Author: ADEA Secretariat

Across Africa, school leadership is often framed as “instructional leadership”. But what if the more important question is how leadership enables teaching?

During the recent validation convening of the African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL) hosted in Nairobi, Kenya, in Feb 2026, this question quietly took shape and ultimately inspired this reflection. The workshop was more than a technical review meeting. It became a moment to rethink how Africa understands school leadership. 

ACSL is implemented through a partnership between Education Sub Saharan Africa (ESSA), VVOB – education for development, Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), and Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE). The initiative aims to strengthen school leadership systems across the continent through research, policy engagement, and professional development.

Through its role in the ACSL partnership, ESSA participated in these discussions, contributing perspectives on the emerging research agenda for school leadership in Africa.

The convening brought together researchers, regulators, policymakers, and practitioners from across Africa to examine emerging findings and refine the next phase of continental action.

Across plenaries, breakout sessions, and informal exchanges, one issue emerged with unusual clarity:

Africa must rethink its understanding of school leadership.

The Limits of the Traditional Model

For many years, instructional leadership has dominated global conversations about school improvement. Much of this thinking comes from the Global North, with model’s emphasising the principal’s role in:

• Supervising teaching
• Monitoring lesson delivery
• Tracking performance data
• Enforcing curriculum compliance

These responsibilities matter. However, the framework often assumes a hierarchical, top-down structure where leadership flows in one direction; from principal to teacher.

• It is supervisory.
• It is evaluative.
• It is managerial.

During the ACSL workshop discussions, participants reflected on how this framing often does not fully capture the realities of African schools.

Across many African systems:

• Principals are simultaneously administrators and classroom teachers.
• Data systems are uneven, fragmented, or still developing.
• Professional learning is often informal, peer-driven, and practice-based.
• Authority is shaped by cultural norms and community relationships.
• Leadership is deeply relational, not merely procedural.

These realities demand a more context-responsive lens.

When applied without adaptation, instructional leadership can easily become compliance-oriented rather than transformative, risking a reduction in leadership to monitoring and reporting.

It becomes a checklist, rather than a culture of teaching and learning.

A Shift in Perspective: Leadership in Teaching

A powerful reframing emerged from the workshop discussions:

What if we move from “instructional leadership” to “leadership in teaching”?

This is not just a change in wording, but a shift in perspective. 

Leadership in teaching  recognises that:

• Leadership is not confined to a position.
• Improving teaching is a shared responsibility
• Professional growth is co-created
• Authority can be shared, negotiated, and culturally embedded

Rather than focusing on the supervision of instruction, it focuses on creating conditions that enable teaching to improve.

In many African schools, distributed leadership is already happening. Senior teachers mentor their peers. Communities shape school priorities. 

The challenge, therefore, is not inventing new leadership but rather recognising, studying, and strengthening the leadership practices that already exist within African systems.

For policymakers and education systems, this shift means investing not only in principal supervision skills, but also in collaborative professional learning, distributed leadership practices, and school cultures that support continuous improvement in teaching.

What the Workshop Revealed

The ACSL validation convening revealed several critical tensions:

1. Conceptual Ambiguity

Terms such as instructional leadership, distributed leadership, transformational leadership, and system leadership are often used interchangeably without clarity.

2. Imported Terminology

Leadership frameworks embedded in policy documents often originate from outside Africa and have limited validation in local contexts.

3. Classroom Disconnect

Many leadership research measures administrative behaviour rather than the real impact on teaching and learning.

4. Limited Afrocentric Perspectives

African studies on culturally grounded leadership exists but are scattered and insufficiently documented.

Throughout the discussions, there was broad agreement on one issue:

Africa requires clearer leadership definitions.

A Practical Step Forward

One key recommendation from the convening is the development of a continental standard document on school leadership terminology with relevant context.

Such a document would:

• Provide clear definitions of core leadership concepts
• Clarify how each concept translates into African school contexts
• Distinguish supervisory, relational, system, and pedagogical leadership functions
• Align leadership language with classroom impact
• Serve as a shared reference for policymakers, researchers, and professional development providers

Without definitional clarity:

• Research fragments
• Policy language drifts
• Leadership training loses focus

A continental reference framework would not impose uniformity; it would create coherence while allowing contextual adaptation across diverse education systems.

Rethinking Instructional Leadership as a Research Priority

The discussions also suggested that revisiting the concept of instructional leadership itself should become a priority area for future research. While instructional leadership has long shaped global education debates, there is still limited evidence on how the concept operates within African school systems and whether it adequately reflects the relational, collaborative, and context-driven nature of leadership observed across many schools. Examining how instructional leadership is interpreted, adapted, or redefined in African contexts can help move the conversation toward leadership in teaching, grounding leadership frameworks in the realities of classroom practice and school environments across the continent.

From Validation to Vision

As the ACSL validation convening ended, one message was clear:

Africa does not lack leadership practice.
What it lacks is a strong, evidence-based understanding of that practice.

The next phase of work must therefore focus on:

• strengthening conceptual clarity
• documenting Afrocentric leadership models
• aligning research, policy, and professional development
• investing in sustainable leadership research pipelines

School leadership is widely recognised as a powerful lever for improving education systems.

But unless it is anchored in teaching and grounded in African realities, its transformative potential will remain limited.

Reframing the conversation toward leadership in teaching may offer the pathway needed to better connect research, policy, and classroom practice across the continent.

Acknowledgement

This blog draws on insights from the African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL) validation convening held in Nairobi in February 2026. ACSL is a partnership coordinated by the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) and implemented with Education Sub-Saharan Africa (ESSA), the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE), and VVOB – education for development. We acknowledge the contributions of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from across Africa who participated in the consultations.

Across Africa, improving the quality of education increasingly depends on a single critical factor: effective school leadership. School leaders, particularly headteachers, are not just administrators, they shape how teaching happens, support teachers, manage resources, and influence student success.

To support this, the African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL) was established as a Pan-African initiative to strengthen school leadership systems through research, training and policy engagement across the continent.ACSL works in partnership with regional and international organisations, including Education SubSaharan Africa (ESSA), VVOB – education for development, Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), and Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE),to build a stronger evidence base on school leadership in Africa and support countries to develop stronger and more connected leadership systems.

As part of this broader continental effort, ACSL led a school leadership mapping exercise in Uganda to understand how leadership works across policy, training, research   and coordination.  

ESSA played a key role in coordinating and supporting the process. It helped design the research, review and combine findings, engage stakeholders, and validate the results. A Strong Policy Foundation

Uganda has an operational policy for education leadership. The system is decentralised, with   the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) guiding the implementation at the district and school levels. 

Several national frameworks reinforce the importance of leadership in education. These include the Education Act (2008), the National Teacher Policy, and the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) Framework, which clearly defines the role of headteachers. They emphasise skills such as strategic planning, team leadership, change management, and effective resource utilisation.

These frameworks also align with Uganda Vision 2040, which positions education as a key driver of national development (National Planning Authority, 2013). However, despite strong policies, implementation across the system is not always consistent.

Fragmented Leadership Systems

One major challenge is fragmentation.  Uganda does not have a dedicated policy focused on school leadership. Instead, leadership is spread across multiple policies (ACSL, 2026). 

Many organisations, including government agencies, universities, NGOs, teacher unions, and development partners, are involved in leadership development. a While this is positive, coordination is often insufficient. As a result, initiatives happen in isolation rather than as part of a unified system.

To address this, stakeholders have proposed creating a School Leadership Taskforce under the Leaders in Teaching (LiT) programme to improve coordination and allignment efforts (VVOB, PEAS & ACSL, 2025). 

Professional Development: Available but Uneven

Leadership development opportunities for school leaders exist across Uganda but remain unevenly accessible.

Most headteachers gain leadership skills after years of teaching and further studies at institutions, including Makerere University, Kyambogo University, and the Uganda Management Institute. 

In-service training is common, with support from government and development partners.  However, access varies by region, and many initiatives rely on external funding (ACSL, 2026). 

Moreover, there is limited structured support for new headteachers. This means many school leaders assume their roles without proper mentoring.

A Growing but Limited Research Landscape

The mapping exercise identified 53 research publications on school leadership in Uganda between 2010 and 2025, reflecting a modest but gradually expanding body of knowledge.

Most research concentrates on leadership styles, particularly transformational and instructional leadership, and show that strong leadership improves teaching and student outcomes.

However, there are still major gaps. Very little research looks at:

• Gender and inclusive leadership
• Leadership in rural or low-resource schools
• Digital leadership and education technology
• Crisis leadership and system resilience
• Leadership development pathways

Equity issues are particularly underexplored.  Of the 53 studies identified in the mapping exercise, only about sixstudies explicitly address gender and none on disability or inclusive education in relation to school leadership.

Bridging the Gap Between Evidence and Practice

Another challenge is that research is not widely used or easily accessible.

Many studies remain inaccessible, stored in university libraries instead of being shared openly. Policymakers and practitioners rarely engage deeply with research findings, and dissemination is limited to one-off workshops with little follow-up (ACSL, 2026).

At the school level, data collection is often motivated by reporting requirements rather than school improvement. Improving data literacy and use among school leaders and district education officials could greatly enhance the use of evidence in decision-making.

A Way Forward: Building a Coherent Leadership Ecosystem

To strengthen school leadership in Uganda, the following priorities were highlighted during the validation workshop:

1. Develop a coherent national policy framework dedicated to school leadership.
2. Introduce structured induction and mentoring for new headteachers.
3. Improve coordination across leadership development providers through platforms such as a national school leadership task force.
4. Expand research on school leadership, particularly in areas such as gender equity, inclusive education, digital leadership, and leadership development pathways.
5. Make research more accessible through open platforms and continuous engagement between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners.

Leadership as the Engine of Education Reform

There is a common saying in Uganda: “Show me a good school, and I will show you a good headteacher.”

This reflects a core truth. Effective school leadership is not just about management; it is about creating conditions for teachers to perform well, learners to succeed, and communities to engage meaningfully in education.

Uganda has already laid a strong foundation. The next step is to connect policy, practice, research, and professional learning into a coherent system.

If this happens, Uganda’s school leaders will be better placed to spearhead the real and lasting improvements in Uganda’s education.

Acknowledgement

This blog draws on insights from the African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL) validation convening held in Kampala, Uganda in March 2026. ACSL is a partnership coordinated by the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) and implemented with Education Sub-Saharan Africa (ESSA), the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE), and VVOB – education for development. We acknowledge the contributions of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from across Africa who participated in the consultations.

References

African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL). (2026). Mapping of school leadership initiatives in Uganda: Desk review report. ESSA, ADEA, FAWE & VVOB. 

Government of Uganda. (2008). Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act. Kampala: Government Printer.

Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES). (2017). Continuous Professional Development Framework and Costed Implementation Plan for Teachers and School Leaders. Kampala: MoES.

Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES). (2019). National Teacher Policy. Kampala: MoES.

National Planning Authority. (2013). Uganda Vision 2040. Kampala: Government of Uganda.

VVOB, PEAS & African Centre for School Leadership. (2025). Leaders in Teaching (LiT) – LEAD Pillar: School leadership mapping and taskforce proposal.

Many Communities of Learning begin with energy but lose momentum over time. The difference often lies in how intentionally they are designed.

At a recent validation convening of the African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL) hosted in Nairobi, Kenya in Feb 2026, participants gathered to reflect on an important question: how do we build a continental Community of Learning that truly lasts? 

ACSL is implemented through a partnership between Education Sub Saharan Africa (ESSA), VVOB – Education for Development, ADEA (Association for the Development of Education in Africa), and FAWE (Forum for African Women Educationalists). The initiative aims to strengthen school leadership systems across the continent through research, policy engagement, and professional development.

ESSA plays a central role in supporting the research and knowledge exchange components of ACSL, including helping shape the emerging Research Community of Learning to strengthen collaboration among African researchers, policymakers, and school leadership practitioners.

Within this scope, the Community of Learning emerged as a natural next step. We began exploring what it would take to establish a continental Community of Learning on school leadership. But, before discussing structures, platforms, or governance models, we paused to confront a more difficult question:

Why do so many Communities of Learning begin with energy, only to lose momentum quietly?

Rather than guess, we listened. Researchers, school leaders, university academics, and policy actors reflected on the networks they had built or participated in, including principal forums, university–school partnerships, writing retreats, and cross-country collaborations. One insight became unmistakable:

Communities last when they are intentionally designed to endure.

Structure Matters More Than Motivation

Several experts described initiatives that began with genuine commitment and strong participation. Early meetings were lively. Collaboration felt promising.

Yet without clear coordination, defined roles, documented processes, and continuity mechanisms, responsibility slowly fades. As one participant put it:

“There must be a learning hub, otherwise we’ll be penning to fate.” 

Anonymous, ACSL workshop, February 2026.

For example, during the convening, participants reflected on past regional networks that had strong initial participation but gradually weakened when there was no clear coordinating hub responsible for convening meetings, documenting outputs, and maintaining momentum across countries.

Communities cannot rely solely on personalities. They require a structure, a centre of gravity that ensures coherence beyond individual effort.

For ACSL, this means pairing a dedicated coordinating function with distributed leadership across nominated experts and country-level focal points.

Momentum Thrives on Consistency

Another clear pattern emerged: communities that endured were consistent in operations. They met at fixed intervals. Agendas were circulated in advance. Output was expected. Writing retreats were linked to publication timelines. Engagement was predictable rather than occasional.

Where this rhythm is missing, meetings slipped, and follow-up weakens. Gradually, participation declines.

Continuity is less about intensity and more about consistency.

If a Community of Learning is to succeed, engagement must be embedded in calendars and institutional routines.

Value Drives Commitment

Participants were candid: people remain active when participation strengthens their work.

Networks that thrived offered mentorship, peer review before journal submission, collaborative proposal development, joint conference panels, and visible recognition of contributions.

Those who struggled often offered conversation without clear progression.

Connection is important.
Contribution is essential.

A continental Community of Learning must produce outputs, research publications, policy briefs, collaborative grants, and comparative studies that support members’ professional growth and influence.

The ACSL Research Hub model already envisions a cycle from provocation to knowledge exchange to collaborative production. That production dimension must remain central. Ensuring that these exchanges translate into tangible outputs will be critical for sustaining engagement.

Governance Enables Continuity

Clarity of roles emerged as another decisive factor.

Experts emphasised the need to define who convenes, who documents, how leadership rotates, and how country-level initiatives align with continental direction.

Communities that relied solely on informal relationships struggled during transitions. Those with documented roles and transparent processes navigated change more effectively.

Governance, in this sense, is not bureaucracy. It is a continuity.

For ACSL and its partners, ESSA, VVOB, ADEA, and FAWE, this reinforces the need for shared leadership and clear accountability mechanisms embedded from the outset.

Technology Is a Tool, Not the Solution

The discussion on digital platforms was equally grounded.

Participants raised questions about data protection, connectivity constraints, integration with academic profiles, and mechanisms for tracking visible progress.

A digital platform can enhance coordination and visibility. It can showcase outputs and connect members across geographies. However, it cannot create engagement on its own.

Design precedes technology.

If implemented, the platform must support clear milestones, collaborative workspaces, and recognition of contributions rather than becoming another dormant portal.

From Reflection to Design

These reflections are shaping how we approach crafting the ACSL Community of Learning.

Rather than launching broadly, ESSA and ACSL partners are considering a phased approach, anchored by nominated experts across thematic areas, which may provide a stronger foundation. These experts could guide programming, mentor emerging researchers, and strengthen linkages between country-level and continental priorities.

The aim is not to form another network. It is to build a coherent ecosystem capable of influencing research, policy, and leadership practice over time.

A Final Reflection

Communities of Learning do not lose relevance because interest fades.

They lose relevance when structure, cadence, value, and clarity are taken for granted rather than embedded.

If ACSL establishes a continental Community of Learning, it must be deliberately rooted in partnership, guided by expertise, and matched with real leadership challenges.  

The measure of success will not be the number of members who join at launch. It will be whether, years from now, the community remains active, producing knowledge, mentoring scholars, informing policy, and strengthening school leadership systems across Africa.

Acknowledgement

This blog draws on insights from the African Centre for School Leadership (ACSL) validation convening held in Nairobi in February 2026. ACSL is a partnership coordinated by the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) and implemented with Education Sub-Saharan Africa (ESSA), the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE), and VVOB – education for development. We acknowledge the contributions of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from across Africa who participated in the consultations.