Leadership and Management Development in Education (Education ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
132LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATIONworking well (Bush and Chew 1999). It is also consistent with the country’swider approach to public services and, therefore, suitable for the nationalcontext.England has also adopted a singular national model of leadership preparationfor potential headteachers. From 2009, it will be mandatory for new headsto possess the NPQH, designed by the NCSL for the government. Unlike Singapore,heads in England are appointed by school governing bodies, not by thestate. However, they will not have the discretion to appoint an uncertifiedapplicant, even one holding a university master’s degree in educational leadership.As Gunter (in press) suggests, ‘postgraduate programmes became sidelinedin favour of national training programmes’. This ‘single national focus’ carriescertain risks. Despite the intention to allow, even encourage, personaliseddevelopment, the outcome will be a headteacher accredited by the state againsta set of national standards. Given the mixed views of current NPQH graduates(Bush et al. 2007), a lack of pluralism may mean that new heads receive only anarrow prescribed preparation for the challenges of school leadership (Bush2004).The USA provides the most obvious example of pluralism in leadershippreparation. Responsibility for education rests with the 50 states and most ofthese require principals to hold a recognised master’s degree in educationaladministration. More than 500 universities provide leadership courses (Huber2004c: 275). Only 76 of these are members of the prestigious UniversityCouncil for Educational Administration, regarded by Huber (2004c: 276) as ‘thedominant authority for qualification programs in the training of educationalleaders’. This ‘varied landscape’ (ibid.: 277) for school leadership preparationprovides substantial choice for potential school principals but most states providea measure of consistency by requiring providers to adhere to the InterstateSchool Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards (Bjork and Murphy2005: 10):The creation of ISLLC standards not only aligned professional preparationwith changing expectations for schools but also grounded licensure onaspiring administrators’ ability to demonstrate through their portfolioentries their capacity to successfully perform as a school or district administrator.The advantages of a pluralist approach to leadership provision include thegreater potential for innovation and the lower risk if individual programmesfail. The disadvantages of an unregulated market are that certain offerings maynot be effective in producing knowledgeable and skilled leaders. The ISLLCstandards provide the potential for a measure of standardisation without theneed for a monopolistic approach. However, significant criticisms of US
Page 2 and 3:
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENTDEVELOPMEN
Page 4 and 5:
Leadership andManagement Developmen
Page 6 and 7:
ContentsNotes on the authorSeries E
Page 10 and 11:
Series Editor’s ForewordThis seri
Page 12 and 13:
PrefaceThe significance of effectiv
Page 14:
PREFACExiiiChapter 7 shifts the deb
Page 21 and 22:
6LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPM
Page 23 and 24:
8LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPM
Page 25 and 26:
10LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOP
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 40 and 41:
3The significance of leadership and
Page 42 and 43:
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEADERSHIP AND
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
4The curriculum for leadershipdevel
Page 50 and 51:
THE CURRICULUM FOR LEADERSHIP DEVEL
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 88 and 89:
6The National College for SchoolLea
Page 90 and 91:
THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEA
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97: THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEA
Page 102: THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEA
Page 105 and 106: 90LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOP
Page 115 and 116: 100LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELO
Page 140 and 141: 9The future of leadershipdevelopmen
Page 142 and 143: THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMEN
Page 152: THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMEN
show all

Leadership and Management Development in Education (Education ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?