CPACE Content Study Exam Questions & 100% Correct Answers (Verified) Latest Update Grade A+

CHALLENGING ROLES AND IMPACT ON TEACHER AND SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS CONTENT I. OVERVIEW Page 2 II. BACKGROUND PAPER 5 1. Introduction: Schools are seen as increasingly important 5 2. Approaches to school governance and the changing role of school leaders 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Old Public Administration 6 2.3 New Public Management 8 2.4 Organisational Learning 11 2.5 Inconsistent demands 13 2.6 Summary 14 3. Ways in which school leaders strengthen teacher recruitment, development and retention 16 3.1 Introduction 16 3.2 Leadership and teacher satisfaction 17 3.3 Leadership and teacher role/performance 17 3.4 Teacher leadership 18 3.5 The relationship between role and distributive leadership and organisational learning 19 3.6 Development - Turning research into policy and practice 21 4. Ways in which school leaders lift student outcomes 24 4.1 The leadership for organisational learning and student outcomes study 24 4.2 Other recent research on ways in which leaders lift student outcomes 26 5. Recruitment of school leaders 29 5.1 Introduction 29 5.2 Is there a shortage of school leaders? 30 5.3 Reasons for the shortage of school leaders 30 5.4 Summary 33 5.5 A warning 34 6. Professional development of school leaders 6.1 Introduction: A proposed model of the stages and dimensions in the provision of school leader professional development 35 35 6.2 Illustrating aspects of the proposed model of the stages and dimensions in the provision of school leader professional development 36 6.3 Some recent cross-country research findings on the professional development of school leaders 42 III. SOME IMPLICATIONS 45 1. Achieving the heightened expectations of schools 45 2. Ways in which school leaders can strengthen teacher recruitment, development and retention 46 3. Ways in which school leaders lift student outcomes 46 4. Recruitment of school leaders 46 5. Retention - Professional development of school leaders 47 IV. REFERENCES 49 V. APPENDICES 55 Appendix 1: Leithwood et al (2002) Analysis of Standards 56 Appendix 2: Huber & West (2002) Overview of School Leadership Development in Ten Countries 59 I. OVERVIEW This paper suggests that ongoing developments in societies and their provision of education are reflected in the roles, recruitment and development of school leaders. The paper first examines how, as a result of these developments, the role of school leaders is changing. It then examines if school leaders can strengthen the recruitment, development and retention of teachers, as well as lift student outcomes. Evidence is provided to demonstrate that particular leadership practices can achieve these outcomes. It is concluded that school leaders remain of crucial importance for continued improvement of education. Given this importance, the paper then focuses on school leader recruitment and development and retention (or professional development). A number of implications of these various explorations conclude the paper. The major approaches employed by governments to ensure ongoing educational reforms were identified as old public administration (OPA), new public management (NPM) and organisational learning (OL). Inconsistencies within and between these approaches were shown create their own pressures on schools and their leaders. The worry is that the cumulative demands and resulting fragmentation and incoherence could undermine the capacity of schools. When considered en masse rather than separately, these myriad views may create unintended consequences that fuel the current problems of supply and quality in the principalship. The result is a largely unattainable ideal of mythological proportions - ‘the superprincipal’. While it is argued that NPM has emerged as the dominant approach in educational governance, recent research questions its effectiveness in terms of improved student outcomes. It is suggested that a closer examination be made of OL. In order to meet the heightened, multiple expectations now placed on schools, as well as to have engaged teachers, it is argued that schools need to become learning organisations, consciously and continuously pursuing quality improvement. Within schools that are learning organisations evolve new types of relationship between students, teachers and leaders based around a reasonably common set of characteristics that include a trusting and collaborative climate, a shared and monitored mission, taking initiatives and risks, and ongoing, relevant professional development. The key relationships in the ways school leaders strengthen teacher recruitment, development and retention were shown to include factors such as teacher satisfaction, school effectiveness, improvement, capacity, teacher leadership, distributive leadership, organisational learning, and development. School leaders can be a major influence on these school-level factors as well as help buffer against the excesses of the mounting and sometimes contradictory external pressures. A skilled and well-supported leadership team in schools can help foster a sense of ownership and purpose in the way that teachers approach their job. Conferring professional autonomy to teachers will enhance the attractiveness of the profession as a career choice and will improve the quality of the classroom teaching practice. Teachers who work together in a meaningful and purposeful ways have been found to be more likely to remain in the profession because they feel valued and supported in their work. Research suggests that while decentralisation may have occurred from the system to school level, it has not necessarily occurred within schools. Further, where decentralisation has occurred within schools it tended to be about administrative rather than education matters. This situation should be of concern, especially given evidence teachers are attracted to, and stay in, the profession if they feel they belong and believe they are contributing to the success of their school and students. One of the most consistent findings from studies of effective school leadership is that authority to lead need not be located in the person of the leader but can be dispersed within the school between and among people. There is a growing understanding that leadership is embedded in various organisational contexts within school communities, not centrally vested in a person or an office. The real challenge facing most schools is no longer how to improve but, more importantly, how to sustain improvement. Sustainability will depend upon the school’s internal capacity to maintain and support developmental work and sustaining improvement requires the leadership capability of the many rather than the few. Recent research shows that: • the leadership that makes a difference is both position based (principal) and distributive (administrative team and teachers) but both are only indirectly related to student outcomes; • OL, or a collective teacher efficacy, is the important intervening variable between leadership and teacher work and then student outcomes; • leadership contributes to OL, which in turn influences what happens in the core business of the school - the teaching and learning. It influences the way students perceive teachers organise and conduct their instruction, and their educational interactions with, and expectations for, their students; • pupils’ positive perceptions of teachers’ work directly promote participation in school, academic self-concept and engagement with school; and, • pupil participation is directly and pupil engagement indirectly (through retention) related to academic achievement. It 1s shown that there is a growing shortages of school leaders and a suggestion, but little evidence, of a declining quality of candidates for school leadership positions. The reasons for this shortage can be grouped under societal, system and school influences and include unrelenting change, increasing and sometimes conflicting expectations, mandates and accountability, bureaucracy (especially excessive paper work, the increase in intermediatory bodies and new approaches such as whole-of government), budget cuts, an emphasis on administration rather than leadership, and a ‘conspiracy of busyness’, that is the way time, space and communication patterns are structured. These influences result in the job of school leader being seen by potential candidates as too demanding, stressful, lonely, lacking support, and only for particular groups in society. One result of these influences and perceptions of the role of school leader is a shortage as well as a possible declining candidate quality, except perhaps for those schools in ‘non-challenging circumstances’. We need to be very careful here that we are not ‘eating the seed corn’ - consuming our own future by frightening off the brightest and best from leadership of our schools. While the evidence gathered for this paper underpins the need for school leaders to receive training, recent research finds that most receive little formal or structured preparation for the job. It is argued that this situation needs to re redressed and that any scheme for the professional development of school leaders needs to take into account factors such as the stages of leadership (intending leaders, inductees, early career and mid and late career) and dimensions of the programme. These dimensions should include the content chosen (what, who, on what basis), delivery mode used (who, where, how, when) and, measurements of success. Recent research has classified professional development programmes for school leaders in different ways. These include the degree of decentralisation, the use of experiential learning, a focus on the system reconstruction or reproduction, and, a focus on people or the system. What is found is that in predominantly centralised systems (such as France, Germany, Hong Kong, and Singapore) there are predominantly centralised arrangements for the development of school leaders. Programmes are standardised, closely monitored, and mostly mandatory and governments maintain close involvement in the quality assurance process. At the other extreme are located New Zealand and the Netherlands. Here, there is considerable autonomy at school level, with local rather than national determination of school objectives and plans. Here, there is also a thriving local economy providing a range of training programmes and opportunities. These examples show us how two major preoccupations of politicians can be accommodated; on the one hand school level decision-making and strong local involvement in the direction of schools, on the other, some guarantee that the government is ensuring a supply of suitably trained and experienced candidates will be available to manage the stock of schools. A number of generalisations about current trends in school leadership preparation are identified, including: • a move from the general to the particular in the planning of school leader development; • a shift from maintenance functions onto activities that promote school improvement and explicitly seek to raise standards of achievement; • emphasis being given to the development of the individual trainee as well as educational or instructional leadership; • some convergence of curriculum content in relation to two crucial areas - teaching and learning issues and the personal and interpersonal skills of leadership; • a general movement away from unconnected 'single issue' or 'single shot' training events towards a more carefully planned and altogether more coherent programmes; • the emergence of new partnership arrangements that have been formed to design, to implement, to monitor and even to evaluate programmes; • the drawing together of theory and practice within programmes; • the need to know more about the matching of methods to learning outcomes; and, • the need to achieve a better balance between learning what the system requires of individual leaders and what practising professionals requires of themselves and their colleagues. It is suggested that this balance can best be achieved by groups of principals or professional collectives and alliances setting and delivering their own professional development agendas. The paper concludes by identifying a number of implications arising from the earlier analyses, including: • broaden what counts for effective education beyond academic achievement; • better reconcile decentralisation with overall system quality; • review school leader appointment processes and criteria to ensure they reflect the new demands being made of them; • identification and development of potential leaders needs to be formalised, rather than be left to chance - succession planning needs to be more than just-in-time job replacement; • review role responsibilities and levels of administrative support for principals to ensure that their priority is educational leadership; • consider appointing school leaders for fixed periods; • as organisational learning, or collective teacher efficacy, is the important intervening variable between leadership and teacher work and then improved student outcomes, early priority be given to supporting the development of OL in schools; • greater attention be paid to the context in which school leaders operate, especially in relation to school size, SES and the home educational environments of its students; • consider conferring greater professional autonomy to teachers; • encourage more teachers to extend their work as educators beyond the classroom to the entire school; • build the attractiveness of leadership roles in schools in ‘challenging circumstances’; • find more space in all professional development programmes for school leaders for examples of leadership values in action and moving beyond maintenance/management to relationships and school improvement/ learning outcomes; • build on the preference by educators to learn from each other by developing and refining quality network learning communities, acting and/or shared leadership roles and apprenticeships and/or mentoring; and, • seek greater clarity/evidence of the effects on schools and the people in them of performance management and standards-based professional development before committing further resources in these areas. II. BACKGROUND PAPER 1. Introduction: Schools are seen as increasingly important Our context is one of rapid growth in scientific and medical discoveries, technology, including information communications technology (ICT), and the world’s population. But it is also a context of growing unevenness in such developments in different parts of the world and/or within individual countries. The consequences of this situation include a blurring of boundaries, growing gaps between people, groups and countries and the end of certainty including a diminution of credibility of traditional knowledge and authority of expertise, especially in professions such as education. This context and its consequences are forcing particular issues onto national and international agendas. Foremost among these issues are: economic competitiveness and market share; sustainability; identity within globalisation (including of information, commerce and people and their cultures); equity; and, increasingly, the role of public institutions, including for education, in helping make the most of the concomitant challenges. In fact, “Education has moved up the political agenda … [and] is seen as the key to unlocking not just social but also economic problems.” (OECD, 2001b, p. 48) The society we have, including the identity and cohesion within that society and its understanding and acceptance of other societies, is seen to be largely created in our schools. Schools are one of the few remaining institutions to offer partnerships to families in socialisation and investment through learning. School education helps people make sense of the changes as well as fostering sustainability, including through lifelong learning. The creation, acquisition, communication and wise use of knowledge are of particular importance. In brief, society’s most important investment is increasingly seen to be in the education of its people - we suffer in the absence of good education: we prosper in its presence. In this situation of high expectations of each country’s educational provision, those leading schools have an enormous responsibility. It is no wonder that the “school improvement movement of the past 20 years has put a great emphasis on the role of leaders.” (OECD, 2001b, p. 32) Fullan (2002, p. 15) has gone as far to conclude that, “Effective school leaders are key to large-scale, sustainable education reform.” Not only are school leaders important but also they are generally seen to be taking on more and more roles. Leithwood et al’s (2002) review of the empirical literature on effective leadership in accountable school contexts identifies 121 school leadership practices. (See appendix 1) Competency lists for school leader professional development programmes or school leader standards can be just as long. These ever longer lists of practices, competencies or standards prompt a concern that school leaders are not only being pulled in many different directions simultaneously but that they may be being asked to do too much. Tyack and Cuban (1995, p. 14) point out in their prize-winning book Tinkering towards Utopia, that those responsible for schools need to be careful because education can easily shift “from panacea to scapegoat.” Despite generally strong local support for their schools, this shift will be fuelled, for example, not only by higher and higher expectations but also by growing international interdependencies and improved communication making global diffusion of ‘best practice’ increasingly efficient. How have these broader developments in society and in education been reflected in the roles, recruitment and development of school leaders? In what follows, this paper will: • examine how different approaches to school governance have resulted in changed roles for school leaders (Section 2). Because of these changes, and in some cases in spite of the changes, evidence shows that school leaders clearly remain of crucial importance for continually improving education. • examine how school leaders can strengthen the recruitment, development and retention of teachers (Section 3) and lift student outcomes (Section 4) respecti