1    

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND  MATERIAL  

EPNOSL REFLECTION TOOLS FOR POLICY DESIGN AND

IMPLEMENTATION

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL)

Peer Learning Event (PLA)

25-26 September 2014

Nice, France

2    

Table  of  Contents    

Policy  Response  Toolset  ...............................................................................................................  3  

Draft  Outline  of  Toolset  on  Accountability  For  Equity  And  Learning  ...........................  9  

Draft  Outline  –  Policy  Coherence  Toolset  ............................................................................  20  

Draft  outline  -­‐  Stakeholders’  Collaboration  Toolset  ........................................................  27  

Policy  Toolset  on  Educating  School  Leaders  as  Change  Agents  ...................................  31  

Draft  Toolset  –  Distributed  Leadership  for  Equity  and  Learning  ...............................  48  

Draft  Outline  –  Policy  Toolset  on  Autonomy  ......................................................................  64    

 

   

3    

Policy  Response  Toolset    

Carl  Bagley  and  Sophie  Ward,  University  of  Durham,  UK  

 

The   Policy   Response   Toolset   is   intended   to   help   policy   makers   andschool   leaders  develop  solutions  to  problems  around  policy   implementation.  This   toolset   is   informed  by   the   principles   of   creative   interpretation   and   the   translation   of   abstract   ideas   into  practice,   and   views   policy   as   a   process   of   creative   social   action.   It   therefore   aims   to  facilitate   school   leaders’   active   participation   in   the   policy   process   to   develop  contextually   relevant   and   responsive   policy   that   effectively   supports   equity   and  learning.    

Research  conducted  by   the  European  Policy  Network  on  School  Leadership   (Bagley  &  Ward,   2013;   Ward   et   al,   under   review)   found   that   school   leaders   sometimes   find   it  difficult   to   engage   with   ‘top   down’   policy.   This   toolset   does   not,   therefore,   prescribe  ways  of  engaging  with  policy,  but  instead  aims  to  help  policy  makers  and  school  leaders  under   the   wider   heading   of   policy   response   to   (i)   employ   creative   strategies   to  overcome   obstacles   to   policy   implementationand   (ii)   co-­‐create   ways   to   engage   with  policy  and  share  best  practice.  

 

The  toolset  is  divided  into  three  sections:  

• Section  1  explores  policy  enactment  

• Section  2  considers  barriers  to  policy  implementation  

• Section  3  considers  creative  solutions  for  policy  engagement  

 

1. Policy  Enactment  

Policy  is  both  an  attempt  to  solve  problems  and  an  attempt  to  persuade  individuals  to  subscribe  to  particular  beliefs  that  delineate  action.  Policy  is  aprocess  that  brings  certain  principles  or  ideas  into  practice  through  the  selection  of  goals,  the  definition  of  values  and  the  allocation  of  resources  (Ham  &  Hill,  1993;  Olssen  et  al,  2004).  Policy  documents  ‘codify  and  publicise   the  values  which  are  to   inform  future  practice’   (Ranson,  1995,  p.  440),   and   as   such   they   go   to   the   heart   of   the   relationship   between   the   state   and   the  welfare   of   its   citizens   (Hill,   1996).   The   concept   of   policy   is   bound-­‐up  with   notions   of  public   and   social   issues,   the   solutions   to   these,   and   the   role   of   the   state   in   providing  

4    

these   solutions.   Policy  does  not   simply   tell   us  what   to  do;   it   also   affords  possibilities.  Consequently,   educators  may   take   part   in   a   process   of  what  may   be   termed   ‘creative  social   action’   (Ball,   1998,   p.   270)   to   resist   or   transform   policy   that   threatens   to  undermine   educational   possibilities   that   they   value.   This   is   significant,   as   informed  engagement   provides   a   space   in   which   dominant   policy   ideas,   texts   and  recommendations  are  not  simply  accepted  un-­‐problematically  at  face  value,  but  may  be  challenged,  nuanced,  reformulated,  and  changed.  For  this  reason,  Braun  et  al  (2010,  p.  549)   talk  not  of  policy  response  but   ‘policy  enactment’,  which   they  claim   involves   the  creative  processes  of  interpretation  and  translation  to  bring  abstract  ideas  into  practice.  

Often,  policy   is  produced   in  response   to  emergent   issues   for  which  current  guidelines  are   inadequate   or   absent,   and   in   such   instances   the   translation   of   abstract   ideas   into  practice   has   an   urgency   that   is   recognised   by   policy  makers   and   educators   alike.   An  example   of   an   emergent   issue   in   the  UK   that   has   prompted   a   crucial   and   continuous  policy  response  is  discussed  in  the  vignette  below.  

 

Vignette  1:  Self-­‐harm  online  and  offline1  

At  the  start  of  the  twenty-­‐first  century,  media  reports  began  to  emerge  about  the  dangers  posed   to   children   by   the   internet,   including   the   danger   of   peer-­‐to-­‐peer   victimisation.   In  2007,   the   UK   government   commissioned   Childnet   International,   a   charity   dedicated   to  protecting   children   online,   to   produce   guidance   to   help   schools   deal   with   the   issue   of  cyberbullying.  Childnet  International  consulted  with  school  leaders  and  parents  to  develop  an  understanding  of  the  issue  and  its  ensuing  report  formed  part  of  the  UK  Government’s  Safe   to  Learn  Guidance   for   schools  on  bullying.  Seven  years   later,  Childnet   International  reported  on  a  disturbing  new  development:  citing  figures  from  the  National  Health  Service  (NHS),  Childnet  UK  claimed  that  the  number  of  children  aged  between  10  and  14  treated  in  hospital  after  deliberately  hurting  themselves  has  risen  by  more  than  2,700  since  2012.  Childnet   went   on   to   state   that   in   2014   the   London   School   of   Economics’   report,   Net  Children   Go   Mobile,   showed   a   significant   increase   in   young   people   being   exposed   to  potentially  negative  forms  of  user-­‐generated  content  online,  including  self-­‐harm  websites.  Given  the  serious  nature  of  self-­‐harm  and  the  possibility  that  children  are  encouraged  to  self-­‐harm  by  viewing  content  online,  we  might  expect  education  policy  on  self-­‐harm  to  be  developed   imminently,   perhaps   in   consultation  with   organisations   such   as   Childnet   and  the  LSE.  It  is  likely  that  school  leaders  will  be  consulted  as  part  of  this  policy  development.  

 

 

2. Barriers  to  policy  implementation                                                                                                                            1Childnet  International  (2014).  Self-­‐Harm  on  the  Rise:  Online  and  Offline.  Retrieved  22nd  August  2014  from  http://www.childnet.com/blog/self-­‐harm-­‐on-­‐the-­‐rise-­‐online-­‐and-­‐offline    

5    

While  policy  response  has  the  potential  to  engage  all  members  of  a  learning  community  in  ‘creative  social  action’  (Ball,  1998,  p.  270),  various  barriers  to  policy  implementation  may   disrupt   this   process.   In   2013,   the   UK   team   of   the   European   Policy   Network   on  School   Leadership   (EPNoSL)   conducted   a   study   of   the   implementation   of   policy   on  school   leadership   for   equity   in   Scotland   (Bagley   &   Ward,   2013;   Ward   et   al,   under  review).School   leaders   identified   four   reasons  why   they  were   not   engaging  with   this  policy:  (i)policy  documents  are  too  ‘hard  going  and  laborious’;  (ii)  policy  is  perceived  to  be  irrelevant,  either  ‘distant  from  my  post  and  what  it  means  in  the  context  of  my  job’  or  they  are  already  doing  this  in  their  schools;  (iii)  not  enough  time  to  engage  with  policy  or   implement   it;   (iv)concerned   about   the   lack   of   policy   ‘ownership’   and   the   lack   of  consultation  during  policydevelopment.  

Sometimes,  policy  seems  to  be  so  far  removed  from  school  leaders’  everyday  experience  that  its  implementation  is  almost  impossible,  as  in  the  example  provided  below.    

 

Vignette  2:  ‘Schools  in  Challenging  Circumstances’2  

In   2001,   the   UK   government   published   a   policy   document   aimed   at   improving   school  performance,   ‘Schools   in  Challenging  Circumstances’.  This  policy   implied  that   inequity  of  results  is  the  product  of  the  poor  practice  of  school  leaders  and  teachers,  rather  than  the  result   of   widespread   material   poverty   outside   the   school.   Furthermore,   it   appeared   to  overlook  the  fact  that  some  school  leaders  in  ‘failing’  schools  are  obliged  to  direct  time  and  resources   to   pastoral   support   for   deprived   pupils.   Lupton   (2005)   interviewed   school  leaders   in   the   wake   of   this   policy,   and   concluded   that   if   policy   fails   to   acknowledge   or  address   contextual   pressures   faced   by   schools   in   deprived   communities,   then   this   policy  may   foster   a   climate   of   despondency   that   undermines   school   leaders’   ability   to   engage  with  proposed  solutions  to  inequity.    

 

3. Policy  engagement  

The  EPNoSL   study  of   the   implementation   of   policy   on   school   leadership   for   equity   in  Scotland  also  revealed  that  some  school  leaders  are  engaging  with  this  policy  and  have  benefited  from  this  engagement.  They  said  that  they  have  engaged  with  this  policy  by:  (i)  using  it  as  a  coaching  tool,  to  ‘see  where  we  are  right  now  and  where  we  want  to  be’;  (ii)   using   it   to   share   best   practice   by  working   collaboratively  with   other   schools   in   a  cluster  and  using  the  policy  to  develop  a   ‘cluster   improvement  plan’;   (iii)  using   it  as  a  ‘quality   assurance’   tool.School   leaders   appear   to   welcome   the   ‘clarity   of   expectation’  offered  by  the  Standards  for  Leadership  and  Management,  and  claim  to  be  using  them  to  help  all  staff,  not  just  school  leaders,  develop  a  shared  vision  of  best  practice.    

                                                                                                                         2Lupton, R. (2005). Social Justice and School Improvement: Improving the Quality of Schooling in the Poorest Neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal,31 (5), pp. 589–604.  

6    

It  seems,  then,  that  policy  implementation  is  a  creative  process  in  which  school  leaders  draw  upon  their  professional  knowledge  to  adapt  policy  to  their  schools’  needs,  and  that  networks   help   school   leaders   share   best   practice.Policy   implementation   involves  communication,   i.e.   sharing   best   practice;   ensuring   policy   is   ‘fit   for   purpose’,   and  ensuring   that   all   stakeholders   are   ‘on   board’   with   the   policy   message.When  communication   and   participation   are   at   the   heart   of   policy   response,   creative   social  action  appears  to  flourish,  as  in  the  example  below.    

 

Vignette  3:  Equity  Action  Group  (EAG)3  

In  1996,  the  Australian  government  launched  policy  to  encourage  schools  to  address  issues  of  social  justice.  In  response  to  this  policy,  Rosewood  State  High  School  formed  an  Equity  Action  Group   (EAG)   to  meet   the  needs  of   its   ethnically  diverse  pupils.  The  EAG  meetings  are  not  compulsory  and  are  open  to  all  members  of  staff  (teaching  and  non-­‐teaching)  and  are   held   every   week   on   one   morning   before   school.   These   meetings   enable   guidance  officers,  teachers,  therapists  and  administrative  staff  to  share  their  insights  and  concerns  about   social   justice   and   develop   interventions   to   minimise   the   negative   effects   of  immigrant  and  minority  pupils’  cultural  and  material  disadvantages.  Initiatives  developed  by   the   EAG   include   the   establishment   of   support   groups   for   refugee   and   immigrant  families;  extra  tuition  in  language  and  mathematics,  and  public  events  to  acknowledge  the  heritage   of   diverse   cultures.   By   working   collaboratively   within   the   school   and   making  connections  with  the  community  beyond  the  school,  the  EAG  has  fostered  a  common  vision  and  a  sense  of  purpose  about  equity  that  is  underpinned  by  a  respect  for  individual  voice  and   an   acknowledgement   of   the   importance   of   peer   support.   This   policy   response   has  produced  a  transformative  discourse  of   leadership  that  aligns  creative  social  action  with  collaborative  endeavours  to  place  equity  at  the  heart  of  learning.  

 

 

 

 

Summary  

1. Policy   is   a   response   to   issues   that   require   action:   while   policy   sets   the  parameters  of  action,  it  does  not  simply  tell  us  what  to  do.    

                                                                                                                         3Niesche,  R.  &  Keddie,  A.  (2011).  Foregrounding  Issues  of  Equity  and  Diversity  in  Educational  Leadership.School  Leadership  &  Management:  Formerly  School  Organisation,  31  (1),  pp.  65–77.  

7    

2. Policy  that  does  not  resonate  with  educators’  experiences  and/or  is  not  deemed  ‘fit  for  purpose’  is  difficult  to  implement,  and  policy  is  therefore  best  developed  through  consultation  with  school  leaders.    

3. Successful   policy   response   involves   communication   and   participation   between  teachers,  schools  and  the  wider  learning  community  to  co-­‐create  a  shared  vision  of  how  we  might  meet  pupils’  emotional,  social  and  academic  needs.    

 

 

References:  

 Bagley,  C.  &  Ward,  S.  (2013).  Policy  Response:  A  Critical  Engagement.  Retrieved  22nd  August  2014  from    http://www.schoolleadership.eu/portal/resource/policy-­‐response-­‐critical-­‐engagement    Ball,  S.J.  (1993).  What  is  Policy?  Texts,  Trajectories  and  Toolboxes.Discourse:  Studies  in  the  Cultural  Politics  of  Education,  13,  (2),  pp.  10-­‐17.    Ball,  S.J.  (1998).  Big  Policies/Small  World:  an  introduction  to  international  perspectives  in  education  policy.  In  Lingard,  B.  &Ozga,  J.  (Eds.),  RoutledgeFalmer  Reader  in  Education  Policy  and  Politics.Abingdon:Routledge.    Ball,  S.J.  (2012).  Global  Education  Inc.  Abingdon:  Routledge.      Braun,  A.,  Maguire,  M.,  Ball  S.  J  (2010).  Policy  Enactments  in  the  UK  Secondary  School:  examining  policy,  practice  and  school  positioning.Journal  of  Education  Policy  25(4),  pp.  547-­‐560.    Ham,  C.  &  Hill,  M.  (1993).The  policy  process  in  the  modern  capitalist  state.New  York:  Harvester  Wheatsheaf.    Hill,  M.  (1996).  Social  policy:  a  comparative  analysis.  Hemel  Hempstead:  Prentice  Hall.      Lupton,  R.  2005.  Social  Justice  and  School  Improvement:  Improving  the  Quality  of  Schooling  in  the  Poorest  Neighbourhoods.  British  Educational  Research  Journal  31  (5),pp.  589–604.    Niesche,  R.&  Keddie,A.  (2011).Foregrounding  Issues  of  Equity  and  Diversity  in  EducationalLeadership.School  Leadership  &  Management:  Formerly  School  Organisation,  31  (1),  pp.65–77.    Olssen,  M.,  Codd,  J.  &  O’Neill,  A.  (2004).Education  policy:  globalisation,  citizenship  and  democracy.  London:  Sage.    Ranson,  S.  (1995).Theorising  education  policy.Journal  of  Education  Policy,  10,  (4),  pp.  427-­‐448.  

8    

 Ward,  S.,  Bagley,  C.,  Woods,  P.,  Lumby,  J.,  Hamilton,  T.  &  Roberts,  A.  (under  review).  What  is  ‘policy’  and  what  is  ‘policy  response’?  An  illustrative  study  of  the  implementation  of  the  Leadership  Standards  for  Social  Justice  in  Scotland.Educational  Management  Administration  and  Leadership.  

   

9    

 

Draft  Outline  of  Toolset  on  Accountability  For  Equity  And  Learning    

Prepared  by  the  Umeå  University  team  

Jonas  Höög  

 

This  draft  outline  comprises:  

- The  background  and  rational  for  the  choice  of  accountability  tools.  

- Academic   and   Social   Objectives;   A   useful   and   validated   tool   for   assessing   the  social  tasks  in  a  broader  meaning  where  the  pupils  provide  the  information  has  not  yet  been  developed  for  Swedish  schools.      

- Schools  mark  levels  and  the  percentage  of  student  that  pass  their  exam.    

- Schools  achievements  in  relation  to  their  socioeconomic  background.  

- Marks   inflation,   the   relation   between   national   tests   and   marks.    

The  background  

The  concept  accountability  has  a  long  history.  According  to  Wikipedia  (if  it’s  allowed  to  quote   that   source)   "Accountability"   stems   from   late   Latin   accomptare   (to   account),   a  prefixed   form   of   computare   (to   calculate),   which   in   turn   derived   from   putare   (to  reckon).  While  the  word  itself  does  not  appear   in  English  until   its  use   in  13th  century  Norman   England,   the   concept   of   account-­‐giving   has   ancient   roots   in   record   keeping  activities   related   to   governance   and   money-­‐lending   systems   that   first   developed   in  Ancient  Egypt,  Israel,  Babylon,  Greece,  and  later,  Rome.  ravitesh  chand.    

There  are  many  forms  of  accountabilities,  Jabbra  and  Dwivedi  (1989)  reports  8  different  kinds:  moral,   administrative,   political,  managerial,  market,   legal/judicial,   constituency  relation,  and  professional.  A  general  definition  could  be:  The  obligation  of  an  individual  or  organization  to  account  for  its  activities,  accept  responsibility  for  them,  and  to  disclose  the  results  in  a  transparent  manner.  It  also  includes  the  responsibility  for  money  or  other  entrusted   property.    The  concept  was  introduced  in  the  educational  systems  worldwide  when  comparisons  between  school  results  became  common.  The  No  child  left  behind  act  (NCLB  2001)  can  

10    

be   seen   as   a   starting   point   for  many   European   countries   to   follow   the   accountability  initiative  formulated  in  the  act:    

“Although   NCLB   covers   numerous   federal   education   programs,   the   law’s  requirements  for  testing,  accountability,  and  school  improvement  receive  the  most  attention.   NCLB   requires   states   to   test   students   in   reading   and   mathematics  annually   in   grades   3-­‐8   and   once   in   grades   10-­‐12.   States   must   test   students   in  science   once   in   grades   3-­‐5,   6-­‐8,   and   10-­‐12.”   (Background   and   Analysis,   New  America  Foundation  2014)  

PISA,  TIMMS  and  PERLS  represent  the  growing  benchmarking  trend  between  countries  worldwide   and   the   reform  pressure   in  many   school   systems   goes   under   the  headline  Accountability.   The   problem   imbedded   in   these   endeavors   to   race   the   quality   of  schooling   is   that   accountability   often   is   given   a   to   narrow   definition   not   covering  important  aspects  of  the  concept.  Inspired  by  the  NCLB  “literacy  and  numeracy”  slogan  the  hunt  for  accountability  aims  at  a  narrow  interpretation  of  what  successful  schooling  should  be.    

The   rational   for   this   toolset   is   therefore   to   propose   a   broadened   definition   of  accountability   and   present   ways   for   principals   to   develop   their   ambitions   in   this  direction.  We  also  have  to  remember  that  all  our  recommended  toolsets  should  enhance  the  capacity  of  schools  in  all  participating  countries  to  create  a  schooling  that  enhances  both  equity  and  learning.  This  toolset  will  therefore  cover  three  main  ways  we  think  can  how   schools   address   the   demand   for   accountability   for   equity   and   learning.   The   four  suggested  tools  for  accountability  improvements  are:    

1. The  need  for  schools  not  only  to  display  their  academic  results  but  also  the  way  schools  are  accountable  concerning  the  social  and  civic  objectives.    

2. Schools  must  develop  a   focus  both  on  high  marks   for   student  and  a  pass   in  all  subjects  for  all  students.  

3. Social   background.   Especially   the   parents’   background   has   a   strong   impact   on  the  pupils  learning  and  the  school  results.  

4. In  some  schools  marks  are  inflated.  Systems  must  be  developed  to  calibrate  mark  levels  in  relation  to  national  tests  or  other  sources.  

 

1.  Academic  and  Social/Civic  accountability.  

Most  schools  around  the  world  have  two  main  tasks  –  to  promote  the  pupils  academic  knowledge   and   to   develop   a   civic   conscience   and   the   children’s   social   competences.  How  do  we  know  that  schools  fulfil  these  tasks?  The  discussion  of  the  accountability  of  schools   is  predominantly   focused  on   the  academic  objectives  and   it  often  neglects   the  social  ones.  Effective  schools  have  been  seen  as  those  that  use  resources  effectively  and  

11    

deliver   high   academic   results   (Samdal   et   al.   1999;   Good   &   Brophy   1986)   while   the  concept  of  successful  schools  often  has  been  used  for  schools  where  the  development  of  all  sides  of  a  child’s  skills  and  personality  dominate.  An  effective  school  and  an  effective  school   leader   are   most   often   understood   as   an   organization   and   a   leader   that   can  achieve  results  concerning  the  pupils’  cognitive  development.  All  countries  have  marks  and  tests   that  can  be  calculated  and  analyzed  at  school,  municipality  or  national   level.  School   authorities   and   researchers   have   dealt  with   the   issue   of   how   a   school   and   its  leader   can   be   effective   in   reaching   high   academic   standards.   Comparisons   between  schools  and  countries  based  on  marks  and  tests  in  subjects  are  frequent  (PISA,  TIMMS,  etc.),   and   it   has   increased   the   governments   strive   to   develop   more   effective   school  leaders,  schools  and  school  systems.  But  very  few  if  anyone  have  tried  to  study  school  effectiveness   from   the   perspective   of   the   pupils’   development   in   the   social   and   civic  areas,  even  though  most  curricula  have  something  to  say  about  the  role  of  schools  in  the  upbringing   of   children   in   these   respects.   The   concept   accountability   should   be  broadened  and  a  tool  for  assessing  the  principals  and  schools  work  with  social  and  civic  objectives  developed.    The  academic  achievement   is  usually  measured  by   the  school’s  marking  system,  but  a  corresponding  system  for  the  social  and  civic  objectives  does  not  exist.  However,  there  are  examples  on  an  international   level  where  especially  the  civic  objectives  have  been  assessed  for  instance:  NEAP  and  IEA  Civic  Educational  studies.    

Social  and  Civic  Objectives  The  social   task  of   the  Swedish  schools  under  the  heading  Norms,  Values  and  Personal  development  can  be  divided  into  two  main  categories.  First   we   have   what   one   might   call   social   objectives   (SO)   that   imply   issues   regarding  social  relations,  justice,  equality  but  also  creativity  and  a  development  of  a  critical  mind.  The  other  main  category  is  civic  objectives  (CO).  CO  refers  to  civic  education  where  the  pupils  should  be  able  to  work  and  function  within  a  democratic  society.  They  should  understand  how  it  works  and  practice  these  basic  democratic  principles  in  everyday  situations  in  school.  A  democratic  climate  in  the  classroom  helps  the  pupils  to  learn  and  develop  in  relation  to  CO  (Perlinger  et  al.  2006).  SO  and  CO  shall  not  be  understood  as  two  totally  separated  objectives  and  in  certain  areas  they  have  common  subject  areas  such  as   the  ambition  that  pupils  shall   learn  tolerance  and  compassion.  The  social  and  civic  objectives  should  act  as  a  moral/social   compass   that  can  be  a  guiding  tool  for  pupils  in  their  participation  in  private  and  public  relationships  (Quigley  2005).  One  of  the  things  pointed  out  in  the  Swedish  curriculum  is  the  understanding  that  one  of  the  school’s  primary  tasks   is   to   foster  children  to  be  capable  to   live  and  participate   in  society   (Lpo94).  The  students  are,   in   some  way,  part  of  a   socialization  process   that   is  ongoing  through  their  stay  at  school.  This  socialization  or  experience  of  going  to  school  may   change   the   student/individual   in   a   lasting   way.   When   the   student   is   attending  classes,  participating  in  making  decisions,  interacting  with  other  students  and  teachers,  these  activities  should  develop   the  student’s   intellectual  abilities  and  shape  her  or  his  social  values  for  life  (Kingston  et  al.  2003).  This  socialization  should  make  it  easier  for  

12    

this  student  to  understand  their  role  in  the  school  and  be  a  part  of  the  society  that  he  or  she  is  living  in.    Social   Objectives  Key   words   for   the   work   with   social   objectives   in   Swedish   schools   are   individual  freedom,   integrity,   equality   and   justice.   In   the   Swedish   education   act   it   says   that   the  schools  should  actively  work  for  gender  equality  and  they  should  work  against  bullying,  racism  and  all  other  forms  of  insulting  behavior.  .   All   forms   of   harassment,   racism   and   intolerance   shall   be   dealt   with   by   open  discussions,   knowledge   and   active   efforts.   Other   issues   that   are   pointed   out   in   the  curriculum   are   the   pupils’   ability   to   be   creative   and   their   critical   awareness.   DanW.  Butin  (2005)  points  out  that  educating  social  foundations  has  to  be  based  on  discussion  and  challenges  (Butin  2005).  As  is  stressed  in  the  curriculum,  one  of  the  most  important  things  in  social  education  is  to  make  pupils  critically  aware  and  ready  to  take  part  in  a  discussion.   The   school   shall   not   be   a   repressive   institution;   on   the   contrary   it   should  strive  for  an  environment  where  pupils  can  be  part  of  an  open  discussion  and  actively  participate  (Butin  2005;  Selberg  2001).  The  social  objectives  are  questions  on  a  micro  level   when   it   deals  with   people   in   their   social   interaction.   The   civic   objective   on   the  other   hand   deals   with   questions   on   a   higher   level,   more   comprehensive   questions  regarding  democracy  and  the  society  we  live  in.      Civic  Objectives  All  nations  have  an  interest  in  fostering  young  individuals  so  that  they  can  function  as  citizens   in   the   society   in  which   they  are  brought  up.   In   this  way  one   can   say   that   the  school   system   is   building   a   culture   for   citizenship   which   is   beneficial   not   only   for  politicians  and  the  political  system  but  also  for  the  society  as  a  whole  (Torney-­‐Purta  et  al.   1999).   You   might   think   that   the   COs   especially   have   to   do   with   constitutional  knowledge:   how  a   country’s   democratic   system   functions,   how   the  political   system   is  constructed  and  what  the  political  power  structure  looks  like.  This  is  partly  the  case  but  it  does  not  mean  that  working  with  the  civic  objectives  is  something  only  for  teachers  in  social   science.   The   COs   are   also   about   the   pupils   possibilities   to   have   influence   over  their   work   in   a   structural   meaning.   The   school   should   therefore   be   a   forum   where  pupils  can   learn  about  democratic  work   in  a  broad  perspective  and  at  different   levels.  Pupils   have   to   learn   that   they   can   influence   and   change   the   conditions   in   their   own  school   (Englund  1994).   It   is   reasonable   to   think   that  a  pupil   that  has   received  a  good  civic  education  should  not  only  know  the  political  structure  in  the  country  that  he  or  she  lives  in.  It  is  also  reasonable  to  believe  that  they  have  developed  traits  such  as  tolerance  and  compassion,  which  makes   the  pupils   capable  of  participating   in  political   and  civil  life  (Quigley  2005).  The  COs   is  divided   in   that  sense  that  pupils  on  the  one  hand  shall  learn  to  work  in  democratic  forms  and  on  the  other  hand  they  should  learn  the  bases  of  democracy  in  a  society.      In  Sweden  the  National  Agency  of  Education  has  developed  an  instrument  called  BRUK4  (an   abbreviation   in   Swedish   short   for   assessment,   results,   evaluation,   and   quality)   to  support  the  process  of  quality  assessments  in  Swedish  schools.  This  instrument  is  based  on   the   curriculum,   the   school   law   and   other   steering   documents.   Each   item   in   the  instrument,   which   is   quite   large,   is   related   to   the   different   aspects   of   the   steering                                                                                                                            4  The  BRUK  has  recently  been  developed  but  here  we  use  the  version  used  in  a  project.  

13    

documents.  One  central  part  of  BRUK  in   this  context   is   the  part  called  “Norms,  Values  and  Personal  Development”,  which  is  concentrated  on  the  social  objectives  of  schools.  It  contains   eight   different   paragraphs:   1.   Basic   democratic   values,   2.   Communication,  cooperation   and   conflict   management,   3.   The   respect   for   human   differences,   4.   Self-­‐esteem   and   self-­‐consciousness,   5   Equality   6   Initiative   and   responsibility,   7   Critical  evaluation   and   problem   solving,   8   Creative   capacity.    How   to   assess   social   an   civic   objectives      In   a   project:   Structure,   Culture,   Leadership   –   Prerequisites   for   Successful   Schools   at  Umeå   University   (Höög   &   Johansson   2011,   2014a,   2014b)   a   questionnaire   for   pupils  was   developed   based   on   the   items   in   “Norms,   Vales   and   Personal   development”   in  BRUK.  The  questionnaire  contains  52  questions  and  was  tested  in  a  pilot  study  of  four  schools  with  157  students.  The  final  questionnaire  was  answered  by  2128  students   in  the  9th  grade  in  24  Swedish  schools  in  12  different  municipalities.  The  pupils  responses  was  processed  and  a  mean  for  each  school  was  calculated  as  the  assessment  of  how  the  schools  performed  in  the  social  and  civic  area.  This  measure  was  then  compared  to  the  schools  academic  achievement  and  the  following  fourfold  table  for  the  24  schools  was  produced5.   The   questionnaire   has   also   been   used   in   Stockholm   schools   and   is   now  developed  to  be  used  in  the  ISSPP  project  on  underperforming  schools.  

 The  variable  approach  to  accountability  –  the  focus  on  academic  or  social  objectives  or  both   -­‐   could   be   expressed   in   the   following   table   (Höög   &   Johansson   2011,   2014a,  2014b)  

 

4  SCHOOLTYPES  IN  RELATION  TO  ACADEMIC  OR  SOCIAL/CIVIC  FOCUS

De ACADEMIC  OBJECTIVES

WEAK STRONG

STRONG ONLY SOCIAL/ CIVIC

BOTHACADEMIC

AND SOCIAL/CIVIC

WEAKNIGHTER

ACADEMIC OR SOCIAL/CIVIC

ONLYACADEMIC

SOCIAL/CIVIC

OBJECTIVES

 

                                                                                                                         5  The questionnaire has also been used in Stockholm schools and is now developed to be used in the ISSPP project on underperforming schools.  

14    

Figure  1.  Understanding  School  Types  in  relation  to  academic  and  social  objectives  

An  accountable  school  is  the  one  to  the  upper  right  that  is  successful  in  relation  to  both  academic  and  social/civic  objectives.  Below  this  school  you  find  those  schools  that  only  are  accountable  concerning  the  academic  objectives.  To  the  upper  left  schools  that  are  successful   in   the   social/civic   areas   are   placed   and   below   you   find   schools   that   are  underperforming   in   both   respects.  When  working  with   school   improvement   different  strategies   has   to   be   developed   for   these   for   types   of   schools    2.  To  keep  a  balance  between  marks  and  pass.6  

In  this  way  of  assessing  accountability  a  comparison  of  two  different  academic  outcome  measures  will  be  used.  The  first  is  the  average  marks  for  a  school  and  the  second  is  the  proportion  of  pupils  in  a  school  that  get  a  pass  (leaving  certificate)  in  all  16  subjects  that  are   studied7.   The   average   marks   are   used   to   represent   the   academic   results.   This  measure  is  dependent  on  the  level  all  pupils  in  a  school  reaches  in  the  subjects  taught.  A  proficient   school   can   have   a   high   average    mark   but   at   the   same   time   a   considerable  amount  of  pupils  not   reaching  pass   in  one  or  more  of   the  subjects  and   therefore   they  don’t   get   a   full   exam   from   compulsory   school.   This   of   course   affects   their   chances   to  apply  for  upper  secondary  school  (gymnasium  in  Sweden).    

The  other  situation  is  represented  by  schools  where  all  pupils  get  a  pass  in  all  subjects  and  get  a  full  exam,  but  the  marks  are  quite  low  on  average.  You  might  say  that  the  first  type  of  school  are  more  focused  on  pupils  with  good  chances  to  get  high  marks  on  the  cost   of   the   pupils   with   not   so   good   conditions   for   that.   The   other   type   of   school   is  focused  on  making  all  pupils  reach  a  full  exam  and  chooses  to  put  in  special  efforts  for  some  of   them  with   the   consequence   that   the  pupils  with  ambitions   to  get  high  marks  don’t  get  the  support  they  would  expect.  None  of  these  schools  can  be  considered  to  be  socially  just  if  a  vision  for  a  good  school  is  that  both  targets  are  met,  that  is  high  average  marks   and   all   pupils   achieving   the   full   exam,   that   is,   good   school   outcomes   for   all  children.  

The   first   figure  below   show   the   situation   for   all   Swedish   compulsory   schools   and   the  second  the  situation  in  the  24  project  schools  mentioned  above.    

                                                                                                                         6  This  text  is  taken  from  an  unpublished  paper  :  Höög  and  Johansson  Social  Justice  for  all  Children  –  do  principals  facilitate  education  of  

equivalent  value?      Centre  for  Principal  Development    Umeå  University,  Sweden    

7This  is  regulated  in  the  curriculum  for  the  compulsory  school  

15    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

40   90   140   190   240   290  Marks  

Per

cen

tage

Pass  

Marks 202,1  Pass 97,1 %  

Marks 201,9  Pass 54,3 %  

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240

PA

SS %

MARKS 0-320

Marks 213 Pass 71%

Marks 212 Pass88%

Marks 218 Pass 78%

Marks 198 Pass 78%

16    

Figure  2.  Two  examples  of  the  graphic  relation  between  marks  and  pass  .  

 

 

3.  Take  the  Socioeconomic  Situation  (SES)  into  consideration.  

There   is   a   common   understanding   that   school   results   are   related   to   differences   in  

socioeconomic   situation   (Coleman   1966,   Creemers,   1994).   The   Swedish   National  

Agency   of   Education   has   developed   a   data   system   that   calculates   the   result   a   school  

should  have  (both  marks  and  pass)  if  you  take  into  account  its  SES  concerning  number  

of   boys,   number   of   immigrant   pupils   and   the   parents   mean   educational   level   (1-­‐3  

scale)8.    A  residual  is  calculated  that  shows  the  divergence  between  the  mean  result  for  

schools  with  a  specific  background  and  your  own  school  as  a  principal.  If  the  residual  is  

plus  your   school  performs  better   than   the  mean   school   and   if   it’s  minus  you  perform  

worse.  An  accountable  school  should  perform  at  least  as  good  as  the  mean  school  while  

a  successful  should  would  perform  better  than  expected  in  relation  to  schools  with  the  

same  SES.    

In   the   table  below   from   the  SALSA9  data  base   it   shows  how  schools  differ   concerning  

these  two  important  outcomes.    

   

                                                                                                                         8  Factors  that  show  strong  correlation  with  school  results.  9  Available  on  the  National  Agency  website  http://salsa.artisan.se/  

17    

Table   1   Results   from   the   Swedish   data   base   SALSA   showing   the   social   background  

factors,   the   factual   and   the   model   calculated   marks   and   pass   and   the   residuals  

(differences  between  factual  and  calculated  values).  

School   Year   Prop.  of  boys  

Prop  of  pupils  wfb 10  born  abroad  

Prop   of  pupils  wfb  born   in  Sweden  

Prop  of  pupils  wfb  that  arrived  last   4  years    

Parents  mean  educa-­‐tional  level  

Factual  mean   sum  of  marks/pass  

Expected  sum   of  marks/pass    

Residual  for  marks  

Residual  for  pass  

School  A    

2013  61%   -­‐   -­‐   1%   2,18   242/92   240/92   2  

 0  

School  A  

2012  61%   8%   20%   -­‐   2,31   242/93   228/85   14  

 8  

School  A  

2011  65%   4%   29%   -­‐   2,23   240/89   232/87   8  

 2  

School  A  

2010  53%   7%   19%   -­‐   2,26   250/88   231/87   19  

 2  

School  B  

2013  44%   -­‐   -­‐   15%   2,05   180/44   190/58   -­‐10  

 -­‐14  

School  B  

2012  56%   37%   54%   -­‐   1,92   169/33   190/52   -­‐21  

 -­‐19  

School  B  

2011  60%   28%   66%   -­‐   2,09   202/54   207/59   -­‐5  

 -­‐5  

School  B  

2010  60%   22%   47%   -­‐   2,06   179/43   199/61   -­‐20  

 -­‐18  

 

School  A  achieves  over   expectations  both   concerning  marks  and  pass  most   years,   but  school  B’s  results  are  below  expectations  in  both  marks  and  pass  all  years.  School  B  also  have   low   factual   results   and   should   be   a   school   considered   as   one   in   need   of   special  support.  

 

                                                                                                                         10  With  foreign  background  

18    

 

 

 

4.  Marks  inflation,  the  relation  between  national  tests  and  marks  

The  Swedish  National  Agency   for  Education  has   as   one  of   its  missions’s   to   assess   the  differences  between  the  national   tests  and   the  marks   that   the  students  get  when  they  leave  school  in  the  9th  grade  (compulsory  school).  The  purpose  with  the  national  tests  is  to  support  an  equitable  and  fair  assessment  and  grading.  This  comparison  is  done  many  years,  latest  2013.  What  they  find  every  year  is  that  there  are  large  differences  between  tests  and  marks   in  English   language,  Mathematics,  Swedish   language,  Biology,  Physics  and  Chemistry.    There  are  also  large  differences  between  schools  in  how  they  act  in  this  respect.    

In  figure  4  you  can  see  results  of  the  analysis  for  mathematics:  

 

 

Figure  3.  The  discrepancy  between  national  test  results  and  marks  in  the  9th  school  year  in  mathematics  in  1371  Swedish  schools  2013.    

The   discrepancies   are   calculated   through   a   subtraction   of   the   percentage   of   students  who   get   a   higher  mark   than   their   scores   on   the   national   test  with   the   percentage   of  students  who  get  a  lower  mark  than  the  scores  on  the  national  test  in  the  subject.  This  is  called  a  net  effect.  

In  some  schools  80  %  get  a  higher  mark  than  the  result  on  the  national  test  indicates.  In  many  schools  

19    

The  consequences  of   this   is   firstly   that  some  students  get  an   impression  that   they  are  more   knowledgeable   than   they   in   fact   are  which   could   have   an   impact   on   their   self-­‐understanding  and  self-­‐appreciation.  When  they  go  to  more  advanced  studies  they  will  find  that  their  level  of  knowledge  is  below  what  is  required  to  manage  the  expectations  on   this   level.   They   also  might   find   that   their   fellow   students  with   lower  marks   from  compulsory  school  are  more  successful  in  meeting  the  new  demands.  Secondly  students  from  schools  with   “inflated”  marks   get  better  opportunities  when  applying   for  higher  education.  But  both  for  the  students  and  for  universities  and  for  society  this  will  lead  to  problems  holding  the  necessary  level  of  instruction  for  the  specific  course  or  program.    

The  reason  for  these  discrepancies  is  that  the  marking  procedures  and  the  definition  of  proficiency  necessary  for  a  certain  mark  varies  between  teachers  and  schools.  You  can  use  the  term  marking  culture  to  describe  the  process  that  leads  to  the  result  shown  in  figure  x.   Schools  on   the   right-­‐hand   side  of   the   line  above  has  a   culture  more  exacting  when  it  comes  to  marks  compared  to  national  test  results  while  schools  to  the  left  hand  have  a  culture  where  teachers  are  more  generous  to  leave  the  test  results  out  of  account  when  deciding  the  marks.  

 

To  summarize  the  four  cases  of  Accountability  we  propose  the  following  

TOOL  RECOMMENDATIONS:  

To   increase   school   ability   to   form   an   organization   where   equity   and   learning  characterizes   their   accountability,   the   school   leaders   should   be   trained   to   develop   a  systematic  quality  assessment  process  that  includes:  

1. An   assessment   of   school   results   both   concerning   academic   and   social/civic  objectives.  And  present  ways  to   improve  the  parts  of  the  school  mission  that   is  underdeveloped.  

2. An   assessment   of   the   school   results   both   concerning   marks   and   pass.   And  present   strategies   to   close   the   gap   between   results   and   support   students  with  different  readiness  to  learn,  both  those  for  whom  it  is  hard  and  those  for  whom  it  is  easy  to  learn.    

3. An   assessment   of   the   school   result   concerning   marks   inflation   through  comparing  marks  with  national  (or  international  if  available)  test  scores  that  can  calibrate   the  marks  given  at   the  school.  And  find  ways  to  develop  the  teachers’  ability  to  mark  the  pupils  correctly  in  relation  to  their  factual  knowledge.  

4. An  assessment  of   the  school  results  concerning  the  way  the  school  performs  in  relation   to   expectations   based   on   its   socioeconomic   situation.   And   develop  strategies  to  live  up  to  what  is  expected  from  all  stakeholders.      

   

20    

Draft  Outline  –  Policy  Coherence  Toolset    

Prepared  by  Pavlos  Hatzopoulos  (FORTH)  

 

1.  Aims  and  purpose  of  the  policy  coherence  toolset  

 

The  toolset  will  address  school   leadership  stakeholders  in  order  to  facilitate  reflection  on  how  problems  of  policy  coherence  can  be  addressed  at  the  school  level.  

 

The  purpose  of  the  EPNoSL  toolset  on  policy  coherence  is  to  help  SL  stakeholders,  and  particularly   assist   teachers   and   school   leaders,   in   dealing   with   problems   of   policy  fragmentation  inconsistency,  conflicting  policies  when  these  become  lived  experiences  in  different  guises  within  the  school  environment.    

 

2.    Conceptual  Approach  

 

“Policy  coherence”  has  not  been  a  prominent  concept  in  public  debates  over  education  policies.  In  the  context  of  European  education  systems,  the  term  has  almost  been  absent  from   public   discourse.   There   no   ongoing   policy   references   to   it,   no   monitoring   or  assessment  mechanisms  in  place  for  analyzing  its  impact  on  education  policies.  Only  in  the   US,   and   particularly   since   the   1990s,   has   policy   coherence   been   present   in  discussions   over   educational   reforms   (Fuhrman   1993;   Hatch   2000;   Newmann   et   al.  2001).   Particularly   in   some  US   academic  writings,   policy   coherence   is   analysed   as   an  important  factor  for  education  policy  design.  Policy  coherence  is  used  in  these  writings  as  merely  a   term  that  denotes   the  politics  of   the  rationalisation  and  modernization  of  the  American  education  system.  It  is  defined  as  the  act  of  giving  a  sense  of  direction  to  the  education  system  by  specifying  educational  purposes  and  goals.  It  is  used  largely  in  a  colloquial  fashion,  as  the  antithesis  to  the  lack  of  coordination,  to  the  inconsistencies,  to  the  fragmentations,  and  to  the  lack  of  a  clear  purpose  that  characterize  the  US  system  (Fuhman,  1993).  Policy  coherence  is  thus  absent  from  education  policy  agendas,  even  in  official  US  policy  texts,  as  it  has  not  been  become  a  substantial  political  concept  in  this  field.  

 

21    

In  contrast,  policy  coherence  is  a  concept  that  has  emerged  in  public  discourse  primarily  in  relation  to  development  policies.  Being  highlighted  by  successive  reports  of  internal  organisations   (particularly   the   OECD   -­‐   see,   for   instance,   OECD   2005)   as   a   key  consideration   towards   increasing   the   effectiveness   of   international   development  policies,  policy  coherence  for  development  (PCD)  forms  currently  an  expanding  field  of  policy   designs,   interventions   and   debates.   The   European  Union   has   officially   adopted  PCD  as  a  priority   in  the  context  of   its  common  development  policy  (EU,  2005),  stating  that  “The  EU  seeks  to  minimise  contradictions  and  to  build  synergies  between  policies  other   than  development  cooperation  that  have  an   impact  on  developing  countries,   for  the  benefit  of  overseas  development”.  11  

 

The   European   approach   to   policy   coherence   has   expanded   since   then,   with   the   EU  deciding   to  apply  policy  coherence  on  5  priority  areas   in  relation   to  achieving   the  UN  Millennium  Development  Goals  (EC  2010):  

• trade  and  finance  • climate  change  • food  security  • migration  • security  

 

At   the   same   time,   there   has   been   a   growing   amassment   of   official   texts   (council   of  ministers   decisions,   commission   documents,   work   programs,   progress   reports)   that  have  firmly  incorporated  PCD  in  the  EU  policy  agenda.  

 

 

 

Figure  1:  PCD  chronology  

 

                                                                                                                         11  See  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-­‐policies/policy-­‐coherence/index_en.htm  

22    

 Source:  Dolhman  2014    

 

 

It  is  important  to  note  that  this  dominant  discourse  on  policy  coherence  assumes  a  quite  rigid,  top-­‐down  understanding  of  the  policy  process.  In  particular,  the  OECD  framework  for  progress  in  the  realm  of  policy  coherence,  which  has  also  been  adopted  by  the  EU,  is  based   on   a   three-­‐phase   cycle   that   clearly   prioritises   government   institutions   and  initiatives   as   the   founding   blocks   for   policy   development   (OECD   2012   and   Mackie  2014).  This  three-­‐phase  cycle  is  comprised  of:  

 

1.   Political   commitment   and   policy   statements.   (Where   high   ranked   government  officials   are   expected   to   commit,   to   publicly   set   objectives   and   priorities,   and   to   also  raise  public  awareness  and  build  public  support  for  policy  coherence).  

 

2.  Policy  co-­‐ordination  and  mechanisms.  (Where  governments  are  called  to  develop  informal   and   formal   consultation   and   coordination   mechanisms   across   the   public  administration   and/or   found   specialized   agencies   that   can   play   a   proactive   role   in  pushing  for  policy  coherence).  

23    

 

3.  Systems  for  monitoring,  analysis  and  reporting.  (Where  governments  are  called  to  ensure  the  monitoring  to  collect  evidence  about  the  impact  of  policy  coherence,  analysis  to  make  sense  of  the  data  collected,  and  reporting  back  to  parliament  and  the  public).  

 

Figure  2:  The  OECD  Policy  Framework  for  Policy  Coherence  

 

 

Source:  Dolhman  2014  

 

 

For  the  purpose  of  the  EPNoSL  policy  coherence  toolset,  it  is  important:  

 

 

-­‐ First,  to  inquire  on  how  the  concept  of  policy  coherence  can  be  transferred  to  the  context   of   school   leadership   policy   development.   In   fact,   this   task   is   quite  

24    

challenging,   since   the   existing   literature   on   School   Leadership   does   not  substantially  address  the  question  of  policy  coherence.    

-­‐ Second,   to   insist  on  the  critique  of   the  underpinning  top-­‐down  approach  of   the  dominant   discourse   on   policy   coherence   by   proposing   an   alternative  model   in  relation   to   how   the   school   communities   engage   with   the   challenge   of   policy  coherence.  

 

 

These  tasks  will  be  addressed  by  orienting  the  toolset  towards  highlighting  instances  of  policy   engagement   and   of   creative   practices   that   emerge   at   school   level   in   order   to  tackle   problems   of   policy   coherence.   This   focus   will   enable   us   first   to   help   school  leaders   to  address  policy  coherence  related  problems  and,   second,   to  raise  awareness  amongst   the  wider  school   leadership  stakeholder  community  about   the   importance  of  policy  coherence  as  these  impact  the  school  environment.  

 

Within   the   EPNoSL   framework   on   School   Leadership   policy   development,   policy  coherence   at   school   level   can   be   identified   in   leadership   strategies   and   actions  that  orient  the  school  life  in  its  totality  towards  the  goals  of  equity  and  improved  learning  performance.  Coherence  is  evidenced  in  the  synergies  and  complementarities  between  the  school’s  mission,  development  plans  and  priorities,   the  school’s  spending  priorities,   curricula,   staffing,   professional   development,   extra-­‐curricular   and   out   of  school  activities,  networking,  engagement  in  community  projects,  etc.  targeting  specific  school   and   community   needs   in   relation   to   equity   in   access,   opportunities,   and  outcomes  and  improved  learning  performance  for  all  (Kollias  and  Hatzopoulos  2013).  

 

 

3.  Toolset  script  

 

The   basic   framework   of   the   script   of   the   toolset   is   based   on   a   three-­‐phase   process  whereby   problems   of   policy   coherence   become   visible   and   are   then   addressed   at   the  school   level.  There   is  no  necessary  chronological  order  amongst   these   three  phases;  a  challenge  of  the  toolset  is  to  treat  them  as  contemporaneous.  

 

Phase   1:   Policy   incoherence   will   be   depicted   as   the   norm   of   the   existing   school  leadership  terrain  across  European  education  systems.  Current  SL  policies,  or  the   lack  

25    

of  them,  produce  school  environments  where  school   leadership  practices  are  called  to  mediate  amongst  divergent  and  at  times  conflicting  demands,  guidelines  or  goals.  

 

Phase  2:  The  lack  of  policy  coherence  gives  rise  to  situations  where  school  leaders,  and  the  wider  the  school  community,  are  called  to  act  on  the  basis  of  sometimes  confusing,  sometimes  conflicting,  sometimes  unrealistic  demands,  guidelines  or  goals.  

 

Phase  3:  School  leaders,  and  the  wider  school  community,  engage  with  these  demands,  guidelines,   and   goals   in   a   creative  manner.   Courses   of   action   followed   by   the   school  community  are  often  based  on  processes  of  active  re-­‐interpretation  or  undermining  of  certain   demands,   guidelines   and   goals.   This   is   a   task   that,   at   its   best,   generates  individual  and  collective  creative  practices,  requiring  actions  of  virtuosity  on  the  part  of  school  leaders  and  the  wider  school  community  (Virno  2004).  

 

Final  decisions  have  not  been  made,  yet,  about   the  exact   formats  of   the  tools   that  will  comprise   the   policy   coherence   toolset.   As   proposed   in   the   EPNoSL   Deliverable   2.1  Commonly   Agreed   Plan,   the   toolset   will   comprise   of   a   basic   document   outlining   the  conceptual  approach  towards  policy  coherence  and  showing  how  this  can  be  productive  in   generating   reflections   on   SL   policy   development   plus   a   digital   multimedia   artifact  (probably  a  video).  

 

In  the  coming  weeks  the  precise  forms  of  the  tools  will  be  finalized  by  the  FORTH  team.  

 

 

 

 

References  

 

Dolhman,   E.   (2014).   The   OECD   experience   and   thinking   on   PCD:  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-­‐policies/documents/7-­‐ebba-­‐dohlman-­‐brussels-­‐12june2014-­‐v3_en.pptx  

 

26    

European   Commission   (2010).   Policy   Coherence   for   Development   Work   Programme  2010-­‐  2013:  http://aei.pitt.edu/37898/1/SEC_%282010%29_421.pdf  

EU   (2005).     The   European   Consensus   on   Development:  http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/eu_consensus_en.pdf  

Fuhman,   E   (ed.)   (1993).   Designing   Coherent   Education   Policy:   Improving   the   System.    San  Fransisco:  Jossey  Bass  Publishers.  

Hatch,  T.  (2000).  What  does  it  take  to  go  to  scale?  Reflections  on  the  promise  and  perils  of   comprehensive   school   reform.   Journal  of  Edu-­‐   cation   for  Students  Placed  at  Risk,  5  (4),  339–354  

Kollias,  A.  &  Hatzopoulos,  P.   (eds)   (2013)  School  Leadership  Policy  Development:  The  EPNoSL  Briefing  Notes   ,  European  Policy  Network  on  School  Leadership.   (Available  at  http://www.schoolleadership.eu/portal/   deliverable/briefing-­‐notes-­‐school-­‐leadership-­‐policy-­‐development  ).  

Mackie,   J.   (2014).   The   European   Experience   on   CPD:  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-­‐policies/documents/1-­‐james-­‐mackie-­‐presentation-­‐pcd-­‐ecdpm-­‐jm4-­‐12-­‐june-­‐14_en.ppt  

Newmann,  F.  M.,  Smith,  B.,  Allensworth,  E.,  &  Bryk,  A.  S.  (2001).  Instructional  program  coherence:  What  it  is  and  why  it  should  guide  school  improvement  policy.  Educational  Evaluation  and  Policy  Analysis,  23  (4),  297–321  

OECD   (2005).   Fostering   Development   in   a   Global   Economy   A   Whole   of   Government  Perspective.  Geneva:  OECD  publishing.  

OECD   (2012).   Policy   Framework   for   Policy   Coherence   for   Development:  http://www.oecd.org/pcd/50461952.pdf  

Virno,  P.  (2004).  A  Grammar  of  the  Multitude.  Boston:  MIT  press  

 

   

27    

Draft  outline  -­‐  Stakeholders’  Collaboration  Toolset    

Carmo  Clímaco  and  Ana  Paula  Silva,  ULHT,  CeiED,  PT  

 

Introduction    

The   tool   set   to   be   developed  aims   at   contributing   to   the   improvement   of   schools   as  social  organizations  to  be  appropriated  /  owned  by  local  partners  evaluation  processes,  in   the   perspective   of   a   multi   level   shared   responsibility,   usually   involving   a  multidisciplinary  team  of  education  inspectors  and  different  internal  agents  from  each  school,  namely  the  school  leaders,  teachers  and  students,  representatives  of  parents,  the  local   educational   authorities,   and  other   local   stakeholders   involved   in   the   fostering  of  the  quality  of  the  education  service.  

This   reflection   seems   particularly   pertinent   in   what   concerns   the   Portuguese  partnership  within  EPNoSL,  considering  that  in  two  years  time  there  will  be  a  revision  of  the  instruments  in  use  in  the  schools  external  evaluation,  as  the  2nd  cycle  (a  period  of  five  years  of  field  interventions)  of  this  national  program  will  come  to  its  end  in  2016.  We  will  have  as  a  reference  framework  the  importance  of  a  reliable  feedback  as  a  key  tool   for   improvement   based   on   knowledge   and   contextualized   observation,   and   the  strengthening   of   the   social   participation   as   a   developmental   and   empowering  process   in   democratic   societies   to   promote   trust   in   public   schools   and   in  educators.  

Our  point  of  departure  for  this  exercise  on  school   stakeholders’   involvement   in   the  education  service  at  local  level  stems  on  the  belief  that  very  often,  in  some  countries,  they   are   privileged   school   service   consumers,   but   it   doesn´t   mean   they   are   partners  involved   in   the  construction  of   the  global  educational  process,  which  presupposes   the  participation   in   the  debate  preceding   the  decision  making  and   the   results   analysis.   In  many   countries,   families   are   concerned   essentially   with   the   needs   and   well   being   of  their  own  children  at  school,  but  do  not  take  part  in  the  construction  and  development  of   the   school   educational   project,   neither   in   the   education  model  debate,  whenever   it  takes   place.   Teachers   involve   parents   in   the   individual   schooling   processes   of   their  children  mainly   to   inform  them  or   to  complain  about  behavior  or   learning  difficulties,  but   let   them  alone   to  solve   the  problems  which   they   themselves,  as  professionals,  are  often  unable   to   solve:   to   respond   to   individual  difficulties,   to  promote  better   learning  and  equity   in  achievement.  Moreover,   the  weaker  the  parents’  capacity   in  establishing  an   intelligent   dialogue   for   intervention   and   to   understand   the   school   discourse,   the  weaker  their  children’s  achievement,  as  international  testing  has  put  in  evidence.  

28    

In   the   networked   society,   as   conceived   in   the   neoliberal   policies,   the   accessibility   to  information  and  knowledge  became  central  factors  to  understand  and  manage  the  flow  of  data,  the  comparisons,  the  targets  and  the  standards,  the  competition,  the  choices  to  be  made,  the  subtleties  of  comparisons  and  accountability  procedures.  

Figures  and  indicators  turned  into  symbols  of  objectivity  and  credibility,  “and  provided  opportunities  for  “simplification  of  the  problems  of  endless  competing  interpretation  in  order   to   provide   a   basis   for   action”   (Grek   et   al.2013;   in   Ozga,   Jenny,   2014,   p.22).  According  to  this  author,  “this  simplification  removes  the  need  for  attention  to  context”  “and  its  appearance  of  validity”  reinforces  comparisons  in  the  government  of  education.  “Comparison   frames   knowledge-­‐governing   relations   through   establishing   three   key  principles   (i)   that   regular   and   systematic   assessments   are   truthful   practices   for  improvement  of  educational  systems;  (ii)  that  such  improvement  has  to  be  analyzed  in  relation  to  the  pace  of  change  of  other  countries:  (iii)  that  international  comparison  of  student   performances   develops   the   quality   of   national   education   systems,   while  capturing  educational  complexity  and  diversity  (Carvalho,  2012,  in  Ozga,  2014)  

Comparative   data   became   a   landmark   in   the   education   systems’   evaluation   and   the  essential   criteria   for   schools   ‘accountability,   as   if   the   “magic”   of   the   figures   could   be  enough   to   turn   numbers   into   evidences,   and   the   evidences   into   truth.   Therefore,   the  numbers   play   a   fundamental   role   in   the   discourse   of   inspectors  when   comparing   the  students’   results   in   standardized   testing,   and   classifying   the   school’s   improvement   as  “above  /  below  the  expected  value”,  referenced  to  the  school’s  results  in  national  exams.  It   must   be   underlined   the   effort   that   has   been   made   towards   a   common   written  discourse,   more   descriptive   than   judgmental,   following   common   criteria   and  methodology.  However   it   seems  that   the  accountability  practices  have  contributed   for  the   introduction  of  an  academic   jargon  that  may  allow  comparisons  at  a  surface   level,  though   very   often   the   complexity   of   the   discourse   reduces   the   real   meaning   of   data  describing   the   students’   learning   and   the   extent   of   schools’   improvement.   The  technicalities  of   the  method  are  excluding  an  effective  participation  of  partners   in   the  analysis  of  a  codified  discourse.    Current  accountability  procedures  in  European  schools  follow  different  formats  according  to    national  administration  traditions  and  rules,  but  it  should  be  underlined  the  European  effort  to  harmonize  criteria  and  procedures  through  the   influence   of   the   Standing   International   Conference   of   Inspectorates-­‐   (SICI),   in   the  respect  for  the  national  policies  and  autonomy.  

Autonomy   is   to   be   viewed   as   a   social   and   a   political   construction,   and   therefore   new  tools   for   public   action   are   to   be   constructed.   In   the   post   bureaucratic   society,   new  models   of   public   regulation   emerge,   creating   different   fields   for   participation   and  responsibility,  leaving  behind  models  of  strict  “command  and  control”  and  looking  for  a  new  political  relationship,  based  on  shared  information  and  negotiation.  In  this  context  the   different   school   stakeholders   have   a   specific   role   not   just   as   school   knowledge  (information)  consumers,  but  also  as  users  of   school   information  and  co-­‐producers  of  the  necessary  feedback  to  consolidate  de  quality  of  the  schooling  work.  In  this  context,  

29    

the  schools  autonomy  assumes  frequently  the  format  of  a  contract  ,  being  programmed  and  “negotiated”  within  a  model  of  public  administration  ,  following  a  distributed  model  of   power   and   responsibilities,   aiming   at   creating   a   new   relationship   and   political  legitimacy,  on  shortening  the  distance  between  the  decision  makers  and  field  actors,  or  between   “governed     and   governors”   on   recovering   democracy   and   distributing  responsibilities   for   the   quality   of   the   services   to   be   delivered   to   all   school   users.  Therefore,      the  identification,  definition  and  justification  of  a  problem  or  issue  related  to  stakeholders’  collaboration  needs  to  be  addressed  by  policy  making  at  school  level  aiming   to   enable   school   leaders   to   tackle   challenges   of   equity   and   learning   in   their  schools.    

The  toolset  script  –  outlines    

Comparative  studies  on  the  European  education  policies  and  school  performance  need  yet  to  respond  to  some  sensitive  questions:    

• What   kind  of   information  on   the   education  delivery  processes  do   the  different  stakeholders   need,   so   that   they   may   be   involved   in   the   discussion   of   the  schooling   issues,   such  as   the   internal   organization,   staffing   and   resourcing,   the  curriculum  management  issues,  so  that  they  may  be  informed  and  empowered  to  participate  in  the  decision  making?    

• What   specific   information   do   parents   need   that   distinguish   them   from   other  partners  in  the  education  services,  such  as  the  teachers,  the  local  politicians  ,  the  employers  or  any  informed  citizen?    

• What   information   the   post   bureaucratic   school   has   to   provide   to   guarantee  equality  in  the  access  to  “readable”  information,  and  social  justice  in  the  analysis  of  learning  quality?  

 We   intend  to  develop  our  work   in   the   future  seeking   for  useful  assessment   indicators  (hard  and  soft)  in  alternative  models  of  schools’  evaluation,  which  may  lead  us  towards  provisory   answers   and   therefore   some   guidance   for   public   discussion   involving   as  many  educational  stakeholders  as  possible.      References    Afonso   J.   Almerindo   (2010)   Políticas   educativas   e   auto-­‐avaliação   da   escola   pública  portuguesa:   apontamentos   de   uma   experiência.   Est.Aval:   Educ.,   São   Paulo,   v.21.   n.46,  p.343-­‐362,  maio/agosto.2010.      Baxter,   J.   (2013)  Learning  by  inspection:  Research  Report  –  English  case  study.  Milton  Keynes,  UK,  The  Open  University.    Sisyphus,  vol.  2,  1,  2014;    Baxter,J,&Clarke,   J.   (2012)  What   counts   as   success   in   inspection   in  England   –   Shifting  Criteria?   Paper   presented   at   the   European   Conference   for   Educational   Research.  Network  23  Symposium  “Governing  by  inspection:  national  developments.  Cadiz  Spain.  Sisyphus,  vol.  2,  1,  2014;    

30    

Climaco,   Carmo,   (2005)   A   Avaliação   das   escolas-­‐   experiência   e   institucionalização.  Conferência  Internacional  Autonomia  das  escolas.  Fundação  Calouste  Gulbenkian,2006    Issakyan,   Irina,   &Lawn,  M.,   &Ozga,   J.   &   Shaik,   F.   The   social   and   cognitive  mapping   of  policy  –  The  education  sector  in  Scotland.  Know  and  Pol,  orientation  1,  WP6,  2008    Jenny   Ozga   andMartin   Lawn(2013)   Frameworks   of   Regulation:   Evidence,   Knowledge  and  Judgement  in  Inspection.  Introduction.  Sisyphus,  vol.  2,  1,  2014;    Ozga,  Jenny;  Lawn,  Martin  (2014)  Frameworks  of  Regulation:  Evidence,  Knowledge  and  Judgment  in  Inspection.    Sisyphus,  vol.  2,  1,  2014;    Ozga,  Jenny,  Knowledge,  Inspection  and  the  Work  of  Governing.  Sisyphus,  vol.  2,  1,  2014;    Rianne  Mahon  (2008)  The  post  bureaucracy  shift:  between  path  dependency,  bricolage  and  translation.  Commentary  on  the  orientation  1  of  the  KNOW&POL  project    Torres,  L.L.,  (2013)  Liderança  singular  na  escola  plural:  as  culturas  da  escola  perante  o  processo  de  avaliação  externa.  Revista  Lusófona  de  Educação,  23,  51-­‐76    Veloso,  Luisa  (org)(2013)  Escolas  e  Avaliação  Externa.  Mundos  Sociais,  Lisboa    Veloso,L.,   Abrantes,   P.,   &Craveiro,D.   (2011)   A   Avaliação   Externa   de   Escolas   como  Processo  social.  Educação,  Sociedade  &  Culturas,  nº33,2011.69-­‐88    http:  wwweducationscotland.gov.uk  /  Inspection  and  review  –  sharing  practice      

 

   

31    

Policy  Toolset  on  Educating  School  Leaders  as  Change  Agents  

 Prepared  by  the  University  of  Innsbruck  Team    

Michael  Schratz,  Helmuth  Aigner,  Silvia  Krenn    

for  EPNoSL,  September  2014    

 

 

This  draft  outline  is  prepared  for  submission  at  the  PLA  in  Nice,  25-­‐26  September,  2014.  It  contains    

 

·  aims  and  purpose  of  the  educating  school  leaders  as  change  agents  toolset    

·  the  conceptual  approach  guiding  the  toolset    

·  the  competency  framework  “Central  5”    

·  the  relevance  of  school  leadership  culture  for  leadership  and  learning    

 

1. Aims and purpose of the Educating school leaders as change agenst toolset

The toolset will address stakeholders in all areas of educating school leaders (policy, regional school authorities, school boards, in-service training institutions, school head associations et al.) in order to facilitate reflection on how to enhance leadership development in training programs for school leaders.

The purpose of the toolset on educating school leaders as change agents is to support both newly appointed and practising school leaders as well as people training school leaders with the challenge of change. It is important for the improvement of a school that school leaders act as change agents and not only contribute to the development of their individual school but also to the system at large.

Pont, Nusche, and Moorman (2008) direct attention to the decisive role of educational leadership for school reform. They assert that “It bridges educational policy and practice” (p. 19). School leaders are an important link for the synchronization of top-down and bottom-up processes (cf. Fullan, 2005) and are the key actors in promoting quality processes in schools (Hall & Hord, 1987; Firestone & Riehl, 2005). Reform policies can only be coherently integrated into the life of schools and classrooms, if a capacity building approach for professional school leadership pays attention to system-wide change (Stoll, Bolam, & Collarbone, 2002) which tries to deal with the following questions:

How can the complex decision-making structure be disentangled and the different demands of central and decentral interests brought into balance?

How is it possible to coordinate communication and actions both of policy and practice among the different levels of the system?

How can a learning context be created which aims at influencing the pattern of how professionals go about changing their organizations?

How can the system be energized by more individual and organizational empowerment? How can leadership be more closely connected with learning by creating better conditions

for student achievement? How can professional development create system-wide culture change and be linked with

the improvement capacity of the actors on the different horizontal and vertical levels?

As teachers are the key actors in the process of leadership for learning, we have to look closer at the connection between school leaders and teachers. According to depicted findings in Figure 3, schools are successful when there is coherence between (school) policy and practice. However, suggested that the “challenge of coherence is not to clone or align everything so it looks the same in all schools ... The challenge, rather, is how to bring diverse people together to work skillfully and effectively for a common cause that lifts them up and has them moving in the same direction with an impact on learning, achievement, and results.” (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009, pp. 94-95) The leadership challenge how to get diverse people moving into the desired direction lies beyond the reach of an individual (school) leader. The book titles on leadership mentioned in the introduction give a vivid impression of the different leadership voices in taking up this challenge.

Implementing leadership concepts for innovation and change is often seen as merely organizational or technological question, turning complexity into a series of (trans)actions from policy to practice.

32

However, dealing with complexity does not mean creating more complex structures of planning, acting, controlling and developing systems. The shift to an organic understanding of growth is related to openness and trust, which best help in reducing complexity of systems: Speaking openly opens others. In our leadership work through the Austrian Leadership Academy (Schley & Schratz, 2010; Stoll, Moorman, & Rahm, 2008), we have been actors and observers of a shift in mindset and culture, overcoming the traditional abyss between policy and practice. The fieldwork with many stakeholders on all levels of the system has taught us the wisdom of many in the collective intelligence of practice and opened up new dimensions of dealing with system-wide development.

The performance of the school system is based on an understanding of the different situations, contexts, demands and challenges within each organizational unit. Consequently, developing performance is not simply achieved by sending individuals on a training course but a journey through the “field structure of attention” (Scharmer, 2007), which builds on different modes of (self-)awareness. Self-awareness, in Owen’s view, “is knowing how your actions affect other people” (Owen, 2009, p. 287). We are becoming aware of an emergent leaderhip culture which can be characterized by a spirit of innovation, commitment and new attitudes for dealing with complexity, facing dynamics, taking risks and learning from mistakes. After all, for Stenhouse “[i]t is teachers who in the end will change the world of the school by understanding it” (Stenhouse, Rudduck, & Hopkins, 1985).

2. The central 5: A competency framework

1

This chapter presents the competency framework that is the result of the joint work of five countries in the European Commission-funded project “International Co-operation for School Leadership“ involving Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden. The competency framework is based on investigation in which we asked head teachers on their opinions and experience of managing and leading schools. It is divided into five sections each of which exemplifies one domain. Domains relate to specific areas of head teachers´ work and integrate competencies which we present in this material as knowledge, skills and attitudes. Knowledge in this competency framework includes facts, information, descriptions or skills acquired through headteacher education and training or experience. It can refer to the theoretical or the practical understanding of a subject. Knowledge can be explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject) or implicit (as with practical skill or experience) and can be more or less formal or systematic. A skill in this competency framework is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both. A skill is the ability that one possesses. General skills would include teamwork, time management, leadership and self-motivation. Specific skills are related to a certain job, e.g. in school management. An attitude is positive or negative evaluation of people, objects, activities, ideas etc.; it is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour.

Leadership is context-specific and we recognise that, in certain circumstances, the extent to which certain competences may prevail over others may vary. We do, however, believe that the set of 1 This chapter has its origin in a project funded by the European Commission unter the titel “International Co-operation for School Leadership“ involving Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden. The final report (Révai & Kirkham, 2013), where this part originates from, is available on http://www.tpf.hu/upload/docs/-konyvtar/books/leadership2013.pdf.

33

competencies within this framework does represent that which is required to lead and manage schools. There are many ways of analysing and representing the task of headship. This is one of them.

The framework demonstrates both the complexity and the simplicity of the role of the headteacher. Simplicity is reflected in the definition of the following five component areas of leadership and management:

Leading and managing … … learning and teaching ….change … self … others … the institution.

These areas, however, are not completely distinct sets. The components then should be seen as representative of the interconnected complexity of the headteacher role and of the attributes needed to perform this role.

When detailing knowledge, skills and attitudes, several overlaps might occur and the framework illustrates a complex system. In order to establish consistency, decisions were taken as to which area a certain element (knowledge, skill, attitude) should belong. Where a competence appeared in more than one area originally, it has been modified to occur in the one area where it appears to fit best and is not repeated. This does not lessen the importance of its impact on other areas, it merely enables the framework to be less convoluted and repetitive. Thus, for example, general, overarching, personal characteristics, such as honesty, creativity etc. were clustered in “leading and managing self” even though in application these could well be related to several (or all the) areas with specific references relating to the given area (for example, being creative in leading and managing the learning processes).

2.1 Leading and managing learning and teaching

The core purpose of schooling is learning. The role of the headteacher is to create a supportive learning environment and to ensure that the resources of the school are directed to that purpose. The effective leadership and management of learning of all members of the school and the establishment, maintenance and the development of a learning organisation are thus primary functions of the school leader as the leading professional.

Thus, the school leader should carry out the activities as outlined in the ensuing sentences. S/he should lead the process of values-centred learning and teaching. While establishing a safe and effective learning climate and processes for learning where high expectations are set, s/he sets a culture of learning and a climate of achievement for all. The highest quality of learning and teaching needs to be established, maintained and developed together with a systematic and rigorous system of monitoring, review and evaluation of the teaching and learning processes. The headteacher needs to be active in ensuring that such exist and that reliable assessment systems are created/adopted and utilised. The headteacher needs to model in her/his own practice and the constant application of both established pedagogic and andragogic ideas and new trends and innovation in education. S/he should support and promote research and evidence-based approaches to teaching and learning (and, ideally, engage in such activity).

34

Key descriptors:

School leaders ensure that learning and teaching lead to the improvement of student achievement.

School leaders establish a culture of feedback and evaluation with a view to improvement.

School leaders ensure that curricular activities meet the demands of all learners.

School leaders critically engage teachers with (research) literature to improve their teaching.

School leaders work towards achieving an inclusive learning environment.

2.2 Leading and managing change

The headteacher needs to ensure the establishment of agreed values within the school. Visioning, developing a strategy for its implementation and clarifying the mission are key components of the role and function of the headteacher. S/he needs to be capable of directing and working collaboratively towards the establishment and achievement of the agreed vision and communicating it effectively. S/he needs to be constant in the maintenance of a future orientation during the implementation phase. Setting goals and targets for her/himself and others in order to achieve the vision are central to effectiveness of the headteacher. Thus, the headteacher needs to understand change agency and how to overcome barriers to change. S/he needs to establish and be active in systems of monitoring, reviewing and evaluating. Headteachers need to know how to respond to internal self-evaluation and external forms of school evaluation. S/he needs to know how to deal with chaos and complexity. It is an essential requirement of headteachers that they keep themselves and others informed about new trends in education and in educational policies and practice. In order to determine direction and purpose and to maintain currency in action the headteacher needs to engage in environmental scanning and sustainability (using a variety of analytic tools). Headteachers need to be able to identify areas of potential improvement and school improvement and development possibilities. They need to ensure future orientation while developing and maintaining a transparent learning culture.

Key descriptors:

School leaders communicate the vision for the school’s future which is based on shared values and aiming at improving current practice and student achievement.

School leaders pursue a strategic approach in their daily activities by offering manageable steps to everybody to fulfill the goals set by the school.

School leaders act strategically in pursuing their school’s goals and understand and are able to respond constructively to the challenges involved in the process of change.

School leaders create an environment which is open to change and establish constructive relationships with the actors involved.

School leaders share their leadership with other staff and build improvement on the deserved trust in their own and others‘ capabilities.

35

2.3 Leading and managing self

The headteacher needs to be able to maintain her/his motivation for professional action in the job. S/he needs to be able to understand the ethical and moral dimensions of the role and act accordingly. Knowledge of the personal characteristics of successful leaders may assist headteachers in their own development. The headteacher needs to be an effective communicator and knowledge of and ability in the range of communication skills which make a significant contribution to success. Such characteristics as optimism, responsibility, reliability, a clear understanding of accountability, (evidence-based) decision-making skills, entrepreneurship, determination, responsiveness, being consistent in one’s work with others; autonomy, consciousness, authenticity, creativity; political awareness have been found in successful school leadership. Personal self-evaluation, knowing oneself – one’s strengths and areas for personal and professional development with a capacity for critical self-reflection, enables headteachers to use appropriate means of managing delegation and distribution of leadership. Headteachers also need to be able to manage their own stress.

Key descriptors:

School leaders critically reflect upon their personality, behaviour and actions, and (when necessary) revise their decisions. (Self-reflection and self-evaluation)

School leaders continuously improve their interpersonal strengths and seek to overcome weaknesses. (Interpersonal development)

School leaders keep up-to-date professional knowledge and strengths to be able to set up and reach the visions and goals of the school. (Professional – leadership and managerial development)

School leaders recognise moral and ethical stances in relation to education, keep professional ethics and accept their responsibility. (Ethical and moral development)

School leaders communicate effectively and show their deep commitment to the education and development of student teachers and themselves. (Effective communication and commitment)

2.4 Leading and managing others

The headteacher needs to know how to inspire others to high achievement (to be the best they can be with reflection and reflexivity), and how to use school self-evaluation. Knowledge of human resource development and management (selection, recruitment, induction, monitoring and appraisal/evaluation) is essential for headteachers. To attain the goals of the school they need to know how to use teams and how to build them. They need to maintain the highest ethical and moral approaches in the management of others. Knowledge and application of social justice will assist headteachers in building personal and professional relationships. S/he must act within the principles of equality and equality of opportunity. In managing others, headteachers need to communicate effectively with others, give timely feedback and be able to initiate and promote discussion and good practice. To ameliorate the potential for community and political support the headteacher needs to be able to establish and maintain effective partnership. Schools which are active in the community gain more support. The headteacher needs to know and understand how to establish conditions to reduce the stress of others. S/he needs to know how to manage conflict

36

situations and how to reduce their occurrence. S/he needs to know what and how to delegate and needs to understand and know how to implement the concept of distributed leadership.

Key descriptors:

School leaders inspire, motivate and encourage school staff and students and promote their positive approach to challenges in education. (Inspirational leadership)

School leaders create, co-ordinate and participate on effective team working based on various form of shared/distributed leadership. (Team-building and distributed leadership)

School leaders ensure professional development of people based on recognition of needs and requirements of the staff, school and stakeholders. (Professional development)

School leaders make decisions, solve problems and manage conflicts (recognising others‘ considerations and different social and cultural (diversity) viewpoints. (Communication and shared decision making)

School leaders develop a positive climate and culture supportive of knowledge-sharing and reaching common goals keeping moral and ethical stances in leading others. (School climate and moral aspects)

2.5 Leading and managing the institution

In order to further the goals of the school, key functions and responsibilities of the role of headteacher are: to ensure that all operations within the legal competence of the school leader are carried out effectively and efficiently and that all school-related administrative matters are managed to effective (and efficient) completion. The headteacher needs to manage effectively her/his professional time and to monitor the efficiency of others engaged in the day-to-day management of the school. The management of the plant (buildings and land) in order that the school functions effectively is a key competence of the headteacher. The headteacher has to ensure the efficient and effective management of school finances to achieve the goals of the school. S/he has to manage the effective deployment and management of personnel. S/he has to manage meetings and the flow of information effectively. The headteacher has to manage her/his diary to be able to prioritise (and maintain her/his sanity). S/he needs to establish and maintain efficient, economical and effective administrative systems and to know how to delegate authority and how to analyse tasks. It is essential that the headteacher interacts effectively with external partners and is able to work with systems within the community, region, inspection services and the ministry of education.

Key descriptors:

School leaders analyse and handle effectively the school’s institutional resources including financial, human, technological, physical etc. in compliance with legal requirements.

School leaders care about the public image of the school and act to maintain a positive public image.

School leaders ensure effective time management.

37

School leaders channel and manage processes in a transparent way making sure to meet the guidelines of the system.

School leaders establish communication that engages internal and external partners.

3. Exploring and developing school leadership competencies in action

3.1 The Yin-Yang of Management & Leadership

In several countries the ascendancy of school leadership is linked to government's goals of raising educational standards and modernizing the education system and therefore "the primacy of leadership is part of a wider agenda of transformation across public services where leaders are the vehicle by which policy reforms can be implemented and change realized" (Forrester & Gunter, 2009, p. 67). This kind of "functional organizational leadership" is a managerial approach of neoliberal policy-making rather than leadership which is associated with being visionary, motivational, inspirational and innovative. Due to the discrepancies between reality and the ideal, conceptions of leadership in recent years have been increasingly characterized by notions of personal leadership. As a result, there is a delineation of characteristics which apply to individual leaders and strategies for influencing the behavior of their associates. According to Staehle, “A concept of leadership represents a (normative) system of recommendations for action on the manager’s part, both in reference to personal responsibility and their personal leadership tasks. Leadership concepts are based explicitly or implicitly upon one or more leadership theories.2” (Staehle, 1999, p. 839)

In order to characterize the qualities of both management and leadership, Hinterhuber’s theoretical model (2003) can be helpful, in that it attributes differentiating attitudes, mindsets, and actions to Management and Leadership, modelling them along the Eastern conception of Yin-Yang (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Interrelation between management and leadership (Hinterhuber, 2003)

2 Translations from German original texts into English are mine.

38

According to the Yin-Yang metaphor, there is no clear-cut division between management and leadership, and yet their features are distinct. There is no “either - or” but an “as well as.” Management carries elements of leadership and vice versa. They can be differentiated in theory, but, in practice, they are interwoven. Management is more a state of behavior referring to norms; leadership is more a (moral) attitude of influence. Managing without a moral attitude is just as problematic as leading without acting according to (given) norms. Competency in management is easier to acquire than the capacity to lead, not the least because leadership is never a solo act. This is because leadership is a social activity, which enables others to rise to their individual challenges and meet them with the necessary measures. It is the school leaders who are in contact with many different stakeholders (not just within the school but in society at large: the community, politicians, the public, etc.) and they are also the ones to register and respond to differing (and at times conflicting) interests. Leadership can only be effective in so far as leaders are willing to accept and work to their own moral (and policy) agendas, but these need to be grounded within the political framework in which their education systems operate, since the weight of normative pressures bears differently upon varying educational contexts (Portin, et al., 2005).

The culturally embedded trends, according to Scharmer, "are based not on the laws of physics but on human habits, albeit habits on a large scale. These habitual ways of thinking and acting become embedded over time in social structures we enact, but alternative social structures can also be created" (Scharmer, 2007, p. xiii). In his structuration theory, Giddens (1984) “talks of the duality of structure in which social structures are not fixed sets of rules and resources but are features of social systems that have to be recreated in the specific moment action. Such recreation can only take place when human agents act in this way or that and a powerful influence at that point is the reflexivity and knowledgeability.” (Frost, 2006, p. 23) Therefore the implication of Giddens’ theory of action is that social (or organizational) structures are modified by the agency of individuals.

In the context of daily work, management and leadership are social activities which cannot be separated from each other: They are relational concepts and not individual activities. Therefore, they can only be dealt with separately for analytical purposes. In this respect, leadership is a social activity setting a direction and developing a vision. It is about aligning people and inspiring them, which should enable others to rise to their individual challenges and meet them with the necessary measures. Leadership is also about agency: “We make choices which have moral dimensions … agency as a capacity to act and reflect on the consequences” (ibidem). Management is more a state of behaviour referring to norms; leadership is more a (moral) attitude of influence. This is important because it views agency as a driving force for leadership for learning.

Managing and leading are complex social practices that reflect values about the future of education in particular and society at large. Successful leadership involves the ability to integrate knowledge from various sources, the ability to handle complexity and to deal with the needs and expectations of various stakeholders. Management and leadership activities are always socially situated that means they are closely linked to a particular social situation in which they occur. Therefore social, cultural and institutional aspects influence leaders’ daily practices. Chapter 4 gives an overview of the individual competencies which form the foundation from the underlying research, arriving at five competence areas (Fig. 3).

39

Figure 3: Interrelatedness of competency areas in leading and managing schools

Figure 3 shows that the individual competence areas have to be seen in their interrelatedness by the metaphoric use of parts of a puzzle which fit together in a loosely coupled way. In this regard, the form of the vignette has been chosen to highlight the interrelatedness of the competences in a particular social context, which can of course vary from country to country, from school to school and from the constellation of the actors involved (school leaders, teachers, students, parents and other stakeholders). The effectiveness of leadership is in how the interrelatedness of the competencies is realized to achieve the desired goals. The vignettes illustrate the dynamic relationship between the individual competency areas. This renders the idea of “personal mastery”, which “goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills … personal mastery suggests a special level of proficiency in every aspect of life – personal and professional. People with a high level of personal mastery share several basic characteristics. They have a special sense of purpose that lies behind their visions and goals.” (Senge, 1990, pp. 141-142).

The instrument “Exploring management and leadership competencies in action” (Fig. 4) can be used to observe management and leadership in real life situations (or videographs thereof). Either a single person uses the observation sheet and deals with all five areas or individuals or groups concentrate on just one area and compare and contrast their findings afterwards by collating the results. Before using the instrument it might be helpful to study the competency framework and look at knowledge, skills and attitudes which might be associated with the particular area. While observing management and leadership in action the observer(s) fill in relevant information into the respective bubble of Fig. 3. Sometimes it is not possible to differentiate exactly, which has to do with the interrelatedness of the areas. After the observation the findings in the different bubbles referring to the jigsaw parts are analyzed and discussed with a view to improving management and leadership through reflection on action.

40

3.2 School Leadership Culture

School leadership forms and is informed by the culture of how leadership and management are lived in everyday situations in a school. This culture is therefore influenced by management and leadership activities, but leadership also influences school culture in a certain way. This part of the toolset presents some tools focussing on creativity, innovation and positive energy of change and complexity

Creating a mindset of change cannot be imposed or enacted on a person; it is a human being's innate capacity to create new knowledge leading to new practice. Otherwise, as C. O. Scharmer (2007, p. 119) argues, we are "downloading" patterns of the past, which prevents us from creating a new future. In his "Theory U" he develops a systemic theory of leadership which centers on "presencing", a term which merges "presence" and "sensing". For him the essence of leadership builds on the capacity to feel in the here and now which future possibilities urge for evolvement. Repeating what is well known from the past gives security, but might not be useful for future practice. For Scharmer, the greater a system's hyper-complexity, the more critical is the capacity both for individuals (e.g school leaders) and school systems to operate from deeper sources of intention and creativity.(Figure 4).

Figure 4: Four levels of learning and change (Scharmer, 2007, 50)

The educational systems and institutions "face three types of complexities: dynamic complexity (defined by cause and effect being distant in space and time), social complexity (defined by conflicting interests, cultures, and world-views among diverse stakeholders), and emerging complexity (defined by disruptive patterns of innovation and change in situations in which the future cannot be predicted and addressed by the patterns of the past" (Scharmer, 2007, pp. 242-243).

The three stages (redesigning, reframing and presencing) are according to Scharmer new intelligences which every leader has to nurture and cultivate like precise instruments helping to create the best possible future. Leadership, he argues, “in its essence is the capacity to shift the inner place from which we operate” and “leaders who understand how can build the capacity of their systems to operate differently and release themselves from the exterior determination” (p. 373).

41

This leads eventuallyto a “shift from sensing exterior causation to sensing something collective that is emerging from within” (ibidem).

In many ways, knowledge and excellence based on past experiences have lost their validity as a promise for future success. What we learned about management and processes and what has worked for us up until now does not necessarily give answers to the diverse problems of today and less so of tomorrow. Very often education systems have reacted to pressure with an attempt to improve achievement within the existing framework of functionality. This "more of the same" often only leads to little improvement, since a typical learning curve reaches the upper limit of further outreach. The old pattern seems to strike against the limitations of the possible solutions. Sometimes, special arrangements are made (e.g. through incentives) to reach best practice status, which, however, are difficult to implement because of their special status (e.g. model schools). Hentig (1993) therefore argues that it is not enough to renew or improve schools; he calls for rethinking school, which demands a new mindset for how we envisage school. In research theoretical and methodological discussions have taken place in the process of re-framing the 'classical approach' on changing the patterns of schooling at large and teaching and learning in particular (see Vosniadou, 2008). We can see this re-framing process as a shift of pattern from best practice to next practice.

Figure 5: Pattern change through creative intervention

For new patterns to emerge, critical incidents or interventions are necessary to enable the opening of the perspective for next practice (Kruse, 2004). However, leaving the trodden path initially causes insecurity and instability: The old patterns of mind do not function any more, and the new ones have not yet gained stability. The experience is similar to an incubation phase for the emergence of the new, which mixes up the old or even questions it. Creating a mindset of sustainable change is a key concept in innovative education programmes for leaders.

Changing the culture of an organization is not easy to achieve. We use energy as a lever for promoting change, because it is easier to influence the energy of a system than to change the culture. Loehr & Schwarz (2003) argue that „positive energy rituals … are key to full engagement and sustained high performance“ (p. 16) and not the time invested. Productive energy is an important driver in leadership development. It creates a positive collaborative culture for full engagement. Organizational energy is the power which helps organizations to move into a certain direction. The intensity of organizational energy is an indicator of how much emotional, mental and

42

behavioral potential can be mobilized to reach the goals. It is an indication of the vitality, intensity and velocity of innovation processes. Bruch & Vogel (2005) offer an energy matrix which helps in assessing organizational energy according to intensity and quality of innovation processes.

Figure 6: Energy matrix (Bruch & Vogel, 2005)

The matrix in Fig. 6 depicts four quadrants of organizational energy in the field of tension between low/high intensity and negative/positive quality characteristics school leaders need to learn how to deal with the different modes of energy in their schools. Schools with low energy with a negative quality level often leads to resigned indolence. If there is a positive quality level, they rest in comfortable indolence and do not see much need for change. There are also schools with a high energy level but negative quality characteristics, which are characterized by corrosive force: There is a lot of energetic activity, but it is not used productively towards the future. Leadership for learning aims at reaching the top right quadrant with high energy and positive quality characteristics, which comprises the creative and productive impetus necessary for development processes.

3.4 Leadership and Learning

“Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other” is a quotation John F. Kennedy prepared for delivery in Dallas the day of his assassination. “Leadership” and “learning” have meanwhile been quoted as an indispensable pair in the context of schooling. However, there seems to be a long way between a president’s vision and the transfer of school leadership into classroom learning. In recent times, great effort has been dedicated to bringing leadership into closer contact with student learning (MacBeath & Moos, 2004; Frost & Swaffield, 2004). Internationally, Leadership for Learning has become the concept which focuses on the effective relationship between leadership and the learning processes of students in the classroom (MacBeath & Cheng, 2008)

If we compare school as an organization with an organism (Pechtl, 2001), “the heartbeat of leadership is a relationship, not a person or process” (Sergiovanni, 2005, 53). And if we regard the learning school as a living organism, this ‘heartbeat’ calls for enough resonance within the school to make the relationship between the people at different levels, planning, culture and structure in the system become visible. To put this concept into practice in the LEA, Schley & Schratz (2004) have

43

developed a diagram illustrating a chain of effects in their leadership work serving as a mental web of meaningful relationships that point the way from leading to learning and back again. This chain of effects illustrates how leadership impacts on people, planning, culture and structure and how, through interaction, it produces action and results related to the school’s goals.

SYSTEMSLEVEL

celebratingachieve-

ment

hetero-geneousgrouping

SUB-SYSTEMS

INTERACTION LEVEL

ACTIONLEVEL

RESULT LEVEL

recognition

clearvision

individualencourage-

ment

variable cooperation

competencedevelop-

ment

motivation/ experience

goalorientation

awarenessof self

reflection/ anticip-ation

gain ofinsight

learningby

doing

Awareness of the effects in taking goal-orientated steps

Leadership

impacts on

culture

planning

people

classteams

structure

subjectteams

yearcohorts

Figure 6: Chain of effects from leadership to learning and back (Schley & Schratz, 2004)

Changing the culture of an organization is not easy to achieve. We use energy as a lever for promoting change, because it is easier to influence the energy of a system than to change the culture. In "The Power of Full Engagement" Loehr & Schwarz (2003) argue that „positive energy rituals … are key to full engagement and sustained high performance“ (p. 16) and not the time invested. Using positive energy during large group arrangements is an important feature of the LEA. It creates a positive collaborative culture for full engagement. Organizational energy is the power which helps organizations to move into a certain direction. The intensity of organizational energy is an indicator of how much emotional, mental and behavioral potential can be mobilized to reach the goals. It is an indication of the vitality, intensity and velocity of innovation processes.

Conclusion

“The competency framework has been developed with high ambitions to be a useful tool at different levels of the educational system and also for other purposes. We see multiple use of the framework at four or five different levels. At the international level, we have seen how successfully the Central5 was used in and between the countries involved, which implies the potential for use in other EU countries. At a national level, we see a possibility for politicians to have a firm basis for policy-making. At an institutional level, school leader training programmes can make effective use of the Central5. A fifth level could be the board of different schools, where we also see potentials e.g. for the selection and recruitment of school leaders. […] When summarising the types of potential usage, we can distinguish two major aspects:

planning and assessment and evaluation.

44

on an individual level as a self-assessment tool for a school leader or for aspiring school leaders; at an institutional level both for improving existing school leadership programmes, developing new

courses and for evaluating training; at a national level for policy-making and also for the evaluation of training programmes; at an international level for policy-making and also for comparative research.” (Kirkham, Révai,

Malmberg & Söderberg, 2013, p. 198)

This toolset on educating school leaders as change agents explores the relationship between management and leadership in the school context, where school leaders form the important link for the synchronization of top-down and bottom-up processes. School leaders are the key actors in promoting quality processes in schools, but there is no linear transfer from the school heads’ leading to the students’ learning unless a more dynamic view of a learning school is taken up which is anchored in the relationship between the people involved. In complex change processes successful leadership for learning depends on the interplay between thinking, feeling and doing.

Steps towards systemic innovation require a new understanding of professionalizing leaders on all levels of the school system. The implications for future practice suggest that a shared understanding among the actors involved is necessary to construct meaning in the reciprocal process that defines relationships. Leadership has to be shared through collaborative cultures, in which students take up leadership roles as well.

The implications for policy work suggest that leadership education should not only be built into professional development programmes for (future) school leaders. Distributed leadership3 asks for a wide distribution of learning opportunities on all levels of the system and both horizontal and vertical connections between them. The implications for future research ask for new ways of exploring the dynamic complexity of leading and learning from the interior conditions of the actors involved in a change process.

Introducing innovation and change in leadership programs are often seen as merely organizational or technological questions, turning complexity into a series of (trans)actions from policy to practice. However, dealing with complexity does not mean creating more complex structures of planning, acting, controlling and developing systems. The shift to an organic understanding of growth is related to openness and trust, which best help in reducing complexity of systems. School leadership education which aims at sustainability has to engage participants in leadership for learning. Instead of perpetuating good practices in school leadership qualification next practices should be explored and shared among all relevant partners in the education system.

3 See EPNoSL toolset on distributed leadeship.

45

References

Bruch, H. and Vogel, B. (2005). Organisationale Energie: Wie Sie das Potenzial Ihres

Unternehmens ausschöpfen. Wiesbaden: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler.

Firestone, W. A. and Riehl, C. (eds.). (2005). Critical issues in educational leadership series. A new

agenda for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.

Forrester, G. and Gunter, H. M. (2009). School leaders: Meeting the challenge of change. In C. Chapman and H. Gunter (eds.). Radical reforms. Perspectives on an era of educational change. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 67–79.

Frost, D. (2006). The Concept of ‘Agency’ in Leadership for Learning. Leading & Managing, 12, issue 2, pp. 19-28.

Frost, D. and Swaffield, S. (2004). The Leadership fior Learning (Carpe Vitam) project: an eclectic

and emerging methodology. Presented at the 17th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Rotterdam, January 6.-9.: ICSEI.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hall, G. E. and Hord, S. M. (eds.). (1987). SUNY series in educational leadership. Change in

schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hargreaves, A. and Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.

Hentig, H. v. (1993). Die Schule neu denken: Eine Übung in praktischer Vernunft; eine zornige, aber

nicht eifernde, eine radikale, aber nicht utopische Antwort auf Hoyerswerda und Mölln, Rostock

und Solingen (2., erw. Aufl.). München: Hanser.

Hinterhuber, H. H. (2003). Leadership: Strategisches Denken systematisch Schulen von Sokrates bis

Jack Welch. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Allg. Buch im FAZ-Inst.

Kirkham, G. A., Rèvai, N., Malmberg, K., & Söderberg, T. (2013). Chapter 10. Conclusions and final thoughts. In N. Révai & G. A. Kirkham (Eds.), The Art and Science of Leading a School –

Central5: Central European view on competencies for school leaders (pp. 195-207). Budapest: Tempus Public Foundation.

Kruse, P. (2004). Next practice - erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität: Veränderung durch

Vernetzung. GABAL management. Offenbach: GABAL-Verlag.

Loehr, J. E. and Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is

the key to high performance and personal renewal. New York: Free Press.

MacBeath, J. and Cheng, Y.-C. (eds.). (2008). Leadership for Learning: International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

MacBeath, J. and Moos, L. (2004) Leadership for Learning. Presented at the 17th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Rotterdam, January 6.-9.: ICSEI.

Owen, J. (2009). How to lead: What you actually need to do to manage, lead and succeed (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pechtl, W. (ed.). (2001). Zwischen Organismus und Organisation: Wegweiser und Modelle für

Berater und Führungskräfte (4. Aufl.). St. Pölten, Wien, Linz: Landesverlag.

46

Pont, B., Nusche, D. and Moorman, H. (2008). School Leadership Development: Policy and Practice. Improving school leadership: Vol. 1. Paris: OECD.

Portin, B. et al. (2005). International Politics and Local School Development: Emerging Themes

from a Seven-Nation Study. Presented 12th April, Montreal: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Révai, N., & Kirkham, G. A. (Eds.), (2013). The Art and Science of Leading a School – Central5:

Central European view on competencies for school leaders. Budapest: Tempus Public Foundation.

Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges: the social technology of

presencing. Cambridge, Mass: Society for Organizational Learning.

Schley, W. and Schratz, M. (2004). Ergebnisorientierte Führungsverantwortung als Antwort auf PISA. Lernende Schule, 7, issue 28, pp. 1–4.

Schley, W., & Schratz, M. (2010). Developing Leaders, Building Networks, Changing Schools through System Leadership. In J. MacBeath & T. Townsend (Eds.), International Handbook on

Leadership for Learning. Part I. (pp. 267-296 ) New York: Springer.

Schley, W., & Schratz, M. (2007). Leadership: Kraft zum neuen Denken. Innsbruck, Wien u.a.: StudienVerlag.

Schratz, M., Hartmann, M., & Schley, W. (2010). Schule wirksam leiten. Analyse innovativer

Führung in der Praxis. Münster: Waxmann.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat. Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Staehle, W. H. (1999). Management: Eine verhaltenswissenschaftliche Perspektive. München: Vahlen, Franz.

Stenhouse, L., Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from

the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London, Portsmouth NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R & Collarbone, P. (2002). Leading for Change: Building capacity for learning. In: K. A. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.). Kluwer international handbooks of education: Vol. 8.

Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 41–73.

Stoll, L., Moorman, H., & Rahm, S. (2008). Building leadership capacity for system improvement in Austria. In B. Pont, D. Nusche, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving school leadership: Vol. 2.

Improving School Leadership. Case studies on system leadership (pp. 215–252). Paris: OECD.

Vosniadou, S. (ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.

47

48    

Draft  Toolset  –  Distributed  Leadership  for  Equity  and  Learning    

 

 

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

INTRODUCTION

What kind of organisation would you like to work in or support? What kind of school do you think best encourages learning and creativity by students and staff?

This toolset is about creating an organisation that believes everyone is capable of learning, treats each person in the school as a valued person with skills, expertise and experience that they can contribute, supports active participation by all so they can make that contribution, values deep and holistic learning, liberates new ideas and facilitates collaboration so that learning and experience are shared.

The toolset is about one way of helping to create that kind of organisation. Its purpose is to help policy-makers and practitioners develop and implement policy that supports distributed leadership for equity and learning (DLE) in schools.

The toolset builds on what was learnt about distributed leadership in the first two phases of the European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL). Its aim is to explain:

- why it is important to support the development of DLE

- what DLE is, and the challenges in developing and sustaining DLE

- how DLE can be developed, sustained and evaluated

Most work on developing distributed leadership does not explicitly put the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core. Making equity, which includes these values, an explicit part of the purpose of distributed leadership is a distinctive feature of DLE. The toolset therefore will have wide relevance - to countries where distributed leadership is relatively well known and to countries where it is a much newer concept.

Our defintion of DLE is leadership that is enacted by everyone in the school, takes place within an organisational hierarchy which is as flat as possible, is not limited to staff in formal leadership positions, disperses across the organisation power to initiate change, encourages trust, inclusive dialogue and collaboration across organisational boundaries, values deep, holistic learning and explicitly puts the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core. The toolset is intended to be used flexibly. Interest and experience in applying distributed leadership will differ depending on context. The toolset can be used selectively according to the needs and priorities of the reader. Links to associated materials, such as further reading or supporting materials in other formats like videos, are given in the text. Before going further, it may be helpful to say what we mean by leadership. For the purposes of this toolset, we define leadership as the process of mobilising people and resources in order to bring about change directed towards achieving a goal or purpose. This process involves creativity, initiative and action, but (as will be clear from the discussion of DLE below) it is not necessarily undertaken by one individual: leadership is shaped and influenced by numerous people (including students and staff who are not in formal leadership positions) and by the context (such as organisational structures and cultural factors) in which it takes place. Leadership differs from management, though the distinction is not a sharp, ‘back and white’ one. Management is often associated with ensuring an organisation is run efficiently, has predictable and trusted procedures, uses its resources effectively and systematically evaluates its effectiveness. In practice, leadership often involves some management, and management requires some degree of leadership2.

2 For a useful discussion of leadership and management, see Simon Western (2013) Leadership: A Critical Text

(Second Edition), London: Sage, Chapter 2.

49

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

WHY DLE?

The days of relying on the ‘one great leader’ to solve problems are long gone. More and more people realise that it is not possible to rely on one person, or even a small group of people, to provide ideas, inspiration, a sense of direction and innovation for improvement; successful organisations tap into the leadership capacity across the organisation. Research on private companies and other organisations globally finds that when ‘we grow and develop, and we become innovative, energized and stimulated’ and work co-operatively, ‘we are able to create the positive energy that gives us joy and adds values to our companies’. This research challenges directly the idea that commanding and controlling others is the besy way to run an organisation. Where organisations are creative and working well, ‘rather than be commanded, employees choose to develop important relationships with others, and rather than be controlled, they actively choose to make their time available to [a] collective sense of purpose‘3. Hence distributed leadership is a model of leadership that attracts a great deal of interest, for all kinds of organisations including schools. There are good reasons for policy-makers in education to commit themselves to developing or enhancing distributed leadership for equity and learning (DLE) in schools - i.e. distributed leadership that values deep, holistic learning and explicitly puts the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core. Research studies have been carried out in recent years that throw light on the benefits of distributed leadership and what helps it to work well. It is difficult to identify the effects of a complex process like distributed leadership in organisations that are affected by a variety of factors and changes. It is possible, nevertheless, to conclude from research findings that distributed leadership, in the right conditions, can help in meeting the challenges of learning, innovation and citizenship. We believe that DLE can improve and widen learning and help schools respond to major policy challenges they face - being accountable for learning, enabling innovation and promoting democratic citizenship.

Learning

The most fundamental challenge for schools is to be as effective as possible in terms of students’ learning. Much of the pressure on schools is about improving measurable achievement (see box below), but the real challenge is about more than this. It is about enabling learning that is deep, broad and balanced. Learning is not equivalent to measurable achievement through tests and examinations, nor is it only about the cognitive and emotional abilities and skills required for employment. Deep and holistic learning includes the nurturing of people’s ethical, aesthetic and spiritual capabilities: that is, their sense of what is right morally and those things in life that nourish the senses and give a sense of purpose and upliftment. It includes developing an understanding of democratic citizenship and appreciation of values such as justice, democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, mutual understanding and a concern for the welfare of others. It is also about fostering the ability to reflect on and understand how one learns so that people continue to learn throughout their lives. Integral to DLE is a commitment to facilitating deep and holistic learning.

3 Gratton, L. (2007) Hot Spots, Harlow: Pearson Education, pxi, 46.

50

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

Staff learning and development throughout the school have also been shown to be important factors for enabling students to learn. A study in Canada, for example, found that as a result of teacher leadership, teachers’ ‘understanding about student learning and improvement deepens and progresses’ which in turn helps improve learning in the classroom4. Research in Finland concludes that distributed leadership involves ‘seeing leadership as a resource which exists and has to be used at all levels’5. Learning exists and is connected across different levels too - from the system level to students - and can be pictured as a layered wedding cake as in the diagram below.

The leadership for learning ‘wedding cake’6

How do distributed styles of leadership, like teacher leadership, promote learning at these levels (student, teacher, school, syste,)? Where distributed leadership works

4 Cameron, D. H., Gauthier, G., Ryerson, R. and Kokis, J. 2011. ‘Teacher professional learning from the ‘inside

out’: Studying the student experience as means to teacher action and new knowledge’, paper for submission to peer reviewed journal, Ontario Ministry of Education, Canada. 5 Risku and Tian (2013: 5)

6 Source: David Frost (2008), ‘Teacher leadership: values and voice’, School Leadership & Management 28 (4):

339. The figure is adapted from Knapp et al. (2003)

Accountability pressures Schools systems are being held more accountable than ever before. As a result intense pressure is placed on those who make, implement and interpret policy at all levels of these systems. The politicians and civil servants in national ministries are under pressure, because of international assessments such as PISA, and feel the need to make sure that schools are made accountable for students’ learning and achievement. Those at regional and the middle levels of national education systems experience the pressures of being held to account and being responsible for the success of their schools. School leaders, teachers and other staff - as well as students and parents - feel the force of national and regional expectations and interpret policy on the ground, translating it into everyday practice.

51

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

well, it positively effects the following: - capacity. The capacity of the school is increased, i.e. more people are

actively engaged in improving learning and more people are involved in improving their skills. One of the advantages of distributed leadership is that it helps in developing the senior leaders of tomorrow: teachers and other staff can learn about leadership and develop their skills and capabilities for leadership, increasing the pool of potential senior leaders.

- co-operative learning. People are enabled to work together and to share experience and ideas; research finds that co-operative learning, where it is organised well, is the most effective form of learning7.

- motivation and commitment. Staff and students are more enthusiastic and committed to the school and its core purpose and work.

Innovation

A second challenge is high expectations to innovate. Promoting creativity and innovation is a driving aim on the policy agendas of nations, the European Union and global bodies. This impacts upon what is expected of schools. They are to be innovative as organisations and to educate students so they will become the creators and innovators of the future. Research suggests that staff and students are more likely to be innovative where distributed leadership operates. This is because in a distributed leadership culture, people are encouraged to

- share new ideas and knowledge - try out new practices, and learn from these - involve a range of people (students, teachers, support staff, senior leaders,

etc.) in testing and developing new practices so they are evaluated from differing perspectives and therefore improved.

Collaboration and the involvement of people from different organisational levels and contexts are integral to creating innovative cultures in all kinds of organisations8. Democratic citizenship

A third challenge is to encourage democratic citizenship and an appreciation of values such as justice, democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, mutual understanding and a concern for the welfare of others. This is especially important as communities change and become more diverse, as people’s expectations rise about participation and transparency in decision-making and as they become more prepared to challenge injustices and the decisions of the powerful. Distributed leadership can make practices such as collaboration, participation, discussion and learning from others’ viewpoints part of the everyday life of the school for staff and students. Hence, where it works well, distributed leadership encourages democratic citizenship through

- experiential learning about social justice and democracy. DLE allows students to experience in practice what democratic citizenship is like and what it means to respect in day-to-day life values such as justice, tolerance, mutual understanding and a concern for the welfare of others.

Follow this link – Why DLE - for a short videoscribe on the benefits of DLE. 7 Slavin ……………

8 [Refer to recently published OECD TALIS work ]

52

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

WHAT IS DLE?

Distributed leadership challenges the belief that leadership is the preserve of one person or a small elite of senior leaders. Distributed leadership is based on the proposition that whatever we may think, the reality of life in organisations is that leadership is the outcome of lots of people’s actions and interactions. The power of senior leaders is mediated by what people do, or do not do, across the organisation. Leadership is a characteristic of an organisation as a whole, not just the individual actions of the few who are labelled ‘leaders’. One way of explaining this point of view is given in the Videoscribe ‘Leadership Is… Distributed’9. Applying the insight that leadership is the outcome of lots of people’s actions and interactions across an organisation has deep implications for how leadership is viewed and an organisation run. The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS), for example, has included leadership in all its Standards10 as a means of encouraging leadership development across the profession with the intention of improving the distribution of leadership throughout the school. In practice, distributed leadership is not only about what individuals do but also about the culture and the institutional structures of an organisation. How do we define DLE?11 In its most democratic form, DLE equates with democratic leadership based on a model of holistic democracy. An information sheet on holistic democracy is available at http://herts.academia.edu/PhilipWoods (under ‘Teaching Documents’). What does the opposite of DLE look like? 9 Videoscribe created by P. A. Woods & A. Roberts, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5F0MNrDSpY, 22nd

September 2013. 10

The Standards define criteria for the teaching profession at all levels, from from student teacher to head teachers. 11

[Include link to the conceptualising DLE paper.]

DLE is leadership that is enacted by everyone in the school (each bringing their unique skills, ideas and experience), involves an organisational hierarchy which is as flat as possible, is not limited to staff in formal leadership positions, disperses across the organisation power to initiate change, encourages trust, inclusive dialogue and collaboration across organisational boundaries, values deep, holistic learning and explicitly puts the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core.

The opposite of DLE is what we call here rigid hierarchical leadership (RHL). This is an inflexible model of leadership which concentrates power and influence in one person or a small elite at the head of a steep hierarchy, relies on control, fear and top-down communication (mainly one-way transmission of ideas, information and instructions) to make things happen, and defines learning as success in narrow, standardised tests.

53

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

Some schools may have leadership which is exactly like the RHL described in the box above. Many schools will have some but not all of the characteristics of RHL. Some may have begun to develop a more distributed approach to leadership. Most schools will have scope to introduce or to develop further distributed leadership. Few schools will have introduced DLE. Distributed leadership can exist side by side with formal hierarchical relationships. It makes sense, therefore, to see DLE a feature an organisation has or does not have, but as an organisational characteristic that there can be more or less of. In other words, there can be degrees of DLE12. Where distributed leadership is strong, it makes hierarchical relationships work in a different way. For example, it lessens to the social distance between senior leaders at the apex of the hierarchy and staff and students without formal leadership positions, and encourages collaborative working and two-way communication between them. DLE involves a particular combination of leadership culture, institutional structures, social environment and explicit core values. These comprise:

a culture that views leadership as emergent This means raising awareness about the nature of leadership - namely, that it arises from what people do at all levels of an organisation. If leadership is understood better, it will be ‘done’ better. It means a change in the culture of leadership, i.e. how people think about leadership. People in a distributed leadership culture:

- view leadership as arising from ongoing flows of interactions across the organisation and its hierarchy, not simply the actions of the single leader or small leadership elite

- value leadership contributions from across the organisation and its hierarchy

- recognise that this view of leadership can be deployed in order to improve organisational effectiveness, most especially successful teaching and learning.

an institutional structure that supports leadership from across all parts of the organisation This means changes in the institutional structures of leadership, i.e. organisational roles and how people work together. Roles and institutional structures in an organisation promoting distributed leadership:

- spread leadership opportunities beyond formal senior roles to enable different sources of expertise and perspectives to influence the organisation’s work, development and innovative change

- facilitate flexible, collaborative working relationships across traditional boundaries and hierarchies

- tend towards the creation of flatter hierarchies a fluid social environment that promotes holarchy What do we mean by holarchy?

12

[Add note on degrees fo democracy, plus link to the degrees of democracy framework review.]

54

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

See footnote13 Relationships are critical to making DLE a real part of organisational life. How people connect with each other in daily activity, how they feel about themselves and those they work with, and how confident they are in crossing boundaries and traditional hierarchies are crucial for whether leadership is really spread throughout the school. A case study on distributed leadership in the UK, for example, pointed to ‘the significance of the distribution of respect’ in understanding how well leadership is distributed, as well as ‘trust and other relational factors identified in the research literature’14. In an organisation characterised by distributed leadership, a social environment with fluid relationships helps to create the conditions in which people at different levels in the formal hierarchy can share ideas, give feedback to each other and take initiatives and leadership according to expertise, interest and need rather than rank. In summary, a fluid social environment that promotes holarchy:

- has flexible, fluid relationships characterised by a sense of equal worth - develops a sense of belonging, trust and mutually supportive

relationships - fosters confidence, independent-mindedness, autonomy, openness,

agency, responsibility - fosters respect for each other, as people and for what each person

uniquely brings enactment of core values The core values are ‘inclusive participation’ and ‘holistic growth and well-being for all’. These are based on the notion of holistic democracy which views participation and aspiring ‘to values that represent the best of human progress’ as interconnected15. Core values such as these need to be included because they make clear the commitment to social justice and nurturing democratic citizenship. Without making the commitment explicit, the danger is that aspirations to social justice and

13

David Spangler, A Vision of Holarchy, 2008 (http://www.sevenpillarshouse.org/index.php/article/a_vision_of_holarchy1, accessed 14th september 2010). 14

Woods and Roberts (2013b: 163) 15

Woods (2005: 5). See also Woods and Woods (2013).

Holarchy means a social environment in which belonging, social equality, flexibility, fluidity, openness, respect, trust and mutually affirming relationships are distributed across the organisation. David Spangler’s definition of holarchy captures the essence of a holarchic system: ‘different and unequal participants nevertheless enhance each other and co-creatively make a larger wholeness possible… [E]ach person’s value comes from his or her individuality and uniqueness and the capacity to engage and interact with others to make the fruits of that uniqueness available’. Holarchy can exist alongside a hierarchical organisational structure, and where it does, people at different hierarchical levels are more likely to feel able to innovate, learn and work collaboratively with each other.

55

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

nurturing democratic citizenship are lost in the priorities demanded by accountability pressures. An information sheet on a typology of social justice (A Four-fold Approach to Social Justice) and its relationship to holistic democracy is available at http://herts.academia.edu/PhilipWoods (under ‘Teaching Documents’).

inclusive participation

Inclusive participation is about ensuring that distributed leadership becomes a force for inclusion where different voices can be heard, social justice enhanced and awareness of racial, sexual and cultural discrimination raised. It aims to advance:

- power sharing, so that involvement is inclusive, responsibility for decision-making is shared and there is mutual empowerment and fair participation of all in co-creating their social and organisational environment

- transforming dialogue, which encourages respect, freedom to share views, and mutual understanding and learning.

holistic growth and well-being for all

The aspiration to holistic growth and well-being for all anchors distributed leadership in a deeper understanding of human growth and values that frame learning. This involves:

- holistic meaning, which is about learning collaboratively and developing people’s full human capabilities and potential (intellectual, spiritual, ethical, emotional, aesthetic and physical

- holistic well-being, so that people feel empowered and confident as a member of an organisation, with high self-esteem, the capacity for independent thinking and feelings of connectedness with deeper purposes and the natural world - in a fluid social environment that promotes holarchy where there is a sense of belonging.

Like most changes that are claimed to benefit organisations and the effectiveness of leadership, trying to create DLE does not automatically mean that it has positive consequences. The context in which the change is made and local factors and other variables affect what happens in practice. To make DLE work well requires:

- a strong degree of co-ordination and planning of roles, expectations and modes of working

- a cohesive culture, which has shared goals and values; - a focus on the core purpose (learning for all), so that a strong link is created

between leadership and learning - building capacity to make DLE work, which involves developing the capabilities of

staff and students to be involved in leadership and the capacity of senior leaders who need the capabilities to develop DL

- effective internal accountability, so that staff and students feel committed to making changes work, and senior leaders’ are open and transparent about decisions and in that way are accountable to others in the organisation

- tackling inequalities, since involving more people in leadership through DLE does not necessarily mean it is more fair: research shows that it can lead to some people having more power and influence than others and to some being unfairly treated or sidelined, so it is vital that how DLE works in practice is monitored and unjust inequalities addressed

56

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

- ensuring learning is deep and holistic, since distributed leadership can be used to serve policies that narrow the aims of education; explcit efforts are needed to make sure that DLE is fostering learning that is deep, broad and balanced.

Follow this link - WhatIsDLE - for a short videoscribe on DLE.

57

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

HOW TO DEVELOP AND SUPPORT DLE?

In the previous sections of this toolset we have discussed why we should develop DLE in schools and what the policy challenges are in developing this way of working. In this section, we move on to discuss how DLE stimulates learning amongst teachers, students and others, how it can be developed and how its progress and impact can be evaluated.

This section is structured around 4 key levers which we see as working together to support the development of DLE in action. Policy makers and school leaders may wish to consider how they might be able to use these four key levers to support the introduction and development of DLE in schools.

These key levers interact in a complex way to support the development of DLE in schools. Figure 1 below suggests the complexity of this interaction and underlines the mutuality of suggested interventions in supporting the development of DLE.

58

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

Figure 1: The four key levers supporting the development of DLE activity in schools

Below, we consider each of the four key levers in turn, giving a rationale for its importance in developing DLE activity and suggesting ways in which it might be achieved.

Follow this link - HowDLE - for a short videoscribe on how to develop DLE.

Key Lever 1: Facilitating the development of a shared understanding of DLE

For DLE to work, leadership needs to be seen differently. The first key lever in the development of DLE is the facilitation of a clear and shared understanding of the concept of DLE itself.

Some people might think that DLE is wholly about structural activities such as developing less hierarchical leadership systems and implementing systems of delegated responsibility.

Key Lever 1: Facilitating the

development of a

shared understanding

of DLE: this allows

school policy and

practice to be rooted in

an understanding of and

commitment to DLE

See Tools 1 and 2

Key Lever 2: Developing a culture

which offers

opportunities for

DLE: this allows DLE

practice to become

the natural core of a

school’s activity

See Tools 3 and 4

Key Lever 4: Developing

appropriate ways to

evaluate and share

the impact of DLE:

this allows the

impact or fruits of

DLE to be

understood and built

upon

See Tools 7 and 8

Key Lever 3: Developing institutional

structures and social

environment which

support DLE activity:

this allows DLE to

become a live feature of

daily school policy and

practice

See Tools 5 and 6

59

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

Such structures are important for the development of DLE. However, if DLE is understood solely in these terms, the extent to which leadership can be distributed is limited.

Instead, it may be more beneficial to undertand DLE as a way of working which can be continually cultivated and nurtured. Looking at it in this way, developing DLE is not solely about developing structural change but instead it is also about developing a greater understanding of how things get done, how the various interactions between people bring about an end result. This view of DLE offers the possibility that structural changes to support DLE can be supported by cultivating conditions which allow leadership practice to grow. It allows school policy and practice to be rooted in an understanding of and commitment to DLE.

Tools for facilitating the development of a shared understanding of DLE

Policy makers have a key role to play in facilitating a shared understanding of DLE. This understanding could arise from a briefing session, where headteachers and other senior leaders are told what DLE is.

However, it is more effective if senior leaders are enabled to develop their own understanding of DLE through discourse and debate. The initiation and facilitation of such a forum is itself an example of DLE practice, where professionals are given the opportunity, space and guidance to collaborate to extend their professional understanding of DLE. [Note: Add Michael’s approach in Austria as an example]

Tools 1 and 2 can be used to support the facilitation of discussion within such a forum and to evaluate its impact on participant understanding.

Key Lever 2: Developing a participatory culture which offers opportunities for DLE

The second key lever in the development of DLE builds directly on the first lever (a shared understanding of leadership and DLE). The second lever is the development of a participatory culture which offers opportunities for DLE and has shared goals and values. A view of leadership as emergent is a central feature of DLE. In order for leadership to emerge, the school culture needs to be one in which the voice of all is heard and valued, in which questioning is encouraged, in which innovation is seen as central to personal and professional growth. In such a culture, DLE practice becomes the natural core of a school’s

activity. The development of such a cohesive culture relies on the collaborative development of shared goals based on the core values of DLE.

Tools to support the development of a culture which offers opportunities for DLE

Policy makers can support the emergence of facilitative school cultures through encouraging the development of shared values and goals. This might be done through a top-down approach. This approach assumes that values and goals can be derived wholly from the external policy environment or from the views of the senior leader within the school. However, it is not the most effective way. Members of the school community are unlikely to

60

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

fully subscribe to such goals which can therefore be only partially effective in guiding the school’s work.

Tools 3 and 4 can be used to stimulate a school community to develop collaborative and shared goals and to understand how such activity impacts on individual commitment to organisational success.

Key levers 1 and 2 should help in establishing and sustaining:

- a cohesive culture, which has shared goals and values incluidng the core values of DLE

- a focus on the core purpose (learning for all), so that a strong link is created between leadership and learning that is inclusive, deep and holistic

- effective internal accountability, so that staff and students feel committed to making changes work, and senior leaders’ are open and transparent about decisions and in that way are accountable to others in the organisation

Key Lever 3: Developing institutional structures and a fluid social environment

which support DLE activity

The third key lever in the development of DLE is the development of institutional structures and a fluid social environment promoting holarchy. These are mutually supporting and create the conditions for DLE activity.

Institutional structures can have a powerful impact on how people connect with one another. Such structures would be fluid and inclusive, allowing for maximum communication of ideas from all. All members of the school community would feel empowered to impact on the organisation in a context of mutual understanding and valuing. Institutional structures include opportunities for professional development and training (capacity building) for DLE.

The kind of relationships in a school is a key factor in how well DLE works in practice. A social environment with fluid relationships helps to create the conditions in which people at different levels in the formal hierarchy can share ideas, give feedback to each other and take initiatives and leadership according to expertise, interest and need rather than rank. In a holarchic social environment, structures support mutual respect and uniqueness.

Key lever 3 should help in establishing and sustaining:

- a strong degree of co-ordination and planning of roles, expectations and modes of working, enabling staff and students to innovate and take the lead with others in bringing about change that improves learning

- building capacity to make DLE work, which involves developing the capabilities of staff and students to be involved in leadership and the capacity of senior leaders who need the capabilities to develop DL

61

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

Tools to support the development of structures and a social environment which

support DLE activity

A leadership approach which focuses on empowerment, on holarchical rather than hierarchical structures, may not currently be the norm in some schools. Policy makers can support the development of school structures that are more open and less rigidly hierarchical and that support a fluid, holarchic social environment. One way of doing this is through modelling a focus on learning for all and the adoption of a capacity-building approach to school improvement.

Other ways include sharing ideas and practices that may be feasible locally on

- changing school structures so they spread leadership opportunities, facilitate flexible, collaborative working relationships across traditional boundaries and hierarchies, and create flatter hierarchies

- creating social environments in schools that have flexible, fluid relationships characterised by a sense of equal worth, a sense of belonging, trust and mutually supportive relationships, fosters confidence, independent-mindedness, autonomy, openness, agency, responsibility, respect for each other, as people and for what each person uniquely brings.

Tools 5 and 6 can be used to support the development of inclusive structures and a fluid social environment.

Key Lever 4: Developing appropriate ways to evaluate and share the impact of DLE

The final key lever in the development of DLE is the development of appropriate ways to evaluate and share the impact of DLE. Evaluation often focuses on the collation of numeric attainment results and the attempt to attribute such results to particular interventions. It is important that we do things in schools which impact positively on children’s learning.

However, it is not always easy to know which of the many things we do has had this positive impact. To understand the impact of DLE we need to re-conceptualise the meaning of the term ‘evaluate’. This term needs to describe a process in which we:

Clarify what we are trying to achieve e.g. a greater spread of leadership, a higher quality of interaction, a richer pattern of decision-making

Identify success indicators which will help us to see if these things are happening Use these indicators to support the development of illuminative data gathering and

analysis practices

Interpret what is learned from these practices to judge the degree to which we have achieved our stated aims

Develop ways of sharing what we have learned with all stakeholders

Evaluation needs to:

- be participatory, involving staff and students in the above processes - monitor how far DLE in practice is inclusive, so that inequalities can be tackled

62

Draft 2: DLE Toolset September 22, 2014

- monitor the learning DLE promotes, to make sure that DLE is fostering learning that is deep and holistic

- recognise that developing DLE is a journey and that schools will have both hierarchy and holarchy, so evaluation examines the degrees of DLE and hiearchy in a school

Tools to support the evaluation and sharing of impact of DLE

Tools 7 and 8 can be used to support policy makers in developing such new models of evaluation.

APPENDIX [Note: Decisions have yet to be made about whether to include an Appendix and what it should contain. One possibility is to include a paper conceptualising DLE paper to indicate the foundations of the toolset, how it is rooted in study and reviews of research and the work of EPNoSL.]

[end of draft script]

63

64    

Draft  Outline  –  Policy  Toolset  on  Autonomy    

Lejf  Moos,    

Department  of  Education,  Aarhus  University,  Copenhagen,  Denmark    

 

Autonomy    

 

Autonomy  is    defined     as     ‘the     capacity     to     informed,     uncoerced     decisions’,     or:     self-­‐-­‐-­‐  determination,  one's  own  self-­‐-­‐-­‐governance.      

We  see  autonomy  being  used  at  several  levels:    

•   On  the  state  level  it  means:  self-­‐-­‐-­‐government,  or  the  right  of  self-­‐-­‐-­‐government.    

•   On  the  community  or  organizational   level  it  means:  self-­‐-­‐-­‐governance.  

•   On  an    individual    level    it    means:    independence    or    freedom    of    the    will  or    one's  actions.    

The  use     of     the     concept,      autonomy,      seem     to     indicate     full     and     unrestricted      self-­‐-­‐-­‐  governance     as   if   the   actors,     the   organisations     or   the   states   are   free   floating    entities   with   no   strings   to   the   context,   surrounding   and   other   people.   This   is   of  course   not   so   in   contemporary   societies.   Here   we   are   extremely   interdependent   of  the   other.   Autonomy   then   is   only   interesting   as   a   term   if   it   indicates   that   an  organisation   or   professional   ac-­‐-­‐-­‐  tors   are   given   some   room   for   manoeuvre,   and   that  constrains   from   the  outside-­‐-­‐    and  inside  -­‐-­‐-­‐  are  reduced  to  the  necessary  and  legitimate  frames,  values  and  norms.    

New  Public  Management    

Over   the   past   two   to   three   decades   most   public   sectors   –   including   educational  sectors   -­‐-­‐-­‐           in   the   European     area   have   been   restructured.     Most   of   them   are  following   a   OECD   model   of   New   Public   Management   patterns   of   redistribution   of  power   and   governance  between   state,   local   authorities   and   organisations.     In  many  cases   the  phrase   ‘autono-­‐-­‐-­‐  my’  has  been  used  to  characterise  the  new  relations.    

A   pivotal   inspiration   to   that   has   been   the   OECD:   Governance   in   Transition   (OECD,  1995)  which  was  a  lineup  and  comparison   of  public  management   forms  in  the  OECD  member   states.   The   observations   were   categorised   into   9   categories,   two   of   which  are   of   special   interest   here:   1:   ‘Devolving   authority,   providing   flexibility,’   and   7:  ‘Strengthening   steer-­‐-­‐-­‐  ing   functions   at   the   centre.’   This   can   be   interpreted   to   mean  that   some   tasks   and   deci-­‐-­‐-­‐  sions   should   be   decentralised   from   state-­‐-­‐-­‐level     to   local-­‐-­‐-­‐    and  organisational    level,  while  central  areas  are  kept  under  central-­‐-­‐-­‐/state-­‐-­‐-­‐level.    

   At   first  glance  one  thinks  that  this  signifies  one  way  of  distributing  governance  irre-­‐spectively  of  the  country  or  system  it  is  being  use  on.  This  is  not  so.  Autonomous  organ-­‐isations  are  different  in  type  of  autonomy,  in  governance  and  power  relations;  in  issues  included  and   in   the   room  for  manoeuvre   they  give   to  educational  actors.   In  2008   the  OECD  looked   into   levels  of  decision  making   in  member  states,  and  the  picture  was  di-­‐verse.   In   some   countries   most   decisions   were   made   on   the   central   level:   The   graph  show  that  they  are  Greece,  Portugal,  Korea,  France,  Italy,  Spain  and  Austria.  The  rest  of  the  countries  had  more  than  50%  of  decisions  made  on  local  or  school  level.  

Policy reform is more than ever a collaborative effort

(Decisions taken at the local/school level, EAG 2008)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Finland

Hungary

Scotland

Sweden

England

Netherlands

Denmark

NewZealand

Norw

ay

CzechRepublic

Germ

any

Austria

Spain

Italy

France

Korea

Portugal

Greece

%

1998 2003 2007

Morethan50%ofdecisions

takenbyschools/locallevel

 

The  graph  does  not  show  all  levels:  Central,  state,  Provincial/regional,  sub-­‐regional,  lo-­‐cal,  school.    

The  tasks/decisions  taken  into  this  report  are:  

1. Organisation  of  instruction:  student  admission,  time,  textbooks,  student-­‐groupings,  support,  teaching  methods,    

2. Personnel  management:  hiring  and  firing  of  staff,  career,  salary  scales  3. Planning  and  structure:  opening  hours,  study  programmes,  subjects  taught,  exami-­‐

nation  4. Resources:  for  staff,  operating  expenditures  

 

 

Decentralization  of  educational  governance  systems    

From  the  beginning  of  the  1990’ties  there  was  in  many  countries  a  strong  and  general  move  to  decentralize  finances,  personnel  management  and  other  areas  from  state  level  to  local  (municipal)  level  and  in  many  cases  from  there  further  on  to  school  level.  Paral-­‐lel   to   the   decentralisation  many   educational   systems   have   re-­‐centralises   the   govern-­‐

65

   an ce  of  curriculum  and  subject  matters  by  prescribing  more  detailed  standards  and  aims   and   at   the   same   time   introduce   national   test   and   international   comparisons,  based  on  test.  

Whenever   the  educational   system   is   decentralized,   the  balance  between  professional  and  political  power  on  all  levels  in  the  system  is  changed.  The  responsibility  and  profes-­‐sional  ability   for  principals  and  teachers  are  enhanced  at   the  same  time  as  evaluation  becomes  an  important  instrument  for  governance.    

Systemic  evaluation  regimes  have  been  established  throughout  many  countries,  which  means   that   local   government,   schools,   teachers   and   pupils   are   subjected   to   external  evaluation  and  self-­‐evaluation   (Day  &  Leithwood,  2007).  Moreover,   the  state  uses  ac-­‐tively  financial  resource  allocation  in  combination  with  reporting  procedures  as  an  indi-­‐rect  control  instrument,  where  municipalities  have  to  report  their  use  of  financial  costs  and   human   resources   to   state   agencies   on   a   yearly   basis.     Finally,   accountability   is  strengthened   through  making   results   from  national   tests  and  evaluations  available  on  special  websites    

Taken   together,   a   general  picture  of  present   governance  model   appears   to  be  a   joint  regulatory  enterprise  between   the   state,   through  a   range  of   ‘hard’  and   ‘soft’   steering  instruments  and  quality  control,  and  the  municipality  sector  through  direct  ownership  and  decentralized  decision-­‐making  power.    There   is  a   ‘mix  mode’  of   regulation   that   is  important   for   understanding   the   current   context   of   leadership   at   different   levels   of  public  and  educational  governance  

 

 

Private  sector  inspiration  

Yet  another  trend  is  very  visible  too:  the  trend  towards  privatisation  or  towards  private-­‐like   forms   of   governance.   Instead   of   being   part   of   a   municipal   educational   system,  schools  can  be  autonomous  by  having  a  governing  board  of  it’s  own  that  is  accountable  directly   to   the   Ministry.   This   is   in   some   places   the   case   with   free   standing,   private  schools   and   it   is   the   case  with   all   secondary   schools   and   universities:  Most   of   the   fi-­‐nances   are  provided  by   the   state   according   to  number  of   students.   The   general   aims  and  curriculum,  the  standards  and  testing  are  still  national,  but  the  free  standing  school  is   free   to  manage  staff  and  operations.  This  means   they  can  hire  and   fire  and  set   the  wages  and  working  conditions  on  their  own.    

 

 

Improving  School  Leadership  

In  the  OECD  ‘Improving  School  Leadership’  project  (OECD,  2008)  the  wording,  autono-­‐my,  is  used  in  this  way:  

66

  The  emphasis  is  running  a  small  business,  managing  human  and  financial  resources  

and   adapting   the   teaching   programme.   Those   are   not   strategically   or   developmental  tasks  and  decisions,  but  operational  tasks  and  decisions.  

The  OECD  model  is  only  one  model  of  autonomy:  Decentralisation  of  governance  from  state   to   local   authorities   and   further  on   to   individual   schools.   This   leaves   school  with  more  self-­‐determination  on  how  to  spend  funding  (provided  totally  by  the  state),  how  to  manage  staff  and  their  terms  of  work  and  wages  and  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  operations.  The  couplings   to   local,  municipal   and  national   authorities  have  been   loosened  on   this   pa-­‐rameters,   but   the   aim   and   curriculum   of   education   has   been   tightened   at   the   same  time:  Standards  are  being  detailed  more  and  there  are  more  control  and  accountability.  This  autonomy  has  been  established  according  to  bureaucratic  and  market  place  logics,  using  new  social   technologies   like   tests   and  quality   reporting  or   inspection.   Following  those  trends   is  a   trend  to  empower  school   leaders  more   in   the  style  of  private  sector  top  down  management  and  leadership.  It  is  up  to  the  power-­‐relations  in  each  individual  school   to   find  appropriate  ways  of  planning  and  making  decisions:  More   is   left   to   the  leader,  but  she/he  can  choose  to  negotiate  and  give  professionals  room  for  deliberation  in  several  stages  of  decision  making.  

The  self-­‐governed   type  of  autonomous  schools  was  describe  above:  They  have  a  gov-­‐erning  board  of  it’s  own  that  is  accountable  to  the  state  for  finances  and  quality  of  edu-­‐cation.  These  schools  are  even  more  that  the  decentralised  schools  subject  to  competi-­‐tion   and   less   regulations   on   finances   –   even   if   70-­‐80   per   cent   of   their   incomes   stem  from  the  state.  

When  it  comes  to  the  room  for  manoeuvre,  it  is  difficult  to  give  a  clear  picture:  On  one  hand   more   room   is   left   to   schools   (i.g.:   school   leaders)   to   plan   and   act   on   finances  (within  tight  frames),  staff  management  and  operations.  At  the  same  time  it  seems  that  there  is  less  room  when  it  comes  to  teaching  and  learning  because  more  issues  in  cur-­‐riculum  are  described  and   tested  more  detailed.  The  national  governance   is   tight  and  aligned   to   international   trends   (comparisons   and   competitions   through   international  tests).    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

     

Questions  for  policy  reflections  on  autonomy  

The  example  has  touched  on  a  number  of  autonomy-­‐categories.  The  questions  illustrate  diverse  aspects  of  autonomy  in  education.  The  categories  are  necessary  to  reflect  upon,  when  determining  what  kind  of  autonomy  of  leadership  is  present  and  what  opportuni-­‐ties  for  equity  and  learning  should  be  developed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Autonomy  –  conception  preferred:  o Decentralisation  of  decisions  within   the  educational   system   from  state   to  

school,  preferably  with  bureaucratic  and  management  arguments  o Self-­‐governance/privatisation,   with   public-­‐private   and  market   place   argu-­‐

ments,  establishing  single  school  executive  boards,  accountable  to  state  2. Governance  –  logics  preferred:    

o Market  mechanisms:  choice,  competition,  top  down  leadership  o Bureaucratic  need  for  control  and  transparency  

3. Power  –  forms  preferred:    o Structural  power  like  budget  and  legislation  o Social  technologies  (e.g.:  test,  benchmarks,  protocols)    o Discursive   power   through   recommendations,   comparisons,   soft   govern-­‐

ance    4. Issues  –  to  be  decided  on:    

o School  frames:  Budget,  staff  management,  operations    o School  content:  Aims  and  curriculum  are  centralised,  national  

5. Room  for  manoeuvre  –  forms  preferred:    o Actors  participating  directly  in  decision  making    o Actors   deliberating,   negotiating   and   thus   participating   in   construction   of  

premises  for  decision  making  6. Responsibility  for  equity  and  learning  –  should  be  placed  at  which  level:    

o National   level,   responsible   for  societal   frames  and  aims,   like  social   justice  in  access  and  effects  of  education    

o Local  level,  responsible  for  community  frames  and  social  justice  o School   level,   responsible   for   treating   everybody   fairly,   equitable   and   for  

education  and  teaching    

Autonomy   Governance  

Power  

Issues  Room  

Responsibility  for  equity  and  learning  

Policy  Reflections  

68

   References  

Day,   C.,   &   Leithwood,   K.   (Eds.).   (2007).   Successful   Principal   Leadership   in   Times   of  Change.  Dordrecht:  Springer.  

OECD.   (1995).   Governance   in   Transition.   Public   management   Reforms   in   OECD  Countries.  Paris:  OECD.  

OECD.   (2008).   Improving   School   Leadership   (Official   Power   Point   Presentation).      Retrieved  May  19,  2013    

   

69