Values and context

Values are not lived out in a vacuum but in a context, which facilitates, encourages or discourages the expression in acts of certain values. Values will therefore work out differently in different contexts (cf. Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood, 2005), sometimes called ‘arenas’ (Johansson, 2003, p. 201). The idea of an ‘arena’ evokes competition and struggle, and captures

effectively the tensions that may arise between what is possible and what is desirable, both from the head’s perspective. Arenas denote the multiple domains in which a school leader operates in order to do his job.

Several arenas can be discerned. Johansson (2003) mentions among others the law, political, the effectiveness, the democratic, the implementation, the loyalty, and the professional arena. Although this proliferation of arenas may be helpful in highlighting particular domains, the number seems to obscure more than to help clarify the context of heads’ jobs. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive.

Figure 2. Arenas of school leadership (Begley, 2001, p. 4; cf. Begley, 2003, p. 10).

Begley’s conceptualisation of five contexts, is more parsimonious. He distinguishes between group (e.g. family and peers), profession,

organisation (i.e. the school), wider community (e.g. parents, churches), and culture respectively. He presents this as an onion model with the individual himself in the core (see figure 2, Begley, 2001, 2003). An onion model conveys the idea that some contexts exert a more direct influence then others and as such it seems to make sense. However, it also suggests that the layers on the outside exert their influence on the individual through the layers that are closer to the core, which seems to be problematic. It is contestable that, for instance, culture only influences a person by mediation via community, organisation, profession and group. Furthermore, it is hard to distinguish clearly and effectively between group (which includes peers), profession, and organisation. Undoubtedly, the school as an organisation employs a considerable number of peers and professionals. Therefore, the onion model could have been even less complicated by taking these

together. Finally, Begley adds another ring or outer area, representing the transcendental: ‘God, faith, spirituality’ (Begley, 2003, p. 10). This area acknowledges their influence on the values and the expression of values of the individual. Again it should not be construed as a seventh ring, as a transcendental dimension may exert its influence directly and throughout all the layers, without necessarily being mediated by the other layers.

Bottery et al. (2013) discern five levels of context in a comparative study of English and Hong Kong headteachers: the individual, local, legislative, cultural, and global context. This seems to be a conflation between two kinds of contexts. One is according to mental dimensions: legislative and culture. The second according to geographical distance or geographical unities, i.e. from individual, to local, to global. There seems to be a twofold problem here, as the national context is absent, and the legislative is

confined to educational policy. A more coherent hierarchy of contexts could use the national context, which then includes the legislative framework and dominant ideologies, but also more volatile politics and rhetoric,

demographics, finance, teaching qualification systems, and expectations. All of these also exert some influence on a national level and thus on heads’ room for manoeuvre.

Unless the purpose is to focus explicitly on one particular (sub)context, a simpler model to visualise the contexts headteachers work may be possible. This model consists of three elements: the self or the person, the

profession, and the wider external world, which should not necessarily be seen as three rings of an onion model. The three elements can each be analysed further. The conceptualisation of the ‘self’ for instance includes the relation between personal values and behaviour (see 2.1.7). The

‘profession’ deals with professional values and accepted practice, as well as the peers in one’s school organisation or national teacher or leadership societies. The ‘wider external world’ includes educational policies and the dominant cultural values, both nationally and globally.

The relevance of these contexts or arenas is, of course, that they influence how values work out. There may be tensions as differing arenas with their differing constraints and demands may hamper equal, similar or at least coherent expression of someone’s value orientation. Different arenas may involve competing or even incompatible values (Begley, 2003, p. 9). A well- known example is the performativity agenda (e.g. Ball, 2003; Biesta, 2010) in the national arena versus professional values in the professional arena. Arenas can also try to impose particular values on the players within that arena that may be at odds with their personal or professional values (Bottery, 2004, p. 199; cf. Biesta, 2010; Grace, 1995; Gold et al., 2003;

Wright, 2003). An example in the Dutch context may be the tendency towards more nation-wide testing at a university level for prospective teachers, which is accepted within a considerable part of the organisational arena involved, and contrary to individual values about freedom of

education.

The degree of agency that is possible for heads who operate within a particular arena may therefore be large or small and vary from arena to arena (Archer, 2003). Still, the room for manoeuvre is hardly ever zero, as there often remains an element of choice and freedom how to (re)act. As Bottery et al. assert, ‘even context is not decisive: similar contexts can generate very different reactions due to very different personalities’ (2013, p. 49). Day et al., point to the importance of values over context for at least some heads, as they found that ‘values, more than the power of context, dictated the leadership approach adopted by school leaders in the study’ (2001, p. 55; cf. Branson, 2007b; Campbell, Gold & Lunt, 2003). In the local context it is probably realistic to see context and the expression of values as mutually influencing each other (Barnett & McCormick, 2003, p. 67; Hallinger & Heck, 2011, p. 150), while in the wider arena there will be less room for the materialisation and expression of an individual’s values and by doing that influencing the arena itself.