Professional learning communities: Enhancing collaborative leadership in Singapore early childhood settings

Abstract

Leadership in early childhood education has been promoted as a collaborative process in which all teachers, rather than just the positional leader, are involved. Collaborative leadership practices are not well understood within the marketised Singapore early childhood education context. Beyond mandatory leadership training, little is known about how leaders are supported to strengthen their leadership practices and involve others in leadership activities. School-based literature suggests that learning through professional learning communities expands the collective capacity of organisations; however, literature on professional learning communities in early childhood education is limited. This article reports on the findings of an interpretive case study examining the current understandings and leadership practices of principals in the Singapore early childhood education context, and investigating how participation in professional learning communities can support the development of collaborative leadership practices. The participants in two professional learning communities established as part of this study were six principals from an anchor-operator childcare provider and five principals from private childcare centres in Singapore. Two teachers working with each of the respective principals were also involved in focus group interviews to ascertain if there were changes in their principals’ leadership practices. Data was collected from professional learning community meetings, online reflections, pre- and post-professional learning community interviews with the principals, and follow-up focus group discussions with the teachers. The key findings indicate that praxis as a result of participation in a professional learning community led to some shifts in principals’ thinking about collaborative leadership practices and resulted in reported changes to their leadership approaches, distribution of leadership, and improved collegiality and collaborative learning for teachers. The results indicate that considering and implementing collaborative leadership practices through professional learning communities in the Singapore early childhood education context requires sensitivity towards Asian Singapore sociocultural values related to hierarchy and economic pragmatism.

Introduction

This article reports on a research study that examined the conceptual understandings and leadership practices of principals in the Singapore early childhood education (ECE) context and investigated how participation in professional learning communities (PLCs) can support the development of collaborative leadership practices. Collaborative practices are not well understood within the marketised Singapore ECE context, and little is known about how leaders are supported to strengthen their leadership practices and involve others in leadership activities. The following section describes the context of ECE in Singapore. This is followed by a review of the literature on leadership in ECE, including collaborative modes of leadership, PLCs and leadership in different contexts. The study methodology and findings will then be described before the findings are discussed with reference to relevant literature.

Context

ECE in Singapore mainly comprises childcare services which cater for children aged 18 months to six years, and kindergartens which provide preschool education for children aged four to six (Early Childhood Development Agency, 2012). ECE before the primary school years is not compulsory and not part of the official education system (Tan, 2007). The provision of services is therefore primarily dominated by private providers and the sector can be described as marketised. Lim (2017) comments that government intervention is restricted to a few high-leverage areas. Plans for the sector include the establishment of public kindergartens in order to provide quality affordable preschool services to lower- and middle-income families; improving teacher quality through training courses; improving the curriculum framework; and implementing an accreditation system to improve the programme quality of ECE centres (Tan, 2017). However, retention of the provision of ECE services within the private sector can result in variable quality, as business interests may be prioritised over the interests and needs of children and families (Lim, 2017). One impact of marketisation that has been highlighted is the lack of critical reflection and leadership growth amongst teachers (Lim, 2017).

Growth in the provision of childcare in Singapore occurred in the 1980s and increased through the 1990s as a result of a national policy encouraging women’s participation in the labour force (Lim and Lim, 2017). Participation rates are relatively high, with nearly 99% of children aged four to six enrolled in preschools (Wong, 2012). Prior to 2013, a split governance system prevailed, whereby childcare centres were under the auspices of the Ministry of Social and Family Development, formerly known as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and regulated by the Child Care Centres Act of 1988 (Khoo, 2010). Kindergartens were registered with the Ministry of Education and regulated by the Education Act of 1958 (Early Childhood Development Agency, 2012). An international ranking report – Starting well, published in 2012 - ranked Singapore 29th out of 45 countries in terms of quality and accessibility (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). Reasons for this low ranking included high teacher–student ratios, low average wages, low entry-qualification requirements for teachers, and low levels of parental involvement (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). Following this report, the Early Childhood Development Agency was established to integrate the previously separate sectors of childcare and kindergarten (Lim, 2017). The Early Childhood Development Agency’s mandate was to oversee the regulation, quality assurance and provision of kindergarten and childcare programmes for children below the age of six (Ministry of Social and Family Development, 2013).

A study commissioned by the Lien Foundation, which followed the international ranking report, reviewed the challenges and provided possible solutions to revitalise the preschool sector (Ang, 2012). The resulting report, Vital voices for vital years, identified a lack of support for effective leadership development and policy development for improving ECE services, among other findings (Ang, 2012). Mandatory leadership training in the form of a Diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education – Leadership is available for principals of ECE services in Singapore. A study exploring the effectiveness of this training (Teo, 2016) identified that while principals found aspects of the programme valuable, there were some inconsistencies in the way the programme was taught and gaps in the content offered. Teo (2016) identified some incompatibility between Singapore’s position as an Asian country and its adoption of a western ECE curriculum. She suggested that this results in tensions between different and sometimes contradictory notions of leadership, as will be discussed below.

Leadership in ECE

There is a growing body of research exploring leadership in ECE settings; however, the lack of an agreed definition or understanding has been noted (Thornton et al., 2009; Waniganayake et al., 2012). It has been suggested that there is little value in attempting to formulate an agreed definition because of the diversity of contexts (Waniganayake et al., 2012); however, this lack of agreement may contribute to a lack of understanding of what is involved in effective leadership practice. The models of leadership used in the ECE sector have been adopted from other settings, particularly the schooling sector, including models of pedagogical and distributed leadership (Waniganayake et al., 2012). Research suggests that leadership is multifaceted and evolves through relationships with others (Ebbeck and Waniganayake, 2003; Heikka and Hujala, 2013; Waniganayake et al., 2012). The importance of acknowledging ‘the meaning and connection between societal contexts and leadership’ rather than characteristics of individual leaders has been emphasised (Heikka and Hujala, 2013: 570). Male and Palaiologou (2015: 216) suggest that leadership is best understood as praxis, rather than a model or activity, and advocate for leadership to be viewed as ‘a process that involves interpretation, understanding and application’. A lack of support for leadership learning and development has been identified in several studies and appears to be an international issue (Heikka et al., 2012; Stamopoulos, 2012; Thornton, 2009).

Research comparing ECE in three countries – Finland, Japan and Singapore – found that principals had similar roles and priorities, which included pedagogical leadership and service management, including engaging with parents and community groups and dealing with managerial and administrative tasks (Hujala et al., 2016). The Vital voices for vital years report referred to earlier highlights the importance of leaders being involved in policy development and advocacy, as well as nurturing future leaders. This report appears to focus mainly on positional leaders; however, the crucial role of teaching professionals in exercising ‘leadership acumen and judgements’ (Ang, 2012: 93) is acknowledged.

Collaborative leadership

Collaborative forms of leadership such as distributed or shared leadership have been promoted in a number of ECE-focused research studies (Heikka and Hujala, 2013; Krieg et al., 2014; Stamopoulos, 2012; Thornton, 2009). Such collaborative approaches reinforce the idea that leadership is not only the domain of positional leaders, but should also be a collective process involving interactions between both people and contexts (Heikka et al., 2012, 2013; Thornton, 2010). Stamopoulos (2012) frames leadership as a shared responsibility and suggests that multiple perspectives are required for an understanding of change processes. She advocates for leadership that ‘connects to practice, builds professional capacity and capability, and recognises the importance of relationship building’ (Stamopoulos, 2012: 47). The important role of the positional leader in supporting collaborative forms of leadership has been identified. Colmer et al. (2014: 104) claim that in the ECE context, ‘distribution does not replace positional leadership structures, and site leaders play an important role in coordinating leadership and developing leadership capability within the group’. Boe and Hognestad (2017: 145) use the term ‘hybrid leadership’ to describe the role taken by positional leaders who ‘lead by both interaction and by using the influence of their positions’.

Studies involving leadership development programmes suggest that participation in professional learning provides opportunities to understand and enact distributed or shared leadership practices. Thornton (2009) found that participants in a blended action learning programme increased their self-awareness, gained a better understanding of their context and of different leadership approaches, and became more confident, resulting in the distribution of leadership in their contexts. Participants in Krieg et al.’s (2014) study reconceptualised their understanding of leadership from a more hierarchical model to something more fluid. They also became more aware of the value of collaborative leadership, which for them involved sharing responsibilities and decision-making.

Tensions between collaborative forms of leadership and the more hierarchical leadership practices usually employed in Asian contexts have been identified (Dimmock and Tan, 2013). In an article focusing on educational leadership in Singaporean schools, Dimmock and Tan (2013) suggest that traditional Confucian values favour an authoritarian approach, which expects a degree of deference for leaders by teachers and is not conducive to shared leadership models that promote the distribution of leadership and involve giving teachers more responsibility. Although there is little research on collaborative forms of leadership in the Singapore ECE context, a study carried out in Hong Kong aimed at identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood programmes (Ho, 2011) found that principals’ leadership practices were centralised rather than distributed, and teachers were given few opportunities to participate in decision-making or practise leadership.

Professional learning communities

Empirical research on PLCs in ECE is limited compared to the proliferation of studies from the school sector (Cherrington and Thornton, 2015). Although there is no universal definition of a PLC, consensus suggests that it involves teachers engaged in collective professional learning with the aim of supporting improved outcomes for students (Stoll, 2011). Characteristics of effective PLCs include supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practices and supportive conditions (Hipp and Huffman, 2010: 13). The building of relational trust is seen as a key characteristic of a PLC (Stoll, 2011). Relational trust is defined as the ‘connective tissue that binds individuals together to advance the education and welfare of students’ (Bryk and Schneider, 2003: 44), and is formed through the mutual understandings that arise out of sustained associations among individuals. Studies on PLCs carried out in the ECE sector have noted the importance of teachers being willing to collect data and critically reflect on their practice in order to make a difference to children’s learning (Cherrington and Thornton, 2015). The value of an outside facilitator who can provide resources, listen non-judgementally and use questioning to encourage reflection in PLC meetings has also been highlighted (Thornton and Cherrington, 2014).

In summary, the literature highlights the importance of viewing leadership in ECE as a shared process by which teachers work collaboratively to improve children’s learning. Furthermore, the establishment of PLCs where leaders can learn about leadership and share their experiences and challenges is a topic of interest. Given the dearth of scholarly research situated in the Singapore early years sector, little is known about the existence of collaborative leadership or the effectiveness of supporting leadership practices through PLCs. The objective of this study was to explore how collaborative leadership practices can support leadership development in the Singapore ECE context through the use of PLCs. It also examined how leaders in ECE made sense of and responded to the needs of children, staff members, families and government regulations within a marketised ECE landscape.

Study methodology

This research utilised an interpretive case study research design. An interpretative approach was chosen as it acknowledged the importance of understanding both the language used by participants to describe their practices and experiences and how terminology and practices are given meaning within a particular social context (Cohen et al., 2011). A characteristic of case studies is the clear boundary around the phenomenon to be investigated (Merriam, 2009). The phenomenon of interest in this research was the development of collaborative leadership practices through participation in PLCs in the Singapore ECE context. Two PLCs were established (PLC1 and PLC2) and each was a unit of analysis within this single case study. As this was an exploratory case study (Yin, 2003), there was no particular expectation of change or theory of change used.

The PLCs were established in March 2015 and worked together for 10 months. To date, licensed early years centres in Singapore have largely been run by private commercial or private non-profit entities (such as charities and anchor operators which receive government grants), with only 18 public kindergartens run by the Ministry of Education. The first author, who has been involved in the training of ECE professionals in Singapore for almost 15 years, had access to contact information for principals employed in anchor operators and some private commercial centres; therefore, these two types of services were chosen for the study.

In addition, the first author’s familiarity with the ECE sector helped her to form trusting relationships with the participants during the research inquiry, in which she had assumed the role of facilitator and researcher. This joint role mirrors the role taken in previous research on leadership in the ECE sector (Thornton and Yoong, 2011). There were no other researchers involved.

Trustworthiness was established in this study through four criteria: credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Credibility was established through the triangulation of data and the first author’s deep engagement in the data collection over a 10-month time period. A number of strategies increased dependability, including member checking and frequent debriefing sessions with research supervisors, which involved discussion of whether interpretations were supported by the data and aligned with the conceptual framework of collaborative leadership and PLCs. Confirmability was ensured by the research process including the use of a reflective journal for critical self-reflection by the researcher. Transferability is not an aim of qualitative case studies; however, the rich description provided of the setting enables the reader to make informed decisions about the transferability of the findings to their specific context (Toma, 2006).

The principals in both providers were not the senior managers; they were, however, able to make changes within their locus of control. Each PLC originally consisted of a group of six leaders; however, one principal from the private-centre PLC withdrew during the data collection process. The participants in each group interacted through seven face-to-face meetings facilitated by the researcher, and also online discussion forums and chats. The meetings involved presentations, activities such as reflecting on values, leadership practices and capabilities, including building relational trust, and the discussion of readings.

Case studies are characterised by multiple sources of data (Yin, 2003). The data that informed this qualitative study included pre- and post-PLC individual interviews with principals, which were audio-recorded; seven face-to-face PLC meetings for both groups of principals, which were both audio- and video-recorded to capture the PLC discussions; online activities such as reflective journals and discussion; and audio-recorded focus group discussions with teachers who worked with the principals to ascertain changes made to leadership practices at the centres. The data from each PLC was analysed separately before being compared. This process of comparison allowed for the identification and cross-case analysis of different themes between the PLCs.

The research was approved by the university’s Human Ethics Committee and conducted under the ethical principles of informed consent and confidentiality. The participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the research at any time up until the beginning of data analysis. The participants were guaranteed confidentiality in any report of findings, and pseudonyms are used when reporting individual responses.

Findings

In this section, we present and discuss data that explores and highlights the impact of the contexts within which these principals developed their leadership practices. The key findings that emerged and are discussed in this article include the isolation and loneliness that these principals experienced in their roles within the context of a hierarchical system where both senior management personnel and teachers were reluctant to countenance collaborative leadership practices. The support offered to the principals through their engagement in the PLCs established within this project – both in reducing this isolation and in supporting the development and implementation of collaborative leadership processes and, in particular, building trust – is also examined.

Leadership: a lonely business within a competitive system

Bringing the two groups of leaders together in their respective PLCs provided opportunities for them to work together in ways they had not previously experienced. Despite being part of the same organisation, the six anchor-operator principals did not know each other well and were initially cautious in sharing their leadership experiences. It was not until one participant shared a personally challenging experience that the PLC members began to speak more openly about the issues they faced as leaders. Within the second PLC group, there was a mix of initial excitement about the opportunity to work with other principals and anxiety about the underlying intent of the PLC group. Yvonne commented that she had been hesitant about joining the research, as she was unsure whether it was a genuine project or an attempt by bureaucrats to find out what was happening in private childcare centres. Other PLC members were also anxious in the initial stages: ‘When I was given this opportunity to learn and expand my network, I recall the first time we met … there were occasions I felt uneasy’ (Hazel, reflective journal).

In both PLC groups, the principals referred to the loneliness and professional isolation that they experienced as leaders. Several factors contributed to their sense of loneliness and isolation. Firstly, they reported little commitment from their management for leadership development and few opportunities to engage in professional learning to develop their leadership capacity and capabilities:

There are limitations in the organisation. They do not look at the knowledge and capability for developing leaders. They take it from the surface – ‘OK! She can run the centre, thereby she should be able to survive’, and that is the situation. But they don’t look at further development of the person. (Su Ling, pre-PLC interview)

Whilst there was some professional learning available, this was mostly around ‘curriculum matters. I won’t say it is capacity-building but training on skills and abilities. In terms of leadership development, I feel very stagnant!’ (Siti, pre-PLC interview).

The participants also described being actively discouraged from sharing their practices, especially those regarded as effective, with other principals, and attributed this to the competitive market approach that is endemic within the Singaporean ECE sector. For example, when Christy, one of the principals from a private childcare centre, asked her director for approval to join the research, she was asked what she would be sharing with other participants. The principals in PLC1 described how they were given directives not to share their ‘best practices’ (Mei, pre-PLC interview) with other principals in cluster groups established by their area directors, in order to prevent other services from outperforming them. Such directives from management were both implicit and explicit:

When it comes to sharing, although my AD [area director] has not mentioned that I should not share, I do see that there is always some secrecy. I received an email from the customer quality manager, who is very open about telling people not to share good practices. And I also got an email not to share openly about certain practices. (Siti, pre-PLC interview)

Concerns about how this competitiveness was evident between principals were also voiced. Daisy described principals being ‘in competition mode. It’s about “I want to do better than you!” Principals tend to compete with one another – for example, “So my centre is number one in this area, my customer satisfaction survey is better than yours”’ (pre-PLC interview). Alongside this competitive focus, some principals perceived that another reason why their colleagues were unwilling to share their practice ‘could also be the insecurity [of principals] not sure if they are doing right’ (Christy, pre-PLC interview).

The hierarchical nature of the ECE organisations that these principals worked in meant that collaborative leadership practices were a rarity within their centres at the beginning of the project. The roles of the principals and their senior teachers and teachers were clearly demarcated. Prior to the PLC groups being established, the principals described themselves as leaders and role models who mentored and guided their teachers. In both PLCs, leadership tasks were seldom shared with teachers, as the principals felt this would add to the workload of already overburdened staff. The principals indicated that staff would be unwilling to take on such additional work and that they would end up ‘micromanaging’ (Mei, pre-PLC interview) to ensure that tasks were completed to the required standard. Specific tasks were, however, delegated to senior teachers within each centre as part of grooming them for future leadership roles. These senior teaching staff were also a key link between the principals and the rest of the teachers:

So, when I make certain decisions, I inform them but I don’t have to tell the rest. Since they are closer to the teachers, they tell them and it’s easy for them to moderate the teachers’ feelings. They work as a bridge between me and the teachers to convey and make them understand the changes that need to occur at the centre. (Siti, pre-PLC interview)

It was within this context of hierarchical and isolated leadership that the two PLC groups were established for these principals. Whilst there is not the scope in this article to provide a detailed overview of the PLC activities with which they engaged or to present an analysis of individual factors that contributed to shifts in their thinking and practices, the next section outlines the importance of developing trust amongst these principals as a precursor to them engaging with constructs of collaborative leadership, and how these might play out as praxis within their individual centres.

Trust as a precursor to engaging in collaborative leadership practices

Identifying and building trust, firstly within the PLCs and then within their staff teams, was a key focus for the principals throughout their PLC interactions. As noted earlier, the principals within PLC1 were initially reticent about sharing their experiences with others within the group until one principal, Mei, described a challenging experience. She reflected: ‘as mature professionals we need to trust each other to share in the first place. I think we need to be open and at the same time the sharing will help us to learn from each other’s experiences’ (Meeting1). As a result, this group spent considerable time over the first few months of their PLC discussing and reflecting on the importance of trust, and how they would build this within the group and within their centre teams. Trust-building in both PLCs was facilitated by the researcher sharing from her own leadership experience, discussions that were framed by literature related to trust-building, and a gradual increase in interactions amongst the participants. As the PLCs progressed, the participants noted that the mutual trust developed within the group helped them to support and share professional advice and strategies with each other in a safe environment: ‘there is a rapport and there is trust that whatever matters [are] discussed within [the] PLC will not be shared with others and one will not be judged’ (Siti, reflective journal).

Much of PLC2’s initial focus on developing trust revolved around what could – or could not – be shared within the group and the need to establish ground rules, particularly around respect and confidentiality. Over time, these principals actively worked to establish relational trust within their PLC and began to see how they might transfer this into their work with their teachers. A discussion on relational trust took place at one of the PLC meetings:

I like what you said about relational trust, that it’s not a set of prescribed steps but they are conditions which may have to be facilitated on my part as a principal … this can’t be accomplished in a snap … the culture of personal regard is necessary and I may have to do it with role modelling as a leader. (Yvonne, PLC2, Meeting 3)

Taking their insights regarding relational trust into their workplaces, these principals began to see strong connections between the notion of trust and their interactions with their management and staff, thus leading to individual and group reflections on their own leadership practices:

It is the trust that needs to be built for collaborative work between my teachers and I see that’s an important aspect for effective leadership as well. It is being a trustworthy leader … this is where I need to keep working. (Lynn, reflective journal)

While the building of trust was initiated within the PLCs, over time, the principals also considered how they would build trust within their workplaces. And whilst the principals in both PLCs collectively invested considerable time in building relational trust with their staff, in most instances the pace of change was quite slow. By the end of the year, several principals were exploring and testing out different strategies to build trust and develop the characteristics of PLCs within their teaching teams. The following section discusses the tensions inherent in these shifts in practice.

Shifts towards collaborative leadership practices

The participants in this study were encouraged to reflect on how collaborative practices fitted with both their personal values and beliefs and those of their organisations. The findings revealed that while the participants of both PLCs identified the benefits of implementing certain aspects of collaborative leadership practices, they also had reservations because of their awareness of the implicit leader–follower culture between teachers and principals in their services and the prescribed delineation of responsibilities between leaders and teachers. This reluctance and the reasons for it were illustrated by Victoria’s comment:

Implementing the full dimension of PLC-oriented collaborative leadership at the centre may be challenging. We may need the structure and time to make these changes. I think it should come from the management level, as you know that we have a certain process of systems in running the centre and structured roles and responsibilities for teachers. (post-PLC interview)

Another participant, Mei, sought the opinion of a staff member at the management level about her intention to involve her teachers more in collaborative problem-solving strategies, learnt during her PLC involvement, but was advised to reconsider: ‘She told me that I should think carefully before making changes to the structure and roles of teachers’ responsibilities. It may be perceived that I’m pushing my workload onto the teachers!’ (PLC1, Meeting 7). Similarly, the participants in PLC2 were also concerned about disrupting the existing structure in their services and were selective in choosing dimensions that could increase collaboration.

Some of the participants were willing to implement aspects of collaborative leadership practices in order to improve their relationships and encourage teachers to engage in leadership activities. Dimensions related to shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practice, and certain criteria of shared and supportive leadership became emphasised to help teachers engage in collegial learning and the deprivatisation of practice. Su Ling shared the impact of the changes she had made: ‘Teachers are more open now. It’s not that big … I changed my approach and communication style to encourage peer-sharing and changes are happening’ (post-PLC interview).

Teachers reported changes in all the principals’ leadership practices, except for one principal in PLC1 who was hospitalised at the end of the PLC meetings. The principals revealed in their post-interviews that they were selective in choosing what they could afford or manage to change within a short period of time, and what they could implement within their jurisdiction. Although they wished to make several changes, due to constraints in teachers’ work structure and time, implementing changes was kept to a minimum, without disrupting the existing structure in their services. These changes included building relational trust with teachers, demonstrating more confidence in teachers’ abilities, listening more to teachers’ concerns, encouraging collaborative peer learning, creating opportunities for teachers to lead, and encouraging a deprivatisation of practice. The following quote from a teacher describing her principal’s new and more collaborative approach, whilst not indicative of shifts in practice across all of the principals in the PLCs, illustrates one of the principal’s willingness to shift:

You are going to take over and you will be the first point of call for the teachers and my input will be from the back door and not directly given to the teachers … we have always been top-down. I want you to change this climate, let suggestions come from teachers and allow them to make shared decisions … I know it’s not easy to do it, but I trust you can. (Teacher, focus group interview)

While this instruction could be seen as directive, it did indicate a strengthening of relational trust, coupled with a belief that teachers are capable and competent, and could be more involved in decision-making.

Discussion and implications

Two main challenges for principals interested in engaging in more collaborative leadership praxis in the Singapore ECE context have been identified from this research study. These are the competitive environment that arises from the marketised nature of ECE and the hierarchical leadership culture influenced by Confucian values. Despite these challenges, the principals in this study saw benefits in being more collaborative, both with their principal colleagues and with their staff. These issues and the resulting implications for practice will now be discussed with reference to relevant literature.

The principals in this study working in the Singapore ECE context experienced an environment where a marketised system promoted competition and inhibited collaboration, both with other principals and within individual services. This situation prevented the sharing of good practices and resulted in principals feeling isolated and lonely prior to their engagement in the project. The impact of the competitive nature of this Singaporean system has been previously identified by Lim (2017) and Ang (2012). The participants in this study saw promise in PLCs as a model to reduce loneliness, build capacity and strengthen the ECE ‘industry’. This finding echoes earlier research into leadership learning through action learning groups which found that hearing others talking about the issues they were facing can help reduce isolation (Thornton, 2009).

The findings indicate that considering and implementing collaborative leadership practices through PLCs in the Singapore ECE context requires sensitivity towards Asian Singapore sociocultural values related to hierarchy and economic pragmatism. As discussed above, there was a reluctance to adopt all of the collaborative leadership practices discussed in the PLC meetings. The apprehension expressed by the principals in this study is likely to be related to their reluctance to challenge the foundational ideologies of a paternalistic leadership culture of Confucian ethics and beliefs (McDonald, 2012), and is reflective of these principals’ engagement in praxis in which they took account of both the internal and external considerations (Male and Palaiologou, 2015) impacting on their leadership practice. While Confucian values influenced relationships between leaders and teachers in this context, the principals were willing to distribute leadership to some extent, thereby empowering teachers to practise leadership. This issue highlights the importance of leadership practice being culturally and contextually appropriate (Heikka and Hujala, 2013; Krieg et al., 2014). The distributed leadership approaches taken in other countries, such as Norway, Australia, New Zealand and Finland (Boe and Hognestad, 2017; Colmer et al., 2014; Denee and Thornton, 2017; Heikka and Hujala, 2013), cannot easily be transferred to an Asian context with different cultural values. There may, however, be aspects of collaborative practices that are contextually relevant and are likely to result in higher-quality teaching practices. The concept of hybrid leadership, coined by Boe and Hognestad (2017), in which both the directive and facilitative roles of formal leaders are acknowledged, may be relevant to the Singaporean context and worth further examination.

Despite the two challenges described above, this research found that aspects of collaborative leadership practice were embraced by some of the principals in this study. Over the course of the research, shifts in the principals’ thinking about collaborative leadership practice resulted in changes to their leadership approaches. These changes were evident both within the PLC groups and within their own services. The principals in this study valued opportunities for collaboration and, through a process of developing relational trust, began in some cases to share and critically reflect on their leadership practices. The importance of relational trust to collaborative leadership has been highlighted in a number of studies (Denee and Thornton, 2017; Heikka and Hujala, 2013; Stamopoulos, 2012). Trust is seen as a necessary precursor to collaboration and, in this study, took a while to develop because of the competitive nature of the sector.

Critical reflection led to shifts of practice that included supporting teachers to engage in the deprivatisation of their practice, improving collegiality and collaborative learning for teachers. The distribution of leadership tasks beyond those traditionally passed to senior teachers also occurred to some extent. These shifts in practice were particularly evident in aspects of leadership praxis where the principals perceived they could achieve change without opposition from management or from teachers. The value of collaborative leadership practices in changing ECE environments has been the focus of previous research (Heikka and Waniganayake, 2011; Stamopoulos, 2012). Stamopoulos (2012: 43) suggests that unless wider capabilities and competencies are drawn on, ECE services will be unable ‘to keep pace with educational reforms’.

Limitations of the research

This research aimed to examine how the conceptual understandings and leadership practices of principals in the Singapore ECE context were influenced through their participation in PLCs. However, as a small-scale qualitative project, there are some clear limitations. There were only 11 participants and, although these came from two different groups, they cannot be seen as representative of all Singaporean ECE principals. They also had limited autonomy, as they had managers above them who influenced the degree of change that could be implemented as a result of their participation in the PLCs, and to some extent discouraged collaboration because of competition between services. The role of the first author as both researcher and facilitator has some potential for bias; however, this dual role has been the focus of other research (Thornton and Yoong, 2011), and the triangulation of multiple data sources helped address this limitation. The data was collected over a period of 10 months and, while some shifts of practice were reported by both the principals and teachers in focus group discussions, there were no direct observations of practice, and it is not known whether these shifts were sustained. Despite these limitations, however, this study contributes to our understanding of leadership praxis within the Singaporean ECE context.

Conclusion

The Singaporean ECE context is highly marketised and leadership practices tend to be hierarchical and influenced by Confucian cultural values. Collaborative forms of leadership, more prevalent in western contexts, have the potential to reduce the isolation felt by principals and encourage teachers to become involved in leadership. Engagement in PLCs has the potential to support collaborative leadership through building trust and encouraging reflection on practice. Whilst such practices may break down some of the barriers to collaboration inherent in marketised environments and allow principals and teachers to work together to strengthen their leadership practices in order to provide quality learning environments for children and their families, such shifts require principals to adopt a leadership-as-praxis approach in order to take account of internal and external influences (Male and Palaiologou, 2015).