2. School leadership development programmes in Norway and England
2.3 School leadership training and development in Norway
There is a sense in which the background account for Norway is less detailed than that of England. Clearly the advent of the NCSL, while building upon changes already underway in education policy has been a ―paradigm shift‖ in the field of school leadership training and development (Hallinger in Bolam, 2004:
260) and had a great impact on other programme providers, especially those within HEIs. As will be seen in this section moves toward such approaches in Norway are in their infancy, however as was seen in the ISL reports outlined above they are very much beginning to appear upon the political agenda. The
34
basis for the broad overview in this section is taken from Country reports prepared for the HEAD project (Wales & Welle-Strand, 2005, 2008). These reports also outline these developments in more detail, especially with regard to details about specific Institutions and their programme content.
The importance of tradition and historical context is noticeably made by Norwegian commentators, but at the same time there is recognition of cross border convergence with regard to education policy and approaches to school leadership. Møller, for example, has similar reflections to those of Bolam noted above, considering that ―[c]ountries‘ approaches to school leadership are culturally and historically distinct, but at the same time they are currently drawn together by common economic and political forces‖ (2008: 1). A market approach to education adopted across Scandinavian countries during the 1990s was considered a shift away from the more ―distinguishing features‖ of ―equity, participation, and welfare state‖ under the influence of social democracy (Møller, 2008: 2). Whilst the structure of schools was traditionally flatter and more collegially based, where the leader was considered first among equals, the shift towards ―managerial practice and external accountability‖ has required a greater degree of training and a stronger role (2008: 4-6). Møller considers that the local and regional authorities as employers responsible for training their school leaders have been more influenced ―business management approaches‖.
The fragmentary nature of this control has led to great variation in terms of level of autonomy and managerial approach, where the focus on NPM can lead to reduced interest in leadership for teaching and learning (2008: 7). Attempting to balance these varied demands has created ―moral dilemmas‖ for school leaders (Møller, 1997).
Due to the educational history of Norway, Headteachers have often found themselves under crossfire with pressure from above and below (Dahl, Klewe,
& Skov, 2004a, 2004b; Møller, 2004). Telhaug et al have mapped a shift in education policy during the last fifty years across the Nordic countries, from socially focused objectives of schooling to cognitive-instrumental objectives combined with emphasis upon freedom of choice and decentralisation of power, where control of employment has moved from State to Local Authority (2006:
277). While generally developing at a slower pace of change the model operates as a ―composite‖ of Anglo Saxon and Continental European approaches, combining ―economic liberalism and competition‖ and ―a large public sector, social welfare and security‖ (Telhaug et al., 2006: 278). The result of the change is ―emphasis on equality, inclusion and adaptive learning‖ giving way to greater competition and increasing focus upon standards. This may, however, not always be to the detriment, because as change is slow in Norway old ideas might successfully be reappraised before the new ones are fully introduced (Olsen, 1996). Levels of governance appear to function on their own terms, despite overlapping interests, where each layer is given more responsibility.
Each layer to a degree develops its own goals and framework. In addition, each
35
has an overlapping but differential stakeholder group (Afsar, Skedsmo, &
Sivesind, 2006).
In Norway there has been a more diverse approach to school leadership training nationally, which became more necessary following greater decentralization of powers to school leaders in the 1970s and 80s (Karlsen, 1993, 2003). Although national programmes were attempted during this period30 there appears to have been little success in operationalising their main aims and objectives (Johansen
& Tjeldvoll, 1989). The University of Oslo offered ―school leadership‖ as a semester module from 1992, building up programmes in concert with local and county authorities, which were partly based upon self-financing through to 2003 (Hegtun, 2007). Similar initiatives developed in other parts of the HEI sector in Norway. There has in recent times been more focus upon funding HEI programmes, which have developed into the current crop of Master programmes in educational leadership across the country, with the providers knitted in a loosely coupled National Network (Tjeldvoll, Wales, & Welle-Strand, 2005).
These developed from the nationally funded ―SOFF‖ project, focused upon digital and distance learning to form in-service and further education programmes that would lead to Master Degrees (Hegtun, 2007; Wales, 2004).
The SOFF project also required the developments to be evaluated. The programmes were run as cooperation between HEIs. The introduction of the Quality Reform for Higher Education also placed demands upon the form of Master programmes, which had impact upon that which had been developed under SOFF.
The White Paper ‗Culture for Learning‘31 (Utdannings og forskningsd-epartementet, 2004b) saw the Government announce plans for new national programmes in cooperation with LEAs via Kommunenes Sentralforbund (KS)32. KS has gained greater influence since decentralization, culminating in the municipalities receiving employer status in 2004. These municipalities became more focused on New Public Management as a governing principle during this period (Karlsen, 2006; Møller, 2004), where school leaders received increased responsibility and authority, as the municipal levels were reduced in number and flattened with more simplified political management (Finstad & Kvåle, 2004).
At the same time State influence upon the local level has also shown elements of discontinuity, noted to travel via two channels, the practical (via the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development33) and the theoretical (Ministry of Education and Research34) implying a theory/practice divide at State mandator level, requiring greater dialogue at the local level. The research noted, however, diversity of local approach, mainly between ‗bridgebuilding‘ / unifying school development and a more fragmentary ‗contract-dialogical‘
30 Under the titles LIS, MOLIS, LUIS, LEVIS etc.
31 Kultur for Læring
32 The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities.
33 Kommunal og Regional Departement
34 Utdanning og Forsknings Departement
36
approach (Finstad & Kvåle, 2004). This appears to be the basis for the more common, generic form of leadership training outlined in ‗Culture for Learning‘, with its focus on increased quality and ―clear and strong leadership‖
(Utdannings og forskningsdepartementet, 2004b), noted to be missing from previous attempts to produce quality results (Søgnen, 2003). The current state of school leadership was also criticised, referring to Ekholm‘s discussion, as
―compliant‖ (føyelige ledere)‖35 (Utdannings og forskningsdepartementet, 2004b: 28) implied to be reinforced by existing school leadership programmes.
The pointers outline the critical attitude to the development of school leaders. As will be seen in later chapters, the relationship to local authorities as mandators has become increasingly more important for school leadership programme providers.
The document ―Strategy for Competence Development‖ ( Utdannings og forskningsdepartementet, 2004a) suggested directions for how the new reforms should be implemented, as well as describing the areas of responsibility for their realization. Whilst recognizing that a network of providers who offer further education was already in place, the report suggests that there should also be,
―further development of the programmes, so that they cover both the competence required for leading knowledge organizations in a process of change and development, and the more reform specific requirements‖36 (Utdannings og forskningsdepartementet, 2004a: 7). These developments were to be enacted in conjunction with a wider group of stakeholders than merely the programme providers embodied in higher education institutions, described as a priority. The Strategy for Competence Development also recognised the need for a restructuring of schools, moves towards individualised education plans and focus on building learning organisations, required significant capacity building for school staff, particularly school leaders and teachers. In the strategy document a decentralised initiative was outlined, in which the local/regional authorities as school owners and their respective schools would cooperate with HEIs and training institutions to make local plans meeting local needs in response to national demands. Hagen et al (2006: 45) in evaluation of the strategy suggested that HEIs could be allowed to play a much greater role in advising, implementing and assisting future development. However, they also note that questions of capacity and competence to deliver were being raised. For further discussion see Wales and Welle-Strand (2008).
With the advent of a new centre-left Government, questions were raised as to whether the policies of the previous government would be continued, paused or reversed. Following this in terms of school leadership training and development,
35 Leaders who transfer responsibility for teaching to teachers, and engage little in dialogue about how the task of schooling should be achieved. It is said that these leaders do not develop collective practice and thus discourage true development (Ibid.).
36 My translation
37
there appears broad agreement across the parties sharing Government, but also the wider parliament too, as to its importance and emphasis. The ruling coalition‘s governing ―Soria Moria‖ declaration continues to outline training and development of school leaders as a priority37, particularly the focus on developing the school as a learning organization has remained a focus. The role of HEIs in providing suitable initiatives is of vital importance despite the fact that control and choice of content remains at school owner level.
Perhaps the most influential of the co-drivers of school leadership reform over recent years has been the local and county authorities, represented by their National Association (KS / NALRA). A report commissioned by KS,
―Schooling and education on the agenda?‖38 (Bæck & Ringholm, 2004), was an investigation into the attitudes of top leadership of municipal and county authorities towards educational focus in relation to the factors they felt were of most importance. This report emphasised the new role these authorities received when taking over as employer39, particularly concerning their approach to the content and quality of schooling. A discrepancy between political will and practice was noted, with a disproportionate focus upon budgets and buildings in relation to discussion over the content and quality of education, which they had described to be most important. The report outlined 4 major factors for reflection: this discrepancy is probably due to a lack of knowledge; practical issues always appear take precedence over esoteric ones; focus for quality improvement is placed on the role of the school leader as key position for change40; and greater cooperation between school and employer is necessary for improvement. An unclear basis of competency with regard to programme design, implementation and evaluation between commissioning part and programme provider has been recognised (Hagen et al., 2006). This means that the role of HEIs in providing suitable initiatives is of vital importance despite the fact that control and choice of content remains at school owner level. Hagen et al (2006: 45) suggested that HEIs could be allowed to play a much greater role in advising, implementing and assisting future development. Møller, however, noted a diminishing respect for academia, as the local school owner focuses more upon developing more informal learning scenarios, in addition to drawing expertise more widely than the traditional HEIs, eg. consultancy firms (Møller, 2006c). This appears to inhibit the important factors of a formal education as the HEIs see them, while also refocusing the basis of what the school owner is looking for and will evaluate for. Møller called for a closer relationship between academia and the practice field rather than a withdrawal from it.
37 http://www.uhr.no/documents/Kunnskapsl_ftet_januar_07_1.doc
38 Skole og utdanning på dagsordenen?
39 From 1st May 2004 the municipal and county authorities also became the teacher employer as well as having structural upkeep responsibilities.
40 Especially in the 2 level authority structure.
38
Later Initiatives
This section contains events and information that occurred post data collection.
The reason for their inclusion is that respondents were aware of and involved in the preliminary and developing stages of discussion surrounding the issue of introducing a national programme for school leadership development and training. The information provided here therefore sets these debates in a wider context. Such a move had been increasingly discussed during 2007, both as a proposal for a mandatory programmes by Members of the Parliamentary Opposition, as well as being further drafted by the then Minister of Education, Øystein Djupedal, at education conferences and seminars (e.g. Djupedal, 2007;
Smedstad, 2007). In addition the focus of such programmes was to be addressed.
At a School Leaders Conference at the University of Oslo the Minister declared himself ―surprised that the knowledge base concerning management and leadership in Norwegian schools is so limited‖, noting that research in the field of school leadership had been little focused upon ―uncovering possible links between leadership and pupils academic and social improvement and learning‖
but should be part of future research initiatives (Djupedal, 2007). In the Government White Paper 31 (2007-2008): ―Quality in school‖, the Ministry for Education and Research announced that a national school leadership programme would be developed. The programme would be for newly appointed head teachers as well as being made available to others without such an education (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2008b). This initiative was claimed to be based on a broad desire within the profession, in the parliament, across the public sector and within the wider society. There was recognition of the increased responsibility and authority given to school leaders, particularly the administrative role which needs to be addressed within development and training (2008b: 64). In addition, the link between the leader role and ―pupil outcomes‖ also began to be discussed a little more clearly along with developing vision and goals, local implementation of the national curriculum and teaching practice (ibid.). There is a clear desire to move towards the propositions from the OECD Improving School Leadership project (2008b: 66) as well greater focus on discovering ―what works‖ in relation to school practice (2008b: 67).
The proposal was to develop a programme for newly appointed heads and others
―lacking such training‖, as well as bringing greater clarity to the role of school leadership. The question of whether the programmes should be mandatory was not finalised, but interestingly the point was made that the Ministry did not wish
―to introduce increased competence requirements for those to be employed as a school leader41‖ (ibid.).
The Ministry of Education and Research retained regulation of the content of the programmes, through which they would ‖make clearer the expectations and demands on school leaders‖ (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2008a). The proposed providers were to be chosen from consortiums, where the leader organisation
41 My translation from Norwegian.
39
should be found amongst higher education institutions, but the specifications demanded that they work in cooperation with other institutions / groups, and at least one of these groups should be from an environment other than ―teacher training institutions‖. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training was given the task of defining the demands and expectations for a head teacher, as well as initiating a competition for tenders for a national educational programme42. The development and implementation costs of the programme were to be financed by the State. The original framework was a 30 study point programme to be completed over an 18-24 month period, and should be compatible with a Master degree in educational leadership. The initial foci of the programme were to be ―academic and pedagogical leadership, supervision of teachers and knowledge about change leadership within schools‖
(Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2008a). Additionally it was later made clear that the programme should be ―controlled and goal oriented‖, ―needs focused‖ and
―practically aimed‖(Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2008b: 5-6). In line with OECD definitions, presentations of expected ―competencies‖ were set out, covering required knowledge, skills and attitudes. The outline recognised the generic nature of leadership functions across different sectors. Within the document
―Competence for a head teacher - demands and expectations‖, the foci are outlined in 4 main areas: pupils‘ learning results and environment; governance and administration; cooperation and organisation building; and development and change (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2008a). The first area is given most weighting, while a fifth area is added that is based on self-reflection over the ―leader role‖.
This process signalled a move towards greater focus on pupil outcomes and a stronger leader role, while at the same time affirming many of the traditional approaches to school leadership in Norway. While the ISL background report did little to connect leadership to pupil outcomes, there was a change in emphasis as discussions turned to the necessity for a national programme. The Directorate announced that the studies would be built upon a definition of leadership as ―taking responsibility to ensure that good results are achieved… in a good way‖ as well as ensuring staff have a ―good and development work environment‖ in an ―employer role‖43. It appeared also to be the closest step yet towards introducing some kind of national ―standards‖, even though they are presented as ―competencies‖. The introduction and involvement of academic and consultancy based groups from outside of the traditional educational arena is interesting. Additionally, and of prime interest for this study, a key area for the tendered bids to address is evaluation, where the one mandatory area to be included is focused upon ascertaining the impact of the programme after completion upon the head and her/his school. Interestingly when discussing the values underpinning and processes driving the NPQH from its early stages, Gunter outlined the framework of what ―aspiring head teachers are expected to know, understand and do‖ (1999: 252), which were the same categories set out
42 http://www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/templates/udir/TM_Artikkel.aspx?id=3720
43 http://udir.no/templates/udir/TM_Artikkel.aspx?id=3768
40
for the newly proposed national programme in Norway (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2008a).
A key issue in both the English and Norwegian summaries has been that of evaluation, and in particular the growing interest in investigating and ascertaining the impact of programmes. As has been considered a central part of this demand builds on an assumption that there is a link between school leadership and pupil outcomes. It is to this important subject that I turn to next.