus with an ever-amplified spotlight on leadership. The main challenge for leaders has to be the requirement to meet the Government’s expectations of a high-quality environment through the application of the inspection criteria.

This presents several challenges for early years leaders. First, there is the challenge of understanding these criteria – what is being expected – and secondly there are the consequences of being able to demonstrate quality. Understanding the inspection criteria requires interpretation. The fact that there is so much variety in the provision of ECEC services demonstrates the individuality involved in that process of interpretation: for every Outstanding setting there will be a different approach for leading quality. A leader is tasked with leading the process of interpretation, considering the views of the team, the children, the parents, the wider community, the budget, the resources.

Increasingly, the process of interpretation feels constrained by rising expectations of ECEC services with the various ‘checks’ that are now undertaken to monitor child development. Good quality is defined by those settings that produce the ‘right’ kind of children – a focus that is caught up in developmental goals and the increased use of the term ‘school ready’. Ready for what? Who is it that needs to be ready – the school, the child, both? While this focus is on the current challenges of leading a setting, we would argue that leaders know how to achieve quality best.

New pressures join these expectations: building partnerships with parents and the community or being involved in early intervention strategies. The roots of ECEC services lie in the premise of supporting families, and a commitment to the well-being and development of the child. The concern is increased accountability paradoxically moves away from this. Leaders become so fraught with the challenges of leading that they lose sight of these core ideas.

DEVELOPMENTS IN LEADERSHIP

Because ECEC has these roots, and is grounded on the premise of women supporting other women, the sector has been presented as lacking in leadership. In Leadership in Early Childhood, Jillian Rodd wrote in 2005 that women leading ECEC settings were unlikely to regard themselves as leaders, preferring to see themselves as supporting other women in looking after their children. Various policy initiatives have continued this trend of a deficit model of leadership, whereby the focus is on the skills that those working in the sector are missing. Yet the role of nursery manager on the national careers service website clearly says good business skills are required.

Leadership styles for ECEC have evolved from school-based models that concentrated on school improvement and effectiveness, with the concept of a head teacher being a leader of leaders. Subsequent academic work moved away from this hierarchy – with the leader at the top – towards a view of leading from the middle, with an emphasis on collaboration.

Not all settings are the same. Despite the temptation to espouse one particular leadership style or theory as the one, leaders have to be able to pick and mix. We would encourage a creative, playful perspective, as if you were rummaging through a store cupboard to select the most piquant seasoning or the most effective combination of ingredients. You may wish to have elements of entrepreneurial leadership, where you actively look for new possibilities and take some ‘outside the box’ risks to develop your setting. You may decide that in order to be successful with that entrepreneurial task, you should have some transformational leadership aspects where shared goals are important and you invest in developing the capacity of your staff through supervision, coaching and mentoring. You may seek to lead from the middle with a strong, collaborative team and a flat hierarchical structure, or even adopt principles of distributed leadership with fully shared power and accountability.

If you see relationships as the most important aspect of your working role, you may decide shared goals have to be established, and seek to create an atmosphere of sensitive responsiveness encompassing your staff, children and families, and community. If educational outcomes are the most important objective for you, you may feel you should lead strongly from the front, inspiring others to follow, implementing the necessary changes that make your setting successful.

You will probably find some of these are more preferable than others, but that’s not to say that different models can’t be borrowed from time to time. Though unpalatable to some, an authoritarian approach may be useful when having to make tough budgetary decisions, for example.

These objectives and intentions may also change over time. ECEC leaders have all had to ‘read’ the political landscape. The intense spotlight on ECEC provision has put increasing pressure on leaders to define their leadership or have it defined for them. It is perfectly possible to be the leader you want to be through choosing what works.

MORE INFORMATION

Quality and Leadership in the Early Years: Research, Theory and Practice by Verity Campbell-Barr and Caroline Leeson is published by Sage (£22.99). Use the code UK16AUTHOR for 25 per cent off at https://uk.sagepub.com, valid until 31 August.

‘Leading for quality improvement: a comparative research agenda in early childhood education in England and Hong Kong’ (2012) by Verity Campbell-Barr and Caroline Leeson in the International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory & Practice 15 (2), 221-236.