Session Information
26 SES 02 A, Educational Leadership Development
Paper Session
Contribution
In a special issue about school leadership development in a Norwegian school context, “what school leadership development and leader development is and might be” is illuminated (Jensen, Helstad, Møller 2016). Møller (2016) gives a historical overview of Norwegian school leadership education, and shows how the basis of knowledge has changed over time. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (Udir) has in recent years played a central role in the shaping of the curriculums for school leadership development in Norway (ibid). In the Norwegian school and educational system Udir is an authoritative focal point which plays the role both as procurer, translator and implementor of reform ideas (Røvik, Eilertsen, Lund 2014). Udir’s dominating implementation strategy has to a growing extent become the “top-down” practice, giving distinctive guidelines for the knowledge foundation for national education of principals. This became clear in the specific guidelines used when the national in-service education of principals started in 2009 (and it was reinforced in 2015). One focused on topics such as: «students’ learning», «management and administration», «cooperation and organization building», «development and change», and «the leadership role» (Udir 2008).
A challenge for the providers of a Norwegian leadership development program was to decide what should be the most important focus through the 1,5-year program period? Should some topics and perspectives be more prominent than others? Should emphasis be put on pedagogical leaderskip, staff management or economic administrative leadership? (Lillejord 2011). Ought the basis to be found in research traditions such as: object rational/effect studies, constructivist studies, studies grounded in critical theory or studies linked to postmodern theory? (Møller 2016).
Based on substantial national and international disagreement about what leadership development should consist of (Bush 2008; Bush m.fl. 2012; Huber 2010; Hybertsen m.fl. 2014; Aas, Törnsén 2016), Ottesen (2016) argues for the leadership curriculum in schools being grounded in pedagogy, and constitutes the project of education: «contributing to children’s and adolescents’ learning what they need to give them the good life.” This corresponds with Starratt’s (2005) arguing that school leaders must never forget what their real mission is: to be an authentic pedagogue. What follows according to Starratt is that a school leader is the pedagogical leader, pedagogical administrative leader and pedagogical staff leader. Thus they must keep and maintain the core of their pedagogical credo from their teacher career. (Dewey 1897; Gilje 2015).
When Ottesen (2016) grounds school leaders’ knowledge basis in pedagogy, she does it referring to the Educational Act (2008) about the school’s purpose, and claims that this constitutes the professional basis for principals. This corresponds with Government Report 28 (2015-2016) which underscores that the broad formation purpose of education (Bildung) constitutes a central part of the basis for the revised core curriculum and for the different subjects.
The mission statement emphasises that the education is based on core values in our Christian and Humanist heritage, multiculturalism, democracy, scientific approach, helping the students master their lives, critical thinking, ethical and sustainable action and encouraging formation, compassion and the desire to learn. This broad formation authorization may be linked to Biesta (2014, p 147) three partite concept constituting schools purpose: Qualification, socialization and subjectification. According to Biesta (ibid) the art of teaching is «finding the right balance among the three dimensions, and this is an ongoing task, not something that can be pre-programmed or sorted out by research”.
Research questions are:
- To what degree do the Udir’s guidelines for the curriculum of school leaders correspond with school’s overall purpose as expressed through the Educational Act?
- To what degree is school’s purpose included in texts written by principals attending the in-service principals’ program?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Andersen, F. C. (2016). Rektorutdanningens potensial i en flerkulturell kontekst. I Acta Didactia Norge.Vol. 10, Nr. 4., s. 103-123. Biesta, G. J. J. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. USA: Paradigm Publishers Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. London: Sage. Bush, T., Kiggundu, E., Moorosi, P. (2012). Preparing new principals in South Africa: the ACE: School Leadership Programme. South African Journal of Education, 31, pp.31-43. Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. In J.A Boydston (red.), The Early Works, 1882-1898, bd. 5, pp. 84-95. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Gilje, J. (2015) Kan pedagogisk credo-tenkning selvstendiggjøre personen og pedagogen? I: P. O. Brunstad, S. M. Reindal og H. Sæverot (red.), Eksistens og pedagogikk. En samtale om pedagogikkens oppgave, s. 23-39. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Government Report 28 (2015-2016), Meld. St. 28 (2015-2016). Fag – Fordypning – Forståelse. En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet. Huber, S. (2010). New approaches in preparing school leaders. International encyclopedia og education, 4, pp. 752-761 Hybertsen, I. D., Stensaker, B., Federici, R. A., Olsen, M. S., Solem, A., Aamot, P. O. (2014). Ledet til endring. Nasjonal rektorutdanning i grunn- og videregående skole; endringer på skolene, måloppnåelse og anbefalinger. Sluttrapport fra Evalueringen av den nasjonale rektorutdanningen. Oslo: NIFU. Jensen, R., Helstad, K., Møller, J. (2016). Skolelederutdanning og ledelsesutvikling i skolen. I Acta Didactia Norge.Vol. 10, Nr. 4., s. 1-6. Lillejord, S. (2011). Kunsten å være rektor. I: J. Møller og E. Ottesen (red.), Rektor som leder og sjef, s. 284-301. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Møller, J. (2016). Kvalifisering som skoleleder i norsk kontekst: Et historisk tilbakeblikk og perspektiver på utdanning av skoleledere. I Acta Didactia Norge.Vol. 10, Nr. 4., s. 7-26. Opplæringsloven. (2008). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa. Kap. 1 Formål, verkeområde og tilpassa opplæring m.m. Ottesen, E. (2016). Et kunnskapsgrunnlag for skoleledelse. I Acta Didactia Norge.Vol. 10, Nr. 4., s. 69-81. Røvik, K. A., Eilertsen, T. V., Lund, T. (2014). «Hvor har de det fra, og hva gjør de med det?». Utdanningsdirektoratet som innhenter, oversetter og iverksetter av reformideer. I: K. A. R., T. V. Eilertsen og E. Mosksnes Furu (red.) Reformideer i norsk skole, s. 87-120. Oslo: Cappelen Damm. Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. Aas, M. and Törnsén, M. (2016): Editorial: Nordic Studies in Education - Special issue: Educational Leadership in Nordic countries. In: Nordic Studies in Education. 02/2016, pp 173-187.
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.