School leadership training and development across and within the OECD

Within the area of education policy the OECD is considered to be an actor with great political ―influence‖¹¹ (Møller, 2006b: 39). In addition to the focus upon the economic benefits that improved educational results are thought to bring, the OECD, with its link to academic research, has in recent years turned attention to the role of leadership in developing more effective schools (Møller, 2006b: 40 - 41). I briefly consider some of these initiatives and their impact upon England and Norway policy and practice in the period leading up to and including 2008.

The OECD ―what works‖ series of studies on educational innovation highlighted developments and challenges to the field of education, developing during the 1990s. In 2001 focus was placed on the changing demands for the management of schools, with examples of policy responses including case studies drawn from

11 My translation.

17

9 countries¹² (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2001). The report referred to school management as ―essentially a twentieth century invention‖ resulting from abrupt challenges at the close of the last century arising from a supposed need to ―download‖ managerial responsibility to the individual school leader (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2001:

17). The report highlighted the ―triple challenge‖ of educational and school redefinition, service and performance focus across the public sector, and creation of learning organisations focused on knowledge management (ibid.). As Shuttleworth later recognised the 2001 OECD /CERI report also highlighted

―the tension that exists between the ―top-down‖ approaches to reform, based on an industrial-age scientific managerial style, and those seeking renewal from the

―bottom-up‖ through knowledge leadership in the 21^st century learning organizations‖ (Glatter, Mulford, & Shuttleworth, 2003: 79). Shuttleworth saw this as developing a ―loose/tight system‖, considering it to be an effective approach to ensuring accountability at national and local levels. Also evident were increases in testing and inspection, more complex levels of decentralisation and a wider role for the school leader within the community. This was part of the protracted development from seeing school leadership as an extended teacher role to a ―full-time professional manager of human, financial and other resources‖, adding responsibilities such as instructional leadership, evaluation and assessment of staff and wider school performance (Glatter et al., 2003: 81).

However, the perception of recreating the head teacher within a transformational role of ―motivational leader‖ and ―knowledge manager‖ was considered to require a new approach to leadership preparation.

These developments have placed the role of the school leader in particular, but also school leadership further under the spotlight. In this era of focus upon increased accountability and quality, the school leader‘s role is changing, as the school is observed to change from institution to organisation (S. G. Huber, 2004). The question is raised as to how well leaders are prepared for this new,

‗patchwork‘ role (Ibid). Writing in 2003, Shuttleworth considered this to be a

―neglected‖ area, requiring increased investment to renew ―self-esteem, learning capacities and leadership skills‖ (Glatter et al., 2003: 82-3). Interestingly, however, when referring to this area of neglect the author uses the term

―training‖ of school leaders, whereas the 2001 CERI report referred to leader development (2001: 32). The implication appears to be more upon training, as competencies and skills of the ‗principal‘ are highlighted as central for school improvement based on the development of learning communities. The CERI report appears, however, to juxtapose training and development, distinguishing between different content, delivery mode and timing and coverage of the initiatives. This will be further discussed in section below with regard to a brief overview of the development of policy approaches and programmes in England and Norway.

12 Of which England was one.

18

In 2005 the OECD reported on the project ―Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers‖ (OECD, 2005b). The report highlighted the importance of implementing strategies that would, in turn, improve school leadership quality in order to improve the conditions for teaching staff that would improve quality of schooling (OECD, 2006: 3). This combined with the CERI research outlined above, developed into the Improving School Leadership Activity, aimed at gathering ―information and analysis‖ to

―assist [policy makers] in formulating and implementing policies to support the development of school leaders who can systematically guide the improvement of teaching and learning‖ (OECD, 2005a: 5). Of particular interest to this study, the rationale for the activity raised the importance of evaluating professional development and training programmes (OECD, 2005a: 9), noted to be often based upon ―standards of professional performance‖ (OECD, 2005a: 11).

Reflections from this activity are outlined next.

Improving School Leadership

The Improving School Leadership (ISL) activity involved a comparative study across 22 countries, including background reports, case studies, country workshops, international conferences, publications and a final report and website¹³. With recognition of the changing role of school leaders, the aim of the study was to: ―synthesise research on issues related to improving leadership in schools; identify innovative and successful policy initiatives and practices;

facilitate exchanges of lessons and policy options among countries; [and]

identify policy options for governments to consider‖. One of the key questions focused on how to ensure leaders would ―develop the right skills for effective leadership‖, recognised to be distributed and not merely based on formal position.

The executive summary of the OECD report on the Improving School Leadership project opens with the statement:

―School leadership has become a priority in education policy agendas internationally. It plays a key role in improving school outcomes by influencing the motivations and capacities of teachers, as well as the school climate and environment. Effective school leadership is essential to improve the efficiency and equity of schooling‖ (Pont, Nusche, &

Moorman, 2008: 9).

Within this short paragraph the key concepts regarding many of the current debates over schooling are raised. The authors recognise a focus upon

―leadership‖ centred upon within public policy. Additionally, the ―key role‖ of leadership is linked indirectly to improved ―outcomes‖, mediated through the development of the school climate and teaching staff. While not a positional focus, the old prospect of the school principal or headteacher being challenged,

13 www.oecd.org/edu/schoolleadership

19

the assumption is when leadership is ―effective‖ ―efficiency and equity‖ will improve. There is continued focus upon the issue of understanding how school outcomes can be improved, most recently with regard to ascertaining the ―value-added‖ impact of schools (OECD, 2008). The report goes on to recognise the greater demands on leaders. While they are awarded increased autonomy they also face greater accountability for output. As will be seen later, increased autonomy of decision making is not, however, always symptomatic of increased control over resources (Aarebrot, 2006).

ISL reports: a view from the environment.

Both England and Norway participated in this project and delivered background reports. Most pertinent to this study, the framework for the background reports outlined the structure for inclusion of a chapter response on the training and development of school leaders. The sixth chapter of the response to the OECD was to include six major sections: policy concerns; preparation of school leaders; professional development of school leaders; relevant research studies;

policy initiatives and innovative approaches (OECD, 2006). While the report from England appears to aim to broadly cover the questions associated with each section, the Norwegian report deals with them chronologically. Key points from the sections are outlined below. This overview is not essentially intended to be a direct comparison of the policies and practice in both countries. Neither are the arguments raised supported or challenged from other sources. The purpose is rather to provide an overview of policy current at the time of empirical investigation and practice as reported to the OECD from the respective governments. Pointers with regard to evaluation are thought to offer especially helpful background data. This information will be outlined further with regard to development of school leadership training and development programmes in both countries.

The England report links the developing policy concerns for the ―preparation, development and certification of school leaders‖ with research on the impact of leadership on student outcomes (Higham, Hopkins, & Ahtaridou, 2007: 57).

These concerns were once again tied to the drive for improved standards of schooling, ―preparing pupils to achieve economic and social well-being in fast changing world‖ (ibid). Training programmes are designed to produce ―effective leaders to meet these demands‖. The resulting leadership programmes were thought to ―expand‖ and develop instructional leaders. Focus is then placed upon the pathways to leadership and their considered effectiveness, followed by qualifying requirements for the school leader role. The English response is centred upon policy development since 1998, and particularly the NCSL and its Leadership Development Framework (Higham et al., 2007: 58). The report localises responsibility for programme evaluation upon the NCSL and outlines their framework of participant feedback and external evaluation of new programmes as well as provider based internal assessments. With regard to qualifying requirements the England report presents a long section, outlining in more detail the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) as

20

qualification for the school leadership role, as well as its revision based upon various evaluation exercises. The report reiterates that the NPQH will be mandatory for newly appointed head teachers. The report also links research findings to these evaluations (2007: 67) and highlights the underlying national policy focus upon evaluation and impact assessment of all initiatives. Evidence based research is referred to, but it is not clear how this has ―informed policy development and to what extent‖ (OECD, 2006: 21-22). This important area of evidence informed policy and practice is returned to below. Evaluations and research are claimed, however, to reveal the ―need for a more contextualised, personalised and innovative approach‖ to school leader training (Higham et al., 2007: 69). Discussion of alternative pathways and the difference between the two is taken up in relation to the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of heads. The section recognises the decreasing number of participants taking HEI programmes. A University Partnership group is, however, linked to the NCSL ―to support progression between the national programmes and higher degrees as MAs and MBAs‖ (2007: 66).

Chapter 6 in the Norway report focuses more upon outlining the development of what was seen to be a fragmentary framework of programme initiatives. Unlike the England report there is virtually no discussion of the linkage between leadership and pupil outcomes. What is interesting, however, is presentation of the various actors involved the debate over school leadership training and development, especially highlighting the role of the county and municipal authorities as school owners, and their jurisdiction over their employees. In this sense ―best practice‖ is accepted as the basis for such activities but as decided by school owners and therefore is presented as quite a fragmented understanding.

They are responsible for ensuring leaders are competent and equipped for their roles, as well as for ―evaluating, developing and implementing‖ the programmes (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2007: 56), a point also recognised elsewhere. While the national and regional authorities have previously offered training and in-service programmes, initiatives ranging from modular courses to Master programmes are now offered by HEIs. There is, however, noted to be great variation in competence over the subject field, the ability to evaluate and the ―profiles and standards‖ of the programme providers. The report suggests criticism of the providers when they do not operate in a supportive role and meeting mandator needs (2007: 57). In the Norwegian document the sections related to leadership pathways and requirements are placed together and outlined within one page (compared to the 6 pages given to the sections in the England report). This section recognises how the lack of a national mandate combined with the fragmentary approach at local and county level means that less than one fifth of school leaders have formal training that has lasted more than a year. Supporting school leaders or potential leaders to attend Master programmes, or parts of Master programmes that can lead to future formal qualification, has been one part of the initiatives followed by the employers. Head teachers are though required to have formal educational qualifications on appointment. The section on frameworks and legislation in two short points, merely confirms the lack of

21

state regulations and the resulting lack of coordination (2007: 58). The section on development and evaluation offers interesting data. It highlights the lack of a standard based approach to evaluation and absence of impact assessments.

Connection is also made between evaluative activity surrounding the programmes to the introduction and development of quality assurance initiatives following the 2002 higher education reform. It is recognised that these ―self-evaluation[s] and surveys of participant satisfaction‖ might provide information on programme quality but do not provide impact data on learning (2007: 59) and it is ―not known whether Norway has in general ―good‖ school leaders‖ (2007:

61) even though some local authorities attempt to ascertain this (2007: 64). The report recognises that there has also been little research into programme effectiveness, particularly from amongst programme providers (2007: 60-1).

Involvement in the ISL project is considered to signal a new national initiative in introducing new policy for school leadership training and development. A major part of this is considered to be aided by attending to the paucity of data that are available with regard to this area (2007: 64-5). There was a perception from within the Directorate for Education that this process would contribute to concrete policy change (Hegtun, 2007).

I now consider these reflections in more detail within the context of school leadership training and development programming in England and Norway at the time of study.