Competence Development and Leadership for Learning – A New Steering Regime for Teachers?

Author(s):

Brit Bolken Ballangrud(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 06 A, Influences of Leadership on CPD

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-19

15:30-17:00

Room:

FCEE - Aula 2.5

Chair:

Heinz Guenter Holtappels

Contribution

There have been changes in the way in which education is governed with greater fragmentation of responsibility between the state, local government, schools and the market. These developments have been seen as a move from government to governance with changes in roles and responsibilities for the local government and the school leaders. According to Hudson (2007) support for new governance theory can be found in the field of education because the state will not abdicate. In Norway the government, by the Ministry of Education, used to be responsible for the teachers’ continuing professional development. In the latest reform, the Knowledge Promotion Reform, the county is responsible for the upper secondary schools, according to the national competence strategy ‘Kompetanse for utvikling’(‘Competence for development’). By using political science, curriculum theory, educational leadership theory and professional theory, the aim of this paper is to analyze changes in leadership and steering. By taking a closer look at the leadership configuration (Gronn, 2009) in the county’s competence development, and the leadership for learning in different competence initiatives, I am ask: Is there a new steering regime in competence development of teachers?

Method

The empirical point of departure is policy documents in Norway, EU, OECD and interviews of school leaders in the Buskerud County Administration and leaders at different upper secondary schools. By using institutional analysis I will describe changes in steering and leadership in different competence initiatives.

Expected Outcomes

Steering and organizing leadership in competence development is changing. The leadership between the county and the schools has been more fragmented but also closer. The changes have implications for leadership in different competence initiatives for teachers: the teacher networks, the schools actions learning projects, their local curriculum work and the schools assessment, the leadership are changing. The leadership is changing, even though the tradition is strong (Streeck & Thelen, 2005). Different leaders have their focus at different levels and at different initiatives. Challenge in leadership for learning is: - To coordinate and integrate the different competence initiatives is difficult. - To understand and use new policy instruments: the curriculum, student assessment and the competence strategy. They are important, and need coordination. - To handle leadership for learning in different cultures in upper secondary schools play a major role - to coordinate and develop legitimacy is a big issue. I argue: We may understand this as a new professional steering model and a part of a new competence development-regime of teachers. It depends on the relationship between governing, leadership and the use of knowledge.

References

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). New Public Management. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Goodlad, J. I. (1986). Coda: The Conceptual System for Curriculum Revisited. I: B. B. Gundem (ed.), Om læreplanpraksis og læreplanteori. Kompendium 3 (Vol. 3, s. 231). Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsnstitutt Universitetet i Oslo. Gronn, P. (2009). Leadership Congifurations. Leadership, 5(3), 381-394. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. F. (2006). Educational Change Over Time? The Sustainability and Nonsustainability ot Three Decades of Secondary School Change and Continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41. Hudson, C. (2007). Governing the Governance of Education: the state strikes back? European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 266-282. Johansson, O., Moos, L., & Møller, J. (2000). Vision om en demokratisk reflekterende ledelse. I: L. Moos (ed.), Skoleledelse i Norden: en kortlægning af skoleledernes arbejdsvilkår, rammebetingelser og opgaver : en rapport til Nordisk Ministerråd [København]: Nordisk Ministerråd. Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: the troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, [Conn.]: Yale University Press. Lindensjö, B., & Lundgren, U. P. (2000). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Møller, J. (2007). Skolelederes betydning for elevenes læringsresultat. In: J. Møller & L. Sundli (ed.), Læringsplakaten: skolens samfunnskontrakt . Kristiansand: Høyskoleforl. Olsen, J. P., & March, J. G. (2009). The logic of appropriateness. Arena Center for European Studies, No.4. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (2005). Introduction: Institutional Change in Acvanced Political Ecconomies. I: W. Streeck & K. A. Thelen (ed.), Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies (s. 1-39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Washington, M., Boal, K. B., & Davis, J. N. (2008). Institutional Leadership: Past, Present, and Future. I: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of organizational institutionalism Los Angeles: SAGE.

Author Information

Brit Bolken Ballangrud (presenting / submitting)

University College of Buskerud

Lunner

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.