School Leadership in Malaysia

Policy, Research and Practice

Tony Bush, Tony Bush

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000473650
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Leadership in Education

This new book provides a comprehensive overview of school leadership in Malaysia, at a time when effective leadership is widely recognised to be an essential component of successful schools. It is also timely because leadership is regarded as a vital element in the Government's ambitious educational reform agenda.

The book is edited by a world leader in this field and includes contributors with deeply embedded understanding of the Malaysian schools' context, based on engagement with policy, practice and research. The book addresses major aspects of school leadership, including instructional and distributed leadership, the role of the principal, the work of senior and middle leaders, professional learning communities, leadership and student outcomes, and leadership preparation.

This book is essential reading for postgraduate students and researchers interested in educational leadership and management, and school reform, in an Asian context. It is also recommended for school leaders wishing to engage with policy, practice and research.

1 School leadership and policy reform Global and Malaysian perspectives

Tony Bush

DOI: 10.4324/9781003098584-1

Introduction

Many countries are seeking to improve their education systems to compete more effectively in what is increasingly a knowledge-based economy. Globalisation means that governments are well aware of how other economies and education systems are progressing and they may wish to emulate what appears to have succeeded in other countries, despite the well-established view that the effectiveness of such ‘policy-borrowing’ is limited by contextual and cultural differences (Burdett and O’Donnell 2016; Harris, Jones and Adams 2016). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), for example, shows that there are stark variations in student outcomes in language, mathematics and science, leading education systems to seek ways to enhance the quality of their provision. Similarly, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) shows marked differences across countries.

The Malaysia Education Blueprint (Ministry of Education 2013) provides one Asian example of an ambitious reform plan. However, there is evidence in Malaysia (Bush et al. 2018), and in Thailand (Hallinger and Lee 2014), that reform initiatives may falter because school-level implementation is flawed. The complexity of managing top-down initiatives in large systems, with very many ‘zones of implementation’, thousands of schools and classrooms, means that ambitious reforms may rarely be more than partly successful (Bush et al. 2018). Leadership is one of the most significant aspects of the Blueprint, which acknowledges that the quality of school leaders is the second biggest school-based factor in determining student outcomes, after teacher quality. It also advocates instructional, transformational and distributed leadership.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the linkages between different levels of education systems to explore how they support, or may inhibit, school leadership policy in Malaysia. It will also report findings from two research projects. The first, funded through the Ministry of Education’s Fundamental Research Grants’ Scheme (FRGS), examined the relationship between the Blueprint and leadership theory (Bush and Ng 2019). The researchers adopted a multiple case-study design in two Malaysian states, Sarawak and Selangor. The second, funded by the HEAD Foundation, assessed the implementation of educational policy reform (Bush et al. 2019). The research team adopted a qualitative research design, focused on interviews with 49 ‘key informants’; senior national government officials, state and district leaders, and school principals. Data collection was preceded by a systematic literature review, including policy documents (‘grey’ literature), in a sequential research design. The review included both English and Bahasa Malaysia literature. A major source was the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 (MoE 2013), particularly shift five, Ensure High-Performing School Leaders in Every School.

The Malaysia Education Blueprint

As noted earlier, the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 (MoE 2013) is the major contemporary policy document underpinning educational reform. Shift five focuses on school leaders, with several policy initiatives designed to contribute to school improvement:

The international evidence clearly shows that strong school leadership is … required to produce significant improvement in school achievement … The effect of an effective principal is significant. Research shows that replacing an average principal with an outstanding one can improve outcomes by up to 20 percentile points.

(MoE 2013: 5–13)

This comment reflects international research on the importance of effective school leadership for school and student outcomes. Leithwood et al.’s (2006) widely cited study in England reaches several conclusions about the impact of leadership on student achievement:

1. School leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning (ibid.: 3).
2. There is not a single documented case of a school successfully turning around its pupil achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership (ibid.: 5).
3. Total leadership accounted for a quite significant 27% of the variation in student achievement across schools (ibid.: 12).

The global and Malaysian evidence both reinforce the need to give a high priority to leadership when addressing policy reform. However, establishing the importance of leadership is only the starting point for reviewing policy and practice. The Blueprint identifies four specific strategies:

1. Principal selection.
2. Principal training.
3. Instructional leadership.
4. Distributed leadership.

Principal selection

The Blueprint notes that ‘a rigorous, clear and transparent selection process is critical for building and sustaining effective schools’ (MoE 2013: 5–13), but adds that ‘the selection criteria for new principals in Malaysia are more linked to tenure than competencies’ (ibid.). In 2011, newly appointed Malaysian principals had an average tenure of 23 years as teachers, compared with 10 in Finland and 13 in Singapore, two of the most successful education systems, according to PISA criteria (ibid.: 5–13). Chay (2020) shows that appointing principals who are close to their retirement age inhibits innovation and strategic planning. The Blueprint also notes an aspiration to ‘enhance the professional criteria required for selection’ (ibid.).

Kwan and Walker (2009) capture this dichotomy in their distinction between experience and credence. Identifying and measuring the appropriate competencies is not straightforward but this may occur through national training programmes, for example in Singapore, where selection and preparation are closely aligned (Bush 2008). Malaysia also has a compulsory principal training programme, the National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders (NPQEL). According to an education minister cited by Ng (2017: 1009), selection ‘is based on meritocracy’.

Even when a mandatory training programme ensures that only qualified leaders can be appointed as principals, there remains a challenge in matching candidates to specific vacancies. This links to the notion of ‘fit’ between school context and the background of potential principals. Blackmore et al. (2006: 297) describe this as ‘homosociability, the tendency to select people just like oneself’. A linked problem is that political considerations may be more significant than professional capability, for example in China, where principals must be active members of the Communist Party (Xue and Bush forthcoming). This issue is not addressed in the Blueprint but may be ‘the elephant in the room’, as anecdotal evidence suggests that the selection process is not always transparent.

Principal training

As noted above, Malaysia requires its potential new principals to undertake the NPQEL. A major focus of this qualification is instructional leadership. ‘Principals need adequate training prior to appointment throughout their service, particularly on the key dimension of instructional leadership’ (MoE 2013: 5–14).

The decision to make NPQEL mandatory for new principals is a major step and brings Malaysia in line with several other countries, including its neighbour, Singapore. The Ministry of Education focus group (Bush et al. 2019) reported that this policy was underpinned by research that showed that aspiring principals required knowledge and skills to improve their leadership capabilities, rather than relying only on experiential learning. One senior official (MoE1) stated that principals should have a qualification to match that required of teachers, which is specified in law. The NPQEL is managed by a specialist school leadership centre, Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), which increased its training capacity three-fold in one year to 1,000 graduates, following the decision to make it mandatory for new first-time principals (Bush et al. 2019).

Bush et al. (2019) report that state and district views on NPQEL varied. In Johor, for example, officers believed that school leaders, equipped with the mandatory NPQEL, would be able to carry out activities and programmes connected to national policies. The district education officers believed that they have empowered school leaders to use their own creativity to implement the policies. However, the need to follow instructions in respect of activities and programmes, and the empowerment given to school leaders to use their creativity to implement policies, seems to be contradictory and has left schools leaders confused. Through the NPQEL, school leaders believed that they have been accorded the knowledge and skills to lead the school but have not been given the space to interpret the policies according to their school context. However, Ng (2017) reports that some principals still feel unprepared for headship even after completing NPQEL.

Instructional leadership

The Blueprint is unambiguous in advocating the need for principals to be, or to become, instructional leaders. ‘In high-performing school systems, principals are more than just administrative leaders – they are instructional leaders who focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning in their schools’ (MoE 2013: 5–13). This view is reinforced by international evidence that shows the significance of instructional leadership. Hallinger and Lee (2014: 6) show that ‘a growing body of international research suggests that instructional leadership from the principal is essential for the improvement of teaching and learning in schools’. However, they add that ‘in many parts of the world, the practice of instructional leadership remains both poorly understood and outside the main job description of the principal’ (ibid.). Robinson et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis of published research shows that the closer leaders are to the core business of teaching and learning, the more likely they are to make a difference to students.

The recent emphasis on instructional leadership is based largely on practice in decentralised and partly decentralised contexts, where principals have substantial scope to decide how to lead and manage their schools (Bush and Glover 2014). However, there is emerging evidence (e.g. Bush et al. 2018 in Malaysia, Gumus and Akcaoglu 2013 in Turkey, Hallinger and Lee 2014 in Thailand, and Kaparou and Bush 2015 in Greece) that governments of centralised systems, which encourage or prescribe instructional leadership, may be disappointed, as principals are reluctant to move away from their traditional managerial approaches (Bush 2020).

Participants in the HEAD Foundation research (Bush et al. 2019) also stress the significance of instructional leadership, one describing it as ‘very important’ (MoE2). The MoE focus group shows how instructional leadership is addressed by the IAB. New cohorts are encouraged to enhance their professional autonomy, develop their problem-solving skills, and understand the policies. Training is designed to develop knowledge and skills and emphasises on-the-job training or ‘hands-on’ learning, with a lesser focus on formal learning.

Most state and district participants also note the importance of instructional leadership. However, the definition of what constitutes instructional leadership differs. One Kuala Lumpur principal (KLP1), for example, comments that principals as instructional leaders should protect teachers’ instructional time and observe and support teachers in their classrooms. Several Sabah participants address the dichotomy of principals being both administrative and instructional leaders.

Administrative work is taking up too much time … principals should prioritise instructional leadership.

(SABP)

Principals should be aware of the teaching and learning processes in schools, as well as focusing on administration … some principals do not play a role in classroom teaching but focus more on administration.

(SABD1)

The promotion of instructional leadership is the key feature of shift five (leadership) of the Blueprint. It is explicit in exhorting heads and principals to modify their practice to switch their focus from administration to instruction. However, as civil servants, they are part of the administrative hierarchy and this aspect of their work, with vertical accountability, is likely to continue. Hallinger and Lee (2014) show that a similar initiative in neighbouring Thailand largely failed. Bush et al.’s (2018) systematic review of the English and Bahasa Malaysia literature shows partial adoption of this model, mainly focused on control aspects, such as monitoring, rather than empowerment dimensions, such as modelling and mentoring.

Distributed leadership

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’ (MoE 2013: 5–18). It adds 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 practice, and hold their peers accountable for meeting professional standards’ (ibid.: E28).

However, this model, and most of contemporary leadership theory, was developed in Western contexts, raising questions about its suitability for Asian contexts, including Malaysia, where education systems are highly centralised. This prompted the author to conduct research on whether, to what extent, and in what ways, distributed leadership is practised in Malaysian schools (Bush and Ng 2019). Their study focused on 14 schools in the contrasting settings of Sarawak and Selangor.

Distributed leadership has become the most fa...