Article

International Patternsin Principal Preparation:Commonalities and Variationsin Pre-service Programmes

Allan Walker, Darren Bryant and Moosung Lee

AbstractThis article illuminates major features of high-quality leadership programmes across different edu-cation systems. We do so by focusing on capturing commonalities and variations in high-qualitypre-service programmes from five differing societies, all of which are high-performing educationsystems. To this end, we first delineate key profiles of each programme. Based on that, we discusscommonalities and variations in leadership programmes in terms of framework, content andoperational features. Finally, we flesh out important implications for policy and practice.

Keywordshigh-quality leadership programmes, international comparison, leadership development, pre-service programmes, principal, principal preparation

Introduction

Leadership is a critical determinant of organizational performance across organizations, including

schools (Barber et al., 2010; McCall, 1998). While often indirect, the impact of principals’ lead-

ership on various indicators of organizational capacity and performance is significant (Bryk et al.,

2010; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). In this context, increasing attention is being paid

internationally to developing high-quality school leadership programmes (Barber et al., 2010).

System leaders are enamoured by their potential to equip potential principals for their work by

emphasizing instructional and organizational leadership (Bush and Jackson, 2002). Following

general agreement of the importance of meaningful preparation to successful school leadership,

research has documented indicators and/or features of high-quality leadership programmes (for

example, Barber et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Huber and West, 2002; Peterson,

2002; Pounder, 2011). Empirical research in the USA points towards a consensus regarding

programme features that best prepare aspiring principals (Pounder, 2011).

Corresponding author:

Darren Bryant, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, SAR1 Hong Kong.

Email: dabryant@ied.edu.hk

Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership41(4) 405–434ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1741143213485466emal.sagepub.com

405

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Recognizing the need to expand our understanding of leadership preparation internationally,

this article aims to investigate how state-of-the-art leadership development has been conducted

across a number of different national contexts. Because purveyors of leadership preparation pro-

grammes look to practices elsewhere as models for improvement, this article will advance under-

standing of how programmes converge or are differentiated internationally by providing insights

into developing trajectories of principal preparation.

This article articulates the critical features of five principal preparation programmes selected

from Asia, North America and Australia by focusing on the following overarching question.

� How are the leadership preparation programmes similar or differentiated internationally?

We address this question by focusing on the following three sub-questions.

� Are there any common or different frameworks which bind leadership development

programmes with related leadership functions or local conditions?

� What major content areas are delivered through the programmes?

� How are programmes operationalized in terms of provider expertise, formal credentials and

participant selection?

Based on the answers to these questions, we provide a number of implications for principal lead-

ership programme development. In doing this, the article identifies major directions that principal

preparation programmes are taking to meet the complex needs of principals working in ever-

changing global contexts in general, and various forms of educational reforms in particular

(Cheng, 2009).

This article consists of five parts. First, it briefly reviews relevant literature in order to provide a

comparative analytic framework for this study. Second, it describes the methodology employed in

this study in terms of site selection, data collection and analysis. The third part delineates major

features of the programmes used for analysis. Fourth, the findings are analysed in terms of two

major analytic categories: programme commonalities and variations in context. Finally, implica-

tions for programme development are discussed in-depth.

Literature Review

Over the last 20 years, school principals’ work has increased in complexity in response to wide-

ranging reforms such as the coupling of school-based management with accountability measures

(Ball, 2008; Cheng, 2009; Gronn and Rawlings- Sanaei, 2003; Lee et al., 2012a; Lim, 2007; Walker

and Ko, 2011), standardized testing (Carnoy and Loeb, 2002) and the use of data related to student

learning outcomes to drive school improvement (Lee et al., 2012b). The pressures of implementing

such changes in schools, the skills needed to make them work and the time commitments required

have resulted in many potential leaders electing not to enter the principalship (Caldwell, 2003; Casa-

vant and Cherkowski, 2001; MacBeath, 2011; Walker and Kwan, 2010). In Asian societies, such as

Hong Kong and Singapore, this problem is not evident (Walker and Qian, 2006). Nevertheless, the

bulk of recent research on leadership preparation has been conducted in western societies.

Within this context, preparing effective school leaders has been placed at the core of many edu-

cational reform agendas (Bryant et al., 2012) and has been the subject of much research. Indeed,

recent studies have focused on indicators of effectiveness of high-quality leadership programmes.

For example, Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) studied eight pre-service principal training

406 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

406

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

programmes in the USA, which were selected for their strong outcomes. Despite varied

approaches, the following features were embedded in each:

� the alignment of a coherent curriculum with externally developed state and/or professional

standards;

� an emphasis on instructional leadership and school improvement to guide the programme

philosophy and curriculum;

� the use of active and student-centred learning strategies;

� a teaching faculty that includes practitioners and scholars who are experts in their fields;

� diverse support structures such as formal mentoring systems and cohorts;

� a rigorous approach to participant selection;

� supervised internships or school attachments.

Consistent with these indicators, the overall trajectory of leadership preparation programmes

has converged across different societies. Based on our previous work (Walker et al., 2011), we

particularly note this convergence in terms of three interdependent components of leadership

programmes – that is, framework, content and operation.

With the increasing global emphasis on accountability, states or professional associations

frequently mandate leadership frameworks that are centrally defined and aligned to district or state

level educational policies (Bryant et al., 2012). Within jurisdictions, various providers may be

endorsed to deliver leadership programmes that meet the requirements stipulated in the frame-

works. A possible consequence of this alignment is a narrowed choice of programme content and

learning outcomes for aspiring leaders, regardless of the selected provider (Huber and West, 2002;

Roach et al., 2011).

Although conducted mostly in western countries, previous research suggests a high level of com-

monality in the content of contemporary leadership development programmes. For example, Bush

and Jackson’s (2002: 421) study of leadership preparation programmes in North Carolina, Ontario

and England found a shared emphasis on organizational, transformational and instructional leader-

ship as well as traditional content areas such as ‘professional development, finance, curriculum, and

external relations’.

A body of research also shows that common features embedded in leadership programmes include

the engagement of participants in the field through experiences such as internships or university–

district partnerships (for example, Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Perez et al., 2011; Piggot-Irvine,

2011). Both tactics aim to address the provision of authentic leadership experiences for pro-

gramme participants. Perez et al.’s (2011: 217) study of an 18-month-long field experience

found that participants developed a better understanding of school leadership’s complexity and

particularly in ‘the leader’s role in fostering trust and relationships, encouraging collaboration,

and building leadership capacity within schools’. The internship serves to contextualize skills

that are otherwise explored through simulations, case studies and problem-based learning, learn-

ing strategies that fall short of ‘the same urgency, sense of responsibility, and discomfort’

(Perez et al., 2011: 218–219) encountered in the principalship. In such programmes, field

experiences form the ‘centerpiece’ of authentic leader development.

Another notable common feature is participation in action-oriented projects and experiential

project based learning that allow application of learning in real-world contexts. Findings by

Piggot-Irvine (2011) suggest that for such approaches to be effective they require careful delinea-

tion of scope, time constraints and support from academic staff and/or mentors. This suggests that

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 407

407

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

leadership projects would benefit from being coupled with extended periods in the field and well-

developed mentorship structures. In sum, over the last decade ‘traditional’ (Grogan et al., 2009)

programmes held only in university classrooms have given way to school-based leadership devel-

opment that emphasizes learning through practice in context (Piggot-Irvine, 2011).

Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) suggest that excellent leadership programmes demonstrate pos-

itive relationships between universities and districts. More specifically, Sanzo et al. (2011) report

that when courses are taught in an integrated fashion involving both university faculty and district

leadership, participants seemed more able to connect theory to practice.

Many of the above developments reflect a swing towards learning through practice. This devel-

opment has been reinforced in many countries by the involvement of professional associations,

unions and non-governmental agencies as programme providers – alone or in partnership with

universities – and/or as contributors to state leadership frameworks (Bryant et al., 2012; Huber,

2004; MacBeath, 2011).

All these features illustrate a degree of convergence in terms of the operational features in

current leadership development programmes; however, we also contend that differing district and

national contexts impact on the operation of leadership development programmes (Leithwood and

Levin, 2008). Operationalizing leadership programmes seems to be inextricably intertwined with

local needs or local leadership cultures. Thus, whereas contemporary leadership programmes

employ similar features in terms of framework and content, state goals and local needs signifi-

cantly impact on enactment (Bryant et al., 2012). Given that most previous research targeted

western-based leadership programmes, we believe that a focus on eastern societies may help iden-

tify variations. For instance, systems such as Hong Kong and Singapore that perform at the high

end of international measures and which retain examination-oriented cultures, may honour differ-

ing values that inform leadership preparation. We believe that capturing both commonality and

variations in quality leadership programmes will provide a fuller picture for school leadership

programme developers and policymakers. This perspective sets the scene of our inquiry.

Methodology

Site Selection

For the purposes of this study, we identified five leadership programmes from five different soci-

eties for analysis (that is, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the USA). Given the aim

to draw international comparisons in leadership preparation, selection criteria addressed congru-

ence around indicators of excellence and diversity of context.

At the state level, each of the selected programmes is located in jurisdictions reported as top

performers in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We recognize that

PISA results do not evidence a direct relationship to leadership preparation. However, PISA results

are closely followed by policymakers, stimulate international competition and legitimate reform

efforts (Afonso and Costa, 2009; Rautalin and Alasuutari, 2009). High performing societies

become magnets of interest for researchers and policymakers looking for strategies to improve

their own educational systems (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). Accordingly, performance on PISA is

recognized in consultancy reports (Barber et al., 2010), policy papers (National Governors

Association et al., 2008) and academic research (Matthews et al., 2008) on school leadership, and

informs our selection. Each of the jurisdictions selected for study performs in the top 10 of PISA

measures. Further, the selected programmes are offered in jurisdictions identified for excellence in

408 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

408

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

educational leadership (Barber et al., 2010). Given the diverse performance on PISA that is found

within large federations such as the USA and Canada, this helped to narrow our selection

(for example, to specify New York and Ontario).

The five programmes were selected to illuminate commonalities and variations in high-quality

pre-service programmes, which aim to develop key knowledge and skills of individual leaders.

However, we note that there is substantial critique of this structural-functionalist approach to stud-

ies on leadership development programmes (Gronn, 2003; O’Reilly and Reid, 2010; Simkins,

2012). Specifically, Gronn’s conceptualization of ‘designer leadership’ problematizes current

leadership development programmes which are predominantly aligned with standards-based

approaches. Based on Foucault’s concept of ‘disciplined subjectivity’, Gronn (2003: 283–284)

argues that both aspiring and practizing leaders are expected to subject themselves to standards-

based leadership development programmes by ‘acting in conformity with a leadership design

blueprint’ which is ‘accredited by the standardizers, typically a state agency’ such as the National

College for School Leadership. For Gronn, standards-based leadership development programmes

are viewed as social apparatuses to achieve disciplined subjectivity. Similarly based on the Fou-

cauldian perspective, O’Reilly and Reid (2010: 960) posit that there has been ‘an emerging set

of beliefs that frames and justifies certain innovatory changes in contemporary organizational and

managerial practice’, which they call ‘leaderism’. They further argue that leaderism as a public

policy discourse is predominantly permeated in current leadership development programmes in the

UK and that it functions as a social and organizational technology for control. In line with this

problematization of current leadership development programmes, Simkins (2012: 634) suggests

more studies on leadership development programmes from constructivist perspectives in that the

goals and outcomes of leadership development programmes may be contested areas and ‘the

formation of leader identity is at least as significant an issue as the development of specific skills

and qualities’. Reflecting such substantial critique, we wish to note that follow-up studies using

critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995, 2003) are needed for analysing goals, strategies and

outcomes embedded in leadership development programmes with more critical perspectives.

At the programme level, selection criteria used recently delineated research-based indicators of

exemplary leadership programmes with high performance outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al.,

2010). These include alignment to ‘state and professional standards’, an emphasis on ‘instructional

leadership and school improvement’, student-centred learning, knowledgeable faculty, cohort

structures, ‘formalized mentoring and advisement’, rigorous participant selection and site-based

internships (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010: 181–182). Although the selected programmes share

such features, commonalities and variations in their development, employment and emphases need

to be further understood. Selecting programmes with broadly shared features allow for a more

fine-grained analysis of similarities and distinctives.

Each programme leads to a credential accredited by regulatory agencies or universities. We

exempted Victoria, Australia from this final selection criterion in order to meet selection criteria

for the diversity necessary to obtain an international perspective on principal preparation in high

performing educational systems. Additionally, we justify this decision because of anecdotal evi-

dence suggesting that the state’s various leadership development programmes, while not required,

are figuring as important in leader recruitment. We note that of the top ranked PISA performers,

most do not have required pre-services preparation programmes, which eliminated countries such

as Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands from our selection.

Finally, we limited our study to systems that operate leadership programmes in the medium of

English. This served practically to assist in data collection and analysis as the selected systems had

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 409

409

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

documents in English which were publically available on the Internet or by request.The selection cri-

teria in terms of congruence are summarized in Table 1.1 Table 1 also presents the selection criteria

applied for diversity. This reflects variation in geographic location and culture (Asia, Australia and

North America), in qualification system structures (from centralized and required to decentralized and

not required), variation in testing and performance cultures, in political systems (federal and unitary

states), and in programme providers (universities, professional associations and non-governmental

agencies). Our selection does not cover all possible high performing programmes, however we con-

tend that it exemplifies a diverse enough range of systems, providers and programmes from which to

inform our conclusions about commonality and variation in international programmes.

Sources and Data Collection

The data set comprises reviews of programme evaluation reports, in-house materials such as syllabi

and Internet searches. Each of the researchers initially explored different programmes, contacted key

personnel, searched the Internet, and uncovered academic papers and internal documents related to

the specific programmes. While Internet data often provided the general structure of programmes, the

evaluation reports, programme guidelines and interviews served to tease out key or unique features of

each. (See Appendix 1 for sources in addition to those provided in the reference list.)

Analytical Strategies

We devised a comparative analytic framework based on our review of extant literature. Leithwood

and Levin’s (2008) leadership development typology informed the initial draft of the framework

(their influence is referenced in the framework in Appendix 2). Leithwood and Levin (2008)

observe a lack of a comprehensive leadership typology. Accordingly, through the literature review

we identified other facets of leadership preparation programmes and wrote descriptors of each in

order to build a broader analytic typology. We used each item in the expanded typology to guide

our initial analysis. We met regularly throughout the process of data collection and analysis to

review and revise the conceptual framework. We added, merged and renamed the codes iteratively.

Renaming or developing new codes proved essential.2

Table 1. Selection criteria.

Congruence Diversity

State levelindicators

Top performers on PISA In geographical location and culture (Hong Kong,Singapore, Australia, Ontario, New York)

Recognition in consultancy reports In political system: federations and unitary statesIn educational system (for example, testing and

performance cultures)Programme

levelindicators

Provide accredited credential In principal qualification regulation (fromcentralized and required to decentralized andnot required)

Qualification as a requirement forprincipal appointment (exceptAustralia)

Degree bearing and non-degree bearingprogramme.

Meets criteria of exemplary leadershipprogramme.

Providers range from universities, to professionalassociations, to not-for-profit agencies.

410 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

410

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Initially, the literature review suggested multiple content areas. While we used these to code pro-

grammes, given that our purpose aimed for comparison we used a constant comparative approach

(Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2007) to identify content common across the five programmes.

This process led to the creation of a separate code to stress the prominent or distinctive features of the

respective programmes. The source of content also emerged as significant given the varied roles of

frameworks, academics and practitioners in structuring and delivering programme content.

Nearer to the end of our analysis we arranged the codes under five broad themes: purpose,

framework, content, delivery and operational features. However, in this paper we limit our discus-

sion to the three themes that emerged as most significant and interrelated:3 framework, content and

operational features. For example, frameworks often inform content areas, operationalize pro-

gramme purposes and drive programme features and delivery. Although we do not analyse purpose

and delivery, these overlapping influences and connections are explored later in this article.

As we developed new codes, we wrote new definitions as a ‘code book’ that provided ‘obser-

vable boundaries’ for each code (Quartaroli, 2009: 265) and met frequently to ensure consistency

in our application of the codes to analysing the respective programmes. Where applicable we

followed Leithwood and Levin’s (2008) model of defining each code along a continuum that

expresses a range of possible manifestations. To reflect this range in the coding process, we

devised key word descriptors, or sub-codes (see Appendix 2).4

In order to organize the data in a manner suitable for comparison, we constructed a range of data

displays (Miles and Huberman, 1994) for each programme. The displays took the form of matrices

to summarize the data and partially ordered displays to evaluate the interrelationship among pro-

gramme components (that is, codes). Within the cells of each matrix we placed extracts from the

raw data, summaries and/or keyword descriptors. This provided a basis for cross-case comparison.

We worked together to reduce the data (further honing our codebook) and create cross case

matrixes to compare the data across programmes. The displays (further reduced into Appendix 3)

provided the basis for writing up the findings.

Programme Profiles, Contexts and Frameworks

In this section, we describe key features of the selected programmes and some of their distinctive

features in order to provide readers with profiles of each programme, their respective frameworks

and the contexts in which they operate.

Canada (Ontario): Principals Qualification Programme (PQP)

In Canada, the province of Ontario has long mandated a pre-service qualification for entry into the prin-

cipalship, termed the Principals Qualification Programme (PQP). The PQP is regulated by the Ontario

College of Teachers (OCT), which mandates programme expectations, content requirements and

learning outcomes. The OCT also accredits providers, which include six universities and three profes-

sional associations (Ontario College of Teachers, 2011). The OCT’s guidelines in turn cohere to the

Ontario Leadership Framework, developed by the Institute for Education Leadership (IEL, 2008),

which cites Leithwood et al.’s (2006) influential research synthesis as providing the framework’s

theoretical underpinnings. These informed four of the framework’s leadership domains (IEL, 2008):

� setting directions;

� building relationships and developing people;

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 411

411

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

� developing the organization;

� leading the instructional programme.5

In sum, the framework used in Ontario is research informed, adapted by the IEL, mandated by

the OCT and implemented by different providers. In addition, beyond training for aspiring princi-

pals, the framework informs various facets of leader development, including mentoring (Ontario,

2010a), and performance appraisal (Ontario, 2010b) and is delineated for principals, district

supervisors, and government and Catholic schools.

We have selected the PQP delivered by the Ontario Principals Council (OPC) for analysis. The

OPC, as the professional association for principals, offers a programme distinctive from those

typically run through universities. The OPC delivers the PQP throughout the province in urban and

rural districts, making it one of the most widely distributed leadership programmes in the province.

This scope is reflected in the number of candidates who complete the programme annually, placing

the OPC as the PQP’s largest provider. While the PQP does not award a postgraduate degree, agree-

ments between the OPC and three universities in Canada, Australia and the UK allow credit to be

transferred into master’s degree programmes offered by the respective universities.

Australia (Victoria): Master of School Leadership (MSL)

The Australian state of Victoria has placed leadership development as key to the state’s school

improvement efforts (Elmore, 2007). This has led to the creation of the Bastow Institute of Edu-

cational Leadership, an agency within the Department of Education and Early Childhood Devel-

opment (DEECD), which supports leadership development for current and aspiring school leaders.

It is responsible for the implementation of the government’s Developmental Learning Framework

for School Leaders (Department of Education, 2007). The framework is derived from the work of

Sergiovanni (1984, 2005) and accordingly targets the following domains.

� Technical: Thinks and plans strategically, aligns resources with desired outcomes, holds self

and others to account.

� Human: Advocates for all students; develops relationships; develops individual collective

capacity.

� Educational: Shapes pedagogy; focuses on achievement; promotes enquiry and reflection.

� Symbolic: Develops and manages self; aligns actions with shared values; creates and shares

knowledge.

� Cultural: Shapes future; develops a unique school culture; sustains partnerships and

networks. (Department of Education, 2007)

It provides competency indicators for each domain and informs principal induction, development,

selection, mentoring, succession planning and professional learning (Department of Education, 2007).

In Victoria, there is no single credential required of principals; however, the Bastow Institute

has developed a range of pathways for leader development. These range from weekend workshops

to a 2-year Master of School Leadership (MSL) delivered by two providers: the University of

Melbourne and Monash University (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development,

2010). The Bastow Institute serves to regulate and accredit the MSL. We focused on the MSL

delivered by the University of Melbourne as it is the state’s largest university, a significant inter-

national leader in educational research, and a major provider of pre- and in-service training for

teachers and leaders in Victoria.

412 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

412

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Singapore: Leaders in Education Programme (LEP)

Since 1997, Singapore’s educational reforms have been aligned with its vision of ‘Thinking

Schools, Learning Nation’ and further specified in 2005 through the state’s policy initiative ‘Teach

Less Learn More (TLLM)’ (Ng, 2008, Ministry of Education [MOE], 2005). Under TLLM, the

role of school leaders has been redefined to stress the development of creative and innovative

transformational leaders, and instructional leaders capable of creating and implementing innova-

tive programmes for diverse learners (MOE, 2005; National Institute of Education [NIE], 2010).

The underlying goals of this vision are summarized as (1) developing all students into lifelong

learners through critical thinking, (2) forging creativity and entrepreneurship in schools and (3)

creating a culture of learning and innovation across various societal sectors and levels (Ng,

2008). To achieve these goals, Singapore mandates a single pathway to the principalship through

the Leaders in Education Programme (LEP), which in 2001 replaced the Diploma in Educational

Administration. It is delivered only by the NIE.

In keeping with government policy, the LEP draws its framework from international models,

which are adapted to focus on promoting creativity, innovation, diversity and distributed leader-

ship. To provide a coherent framework to deliver these aims, Singapore, like Victoria, draws on

Sergiovanni’s Five Forces of Leadership but also applies Howard Gardner’s (2008) Five Minds

for the Future to identify key competences and attitudes, termed mind-sets, that are ‘needed to per-

form the roles’ (NIE, 2011: 5–6). Summarizing Gardner (2008: 3):

� the disciplined mind develops expertise in ‘at least one discipline’ that entails a specific set

of skills, knowledge and understanding;

� the synthesizing mind collects, analyses, evaluates and synthesizes information from wide-

ranging sources;

� the creating mind moves knowledge ahead of technological advances through innovative

questioning and thinking;

� the respectful mind, cognizant of the globalized world’s interconnectivity, negotiates differ-

ences among individuals and societies;

� the ethical mind acts for the greater social good over self-interest.

The framework, developed by faculty at the NIE and endorsed by the MOE is applied narrowly

to the LEP, for which it was specifically created.

Hong Kong: Certification for Principalship (CFP)

Until 1999, leadership preparation in Hong Kong followed no clear and coherent pathway. A shift

towards involving academics and practitioners in developing and delivering a mandatory leader-

ship preparation credential occurred in response to two consultation reports in 1999 and 2002,

resulting in establishing the Certification for Principalship (CFP) as a mandatory entry requirement

for principals. Currently, the government licenses three providers, all tertiary institutes, to deliver

the CFP. Providers must demonstrate an alignment of the programme they designed to a required

framework, Key Qualities of the Principalship in Hong Kong (Education Department, 2002;

Walker et al., 2002; Walker and Kwong, 2006).

The Hong Kong framework is located in a wide range of international research, which has been

adapted in response to research conducted on leadership in the Hong Kong context (Walker et al.,

2002). It comprises four leadership domains:

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 413

413

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

� strategic leadership;

� instructional leadership;

� organizational leadership; and

� community leadership.

These in turn inform six core areas of programme foci:

� strategic direction and policy environment;

� learning, teaching and curriculum;

� teacher professional growth and development;

� staff and resources management;

� quality assurance and accountability;

� external communication; and

� connection to the outside world.

The six core areas are further delineated by a structure of values, knowledge, skills and attributes

that guide leadership development programmes for aspiring principals, which the CFP targets, newly

appointed principals and serving principals (Education Department, 2002).

The United States (New York City): Aspiring Principals Programme (APP)

New York City comprises the largest public school district in the USA. Its recent reform efforts

explicitly highlight leadership, empowerment and accountability as three key pillars in reform. These

aim to close the achievement gap by stressing high standards for students and the use of data to drive

improvement and shape accountability processes (Fryer, 2011). Within this context, the New York

City Leadership Academy’s (NYCLA) Aspiring Principals Programme (APP) has demonstrated its

success in raising student outcomes (Corcoran et al., 2009).

The APP programme framework differs from the PQP and MSL in that it is developed by the

provider, the NYCLA and derived from multiple standards set at the national, state and city levels.

Termed the Leadership Performance Standards Matrix, the framework emphasizes transforma-

tional and instructional leadership and drives content and assessment across 12 dimensions:

� personal behaviour;

� resilience;

� communication;

� focus on student performance;

� situational problem-solving;

� learning;

� accountability for professional practice;

� supervision;

� leadership development;

� climate and culture;

� time, task and project management, and;

� technology. (NYCLA, 2012)

This framework guides ‘participant selection, curricular scope, assignments, programme

advancement, interventions and the comprehensive evaluation of each participant’ (NYCLA,

414 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

414

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2012). Graduates must demonstrate competency in each dimension, further delineated by 55 beha-

vioural criteria, which are in turn defined along a continuum of not meeting, progressing towards

and meeting the standard. The Matrix has in turn been applied to the development of a Leadership

Performance Planning Worksheet in conjunction with the states of Delaware and Kentucky and the

Wallace Foundation. The Worksheet is used in the development of novice principals and is aligned

to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008),

which are derived from a database of 83 international empirical studies and 47 other references.

In this sense, the NYCLA’s Matrix has wide influence, although not through the initial mandate

of a singular state regulator.

Commonalities and Variations in Leadership Preparation Programmes

Frameworks

The preceding section points to several commonalities in terms of programme frameworks. The for-

mation of frameworks is significantly influenced by governments, central/district offices and/or inter-

national pools of research, and are mediated by regulating agencies and programme providers.

Typically, the frameworks do not stand in isolation, but are often applied or adapted to guide a range

of leadership development strategies and programmes. Framework developers look to extant interna-

tionally respected theories and/or empirical research to underpin them but make adaptations to account

for the local context. Ontario does so by adding a fifth dimension to the Leithwood et al.’s (2006)

framework, Hong Kong by adjusting international findings to account for local leadership research,

and Singapore by focusing the framework on national policy concerns of nation building and interna-

tional competitiveness. In the case of New York’s APP, standards are developed from a range of

sources and are focused locally on leadership preparation in underperforming schools.

Variations occur in the source of the frameworks and in their application. The programmes in

Ontario, Hong Kong and New York look to syntheses of research from which programme standards

and structures are derived. Ontario applies a synthesis by Leithwood et al. (2006) originally pub-

lished by England’s National College of School Leaders, so in a sense borrows an extant framework

that informs practices elsewhere. Hong Kong’s framework is derived from an international synthesis

of literature filtered through research on leadership in the local context, and the NYC Leadership

Academy on a synthesis of standards which are in turn underpinned by research. The Singaporean

and Australian programmes provide interesting variations. Although both articulate explicit frame-

works, rather than being derived from large-scale research syntheses, they are inspired by Sergiovan-

ni’s model which in turn is based on empirical research.

Common Content Areas

We note that each programme emphasizes facets of instructional and transformative leadership and

addresses specific topics as determined by their respective frameworks. As presented in Appendix

3, there is a great deal of commonality across a plurality of topics. The most salient common

feature across the programmes is that ‘content is to some extent determined in the form of centrally

defined competency frameworks’ (Ontario, Victoria and Hong Kong) or ‘frameworks developed

by the provider but which draw on a range of sources for their construction’ (Singapore and New

York). Where content expectations are delineated by regulators, providers shape programme con-

tent by allocating instructional resources, determining assessment strategies and stressing areas of

respective expertise. Coupled with this overall commonality across programmes (see Appendix 3

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 415

415

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

for more details about commonality), we wish to highlight that there are context-specific variations

across programmes, which are teased out below in detail. Variations in context and content source

shape programme foci, at time narrowing the focus to the needs of communities and students.

Key Foci

National and Local Contexts. By analysing the programmes comparatively, contextual features

emerge as drivers of content selection. In some instances, statutory or national aims determine the

key areas of content foci. The OPC’s PQP programme draws particular attention to issues pertain-

ing to inclusion and diversity, which reflects Canada’s constitutional status as a multicultural and

bilingual country, and legislative requirements to address issues of access for aboriginal peoples as

well as those with learning and developmental challenges (Ontario Principals’ Council, 2011a,

2011b). The content of Singapore’s LEP aligns to aims of nation-building in an era marked by

international competitiveness, globalization and societal change. This includes an emphasis on

knowledge creation and innovation, the development of networks, understanding international and

corporate leadership contexts, and social constructivist processes (MOE, 2005; NIE, 2010, 2011).

To provide instruction in these areas, the LEP comprises foundational coursework at the NIE, a

school attachment in which candidates are meant to generate innovative solutions to problems

of practice, a school based ‘Creative Action Project’ and participation in a learning community

called the ‘Learning Syndicate’ as well as ‘management dialogue sessions’ and industrial attach-

ments (LEP, 2011). In Victoria, the state’s emphasis on leadership development informs MSL con-

tent through the government’s Developmental Learning Framework and to 13 core leadership

modules developed by the Bastow Institute. In contrast to the state defining content, New York

City’s APP targets concerns of the local school district, which includes a large number of inner

city schools. Local need drives its focus, emphasizing instructional leadership as the way to nar-

row the achievement gap. This specifically involves leadership preparation for instructional

improvement in low-performing schools located in high poverty communities.

Sources of Content

In each of the programmes, content is derived from leadership frameworks, however other factors

may shape programme specificity.

Student and Community Need. Hong Kong’s CFP addresses all of the common content areas, but a

dual emphasize on a needs analysis (for example, participants’ self-analysis) and the academic–

practitioner nexus shapes programme content. The needs analysis forms a profile for individual

participants that is based on ‘extensive multi-point feedback’ (Walker and Kwong, 2006: 8). Par-

ticipants respond to the needs analysis by creating a learning portfolio that demonstrates their

in-school learning development. Instructors, mentors and syndicate group leaders, who are senior

school principals, use individual needs-analysis results to provide feedback and guide participants’

development. The needs analyses are in turn used to create a cohort profile that allows instructors

to tailor the content of subsequent modules to address the identified learner needs in alignment to

the framework. In the OPC’s PQP, the involvement of practitioners, serving principals and district

specialists, as primary instructional leaders, guest lecturers and mentors is intended to permit a

focus on the particular needs of the wide-ranging communities in which the programme is

delivered.

416 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

416

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Professional and Academic Content. Providers’ expertise, and that of their faculty members, focus

programme content. The OPC’s status as a professional organization gives its PQP curriculum

writers access to its counselling and legal arms. This informs content pertaining to law and ethics,

giving it particular currency in these areas. In New York, the APP’s content, skills and assessment

are delivered in a 6-week summer intensive course and through leadership development sessions

during a 10-month school residency. However, the interpretation or emphasis of content within

these components are influenced by the contextual aims of the programme and its strong practi-

tioner orientation, with instructors and mentors comprised of current and retired school leaders and

district personnel. Melbourne’s MSL emphasizes leaders’ self-knowledge through ‘positive psy-

chology’ to ground effective leaders (Waters and Luck, 2011), apparently drawing on the academic

expertise of the programme director in organizational psychology. Delivered by a major research

university, the MSL programme provides students with access to international researchers via the

University of Melbourne faculty and visiting academics. The MSL differs from the other pro-

grammes we examined given its exceptionally strong emphasis on developing leaders as research-

ers who make contributions to theory through action research. Thus, in addition to being guided by

a mandated framework, content is shaped by the particular expertise of its academics, who provide

a stronger academic orientation than the other models examined.

The above indicates that while frameworks, often informed by state legislation, determine the

primary content direction, content specification is mediated by identified student community needs

and the particular expertise and organizational purposes of the providers.

Operational Features

The Practitioner Turn. Perhaps of greatest significance is the trend towards practitioners taking on

expanded roles in leadership preparation. Across all programmes, practitioners play crucial roles

in providing guidance to aspiring leaders through mentorship or job shadowing in participants’

own schools or in schools allocated by the respective programmes. Practitioners tend to be

involved in all aspects of the programme including on-site or in-class mentoring, formative and

summative feedback, and, particularly in the OPC’s PQP and NYCLA’s APP, as formal instructors

and assessors, replacing positions conventionally held by university staff. Practitioners are seen to

lend credibility by providing relevant tacit knowledge that permits the tailoring of programmes to

the needs and resources of the local district, school and community context. The use of profes-

sional mentors in Victoria or district leaders in Ontario also provides the potential of contextualiz-

ing the content and skills articulated in the framework. Whereas Hong Kong’s CFP, the University

of Melbourne’s MSL, and the NIE’s LEP emphasize content derived from research and academic

networks, they still use practitioners as the oil to make the programmes work.

Tripartite Collaboration. Selected leadership programmes depend on the tripartite collaboration

among government/regulator, provider and schools. This collaboration informs the development

of leadership frameworks, programme regulation and content. Although the relationship of regu-

lator to provider often appears mandated, the development of programme requirements may

emerge through consultative processes. For instance, in Ontario providers were included in plan-

ning the redevelopment of the PQP requirements. Tripartite collaboration permits multiple provi-

ders to deliver the programmes in a manner that ensures some continuity in philosophy and content

and simultaneously catering for local needs by drawing on local expertise. In most programmes,

this occurs at the school level where mentors guide aspiring leaders in their development. The MSL

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 417

417

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

exemplifies tripartite collaboration in that participants work with three mentors reflecting profes-

sional, academic and in-school programme aims. This mirrors the tripartite aims of encouraging

participants’ progression along the developmental framework, honing their skills as researchers

and ensuring that their work meets school needs.

Provider Expertise. Across the systems studied, elements of choice are offered to candidates. For all but

Singapore, candidates may choose from different providers. The aspect of providing some measure of

choice to leadership candidates appears a significant operational feature of leadership training

programmes. However, once admitted to an individual programme limited choice is offered as candi-

dates progress as cohorts thorough a prescribed curriculum. The providers we examined in Ontario,

New York, Victoria and Hong Kong are each among one of several in the respective jurisdictions. Pro-

grammes are shaped by the providers’ particular expertise. Programmes offered by professional asso-

ciations and not-for profit groups draw on networks and resources that differ from university-based

programmes. They tend to emphasize practitioner orientations, local networks, and content derived

from professional sources. For example, the OPC draws on its professional networks to identify top

school leaders to act as instructors.

Formal Credentials. The programmes deliver a range of credential options. All but the MSL leads to

a formal and required licensure needed to become a principal. However, anecdotal evidence sug-

gests that the MSL is becoming a highly regarded credential for school principals. In addition to

formal licensure, some programmes offer pathways to academic credentials, although in different

ways. The MSL alone terminates in a postgraduate degree. However, in Ontario, the OPC is

affiliated with universities in Canada, Australia and the UK which recognize its PQP as partial

credit towards their master degree programmes. In Hong Kong, all providers are universities and

the CFP is recognized as postgraduate credit at the discretion of the various universities. The

Singaporean and New York programmes lead to the earning of a license but not a postgraduate

degree.

Selection. All programmes have rigorous selection criteria, which typically require the prior completion

of other academic or professional development programmes as well as the endorsement of a partici-

pants’ supervisor. In Ontario, Melbourne and Hong Kong, qualified participants may join the respec-

tive programme. This broad based selection contrasts with New York and Singapore in which

applicants compete for limited places. New York selects only 23 per cent of applicants – those consid-

ered most likely to succeed in the challenging inner city context (NYCLA, 2011) – whereas Singapore

limits places to vice-principals and Ministry of Education officers, which also selects participants. This

limited selection may also reflect the framework and local goals of the respective programme.

Conclusion

Summary

We identified that the overall trajectories of leadership preparation programmes have converged

across the five high-performing education systems in terms of three interdependent programme

components – that is, framework, content and operation. Apart from these commonalities, we also

note that differing local and national contexts have an impact on creating variations in terms of the

enactment of the programme. These are summarized (see Appendix 3) as follows.

418 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

418

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

First, major commonalities in terms of framework include:

� frameworks are based in empirically grounded research or theory;

� frameworks are derived from research syntheses or widely respected international sources;

� frameworks provide the potential of a common leadership language across the respective

jurisdiction;

� frameworks are adjusted to suit jurisdictional needs.

At the same time, however, major variations range from:

� explicitly articulated to programme structure to implicitly applied in instructional tools;

� derived from a synthesis of research to derived from a singular theoretical construct;

� mandated from the top (Ontario, Hong Kong and Victoria) or framed by programme developers

(Singapore and New York).

Second, with respect to content, major commonalities include:

� established frameworks drive overarching content;

� provider expertise determine specific foci;

� practitioner involvement supports contextualization of content;

Content tends to emphasize a change orientation and stresses instructional and transformational

leadership. Content variations include:

� specific programme foci are dictated by local concerns as mediated by the particular expertise

of academic and/or practitioners;

� content ranges from addressing ‘national’ priorities such as globalization and the knowledge

society (Hong Kong and Singapore) to more pragmatic concerns of the ‘local’ context (for

example, NYC on closing the achievement).

Finally, major commonalities in terms of operational features include:

� programmes accept aspiring and potential principals;

� programmes have admission requirements (for example, experience and professional

qualification);

� successful completion of a programme results in formal licensure/certification – this is

required by the system although some provide credit toward formal degrees;

� programmes are offered by multiple providers who are centrally selected/regulated (except

Singapore);

� practitioners’ roles in programmes are expanding as programmes emphasize contextualized

knowledge and skills.

The variations of operational features are summarized as follows.

� Some programmes (for example, the cases of Singapore and New York City) involve a

limited number of fully funded places to attract a wider range of talent.

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 419

419

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

� Other programmes (for example, the cases of Hong Kong and Ontario) focus more on wider

access to potential leaders and so an expanded pool of future principals. (In Ontario’s case,

completion rates now exceed principal positions.)

� As such, programmes which encourage wide access are offered on a part-time basis

(Ontario, Melbourne-Victoria, Hong Kong); highly selective programmes (New York City

and Singapore) are offered only on a full-time basis.

� While programmes depend on a tripartite partnership among academics, practitioners and

bureaucrats, variation in operational features across programmes is shaped by the key

providers’ particular expertise and emphasis.

Implications for Policy, Practice and Research

To this point we have posited a typology of leadership development programmes and used this to

described five high-quality leader development programmes and outline key areas around which

programmes share commonality and exhibit variations. These findings point to several features

that researchers and providers of leader development programmes may consider.

First, leadership frameworks inform each programme. How broadly these frameworks are

applied vary. The benefits of aligning all leadership development and evaluation in a jurisdiction

to a common framework allows for a common leadership language to be shared among govern-

ment, regulators, providers and participants across a system. This may further promote opportuni-

ties for continued professional learning in networks across schools (for example, networked

learning communities). Such benefits should be considered in light of the need to maintain the

flexibility of providers to address local needs in context. In brief, programme developers may

consider the impact of broadly applied leadership frameworks when they further develop or revise

programmes for potential/aspiring principals.

Second, a wide degree of openness to participation of qualified candidates may impact healthily

on a system’s leadership language and networks for those who wish to build their leadership capac-

ity without aspiring to the principalship immediately. Where programmes allow all qualified

candidates to participate they may provide a vehicle to broadening the pool of school leaders with

diverse backgrounds. As Ontario, Victoria and Hong Kong apply their frameworks to a wide range

of programmes, admitting participants who may not become principals serves to increase the

capacity of middle leaders who share a common leadership language. Multiple providers enable

a broad scope of admissions. Possible merits of this model would include that the potential of

leadership preparation programmes to train numbers beyond the positions immediately available

for the principalship may provide the potential of a common leadership language (Walker et al.,

2011), and may serve to encourage teachers to see themselves as leaders (Townsend, 2011). This

may increasingly boost a shared understanding of leadership among teacher-leaders at various

levels within a school, not just principal aspirants. And from a practical point of view, accepting

large numbers of candidates who meet admission requirements for programmes (for example, the

Hong Kong and Ontario programmes) would ease the issue of principal shortage in high-needs

schools. For example, unlike many inner city and poor US school districts (Owings et al.,

2011), completion rates of leadership development programmes dramatically exceed principal

positions in Ontario.

Third, at the same time, programmes that are highly selective/competitive and provide a

limited number of places (for example, the cases of Singapore and New York City) may pro-

mote (1) smoother, more predictable programme operation or management, (2) programmes

420 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

420

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

that can be organized and implemented around team-based learning units, (3) participants who

can access more customized and intensive learning opportunities and (4) given that the pro-

grammes involve a limited number of fully funded places they may be more attractive to a

wider range of talent. Reflecting differing merits between programmes focusing on greater

openness and those emphasizing selective participation, we wish to emphasize that a guiding

principle may concern the extent to which a jurisdiction intends to promote a common under-

standing of leadership for all potential leaders, regardless of the actual position they will take

up in schools. Programme developers also need to explore whether the selective model ben-

efits their educational system by considering the possibility of public funding, the overall sta-

tus of supply and demand for principals, and the need for quality control for various

leadership preparation programmes.

Fourth, our analysis draws predeominantly on documentary sources that emphasize program

design. We have observed that programme developers look elsewhere to inform programme frame-

works. However, as is common with many reform efforts, international borrowing may emphasize

the needs of the state but it is in implementation on the ground where adaptations are made that

account for local contexts. Although the diverse aims of states and the expertise of providers may

explain some variation in programmes, how societal-cultural differences shape variation requires

further research informed by rich qualitative data and the attentiveness of programme designers.

The documentary data analysed in this study was not condusive to eludicating cultural impacts

on programme variation.

Finally, the study demonstrates that across all programmes, regardless of their national context,

the role of the practitioner as mentor and trainer is gaining in currency, with alignment to frame-

works at times being the primary academic contribution. Where regulators delegate provision to

accredited universities, professional and non-profit agencies, a measure of choice may be offered

to candidates. This appears a significant option in larger jurisdictions. However, providers should

carefully consider the differing expertise that academics and practitioners can bring to leadership

preparation programmes. The emerging, but relatively recent, primacy of practitioners over aca-

demic staff in programme implementation appears to lend credibility and relevance to leadership

preparation programs. Although, the implications of this development are not fully understood, it

behoves scholars to consider specifically how their role in the tripartite relationship can better

inform leadership preparation programs (Walker, 2011).

The days of including practitioners just to legitimize a programme by giving a one-off talk are

gone. Rather, tripartite relationships can promote the development of ‘scholar-practitioners’ who

have rich leadership credibility, informed by a formal knowledge base to which they contribute. In

this regard, programme developers need to consider the differing expertise that academics and

practitioners offer in programme content and operation (Walker and Dimmock, 2005). This will

impact on the extent to which programmes offer orientations that stress research and theory and

the application of theory and government policy to an immediate local context.

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 421

421

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Appendix 1: Additional Documentary Sources

Ontario, Canada

Ontario College of Teachers (2009) Principals Qualification Programme: Interim Accreditation Application

Guide for Providers.

Ontario Principals’ Council (2010) Principal’s Qualification Programme Part I: Practicum Handbook.

Toronto District School Board (2008) Our children, our schools: The environmental scan of the TDSB. Avail-

able at: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/environmental_scan_2007/docs/ Escan080902R

ed.pdf – 2008–09–02 (accessed 4 February 2011).

Victoria, Australia

Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership (2009) Master of school leadership [Brochure]. Melbourne:

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and Melbourne Graduate School of

Education.

Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership (2010) Master of school leadership selection criteria and how to

apply [Brochure]. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and

Melbourne Graduate School of Education.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2009, November). Blueprint for Education and

Early Childhood Development: One Year on. Melbourne: State of Victoria.

Waters L, Beatty B. and Luck F (2010) Master of school leadership: annual report. Report, Melbourne

Graduate School of Education, Australia, December.

New York City

New York City Leadership Academy (n.d.). Leadership performance planning worksheet for new school

leaders.

New York City Department of Education (n.d.). NYC DOE school leadership competencies. New York City:

NYC Department of Education. Available at: fromhttp://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6047BE91-B51E-

4E69–89ED-E12C7E3395CF/0/SchoolLeadershipCompetenciesContinuum.pdf (accessed 2 March 2011).

Singapore

National Instittue of Eduction (n.d.) Leaders in education programme. Available at: http://www.nie.edu.sg/

studynie/leadership-programme/leaders-education-programme (accessed 28 January 2012).

National Institute of Education (n.d.) A learning programme for future principals: the new leaders of innova-

tive learning organizations. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological

University.

National Institute of Education (2009) Leaders in education programme: handbook for participants. Singapore:

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

Hong Kong

Education Bureau (2010). Education Bureau Circular No. 10/2010 – Certification for Principalship. Hong

Kong: Education Bureau.

422 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

422

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Appendix 2: Analytical Framework

PurposePurpose Indicates how a particular programme is intended to shape leaders’

development.FrameworkTheoretical underpinnings From undefined or eclectic connection with leadership theories to

explicitly articulated leadership theories or models (Kelly and Shaw,2008), such as Sergiovanni’s Forces of Leadership.

Systemic coherence From programmes independent of articulated leadership frameworks(such as degrees and programmes developed by a university orprofessional bodies with no articulation to state standards) to thosefitted within a centrally defined leadership development framework(such as a coherent set of leadership dimensions around whichleadership selection, training, mentoring and succession programmesare articulated).From frameworks that apply narrowly to a singular programme toframeworks shared widely across many leadership developmentprogrammes.

Curriculum coherence Curriculum coherence and alignment across various learning components– that is, whether linkages across major learning components areexplicitly articulated (or implicitly embedded) in a programme; whethermajor learning components are sequentially (or simultaneously)allocated, and whether major learning components are hierarchicallyarranged according to the level of learning components (for example,basic, intermediate, advanced).

Degree of structure ‘From [formally structured] (such as a principal qualification programme ora graduate degree) to non-formal or [informally structured] (such asnetworks, book clubs, or personal mentoring arrangements)’ (Leith-wood and Levin, 2008: 288) or a mixture of both.

Content(The first nine are indicated as ‘common areas’ in Appendix 3; Osterman and Hafner, 2008)

Theory and research The extent to which programmes teach seminal and cutting edgeleadership theories as well as training in practitioner-oriented researchmethodologies (such as action research).

Teaching and learning Considers the extent to which programmes focus on leadership in thedomain of teaching and learning (for example, areas such as instruction,curriculum, assessment, technology and inclusion in education).

Society, culture andcommunity

Considers the impact of social and cultural forces on the school and therelationship of schools to the community (for example, communityrelations, its involvement in schools and the community as a resource).

Personal awareness (orpersonal leadership)

Considers the impact on leadership of self-nurturing and personal com-petencies (such as the impact of individual personality type and emo-tional intelligence on leadership and relationships in schools) as guidancefor reflective practice (such as developing a personal philosophy ofeducation and leadership).

Organizations Considers topics such as the use of data for school improvement, planningand change; building school culture, shared meaning, common missionand vision.

(continued)

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 423

423

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Appendix 2. (continued)

Leading and managing Considers themes from conventional management practices (such aspersonnel management, staff selection, and supervision) to effectiveleadership strategies (such as distributed leadership and problemsolving).

Policy and politics Considers policies enacted by the state (such as issues pertaining togovernance, the relationship of the principal to the school board,accountability for student learning and resource utilization).

Law and ethics Familiarizes candidates with legislation, collective agreements, student andteacher discipline, and other legal and ethical responsibilities ofprincipals and school staff.

Economics and finances Provides training in fiscal planning and budget administration.Key foci Indicates particular strengths or noted features of the programme.Source of content How content is derived for the programme.DeliveryLearning components Indicates the major programme components around which instruction and

assessment are organized.Mode From strictly conventional face-to-face classroom instruction to blended

approaches that include face-to-face, distance and on-site learning(Grogan et al., 2008).

Practicum Outlines the major features of practicum design such as its duration,location and tasks (Perez et al., 2011).

Project Outlines the nature of capstone projects: from small-scale learning proj-ects to extensive action research projects.

Practitioner role Indicates the range of practitioner involvement such as coaching inleadership (professional mentor), instructional leadership, academicguidance (academic mentor), job shadowing, or formative feedback onsite-based projects (in-school mentor).

Practitioner activity Explains how practitioners are involved in teaching the programme andcarry out their roles.

Assessment of participants Indicates overarching assessment protocols, such as an emphasis onsummative assessment according to fixed standards (mastery) or theextent to which participant may revise work in response to feedback.

Operational featuresTarget groups From leaders close to a principalship to those with future aspiration.Selection From competition for a limited number of places to open and unlimited

admission based on meeting prescribed qualifications.Time From ‘short-term (such as individual workshops or conferences) to

longer-term . . . (such as graduate degrees or formal qualifications pro-gramme)’ (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288). From part time to full time.

Formal outcome From no license to a local or national license (such as a qualification issuedby a particular district or jurisdiction) to a ‘broadly recognized’ degree(such as a master’s degree). (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288)

Provider ‘From programmes provided by the employer to those provided by’professional associations or non-profit agencies to those provided byuniversities (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288).From independently delivered programmes to those accredited andregulated by a central authority.

(continued)

424 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

424

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Appendix 2. (continued)

Partnership From programmes designed and /or delivered independent of otherstakeholders (such as course content defined by individual instructors)to programmes designed in consultation with school districts,professional bodies and community stakeholders (Grogan et al., 2008).For example, tripartite partnership comprises a main operational agency(for example, university, professional association, or non-profit orga-nization), a sponsoring/supervising agency (for example, government),and associate schools as local partners for on-site practicum (Hammondet al., 2010; Sanzo et al., 2011).

Funding The source of funding for programme participants.Teachers/facilitators From conventionally instructed by academic staff to exclusively

practitioner-led or a combination thereof.Learning groupings From courses, workshops or seminars selected according to individual

interest to cohort approaches with progression through a programmedefined for a specified group or somewhere in between (Grogan et al.,2008).

Evaluation and development From a static, established programme to one frequently revisited andredeveloped. From internally evaluated to the provision of evidence toexternal evaluators or regulators.

Formal venues From programmes provided at central locations (such as universities towhich participants commute) to those delivered on-site or within par-ticipants’ communities. (Leithwood and Levin, 2008)

SummaryProgramme encapsulation From formal and didactic (such as focus on research, theory, management

principles and administrative behaviour) to the development of criticalthinking and analytical skills through reflective or craft models thatemphasize professional inquiry, reflection, or context embeddedcontent (such as practicum, mentoring, problem-based learning, job-shadowing, simulations and portfolio approaches). (adapted fromLeithwood and Levin, 2008)

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 425

425

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ap

pen

dix

3:P

rogra

mm

eC

om

pari

son

Tab

le

Onta

rio

Mel

bourn

eN

ewY

ork

Singa

pore

Hong

Kong

Purp

ose

Purp

ose

�D

evel

op

lead

ers

for

schoolim

pro

vem

ent

grounded

inth

eir

conte

xt.

�D

evel

op

tran

sform

ativ

ele

ader

sth

rough

action

rese

arch

.

�Pre

par

ele

ader

sw

ith

focu

son

dis

adva

nt-

aged

com

munitie

s.

�Pro

duce

and

crea

teth

ekn

ow

ledge

tosc

hool

lead

ers

for

the

21st

centu

ry.

�Pre

par

ele

ader

sto

lead

schools

ove

rth

enex

tdec

ade.

Fram

ew

ork

The

oret

ical

unde

rpin

ning

s�

Leithw

ood

etal

.(2

006).

Succ

essf

ul

SchoolLe

ader

ship

(NC

SL)

�Se

rgio

vanni’s

(1984,2005)

Forc

esof

Lead

ersh

ip

�D

eriv

edfr

om

vari

ous

stan

dar

ds

�So

cial

const

ruct

ive-

ism

for

know

ledge

crea

tion�

Six

core

area

sof

lead

ersh

ip

Syst

emic

cohe

renc

e�

Cen

tral

lydef

ined

�W

idel

ysp

read

�C

entr

ally

def

ined

�W

idel

ysp

read

�C

entr

ally

def

ined

�W

idel

ysp

read

�C

entr

ally

def

ined

�N

arro

wly

spre

ad�

Cen

tral

lydef

ined

�W

idel

ysp

read

Cur

ricu

lum

cohe

renc

e�

Explic

itly

articu

late

d�

Sequen

tial

,hie

rarc

hic

al

�Explic

itly

articu

late

d�

Sequen

tial

,hie

rarc

hic

al

�Explic

itly

articu

late

d�

Sequen

tial

,hie

rarc

hic

al�

Implic

itly

embed

ded

�N

on-s

equen

tial

�hie

rarc

hic

al

�Explic

itly

articu

late

d�

Sequen

tial

,hie

rarc

hic

al

Deg

ree

ofst

ruct

ure�

Form

ally

stru

cture

d�

Form

ally

stru

cture

d�

Mix

ed�

Mix

ed�

Form

ally

stru

cture

d

Conte

nt

Com

mon

Are

asT

heo

ryan

dR

esea

rch,T

each

ing

and

Lear

nin

g,So

ciet

yan

dC

om

munity,

Per

sonal

Aw

aren

ess

(or

Per

sonal

Lead

ersh

ip),

Org

aniz

atio

ns,

Lead

ing

and

Man

agin

g,Polic

yan

dPolit

ics,

Law

and

Eth

ics,

Eco

nom

ics

and

Finan

ces

Key

Foci

�In

clusi

on

�D

iver

sity

�Eth

ical

resp

onsi

bili

ty

�A

cadem

icex

celle

nce

�C

utt

ing

edge

�In

ner

-gro

wth

�W

ellbei

ng

�A

cces

sto

worl

d-

clas

sac

adem

ics

�In

stru

ctio

nal

Lead

ersh

ip�

Dis

adva

nta

ged

com

munitie

s�

Clo

seac

hie

vem

ent

gap

�K

now

ledge

crea

tion

and

innova

tion

�So

cial

const

ruct

ivis

t�

pro

cess

-as-

conte

nt

curr

iculu

m�

Net

work

ing

�Se

lf-an

alys

is�

Aca

dem

ic-p

ract

itio

ner

nex

us

(con

tinue

d)

426

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ap

pen

dix

3:

(continued

)

Onta

rio

Mel

bourn

eN

ewY

ork

Singa

pore

Hong

Kong

Delive

ryLe

arni

ngco

mpo

nent

s�

Cours

es�

Pra

ctic

um

�Pro

ject

�Jo

urn

al

�C

ours

es�

Pro

ject

�Jo

urn

al

�C

ours

es�

Pro

ject

�C

ours

es�

Pro

ject

�O

vers

eas

visi

t�

Journ

al�

Port

folio

�C

ours

ework

�Pro

ject

�N

eeds

Anal

ysis

�Port

folio

Mod

e�

Face

-to-f

ace

�O

n-lin

e�

School-bas

ed

�Fa

ce-t

o-f

ace

�O

n-lin

e�

School-bas

ed

�Fa

ce-t

o-f

ace

�Sc

hool-bas

ed�

Face

-to-f

ace

�O

n-lin

e�

School-bas

ed

�Fa

ce-t

o-f

ace

�Sc

hool-bas

ed

Prac

ticum

�60

hours

�O

wn

school

�T

asks

neg

otiat

ed

�D

ura

tion

of

pro

gram

me

�O

wn

school

�T

asks

neg

otiat

ed

�10

month

s�

Schoolre

siden

cy�

Tas

ksneg

otiat

ed

�6

month

s�

Schoolat

tach

men

t�

None

Proj

ect

�A

ctio

nR

esea

rch

Pro

ject

�Im

ple

men

tsc

hool

impro

vem

ent

�A

ctio

nR

esea

rch

Pro

ject

�Im

ple

men

tin

nova

tion

�Sc

hool-bas

edpro

ject

�In

nova

tive

school

pro

ject

�Im

ple

men

tin

nova

tion

�A

ctio

nle

arnin

gpro

ject

Prac

titio

ner

role

�In

-sch

oolm

ento

r�

Exte

rnal

support

er�

Aca

dem

icm

ento

r�

Pro

fess

ional

men

tor

�In

-sch

oolm

ento

r

�In

-sch

oolm

ento

r�

Exte

rnal

support

er�

In-s

choolm

ento

r�

Exte

rnal

support

er�

Ass

esso

r�

Port

folio

asse

ssor

�C

o-inst

ruct

or

Prac

titio

ner

activ

ity�

Pro

vide

form

ativ

efe

edbac

kon

pro

ject

imple

men

tation

�G

uid

epro

posa

ldev

elopm

ent

and

asse

sses

final

pro

duct

�R

esea

rch

and

schola

rly

dev

elopm

ent

�A

sses

ses

all

assi

gnm

ents

�G

uid

epro

fess

ional

dev

elopm

ent

acco

rdin

gto

fram

ework

�Ensu

reco

ngr

uen

ceof

pro

ject

with

schoolpri

ori

ties

�M

ento

rs’re

siden

cyac

tivi

ties

�G

uid

epro

fess

ional

dev

elopm

ent

acco

rdin

gto

nin

ele

ader

ship

dim

ensi

ons

�M

ento

ropport

unitie

sfr

om

pri

nci

pal

sat

assi

gned

schools

�Su

pport

pro

fess

ional

dev

elopm

ent

ofA

Ps

�A

ctas

trai

ner

s,m

ento

rsan

dfa

cilit

ators

inth

edes

ignat

edpro

gram

me

�Sh

are

exper

ience

with

par

tici

pan

ts

(con

tinue

d)

427

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ap

pen

dix

3:

(continued

)

Onta

rio

Mel

bourn

eN

ewY

ork

Singa

pore

Hong

Kong

Ass

essm

ent

ofPa

rtic

ipan

ts�

Sum

mat

ive

�M

aste

ry-b

ased

�R

e-doab

le

�Su

mm

ativ

eM

aste

ry-b

ased

�Su

mm

ativ

e�

Mas

tery

-bas

ed�

Sum

mat

ive

Mas

tery

-bas

ed�

Sum

mat

ive

Mas

tery

-bas

edR

e-doab

leO

pera

tionalFe

atu

res

Tar

get

grou

ps�

Asp

irin

g/pote

ntial

pri

nci

pal

s�

Asp

irin

g/pote

ntial

pri

nci

pal

s�

Asp

irin

g/pote

ntial

pri

nci

pal

s�

Asp

irin

g/pote

ntial

pri

nci

pal

s�

Asp

irin

g/pote

ntial

pri

nci

pal

s

Sele

ctio

n�

Unlim

ited

pla

ces

�M

aste

rsdeg

ree

or

equiv

alen

t�

Qual

ified

in3

of4

year

-lev

elra

nge

s�

Dis

tric

tap

pro

val

�U

nlim

ited

pla

ces

�M

ember

sofst

ate

schoolsy

stem

�5

year

sex

per

ience

�D

istr

ict

appro

val

�Li

mited

pla

ces

�3

year

sex

per

ience

�H

ighly

sele

ctiv

ead

mis

sion

pro

cess

(23%

sele

ctio

nra

te)

�Li

mited

pla

ces

�V

ice-

pri

nci

pal

san

dM

OE

offic

ers

�Se

lect

edby

Min

istr

yof

Educa

tion

�U

nlim

ited

pla

ces

�O

pen

Tim

e�

Cours

ework

:10

month

s(a

ppro

x)

par

ttim

e250

hours

�Pra

ctic

um

:10

wee

ksm

inim

um

60

hours

min

imum

�2

year

spar

t-tim

e�

240

hours

x4

cours

es�

7fu

llday

‘‘inte

nsi

ves’’per

cours

e

�14

month

sfu

lltim

e�

6m

onth

sfu

lltim

e�

2ye

ars

par

t-tim

e

Form

alO

utco

me

�Lo

cal

�Li

cense

�R

equir

ed�

Cre

dit

tow

ard

deg

ree

�N

oLi

cense

�N

ot

requir

ed�

Full

Deg

ree

�Lo

cal

�Li

cense

�R

equir

ed�

Non-d

egre

e

�N

atio

nal

�Li

cense

�R

equir

ed�

Non-d

egre

e

�N

atio

nal

�Li

cense

�R

equir

ed�

Cre

dit

tow

ard

deg

ree

Prov

ider

s�

Multip

lepro

vider

s(U

niv

ersi

ties

and

pro

fess

ional

asso

ciat

ions)

�C

entr

ally

regu

late

d

�M

ultip

lepro

vider

s(U

niv

ersi

ties

)�

Cen

tral

lyre

gula

ted

�M

ultip

lepro

vider

s�

(Univ

ersi

ties

and

pro

fess

ional

asso

ciat

ions)

�C

entr

ally

regu

late

d

�Si

ngl

epro

vider

(Univ

ersi

ty)

�C

entr

ally

regu

late

d

�M

ultip

lepro

vider

s(U

niv

ersi

ties

only

)�

Cen

tral

lyac

cred

ited

(con

tinue

d)

428

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ap

pen

dix

3:

(continued

)

Onta

rio

Mel

bourn

eN

ewY

ork

Singa

pore

Hong

Kong

Part

ners

hip

�T

ripar

tite

par

tner

ship

(Aca

dem

ic,

bure

aucr

atic

,pra

ctitio

ner

)

�T

ripar

tite

par

tner

ship

(Aca

dem

ic,

bure

aucr

atic

,pra

ctitio

ner

)

�T

ripar

tite

par

tner

ship

(Aca

dem

ic,

bure

aucr

atic

,pra

ctitio

ner

)

�T

ripar

tite

par

tner

ship

(Aca

dem

ic,b

ure

aucr

atic

,pra

ctitio

ner

)

�T

ripar

tite

par

tner

ship

(Aca

dem

ic,

bure

aucr

atic

,pra

ctitio

ner

)

Tea

cher

s/Fa

cilit

ator

s�

Pra

ctitio

ner

sonly

�A

cadem

ics

and

Pra

ctitio

ner

s�

Pra

ctitio

ner

sonly

�A

cadem

ics

and

pra

ctitio

ner

s�

Aca

dem

ics

and

pra

ctitio

ner

s

Fund

ing

�Se

lf-fu

nded

�N

ot

avai

lable

�St

ate

funded

�G

ove

rnm

ent

funded

�Se

lf-fu

nded

Lear

ning

Gro

upin

gs�

Cohort

model

�C

ohort

model

�C

ohort

model

(tea

m-b

ased

)�

Cohort

model

(tea

m-b

ased

)�

Bro

ken

cohort

model

Eva

luat

ion

and

Dev

elop

men

t�

Inte

rmitte

ntly

redev

eloped

�G

ener

ativ

eev

aluat

ive

pro

cess

es�

Pro

vide

evid

ence

�Exte

rnal

�In

term

itte

ntly

redev

eloped

�Pro

vide

evid

ence

�Exte

rnal

�In

term

itte

ntly

redev

eloped

�Pro

vide

evid

ence

�Pro

vide

evid

ence

�Exte

rnal

�St

atic

Form

alVen

ues

�Lo

calis

ed�

Cen

tral

ised

�C

entr

alis

ed�

Cen

tral

ised

�Lo

calis

edSum

mary

�C

onte

xt

embed

ded

(str

ong)

�R

efle

ctiv

ein

quir

y(s

trong)

�Sk

ills-

ori

enta

tion

(moder

ate)

�T

heo

ry-d

rive

n(lim

ited

)�

Tas

k-ori

enta

tion

(str

ong)

�C

onte

xt

embed

ded

(str

ong)

�R

efle

ctiv

ein

quir

y(s

trong)

�Sk

ills-

ori

enta

tion

(lim

ited

)�

Theo

ry-d

rive

n(s

trong)

�T

ask-

ori

enta

tion

(str

ong)

�R

esea

rch-led

(str

ong)

�C

onte

xt

embed

ded

(str

ong)

�R

efle

ctiv

ein

quir

y(s

trong)

�Sk

ills-

ori

enta

tion

(lim

ited

)�

Theo

ry-d

rive

n(lim

ited

)�

Tas

k-ori

enta

tion

(Str

ong)

�C

onte

xt

embed

ded

(str

ong)

�R

efle

ctiv

ein

quir

y(s

trong)

�Sk

ills-

ori

enta

tion

(lim

ited

)�

Theo

ry-d

rive

n(s

trong)

�R

esea

rch-led

(lim

ited

)�

Tas

k-ori

enta

tion

(Str

ong)

�C

onte

xt

embed

ded

(str

ong)

�R

efle

ctiv

ein

quir

y(s

trong)

�Sk

ills-

ori

enta

tion

(moder

ate)

�T

ask-

ori

enta

tion

(str

ong)

�T

heo

ry-d

rive

n(lim

ited

)

429

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Notes

1. Further areas of congruence and diversity emerged through the study, which will be reported in the

findings.

2. For instance, the importance of the theoretical underpinning to overall programme coherence, structure

and systemic alignment became prominent in our analysis and several new codes beyond Leithwood and

Levin’s (2008) ‘structure’ were justified to analyse these aspects of leadership programme framework. We

split apart other codes or merged them together. For instance, Nature of Tasks became Learning Compo-

nents and Mode. This segmentation distinguishes the teaching and learning strategies from their delivery

method: face-to-face, distance, or blended learning.

3. Discussion of other categories may be found in Bryant et al. (2012) and Walker et al. (2011).

4. For example, we indicate whether coherence across the various learning components of the curriculum are

‘explicitly articulated’ in programme documentation, or if they are ‘implicitly embedded’, with evident

coherences that are not formally defined in the programme design. This terminology is delineated in our

typology. The result of this part of our analysis is an expansion of the leadership programme typology that

may serve to inform future research, particularly for comparative purposes. To more clearly portray this

development, Appendix 2 shows the framework, or code book that emerged iteratively through the inter-

action of literature review and data analysis and cites the sources that inform the respective codes.

5. A fifth domain, ‘securing accountability’ emerged from the accountability requirements of the Ontario

context (IEL, 2008).

References

Afonso N and Costa E (2009) The influence of the programme for international student assessment (PISA) on

policy decision in Portugal: the education policies of the 17th Portuguese constitutional government.

Educational Sciences Journal 10: 53–64.

Ball SJ (2008) The legacy of ERA, privatization and the policy retreat. Educational Management Administration

& Leadership 36(2): 185–199.

Barber M, Whelan F and Clark M (2010) ‘Capturing the leadership premium: how the world’s top school sys-

tems are building leadership capacity for the future. Report of Mckinsey and Company. Available at:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Education/

Knowledge_Highlights/*/media/Reports/SSO/schoolleadership_final.ashx (accessed 15 February 2011).

Bryant DA, Walker A and Lee M (2013) The impact of international, national, and local forces on the enact-

ment of quality leadership preparation programmes. In: Brundrett M (ed.) Principles of School Leadership.

London: SAGE, 279–308.

Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons From

Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bush T and Jackson D (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international perspectives. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership 30(4): 417–429.

Caldwell B (2003) A blueprint for successful leadership in an era of globalization ion learning. In: Hallinger P

(ed.) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers,

23–39.

Carnoy M and Loeb S (2002) Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross- state analysis.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 305–331.

Casavant MD and Cherkowski S (2001) Effective leadership: bringing mentoring and creativity to the

principalship. NASSP Bulletin 85(6): 71–81.

430 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

430

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cheng YC (2009) Hong Kong educational reforms in the last decade: reform syndrome and new develop-

ments. International Journal of Educational Management 23(1):65–86.

Corbin J and Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3 rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Corcoran SP, Schwartz AE and Weinstein M (2009) The New York City Aspiring Principals Programme: a

school-level evaluation. Report, Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.

Available at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/iesp/featured/APP (accessed 1 February 2011).

Council of Chief State School Officers (2008) Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC as adopted by

the national policy board for educational administration. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/

Publications/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_ISLLC_2008_as_Adopted_by_the_National_

Policy_Board_for_Educational_Administration.html (accessed 15 January 2012).

Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 2nd edn.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Darling-Hammond L, Meyerson D, LaPointe M, et al. (2010). Preparing Principals for a Changing World:

Lessons From Effective School Leadership Programmes. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Department of Education (2007) The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders. Melbourne:

Department of Education.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2010) A-Z of Programmes. Melbourne: Bastow

Institute of Educational Leadership. Available at: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/bastowin

stitute/leadership/atoz.htm (accessed 8 February 2011).

Education Department (2002) Continuing professional development for school excellence. Consultation

paper on continuing professional development of principals. Hong Kong: Printing Department.

Elmore R (2007) Educational Improvement in Victoria. Victoria: Department of Education, Office for

Government School Education.

Fairclough N (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough N (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Fryer R (2011) Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. NBER

Working Paper, 16850. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850 (accessed 20 February 2012).

Gardner H (2008) 5 Minds for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Grogan M, Bredeson PV, Sherman WH, et al. (2009) The design and delivery of leadership preparation. In:

Young MD, Crow GG, Murphy J and Ogawa RT (eds) Handbook of Research on the Education of School

Leaders. New York: Routledge, 395–416.

Gronn P (2003) Leadership: who needs it? School Leadership & Management 23(3): 267–291.

Gronn P and Rawlings-Sanaei F (2003) Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership disengagement. Aus-

tralian Journal of Education 47(2): 172–84.

Huber SG (ed.) (2004) Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International Comparison of

Development Programmes in 15 Countries. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Huber SG and West M (2002) Developing school leaders: a critical review of current practices, approaches

and issues, and some directions for the future. In: Leithwood K and Hallinger P (eds) Second International

Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,

1017–1002.

Institute for Education Leadership (IEL) (2008) Putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action: a guide

for school and system leaders. Available at: http://www.education-leadership-ontario.ca (accessed 28

January 2011).

Kelly C and Shaw JJ (2008) Comprehensive leadership development: a portrait of programmes. In: Young

MD, Crow FF, Murphy J and Ogawa RT (eds) Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders.

New York: Routledge, pp. 499–514.

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 431

431

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Lee M, Louis KS and Anderson S (2012b) Local education authorities and student learning: the effects of

policies and practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23(2): 133–158.

Lee M, Walker A and Chui YL (2012a) Contrasting effects of instructional leadership practices on student

learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational Administration 50(5): 586–611.

Leithwood K and Levin B (2008) Understanding and assessing the impact of leadership development. In:

Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiardis P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development

of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 280–300.

Leithwood K, Day C, Sammons P, et al. (2006) Successful School Leadership: What it Is and How it Influ-

ences Pupil Learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Lim LH (2007) Illuminating the core of Singapore school leadership preparation: two decades of in-service

experience. International Journal of Educational Management 21(5): 433–439.

Louis KS, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom KL, et al. (2010) Investigating the links to improved student learning:

final report of research findings. University of Minnesota. Available at: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/

Leadership/Learning-from-Leadership_Final-Research-Report_July 2010.pdf (accessed 14 August 2011).

MacBeath J (2011) No lack of principles: leadership development in England and Scotland. School Leader-

ship and Management 31(2): 105–121.

Matthews P, Moorman H and Nusche D (2008) Building leadership capacity for system improvement in

Victoria, Australia. In: Point B, Nusche D and Hopkins D (eds) Improving School Leadership (Vol. 2): Case

Studies on System Leadership. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 179–213.

Miles MB and Huberman MA (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ministry of Education (MOE) (2005) Framework for teach less, learn more: recommendations. Available at:

http://www3.moe.edu.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm (accessed 28 February 2011).

National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers and Achieve Inc (2008) Benchmark-

ing for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-class Education. Report. Washington, DC:

National Governors Association.

National Institute of Education (NIE) (2010) Leaders in Education Programme: Handbook for Participants.

Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

National Institute of Education (NIE) (2011) Leaders in Education Programme: Handbook for Participants.

Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

New York City Leadership Academcy (NYCLA) (2012) Aspiring principals programme. Available at: http://

www.nycleadershipacademy.org/aspiring/aspiring. Available at: http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/

aspiring/aspiring (accessed 18 February 2012).

New York City Leadership Academy (NYCLA) (2011) NYC aspiring principals programme. Available at:

http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/knowledge/lppw (accessed 5 June 2011).

Ng PT (2008) Developing forward-looking and innovative school leaders: the Singapore leaders in education

programme. Journal of In-Service Education 34(2): 237–255.

Ontario (2010a) Ontario Leadership Strategy: principal/vice-principal performance performance appraisal.

Technical requirements manual. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario (2010b) Ontario Leadership Strategy: mentoring for newly appointed school leaders, requirements

manual. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario College of Teachers (2009) Principal’s Qualification Programme: Guideline. Toronto: Ontario.

Ontario College of Teachers (2011) Course providersproviders. Available at: http://www.oct.ca/additional_

qualifications/providers/? lang¼en-CA (accessed 20 January 2012).

Ontario Principals’ Council (2011a) Principal’s Qualification Programme Part I: Candidate acceptance

package.

432 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

432

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ontario Principals’ Council (2011b) Principal’s Qualification Programme Part II: Candidate acceptance

package.

O’Reilly D and Reed M (2010) ‘Leaderism’: an evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform.

Public Administration 88(4): 960–978.

Osterman KF and Hafner MM (2008) Curriculum in leadership preparation: understanding where we have

been in order to know where we might go. In: Young MD, Crow GG, Murphy J and Ogawa RT (eds)

Handbook of Research Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 269–318.

Owings WA, Kaplan LS and Chappell S (2011) Troops to teachers as school administrators: a national study

of principal quality. NASSP Bulletin 95(3): 195–211.

Perez LG, Uline CL, Johnson JF, Jr, et al. (2011) Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: the

transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 217–257.

Peterson K (2002) The professional development of principals: innovations and opportunities. Educational

Administration Quarterly 38(2): 213–232.

Phillips D and Ochs K (2003) Processes of policy borrowing in education: some explanatory and analytical

devices. Comparative Education 39(4): 451–461.

Piggot-Irving E (2011) Principal development: self-directed project efficacy. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership 39(3): 283–295.

Pounder DG (2011) Leader preparation special issue: implications for policy, practice and research. Educa-

tional Administration Quarterly 47(1): 258–267.

Quartaroli MT (2009) Qualitative data analysis. In: Lapaan SD and Quartaroli MT (eds) Research Essentials:

An Introduction to Design and Practices. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 259–274.

Rautalin M and Alasuutari P (2009) The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central

government. Journal of Education Policy 24(5): 539–556.

Roach V, Smith LW and Boutin J (2011) School leadership policy trends and developments: policy

expediency or policy excellence? Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 71–113.

Robinson VMJ, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of

the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–574.

Sanzo KL, Myran S and Clayton JK (2010-2011) Building bridges between knowledge and practice. Journal

of Educational Administration 49(3): 292–312.

Sergiovanni TJ (1984) Handbook for Effective Department Leadership: Concepts and Practices in Today’s

Secondary Schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sergiovanni TJ (2005) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Simkins T (2012) Understanding school leadership and management development in England: retrospect and

prospect. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(5): 621–640.

Townsend T (2011) Changing times: new issues for school leaders. School Leadership and Management

31(2): 91–92.

Walker A (2011) Clones, Drones and Dragons: Ongoing Uncertainties Around Successful School Leader-

ship. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Available at: http://www.ied.edu.hk/cplec-

tures/eng/resources.php (accessed 9 April 2012).

Walker A and Dimmock C (2005) Developing leadership in context. In: Coles M and Southworth G (eds)

Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow. Milton Keyes: Open University Press, 80–94.

Walker A, Dimmock C, Chan A, et al. (2002) Key qualities of the principalship in Hong Kong. Report. Hong

Kong Centre for the Development of Educational Leadership.

Walker A and Ko J (2011) Principal leadership in an era of accountability: a perspective from the Hong Kong

context. School Leadership and Management. 31(4): 369–392.

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation 433

433

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Walker A and Kwan P (2010) Leadership in diverse cultures. In: Peterson P, Baker E and McGraw B (eds)

International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 824–831.

Walker A and Kwong KSC (2006) School Management Training – Country Report: Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China. Oslo: University of Oslo.

Walker A and Qian H (2006) Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole. Journal of

Educational Administration 44(4): 297–309.

Walker A, Lee M, Bryant D, et al. (2011) Principal preparation programmes: a synthesis of best practice inter-

nationally. [Confidential]. Submitted to National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s

Services.

Waters L and Luck F (2011) Master of School Leadership: 2011 Programme Information Handbook.

Melbourne Graduate School of Education.

Author biographies

Allan Walker is Joseph Lau Chair Professor of International Educational Leadership, Chair of the

Department of Educational Policy and Leadership and Director of the Asia Pacific Centre for

Leadership and Change at the Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Darren Bryant is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Leadership at the

Hong Kong Institute of Education. His research interests include middle leadership and leader

development.

Moosung Lee is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong.

His research focuses on social capital, social networks, lifelong learning and school improvement.

434 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

434

at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from