Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
School leadership preparation 1–18
ª The Author(s) 2016

in Malaysia: Aims, content Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143216662922
and impact emal.sagepub.com

Ashley Yoon-Mooi Ng

Abstract
This paper examines the preparation of school principals in Malaysia, and the aspiration of the
Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025 to ensure high-performing school leaders in every
school. It reports on the principal preparatory programme, the National Professional Qualification
for Educational Leaders, which is mandatory to those who aspire to be school principals. Doc-
umentary analysis was undertaken on materials used for leadership training programmes by the
National Institute of Educational Management and Leadership or Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB),
which is the country’s main leadership training and development centre, equivalent to the National
College for Teaching and Leadership in England. Eight primary and secondary schools, chosen by
stratified purposive sampling, were selected for the study. Interviews were conducted with
principals and assistant principals of the eight schools, to establish how they were selected and
prepared for their leadership roles. Interviews with Ministry of Education and IAB officials offered a
provider perspective while an interview with an education minister clarified the policy and political
contexts of the study. The findings of the study draw attention to the need to refine the selection
criteria, with a focus on higher entry standards to ensure excellent leadership in schools, an
emphasis on instructional leadership to improve student learning in schools, the conflict between
central direction and the importance of situational leadership, and the political imperative for
programme outcomes.

Keywords
Leadership, leadership preparation, student outcomes, leadership impact, instructional leadership,
Malaysia

Introduction
The Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) was launched in 2013 by the Ministry of Education
(MoE). It is a major reform of the education system intended to span 12 years, from 2013 to 2025.
Concern about the low ranking of Malaysia in international reviews of learner performance, for

Corresponding author:
Ashley Yoon-Mooi Ng, University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, Semenyih, Selangor 43500, Malaysia.
Email: Ashley.Ng@nottingham.edu.my

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

example in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2011, Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 and PISA 2015 reports, has led to a focus on the
need to prepare and develop high-performing principals who can provide the instructional lead-
ership believed to be necessary to improve student outcomes (Ministry of Education, 2013: E-4).
The MEB outlines an ambitious plan to ensure that there are high-performing leaders in every
school and stresses that ‘an outstanding principal is one focused on instructional and not admin-
istrative leadership’ (Ministry of Education, 2013: E-27).
On the international front, large scale school reforms put pressure on educational leaders as
‘torchbearers of educational change’ (Pashiardis, 2001: 1) in initiating and sustaining school
transformation. This echoes the opinions of Bush and Glover (2004), Day et al. (2011), Gurr
et al. (2006) that successful schools are led by high performing principals. However, it is pointed
out that although principal leadership is necessary, it is insufficient (Marcoulides et al., 1995) as
their control of school improvement is indirect (Usdan et al., 2000). This view is supported by
advocates of distributed leadership, that there is a need for multiple leadership (Harris, 2004),
lateral forms of leadership (Harris, 2006), and that ‘heroic leadership’ is not sufficient (Gronn,
2002: 2). While issues of school leadership are increasingly debated, it has become the priority
both in the international scene as well as in Malaysia to prepare and develop principals and head
teachers as school leaders as they are vital for school performance. This is the view taken by the
MoE, which echoes the view of Leithwood et al. (2006) that high performing principals in
schools could improve student outcomes and that ‘the quality of school leaders is the second
biggest school-based factor in determining student outcomes, after teacher quality’ (Ministry of
Education, 2013: E-27). Bush (2009) and Huber and Hiltmann (2010) argue that every effort
should be made to prepare school leaders for headship. Thompson believes that ‘leadership
development should not be left to chance, but should be a part of a planned effort at all levels’
(Thompson, 2010: 98). This provides the context for the current author’s study of leadership
preparation for principals. In Malaysia, the head teachers of secondary and primary schools are
called principals and headmasters/headmistress respectively. For this study, the title principal is
used to refer to both categories.
Developing school leaders as heads of schools to improve school performances has been the
priority of many countries (Lumby et al., 2008). The National Professional Qualification for
Headship (NPQH) in the UK (Bush et al., 2010), Certificate for Principalship in Hong Kong, and
the Principal Qualification Programme in Ontario, Canada (Huber and West, 2002) are among the
few mandatory programmes that prospective principals need to attend prior to their appointment as
heads of schools. To address the need for high performing school principals and the belief that
enhanced school leadership by principals will contribute to school improvement, the Malaysian
MoE has given priorities to several measures: refining the selection criteria for future principals by
making the National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders (NPQEL) mandatory;
refining the successive planning where all new principals have to undergo the compulsory Princi-
pals’ Residency and Immersion Programme (Prime 1); improving preparatory and continuous
professional development; and introducing a performance and competency based performance
management approach (Ministry of Education, 2013, 2014).
The MEB reports that ‘55% of today’s principals received no preparatory or induction training
before or during their formative first three years of principalship’ (Ministry of Education, 2013:
E-17). To address this shortcoming, the MoE made the NPQEL mandatory to ensure that all
teachers who are committed to be school principals in the future would have had undergone the
necessary preparatory phase. The NPQEL programme, based on the NPQH framework in England

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 3

(Lodge, 1998), is designed and implemented by the National Educational Management and Lead-
ership Institution or Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB), which is the country’s main training and
development centre, equivalent to the National College for Teaching and Leadership in England,
for school leaders in Malaysia.
While preparation and development of principalship contribute to student learning and school
improvement (Crow, 2006), it is also important that students are prepared and developed in ways
that they contribute to outcomes that are desirable to the society that they are in (Lumby et al.,
2008). Preparation programmes need to be tailored to their context and its specific needs (Coles
and Southworth, 2005; Lumby et al., 2008). Hallinger (1995: 4) warns of transferring Western
knowledge without paying attention to local culture. In Malaysia, the national context, in which
political purposes are important with an emphasis on local moral and spiritual beliefs (Bajunid,
1996; Shah, 2006), as stipulated in the National Educational Philosophy, should be taken into
account in leadership preparation.
The study examines the extent and nature of principal preparation in Malaysia with a focus on
the NPQEL. The study sought to address nine research questions but this paper focuses primarily
on the following questions:

1. Which groups are being targeted for leadership training?

2. What attributes or skills do the leadership programmes intend to develop?

These questions also guide the structure and content of the paper.

Literature review
This study was informed by three literature strands identified by Bush (2009: 376):
(a) the need for leadership preparation;
(b) the content of leadership preparation programmes; and
(c) leadership preparation processes.

The need for leadership preparation

School-based management and high-stake testing (Brundrett et al., 2006; Bush, 2009; Earley and
Weindling, 2004) have made principals accountable for student results. These heightened expec-
tations place demands on principals to improve teaching and learning. In Malaysia, the adminis-
trative training has traditionally been in the form of short in-service courses provided by central or
local administrative bodies (Bajunid, 1994; Levine, 2005). Such programmes provided knowledge
and skills in record- keeping, financial and office administration, curriculum management, and
school management, but these are management-focused content, with a lecture-centred pedagogy,
and such a structural-functionalist approach does not address the need for ‘school leaders to have
the capacities needed to improve teaching, learning and students’ development and achievement’
(Warwas, 2015: 312). As a result, an effective principal preparation programme is a ‘necessity for
facing the ‘‘tsunami’’ of challenges associated with the leadership position in the 21st century’
(Santhanamary and Hamdan, 2011: 149).
The increasing complexity of school contexts also means heavier responsibility for the principal
(Rahimah, 2002) and requires meeting the demands from various stakeholders (Daresh, 2004;
Hussein, 2008). Most principals ascend to headship via a range of leadership tasks and roles,
described as ‘middle management’ (Bush, 2009: 375). These new leaders could easily feel

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

overwhelmed (Bright and Ware, 2003; Earley and Bubb, 2013; Hobson et al., 2003); research in
Malaysia by Azlin (2006) and Rahman et al. (2015) has reported problems of isolation, lack of
principalship knowledge and inability to integrate theories and practice as challenges faced by
novice principals, and this, in turn, has adverse effects on academic excellence at school (Daresh,
2006). While Fullan (1991: 344) believes that quality learning experiences of principals are
important, Bush (2008) argues that experience alone is not enough to produce effective leaders
and Clarke and Wildy (2010) show that there is a link between how school leaders are prepared for
their role and student outcomes. This awareness has led to leadership preparation and development
gathering momentum across the world, for example, in the United States, France, Scotland,
Estonia, Slovenia, India, and Malta (Bush, 2008; Bush and Jackson, 2002; Warwas, 2015). Prin-
cipal preparation programmes in Hong Kong and Singapore are well established, internationally
known, and highly effective (Ng, 2012; Pang, 2006).

The content of leadership preparation programmes

Bush and Jackson (2002) found considerable similarities in the content of educational leadership
programmes in different countries and this implied that there exists an ‘international curriculum’
in these programmes. Similarities are found in the main components of leadership, teaching and
learning, and management, which means that there is a common understanding of the type of
knowledge and skills that aspiring principals should acquire (Earley and Weindling, 2004;
Moorosi and Bush, 2012). The NPQEL in Malaysia is designed to enhance the competence of
aspiring school heads in six core areas: vision development; instruction and achievement; change
management and innovation; resource and operation; interpersonal relationships; and self-
management (NPQEL, 2012). These NPQEL components are in line with the ‘international
curriculum’ (Santhanamary and Hamdan, 2011). Work by Bush and Glover (2012) and Robinson
(2007) advocated standardised preparatory programmes that inclined towards an ‘international
curriculum’. However, an earlier work by Oplatka (2004: 44) warns of the need to suit different
leadership styles to the different career stages and different context the principal is in and citing
that instructional leadership is more suitable for established and experienced principal than those
in the early stages of their career. This has implications on the content of the leadership pre-
paratory programme.

Leadership preparation processes

In Malaysia, principals are selected through ‘time-based’ promotion. According to the Civil
Servants Legislation, government officers will only be promoted according to their seniority in
the post (Cabinet Committee Report, 1979). From January 2007, interested parties may apply for
the post of principal but the pathway is through the various administrative posts such as The
Head of Subject Panel, The Head of Department, Afternoon Supervisor, Senior Assistant of
Co-curriculum, Senior Assistant of Students’ Affairs and Senior Assistant for Academic, (Sazali,
2006) in that order. With the mandatory NPQEL, teachers who have more than 10 years of teaching
experience, who are in the middle or senior management/leadership team, and have consistently
secured more than 80% in their annual appraisal, can apply online to attend the NPQEL pro-
gramme. Such applications need to be approved and supported by the principal, the district and
state education offices, and the shortlisted candidates are interviewed and approved by IAB.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 5

Table 1. National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders programme structure (adapted from the
Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB) and Ministry of Education).

Mode of learning Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Face-to-face 3 weeks at IAB 2 weeks at IAB 1 Week at IAB

(including Phase  Phase 2 Exam
1 Exam)  Submission of portfolios
E-learning 6 weeks 8 weeks  Fitness assessment
 At own school/office  Attachment  Counselling module
(2 weeks) programme at own
 Benchmarking school (8 weeks)
programme at a
selected school
(2 weeks)
 At own school/office
(2 weeks)

The NPQEL programme takes five months to complete but is divided into three phases with
six weeks of face-to-face sessions at IAB and 14 weeks of e-learning in the schools where they
work as shown in Table 1. During the e-learning phase, participants carry out two consultation
activities: a benchmarking programme of two weeks in another school and four weeks in their
own school in Phase 1; and the attachment programme of eight weeks in Phase 2, which is carried
out in their own school. Participants have to sit for exams, quizzes and complete assignments and
portfolios based on any of the three components: leadership and management; curriculum and
co-curriculum management; and finance and office management. The school where the two
weeks placement or benchmarking is carried out is selected by the NPQEL participant and the
principal of the school would act as mentor. A Dutch study (Hulsbos et al., 2015) shows that such
workplace learning through working on improvement, innovation and reflection, is valued by
school leaders.

Methodology
This exploratory qualitative approach aims to provide new knowledge about principal preparation
in Malaysia based on the criteria found in the MEB. This data-theory perspective provides an
interpretive orientation and a detailed understanding of the principal preparatory programmes from
the perspective of the various providers, the school principals and their respective vice-principals.
The use of respondent triangulation addresses reliability and validity through comparing the out-
comes from the various interviewees (Silverman, 2005). This was augmented by document anal-
ysis of the NPQEL. Such multiple sources of data help to address the issue of construct validity
(Johnston and Christensen, 2014: 261).
The study was conducted in the state of Selangor, which is the most populous state and has the
largest economy in Malaysia with RM128.815 billion (USD42billion) in 2010, thus making up
23% of the total gross domestic product of Malaysia. There are 459 schools, with 123 primary, 298
secondary, 10 boarding Islamic and 28 private and international schools as of April 2015. Despite
its vibrant cities and thriving economy, there are also rural and sub-urban schools. The availability
of such varied types of schools enabled the author to carry out a study based on stratified purposive
sampling (Briggs et al., 2012) as shown in Table 2.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Table 2. Sampling frame for the study.

Urban area
School type Federal Territory (Kuala Lumpur) Rural area Sub-urban area (Putrajaya)

Primary schools 1 1 1 1
Secondary schools 1 1 1 1

For both primary and secondary schools, one is located in the Federal Territory of Kuala
Lumpur, one from a rural area, one from a sub-urban area and one from an urban area which is
the administrative centre of Putrajaya.

Data collection
Data were collected through two methods, documentary analysis and interviews, to provide meth-
odological triangulation.

Documents. An analysis of all the relevant documents provided an ‘excellent starting point for
researchers [by] illustrating how things are described and linked’ (Prior, 2003: 490). Both national
level policy documents, specifically the MEB and the documents of the NPQEL, provided a
platform for understanding the macro context regarding national aspirations and the micro context
regarding the preparation of principals. While the MEB is a national policy document that reflects
the government’s aspirations, the NPQEL documents indicate the features of the preparatory
leadership programmes for the country’s aspiring principals. A critical review of these documents
provided a starting point for the interviews. With an interpretive stance, it showed that there is a
gap between the content of the NPQEL documents and the aspirations stated in the MEB.

Interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants. Purposive sampling

identified the providers: two IAB officers; two officers from the Ministry of Education; and an
education minister. Stratified purposive sampling by role and school type of participants led to the
identification of 16 ‘information rich’ (Patton, 1990) participants: eight principals; and eight vice-
principals who are senior assistants for academics (Table 2), who also provided respondent trian-
gulation (Brundrett and Rhodes, 2014). The four officers offered a provider perspective while the
education minister clarified the policy and political context of the study. The school participants
were interviewed to establish how they were selected and prepared for their leadership role.
Sammons et al. (2014) recommend the use of interviews to provide insights. The interviews
yielded rich and detailed data about the selection and preparation of these school leaders. The
semi-structured interviews allowed for flexibility in question wording and order, thus allowing the
author to be ‘on target while hanging loose’ (Braun and Clarke, 2013: 78). Probes were used to
tease out further information.
Five sets of interview protocols based on the nine research questions were built for the five
different providers: IAB; MoE; the education minister; the principals; and vice-principals. The
interview protocols have a common core, but are customised for each group. The two research
questions were designed:

 To examine the selection criteria of candidates for the principal preparatory programmes,

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 7

 To examine the content and effectiveness of the programmes, with a particular focus on
instructional leadership.

Data analysis. Thematic analysis was used as it provides a flexible and useful tool (Boyatzis, 1998),
which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex, account of data (Braun and Clarke,
2013: 4). Through thematic analysis of the interview data which reported on experiences, mean-
ings and the reality of participants, the author was able to acknowledge the ways individuals make
meaning of their experiences and how the broader social context impinges on those meanings.
Themes were obtained through the inductive approach and therefore strongly linked to the data
themselves (Patton, 1990). The process of coding was completed without trying to fit the data into
pre-existing coding frames or the author’s analytic preconceptions. Hence, the themes that were
identified in this study emerged from the data.

Findings and discussion

Rationale for leadership preparation in Malaysia
High-performing principals for all schools. The belief that high-performing principals are the catalyst to
improve and create excellent schools (Bush and Glover, 2004; Robinson et al., 2008) is strongly
echoed by the education minister:

I believe high-performing principal is very important. In fact, it is very critical, when you were talking
about developing leaders. So that’s the most crucial point. And it is good that the Blueprint, in one of the
shifts, have talked about grooming principals to be high-performing principals. (Minister of Education)

Although the MEB aspires to have high-performing principals in every school, it does not provide
a clear description of the skills that high-performing principals should possess. The absence of a
standard to gauge how a high-performing principal behaves leads to different interpretations:

Our aim is to make sure that every school is led by a high performing principal. Such principals must
have the skills and knowledge to work with the community and students. (MoE Officer).
A high-performing principal is very important for the success of a school. A high performing
principal, not necessarily has a Masters or PhD degree, but must have the correct attitude so that they
can influence others and have followers and does not have characteristics that are not wanted. (IAB
Officer)

Although both officers agree that high-performing principals are important for school success,
there is no consensus about the skills that high-performing principals should possess. While the
MEB states that high-performing principals should be instructional leaders, the programme pro-
viders do not focus on the role of high-performing principals as instructional leaders. This may
mean that the preparatory programme is not sharply focused on instructional leadership although it
has been specifically emphasised in the MEB. When the preparatory programme does not have a
focus on instructional leadership, principals will not be prepared to act as instructional leaders.
This is reflected by a head teacher of a primary school:

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Instructional leadership skills? Nobody really tells us what it is exactly and how to do it? No one tells us
how to go about it. (Head teacher 2)

Recruitment and selection of school principals. Keits de Vries raised the question, ‘What determines
who will become a leader and who will not?’ (Keits de Vries, 1993: 3). In a hierarchical and highly
centralised system, promotion to principalship has been based on seniority of the candidates as
reflected below:

My name was nominated by the principal and it was sent to the District Education Office and then to
the State Education Office and finally to the MoE when I reached the seniority and in the zone for
promotion. (Head teacher 3)

The NPQEL programme is rigorous and with its intensive delivery, it is important that the
correct candidate is selected to be groomed as a future school principal. The criteria stipulated by
the MoE are too general and the lack of specific definition of high-performing school principals in
a Malaysian context has failed to provide a model with which suitable candidates can be selected to
attend the NPQEL. This sentiment is shown below:

Under the system, the principal suddenly finds that he/she becomes the principal. He/She has no
training, just based on what he/she learns while in school. (MoE Officer 1)

Hussein reinforces the aspiration of the MEB that ‘there is great urgency for the Malaysian
education system to develop school leaders, particularly for the current and future principals, with
super leadership characteristics’ (Hussein, 2012: 370). The implementation of the mandatory
NPQEL should address this issue and ensure that only interested and committed people are
selected for the post of school principal. The NPQEL acts as a filter to sieve out those who lack
the motivation from being promoted as it is obvious in the case below:

If given the post, I will take but I won’t go and look for it. So I won’t go for the NPQEL. I heard it is
very intensive and besides I don’t think I want to take all that trouble to be a principal because the
problem is the responsibility. It is too much and too heavy. (Vice-Principal 1 Secondary School).

The additional benefit of the NPQEL programme is that recruitment and selection is intended to
be based on meritocracy as echoed by the education minister:

I think the Minister of Education has made it very clear that it is based on meritocracy. The NPQEL is
compulsory, anybody who wants to be a principal needs to go through that. (Education Minister)

Fuller and Young (2009) feel that recruiting and selecting suitable candidates will be a signif-
icant challenge as frustration with the role continues to mount due to the varied demands made on
the principal, which pull school principals in several directions as they attempt to fill instructional,
managerial and political roles while balancing competing demands from the school district, state
and federal governments. This may discourage potential good candidates from attending the
NPQEL programme as mentioned below:

I will not go for the NPQEL. It means I have to spend time and effort to take and pass the course and
then be eligible for promotion to be principal. Then the NPQEL also does not guarantee that I will be

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 9

the principal. Why all the trouble when the principal’s responsibilities are so heavy and I have to take
care of the whole school. Besides, the pay increase is not much difference from a senior teacher?
(Vice-Principal 3 Secondary School)

In the absence of a planned model, continuous assessment of teachers for different leadership
positions and providing them with the opportunities for training in incremental stages, has put the
onus on teachers to apply to attend the NPQEL programmes themselves. Such self-selected
candidates may or may not be the best qualified people. In the Malaysian system, where additional
training does not imply higher salaries or a guaranteed promotion on completion of the pro-
gramme, the incentive to attend the NPQEL may be insufficient.

From administrative to instructional leadership. The education minister reiterated the point made in the
MEB that ‘an outstanding principal is one focused on instructional and not administrative leader-
ship’ and that effective school leaders can raise student outcomes by as much as 20% (Ministry of
Education, 2013: E-27):

The principal must make efforts to monitor teachers’ and students’ work, no interruption of lessons,
constant evaluation to make sure students learn well. The principal must do all he/she can to make
sure that instruction is given the top most priority. We don’t want to see principals spending their
time doing administrative stuff. Administrative stuff can be given to his/her assistants to do.
(Education Minister)

The MoE ascertained that the key challenge was to ‘strengthen the role of school principal as
curriculum leaders and as the main supervisors of the teaching and learning process’ (Ministry of
Education, 2001: 7–11). Research by Malakolunthu (2007) on education reforms and Ng (2006) on
principal leadership styles showed that Malaysian principals were more administrators than
instructional leaders. Malakolunthu (2007) found that principals were evasive and indifferent to
instructional reforms as their priority was on management roles which they felt were more impor-
tant than instructional leadership. This is confirmed by the principals below:

I believe management of money is important. As principals, we must know how to spend the money
and when to spend and how much to spend. (Principal 2 Secondary School)
Financial management: I depend so much on my chief clerk on that aspect. But it is about account-
ing and allocation. A principal needs the skill to do that. (Principal 3 Secondary School)

The above quotes show that although the MoE placed emphasis on the role of the school
principal as an instructional leader, the lack of proper co-ordination and support from policy-
makers resulted in the principal’s failure to be an instructional leader (Malakolunthu, 2007). A
similar situation was reported in Thailand where school principals were required ‘to change their
primary role orientation from system management to instructional leadership’ (Hallinger and Lee,
2014: 7–11). Their findings from pre and post reform eras showed no change in the level of
engagement in instructional leadership among Thailand’s principals. Oplatka (2004) confirmed
that instructional leadership functions are relatively rare in South East Asian schools and that
principals prefer a management and administration stance.
To add to the dilemma, the term instructional leadership became so common that ‘anything and
everything’ (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985: 217) and ‘everything a principal does’ (Marks and

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Printy, 2003: 373) to support the achievement of students, and the ability of teachers to teach is
considered an instructional leadership. This has resulted in uncertainty about what it means to be an
effective instructional leader, as expressed by IAB Officer 2:

Many principals do not practice instructional leadership not because they don’t want to but because
they do not know what they must do to be instructional leaders. (IAB Officer 2)

This echoes Marzano et al.’s (2005) view that, despite the popularity of instructional leadership,
the concept is nonetheless not well defined and Bush concludes that the ‘lack of explicit descrip-
tion of instructional leadership in the literature suggest that there may be different meanings to this
concept’ (Bush, 2011: 17).

The content of leadership preparation programmes in Malaysia

The programme provider claims that the NPQEL programme is effective and that participants
found the training to be satisfactory. This claim is substantiated by Aziz (2003), Educational
Planning and Research Development (2006), Ruhaya et al. (2006) and Rusinah and Lee (2006):

The candidates will gain leadership and management knowledge and skills. We find that they are
performing much better than those who didn’t go for the NPQEL. (IAB Officer)

However, the participants feel that there is room for improvement in all areas of training to
further enhance effectiveness. One such area for improvement is the short duration of the pro-
gramme and its intensity which puts its effectiveness at risk.

You see the whole course is within 5 months. So every day for one whole month during the face-to-face
lectures, from 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock sometimes 6 o’clock. I tell you that from morning
to evening lectures, lectures, lectures. (Vice-Principal 2 Secondary School)

Like many leadership preparation programmes, the NPQEL has been criticised for its emphasis
on management and not addressing the educational challenges of the 21st century (Glatter, 2006:
70; Levine, 2005: 68). This view is shared by the participants below:

This NPQEL should be supplemented with practical experience. Now they have the ‘attachment’
programme so there is some practical work there but still it is not real life experience. (Principal 2
Primary School)
Only NPQEL is not enough. There are so many things a head teacher must know. Besides, the
duration of 5 months is definitely not enough. I spent years and years to gain those knowledge and skills
and you want to teach others to be high performing principals in 5 months? There must be a practical
aspect to it. More time be allotted to the person to learn hands on. (Principal 4 Primary School)

How leadership programmes are delivered in Malaysia

Programme delivery. All participants interviewed felt that the IAB trainers lack the practical experi-
ences to teach them how to be high-performing principals as they did not have prior experience in
this role. This affects the credibility of the trainers and participants considered them as moderators

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 11

instead of role models, which aspiring principals need. Similar findings are reported by Educa-
tional Planning and Research Development (2006) and Santhanamary and Hamdan (2011). This is
aptly put by a participant:

The trainers at IAB have not headed a school before and no experience and they want to teach us who
have been in schools for 20 years? (Vice-Principal 2 Secondary School)

Assessment. The evaluation of the NPQEL participants is based on all the components: exam
(40%); attachment programme (30%); benchmarking programme (10%); and e-learning assign-
ments (20%) (NPQEL, 2012). Based on the participants’ feedback, this is too heavy and too
theoretical and does not serve the purpose.

The quizzes, exams and assignments are all based on lectures. They are all theories and I gain no
practical knowledge or skills from such exams and quizzes. E-learning, you have assignments for e-
learning, quiz, all kinds of things, which is also quite time-consuming. After all the exams, then what?
(Vice-Principal 2 Secondary School).

The inability to find meaning and benefit from such assessment is reflected by Kohn (2002) who
notes that such assessment methods overlook important leadership characteristics such as respect
for diversity, willingness to take risks to improve schools, creativity, vision and tolerance.

Mentoring. One aspect of the NPQEL that was found to be important is to be mentored by the
principal of the school where participants chose to do their benchmarking. This is probably due to
the opportunity to learn from a principal whom participants felt could be their role model:

I help to guide these teachers who do their NPQEL programme. They come here to do their assign-
ments and benchmarking. I have guided so many so here I have a leader guide programme. I also guide
all my own teachers to be leaders. Each one of them has a folio that showcases their work and
achievement. I give them opportunity to give talks and to lead on certain projects. This way they
already learn leadership and when they become head teachers or principals, they would have gotten the
skills. (Principal 3 Primary School)

The education minister captures the mentoring of aspiring principals most aptly:

Mentoring builds up a professional learning community. I did a lot of mentoring when I was a principal
and lo and behold today they are doing exactly what I did to mentor those principals in my state. They
are also playing the role, using the same concept of leaders developing leaders, leaders guiding leaders
and leaders leading leaders. (Education Minister).

Mentoring provides the practical experience and experiential learning where the NPQEL parti-
cipants have the opportunities to acquire the qualities and skills which can be learnt from their
mentor. On-the-job learning is necessary to prepare for principalship because much of the princi-
pal’s work takes place in such contexts. Through mentoring by older and experienced leaders,
younger and new leaders could learn to construct their own understanding of the nature of lead-
ership and define their own construct and values frame (Bajunid, 2008: 221). Hence, the education
minister and the participants have captured what Orr (2011) opines is that the best way to learn to
be a school leader is to live it.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Conclusion
Answering the research questions
Which groups are being targeted for leadership training?. In the mandatory NPQEL, though it tries to
select candidates based on meritocracy, the onus has been placed on teachers who are interested in
holding the post in the future to apply to attend the programme. This self-selection through sieving
out those who have no interest to be a school principal, also eliminates those really good teachers
who can be good principals. In the absence of specific leadership evaluation of teachers, the
selection of candidates for the NPQEL is still based on seniority. Thus, the challenge remains that
those who attended the NPQEL programmes are really qualified and have the leadership compe-
tencies required to be high-performing principals.
The study shows that the effectiveness of principals depends on appropriate training (Bush, 1998:
331; Hess and Kelly, 2005: 3), thus, it remains a challenge for IAB to prepare future leaders to be
high-performing principals who can address the continuous change and varied needs in schools. In
addition, the quality of the preparation experience relates to the willingness of potential candidates to
take up the tough job and their ability to succeed in it. Thus, recruiting the right people and preparing
them comprehensively, is essential to improve the pool of available school principals.

What attributes of skills do the leadership programmes intend to develop?. Malaysia has a highly
centralised system and a mandatory principal preparatory programme would ensure that principals
are trained to follow national aspirations and policies as Bush aptly describes it as a ‘vehicle for
ensuring compliance with national imperatives’ (Bush, 2013: 459). In Malaysia, it is not compul-
sory for principals to have a second or third degree, so a mandatory NPQEL may provide the
necessary theoretical knowledge and skills to equip these aspiring principals for running schools.
The 21st century principals are ‘leaders for student learning’ (Steyn, 2008: 893), trained to be
instructional leaders with the capacity to increase student achievement and learning. Skills such as
the ability to collect, analyse, and use data in ways to inform decision-making and build further
progress, are important and should be factored into the leadership preparatory programmes.
To conform to the ‘international curriculum’ would place the NPQEL programme at par with
that of other countries. However, leadership is context-sensitive (Antonakis et al., 2003) and
Malaysian local practices, values and beliefs need to be taken into consideration as such elements
affect the ways things are done in different schools.
The NPQEL, like most leadership preparatory programmes leans toward the ‘periphery and
content’ of leadership (Frost, 1993: 14) and not taking into consideration that leadership is a
process. Leadership exists in the organisational space wherein relationships develop and operate
to effect significant changes. Leadership does not exist within a person or persons but in a
relationship among people (Frost, 1993: 14). As a result, a leadership preparatory programme
should take into consideration that principals need skills to work with 21st century teachers who
are more interested in being a part of the process that gives them some influence and impact on
major decisions being made in schools.
Programmes for training school leadership have been criticised for equipping principals with
skills for running present-day schools and not for guiding and developing schools for the future
(Lashway, 2003: 140; Levine, 2005: 66). To address the changing context of education, there
should be different types of leadership preparation for different types of schools (Wong, 2004:
143). Principals need to be equipped with skills as schools move toward a focus on wholeness or
sustainability in solving difficult issues and making progress.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 13

Overview. The aim of the NPQEL is to train high-performing principals to helm schools and take them
to levels of excellence in all aspects. The implications of this aim are profound and challenging but
the attributes, skills, and characteristics of high-performing principals are not clearly specified.
It is important to be mindful that, in promoting instructional leadership, principals should not
marginalise the importance of management in schools as they encounter both administrative
and educational leadership tasks (Bush et al., 2010; Devos and Bouckenooghe, 2009; Earley and
Weindling, 2004). Nevertheless, Malaysia has joined the world in realising that there is a need for
principal preparation. But ‘becoming a school leader is an ongoing process of socialisation’ (Duke,
1987: 261; Earley and Weindling, 2004) and Malaysia appears to be unsure about how to secure
improvement in respect of instructional leadership.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: The author received funding support for the research from BELMAS.

References
Antonakis J, Avolio BJ and Sivasubramaniam N (2003) Context and leadership: An examination of the
nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership
Quarterly 14(3): 261–295.
Aziz MN (2003) An investigation into the headship training programme for aspiring primary school head
teachers. EdD Thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Azlin NM (2006) Principals’ management practices: a case study. PhD Thesis, National University of
Malaysia, Malaysia.
Bajunid IA (1996) Preliminary exploration of indigenous perspectives of educational management. Journal of
Educational Administration 34(5): 50–73.
Bajunid IA (1994) Megashifts in the training of educational administrators/managers: strategic plans for the
realisation of Malaysia’s 2020. In: Bajunid IA, Ghani AWBA, Mansor BB, et al. (1996). Malaysian
educative leadership: interim research findings. International Journal of Educational Management
10(2): 21–26.
Bajunid IA (2008) The development of educational leaders in Malaysia: the creation of a professional
community. In: Johnson D and Maclean R (eds) Teaching: Professionalization, Development and Lead-
ership. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science þ Business Media B. V., pp.215–232.
Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Braun V and Clarke V (2013) Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London,
UK: SAGE Publications.
Briggs ARJ, Coleman M and Morrison M (eds) (2012) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and
Management. 3rd edition. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Bright T and Ware N (2003) Were you Prepared? Findings from a National Survey of Headteachers. NCSL
Research Associate Reports. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Brundrett M and Rhodes C (2014) Researching Educational Leadership and Management. London, UK:
SAGE Publications.
Brundrett M, Fitzgerald T and Sommerfeldt D (2006) The creation of national programmes of school
leadership development in England and New Zealand: a comparative study. International Studies in
Educational Administration 34(1): 89–105.
Bush T (1998) The national professional qualification for headship: the key to effective school leadership.
School Leadership & Management 18(3): 321–333.
Bush T (2008) Leadership and Management Development in Education. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Bush T (2009) Leadership development and school improvement: contemporary issues in leadership
development. Educational Review 61(4): 375–389.
Bush T (2011) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. 4th edition. London, UK: SAGE
Publications.
Bush T (2013) Preparing headteachers in England: professional certification, not academic learning. Educa-
tional Management Administration & Leadership 41(4): 453–465.
Bush T, Bell L and Middlewood D (2010) Introduction: new directions in educational leadership. In: Bush T,
Bell L and D. Middlewood D. (eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership & Management. 2nd ed.
London, UK: SAGE Publications, pp.3–12.
Bush T and Glover D (2004) Leadership Development: Evidence and Beliefs. Nottingham: National College
for School Leadership. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5094/1/leadership-development-evidence-and-
beliefs.pdf (accessed 21 December 2015).
Bush T and Glover D (2012) Distributed leadership in action: leading high performing leadership teams in
English schools. School Leadership and Management 32(1): 21–36.
Bush T and Jackson D (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international perspectives. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 30(4): 417–429.
Cabinet Committee Report (1979) Ministry of Education Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Dewan Bahasa
and Pustaka Publishing.
Clarke S and Wildy H (2010) Preparing for principalship from the crucible of experience: reflecting on theory,
practice and research. Journal of Educational Administration and History 42(1): 1–16.
Coles MJ and Southworth G (2005) Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow. Maidenhead,
UK: Open University Press.
Crow GM (2006) Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on socialization.
Journal of Educational Administration 44(4): 310–325.
Day C, Sammons P, Leithwood K., Hopkins D, Gu Q, Brown E and Ahtaridou E (2011) Successful School
Leadership: Linking with Learning and Achievement. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Daresh JC (2004) Mentoring school leaders: professional promise or predictable problems? Educational
Administration Quarterly 40(4): 495–517.
Daresh JC (2006) Beginning the Principalship: A Practical Guide for New Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Devos G and Bouckenooghe D (2009) An exploratory study on principals’ conceptions about their role as
school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools 8(2): 173–196.
Duke DL (1987) School Leadership and Instructional Improvement. New York, NY: Random House.
Earley P and Bubb S (2013) A day in the life of new head teachers: learning from observation. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 41(6): 782–799.
Earley P and Weindling D (2004) Understanding School Leadership. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Educational Planning and Research Development (2006) Educational Planning and Research Department.
Special Report NPQH 2000–2005. Genting Highlands, Malaysia: Institut Aminuddin Baki.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 15

Frost J (1993) Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Praeger
Fullan M (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.
Fuller E and Young M. (2009) Tenure and Retention of Newly Hired Principals in Texas. Austin, TX:
University Council of Educational Administration, Department of Educational Administration, University
of Texas at Austin. Available at: https://www.casciac.org/pdfs/ucea_tenure_and_retention_report_10_8_
09.pdf (accessed 15 December 2015).
Glatter R (2006) Leadership and organisation in education: time for a reorientation? School Leadership and
Management 26(1): 69–83.
Gronn P (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 13(4): 423–451.
Gurr D, Drysdale L and Mulford B (2006) Models of successful principal leadership. School Leadership &
Management 26(4): 371–395.
Hallinger P (1995) Culture and leadership: developing an international perspective in educational demonstra-
tion. UCEA Review 46(2): 1–13.
Hallinger P and Lee M (2014) Mapping instructional leadership in Thailand: has education reform impacted
principal practice? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1): 6–29.
Hallinger P and Murphy JF (1985) Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Available at:
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198709_hallinger.pdf (accessed 6 September 2015).
Harris A (2004) Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or misleading? Educational Man-
agement Administration & Leadership 32(1): 11–24.
Harris A (2006) Opening up the ‘‘Black Box’’ of leadership practice: taking a distributed leadership perspec-
tive. International Studies in Educational Administration 34(2): 37–45.
Hess FM and Kelly AP (2005) Learning to Lead? What gets Taught in Principal Preparation Programs.
Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/Hess_Kelly_Learning_to_Lead_PEPG05
.02.pdf (accessed 8 January 2016).
Hobson A, Brown E, Ashby P, Keys W, Sharp C and Benefield P (2003) Issues for Early Headship: Problems
and Support Strategies. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.
Huber SG and Hiltmann M (2010) The recruitment and selection of school leaders – first findings of an
international comparison. In: Huber SG, Saravanbavan RC and Hader-Popp S (eds) School Leadership –
International Perspectives Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.303–330.
Huber SG and West M (2002) Developing school leaders: a critical review of current practices, approaches,
and issues and some directions for the future. In: Leithwood K and Hallinger P (eds) Second International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer,
pp.1071–1102.
Hulsbos FA, Evers AT and Kessels JWM (2015) Learn to lead: Mapping workplace learning of school
leaders. Vocations and Learning 9(1): 21–42. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s12186-015-9140-5/fulltext.html (accessed 17 February 2016).
Hussein HA (2012) Mission of Public Education in Malaysia: The Challenge of Transformation. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia: University of Malaya Press.
Johnson RB and Christensen L (2014) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed
Approaches. 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Keits de Vries M (1993) Leaders, Fools, and Imposters: Essays on the Psychology of Leadership. Lincoln,
NE: iUniverse Inc.
Kohn A (2002) Measures fall short. USA Today, 12A, 24 January. Available at: http://www.alfiekohn.org/
article/opposing-view/ (accessed 15 December 2015).
Lashway L (2003) Transforming Principal Preparation. Eric Digest 165-February 2003. Available at: http://
www.ericuoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest165.html (accessed 3 March 2015).

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Leithwood K, Day C, Sammons P, Harris A and Hopkins D (2006) Seven Strong Claims about Successful
School Leadership. London, UK: Department for Education and Skills. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/
6967/1/download%3Fid%3D17387%26filename%3Dseven-claims-about-successful-school-leadership
.pdf (accessed 28 March 2015).
Levine A (2005) Educating School Leaders. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project. Available at:
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).
Lodge C (1998) Training aspiring heads on NPQH: issues and progress. School Leadership and Management
18(3): 347–357.
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiardis P (eds) (2008) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development
of School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
Malakolunthu S (2007) Teacher Learning in Malaysia: Problems and Possibilities of Reform. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: University of Malaya Press.
Marcoulides GA, Larsen TJ and Heck RH (1995) Examining the generalizability of a leadership model: issues
for assessing administrator performance. International Journal of Educational Management 9(6): 4–9.
Marks HM and Printy SM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transforma-
tional and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.
Marzano R.J, Waters T and McNutty BA (2005) School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moorosi P and Bush T (2012) School leadership development in Commonwealth countries: learning across
boundaries. ISEA 39(3): 59–75. Available at: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/39460/1/WRAP_Moorosi_Pub
DocView.pdf (accessed 25 August 2015).
Ministry of Education (2001) Education Development Plan 2001–2010. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education (2013) Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Edu-
cation). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education (2014) Malaysian Education Blueprint Annual Report 2013. Putrajaya, Malaysia:
Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ng AYM (2006) Principal leadership style and management behaviour in two ethnic–cultural settings: A
comparative case study. PhD Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Ng PT (2012) Mentoring and coaching in the Singapore education system. International Journal of Mentoring
and Coaching in Education 1(1): 24–35.
NPQEL (2012) National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders. Genting Highlands, Malaysia:
Institut Aminuddin Baki.
Oplatka I (2004) The principal’s career stage: an absent element in leadership perspectives. International
Journal of Leadership in Education 7(1): 43–55.
Orr MT (2011) How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: a comparison
of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly 47(1): 18–70.
Pang NK (ed.) (2006) Globalization: Educational Research, Change and Reform. Hong Kong: The Chinese
University Press.
Pashiardis P (2001) International Perspectives on Educational Leadership. Hong Kong: Centre for Educa-
tional Leadership. The University of Hong Kong.
Patton M (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Prior L (2003) Using Documents in Social Research. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Rahimah A (2002) Kepimpinan Kepengetuaan: Cabaran dan strategi alaf baru. Jurnal Kepimpinan Institut
Pengetua 2(1): 1–7.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

Ng: School leadership preparation in Malaysia 17

Rahman S, Lokman MT and Mohammed BM (2015) Problems faced by novice principals in Malaysia: an
exploratory study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6(4): 562–569.
Robinson V (2007) School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Winmalee,
New South Wales: Australian Council of Leaders.
Robinson V, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the
differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.
Ruhaya H, Risnarizah AH and Sharifah SJ (2006) Satu tinjauan terhadap program NPQH kohort 9/2005,
Kertas Kerja Seminar Narional Pengurusan & Kepimpinan ke-13. Genting Highlands. (An evaluation of
the NPQH programme Cohort 9/2005. A paper for the 13th National Management and Leadership
Seminar).
Rusinah J and Lee LH (2006) Motivational orientations of teachers in the National Professional Qualification
of Headship (NPQH) programme. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities 14(2): 85–94.
Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/files/452/12222850.pdf (accessed 4 March 2015).
Sammons P, Davies S, Day C and Gu Q (2014) Using mixed methods to investigate school improvement and the
role of leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5): 565–589. doi:10.1108/JEA-10-2013-0121.
Santhanamary M and Hamdan S (2011) Reflections of two distinct principals: Preliminary perspectives on
how the principal preparation programme contributed to their self-efficacy development. IAMURE: Inter-
national Association of Multidisciplinary Research Journal 1(7): 149–172.
Sazali Y (2006) The relationship between principals’ self-efficacy and schools’ factor and principals’ per-
sonal attributes. Jurnal Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan 16(1): 1–12.
Shah S (2006) Educational leadership: an Islamic perspective. British Educational Research Journal 32(3):
363–386.
Silverman D (2005) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. 2nd edition. London, UK: SAGE
Publications.
Steyn GM (2008) The influence of school leadership preparation programmes: Identification of possible focus
areas. South African Journal of Higher Education 22(4): 889–905. Available at: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/
bitstream/handle/10500/240/ar_steyn_schooleadership.pdf?sequence¼1 (accessed 6 October 2015).
Thompson K (2010) How strategic is the school-based planning for leadership succession? International
Studies in Educational Administration 38(1): 98–113.
Usdan M, McCloud B and Podmostko K (2000) Leadership for Student Learning: Reinventing the Principal-
ship. School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative: A Report of the Task Force on the Principalship,
October 2000. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Available at: http://achievehartford.
org/upload/files/IEL%20-%20Leadership%20for%20Student%20Learning.pdf (accessed 10 November
2015).
Warwas J (2015) Principals’ leadership behaviour: values-based, contingent or both? Journal of Educational
Administration 53(3): 310–334.
Wong PM (2004) The professional development of school principals: insights from evaluating a programme
in Hong Kong. School Leadership and Management 24(2): 139–162.

Author biography
Ashley Yoon-Mooi Ng is Assistant Professor in the School of Education, University of Notting-
ham, Malaysia Campus, where she teaches both the undergraduates and post-graduates, and
co-supervises PhD students. She is the Masters Educational Leadership and Management
Programme Coordinator. She has taught in various schools in Malaysia and has been a principal,

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016

18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

a senior principal and promoted to the position of Excellent Principal before she left the civil
service to join the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus. She played a major role in
introducing action research among teachers and principals in Malaysia and was appointed as key
personnel for action research in the State Education Office and the Ministry of Education. In
recognition of her work in schools and the fields of education, she was conferred an award of
AMN (Ahli Mangku Negara) by His Majesty, the Yang diPertuan Agong in 2009. She continues to
be active in research at the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus. Her research included a
British Educational Leadership Society (BELMAS) funded project on principal preparation in
Malaysia, which is in line with the Malaysia Educational Blueprint 2013–2025, and teacher
leadership, where she explored the role and responsibilities of master teachers in Malaysia and
the Philippines. She has collaborated with the Malaysian Ministry of Education in the LINUS
Project in 2013. She is currently the consultant for the ‘Trust Schools’ project on Student Outcome
Measurement, which looks at student leadership skills in Malaysia. She is actively involved in
conducting professional development courses for school leaders and teachers. She is a member of
the BELMAS.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 15, 2016