2. School leadership development programmes in Norway and England
2.2 School leadership training and development in England
In this section I provide a brief overview of school leadership training and development in England. Leadership, as Harris put it, is ―currently in vogue‖
(2003: 9) and there has been a significant shift in focus away from management (Bush, 2008a). Drawing on MacBeath (1998), Harris notes that efficiency at the micro level is thought to be a solution to ―macro-problems‖ in society. At pupil level and across the school, leadership is considered to have an ―unequivocal‖
potential to influence performance, in both the effectiveness and improvement research paradigms. Understanding of what makes leadership effective has therefore become a critical concern. In England the shift to management on site, post 1988 Education Reform Act, has required once again a new leadership role, which at the same time strengthened the position of school leader (Gunter, 2005:
181). In more recent times there has been a public policy shift towards approaches based upon New Public Management and later Modernization (Coupland, Currie, & Boyett, 2008). Despite the current agenda of Modernisation with its emphasis on social goals, Coupland et al (2008) note the economic focus associated with New Public Management, dealt with more fully in the next chapter, remains in focus. This dichotomy causes difficulties when attempting to interpret the role of the head teacher, for example ―tightly controlled bureaucratic systems in a rigid hierarchy‖ are balanced against the emphasis on operating as transformational leaders (2008: 1080).
22
A brief history of initiatives and programmes
The organisation and provision of training in the 1960s and 70s has been described ―ad hoc‖, delivered by universities, Local Education Authorities, Her Majesty‘s Inspectorate and other professional bodies (Bolam, 2004; Bush, 2008c). The introduction of the comprehensive system in the 1960s to early 1970s, was considered to demand a different role from the school leader, and focus was placed upon what skills and training were required (Bolam, 2004:
252). This period also saw the relatively late introduction of University based Master programmes, which were later developed through the establishment of the first chairs in educational administration during the 1970s (Brundrett, 2001).
The national framework was considered, however, to have remained
―unsatisfactory‖ (Bolam, 2004).
Brundrett notes that from the 1980s more substantial, practically based training courses were arranged under greater Governmental direction that included
―visits to schools and other institutions, seminars, private study and encounters with managers from other fields of education, commerce and industry‖ (2001:
236). The National Development Centre for School Management Training (NDC) was established at Bristol University and ran for five years from 1983 – 1988 (Bush, 2008c). The Centre coordinated short term programmes for heads and deputies delivered from regional centres based in HEIs, as well as the promotion of ―management development to schools and LEAs‖ (Bolam, 2004:
253). The introduction, however, of ―centrally determined and accredited training for those seeking to move into headship‖ was seen as ―an attempt to break with the past‖ (Gunter, 1999: 251). Interestingly, drawing on reflections from within the field, Bush commenting on the reflections of Gunter and Hughes et al. noted that ―[u]niversity courses on school and college management became increasingly popular‖ (2008b: 74). By the 1980s taught higher degrees in educational management were becoming more important parts university courses, but demonstrated ―a patchwork of provision including certificate, diploma, MA, MBA, M.Ed, M.Sc. and Ed.D. courses‖ which, despite
―confusing variety‖, provided a ―comparatively structured provision of progressive academic qualifications grounded in both theory and practice‖
(Brundrett, 2001: 235). It was in this period that there developed a greater
―coherence and coordination‖ of initiatives (Bolam, 2004). The initial emphasis was upon ―voluntaristic and pluralistic provision‖ (Gunter, 1999: 251).
However, most MBA courses continued to have more of an academic focus than their counterparts in the USA and mainland Europe. LEAs also provided ‗in house‘ training but this provision was inconsistent too (Bolam, Dunning, &
Karstedt, 2002); the first MBA education was set up at Keele University in the mid-1990s (Gunter, personal correspondence). The rationale was rather to provide reflection than training, to be studied over a longer period of time, thus explaining the focus upon Master programmes. Similarly the ‗professional doctorate‘ had emerged, aimed at ―mid-career education professionals‖, the first at Bristol University in 1992, then further courses at 8 other HEIs (Gregory, 1995 and Myers, 1996 quoted in Brundrett Ibid.).
23
Policy developments from the later 1980s brought what Bolam described as
―significant changes‖ (Bolam, 2004: 253). School management training was designated a priority within national funding from 1987, which Bolam recognised it to have remained ―in one guise or another, ever since‖ (2004: 253).
The Education Reform Act of 1988 also placed greater responsibilities at school level and upon the head teacher and senior members of staff in particular (Bush, 2008b: 74). In 1989 the School Management Task Force (SMTF) was set up by the government to assist the execution of reforms (Bolam, 2004: 253). It operated until 1992 in collaboration with LEAs to tighten control and coordination of training and improve access. It also introduced biennial appraisal for heads and deputies as well as mentoring programmes for new Heads (ibid.), considered ―it‘s most important legacy‖ (Bush, 2008b: 74). Bush notes that the SMTF, and particularly its report on the way forward for school management training, ―set the agenda‖ for the ensuing period (ibid.), despite the National Professional Qualification for Headship appearing as a shift from the more supportive mentoring scheme (Bush, 1998).
Throughout the 1990s increasingly greater moves were made towards centralisation of control over training and development issues. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA), which would later become the Training and Development Agency (TDA), was established after the 1994 Education Act. Its purpose was to assist the improvement of teaching quality through better training, education and professional development of staff from recruitment to headship in order to ―improve the standards of pupil‘s achievements‖14. Part of this remit saw the framing of a leadership development structure, based upon preparation, induction and in-service training which led to the respective introduction of the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), Headteacher Leadership and Management Programme (HEADLAMP) and the Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers (LPSH) (Bolam, 2004: 253).
These programmes were later transferred under the responsibility of The National College for School Leadership (NCSL). In the next section I will outline some critical issues related to the formation and development of the NCSL. This is not an exhaustive account of the College but rather provides the background for understanding current climate and approaches to school leadership training and development programmes in England.
The National College for School Leadership After plans had been announced in 1998, The National College for School Leadership (NCSL) was officially launched in November 2000 as a Non- Departmental Public Body15. The NCSL is government funded, receiving its remit from the Secretary of State, currently from the Department for Children, Schools and Families. In September 2000 the
14Source:
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pubbod97/tta.htm
15 Now an executive agency
24
former Secretary of State, for the then Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), David Blunkett, transferred responsibility for the administration of the three national headship training programmes to NCSL, which should operate, amongst other things, as the ―single national focus for school leadership development, research and innovation‖ (DfEE, 2000). A result of the College‘s think tank was the formation of the five stage Leadership Development Framework, framing the provision of programmes from emergent through to consultant leadership, currently though under revision (Bush, 2008b:
75). A key part of this was the NPQH, described by NCSL as the ―flagship programme‖ and ―designed to establish leaders‘ suitability for headship‖ based upon national standards (Bush, 2008b: 77). The NPQH, in its revised form is from 1st April 2009 a mandatory qualification for applicants to become a head teacher for the first time, and according to the College focused ―solely upon those who can demonstrate that they are 12 to 18 months from headship and are committed to applying for posts immediately after graduating‖16. Good overviews of the NCSL‘s programmes can be found in Bush (2007, 2008b).
The other initial aims of the College were to ―be a driving force for world-class leadership in our schools and the wider community; provide support to and be a major resource for school leaders; [and to] stimulate national and international debate on leadership issues‖17. From 2006 four goals were outlined for the College, ―to transform children's achievement and well-being through excellent school leadership; to develop leadership within and beyond the school; to identify and grow tomorrow's leaders; [and] to create a 'fit for purpose' national college that is more strategic and offers school leaders even more leadership support‖18. The goals are more specifically focused upon the work of the College, reiterating the connection between excellent leadership and improve pupil achievement. The importance is declared of ―tailoring… services to individual and local needs‖ combined with drawing inspiration from international ―best practice‖ so as to ―remain an authoritative national voice‖.
Since opening, College programmes have provided over 230,000 places. The remit of the College, in line with Government policy, is now being extended to include provision for wider children‘s services, with the proposed name change to the National College for School and Children‘s Leadership19. This continues the ―mission creep‖ associated with the College (Riley & Mulford, 2007).
According to Bolam, in ―one generation‖ a new model of school leadership development had gradually been framed, linked to the holistic restructuring of in-service provision and marketization of HEIs and developments in the
16 Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/aboutus-index/press_office-index/pressoffice-latestreleases.htm?id=31619
17 Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/aboutus-index/pressreleases-index/pressreleases-2002.htm?id=13920
18 Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/aboutus-index/about-role-index.htm
19 Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/about-role-remitextension . It actually became the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children‘s Services.
25
―professional infrastructure‖ (Bolam, 2004: 255). In addition, Bolam goes on to recognise that at this point the government returned to an idea mooted from the 1970s and 1980s for a national college. The idea resurfaced under the Conservative government of John Major, but was followed through by the first Labour government of Tony Blair (Bolam, 2004: 256). Bolam argues that it had again become a viable alternative due to political linkage to the perceived potential to raise school standards, technological advances reduced the scale of residential provision necessary less important along with the increase in political will to invest. Bush notes that the scale and reach of NCSL has been
―impressive‖. Additionally the NCSL has raised the national focus, developed a strategy for career stages, emphasising practice and basing programmes on research much of which is produced by practitioners (Bush, 2008b: 75). Despite these momentous advances and increased funding during this period there has also been, over a period of years, a developing ambiguity of purpose for school leaders (Bush, 2004) who have been challenged to develop skills closer to that of the CEO than the traditional head teacher. This is similar to Møller‘s refection over moral dilemmas (Møller, 1997).
These aims are quite different to the focus of the traditional HEI approach to school leader development, and even though the pathways through NPQH are considered to be becoming more open, allowing for a different role for HEIs, the basic difference in aims and objectives appears to create a continued discontinuity. Glatter noted the relative popularity and success of the master degree in derivatives of educational leadership management, but recognised that this was challenged by the introduction of the national programmes ―closely tailored to assumed career and professional needs‖ (2004: 213-14). However, the impact of the NCSL upon HEI Master Programmes has been dramatic, where the latter are unable to ‗compete‘ with the statutory requirements and funding support the college has received. HEIs refocusing upon research and international students may only be delaying the demise of their ―specialist centres‖ of educational administration and leadership (Bush, 2006: 510).
The moves made towards the NPQH becoming mandatory for first time head teachers, locked school leaders further into the nationally sanctioned system.
Content of the national programmes varies considerably from that on offer at HEIs, and as yet further research is still necessary to discover what impact these developments have had on the preparation of good school leaders, despite the assertion by then Schools Minister Jim Knight that the ―NPQH is the best preparation for headship‖20. In addition NCSL domination has been considered to be ―unhealthy‖ (Bush, 2008a: 85). Even though Glatter opened for the possibility ―in the long term‖ that engagement with national programmes might lead to increased interest in postgraduate education (2004: 214) this has not yet been evident with more HEI departments downsizing or closing as a result.
20 Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/aboutus-index/press_office-index/pressoffice-latestreleases.htm?id=31619
26
Gunter (1999) argued that the processes were far from linear and developmental than they might at first seem. Even before the NCSL was formed, the introduction of the NPQH under the auspices of the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) had seen challenges to HEIs as providers of school leadership programmes. This was part of a public sector restructuring, or what Bolam referred to as ―the latest stage of an evolving policy innovation‖ (Bolam, 2004:
251). For example, the idea of leadership development stages was already part of the NDC and SMTF initiatives (Bolam, 2004: 256). Bolam argues that the scale and execution of the NCSL have however been wider, signifying a major policy change. Gunter quotes Ouston (1998), who noted that greater political control of these processes and subsequent changes in funding reduced the role of HEIs, with Ouston correctly predicting that many would see their role reduced to contractors of ―centrally approved programmes‖ (Ouston, 1998 in Gunter, 1999: 252). The challenge to produce a dual system of programming allowing for central training programmes of ―professional qualification‖ alongside Master programmes offering a more ―academic qualification‖ had initially been ignored (Bush, 1998). Despite cooperation between a Universities Partnership Group and the NCSL there appears to remain some tension and difficulty coordinating the two approaches. Bush recognises the significantly negative impact of the NCSL generally upon HEIs (2008a: 85). The NPQH, as noted above being implemented in its revised form, operates in monopoly as the route to headship (Bush, 2008b: 79). Discussion over the transferability between Master‘s degree and the NPQH has been on-going, with debate over the number of credits to be awarded as well as the additional requirements that candidates might be expected to achieve. Additionally, the NPQH has, Bush observes, ―always been more concerned with what leaders can do, than with what they know and understand‖ (Bush, 2008b: 77). Gunter concurs, noting that the assessment focus on ―completing tasks sends out the message that headship is about getting things done‖ (1999: 260). While, as Bush also notes, the current model also requires
―master‘s-level work‖ to be produced by candidates the tension still appears to remain between producing ―a sufficient supply of ‗qualified‘ candidates‖ and providing a programme structure that will demanding enough to ―contribute to improving standards of headship‖ (2008b: 79). Bush notes that very few taking a College programme make a linkage to a postgraduate degree (2008a: 85).
Commenting on the introduction of the NPQH, Gunter considered that the
―normative models of leadership promoted by government agencies and their collaborators present certainty in the cause and effect connection between effective leadership and effective schools‖ (1999: 255). This approach was perceived to remove debate and lead to a greater degree of ―contractualism‖
backed up by the introduction of national standards aligning more closely the causal connection between what the head does and outcomes‖ (1999: 257). As a result a qualification was introduced that evaluated the ability to ‗get things done‘ rather than dealing with processes that ―cannot be assessed‖ central to the headship role (1999: 260). Gunter warned at this stage that ―trainer and candidate satisfaction with the training should not be interpreted as an
27
endorsement that the NPQH is meeting its objectives‖ (1999: 262). Gunter revisited these arguments reiterating the contrast between the contingent nature of the head teacher‘s everyday experience of work and the ―normative‖ central policy focused upon effectiveness within a system focused on and driven by performance (Gunter, 2001: 158). She noted that ―[o]utcomes are targeted, prioritised, and maximised, with a strong utility imperative towards value for money through direct and measurable impact‖ (Gunter, 2001: 157). Improving attainment through enhanced capacity for leadership has been NCSL‘s ―primary purpose‖, even though there have been weak levels of empirical support to demonstrate this, which has been ―an undue burden on the NCSL and the schools‖ (Riley & Mulford, 2007). This lack of empirical support is interesting when considered against the focus upon building policy decisions upon supporting evidence. This subject is considered in the next section, first in relation to the policy making process in England and then implications for the NCSL. These processes are considered to impact choices made about evaluation.
Approaches to the Policy making process
The policy innovations outlined by Bolam are considered related to the developments outlined earlier within and across the OECD. Ball discussing Labour education policies in England post 1997, claims that they are ―not specific to Labour‖ but are ―local manifestations of global policy paradigms – policyscapes‖ (2001: 46). Any differences are claimed to be of ―emphasis rather than distinctiveness‖ (2001: 47). Ball calls this ―paradigm convergence‖, characterised by a commonality in principles, operations and mechanisms which focus on impacting the profession (first order) and wider social justice (second order) (2001: 48). Part of this more general paradigm convergence is the increased focus upon student outcomes to meet future economic demands. As will be seen in section 2.3 these developments have also been considered to apply increasingly to Norway (Karlsen, 2006; Møller, 2006a).
This focus upon outcomes requires policies that will result in provision and programmes that lead to improved standards. Such policies should be informed by evidence. While commenting on between school discrepancies and the quality of schooling Christine Gilbert, HM Chief Inspector of education, children‘s services and skills, declared there to be ―no quick fix but providers should learn from what works‖ (Lipsett, 2007). This perception of evidence based and informed policy has become a critical underpinning of educational, as well as more general public policy initiatives. The current policy making process is focused upon the concepts of ‗what can be measured‘ and ‗what works‘.
Taking the former, Broadfoot, in adopting Lyotard‘s conception of
‗performativity‟, explains that ‗educational assessment‘ has been ―the defining principle of education policy in the late twentieth century‖ and ―[r]ooted in the rationalistic assumption that it is possible and, indeed, desirable – to ‗measure‘
performance‖ (2001: 136-7). Ball describes performativity as ―a technology, a culture and a mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as means of incentive, control, attrition and change – based on rewards
28
and sanctions (both material and symbolic) (2003: 216). This is a move from
―professionalism and bureaucracy‖ (ibid) to ―an existence of calculation‖ based on ―targets, indicators and evaluation‖ (2003: 215). This focus is built upon a developing belief that assessment raises standards, especially since 198821, and competition provides a ―valuable spur to improvement‖ (Broadfoot, 2001: 138).
The suggestion that quality can be measured22 creates the cornerstone of policy and in turn reflects upon the policy of encouraging focus upon leadership for the improvement of results. The ―new hero of educational reform‖ was seen to be the manager, given the task of transforming co-workers to feel concurrently accountable and committed to the organisation (Ball, 2003: 219), although this already suggests a greater shift towards the focus on the leader. Ball suggests a link between a performativity based approach and symbolic and constructed behaviour rather than the expected increased openness and greater transparency
The suggestion that quality can be measured22 creates the cornerstone of policy and in turn reflects upon the policy of encouraging focus upon leadership for the improvement of results. The ―new hero of educational reform‖ was seen to be the manager, given the task of transforming co-workers to feel concurrently accountable and committed to the organisation (Ball, 2003: 219), although this already suggests a greater shift towards the focus on the leader. Ball suggests a link between a performativity based approach and symbolic and constructed behaviour rather than the expected increased openness and greater transparency