Leadership and Management Development in Education (Education ...

110LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATIONSuccession planning or meeting individual needsWatson (2003b: 9) asks a key question: ‘to what extent does any training orother development system draw upon an individualised understanding of thedevelopmental needs, and the particular strengths and weaknesses, of theparticular headteacher?’ This point connects to the key issue of whetherprogrammes should be standardised or personalised. The NCSL’s new modelNPQH stresses personalisation but it also links development to the nationalstandards for headship (see below). While it can be argued that anyqualification needs an element of consistency, to ensure high-qualitygraduates and equality of treatment for all applicants, personalisation isnecessary to take account of aspirants’ diverse pre-course experience and thedifferent circumstances likely to be encountered by heads working in differentcontexts.A personalised approach may succeed in meeting the aspirations of individualleaders, but is unlikely to ensure that national and community needs aremet. A major national responsibility for any society is to ensure a sufficient supplyof leaders to meet the perceived demand. As the NCSL (2006c: 5) points out,succession planning provides a ‘systematic approach to leadership recruitmentand development’, in contrast to ‘the ad hoc approach’ that is the likely outcomeof a process that is driven wholly by individual needs. Succession planningis regarded as essential ‘to ensure there is a supply and flow of high qualitycandidates for headship and leadership teams’ (NCSL 2007: 16). When amandatory qualification is introduced, as in England for example, this constitutesan additional ‘hurdle’ for potential heads that may restrict supply in theshort-term, or act as a disincentive in the longer term.Standards-based or holistic developmentThe development and use of ‘standards’ is gaining ground in the preparation ofschool leaders, notably in Australia, England, New Zealand, Scotland, SouthAfrica and the USA, prompting Male (2006: 58) to comment that ‘the adoptionof standards for school leaders is well on the way to becoming a global phenomenon’.Brundrett et al. (2006: 101) add that ‘standards-based programmeshave assumed apparent dominance in the training and development of schoolleaders in both England and New Zealand’.The focus on standards may be understood as part of an ongoing fascinationwith the technical aspects of school management and leadership. The argumentappears to be that, by articulating a clear set of expectations for leaders,the standards provide a basis for measuring performance, during and after training,and that successful completion of such standards-based programmes