Women Principals in a Multicultural Society: New Insights into Feminist Educational Leadership

Women Principals in a Multicultural Society New Insights into Feminist Educational Leadership

Women Principals in a Multicultural Society New Insights into Feminist Educational Leadership Edited by Izhar Oplatka Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel And Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz University of Haifa, Israel

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM / TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Paperback ISBN: 90-77874-27-5 Hardbound ISBN: 90-77874-28-3 Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands http://www.sensepublishers.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2006 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Izhar wishes to dedicate this book to his wife, Edna Oplatka, and their children Shelly, Itai, and Tal, and to thank them for their support and empathy. Rachel wishes to dedicate this book to Reuven Lazarowitz and their children and grandchildren, and to her late mother, Batia Hertz (1916-2004), a woman who valued the uniqueness of people.

CONTENT Content

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

About the Editors

xi

Introduction Introduction Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz and Izhar Oplatka

3

Section I: Women Principals and the Multicultural Society 1

2

3

Women’s leadership in education: A review of the knowledge base Izhar Oplatka and Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz

17

Women, educational leadership, and cultural context: A crosscultural analytical framework Clive Dimmock and Allan Walker

33

Women in the Israeli Educational System Audrey Addi-Raccah

49

Section II: Leading a School Within My Social Group 4

5

6

7

Why are there so few Palestinian Women in Principalship positions? Nabil Khattab and Jamil Ibrahim Equality, Autonomy, and innovativeness: The life story of secular women principals in Israel Izhar Oplatka The diamond workshop; A story of ultra-orthodox female principals Mira Karnieli “They felt I raped a role that was not supposed to be mine”: First woman principal in a Bedouin tribal society Sarab Aburabia-Queder

71

89

103

123

vii

8 9

Leadership in a multicultural school: Does Gender Matter? Devorah Eden and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman Women as participative leaders: Understanding participative leadership from a cross-cultural perspective Anit Somech

139

155

Section III: Epilogue and Reflection 10

11

viii

Seeing beyond difference: Women administrators in Canada and Israel Janice Wallace

175

Epilogue: Feminist pedagogy; An alternative look at female leadership Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz & Izhar Oplatka

193

Bio Notes

205

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors would like to thank the authors of this volume for their time, energy and efforts that brought about the completion of this important book. Without their unique contribution this book could not appear. The contributors truly represent the multicultural message of the book, and the interaction with them was a rewarding experience for the editors A special gratitude is given to the University of Haifa, to the Ben Gurion University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Dept. of Education for their financial support in the production of this book. Mrs. Dee B. Ankonina who edited the various chapter of this book deserves much professional appreciation. Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz Thanks the social/ personality program and faculty in the Department of Psychology, The Graduate Center in the City University of New York (CUNY) for their academic support while being there on sabbatical in 2004-2005.

ix

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Rachel Hertz Lazarowitz is a professor of Social and Educational Psychology at the faculty of Education in the University of Haifa. She graduated from the University of Texas at Austin, USA. Her research areas are intergroup relations across gender and religion, and cooperative learning. She Published widely in English and Hebrew, in 2004 she edited with Zelniker, Stephan and White, Stephan a special issue on Arab-Jewish coexistence programs in the Journal of Social Issues. E-mail: [email protected] Izhar Oplatka is a senior lecturer in the division of educational administration and policy in the Department of Education, Ben Gurion University, Israel. His current areas of interest are the career development of schoolteachers and principals, gender in educational administration, and educational marketing. He has published many articles in leading journals in the field of educational administration and comparative education, such as Educational Administration Quarterly (2006), Journal of Educational Administration (2004), and Comparative Education Review (2002). His book From Burnout to Renewal: The Life Story of Women Principals in Israel (2002) was the first book published in Hebrew about the lives and careers of female principals. E-mail: [email protected]

xi

INTRODUCTION

RACHEL HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & IZHAR OPLATKA

INTRODUCTION

One of the challenges to feminist research and methodology and to women’s school leadership, particularly, comes from women’s ability or inability to actualize their varied experiences within the schools they lead. The literature on women’s leadership in schools searches for unique leadership styles of women, but ignores other important factors such as cultural differences, economic and socialpolitical divisions, race and nationality, religion and identity. The complex relations among the above factors shape the being and doing of women principals’ professional lives in different ways around the world. The need for a broader perspective is further supported by researchers of multiculturalism, who maintain that multiculturalism in its various guises clearly signals a crisis in the definition of “nation” (Bennett, 1998). A nation can be divided into diverse social groups that each represent a different set of cultural scripts and, therefore, are also termed “micro-cultures.” Ethnic and racial differences among these micro-cultures are addressed as a question of “identity” rather than of history and politics. People who belong to the same micro-cultures share cultural identities and values that bind them together as a group (Gollnick & Chinn, 1986). In line with this criticism and from a multicultural standpoint, it is premised that women principals’ professional experiences may be influenced by their microculture, as well as by their position as women. Voices of women principals in diverse cultural settings may provide insight into a variety of “female” leadership perspectives emanating from their cultural scripts. Thus, this book is based on the assumption that discourse on a “female” style of leadership is dangerous and simplistic, for claiming that gender is the main contributor to management behavior and style may result in an unreal and even distorted picture of the lives of women principals (Blackmore, 1999; Court, 1998; Oplatka, 2001, 2002; Reay & Ball, 2000, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Shapira 2005). Following Hall (1996), therefore, who claimed that gender is not a sole explanatory factor for men’s and women’s performance in their jobs, this book incorporates the concept of “multiculturalism” as a central variable in exploring women principals’ accomplishments of their role. The book critically analyzes the intersecting issues of gender, school leadership and multicultural experiences as expressed in women’s school principalship in the diverse micro-cultures composing Israeli society. The micro-cultures within Israel contain groups that share cultural patterns not common to the Israeli macro-culture. These various micro-cultures include Jews of different ethnic groups; Arabs with I. Oplatka, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (eds.), Women principals in a multicultural society: New insights into feminist educational leadership, 3–13. © 2006 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & OPLATKA

various religious affiliations; secular and religious groups; immigrants; foreign workers; and their children. All of the above are living in various settings in Israel. Each group has distinctive cultural patterns while sharing some cultural patterns with all members of Israeli macro-culture. Coupled with the high percentage of women principals in the Israeli educational system, Israel may be considered a “laboratory” for larger western countries that must cope with multicultural education systems and diverse ethnic groups. Potential readers from Europe and North America may find Israel to be a case study for understanding the impact of diversity on the nature of female principalship. The multicultural makeup of Israel is structured within a segregated educational system regulated by the state. This reality enables us to better analyse the impact of micro-cultures on gender and school leadership. The most important aspects of this book are its emphasis on a multicultural view of women and principalship. To put it simply, the book’s main contribution is its attempt to explore women principals’ lives and careers in a variety of social and ethnic groups, assuming that cultural scripts and values render some influence upon their leadership styles, career development, and professional issues. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comparative documentation of women principals’ leadership styles and perspective from a multicultural standpoint. We believe that women principals engaging in multicultural society may present multiple professional identities that are strongly linked both with their gender and with the cultural patterns of their specific micro-culture. Embedded in this assumption are issues of social interests, beliefs, goals, values, and commitment that may potentially impact the perceptions and performance of women principals, which, in turn, may engender diverse leadership styles among women in education. Put differently, in multicultural societies a mosaic of "female" principalship may emerge, and this issue may be examined within the multicultural society of Israel. In addition, this book presents typically unheard voices of women principals in minority groups, such as religious groups and immigrants, who act and live in a modern country but experience marginalization. Modern theories in educational administration originating mostly in North America and the British Commonwealth nations have ignored these women and focused mainly on women principals from the mainstream (usually White middle class). Therefore, this book also examines the relevancy of established feminist theories in educational administration to other groups of women in principalship. ISRAEL: THE LAND FOR AN ANCIENT AND A NEW NATION

The State of Israel, named such by its Jewish majority since 1948, and by us as the Jewish editors of the book, is the continuation of a long history regarding this part of the Middle East. Called Judea in the biblical era and Palestine before 1948, this region holds one of the most ancient lands and ancient peoples of the Mediterranean. The land was “promised” to Abraham in the biblical era. Based on the Old Testament, Jews claim this land was promised to Isaac, one of the three founding fathers of the Jewish people/religion. Israel is the birthplace of the three 4

INTRODUCTION

monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The people of the Holy Land survived many rulers, battles between Muslims and Christians, and exile. The educational system that is addressed in this book was developed by the Jews at the end of the 19th century (circa 1880). The Jewish people, mainly from Europe, began returning to the region, settled in small but growing numbers in the land then called Palestine. In recent times, World War I and the concomitant conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (1917) ended with victory for Great Britain and the British Mandate that ruled Palestine until 1947. Israel was granted its independence as a Jewish state in 1947 by the British Crown and the United Nations Council. The temporary Jewish government accepted the “Partition Plan” (1917), followed by the Balfour Declaration (1929), declaring the right of the Jews to have their own homeland. The 1947 plan was to create two states for two nations: one for the Arabs who lived in Palestine and one for the Jews. At that time there were about 600,000 Jews, many of them survivors of the Holocaust in World War II, and half a million Arabs (Auni-Serge, 1994; Rekhess, 1998). Upon withdrawal of the military forces by Great Britain in 1948, the new nation, Israel, was attacked by the armies of seven Arab nations who did not accept the Partition Plan and who accused the Jews and the British Crown of colonialism, imperialism, and invasion of their land. The Jews, who won this war, called it the War of Independence. The Arabs called this same war the Nakba – disaster or catastrophe (Ghanim, 2001). Before 1948, the country was binational, with Arab and Jewish inhabitants. In the course of the War of Independence, many Arab inhabitants fled, or were exiled and became refugees (Lustick, 1994). In subsequent years, Jews from over 100 countries of the Diaspora settled in Israel. Many of them were survivors of the Holocaust, and many others were exiled or fled from Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Israel is today a state of immigrants, a binational, multiethnic and multi-religious state, with almost seven million citizens, of which Arabs comprise about 20%. The state is divided into social, national, and political enclaves (White-Stephan, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Zelniker, & Stephan, 2004). MULTICULTURALISM WITHIN CONFLICT AND COEXISTENCE

Israeli society, despite the small size of its population, is becoming ever more diverse, like most societies in the western world. This diversity relates to national, social-political, economic, religious, and cultural spheres. Social scientists pinpoint four major divisions in Israeli society: the national division between Jews and Arabs; the level of religiosity between orthodox religiously observant Jews and secular Jews; the ethnic division between Sephardic Jews of Middle Eastern origin and Ashkenazi Jews of European and American origin; and the most recent division between native Israelis and immigrants, mostly but not only from the former Soviet Union (Addi-Raccah, this volume; Kalekin-Fishman, 2004; Khattab & Ibrahim, this volume; Horowitz, 2000; Smooha, 1997).

5

HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & OPLATKA

The intensity of the divisions and the conflicts that arise among the different groups reflect changes within Israeli society. For example, the division between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews was very bitter and violent in the 1950s and 1960s, but it then abated, partly due to intermarriages and compensatory state policies. On the other hand, the Jewish-Arab division within the State of Israel has persisted for all the years of its existence, since 1948. Issues of identity, civic equality, domination, and oppression are constantly voiced within Israeli society (Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2004; Rouhana, 1997). Within the Arab population in Israel, the majority (80%) is Muslim, 10% is Christian, 5% is Druze, and the remainder comprises Bedouin, Circassian, and other small groups. Most Arabs (90%) live in mono-ethnic villages, whereas most Jews live in mono-ethnic cities. Israel has only five mixed Arab-Jewish cities (Ghanim, 2001; Zelniker &Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2005). Relations between the Israeli Arab citizens and the Israeli Jewish citizens within Israel are strongly affected by two facets of the country's political reality. On the one hand, within Israel, Arab citizens work through their formal representatives in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) and through many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are used as lobby agents to enhance equality in civil rights and resource allocation by the state to the Arab sector. On the other hand, the Israeli Arabs uphold a unique political relationship with the Palestinian Authority and people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The fate of the Arab people in the “occupied” territories (dovish terminology), or the “liberated” territories (hawkish terminology), deepens the division between Jews and Arabs within Israel. This division has become a central issue in Israel in the years since the first Intifada (uprising) in 1989, and more so since the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000, after a short period of hope for peace following the Oslo Agreement that collapsed with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995 (Sharoni & AbuNimer, 2000; White-Stephan et al., 2004). However, this political reality has not overtly affected in a negative way the Arab educational system in Israel, which continues to strive with noticeable success to excel within the constraints of Jewish majority control (Al-Haj, 1998). Many extracurricular coexistence programs are being conducted with Arab and Jewish schools (Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kupermintz, & Lang, 1999; Maoz, 2004), in addition to the many innovative educational projects sponsored and developed by the Israeli Ministry of Education within each of the two sectors (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2004). Recently, Arab and Jewish school principals have also been working together to improve education within their mixed cities (Eden & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2002). Several of the chapters in this book relate to the Arab sector and its unique micro-context, and to the unique, segregated secular and religious micro-cultures within the Jewish sector. The voices of Arab women and of religious Jewish women were rarely documented in the Israeli public sphere because they were marginal to secular Jewish society (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Shapira, 2005; Osem, 2004). Thus, these chapters are pioneering works about women’s leadership, and

6

INTRODUCTION

offer important contributions to the understanding of the macro- and microprocesses of empowerment and obstruction within these micro cultures. ISRAEL'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Education in Israel is segregated by nationality and degree of adherence to religious practices, with separate educational sectors for religious and secular Jewish children and for Arab children, with each sector including both state and non-state schools. Non-state private schools for reform (moderately religious) Jews and ultra-orthodox Jews as well as Arab church-affiliated schools do receive partial government funding (Al-Haj, 1998; Elboim-Dror, 1986; Mar’i, 1978). The language of studies for Jewish children in state and non-state schools is Hebrew, and for the Arab children in Arab schools is Arabic. Jewish children (with the exception of children in the non-state ultra-orthodox schools) take English as a second language in the third or fourth grade, and later can choose French or Arabic as a third language. Arab children take Hebrew as a second language in the second or third grade (Abu Rabia, 2005; Ben-Rafael, 1994, and then can choose English or French as a third language. Because of the segregation, the likelihood of Jewish children meeting Arab children or of religious orthodox Jewish children meeting secular Jewish children is very low (Zelniker & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2005). The school structure is generally arranged in three units: 6 years of elementary school, 3 years of junior high school, and 3 years of high school. Some districts also operate by 6+6 unit systems, and a small minority of districts continues to operate the 8 + 4 year structure that typified the educational system until "integration reform" began in 1968. Preschool education in Israel is mandatory and free for 5year-old children, but Israel has a high preschool attendance from age 2. In all these levels of schooling, the system is segregated as described above (ElboimDror, 1986). The only institutions of learning that are integrated by nationality, religion, and levels of religiosity are the seven main Israeli universities, where all groups of Israeli society can meet (Gilat, 2004; Hofman, 1988). However, despite its unique importance, this integration is very limited in terms of the number of students who actually attend those universities: about 35% of Jewish high school graduates and only 5% of Arab high school graduates. Although some educational programs work to facilitate cross-national encounters betweens Jews and Arabs and intranational encounters between religious and secular Jews, the level of segregation remains very high. Many Jews express distress and fear over the growing Arab population in the state, and many Arabs feel angry about the unequal distribution of resources and discrimination that they attribute to national and local politics (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2003). Moreover, a deep division exists between orthodox and secular Jews and, likewise, between fundamentalist and modern Muslims. To date, the numbers of students, teachers, and principals in non-state schools operated by religious organizations is growing within both national groups. These increasing subdivisions in the educational system arise from the country's lack of legal 7

HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & OPLATKA

separation between religion and state and from the political state of affairs in the Israeli Knesset where different political parties (at the time of this writing, over 10) can exercise their power to attain resources for their non-state education sub-sector. Within this power relation matrix, the dominance of the Jewish political parties results in discriminative policies and unequal allocation of resources that favor the Jews (Al-Haj, 1998; Elboim-Dror, 1986; Mar'i, 1978; Kalekin-Fishman, 2004). The Arab minority in general suffers from a number of profound problems: Income level for the Arab population is below the national average and generally lower than that of the Jewish population. The majority of Arabs live in villages and small cities in segregated areas, and are remote from centers of business, industry, and higher education. Only about 10% of the Arabs are living in mixed cities. Despite Israel's law requiring mandatory education up through graduation from high school, the percentage of Arab students at risk is higher then that of the Jews; Arab academic outcomes are lower as measured by the matriculation exams that afford admittance to universities, and the dropout rate, usually during high school, is higher in the Arab sector (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2002). The state, the local authorities, and schools make a genuine effort to increase the percentages of Arab students who successfully complete the matriculation exams and can be admitted to college level education. For example, in a 5-year educational program held in one of the five mixed cities in Israel, the percentage of Arab high school graduates with a matriculation certificate was only 29% in 1995. By 2002, the percentage had risen to 43%, but was still lower than that of the Jewish high school graduates in the same mixed city (51%) (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2003). OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

This book is organized into three sections. The first section, “Women Principals and the Multicultural Society,” includes three chapters that set the overall stage for the case studies of women principals from a multicultural perspective, emphasizing the need to explore women in principalship in a wide variety of cultural groups. In Chapter One, “Women’s Leadership in Education: A Review of the Knowledge Base,” the editors, Izhar Oplatka and Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, present the literature on women and leadership in education, including issues of leadership styles, barriers to female advancement into principalship, profiles of women principals, career development of women principals, role-family conflict, and so forth, and discuss major critical writings on feminist thinking in education. In Chapter Two, “Women, Educational Leadership, and Cultural Context: A Cross-Cultural Analytical Framework,” Clive Dimmock and Allan Walker present a comparative view of leadership in different multicultural societies. This chapter outlines and applies a comprehensive and relevant cultural framework within which women leaders in different societies and types of schools can be researched rigorously and systematically. Dimmock and Walker advocate the assumptions that studies of women leaders in education need to be cognizant of the cultural and contextual settings within which their leadership is exercised. In doing so, these 8

INTRODUCTION

authors present a theoretical background for the subsequent case studies of women principals in diverse cultural groups. In Chapter Three, “women in the Israeli Educational System,” Audrey AddiRaccah uses statistical and previous research data to explain women’s participation rates in school management and presents the characteristics of women principals in the different educational sectors in Israel. Her chapter relates to the three state educational sectors that are fully supported and controlled by the state: the Arab sector, the secular Jewish sector, and the Jewish national religious sector. The second section, "Leading a School Within My Social Group," comprises six chapters, each presenting a case study that describes, analyzes, and reflects on the leadership management of a particular group of women principals in their unique school environment within a particular sector and context. Altogether, these chapters depict a variety of educational subsystems and how women principals lead their schools in the specific micro-culture within which the school, the principal, and the staff operate. These authors draw concluding thoughts about these specific principal's contribution to a general understanding of women’s school leadership in multicultural or non-western societies and, when possible, also outline some practical guidelines for principals in multicultural societies, with implications for policy makers and directions for future research. It is hoped that the readers will find their own ways to extend these authors' perspectives on women’s leadership and will thereby engage in an interactive, multicultural dialogue. In the first of these case studies, in Chapter Four, “Why are there so few Palestinian Women in Principalship Positions,” Nabil Khattab and Jamil Ibrahim use the term Palestinians to define and relate to the Arab citizens of the State of Israel. This chapter serves as a continuation of the prior chapter by Audrey AddiRaccah about Israeli society, and looks deeper into the Arab society within the country. The authors provide statistical data in order to address the issue of why so few Palestinian women hold leadership positions within the Israeli-Arab educational system. Khattab and Ibrahim pinpoint two socio cultural factors affecting female career trajectories in this minority. Palestinian males hold a unique status due to the patriarchy within traditional Arab society and due to the general rarity of high-level occupational positions accessible to the marginalized Arab minority group within Israel. The chapter presents a short case study of a women principal to illustrate the slow feminization of women principalship in this sector. In Chapter Five, "Equality, Autonomy, and Innovativeness: The Life Story of Secular Women Principals in Israel," Izhar Oplatka displays the career development and leadership styles of female principals who work in the mainstream educational system in Israel. They are non-observant, secular Jews who live in a modern society, whose values are drawn, by and large, from the western world, especially from US. The author connects major issues in their careers (e.g., career entry, the induction stage in principalship, leadership style, role performance) to the dominant cultural scripts in the non-observant Jewish society of Israel. It is assumed that in spite of the influence of gender upon their career,

9

HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & OPLATKA

many of their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors at work appear to be associated with the liberal, democratic society in which they live and work. In Chapter Six, "The Diamond Workshop: The Story of Ultra-Orthodox Female Principals," Mira Karnieli addresses the unique situation of the ultra-orthodox woman principal who must adapt to bridge the family-work conflict that predominates for women in this socially closed group. This pioneering article provides a rare opportunity to look at the lives and careers of ultra-orthodox women. The case study gives insight into the vision and mission of one particular school principal who aims to empower her young female students to "shine like diamonds" in their education yet also seeks to educate them to maintain the woman’s place in religious tradition. In Chapter Seven, “'They Felt I Raped a Role That Was Not Supposed To Be Mine:' First Woman Principal in a Bedouin Tribal Society," Sarab AburabiaQueder presents the strategies used by one of the two women principals in the Bedouin society in Israel, to help her cope with cultural obstacles and to attain the status of “administrator-principal” in a local Bedouin school in southern Israel. This chapter examines her many struggles as the first woman entering the public sphere in Bedouin society, in educational management. When she is perceived to be in power, in her authoritative role, this principal's stubborn yet somewhat tender way of confronting cultural norms, creates a unique management style, which is stemming from her specific cultures' demands. This description provides the reader with a special approach to female leadership in schools within this society and culture. In Chapter Eight, “Leadership in a Multicultural School: Does Gender Matter?,” Devorah Eden and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman explore how a woman principal made her personal commitment to cope with an uncommon multicultural population: the children of temporary immigrant workers who had mostly entered Israel illegally from various countries. The two researchers visited and observed the Jewish state-secular elementary school located within the “ghetto” of foreign workers’ families, and interviewed the principal. Their chapter presents the school work and routine and the principal's innovative leadership with this population. The principal defines herself as a person who is highly aware and responsive to human rights, and this case study has already gained much attention in Israel, even leading to new regulations that promote these children's rights and well-being. In Chapter Nine, “Women as Participative Leaders: Understanding Participative Leadership from a Cross-Cultural Perspective,” Anit Somech compares women principals who have adopted a participative leadership style in the kibbutz with their counterparts in the urban sector. Participative and cooperative lifestyles in Israel have long comprised the core values in Jewish society in general and in kibbutz communal life in particular (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Zelniker, 1995). Somech explores how culture shapes the philosophy and strategy of these principals' participative leadership style. The third and final section, “Epilogue and Reflection,” contains two concluding and reflective chapters to sum up the cases and link them with other countries, theories, and models of women in principalship and other areas of study. 10

INTRODUCTION

In Chapter Ten, “Seeing beyond Differences: Women Administrators in Canada and Israel,” Janice Wallace connects the research on cases from an Israeli multicultural context to her own work as well as the work of other Canadian researchers who have explored the challenges faced by women principals in that country. In Canada, cultural history and socioeconomic opportunities, including opportunities to become school administrators, are organized around linguistic, religious, racial, and ethnic diversity, as well as gender, which are all addressed in state-initiated multicultural policy. Wallace uses a reflexive post structural reading of the discourses that are revealed in the Israeli case studies to determine what they disclose about the meanings that shape multiculturalism, patriarchy, and women’s “place” within educational bureaucracies. In Chapter Eleven, "Epilogue: Feminist Pedagogy – An Alternative Look at Female Leadership," the editors, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz and Izhar Oplatka, examine several of the book's major, challenging themes in order to explore general and specific issues that have emerged from the different micro-cultural contextual case studies. The editors propose that women principals can empower their unique leadership style by connecting leadership management to pedagogy. When the school leaders’ vision and mission are based on critical feminist and multicultural pedagogies, multiculturalism in various forms may become a meaningful and empowering reality for all school participants. REFERENCES Abu Rabia, S. (Editor). (2005). The language resources of Israel. A special issue of: Language Culture and Curriculum, 18(1), 1-138. Al-Haj, M. (1998). Education, empowerment and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press. Auni-Segre, D. (1994). Israel: A society in transition. In I. S. Lustick (Ed.), The conflict with the Arabs in Israeli politics and society (pp. 29-49). New York: Garland. Ben-Rafael, E. (1994). Language, identity, and social division: The case of Israel. New York: Oxford University Press. Bennett, D. (Ed.). (1998). Multicultural states: Rethinking difference and identity. London: Routledge. Blackmore, J. (1999). Troubling women: Feminism, leadership and educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Court, M. R. (1998). Women challenging managerialism: Devolution dilemmas in the establishment of co-principalship in primary schools in Aotearoa/New Zealand. School Leadership and Management, 18(1), 35-57. Eden, D., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2002). The political power of school principals in Israel: A case study. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(3), 211-230. Elboim-Dror, R. (1986). Jewish education in Eretz Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. [Hebrew]. Ghanem, A. (2001). The Palestinian-Arab minority in Israel, 1948-2001: A political study. Albany: State University of New York Press. Gilat, A. (2004). Strategies for empowerment: Jewish and Muslim religious and secular women in the university. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Eduction, Haifa University Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (1986). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Columbus: Merrill. Halabi, R., & Sonnenschein, N. (2004). The Jewish-Arab encounter in a time of crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60, (2), 372-387.

11

HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & OPLATKA Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education. London: Paul Chapman. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2003). Arab and Jewish youth in Israel: Voicing national injustice on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 51-66. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2004). Existence and coexistence in Acre: The power of educational activism. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 357-373. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Kupermintz, H., & Lang, J. (1999). Arab-Jewish students’ encounters. In E. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of interethnic coexistence (pp. 565-585). New York: Continuum. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shapira, T. (2005). Muslim women's life stories: Building leadership. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(2), 165-181. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Zelniker, T. (1995).Cooperative learning in the Israeli context: Historical, educational and cultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 267-285. Hofman, J. E. (Ed.). (1988). Arab-Jewish relationships in Israel. Bristol, UK: Wyndham Hall Press. Horowitz, T. (2000). Violence as a social phenomenon. Jerusalem: Szold Institute. [Hebrew]. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2002). The Arab population in Israel. (Publication No. 26.) Jerusalem: [Hebrew]. Kalekin-Fishman, D. (2004). Ideology, policy and practice: Education for immigrants and minorities in Israel today. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Lustick, I. S. (Ed.). (1994). The conflict with the Arabs in Israeli politics and society. New York: Garland. Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating inter-group encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 437-452. Mar’i, M. (1978). Education in Israel. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Oplatka, I. (2001). I changed my management style: The cross gender transition of women head teachers in mid-career. School Leadership and Management, 21(2), 219-233. Oplatka, I. (2002). Women principals and the concept of burnout: An alternative voice? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(3), 211-226. Osem, G. (2004, July). Malka Haas: An unvoiced story of an educational women leader in the religious kibbutz movement in Israel. Paper presented at Ephrata’s 80th anniversary conference, Jerusalem. Reay, D., & Ball, S. J. (2000). Essentials of female management. Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 145-159. Rekhess, E. (1988). First steps in the crystallization of Israeli policy toward the Palestinian minority. Monthly Review, 34, 33-36. [Hebrew]. Rouhana, N. (1997). Palestinian citizens in an ethnic Jewish state: Identities and conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press. Shapira, T., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2004). The life story of three Muslim women in leadership positions. Gadish: The Adult Education Journal, 9, 180-200. [Hebrew]. Sharoni, S., & Abu-Nimer, M. (2000). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In D. J. Gerner (Ed.), Understanding the contemporary Middle East (pp. 161-200). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Smooha, S. (1997). Ethnic democracy: Israel as an archetype. Israel Studies, 2(2), 198-241. [Hebrew]. White-Stephan, C., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Zelniker, T. & Stephan, W.G. (2004). Introduction to improving Arab-Jewish relations in Israel: Theory and practice in coexistence educational programs. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 237-252. Zelniker, T., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2005). School-family partnership for coexistence (SFPC) in the city of Acre: Promoting Arab and Jewish parents’ role as facilitators of children’s literacy development and as agents of coexistence. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 18(1), 114-138.

Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz Faculty of Education Haifa University, Israel

12

INTRODUCTION

Izhar Oplatka Department of Education Ben Gurion University, Israel

13

Section I: Women Principals and the Multicultural Society

IZHAR OPLATKA & RACHEL HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

1. WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION A Review of the Knowledge Base

INTRODUCTION

Women’s under-representation in senior managerial positions in schools was well documented throughout the 1970s and 1980s in many western countries, including the U.K. (Acker, 1989) and the U.S.A. (Shakeshaft, 1989). This underrepresentation of women was most strikingly evident in superintendency and high school principalship, in stark contrast with women's over-representation in the teaching occupation (Lad, 2000). However, the proportion of women principals and assistant principals has been steadily increasing in many countries. Research during the second half of the 1990s onward indicates improvement in the number of women obtaining secondary principalship (Banks, 1995; Coleman, 2002; Hill & Ragland, 1995; Lad, 2000; Young, 2000). Concurrently, research on women in principalship has become a significant field of study, and many books and articles that focus on female principals have been published since the appearance of Carol Shakeshaft's classic 1989 work (Women in Educational Administration). Over time, researchers and writers have addressed three different sets of questions. The first set, dominating early research, addressed issues of gender inequality in promotion to principalship, external and internal barriers for women’s progress in school, and the like (e.g., Acker, 1989; Blackmore, 1989; Davies, 1990; Evetts, 1991; Shakeshaft, 1989). The main research questions early on were: Why are there so few women school administrators? How were gender inequalities created and structured within school administrations? How have these inequalities been maintained and perpetuated? A second set of questions addressed the differentiation between men and women principals regarding attitudes and behaviors. Researchers of gender and educational administration have observed women principals in their work and have explored their characteristics, as well as the institutional and professional cultures within which they work (e.g., Dunlap, 1995; Fennell, 1999; Hall, 1993; Skrla & Young, 2003). They raised questions such as: Do male and female principals differ in their behaviors and actions in school? What qualities and skills are associated with women administrators in schools? What evidence is available to support the claim that women behave differently from men as administrators in educational settings? How should women lead? Is there such a thing as women’s leadership style? What are the implications for women who choose to lead policy and political changes? I.Oplatka, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (eds.), Women principals in a multicultural society: New insights into feminist educational leadership, 17–32. © 2006 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

The last set of questions, emerging mainly during the 1990s onwards, referred to the lives and careers of women principals, including their experiences, dilemmas, and emotions (e.g., Blackmore, 1998; Coleman, 2002; Evetts, 1994; Hall, 1996; Lad, 2000; Oplatka, Bargal, & Inbar, 2001). Researchers were curious to understand what we really know about women principals, and what we can say about their lives and career development. They raised questions such as: What is a woman principal’s typical career story? What are the historical, demographic, career, psychological, and family characteristics of women school administrators? In general, underpinned by critical feminist views that traditional social science began its analyses only pertaining to white men’s experiences (e.g., Harding, 1987), with little awareness of women’s particular experiences, feminist research in educational administration has introduced the dimension of gender in principalship. This approach assumes that one’s gender identification renders a tremendous influence on behavior, perceptions, and effectiveness (Shakeshaft, 1995). The feminist researcher, then, attempts to unearth women principals' experiences, thoughts, and leadership so as to raise their long-unheard voices and, as Blackmore (1999) indicated, to analyze the epistemological foundations of structural-functionalist leadership theories. Blackmore (1993b, p. 39) summed up the aims of feminism in educational administration, commenting that it “has sought to dissolve the gendered division of labor, redefine leadership, develop an ethic of care, seek cultural inclusivity, advocate emancipatory politics, recognize difference, democratize educational practice, and review the role of the state.” This chapter addresses some of the themes discussed above by providing a review of the scholarship that has sought to expand understanding of women as principals, by documenting the ways in which women principals access their role, lead their school, and experience their career. Our purpose here is to outline the common themes and characteristics that emerge from the literature on women principals, and to discuss the deficiencies and weaknesses in this literature. In no way, however, do we attempt to review the full range of studies and writings concerning women in principalship, but rather we hope to provide a theoretical backdrop to this book's case studies and articles on women principals. We discuss the barriers faced by women teachers who aspire to gain a principalship; pinpoint the differences between male and female principals in terms of leadership style, power relations, and career; and end with the impact of the recent education reforms upon women principals’ leadership. We conclude by reflecting upon current knowledge on women principals and considering its shortcomings and needs for further insights. THE PATHS TO PRINCIPALSHIP: “GLASS CEILING” AND INTERNAL BARRIERS

Since the 1970s, probably in light of emergent literature in general management dealing with barriers and discrimination against women employees (e.g., Kanter's classic 1977 work: Men and Women of the Corporation), a number of writers have attempted to identify and categorize some of the barriers to women's progress into principalship (e.g., Hall, 1996 in England; Shakeshaft, 1989 in the U.S.; 18

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

Blackmore, 1993a in Australia). Their studies have suggested various explanations to account for the low representation of women in leadership positions in education. One major explanation revolves around cultural scripts that identify masculine attributes and traits as contributing to effective leadership and feminine attributes and traits as contributing to ineffective leadership (Al-Khalifa & Migniuolos, 1990; Blackmore, 1993a; Curry, 2000). Thus, when an environment assumes that men’s values and practices are the norm for leadership (e.g., management as rational engagement), it is hardly surprising that many women are excluded from principalship, under-represented in school management, and, as Coleman (2001) observed, face discrimination when they aspire to senior management in education. Another common explanation for women's under-representation in principalship refers to the male dominated power structure and relations in schools, which underpin the reproduction of male dominance in educational administration and, in turn, hinder the leadership opportunities of many women (Court, 1998; Limerick & Lingard, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1989). For example, male dominated key leadership positions will likely recruit new principals who resemble their sponsors in attitude, philosophy, deed, appearance, hobbies, club membership, and so on; that is: men (Hill & Ragland, 1995). In the U.S., Shakeshaft (1989) showed that most male superintendents did not want to work closely with women because they saw women as a threat, and in New Zealand women of ethnic minorities have been further constrained by the impact of institutional racism on education systems (Court, 1998). Additionally, when power structures are dominated by (white?) men, women may be even less well plugged into networks that count, admittedly a key aspect of the promotion process in organizations (Coffey & Delamont, 2000; Evetts, 1990). The impact of this power structure upon women’s under-representation in principalship manifests itself mostly when male dominance over a new principal selection process is concerned (Coffey & Delamont, 2000). It is apparent that a male majority in interview panels may comprise a disadvantage for female applicants, due to caution and conservatism in principal appointments, which lead the men to favor the known, i.e., other men (Evetts, 1994). Likewise, women’s different conceptions of careers may not yet be understood by the majority of selectors who judge them in typically androcentric ways (Hall, 1993). To this point, we have discussed some external aspects that may impede many women’s access to educational management. Even in the 21st century, as Cubillo and Brown (2003) noted, one can hardly claim to hear glass ceilings shattering around us both in developed and developing countries. Yet, women’s underrepresentation in principalship may also be attributed, at least in part, to a variety of internal barriers that lead women to decide not to apply for promotion in education, resulting in fewer women than men who apply for principalship (Coffey & Delamont, 2000). Several writers have highlighted women’s lack of necessary aspirations, lack of awareness of the promotion system, and a lack of confidence that they will succeed as likely reasons for low female application rates (Acker, 1995; Cubillo & Brown, 19

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

2003), although feminist scholars have argued that these so-called internal barriers constitute staff room folklore (Coffey & Delamont, 2000). Other internal obstacles put forward in the literature to account for the under-representation of women in principalship include gender-based socialization, fear of failure, lower competitiveness, lower self-esteem, interrupted career development, and limited mobility (Acker & Feuverger, 1996; Cubillo & Brown, 2003; Limerick & Anderson, 1999). Mother's support in western countries and father's encouragement in developing countries were found to help successful women principals overcome these kinds of barriers (Coleman, 2002; Cubillo & Brown, 2003). Interestingly, the “masculine” nature of principalship and leadership, which are incompatible with women’s beliefs and experiences, may not only impede women’s promotion due to superiors’ biases, as indicated above, but also, as some writers contend, may perpetuate women’s low aspirations of attaining a management position (Blackmore, 1996a; Evetts, 1994). Put differently, women’s tendency towards caring, subjective, relational values that could be perceived as at odds with masculine values of management (e.g., rationality, objectivity) are a negative incentive for women’s desire to pursue career progress (Limerick & Anderson, 1999). Davies (1990, p. 204) suggested that to curtail the influence of this barrier, “We will probably need a far more flexible, rotational, non-pyramidal style of school administration.” This remark brings us to the lengthy debate about gender-based differences between male and female principals. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN PRINCIPALSHIP

A great deal of research has revolved around the similarities and differences of males and females in principalship. The major question raised in these studies was whether women principals display the same behaviors in the school as do male principals. Some researchers have ardently argued that men and women differ in how they manage people and assume leadership roles, although these differences were attributed to different socialization patterns and life experiences rather than to innate sources (Evetts, 1994; Fennell, 1999; Grace, 1995; Hall, 1993; Marshall, 1995; Nias, 1999; Regan & Brooks, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1989). The significant domains exhibiting gender differences consisted of human relationships (e.g., care, empathy), the focus on teaching and learning, school-community relationships, day-to-day interactions, time management, job satisfaction, evaluation and assessment, leadership style, power relations, and career cycle. Shakeshaft (1995, p. 146) summed up the major differences: Women were more likely than men to encourage the empowerment of their teachers, establish instructional priorities, be attentive to the social and emotional development of the students, focus on student relationships, be attentive to the feelings of teachers, include more so-called “facts” in the evaluation, look for the teachers’ personal effects on the lives of children, place emphasis on the technical skills of teaching, make comments on the content and quality of the educational program to provide information 20

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

gathered from other sources, involve the teacher in decision making, issue directives for improvement, provide immediate feedback on performance, and emphasize curricular programs. Men, on the other hand, were more likely than women to emphasize organizational structure and to avoid conflict. In contrast, other researchers have found less conclusive support for gender differences both in general management and principalship. In general management, considerable literature indicates similarities between male and female leaders (Butterfield & Grinnell, 1999; Eagly & Johnson, 1990), with only subtle gender differences rendering scant influence on style, career, and so forth (Powell, 1990). In education, Mertz and McNeely (1998) suggested that the either/or, male/female dichotomy is too simplistic and called for a multidimensional approach that examines context, ethnicity, and other factors when conducting research on the issue of leadership style. Similarly, Jirasinghe and Lyons’s (1996) study of 255 head teachers in England, comprising 113 men and 142 women, found no differences between male and female teachers' propensity for directive leadership. According to Evetts (1990), the problem with comparative studies is that they can encourage androcentric views by continuing to use a male concept definition of leadership. Furthermore, within the discourse of “men and women” dualism, only two forms of argument are possible – either no difference or the documentation of differences (Reynolds, 1995). Therefore, we need studies that start from the female principals, assuming the differences among women to be as important as the differences between women and men (Hall, 1993). This view is manifested in this book. Despite the dispute in this contested area of inquiry, advocates of “gender differences” have focused on three major areas of comparison, as described next: leadership styles, power relations, and careers. The variety of research methodologies utilized in these studies (e.g., questionnaires, observations, interviews) could, by and large, explain their contradictory findings. For instance, Shakeshaft's (1989) use of a Leadership Behavior Description questionnaire revealed no differences between male and female principals, whereas observation techniques used by Evetts (1994) did yield gender differences. Gender Differences in Leadership Styles In the 1980s, the emphasis of female leadership research shifted to the differences in style between men and women. A style of leadership may be defined as “a manner of working, an approach, a feeling, a method and a way, and as such it is elusive and intangible, problematic to measure and to demonstrate” (Evetts, 1994, p. 160). Some researchers believe that males and females demonstrate different leadership styles (e.g., Nogay & Beebe, 1997; Irby & Brown, 1995), the most prominent of which refers to a democratic, participative style versus an autocratic style. Generally speaking, an important research finding across all settings was the tendency for females to adopt a democratic, participative style, whereas men were

21

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

more apt to display an autocratic, directive style (Adler, Laney, & Paker, 1993; Eagly, Karau, & Johnson, 1992; Shakeshaft, 1989). In addition, women are, by and large, inclined to work in a collegial manner and actively bring in other constituents to take part in decision-making (Grogan, 1996), as part of what Regan and Brooks (1995) coined “relationship leadership.” In this sense, the four cases of women principals in Fennell’s (1999) study involved the development and nurture of reciprocal relationships between teachers, and the six women principals in Hall’s (1996) study showed a strong commitment to teamwork and professional consultation. Similarly, Israeli female principals were reported as emphasizing listening and collaboration as means to maintain discipline in school and class rather than rules and hierarchy (Oplatka & Atias, in press). Nevertheless, a deeper look at the democratic-autocratic dichotomy with respect to gender reveals a more complex picture. Some findings seem to suggest that a stark distinction does not exist between male and female principals in terms of management style, but rather that each sex attaches different meanings to the same leadership style. For example, Grace (1995) showed that commitment to teamwork and a culture of consultation could be found in the accounts of both men and women principals, but the women principals' discourse more frequently accepted teamwork as a normal and organic process, whereas men referred to “their” creation of teamwork as an important innovation in the school culture. Along the same lines, Coleman (2002) showed that many of the female principals she studied used adjectives that identified themselves as collaborative and caring but not as democratic, rather stating that the final responsibility for decisions rests with them. Thus, their behavior resembled the term “contrived collegiality” suggested by Hargreaves (1994). Oplatka (2001) pinpointed the gender cross-transition of women principals in mid-life; those who began their principalship with a democratic leadership style experienced a transition to a more directive style and vice versa. Thus, it is likely that the differences are actually a matter of degree, as Reay and Ball (2000) argued; in other words, being slightly less directive than a male counterpart does not constitute a democratic, power-sharing work style. Another predominant distinction that researchers have reported between male and female principals refers to the place given to instruction and learning in the principal’s mind, that is, the extent to which the principal adopts instructional leadership (Acker, 1995; Eagly et al., 1992). Marshall (1995) noted that women educational administrators were “more attuned to teaching, curriculum and instruction and children, perhaps because they have spent more time as teachers and as mothers before they became administrators” (p. 488). Similarly, Shakeshaft (1989) indicated that women principals put more emphasis on teaching and learning, classroom problems, teachers’ professional development, and the monitoring and evaluation of student learning than did their male counterparts. Likewise, women principals were found to pay much attention to vision-building for the school and to devote much time and energy toward change initiation and implementation (Acker, 1995; Fennell, 1999), despite the difficulties they reported in getting male teachers to “hear” them compared to male principals (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). 22

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

Given this set of findings, some writers claimed that the “feminine style,” which comprises caring, creativity, intuition, awareness of individual differences, noncompetitiveness, tolerance, subjectivity, and informality (Gray, 1993) is appropriate to educational organizations, mainly nursery and elementary schools. Sadker, Sakder, and Klwin (1991) asserted that female leadership styles were more effective than those of males in the operation of successful schools, perhaps because they resemble the characteristics of transformational leadership, as Fennell (1999) commented. In line with these views, teachers’ accounts have assessed female principals significantly higher than male principals in the areas of communicating school goals, supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, maintaining high visibility, promoting professional development, and providing incentives for learning (Lad, 2000). Teachers perceived principals with a feminine orientation as showing strong human leadership. Women principals maintaining feminine traits may be perceived as consistent with their gender and may probably receive better acceptance from teachers (Shum & Cheng, 1997). Female Israeli teachers in mid-life accepted their newly-appointed female principal because she expressed a “feminine style” that suited their developmental needs at that time, and concomitantly triggered their own self-renewal and personal growth (Oplatka, 2004a). In contrast, other writers maintained that neither a “masculine” nor a “feminine” style is sufficient for effective principalship, but rather every good leader should adopt an “androgynous style” comprising both sets of styles from which he/she can select the most appropriate for the situation. As Hall (1993) observed, androgynous principals recognize the need to manage both tasks and people and to combine instrumental and expressive behaviors. Coleman (1996) showed that many female principals in England have adopted the androgynous style. In Israel, prospective teachers’ construction of androgynous leadership included both caring and strong control, two seemingly contradictory aspects (Oplatka, 2004b). The discussion thus far has shown some evidence for gender-based differences in leadership style in terms of the autocratic-democratic dichotomy, collegial leadership, instructional leadership, innovative behavior, and teacher-principal relationships. Yet, contradictory findings seem to diminish the validity of these kinds of differences. Power Relationships and Gender Differences Power relations are played out in schools as in any other organization. Power (i.e., the ability to decide and act) and particularly its use and misuse comprise central themes in the literature on feminism and leadership. Such power relations are viewed as multidimensional and multidirectional in nature (Fennell, 1999). The literature suggests that women principals prefer to use power in facilitative ways, as “power manifested through someone” (Dunlap & Goldman, 1991, p. 13), whereas their male counterparts associate control with power over others, hierarchy, and individualism (Blackmore, 1989). Women principals are assumed to use “power with” and “power through” styles; they provide others with support and 23

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

feedback, empower others rather than having power over others, and develop closer relationships with teachers and support staff (Fennell, 1999). Indeed, women were found to be more likely to withdraw from conflict or to use collaborative strategies, whereas males more often used autocratic responses (Shakeshaft, 1989). Hurty (1995) redefined the concept of power in schools through a feminist lens, and identified five components of a “power with” style used by women principals (p. 385): …(1) emotional energy, a willingness to use, honestly and openly, a full range of emotions in their work with teachers, students and community; (2) nurtured growth, the ability to nurture students and community; (3) reciprocal talk, talking with rather than at others by listening to and learning from other points of view; (4) pondered mutuality, keeping others in mind in the reflective rumination used in making decisions; and (5) collaborative change, working with and involving others in the transformation of schooling. Both findings from Canada and the U.K. considerably support Hurty’s conceptualization. Hall (1993) described British female principals’ "communion approach" that uses power cooperatively, based on joint ownership, directed towards influence, and expressed in the individual’s quality of being. Fennell (1999, p. 46) analyzed the power relations of four Canadian women principals: The four women linked power with nurturing and energy… [They] spoke a great deal about nurturing feelings of trust between themselves and teachers as well as encouraging, emphasizing and nurturing senses of commitment and responsibility in each individual, whether they be teachers, students or parents, to make their schools and communities positive places in which to learn and develop. The findings associating women with a “power with” style contradict with Reay and Ball's (2000) claim that women in positions of power display the same characteristics as men, regardless of whether or not men are present to influence them. Oplatka’s (2001) study among Israeli women principals supported the latter view by providing the voices of women principals who described themselves as exerting assertiveness and aggressive power over their teaching staff. Different Career Experiences Although the debate about gender differences in leadership styles and power relations has been hotly contested, it is less difficult to show gender dissimilarities in principals' experiences, simply because men and women are influenced differently by their gender and related family issues during childhood and throughout their professional adult lives. Evetts (1994) found gender differences with respect to the process of becoming a principal and the everyday experiences involved in being a principal. Women principals in many countries were found to attain their positions either “from external spur” or “from inside spur,” to use Fuchs and Hertz-Lazarowitz’s 24

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

(1996) concepts. The first career trajectory refers to women principals who said they had not set out to become administrators and, who after becoming certified, had waited for a position to "come to them," that is, to be invited before applying. The second pattern referred to women who have always aspired to principalship, planned their career progress, and held managerial positions in school such as assistant principal or the like. Mertz and McNeely (1998) revealed that women who had attained their principalship via the latter pattern tended to exhibit more assertive behavior, were far less accepting of defeat, expressed more confidence in themselves, and more highly attributed their success to their abilities and hard work than to good fortune, in comparison with women with the first pattern. Similar characteristics emerged among women principals in Israel (Oplatka et al., 2001). When the career issues and experiences of women principals were targeted in research, women principals were generally documented as believing that women had to do more and work harder than men in comparable positions to establish credibility and professional competence (Lad, 2000). Women in principalship described the need to “justify” their management style to others, to prove that it was not too “feminine” in this “masculine-oriented" position, and so forth. They were also found to have higher levels of education and more teaching experience than their male counterparts (Coleman, 2002; Spencer & Kochan, 2000). It is likely that one of the major factors affecting the difference between male and female’s career experiences is family responsibilities, and not only the social norms identifying family responsibilities as within women's sphere of activity (Coleman, 2002). American women high school principals in Lad’s (2000) study identified the expectations of family responsibilities as a strong influence in their professional lives. Marital status also impacted their ability to carry out the responsibilities inherent to their position. Among English principals in Limerick and Anderson’s (1999) study, only a childless woman principal did not report having problems in achieving a balance between the conflicting work-family demands intensified by reforms that took place in that country. Another emergent issue in the research on women principals’ career lives concerns sexism in the workplace. Two works from England pointed to this troublesome aspect of some women principals’ careers. Coleman (2001, 2002) noted that almost half of the women secondary heads in her study reported having encountered sexism in their role, mainly from peers. Some women principals in Evetts’s (1994) career history study had kept a log of sexist comments, harassments, and embarrassments that they had experienced. The discussion to this point suggests disagreement among writers and researchers with respect to gender differences in a variety of women principals’ career and professional domains. Perhaps the inability to gain conclusive evidence was instrumental in bringing about new trends in the research on women principals. The first trend has focused on the influence of large-scale educational reforms in the 1990s on women principals, and the second suggested a new model of woman principal as “a feminist leader.”

25

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

RECENT REFORMS AND WOMEN PRINCIPALS The large-scale reforms of the educational system in many western countries throughout the 1990s introduced innovations in education such as market forces, school-based management, and systemic restructuring, which in turn altered the nature and scope of administrators' and teachers' work (Hargreaves, 1994). Teachers and administrators were expected to cope with multiple demands created by external pressures to be more efficient, effective, and economical in how they went about their work (Blackmore, 1998). Clearly, these reforms had both positive and negative influences on women principals’ work methods and activities. Beginning with the former, Hall (1996) claimed that school-based management was emancipatory for women principals, as it offered them the chance to develop a new style of school administration unfettered by the continuing influence of accepted (male) practice. A similar stance was taken by Limerick and Anderson (1999), who reported an increase in women principals’ ability to challenge the dominant discourse of educational administration subsequent to the introduction of school-based management by legitimizing the challenges they had already confronted through doing things differently. In contrast, the reforms made it very difficult for women principals in England to go on balancing their family and professional responsibilities due to the process of intensification that characterized these reforms (Grace, 1995; Limerick & Anderson, 1999). The negative consequence that likely received the most research attention revolved around the contradiction between the rational and economic models embedded in the recent reforms and women’s leadership style. Underpinned by rational, bureaucratic models, the reforms highlighted concepts such as effectiveness, efficiency, assessment, accountability, competition, assertion, and the like, all concepts that are incompatible with the “feminine” orientation and women’s leadership tendencies described in depth above (Grace, 1995; Reay & Ball, 2000). At the same time, qualities such as caring, nurturing, loyalty, and cooperation are problematic to measure and hence difficult to reward (Court, 1998; Evetts, 1990). In this vein, women principals reported experiencing tension and conflict between their responsiveness to the reforms and their educational beliefs, and this rendered a negative impact on principal/teacher staff relations (Blackmore, 1998; Grace, 1995). Because of this difficulty encountered by women principals in the new market culture in education, Reay and Ball (2000) asserted that leading schools toward feminist ways would be extremely difficult and that female management styles may turn out to have more similarities than differences from orthodox (male) management modes. Despite the conflicts and stress caused by this contradiction and in contrast to Reay and Ball’s (2000) suggestion, Blackmore (1996b) insisted that at times of rapid change it is of great importance that women do the emotional labor, and as Court (1998) proposed, challenge managerialism by adopting collaborative and

26

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

caring attitudes. Their perspective is elaborated in the next section depicting the second major area of recent study. FEMINIST EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A NEW TREND IN THE RESEARCH?

Recently, several writers have turned their attention to the concept of “feminist educational leadership,” which singles out the transition from understanding women’s leadership styles and careers to an ideal conceptualization of their work from a feminist standpoint. The literature suggests that four main defining characteristics typify feminist educational leadership (Beck, 1994; Blackmore, 1996b; Gosetti & Rusch, 1995; Regan & Brooks 1995): – A feminist educational leader is informed by a feminist agenda for improved social justice and equity for staff and students in their schools. That is, feminist leaders are motivated by equity (Blackmore, 1993b) and lead in a way that challenges and changes hegemonic institutional practices (Blackmore, 1996b); – Feminist leaders are assumed to challenge and resist unjust practices in their community and society. Their engagement in this respect relates to a wider political agenda that is anti-racist as well as anti-sexist (Gosetti & Rusch, 1995). Their school, therefore, is organized to confront racism, sexism, and inequality; – Such a leader is committed to empowering those she works with, and to meet student needs through empowering and establishing support systems in schools. Empowerment of staff and pupils rather than using hierarchical power is constructed as a feminist and better way to run a particular school; – The establishment of a caring school community, where terms such as empathy, compassion, emotional expression, supportive relations, and so forth prevail, is central to their leadership agenda. This kind of educational leadership is emancipatory in nature and emerges from women’s experiences and beliefs. Accordingly, women feminist leadership may encompass a wider emancipatory agenda that includes issues of race, class, sexuality, and individual differences (Gosetti & Rusch, 1995). In Blackmore’s (1993b) model, feminist leadership goes beyond shared decision-making and teacher empowerment to emancipatory practices. It comprises an engagement in critical reflection with actions through which a feminist leader acknowledges that things can be different, and identifies unjust practices and unequal relationships. From critical reflection comes emancipatory knowledge. This opens up possibilities for change in the way things happen (Blackmore, 1996a; Grundy, 1993; Matthews, 1995). In summary, feminist educational leadership is about challenging and bringing about change, leading differently from the managerial models of leadership, and thereby appearing to be a more educationally than managerially oriented leader. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The current chapter provided insight into the variety of research topics in the literature on women in principalship and into its development since the 1970s. 27

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ

Admittedly, this kind of research neither has provided a conclusive answer to the question regarding the distinction between male and female principals, nor has suggested any underlying comprehensive framework dictating the relationships between gender, organization, and other variables. Moreover, with the exception of a few works that encompass a broader survey (e.g., Coleman, 2002), the currently available body of research evidence is relatively limited in methodology. For example, Hall (1993) claimed that the research on women principals is mainly descriptive and based on small samples. The extension of the research on women principals has not been without criticism. It has been criticized for assuming that “women” comprise a unified category and for paying insufficient attention to the importance of race, ethnicity, and contextual determinants in women’s lives and careers. Women, it is argued by critics of this research, are not likely to hold identical ways of thinking, shared aspirations or interests, nor a universal “woman’s way of leading.” Women principals, like men, lead in different ways, influenced by their values, political persuasions, personalities, and ethnicity (Hite & McDonald, 2003; Oplatka, 2001; Pringle & Henry, 1994). Reay and Ball’s (2000) work is especially insightful in illustrating this criticism (p. 145): Our argument is that a number of feminist texts on management and gender work with essentialized notions of femininity in which homogenizing conceptions of what it means to be female depict women as uniformly nurturing, affiliative and good at interpersonal relationships. In contrast we suggest that gendered identities are in context more fluid and shifting than they are depicted in such texts. There are many different femininities and the form they take is powerfully shaped by the roles women undertake and the context within which they perform these roles. As a result, female leadership in practice frequently appears to be both more multifaceted and more contradictory than the idealized depictions in some feminist texts. Furthermore, in light of the dominant image of gender uniformity in the feminist literature in educational administration, and in spite of empirical evidence indicating that the combined and interactive effects of race, ethnicity, class, and gender have a pervasive impact on women principals, non-white women principals have been marginalized in the research. Most research upheld the underlying assumption that theories developed on the experiences of white women principals would be congruent with the experiences of any woman principal worldwide (Bell & Mkomo, 1992; Young, 2000). This, absurdly, was exactly the same kind of criticism early feminists in educational administration raised against the knowledge base in this field. Thus, little is known about the career experiences of AfroAmerican, Asian American, Hispanic American, or Native American women, or of many other women principals in developing countries or ethnic minority groups. Their voices continue to remain silent and unheard, as Bell and Mkomo (1992) commented more than a decade ago. It follows that researchers need to look toward new frontiers such as addressing gender and educational leadership from international and multicultural 28

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

perspectives. Of more value would be, then, to understand the impact of cultural contexts on how women principals enact and view their lives and careers, utilizing culturally embedded and cross-cultural research of women as Banks (1995) and Young (2000) recommended. Cultural and structural factors may be extremely important in determining whether a particular leadership style is enabled to emerge (Acker, 1995) and in considering identity formation and the woman leader persona (Curry, 2000). After an intense period of rising interest in unearthing the career and leadership of mostly white women principals in comparison to their male counterparts (Reynolds, 1995; Skrla & Young, 2003), the field in the early years of the twentyfirst century needs thorough re-examination to consider its past and to contemplate its future. New works that focus on women per se mean that we have moved beyond a paradigm in which women's differences from men lie at the focus. This book endeavors to join this new research development. It raises the unheard, silent voices of women principals from minority groups and portrays their career development, aspirations, leadership style, and the like, while maintaining keen awareness of the strong influences rendered by the social and cultural contexts in which these principals work and live. REFERENCES Acker, S. (1989). Teachers, gender and careers. London: Falmer Press. Acker, S. (1995). The head teacher as career broker: Stories from an English primary school. In D.M. Dunlap, & P.A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 49-67). New York: State University of New York Press. Acker, S., & Feuverger, G., (1996). Doing good and feeling bad: The work of women university teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 401-422. Adler, S., Laney, J., & Paker, M. (1993). Managing women: Feminism and power in educational management. Buckingham: Open University Press. Al-Khalifa, E., & Migniuolo, F. (1990, September). Messages for management: The experiences of women’s training. Paper presented at the Conference on Equal Advances in Education Management, Vienna. Banks, C. A. M. (1995). Gender and race as factors in educational leadership and administration. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 65-80). New York: Macmillan. Beck, L. G. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teachers College Press. Bell, E. L., & Mkomo, S. M. (1992). Re-visioning women manager’s lives. In A. Mills, & P. Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 235-247). Newbury Park: Sage. Blackmore, J. (1989). Educational leadership: A feminist critique and reconstruction. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspective in educational leadership (pp. 93-131). New York: Falmer Press. Blackmore, J. (1993a). In the shadow of men: The historical construction of administration as a masculinist enterprise. In J. Blackmore, & J. Kenway (Eds.), Gender matters in educational administration. London: Falmer Press. Blackmore, J. (1993b). Women’s educational leadership in new “hard” times. Proceedings of the National Conference of Women in Leadership Program (pp. 35-48). Perth: Edith Cowan University. Blackmore, J. (1996a). Breaking the silence: Feminist contributions to educational administration and policy. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook of educational administration and leadership. Dortdrecht: Kluwer Press.

29

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ Blackmore, J. (1996b). Doing emotional labor in the education market place: Stories from the field of women in management. Discourse, 17(3), 337-349. Blackmore, J. (1998). You never know you can’t cope: Women in school leadership roles managing their emotions. Gender and Education, 10(3), 265-279. Blackmore, J. (1999). Troubling women: Feminism, leadership and educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. (1999). Reviewing gender, leadership, and managerial behavior. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 223-238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the classroom teacher: Research, praxis, pedagogy. London: Routledge/Falmer. Coleman, M. (1996). The management style of female headteachers. Educational Management and Administration, 24(2), 163-174. Coleman, M. (2001). Achievement against the odds: The female secondary headteachers in England and Wales. School Leadership and Management, 21(1), 75-100. Coleman, M. (2002). Women as headteachers: Striking the balance. London: Trentham Books. Cubillo, L., & Brown, M. (2003). Women into educational leadership and management: International differences? Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 278-291. Court, M. R. (1998). Women challenging managerialism: Devolution dilemmas in the establishment of co-principalships in primary schools in Aotearoa/New Zealand. School Leadership and Management, 18(1), 35-57. Curry, B. K. (2000). Women in power: Pathways to leadership in education. New York: Teacher College Press. Davies, L (1990). Equity and efficiency: School management in an international context. Lewes, England: Falmer Press. Dunlap, D. (1995). Women leading: An agenda for a new century. In D. M. Dunlap, & P. A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 423-435). New York: State University of New York Press. Dunlap, D., & Goldman, P. (1991). Rethinking power in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 5-29. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 23, 233-256. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principals: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 76-102. Evetts, J. (1990). Women in primary teaching: Career contexts and strategies. London: Unwin Hyman. Evetts, J. (1991). The experience of secondary headship selection: Continuity and change. Educational Studies, 17(3), 285-294. Evetts, J. (1994). Gender and secondary headship: Managerial experiences in teaching. In J. Evetts (Ed.), Women and career (pp. 157-169). London: Longman. Fennell, H. A. (1999). Power in the principalship: Four women’s experiences. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 23-49. Fuchs, I., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1996). Transition from teacher to principal: An Israeli women's perspective. Megamot, 37(3), 292-314. [Hebrew]. Gosetti, P. P., & Rusch, E. (1995). Reexamining educational leadership: Challenging assumptions. In D. Dunlap, & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 122-135). New York: State University of New York Press. Grace, G. (1995). School leadership beyond education management: An essay in policy scholarship. London: Falmer Press. Gray, H. L. (1993). Gender considerations in school management: Masculine and feminine leadership styles. In C. Riches, & C. Morgan (Eds.), Human resources management in education (pp. 38-47). Buckingham: Open University Press. Grogan, M. (1996).Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency. Albany: State University of New York Press.

30

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION Grundy, S. (1993). Educational leadership as emancipatory praxis. In J. Blackmore, & J. Kenway (Eds.), Gender matters in educational administration and policy (pp. 165-177). London: Falmer Press. Hall, V. (1993). Women in educational management: A review of research in Britain. In J. Ouston (Ed.), Women in educational management (pp. 23-46). Harlow, Essex: Longman. Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education. London: Paul Chapman. Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teachers College Press. Hill, M. S., & Ragland, J. C. (1995). Women as educational leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hite, L. M., & McDonald, K. S. (2003). Career aspirations of non-managerial women: Adjustment and adaptation. Journal of Career Development, 29(4), 221-235. Hurty, K. (1995). Women principals: Leading with power. In D. Dunlap, & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 380-406). New York: State University of New York Press. Irby, B. J. & Brown, G. (1995). Constructing a feminist-inclusive theory of leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Jirasinghe, D., & Lyons, G. (1996). The competent head: A job analysis of heads’ tasks and personality factors. London: Falmer Press. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Lad, K. (2000). Two women high school principals: The influence of gender on entry into education and their professional lives. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 663-689. Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208. Limerick, B., & Anderson, C. (1999). Female administrators and school-based management. Educational Management and Administration, 27(4), 401-414. Limerick, B., & Lingard, R. (Eds.). (1995). Gender and changing educational management: 2nd yearbook of the Australian council for educational administration. Sydney, Australia: Hoder Education. Marshall, C. (1995). Imaging leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 484-492. Matthews, E. N. (1995). Women in educational administration: Views of equity. In D. Dunlap, & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 247-273). New York: State University of New York Press. Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. R. (1998). Women on the job: A study of female high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 196-222. Nias, J. (1999). Primary teaching as a culture of care. In J. Prosser (Ed.), School culture (pp. 66-81). London: Paul Chapman. Nogay, K., & Beebe, R. J. (1997). Gender and perceptions: Females as secondary principals. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 246-265. Oplatka, I. (2001). I changed my management style: The cross gender transition of women headteachers in mid-career. School Leadership and Management, 21(2), 219-233. Oplatka, I. (2004a). The arrival of a new woman principal and teachers’ self-renewal: Reflections from life stories of mid-career teachers. Planning and Changing, 35(1/2), 55-68. Oplatka, I. (2004b). Prospective teachers’ constructions of leadership: In search of an "androgynous" style. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 37-57. Oplatka, I., & Atias, M. (in press). Gendered views of managing discipline in school and class. Gender and Education. Oplatka, I., Bargal, D., & Inbar, D. (2001). The process of self-renewal among women headteachers in mid-career. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), 77-94. Powell, G. (1990). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

31

OPLATKA & HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ Pringle J., & Henry, E. (1994, April). Diversity of women’s organizations: Maori and Pakeha. Paper presented at the conference of Women’s Studies Association, New Zealand Reay, D., & Ball, S. (2000). Essentials of female management: Women’s ways of working in the education market place? Educational Management and Administration, 28(2), 145-159. Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. H. (1995). Out of women’s experience: Creating relational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Reynolds, C. (1995). Feminist frameworks for the study of administration and leadership in educational organizations. In C. Reynolds, & B. Young (Eds.), Women and leadership in Canadian education (pp. 3-18). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises. Sadker, M., Sakder, D., & Klwin, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. Review of Research in Education, 17, 169-234. Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park: Corwin Press. Shakeshaft, C. (1995). A cup half full: A gender critique of the knowledge base in educational administration. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration (pp. 42-55). New York: University Press. Shum, L. C., & Cheng, Y. C. (1997). Perceptions of women principals’ leadership and teachers’ work attitudes. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 165-184. Skrla, L., & Young, M. D. (2003). Introduction. In M. D. Young, & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 1-6). New York: State University of New York Press. Spencer, W. A., & Kochan, F. K. (2000). Gender related differences in career patterns of principals in Alabama: A statewide study. Education Policy and Analysis Archives, 8(9). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n9.html Young, M. (2000). Considering (irreconcilable?) contradictions in cross-group feminist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 629-660.

Izhar Oplatka Department of Education Ben Gurion University, Israel Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz Faculty of Education Haifa University, Israel

32

CLIVE DIMMOCK AND ALLAN WALKER

2. WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND CULTURAL CONTEXT A Cross-Cultural Analytical Framework

INTRODUCTION

This chapter argues that studies of women as leaders in education need to take cognizance of the cultural and contextual settings within which their leadership is exercised. To accomplish this, it is necessary to develop comprehensive and relevant cultural frameworks within which women leaders in different societies and types of schools can be researched rigorously and systematically. Accordingly, this chapter outlines and applies a framework for this purpose. For some while, we have argued the need to locate leadership studies within their cultural setting (Dimmock & Walker, 1998a, 1998b). A burgeoning literature on educational leadership has grown over the last twenty years, but much of this work has paid scant attention to the specificities of context within which leadership is exercised. We have argued that the preponderance of such studies has emanated from American, British and other Anglo-speaking researchers, notably Canadians and Australians, and that this literature makes little effort to demarcate findings within the cultural contexts studied, or to avoid the dangers of over-generalizing to other contexts, no matter how diverse they may be. This ethnocentrism means that the rest of the world outside these researched areas – accounting for about 90 percent of the world population – are relatively ignored in terms of educational leadership. Our argument has consistently been that leader behavior is influenced by context generally and by the cultural part of context specifically. In respect to context – leadership studies looking to distinguish differences at the primary (elementary) and secondary (high) school, single sex and mixed sex school, urban, suburban and rural school – are still very much in their infancy. In regard to culture as perhaps the most important part of context – our work distinguishes between two fundamental levels - societal and organizational. While a considerable amount of research has been achieved on organizational culture and its relationship with leadership, relatively little has looked at the societal culture-leadership connection. The important nexus of society and leadership applies both to comparisons between nation states and macro-societies on the one hand, and to multi-ethnic societies, and ethnic sub-groups on the other. Accelerating recent trends towards multi-ethnic societies, within which a diversity of societal sub-cultures may have I.Oplatka, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (eds.), Women principals in a multicultural society: New insights into feminist educational leadership, 33–47. © 2006 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

DIMMOCK & WALKER

few common values, is tending to make the recognition of traditional homogeneous national identities and cultures an anachronism. In some countries, schisms between ethnic and religious groups may be so emphatic that cross-cultural comparison is valid and important within the same society. As the chapters in this book illustrate, the cross-cultural comparison of women in educational leadership positions in different ethnic-religious groups in Israel, is a case in point. Considerable interest has recently grown in regard to gender studies and educational leadership, and more particularly women in leadership. In the relationship between leader and context/culture, the gender aspect of women (as opposed to men) in leadership clearly falls on the leader side of the equation. However, as indicated earlier, women – just as men – lead in a variety of educational contexts and cultures, highlighting the need for more studies of women leaders in these diverse settings. For example, we know little about women leaders in primary as opposed to secondary school; and as heads of single sex as opposed to co-educational schools. But included in this need are studies of women and leadership across different societies, and within multi-ethnic societies. Leadership is a culturally-bound process - for both women and men. If we expect men’s leadership to vary across societal cultures and within multi-ethnic societies, then there is every reason to expect women’s leadership to do likewise. This places a rather different angle on women and leadership from the traditional feminist studies that have mainly sought to recognize a universal and distinctive style of leadership applicable to women that is different from men. Our interpretation of the relationship between societal culture, gender and leadership is represented in Figure 2.1. Traditional and enduring socio-cultural values define the roles (expected norms) of women and men in the home, workplace and society. These norms, in turn, shape the opportunities that women and men have, respectively, to access leader positions. In many societies, women’s access is restricted, while men’s is unrestricted, but this will depend, among other things, on cultural values with regard to gender roles. Once access to leader positions is attained, the approach to, and style of, leadership develops. Just how different or similar is women’s leadership style and approach to men’s is a moot point; research evidence varies on this. In our model (see Figure 2.1), we have assumed that both men and women adopt styles hitherto described as "masculine" (hierarchical, aggressive) and "feminine" (non-hierarchical, caring), but that there may be a tendency for males to position themselves towards the former and women towards the latter polarity. What is indisputable however is that irrespective of whether gender styles and approaches are similar or different - women’s and men’s interpretation of leadership is bound to be conditioned and influenced by their different social roles and experiences, as shown in Figure 2.1. It is increasingly important to recognize the role and place of women in educational leadership within multicultural societies. Although our earlier work focused on leadership in different societal cultural settings, we have recently turned our attention to the challenges facing leaders of schools within the same multicultural society. Differences between the two aspects can be illustrated thus: It is important to compare women leaders in diverse societal cultural settings, such 34

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

as primary or secondary women principals in China, Japan, Israel and the USA; but it is equally important to study women heads of multicultural schools within those same societies.

Figure 2.1. Societal culture, gender, and leadership

A significant proportion of the research to date on women in educational leadership has focused on two aspects. The first concerns the access of women to leader positions and their career opportunities and trajectories. The second relates to their styles and approaches to leadership once they occupy those positions. Both aspects – often studied in relation to their male counterparts - have deservedly occupied the attention of researchers. In the various themes of educational leadership outlined above – in particular, the gender aspects in relation to context and culture – rigorous, systematic research is required across many diverse cultural and contextual settings. This is particularly so outside the so-called western world. We argue that such studies, if they are to be

35

DIMMOCK & WALKER

authentic and comparative, need to be enhanced by relevant frameworks, models and concepts. The aim of this chapter is to describe such a framework, based on the notion of culture, as a means of informing studies of female leaders, and women aspiring to principal positions. Our framework is equally applicable to male principals or men seeking the principalship. Of particular interest in seeking to apply the framework to females is that women, by and large, are under-represented in senior leadership positions in education generally, and schools particularly (although in some societies this is rapidly changing with women forming the preponderance of principals at primary school level), and many scholars claim, arguably, that their styles of leadership differ from those of men. The chapter is structured as follows: first, we provide an outline of our crosscultural framework, based on two aspects of culture – societal and organizational; secondly, we apply particular parts of the framework to illustrate how it can provide insights into issues concerning women in leadership; finally, some conclusions are drawn about the usefulness of the framework for future research on women in leadership. A CROSS-CULTURAL FRAMEWORK

Since the mid-to-late 1990s we have been aware of the need for, and absence of, rigorous and systematic concepts and models by which comparisons between education leaders and systems of a cross-cultural kind could be made (Dimmock & Walker, 1998a, 1998b). Accordingly, influenced by a number of scholars outside education, notably in the fields of cross-cultural psychology and international business management, we have refined and applied the cross-cultural model described below. Before outlining the model, we need a note of caution. The model or framework recognizes two main levels at which culture and crosscultural comparison is particularly important – societal and organizational. Both levels are instrumental in framing and developing studies of women in leadership. The two are qualitatively different, as our framework explicates, but it is important to recognize that studies of women in leadership may focus on societal cultural, or organizational cultural comparisons, or of course, both. It is also the case that the framework and its dimensions can be applied to ethnic sub-groups within multiethnic societies, as much as to different societies. Each of the levels has six dimensions, as explained below. Six Dimensions of Societal Culture Culture is a difficult phenomenon to measure, gauge or even describe. The identification of cultural dimensions, which we define as core axes around which significant sets of values, beliefs and practices cluster, not only facilitates their description and measurement, but promotes comparison between cultures. Dimensions provide common benchmarks against which cultural characteristics at the societal level can be described, gauged and compared (Dimmock & Walker, 36

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

1998a). Despite their usefulness, however, we agree with Hofstede’s (1994) cautionary remarks that: “They are also constructs that should not be reified. They do not "exist;" they are tools for analysis which may or may not clarify a situation” (p. 40). Our research – involving the review of existing frameworks – for the comparative study of educational leadership and management led to our fashioning the following six-dimensional model (Table 2.1). It is noteworthy that these empirically derived dimensions do not include one exclusively for male versus female oriented cultures. Rather, aspects of gender appear to come through a number of the dimensions as our discussion below reveals. Power-concentrated / Power-disbursed. The first dimension is modeled on Hofstede’s (1991) power-distance construct. We relabeled the dimension as powerdistributed/power-concentrated because this more accurately captures the essence of power relationships in various cultures. Power is either distributed more equally among the various levels of a culture or is concentrated among relatively few. In societies where power is widely distributed, for example, through decentralization and institutionalized democracy, inequity is treated as undesirable and every effort is made to reduce it where possible. In societies where power is commonly concentrated in the hands of the few, inequities are often accepted and legitimized. People in high power concentrated societies tend to accept unequal distributions of power.

Table 2.1: Dimensions of national / societal and organizational culture (adapted from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions) National/societal cultures

Organizational culture

Power-concentrated/Powerdispersed

Process/Outcome oriented Person/Task oriented

Group/Self oriented Professional/Parochial Aggression/Consideration Open/Closed Fatalistic/Proactive Generative/Replicative Limited/Holistic relationship

Control and linkage: Formal/Informal Tight/Loose Direct/Indirect Pragmatic/Normative

37

DIMMOCK & WALKER

Group-oriented / Self-oriented. The second dimension embraces Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (1997) individualism/ communitarianism category and Hofstede’s (1991) individualism/collectivism dimension. Both of these schemata describe whether people within a given culture tend to focus on self or on their place within a group, hence our preference for the label "group-oriented / selforiented." In self-oriented cultures, relations are fairly loose and relational ties tend to be based on self-interest. People in such societies primarily regard themselves as individuals first, and members of a group, second. In group-oriented cultures, ties between people are tight, relationships are firmly structured and individual needs are subservient to collective needs. Important collectivist values include harmony, face-saving, filial piety and equality of reward distribution among peers. In grouporiented cultures, status is traditionally defined by factors such as age, sex, kinship, educational standing, or formal organizational position. In self-oriented cultures, people are judged and status ascribed according to individual performance or what has been accomplished individually. Aggression / Consideration. This dimension is built on Hofstede’s masculinity/femininity dimension. We reconceptualized it because of the confusion surrounding Hofstede’s label and its discriminatory nature. In what we have called aggression cultures, achievement is stressed, competition dominates and conflicts are resolved through the exercise of power and assertiveness. In such cultures, school norms are set by the best students, the system rewards academic achievement and failure at school is seen as serious; in an organizational context, assertiveness is taken as a virtue; selling oneself, decisiveness and emphasis on career are all valued. By contrast, in consideration societies, emphasis is on relationship, solidarity and resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation. At school, norms tend to be set by the average students, system rewards reflect students’ social adaptation and failure at school is taken as unfortunate. Fatalism / Proactivism. Our fourth dimension draws on Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s "attitudes to the environment" category, Hofstede’s "uncertainty avoidance" dimension and our own thinking in respect of the concepts of opportunistic and pragmatic/idealistic. This dimension was relabeled to reflect the proactive or "we can change things around here" attitude in some cultures, and the willingness to accept things as they are - a fatalistic perspective, in others. The dimension addresses how different societies and cultures react to and manage uncertainty and change in social situations. In proactive societies, people tend to believe that they have at least some control over situations and over change. They are tolerant of different opinions and are not excessively threatened by unpredictability. In fatalistic cultures, on the other hand, people believe "what is meant to be, will be." Uncertainty is often viewed as psychologically uncomfortable and disruptive, and people seek to reduce uncertainty and limit risks by hanging on to tradition. This often involves the inflexible retention of rules and dogmas that breed orthodoxy.

38

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

Replicative / Generative. This dimension, original to our schema, was so labeled to reflect the fact that some cultures appear more predisposed toward innovation, or the generation of new ideas and methods (generative), whereas other cultures appear more inclined to replicate or to adopt ideas and approaches from elsewhere (replicative). In generative cultures people tend to value the generation of knowledge, new ideas and ways of working and they seek to create solutions to problems, to develop policies and ways of operating which are original. In replicative cultures, people are more likely to adopt innovations, ideas and inventions developed elsewhere. Whereas these sometimes undergo partial adaptation, they are often replicated in toto, with little consideration of alignment to the indigenous cultural context. Holistic relationship / Limited relationship. This dimension builds on Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s "specific/diffuse" and "performance/ connection" categories and on our own work on the importance of relationships in cultures. The dimension reflects an assumption that in some cultures, interpersonal relationships are limited by fixed rules applied to given situations, whereas in other cultures, relationships are more holistic, or underpinned by association and personal considerations. In limited relationship cultures, interactions and relationships tend to be determined by rules that are applied equally to everyone. For example, in deciding a promotion, objective criteria are applied regardless of who are the possible candidates. In holistic cultures on the other hand, greater attention is given to relationship obligations (for example, kinship, patronage and friendship) than to impartially applied rules (Dimmock, 2000). Dealings in formal and structured situations in holistic cultures are driven more by complex, personal considerations than by the specific situation or by formal rules and regulations. Six Dimensions of Organizational Culture Qualitative differences between organizational and societal culture stem from the fact that national cultures differ mostly at the level of basic values, while organizational cultures differ mostly at the level of more superficial practices, as reflected in the recognition of particular symbols, heroes, and rituals (Hofstede, 1991). This allows organizational cultures to be managed and changed, whereas national cultures are more enduring and change only gradually over long time periods, if at all. Research studies on the organizational cultures of companies found large differences in their practices (symbols, heroes, rituals), but only minor differences in their values (Hofstede, 1995). Most of the variation in practices could be accounted for by six dimensions, although further validation of these is required. These six provide a useful baseline for organizational culture in our framework. We have, however, adapted the six, in line with our own research (Dimmock & Wildy, 1995). In addition, while Hofstede presents the dimensions as either/or choices along six axes, it is possible that some of them might be multidimensional rather than unidimensional. The six dimensions (see Table 2.1) are as follows. 39

DIMMOCK & WALKER

Process-oriented/Outcome-oriented. Some cultures are predisposed towards technical and bureaucratic routines, while others emphasize outcomes. Evidence suggests that in outcomes-oriented cultures people perceive greater homogeneity in practices, whereas people in process-oriented cultures perceive greater differences in their practices. In education, some schools are process orientated, emphasizing the processes and the skills of decision making, teaching and learning, while others are results oriented, stressing learning achievements such as exam results. Many schools and school systems are currently reforming their curricula to reflect specific student learning targets or outcomes expressed in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, indicating a trend towards designing curricula on the basis of, and measuring student and school performance by, a learning outcomes approach. Strong cultures tend to be more homogeneous and therefore results- or outcomesoriented. Task-oriented/Person-oriented. In task-oriented organizational cultures, emphasis is placed on job performance and maximizing productivity, while human considerations, such as staff welfare, take second place and may even be neglected. Conversely, person-oriented cultures accentuate the care, consideration and welfare of employees. Blake and Mouton (1964) recognized these leadership orientations in the 1960s. Applied to schools, a task-oriented culture exacts maximum work effort and performance out of its teachers in a relatively uncaring work environment. A person-oriented culture on the other hand, values, promotes and shows consideration for the welfare of its teachers. It is conceivable that some schools might score highly (or lowly) on both task and person orientations. Professional/Parochial. In professional cultures, qualified personnel identify primarily with their profession, whose standards are usually defined at national or international level. In parochial cultures, members identify most readily with the organization for which they work. Sociologists, such as Gouldner (1957) have long recognized this phenomenon in their distinction between locals and cosmopolitans. In the school context, some teachers, especially those with an external frame of reference, are primarily committed to the teaching profession as a whole, while others with a strong internal frame of reference are more committed to the particular school in which they work. Open/Closed. This dimension refers to the ease with which resources, such as, people, money, and ideas are exchanged between the organization and its environment. The greater the transfer and exchange of resources between the environment and the organization, the more open the culture. Schools vary between those that champion outside involvement in their affairs and maximum interchange with their environment, and those which eschew such interaction and communication, preferring a more closed, exclusive approach. Trends in education over the last decade have favored the opening of school cultures, particularly to parental influence and involvement.

40

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

Control and linkage. An important part of organizational culture concerns the way in which authority and control are exerted and communicated between members. In this respect, Hofstede’s dimension identifies only one aspect, namely, tightlyloosely controlled cultures. We have added two more aspects, namely, formalinformal and direct-indirect, which, taken together, provide a more detailed account of this dimension in schools. – Formal / Informal. Organizations vary in the extent to which their practices are guided by rules, regulations and “correct procedures” on the one hand, and the extent to which they reflect a more relaxed, spontaneous and intuitive approach on the other. Highly formalized organizations conform to the classic bureaucracies; they emphasize definition of rules and roles, they tend towards inflexibility and are often characterized by austere interpersonal relationships. By contrast, informal organizations have fewer rules dictating procedures, roles are often ill-defined, they display flexibility in their modes of work and interpersonal relationships tend to be more relaxed. – Tight / Loose. This sub-dimension gauges the degree to which members feel there is strong commitment to the shared beliefs, values and practices of an organization. Such strong commitment might come through hierarchical supervision and control, or through members’ own self-motivation. An organization which has strong homogeneity and commitment in respect of its members’ values and practices is tightly controlled (whether control is externally imposed by superordinates or self imposed by employees). Conversely, a loosely controlled culture is one with only weak commitment to, or acceptance of, shared beliefs, values and practices, and little or no control is exerted to achieve homogeneity either by superordinates or by members themselves. – Direct / Indirect. This aspect captures the linkages and patterns of communication through which power, authority and decisions are communicated. In some organizations, managers either assume direct personal responsibility to perform certain tasks and to communicate directly with their staff, often leapfrogging intermediate levels in the vertical hierarchy or chain of command. In other organizations, managers exert control indirectly by delegating to staff the tasks they would otherwise do themselves. Pragmatic / Normative. This dimension defines the way an organization serves its clients, customers or patrons. Some display a flexible, pragmatic policy aimed at meeting the diversity of customer needs. Others, however, exhibit more rigid or normative approaches in responding bureaucratically, failing to meet individual needs. This dimension measures the degree of client orientation. In the educational context, some schools consciously try to meet individual student needs by offering a more diversified curriculum with flexible timetables and alternative teaching strategies. They mold their educational services to meet student needs. Others, particularly the more traditional schools, may be less student focused, expecting them to fit into the agenda determined for them by the school. These schools offer more standardized, normative programs.

41

DIMMOCK & WALKER

Having sketched the cross-cultural framework and its two levels of culture – societal and organizational – it is worth questioning the place of culture among other factors that may influence leadership. Culture and Its Relationship to Other Factors Before relating the cross-cultural model to issues of women and leadership, particularly within the Israeli context, it is important to place the concept of culture in perspective. While it is the scaffolding for our model, we realize that it may not account for all variance to do with gender and leadership. Other factors accounting for women’s access to, and exercise of, leadership may be religion, politics, economics, socioeconomic status, and personality. Each of these deserves recognition as an influence in its own right over the role and place of women in particular societies, the expectations societies hold of them, and the broad social structures within which women – as agents – are expected to live and work. The exception is personality, which is clearly more an individual than a social phenomenon, but one which nevertheless may be partly shaped by social structure and experience. The question that arises concerns the relationship between culture and these other factors. Hofstede (1991), for one, argues that ultimately, most of them reduce back to culture. His reasoning is that religion, politics, and economics are all inextricably about values, which are, of course, the essence of culture. Thus, although religion, economics, and politics are important in their own right, they may also legitimately be seen as sub-sets of culture, in the sense that they each contribute to a society’s fabric of values. Used in this sense, culture becomes the generic, all-embracing phenomenon. While socioeconomic status and personality are probably more independent of culture than politics, economics, and religion, it is inconceivable to think that they exist totally independent of it. Thus, if we were looking for a complete explanatory model that accounted for all variance in the gender-leadership relationship, it would need to be comprehensive and all-embracing, with perhaps culture at the centre-point or hub of the wheel, but with sub-sets as spokes branching out from it. These "spokes" would include religion, politics, economics, socioeconomic status, and individual factors such as personality and personal qualities or attributes. APPLYING THE CROSS-CULTURAL FRAMEWORK TO WOMEN AS LEADERS

This section selectively applies the societal and organizational dimensions to issues concerning women’s access to, and exercise of, educational leadership. The Power-concentrated/Power disbursed dimension often appears to exert an influence on women as leaders. Societal cultures, in which the concentration of power is in the hands of the few, tend to be patriarchal societies. This would contribute to our understanding of why women’s access to leader positions may often be denied in such societies. However, it may also help explain an apparent paradox that in those relatively rare situations in such societies where women are 42

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

able to assume leadership positions, the way in which they exercise it is often similar to men. Societal norms expect a hierarchical style of leadership – from both men and women. The issue of style of leadership is picked up and reflected in the Aggression/Consideration dimension. This is not about male leaders displaying an aggressive leadership style, and women a considerate style. Rather, it is that an aggressive style of leadership displays certain qualities of competition, assertion, and hierarchy – traditionally seen as masculine, while a considerate style reflects a more caring, and concerning group of qualities in leadership, normally thought of as feminine qualities. However, some women demonstrate or adopt a predominantly aggressive leadership style, while some men assume a considerate style. Accounting for this gender reversal of style may be difficult. At least two factors are thought to be contributory – personality and societal culture. Style of leadership may also be responsive to the Group oriented/Self oriented dimension of culture. Leaders in group oriented cultures seem more likely to emphasize social cohesion, the collective good, and harmonious relationships than are their counterparts in self-oriented cultures, where a more individualistic, task oriented approach may be expected in leaders, whether women or men. The three other societal cultural dimensions – Proactive/Fatalistic, Generative/Replicative, and Limited relationship/Holistic relationship do not appear to be particularly gender sensitive. However, each continuum may yield insights into the leadership styles of particular women or groups of women. Leadership is about making things happen, hence pro-activity rather than fatalism might be expected to be an associated characteristic. Critics, however, may argue that authentic leadership is rare and that many so-called leaders fail to exercise real leadership, adopting a benign fatalistic approach. In the same spirit, leadership is meant to be creative, innovative, and concerned with generating new strategies. To the extent that the reality is different, critics might argue that too much replication exists. Likewise, sound leader decisionmaking might be expected to take a holistic set of factors into account – performance and interpersonal relationships to name but two. In practice, however, many leaders appear unable or unwilling to do this and instead allow one or other – often performance – to dictate their actions. Women seem just as susceptible as men to these tendencies, although this claim deserves more careful research. As noted earlier in this chapter, Hofstede (1991) claimed that while societal cultural dimensions are based on deep-seated values and are relatively enduring, organizational cultural dimensions are largely practice based and seen by leaders as characteristics to be managed and possibly changed. At the very least, educational leaders may regard changing the organizational culture as a main goal in a way that would be impossible for them to change societal culture. However, many leaders will be aware that this normally takes time – often many years, and that the leadership-organizational culture relationship is complex and iterative. To an extent, organizational culture shapes leadership. The iterative nature of the relationship – for female and male leaders – can be explored using the six dimensions described in the framework earlier in the chapter. 43

DIMMOCK & WALKER

Both societal and organizational cultural dimensions are extremely important in understanding leaders (men and women), and the leadership of multicultural or multiethnic schools. Within the walls and grounds of a single multiethnic school are found in microcosm many of the macro-societal cultural differences. How this diversity impacts on the organizational culture, leadership practices and leadership style of the principal and other school leaders is generating much current research interest. The present authors, along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, have recently completed two research projects on this theme for the National College for School Leadership in the UK. One of the key findings is that the leader, and their leadership agenda must adapt sensitively and enthusiastically to difference and diversity among the school community if the school is to be successful. Here repeatedly, is the need for responsiveness and sensitivity of leadership to societal culture. Such leadership exerts enormous influence in turn on the organizational culture. The implications for women leaders of multi-ethnic schools are the same as for men. The complex relationship between the two levels of culture – societal and organizational - has hardly begun to be researched in international business let alone educational and school contexts. Since the empirical base is almost nonexistent, we have little idea how the two interact, as they surely must do, in every school and educational institution throughout the world. Given the number of dimensions of societal and organizational culture, and the almost infinite number of combinations among them that might adequately describe leadership agendas and styles, it would be astonishing if there were found to exist a distinct and uniform style of women’s leadership that existed within a multicultural society, let alone one that crossed international and cross-cultural societal boundaries. APPLYING THE CROSS-CULTURAL FRAMEWORK TO ISRAELI WOMEN LEADERS IN EDUCATION

The editors of this book in their introduction refer to a "mosaic of female principalship," basing their argument on the fact that professional identities, which are themselves gender-sensitive, derive from, and are influenced by, the cultural, religious and ethnic groups that exist in a multicultural society such as Israel. Each of the four distinct social groups in Israel – secular Jews, religious Jews, Arabs and Immigrants – has its own distinctive sub-cultural values that influence the place of women in the home, the workplace and society in general, while at the same time providing strong expectations and role models for women as leaders in schools. In terms of access to leader positions, a number of writers in this volume refer to the fact that although more than one half of the principals in Israel are nowadays female, the percentage varies considerably between the four groups. The percentage of female principals is significantly less in the more traditional religious Jewish and Arab groups. The key cross-cultural dimension involved here is the differential concentration/disbursement of Power between the four groups. The more a society’s values reflect a concentration of power, the more patriarchal it 44

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

will tend to be. Sarab Aburabia-Queder in her chapter, for instance, describes a female Bedouin principal in southern Israel and how she negotiates between a cultural norm that is opposed to women’s involvement in management and leadership on the one hand, and the fulfillment of their principal roles on the other. Her chapter provides a dramatic and stark illustration of the struggle of the first Bedouin female principal, and her struggle against hitherto male domination of the principalship. In overcoming all odds to get appointed, she subsequently felt obliged to assume a leadership style that was dichotomous – masculine, aggressive and hierarchical towards male staff (because that was what she felt was expected by them) and the opposite towards female staff. This supports our model (Figure 2.1), which sees leadership style as a negotiated, pragmatic and adaptive phenomenon. While it might be thought that male principals cluster at the hierarchical, masculine end of the continuum, and females at the non-hierarchical, caring end, the reality is often very different. Many female principals adopt and prefer an approach that is typically thought to be masculine, and males, likewise, switch and flip-flop their approach. In contrast to Aburabia-Queder’s case study of the first woman principal in Bedouin society, Karnieli, in her chapter, writes about the socially closed group of ultra-orthodox Jews. Although the place of women in ultra-orthodox Jewish society is very traditional, the actual social roles for women turn out to be extremely different from the Bedouin. For example, while men assume deeply religious roles, women – far from eschewing roles outside the home and family - are expected to develop careers to support the family. There is thus no social stigma to careerminded women principals – such as is found in Bedouin society. Karnieli describes a woman principal who clearly feels much freer to develop her own blend of leadership style than compelled by social expectation. Both of these examples prove that even the most traditional and enduring societal cultures are challenged by, and evolve, no matter how slowly and piecemeal, in response to, changing social needs, new ideas and social structures, and global influences. In this respect Somech compares two distinctly different parts of Israeli society – the kibbutz and urban sectors. She refers to the kibbutz as a collectivist, and the urban as an individualist, sub-culture. In both sub-cultures, women principals are attempting to change the organizational culture to be more participative. The Group oriented/Self oriented cultural dimension in our model accounts well for this. Each sector has its own value systems, and while principals in both sectors foster participation, they do so for different motivations and purposes, leading to difference of approach. In the collectivist, group-oriented kibbutz, participation in school leadership is seen as an indispensable condition for creating a democratic social organization; in the urban society, it is seen as a pragmatic necessity aimed at fostering a more efficient school or social organization. This is a clear indication of how key terms, concepts and policies used in education are culturally mediated, and assume differences of meaning according to their social context. These cases show how each society and sub-group has its own unique norms, expected gender roles and ways of life, all of which may impact on women’s 45

DIMMOCK & WALKER

ability to access leader positions and influence how they exercise leadership in terms of style and approach. More case studies such as these are needed in order to test, develop and refine the cross-cultural model espoused in this chapter. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PREPARATION AND APPOINTMENT OF WOMEN LEADERS

A number of implications follow for the future preparation, recruitment and appointment of women principals. Some of these apply equally to male principals as to women. The first is a great need for aspiring and present principals, as well as those involved in their training and recruitment, to be more informed about the effects and importance of culture and context to successful school leadership. In part, this means improving professional knowledge and understanding of societal and organizational cultures, and thinking through the implications for leaders and leadership of schools in a more systematic and rigorous way than has been the case. In training, recruiting and appointing leaders we have hitherto placed much of the focus on the leaders per se rather than the leader in relation to particular contexts within which they might exercise leadership. The second provides an illustration of the point above. Given the increasing phenomenon of multicultural schools, and the challenges and problems they present, there is a real need for leaders, especially aspiring leaders, of such schools to acquire specialist training and expertise. For example, multi-ethnic schools present very different leadership challenges and problems to homogeneous intake schools. Indeed, great variations in leadership challenges exist among and between multi-ethnic schools. Good leadership involves successful interaction with school communities. Training and preparation of both aspiring and present leaders is needed that prepares them for, and equips them with, the ability and knowledge to create culturally diverse but inclusive schools. The third implication targets women as leaders. Aspiring and present women leaders whose own societal cultures may be resistant or opposed to them assuming leadership positions need support in order to break the mould. Such support can come in various guises, such as personal and professional mentoring, systemic backing from policy makers and educational administrators, and formal training programs aimed at fostering more conducive environments for them to assume effective leadership roles and effective professional practices. A fourth issue concerns the need to talent spot and fast track able women aspirant leaders who may be given the development and training hinted at above. Such preparation could embrace more targeted and specific training for leadership in particular cultural environments. The obverse of this is that those responsible for recruiting and appointing need to be versed in truly understanding the needs and challenges of particular school environments and the type and suitability of leader and leadership required. Educational leadership and management as a field of study and research has generally failed to keep pace with current events leading to the changing nature of societies, demographics, and educational policies. We are concerned that unlike 46

WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

other fields, such as international business management and cross-cultural psychology, our field has generally failed to develop models, frameworks and analytical tools by which to understand these dramatic changes and their effects in different societies. Existing models and theories tending towards ethnocentrism, generally fail to distinguish cultural boundaries, and assume a false universalism. Equally, the field of educational leadership has failed in its development to reflect the fast changing nature of schools in multicultural and multi-ethnic societies. We contend that a focus on culture as an analytical concept promises more analytical and robust comparisons between school leaders and leadership, including the study of women educational leaders, across different geo-cultural areas. Such cross-cultural comparisons can embrace a wider rather than narrower perspective, incorporating school leadership, organizational structures, management, and curriculum, teaching and learning, in order to present holistic and contextualized accounts. An international, multicultural and comparative approach to educational leadership and management would bring greater refinement to the field. Few would dispute the need. REFERENCES Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf. Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learning-centered school: A cross-cultural perspective. London: Falmer Press. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998a). Comparative educational administration: Developing a crosscultural conceptual framework. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 558-595. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998b). Towards comparative educational administration: The case for a cross-cultural, school-based approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 379-401. Dimmock, C., & Wildy, H. (1995). Conceptualizing curriculum management in an effective secondary school. The Curriculum Journal, 6(3), 297-323. Gouldner, A. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles-1. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 291-306. Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. H. (1994). Cultural constraints in management theories. International Review of Strategic Management, 5, 27-48. Hofstede, G. H. (1995). Managerial values: The business of international business is culture. In T. Jackson (Ed.), Cross-cultural Management (pp. 150-165). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.

Clive Dimmock Centre for Educational Leadership and Management School of Education University of Leicester, England Allan Walker Department of Educational Administration and Policy Chinese University of Hong Kong

47

AUDREY ADDI-RACCAH

3. WOMEN IN THE ISRAELI EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

Israeli education has been undergoing a process of feminization over the last thirty years. Schools have become a women-dominated workplace and many of them are led by women. However, feminization is occurring at different rates and intensities in the different sectors of the Israeli educational system. These educational sectors represent distinct socio-cultural and economic settings that extend a far reaching effect on women's social position in school. The aim of this paper is to present an overview of women in school leadership positions in Israel. It includes three parts. The first describes and explains feminization in the Israeli context; the second deals with the characteristics of women in leadership positions; and the last focuses on women's leadership style. All of these aspects are addressed with reference to the particular context of each of Israel's educational sectors. THE FEMINIZATION OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP: A CONTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE

Feminization Trends The literature has indicated extensively that while women tend to be clustered in teaching, men outnumber women in school principalship, which constitutes the most rewarding and powerful position in school. This traditional pattern, however, is changing. For example, in 1999 in Great Britain, 58% of elementary schools and 28% of secondary schools were headed by females (National Statistics On Line, 1999). In 1994 in the USA, 35% of all public school principals were women (42% in elementary schools and 14% in secondary schools). In private schools, women reached about 54% among school principals (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997). In the Israeli educational system, too, women have made a great progress in entering principalship during the last 30 years, as presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 shows the almost triple increase between 1972 to 2000 in the percent of female school leaders in both elementary and high schools.1 At the turn of the century, about one half of Israeli schools (48%) were characterized as femaledominated workplaces, in which both the principal and teachers were women.2

I.Oplatka, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (eds.), Women principals in a multicultural society: New insights into feminist educational leadership, 49–68. © 2006 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

ADDI-RACCAH

Table 3.1. Percentage of women in the educational system by year, position, and school level 1972

2000

School principals High school Elementary

14.1 21.1

High school Junior high Elementary

56.1 63.1 77.3

36.7 59.1 Teachers 65.9 75.6 83.0

Note.Based on data analysis of the 1972 Israeli Census (Addi, 1992) and on the 1999/2000 Teaching Staff Survey (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2002). Data regarding Junior high school principals was not available for 1972.

The feminization of school principalship is a multifaceted process. Goldring and Chen (1993) related it to three trends in the Israeli educational system, which occurred in the 1970s and 1980s and continue to remain relevant. All three trends led to males' departure from the profession. The first of these trends involves the decreased occupational prestige of all educators including school principals. The process of devaluation in educators' social standing in society is ongoing. Between 1974 and 1989, the prestige score (ranging from 0-lowest to 100-highest) dropped for elementary school principals from 93.1 to 66.0 and for secondary school principals from 91.1 to 66.4 (Addi, 1992). Recent data showed that low social esteem still characterize educators (Education Watch, 2005). As the social standing of teachers and school principals did not improve and frequently came under social critique, it may have deterred men, who sought attractive and rewarding occupations, from entering the educational field. Yet, it also increased males' odds of leaving teaching and principlaship in order to seek out other occupations (AddiRaccah, 2005). Theses two processes reinforced the system's feminization. The second factor that contributed to feminization relates to the decentralizing reforms in the educational system, which strengthened school principals' role at the local level but at the same time isolated them from "system-wide influences and social and political networks" (Goldring & Chen 1993; p. 178). Since its initiation in the 1980s, decentralization has intensified, leading to more uncertainty and job ambiguity among school principals (Nir, 1999). School leaders report that they are exposed to pressure from external factors such as parents or local educational authorities, who influence school policy and undermine their authority and professional power (Volansky, 2003). As the move toward school decentralization redefined the power relations between the school principal and other school constituencies that demanded a greater share in school governance, it can be assumed that principalship may have become less attractive for men who emphasized a hierarchal and autocratic style of leadership. However, it may have become better suited to women with a tendency toward a more participative and

50

WOMEN IN THE ISRAELI EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

democratic style of leadership, thus contributing to their increasing representation in school leadership positions (Power, Halpin, & Whitty, 1997). The third factor associated with feminization concerns the nature of the political relations between the ministry of education and teachers unions. Economic hardships in the 1980s led Israel's teachers unions to fight for better working conditions rather than for increased salaries. Improved conditions like the possibility of part-time hours worked in favor of women. Goldring and Chen (1993) claimed that "teaching and administrative ranks are being filled with upper socioeconomic status females, who view their work as a second income, and who are willing to forego a good salary for comfortable conditions in which to raise their children" (p. 179). Actually, educators' job rewards continue to remain low. Teachers tend to earn about 67% of the labor market's average monthly pay, which is lower than that of other public-sector professions (Israel Teachers Union, 2004). Altogether, these factors caused principalship to become less attractive to men, who moved to other occupations when women replaced them or who did not enter the educational field in the first place. In fact, the tendency to leave a school principalship to move to another occupation is higher among males than among females (Addi-Raccah, 2005). In addition to these factors, since the 1980s, the Ministry of Education made efforts to define the school principal position as a distinct profession by raising school administrators' educational level. Candidates for principalship positions are now required to hold a master's degree in educational administration or a diploma from a two-year school principal training program (Chen, 1999; National Task Force for the Advancement of Education in Israel, 2005). These changes are to women's advantage, as credentials and formal requirements were found to reduce gender inequality (Izraeli, 1997; Reskin & McBrier, 2000). Indeed, by defining the requirements needed for being appointed to school principalship, women gain opportunities to compete with men over school principal positions. Today, many women study educational administration to qualify for administrative positions and increase their chances of being appointed to them (Chen, Addi, & Inbar, 1998). The formalization of job requirements works to women's advantage for other reasons: As school principals are now required to have at least five years of teaching experience, women's chances to enter principalship have increased owing to their strong presence in the teaching ranks. Women now constitute the major pool from which school principals can be chosen. Once women constitute a critical mass in teaching, they come to be the main source from which school principals are drawn (Addi-Raccah, 2002). Hence, it can be argued that the feminization of school principalship in Israel is to a large extent an inevitable result of the feminization of the teaching force. While the above factors explain the general trend toward an increase in women's representation in principalship positions, they offer only a partial explanation in light of the variation typifying the Israeli educational system's extent and intensity of feminization. Indeed, significant differences exist in the extent of women's representation in principalship among the different educational sectors, as presented in the next section. 51

ADDI-RACCAH

Variation in Feminization The Israeli education system is divided into two segregated school systems – the Jewish and the Arab –that are separate and distinct in every aspect, including supervision, organization, and the teaching force's characteristics and composition, to name a few. The Jewish education system comprises about 75.3% of the student population and 84% of its teachers. The Jewish system itself is subdivided into three separate sectors: secular public schools (65.9% of students and 62.9% of teachers), religious public schools (18.1% of students and 21.8% of teachers), and ultra-orthodox schools (16% of students and 15.3% of teachers) (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2002, 2004). The ultra-orthodox school system is partially funded by the state but not supervised by it. They have an absolute autonomy over their curricula and school organization. The Arab education system enrolls about 25% of Israel's students along with about 16% of the teaching force. Most Arab children attend public schools. A minority (about 6.3%) attend private schools affiliated with different non-profit organizations or with the Catholic, Anglican, or Greek Orthodox churches. The private Arab schools receive partial financial support from the state. These schools mostly enroll Muslim students, who actually compose the major religious group among Israeli Arabs..3 The present paper addresses only three of these educational sectors, for which large-scale and reliable data are available: the Jewish secular public schools, the Jewish religious public schools, and the Arab public schools. All three of these educational sectors receive full financial support and supervision from the State of Israel. Hence, the current chapter's focus on each of these school types may control for part of the variation between the three school systems, while emphasizing the socio-cultural factors that come into play concerning women's position within each educational sector. Table 3.2 presents the percentage of women in teaching and principalship in these three school systems. As can be seen from this table, in Jewish secular public elementary schools, the percentage of women in principal positions has in fact reached saturation (91.5%), whereas women remain under-represented in high school principalship. In these high schools, while 79.9% of the teachers are women, only 61.7% of the school principals are women. However, in Jewish religious and Arab public schools, the percentages of women are lower, both in principalship and in teaching. Riehl and Byrd's (1997) model may be utilized to explain the differences in women's representation among the three sectors. Their elaborate model for explaining access to school administration combines individuals' actions and characteristics, the organizational context in which a person works, and the wider social context. Hence, adopting a contextual approach, I propose that the extent and intensity of feminization is context bound, depending on the particular socio-cultural, economic, and political conditions of the school environment (see also Spencer, 52

WOMEN IN THE ISRAELI EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

1997). From this perspective, I suggest that Israeli women's advancement to school leadership positions largely depends on the respective socioeconomic and cultural context of the particular educational sector in which they operate, as I briefly describe below. Table 3.2. Percentage of women within each position by educational sector

School principals Elementary Secondary Total Teachers Elementary Secondary Total

Jewish secular public schools

Jewish religious public schools

Arab public schools

91.5 61.7 82.1

49.0 24.5 40.5

16.6 5.1 12.4

96.2 79.9 87.6

87.4 63.9 75.8

66.6 39.1 55.1

Note. Data based on the 1999/2000 Teaching Staff Survey (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2002). 4

DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE EDUCATIONAL SECTORS

The major distinction between the three educational sectors lies along ethnic lines, between Arabs and Jews. Israeli Arabs compose a minority group within Israeli society. Although officially granted full legal and political rights, they remain on the margins of Israel's political, economic, and social life (Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1993; Tessler & Grant, 1998). Compared with Jewish citizens of Israel, most Arabs live in homogenous and low socioeconomic communities, characterized by fewer social and economic resources and limited access to occupational opportunities. These conditions may contribute to our understanding of Arab women's position in society at large, and more specifically in schools. Semyonov and Lewin-Epstein (1986, 1987) showed that Arab women’s position in the labor market is determined by the scarcity of occupational positions available in their community. As high-status jobs are saturated and employment opportunities are scarce, given the same educational level, women have had to take lower-status and lower-paying jobs than men (Semyonov, Lewin-Epstein, & Braham 1999). Even in teaching, which is traditionally perceived as appropriate for women (Mar’i, 1975), Arab men are found to have an advantage. Recent data showed that compared to Jewish men, Arab men continue to be over-represented in teaching (Gera & Cohen, 2001). This appears to stem from the fact that in the Arab sector, teaching remains an important and attractive employment source for those who hold an academic degree (Al-Haj, 1995). Being segregated from the main Jewish economic sector and therefore protected from competition with their Jewish colleagues (Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1994), Arab teachers benefit from a 53

ADDI-RACCAH

relatively higher social status (Shavit, 1992) and rewards such as salary and prestige (Semyonov, Lewin-Epstein, & Mandel, 2000). Indeed, a recent survey indicated that the social status of Arab teachers surpasses by far the social status of Jewish teachers (6.9 compared to 3.6 on a scale ranging from 1-low to 10-high, based on a survey conducted and reported by Education Watch, 2005). Competition over teaching positions in the Arab sector, therefore, is very tough and unequal, leading to the exclusion of women. This is particularly pronounced in the case of school principals, who play a pivotal social and political role, both within the school and the community at large. In this matter, it may be suggested that Arab women who aspire for educational leadership are exposed to obstacles similar to those that impede women's advancement to different political leadership positions (Abu-Baker, 1998). As Mazawi (1996) argued, competition over school principalship is "a matter of male politics….In this respect, the school setting reproduces the unequal power structure regulating gender relations beyond the school" (p. 106). Actually, Arab women's probability of reaching even viceprincipal positions, which may lead to principalship, is smaller compared to both Arab men and Jewish women (Addi-Raccah & Ayalon, 2002). Obviously, advancement to the school principal position is even more challenging. Based on data from 1991 to 2004, Figure 3.1 presents the annual average percentage of female and male teachers who moved from teaching to school principal positions in the Jewish and Arab sectors (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005). Figure 3.1 clearly shows that in the Jewish and the Arab educational systems, men have better opportunities than women to move from teaching to principalship. However, the gender gap is greater in the Arab education sector than in its Jewish counterpart. This trend is revealed in both elementary and high school. In addition to the economic factor, Arab women's disadvantage in holding leadership positions in school is affected by cultural norms. Compared both to Arab men and Jewish women, Arab women's position at work is more confined by patriarchal cultural norms (Swirski, Conor, Swirski, & Yehezkel, 2001). These traditional norms limit Arab women's employment to their immediate local and familial surroundings and impede active participation in the cash economy (Suad, 2000). Further, women are expected to forgo professional advancement in favor of men to avoid undermining the patriarchal structure of Arab society and threatening the status of men (Abu-Baker, 1998). As Al-Haj (1995) claims, cultural mores legitimize Arab men's occupation of higher positions than women in the educational system. Arab males possess more political resources to maintain their advantage in holding leadership positions; thus, they gain more support from their community than women. This support is of great importance as their selection to school leadership positions must be approved not only by the local authorities but also by the Israeli security services (Human Rights Watch, 2001; Lustick, 1980). Hence, to be promoted to principalship, in addition to their own human capital resources, Arab teachers must mobilize proper political sponsorship. While men succeed in doing so, women have more difficulty in gaining such support because they must 54

WOMEN IN THE ISRAELI EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

first mobilize their family's encouragement and approval. Most Arab women report that without family support they could not have succeeded in their job (Barkol & Kupferberg, 2001). There is also evidence indicating that male family members play a significant role in women's decision to apply for principalship and in their establishment of social networks (Barkol & Kupferberg, 2001; Shapira, 1999). It appears that without the support of men, Arab women lack confidence in their leadership capacity and encounter difficulties in gaining social legitimization for their leadership (Abu-Baker, 1998). Although some of these trends may also appear within the Jewish education system (Shapira & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2002), they are less prevalent Figure 3.1. Average percentage of teachers who moved to school principalship position by educational sector, school level, and gender (1991-2004)

1.1

1.2 1 0.8

1

0.8

0.8 0.6

Males

0.5

0.6

Females

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2 0 Elementary

Secondary

Jewish

Elementary

Secondary

Arab

. In addition to the differences between the Jewish and Arab education systems, a salient distinction also exists within the Jewish public education sector, between the secular and religious schools. As shown in Table 3.2, compared with the Jewish secular public schools, the religious public schools have a lower percentage of women both in teaching and in principal positions. These differences reflect the unique nature of the two educational sectors. Secular public education serves a socially heterogeneous population with fairly universal, liberal attitudes. This educational sector is guided by meritocratic and egalitarian principles, implying that employees are evaluated and promoted according to their qualifications rather than on the basis of personal connections, status, or ascriptive characteristics. In this regard, the Jewish secular public school system can be said to cultivate a professional culture. It trains its teachers and principals first of all to be professionals and experts in their jobs (Chen, 1999). Women were found to exploit their human capital and personal resources for their career advancement (Fuchs & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1996). Further, given the high percentage of women in teaching and principal positions, Jewish secular public education generates a feminine organizational culture that emphasizes norms of caring and cooperation (Addi55

ADDI-RACCAH

Raccah & Chen, 2000), which, in turn, may help more women to apply to leadership positions. The religious public schools can be defined as fostering a parochial culture that emphasizes a Zionist-religious worldview combining commitment to the Jewish religion and its traditional norms, along with national values (Ayalon & Yogev, 1996; Greenbuim & Herman, 1995; Schwarzwald, 1990). Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jewish religious public schools were granted pedagogic autonomy to educate their students according to this sector's particular values and aims. Jewish rituals and religious ceremonies constitute a central part of their routine functioning and social activities (Dagan, 1995). Furthermore, according to Taub and Klein (2000), "Religious observance on the part of the teachers …. (is one of) the 'appropriate' behaviors required of teachers in the state religious education system" (p. 349). Scrutiny regarding religious observance of those in school leadership positions is extremely rigorous, likely affecting the process of selection for school principal positions. According to the former director general of religious public education, school principals are expected to act according the worldview of the Zionist-religious movement in their daily life and to implement religious educational doctrine in school. Their mission is to instill religious values and norms in both students and school staff by serving as a role model (Dagan, 2001). Hence, where school principalship is defined as a religious mission, men have an advantage over women in terms of mobilizing support and approval to endorse their appointment, because males hold a privileged position in Jewish religion, rituals, and ceremonies (Addi Raccah & Ayalon, 2002). Indeed, compared to secular public education, in religious public education the criteria for promotion to administrative and supervisory roles are, in practice, less well defined and tend to be informal (Schwarzwald, 1990). This leaves more room for sponsorship, particularistic affiliations, and ascriptive characteristics (Chen, 1985), which limit open competition and operate to exclude women (see also Tallrico, 2000). As in the Arab sector, patriarchal norms also affect the Jewish religious sector (Eden, 2000). In fact, the religious public educational system maintains gendersegregated schools or classrooms and socializes girls to conform to their traditional role as wife and mother alongside their contribution to the collective and the community. Religious Jewish women who define their gender identity in traditional terms (Moore, 2000) are expected to work in areas that are perceived as an extension of the domestic and private sphere, such as education, child care, atrisk youth, nursing, and community work (Rappoport, Penso, & Garb, 1994). Indeed, religiously observant women tend to adopt their gender role and develop low aspirations and expectations to hold positions, such as leadership roles, that are perceived as male jobs (Gaziel & Tzoyzner, 1987). It is then not surprising that compared with Jewish secular public schools the religious public schools boast a lower percentage of women in principal positions (Addi-Raccah & Ayalon, 2002). In can be concluded that the political, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts of the Arab and the Jewish religious public school environments, compared to the 56

WOMEN IN THE ISRAELI EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Jewish secular public schools, maintain men's advantage in holding leadership positions, whereas women encounter more barriers to advancing into leadership positions. In this regard, beliefs, values, norms, and ideologies affect recruitment practices that, in turn, may either reduce or foster ascriptive inequality (Tallerico, 2000). As indicated, in each educational sector, women must mobilize different resources to enter principalship. In Jewish secular public schools the dominant resources derive from professional considerations, whereas in Jewish religious schools and Arab education, women need social and cultural resources as well as professional qualifications. In light of the different political, socio-cultural contexts in which women who hold principal positions in Israel operate, the next section addresses three questions: (1) Who are the women who succeed in obtaining principalship positions? (2) Where are they located? and (3) How do they practice leadership? These questions will be examined for each educational sector, and, subsequently, comparisons will be carried out. THE PROFILE OF WOMEN IN SCHOOL PRINCIPAL POSITIONS

In Israel, the main road to principalship is by advancing from teaching positions, to different internal leadership positions in school, and then to principalship. The latter occurs mostly after acquiring an academic degree, preferably a master's degree in educational administration or a diploma from an educational administration program. Table 3.3 presents the personal characteristics of men and women in principal positions in the Jewish secular public, Jewish religious public, and Arab public schools. The data reveal three major findings. First, in each educational sector, school principals and teachers make up two distinct professional groups. Principals are better educated and have more experience than teachers. Partly, these differences relate to the job requirements. Recall that to access principal positions, applicants are formally required to hold an advanced academic degree and at least five years of teaching experience. The findings also show that the difference between school principals and teachers is more evident among Arab women than among Jewish women. It can be assumed that Arab women who have advanced to leadership positions comprise a select group who must prove, by acquiring more education and experience, that it deserves to hold leadership positions. Second, women school principals in all three sectors were found to have fewer young children of their own, compared to their teacher counterparts. For men, such differences were not found. Thus, the link between family responsibilities and access to leadership roles seems to be relevant for women but less so for men. A possible explanation may be that women, but not men, enter principalship after their young children have grown older.5 Indeed, Fuchs and Hertz-Lazarowitz (1996) found that women in principal positions reported that they had left work to care for their young children, but meanwhile had used that time-out to redesign their career and prepare for applying to principalship.

57

58 840 82.1 40.7 44.5 38.2 24.0 61.2

63.3 50.3 16.1 15.0

183 17.9 50.8 39.9 50.3 29.0 41.8

51.8 40.1 29.5 19.0

Men

163 40.5 63.2 50.0 37.4 24.0 64.8

72.4 50.5 12.8 15.0

239 59.5 66.9 45.2 43.9 23.5 40.9

Teachers 61.3 66.6 48.3 43.5 18.2 32.8 16.2 18.0

953 100.0 42.5 43.7 40.3 25.0 58.0

71.3 48.2 18.1 16.8

402 100.0 65.4 47.0 41.3 24.0 50.9

Jewish religious Women Total

School principals

Total

67.5 44.2 10.1 14.0

380 87.6 66.1 52.6 30.1 27.0 39.6

Men

62.4 41.8 3.1 8.0

54 12.4 37.0 40.9 31.8 27.0 46.9

Arab Women

Note. All the differences between the three educational sectors are significant (P