Leadership and Management Development in Education (Education ...

86LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION1. It is a creature of government, which appoints its chair and governing body.2. It operates in accordance with a remit letter produced annually by the Secretaryof State.3. It is funded on a substantial scale by government; more than £100 millionper annum.(NCSL 2006b)Levine (2005: 57) notes that ‘juggling the three, sometimes inconsistent, rolesof NCSL – government agency, independent organization, and voice of theschooling profession – is difficult’. While senior NCSL staff seek to find anappropriate balance, it seems inevitable that government requirements will beprivileged as and when these constituencies come into conflict. This leadsThrupp (2005: 18) to argue that NCSL can be seen as ‘the delivery arm of theDfES’, rather than being an independent voice for school leaders. The 2006–09Corporate Plan (NCSL 2006b: 27) states that ‘we will continue to listen closelyto school leaders’. Significantly, it adds that ‘we are establishing a closer relationshipwith ministers and officials … and expect to have a stronger influenceon future policy and practice’ (ibid.). This shows the College’s ambition to havea two-way relationship with government, responding to, but also influencing,policy. This is a sound strategy for both parties but it would be foolish to assumethat this is an equal relationship. The NCSL’s income, and its very survival,depend on satisfying the government’s policy imperatives.ConclusionThere are mixed views about the achievements and influence of NCSL. In its shortlife, it has fundamentally changed the landscape of leadership and managementdevelopment by establishing a suite of impressive programmes, developing anotable electronic platform and becoming a major sponsor of school leadershipresearch. The College’s overall conception and scale represent a major step forwardfor school leadership and its development in England, and globally. TheNCSL is unique in that it provides a national focus on leadership, stresses developmentat all stages, relies heavily on practice and practitioners, and reaches avery large number of school leaders. It is clear that it is now the dominant influenceon school leadership development and research. However, the NCSL hasalso pursued scale at the expense of depth, demanded too little from its participants,and overemphasized practice at the expense of theory (Bush 2006: 508).The future of the NCSL, as with any other government creature, depends onit retaining the goodwill and support of its stakeholders. School leaders, in particular,need to be satisfied that it meets their development needs in diverse andappropriate ways. The College does not take such support for granted, but seeks