833578

research-article2019
CIE0010.1177/1463949119833578 Contemporary Issues in Early ChildhoodVijayadevar et al.

Article

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood

Professional learning communities:

2019, Vol. 20(1) 79­–92
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Enhancing collaborative sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1463949119833578
https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119833578
leadership in Singapore early ciec.sagepub.com

childhood settings

Sukuna Vijayadevar
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Kate Thornton
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Sue Cherrington
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

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

Corresponding author:
Sukuna Vijayadevar, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.
Email: sukuna.vijayadevar@vuw.ac.nz
80 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

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.

Keywords
Collaborative leadership, early childhood education, professional learning communities

Introduction
This article reports on a research study that examined the conceptual understandings and leader-
ship practices of principals in the Singapore early childhood education (ECE) context and investi-
gated 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 sec-
tion 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 dis-
cussed 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 train-
ing 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 mar-
ketisation 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
Vijayadevar et al. 81

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 chil-
dren 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 find-
ings (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 sug-
gested that this results in tensions between different and sometimes contradictory notions of lead-
ership, 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 learn-
ing 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 prin-
cipals had similar roles and priorities, which included pedagogical leadership and service manage-
ment, 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.
82 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

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 lead-
ership is not only the domain of positional leaders, but should also be a collective process involv-
ing 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 perspec-
tives are required for an understanding of change processes. She advocates for leadership that ‘con-
nects 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 sup-
porting 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 profes-
sional 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 prac-
tices 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) sug-
gest 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 teach-
ers 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 under-
standings that arise out of sustained associations among individuals. Studies on PLCs carried out
Vijayadevar et al. 83

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-judge-
mentally 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 effective-
ness 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 informa-
tion 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 rela-
tionships 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 check-
ing 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
84 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

reader to make informed decisions about the transferability of the findings to their specific con-
text (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 lead-
ers; however, one principal from the private-centre PLC withdrew during the data collection pro-
cess. 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 experi-
enced 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 sup-
port 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 collabo-
rative 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).
Vijayadevar et al. 85

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 oppor-
tunities 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 mat-
ters. 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, espe-
cially those regarded as effective, with other principals, and attributed this to the competitive mar-
ket 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 ser-
vices 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 unwill-
ing 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 col-
laborative 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 teach-
ers, as the principals felt this would add to the workload of already overburdened staff. The princi-
pals 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
86 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

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 fac-
tors 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
Vijayadevar et al. 87

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 col-
laborative 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 deline-
ation 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 selec-
tive 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 per-
sonal 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, imple-
menting 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 fol-
lowing 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:
88 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

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 com-
petitive environment that arises from the marketised nature of ECE and the hierarchical leader-
ship 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 socio-
cultural 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 reluc-
tance 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 direc-
tive and facilitative roles of formal leaders are acknowledged, may be relevant to the Singaporean
context and worth further examination.
Vijayadevar et al. 89

Despite the two challenges described above, this research found that aspects of collabora-
tive 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 teach-
ers to become involved in leadership. Engagement in PLCs has the potential to support collabora-
tive 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
90 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

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).

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Sukuna Vijayadevar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7654-0981

References
Ang L (2012) Vital voices for vital years: A study of leaders’ perspectives on improving the early childhood
sector in Singapore. Singapore: Lien Foundation.
Boe M and Hognestad K (2017) Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: Best practices
in early childhood. International Journal of Leadership in Education 20(2): 133–148.
Bryk A and Schneider B (2003) Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership
60(6): 40–46.
Cherrington S and Thornton K (2015) The nature of professional learning communities in New Zealand early
childhood education: An exploratory study. Professional Development in Education 41(2): 310–328.
Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Colmer K, Waniganayake M and Field L (2014) Leading professional learning in early childhood centres:
Who are the educational leaders? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 39(4): 103–113.
Denee R and Thornton K (2017) Effective leadership practice leading to distributed leadership. Journal of
Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice 32(2): 33–45.
Dimmock C and Tan C (2013) Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustainability, scalability,
and succession. Journal of Educational Administration 51(3): 320–340.
Early Childhood Development Agency (2012) Guide to setting up a child care centre. Available at: https://www
.childcarelink.gov.sg/ccls/uploads/CCC_Guide.pdf
Ebbeck M and Waniganayake M (2003) Early Childhood Professionals: Leading Today and Tomorrow.
Sydney, NSW, Australia: MacLennan and Petty.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2012) Starting well: Benchmarking early education across the world. London:
Economist Intelligence Unit.
Heikka J and Hujala E (2013) Early childhood leadership through the lens of distributed leadership. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal 21(4): 568–580.
Heikka J and Waniganayake M (2011) Pedagogical leadership from a distributed perspective within the con-
text of early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education 14(4): 499–512.
Heikka J, Waniganayake M and Hujala E (2013) Contextualizing distributed leadership within early childhood
education: Current understandings, research evidence and future challenges. Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership 41(1): 30–44.
Hipp K and Huffman J (eds) (2010) Demystifying Professional Learning Communities: School Leadership at
Its Best. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Ho D (2011) Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education programmes. International
Journal of Leadership in Education 14(1): 47–59.
Hujala E, Eskelinen M, Keskinen S, et al. (2016) Leadership tasks in early childhood education in Finland,
Japan, and Singapore. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 30(3): 406–421.
Khoo KC (2010) The shaping of childcare and preschool education in Singapore: From separatism to col-
laboration. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 4(1): 23–34.
Krieg S, Smith KA and Davis K (2014) Exploring the dance of early childhood educational leadership.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 39(1): 73–80.
Vijayadevar et al. 91

Lim MYS and Lim SEA (2017) Governmentality of early childhood education in Singapore: Contemporary
issues. In: Rao N, Zhou J and Sun J (eds) Early Childhood Education in Chinese Societies. Dordrecht:
Springer, pp. 185–215.
Lim S (2017) Marketization and corporation of early childhood care and education in Singapore. In: Minyi L,
Fox J and Grieshaber S (eds) Contemporary Issues and Challenge in Early Childhood Education in the
Asia-Pacific Region. Singapore: Springer, pp. 17–32.
Lincoln Y and Guba E (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
McDonald P (2012) Confucian foundations to leadership: A study of Chinese business leaders across greater
China and South-East Asia. Asia Pacific Business Review 18(4): 465–487.
Male T and Palaiologou I (2015) Pedagogical leadership in the 21st century: Evidence from the field.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership 43(2): 214–231.
Merriam S (2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Ministry of Social and Family Development (2013) Launch of the Early Childhood Development Agency
(ECDA). Press release, Singapore, 27 March 2013. Singapore: Ministry of Social and Family
Development (MSF). Retrieved from https://www.msf.gov.sg/media-room/Pages/Launch-of-the-Early
-Childhood-Development-Agency-(ECDA).aspx
Stamopoulos E (2012) Reframing early childhood leadership. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 37(2):
42–48.
Stoll L (2011) Leading professional learning communities. In: Robertson J and Timperley H (eds) Leadership
and Learning. London: SAGE, pp. 103–117.
Tan CT (2007) Policy developments in pre-school education in Singapore: A focus on the key reforms of
kindergarten education. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 1(1): 35–43.
Tan CT (2017) Enhancing the quality of kindergarten education in Singapore: policies and strategies in the
21st century. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 11(7): 1–22.
Teo B (2016) Early childhood leadership principal training. PhD Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand.
Thornton K (2009) Blended action learning: Supporting leadership learning in the New Zealand early child-
hood education sector. Unpublished PhD thesis. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.
Thornton K (2010) ‘School leadership and student outcomes’: The Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration:
Relevance for early childhood education and implications for leadership practice. Journal of Educational
Leadership, Policy and Practice 25(1): 31–41.
Thornton K and Cherrington S (2014) Leadership in professional learning communities. Australasian Journal
of Early Childhood 39(3): 94–102.
Thornton K and Yoong P (2011) The role of the blended action learning facilitator: An enabler of learning and
a trusted inquisitor. Action Learning: Research and Practice 8(12): 129–146.
Thornton K, Wansbrough D, Clarkin-Phillips J, et al. (2009). Conceptualising leadership in early childhood
education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Teachers Council.
Toma JD (2006) Approaching rigour in applied qualitative research. In: Conrad CF and Serlin RC (eds) The
SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Enquiry. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE, pp. 405–424.
Waniganayake M, Cheeseman S, Fenech M, et al. (2012) Leadership: Context and Complexities in Early
Childhood Education. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Open University Press.
Wong L (2012, March) FY2012 Committee of supply debate: speech by Mr Lawrence Wong, Minister of
State for Education, on better pre-schools, stronger tertiary institutions, more education opportuni-
ties for all. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches
/fy2012-committee-of-supply-debate--speech-by-mr-lawrence-wong--minister-of-state-for-education
--on-better-pre-schools--stronger-tertiary-institutions--more-education-opportunities-for-all
Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
92 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1)

Author biographies
Sukuna Vijayadevar is a doctoral candidate in the School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington. She
works for the National Institute of Early childhood Development-SEED (NIEC-SEED) in Singapore. The
working title of her doctoral thesis is ‘Developing collaborative leadership practices in the Singapore early
childhood education (ECE) context through professional learning communities.’
Kate Thornton is an associate professor in the School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington. Her
research is focused on educational leadership and leadership development, mentoring and coaching, and
professional learning communities in early childhood education.
Sue Cherrington is an associate professor in the School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington.
Her research is particularly focused on professional learning and development, early childhood teachers’
professional and pedagogical practices, and diversity in ECE contexts.