This is an empirical study of everyday leadership practices in action in a post-compulsory education context. The issue of 'leadership'; the need for good, insightful and decisive leaders is a prominent theme in Education. Yet few can define exactly what leadership is. This book examines the phenomenon of leadership in post-compulsory education through the careful description and analysis of a long-term observational study of college Principals at work. In contrast to other, more theoretical, attempts to understand leadership, this book develops an understanding of leadership by pointing to specific examples of what leaders actually do as they go about their everyday work of resolving organisational issues. Instead of presenting leaders as charismatic heroes this book investigates a number of familiar, routine, aspects of everyday leadership work: how leadership is 'performed'; the various technologies - email, documents, slide presentations - involved in leadership work; the everyday management of organisational personnel and meetings; and, how success and failure is defined and understood by the leaders themselves. It concludes with some suggestions of what is learned from understanding leadership as everyday work and some 'cautionary tales' for those who would become educational leaders themselves.

This book is a comparative study of the endeavors to create a socialist system of higher education in the Soviet Union under Stalin and in China under Mao. It is organized around three themes: the convergence of Maoism with Stalinism in the early 1950s, which induced the transnational transplantation of the Soviet model of higher education to China; historical convergence between Stalinism of the First Five-Year Plan period (1928-1932) and Maoism of the Great Leap period (1958-1960), which was prominently manifested in Soviet and Chinese higher education policies in these respective periods; the eventual divergence of Maoism from Stalinism on the definition of socialist society, which was evinced in the different final outcomes of the Maoist and Stalinist endeavors to create a socialist system of higher learning.

For America's children, for students, growing up urban has become a tainted label. By acquiring one simple label, the urban student has become the other, illegitimate, different from the norm. The urban student has indeed been bastardized in America. The constructs of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and social capital combine to oppress the urban student. This text takes the suggestion that urban has become inextricably linked to race one step further and proposes that it has become a socially constructed category in its own right that serves to disempower all those who self-identify or are labeled as such. The structure of this book seeks to give the reader a series of rich contexts in which to understand how the American urban student and urban school came to fruition. Through the use of historical and quantitative data, interviews and observations, Fisher provides a comprehensive view of the many factors at play that merge to create the urban high school.

This book offers new understanding of the implications of pluralism and of transnational movements to higher education and the construct of a "native speaker" within contemporary globalization processes. Theoretically, it calls for a revisioned English as an International Language (EIL) pedagogy and a wider acceptance of EIL and of World Englishes. It challenges the postsecondary education sector to change the discourse around language proficiency to one that engages the "pluralism of English." As for the applied significance, the book contributes to the work on neo-racism which means racism goes beyond color to stereotypic foreign cultures, nationalities, and exotic accents based on cultural distinctions instead of merely skin differences. The book contributes to higher education policy and practice, pushing a revisioning of ESL in conceptual and pedagogical ways, such as designing more culturally oriented curriculum, implementing culturally responsive pedagogy, and valuing the teaching proficiency more than the language proficiency.