Flexible Route to Headship Update November 2010
Key strengths of the programme: All documentation is in place including the FRH programme, an overall statement of coaching methodology and the coaching role. A successful October 2008 launch of the 2nd FRH cohort of 35 participants and 10 coaches involved the 4 Authorities/Councils of Dumfries & Galloway, Dundee, Fife, and Highland. This was followed by an April 2009 FRH3 launch involving East Renfrewshire, Edinburgh and Moray with 16 participants and 3 coaches. The most recent cohort FRH4 March 2010 involves 13 authorities including Shetland, Orkney, Highland, Moray, Dundee, Fife, Edinburgh, West Dunbarton, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire and Dumfries & Galloway. This cohort has 42 participants supported by 22 coaches reflecting the shift from the model of full-time coach at authority level. FRH as CPD for leadership addresses the very current priority in Scottish education of leadership development and preparation for headship. Individualisation of learning/CPD is a key feature of the programme. With the present cohort, much of our coach/participant training time has focussed on success criteria and systematic evaluation of evidence. An immediate effect is shown on FRH4 in the production of higher quality individual learning plans known as Professional Learning Plans (PLPs). Knowledge, skills and experience have been developed by the core FRH team. The programme continues to be supported through the National CPD Team. An Operations Group is now well established to support the programme and as directed by Project Manager (JK). The group meets on a monthly basis. The group consists of one other member of National CPD team, one coach from current cohort FRH4, a representative from GTCS (Rosa Murray), and Scott Brand from Scottish Government, Teachers Division. The role of Flexible Operations Group (FOG):*review progress of the programme *consider issues/themes to inform programme improvement *contribute to the planning and further design of FRH *support the presentation of FRH to coaches/participants at network meetings *inform on issues relating to the strategic direction of FRH. One full time administrative support person (Kat Healy) is appointed to operate directly with the Project Manager to service the national programme. Evidence of the success of FRH is shown by statistics relating to participants who are now headteachers or expected to be appointed as headteachers in the near future. This evidence also shows a good completion rate of the programme across authorities. Currently this information is available in draft form and we will be checking with authorities to determine fully accurate details following completion of FRH3.
FRH Update Nov 2010
Sustainability Monthly coach network meetings continue to provide a useful platform for sharing experiences and learning from others. This provides the opportunity for ongoing supervision and support of coaches. These meetings provide an essential training opportunity for coaches allowing the coach to assume a more direct role in participant training at local level. This sustainable model of participant training, through the coaches, places less emphasis on residential programmes planned centrally.
Coach training is planned, prepared and presented by the FRH team. Involvement of external trainers is as appropriate and then as directed by JK. Experienced FRH coaches act as facilitators in the training programme. As more coaches become experienced in FRH this then provides a pool of coaches able to support the next coach training programme. FRH ownership of the coach training programme in this way further ensures sustainability. Assessment training has successfully followed this model of coach training. Coaches facilitate the training of participants at a one day seminar (November 2010). The assessment training programme has been prepared and planned by JK/FRH based on experience from the previous cohorts. The FRH team is now in a strong position to be less reliant on external trainers and in place to ensure sustainability of the FRH assessment training programme. The revised assessment training, and focus on evidence showing impact on learning and the learner, supports the participant in producing a higher quality reflective commentary and portfolio of evidence. Coach network meetings have evolved to highlight the need to focus on the ‘pure coaching’ aspect of the FRH coaching role. Coaching themes and issues are presented for discussion and analysis at the meetings. This ensures the coach is focussed on coaching and not solely on task completion in the early stages of the programme. In doing this we are addressing sustainability of good coaching, a unique feature of FRH. The Project Manager is now acting as coach on FRH4. Quality assurance strategies are an important feature of the programme and include: evaluation of coach training, evaluation of FRH launch conference, monthly written coach updates, monthly coach network meetings, moderation of PLPs, moderation of 1st 3000 word submissions (reflective commentary), FRH team attendance at local network meetings, individual meetings with coaches, visit to participant’s school for purposes of evaluation of experience of coaching, six month coach evaluation, moderation of full submission at formative assessment stage, field visit by (external) coach other than participant’s own coach, external moderation of final submissions by independent assessor, and liaison throughout with FRH coordinator at Authority/Council level. A close working relationship has been developed between the different programmes towards achieving the Standard for Headship. Currently the Universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling and Aberdeen meet together with FRH and GTCS to discuss common emerging themes. We have now had a series of meetings to consider how we can provide better guidance on the PLP and portfolio of evidence. Improved communication is ensured through the FRH website www.flexibleroutestoheadship.com and more recently we have set up an FRH glowgroup. As well as providing access to all documentation, the website offers the opportunity for participants and coaches to engage online with discussion threads.
FRH Update Nov 2010
The FRH programme was already responding to the evaluation recommendations before final report in June 2008 and has responded further since then. Evidence exists to indicate that all recommendations relating to the FRH programme have been addressed or overtaken. Issues relating to the evaluation report:-
Assessment While not in full agreement with the recommendations of the evaluation report relating to assessment, there has been a thorough review of the FRH assessment process. Assessment criteria have been simplified following experience from pilot. We continue to hold the view that the balance between formative and summative assessment is right. The field visit stage of the assessment process is now summative as well as formative, this in response to the evaluation report. We are also convinced of the validity of the coach role in assessment but that this role does not involve the participant’s own coach in summative assessment beyond stage 2 of the assessment process. Our own skills in assessment and in coach training on assessment have developed from the pilot and have improved further during FRH2-3 to address the issue of submission coverage of the full Standard for Headship. We are confident that from wide ranging consultation on the submissions with GTCS, the evaluation team and the external moderator, we are in position to ensure the coach is trained to support the participant in the completion of a good quality reflective commentary and portfolio of evidence. The Project Manager, with assessment experience, continues to adopt a hands-on involvement in the assessment of submissions and moderation procedures at all stages. Professional Interview The professional interview, stage 5 of the assessment process, has been subject to evaluation and review by GTCS based on experience. The focus on SfH 4.3 ‘Personal qualities and interpersonal skills’ reflects the importance of this element of the Standard in preparation for headship. There is acceptance that the composition of the interview panel required some modification to give more representation for the profession through the membership of 2 practicing headteachers. Other factors which have been considered relate to the training of panel members and some of our own administrative procedures with GTCS.
Coaching Coaching skills are developed initially through the 2 day training programme and importantly on a regular basis by the monthly coach network meetings. Any enhancement of coaching skills is considered to be the responsibility of the local authority. It is through regular practice that the coach will improve their own coaching skills. An extensive reading list is provided to encourage the use of literature to inform practice. Accreditation of coaches has not been considered as essential in the appointment of the professional development coach.
FRH Update Nov 2010
Moderation and appeals procedures Further consideration needs to be given to the appeals process at stage 3 (field visit) and stage 4 (final submission) and advice and support from GTCS will be needed to do this. The appeal process at stage 5 (professional interview) is agreed and documented. The programme of moderation of assessment at stages 1 and 2 is in place, again well documented and involves an independent assessor. Coach training on field assessment is in place through the coach network meetings, documented in the FRH coach pack. The final submission again is independently moderated by an independent assessor. These measures we firmly believe go some way to ensuring that FRH programme maintains comparable standards of assessment between candidates from different education authorities across Scotland. We are of the view that, in partnership with the GTCS, this protocol should be subject to continuing review to ensure the highest standards.
General issues / next steps: *Importance of continuing to closely monitor models of provision across authorities *Continue to further creatively develop the FRH programme subject to ongoing review *FRH as a programme in preparation for headship but recognition of adaptability to meet the needs of aspiring headteachers at earlier points in their career cycles. This theme, middle leadership development, currently forms part of the CPD Team agenda with local authorities *Begin to consider model of CPD support for FRH graduates and to involve experienced HTs at authority level as coach/mentor similar in some ways to National College programme. *Develop further publicity at different levels across authorities Overall FRH now has a well established team ethos with a sense of ownership, a commitment to improvement, and a well organised central structure supported by the National CPD Team. Central to this is a well developed partnership between the FRH team and local authorities. This partnership has helped develop a real sense of ownership at local level and firm measures locally to ensure sustainability of FRH.
JK November 2010
FRH Update Nov 2010