International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders

Jacky Lumby, Gary Crow, Petros Pashiardis, Gary M. Crow

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN: 9780415988476
• eBook ISBN: 9781135277000
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Sponsored by the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA), the British Educational Leadership, Management, and Administration Society (BELMAS), and the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM), this is the first book to provide a comprehensive and comparative review of what is known about the preparation and development of primary and secondary school leaders across the globe. It describes current issues and debates and offers an assessment of where the field of leadership development is headed. Key features include the following:

Global Focus: this book provides the first comprehensive look at leadership preparation and development across the globe. The chapter authors are distinguished scholars, drawn from the US, UK, Europe, Asia, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and Africa.

Topical & Geographical Focus: provides researchers and policymakers with critical descriptions and assessments of both topical and geographical areas.

International Expertise: chapter contributors are drawn from a variety of theoretical perspectives and represent all major continents.

1
Introduction: Why an International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders?

Gary Crow, Jacky Lumby and Petros Pashiardis

RATIONALE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK

The International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders meets a growing need to identify, describe, critique and enrich the international literature on school leaders’ preparation and development. We believe the rationale for such a volume is strong and is based on the evolving recognition of both the importance of leadership, and leadership development and preparation, as well as the value of an international perspective.

IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY SCHOOLS AND REFORM

During the last few years we have observed numerous economic, scientific and technological advancements, as well as demographic shifts, the advent of state interdependence, and globalization. Many educational organizations are faced with large-scale reforms initiated as a response to strong accountability pressures for increased performance. Educational leaders need to act as the “torchbearers of educational change” (Pashiardis, 2001), initiating and sustaining school transformation: the responsibility for providing direction and support for the implementation of planned change lies with the leader.

However, as Marcoulides, Larsen and Heck (1995) point out, leadership is a necessary but insufficient condition for learner achievement as principals and other leaders may not have direct control over the elements which contribute to school improvement (Usdan, McCloud, & Podmostko, 2000)

Another relevant issue regarding the importance of leadership is the question of “who should be the leader”. Should there be only one person at the top? Or could there be others as well? According to Harris (2004) multiple leadership models have been developed, most of which focus on formal-institutionalized forms of leadership, neglecting the value of the alternative non-formal ways of leading. Gronn (2002) also maintains that the past model of the “heroic leader” has not been sufficiently responsive to the complexity of contemporary leadership demands (cited in Hatcher, 2005). Consequently, new models of school leadership involving lateral forms of leadership are enriching the existing diversity of practice throughout the world (Harris, 2006).

As these examples and others later in this chapter demonstrate, the nature of leadership itself is a contested idea. We acknowledge in beginning this handbook and emphasize, particularly in the chapter by Paul Begley, that leadership in general, and school leadership in particular, is not a uniformly defined nor understood idea. However, the diversity and complexity of leadership theory and practice provides a rich terrain with which our discussion of leadership development as an international phenomenon exists and can be extended.

EVOLVING RECOGNITION OF IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AS AN INTERNATIONAL PHENOMENON

School leadership issues have been increasingly debated and explored in an international and comparative context. The priorities of many countries revolve around developing leaders as essential to improve school performance. For example, inspection evidence produced by The Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) in England has guided the UK government’s work on identifying and preparing prospective heads, developing experienced ones and establishing the National College for School Leadership (Southworth, 2002). The latter has introduced the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) for prospective principals and the National Professional Qualification for Serving Headteachers (NPQSH) for the development of existing principals (Weindling & Dimmock, 2006; Briggs, Bush & Middlewood, 2006). In the United States, a Master’s degree in Educational Administration remains a common requirement in most states in applying for a leadership position (Hillman, 1992 cited in Wong, 2004). Additionally, in Hong-Kong prospective principals should acquire a Certification for Principalship (CFP) in order to meet requirements for the specific position, while serving principals are required to undergo a continuous development program for about 50 hours per year during a three-year cycle. In Ontario, Canada prospective school leaders have to follow the Principal Qualification Program (PQP) offered by ten universities in Ontario (Huber & West, 2002).

Furthermore, international organizations are beginning to realize the key role of school leaders. Education ministers of the countries participating in organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have emphasized the need to improve school leadership. The OECD in particular, in the context of the Program for International Student Achievement (PISA), is planning to collect data in relation to school leadership dimensions so as to identify leadership practices in various contexts and to relate these to student achievement.

IMPORTANCE OF THE PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL LEADERS

It is relatively recent that the growing evidence of the importance of school leadership for school improvement, student learning, and other outcomes has led to recognition that the preparation and development of school leaders might make a difference to their leadership practices (Crow, 2006). If school leaders and leadership are important, then perhaps we should be deeply concerned with how leaders learn to do their jobs and, more importantly, how they learn to do them in ways that contribute to these outcomes.

The focus on leadership development and preparation, however, is far from an uncontested debate. At times, the attention on leadership development avoids the most obvious question of “preparation for what?” Obviously this reflects larger debates on leadership itself, including models of leadership such as distributed leadership, sustainable leadership, and turn-around leadership and the desired outcomes of leadership. The broader debates about leadership percolate into questions regarding leadership development and preparation. For example, if we should avoid thinking of leadership in simplistic de-contextualized ways, should we not also think of leadership development and preparation as contextualized? Also, there are questions about preparing school leaders for specific types of school structures or circumstances, e.g., leading challenging schools or leading professional learning communities (Coles & Southworth, 2005). The call by researchers and policy makers for innovative leadership highlights the need to think of preparation for leadership in the future rather than simply current challenges and circumstances (Fink, 2005). Although much of the leadership literature focuses on student learning, as we will see there are national contexts in which state political purposes are emphasized. These situations raise other issues of preparation and development as a political process.

Although the attention on leadership preparation and development has increased recently, the quality of this attention varies. Reports and articles, primarily in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, and the US, have acknowledged the importance of understanding how school leaders prepare for and develop in their roles. Frequently, however, these reports have been critiques of preparation by universities (in the case of the US) rather than exhaustive descriptions of the range of preparation and development processes and providers. The rise of new managerialism and neo-conservative critiques of public education have also influenced the literature on leadership preparation forms, institutions, and processes, adding a further politicized element to the debate.

The acknowledgement of the importance of preparation and development has not always been followed by rigorous empirical research of preparation/development delivery modes and outcomes (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004). Research on leadership development practices is still largely descriptive. The literature for some time has focused on descriptive accounts of, in some cases, idiosyncratic programs and modes of delivery with evaluations largely based on participants’ satisfaction. Only recently have there been directed, rigorous efforts to document the implementation and effects of leadership development and preparation over time (Orr, 2005). This dearth of published research on leader preparation and development provides a large part of the impetus for this handbook, so that researchers can be encouraged to look for and fill gaps in our research knowledge.

The editors recognize that leadership preparation and development is by no means uniform in definition or practice throughout the world. As the valuable range of chapters in this volume emphasizes, the global landscape of leadership preparation reflects a wide assortment of definitions and practices, as does the meaning of school leadership itself. But merely establishing the variety of practices like some type of leadership development museum is hardly sufficient justification for a handbook. What is much more valuable is to identify the patterns and implications of this rich and complex variety.

We have also tried to be inclusive by acknowledging that learning to be a school leader is not a one-time process but a career-long process (Earley & Weindling, 2004). Preparation prior to becoming a school leader is emphasized in some parts of the world, while developing after one becomes a leader receives much more attention in other areas. We believe, as Peter Ribbins’ chapter appropriately emphasizes, that learning to be a leader is a career-long process and have thus emphasized both preparation and development as a school leader. Even in those countries where preparation has received the greater attention, development after one becomes a school leader has recently been emphasized (Kelley & Shaw, in press).

IMPORTANCE OF AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

In spite of the decreasing travel and communication barriers in our world (Friedman, 2005), very little attention has been given to larger international perspectives on school leadership development and preparation. The three professional organizations, the University Council for Educational Administration the British Educational Leadership, Management, and Administration Society, and the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management, have acknowledged the lack of a sufficiently international dimension in leadership development research and have taken significant steps to remedy it. This handbook, the development of which they have supported, is certainly one method for mapping the terrain of leadership preparation and development and encouraging researchers, policy makers, and other educators to further extend international perspectives.

As we will note in the next section, the concept of “international” is contested and that fact argues for care in not only defining but in using an international perspective on leadership development and preparation. While acknowledging the pitfalls of misusing such a perspective, we believe that a sensitive use of an international perspective on leadership preparation and development has the potential to contribute to research, policy, and practice in multiple ways.

The Meaning of ‘International’

The terms comparative, global and international are used liberally in texts related to educational leadership, sometimes interchangeably as synonymous and sometimes as distinctive. Each carries a weight of contested and variable meaning, reflecting the time period, the political and cultural context of their use, and the individual values of the writer. Communicating a clear framework of how we understand the terms and how they have been selectively applied in practice to the handbook is a critical underpinning to support the reader. Our intention is both to distinguish and clarify uses of the terms and also to identify the implications of such uses for an orientation to a body of research from many parts of the world. The discussion reflects the analytical journey we have undertaken as editors, as our understanding developed through engagement with the literature and with the authors, scholars and practitioners who supported the endeavor. Addressing the ontological, epistemological and axiological fractures, confusions and nuances are more than an intellectual enterprise. Rather, the differing orientations signaled by the use of different terms reflect a changing ethical engagement with those leading or researching schools, particularly those who may be deemed ‘other’ from the perspective of the reader.

A Comparative Approach

Looking back to the nineteenth century and the majority of the twentieth century, a comparative approach to educational research was based on a firm sense of one’s own location and traditions as the intellectual point of departure. Higginson (1979) lists the intended benefits, to:

• gain a better understanding of one’s own education system;
• satisfy intellectual and theoretical curiosity about other cultures and their education systems; and better understand the relationship between education and the wider society;
• identify similarities and differences in educational systems, processes and outcomes as a way of documenting and understanding problems in education, and contributing to the improvement of educational policy and practice;
• promote improved international understanding and co-operation through increased sensitivity to differing world views and cultures. (p.19)

While points three and four assert a determination to engage with other systems, there is a rather lofty tone. Rather as the eighteenth/nineteenth century European Grand Tour was the essential finishing school for aristocrats, supplying the desired knowledge of and sensitivity to art deemed in the aesthetic top drawer, so comparative research as described here has a sense of supporting the education of the superior by viewing what is worthy elsewhere. The stance has been variously depicted, those straying outside their own nation, or even the dominant voice in their nation, reporting ‘travelers’ tales’ of curiosities (Crossley & Watson, 2003, p. 12) and, magpie like, indulging in ‘cultural borrowing’ (Kay & Watson, 1982, p. 23) or ‘a process of bricolage’ (Ball, 1998, p. 126). Lumby, Walker, Bryant, Bush and Bjork (in press) describe the outcome as a ‘typology of the alien’, fascinating and occasionally of practical use. While the stated intention was to increase knowledge, understanding and links across the world, the result may have been the contrary, embedding ethnocentricity, a hierarchy of value and disconnectedness. As Paige and Mestenhauser (1999) point out, the danger is that a comparative approach leads to ‘international’ becoming every country other than one’s own. Differential value was ascribed to the ideas and practices of different nations; rhetorically all nations potentially had something to teach. In practice, some appeared to have more to offer than others. Hallinger (1995) highlights the resulting ‘ritualistic transfer’ (p. 4) of largely Western knowledge to other parts of the globe with little attention to its cultural validity. Rather than equality and solidarity, the outcome of the dominant version of a comparative approach, as it was conceived, is an intensification of disconnectedness and inequity.

Globalization

The concept of globalization has produced ideological flows which have mutated orientations to the comparative study of policy and practice. Global is sometimes used as a relatively neutral adjective, for example, global change indicating similar changes evident in many parts of the world. Globalization, the outcome of the verb to globalize, is far from neutral, conceptually contested and value laden. Globalization as a phenomenon is subject to multiple and contradictory analyses. Its goals, enactment and outcomes are disputed. Some deny its very existence (Giddens, 1999). Others assert not only the reality of the phenomenon but also its defining influence on the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Rosenberg, 2000). Farrell (2006) distinguishes its core as ‘strategies of predatory mobility’ (p. 237), as nations, corporations and individuals seek to facilitate the maximization of economic opportunity. Jones (2006) suggests that while the inception of globalizing forces may have been primarily related to economic goals, the achievement of the latter swiftly implied cultural and political change, by challengin...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: Why an International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders?
• I. CONCEPTS OF LEADERSHIP AND ITS DEVELOPMENT
• II. THE PRACTICE OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
• III. INTERNATIONAL REFLECTIONS