International experience shows that high-quality education is the result of good instructional leadership as well as a system-wide focus on identifying, preparing and supporting school leaders. I would also add the need for developing the educational leaders at directorate level because these play a central part in supporting and monitoring what schools do to reach their objectives.

So, while we, in Malta, acknowledge that education is a cornerstone of our democracy, a prerequisite for economic development and a key lever in achieving our national commitment to ensure that all our children succeed, we have not been strategic enough in the way we view leadership in general as a discipline and the way leaders function. The lessons that we can garner from both local and international experience can help us address this challenge.

While we can boast of having postgraduate programmes that attract more students than we can actually take, and others pursue studies with foreign institutions, I do believe that we can be more strategic in our approach to prepare the leaders that can take our schools forward, that will help us address the issues that are still affecting us, such as high levels of illiteracy, and low retention rates, among others. Piecemeal attempts have, time and again, failed and that is why I propose the need to give leaders and leadership its due.

We need to move away from mere rhetoric to a concerted effort by all to make a difference.

The argument that I would like to make here is that it is no use having great programmes unless: a) they are directly linked to the realities of schools/institutions etc. (hence, the issue of relevance); and b) that legislation supports a commitment to develop leadership strategies across levels that change the roles of our heads of schools and SMTs in general, from administrators to instructional leaders.

Let us acknowledge that weak school leadership leads to poor school performance and that strong school leadership can lead to significant school improvement.

Research consistently shows that school leadership is second only to teaching in its effects on school learning. The research shows that leaders that make a difference define the vision, values and direction, distribute leadership, focus on dialogue, focus on instructional matters, enhance teaching and learning, redesign and enrich the curriculum and build relationships inside and outside the school community.

We can be more strategic in our approach to prepare the leaders that can take our schools forward.

The Maltese administrators that are moving away from the superhero stance or the prima donna approach and moving towards the orchestra conductor model or the jazz player are those who share leadership and distribute it across levels and even extending it to the network and other schools. These are our true leaders because being a leader is a title that can only be earned and bestowed to you by others.

Changing the roles of our SMTs is desperately needed. This will undoubtedly raise new and challenging questions about their effectiveness.

If we look at various local policy documents spanning over 15 years we would realise that heads of school have been expected to make massive changes in the way they manage and lead. Yet, our research shows the inconsistency between policy and reality, between theory and practice.

So far, little to no change has taken place in the way our heads can lead our schools. How much research evidence do we have to show the amount of time SMTs spend with teachers to discuss curriculum issues, teaching and learning issues? Not to speak of the impact factor on teacher performance and student achievement.

While legislators speak of the responsibilities and accountability of colleges/schools and their personnel they have limited authority over what matters. Governance and governing issues have still not filtered down to where it matters. This is the paradox we are living in. This is a leadership issue that remains unresolved.

These are some of the issues that we need to focus on. There are various countries that have made serious attempts to place leadership at the centre of the reform process. While some similar approaches are being adopted, not all routes being taken are identical. While not all initiatives succeed, there are certain beliefs and values that spearhead their development.

There is an overriding belief in education. There exists a strong commitment to redesign leadership, to place leadership at the centre of the reform process, to cultivate passion and mutual responsibility through a systems approach to change.

We desperately need a system-wide development of effective leaders (at all levels) through policy frameworks and through funding to support a modern approach to leadership that focuses on the recruitment, training and the ongoing development of educational leaders.

The setting up of an institution that addresses these lacunae is imperative and can serve to link current practices and develop a more systemic approach to ensure that all schools have effective leaders in particular and educational leaders in general.

Christopher Bezzina is associate professor of educational leadership at the Faculty of Education, University of Malta.