Leadership and Management Development in Education (Education ...

THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP77that the NCSL now operates a comprehensive suite of programmes to meet theneeds of leaders at all levels. Male (2006: 72) notes that ‘evaluations of theprogrammes and their impact consistently demonstrate high levels ofsatisfaction with outcomes, both at a personal and systemic level’. This wasconfirmed by a meta-analysis of 34 NCSL evaluations (Bush et al. 2007b).The National Professional Qualification for HeadshipThe NPQH is the College’s flagship programme and the only statutory part ofits provision. As noted in Chapter 5, it is aimed at those leaders aspiring toheadship. It was introduced by the TTA, now the TDA, in 1997 and is designedto establish leaders’ suitability for headship. In this sense, it has always beenmore concerned with what leaders can do, than with what they know andunderstand. Leadership practice is perceived to be more important than anunderstanding of leadership theory and research.The NPQH is progressing through two stages en route to mandatory status.From April 2004, new heads were expected to hold the qualification but therewas a ‘transitional arrangement allowing those with a place on the programmeto be appointed to a first headship’ (www.ncsl.org.uk/npqh). In practice, thisoften meant that headship applicants could be appointed if they promised toregister for NPQH (Bush et al. 2007d). From April 2009, only those who havesuccessfully completed NPQH will be able to be appointed to their first substantiveheadship position (www.ncsl.org.uk/npqh). Even this might beregarded as falling short of mandatory status, as it appears that school governingbodies will be able to make ‘acting’ appointments of candidates who do nothold the NPQH.The NPQH has been through several iterations and was being redesigned asthis chapter was being drafted (September 2007). Despite what the Secretary ofState, in his 2007 remit letter, described as the ‘good reputation of this flagshipprogramme’ (www.ncsl.org.uk/npqh), the NPQH has been subject to many criticisms.These can be summarised as:• Being below the intellectual level required for such an important and complexrole (Brundrett 2000; Brundrett et al. 2006; Bush 1998, 1999, 2006)• Being ‘too basic’ or ‘too easy’ to obtain (Bush 2006; Bush et al. 2007)• Being too reliant on a competency system (Brundrett 2000; Revell 1997)• Having weak links with masters’ level school leadership programmes (Bush1998)• Being based on a normative, and standardised, model of leadership(Brundrett et al. 2006).