Background material - EPNoSL reflection tools for policy design and implementation by EPNoSL

EPNOSL REFLECTION TOOLS FOR POLICY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL) Peer Learning Event (PLA)

25-26 September 2014 Nice, France

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

Table of Contents

Policy Response Toolset ............................................................................................................... 3 Draft Outline of Toolset on Accountability For Equity And Learning ........................... 9 Draft Outline – Policy Coherence Toolset ............................................................................ 20 Draft outline -‐ Stakeholders’ Collaboration Toolset ........................................................ 27 Policy Toolset on Educating School Leaders as Change Agents ................................... 31 Draft Toolset – Distributed Leadership for Equity and Learning ............................... 48 Draft Outline – Policy Toolset on Autonomy ...................................................................... 64

Policy Response Toolset Carl Bagley and Sophie Ward, University of Durham, UK The Policy Response Toolset is intended to help policy makers andschool leaders develop solutions to problems around policy implementation. This toolset is informed by the principles of creative interpretation and the translation of abstract ideas into practice, and views policy as a process of creative social action. It therefore aims to facilitate school leaders’ active participation in the policy process to develop contextually relevant and responsive policy that effectively supports equity and learning. Research conducted by the European Policy Network on School Leadership (Bagley & Ward, 2013; Ward et al, under review) found that school leaders sometimes find it difficult to engage with ‘top down’ policy. This toolset does not, therefore, prescribe ways of engaging with policy, but instead aims to help policy makers and school leaders under the wider heading of policy response to (i) employ creative strategies to overcome obstacles to policy implementationand (ii) co-‐create ways to engage with policy and share best practice. The toolset is divided into three sections: •

Section 1 explores policy enactment

•

Section 2 considers barriers to policy implementation

•

Section 3 considers creative solutions for policy engagement

1. Policy Enactment Policy is both an attempt to solve problems and an attempt to persuade individuals to subscribe to particular beliefs that delineate action. Policy is aprocess that brings certain principles or ideas into practice through the selection of goals, the definition of values and the allocation of resources (Ham & Hill, 1993; Olssen et al, 2004). Policy documents ‘codify and publicise the values which are to inform future practice’ (Ranson, 1995, p. 440), and as such they go to the heart of the relationship between the state and the welfare of its citizens (Hill, 1996). The concept of policy is bound-‐up with notions of public and social issues, the solutions to these, and the role of the state in providing 3

these solutions. Policy does not simply tell us what to do; it also affords possibilities. Consequently, educators may take part in a process of what may be termed ‘creative social action’ (Ball, 1998, p. 270) to resist or transform policy that threatens to undermine educational possibilities that they value. This is significant, as informed engagement provides a space in which dominant policy ideas, texts and recommendations are not simply accepted un-‐problematically at face value, but may be challenged, nuanced, reformulated, and changed. For this reason, Braun et al (2010, p. 549) talk not of policy response but ‘policy enactment’, which they claim involves the creative processes of interpretation and translation to bring abstract ideas into practice. Often, policy is produced in response to emergent issues for which current guidelines are inadequate or absent, and in such instances the translation of abstract ideas into practice has an urgency that is recognised by policy makers and educators alike. An example of an emergent issue in the UK that has prompted a crucial and continuous policy response is discussed in the vignette below. Vignette 1: Self-‐harm online and offline1 At the start of the twenty-‐first century, media reports began to emerge about the dangers posed to children by the internet, including the danger of peer-‐to-‐peer victimisation. In 2007, the UK government commissioned Childnet International, a charity dedicated to protecting children online, to produce guidance to help schools deal with the issue of cyberbullying. Childnet International consulted with school leaders and parents to develop an understanding of the issue and its ensuing report formed part of the UK Government’s Safe to Learn Guidance for schools on bullying. Seven years later, Childnet International reported on a disturbing new development: citing figures from the National Health Service (NHS), Childnet UK claimed that the number of children aged between 10 and 14 treated in hospital after deliberately hurting themselves has risen by more than 2,700 since 2012. Childnet went on to state that in 2014 the London School of Economics’ report, Net Children Go Mobile, showed a significant increase in young people being exposed to potentially negative forms of user-‐generated content online, including self-‐harm websites. Given the serious nature of self-‐harm and the possibility that children are encouraged to self-‐harm by viewing content online, we might expect education policy on self-‐harm to be developed imminently, perhaps in consultation with organisations such as Childnet and the LSE. It is likely that school leaders will be consulted as part of this policy development. 2. Barriers to policy implementation 1

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

While policy response has the potential to engage all members of a learning community in ‘creative social action’ (Ball, 1998, p. 270), various barriers to policy implementation may disrupt this process. In 2013, the UK team of the European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL) conducted a study of the implementation of policy on school leadership for equity in Scotland (Bagley & Ward, 2013; Ward et al, under review).School leaders identified four reasons why they were not engaging with this policy: (i)policy documents are too ‘hard going and laborious’; (ii) policy is perceived to be irrelevant, either ‘distant from my post and what it means in the context of my job’ or they are already doing this in their schools; (iii) not enough time to engage with policy or implement it; (iv)concerned about the lack of policy ‘ownership’ and the lack of consultation during policydevelopment. Sometimes, policy seems to be so far removed from school leaders’ everyday experience that its implementation is almost impossible, as in the example provided below. Vignette 2: ‘Schools in Challenging Circumstances’2 In 2001, the UK government published a policy document aimed at improving school performance, ‘Schools in Challenging Circumstances’. This policy implied that inequity of results is the product of the poor practice of school leaders and teachers, rather than the result of widespread material poverty outside the school. Furthermore, it appeared to overlook the fact that some school leaders in ‘failing’ schools are obliged to direct time and resources to pastoral support for deprived pupils. Lupton (2005) interviewed school leaders in the wake of this policy, and concluded that if policy fails to acknowledge or address contextual pressures faced by schools in deprived communities, then this policy may foster a climate of despondency that undermines school leaders’ ability to engage with proposed solutions to inequity. 3. Policy engagement The EPNoSL study of the implementation of policy on school leadership for equity in Scotland also revealed that some school leaders are engaging with this policy and have benefited from this engagement. They said that they have engaged with this policy by: (i) using it as a coaching tool, to ‘see where we are right now and where we want to be’; (ii) using it to share best practice by working collaboratively with other schools in a cluster and using the policy to develop a ‘cluster improvement plan’; (iii) using it as a ‘quality assurance’ tool.School leaders appear to welcome the ‘clarity of expectation’ offered by the Standards for Leadership and Management, and claim to be using them to help all staff, not just school leaders, develop a shared vision of best practice. 2

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

It seems, then, that policy implementation is a creative process in which school leaders draw upon their professional knowledge to adapt policy to their schools’ needs, and that networks help school leaders share best practice.Policy implementation involves communication, i.e. sharing best practice; ensuring policy is ‘fit for purpose’, and ensuring that all stakeholders are ‘on board’ with the policy message.When communication and participation are at the heart of policy response, creative social action appears to flourish, as in the example below. Vignette 3: Equity Action Group (EAG)3 In 1996, the Australian government launched policy to encourage schools to address issues of social justice. In response to this policy, Rosewood State High School formed an Equity Action Group (EAG) to meet the needs of its ethnically diverse pupils. The EAG meetings are not compulsory and are open to all members of staff (teaching and non-‐teaching) and are held every week on one morning before school. These meetings enable guidance officers, teachers, therapists and administrative staff to share their insights and concerns about social justice and develop interventions to minimise the negative effects of immigrant and minority pupils’ cultural and material disadvantages. Initiatives developed by the EAG include the establishment of support groups for refugee and immigrant families; extra tuition in language and mathematics, and public events to acknowledge the heritage of diverse cultures. By working collaboratively within the school and making connections with the community beyond the school, the EAG has fostered a common vision and a sense of purpose about equity that is underpinned by a respect for individual voice and an acknowledgement of the importance of peer support. This policy response has produced a transformative discourse of leadership that aligns creative social action with collaborative endeavours to place equity at the heart of learning. Summary 1. Policy is a response to issues that require action: while policy sets the parameters of action, it does not simply tell us what to do.

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

2. Policy that does not resonate with educators’ experiences and/or is not deemed ‘fit for purpose’ is difficult to implement, and policy is therefore best developed through consultation with school leaders. 3. Successful policy response involves communication and participation between teachers, schools and the wider learning community to co-‐create a shared vision of how we might meet pupils’ emotional, social and academic needs. References: Bagley, C. & Ward, S. (2013). Policy Response: A Critical Engagement. Retrieved 22nd August 2014 from http://www.schoolleadership.eu/portal/resource/policy-‐response-‐critical-‐engagement Ball, S.J. (1993). What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes.Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13, (2), pp. 10-‐17. Ball, S.J. (1998). Big Policies/Small World: an introduction to international perspectives in education policy. In Lingard, B. &Ozga, J. (Eds.), RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Education Policy and Politics.Abingdon:Routledge. Ball, S.J. (2012). Global Education Inc. Abingdon: Routledge. Braun, A., Maguire, M., Ball S. J (2010). Policy Enactments in the UK Secondary School: examining policy, practice and school positioning.Journal of Education Policy 25(4), pp. 547-‐560. Ham, C. & Hill, M. (1993).The policy process in the modern capitalist state.New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Hill, M. (1996). Social policy: a comparative analysis. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Lupton, R. 2005. Social Justice and School Improvement: Improving the Quality of Schooling in the Poorest Neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal 31 (5),pp. 589–604. Niesche, R.& Keddie,A. (2011).Foregrounding Issues of Equity and Diversity in EducationalLeadership.School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 31 (1), pp.65–77. Olssen, M., Codd, J. & O’Neill, A. (2004).Education policy: globalisation, citizenship and democracy. London: Sage. Ranson, S. (1995).Theorising education policy.Journal of Education Policy, 10, (4), pp. 427-‐448. 7

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

Draft Outline of Toolset on Accountability For Equity And Learning Prepared by the Umeå University team Jonas Höög This draft outline comprises: -

The background and rational for the choice of accountability tools.

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

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

Schools achievements in relation to their socioeconomic background.

Marks inflation, the relation between national tests and marks.

The background The concept accountability has a long history. According to Wikipedia (if it’s allowed to quote that source) "Accountability" stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon). While the word itself does not appear in English until its use in 13th century Norman England, the concept of account-‐giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities related to governance and money-‐lending systems that first developed in Ancient Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Greece, and later, Rome. ravitesh chand. There are many forms of accountabilities, Jabbra and Dwivedi (1989) reports 8 different kinds: moral, administrative, political, managerial, market, legal/judicial, constituency relation, and professional. A general definition could be: The obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner. It also includes the responsibility for money or other entrusted property. The concept was introduced in the educational systems worldwide when comparisons between school results became common. The No child left behind act (NCLB 2001) can 9

be seen as a starting point for many European countries to follow the accountability initiative formulated in the act: “Although NCLB covers numerous federal education programs, the law’s requirements for testing, accountability, and school improvement receive the most attention. NCLB requires states to test students in reading and mathematics annually in grades 3-‐8 and once in grades 10-‐12. States must test students in science once in grades 3-‐5, 6-‐8, and 10-‐12.” (Background and Analysis, New America Foundation 2014) PISA, TIMMS and PERLS represent the growing benchmarking trend between countries worldwide and the reform pressure in many school systems goes under the headline Accountability. The problem imbedded in these endeavors to race the quality of schooling is that accountability often is given a to narrow definition not covering important aspects of the concept. Inspired by the NCLB “literacy and numeracy” slogan the hunt for accountability aims at a narrow interpretation of what successful schooling should be. The rational for this toolset is therefore to propose a broadened definition of accountability and present ways for principals to develop their ambitions in this direction. We also have to remember that all our recommended toolsets should enhance the capacity of schools in all participating countries to create a schooling that enhances both equity and learning. This toolset will therefore cover three main ways we think can how schools address the demand for accountability for equity and learning. The four suggested tools for accountability improvements are: 1. The need for schools not only to display their academic results but also the way schools are accountable concerning the social and civic objectives. 2. Schools must develop a focus both on high marks for student and a pass in all subjects for all students. 3. Social background. Especially the parents’ background has a strong impact on the pupils learning and the school results. 4. In some schools marks are inflated. Systems must be developed to calibrate mark levels in relation to national tests or other sources. 1. Academic and Social/Civic accountability. Most schools around the world have two main tasks – to promote the pupils academic knowledge and to develop a civic conscience and the children’s social competences. How do we know that schools fulfil these tasks? The discussion of the accountability of schools is predominantly focused on the academic objectives and it often neglects the social ones. Effective schools have been seen as those that use resources effectively and 10

deliver high academic results (Samdal et al. 1999; Good & Brophy 1986) while the concept of successful schools often has been used for schools where the development of all sides of a child’s skills and personality dominate. An effective school and an effective school leader are most often understood as an organization and a leader that can achieve results concerning the pupils’ cognitive development. All countries have marks and tests that can be calculated and analyzed at school, municipality or national level. School authorities and researchers have dealt with the issue of how a school and its leader can be effective in reaching high academic standards. Comparisons between schools and countries based on marks and tests in subjects are frequent (PISA, TIMMS, etc.), and it has increased the governments strive to develop more effective school leaders, schools and school systems. But very few if anyone have tried to study school effectiveness from the perspective of the pupils’ development in the social and civic areas, even though most curricula have something to say about the role of schools in the upbringing of children in these respects. The concept accountability should be broadened and a tool for assessing the principals and schools work with social and civic objectives developed. The academic achievement is usually measured by the school’s marking system, but a corresponding system for the social and civic objectives does not exist. However, there are examples on an international level where especially the civic objectives have been assessed for instance: NEAP and IEA Civic Educational studies. Social and Civic Objectives The social task of the Swedish schools under the heading Norms, Values and Personal development can be divided into two main categories. First we have what one might call social objectives (SO) that imply issues regarding social relations, justice, equality but also creativity and a development of a critical mind. The other main category is civic objectives (CO). CO refers to civic education where the pupils should be able to work and function within a democratic society. They should understand how it works and practice these basic democratic principles in everyday situations in school. A democratic climate in the classroom helps the pupils to learn and develop in relation to CO (Perlinger et al. 2006). SO and CO shall not be understood as two totally separated objectives and in certain areas they have common subject areas such as the ambition that pupils shall learn tolerance and compassion. The social and civic objectives should act as a moral/social compass that can be a guiding tool for pupils in their participation in private and public relationships (Quigley 2005). One of the things pointed out in the Swedish curriculum is the understanding that one of the school’s primary tasks is to foster children to be capable to live and participate in society (Lpo94). The students are, in some way, part of a socialization process that is ongoing through their stay at school. This socialization or experience of going to school may change the student/individual in a lasting way. When the student is attending classes, participating in making decisions, interacting with other students and teachers, these activities should develop the student’s intellectual abilities and shape her or his social values for life (Kingston et al. 2003). This socialization should make it easier for 11

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

The BRUK has recently been developed but here we use the version used in a project.

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

ACADEMIC OBJECTIVES WEAK

STRONG

SOCIAL/ CIVIC OBJECTIVES

WEAK

STRONG

ONLY SOCIAL/ CIVIC

NIGHTER ACADEMIC OR SOCIAL/CIVIC

BOTH ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL/CIVIC ONLY ACADEMIC

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

Figure 1. Understanding School Types in relation to academic and social objectives An accountable school is the one to the upper right that is successful in relation to both academic and social/civic objectives. Below this school you find those schools that only are accountable concerning the academic objectives. To the upper left schools that are successful in the social/civic areas are placed and below you find schools that are underperforming in both respects. When working with school improvement different strategies has to be developed for these for types of schools 2. To keep a balance between marks and pass.6 In this way of assessing accountability a comparison of two different academic outcome measures will be used. The first is the average marks for a school and the second is the proportion of pupils in a school that get a pass (leaving certificate) in all 16 subjects that are studied7. The average marks are used to represent the academic results. This measure is dependent on the level all pupils in a school reaches in the subjects taught. A proficient school can have a high average mark but at the same time a considerable amount of pupils not reaching pass in one or more of the subjects and therefore they don’t get a full exam from compulsory school. This of course affects their chances to apply for upper secondary school (gymnasium in Sweden). The other situation is represented by schools where all pupils get a pass in all subjects and get a full exam, but the marks are quite low on average. You might say that the first type of school are more focused on pupils with good chances to get high marks on the cost of the pupils with not so good conditions for that. The other type of school is focused on making all pupils reach a full exam and chooses to put in special efforts for some of them with the consequence that the pupils with ambitions to get high marks don’t get the support they would expect. None of these schools can be considered to be socially just if a vision for a good school is that both targets are met, that is high average marks and all pupils achieving the full exam, that is, good school outcomes for all children. The first figure below show the situation for all Swedish compulsory schools and the second the situation in the 24 project schools mentioned above.

This text is taken from an unpublished paper : Höög and Johansson Social Justice for all Children – do principals facilitate education of equivalent value? Centre for Principal Development Umeå University, Sweden

This is regulated in the curriculum for the compulsory school

120

Marks 202,1 Pass 97,1 %

100 Per cen tage Pass

80 60

Marks 201,9 Pass 54,3 %

40 20 0 40

140

Marks

190

240

290

PASS %

Marks 212 Pass88%

Marks 198 Pass 78%

Marks 218 Pass 78%

Marks 213 Pass 71%

170

180

190

200

210

230

240

MARKS 0-320

220

Figure 2. Two examples of the graphic relation between marks and pass . 3. Take the Socioeconomic Situation (SES) into consideration. There is a common understanding that school results are related to differences in socioeconomic situation (Coleman 1966, Creemers, 1994). The Swedish National Agency of Education has developed a data system that calculates the result a school should have (both marks and pass) if you take into account its SES concerning number of boys, number of immigrant pupils and the parents mean educational level (1-‐3 scale)8. A residual is calculated that shows the divergence between the mean result for schools with a specific background and your own school as a principal. If the residual is plus your school performs better than the mean school and if it’s minus you perform worse. An accountable school should perform at least as good as the mean school while a successful should would perform better than expected in relation to schools with the same SES. In the table below from the SALSA9 data base it shows how schools differ concerning these two important outcomes.

8 9

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

Table 1 Results from the Swedish data base SALSA showing the social background factors, the factual and the model calculated marks and pass and the residuals (differences between factual and calculated values). School Year Prop. Prop of of boys pupils wfb 10 born abroad

Prop of pupils wfb born in Sweden

Prop of pupils wfb that arrived last 4 years

Parents mean educa-‐ tional level

Factual Expected Residual R mean sum sum of for fo of marks/pass marks marks/pass

School 2013 61% -‐ A

-‐

2,18

242/92

240/92

School 2012 61% 8% A

20%

-‐

2,31

242/93

228/85

School 2011 65% 4% A

29%

-‐

2,23

240/89

232/87

School 2010 53% 7% A

19%

-‐

2,26

250/88

231/87

School 2013 44% -‐ B

-‐

15%

2,05

180/44

190/58

-‐10

-‐1

-‐21

-‐1

School 2012 56% 37% B

54%

-‐

1,92

169/33

190/52

School 2011 60% 28% B

66%

-‐

2,09

202/54

207/59

-‐5

School 2010 60% 22% B

47%

-‐

2,06

179/43

199/61

-‐20

-‐1

School A achieves over expectations both concerning marks and pass most years, but school B’s results are below expectations in both marks and pass all years. School B also have low factual results and should be a school considered as one in need of special support. 10

With foreign background

4. Marks inflation, the relation between national tests and marks The Swedish National Agency for Education has as one of its missions’s to assess the differences between the national tests and the marks that the students get when they leave school in the 9th grade (compulsory school). The purpose with the national tests is to support an equitable and fair assessment and grading. This comparison is done many years, latest 2013. What they find every year is that there are large differences between tests and marks in English language, Mathematics, Swedish language, Biology, Physics and Chemistry. There are also large differences between schools in how they act in this respect. In figure 4 you can see results of the analysis for mathematics:

Figure 3. The discrepancy between national test results and marks in the 9th school year in mathematics in 1371 Swedish schools 2013. The discrepancies are calculated through a subtraction of the percentage of students who get a higher mark than their scores on the national test with the percentage of students who get a lower mark than the scores on the national test in the subject. This is called a net effect. In some schools 80 % get a higher mark than the result on the national test indicates. In many schools

The consequences of this is firstly that some students get an impression that they are more knowledgeable than they in fact are which could have an impact on their self-‐ understanding and self-‐appreciation. When they go to more advanced studies they will find that their level of knowledge is below what is required to manage the expectations on this level. They also might find that their fellow students with lower marks from compulsory school are more successful in meeting the new demands. Secondly students from schools with “inflated” marks get better opportunities when applying for higher education. But both for the students and for universities and for society this will lead to problems holding the necessary level of instruction for the specific course or program. The reason for these discrepancies is that the marking procedures and the definition of proficiency necessary for a certain mark varies between teachers and schools. You can use the term marking culture to describe the process that leads to the result shown in figure x. Schools on the right-‐hand side of the line above has a culture more exacting when it comes to marks compared to national test results while schools to the left hand have a culture where teachers are more generous to leave the test results out of account when deciding the marks. To summarize the four cases of Accountability we propose the following TOOL RECOMMENDATIONS: To increase school ability to form an organization where equity and learning characterizes their accountability, the school leaders should be trained to develop a systematic quality assessment process that includes: 1. An assessment of school results both concerning academic and social/civic objectives. And present ways to improve the parts of the school mission that is underdeveloped. 2. An assessment of the school results both concerning marks and pass. And present strategies to close the gap between results and support students with different readiness to learn, both those for whom it is hard and those for whom it is easy to learn. 3. An assessment of the school result concerning marks inflation through comparing marks with national (or international if available) test scores that can calibrate the marks given at the school. And find ways to develop the teachers’ ability to mark the pupils correctly in relation to their factual knowledge. 4. An assessment of the school results concerning the way the school performs in relation to expectations based on its socioeconomic situation. And develop strategies to live up to what is expected from all stakeholders.

Draft Outline – Policy Coherence Toolset Prepared by Pavlos Hatzopoulos (FORTH) 1. Aims and purpose of the policy coherence toolset The toolset will address school leadership stakeholders in order to facilitate reflection on how problems of policy coherence can be addressed at the school level. The purpose of the EPNoSL toolset on policy coherence is to help SL stakeholders, and particularly assist teachers and school leaders, in dealing with problems of policy fragmentation inconsistency, conflicting policies when these become lived experiences in different guises within the school environment. 2. Conceptual Approach “Policy coherence” has not been a prominent concept in public debates over education policies. In the context of European education systems, the term has almost been absent from public discourse. There no ongoing policy references to it, no monitoring or assessment mechanisms in place for analyzing its impact on education policies. Only in the US, and particularly since the 1990s, has policy coherence been present in discussions over educational reforms (Fuhrman 1993; Hatch 2000; Newmann et al. 2001). Particularly in some US academic writings, policy coherence is analysed as an important factor for education policy design. Policy coherence is used in these writings as merely a term that denotes the politics of the rationalisation and modernization of the American education system. It is defined as the act of giving a sense of direction to the education system by specifying educational purposes and goals. It is used largely in a colloquial fashion, as the antithesis to the lack of coordination, to the inconsistencies, to the fragmentations, and to the lack of a clear purpose that characterize the US system (Fuhman, 1993). Policy coherence is thus absent from education policy agendas, even in official US policy texts, as it has not been become a substantial political concept in this field.

In contrast, policy coherence is a concept that has emerged in public discourse primarily in relation to development policies. Being highlighted by successive reports of internal organisations (particularly the OECD -‐ see, for instance, OECD 2005) as a key consideration towards increasing the effectiveness of international development policies, policy coherence for development (PCD) forms currently an expanding field of policy designs, interventions and debates. The European Union has officially adopted PCD as a priority in the context of its common development policy (EU, 2005), stating that “The EU seeks to minimise contradictions and to build synergies between policies other than development cooperation that have an impact on developing countries, for the benefit of overseas development”. 11 The European approach to policy coherence has expanded since then, with the EU deciding to apply policy coherence on 5 priority areas in relation to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals (EC 2010): • • • • •

trade and finance climate change food security migration security

At the same time, there has been a growing amassment of official texts (council of ministers decisions, commission documents, work programs, progress reports) that have firmly incorporated PCD in the EU policy agenda. Figure 1: PCD chronology

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

Source: Dolhman 2014

It is important to note that this dominant discourse on policy coherence assumes a quite rigid, top-‐down understanding of the policy process. In particular, the OECD framework for progress in the realm of policy coherence, which has also been adopted by the EU, is based on a three-‐phase cycle that clearly prioritises government institutions and initiatives as the founding blocks for policy development (OECD 2012 and Mackie 2014). This three-‐phase cycle is comprised of: 1. Political commitment and policy statements. (Where high ranked government officials are expected to commit, to publicly set objectives and priorities, and to also raise public awareness and build public support for policy coherence). 2. Policy co-‐ordination and mechanisms. (Where governments are called to develop informal and formal consultation and coordination mechanisms across the public administration and/or found specialized agencies that can play a proactive role in pushing for policy coherence). 22

3. Systems for monitoring, analysis and reporting. (Where governments are called to ensure the monitoring to collect evidence about the impact of policy coherence, analysis to make sense of the data collected, and reporting back to parliament and the public). Figure 2: The OECD Policy Framework for Policy Coherence

Source: Dolhman 2014 For the purpose of the EPNoSL policy coherence toolset, it is important: -‐

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

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

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

These tasks will be addressed by orienting the toolset towards highlighting instances of policy engagement and of creative practices that emerge at school level in order to tackle problems of policy coherence. This focus will enable us first to help school leaders to address policy coherence related problems and, second, to raise awareness amongst the wider school leadership stakeholder community about the importance of policy coherence as these impact the school environment. Within the EPNoSL framework on School Leadership policy development, policy coherence at school level can be identified in leadership strategies and actions that orient the school life in its totality towards the goals of equity and improved learning performance. Coherence is evidenced in the synergies and complementarities between the school’s mission, development plans and priorities, the school’s spending priorities, curricula, staffing, professional development, extra-‐curricular and out of school activities, networking, engagement in community projects, etc. targeting specific school and community needs in relation to equity in access, opportunities, and outcomes and improved learning performance for all (Kollias and Hatzopoulos 2013). 3. Toolset script The basic framework of the script of the toolset is based on a three-‐phase process whereby problems of policy coherence become visible and are then addressed at the school level. There is no necessary chronological order amongst these three phases; a challenge of the toolset is to treat them as contemporaneous. Phase 1: Policy incoherence will be depicted as the norm of the existing school leadership terrain across European education systems. Current SL policies, or the lack 24

of them, produce school environments where school leadership practices are called to mediate amongst divergent and at times conflicting demands, guidelines or goals. Phase 2: The lack of policy coherence gives rise to situations where school leaders, and the wider the school community, are called to act on the basis of sometimes confusing, sometimes conflicting, sometimes unrealistic demands, guidelines or goals. Phase 3: School leaders, and the wider school community, engage with these demands, guidelines, and goals in a creative manner. Courses of action followed by the school community are often based on processes of active re-‐interpretation or undermining of certain demands, guidelines and goals. This is a task that, at its best, generates individual and collective creative practices, requiring actions of virtuosity on the part of school leaders and the wider school community (Virno 2004). Final decisions have not been made, yet, about the exact formats of the tools that will comprise the policy coherence toolset. As proposed in the EPNoSL Deliverable 2.1 Commonly Agreed Plan, the toolset will comprise of a basic document outlining the conceptual approach towards policy coherence and showing how this can be productive in generating reflections on SL policy development plus a digital multimedia artifact (probably a video). In the coming weeks the precise forms of the tools will be finalized by the FORTH team. References Dolhman, E. (2014). The OECD experience and thinking on PCD: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-‐policies/documents/7-‐ebba-‐ dohlman-‐brussels-‐12june2014-‐v3_en.pptx

European Commission (2010). Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010-‐ 2013: http://aei.pitt.edu/37898/1/SEC_%282010%29_421.pdf EU (2005). The European Consensus on Development: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/eu_consensus_en.pdf Fuhman, E (ed.) (1993). Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Hatch, T. (2000). What does it take to go to scale? Reflections on the promise and perils of comprehensive school reform. Journal of Edu-‐ cation for Students Placed at Risk, 5 (4), 339–354 Kollias, A. & Hatzopoulos, P. (eds) (2013) School Leadership Policy Development: The EPNoSL Briefing Notes , European Policy Network on School Leadership. (Available at http://www.schoolleadership.eu/portal/ deliverable/briefing-‐notes-‐school-‐leadership-‐ policy-‐development ). Mackie, J. (2014). The European Experience on CPD: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-‐policies/documents/1-‐james-‐ mackie-‐presentation-‐pcd-‐ecdpm-‐jm4-‐12-‐june-‐14_en.ppt Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (4), 297–321 OECD (2005). Fostering Development in a Global Economy A Whole of Government Perspective. Geneva: OECD publishing. OECD (2012). Policy Framework for Policy Coherence for Development: http://www.oecd.org/pcd/50461952.pdf Virno, P. (2004). A Grammar of the Multitude. Boston: MIT press

Draft outline -‐ Stakeholders’ Collaboration Toolset

Carmo Clímaco and Ana Paula Silva, ULHT, CeiED, PT Introduction The tool set to be developed aims at contributing to the improvement of schools as social organizations to be appropriated / owned by local partners evaluation processes, in the perspective of a multi level shared responsibility, usually involving a multidisciplinary team of education inspectors and different internal agents from each school, namely the school leaders, teachers and students, representatives of parents, the local educational authorities, and other local stakeholders involved in the fostering of the quality of the education service. This reflection seems particularly pertinent in what concerns the Portuguese partnership within EPNoSL, considering that in two years time there will be a revision of the instruments in use in the schools external evaluation, as the 2nd cycle (a period of five years of field interventions) of this national program will come to its end in 2016. We will have as a reference framework the importance of a reliable feedback as a key tool for improvement based on knowledge and contextualized observation, and the strengthening of the social participation as a developmental and empowering process in democratic societies to promote trust in public schools and in educators. Our point of departure for this exercise on school stakeholders’ involvement in the education service at local level stems on the belief that very often, in some countries, they are privileged school service consumers, but it doesn´t mean they are partners involved in the construction of the global educational process, which presupposes the participation in the debate preceding the decision making and the results analysis. In many countries, families are concerned essentially with the needs and well being of their own children at school, but do not take part in the construction and development of the school educational project, neither in the education model debate, whenever it takes place. Teachers involve parents in the individual schooling processes of their children mainly to inform them or to complain about behavior or learning difficulties, but let them alone to solve the problems which they themselves, as professionals, are often unable to solve: to respond to individual difficulties, to promote better learning and equity in achievement. Moreover, the weaker the parents’ capacity in establishing an intelligent dialogue for intervention and to understand the school discourse, the weaker their children’s achievement, as international testing has put in evidence. 27

In the networked society, as conceived in the neoliberal policies, the accessibility to information and knowledge became central factors to understand and manage the flow of data, the comparisons, the targets and the standards, the competition, the choices to be made, the subtleties of comparisons and accountability procedures. Figures and indicators turned into symbols of objectivity and credibility, “and provided opportunities for “simplification of the problems of endless competing interpretation in order to provide a basis for action” (Grek et al.2013; in Ozga, Jenny, 2014, p.22). According to this author, “this simplification removes the need for attention to context” “and its appearance of validity” reinforces comparisons in the government of education. “Comparison frames knowledge-‐governing relations through establishing three key principles (i) that regular and systematic assessments are truthful practices for improvement of educational systems; (ii) that such improvement has to be analyzed in relation to the pace of change of other countries: (iii) that international comparison of student performances develops the quality of national education systems, while capturing educational complexity and diversity (Carvalho, 2012, in Ozga, 2014) Comparative data became a landmark in the education systems’ evaluation and the essential criteria for schools ‘accountability, as if the “magic” of the figures could be enough to turn numbers into evidences, and the evidences into truth. Therefore, the numbers play a fundamental role in the discourse of inspectors when comparing the students’ results in standardized testing, and classifying the school’s improvement as “above / below the expected value”, referenced to the school’s results in national exams. It must be underlined the effort that has been made towards a common written discourse, more descriptive than judgmental, following common criteria and methodology. However it seems that the accountability practices have contributed for the introduction of an academic jargon that may allow comparisons at a surface level, though very often the complexity of the discourse reduces the real meaning of data describing the students’ learning and the extent of schools’ improvement. The technicalities of the method are excluding an effective participation of partners in the analysis of a codified discourse. Current accountability procedures in European schools follow different formats according to national administration traditions and rules, but it should be underlined the European effort to harmonize criteria and procedures through the influence of the Standing International Conference of Inspectorates-‐ (SICI), in the respect for the national policies and autonomy. Autonomy is to be viewed as a social and a political construction, and therefore new tools for public action are to be constructed. In the post bureaucratic society, new models of public regulation emerge, creating different fields for participation and responsibility, leaving behind models of strict “command and control” and looking for a new political relationship, based on shared information and negotiation. In this context the different school stakeholders have a specific role not just as school knowledge (information) consumers, but also as users of school information and co-‐producers of the necessary feedback to consolidate de quality of the schooling work. In this context, 28

the schools autonomy assumes frequently the format of a contract , being programmed and “negotiated” within a model of public administration , following a distributed model of power and responsibilities, aiming at creating a new relationship and political legitimacy, on shortening the distance between the decision makers and field actors, or between “governed and governors” on recovering democracy and distributing responsibilities for the quality of the services to be delivered to all school users. Therefore, the identification, definition and justification of a problem or issue related to stakeholders’ collaboration needs to be addressed by policy making at school level aiming to enable school leaders to tackle challenges of equity and learning in their schools. The toolset script – outlines Comparative studies on the European education policies and school performance need yet to respond to some sensitive questions: • What kind of information on the education delivery processes do the different stakeholders need, so that they may be involved in the discussion of the schooling issues, such as the internal organization, staffing and resourcing, the curriculum management issues, so that they may be informed and empowered to participate in the decision making? • What specific information do parents need that distinguish them from other partners in the education services, such as the teachers, the local politicians , the employers or any informed citizen? • What information the post bureaucratic school has to provide to guarantee equality in the access to “readable” information, and social justice in the analysis of learning quality? We intend to develop our work in the future seeking for useful assessment indicators (hard and soft) in alternative models of schools’ evaluation, which may lead us towards provisory answers and therefore some guidance for public discussion involving as many educational stakeholders as possible. References Afonso J. Almerindo (2010) Políticas educativas e auto-‐avaliação da escola pública portuguesa: apontamentos de uma experiência. Est.Aval: Educ., São Paulo, v.21. n.46, p.343-‐362, maio/agosto.2010. Baxter, J. (2013) Learning by inspection: Research Report – English case study. Milton Keynes, UK, The Open University. Sisyphus, vol. 2, 1, 2014; Baxter,J,&Clarke, J. (2012) What counts as success in inspection in England – Shifting Criteria? Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research. Network 23 Symposium “Governing by inspection: national developments. Cadiz Spain. Sisyphus, vol. 2, 1, 2014; 29

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

Policy Toolset on Educating School Leaders as Change Agents Prepared by the University of Innsbruck Team Michael Schratz, Helmuth Aigner, Silvia Krenn for EPNoSL, September 2014 This draft outline is prepared for submission at the PLA in Nice, 25-‐26 September, 2014. It contains · aims and purpose of the educating school leaders as change agents toolset · the conceptual approach guiding the toolset · the competency framework “Central 5” · the relevance of school leadership culture for leadership and learning

1. Aims and purpose of the Educating school leaders as change agenst toolset The toolset will address stakeholders in all areas of educating school leaders (policy, regional school authorities, school boards, in-service training institutions, school head associations et al.) in order to facilitate reflection on how to enhance leadership development in training programs for school leaders. The purpose of the toolset on educating school leaders as change agents is to support both newly appointed and practising school leaders as well as people training school leaders with the challenge of change. It is important for the improvement of a school that school leaders act as change agents and not only contribute to the development of their individual school but also to the system at large. Pont, Nusche, and Moorman (2008) direct attention to the decisive role of educational leadership for school reform. They assert that “It bridges educational policy and practice” (p. 19). School leaders are an important link for the synchronization of top-down and bottom-up processes (cf. Fullan, 2005) and are the key actors in promoting quality processes in schools (Hall & Hord, 1987; Firestone & Riehl, 2005). Reform policies can only be coherently integrated into the life of schools and classrooms, if a capacity building approach for professional school leadership pays attention to system-wide change (Stoll, Bolam, & Collarbone, 2002) which tries to deal with the following questions:      

How can the complex decision-making structure be disentangled and the different demands of central and decentral interests brought into balance? How is it possible to coordinate communication and actions both of policy and practice among the different levels of the system? How can a learning context be created which aims at influencing the pattern of how professionals go about changing their organizations? How can the system be energized by more individual and organizational empowerment? How can leadership be more closely connected with learning by creating better conditions for student achievement? How can professional development create system-wide culture change and be linked with the improvement capacity of the actors on the different horizontal and vertical levels?

As teachers are the key actors in the process of leadership for learning, we have to look closer at the connection between school leaders and teachers. According to depicted findings in Figure 3, schools are successful when there is coherence between (school) policy and practice. However, suggested that the “challenge of coherence is not to clone or align everything so it looks the same in all schools ... The challenge, rather, is how to bring diverse people together to work skillfully and effectively for a common cause that lifts them up and has them moving in the same direction with an impact on learning, achievement, and results.” (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009, pp. 94-95) The leadership challenge how to get diverse people moving into the desired direction lies beyond the reach of an individual (school) leader. The book titles on leadership mentioned in the introduction give a vivid impression of the different leadership voices in taking up this challenge. Implementing leadership concepts for innovation and change is often seen as merely organizational or technological question, turning complexity into a series of (trans)actions from policy to practice. 32

However, dealing with complexity does not mean creating more complex structures of planning, acting, controlling and developing systems. The shift to an organic understanding of growth is related to openness and trust, which best help in reducing complexity of systems: Speaking openly opens others. In our leadership work through the Austrian Leadership Academy (Schley & Schratz, 2010; Stoll, Moorman, & Rahm, 2008), we have been actors and observers of a shift in mindset and culture, overcoming the traditional abyss between policy and practice. The fieldwork with many stakeholders on all levels of the system has taught us the wisdom of many in the collective intelligence of practice and opened up new dimensions of dealing with system-wide development. The performance of the school system is based on an understanding of the different situations, contexts, demands and challenges within each organizational unit. Consequently, developing performance is not simply achieved by sending individuals on a training course but a journey through the “field structure of attention” (Scharmer, 2007), which builds on different modes of (self-)awareness. Self-awareness, in Owen’s view, “is knowing how your actions affect other people” (Owen, 2009, p. 287). We are becoming aware of an emergent leaderhip culture which can be characterized by a spirit of innovation, commitment and new attitudes for dealing with complexity, facing dynamics, taking risks and learning from mistakes. After all, for Stenhouse “[i]t is teachers who in the end will change the world of the school by understanding it” (Stenhouse, Rudduck, & Hopkins, 1985).

2. The central 5: A competency framework1 This chapter presents the competency framework that is the result of the joint work of five countries in the European Commission-funded project “International Co-operation for School Leadership“ involving Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden. The competency framework is based on investigation in which we asked head teachers on their opinions and experience of managing and leading schools. It is divided into five sections each of which exemplifies one domain. Domains relate to specific areas of head teachers´ work and integrate competencies which we present in this material as knowledge, skills and attitudes. Knowledge in this competency framework includes facts, information, descriptions or skills acquired through headteacher education and training or experience. It can refer to the theoretical or the practical understanding of a subject. Knowledge can be explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject) or implicit (as with practical skill or experience) and can be more or less formal or systematic. A skill in this competency framework is the learned capacity to carry out predetermined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both. A skill is the ability that one possesses. General skills would include teamwork, time management, leadership and selfmotivation. Specific skills are related to a certain job, e.g. in school management. An attitude is positive or negative evaluation of people, objects, activities, ideas etc.; it is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour. Leadership is context-specific and we recognise that, in certain circumstances, the extent to which certain competences may prevail over others may vary. We do, however, believe that the set of This chapter has its origin in a project funded by the European Commission unter the titel “International Co-operation for School Leadership“ involving Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden. The final report (Révai & Kirkham, 2013), where this part originates from, is available on http://www.tpf.hu/upload/docs/konyvtar/books/leadership2013.pdf. 1

competencies within this framework does represent that which is required to lead and manage schools. There are many ways of analysing and representing the task of headship. This is one of them. The framework demonstrates both the complexity and the simplicity of the role of the headteacher. Simplicity is reflected in the definition of the following five component areas of leadership and management: Leading and managing …

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

These areas, however, are not completely distinct sets. The components then should be seen as representative of the interconnected complexity of the headteacher role and of the attributes needed to perform this role. When detailing knowledge, skills and attitudes, several overlaps might occur and the framework illustrates a complex system. In order to establish consistency, decisions were taken as to which area a certain element (knowledge, skill, attitude) should belong. Where a competence appeared in more than one area originally, it has been modified to occur in the one area where it appears to fit best and is not repeated. This does not lessen the importance of its impact on other areas, it merely enables the framework to be less convoluted and repetitive. Thus, for example, general, overarching, personal characteristics, such as honesty, creativity etc. were clustered in “leading and managing self” even though in application these could well be related to several (or all the) areas with specific references relating to the given area (for example, being creative in leading and managing the learning processes). 2.1 Leading and managing learning and teaching The core purpose of schooling is learning. The role of the headteacher is to create a supportive learning environment and to ensure that the resources of the school are directed to that purpose. The effective leadership and management of learning of all members of the school and the establishment, maintenance and the development of a learning organisation are thus primary functions of the school leader as the leading professional. Thus, the school leader should carry out the activities as outlined in the ensuing sentences. S/he should lead the process of values-centred learning and teaching. While establishing a safe and effective learning climate and processes for learning where high expectations are set, s/he sets a culture of learning and a climate of achievement for all. The highest quality of learning and teaching needs to be established, maintained and developed together with a systematic and rigorous system of monitoring, review and evaluation of the teaching and learning processes. The headteacher needs to be active in ensuring that such exist and that reliable assessment systems are created/adopted and utilised. The headteacher needs to model in her/his own practice and the constant application of both established pedagogic and andragogic ideas and new trends and innovation in education. S/he should support and promote research and evidence-based approaches to teaching and learning (and, ideally, engage in such activity). 34

Key descriptors: School leaders ensure that learning and teaching lead to the improvement of student achievement. School leaders establish a culture of feedback and evaluation with a view to improvement. School leaders ensure that curricular activities meet the demands of all learners. School leaders critically engage teachers with (research) literature to improve their teaching. School leaders work towards achieving an inclusive learning environment.

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

Key descriptors: School leaders communicate the vision for the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future which is based on shared values and aiming at improving current practice and student achievement. School leaders pursue a strategic approach in their daily activities by offering manageable steps to everybody to fulfill the goals set by the school. School leaders act strategically in pursuing their schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals and understand and are able to respond constructively to the challenges involved in the process of change. School leaders create an environment which is open to change and establish constructive relationships with the actors involved. School leaders share their leadership with other staff and build improvement on the deserved trust in their own and othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; capabilities.

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

Key descriptors: School leaders critically reflect upon their personality, behaviour and actions, and (when necessary) revise their decisions. (Self-reflection and self-evaluation) School leaders continuously improve their interpersonal strengths and seek to overcome weaknesses. (Interpersonal development) School leaders keep up-to-date professional knowledge and strengths to be able to set up and reach the visions and goals of the school. (Professional – leadership and managerial development) School leaders recognise moral and ethical stances in relation to education, keep professional ethics and accept their responsibility. (Ethical and moral development) School leaders communicate effectively and show their deep commitment to the education and development of student teachers and themselves. (Effective communication and commitment)

2.4 Leading and managing others The headteacher needs to know how to inspire others to high achievement (to be the best they can be with reflection and reflexivity), and how to use school self-evaluation. Knowledge of human resource development and management (selection, recruitment, induction, monitoring and appraisal/evaluation) is essential for headteachers. To attain the goals of the school they need to know how to use teams and how to build them. They need to maintain the highest ethical and moral approaches in the management of others. Knowledge and application of social justice will assist headteachers in building personal and professional relationships. S/he must act within the principles of equality and equality of opportunity. In managing others, headteachers need to communicate effectively with others, give timely feedback and be able to initiate and promote discussion and good practice. To ameliorate the potential for community and political support the headteacher needs to be able to establish and maintain effective partnership. Schools which are active in the community gain more support. The headteacher needs to know and understand how to establish conditions to reduce the stress of others. S/he needs to know how to manage conflict 36

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

Key descriptors: School leaders inspire, motivate and encourage school staff and students and promote their positive approach to challenges in education. (Inspirational leadership) School leaders create, co-ordinate and participate on effective team working based on various form of shared/distributed leadership. (Team-building and distributed leadership) School leaders ensure professional development of people based on recognition of needs and requirements of the staff, school and stakeholders. (Professional development) School leaders make decisions, solve problems and manage conflicts (recognising othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; considerations and different social and cultural (diversity) viewpoints. (Communication and shared decision making) School leaders develop a positive climate and culture supportive of knowledge-sharing and reaching common goals keeping moral and ethical stances in leading others. (School climate and moral aspects)

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

Key descriptors: School leaders analyse and handle effectively the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutional resources including financial, human, technological, physical etc. in compliance with legal requirements. School leaders care about the public image of the school and act to maintain a positive public image. School leaders ensure effective time management.

School leaders channel and manage processes in a transparent way making sure to meet the guidelines of the system. School leaders establish communication that engages internal and external partners.

3. Exploring and developing school leadership competencies in action 3.1 The Yin-Yang of Management & Leadership In several countries the ascendancy of school leadership is linked to government's goals of raising educational standards and modernizing the education system and therefore "the primacy of leadership is part of a wider agenda of transformation across public services where leaders are the vehicle by which policy reforms can be implemented and change realized" (Forrester & Gunter, 2009, p. 67). This kind of "functional organizational leadership" is a managerial approach of neoliberal policy-making rather than leadership which is associated with being visionary, motivational, inspirational and innovative. Due to the discrepancies between reality and the ideal, conceptions of leadership in recent years have been increasingly characterized by notions of personal leadership. As a result, there is a delineation of characteristics which apply to individual leaders and strategies for influencing the behavior of their associates. According to Staehle, “A concept of leadership represents a (normative) system of recommendations for action on the manager’s part, both in reference to personal responsibility and their personal leadership tasks. Leadership concepts are based explicitly or implicitly upon one or more leadership theories. 2” (Staehle, 1999, p. 839) In order to characterize the qualities of both management and leadership, Hinterhuber’s theoretical model (2003) can be helpful, in that it attributes differentiating attitudes, mindsets, and actions to Management and Leadership, modelling them along the Eastern conception of Yin-Yang (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Interrelation between management and leadership (Hinterhuber, 2003) 2

Translations from German original texts into English are mine. 38

According to the Yin-Yang metaphor, there is no clear-cut division between management and leadership, and yet their features are distinct. There is no “either - or” but an “as well as.” Management carries elements of leadership and vice versa. They can be differentiated in theory, but, in practice, they are interwoven. Management is more a state of behavior referring to norms; leadership is more a (moral) attitude of influence. Managing without a moral attitude is just as problematic as leading without acting according to (given) norms. Competency in management is easier to acquire than the capacity to lead, not the least because leadership is never a solo act. This is because leadership is a social activity, which enables others to rise to their individual challenges and meet them with the necessary measures. It is the school leaders who are in contact with many different stakeholders (not just within the school but in society at large: the community, politicians, the public, etc.) and they are also the ones to register and respond to differing (and at times conflicting) interests. Leadership can only be effective in so far as leaders are willing to accept and work to their own moral (and policy) agendas, but these need to be grounded within the political framework in which their education systems operate, since the weight of normative pressures bears differently upon varying educational contexts (Portin, et al., 2005). The culturally embedded trends, according to Scharmer, "are based not on the laws of physics but on human habits, albeit habits on a large scale. These habitual ways of thinking and acting become embedded over time in social structures we enact, but alternative social structures can also be created" (Scharmer, 2007, p. xiii). In his structuration theory, Giddens (1984) “talks of the duality of structure in which social structures are not fixed sets of rules and resources but are features of social systems that have to be recreated in the specific moment action. Such recreation can only take place when human agents act in this way or that and a powerful influence at that point is the reflexivity and knowledgeability.” (Frost, 2006, p. 23) Therefore the implication of Giddens’ theory of action is that social (or organizational) structures are modified by the agency of individuals. In the context of daily work, management and leadership are social activities which cannot be separated from each other: They are relational concepts and not individual activities. Therefore, they can only be dealt with separately for analytical purposes. In this respect, leadership is a social activity setting a direction and developing a vision. It is about aligning people and inspiring them, which should enable others to rise to their individual challenges and meet them with the necessary measures. Leadership is also about agency: “We make choices which have moral dimensions … agency as a capacity to act and reflect on the consequences” (ibidem). Management is more a state of behaviour referring to norms; leadership is more a (moral) attitude of influence. This is important because it views agency as a driving force for leadership for learning. Managing and leading are complex social practices that reflect values about the future of education in particular and society at large. Successful leadership involves the ability to integrate knowledge from various sources, the ability to handle complexity and to deal with the needs and expectations of various stakeholders. Management and leadership activities are always socially situated that means they are closely linked to a particular social situation in which they occur. Therefore social, cultural and institutional aspects influence leaders’ daily practices. Chapter 4 gives an overview of the individual competencies which form the foundation from the underlying research, arriving at five competence areas (Fig. 3).

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

Figure 3 shows that the individual competence areas have to be seen in their interrelatedness by the metaphoric use of parts of a puzzle which fit together in a loosely coupled way. In this regard, the form of the vignette has been chosen to highlight the interrelatedness of the competences in a particular social context, which can of course vary from country to country, from school to school and from the constellation of the actors involved (school leaders, teachers, students, parents and other stakeholders). The effectiveness of leadership is in how the interrelatedness of the competencies is realized to achieve the desired goals. The vignettes illustrate the dynamic relationship between the individual competency areas. This renders the idea of “personal mastery”, which “goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills … personal mastery suggests a special level of proficiency in every aspect of life – personal and professional. People with a high level of personal mastery share several basic characteristics. They have a special sense of purpose that lies behind their visions and goals.” (Senge, 1990, pp. 141142). The instrument “Exploring management and leadership competencies in action” (Fig. 4) can be used to observe management and leadership in real life situations (or videographs thereof). Either a single person uses the observation sheet and deals with all five areas or individuals or groups concentrate on just one area and compare and contrast their findings afterwards by collating the results. Before using the instrument it might be helpful to study the competency framework and look at knowledge, skills and attitudes which might be associated with the particular area. While observing management and leadership in action the observer(s) fill in relevant information into the respective bubble of Fig. 3. Sometimes it is not possible to differentiate exactly, which has to do with the interrelatedness of the areas. After the observation the findings in the different bubbles referring to the jigsaw parts are analyzed and discussed with a view to improving management and leadership through reflection on action.

3.2 School Leadership Culture School leadership forms and is informed by the culture of how leadership and management are lived in everyday situations in a school. This culture is therefore influenced by management and leadership activities, but leadership also influences school culture in a certain way. This part of the toolset presents some tools focussing on creativity, innovation and positive energy of change and complexity Creating a mindset of change cannot be imposed or enacted on a person; it is a human being's innate capacity to create new knowledge leading to new practice. Otherwise, as C. O. Scharmer (2007, p. 119) argues, we are "downloading" patterns of the past, which prevents us from creating a new future. In his "Theory U" he develops a systemic theory of leadership which centers on "presencing", a term which merges "presence" and "sensing". For him the essence of leadership builds on the capacity to feel in the here and now which future possibilities urge for evolvement. Repeating what is well known from the past gives security, but might not be useful for future practice. For Scharmer, the greater a system's hyper-complexity, the more critical is the capacity both for individuals (e.g school leaders) and school systems to operate from deeper sources of intention and creativity.(Figure 4).

Figure 4: Four levels of learning and change (Scharmer, 2007, 50) The educational systems and institutions "face three types of complexities: dynamic complexity (defined by cause and effect being distant in space and time), social complexity (defined by conflicting interests, cultures, and world-views among diverse stakeholders), and emerging complexity (defined by disruptive patterns of innovation and change in situations in which the future cannot be predicted and addressed by the patterns of the past" (Scharmer, 2007, pp. 242-243). The three stages (redesigning, reframing and presencing) are according to Scharmer new intelligences which every leader has to nurture and cultivate like precise instruments helping to create the best possible future. Leadership, he argues, “in its essence is the capacity to shift the inner place from which we operate” and “leaders who understand how can build the capacity of their systems to operate differently and release themselves from the exterior determination” (p. 373).

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

Figure 5: Pattern change through creative intervention For new patterns to emerge, critical incidents or interventions are necessary to enable the opening of the perspective for next practice (Kruse, 2004). However, leaving the trodden path initially causes insecurity and instability: The old patterns of mind do not function any more, and the new ones have not yet gained stability. The experience is similar to an incubation phase for the emergence of the new, which mixes up the old or even questions it. Creating a mindset of sustainable change is a key concept in innovative education programmes for leaders. Changing the culture of an organization is not easy to achieve. We use energy as a lever for promoting change, because it is easier to influence the energy of a system than to change the culture. Loehr & Schwarz (2003) argue that „positive energy rituals … are key to full engagement and sustained high performance“ (p. 16) and not the time invested. Productive energy is an important driver in leadership development. It creates a positive collaborative culture for full engagement. Organizational energy is the power which helps organizations to move into a certain direction. The intensity of organizational energy is an indicator of how much emotional, mental and 42

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

Figure 6: Energy matrix (Bruch & Vogel, 2005) The matrix in Fig. 6 depicts four quadrants of organizational energy in the field of tension between low/high intensity and negative/positive quality characteristics school leaders need to learn how to deal with the different modes of energy in their schools. Schools with low energy with a negative quality level often leads to resigned indolence. If there is a positive quality level, they rest in comfortable indolence and do not see much need for change. There are also schools with a high energy level but negative quality characteristics, which are characterized by corrosive force: There is a lot of energetic activity, but it is not used productively towards the future. Leadership for learning aims at reaching the top right quadrant with high energy and positive quality characteristics, which comprises the creative and productive impetus necessary for development processes. 3.4 Leadership and Learning “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other” is a quotation John F. Kennedy prepared for delivery in Dallas the day of his assassination. “Leadership” and “learning” have meanwhile been quoted as an indispensable pair in the context of schooling. However, there seems to be a long way between a president’s vision and the transfer of school leadership into classroom learning. In recent times, great effort has been dedicated to bringing leadership into closer contact with student learning (MacBeath & Moos, 2004; Frost & Swaffield, 2004). Internationally, Leadership for Learning has become the concept which focuses on the effective relationship between leadership and the learning processes of students in the classroom (MacBeath & Cheng, 2008) If we compare school as an organization with an organism (Pechtl, 2001), “the heartbeat of leadership is a relationship, not a person or process” (Sergiovanni, 2005, 53). And if we regard the learning school as a living organism, this ‘heartbeat’ calls for enough resonance within the school to make the relationship between the people at different levels, planning, culture and structure in the system become visible. To put this concept into practice in the LEA, Schley & Schratz (2004) have 43

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

S YS TEMS LEVEL

INTERACTION LEVEL

ACTION LEVEL

RES ULT LEVEL

class teams

recognition

competence development

motivation/ experience

year cohorts

clear vision

awareness of self

goal orientation

culture

subject teams

individual encouragement

reflection/ anticipation

gain of insight

structure

heterogeneous grouping

variable cooperation

learning by doing

celebrating achievement

people

Leadership

S UBS YS TEMS

planning

impacts on

Awareness of the effects in taking goal-orientated steps

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

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

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

 on an individual level as a self-assessment tool for a school leader or for aspiring school leaders;  at an institutional level both for improving existing school leadership programmes, developing new courses and for evaluating training;  at a national level for policy-making and also for the evaluation of training programmes;  at an international level for policy-making and also for comparative research.” (Kirkham, Révai, Malmberg & Söderberg, 2013, p. 198)

This toolset on educating school leaders as change agents explores the relationship between management and leadership in the school context, where school leaders form the important link for the synchronization of top-down and bottom-up processes. School leaders are the key actors in promoting quality processes in schools, but there is no linear transfer from the school heads’ leading to the students’ learning unless a more dynamic view of a learning school is taken up which is anchored in the relationship between the people involved. In complex change processes successful leadership for learning depends on the interplay between thinking, feeling and doing. Steps towards systemic innovation require a new understanding of professionalizing leaders on all levels of the school system. The implications for future practice suggest that a shared understanding among the actors involved is necessary to construct meaning in the reciprocal process that defines relationships. Leadership has to be shared through collaborative cultures, in which students take up leadership roles as well. The implications for policy work suggest that leadership education should not only be built into professional development programmes for (future) school leaders. Distributed leadership 3 asks for a wide distribution of learning opportunities on all levels of the system and both horizontal and vertical connections between them. The implications for future research ask for new ways of exploring the dynamic complexity of leading and learning from the interior conditions of the actors involved in a change process. Introducing innovation and change in leadership programs are often seen as merely organizational or technological questions, turning complexity into a series of (trans)actions from policy to practice. However, dealing with complexity does not mean creating more complex structures of planning, acting, controlling and developing systems. The shift to an organic understanding of growth is related to openness and trust, which best help in reducing complexity of systems. School leadership education which aims at sustainability has to engage participants in leadership for learning. Instead of perpetuating good practices in school leadership qualification next practices should be explored and shared among all relevant partners in the education system.

See EPNoSL toolset on distributed leadeship. 45

References Bruch, H. and Vogel, B. (2005). Organisationale Energie: Wie Sie das Potenzial Ihres Unternehmens ausschöpfen. Wiesbaden: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler. Firestone, W. A. and Riehl, C. (eds.). (2005). Critical issues in educational leadership series. A new agenda for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press. Forrester, G. and Gunter, H. M. (2009). School leaders: Meeting the challenge of change. In C. Chapman and H. Gunter (eds.). Radical reforms. Perspectives on an era of educational change. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 67–79. Frost, D. (2006). The Concept of ‘Agency’ in Leadership for Learning. Leading & Managing, 12, issue 2, pp. 19-28. Frost, D. and Swaffield, S. (2004). The Leadership fior Learning (Carpe Vitam) project: an eclectic and emerging methodology. Presented at the 17th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Rotterdam, January 6.-9.: ICSEI. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hall, G. E. and Hord, S. M. (eds.). (1987). SUNY series in educational leadership. Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hargreaves, A. and Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press. Hentig, H. v. (1993). Die Schule neu denken: Eine Übung in praktischer Vernunft; eine zornige, aber nicht eifernde, eine radikale, aber nicht utopische Antwort auf Hoyerswerda und Mölln, Rostock und Solingen (2., erw. Aufl.). München: Hanser. Hinterhuber, H. H. (2003). Leadership: Strategisches Denken systematisch Schulen von Sokrates bis Jack Welch. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Allg. Buch im FAZ-Inst. Kirkham, G. A., Rèvai, N., Malmberg, K., & Söderberg, T. (2013). Chapter 10. Conclusions and final thoughts. In N. Révai & G. A. Kirkham (Eds.), The Art and Science of Leading a School – Central5: Central European view on competencies for school leaders (pp. 195-207). Budapest: Tempus Public Foundation. Kruse, P. (2004). Next practice - erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität: Veränderung durch Vernetzung. GABAL management. Offenbach: GABAL-Verlag. Loehr, J. E. and Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. New York: Free Press. MacBeath, J. and Cheng, Y.-C. (eds.). (2008). Leadership for Learning: International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. MacBeath, J. and Moos, L. (2004) Leadership for Learning. Presented at the 17th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Rotterdam, January 6.-9.: ICSEI. Owen, J. (2009). How to lead: What you actually need to do to manage, lead and succeed (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Pechtl, W. (ed.). (2001). Zwischen Organismus und Organisation: Wegweiser und Modelle für Berater und Führungskräfte (4. Aufl.). St. Pölten, Wien, Linz: Landesverlag.

Pont, B., Nusche, D. and Moorman, H. (2008). School Leadership Development: Policy and Practice. Improving school leadership: Vol. 1. Paris: OECD. Portin, B. et al. (2005). International Politics and Local School Development: Emerging Themes from a Seven-Nation Study. Presented 12th April, Montreal: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Révai, N., & Kirkham, G. A. (Eds.), (2013). The Art and Science of Leading a School – Central5: Central European view on competencies for school leaders. Budapest: Tempus Public Foundation. Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges: the social technology of presencing. Cambridge, Mass: Society for Organizational Learning. Schley, W. and Schratz, M. (2004). Ergebnisorientierte Führungsverantwortung als Antwort auf PISA. Lernende Schule, 7, issue 28, pp. 1–4. Schley, W., & Schratz, M. (2010). Developing Leaders, Building Networks, Changing Schools through System Leadership. In J. MacBeath & T. Townsend (Eds.), International Handbook on Leadership for Learning. Part I. (pp. 267-296 ) New York: Springer. Schley, W., & Schratz, M. (2007). Leadership: Kraft zum neuen Denken. Innsbruck, Wien u.a.: StudienVerlag. Schratz, M., Hartmann, M., & Schley, W. (2010). Schule wirksam leiten. Analyse innovativer Führung in der Praxis. Münster: Waxmann. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat. Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Staehle, W. H. (1999). Management: Eine verhaltenswissenschaftliche Perspektive. München: Vahlen, Franz. Stenhouse, L., Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London, Portsmouth NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Stoll, L., Bolam, R & Collarbone, P. (2002). Leading for Change: Building capacity for learning. In: K. A. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.). Kluwer international handbooks of education: Vol. 8. Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 41–73. Stoll, L., Moorman, H., & Rahm, S. (2008). Building leadership capacity for system improvement in Austria. In B. Pont, D. Nusche, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving school leadership: Vol. 2. Improving School Leadership. Case studies on system leadership (pp. 215–252). Paris: OECD. Vosniadou, S. (ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.

Draft Toolset – Distributed Leadership for Equity and Learning

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

INTRODUCTION What kind of organisation would you like to work in or support? What kind of school do you think best encourages learning and creativity by students and staff? This toolset is about creating an organisation that believes everyone is capable of learning, treats each person in the school as a valued person with skills, expertise and experience that they can contribute, supports active participation by all so they can make that contribution, values deep and holistic learning, liberates new ideas and facilitates collaboration so that learning and experience are shared. The toolset is about one way of helping to create that kind of organisation. Its purpose is to help policy-makers and practitioners develop and implement policy that supports distributed leadership for equity and learning (DLE) in schools. The toolset builds on what was learnt about distributed leadership in the first two phases of the European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL). Its aim is to explain: -

why it is important to support the development of DLE

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

how DLE can be developed, sustained and evaluated

Most work on developing distributed leadership does not explicitly put the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core. Making equity, which includes these values, an explicit part of the purpose of distributed leadership is a distinctive feature of DLE. The toolset therefore will have wide relevance - to countries where distributed leadership is relatively well known and to countries where it is a much newer concept. Our defintion of DLE is leadership that is enacted by everyone in the school, takes place within an organisational hierarchy which is as flat as possible, is not limited to staff in formal leadership positions, disperses across the organisation power to initiate change, encourages trust, inclusive dialogue and collaboration across organisational boundaries, values deep, holistic learning and explicitly puts the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core. The toolset is intended to be used flexibly. Interest and experience in applying distributed leadership will differ depending on context. The toolset can be used selectively according to the needs and priorities of the reader. Links to associated materials, such as further reading or supporting materials in other formats like videos, are given in the text. Before going further, it may be helpful to say what we mean by leadership. For the purposes of this toolset, we define leadership as the process of mobilising people and resources in order to bring about change directed towards achieving a goal or purpose. This process involves creativity, initiative and action, but (as will be clear from the discussion of DLE below) it is not necessarily undertaken by one individual: leadership is shaped and influenced by numerous people (including students and staff who are not in formal leadership positions) and by the context (such as organisational structures and cultural factors) in which it takes place. Leadership differs from management, though the distinction is not a sharp, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;back and whiteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; one. Management is often associated with ensuring an organisation is run efficiently, has predictable and trusted procedures, uses its resources effectively and systematically evaluates its effectiveness. In practice, leadership often involves some management, and management requires some degree of leadership2.

For a useful discussion of leadership and management, see Simon Western (2013) Leadership: A Critical Text (Second Edition), London: Sage, Chapter 2.

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

WHY DLE? The days of relying on the ‘one great leader’ to solve problems are long gone. More and more people realise that it is not possible to rely on one person, or even a small group of people, to provide ideas, inspiration, a sense of direction and innovation for improvement; successful organisations tap into the leadership capacity across the organisation. Research on private companies and other organisations globally finds that when ‘we grow and develop, and we become innovative, energized and stimulated’ and work co-operatively, ‘we are able to create the positive energy that gives us joy and adds values to our companies’. This research challenges directly the idea that commanding and controlling others is the besy way to run an organisation. Where organisations are creative and working well, ‘rather than be commanded, employees choose to develop important relationships with others, and rather than be controlled, they actively choose to make their time available to [a] collective sense of purpose‘3. Hence distributed leadership is a model of leadership that attracts a great deal of interest, for all kinds of organisations including schools. There are good reasons for policy-makers in education to commit themselves to developing or enhancing distributed leadership for equity and learning (DLE) in schools - i.e. distributed leadership that values deep, holistic learning and explicitly puts the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core. Research studies have been carried out in recent years that throw light on the benefits of distributed leadership and what helps it to work well. It is difficult to identify the effects of a complex process like distributed leadership in organisations that are affected by a variety of factors and changes. It is possible, nevertheless, to conclude from research findings that distributed leadership, in the right conditions, can help in meeting the challenges of learning, innovation and citizenship. We believe that DLE can improve and widen learning and help schools respond to major policy challenges they face - being accountable for learning, enabling innovation and promoting democratic citizenship. Learning The most fundamental challenge for schools is to be as effective as possible in terms of students’ learning. Much of the pressure on schools is about improving measurable achievement (see box below), but the real challenge is about more than this. It is about enabling learning that is deep, broad and balanced. Learning is not equivalent to measurable achievement through tests and examinations, nor is it only about the cognitive and emotional abilities and skills required for employment. Deep and holistic learning includes the nurturing of people’s ethical, aesthetic and spiritual capabilities: that is, their sense of what is right morally and those things in life that nourish the senses and give a sense of purpose and upliftment. It includes developing an understanding of democratic citizenship and appreciation of values such as justice, democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, mutual understanding and a concern for the welfare of others. It is also about fostering the ability to reflect on and understand how one learns so that people continue to learn throughout their lives. Integral to DLE is a commitment to facilitating deep and holistic learning.

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

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

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

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

The leadership for learning ‘wedding cake’

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

Cameron, D. H., Gauthier, G., Ryerson, R. and Kokis, J. 2011. ‘Teacher professional learning from the ‘inside out’: Studying the student experience as means to teacher action and new knowledge’, paper for submission to peer reviewed journal, Ontario Ministry of Education, Canada. 5 Risku and Tian (2013: 5) 6 Source: David Frost (2008), ‘Teacher leadership: values and voice’, School Leadership & Management 28 (4): 339. The figure is adapted from Knapp et al. (2003)

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

well, it positively effects the following: -

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

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

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

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

share new ideas and knowledge

try out new practices, and learn from these

involve a range of people (students, teachers, support staff, senior leaders, etc.) in testing and developing new practices so they are evaluated from differing perspectives and therefore improved.

Collaboration and the involvement of people from different organisational levels and contexts are integral to creating innovative cultures in all kinds of organisations8. Democratic citizenship A third challenge is to encourage democratic citizenship and an appreciation of values such as justice, democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, mutual understanding and a concern for the welfare of others. This is especially important as communities change and become more diverse, as people’s expectations rise about participation and transparency in decision-making and as they become more prepared to challenge injustices and the decisions of the powerful. Distributed leadership can make practices such as collaboration, participation, discussion and learning from others’ viewpoints part of the everyday life of the school for staff and students. Hence, where it works well, distributed leadership encourages democratic citizenship through

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

Follow this link – Why DLE - for a short videoscribe on the benefits of DLE. 7 8

Slavin …………… [Refer to recently published OECD TALIS work ]

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

WHAT IS DLE? Distributed leadership challenges the belief that leadership is the preserve of one person or a small elite of senior leaders. Distributed leadership is based on the proposition that whatever we may think, the reality of life in organisations is that leadership is the outcome of lots of people’s actions and interactions. The power of senior leaders is mediated by what people do, or do not do, across the organisation. Leadership is a characteristic of an organisation as a whole, not just the individual actions of the few who are labelled ‘leaders’. One way of explaining this point of view is given in the Videoscribe ‘Leadership Is… Distributed’9. Applying the insight that leadership is the outcome of lots of people’s actions and interactions across an organisation has deep implications for how leadership is viewed and an organisation run. The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS), for example, has included leadership in all its Standards10 as a means of encouraging leadership development across the profession with the intention of improving the distribution of leadership throughout the school. In practice, distributed leadership is not only about what individuals do but also about the culture and the institutional structures of an organisation. How do we define DLE?11 DLE is leadership that is enacted by everyone in the school (each bringing their unique skills, ideas and experience), involves an organisational hierarchy which is as flat as possible, is not limited to staff in formal leadership positions, disperses across the organisation power to initiate change, encourages trust, inclusive dialogue and collaboration across organisational boundaries, values deep, holistic learning and explicitly puts the values of social justice and democratic citizenship at its core.

In its most democratic form, DLE equates with democratic leadership based on a model of holistic democracy. An information sheet on holistic democracy is available at http://herts.academia.edu/PhilipWoods (under ‘Teaching Documents’). What does the opposite of DLE look like? The opposite of DLE is what we call here rigid hierarchical leadership (RHL). This is an inflexible model of leadership which concentrates power and influence in one person or a small elite at the head of a steep hierarchy, relies on control, fear and top-down communication (mainly one-way transmission of ideas, information and instructions) to make things happen, and defines learning as success in narrow, standardised tests.

Videoscribe created by P. A. Woods & A. Roberts, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5F0MNrDSpY, 22nd September 2013. 10 The Standards define criteria for the teaching profession at all levels, from from student teacher to head teachers. 11

[Include link to the conceptualising DLE paper.]

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

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

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

- value leadership contributions from across the organisation and its hierarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

Holarchy means a social environment in which belonging, social equality, flexibility, fluidity, openness, respect, trust and mutually affirming relationships are distributed across the organisation. David Spangler’s definition of holarchy captures the essence of a holarchic system: ‘different and unequal participants nevertheless enhance each other and co-creatively make a larger wholeness possible… [E]ach person’s value comes from his or her individuality and uniqueness and the capacity to engage and interact with others to make the fruits of that uniqueness available’. Holarchy can exist alongside a hierarchical organisational structure, and where it does, people at different hierarchical levels are more likely to feel able to innovate, learn and work collaboratively with each other. See footnote13

Relationships are critical to making DLE a real part of organisational life. How people connect with each other in daily activity, how they feel about themselves and those they work with, and how confident they are in crossing boundaries and traditional hierarchies are crucial for whether leadership is really spread throughout the school. A case study on distributed leadership in the UK, for example, pointed to ‘the significance of the distribution of respect’ in understanding how well leadership is distributed, as well as ‘trust and other relational factors identified in the research literature’14. In an organisation characterised by distributed leadership, a social environment with fluid relationships helps to create the conditions in which people at different levels in the formal hierarchy can share ideas, give feedback to each other and take initiatives and leadership according to expertise, interest and need rather than rank. In summary, a fluid social environment that promotes holarchy: - has flexible, fluid relationships characterised by a sense of equal worth - develops a sense of belonging, trust and mutually supportive relationships - fosters confidence, independent-mindedness, autonomy, openness, agency, responsibility - fosters respect for each other, as people and for what each person uniquely brings enactment of core values The core values are ‘inclusive participation’ and ‘holistic growth and well-being for all’. These are based on the notion of holistic democracy which views participation and aspiring ‘to values that represent the best of human progress’ as interconnected15. Core values such as these need to be included because they make clear the commitment to social justice and nurturing democratic citizenship. Without making the commitment explicit, the danger is that aspirations to social justice and 13

David Spangler, A Vision of Holarchy, 2008 (http://www.sevenpillarshouse.org/index.php/article/a_vision_of_holarchy1, accessed 14th september 2010). 14 Woods and Roberts (2013b: 163) 15 Woods (2005: 5). See also Woods and Woods (2013).

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

nurturing democratic citizenship are lost in the priorities demanded by accountability pressures. An information sheet on a typology of social justice (A Four-fold Approach to Social Justice) and its relationship to holistic democracy is available at http://herts.academia.edu/PhilipWoods (under ‘Teaching Documents’). inclusive participation Inclusive participation is about ensuring that distributed leadership becomes a force for inclusion where different voices can be heard, social justice enhanced and awareness of racial, sexual and cultural discrimination raised. It aims to advance: - power sharing, so that involvement is inclusive, responsibility for decisionmaking is shared and there is mutual empowerment and fair participation of all in co-creating their social and organisational environment - transforming dialogue, which encourages respect, freedom to share views, and mutual understanding and learning. holistic growth and well-being for all The aspiration to holistic growth and well-being for all anchors distributed leadership in a deeper understanding of human growth and values that frame learning. This involves: - holistic meaning, which is about learning collaboratively and developing people’s full human capabilities and potential (intellectual, spiritual, ethical, emotional, aesthetic and physical - holistic well-being, so that people feel empowered and confident as a member of an organisation, with high self-esteem, the capacity for independent thinking and feelings of connectedness with deeper purposes and the natural world - in a fluid social environment that promotes holarchy where there is a sense of belonging. Like most changes that are claimed to benefit organisations and the effectiveness of leadership, trying to create DLE does not automatically mean that it has positive consequences. The context in which the change is made and local factors and other variables affect what happens in practice. To make DLE work well requires: - a strong degree of co-ordination and planning of roles, expectations and modes of working - a cohesive culture, which has shared goals and values; - a focus on the core purpose (learning for all), so that a strong link is created between leadership and learning - building capacity to make DLE work, which involves developing the capabilities of staff and students to be involved in leadership and the capacity of senior leaders who need the capabilities to develop DL - effective internal accountability, so that staff and students feel committed to making changes work, and senior leaders’ are open and transparent about decisions and in that way are accountable to others in the organisation - tackling inequalities, since involving more people in leadership through DLE does not necessarily mean it is more fair: research shows that it can lead to some people having more power and influence than others and to some being unfairly treated or sidelined, so it is vital that how DLE works in practice is monitored and unjust inequalities addressed

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

- ensuring learning is deep and holistic, since distributed leadership can be used to serve policies that narrow the aims of education; explcit efforts are needed to make sure that DLE is fostering learning that is deep, broad and balanced. Follow this link - WhatIsDLE - for a short videoscribe on DLE.

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

HOW TO DEVELOP AND SUPPORT DLE? In the previous sections of this toolset we have discussed why we should develop DLE in schools and what the policy challenges are in developing this way of working. In this section, we move on to discuss how DLE stimulates learning amongst teachers, students and others, how it can be developed and how its progress and impact can be evaluated. This section is structured around 4 key levers which we see as working together to support the development of DLE in action. Policy makers and school leaders may wish to consider how they might be able to use these four key levers to support the introduction and development of DLE in schools. These key levers interact in a complex way to support the development of DLE in schools. Figure 1 below suggests the complexity of this interaction and underlines the mutuality of suggested interventions in supporting the development of DLE.

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

Key Lever 4:

Key Lever 3:

Developing appropriate ways to evaluate and share the impact of DLE: this allows the impact or fruits of DLE to be understood and built upon

Developing institutional structures and social environment which support DLE activity: this allows DLE to become a live feature of daily school policy and practice See Tools 5 and 6

Key Lever 1:

See Tools 7 and 8

Facilitating the development of a shared understanding of DLE: this allows school policy and practice to be rooted in an understanding of and commitment to DLE

Key Lever 2: Developing a culture which offers opportunities for DLE: this allows DLE practice to become the natural core of a schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activity

See Tools 1 and 2

See Tools 3 and 4

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

Below, we consider each of the four key levers in turn, giving a rationale for its importance in developing DLE activity and suggesting ways in which it might be achieved. Follow this link - HowDLE - for a short videoscribe on how to develop DLE.

Key Lever 1: Facilitating the development of a shared understanding of DLE For DLE to work, leadership needs to be seen differently. The first key lever in the development of DLE is the facilitation of a clear and shared understanding of the concept of DLE itself. Some people might think that DLE is wholly about structural activities such as developing less hierarchical leadership systems and implementing systems of delegated responsibility.

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

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

Tools for facilitating the development of a shared understanding of DLE Policy makers have a key role to play in facilitating a shared understanding of DLE. This understanding could arise from a briefing session, where headteachers and other senior leaders are told what DLE is. However, it is more effective if senior leaders are enabled to develop their own understanding of DLE through discourse and debate. The initiation and facilitation of such a forum is itself an example of DLE practice, where professionals are given the opportunity, space and guidance to collaborate to extend their professional understanding of DLE. [Note: Add Michaelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach in Austria as an example] Tools 1 and 2 can be used to support the facilitation of discussion within such a forum and to evaluate its impact on participant understanding.

Key Lever 2: Developing a participatory culture which offers opportunities for DLE The second key lever in the development of DLE builds directly on the first lever (a shared understanding of leadership and DLE). The second lever is the development of a participatory culture which offers opportunities for DLE and has shared goals and values. A view of leadership as emergent is a central feature of DLE. In order for leadership to emerge, the school culture needs to be one in which the voice of all is heard and valued, in which questioning is encouraged, in which innovation is seen as central to personal and professional growth. In such a culture, DLE practice becomes the natural core of a schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activity. The development of such a cohesive culture relies on the collaborative development of shared goals based on the core values of DLE.

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

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

fully subscribe to such goals which can therefore be only partially effective in guiding the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work. Tools 3 and 4 can be used to stimulate a school community to develop collaborative and shared goals and to understand how such activity impacts on individual commitment to organisational success. Key levers 1 and 2 should help in establishing and sustaining: - a cohesive culture, which has shared goals and values incluidng the core values of DLE - a focus on the core purpose (learning for all), so that a strong link is created between leadership and learning that is inclusive, deep and holistic - effective internal accountability, so that staff and students feel committed to making changes work, and senior leadersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are open and transparent about decisions and in that way are accountable to others in the organisation

Key Lever 3: Developing institutional structures and a fluid social environment which support DLE activity The third key lever in the development of DLE is the development of institutional structures and a fluid social environment promoting holarchy. These are mutually supporting and create the conditions for DLE activity. Institutional structures can have a powerful impact on how people connect with one another. Such structures would be fluid and inclusive, allowing for maximum communication of ideas from all. All members of the school community would feel empowered to impact on the organisation in a context of mutual understanding and valuing. Institutional structures include opportunities for professional development and training (capacity building) for DLE. The kind of relationships in a school is a key factor in how well DLE works in practice. A social environment with fluid relationships helps to create the conditions in which people at different levels in the formal hierarchy can share ideas, give feedback to each other and take initiatives and leadership according to expertise, interest and need rather than rank. In a holarchic social environment, structures support mutual respect and uniqueness. Key lever 3 should help in establishing and sustaining: - a strong degree of co-ordination and planning of roles, expectations and modes of working, enabling staff and students to innovate and take the lead with others in bringing about change that improves learning - building capacity to make DLE work, which involves developing the capabilities of staff and students to be involved in leadership and the capacity of senior leaders who need the capabilities to develop DL

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

Tools to support the development of structures and a social environment which support DLE activity A leadership approach which focuses on empowerment, on holarchical rather than hierarchical structures, may not currently be the norm in some schools. Policy makers can support the development of school structures that are more open and less rigidly hierarchical and that support a fluid, holarchic social environment. One way of doing this is through modelling a focus on learning for all and the adoption of a capacity-building approach to school improvement. Other ways include sharing ideas and practices that may be feasible locally on - changing school structures so they spread leadership opportunities, facilitate flexible, collaborative working relationships across traditional boundaries and hierarchies, and create flatter hierarchies - creating social environments in schools that have flexible, fluid relationships characterised by a sense of equal worth, a sense of belonging, trust and mutually supportive relationships, fosters confidence, independent-mindedness, autonomy, openness, agency, responsibility, respect for each other, as people and for what each person uniquely brings.

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

Key Lever 4: Developing appropriate ways to evaluate and share the impact of DLE The final key lever in the development of DLE is the development of appropriate ways to evaluate and share the impact of DLE. Evaluation often focuses on the collation of numeric attainment results and the attempt to attribute such results to particular interventions. It is important that we do things in schools which impact positively on children’s learning. However, it is not always easy to know which of the many things we do has had this positive impact. To understand the impact of DLE we need to re-conceptualise the meaning of the term ‘evaluate’. This term needs to describe a process in which we:     

Clarify what we are trying to achieve e.g. a greater spread of leadership, a higher quality of interaction, a richer pattern of decision-making Identify success indicators which will help us to see if these things are happening Use these indicators to support the development of illuminative data gathering and analysis practices Interpret what is learned from these practices to judge the degree to which we have achieved our stated aims Develop ways of sharing what we have learned with all stakeholders

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

Draft 2: DLE Toolset

September 22, 2014

- monitor the learning DLE promotes, to make sure that DLE is fostering learning that is deep and holistic - recognise that developing DLE is a journey and that schools will have both hierarchy and holarchy, so evaluation examines the degrees of DLE and hiearchy in a school

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

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

[end of draft script]

Draft Outline – Policy Toolset on Autonomy Lejf Moos, Department of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark Autonomy Autonomy is defined as ‘the capacity to informed, uncoerced decisions’, or: self-‐ -‐-‐ determination, one's own self-‐-‐-‐governance. We see autonomy being used at several levels: •

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

•

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

• On an individual level it means: independence or freedom of the will or one's actions. The use of the concept, autonomy, seem to indicate full and unrestricted self-‐ -‐-‐ governance as if the actors, the organisations or the states are free floating entities with no strings to the context, surrounding and other people. This is of course not so in contemporary societies. Here we are extremely interdependent of the other. Autonomy then is only interesting as a term if it indicates that an organisation or professional ac-‐-‐-‐ tors are given some room for manoeuvre, and that constrains from the outside-‐-‐ and inside -‐-‐-‐ are reduced to the necessary and legitimate frames, values and norms. New Public Management Over the past two to three decades most public sectors – including educational sectors -‐-‐-‐ in the European area have been restructured. Most of them are following a OECD model of New Public Management patterns of redistribution of power and governance between state, local authorities and organisations. In many cases the phrase ‘autono-‐-‐-‐ my’ has been used to characterise the new relations. A pivotal inspiration to that has been the OECD: Governance in Transition (OECD, 1995) which was a lineup and comparison of public management forms in the OECD member states. The observations were categorised into 9 categories, two of which are of special interest here: 1: ‘Devolving authority, providing flexibility,’ and 7: ‘Strengthening steer-‐-‐-‐ ing functions at the centre.’ This can be interpreted to mean that some tasks and deci-‐-‐-‐ sions should be decentralised from state-‐-‐-‐level to local-‐-‐-‐ and organisational level, while central areas are kept under central-‐-‐-‐/state-‐-‐-‐level.

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

Policy reform is more than ever a collaborative effort   (Decisions taken at the local/school level, EAG 2008) 1998

2003

2007

%  100

More than 50% of decisions  taken by schools/local level

90  80  70  60  50  40  30  20  10

Greece

Portugal

Korea

France

Italy

Spain

Austria

Germany

Czech Republic

Norway

New Zealand

Denmark

Netherlands

England

Sweden

Scotland

Hungary

Finland

The graph does not show all levels: Central, state, Provincial/regional, sub-‐regional, lo-‐ cal, school. The tasks/decisions taken into this report are: 1. Organisation of instruction: student admission, time, textbooks, student-‐groupings, support, teaching methods, 2. Personnel management: hiring and firing of staff, career, salary scales 3. Planning and structure: opening hours, study programmes, subjects taught, exami-‐ nation 4. Resources: for staff, operating expenditures Decentralization of educational governance systems From the beginning of the 1990’ties there was in many countries a strong and general move to decentralize finances, personnel management and other areas from state level to local (municipal) level and in many cases from there further on to school level. Paral-‐ lel to the decentralisation many educational systems have re-‐centralises the govern-‐

ce of curriculum and subject matters by prescribing more detailed standards and aims and at the same time introduce national test and international comparisons, based on test. Whenever the educational system is decentralized, the balance between professional and political power on all levels in the system is changed. The responsibility and profes-‐ sional ability for principals and teachers are enhanced at the same time as evaluation becomes an important instrument for governance. Systemic evaluation regimes have been established throughout many countries, which means that local government, schools, teachers and pupils are subjected to external evaluation and self-‐evaluation (Day & Leithwood, 2007). Moreover, the state uses ac-‐ tively financial resource allocation in combination with reporting procedures as an indi-‐ rect control instrument, where municipalities have to report their use of financial costs and human resources to state agencies on a yearly basis. Finally, accountability is strengthened through making results from national tests and evaluations available on special websites Taken together, a general picture of present governance model appears to be a joint regulatory enterprise between the state, through a range of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ steering instruments and quality control, and the municipality sector through direct ownership and decentralized decision-‐making power. There is a ‘mix mode’ of regulation that is important for understanding the current context of leadership at different levels of public and educational governance Private sector inspiration Yet another trend is very visible too: the trend towards privatisation or towards private-‐ like forms of governance. Instead of being part of a municipal educational system, schools can be autonomous by having a governing board of it’s own that is accountable directly to the Ministry. This is in some places the case with free standing, private schools and it is the case with all secondary schools and universities: Most of the fi-‐ nances are provided by the state according to number of students. The general aims and curriculum, the standards and testing are still national, but the free standing school is free to manage staff and operations. This means they can hire and fire and set the wages and working conditions on their own. Improving School Leadership In the OECD ‘Improving School Leadership’ project (OECD, 2008) the wording, autono-‐ my, is used in this way:

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

and adapting the teaching programme. Those are not strategically or developmental tasks and decisions, but operational tasks and decisions. The OECD model is only one model of autonomy: Decentralisation of governance from state to local authorities and further on to individual schools. This leaves school with more self-‐determination on how to spend funding (provided totally by the state), how to manage staff and their terms of work and wages and the day-‐to-‐day operations. The couplings to local, municipal and national authorities have been loosened on this pa-‐ rameters, but the aim and curriculum of education has been tightened at the same time: Standards are being detailed more and there are more control and accountability. This autonomy has been established according to bureaucratic and market place logics, using new social technologies like tests and quality reporting or inspection. Following those trends is a trend to empower school leaders more in the style of private sector top down management and leadership. It is up to the power-‐relations in each individual school to find appropriate ways of planning and making decisions: More is left to the leader, but she/he can choose to negotiate and give professionals room for deliberation in several stages of decision making. The self-‐governed type of autonomous schools was describe above: They have a gov-‐ erning board of it’s own that is accountable to the state for finances and quality of edu-‐ cation. These schools are even more that the decentralised schools subject to competi-‐ tion and less regulations on finances – even if 70-‐80 per cent of their incomes stem from the state. When it comes to the room for manoeuvre, it is difficult to give a clear picture: On one hand more room is left to schools (i.g.: school leaders) to plan and act on finances (within tight frames), staff management and operations. At the same time it seems that there is less room when it comes to teaching and learning because more issues in cur-‐ riculum are described and tested more detailed. The national governance is tight and aligned to international trends (comparisons and competitions through international tests).

Questions for policy reflections on autonomy

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

Autonomy

Governance

Responsibility for equity and learning

Power

Policy Reflections

Room

Issues

1. Autonomy – conception preferred: o Decentralisation of decisions within the educational system from state to school, preferably with bureaucratic and management arguments o Self-‐governance/privatisation, with public-‐private and market place argu-‐ ments, establishing single school executive boards, accountable to state 2. Governance – logics preferred: o Market mechanisms: choice, competition, top down leadership o Bureaucratic need for control and transparency 3. Power – forms preferred: o Structural power like budget and legislation o Social technologies (e.g.: test, benchmarks, protocols) o Discursive power through recommendations, comparisons, soft govern-‐ ance 4. Issues – to be decided on: o School frames: Budget, staff management, operations o School content: Aims and curriculum are centralised, national 5. Room for manoeuvre – forms preferred: o Actors participating directly in decision making o Actors deliberating, negotiating and thus participating in construction of premises for decision making 6. Responsibility for equity and learning – should be placed at which level: o National level, responsible for societal frames and aims, like social justice in access and effects of education o Local level, responsible for community frames and social justice o School level, responsible for treating everybody fairly, equitable and for education and teaching

References

Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change. Dordrecht: Springer. OECD. (1995). Governance in Transition. Public management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2008). Improving School Leadership (Official Power Point Presentation). Retrieved May 19, 2013