This paper aims to provide an account of how school leaders in Kazakhstan learn about leadership and management, and what strategies are in place to support leadership development. The paper draws on empirical data collected over three years, derived mainly from interviews and focus groups with school leaders and teachers. The findings suggest that a hierarchical education system and strict policy regulations diminish the likelihood that the changes needed to encourage leadership practice by teachers will take place. The paper examines Kazakhstani school leaders’ learning opportunities, and focuses on the implications of borrowing leadership theories from the West. The key argument is that, if genuine change is to occur, these leaders will require time and space for critical reflection about what it is they need to learn and to do. The paper raises important issues about the conceptualisation of leadership learning and development in non-Western contexts.

The article examines the scope for initiative and independent action that lies with school principals in Kazakhstan, with a particular focus on capacity building approaches. A framework drawn from Hargreaves (2001) and Dimmock (2012) guided our inquiry. The study is situated within a large collaborative project between three institutions: the

We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future.This paper explores the current education reform agenda in Kazakhstan, which is underpinned, in part, by the argument that investment in human capital through elite institutions for gifted children can lift up the whole system of education. The paper revisits two broad theoretical perspectives, relating to human capital and to ideas about education for gifted and talented children in their role as important assets for economic prosperity. Drawing upon examples from primary data, this paper examines the multifaceted model of education for gifted children that is being developed in Kazakhstan, which seeks to combine an internationally recognised curriculum with elements from national educational traditions. It involves strategic partnership with major international educational providers focusing on professional development of teachers. The paper argues that elite education as a model for social change has both advantages and drawbacks. Furthermore, any change that is likely to make a long-term difference will take time to become embedded. The paper concludes by highlighting themes that would merit future research in Kazakhstan, and elsewhere.

The paper examines the understandings ('constructs') of teachers' professional knowledge and its sources that underpin current practice in initial teacher education in Kazakhstan and in particular the way in which pedagogika contributes to these. This stands in contrast with the two recent professional development programmes: the Collaborative Action Research and Centre of Excellence, which are focused on interactive teaching and learning, reflective practice, classroom action research and teachers' collaboration. Drawing on empirical data collected over the four years, the paper illustrates the ways in which professional knowledge and professional preparation of teachers in pre-service institutes are constructed within the Kazakh and Soviet pedagogical traditions, albeit with some references to international scholars. Teachers' professional knowledge is formed from pedagogic theory mediated by academic staff in what is seen by many of those from outside and inside the country who are engaged in educational 'reform' in Kazakhstan as a largely didactic style with little or no critical engagement or exploration of the implications for practice. By contrast, recently 2 introduced in-service education programmes for teachers place an emphasis on reflective practice, teachers as researchers and collaborative learning as sources for teachers' professional knowledge. The paper highlights this contrast and begins to explore what happens when these two different approaches to the construction of teachers' professional knowledge encounter each other.

Purpose-The aim of this paper is to explore the impact of societal and cultural factors on the practices and perceptions of school principals in Kazakhstan. Design/methodology/approach-The paper draws on empirical data collected in Kazakhstan over two years in the course of an international, collaborative, multi-stranded project. Findings-The findings support the claim that educational policies and practice are deeply embedded in the national culture, which is an evolving mixture of traditional Kazakh, Russian and diverse ethnic, Soviet and paternalistic cultures. These various societal characteristics exemplify various aspects of the tensions between traditional forms of social organisation, the Soviet legacy, and the sort of educational development promoted by Western educational and international organisations, which now plays an important role in Kazakhstan. Research limitations/implications-The analysis, though limited in scope, has nevertheless yielded insights into important differences and similarities amongst rural and urban schools and explored the effects of societal cultural factors that shape the practices of school leaders on the periphery of the system. Originality/value-The paper provides an empirically grounded illustration of the way in which societal culture and cultural norms shape the role of school principals, and how schools cope with a top-down policy in Kazakhstan. By contrasting the norms that shape both existing practice and the reform agenda, the paper offers some explanations for how cultural norms represent both strengths and weaknesses when applied to the process of change in a post-Soviet context.