Hot Leadership, Cool Leadership: How Education Policies are Implemented (and Ignored) in Schools

Abstract

The article advances an emergent framework for conceptualizing the relationship between principal leadership and education policy implementation. Based on a qualitative study of school principals and policy implementation in Region X of the Philippines, findings suggested that the way in which policies were interpreted and implemented at the school level was influenced by a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic dynamics and these were shaped in situ by individual, school and community inhibitors and facilitators. These motivations and localized contexts were critical to implementation, and compelled principals to ignore, monitor, or implement education policies as a priority.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048241268309
Educational Policy
2024, Vol. 38(7) 1608 –1637
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08959048241268309
journals.sagepub.com/home/epx
Article
Hot Leadership,
Cool Leadership:
How Education Policies
are Implemented
(and Ignored) in Schools
Jeffrey S. Brooks1 and Melanie C. Brooks2
Abstract
The article advances an emergent framework for conceptualizing
the relationship between principal leadership and education policy
implementation. Based on a qualitative study of school principals and policy
implementation in Region X of the Philippines, findings suggested that the
way in which policies were interpreted and implemented at the school level
was influenced by a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic dynamics and these were
shaped in situ by individual, school and community inhibitors and facilitators.
These motivations and localized contexts were critical to implementation,
and compelled principals to ignore, monitor, or implement education policies
as a priority.
Keywords
principals, education policy implementation, leadership theory, Philippines
1Curtin University School of Education, Perth, WA, Australia
2Edith Cowan University School of Education, Perth, WA, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Jeffrey S. Brooks, Curtin University School of Education, Perth, WA, Australia.
Email: Jeffrey.brooks@curtin.edu.au
1268309EPXXXX10.1177/08959048241268309Educational PolicyBrooks and Brooks
research-article2024

Brooks and Brooks 1609
In 1964, University of Toronto professor Marshall McLuhan’s book
Understanding Media: Extensions of Man was published. The book was an
unexpected sensation, generating dialogue and debate in academic and popu-
lar communities (see Rosenthal, 1967; Stearn, 1967). In Understanding
Media, McLuhan raised a number of issues and articulated observations
related to the ways people engage with television, print media, and radio
(McLuhan, 1964). At the heart of his argument is the notion that certain
media like television shows are “hot,” as they construct meaning and mes-
sages fully for the consumer—the plot, characters, dialogue, themes, etc. are
fashioned in a manner that encourage passive engagement, as everything is
already done for the consumer. Other media, such as newspaper articles, are
“cool” in that they demand active engagement and co-construction to make
meaning and receive information—with a print newspaper article, readers
have to imagine certain details of the story, such as the way a person described
only through text looks or sounds. In a sense, the reader is required to fill in
information from their own experience and infer meaning and messages that
might only be implied or assumed. Put simply, consumers take in fully formed
hot media in a passive manner and less constructed cool media actively to
make meaning of them. In many ways, educators approach leadership in the
same way. Their leadership is at times highly active, perhaps directive, pre-
scriptive, supportive, and monitored, leaving little room for follower inter-
pretation (Bell & Stevenson, 2006). At other times, leadership is practiced in
a way that local school leaders, teachers, students, and communities are left
with room to actively interpret and enact (or ignore) issues due to limited
information and scant guidance (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009; Sinclair & Brooks,
2020).
The purpose of this study was to explore how school leaders interpret and
implement education policy. We were particularly interested in understand-
ing which policies they implemented with active (hot) leadership and which
policies they engaged with passive (cool) leadership. A corollary aim was to
explore the intrinsic and extrinsic dynamics that influenced leaders to adopt
a given approach to leading policy implementation. As this purpose demands
both a deep and nuanced appreciation of the ways that policies are imple-
mented at the school level and consideration of the ways that such work var-
ies across schools, we designed a qualitative case study with multiple school
sites that shared the same policy context (Honig, 2006). This context was
government schools of Region X of the Philippines, the School Division in
Mindanao that governs the Cagayan de Oro metropolitan area and surround-
ing rural and remote areas. Data collection took place over the course of a
year and included interviews and focus groups with 93 of the 99 school

1610 Educational Policy 38(7)
principals in Region X, in addition to interviews with school division
administrators.
The subsequent section of this article is a literature review focused on the
role of school leadership in education policy implementation. We organized
this literature into four sets of dynamics that facilitate and/or inhibit policy
implementation: policy dynamics, external dynamics, school dynamics, and
personal dynamics. Drawing from key concepts in this literature, we devel-
oped an exploratory “hot leadership, cool leadership” conceptual framework
that guided the empirical phase of the study. We then explain the methodol-
ogy, before presenting findings which suggest that certain dynamics facili-
tated an active approach to implementation while others encouraged passivity.
The article then advances a hot policy, cool policy theoretical framework and
considers implications for further research and improved practice.
School Principals and Education Policy
Implementation
Education policies can be developed at any level of a school or school system
(Brooks & Normore, 2017). An education policy can be conceptualized as
any formalized and institutionalized practice that guides, constrains, or
encourages individual and organizational behavior (Young & Diem, 2017).
Considered as such, education policies might be in the form of legislation,
codes of conduct, charters, instructional strategies, communications plans, or
any number of other artefacts (Sinclair & Brooks, 2022). Policies can be
developed organically out of local needs or be mandated from the apex of an
organizational structure, depending on the limits of the agency people
throughout the system are afforded (Wirt & Kirst, 1997). Policies are then
interpreted at each level of the system and institutionalized, with attendant
guidance, support, incentives, sanctions, and monitoring determining the way
a policy is operationalized in various levels of the school system (Dumas &
Anyon, 2006). However, for the purposes of this study we are focused pri-
marily on education policy that is developed at the national level and is
intended to be implemented at the school level with fidelity (Odden, 1991).
When national education policies are conceived, they are typically
intended to encourage whole system improvement in a top-down manner
rather than considering the intricacies and idiosyncrasies that manifest in
individual communities or schools (Brooks et al., 2007). While ostensibly
designed to benefit all schools and students, national education policies can
be ineffective, political, and inequitable. They are often driven by the con-
cerns of politically-connected education advocates, political party ideologies

Brooks and Brooks 1611
or a commitment to a particular curricular or pedagogical approach that privi-
leges some while disadvantaging others (Savage & O’Connor, 2014). While
these failures are at times due to high-level factors, the inequity can also be
structural in that several organizational layers of the system will interpret and
provide guidance in a way that facilitates and inhibits certain ways of think-
ing about and acting on a policy by the time it reaches the school or class-
room level (Spillane, 2009). The stratified and contested journey that a
national education policy takes from being announced to actually making
changes in the way a school works is fraught, but typically arrives in the form
of directions for the school’s principal about what they are meant to do, the
timeline for implementation, support and/or guidance related to the initiative,
and the consequences of not achieving what is expected (Printy & Williams,
2015). Thus, the ways that the principal interprets, implements, and makes
decisions day-to-day in relation to a policy are among the most critical issues
that determine the success or failure of an initiative (Ganon-Shilon &
Schechter, 2019).
Principal Interpretation, Implementation, and Leadership
The way that a principal interprets, implements, and supports or ignores an
educational policy are critical if the initiative is to make meaningful change in
the school (Brooks et al., 2004; Cohen et al., 2020). When national policies are
released, guidance for educators working in the school system is explained
through primary policy documents, typically the law or report that lays out the
rationale for change and expectations for people, units, and processes in the
system (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009). As these documents move through levels of
the school system—say, from Education Minister to Division Leaders to School
networks and finally to school principals, guidance typically becomes increas-
ingly narrow and actionable (Brooks & Normore, 2017). Still, even though
policies have gone through this process, it is common for a certain amount of
discretion, and indeed interpretation, of the policy remain in the principal’s
purview. As Yanow (1995) explained, interpretation has to do with translating
a policy from abstract intention to practices and processes in a school:
Policy interpretations ask not only what a policy means, but also how a policy
means. Interpreters often discover that for both questions, the answer is plural:
a policy means more than one thing, and those meanings are conveyed in more
than one way. (111)
Indeed, recognizing the ambiguity of the policy making process and the sen-
semaking that needs to take place at the school level is key to understanding

1612 Educational Policy 38(7)
how a policy is implemented, which is crucial to its relative success or failure
(Cohen-Vogel, 2005). Depending on the nature of the policy, principals will
have more or less agency for interpretation (Gu et al., 2018). Principals are
uniquely positioned to consider and then influence how the intent of the pol-
icy complements or challenges what the school is already doing and put a
plan in place to encourage the changes required by the policy (Shaked &
Schechter, 2017). This may done via a democratic process, a limited consul-
tation process or by fiat depending on the principal’s approach to leadership
and school dynamics (Dimmock, 2018). Once they have interpreted what the
policy means in the context of their school and how the aims of the changes
might best be achieved in situ, the principal can move the school from inter-
pretation to implementation.
Policy implementation is the shift from interpretation to action. At this
point, principals seek, provide, or co-create clarity around how changed per-
formance will be measured, monitored, supported, and institutionalized in
the school (Brooks & Normore, 2017). Principals will draw on their under-
standing of the school and community context, staff and student capacity, and
available resources to determine the processes that will be changing to
achieve the policy’s intended outcomes (Binkley, 1997).
Dynamics That Facilitate or Inhibit Principals from
Implementing Education Policy
Despite careful development and design, education policies are not always
successful when implemented (Brooks, 2006a). Indeed, they commonly fail
to achieve intended changes in processes and outcomes, particularly at the
school level (Datnow, 2020; Tyack, 1974; Tyack & Hansot, 1980), which is
arguably the most critical level of education policy implementation (Honig,
2006). Principal leadership in particular plays a key role in the success or
failure of a policy, and that certain dynamics facilitate or inhibit principals’
leadership in relation to policy implementation (Brooks, 2006b). During our
systematic literature review (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008) on the topic, we
identified four sets of dynamics: policy dynamics, external dynamics, school
dynamics, and personal dynamics.
Policy Dynamics
Policy dynamics have to do with the way that a policy is designed, and the
guidance and support that a principal receives at the school level. Such
dynamics often arrive in the form of: rationales and/or mandates for change;

Brooks and Brooks 1613
support and/or guidance; monitoring and/or reporting schedules; and atten-
dant sanctions and/or incentives. Rationales and mandates for change should
be research-based, practice-based, or a combination of the two but they are
commonly political and based on insubstantial assumptions (Stovall, 2020).
Over the past 50 years, many countries’ national education strategies have
been driven by rationales and mandates grounded in deficit-oriented interna-
tional comparisons of standardized test outcomes with other countries rather
than assessing and building on system, student, educator, or community
strengths (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009). This creates the sense that there is an edu-
cation crisis (Berliner & Biddle, 1996), with the operating assumption being
that the nation’s children, economy, and future prospects are falling behind
the competition and not realizing their potential. Rationales and mandates
can of course be research-driven, drawing on education research and work
from adjacent fields to suggest promising new direction (Darling-Hammond,
2004). They can also be practice-based, where effective strategies are shared
across and between systems and schools.
The levels and forms of support and guidance offered by the system to a
school seeking to implement a policy are crucial. Typically, these will include
an information component intended to educate school-level personnel and
accompanying training to translate abstract ideas into day-to-day practice.
Support might come in the form of increased budget, availability of expertise,
or time for educators to learn, practice, analyze data, and share experiences
through various phases of implementation (Desimone, 2002). Guidance will
be communicated to principals regarding anticipated changed processes and
outcomes, with a timeline for implementation and expectations around see-
ing improved results in some aspect of practice. This timeline will include
discussion of monitoring and reporting schedules, which are commonly
externally imposed, but which may be subject to negotiation depending on a
variety of circumstances. Guidance will also include articulation of attendant
sanctions should the policy fail, or incentives if the policy is successful.
While incentives are usually clear, sanctions are often “soft” due to a recogni-
tion that change is not always a simple process (Guhn, 2009).
External Dynamics
Principals are influenced by a variety of external dynamics when they seek to
implement policies in their schools. Principals operate within nested systems
of cultural norms, societal expectations, and professional and community
values which in turn shape educational goals, policies, and practices (Khalifa
et al., 2016). Society, through government and departments of education, set
the overarching legal and policy frameworks within which schools and school

1614 Educational Policy 38(7)
leaders operate. Principals must work within local, state, and national regula-
tions, which are often reflective of societal priorities and concerns (Theoharis,
2024). Schools are integral parts of communities, and principals are often
seen as community leaders (Khalifa, 2020), meaning that communities and
principals can have strong reciprocal influence with one another. Accordingly,
principals’ practice is influenced by community expectations regarding edu-
cation, including desired outcomes, curriculum content, and extracurricular
activities (Green, 2018). Economic conditions impact education funding,
resource allocation, and access to education and employment opportunities.
Principals must adapt to economic realities within their schools and commu-
nities, which can affect staffing, programming, and facilities (Ingle et al.,
2011). In addition to facilities, technological advancements influence princi-
pal leadership in numerous ways, including classroom technology, adminis-
trative systems, and access to information. Principals must stay abreast of
technological trends and integrate them effectively into their schools, particu-
larly when implementing education policies that are forward-looking (Yap &
Brooks, 2022). Societal movements and debates surrounding social justice
and equity have a profound impact on education in general, and on principal
leadership in particular (Brooks et al., 2007). Principals are increasingly
tasked with promoting inclusivity, diversity, and equity in their schools and
addressing systemic inequalities (Horsford et al., 2011). Contemporary prin-
cipals must also lead in an era of unprecedented scrutiny and media attention
(Fullan, 2023). Media portrayal and public perception of education influence
how principals are perceived and evaluated (Cox & McLeod, 2014). They
must manage public relations and communication strategies to maintain posi-
tive relationships with stakeholders.
School Dynamics
Principal leadership in relation to policy implementation is also influenced
by relational, technical, and cultural school-level dynamics (Kalkan et al.,
2020). Among these are the culture and climate of a school, which shapes the
way principals co-construct their leadership on a daily basis with colleagues
and other stakeholders (Brooks & Miles, 2006). A positive, supportive cul-
ture can foster collaboration and innovation, while a negative or toxic culture
may engender a sense of alienation (Brooks et al., 2008) and present chal-
lenges for authentic leadership. The composition, morale, and relationships
among staff members greatly affect how principals lead (Moolenaar &
Sleegers, 2015), and while these are protean it is important that the principal
support the conditions and opportunities for relationships to flourish.
Principals must establish, maintain, and nurture relationships with teachers,

Brooks and Brooks 1615
professional staff, and other administrators to foster a sense of the school’s
collective coherence, even if individuals are quite diverse in terms of their
commitment, motivation, expertise, and dispositions (Stosich, 2018). The
demographic makeup, needs, and behaviors of students shape the practice of
leadership in relation to policy implementation, and it is critical for principals
to interpret, implement, and monitor the intended and unintended impact of
policies on majority and minoritized groups in their school (Theoharis, 2007).
This means that principals must address diverse student needs, including aca-
demic, socio-emotional, and behavioral needs, with a sensitivity to the notion
that every staff member and student has unique individual needs that make an
additional depth of differentiation necessary (Gauld, 1996). The level and
nature of community involvement and support principals receive influences
how they lead their schools (Green, 2018; Irby, 2022). Principals may col-
laborate with parents, community organizations, and local businesses or they
be quite removed from them—the strength and integration of these school-
community networks and relationships are often crucial and neglected aspects
of policy implementation (Stefanski et al., 2016). In addition to relationships,
principals must manage resources effectively to support the implementation
of education policies. Budgetary constraints, staffing levels, training, access
to facilities and technology can determine whether a policy achieves fidelity
on implementation (Desimone, 2002). Principals play a key role as instruc-
tional leaders in shaping curriculum, assessment, and data use practices
within their schools. They support and guide teachers in implementing effec-
tive operational aspects of an education policy. Principals also lead the short
and longer-term strategic aspects of school improvement, and therefore need
to establish a climate of continual improvement in the school (Hallinger &
Heck, 2002) that is aligned with vision and goals.
Personal Dynamics
Each principal brings a unique configuration of knowledge, skills, ethical
orientations, and dispositions to the role that influence their approach to pol-
icy implementation (Stronge & Xu, 2021). Principals may be introverted or
extraverted, outgoing or reserved, conservative or progressive, impulsive or
calculating, and of course most exhibit a variety of these traits in discrete
circumstances or situations (Atasoy, 2020). These traits shape their commu-
nication style, decision-making approaches, emphasis on certain aspects of
the role, and ability to build relationships with people inside and outside of
the school. Principals may exhibit various leadership styles, including dis-
tributed (Spillane, 2005), authoritative, democratic (Kensler & Brooks, 2012,
transformational (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005), transactional (Friedman,

1616 Educational Policy 38(7)
2004), or laissez-faire (Northouse, 2021). Their leadership style influences
how they motivate staff, manage conflict, and promote organizational change
related to education policy. Principals’ personal values and beliefs deeply
influence their priorities, principles and practices as educational leaders.
Their commitment to equity, social justice, student-centeredness, and life-
long learning is the foundation of an operational philosophy that defines and
characterizes their leadership (Brooks & Normore, 2017). Principals’ educa-
tional background, including their experience in the classroom, academic
qualifications, and understanding of staff and students’ lives inside and out-
side of the school shapes their understanding of pedagogy, curriculum devel-
opment, assessment practices, and helps them make judgements about
introducing new approaches into the context of the school. Principals with
high emotional intelligence are adept at understanding and managing their
own emotions and those of others (Chen & Guo, 2020). Principals who dem-
onstrate empathy, self-awareness, social skills, and self-regulation are more
likely to lead in a manner that is sensitive both to policy imperatives and the
needs of the staff and students whose routines they seek to change (Singh &
Dali, 2013). Principals with strong communication skills can articulate the
need for implementation, illicit (and provide) feedback through formal and
informal means, and facilitate difficult dialogues that are sometimes neces-
sary when implementing new processes (Ärlestig, 2007). It is also important
to recognize that leading policy implementation can bring stress to the prin-
cipal that demands resilience and self-care. Principals encounter various
challenges and setbacks along the path of implementing policy, requiring
resilience, and adaptability to navigate complex situations (Ray et al., 2020).
Exploratory Conceptual Framework
The central purpose of the study was to explore how school leaders interpret
and implement education policy. Our review of the literature suggested four
sets of dynamics shaped this: policy dynamics, external dynamics, school
dynamics, and personal dynamics. Further, within each of these there are a
variety of factors that influence the ways that principals interpret and imple-
ment education policy. Figure 1 illustrates the initial conceptual framework
we developed to explore the relationship between the key concepts in the
study.
This framework reflects the assumptions that when policies are introduced
to a school, the interpretation of these policies are shaped by the ways that the
policy, personal, external, and school dynamics influence principal leader-
ship. Policy development and interpretation is an initial phase, which is then
influenced by principal leadership. This leadership, and the dynamics which

Brooks and Brooks 1617
influence it, leads to policy implementation and institutionalization. Our con-
tention is that these four interrelated sets of dynamics shape the duration of
the policy process from interpretation to implementation, and will ultimately
impact whether or not the policy was (a) implemented with fidelity and (b) a
success or failure, given its espoused aims.
Methodology
This project was conducted using a qualitative methodology consistent with
case study research (Merriam, 1998). The study took place in Cagayan de
Oro City in the Southern island of Mindanao in the Philippines. As such, the
case was bounded geographically, and participants shared a common educa-
tion policy context (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2014). Data were collected during an
initial six-month period and then follow up interviews and observations
helped clarify certain concepts; 93 of the 99 principals in Region X took part
in the study, an area that effectively included the geographically diverse met-
ropolitan region including and surrounding the City of Cagayan de Oro. The
majority of participants in the study identified as women (65), with the
remaining 28 identifying as men; 15 of the 28 men were principals at second-
ary schools, while only 6 women were secondary school principals. Aside
Figure 1. Exploratory conceptual framework for researching principal leadership
and policy implementation.

1618 Educational Policy 38(7)
from gender, there was also great diversity in terms of years of experience
(1–41) and school size (14–5,000). Approximately half of the schools in
Region X are considered urban, with the others being regional and remote
schools.
Data Collection
Data collection included 43 semi-structured interviews (Seidman, 2006) with
primary and secondary school principals, each of which lasted between
45 minutes and 2 hours. Additionally, we conducted 13 focus group inter-
views. The average length of each focus group interview was approximately
1 hour and 15 minutes. Interview prompts centered around leadership and
policy implementation in schools, but also included questions about each
interviewee’s values, experience, aspirations, and approach to leadership.
Focus group prompts were designed to illicit responses about similarities and
differences in leadership practice across schools. The lead author conducted
all interviews and focus groups, most of which were completed in English.
An interpreter accompanied the lead author and occasionally translated ques-
tions and answers into (or from) Tagalog, Cebuano, or English as required
(Temple & Young, 2004).
Data were also generated via 194 hours of observation, which included
school leadership meetings, Parent Teacher Association meetings, classroom
sessions, and Region X Management Communication (MANCOM) meet-
ings; 42 technical documents (Cardno, 2018) such as School Improvement
Plans, a regional accreditation report, discipline plans, meeting agendas, and
DepEd memos were also collected.
Data Analysis
Data were first coded into four a priori categories: Policy Dynamics, External
Dynamics, School Dynamics, and Personal Dynamics (Saldaña, 2015).
Within each of these we engaged in open coding and then axial coding
(Corbin & Strauss, 2014), which led to the emergence of certain facilitators
and inhibitors within each category. Upon identifying facilitators and inhibi-
tors within each category, we employed the constant comparative method
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1997) and then subsequently returning to the field to pose
targeted inquiries and gather supplementary data. This inductive and iterative
approach facilitated the progression of our analytical process toward theoreti-
cally saturated themes (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). These themes are presented
and explored in the Findings section below.

Brooks and Brooks 1619
Rigour
We employed participant member checks throughout the duration of the
study and triangulated data from all sources (Cresswell, 2013). Transcripts
from interviews and focus groups were shared with participants to verify
accuracy and to garner insights into both descriptive and interpretive aspects
of the research. The lead author also debriefed with participants about obser-
vation notes to ask clarifying and probing questions (Seidman, 2006).
Preliminary and in-depth analyses were shared with participants for their
feedback and comments. Respondents affirmed that the analytical categories,
and ultimately themes, aligned with their viewpoints, thereby enhancing the
study’s trustworthiness (Seale & Silverman, 1997).
Findings
Initial findings indicated that indeed, principal leadership of education policy
implementation was influenced by personal, school, policy, and external
dynamics. However, as we began axial coding to identify issues that were
common across participants, patters emerged that helped us understand spe-
cific issues which principals indicated compelled them to prioritize, lead and
champion certain policies while letting others fade into the background of the
school’s work. The subsequent findings are focused around issues that influ-
enced principals to practice hot leadership, an active and engaged leadership
and those that influenced them to practice cool leadership, a passive and even
intentionally neglectful approach.
Hot Leadership
Principals explained that a variety of factors motivated them to prioritize or
put high levels of leadership practice toward the implementation of certain
policies. Some of these “facilitators” were: Mandates and Sanctions;
Alignment of Policy with Practice: The Best Interests of the Students; Moral
Purpose and Religiosity; School-Community-System Micropolitics; and
Contextual and Professional Commitments.
Mandates and Sanctions. As one Secondary Principal explained,
There are certain things that you just have to do if you want to stay in the job.
If I am told that a new policy is now the top priority, then I have to take that
seriously. If I am honest, I hear that quite a lot—that this new thing is the most
important thing—so you wait and see how important it really is. If we are

1620 Educational Policy 38(7)
having many meetings, if we are constantly reporting, if I am told my annual
review depends on improvement then I know I must take it seriously and I put
in the effort.
Most mandates and sanctions were the result of strong power dynamics in the
flow of authority of the education system. That is, if a policy is important at
the top, it is then made a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to the leader at the
next level, which cascades down to each subsequent level of the system. As a
Primary Principal explained:
You hear a speech from a politician and it is about education, about what is
going to change in education. Sometimes they are just talking, but if something
is serious we will hear about it at the next MANCOM (monthly Management
Communications meetings) and they will tell us what we must change. It’s like
that—the policies are made very far from the school, they go through our
superiors and then we make it happen in the school.
Other principal responses further suggested that while every policy was pre-
sented as being important, certain policies were going to be closely moni-
tored. Further, some policies were accompanied by serious consequences for
the school and the principal. The following responses were typical illustra-
tions of this:
[The Division] introduced a new way to teach reading a few years ago. Some
of the principals were unsure, especially those who had high performance
already. We were all told that we would lose capital funding if we did not start
teaching reading in the new way. It was a real shock because no one expected
a funding connection. . .that meant everyone did what they were told, even if
they were not so sure.
At first I was reluctant to change our mathematics instruction to align with the
new policy. I am a former math teacher and thought we were doing well. I feel
like we taught it well. My supervisor told me I would lose my job if I did not
comply, so we started doing it the new way.
If your supervisor tells you to take a policy seriously, you have to. My friend
was principal and they fired her on the spot because she thought it might not be
good for her school. That morning she was a principal, by lunchtime she was
back in the classroom as a teacher and someone else was in charge.
Not all sanctions were so dramatic, but all came with implied or actual con-
sequences for non-implementation. This in turn meant that principals made

Brooks and Brooks 1621
implementation of certain policies seriously and made them a priority in their
leadership practice at the school level.
Alignment of Policy with Practice. Principals explained that they were much
more likely to lead implementation when a policy was aligned with the
school’s existing practices rather than one that demanded a radical shift. This
is not to say that they were reluctant to change, but that if the policy asked for
a change that was an adjustment, extension or refinement of current practice
it was easier to implement. As one Primary Principal explained,
. . .some of the policies we are asked to do came from other schools where
they have a good idea. It might just be a small change in process or a new way
to monitor or report on things we are already doing, or that we already wanted
to do.
Another Primary Principal suggested that when policies are about making
small changes such as shifting terminology, providing greater structure to
tasks or changing an approval system, it was important to adopt such
practices:
You have to shift with the times. A lot of what we principals do is about being
responsive to small changes. I always try and take up these policies as they
typically align with something that has changed at the Division level. Small
changes in the school can help us be in line with what is happening elsewhere
and mostly, the staff are fine with little changes.
Nearly all principals agreed that subtle policies which called for relatively
small changes were (as a Secondary Principal exclaimed in a Focus Group,
“part and parcel of working in Philippine schools. We like to tinker!”
“What is Best for the kids?”. A great many principals in the study explained
that they were more likely to be fully committed to a new policy if it was in
the best interests of the students, either academically or in terms of their well-
being. Though issues were somewhat different, Primary Principals and Sec-
ondary Principals explained the importance of implementing such initiatives
with high fidelity. The following exchange from a focus group illustrates this
facilitator:
Primary Principal 1 (PP1): “I always ask if a policy is good for students. And I
don’t mean just for their learning, but for their life. I want them to be happy,
safe and smart.”

1622 Educational Policy 38(7)
Secondary Principal 1 (SP1): “Completely agree. If I can see that something
will improve their conditions I am fully in support. For example, we had
students who could speak English and Tagalog but were weak and reading and
writing in both languages. When the DepEd started the dual language program
I was fully on board as I knew it was a problem. It meant a lot of work uplifting
teachers, and even parents, but I knew it would help them be successful. I saw
that it was very important.”
SP2: “I remember! I agree! That program was one of the best changes, and you
could see it making a difference almost immediately. Now the students are so
much stronger with their reading, and it has even now meant that parents can
get language instruction because it went so well.”
PP2: “It’s a great example. It is also why we support the feeding program in our
school. There are many poor students. We have to make sure their bellies are
full before we fill their heads—you have to know the students’ lives before you
know what policies are good for them. If you know their lives—in academics
and in the home—you know how to lead.”
Moral Purpose and Religiosity. Though working in public schools, a significant
number of principals explained that their work was guided by religious val-
ues and this in turn influenced the way they implemented policy. For a great
majority of principals, this meant Catholic or non-denominational Christian,
but there were also a small minority of Muslim school leaders. One second-
ary principal explained:
I want the children to learn, sigue, but it is more important that they know God.
They must have also their religion. The policies we support and what we do in
the building everyday must move the children closer to God, first and foremost.
I begin every address to the school with scripture, every day. When a policy
comes to the school or when I am doing my work, I ask if it helps the mind and
the soul. When [we] do something good [as principals], you should not say “I
have done my job well,” you should give all glory to God. We have to be strong
enough to do our duty as principals, for our children because it is our duty to
them to help them grow in their mind but also in their heart.
Several principals suggested that it was important for them to publicly prac-
tice their leadership in keeping with religious doctrine, as it was what the
community expected. One secondary principal said, “The people need to
know that I am a man of God. If I cannot show this they will not follow me
and I cannot lead any change.” This sentiment was strong among many prin-
cipals, who indicated that they needed to be seen as a religious person to give

Brooks and Brooks 1623
community, staff, and students reassurance that they had moral purpose and
would lead in a compassionate manner:
When I talk to students, I talk about God. When I talk to teachers and students
it is the same. This assures them that they can count on me. . .that I stand for
something and that I will do what is good, because they know that God is
watching me. In terms of policies, it is important that I can connect them to
scripture—so when I know a policy is important I make sure I can speak about
it being part of the calling. . .not just the curriculum.
Agency: Navigating School-Community Micropolitics and School Division Macropol-
itics. One dynamic that principals mentioned often was their agency to
ignore, support, or mandate changed practices in their school and their rela-
tive lack of agency to influence policies beyond the schoolhouse. This was
particularly pronounced among principals who led schools in remote or “far
flung” schools, but was represented in suburban and urban schools as well.
One principal explained:
In my school, I can make a policy happen or let it fail. I am principal in a
remote school. I have not seen a Division administrator in my school for
8 months. I try to implement changes as they ask, but I am only by myself—I
have to pick and choose what gets attention and what does not. . .In my school,
it is my decision. I am always interested in what is happening at central, but I
cannot change them and they let me decide what I can and cannot do.
In contrast, there was a common perception that politically-influential or con-
nected principals—mainly those from larger inner-city schools—had more
influence in shaping the ways that policies were conceptualized and imple-
mented in the Division. Quotes typical of this dynamic included:
Big [school] principals are near to the heart and others are far from the heart.
Policies seem to be mainly about what they need, while the rest of us are left to
cope with what something means in a smaller school.
The Division administrators do not know my name. When we go to MANCOM
meetings I can see they know the inner-city principals very well. One time, I
heard a famous principal and an administrator talking about the dinner they had
together that weekend. I think this is how some [education policies] come to pass.
Policies are written for the big schools. I don’t have any say in terms of policy,
but I’m sure that principals in the city do.

1624 Educational Policy 38(7)
Interestingly, not all principals who were “near to the heart” saw their prox-
imity as an advantage:
I am principal of one of the largest primary schools, and I do have a good
relationship with administrators in the Division. I can actually walk to the
headquarters from my school. It is good because if I have issues and concerns
I can raise them, but it is also a challenge because they are watching—when
policies are made, I have to implement them. I have to champion them, even if
I am not so sure. In any event, I work hard to make sure that every policy that
happens can be seen in the school.
Whether or not they felt they benefited or were disadvantaged by their rela-
tionships with central administration, principals agreed that being able to
navigate complicated politics, both at the school and system levels, was key
to success.
I have to know the Barangay captain, the PTA President, the local priests and
business owners so I have community buy-in. I have to know my students and
their families or they will complain and I may get in trouble. They may also just
not support initiatives. So, I need to not only know them, but know how to
work with them. I need to know what they want and how I can help them. I
need to understand little things that will make things run smoothly and potential
areas of concern. . .I am like a politician in the school, in the community and
in the Division.
Another principal summarized the need to navigate politics succinctly by
suggesting that “you need to know how to do business on top of the table and
underneath the table or you will not have the resources to put any policy into
practice. You need good relationships and connections with people you can
help, and who can help you.”
Cool Leadership
While the dynamics above facilitated, encouraged and guided action, other
dynamics compelled principals to be indifferent toward, neglect or ignore
certain policies. Among these were: non-supported and non-monitored poli-
cies; policies outside of personal subject area expertise; not wanting to suffer
professional embarrassment; and personal aspirations.
Non-Supported and Non-Monitored Policies. Principals explained that they
were unlikely to support policies that lacked resources or monitoring. They
reported that upon implementation, policies tended to be either well

Brooks and Brooks 1625
developed and comprehensive or quite vague, leaving high levels of interpre-
tation to school-based staff. As one secondary principal explained:
You can see if a policy is a “big” policy or a “little” policy from the way they
talk about it. Is there a report? Are they showing you data? Have they shown
the rewards for doing well? The big ones have a budget, at least a central
budget and some personnel administering and monitoring the policy. If it’s a
little policy, it is something they are asking you to do on top of the other things
you are doing. Normally, you must work hard [to implement] a big policy as
everyone is watching for outcomes. If it is a little policy, you have to see how
much the Region office is talking about it. If we just get a memo and there is no
follow up, we know we don’t have to put it in place.
Other principals supported this assertion:
If a policy has no funding, it will not have life in the school.
We get many memos calling for changes to policies. Most of them do not keep
related data and so there is no [accountability].
I cannot do everything that is asked of me, so when there is a new policy and it
is a minor change, I will sometimes not introduce it to my school. . .in a given
year there are two to four policies that need support and action, there are maybe
30 others, and we will do a few because there are some [good] ideas. . .but
most of those are not having much attention, funding or measuring.
In addition to resourcing, a majority of principals suggested that they often
found it a challenge to implement policies due to a lack of time and space. As
one primary principal explained, “I do not have the room to devote to the
reading centre I am supposed to offer. The building where I would do that has
had no roof for two years.” Another principal explained they were unable to
implement a policy in their school that put microscopes into science class-
rooms. “I have some microscopes but they are in boxes in the hallway next to
my office. I have no space for them that is secure.”
As for lacking time, one principal spoke for many when she said,
“there are many good policies, good ideas and things that will help our
children. But there are too many! I have to pick and choose what we do so
some [policies] never have their day.” According to principals at larger
schools, the structure of the school day made too many changes difficult:
“We run two shifts at the school. From 6:00 am to 11:00 am we have one
set of full classrooms. Then from 12:00 pm–5:00 pm a second set of stu-
dents arrives and we must teach them. The schedule makes changes

1626 Educational Policy 38(7)
difficult.” Moreover, as another principal suggested, “the days have not
much time. They are very fast. And then the Term is gone and we are onto
the next. I have little time so many [policies] get pushed back and pushed
back.”
Policies Outside of Personal Subject Area Expertise. Every principal has a unique
pathway to their role and particular areas or expertise and experience that
distinguish their leadership. Interestingly, secondary principals often asserted
that they felt most comfortable and most willing to support policies that
related to their area of expertise. That is, if a principal had been a science
teacher, they were often quite enthusiastic and knowledgeable about science-
related initiatives, but less comfortable supporting policies that related to lit-
eracy of physical education:
I am a [former] physical education teacher, so when the DEPED announced a
policy that related to feeding students, I was happy. I knew all about taking
biometric data from my teaching. . .but I am not so sure about the recent
mathematics changes—these relate to the way you calculate division and
multiplication. I know they are important, but I cannot lead on this topic.
Another secondary principal remarked, “I was an ICT teacher, what do I
know about reading? I do not feel comfortable or have much knowledge in
relation [to this] so I do not attend the training. I send others.”
We wondered whether this lack of knowledge meant lack of support when
implementing a policy—it seems reasonable that a principal might still
empower and encourage staff to implement a policy, even if they did not have
direct expertise. However, secondary principals suggested that it was more
the case that their individual expertise shaped the education delivered in the
school, and more specifically the adoption of new policies and practices.
Responses typical of this dynamic included:
I am an English teacher at heart. My school will always be first about good
reading and writing. I think this is really why they hired me!
Sadly, I am not mathematics. I [teach] Makabayan.1 I do not want to know
about mathematics education or policies. I let those teachers think about what
the DEPED says.
My school is not strong with mathematics. I am an old history teacher and do
not get involved with that one. I will report our outputs and let the teachers
teach, as I cannot give them guidance.

Brooks and Brooks 1627
Not Wanting to be Embarrassed. Closely related to the preceding theme was a
suggestion that principals did not actively support the implement of policies
that exposed them in area where their skills were weak. Most common among
these were principals who suggested that they lacked professional learning
necessary to properly analyze and interpret student achievement data.
Responses typical of this included:
I have not received training to know how to work with test scores. I can see if
a score is up or down from last year but [understanding] trends and figures at
classroom or school level is very tough. I wish I was better but I do not know. . .
this makes me quiet about our data.
. . .data analysis is lacking. I cannot do some of the [policies] that the DEPED
wants because my staff and myself do not know the statistics. I want to help the
teachers but do not understand myself. . .it is embarrassing, but if you do not
know, you do not know.
Year one I presented about student performance to the Parent Teacher
Association. They asked me questions I. could not answer because I did not
know. I wanted to crawl in a hole. I have not [done] this again.
In addition to data analysis, principals more broadly expressed that they did
not want to lose face in front of their students, staff, peers or the community.
Avoiding embarrassment or shame was important, and influenced their sup-
port for new initiatives. Data illustrative of this included:
I do not always attend professional learning or parent meetings. I have been
asked questions I cannot answer in the past and this was very hurtful. I felt
shame.
I do not want to be embarrassed in front of the other principals. Some of them
know a lot about [aspects of the job] where I am weak. I do not want to look
foolish so I pretend to know what they are talking about sometimes.
I have to be seen as knowledgeable to be the principal. If I do not know I will
look bad, and I do not want to look bad. . .we do not always put policy [sic] in
place if I do not know much about it.
Personal Aspirations
Another dynamic that impeded policy implementation had to do with the
personal aspirations of the principal. If they aspired to ascend through the

1628 Educational Policy 38(7)
hierarchy of Region X, they would focus their efforts on implementing poli-
cies that were a priority for their immediate supervisor and/or fit in with the
local political agenda. As one primary principal explained, “when I receive a
new policy I must discuss [it] with both my supervisor and the Barangay
Captain to make sure it pleases my superiors and the LGU [local government
unit]. If they support, I can move ahead.” Several principals also explained
that the Parent Teacher Association President was often quite influential. One
principal explained “I must run things past the PTA and I work closely with
the President. If she disapproves it is very difficult to get the parents on board
with any change.”
Principals also explained that it was important that they understood the
priorities of their immediate supervisor. Responses typical of this dynamic
included:
We go to the MANCOM and hear about new policies. Then I have a second
meeting where my supervisor tells me which ones are important. I want to
follow her for the good of my career.
You must [check with] supervisor before you start any policy change in school.
They may support something else. . .I want to keep my job and move ahead
one day!
I work closely with my supervisor. I follow her lead. I want a good review and
one day I want to move closer [to the city.]
Discussion
As in most contexts, policy implementation in the Philippines is impacted by
a variety of formal and informal factors (Brooks & Normore, 2017) at all
levels of the education system (Honig, 2006). Formal factors include hierar-
chical flows of authority, mandates, sanctions, laws, organizational struc-
tures, accountability regimes, etc. (Young & Lewis, 2015). Informal factors
have to do with interpersonal relationships, micropolitics, local cultural
expectations and norms, and individual capability and motivation (Saltman,
2018). These formal and informal factors interact with the various dynamics
we explained in our review of literature: policy dynamics, external dynamics,
school dynamics, and personal dynamics. Research suggests that at the school
level, the principal’s influence shapes the interpretation and implementation
of policies (Shaked & Schechter, 2017), and so it was for the participants of
this study.

Brooks and Brooks 1629
Hot Leadership, Cool Leadership, and Policy Implementation
One of the contributions of this study is identification and exploration of two
overarching constructs, Hot Leadership and Cool Leadership, and a consider-
ation of how they influence policy implementation at the school level. Hot
Leadership is a highly engaged and active leadership whereby policies are
implemented with support, guidance and resources. Our analysis identified a
number of facilitators that encouraged Hot Leadership: Mandates and Sanctions;
Alignment of Policy with Practice: The Best Interests of the Students; Moral
Purpose and Religiosity; School-Community-System Micropolitics; and
Contextual and Professional Commitments. Principals explained that these
facilitators compelled them to commit energy, attention and resources to policy
implementation. Many of these facilitators are related to leadership identity
(Cruz-Gonzalez, Domingo Segovia & Lucena Rodriguez, 2019), values (Brooks
& Mutohar, 2018), and personal beliefs (Allen et al., 2017). This suggests that
principals’ leadership in relation to policy implementation is neither linear nor a
purely technical exercise, but is instead a complicated set of fluid dynamics that
are influenced locally by facilitators such as those listed above and also co-
constructed by individual principals’ affective proclivities, professional capa-
bilities, and cognitive profile (Honig, 2006).
Cool Leadership on the other hand, is characterized by a passive or even
willfully neglectful approach to policy implementation. Inhibitors that com-
pelled principals to practice cool leadership in relation to policy implementa-
tion included: non-supported and non-monitored policies; policies outside of
personal subject area expertise; not wanting to suffer professional embarrass-
ment, and personal aspirations. These inhibitors often meant that policies
approved above the school level were not implemented with fidelity or sup-
port, due to a variety of personal, interpersonal, logistic, and resource issues
(Desimone, 2002).
The concepts of hot leadership and cool leadership and their attendant
facilitators and inhibitors offer insight into why reforms fail and succeed on
implementation. Further, as these vary from school to school, the concepts
and dynamics also offer insight into why the same policy might successfully
take hold and improve practice in one school but fail in another.
An Emergent Framework for Conceptualizing Leadership and Policy Implementa-
tion. Our analysis led us to develop an emergent model for conceptualizing
the relationship between principal leadership and policy implementation.
At the center of Figure 2 are two continua, one from Hot Leadership to
Cold Leadership, and another intersecting that with Low Priority
Implementation and High Priority Implementation. We use the term priority

1630 Educational Policy 38(7)
as a broad way of suggesting the relative importance a policy has in a school,
which we recognize as a co-constructed phenomena that is shaped by, but not
exclusively influenced by the principal. The framework suggests leadership
and policy implementation generally fall into one of four indicative quad-
rants: Creative Implementation, Transformational Implementation, Neglected
Implementation, and Compliance Implementation.
Creative Implementation. When Hot Leadership is practiced in relation to
an education policy but it is implemented with a Low Priority Implementa-
tion, we suggest that this is creative implementation. Leadership in this case
is strong, engaged and enthusiastic, but the fidelity of implementation is low,
meaning that the processes and outcomes the policy meant to address have
not been followed or attained. Note that we do not use the term “creative” in
a wholly positive sense—what we suggest is that policies that fall into this
quadrant were engaged with in an idiosyncratic manner that may or may
not have achieved intended goals, but that were shaped by local context in a
manner that was highly engaged, thereby shaping practice in the school. This
could mean that the policy was not well understood, but it could also mean
Hot Leadership
Cool Leadership
Creative
Implementation
Transformational
Implementation
Neglected
Implementation
Compliance
Implementation
Low Priority
Implementation
High Priority
Implementation
Figure 2. An emergent framework for conceptualizing leadership and policy
implementation.

Brooks and Brooks 1631
that the policy upon implementation was shaped by local context and leader-
ship to the degree that it was more relevant to the school (Brooks et al., 2004).
Thus, the leadership enabled a kind of co-construction and contextually rel-
evant change in processes (and perhaps outcomes) while deviating from the
original intent of the policy. Again, it is possible that this intersection of pri-
ority and leadership led to improved, neutral or negative changes in processes
and/or outcomes rather than assigning a necessary value judgement.
Transformational Implementation. Transformational implementation occurs
when Hot Leadership intersects with High Priorities. In certain traditions of
education policy analysis, this is the only acceptable way for a policy to be
seen as successful (Tyack, 1974). Indeed, we use the word transformation
here not as something wholly negative or positive, but rather as an indica-
tion that a change has occurred that is in line with the original policy design
(Spillane, 2009). This may (or may not) have produced positive outcomes,
but the policy was implemented as intended and with strong support from
school leadership. Our research suggests that this means that leadership facil-
itators were relatively stronger than inhibitors, and that the priorities of the
principal and the imitative aligned to a certain degree.
Neglected Implementation. Neglected implementation is when Cool Lead-
ership intersects with Low Priority Implementation. Basically, this is when
a policy has little to no impact in a school. The principal has not engaged
with or led implementation, and the policy is not engaged by the school in a
manner that makes a meaningful change in day-to-day practice. Our research
suggests that this occurs when inhibitors are relatively stronger than facilita-
tors in the school context.
Compliance Implementation. Compliance implementation is when Cool
Leadership and Low Priority Implementation occur. Principals do not
actively work toward leading implementation, but nonetheless the policy is
implemented with fidelity. This might be a quite important policy, such as
one to do with security or student data, but that does not require or attract
strong leadership or engagement by the principal. In these cases, the inhibi-
tors outweigh facilitators, but the accountability or support overall for the
policy may be high.
Implications and Conclusion
Further studies are required to investigate and refine the related concepts of hot
leadership and cool leadership, and to identify and explore facilitators

1632 Educational Policy 38(7)
and inhibitors in more depth and in multiple contexts. We suggest that there is
potential for such concepts to eventually develop into a useful heuristic for prin-
cipals and policy makers, and that by exploring various facilitators and inhibi-
tors we may move closer to understanding policy implementation and principal
leadership in a more nuanced manner. In any case, this research suggests that
leadership and policy implementation have reciprocal influence toward one
another and may be highly contextualized, perhaps helping explain why certain
education policies transform certain schools and have almost no impact in oth-
ers. It is our hope that subsequent research will help us develop a systematic way
of thinking about leadership and policy implementation in a way that helps prac-
titioners and scholars deepen their understanding of the relationship between
these two influential and interrelated aspects of education.
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 publication of this article: This research was funded by a J. William
Fulbright Senior Scholar Research/Lecture Grant, awarded by the J. William Fulbright
Foundation, Council for International Exchange of Scholars & United States
Department of State. Philippines: Education (Award #7162).
ORCID iD
Jeffrey S. Brooks https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-3958
Note
1. Makabayan is a Filipino language and culture subject area. It is taught as part of
the national curriculum.
References
Allen, J. G., Harper, R. E., & Koschoreck, J. W. (2017). Social justice and school lead-
ership preparation: Can we shift beliefs, values, and commitments? International
Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 12(1), n1.
Ärlestig, H. (2007, September). Principals’ communication inside schools: A contri-
bution to school improvement? Educational Forum 71(3), 262–273. Taylor &
Francis Group.
Atasoy, R. (2020). The relationship between school principals’ leadership styles,
school culture and organizational change. International Journal of Progressive
Education, 16(5), 256–274.

Brooks and Brooks 1633
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2014). Transversing the vertical case study: A method-
ological approach to studies of educational policy as practice. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 45(2), 131–147.
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact.
Routledge.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1996). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the
attack on America’s public schools. NASSP Bulletin, 80(576), 119–121.
Binkley, N. (1997). Principals’ role in policy change: Mediating language through
professional beliefs. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(1), 56–73.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn &
Bacon.
Brooks, J. S. (2006a). The dark side of school reform: Teaching in the space between
reality and utopia. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Brooks, J. S. (2006b). Tinkering toward utopia or stuck in a rut? School reform imple-
mentation at Wintervalley High. Journal of School Leadership, 16(3), 240–265.
Brooks, J. S., Hughes, R., & Brooks, M. C. (2008). Fear and trembling in the
American high school: Educational reform and teacher alienation. Educational
Policy, 22(1), 45–62.
Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. T. (2006). From scientific management to social justice. . .
and back again? Pedagogical shifts in educational leadership. International
Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 4(1), 2–15.
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2017). Foundations of educational leadership:
Developing excellent and equitable schools. Routledge.
Brooks, J. S., Normore, A. H., Jean-Marie, G., & Hodgins, D. (2007). Distributed
leadership for social justice: Influence and equity in an urban high school.
Journal of School Leadership 17(4), 378–408.
Brooks, J. S., Scribner, J. P., & Eferakorho, J. (2004). Teacher leadership in the con-
text of whole school reform. Journal of School Leadership, 14(3), 242–265.
Brooks, M. C., & Mutohar, A. (2018). Islamic school leadership: A conceptual frame-
work. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 50(2), 54–68.
Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership
tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and
Practice, 24(4), 623–640.
Chen, J., & Guo, W. (2020). Emotional intelligence can make a difference: The
impact of principals’ emotional intelligence on teaching strategy mediated by
instructional leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
48(1), 82–105.
Cohen, J., Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. H. (2020). Policy implementation,
principal agency, and strategic action: Improving teaching effectiveness in New
York City Middle Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(1),
134–160.
Cohen-Vogel, L. (2005). Federal role in teacher quality: “Redefinition” or policy
alignment? Educational Policy, 19(1), 18–43.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.

1634 Educational Policy 38(7)
Cox, D., & McLeod, S. (2014). Social media marketing and communications strate-
gies for school superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6),
850–868.
Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Cruz-Gonzalez, C., Domingo Segovia, J., & Lucena Rodriguez, C. (2019). School
principals and leadership identity: A thematic exploration of the literature.
Educational Research, 61(3), 319–336.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers
College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.
Datnow, A. (2020). The role of teachers in educational reform: 20-year perspective.
Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 431–441.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented?. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.
Dimmock, C. (2018). Building democracy in the school setting: The principal’s
role. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), Creating and managing the democratic school (pp.
157–175). Routledge.
Dumas, M. J., & Anyon, J. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy
implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy imple-
mentation: Confronting complexity (pp. 149–186). State University of New York
Press.
Friedman, A. A. (2004). Beyond mediocrity: Transformational leadership within a
transactional framework. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(3),
203–224.
Fullan, M. (2023). The principal 2.0: Three keys to maximizing impact. John Wiley
& Sons.
Ganon-Shilon, S., & Schechter, C. (2019). School principals’ sense-making of
their leadership role during reform implementation. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 22(3), 279–300.
Gauld, J. W. (1996). Meeting each student’s unique potential: One approach to educa-
tion. NASSP Bulletin, 80(583), 43–54.
Green, T. L. (2018). School as community, community as school: Examining princi-
pal leadership for urban school reform and community development. Education
and Urban Society, 50(2), 111–135.
Gu, Q., Sammons, P., & Chen, J. (2018). How principals of successful schools enact
education policy: Perceptions and accounts from senior and middle leaders.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(3), 373–390.
Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of
school reform programs. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 337–363.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role
of vision, mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. A.
Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 9–40). Springer Netherlands.

Brooks and Brooks 1635
Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.),
New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity
(Vol. 63, pp. 1–25).
Horsford, S. D., Grosland, T., & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and
professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of
School Leadership, 21(4), 582–606.
Ingle, K., Rutledge, S., & Bishop, J. (2011). Context matters: Principals’ sense-
making of teacher hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 49(5), 579–610.
Irby, D. (2022). Stuck improving: Racial equity and school leadership. Harvard
Education Press.
Kalkan, Ü., Altınay Aksal, F., Altınay Gazi, Z., Atasoy, R., & Dağlı, G. (2020). The
relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles, school culture, and
organizational image. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244020902081.
Kensler, L. A. W., & Brooks, J. S. (2012). Democratic administration. In B. Irby &
G. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of educational theories (pp. 919–927). Information
Age Publishing.
Khalifa, M. (2020). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education
Press.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school
leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4),
1272–1311.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership. The Essentials of
School Leadership, 31, 43.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.
Ontario.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Moolenaar, N. M., & Sleegers, P. J. (2015). The networked principal: Examining
principals’ social relationships and transformational leadership in school and dis-
trict networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 8–39.
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Odden, A. (1991). The evolution of education policy implementation. In A. Odden
(Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1–12). State University of New York
Press.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A
practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Printy, S. M., & Williams, S. M. (2015). Principals’ decisions: Implementing response
to intervention. Educational Policy, 29(1), 179–205.
Ray, J., Pijanowski, J., & Lasater, K. (2020). The self-care practices of school princi-
pals. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(4), 435–451.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
Rosenthal, R. (Ed.) (1967). McLuhan: Pro & con. Penguin Books.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

1636 Educational Policy 38(7)
Saltman, K. J. (2018). The politics of education: A critical introduction. Routledge.
Savage, G. C., & O’Connor, K. (2014). National agendas in global times: curriculum
reforms 0in Australia and the USA since the 1980s. Journal of Education Policy,
30(5), 609–630.
Seale, C., & Silverman, D. (1997). Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. The
European Journal of Public Health, 7(4), 379–384.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). School principals as mediating agents in educa-
tion reforms. School Leadership & Management, 37(1–2), 19–37.
Sinclair, M., & Brooks, J. S. (2020). What school leaders need to know about educa-
tion policy: A critical perspective and toolkit for enactment. In J. S. Brooks & A.
Heffernan (Eds.), The school leadership survival guide: What to do when things
go wrong, how to learn from mistakes, and why you should prepare for the worst
(pp. 441–456). Information Age Publishing.
Sinclair, M. P., & Brooks, J. S. (2022). School funding in Australia: A critical pol-
icy analysis of school sector influence in the processes of policy production.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(16).
Singh, P., & Dali, C. M. (2013). The value of empathy as an instructional leadership
competency for school principals. Education as Change, 17(sup1), S65–S78.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–
150.
Spillane, J. P. (2009). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education
policy. Harvard University Press.
Stearn, G. E. (Ed.) (1967). McLuhan: Hot & cool. Signet Books.
Stefanski, A., Valli, L., & Jacobson, R. (2016). Beyond involvement and engagement:
The role of the family in school-community partnerships. School Community
Journal, 26(2), 135–160.
Stosich, E. L. (2018). Principals and teachers “craft coherence” among accountability
policies. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 203–219.
Stovall, D. (2020). Against the politics of desperation: Educational justice, criti-
cal race theory, and Chicago school reform. In L. Parker & D. Gillborn (Eds.),
Critical race theory in education (pp. 161–171). Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Stronge, J. H., & Xu, X. (2021). Qualities of effective principals. ASCD.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas.
Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161–178.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a
theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2),
221–258.
Theoharis, G. (2024). The school leaders our children deserve: Seven keys to equity,
social justice, and school reform. Teachers College Press.

Brooks and Brooks 1637
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education
(Vol. 95). Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1980). From social movement to professional manage-
ment: An inquiry into the changing character of leadership in public education.
American Journal of Education, 88(3), 291–319.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1997). The political dynamics of American education.
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Yanow, D. (1995). Practices of policy interpretation. Policy Sciences, 28(2), 111–126.
Yap, S. N., & Brooks, J. S. (2022). School leadership and technology integration in
Malaysian education. In J. S. Brooks, A. H. Normore, M. C. Brooks & N. Sum
(Eds.), Teaching, learning and leading in the world schoolhouse: Globalization,
neoliberalism and education. Information Age Publishing.
Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2017). Introduction: Critical approaches to education
policy analysis. In M. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education
policy analysis (pp. 1–13). Springer.
Young, T., & Lewis, W. D. (2015). Educational policy implementation revisited.
Educational Policy, 29(1), 3–17.
Author Biographies
Jeffrey S. Brooks is Head of School and Professor of Educational Leadership in the
Curtin University School of Education. He is a J. William Fulbright Senior Scholar
alumnus who has conducted studies in the United States and the Philippines. His
research focuses broadly on educational leadership, and he examines the way leaders
influence (and are influenced by) dynamics such as racism, globalization, distributed
leadership, social justice and school reform.
Melanie C. Brooks is Associate Dean (Research) and Associate Professor of
Educational Leadership in the Edith Cowan University School of Education. Her
research investigates how school leaders influence schooling structures, policies, and
practices based on their faith and/or faith identity, with a specific focus on Islam and
Islamic school leadership. She has a particular interest in leadership in complex
school settings, including those impacted by ideological, geopolitical, and/or sociore-
ligious tensions.