School leaders have a key role in school transformation. A quarter of all the influence a school can have on children’s outcomes depends on the school’s leadership. No schools have made substantial improvements in terms of children’s learning without good pedagogical leadership. (Wallace Foundation, 2004). In the Czech republic, the support for headteachers is not very systematic and existing programs are mostly focused on school management. The role of pedagogical leaders is missing in current courses, while it is a priority of instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2003). Czech headteachers do not feel educated enough in leadership. 42 % of Czech headteachers never participated in an education program focused on instructional leadership, which is below the European average (Federičová, 2019). Current Standard of headship preparation does not emphasize the subject of pedagogical leadership enough, but focuses mainly on law, finance or personnel management. Lead Live is an innovative two-year course for headteachers and their deputy headteachers. It is designed for headteachers aiming to develop schools to become a safe space where pupils can learn fully and with joy. The program helps the headteachers in transforming into pedagogical leaders. In the Czech context, this program is unique as both the school headteacher and deputy headteacher participate as equals and their mutual support, as well as a support of the community of all participants, lecturers included, is seen as crucial for school development. 

The program consists of 350 hours of seminars, school excursions, job shadowing, individual support (provided by a coach or a mentor) and self-help groups. Throughout the program, all participants work on their own progress in 5 domains (school vision, learning community, supportive environment, impact and leadership). These domains are described in a framework of competencies of a headteacher. This framework is a part of the program's curriculum well known to all participants and also used as a tool for self-assessment of participants. It allows for  evaluation of the progress of participants in the specific domains of the program. 

The program is organized by Teach Live, an educational organisation with evidence-based approach. The presented evaluation research was conducted by an internal evaluation team. Evaluation of this program focuses on 4 levels according to Kirkpatrick's evaluation model: evaluation of reaction (how did participants respond to the training), evaluation of learning (how much did participants learn from the training and how did their skills improve), evaluation of behavior (have participants applied what they learned from the training) and evaluation of results (what is the impact on schools and on pupils).

Specifically, the evaluation research questions were the following: 

1. How do the participants assess the quality of the program? 

2. How do participants develop in their self-estimate and do they develop differently according to their experience? 

3. Is there a change in the school (impact to the school) observed by teachers on participating schools? 

Results of this research were discussed with the training team and considered for a future scheme of the program for next year. Results were also presented to participants, analysing Kalibro and TALIS reports was a part of the program in its second year, so participants were motivated to self-evaluate the impact of their changes and their progress and plan their next steps based on data.

The research methodology has been informed by current research on headteacher education, adult learning, leadership development and school improvement, as well as by relevant approaches in evaluation research and by inspiration from organisations conducting high quality evaluations of headteacher preparation programs (such as NYC Leadership Academy, NYC Department of Education, Bank Street College of Education, Wallace Foundation). Lead Live evaluation takes a mixed-methods approach utilizing a combination of qualitative (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (self-evaluation questionnaires, standardised assessment sheets for lecturers, activity time-sheets) instruments. Data is collected from participants of the program (the headteachers and deputy headteachers), as well as teachers at their schools. Pupil’s survey is planned for the next year. Net promoter score (NPS) and other feedback questions are used to measure the actual feedback on separate parts of the training (seminars, excursions, reflections, and other) as well as overall feedback on the program. Self-evaluation questionnaires reflect the 5 study domains of the program. These were discussed closely during the trainings, which allowed participants/respondents a deep understanding of measured items. A battery from the international TALIS survey was included as part of the self-evaluation questionnaire. As Kalibro survey allows a comparison between more motivated schools (57 Czech schools with 660 teachers participated in the Kalibro survey in 2018-2020, schools participate in Kalibro survey on voluntary basis), TALIS (2018) survey offers a representative comparison with 3400 teachers in the Czech republic. The following indexes from TALIS were added to the self-evaluation tool: Teaching practices, Self-efficacy in classroom management, Teacher co-operation, Professional collaboration, Participation. Another battery of the self-evaluation questionnaire consists of Kalibro questions, where headteachers, deputy headteachers and teachers answer a standardised questionnaire. Additional questions about school vision, support provided to teachers, impact on pupils or pupils well-being were added to the teacher questionnaire. Self-efficacy is considered a great tool when combined with other research methods. Therefore, a qualitative survey complements the evaluation design. Semi-structured interviews with headteachers and deputy headteachers were therefore conducted with 7 schools and 7 respective groups of teachers. The interviews focused on detailed understanding of the actors. These qualitative interviews and focus groups were carried out twice: at the end of each year of the program, and a consecutive survey to be conducted with alumni of the program 1 and 5 years after graduation.

Participants are mostly satisfied with the program, the Net promoter score (NPS) oscillating between 70-88 depending on the year of the program. The NPS is very high in comparison with other educational programs. 95 % of participants would participate again in the program. Analysing the NPS of separate parts and overall rating of the program by participants, we found that the main characteristics contributing to the overall rating of the program were: focus of the program on pedagogical leadership, safe and open environment to share and great percieved quality of tutors of the program. Participants reported most development in the domains of school vision and leadership (45 % of participants) according to a self-efficacy questionnaire, but these also showed there was a considerable difference between participants. The program should focus on more individualised support to participants according to their baseline (though this individual development does not correlate with years of practice). Participants of Lead Live are more satisfied with their profession compared to Czech headteachers included in the TALIS survey. They are more self-critical in the domain of leadership, but it is also the domain where they progress the most throughout the program. Qualitative survey acknowledged and explained these quantitative findings. According to the semi-structured interviews with participants, the pedagogical leadership becomes the priority for headteachers who put pupil’s learning at the center of their attention. They also report increased self-confidence and regained passion for their job. Headteachers also changed their communication with teachers (e.g. implemented non-violent communication methods introduced by program Lead Live), delegate tasks more and have more trust in the school team. Focus groups with teachers confirmed these findings: teachers after one year of the program observed a change in the communicational style and new methods of organising school life.

Barber, Michael, Fenton Whelan a Michael Clark. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium. McKinsey&Company. ČŠI. (2019). Kvalita a efektivita vzdělávání a vzdělávací soustavy ve školním roce 2018/2019. Praha: ČŠI. Výroční zpráva České školní inspekce. Federičová, M. (2019). Mezinárodní srovnání ředitelů škol: České administrativní inferno. Fullan, M. (2000). The Role of the Principal in School Reform. 19. Fullan, M. (2018). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. John Wiley & Sons. Glanz, J. (1994). Redefining the roles and responsibilities of assistant principals. Clearing House, 67, 283-287. Grissom, J., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352. Harris, S. L. (2008). Best practices of award-winning public school principals: Implications for university preparation programs. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 3(2), 30-41. Hattie, John. (2015). High-Impact Leadership: Effective instructional leaders don’t just focus on student learning. They relentlessly search out and interrogate evidence of that learning. Huber, S. (2011). The impact of professional development: A theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting training and development programmes. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 837–853. Kalibro. Dotazníková šetření a srovnávací testy. Dostupné z: Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. (3. vyd.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishing. Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2007). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An International Perspective. Springer. Dostupné z: . Leithwood, Kenneth et al. 2004. How leadership influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement: University of Minnesota. Dostupné z: . Leithwood, Kenneth, Day, Christopher, Sammons, Pam, Harris, Alma, & Hopkins, David. (2006) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. National College for School Leadership. Murphy, J. (1988). Principal instructional leadership. In P. W. Thurston & L. S. Lotto (Eds.), Recent advances in educational administration . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Robinson, Viviane, & Gray, Emma. (2019). What difference does school leadership make to student outcomes? Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(2), 171-187. Dostupné z: . Trojan, Václav. (2011). Vzdělávání řídících pracovníků v českém školství: programy a hodnocení jejich obsahu účastníky. ORBIS SCHOLAE, 5(3), 107–127, ISSN 1802-4637. TALIS https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Technical_Report.pdf