Research question: To what extent is a self-assessment inventory helpful in the leadership learning of aspiring leaders?

Objectives:

• To evaluate the New Zealand trial of an ICT based self-assessment tool for leadership learning.
• To  identify the benefits and problems in using the CPSM tool
• To explore how the CPSM tool might be used alongside other components of a leadership learning programme

Theoretical Framework

What constitutes effective knowledge and learning strategies for the preparation of school leaders is an issue which continues to attract attention because of widespread agreement that school leaders play a critical role in improving student outcomes (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009; Hallinger, 2011). Country reports from the OECD 2008 Report on School Leadership reveal a range of formal and informal approaches to leadership learning. These have included headship programmes before and after appointments, mandated qualifications (eg Scotland) and optional programmes ( eg New Zealand’s First-Time Principals) and programmes for aspiring and middle leaders (eg England, Australia, Singapore).

Flückiger, Lovett and Dempster (2012) offer ten criteria for judging programme quality. These help show whether programmes are philosophically attuned to individual and system needs, goal oriented, informed by research evidence, time-rich, practice-centred, purpose-designed, peer-supported, context-sensitive, partnership-powered and whether they are intent on evaluating the effects on leaders and school practices. Hunzicher (2011) suggests learning needs to be “supported, job-embedded, instructionally focused, collaborative and ongoing” (p.177).

Huber (2011) favours multiple learning approaches and places “knowing and doing” alongside “theory and praxis” (p.638). These capture knowledge gained from courses, self-study, collegial exchanges, concrete experiences and feedback, often encapsulated within portfolios for reflection and planning (p.639). Huber cautions that learning should not be restricted to one particular type.

Bush (2009) contrasts traditional models with twenty-first century models of leadership learning. The traditional he suggests are prescribed, standardised, off-site, classroom-based, content-led, to scale, and about leader development of the person. Instead C21 is emergent, personalised, onsite, work-based, process-rich, in-depth and about leadership development as a broader notion (p.229). Both should be viewed as starting points to think about how individuals can relate their learning to unique contexts.

Lovett, Dempster and Flückiger (2015) argue:

"provision of and access to leadership development opportunities are generally the preserve of education systems… System authorities set leadership development agendas and decide who attends, where programmes will be run and why they will happen. The role and responsibility of individuals for the planning of their own leadership learning seem to be missing from the professional development equation" (p.129).

In their attempt to draw individuals into decision making about their professional learning, Lovett et al. promote the notion of personal agency. This is about individuals recognising what their own learning needs are and then taking responsibility for how those needs might be met. Robertson and Earl (2014) suggest successful learning leaders are “looking ahead and intentionally planning for continued learning” (p.9). Journeys of self-awareness are about taking agency for learning.

Leadership learning programmes have typically tried to scaffold this agency by introducing portfolio requirements as opportunities for reflection and online discussion forums. Lovett et al. (2015) have worked with a leadership heuristic tool (pedagogy, people, place, system & self) extended from the work of Clarke and Wildy (2011) to focus individuals on their learning needs past and future.

Custom-made self-assessment tools are another variant. These can address social, emotional, psychological and cognitive aspects of leadership in order to help leaders understand themselves as leaders and how that helps them understand their colleagues. However, regardless of the model, what matters is how to link the components so that they serve as an integrated whole designed to support on-going learning about leadership.

Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: contemporary issues in leadership development. Educational Review, 61(4), 375-389. Clarke, S., & Wildy, H., 2011. Providing professional sustenance for leaders of learning: the glass half full? In T. Townsend and J. MacBeath, (Eds.). International handbook of leadership for learning. Dordrecht: Springer, 673–690. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2),125-142. Huber, S.G. (2013). Multiple learning approaches in the professional development of school leaders – theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on self-assessment and feedback. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 527-540. Huber, S.G., & Hiltmann, M. (2011). Competence Profile School Management (CPSM) – an inventory for the self-assessment of school leadership. Educational Assessment Evaluation Accountability, 23, 65-88. DOI 10.1007/s11092-010-9111-1. Hunzicher, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: a checklist. Professional Development in Education 37(2), 177-179. Lovett, S., Dempster, N., & Flückiger, B. (2015). Personal agency in leadership learning using an Australian heuristic. Professional Development in Education, 41(1), 127-143. OECD. (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 2: Case studies on system leadership. Paris: OECD. Robertson, J., & Earl, L. (2014). Leadership learning: aspiring principals developing the dispositions that count. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy & Practice, 29(2), 3-17. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes. Identifying what works and why. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Timperley, H. (2015). Professional conversations and improvement-focused feedback. A review of the research literature and the impact on practice and student outcomes. Prepared for the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). Melbourne.