Introduction
Globalisation of the world economy has led to the globalisation of knowledge, thus blurring the boundaries between local and national levels in many education systems , including in Serbia, which has been in economic regression for some time (Arar, Turan, Barakat, & Oplatka, 2017). Concurrently, school leadership has been identified as potentially being a major force in promoting education change as transnational education policy transfer is taking place, led by such agencies as the European Union (EU) , the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) , and the World Bank (Hall, Møller, Schratz, & Serpieri, 2017). However, as these international organisations are usually concerned primarily with aiming for vibrant economies, they often promote a culture of training rather than one of education (White, Cooper, & Anwaruddin, 2017). Consequently, much contemporary education change is based on ‘new public management’ (NPM) ideas, including reducing public expenses and bureaucracy , encouraging competition, promoting marketisation , and measuring outcomes (Hall et al., 2017).
Since the implementation of NPM policies can be influenced by contextual factors, the theory and practice of leadership and management of education are frequently socially constructed and contextually bound (Hall et al., 2017). Nevertheless, education leaders, especially those in developing countries and in countries that have been experiencing economic regression , often try to address both local and global education pressures, contested political ideas, complex developing contexts, and matters associated with social justice and equity (Arar et al., 2017). For some, their approach has been influenced by the argument that education at the primary school level can enable individuals to improve their economic circumstances by strengthening social and cultural capital, and promoting democracy , social justice, human rights and tolerance (Dahiru, Pihie, Basri, & Hassan, 2017). However, challenges they may face can include having to adopt neoliberal policies and deal with inequitable cultures, unjust traditions, resistant colleagues, and inflexible superiors, as well as work within complex political environments that are difficult to navigate (Ryan & Higginbottom, 2017).
At the same time, leaders often hope that their actions will lead to meaningful social change (Ryan & Higginbottom, 2017). To this end, education leaders are usually expected to help enact values and visions for the future by promoting egalitarian social relationships, just material distribution, enhancement of human freedom, and collective participatory self-governance (Saltman & Means, 2017). This is especially the case in relation to primary school leadership in Serbia at a time when the country has been attempting to implement democratic education change and gain admission to the European Union (EU) (Ministry of Education , 2012).
EU member states promote a commitment to social rights and equality, and there is an expectation that the welfare state can be relied on to support a European social model (Börzel & Grimm, 2018). Concurrently, the European integration process has been used to promote mainstream neoliberal policies and to erode those state traditions that gave many European countries their distinctiveness (Hermann, 2007). Indeed, by 2007, it was being recognised that the EU had two main associated tasks with which it had to deal, namely, “the response to the dynamic forces of advanced capitalism and the need to create a European citizenship” (Jarvis, 2007, p. 179). According to Jarvis (2007), these two tasks represented globalisation and Europeanisation respectively, where globalisation entails competitiveness, employability, and education and training for the information society , and Europeanisation implies working on social cohesion. This meant that once Serbia sought to join the EU, it was expected that its education system would be changed both in terms of adopting democratic values and liberalising the education market .
The context in which primary school principals in Serbia currently work is one of a post-socialist and a post-conflict country which has been experiencing economic regression . The overall change that has taken place in the country has meant moving from a state-ruled and planned economy to market-oriented consumerism and competitiveness , from socialist ideology to liberal democracy , from collectivism to privatisation , and from a single party to a multiparty political system (Velikonja, 2009). In the early years of the new state, political leaders promised change and quick results that would be implemented ‘from above’ (Bideleux & Jeffries, 2007a; Glenny, 2014). However, matters did not proceed smoothly, with the process taking place in somewhat of an institutional vacuum. Now, many old institutions and systems of support no longer exist. Yet, up to four years ago, many new ones to replace them had still not been fully formed, and those that were, were not functioning efficiently (Kojanić, 2015).
The causes of the difficulties that presented themselves in the process of democratisation can be viewed as being a result of a clash between the complexities of the nation’s historical context and policy borrowing from Western countries. In this regard, school leaders in Serbia are in a particularly challenging position since they are the ones who need to both understand and implement the education changes that are prescribed. In other words, they are expected to be both objects of change and agents of change , and this in a context where societal changes have transformed their political position and their relationships to students, to parents , and to their own profession. Also, they have to deal with the fact that not only does new subject matter need to be taught, but it has to be taught in a new way, using new modes of classroom management , and under new laws and directives.
The study detailed later in this book was undertaken as a response to the above observation. The overall aim was to generate theory on the perspectives of primary school leaders in Serbia on their work within the current political, social and economic situation in which the country finds itself. The focus of the research was on school leaders at the primary school level. This was deemed appropriate because of the importance of these personnel in the implementation of education changes in the nation and because of their potential to have a positive effect on students’ learning through improved classroom practice. Moreover, it was held that the results of the research would contribute to the body of knowledge concerning school principals as leaders of education in post-Communist and post-conflict contexts. It was also held that education policy and decision-making in Serbia could benefit from being informed on the issues that are of current concern to primary school leaders . This, it was believed, could be of help in the design and development of programmes for the preparation, professional development and support of primary school leaders in Serbia. Finally, it was held that future research on school leadership in other countries in transition politically, economically and socially, could be informed by the results of the research.
The remainder of this chapter is in four parts. First, an overview of the broad context is presented. A synopsis of the pertinent academic literature is then outlined. This is followed by a description of the research approach adopted for the study reported later in the book. Finally, the content of the remaining chapters of the book are foreshadowed.
Overview of the Broad Context
Before the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s, Serbia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). It enjoyed economic growth as a communist country that had decentralised and liberalised its original communist market to become a socialist one (Bideleux & Jeffries, 2007a; Boeckh & Rutar, 2017; Glenny, 2014). However, economic growth began to go into decline in the late 1970s, and to accelerate further in that direction in the 1980s. By the 1990s, the trend was continuing and was accompanied by a decrease in international economic and political support for what was called ‘Yugoslav market socialism ’ and ‘workers’ self-management ’ (Bideleux & Jeffries, 2007b; Glenny, 2014; Petrović & Hofman, 2017).
Matters changed radically in 1990–1991. That is seen as the point when there was a break with the old way of life, a crash of a system, a breakup of the country, and the beginning of a series of wars (Spasić, 2012). It was also a time when concerns for morality gave way to concerns for survival and when law and order were replaced by criminals who had achieved power. Furthermore, while the ...