Chair & Discussant: Professor John MacBeath, Cambridge University Rationale One of the most persistent 'findings' of research on school effectiveness and school improvement, as well as aspects of school cultures and school leadership, has been that the role of the principal is pivotal to a well functioning 'good' school, even if what counts as a 'good' school is contested terrain with a tendency in some jurisdictions more than others towards increasing homogenisation (Cuban, 2003). Similarly, as the impact of globalisation and new technologies impact on international 'social movements' (Castells, 2000, 2004) and these discourses are 'refracted' (Goodson, 2004) within national policy arenas, in the absence of commonly shared understandings of the purposes of public schooling, teaching and learning have frequently been subjected to the accountant's slide rule-efficiency, through various regimes of accountability (see Sugrue, 2006, 2005). This general tendency towards what Gross Stein (2001) memorably labels 'The Cult of Efficiency' inevitably results in a preoccupation with test scores to the relative marginalisation of other, dare we say, more educational concerns, typically captured in the term Bildung, in a northern European context, with attendant attention to pedagogics and didaktics, rather than the much narrower Anglo-American preoccupation with 'instruction'.As neo-liberal economic agendas infiltrate the policies of more social-democratic states, and the underlying values and belief systems that underpin this ideology become the chlorine in the water of educational policy-makers, deregulation becomes a policy orthodoxy, with paradoxical consequences: a rhetoric of devolution of responsibility and decision-making to the local level, typically the district and/ or school, while simultaneously tying the hands of school principals as leaders of school communities by insisting on compliance, conformity and curriculum orthodoxy through various policy declarations and accountability regimes. Allied to this set of interlocking policy shifts, both complementary and contradictory, has been an increasing emphasis on the formal preparation of principals for their increasingly demanding roles. In all three countries under scrutiny here, various preparation programmes for principals have emerged within roughly similar timeframes, but within rather different histories, traditions and trajectories of schooling, some national, while more local in the Norwegian context. Each of the three countries is a participant in the OECD study, Improving School Leadership. Consequently, the similarities and differences in these jurisdications is a very timely and apposite focus, with potential implications in other contexts also.The purpose of this workshop, therefore, is fourfold. One, to create a 'space' or forum at a European level, as part of the work of Network 26, whereby these trends can be documented, presented, critiqued, researched, contrasted and compared, but in a more open-ended manner, in a less 'polished' way as would be the norm in a symposium; with more time and opportunity for dialogue, but with a very definite purpose to create an ongoing conversation around trends in leadership, the content, duration, certification, delivery and demands of programmes, and the kinds of impacts they are having on the quality of teaching and learning in schools.Two, identify trends in leadership programmes, to critique these emerging developments, to document them and to identify appropriate research agenda that arise from them, while seeking also to situate and locate them within international discourses, established and/ or emerging policy and research. Three, to enable network participants to create cross-national research projects that arise out of these ongoing critical conversations; to build the research base on school leadership in several jurisdictions while simultaneously creating a European forum for new and emerging ideas. Four, in order to avoid a Eurocentrism, particular effort will be made to include contributions from other parts of the globe, to inform developments in the European context, and to create more extensive networks for information exchange, mutual benefit and research foci in a spirit of collaboration, scholarship and collegial interdependence.Collectively therefore, this more experimental workshop approach has potential to become a kind of melting pot for ideas and developments in several jurisdictions, but with a definite purpose of pooling expertise, and shaping research agenda in a more proactive manner. This initiative may be regarded as 'experimental', a forum that will evolve and be shaped by participants. This first 'workshop' is intended to get the ball rolling. Three short presentations-10 minutes each on each of the 3 countries, thus maximising time for discussion etc. It may be possible also to circulate these papers in advance so that more time may be spent on discussion rather than presentation. Abstract 1 Principal Preparation In Ireland: Dominant Trends, Identifiable Trajectories-the Story thus far in International Perspective Ciaran Sugrue St Patrick's College Dublin City University Ciaran.Sugrue@spd.dcu.ie Formal and systematic professional preparation at a national level is a recent phenomenon in the Irish context; introduced in 2001 as further evidence of the internationalisation of the educational policy agenda, while indicating also that reform, restructuring and intensification have also been more recent phenomena in this jurisdiction. This account is in five parts. First, a brief historical backdrop to the history of principalship in Irish primary and postprimary schools is provided. Second, the policy context that led to the introduction of Leadership Development for Schools (LDS) is briefly outlines. Third, the programme, its content, duration, development and delivery is sketched. Fourth, evaluation of early implementation is provided and the national initiative is viewed through international perspectives on school leadership. Fifth, this concluding section identifies some inadequacies and possible lines of development as well as possible research agenda with potential for international collaboration. Abstract 2 Principals Preparation in Denmark: Beginning to emerge Lejf Moos Danish University of Education moos@dpu.dk Although the educational system and politics in Denmark are treading on the same paths that are well known in the Anglo-American systems: New Public Management, marketisation, low-trust, monitoring, performativity, on the basis of arguments from the OECD (Moos, 2006; Moos et al., 2005; Moos(Eds.), 2006; Mortimore & al., 2004) the Danish Government is developing a new and tighter national accountability system that gives both local authorities and schools the responsibility to act according to a accountability - documenting system, that is exhausting the time and resources of local authorities and school principals and leaving less time and resources for developing the quality of schools. However, the focus on school leaders/principals' preparation has been falling behind. This is in part due to the division of politics and administration between the national level, Ministry, and the local level, municipalities. Due to strong decentralization and we have seen a strengthening of the 'Association of Municipalities' that claims to represent the 'school owners' and therefore declines most central initiatives. This has also been the case with principal preparation. However the Ministry of Education is now reshaping parts of an overall 'Diploma course in leadership and management' for middle managers to fit better to principals. We have not yet seen that.Principals Associations have written a 'Codex for Good Leadership' and many local authorities are writing 'Foundations for Leadership' as contributions to the cultural fight about what is good principalship and how it can be developed. Abstract 3 The Preparation and Development of School Leaders in Norway - Dominant Trends and Conflicting Views Jorunn Møller University of Oslo Department of Teacher Education and School Development jorunn.moller@ils.uio.no Until the early 1990s, no formal education for school leaders was offered by Norwegian universities and university colleges, and education and training in school leadership was first and foremost offered to those who hold leadership positions in schools. Resilient unions have been an important element in our way of framing legitimate leadership and management, and the main teacher union argued up till 1990s strongly against a requirement of formal preparation of principals. In stead, they insisted on teacher education and three years teaching experience to hold an administrative position in schools. However, national and regional authorities have provided in-service training since early 1970s. Even though such efforts from the 1980s were guided by broad national programs for school leadership, there was much variation in both content and forms of delivery, reflecting the more decentralized nature in Norwegian school politics when it comes to selecting approaches for capacity building in schools. External evaluation of these programs has been commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Research, and the course has been adjusted on a continuous basis. Nevertheless, it has been difficult to trace effects of these programs at school level.In the past ten years, the Ministry of Education and Research has encouraged cooperation between universities and university colleges in order to promote the development of in-service training courses and master programmes in educational leadership. This has resulted in an extensive co-operation across institutions, and now several universities and colleges offer master programmes within school leadership/educational leadership. Current issues are whether it is sufficient to provide training when school leaders are employed or whether there should be requirements as to leadership training before their appointment. At municipal level they claim that the work place is the best learning arena; others make a case of the need for more formal education. Other topics of discussion are what the content should be. On the one hand, one is arguing for a stronger focus on leadership for learning; on the other hand, the present policies in many municipalities seem to strengthen the management character of the principal's role, influenced by New Public Management ideas. Format of Presentation Please indicate by Research Workshop to access a drop-down menu of choices Where do you wish to place your proposal in the Programme? Please indicate by Main Conference to access a drop-down menu of choices.Please note: Pre-Conference is available to Network 21, Postgraduate network only) If the Main Conference, please indicate your preferred network by entering its number in the box. 1st choice of Network 26 2nd choice of NetworkAudio Visual requirementsThe number of computer projectors may be very limited and availability cannot be guaranteed Overhead Projector Yes Computer projector: Yes (if available) NB: Equipment requirements must be specified here. We cannot provide equipment requested at a later date. Proposal Information Paper, Poster, Workshop, Roundtable: 400-600 words, Symposium: 400-600 word overview plus a 150-200 word abstract for each paper in the symposium. The number of words applies to all boxes In order to evaluate the scientific quality of proposals, the following information must be provided At Network 26's AGM at the 2006 conference, a workshop format was recommended as a means of reporting on work in progress or for negotiating new research initiatives with a European Policy focus. Towards this end, this workshop is proposed as a means of working out a more experimental format within the network. For this reason, it may be regarded as 'experimental' or 'state of the art'! The methologies will primarily consist of document analysis while also drawing on extant research in three jurisdictions, while seeking also to push understanding of theoretical and conceptual understandings of leadership learning in new directions.Identification of commonalities and differences in these and other jurisdictions, while identifying new research agenda also are anticipated.ReferencesCastells, M. (2000) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume III End of Millennium (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers). Castells, M. (2004) The Information Age Economy, Society and Culture Volume II The Power of Identity (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing). Cuban, L. (2003) Why is it so hard to get GOOD Schools? (New York & London, Teachers College Press). Goodson, I.F. (2004) Change Processes and Historical Periods: An International Perspective, in: C. Sugrue (Ed) Curriculum and Ideology: Irish Experiences, International Perspectives (Dublin, The Liffey Press). Mortimore, P., & al., e. (2004). Pilot review of the quality of schooling outcomes in denmark. Examiner's repport (No. EDU/EC(2004)4). Copenhagen: OECD. Moos, L. (2006). A real change or a change in rhetoric? - comments to two oecd reviews on educational research: England in 2002 and denmark in 2004. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 63-67. Moos, L., Krejsler, J., Hjort, K., Laursen, P. F., & Braad, K. B. (2005). Evidens i uddannelse? [evidence in education?]. Copenahgen: Danish University of Education Press. Moos(Eds.), L. (2006). What kinds of democracy in education are facilitated by supra- and transnational agencies? European Educational Research Journal, Special Issue (forthcoming). Sugrue, C. (2005) Revisiting Teaching Archetypes: Re-concedptualising student teachers's lay theories and identities, in: D. Beijaard, P.C. Meijer, G. Morine-Dershimer, and & H. Tillema (Eds) Teacher Professional Development in Changing Conditions (Netherlands, Springer). Sugrue, C. (2006) Structure and agency in the construction of creative teaching and learning: a view from the margins, in: B. Jeffrey (Ed) Creative Learning Practices: European Experiences (London, the Tufnell Press).