Bringing together training needs and quality standards in the field of school leadership – A catch 22?

Author(s):

Stefan Brauckmann(presenting / submitting)Tyrone Bynoe(presenting)Petros Pashiardis

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 02 A, Educational Leadership Development

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

15:15-16:45

Room:

K6.20

Chair:

Stefan Brauckmann

Contribution

General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework (600) words

Not least owing to an increase in the empirical evidence base of school leadership actions as a central component of school quality assurance and development (see Huber & Muijs 2010, Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe 2008, Rolff 2007, Marzano, Waters, & Mcnulty 2005, Dubs 2005), many countries in Europe and beyond have developed strategies for the recruitment, selection, preparation, further qualification and support of school leaders for professionally fulfilling this new and central role (for an overview, see Lumby et al. 2008). In particular, initial and further qualification measures targeting the formal professionalization of school leadership actions concern increased demands for entering the profession (cf. Young & Grogan 2008), featuring mostly the establishment of leadership academies (cf. Hean & Tin 2008), agreement on nationwide quality standards for school leadership actions (see Ingvarson et al. 2006, CCSSO 1996), as well as the conceptualisation of competence-based qualification frameworks. Criticism is raised from a scientific perspective claiming that school leaders with “uniform design“ are thus created (cf. Southworth 2002) who are unable to appropriately react to specificities of the individual school contexts (cf. Salazar 2007, Rhodes et al. 2006). Altogether, the majority of the formal opportunities offered for professionalization target context-independent generic skills while professionalization at an informal level is more strongly characterised by its reference to context and problems (cf. Crow 2001). Recently, researchers have indicated that in terms of improving the effectiveness of school leadership actions, these two strands of qualification should functionally be better aligned (Pont et al. 2008, S.211).

Objectives

In other words, the school leaders need to be better prepared for different contextual scenarios, which can be achieved by providing them with contextual mind setting and mind mapping skills. A comparative approach can provide another base of information for pursuing this question as it offers shared knowledge of conditions of school leaders and expectations towards them as well as new insights into ways in which schools leaders are trained all over Europe.

Research questions

The presentation´s main goal is to examine the alignment and relevance of school leaders’ training needs with research evidence defining quality standards for school leadership actions, while affirming both how this alignment occurs in the United States (US) and might occur in Europe. The US has used school leadership standards since 1996 to establish core competencies from which redesigned school leadership preparation programs have developed in the nation’s higher education institutions. Similar adoptions of leadership preparation standards have rarely occurred in Europe because empirically-based research attempts are scarce in authoring these standards. Therefore, the paper aims to form an initial base of evidence that future educational researchers and practitioners in Europe could build upon to devise and espouse a set of relevant school leadership standards. Meaningful types of professional development programs can then be constructed in order to strengthen school leadership preparation throughout the continent. Within this context, the authors will focus on the following guiding questions:

What needs of a school leader call for relevant professional development?
How well prepared are school leaders in initial leadership preparation programs in regards to performing their duties effectively?
Which forms of professional development are preferable?
How might leadership standards that prescribe effective forms of professional development for practicing school leaders in the US be replicated in a European context?

Method

Comparative studies on school leadership so far provide little information on the systemic contexts underlying school principals’ actions. For instance, systemic framing of school leadership includes the underlying legal framework (setting) and the structure of its regulations as well as state-organized support systems (e.g. qualification and training programmes) aiming to empower school leaders to do what they are supposed to do. A comparative approach can provide another base of information for pursuing this question as it offers shared knowledge of conditions of school leaders and expectations towards them as well as new insights into ways in which schools leaders are trained all over Europe. In comparative education, four main points of divergence have been distinguished according to the criteria of practical against theoretical interest on the one hand, and an interest in universal as opposed to particular traits on the other (cf. Hörner 1997, p. 70f.). These are the idiographic, the meliorist, the evolutionist, and the experimental functions. The purpose of the idiographic function is to work out the particularities, the unique traits of individual phenomena in an education system. Comparative research is therefore interested in aspects that render one educational system distinct from all others. This search for particularities is complemented by the search for common features. These idiographies in terms of different and similar systemic features may be of interest to European and non-European readers alike. The ideographic function is of primary importance here, as the descriptive country analyses presented below are meant to offer reliable knowledge about particular but also common traits of the context bound qualification programs and particular training needs. In alignment with comparative research activities in the field of school leadership training, this presentation will deal with a categorization attempt in order to describe more systematically different relationship types of training needs and competencies based training offers in the field of school leadership. The corpus of systematized information on training needs here stems from the Co-LEAD study (Pashiardis & Brauckmann 2011). Potential idiographies in terms of different and similar systemic features may be of interest to European and non-European readers alike.

Expected Outcomes

Schools and their potential good leaders will be faced with new challenges and responsibilities, but they will also, ideally speaking, have more room for individual maneuvering and more possibilities to shape and structure their work as they see fit. The new changes and responsibilities will result in a new professional role for school leaders and, associated with this, a wider array of school leadership functions which call for a wider set of skills in order to fulfill those new functions successfully. Those aforementioned professional development needs of school leaders might be determined by the contextual settings within which school leaders are operating. Therefore, support systems of professional development which are characterized by a greater degree of contextual/situational sensitiveness might eventually increase the acceptance and encourage stronger involvement of school leaders with regards to the new roles and responsibilities (especially when it comes to pedagogical or instructional quality development management). In other words, the school leaders need to be better prepared for different contextual scenarios, which can be achieved by providing them with contextual mind setting and mind mapping skills. The next step forward would entail fostering the acceptance of the new roles and functions by answering questions, such as: Do these new functions strengthen my role as a school leader by refining it; do they help me gain more professional expertise; are the local authorities ready for their new role and can they be trusted? Different context mixes need different support systems and different development procedures with regards to the qualification aims, inputs and procedures.

References

Brauckmann, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2011). Contextual framing for school leadership training. Empirical findings from the Commonwealth Project on Leadership Assessment- and Development (CO-LEAD). Journal of Management Development, 31 (1), 18–33. CCSSO (2000). Standards-Based Professional Development for School Leaders. Washington, DC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Crow, G. M. (2001). School Leader Preparation. A Short Review of the Knowledge Base. National College for School Leadership. available at www.ncsl.org.uk/researchpublications. Hean, L., & Tin, G., (2008). Envisioning in School Leadership Preparation and Practice: The Case of Singapore. International Studies in Educational Administration, 36 (1), 72-80. Huber, S.G., & Muijs, D. (2010). School Leadership Effectiveness. The Growing Insight in the Importance of School Leadership for the Quality and Development of Schools and their Pupils. In Huber, S.G. & Muijs, D. (Eds.). School Leadership – International Perspectives. Dordrecht u.a.: Springer. Ingvarson, L., Anderson, M. , Gronn P. & Jackson, A. (2006). Standards for School Leadership: A Critical Review of the Literature. Teaching Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd.. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). “What we know about successful school leadership.” In: W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership. New York: Teacher College Press. Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works. From Research to Results. USA: ASCD and MCREL. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD. (Volume1). Policy and Practice. Rhodes, C., & Brundrett, M. (2006). The identification, development, succession and retention of leadership talent in contextually different primary schools: a case study located within the English West Midlands. School Leadership and Management, 26 (3), 269-287. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. A. & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Salazar, P.S. (2007). The Professional Development Needs of Rural High School Principals: A Seven-state study. The Rural Educator, 28 (3), 20-27. Southworth, G. (2002). Lessons from Successful Leadership in Small Schools. In Leithwood, K., & Hallinger, P. (Ed.). Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (S. 451-484). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Waters, T. Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement

Author Information

Stefan Brauckmann (presenting / submitting)

Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt, Austria

Tyrone Bynoe (presenting)

University of Michigan - Flint

Flint

Petros Pashiardis

Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.