Session Information
26 SES 14 B, School Leadership Development: Emerging Trends and Topics (Part 2)
Paper Session continued from 23 SES 08 B
Contribution
Over the past decades, principals have experienced an increased pressure emanating from the responsibility for managing change to improve students’ learning outcomes. Leadership learning programmes appear to emphasize the generic requirements of the job rather than leaders’ individual capabilities, moral purpose and need to take an active role in learning (McKinsey & Company, 2010), and there seems to be a challenge in finding the balance between system and reform needs and school and individual needs. A Nordic school leader profile involves performing leadership within long-established democratic societies which build on equal and collaborative relationships between leaders and staff and doing this in parallel to meeting system level accountability demands. In practice, this implies balancing the democratic idea of involvement and exerting influence with necessary decision-making (Author et al 2016 a). Despite these challenges, there is consensus in the literature that principals and school leaders need to develop knowledge and skills to understand their schools and leadership roles (Fullan, 2018; Author, 2017).
Coaching has been increasingly reported as the type of school leadership development intervention that is gaining energy and popularity (Forde, McMahon, Gronn, & Martin, 2012; Aas, 2020). In many countries, coaching is a part of national school leadership programmes (Lumby, Crow, & Pashiardis, 2008; Robertson & Earl, 2014). For example, was coaching introduced as one of the key approaches to leadership development evident in the National College in England (Bush, Glover, & Harris, 2007). So far, has the literature addressed coaching as a component of headship preparation (Earley, Weindling, Bubb, Evans, & Glenn, 2008), a tool for school development (Creasy & Patterson, 2005), succession planning (Hanbury, 2009) and the development of leadership across the school including middle leadership (Simkins, Coldwell, Caillau, Finlayson, & Morgan, 2006) and teacher leadership (Blackman, 2010).
This paper reports from a study of group coaching integrated into National Principal Training Programmes in Sweden and Norway, which aims to promote reflections on personal agency (role clarity and self-efficacy) that can lead to changes in leadership practices. In this paper, we set out to investigate the process that starts with an original coaching question that is reformulated during the group coaching session, and to investigate what support the school leader gets as a result of the coaching. The research questions are: What kind of leadership challenges do school leaders bring forth for coaching, and how can group coaching support them in developing their leadership practices?
In the study, the definition of coaching is inspired by of the GROW model – Goal setting, Reality check, Options available and Wrap up – produced by Whitmore (2004). Such an adaptation is seen in the coaching work with educational leaders by Robertson (2016). Brown and Grant (2010) developed the GROUP model – Goal; Reality; Options; Understanding others; and Perform – which takes into account that understanding others is the key factor of successful group coaching. The group coaching protocol used in the study emphasizes one participant in the group (the coachee) as the focus of the coaching process, whilst the other participants assist in the coaching role as co-coaches. The participants take turns to become the coachee. A group coach manages the process, using the protocol that ensures time is apportioned adequately and the process adheres to the agreed (Author et al b 2016).
Method
The study has a qualitative comparative approach (Crotty, 1998). The National Principal Training Programmes (hereafter NPT programmes) in Norway and Sweden, including group coaching, were purposefully selected (Silverman, 2006) based on the model utilized for coaching in the programmes bacically following the same structure, but with differences in the preparation before and in the end of the sessions. These differences make the grounds for comparing. Furthermore, the coaching groups were selected by convenience based on easy access. The Norwegian study sample consisted of two coaching groups with six participants, in sum twelve participants, with eight women and four men. All participants worked in compulsory or upper secondary schools in different parts of Norway. Data were collected through observation of the coaching of each twelve participants, which lasted 45 minutes, and focused on the coaching topic the participants brought forth for coaching. A month after the observations, we collected data through a questionnaire sent to all twelve participants. Nine of the participants answered and returned their answers and reflections. The questionnaire was composed of background questions followed by open questions about what happened after the group coaching, if and how the group coaching was helpful regarding action planning and what they would do to develop their leadership practice further. The Swedish study sample consisted of observations of group coaching in four groups with five participants in the groups except one group that had six members. It was a total of twenty-one participants with sixteen women and four men. All participants were principals or assistant principals with less than three years in the position. They were working in preschool, compulsory school and upper secondary school. In the second step, four to five weeks after the observation, fourteen principals were interviewed. The questions in the interview were designed to get information on what happened after the coaching session and what support the coaching had given to deal with the challenge. Written consent to participate was obtained from all participants. The data analysis was guided and carried out inspired of the Braun and Clarke’s (2019) approach to reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) in a sequential six-phase process. We chose this approach because it is theoretically flexible, and it suits questions related to people’s experiences, view and perceptions. Moreover, in RTA we as researchers have an active role in the knowledge production process through reflexive engagement with theory, data and interpretation (Braun and Clarke’s (2019; 2020).
Expected Outcomes
In relation to the first research question, What kind of leadership challenges do school leaders bring forth for coaching, four categories were identified; Challenges in leading individuals, challenges in leading groups of teachers, challenges in relation to leaders in the same leadership team, and challenges in relation to him or herself as a leader. The findings reflect that these Norwegian and Swedish school leaders have their main attention on establishing good relations with co-workers. By doing so they try to link system and reform needs and school and individual needs. However, we can see how they struggle to find a balance between the idea of a democratic leadership, which build on equal and collaborative relationships between leaders and staff, and necessary decision-making. In practice, the findings show that a Nordic leadership profile involves performing democratic leadership in parallel to meeting system level accountability demands In relation to the second research question, the findings illustrate that during the coaching sessions the school leaders enhanced their understanding of the coaching themes in four ways: clarifying and understanding challenges, sorting out and distinguish between challenges, clarifying and understanding the leadership role and trying out new ways of acting. In the coaching sessions the leaders got insight to other leaders´ context and thereby increased their understanding of how leadership can be performed, which was a help in both clarifying, understanding and distinguish between their own leadership challenges. This illustrates how learning and professional development which takes place at the individual level can lead to organizational development. In addition, bringing together school leaders that discuss and give each other feedback, seems to be of great importance for the participants' understanding of the role.
References
Blackman, A. (2010). Coaching as a leadership development tool for teachers. Professional Development in Education, 36(3), 421-441. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Brown, S. W., & Grant, A. M. (2010). From GROW to GROUP: theoretical issues and a practical model for group coaching in organisations. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(1), 30-45. doi:10.1080/17521880903559697 Bush, T., Glover, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Review of School Leadership Development. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Creasy, J., & Patterson, F. (2005). Leading Coaching in Schools. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: SAGE Publications Inc Earley, P., Weindling, D., Bubb, S., Evans, J., & Glenn, M. (2008). valuation of the FUTURE LEADERS Pilot Programme. Final Report. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Forde, C., McMahon, M., Gronn, P., & Martin, M. (2012). Being a Leadership Development Coach: A Multi-Faceted Role. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(1), 105-119. doi:10.1177/1741143212462699 Fullan, M. (2018). Surreal Change: The Real Life of Transforming Public Education. New York: Routledge. Hanbury, M. (2009). Leadership Coaching: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching as a Strategy to Support Succession Planning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Lumby, J., Crow, G., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders. New York: Taylor and Francis. McKinsey & Company. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium: how the world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future (Publication no. http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/schoolleadership_final.pdf). (November 2010). Retrieved 09.02.2015 Robertson, J. (2016). Coaching Leadership: Building Educational Leadership Capacity through Coaching Partnerships (Second ed.). Wellington: NZCER PRESS. Robertson, J., & Earl, L. M. (2014). Leadership learning: Aspiring principals developing the dispositions that count. Journal of of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 29(2), 3-17. Simkins, T., Coldwell, M., Caillau, I., Finlayson, H., & Morgan, A. (2006). Coaching as an in-school leadership development strategy: Experience from leading from the middle. Professional Development in Education, 32(3), 321-340. Whitmore, J. (2004). Coaching for performance: GROWing people, performance, and purpose. London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing. Author (2016 a, b) Author (2017) Author (2020) Author (2016).
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.