Principal supply and quality demands: a tale of two Asia-Pacific city states.

Cheng, Yin Cheong

This article examines the state of principal recruitment in Hong Kong and Singapore. Whereas there is no discernible shortage of people willing to serve as principals in either society, there are serious concerns about the quality of both incumbent and future principals. The reasons behind these interrelated phenomena, however, are very different in each society and relate to a unique mixture of political, structural and cultural factors. For example, the extreme centralisation of the political and structural systems in Singapore explains the steady supply of new principals. By contrast, the much more disconnected nature of education governance in Hong Kong accounts for the ready supply of available new principals. The article focuses on analysing how and why the configurations of each system affect principal supply and principalship quality.

Introduction

Despite widespread recognition throughout Southeast and East Asia that principalship is undergoing substantial and often painful transition, there is little indication of any shortage of people willing to step into formal leadership positions. There is, however, mounting concern about the quality of both those who are and those who will become principals, and whether the selection structures and cultures in which they work and are trained prepare them adequately for future school leadership. Given recent concerns in a number of western societies about the shortages of people willing to become principals, this article explores reasons why there is no parallel trend in two education systems in the Asia Pacific Region, namely Singapore and Hong Kong. The article also discusses why these systems are more concerned about leadership quality than quantity.

The reasons for the absence of any shortage are very different in each site and connect quite explicitly to the formal and informal aspects of the educational architecture of the two systems. Despite the availability of leadership candidates, there are growing concerns about their quality. This disquiet is inextricably tied to constant reforming and the shape and shared meanings of the systems within which principals work.

In referring to the context, we mean that which comprises the interconnected elements of the structure, culture and politics of the respective education systems. By structure, we mean the more formal and common aspects of system governance and organisation. Culture relates to the shared norms, values and patterns of understanding that appear relatively common across a society and so influence individual and group behaviour at all levels. Although adopting this definition, we acknowledge the ongoing debates about the meaning of culture and the contention that numerous sub-cultures may operate within any larger cultural pillow (Walker & Dimmock, 2002b). Politics refers to both the macro and micro aspects of policy intention, policy decree and policy implementation. Although we may discuss issues of principal selection, recruitment and development within any one of the three elements, each is the key in an ongoing iterative relationship that helps define the context of education and society, and thus the principalship.

We do not suggest that our analysis holds for other societies in South East Asia and East Asia. We selected Hong Kong and Singapore, not only because of our affiliations, but also because, despite their similar colonial and cultural heritage, they have developed very differently across a spectrum of social, political, educational and cultural areas. Examining both societies around the same issue provides interesting contrasts of how the two societies perceive, select and value their principals.

The first section of the article explains why there is no apparent shortage of principals. The second section discusses why there is a growing concern for quality. Both sections attempt to comment on how politics, structure and culture interact to influence the status quo and the current debate on principal selection. The concluding section touches fleetingly on how leadership quality issues are being tackled.

An abundant supply

Singapore The Singapore education system is highly centralised, with a centrally defined curriculum, and with funding, monitoring, employment and deployment all being handled for the most part by the Ministry of Education (MOE). A key consideration of the political system is the construction and maintenance of a harmonious multicultural society. This is very much reflected in education policy and in schooling (Gopinathan & Ho, 2000). Although there have been recent moves to decentralise some functions to schools, in comparative terms, the system remains largely controlled by the Ministry. Teachers are recruited and deployed by the Ministry, and principals generally have only limited say in which schools they are posted to. Every five years or so, principals are rotated to new assignments, which may be in other schools or in headquarters.

Identifying prospective candidates for principalship from the 25 000 strong workforce lies in the hands of the Ministry. Over recent years, this has become a relatively rigorous process, which includes superiors' reports, assessment tests and interviews with senior education personnel. Politically the government is committed to the belief that school principals are the key individuals in ensuring policy is translated into practice (Stott & Zhang, 2000). It was said in a recent ministerial speech: 'The key to high-performing schools is leadership. Effective leaders facilitate and contribute to the quality of schooling, the professionalism of teachers and the learning outcomes of students' (Teo, 2002). In particularly sensitive areas, such as racial harmony, principals are seen to play a key role in supporting initiatives that build mutual understanding between the different ethnic groups (Chinese, Malays, Tamils and other groups). The MOE has firm structures in place for maintaining a pool of principals for government schools, and is also very influential in selecting leaders for schools outside the government sector (such as aided and independent schools). Such influence appears particularly strong in schools that have a high profile. As the Education Minister clearly stated, 'The strategic development and deployment of school leaders are too important to be left to chance' (Teo, 2002). Interestingly, even in the aided schools (schools traditionally set up by religious orders, but now funded largely by the government), there has been influence brought to bear on principalship choices.

Until 2001, able teachers had little say in determining their career paths. Many were given the responsibility of heading departments--perhaps reluctantly in some cases--and if they were liked, they would have the chance to move into vice-principal positions. Eventually some would become principals. A large number would claim that they were 'reluctant' leaders: they never advanced their own cause and they were happy doing a humble job in the classroom. Whether that is true or not is a matter for conjecture, since it is part of the traditional cultures of the three dominant cultural groups to call oneself unworthy of higher things and other people more able. In some cases, this may be perceived as false modesty, for there is no doubt that many of these leaders were not only talented but also immensely ambitious. Even though they did not seek career elevation by actually asking, there were--and remain--many subtle ways of drawing the attention of others to their prowess. It is, of course, seen as an honour to be asked to assume higher positions, and some educators may have been seduced more by the prestige than the ability to do the job. Given a traditional propensity to respect hierarchy and towards obedience, few candidates would refuse if asked to take up a principalship post, even if they lacked the motivation or felt themselves unable to fulfil the demands of the role. (1)

Given its strong central position, the Ministry is able to project reasonably accurately the number of new principals needed in the system for a few years ahead, bearing in mind impending retirements and changes in the structure of schools. But it is not simply a matter of preparing the quantity of leaders required, important as that may be. It is also concerned with having people of the right calibre. With that in mind, the Ministry selects a number of potential principalship candidates to undergo an intensive training experience. The successful candidates are then located in a pool of educators qualified to assume principal positions. Some will become principals immediately following training; some will be kept in the pool to await suitable vacancies; and some will never become principals. This may seem puzzling, since the cost of training an individual is considerable, but the Ministry's argument is that not everyone who is trained will match the quality requirements and that certain individuals will fit better in certain schools than others.

Principals are increasingly being appointed at a much younger age than was previously the norm. Almost against traditionally ingrained beliefs and subsequent practices, which placed age and seniority as key selection criteria, official policy seems to have shifted in favour of the vitality of youth. It is no longer unusual for principals to be appointed before their 35th birthday. The gender profile has also changed. Whereas at one time female teachers dominated the profession and most of the principals were male, the genders are now more evenly represented at the principal level.

In short, a strong central body, with a clearly established political agenda, driven by an equally strong government ideology, and an attached practical structure for principal recruitment and selection, has prevented any serious shortage of principal candidates in Singapore. Practical and symbolic central commitment to the principalship is illustrated by the enormous resource investment in principalship recruitment and preparation. In Singapore, potential principals are identified and taken out of their institutions for six months' full-time intensive training, while on full pay. When added to the cost of training, this amounts to a huge resource commitment. Although fading somewhat, traditional values of respect and obedience to the system and superiors have worked with more formal agendas and structures to ensure, at a minimum, a steady supply of new principals.

Hong Kong Like Singapore, Hong Kong faces no shortage of the number of educators willing to become principals. This is true despite recent legislation that principals must retire at 60 unless special circumstances prevail. Although the ready supply may be partly due to principals' salaries being substantially higher than those of teachers, like Singapore, a mixture of political, structural and cultural factors probably explain the phenomenon more convincingly. However these have a different shape from those in the island republic. Whereas the almost extreme centralisation of Singapore's education system formally ensures an ample supply of principals, paradoxically it is the disconnected nature of education governance in Hong Kong that seems to assure the abundance. At least a basic understanding of this historically derived system is necessary to understand how this works.

Of the approximately 1300 schools in Hong Kong, only about 5 per cent are government schools, whereas over 83 per cent are subsidised or aided schools (the remainder are either private or international schools). Government schools are considered part of the civil service and hence tend to promote people based on seniority (years of service) and on the outcomes of a common appraisal process. Because of this, there is a steady supply of educators lined up to become principals when their time comes. By far the largest proportion of schools in Hong Kong are government aided: that is, they are regarded as being in the public sector, but are run by 'sponsors' (referred to as school sponsoring bodies or SSBs) such as religious bodies, philanthropic organisations or even private companies, which established the schools and now set direction and employ staff. Aided schools can be seen as publicly funded institutions being run by private agencies. They operate under letters of agreement between the now Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) and the SSB, and under a Code of Aid, which sets out procedures to be followed in return for public funds. The non-profit-making SSB contributes the initial cost of furnishing and equipping the premises, nominates the first supervisor and has a say in subsequent changes of school management committee (SMC) membership. The SMC, in turn, employs staff, including the principal. One of the managers must be registered as the supervisor. Formally, the main role of the supervisor is to act as a contact point between the management committee and the EMB. It has traditionally been the case that the administrative and authority structure in schools is hierarchical, with principals enjoying considerable power. In addition, the principal-supervisor relationship is often very significant in deciding the management direction of the school.

The sponsorship system is a unique feature of Hong Kong's school system, which developed under the colonial administration. Through its policy of allowing a multiplicity of sponsors, the government ensured that no one group would come to exert undue influence and thereby have overall control of education. Ironically this, in many ways, now prevents the Education Department from exerting the control it may desire for itself. The spread of sponsoring bodies presents an interesting statistic; at present there is a total of 330 school sponsoring bodies in the public sector--282 running aided schools, 40 Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) schools and nine running Caput schools. There are also 62 aided schools without SSBs. In these schools, the SMC takes a role similar to an SSB (for our purposes here, we shall refer to these as small SSBs). Of the total number of sponsoring bodies of aided schools, approximately 7 per cent manage 45 per cent of the schools; some sponsoring bodies, therefore, appear to exert considerable power and influence. The size of the sponsoring body has a marked effect on how principals are selected and, subsequently, issues of availability and quality.

School sponsoring bodies can very roughly be divided into three groups. These can simply be labelled as small, medium and large sponsoring bodies. Small SSBs manage only one school or two schools, medium SSBs from two to ten schools, and large sponsoring bodies, ten schools or more. The size of the SSB often has an influence on how principals are selected. This selection is in turn influenced by traditional cultural norms and belieS. In small SSBs, the SSB often comprises the same people as the school management council. Following a school's initial establishment, principals are almost always selected from within the sponsoring body; this is true even when the SSB goes through the facade of open advertisement and even interviews. In other words, part of the criteria for selecting principals may well be their proven long-term affiliation and loyalty to the SSB and the school. Some SSBs, particularly at a primary school level, have also survived charges that some principals are selected more on the grounds of relational connections than ability.

Medium-sized SSBs seem to follow a similar process, although principals may also, at times, be appointed from teachers of other affiliated schools (within the same SSB). Only very occasionally might a new principal be brought in from outside. Normally any promotion, whether to principal, vice-principal or senior teacher, occurs only within schools of the same SSB and, more usually, the same school. This phenomenon of 'home-grown' principals is borne out, for example, by the fact that, of the 93 new principals taking up posts in September 2002, approximately 42 per cent became principals in the same school within which they already worked. Although figures are unavailable, one suspects that, if appointments were similarly analysed in terms of SSBs, the percentages would be even higher.

In large SSBs there is relatively more opportunity for movement or promotion within schools under the same SSB, but the situation of new principals being brought in to head schools from outside remains more the exception then the rule. Large sponsoring bodies tend to have their own succession planning mechanisms. Even though the selection of principals may be constrained by factors such as religion, gender or even relationships--depending on the beliefs of particular sponsoring bodies--as a general rule, the larger the SSB, the more chance there is that a principal will come from other than an affiliated school. Such appointments may accompany crisis or major changes in direction. There remains a far greater probability that promotion will come from within the SSB and it seems very difficult to move between SSBs. The rule appears to be that the longer you stay, the harder it is to move. As a result, in all types of sponsoring bodies, principals tend to stay in the one school for much of their career as a school head. Even large SSBs are guided to an extent by traditional values and norms of respect for age, duty, years of service (all of which construct definitions of loyalty), position, hierarchy and a desire for harmonious relations. Appointment practices seem less influenced by gender than in most western societies. Of 279 principals appointed over the last 3 years, 52 per cent are male (42% in primary and 63% in secondary) and 48 per cent female (58% in primary and 37% in secondary).

The strong link between principal succession and the sponsoring body helps to explain why there is no shortage of principals in Hong Kong. Closely related to this structure are long-established relationships that sustain a 'promotion from within' mentality. Such relationships appear linked to traditional Chinese beliefs that people must be carefully observed and have formed trusting relationships before they can take a position of responsibility. An extended period of close acquaintance can also be seen as necessary to ensure the safeguarding of organisation harmony, or at least surface harmony, and so preserve the public image of the school and avoid conflict, both within the school and the SSB (Walker & Dimmock, 2002a).

In summary, the diffuse nature of the formal structure of education in Hong Kong, the historically ingrained decentralisation of school personnel management functions, and the subsequent propagation of sponsoring bodies with diverse practices, ideologies and cultures have led to a situation where the SSBs and not the government control principal recruitment and selection. Such control seems largely responsible for ensuring that there is no shortage of principals. Formal arrangements for managing principal succession interact with what can be classified as a set of more informal Chinese values, such as respect for loyalty and for hierarchy, to shape not only the quantity, but also the quality of serving, new and aspiring principals.

Owing to the complex iterative reaction between political, structural and cultural factors, there is no shortage of potential principals in either Singapore or Hong Kong. Although quantity is not a problem, the issue of quality has become more and more prominent in both societies in recent years. This has coincided, unsurprisingly, with the move away from a stable education environment towards a context that has become increasingly unknowable, unpredictable and problematic (Cheng, 2000b; Gopinathan & Ho, 2000). These conditions have been exacerbated by societal norm changes and the changing nature of the workplace. Concerns about quality appear to contrast with concerns in the United States, where Winter and Morenthal (2002) claim: 'The shortage ... is not a shortage of individuals who are principal certified and nominally qualified to apply for position vacancies' but rather an unwillingness to apply for the post. We next examine the current push for quality and attempt to explain from where it stems.

Quality not quantity

Singapore Concerns for the quality of principals in Singapore revolve presently around the extent to which they can cope with both immediate challenges and the demands of an uncertain future. Highlighting recent quality issues does not imply that the system neglected principal development previously. In fact, since the mid-1980s, an enormous amount of resources has been committed to principal training and development (Stott & Lee, 2002). Although such programs were considered successful, and in many ways innovative, by the close of the 1990s, there was a feeling beginning to emerge among those involved in the training that things would have to change.

Quality concerns in Singapore stem from a mixture of cultural, structural and political factors. Indeed a radical change in the direction of education was signalled in 1997 when the Prime Minister announced a new vision for the education service: 'Thinking schools, learning nation'. This simple expression of intent has had repercussions far beyond those envisaged at its political genesis. In effect, it has shifted the educational landscape in Singapore by exposing new and escalating challenges. Essentially the policy sought to portray schools as innovative learning communities (Goh, 1997). This perspective stemmed from the government's emphasis on innovation as 'the new economy driver'. It was suggested that doing the same old things or even doing new things in old ways would not enable children to face the future with confidence. If Singapore's future success was going to be characterised by innovation, then both schools and children would have to be driven by innovation mindsets (Tan & Gopinathan, 2000). Seen in this light, innovation has become a keyword in principalship preparation. Innovation builds value for the school through new ideas and through using people's talents in new ways. In essence, it provides a new agenda for success in schooling.

Spinning from the political thrust and its accompanying policy were a series of landmark initiatives aimed at increasing levels of autonomy for schools, promoting quality improvements, wider accountability and raised levels of achievement. These politically driven agendas demanded that the Ministry and National Institute of Education (the major government-funded provider of education programs) rethink how they prepared selected educators for the role of school leadership.

Singaporean principals have generally operated in a compliant mode. Disagreement with either superiors from the Ministry or with school personnel has been avoided. Accordingly, in the past, many principals expected compliance from their staff and rewarded such behaviour. Indeed the centralised nature of education in Singapore encouraged compliance and uniformity among principals. When policy shifted to a more 'learning' focus, however, such behaviours were considered a hindrance to development. Breaking the structural and cultural moulds within which principals had been socialised was seen as a prerequisite to building a new approach to principalship education and development. And a new approach was necessary if the innovative vision was to be realised.

The link between innovation and new knowledge creation is an obvious one. An over-emphasis on gaining access to existing codified knowledge may enable people to emulate best practice, but it does not take people and organisations into new territory, and may have little to do with innovation. That was the problem with the former training model. In contrast, the building of new insights, new knowledge and new practices enables schools to move beyond best practice and to take experience beyond what people know already. Such innovation thinking has become central to the thinking behind the training of school leaders in Singapore.

Hong Kong Serious concerns about the quality of principals in Hong Kong first emerged in the early 1990s and, although accompanying rhetoric prompted some scattered attempts to improve the quality of the principalship, no concerted effort was forthcoming for another decade. Any action that did eventuate was loosely structured, carried out on an ad hoc basis, overly influenced by institutes of higher education based on their expertise only or prescribed by the ED, and geared largely towards technical and managerial skills (Cheng, 2000a).

As in Singapore and numerous other societies, current concerns for principal quality closely tack political and business-economic agendas. Rhetoric reflecting these agendas has become more and more familiar in Hong Kong's political and bureaucratic circles, and is accompanied by a raft of reforms. Obvious among these reforms is reaffirmation of the central role played by principals and the importance of their professional growth (see Education Department, 2002). Primary responsibility for establishing quality principal development policy has been allocated to the central bureaucracy.

Lurking behind and between the political rhetoric of the knowledge society and the rapidly changing world appear a number of more practical, and intractable, motives driving the concern for quality leadership in Hong Kong. One reason underpinning questions of quality is related to the diffuse structure of the education system and the subsequent lack of power or influence central authorities have over the recruitment and selection (and indeed development) of principals. The government appoints principals for only 5 per cent of the total number of schools. The scope of the selection issue becomes obvious, given that the SSB system means that there are, in effect, approximately 400 different recruitment and selection agencies operating in Hong Kong. As long as they operate within the Code of Aid, each of these different bodies basically determines its own selection and quality criteria for the principalship. When you add to this that staff working in aided schools often spend their entire career working in a single school, or SSB, and that these, in turn, are structured around a particular religion, ideology or purpose, concerns about the efficacy of the selection system naturally arise.

The structure of the education system, depending on the perspective taken, can be seen as either conducive or counter to producing quality principals. If one takes the view that those close to the school--to what the school aims to achieve--are better placed than detached bureaucrats to know the type of leader required by a school, then the present system may actually appear close to ideal. However, if one views the situation from a broader perspective, major problems of equity and quality emerge. A tension between such views is presently being played out in Hong Kong. Both sides suggest their way is best for quality. Although the central department attempts to gain more control over principalship quality, SSBs claim they do this already and that their right of selection and self-control should not be challenged. To date, this tension has largely been resolved through compromise with little real change resulting. However, as we discuss in the following section, newly implemented structures hold the potential to swing more influence the way of central authorities.

Concerns for quality can also be identified in the ways the SSB structure interacts within enduring cultural norms and behaviours. There are advantages of people remaining in the same environment and having an intimate knowledge and understanding of it. However, if principalship selection hinges on loyalty, years of experience, status, seniority, or personal, religious or ideological affiliation, the efficacy of the system can be seriously questioned. Even if selected personnel are good practitioners, there is often a heavy emphasis on leading today's rather than tomorrow's schools. In reality, some of the principals selected are excellent, but there are still relatively widespread undertones of nepotism, particularly in primary schools.

Despite SSBs wishing to retain their power of principal selection, they are also concerned about quality, but only within their restricted sphere of influence. The government, on the other hand, is concerned about the quality from a broader perspective, but without a clear understanding of what makes 'quality' principals, and how they can work towards improving quality with so little control over the process. Their task, in many ways, is to break the traditional power of the SSB over principal selection, but to do this in a conciliatory and achievable manner.

Both Singapore and Hong Kong have expressed concern about the quality of future principals. Concerns in both societies have been prompted by political-economic agendas that have been echoed by mid-level policy makers (and in the case of Singapore, the major training provider). Related concerns in Singapore pointed to a culture of compliance among principals and outdated principal development and training methods. The culture of compliance can be attributed to interaction between the tight centralised structure of the system and a number of resilient, traditional cultural norms, which endure in school and in the broader society. Concerns for quality in Hong Kong relate even more than in Singapore to conservative, traditional cultural norms, such as loyalty, seniority and relationships. The buoyancy of behaviours accompanying such values interacts with the extremely diffuse structure of education governance to minimise the central bureaucracy's role in principal selection and recruitment. Whereas this may have certain advantages, it seriously militates against the establishment of common or even minimal standards of principal quality.

Conclusion

Whether school principals can meet the increasing challenges posed by numerous and sometimes disjointed education reforms is of pressing concern in different parts of the world (Cheng, 2002). Given the lack of any real concern about the quantity of available principals, the focus in both Singapore and Hong Kong is firmly on instituting new measures to improve the quality of present and future principals--in other words, a concentration on the shape and efficacy of principal learning and development. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to provide detail of why and how both systems have instituted policies and structures aimed at preparing future (and serving) principals, a taste of the approaches again confirms how the unique contexts shape the overall education agenda and hence the shape of school leadership. For example, the main innovation in Singapore is an ordered program run and developed through an 'integrative' partnership between the major training provider (National Institute of Education) and the MOE (Capra, 1996). This is an elite, integrated, mandatory, selective program for future principals, which aims to provide them with the capability to work innovatively in whatever situation they might encounter (Stott & Lee, 2002).

Attempts to improve quality in Hong Kong appear aimed at building some consistency of standards (Education Department, 2002) and processes, such as selection. This two-pronged approach can be viewed as an attempt to exert a greater centralising influence on a disconnected and culture-bound system. The search for consistency in terms of standards has resulted in a policy which demands that all aspiring and newly appointed principals engage in a formal multicomponent development program and that aspiring principals earn certification by the Education Department (2002). Given the unbalanced nature of the system and the deep-rooted norms that continue to value seniority in the school, connection with the SSB and independence from the government in recruitment, the process of upgrading the quality of principals is a long and rather tenuous one. In many ways, the success of any long-term framework for the continuing professional development of principals depends on the acceptance of the principal profession itself, the nerve of the central authority to hold a 'quality' line, and the willingness of SSBs to sacrifice some structurally and culturally ingrained power. Such issues must be resolved even before serious considerations about the programs' efficacy are discussed.

All cultures change--and those of Hong Kong and Singapore are no exception, but the level of change and hence the ability of systems to deal with issues relevant to the quality of the principalship vary. There is no doubt that, because of its strong central system, Singapore is better placed to push through changes to structures and process than is Hong Kong. The situation in Hong Kong is messier and requires a more measured approach. However, which 'way of working' will ultimately be more successful, and lasting, in improving principal quality is unknown. In fact, given the state of knowledge about what makes a high quality principal, especially in different Asian societies, judging success will always be problematic.

In this article, we have attempted to show that, although both Hong Kong and Singapore appear to share similar situations, the pedigree of these surface resemblances is very different. Whereas both appear to buck the spectre of principal shortages apparent in some western countries and share a deep concern over principal quality and a dedication to renewed principal development, the reasons behind these similarities are poles apart. Politics, formal and informal structures and enduring cultural values and norms outline different, shifting configurations in each context. And these serve to shape not only the role of the principal but also how such positions are filled and sustained. The contrast between the two societies may well serve to inform the debate in western countries, and perhaps even provide insights into how two very different systems, one centralised and one not, tackle the important issues of school leadership, including leadership succession.

Note

(1) Although this has not been documented in the academic literature, the claim is based on our long-term contacts with principals and teachers in Singapore and Hong Kong and we believe it to be true. Similar claims have also appeared rather regularly (in relation to Hong Kong) in the Hong Kong Chinese Language Press in recent months.

Keywords

administrator selection

principals

professional development

promotion

recruitment

teacher mobility

References

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. London: Harper Collins.

Cheng, Y. C. (2000a). The characteristics of Hong Kong school principals' leadership: The influence of societal culture. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 68-86.

Cheng, Y. C. (2000b). Educational change and development in Hong Kong: Effectiveness, quality, and relevance. In T. Townsend & Y.C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future (pp.17-56). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Cheng, Y. C. (2002). The changing context of school leadership: Implications for paradigm shift. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

Education Department. (2002). Continuing professional development for school excellence: Consultation paper on continuing professional development of principals. Hong Kong: Govt Pr.

Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Speech delivered at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking on 2 June 1997, Singapore.

Gopinathan, S. & Ho, W. K. (2000). Educational change and development in Singapore. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges for the future. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Stott, K. & Lee, S. (2000). Beyond best practice: A radical approach to leader development. Paper presented at the National College for School Leadership international conference, UK, 17 October.

Stott, K. & Zhang, Y. (2001). Building extraordinary teams: Enhancing school leadership in Asia. In C. Dimmock & A. Walker (Eds.), Future school administration: Western and Asian perspectives, Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

Tan, J. & Gopinathan, S. (2000). Singapore: Towards greater creativity and innovation? NIRA Review, 7(3).

Teo Chee Hean. (2002). The Singapore model of educational leadership. Speech given at the Leaders in Education Programme Graduation Ceremony, Singapore, 22 October.

Walker A. (in press). School leadership and management in the Asia Pacific region. In J. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), The handbook on educational research in the Asia-Pacific region. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

Walker, A. & Dimmock, C. (2002a). Moving school leadership beyond its narrow boundaries: Developing a cross-cultural approach. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

Walker, A. & Dimmock, C. (Eds.) (2002b). School leadership and administration: The cultural context. New York: Routledge-Falmer.

Winter, P. & Morgenthal, J. (2002). Principal recruitment in a reform environment: Effects of school achievement and school level on applicant attraction to the job. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 319-340.

Allan Walker is Professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China. Kenneth Stott is Associate Dean, Leadership Programmes in the Graduate Programmes and Research Office, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616. Yin Cheong Cheng is Professor and Centre Director in the Centre for Research and International Collaboration, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Email: Professor Allan Walker: adwalker@cuhk.edu.hk Kenneth Stott: kstott@nie.edu.sg Professor Yin Cheong Cheng: yccheng@ied.edu.hk