Leadership and Management Development in Education (Education ...

THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT1312001) outlines five stages of provision from middle leaders to consultantheadship. This approach is not appropriate everywhere but it is worthy ofexamination wherever leadership development is taken seriously andeducation budgets are sufficient to allow this ‘ideal’ model to apply.In developing countries, however, funding is rarely sufficient to underpinpreparation and training for all school leaders. In such circumstances, it makessense to deploy the limited resources on principals. Bush and Oduro (2006)advocate focusing on in-service development because it targets funding on peoplewho are already holding the position rather than those who may do so atsome point in the future. This stance is taken in Botswana, where headteachersmay apply for training only after they have been in post for a minimum of twoyears (Pheko 2008). The obvious problem with this mode is that new principals‘feel ill equipped for the post’ (ibid.). In South Africa, a pragmatic approach tothis issue has been taken. In inviting provinces to nominate candidates for thepilot ACE: School Leadership programme, both current and potential principalswere eligible even though the course is ultimately intended to be a statutoryprogramme for aspiring principals. The rationale for this apparently contradictorystance is that current principals may feel undermined if their deputies orheads of departments receive training, which they have been denied (Departmentof Education 2007).Such difficult decisions must be taken wherever resources are limited. Whatis needed is a targeted donor programme of leadership training in developingcountries. Given the British government’s active interest in Africa, under theleadership of the current and previous Prime Ministers, and its evident supportfor the English NCSL, it is surprising that so little has been done for school leadershipdevelopment in this most needy of continents.Centralised or pluralist programmes?Regardless of whether the provision is pre-service or in-service, it is importantto consider whether to adopt a singular, centralised model or to encourage apluralist approach with multiple providers. Where national certification isinvolved (see below), it is likely, if not inevitable, that a centralised model willpredominate. Singapore provides an enduring, and largely successful, exampleof a centralised leadership preparation model. The Leaders in EducationProgramme (LEP), and its predecessor, are the product of a close workingrelationship between the Ministry of Education and the National Institute ofEducation, the sole provider of teacher and leadership education (Chong et al.2003). The outcome is a coherent programme tailored to meet the perceivedneeds of Singaporean leaders. Judging by the very good student outcomes, asmeasured by successive international comparisons, the centralised approach is