Second International Handbookof Educational Leadershipand AdministrationPart Two

Editors:

Kenneth LeithwoodOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada

Philip HallingerCollege of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Section Editors:

Philip HallingerCollege of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

GaB C. FurmanWashington State University, Pullman, Washington, U.SA.

Kathryn RileyInstitute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom

lohn MacBeathFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Peter GronnFaculty of Education, Monash University, Melboume, Australia

Kenneth LeithwoodOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada

and

Bill MulfordUniversity of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERSDORDRECHT / BOSTON I LONDON

9 The Role of School Governance in the Creation of School CommunitvRoben G. Croningerand Betty Malen - 281

SECTION 3: LEADERS HIP IN DIVERSE CONTEXTS AND CULTURES

11 Cultural Isomorphs in Theories and Practice of School LeadershipLejf Moos 359

Table of Contents

PrefaceKenneth Leithwood and Philip Hallinger

PART ONE

SECTION 1: LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

IntroductionPhilipHaflinger - Section Editor

1 What Do You Call People With Visions? The Ro!e of Vision,Mission, and Goals in School Leadership and ImprovementPhilipHaflinger and Ronald Heck

2 Leading for Change: Building Capacity for LearningLouise StolI, Raymond Bolam and Pat Collarbone

ix

3

9

41

VI Table of Contents

7 Cross-Cultural Leadership and Communities of Difference:Thinking about Leading in Diverse SchoolsCarolyn M. Shields

8 The Role of Professional Learning Communities in InternationalEducationfames C. Toole and Karen Seashore Louis

10 Community as CurriculumRoben 1Starratt

IntroductionKathryn Riley and fohn MacBeath - Section Editors

209

245

321

351

3 Conditions Fostering Educational ChangePeterSleegers,Femke Geijsel and Rudolfvan den Berg

4 The Changing Context of School Leadership: Implications forParadigm ShiftYin Cheong Cheng

5 An Alternative Perspective of Educational Leadership for Change:Reflections on Nativeiindigenous Ways of KnowingMaenette K. P.Ah Nee-Benham with L. A. Napier

6 Moving School Leadership Beyond Its Narrow Boundaries:Developing a Cross-Cultural ApproachAllan Walkerand CliveDimmock

75

103

133

167

12 Connecting School Leadership with Teaching, Learning, and Parentingin Diverse Cultural Contexts: Western and Asian PerspectivesClive Dimmock and Aflan Walker 395

13 Mission Integrity: Contemporary Challenges for CathoIicSchool Leaders: Beyond the Stereotypes of Catholic SchooIingGerald Grace 427

14 Lessons from Successful Leadership in Small SchooIsGeoff Southworth 451

15 School Leadership and Self-Assessment: Guiding the Agendafor ChangeWilliam 1Smith 485

SECTION 2: LEADERSHIP IN THE CREATION OF COMMUNITY

IntroductionGail C. Furman - Section Editor 205

v

16 Boundary-breaking Leadership: A Must for Tomorrow's LearningCommunitiesfan M Robertson and Charles F. Webber 519

Tableof Contents

PART TWO

SECTION 4: ORGA1'HZATIONAL LEARNING A1'1DLEADERSHIP

vii viii Table of Contents

26 School Choice and Educational Leadership: Rethinbng theFuture of Public SchooiingJane Gaskell 915

IntroductionPeterGronn - Section Editor 557

27 Teacher Leadership, Reflective Practice, and School ImprovementChris Day and Alrna Hams 957

17 Leadership and School ResultsHalia SiNns and Bill Mulford 561

28 Leadership in Contexts of Diversity and AccountabilityJames Ryan 979

18 Strategie Leadership and CognitionBn"anFidler 613

29 Leading Schools in a Data-Rich Wor/dLoma Earl and Stephen Katz 1003

19 Oistributed LeadershipPeterGronn 653 SECTION 6: LEADERS HIP DEVELOPMENT

20 From Team Work to Teamwork in EducationValen"eHalft 697

IntroductionBill Mulford - Section Editor 1025

30 Leader FormationPeter Gronn 1031

33 The Meaning of Mentoring: Notes on a Context for LearningRichard Ackerman, Laum Tlentimigliaand Melissa Juchniewicz 1133

34 Leadership Development Models: Learning from Different ContextsHarry Tomlinson 1163

31 Developing Schoo! Leaders: A Critica! Review of Current Practices,Approaches, and Issues, and Some Directions for the FutureStephen Gerhard Huber and Me! West 1071

1195

1103

List of Authors

32 Emotions in Educationa! Administration: An UnorthodoxExamination of Teachers' Career DecisionsMichele Schmidt

775

815

821

735

IntroductionKenneth Leithwood - Section Editor

23 Scenarios for Leadership and the Public Good in EducationBn"anJ Caldwell

22 Organizational Learning, Organizational Problem Solving, andModels of MindVivianej\;l.1. Robinson

21 Enhancmg Knowledge in Organizations: Developing Capacity andCapabiJity Through Learning and LeadershipTem Seddon and Len Cairns

SECTION 5: CONTEXTS FOR LEADERSHIP AT THEBEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

24 Leadership Practices far Accountable SchooisKenneth Leithwood, Doris Jantzi and Rosanne Steinbach 849 Name Index 1199

25 Postmodern Expressions of Educational LeadershipLarry Sackney and Coral Mitchell 881

Subject Index 1219

31Developing School Leaders: A Critical Reviewof Current Practices, Approaches and Issues,and Same Directions for the Future

STEPHAN GERHARD HUBERCentre for School Development and Management, University of Bamberg

MEL WESTSchool of Education, University of Manchester

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT

The headteacher plays a highly significant role in school management, beingboth locus and pivot at the centre 01 decision-making, Preparing, inductingand developing headteachers is a major responsibility 01 the education sen;ice.(DES, 1990)

This statement, published by the British Education Ministry, is one of the fewassertions about the quality of schooling that is unlikely to be contradicted byteachers, school leaders themselves, politicians or parents. The pivotal role ofthe school leaderl as a factor in effective schools has been corroborated byfindings of school effectiveness research over the last two decades (see Rutter, etal., 1979;Edmonds, 1979; Brookover, et al., 1979; Mortimore, et al., 1988;Levine& Lezotte, 1990; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993; Creemers, 1994; Sammons, et al.,1995). In most of the lists of key factors (or correlates) that school effectivenessresearch has compiled, 'leaders hip' plays an important part. Indeed the effective-ness lobby's original message that 'schools matter, schools do make a difference'has continued almost seamlessly into a sub-text that 'school leaders matter,schoolleaders also make a difference', as we have previously noted (Huber, 1997;West, et al., 2000). School improvement researchers have also demonstratedincreasing recognition of the importance of schoolleaders for all stages of theschool improvement process (see van Velzen, et al., 1985; Stegö, et al., 1987;Fullan, 1991; Leithwood, 1992; Caldwell & Spinks, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1994;Hopkins, et al., 1996; West & Ainscow, 1997). The schoolleader is most oftencited as the key figure in the individual school's development, either blocking orpromoting change, acting as the intern al change agent, overseeing the processes

1071

Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, 1071-1 IOIK Leithwood, R Hallinger (eds.)© 2002 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Prin/ed in Creat Britain.

1072 Huber and West

of grawth and renewal. It is perhaps not surpnsmg, in the face of so muchattention being given to the role of schoolleaders in creating the conditions foran effective school, that there has been a parallel growth in the attention givento how headteachers or principals are prepared for this rote. Tne training ofcurrent and future schoo! leaders has thus become a major focus of professionaldevelopment programmes in many countries.

Of course, the schoo! leader's role has to be seen in relation to the broadcultural and educational contexts in which the school is operating. Since schoolsare embedded in their communities and in the particular national educationalsystem, aod these in turn are embedded in the particular society, schools andtheir leaders have to cope with, to support or otherwise react to the social,economic and cultural changes and developments taking place. Direct changesin the educational system have a particularly strong and to a large extentcaJcuiable impact on the school leader's role. But schools, and consequently thepressures and expectations on school leaders, also change as a result of moresubt!e and indirect forces in society - social, political and economic changes -that are gathering speed across the world as the pace of international develop-ment increasingly reflects global factars. These new conditions and demandscertainly p!ace new pressures on the leader and, though the new tasks andchallenges can be viewed positively as bringing new opportunities, neverthelessthere is same cancern that what we are trying to da is ta prepare leaders fartomorrow's schools using today's training content and methods. The keychallenges, therefore, confronting those who plan far and design school leadertraining programmes, are first how to anticipate the range of know!edge, skillsand competencies that the next generation will need and then how to find waysto equip them with these.

Clearly, the ever-expanding literature on schoo! leadership is a major influencehere. Gf course, as we have previously observed (West & Ainscow, 1994), thereis a danger that in approaching the headteacher role through the rhetoric of'leadership' many writers have focused on style at the expense of substance.Schools may be more pleasant places to work if they are 'led' rather than'managed', but often a preoccupation with the notion and !anguage of !eadershiphas been accompanied by a neg!ect of management activities that are central toeffective schoo! leadership. Despite this reservation, there is no doubt thatstudies of schoolleader behaviour have enriched our understanding of the rote,and helped to shape the curriculum for schaol leader development in manycouotries. Accordingly, a brief summary of current thinking seems justified.

To a large extent, this focus on the relationship between leaders and workgroups aod the ways in which the kader can develop and harness the relationshiphas been reflected in the development of leaders hip theory generaily - it is not a'schaa!' issue as such. Murphy (1991) suggests that thinking about leadershipfaUs in to a number of phases - building towards the current interest in the linksbet\veen kader behaviour and arganisational culture. We believe that thesephases can be broadly classified as fol!ows:

Developing School Leaders 1073

Initial interest in the personal qualities and characteristics of 'successfu!'leaders [hat result in personality or trait theories of leadership.

• Increasing focus on what it is that leaders actually da: Are there same behavioursand approaches that are consistently associated with successful leadership?Such inquiries support the development of behavioural thearies of !eadership.

• Growing awareness that task-re!ated and people-centred behaviours may beinterpreted quite differentIy by different groups and in different contexts,prompting explanation of how the particu!ar cootext might best be accountedfor within a general theory, and resulting in a variety of situational approachesto ieadership.

• Most recently, emphasis is put on the links between Jeadership style and theculture of the organisation: a movement away from the notion of leadershipas transactional to the notion of leadership as transfomzational, having thepotential to alter the cultural context in which people work.

!t is this last phase that has had most influence on the debate about leadershipin education over the past decade - with the (so-caHed) 'transactional' and'transformational' approaches being explored in same detail in a number ofcountries. Inevitably, there seems to be a preoccupation with 'transactional'models in systems where strong central control has been retained, while in thosesystems where decentralisation has been most evident, considerable interest in'transformational' models has emerged. Ir is worth briefly contrasting these two'stereotypes' of the leadership role.

In the more stable system, where maintenance has a higher priority thandevelopment, and the schoolleader is seen as playing a major role in protectingand promoting the interests of the system, a transactional approach is frequentlyfound. In such an approach, the emphasis will tend to be on the management ofthe school's systems and structures, on creating efficiency and effectiveness, andon achieving prescribed outcomes. Tbe role of the transactionalleader is to focusupon the key purposes of the organisation and to ass ist people to recognise whatneeds to be done in arder to reach the desired outcomes. When the parametersfor success are weIl defined, transactional leaders can be very effective. Tney mal'even be effective in bringing about certain kinds of organisation al change - thosewhere the parameters are very clearly identified, where conformity rather thancreativity is va!ued, and where it is hoped to retain organisational structures andrelationships despite chan ging (say) education content or method. TransactioDalleadership approaches, therefore, seem best suited to static schoo! systems andcommunities.

It has been widely argued that complex and dynamic chaoges, such as the'cultural' changes that are required for sustained school improvement, are lesslikeiy to occur as a resuit of transactional leadership (Beare, et aI., 1989; Stol! &Fink, 1996). A model of !eadership more congruent with the requirement ofcultural change is that of transformational leadership. Tbis style of leadershipfocuses on the peop!e involved aod their relationships, and requires an approachthat seeks to transform feelings, attitudes and beliefs. Transformationalleaders

1074 Huber and West

[Jot only manage structure, but they purposefully seek to impact upon the cultureof the school in order to change the complexities that surround school-basedchange and 10 situate themselves atthe heart of school improvemenl. Leithwood's(2000) recent book describes some excellent examples of what this might Jooklike in practice. Consequently, both practically and conceptually, transforma-tional !eadership would appear to be consistent with adesire to bring aboutschoo! improvement, rather than simply 'change' the schoo!. But how are we todevelop school leaders who can transform their schools in this wav: whatassumptions about the required knowledge, skilJs and understandings' ~an bedra\vn on to shape a framework for the training and preparation of schooJ !eaders?

One of the dearest conceptualisations of such a framework has been estabIishedin the United Kingdom. Here, a national curriculum for aspiring head teachershas been speJJed oul. This curriculum was developed in response to a set ofNationa! Standards for Headteachers, laid down in 1997. The standards:

set out the knowledge, understanding, skills and attributes which relate to thekey areas o{ headship. They define expertise in headship and are designed toserve as the basis for planning the professional development of both aspiringand serving Headteachers. (DfEE, 1997)

Tbe standards address five aspects of the schoolleader (headteacher) role: corepurposes of the headteacher, key outcomes of headship, professional knowJedgeand understanding, skills and attributes required, and the key areas of headship.The emphasis on the need to produce a generation of heads who are able to copewith the ever-increasing expectations societies place on schools, and to ensurethat heads see their local communities as active partners in this enterprise, isevident. So too is the recognition that new expectations and responsibilities arelikely to require continuous personal developmenl. Tbe section on professionalknowledge and understanding underlines this, stating that:

Tile knowledge and understanding required of headteaehers draws on sourcesboth inside and outside edueation. The specific knowledge and under-standing required will change over time and will therefore need to be reviewedon a regular basis. (DfEE, ibid.)

In a similar vein, the section relating to key areas of headship proposes that:

Headteaehers ... develop a strategie view for the sehooI in its community andana~vse and plan for its future needs and fu.rther development within theloeal, national and international eontext. (DfEE, ibid.)

The training curriculum is organised around four themes - the strategic directionand development of the school, teaching and learning, teaching and managingstaff and the efficient and effective development of resources. The tone here is

Developing Schoo/ Leaders 1075

strongly managerial - even the teaching and learning theme focuses on thegeneration and use of data aboutteaching and learning that can provide a basisfor the monitoring, evaluation and improvement of performance. Practicality isstressed by location of tasks and development activities within trainees' ownschools, linked to actual improvement efforts. Tbe final phase of the programmelooks, inter aha, at the role of vision-bujJding in school leadership and, perhapsmore tenuously, at 'future schools'.

What we see here has developed a long way from the embryonic school leadertraining activities (programme would be too grand a word) of twenty or so yearsago, when heads might expect some guidance on paperwork, perhaps sometraining on timetabling or on curriculum planning, and a one-day course on staffselection. While the approach in the UK is reJatively weIl developed (though notmore so Ihan in parts of the Uni ted States or Australasia) a similar trend can bediscerned in many countries, as efforts to equip schoolleaders to deal with themanagement of the school as an organisation gather speed.

Inevitably, given school leaders' high and increasing levels of responsibiIity,ensuring that they are adequately prepared for their roje has become an aUuringtarget for politicians. But, though agreement on the importance and urgency oftraining and development of school leaders is rapidly spreading, how best totackle this seems to be determined locally, with few comparisons of internationalpractice available. If the aim of training is to prepare school leaders for thepivotal role they play in the development of our schools, and to equip them withthe necessary competencies tO do their job (i.e., the knowledge, understanding,skil1s, abilities, and attributes), it seems likely that there wil1 be some qualitiesthat are necessary regardJess of national context, some development practicesthat are useful across the range of school systems. In the remainder of thischapter, we try to tease out what these might be, by examining current practicein a range of countries.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRNlIMES ACROSSTHE WORLD

The foJJowing section provides an overview of the posItIon of school leaderdeveiopment in ten countries representing current practice in Europe, in Asia, inAustralasia and in the Uni ted States, selected from a recently completedcomparative research project (see Huber, 2003). Tbe methods used comprisedtwo surveys, extensive documentation analysis, additional country-specificinvestigations, and working c!osely with experienced and established academicsfrom these countries as vaJidating interna! experts. The foilowing reportstherefore renect the situation as we found it in 2000/2001.

Tbere are eight dimensions selected for comparison. Who provides the trainingprogramme is identified, whether it ls a central state-run training college oruniversities or private providers, as is the target group, since some schemes focus

1076 Huber and West

on those aJready in headteacher or principal roles while others embrace potentialor aspiring school leaders earlier in their careers. Other dimensions relate toprogramme aims, programme content and the range of training methods andlearning opportunities involved. A further three dimensions refer to programmepattern, that is the number of training days and the time span needed for thecourse programme, programme status, whether it is compulsory or voluntary,and what kind of relevance the programme has for career prospects. The finaldimension looks at the costs of the programme, and whether these are bornecentrally or by individual participants. These snapshots of 'practice' in thevarious countries are followed bv a final seetion in wh ich similarities and dif-ferences that emerge from comparisons of some of'the dimensions are summarisedand discussed.

Developing Schoo/ Leaders 1077

Table 1. Ontline oe (he national programme for schoolleaders oe secondary schools in France

Qualification Jor school leaders in FranceNationat programme Jor schoolleaders oJ secondary schools

Provider Centre Condorcet in Paris through 28 regional state academies

Target Group future school leaders at seeondary level, who have suecessfully come through theselection process and passed a written exam (now a dossier) and an oral exam

Aims imparting of leadership and management skills in preparation for the task of leadinga secondary school

Contems Administration; School Law; Management Teehniques; Budgeting; TeacherEvaluation; Interpersonal Skills; Leading Conferences and Staff Groups

Methods modularised seminars at state aeademies interspersed with practical training in schools(with the sehool leader as mentor) as weil as in campanies and public authorities

The Dutch school system is distinctly decentralised. The state is constrained toproviding guidelines and creating abasie framework for schooling. The school isadministered locally and possesses a high degree of autonomy. As to the develop-ment of school leaders, the state does not interfere at all. It is up to the individualschool council employing the respective school leader to determine theirexpectations of the candidates' expertise. The provision of schoolleader trainingand development is driven by the market, which is characterised by diversity andchoice. There is a wide range of providers and programmes, which differ incontent and methods as well as quality; they differ in that sometimes they arepreparational programmes and other times they are programmes for experiencedschool leaders. However, at the primary school level, the Ministry of Educationis indirectly involved in that they choose to finance the candidates participatingin certain programmes offered by traditional teacher training institutes. What isremarkable in the Netherlands is that in certain programmes there is a veryinnovative approach to schoolleader deve!opment. For example, the programme'Meesters in !eidingsseven' uses mainly 'peer-assisted learning', in which theparticipants build pairs who act as 'critical friends', to support each other imel-!ectually and with daily tasks and challenges. Based on the concept of 'integralleadership' (Imants & de long, 1999), they are encouraged to develop 'cognitive

Schao/ Leader Preparation in Europe

France

The educational system in France is heavily centralised, The school leader,particuJarly the 'Principal' or 'Proviseur' in the secondary school sector, is seenas the director of a public institution and a representative of the state. The workemphasis has traditionaHy been on administrative tasks. However, in the last fewyears, the scope of site-based educational responsibility has been enlarged, bringingwith it new tasks für school leaders. But stilI, the recruitment and preparation ofschoo! leaders are strongly centralised. Preparation is designed by the 'CentreCondorcet', according to government-provided standards and guidelines. Theprogramme is carried out in a decentralised way by 28 regional, state-runacademies, with slight differences depending on the region. Recruitment andtraining are interlinked. First the applicants have to go through a selectionprocedure driven by competition, 'Ie Concours'. Having passed it successfully,the preparation training programme, 'Formation au Premier Emploi' begins.This fun-time programme, for which the candidates receive leave wirh fu]! salary,is comprised not only of seminars and traditiooal teaching courses, but also anextensive internship scheme. After completing the programme they take overschool leadership positions, most often as a deputy. During a two-yearprobationary period they undergo further support training, the 'Formationd'Accompagnement'. Having successfully finished the probation phase, there isa further range of training and continuous development opportunities, the'Formation Continue'. This comprehensive and expensive qualificationprogramme is to some extent a response to the fact that there is no midd!emanagement level in the French secondary school system, and hence theparticipants have rather limited previous expenence in school leadershipposItIOns.

Pattern

Status

Costs

Netherlands

Phase 1: 'Formation au Premier Emploi': 24 weeks (ca. 120 days) within 6 months full-time directly after suecessfully passing the seleetion process. from January to June;timetabling: 4-6 weeks at an academy; regularly interspersed by a total of approx12 weeks internship in schools, 4-6 weeks practical training in a company, and2 weeks practical training at a loeal authority;Phase 2: 'formation d'Accompagnement': 21 days 1 or 2 day courses immediatelyafter taking over as a (deputy) schoolleader during the !wo year probationary period

mandatory; selection and training are interdependent: training cannot begin withoutfirst having been selected; both are preconditions for taking over a position as aschoolleader

unknown, state financed; participants get release time from school for the durationof the first phase

1078 Huber and westmaps' of their schools. This process of cognitive mapping will then form the basisfor concrete school development planning. The deveJopment of individual schoolleaders is integrated with the development of the individual schools. A different andespecialJy extensive and renowned programme for both experienced and aspiringschoo! leaders is offered by the 'Nederlandse School voor Onderwijsmanagement'(NSO). The NSO, which is a joint institution of five universities, uses acompetency-based approach over a lang programme of 176 study days withextensive time for internships and schoo]-based projects, which leads to theacademic degree of Master in Educational Management. The programme seeksto develop a broad range of competencies, starting with pedagogical andeducational competencies, followed by counseling competencies and ending with'controlJing and organisational' competencies.

Table 2. Ou!line of Management- en Organlsatieopleidingen of (he NSO in (he Netherlands

Q"alification for schoolleaders in the NetherlandsExample: Management- en Organisatieopleidingen of the NSO

Provider Nederlandse School voor Onderwijsmanagement (NSO), a co-operation of fiveuniversities

Target Group aspiring and established sehoolleaders (and deputies), particularly at secondary levelAims development of competencies for leading schools and other instÜutions in the

educational sector; improving the chances of the participants to get employed in aleadership position due to a formal qualification (certÜicate)

Contems Context and Strategie Management; Organization Management; OperationalManagement; Theories of Management and Organization; Models of EducationalOrganizations; Organizational Diagnosis; Decision-Making; School Managementand School Boards; Marketing and Public Relations; Contract Activities; Control ofthe School Culture; Leadership Styles; Personnel Management; Recruitment,Selection and Guidance of New Staff; Job Evaluation Interviews; Guidance ofSitting Staff; Labour-Relations and Collective Bargaining; Instructional Leadership;Curriculum and Instruction; Modularization; Productivity and Quality Care;Implementation of Innovations; Internal and External Guidance; Development andExternal Management Consultancy; Management Information Systems; Managementof Information Technology; Facility Management; Financing and Budgeting;Se1ected Problems of School Management; Selected Practices of the School Leader

Methods lectures, speeches, seminars, training sessions, consultations, role play and simulations,case study, peer counseljng, readings, writing a study journal (documenting one's ownlearning process)/ reflective writing, school projects/intemship

Paltern ca. 144 course days' (4 semesters with 215 hours contact time each) and additionallytime for preparing and implementing the school project within the internship(4 semesters with 140 hours each), and time for literature research and readings, andfor the assignments;timetabling: seminars: 20 hours per semester, every Wednesday (afternoon/evening); training sessions: 175 hours per semester, Friday and Saturday; super-vision: 15-20 hours per semester; school project within the internship: 140 hours persemester

Status optional: valued by the employing school body as the NSO is weH renowned

Costs ca. 7.200 euro (16.000 Dutch gulden) per participant; financed by the participantsthemselves (sometimes funded by the school budget)

'If there is "0 speeification by the provider as far as the number of days is concemed, we convertedthe contact time in hoursinto the unit 'course day' taking 6 hours training as one day.

Developing Schoo! Leaders 1079

England and Wales

In recent years there has been increasing formalisation of the preparation ofheadteachers in Eng!and and Wales. While there have been training programmesavailab!e for some time, the piecemeallocal arrangements have now been replacedby national schemes that target three groups: aspiring headteachers, newlyappointed headteachers, and established headteachers. The largest of theseprogrammes, the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), hasbeen revised in the past year, three years after initial implementation. Thisprogramme, which is intended as apreparation for headship, is available to seniorstaff in schools who are nearing that point where an application for a headteacherpost is possible. The revised scheme is arranged in three parts. There is a generalexpectation that programme members will take one year to work through stage

Table 3. Outline of the National Professional QuaHfication for Headship (NPQH) In Englandand Wales

Qualification for schoolleaders in England and Wales, Great BritainThe National Professional Qualifiwrion for Headship

Provider approved centres contracted to the education ministry; in future, the NationalCollege for School Leadership is likely to play an increasing role in eontracting toand quality assurance of providers

Target Group teachers aspiring to headship, i.e. before application

Aims providing the participants with leadership and management competencies in orderto prepare them for headship

Contents mandatOl"y module: Strategie leadership and Accountability (developing a strategieeducational vision committed to rajsing achievements; translating the vision imopractice in order to secure high-quality teaehing and learning; monitoring, evaluatingand reviewing the effectiveness of a school; being aecountable for the efficiency andeffectiveness of a school to governors, staff, parents and pupils);additional modules: Teaching and Leaming; Leading and Managing Staff; Efficientand Effective Deployment of Statf and Resources

Methods self assessment, taught sessions, seminars, workshops, ease srudies, simulation exercises,group reviews and presentations; materials used include inspection reports, researchfindings, video materials etc.

Pattern 10--25 course days' (according to the number of modules) pius sehool-basedprojects. individual study and preparation of assignments within 1-3 years;timetabling: mandatory module: 180 hours (60 hours contact time and 120 hours forschool-based projects, individual study and preparing for assignments); 3 furthermodules: 90 hOUfS each (30 hours contact time and 60 hours for school-basedprojects and assignments)

Status optional (from 2004 mandatory); very much welcomed by the employing eommittcesat the individual schools

Costs ca. 3.200 euro to 4.700 euro (2.000 to 3.000 English pounds) for each participantdepending on the number of modules taken; different sources of funding areoffered, but self-funding is possible as weil

'If there is no specifkation by the provider as far as the number of days is concerned, we convertedthe contact time in hours into the unit 'course day' ta king 6 hours training as one da)'.

1080 Huber and West

one and another to work through stages !Wo and three. Depending on theirexperience, some the applicants are allowed to enter the programme directly intostage two following an assessment of their strengths and needs. The scheme fornewly appointed headteachers, the Headteachers Leadership and ManagementProgramme (HEADLAlvIP), offers a range of modules based in approved centresand covering management topics to those in the first year of headship. Theprogramme for established headteachers, the Leadership Programme fOTServingHeads (LPSH), was introduced in 2000 as the final piece in the jigsaw, ensuringthat "updating" on management issues is available to aJl those who seek it. CUTTently,these programmes are wide!y accessible, due to a deJiberate strategy to provideregionally based training opportunities, and the relatively generous fundingavaijable to pay für training, administered through Local Education Authoritiesbut originating from central government. The govemment has made it clear thatit expeets NPQH to beeome a man da tory requirement in due course, so it islikely, onee all headteaehers have been through this route, that the HEADLAlvfPand LPSH programmes will alter to refleet this prior training. The seale of trainingaetivities is impressive. At the Centre for Educationa! Leadership at the Universityof Manchester, one of the eountry's major providers of these programmes, some900 registrations for NPQH alone have been made here during the past threeyears. This thriving programme of headteacher training is supplemented by acertificate course in Edueational Leadership and Consultancy, designed topromote the development of headteacher trainers, whieh also seems likely tobecome anational requirement in due course. The recently established NationalCollege for School Leadership is beginning to take shape, and is likely to overseeand coordinate future developments, collaborating with regional partners in thecominuing development and implementation of national programmes.

Germany

In the Federal Republic of Germany, the responsibility for education is generallyup to the Departments of Education of each of the 16 federa! states known asthe 'Laender' . However, the general structure of the school system and the roiesof schoolleaders are quite similar in all these states. In many of them there is amove towards decentralisation and increased self-management of sehools, withina centrally fixed framework. School-based decision-making is being introducedand school development initiatives at the individual schoo! level have becomeimportant issues. Schoolleaders, who are increasingly seen as central fjgures inthe process of improving the school, are employed by each state as civil servantsand in general have non-terminable (lifelong) tenure. The role of schoolleadersand the necessity of developing ade qua te training and development models arecurrently being addressed. A research project, which involved a11si.xteen Germanfederal states (Huber, 2000; Rosenbusch & Huber, 2001), showed the following:the only common characteristics of schoo! leader development models in thefederal states are that all sixteen states offer training for new!y appointed school

Devefoping Schao/ Leaders 1081

Table 4. Oulline of the state-wide programme for school leaders in Bavaria, Germany

Qualification Jor schaa/leaders in GermanyExample: The Bavarian state·wide programme Jor schaolleaders

Provider Akademie fuer Lehrerfortbildung und Personalfuehrung Dillingen

Target Group all newly appoimed school leaders of all different kinds of schools

Aims supporting school leaders in their new roies as key figures for assuring that ,heieschools are run effectively within the framework of the central guidelines andimplementing educational development processes proposed by the Bavarian StateDepartment of Education

Contents Course I: Retlection on one's own Leadership Role; Organisation andAdministration of Schools; School Law;Course 11: Leading Conferences; Leading Staff (leadership functions, styles andguidelines, management strategies); Communication Skills; additional themes are.e.g. team work. ,chool programmes, etc.);Course III: Leading Staff (contlict management); School Improvement and SchoolQuality (vision of a school, profile of a school, corporate identity, TQM-strategies);Environment·compatible Schools;Course IV: Representing the School to the Public; Working with Parents; Managingstand-in Staff; Teaching fore/gn Pupils

Methods seminars, lectures, team work. moderation techniques, role·plays. simulations.leaming by doing-tasks. retlection time, excursions (ta innovative schools and schoolsystems abroad)

Pattern 15120 course days within 1 year timetabllng: Course [: I week in the summer holidaysbetween appoincment and taking over leadership, Course 11: 1 week inNovemberlDecember, Course III: 1 week in in May/June, Course IV: I weekdecentrally organised

Status mandatory

Costs unknown. state financed

leaders, and that this training is offered by the respective state-run institute forcontinuing professional development of teachers. Only to a very smalJ degree areother providers involved in school leader training. However, the programmesvary in several aspects. First of all , in half of the states these development'opportunities' for schoolleaders after they have taken up their posts are ob!igatory,and only five states have introduced additional pre-service orientation courses.TypicaJJy these last only a few days, and have not been made mandatory thus far.Second!y, they vary considerabJy as to the time-span, the total training daysinvolved and the programme structure. So me of the states offer a programmethat consists of only one basic course, lasting a week. Others have establisheddevelopment models of up to 40 days. In those states in which the trainingprogramme comprises 20 days or more, these programmes are either offered inintensive one-week periods (i.e., an induction weekend and then four one-week

Status

1082 Hilber and IVest

periods) or offered in frequent, short and sequentiaJ one to three-day trainingsessions, in which they work in smaJl groups to establish 'critica! friendshipteams'. Thirdly, the goals and guidelines of the deve!opment models areexpressed in different ways, and in some states they have not been made explicitat an. However, a common trend is visible. Some years aga, the emphasis was puton administrative competencies, management skilJs, and the knowledge of schoo!law. During the last ten years there has been a shift towards communication andinterpersonal campetencies of the school leader, and towards schaol develop-ment. Emphasis is c1early given to the notion of 'leading by communicating', andthere has been a shift from regarding the school leader as a senior administratortowards seeing the role in terms of personal vision and influence. In the states ofthe former Gerrnan Oemocratic Republic, however, topics like educatian law arestill most popu!ar with many schoo! leaders, due to the politica! and organisa-tiona! changes after the German reunification in 1989, which caused a good dealof uncertainty.

Schao/ Leader Preparation in Asia and Australasia

Singapore

The school system in Singapore is driven by a strong central government policy,whose most important aims are achievement, efficiency and economic success.The superl/ision and contro! of schoo!ing in Singapore is done direct!y by theMinistry of Education, The schao!s and the teachers, as weH as the pupils, are incompetition with each other and are therefore under a great deal of pressure.Efforts to give the schools a greater degree of autonomy result in even higherlevels of such press ure. Today, a slogan often used says Singapore is striving for'Thinking Schoo!s', to develop creativity and lifelong !earning. The trainingprogramme for all schoolleaders, the Dip!oma in Educational Administration(DEA), was developed by the Ministry of Education with the National InstituteofEducation (NIE) of the Nanyang Techno!ogical University. (Though currentlybeing revised, there is no plan to dilute or reduce the programme.) The exp!icitpurpose of the training programme is to enable the participants to becomeleaders of 'Thinking Schools'. The programme consists of modularised coursesand two four-week internships, with a mentoring attachment. During this nine-month fuU-time programme the participants receive their full salary. An explicitaim is to deve!op schoo! leaders who regard schools as 'learning communities'and wilo establish management teams, to draw colleagues into leaders hip rotes.This Is supported by separate training for middle managers, This also me ans thatevery potential school leader - in Singapore there are also very standardisedpromotion procedures - will have received training when they were heads ofdepartments earJier in their professional career. This emphasis on ensuring thatextensive and standardised training precedes appointment is very much a featureof the Singapore education system.

Developing School Leaders 1083

Table 5. Ou!line of (he Diploma in Educa!;onal Administration in Singapore

QuaLification Jor schoolleaders In SIngaporeDip/oma in Educationa/ Administration

Provider National Institute of Edueation of Nanyang Technologieal University

Target Group teachers befere app!ication for prlncipalship

Ajms preparation of school principals for the creatlon of school as 'Learning Organisation'or 'Thinking Sehool'

Contents School as Learning Organisation: Prlncipies of Management, Systems Leadership,Workplaee Learning; Action Research and Evaluation: PToblem-based Praetlce,Marketing, Educational Evaluation; Management of School Programmes: CurriculumDevelopment and Change Implementation, Professional Development of Statl;Governance of Singapore: Educational Policy ;vlaklng, Financial Management inSchaa!. Ethics of Management Decislons

Methods [ectures, seminars, workshops, tutorials, mentoring

Pattern ca. 58 course days', and 2 cI-week fuil-time schoai internships, and addiÖonal readingswithln 9 months fuli-time;timetabiing: 21 weeks of seminars (286 contact hours per semester), 2 4-week schoolinternshlps

mandatory

Costs unknown, state financed; salary will be paid throughout the programme

, If there is no specification by the provlder as far as the number of days Is concerned, we convenedthe contact time in hours Irrto the unit 'course day' ta king 6 hours training as one day.

Hong Kong

In the course of the reforms in the educational sector, and above all due to theestablishment of schoo!-based management, the se!f-responsibility of Hong Kong'sschools has increased considerably since the mid 1990s. However, this operateswithin a centrally determined framework. There is no tradition of training forschoo! leaders before they take over !eadership roles. However, since 1999, aTask Force has been set up to develop a conception of a comprehensive programmeincluding preparatory components. So far, there have been two obligatoryprogrammes developed. The first is a nine-day induction course, offered by theEducation Department and aimed to provide newly appointed schoolleaders ofall types of schoo!s with a basic knowledge of school management theory andpractice.The second programme is an obligatory continuous developmentprogramme for experienced school leaders in the primary sector. This course,School Management for Principals (SMP), introduced by the EducationDepartment as a supportive measure after the establishment of more autonomyfor schools, seeks to heJp school leaders come to terms with their new context.Decentralisation has meant a major re-conceptualisation of the principal's roleand relationships, with 'soft' or 'people skills' being given much more attention.A particular issue has been of 're-orientation' of school principals without anyparallel re-conceptualisation of the teacher's roje. This creates additionalcomplications for Hong Kong school leaders, who can be subjected to verydifferent expectations from inside and outside the school.

1084 Huber and ftest

Tab!e 6. Outline of the Induction Course in Hong Kong, China

Qua!ijication Jor schoolleaders in Hong Kong, Chinafnduclion Course

Provider Edueation Department (ED) of Hong Kong

Targer Group newly appointed school prineipals

Aims introdueing newly appointed principals into their tasks and responsibLiities promotinga re-coneeptualisation of roles. relationships and responsibilities amongst staff groups

Contents Hot Issues on Edueation Polieies in Hong Kong; Ro!es and Functions of SecondarySchool Heads; School Vision and Mission; Communieation, Application of IT inEducation and Schoo! Visit; Performance Management; Prevention of Bribery;Managing Change; Empowerment; Workjng with StalT having TeaehingtEmotiona!Problems; Education Ordinanee and Edueation Regulations; Working as aSeeondary Schoo! Principa!; School Head as aleader; Seleetion of Sraff; SchoolFinanee and Accounts; Curriculum Leadership; Relationship between School Headsand Mass ~'kdia; Qua!ity Assurance; lnspection; Code of Aid and Annual Estimates;Employment Ordinance; Ceisis Management; Team Building; In Tray Exercise; Post-Course Action Plan and Evaluation

,Vkthods lectures by guest speakers, discusslon, case srudies

Pattern 9 days within 2~3 weeks;timetabling: 9 sessions of 3--{' hours

Status mandatür}'

COSts unknown, stare financed

New South Wales, Australia

10 the course of far-reaching reforms in education, the concept of 'site-basedmanagement' was intraduced and, as a result, the individual responsibility of eachschoolleader in New South Wales was increased and the range of school manage-ment tasks expanded. 'Ihe Ministry of Education initiated a comprehensivequalification programme entitled 'School Leadership Strategy' (SLS), which isorganised and implemented in a centralised way, but whose actuaJ implementa-tion lies in the hands of the regional Inter-district School Leadership Groups.'Ihis qualification is a multi-phased, systematic programme. !t is based on anunderstanding that if a school is to function as a 'Iearning community' there is aneed to distribute leadership both horizontally and vertically throughout thestmcture. 'Ihe programme also attempts to respond to the different leamingneeds experienced at the different stages of the career through different trainingcontem and experiences. 'Ihe School Leadership Preparation Program (SLPP)not onJy seeks to prepare the future school leaders, but also to help them tosupport faculty colleagues currently working within other functions of leadershipin the schooL For more senior staff the School Executive Program and PrincipalInduction Pro gram serve as introduction to the different leadership functions foraspiring and newly appointed school leaders. Completing the cyde, the PrincipaJDevelopment Program and the Schooi Executive Development Program, offer

Developing School Leaders 1085

continuing professional development to established schoolleaders, and also tofacultv members wilh other leadership tasks. Individual learning needs are takeninto a~count and prior leaming is assessed and recognised. Methods are diverseand include 'shadowing' and 'peer-assisted Jeaming', as weil as the possibility oftemporary exchange of leadership positions among the school leaders.

Tab!e 7. Oulli"e of the School L~adership Preparatiol1 Programme in New South Wales,Australia

Quaiiflcation fOT schaol leaders in New 50wh ~+'afes, AustraliaSchaoi Leadership Prepara!ion Programme

Provider NSW Department of Edueation and Training through regional inter-district schoolleadership groups and partly involving other providers

Target Group teaehers aspiring to any leadership pos/tion in school or to prinicpalship

Aim' preparation for schoolleadership and other leadership roles in 'Ieaming communities'

Contents Leadina Leaming Communjties (e.". cu/tural and ethicalleadcrship, systemetc.); L~adership-for Enhanced Le:rning (e.g. create optimalleaming conditionsthe schoo!); Leadership for Effective Management (management tasks 01 the schoolleader)

tvlethods seminars, sm all team sessions. networking~ various use of eJectro.nic media, prepara-tion und presemation of a learning portfoJja and !Üerature studies

Pattern ca. 14 course davs and litera[Ure s[Udies within 1-2 years;timetabling; o;e 'School Leadership Preparation Seminar': 2 days;. 3 . 'SehoolLeadership ExceUenee Seminars': 2 days each; addl!tona! mtegrated m~iv!duallyse!ected programme components for self-study or for sm aU leammg teams: j tIm es 2modules wÜh 4 [0 6 hours work time each

Status optional; recommended for the applicarion to aleadership position, not yet required

Costs ca. 1.300 eurO (2.400 AustraJian dollars) per partieipant; one quarter (60 Austral/andoUars) are taken over by the participants or their schools and three quarters(1.800 AustraJian dollars) are taken over by the Training and Development Dtrectorate

New Zealand

Alter a particularly far-reaching programme of decentralisation, eac? school inNew Zealand has been established as a more or less autonomous InStitutIon,administering its budget independently and with a high degree of contral over itsown decisions and destiny. The basis for this is the convlctJon that a marketapproach will lead to greater efficiency and higher standards. Whether or notthis is tme remains to be seen, but, in the meantime, school leaders are somettmestom between their educational tasks and economic pressures, between the localschool council. the staff and different groups of interest within the commumty.i'vfarket orientation also characterises the training and development oppor-tunities for leadership personneL There are no obligatory qualifications for sc~oolleaders or aspiring leaders, nor are there any govemment guidelines, prereqUisIteS,or centrally fLxed standards for these qualification programmes. Every po[entlal

1086 Huber and Uht Develaping Schaol Leaders 1087

Ontario, Canada

Schaol Leader Preparation in North America

TabJe 8. autline of the Master of Educational leaders hip in New Zealand

Qualification Jor schoo/ leaders in New ZealandExample: Afaster 0/ Edllcational Leadership 0/ (he University oJ Waikato

Prov ider

In the school system of Ontario, school leaders have to develop a co-operativepartnership with loca! and regional groups, with the eommunity, with munici-paiities and with industry, and, above aH, with the schoo! community couneil.School leaders are facing high-Ieve! expectations from these groups and the need

Table 9. autIine oE (he Pr;ncipal's Qualification Program in antarlo, Canada

Quaiification Jor schoo//eaders in Ontario, CanadaExampie: Principai Qualification Program oJ OrSEIUT

Provider Center for Leadership Development of the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education.University of Toronto (OISEiUT)

Target Group teachers aspiring a schoolleadership position, before appfication

Aims Imparting to the partieipanrs the knowledge, skills and practices to enable them - touphold the Standards of Practice in the Teaehing Profession and the Ethical Standardsof Praetiee in the Teaching Profession; - to build and sustain learning communities thatsupport diversity and promote excellence, aeeountability, anti-racism, equity, partner-ships and innovation; - to assume accountability for the aehievement of all students andpromote student success and life-Iong learning in partnership with staff, parents and thecommunity; - to align and monitor programs, structures, processes, resourees and staffto support student achievement; - to manage and direet the human, material, capiraland technologieal resourees for efficient and effective schools; - to initiate and facilitatechange ,and operate successfully in a dynamic environment that is characterized byincreasing complexity; - to understand and apply edueation and student related legisla-tion in Ontario and distriet school board policies that have an impact on the school,students, staff and community; - to liaise with educational stakeholders conceming allaspects of provineial and district school board issues and initiatives

Contents SociaJContext; StaffDevelopment and Teacher Supervision; Management; Leadership;The School and its Community; Initiation of Change; Implementation of Change;Institutionalisation of Change

Methods weekend seminars, retlective 'oniting, Interactive Electronie Communication Projects,literature studies

Pattern 24 course days plus a 10-week attachment and literature studies wirhin I year;timetabling; Part [; six weekends (Saturday 8,30 to 4.30 and Sunday 8,30 to 5.00);school attaehment; 10weeks (altogether 60 hours); Part 2: sixweekends (see Part I)

Status mandatory; prerequisite for being employed as a schoolleader (the provider can bechosen by the candidates)

Costs ca, 1.060 euro (1.390 Canadian dollars) per participant (Part 1 and Part 2 ca, 530 euroeach) plus appiieation fee ca. 40 euro (50 Canadian dollars); financed by theparticipants themselves (sometimes by loeal school authorities)

for adequate training and support is weH recognised. Quite unusuaJly, in Ontariothere is self-regu!atory organisation of the teaching profession, via the OntarioCollege ofTeachers. The ColJege's powers extend to the licensing of degrees, thedeve!opment of professional standards and the accreditation of in-service trainingprogrammes foJlowing these standards. Moreover, it has estabiished guidelinesfor the qualification of school leadership staff, which providers are obliged tofoHow if they want 'recognition' of the programme in the Ontario school system.The Principal Qua!ification Program (PQP), wh ich is accredited on this basis, Isoffered by ten universities in Ontario. Hence the PQP, ror example, offered bythe Ontario Institute of Studies in Education at the University of Toronto(OISEIUT) and the one offered by York Universit'j do not differ significantly incontent, though they do differ from a methodological standpoint. The programmeof OISE;UT focuses around groups from different types of schools, which are

Edueatioaal Leadership Center of the University of Waikato

edueational leaders and individuais holding leading positions in different areas ofthe edueational sector

Target Group

Contents

!\ims

MethodsPattern

applicant can choose from the wide range of development programmes offeredby the different providers. One exarnple of a comprehensive, academically-oriented,university-based programme is offered by the Educationa! Leadership Centre ofthe University of Waikato. In addition to the academic programmes, such as theDoctor of Education, the Master of Educational Leadership or the Post-Graduate Diploma in Educational Leadership, there are also a broad variety ofin-service workshops and seminars, professional internet discussion groups, andcounseling services avaiJab!e to schoo! leaders. So, though there is no 'approved'training programme, there is nevertheless a very full range of training oppor-tunities on offer to New Zealand schoo! leaders.

developmem of the ability to rellect, interpersonal competence, and basic values asprerequisites for instructionalleaders

mandatory; Resource Management and Issues in Educational Administration;Educational Leadership: Issues and Perspectives; Educational Leadership:Organizational Development; Edueational Research Methods or Kaupapa MaoriResearch;optional; Educational Assessmem; School Leadership and the Community;Educational Leadership for Social Justice; Developing Edueational Leadership;Professioaal Education Leadership

leetures, seminars, work shops, email platforms as weil as international study toursca. 48 course days' (24 credit hours across 12 weeks = 288 hours) plus about 1600hours of individual study, participation in onIine platforrns and conduction of schoo!projects within 2-4 years;timetabling: 8 3-hour seminars, either in the late afternoon or on Saturdays (2 persemester in fuH-time or 1 per semester in part-time); individual scheduling for part-time students ;5 possible due to the online offer

optional; seen as adequate qualification by the employing committee, the board oftrustees of the school

ca. 4.000 euro (8,952 New Zealand dollars) for eight units; tlnanced by theparticipants themselves

'If there is no speeification by the provider as far as the number of days is concerned, we eonvertedthe contact time in hours into the unit 'course day' taking 6 hours training as one day.

Status

Costs

1088 Huber and Wt;st

subdivided into smaJl teams. Great emphasis is placed on process-orientedcomponents. The smaU teams have a vivid exchange of the respective situationsin their schoo]s and current problems taken from one another's workplaces. Thisprocess seeks to guarantee a strong link with practice in what would otherwise bea fairly traditional 'academic' course. This is further reinforced by a schoolattachment or 'internship', which is a central feature of preparation for leader-ship in Ontario.

Washington and New Jersey, USA

Tne USA has a quite long and well-documented history oI schoolleader develop-ment. Generally, the qualification of schoo! leaders and school administratorslies within the responsibility of the university sector. For this, various states haveset up standards and the universities of several states have joined in co-operationgroups in order to guarantee a certain consensus and a high level of qualityacross state boundaries, The usual prerequisite for access to training is a university-based degree in education or educational administration rather than a specificportion of experience, since the majority of states link principal preparation intoMaster's degree study.The programmes for the Master's degree are typicaHyone-year courses for full-time students and two to four-year courses for oart-timestudents, University based elements consist mainly of lectures, but in ~ growingnumber of programmes great emphasis is also placed on internships in one orseveral ~chools. Internship ofters an opponunity for the aspiring principal topartake tn leadership tasks, supported by the schoolleader, who mayaIso act asmentor. For such internship, however, the participants have to organise leavetrom their own schools and often they have to finance it as weil; so desirable asthis feature is, it is not as accessible as it might be,

The Danforth Education Leadership Program of the U niversity of Washington,for e.xample, was developed as early as 1987 with the financial support of theDan~orth Foundation. Since then it has been continuously developed andmodtfied. After a modularised academic course of study, the participants receivethe Initial Principal Certification (IPC) accredited in the state of Washington orthe degree Master of Education, The extensive internship experience is spreadout over a \vhole school term (see Table 10),

To look at another example, the explicit goal of the educational leaders hipprogramme of the William Paterson University of New Jersey is to link the tasksof management and leadership in terms of a 'transformationalleadership' model.Its focus is on developing networks among the participants, mentors at theschools and the team of trainers around real issues and problems to be found inthe partnership schools. It also promotes close partnerships with the schoo]distri:ts around the university, in whose schools the internships take place,Cand!dates develop Individualized Leadership Plans (ILP) that focus on careergoals and on building on their strengths as weH as identifying areas where there,s potential far improvement. The ILP becomes an action plan throughout the

Developing School Leaders 1089

Table 10. Oulline of tbe Danforth Educational Leadership Program in Washington, USA

Quaiificatian Jar schaalleaders in Washingron. USAExample: The DanJorth Educational Leadership Program oJ {he University 01 Washington

Provider College of Education of the U niversity of Washington. Seattle

Target Group applicants for the position of Principal in the state of Washington

Aims to enable candidates to work effectively towards the key goals of quality improvement.educational leadership. the further development of organisations, co-operation, theexpansion of knowledge, and personal reflection as apart of educational responsibility

Contents Understanding of the Culture of a School; 'Leadership'; the Moral and PoJjticalDimensions of Educational Leadership in a Democracy; Organisational Learningand Evaluation; Staff Development and In-service Training for Teachers; LessonObservation and Assessment; the Curriculum and Teaching; Multi-cultural Education;School Leadership and Support for Special Needs Children; Financial Competence;School Law; Work based on the Placement Experience

Methods case studies, simulations, role-plays, interactive discussioQ, the completion 01concrete leadership tasks during work experience. personal study

Pattern ca, 98 course days' (39 'credit hours' of study over 15 weeks = 585 hours) and 120 daysof practical experience (720 hours). and additional study time für reading the relevantliterature and time to complete the necessary documentation, such as re ports and thejournal within 1 year;timetabling: blocks of several days of seminars at the beginning and the end; 6 hourseminars every Thursday; all day seminars on 10 Saturdays; 16 hours a week practicalexperience (4 days a 4 ho urs per day)

Status mandatory; all programme elements are required (however the candidates can choosebetween different programmes by different providers)

Costs ca, 9,200 euro (8,600 US dollars) for a course ending with the Initial PrincipalCertification and 11.800 euro (I1.000 US dollars) with the additional degree ofMaster of Education; financed by the participants themselves (scholarships anddistrict support are available)

'If there is no specification by the provider as far as the number of days is concerned, we convertedthe contact time in hours into the unit 'course day' taking 6 hours training as one day.

field experiences and, along with the Standards for School Leaders that underpinthe curriculum, shapes the experiences and develops and nurtures the know!edge,skills and dispositions of candidates as they aspire to schoolleadership positionsthat require principallicensure. Candidates are visited regularJy in the field byfaculty advisers, Furthermore, both advisers and the teams of trainers aredeliberately drawn from a variety of backgrounds and experiences in order tomake available to trainees a wide range of perspectives (see Table 11),

Sadly, such extensive and expensive qualification programmes tend to recruitlimi ted numbers of participants onto each course. It seems to exceed any finan-cia] possibilities to ofter such programmes country-wide as a state-organisedtraining programme for all future school leaders. This is unfortunate, as theprogrammes have a number of interesting features, relating to both content andmethods,

1090 Huber and West

mandatory; candidates may choose to attend approved programs at other universitiesin New Jersey

Costs ca, lO.OOO euro (ca, 90300 US dollars) per participant; financed by the participantsthemselves (reimbursement by local school districts is possib!e depending uponcontracted agreements)

Taille 11. Outliue of the Educationa! Leadership Program at WilJiam Patersou University ofNew Jersey

Qualification for schoolleaders in New Jersey, USAExampte: DIe Educalionat Leadership Program ofthe Wittiam Palerson University

Provider College of Education of the William Paterson Universlty of New Jersey

Target Group applicants for schoolleadership positions that reguire principa! licensure, especiallythose aspiring to the principalship in the state of New Jersey, but also teachers whowane to improve their leadership competencies

Aims competency in each of the Standards for Sehool Leaders developed by the Council ofChief Slate Sehool Officers and endorsed bv the Interstate School Leaders LicensureConsortium; and avision of school [eade~ship that includes beliefs in democraticcollaboration, diversity, eguity, theory, critica] inguiry, retlective practice, continuousimprovement, student success, and ethical practice

Leadership in Learning Communities; Contemporary Issues in Schools and Society:Educational Research; Curriculum Design; Understanding Group Processes and thePsychology of Organizations; The Principalship; Clinical projects in EducationalLeadership (Action Research); Supervision and Evaluation: Peop!e, Programs andPerformance Appraisal; School Management; Legal lssues; Policy; Field Experiences;Technoiogy Competencies

Developing School Leaders 1091

Centralisation and Decentralisation o[ School System and School LeadershipDevelopment Approach

Netherlands;New ZeaJand

B

D

France;Germany;Hong Kong;Singapore

Ontario, Canada;US examples;NSW, Australia;England and Wales

c

Apredominantalycentralised

substantiallydevolved

Level ofCentralControlover SchoolManagement

Table 12, Overview of the degree of centraJisation/decentralisation of sehoo! system and sehoolleader development approach

Approach 10 School Leader Developmentpredominantly centraÜsed entrepreneunoalor using standards orguidehnes

The first of these involves situating the programmes in a simple matrix to explorethe degree of centralisation, The second is concemed wirh the status given topractical experience within the provision.

We have c!assified the degree of centralisation against two axes, one relatingto the level of central control over the education system as a whole, the otherrelating to the level of central govemment involvement in the design, deliveryand accreditation of programmes, Using these axes, the programmes can besituated in a two by two matrix as shown in Table 12,

case study, iecture/discussion, group problem solving, micro-conferencing technology,large and sma!] group diseussions, refIective inguiry through journal writing,problem-based learning activities, technology communications, action research, andfield-based experiences

ca, 90 days of course work* (36 'credit hours' = 36 semester hours over aperiod of15 weeks = 54D hours) as well as 150 practice hours (30-40 hours per semester) wirhin2 years;timetabling: programme follows the semester structure of the university; addirionaliytwo one-week summer courses

Methods

Contents.

Pattern

Status

*lf there is no specification by the provider as far as the number of days is concerned, we convertedthe cOOlact time in hours into the unit 'course day' taking 6 hours training as one day.

UVERVIEW OF TRAINING Ai'JD DEVELOPMENT PROGRA ..MMES

Although the programmes presented here are, in some cases, simply individualexamples drawn from a range of provision rather than national models, thesehave been selected because they are firmly established and are locaJJy regardedas indicative of 'best practice' in the particular countries ..

Accordingly, though mindfuJ of the risk of over-generalising, we feel it isuseful to look across the various programmes and to attempt to 'dassify' them intwo ways, though we are aware that many other bases for comparison might beadopted,

Looking at this matrix, we can see that in the predominantly centra/isedsystems (such as France, Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore), there are alsopredominantly centralised arrangements for the development of school!eaders,Programmes are standardised, cJosely monitored, mostly man da tory andnational or federa! governments maintain cJose involvement in quality assuranceprocesses, Of course, there remain substantial differences in cüntent and methods,In France, for example, candidates undergo a man da tory, centraJJy designed,intensive, half-year programme only after successfuJJy negotiating a competitiondriven selection process, The programme precedes, but more or less guarantees,aleadership appointment, In Germany, it is the federal states that oversee schoolleader qualifications, and programmes are managed by the respective state-runteacher-training institutes, offered mostly after appointment, and differing fromstate to state in content, methods and duration, but nevertheless standardisedwithin state boundaries. Central design and govemment involvement is especiaHyevident in Hong Kong and Singapore, The former has a mandatory induction

1092 Huber and West Develaping Schaol Leaders 1093

Emphasis o[Leaming Oppornmities

Tab!e 13. Overview of Ibe emphasis of !earning opportunilies within scboo! leader developmentprogra firn es

Emphasis of leaming opportunÜies within schoolleader development programmes

The first group, which we refer to as 'centred around experientia! methods'has adopted development programmes that feature some form of 'internship' -that is the placing of programme members in schools under the supenision andguidance of an experienced schoo! leader who is able to offer support and advice.Clearly, this is a most powerful !eaming context, grounded in the realities andcomplexities of actua! schoolleadership, yet offering a 'safety-net' as judgementsand ana!vses can be develooed without the constraints of individual accounta-bility. Su~h an approach allo~s programme members to expiore alternatives, and

centred aroundcourses

Course-Based Learning

NSW, Australia;Germany; Hong Kong

mixed model

NJ; Ontario; England;New Zea!and

France; Singapore;WA; Netherlands

centred aroundexperiential methods

Experience-Based Learning

The second area that seems instructive to look at is the distribution of theprogrammes according to the emphasis given to practical and school-basedelements. Here tao, we note that the examples we have outlined seern to faH intothree groupings. If we conceptua!ise the training provision as being spread acrosstwo continua of course-based and experience-based leaming opportunities, thenit is possib!e 10 distribute the programmes according to the relative emphasisgiven to these two strategies. Table 13 shows how, for example, the emphasischanges from the programme in France (heavily experientiaJ) to the programmein Hong Kong (substantiaHy course-based). We are aware that by grouping theprogrammes according to their relative emphasis on experientia! versus course-based leaming, we risk simplification. For example, we have not taken imoaccount whether the offers are made to teachers aspiring to leadership or toschool leaders a!ready 'experienced' in their roje. Again, the different emphasiscould be viewed in reference to the tota! amount or !ength of training avaiJable;since offering experientia! learning opportunities inevitably means expandingthe programme accordingly. Neverthe!ess, we fee! that mapping the emphasis oftraining methods is useful, since it teHs us something about the ways both theconte nt and processes of schoolleadership are conceptualised 10caHy(see Table 13).

programmeimmediately after appointment, while the Jatter is the most prescrip-tive of all, controlling seJection and assessment and mandating a nine-month,fuH-time preparatory programme.

At the other extreme we locate New Zealand and the NetherJands. Here,there is considerable autonomy at schoollevel, with local rather than nationaldetermination of school objectives and plans. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising thatthere is also a thriving local economy providing a range of training programmesand opportunities .. In both countries, we see a broad variety of opportunities forschool leaders, with considerable variation in content, methods, pattern andduration. We see that a range of providers - universities, advisory boards, profes-sional associations, independent training organisations - compete in marketswhere state guidelines, standards and conditions for appointment or licensureare not prescribed.

Perhaps the most interesting group is comprised of the remaining examples -places \vhere there are varying but significant levels of autonomy at schoollevel,but where the general pattern and approach adopted in school leader deve!op-ment is substantia!Iy standardised. A paradox here is that despite the 'prescrip-tion' of programme length, content and so on, often (as is particularly evident inthe North American examples) programmes are delivered by non-governmentalagencies, such as universities. It is also common to find that though leaders oraspiring leaders have no choice regarding the framework and content of theprogramme, they can select from a range of providers and Iocations for theirstudies. In some instances (e.g., the examples from the Uni ted States), participa-!ion in an approved programme is mandatory, in others (England and Wales)notice has been given that it wiIJ become mandatory, while in the Australianexample it remains optionaJ. There are paraIJel differences in the status of theprogrammes though, by and Iarge, those most cJosely foIJowing prescribed'standards' and guide!ines have estabJished the greatest credibility within theirown communities.

It seems that these examples show us how two major preoccupations of poli-ticians can be accommodated; on the one hand school Jevel decision-making andstrong local involvement in the direction of schools, on the other, so me guaranteethat the govemment is ensuring a suppJy of suitably trained and experiencedcandidates will be available to manage the stock of schools. This is an attractivecombination - autonomy with accountability, scope for local decision-makingwith central arrangements to quality assure those who might be making Jocaldecisions. Our feeling is that more countries wiH be rnoving in to this quadrant ofthe matrix in the coming years, and that there is much to be Jeamed from thepractice already developed in those countries we have Jocated there.

As a final point here, perhaps it is worth noting that even within the JargersampIe of more than twenty countries in our comparative study, we found noexamples in the fourrh quadrant (B) - it seerns that we will see increasing centralinfluel1ce on schoo! leader training, however power is redistributed withinsystems themselves.

1094 Huber and West

encourages them to both discuss and reflect on their judgements. The thirdgroup, in contrast to the first, tends to rely on traditional, course-based learning,trusting individual programme members to make the link from the course and,perhaps from the workshop, to their workp!ace, from general 'theory' to theirparticuJar practice. The middle group offers a balanced or 'mixed-economy' -showing some emphasis on practical work and applications, but most oftenwithin the trainees' own school situations, and with the support of a mentor. Atthe same time, these programmes seem to offer a strong 'traditional' core oftraining sessions that are course based.

As we outline bdow, participants are showing strong preferences for theexperiential or mixed approach, but this is always more difficu]t to organise andhkely to be more costJy. Nevertheless, we fee! that there are important advantagesarising from those programmes that seek to supplement activities in the trainingroom with tasks in the schoo!. We are also reminded here of the work of Joyceand \-'leil (1996) and Joyce and Showers (1995) on teaching styles within theschoo! system - especial!y their finding that the deve!opment of complex, socialskjjjs amongst learners is most effective when comp!ex, social models of teachingare used. Given the focus on complex personal and interpersonal skins within themajority of these programmes, and the fact that it seems likely that this findinais equally valid outside the traditional dassroom, this imp1ies that schoo! leader~probably Iearn more about leading their schools by leading them than they dofrom 'courses' about !eadership. The relevance of this approach for adultlearners is underlined by Corder (1990). Despite the apparent benefits ofsystematicaHy creating !earning opportunities that match the desired learningoutcomes, this does pose important questions for those schooled in traditiona!training activities - whether they are offered by parts of the system or byuniversities. Looking at training for education management, Mulford (1984)pointed out that while experiential approaches may be more effective for certaintraining outcomes, they also tend to invo!ve greater levels of self-disclosure andrisk for trainers and trainees alike.They also move the locus of 'controI' withintraining away from the trainer. Further, Mulford reminds us that trainina

. b

strategles need to be considered in light of the characteristics of the learner andthe conteX! or setting in which training takes place, as weH as the desired learningoutcomes. This implies that a balance will always be needed, but moreover thatthis balance needs to be re-calibrated for particular !earning groups within agi~'en p:ogramme structure, rather than simply between different programmesWIth different target groups or objectives. Clearly, this has very significant messagesfor the training of trainers - an issue that has received much less attention thanprogramme content or methods in the countries that we have reviewed.

SO ME CURRENT TRENDS

The comments we set out above, using the dimensions and descriptors previouslyoutJined, are necessari!y brief. (For a fulJer account, see Huber, 2003.) But,

Deve!oping Schoo! Leaders 1095

nevertheless, this analysis prompts us to offer a number of generalisations aboutcurrent trends in schoolleadership preparation emerging from this overview. Fürexample, we see that across the programmes surveyed, increasing attention isbeing paid to the identification of specific programme aims and objectives - amove from the general to the particular in the planning of schoolleader develop-men!. We also note that in more and more countries, the emphasis withintraining is shifting from maintenance functions onto activities that promoteschool improvement and explicitly seek to raise standards of achievement.Similarly, we detect increasing emphasis being given to the development of theindividual trainee, personal development rather than training for a role, withmuch greater interest in individual values and how these values act upon theculture within the schoo!. We have also become aware of the growing interestinternationally in so-called educational or instructionalleadership models (seefor example Hallinger, 1992; Sheppard, 1996) and their influence on trainingcurricula (though we are not altogether convinced that this focus on the dass-room does reflect schoolleader rather than school teacher priorities - it is themanagement and leadership of adults within the school community that we seeas the~ central task). We have been greatly encouraged by the variety of practiceto be found, and the creativity and commitment to experimentation amongproviders, especially with regard to training methods. Below, we describe somefurther trends in a iittle more detail.

Towards Coherent Provision

The first of these concems is the general movement away from unconnected'single issue' or 'single shot' training events towards a more carefuUy planned andaltogether more coherent programme of school leader development. Typically,such programmes are offered over a sustained period of time to a stable groupof trainees by a stablegroup of trainers. In the best examples, these programmesare avai!able at several points in the school !eader's career, beginning as trainingfor middle management, continuing as preparation for promotion to senior postsand supplernented on ce senior leadership rotes have been achieved to ensureregular and appropriate updating.

This recognition that the next generation of school leaders is aJready in ourschools is an important one. True, few countries have been systematic in thepreparation of the next generation of school leaders. But, many countries arebeginning to understand that investment in development is necessary throughoutthe potential schoolleader's career. Waiting until schoolleadership posts havebeen seeured before training may be too late, not least because the costs ofunderperforrning leaders are borne by the teachers and students. It isencouraging therefore to see dear evidence that the whole business of leadershiptraining is being tackled earlier and more systematicaUy than in the past. Ofcourse, there is still scope for single issue in-service sessions or focused trainingevents, but it seerns clearthat the development of schoolleaders will be' seen as

1096 Huber and West

requiring deliberately planned and systematica!ly implemented programmes inthe future.

Towards New Collaborations and Pannerships

Tbe second is the emergence, in many countries, of new partnership arrange-ments that have been formed to design, to implement, to monitor and even toeva!uate school leader development programmes. TypicaJly, the partners willinciude representatives from the employing organisations (whether national,state or 10cal level), from educationalists in the university sector and, increasingly,from professiorlal associations that represent schoo! leaders themselves. Ourstudies suggest that much of the coherence that has been brought to schoolleader preparation programmes arises from the interaction of these groups, andthe different perspectives they can bring to reso!ving the key issues of curriculumconter]t and structure, of training methods and also of the timing and sequencingof the programmes. The growth of such partnerships has also, in many countries,fostered the development of a pool of accredited or acknowledged trainers. Tbis,too, is an impoftant development, since the credibiJity and currency of trainershas been a matter of debate in several countries in the past, and, as we intimateabove, the preparation of trainers is !ikely to become an increasingly importantissue in the future.

Bn·dging the Theory-Practice Divide

These partnerships have also contributed towards the next strand we identify,which is the drawing together of theory and practice within school leaderdevelopment programmes. Again we see this as an important relationship, andone that has not always seemed easy to tackle. Though it may be axiomatic thatwe need continuously to develop theory in light of practice and that we need alsoto deve!op practice in light of theory, it has not always proved easy to hold thesetogether. The relationship requires a partnership between those who work withinour schooJs and those who investigate and research our schools. It reauiresmutual respect between these tw~ communities and, where possible~ theboundaries between the groups broken down. School leaders themselves seem toshowa strong preference for what they describe as 'practical training', and that'theory' is not aJways seen as valuable to the practitioner. However, we also seefrom our own work (West, et aL, 2000) that school leaders find it much easier togeneraJise from their experience and repeat effective behaviours when they havea conceptual framework underpinning the decisions they are making. Theoryand practice need one another - and need to be developed in tandem. \Ve seeincreasing scope in the new partnerships for this to take place, as the programmes

Develaping Schaol Leaders 1097

for preparation of school leaders are also developing as programmes fürresearching the needs of school leaders.

Towards a Common Cunicu/um

A fourth area is the evidence that, despite international differences, someconvergence of curriculum content is emerging - at least in relation to !wocrucial areas. Tbese can be described loosely as teaching and learning issues andthe persona! and interpersonal skiJls of leadership. The focus on c!assroompractice - what Rosenbusch (1997) has cal!ed the 'core business of the schoo!'(see also Elmore, 1996) - is increasingly recognised as a fundamental area forschoo! leader focus and activity. Of course, it is unrealistic to expect that schoolleaders can remain up to date with the whole range of developments in teachingand leaming, across the curriculum. At the same time, it seems reasonab!e [0

expect that school leaders wil! spend at least some of their time in c!assrooms,will give importance to discussions with teachers about their work and will haveinsights into the major trends and developments in teaching and learning thatare taking place. It is by maintaining or developing their knowledge of c!assroomevents that school leaders are ab!e to understand and respond to the challenges(and, of course, the oppoftunities) that teachers come across daily in theirc!assrooms. Tbis also helps them gain insights into the quality of experience thattheir schools are providing for their students, and so is an important guide toestabJishing priorities for school improvement. Besides, the key activity ofschools, namely teaching and learning (or 'education'), should be the startingpoint and the benchmark for measuring the quaJity of decision-making of schoolleaders and leadership activities in general. It is reassuring, therefore, to see thatteaching and learning issues feature increasingly in the schemes we have lookedat, though, as we note above, how best to link together schoolleadership anddassroom performance remains problematic.

Similady, we can see that most of the programmes reviewed are givingemphasis to the development of personal and interpersonal skiIJs. lt has beenassumed for too long that school leaders 'acquire' interactive skilJs throughosmosis. Tbough they would not always identify (for example) communicationskills as a priority for persona! development, it is interesting how often teachersin the school will identify this area as one which lets their leaders down. Theinc!usion of explicit training content related to personal competencies isaccordingly another welcome development.

However, despite these generalisations, there remain some important differencesbetween the programmes we have examined. Convergence in so me areas ofcontent is matched by divergence in others. Tbe differences between systems andrherefore the differences in what is reauired in terms of svstem-related knowledge,is one intluence here. A second is the different levels ~f autonomy that schoo!leaders have within the different countries (for example, regarding the recruit-ment of staff). Although there is an international trend towards decentraJisation

1098 Huber and West

and devolution of decision-making that may bring them doser together in time,presently this is not as advanced in some systems as it is in others, and soinevitably the schoolleadership training curriculum reflects this.

We also continue to see differences in programme patterns, lengths andintensity, and also in support arrangements. These are cJearly areas where moreinvestigation is needed, as the differences here are hard to expJain away in termsof the programme goals.

A further area of difference is in the attitude towards assessment andcertification. 'In some instances, the training programme functions as aprofessional qualification, a license to practice. At the other extreme, it may stillbe very much along the lines of a conventionaJ Master's degree programme,albeit focused around the particular problems and issues of school leadership,but neverthe!ess undertaken on a voluntary basis with the initiative coming fromthe participant rather than the system. These differences project onto the statusand currency that the training programmes enjoy locally. It is clear that theprofessional standing bestowed by comp!eting a programme still varies from onecountry to another. In same eountries, it can be seen as a passport to promotion;in other:;;,it is simply one aspect of a portfolio that the individual assembles inorder to increase their praspects of securing advancement. But perhaps mostimportant of a!l are the differences in assumptions about the role of schoolleaders that we find in the different countries we have looked at.

To a large extent, these differences could be viewed as cultural. They are deep-seated and they pervade the school and the system as a whole. Such culturaldifferences mean that despite the patterns we see emerging as school leaderpreparation across the world seem to converge in a number of respects, there willprobably continue to be significant differences in approach. It is these culturallyrooted assumptions about what a school Jeader is and should do, that meanhawever much convergence we may find within training programmes, theexpectations and, hence, the solutions will vary according to context.

LOOKING A.HEAD

Tnis chapter has drawn heavily on arecent comparative, international study(Huber, 2003),which puBs tagether descriptions of current practice from aroundthe world and identifies commonalities and differences. Of course, this studyoffers a useful starting point, but still there is much to be done. Here we wil!restrict our comments on what might be done next to four issues, though we areaware that there are many more.

First, there seems to be little international work available on how schoolleaders are identified and selected for training. Though a few of the programmesthat we have described control programme membership, the majority do not.This uncertainty about who and how programme membership comes about, isrefIected in the subsequent selection of school leaders. In the United Kingdom,for example, the current centrally controlled programme brings no promise of

Developing School Leaders 1099

progression - indeed the majority of programme graduates in its first four yearsof operation have not been appointed to headships. The reaJity is that a majoritynever will. Of course, this is not of itself a bad thing - improving the quality ofstaff in schools through development opportunities is a worthwhile activitywhether or not promotion foUows. At the same time, there seems to be moreconfusion about how performance leads to programme membership and howprogramme membership leads to progression than there need be. Perhaps weneed to begin to pool knowledge and eompare systems for the identifieation andsubsequent deployment of appropriate staff, as mueh as we need to foeus ondevelopment programmes themselves.

Seeond, it is elear from the brief reviews of programmes here that there isfurther need to compare both the eommon and the distinct elements we find inthe different countries, and to reeognise that though a competency basedapproach may have same advantages, there is stilliess consensus about what thekey competencies are than there might be. In this regard, there appears to be astrong case for [ooking in more detail at the impact training has on the behaviourof schoolleaders, and the impact (in turn) their behaviour has on their schools.At present there seems to be much in the programmes that is based on assump-tion rather than evideoce.

Third, it is apparent that the differences in methods offer further scope forcomparison. Despite the problems of contextualisation, there are likely to be'best methods' for a variety of desired training outcomes. We need to know moreabout the possibilities and about the efficacy ofvarious approach es. In particularwe need to know more about the matching of methods to Iearning outcomes,which strengthens the case for the sorts of evaluation of programme impact inthe various countries that we refer to above.

FinaUy, we have become increasingly conscious during our own work in thisfield that the conception of school leadership, even taken internationally, is arather narrow one. Perhaps there does need to be 'one supreme head' in eachschoo!. Maybe school leadership development programmes are about findingand equipping such individuals. But perhaps there are other alternatives -collective leadership, the development of who!e teams of staff, the re-conceptuaIisation of the schoolleader's role as simply one part in a team, a teammade up of leaders who aHneed support, training, development opportunities.It is this !ast issue which seems to us to chaHenge most forcibly the orthodoxyunderpinning current provision, and which offers the most interesting avenue ofexploration for the future.

END NOTE

L The term 'schao! leader' is in this chapter used synonymousiy to or instead of principal, headteacher,administrator or olher terms describing the person who is in charge of an individual schooi.

1100 Huber and West

REFERENCESBeare, H., Caldwell, 8.J., & Millikan, R.H. (1989). Creating an Excellent School. London: Routledge.Braokover, W.,Beady, c., Fiood, P, Schweitzer, 1.,& Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School soda Isystems and

sludent achievemenl: Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.Caldwe!l, B.1., & Spinks, 1.M. (1992). Leadingihe setf-managing school. London: Falmer Press.Cmder, C. (1990). Teaching Hard, Teaching Soft. Aldershot: Gower Press.Creemers, B. (l994).The history, value and purpose of school effectiveness studies. In D. Reynolds,

B. Creemers, P. Nesselrodt, E. Schaffer, S. Stringfield, & c. Teddlie (Eds.), Advances in schooleffeetiveness researchand praclice (pp. 9-23). Oxford: Pergamon.

DES. (1990). Developing school management: Ihe wayforward. Areport by the School ManagementTask Force. London: HMSO.

DtEE (1997).National standardsfor headteachers. Landon: Department for Education and Employment.Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37( l), 15-27.Elmore, R.F (l996). Getting to Scale with Good Educational Practice. Harvard Educational Review,

66(1), 1-26.Fullan, [vI.(1991). Ihe new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.Haliinger, P (1992) The Evoiving Role of American Prineipals: Fram Managerial to Instructlonal 10

Transforma!ional Leaders. Journal of Educalional Administration, 20(3), 35-48.Hopkins, 0., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (1996). Improving the qrwlity of educalion for all: Progress and

chal/enge. London: David Fulton Publishers.Huber, S.G. (1997). Headleachers' views on headship and training: A comparison with Ihe NPQH.

Cambridge: Sehool of Education, University of Cambridge.Huber, S.G. (2000). QuaHfizierung von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern in den deutschen Bundes-

tandern: Eine Synopse. Bamberg: Unveroffentlichter Ergebnisbericht (mit Lander-Fragen-Matrix).Huber, S.G. (2002). School Leadership Development - Current trends from a global perspective. [n

P. Hallinger (Ed.), Ihe changing landscape of educational leadership development: Agiobaiperspeclive (Chapter 17). Lisse, Tbe Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Huber, S.G. (2003). Preparing school leaders for the 21st Century: An international comparison ofdevelopment programme> irl8'countries. Lisse, Tbe Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Iman!s, J., & de long, L. (l999). '''faster VOllrschool: The development of integralleadership. Paperpresented at the International Congres; for School Effectiveness and Improvement, San Antonio.

Joyce, 8., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievementlhrough staff development. New York: Longman.Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Lei!hwood, K. (1992). The principa1's role in teacher development. In M. FuUan & A. Hargreaves

(Eds.), Teacherdevelopment and educational change (pp. 86-!O3). London: Falmer.Leithwood, K. (Ed.) (2000). Uoderstanding schools as intelligent systems. Stamford, Cf: JAJ Press.Levine, D.U, & Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually eifective schools: A review and analysis of research

and pracrice. Madison, WI: National Centre for Effective School Research.Mortimore, P, Sammons, E, StoU, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School malters: Thejllnioryears.

WeHs:Open Books.Mulford, B. (1984). On teacbing educatlonal administration.Ihe Jo"rnal ofEducational Administration,

22(2), 223-246.Murphy, 1. (1991). RestlUcturing schools: Capluring the phenomenon. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Rosenbusch, H.S., & Huber, S.G. (2001). Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen von Schulleiterinnen und

Schulleitern in den Ländern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Schul-Management, 4, 8- 16.Rosenbusch, H.S. (1997). Organisationspädagogische Perspektiven einer Reform der Schulorganisation.

SchulVenmltung, 10, 329-334.Rutter, M., Maughan, S., Mortimore, P, & aus ton, 1. (1979). Fifteen Ihousand ho"rs. London: Open

Books.Sammons, P, Hillman, 1., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Kry characlerisIics of effeclive schooL,:A review of

school eifeet/veness research. London: OFSTED.Sergiovanni 1:1. (l994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leaders hip. Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, 42, 325-344.Stegö, N.E., Gielen, K, Glatter, R., & Hord, S.M. (Eds.). (1987). Ihe role of schoolleaders in school

impro,·emem. Leuven: ACCO.

Developing School Leaders 11O!

Stall, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our 5chools: Linking school effecliveness and schoolimprovement. Bucbngham, UK Open University Press.

Teddlie, c., & Stringfield, S.c. (1993). SchooLsmake a difference: Lessons learnedfrom a 1O-yearsllidyof school effecls. New York: Teachers' College Press.

Van Velzen, WG., Miles, M.B., Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U., & Robin, D. (Eds.). (1985). ivfaking schoolimwovemenl work: A conceptual guide 10 practice. Leuven: ACCO.

West: M., & Ainscow, M. (1997). Tracking the moving school: Chattenging assumptions, increasingunderstanding. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Frankfurt.

West, M., & Ainscow, M. (1994). idanaging school development. London: David Fulton.West, M., Jackson, D., Harris, A, & Hopkins, D. (2000). Learning through leadership, leadership

through learning. In K.A. Riley & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Leadership j(Jr change and 5chool reform(pp. 30--49). London: Routledge Falmer.