Abstract
The Education Reform Act 1988 increased the scope of headteachers' work and led to an emphasis on ‘management', often interpreted as the implementation of government policies, checked through the Ofsted inspection regime. Following the election of a Labour government in 1997, the discourse changed to ‘leadership'. Leadership development in England is dominated by the National College for School Leadership, which was opened in 2000, a product of New Labour's stress on ‘education, education, education'. The College offers a raft of provision for leaders at all levels, including the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), which was introduced in 1997. As the title implies, the NPQH is seen as a professional qualification and focuses more on what heads can ‘do' than what they know. The NPQH become mandatory for new heads in 2009 but reverted to optional status in 2012. This paper reviews the evidence on the impact of the NPQH and considers how it could be developed to blend leadership learning with leadership practice.
Introduction to Leadership Development in England
There is considerable diversity in the scale, nature and impact of the leadership preparation and development models in use in different countries. The pattern adopted in each nation reflects its collective sense of what is appropriate to underpin the quality of education in the 21st century. In evaluating these diverse approaches, we should acknowledge the vital importance of culture and context in shaping education, leadership and leadership development in each country:
Models of preparatory training, certification, selection, assessment, induction and ongoing development for school leaders are necessarily rooted in specific national conditions and contexts. They are the product of unique, and dynamically changing, sets of circumstances – political, economic, social, cultural, historical, professional and technical – in that country. (Bolam, 2004: 251)
Simkins (2012) notes that patterns of leadership development provision in England have evolved, in response to changing conceptions of how the school system should be organized. Bolam (2004: 251) says that the NCSL should be treated as the ‘the latest stage of an evolving policy innovation’. He attributes the growing interest in school management to the introduction of comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 1970s. These were larger and more complex than the previous grammar and secondary modern schools, leading to an expansion of leadership roles and consideration of how schools should be managed. During the 1970s and 1980s, and very much on an ad hoc basis, courses were offered by local education authorities (LEAs), universities and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI). In 1983, the then Department of Education and Science (DES) established the National Development Centre for School Management Training (NDC) at the University of Bristol. University courses on school and college management became increasingly popular (Hughes et al., 1981). One-term training opportunities (OTTOs) for headteachers were established from 1984.
The Education Reform Act 1988, described as ‘the defining legislative moment’ by Simkins (2012), located many more responsibilities at school level and greatly expanded the management role of headteachers and their senior colleagues. The government appointed a School Management Task Force (SMTF) in 1989 and its influential report (SMTF, 1990) set the agenda for school management development for the next few years (Bush, 2004). Probably its most important legacy was the establishment of mentoring schemes for new headteachers (Bush and Coleman, 1995).
The next major development was the establishment of the Teacher Training Agency (TTA), which took an interest in leadership development as well as the pre-service education of teachers. Bush (2008) debates whether this change in the discourse of the field, from management to leadership, was substantive or semantic. The TTA set up the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), the first national qualification for aspiring heads, in 1997. It also developed the HEADLAMP programme for new heads and the Leadership Programme for Serving Heads (LPSH), for experienced leaders (Bolam, 2004).
Bolam (2004) notes that the idea of a national college was discussed as early as the mid-1980s, but was rejected because it was felt that a residential college could not cope with the scale of need, with some 25,000 heads and up to 70,000 senior and middle managers. He argues that it returned to political prominence in the late 1990s, for three main reasons:
it fitted the new Labour government’s plans to raise standards in education;
developments in ICT meant that the residential dimension became less significant;
the government was prepared to invest significantly in a national college and its ICT infrastructure.
Following a period of consultation, the NCSL opened in temporary accommodation in November 2000. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair opened its state-of-the-art learning and conference centre in Nottingham in 2002. The NCSL took over responsibility for the NPQH, as well as acquiring, and greatly expanding, TTA’s suite of leadership development programmes. We give specific attention to the NPQH in a later section.
Why Is Leadership Preparation Important?
There is great interest in educational leadership in the early part of the 21st century. This is because of the widespread belief that the quality of leadership makes a significant difference to school and student outcomes. In many parts of the World, including England, there is increasing recognition that schools require effective leaders and managers if they are to provide the best possible education for their students and learners.
While the argument that leadership does make a difference is increasingly, if not universally, accepted, there is ongoing debate about what preparation is required to develop appropriate leadership behaviours. This relates to conceptions of the principal’s role, ‘preparation for what?’ (Crow et al., 2008: 3). In England, as in many other countries, school leaders begin their professional careers as teachers and progress to headship via a range of leadership tasks and roles, often described as ‘middle leadership’. Principals may continue to teach following their appointment, particularly in small primary schools. This leads to a widespread view that teaching is their main activity (Bush, 2010).
This focus on principals as head teachers underpins the view that a teaching qualification and teaching experience are the only necessary requirements for school leadership. However, from the late 20th century, there has been a growing realization that headship is a specialist occupation which requires specific preparation. Bush (2008) identifies four factors underpinning this change of attitude.
The expansion of the role of school principal, arising from enhanced accountability requirements and the devolution of additional powers to the school level following the Education Reform Act 1988.
The increasing complexity of school contexts, arising from globalization, technological and demographic changes, and the demands of enhanced site-based responsibilities.
Recognition that preparation is a moral obligation, because principals have onerous responsibilities that differ from those facing teachers, and leaders should have an ‘entitlement’ (Watson, 2003) to specialized preparation.
Recognition that effective preparation and development make a difference. Leadership is not ‘fixed at birth’ (Avolio, 2005: 2), leading to a view that systematic preparation, rather than inadvertent experience, is more likely to produce effective leaders (Bush, 2008).
These factors were influential in encouraging the government to provide substantial funding for leadership preparation and development, notably through the National College, as noted above.
Leadership Preparation or Development
Bush and Jackson’s (2002) review of school leadership programmes in seven countries showed that leadership development is usually targeted at current or aspiring principals and that there was much less provision for leaders at other levels. The NCSL’s former Leadership Development Framework provided for programmes at five levels from middle leaders to consultant headteachers (Bush, 2006, 2008). The Framework has been superseded but the College still offers programmes for middle leaders, aspiring heads (the National Professional Qualification for Headship), and for current heads. Most of this provision is for leaders who are currently in post (development) but the NPQH is a preparation programme for aspiring heads. These twin approaches can be regarded as different aspects of socialization.
Professional and Organizational Socialization
Heck (2003) distinguishes between professional and organizational socialization. The former includes formal preparation and the early phases of professional practice. Organizational socialization involves the process of becoming familiar with the specific context where leadership is practised. Where leaders are preparing to take a more senior position, such as principal, they are engaged in a process of professional socialization. Because future leaders rarely know where they will be appointed, context-specific preparation is not possible, although developing skills of situational analysis is both possible and desirable. In-service leadership development, however, needs to include a significant element of school-specific learning. This leads to consideration of the nature of leadership preparation and development.
Bolam (1999: 196) argues that leadership development can be grouped into four modes:
Knowledge for understanding.
Knowledge for action.
Improvement of practice.
Development of a reflexive mode.
Content-led programmes, particularly those provided by universities, may be regarded as predominantly aiming at ‘knowledge for understanding’. These typically address the main aspects of the leader’s role, including leadership for learning, managing finance, and leading and managing people (Bush, 2008).
Leadership Development Processes
Bolam’s (1999) categories of ‘knowledge for action’, and ‘improvement for practice’ (see above) suggest a focus on process rather than content. Instead of the adoption of a prescribed curriculum, leaders are developed through a range of action modes and support mechanisms, often customized to the specific needs of leaders through what is increasingly referred to as ‘personalized learning’. Such individualization is justified because school leaders are adults, and senior professionals, who expect to be involved in determining their own leadership learning.
Personalized Learning
Burgoyne et al. (2004: 3) conclude that there is no single way in which leadership and management development creates leadership capability. Rather, there are many different forms of development that can generate capacity. Personalized provision recognizes the need for leadership learning to be tailored to the specific needs of individual leaders through devices such as mentoring and coaching.
Mentoring
Barnett and O’Mahony (2008: 222) refer to ‘the growing recognition [of the need] to provide support for aspiring and practicing leaders’ and point to mentoring (and coaching) as key support processes. The mentor may be a more experienced leader or the process may be one of peer mentoring. They (2008: 238) add that mentoring is ‘intended to encourage formal and informal career development [and] reciprocal learning between mentors and mentees’. Bush, Glover and Harris (2007) note that mentoring is becoming more person centred with an increased awareness of the need to match mentor and mentee, to ensure that mentors are properly trained and that there is time, support and understanding of the reflective process. Pocklington and Weindling (1996: 189) argue that ‘mentoring offers a way of speeding up the process of transition to headship’.
Hobson and Sharp’s (2005) systematic review of the literature found that all major studies of formal mentoring programmes for new heads reported that such programmes have been effective, and that the mentoring of new heads can result in a range of perceived benefits for both mentees and mentors. However, mentoring is only likely to succeed if there is careful selection of mentors, specific training linked to the needs of the programme, and purposive matching of mentors and mentees.
Coaching
Coaching is often included in NCSL programmes (Bush, Glover and Harris, 2007). It differs from mentoring in being short-term (Barnett and O’Mahony, 2008) and being focused on developing specific skills (Bassett, 2001), but such distinctions are not applied consistently, and coaching and mentoring practices often seem quite similar. Robertson’s (2005) statement that coaching involves two people setting and achieving professional goals, being open to new learning, and engaging in dialogue for the purpose of improving leadership practice, for example, could just as easily apply to mentoring.
Simkins et al. (2006), looking at NCSL approaches, conclude that three important issues affect the coaching experience: coach skills and commitment, the time devoted to the process, and the place of coaching within broader school leadership development strategies. The NPQH is one major programme to include coaching. Bush, Glover and Harris (2007) argue that coaching appears to work best when training is thorough and specific, when there is careful matching of coach and coachee, and when it is integral to the wider learning process.
Group Learning
Despite the tendency to emphasize individual leadership learning, group activities play a significant part in many development programmes. While this may sometimes be an opportunity for an essentially didactic approach, delivering a ‘body of knowledge’, there are several other group learning strategies that may be employed to promote participants’ learning. The main approach to group learning in NCSL programmes is networking.
Networking
Bush, Glover and Harris’s (2007) overview of NCSL evaluations shows that networking is the most favoured mode of leadership learning. It is likely to be more effective when it is structured and has a clear purpose. Its main advantage is that it is ‘live learning’ and provides strong potential for ideas transfer. Visits with a clear purpose may also lead to powerful leadership learning. Visiting similar contexts (for example, other small primary schools) appears to be particularly valuable.
Internships can be seen as a specific form of networking and Crow (2001) argues that this may help with professional socialization. The NPQH includes a placement in another school context, for between 5 and 20 days, although the College website foreshadows an increase in this aspect of headship preparation. Rusch (2008: 228) comments that internships have replaced the traditional requirement for school leaders to demonstrate mastery of leadership knowledge. Heck (2003: 247) adds that internships helped aspiring principals to develop ‘a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities’.
The National Professional Qualification for Headship
The NPQH is the College’s flagship programme and the only statutory part of its provision until mandatory status was withdrawn in April 2012. As noted earlier, it is aimed at those leaders aspiring to headship and is designed to establish participants’ suitability for this position. In this sense, it has always been more concerned with what leaders can do, than what they know and understand. Leadership practice is perceived to be more important than an understanding of leadership theory and research. As the title implies, it is a professional qualification, not an academic course.
The NPQH has progressed through three stages in respect of mandatory status. From April 2004, new heads were expected to hold the qualification but there was a transitional arrangement allowing those with a place on the programme to be appointed to a first headship. In practice, this often meant that headship applicants could be appointed if they promised to register for NPQH (Bush et al., 2009). From April 2009, only those who had successfully completed NPQH could be appointed to their first substantive headship position. Even this could have been regarded as falling short of mandatory status, as it appeared that school governing bodies were able to make ‘acting’ appointments of candidates who do not hold the NPQH. However, a more fundamental change was made in April 2012, when aspiring leaders were no longer required to hold NPQH in order to take up a headship post. The decision to abolish mandatory status was made by ministers and is in line with government intentions to give schools, and those who lead them, ‘the freedom to make their own decisions’ (http://www.ncsl.org.uk). The College website adds that ‘the government does, however, recognize the value and importance of NPQH, and endorse it as the qualification of choice for anyone aspiring to headship’ and the programme will continue to be subsidized. Given this positive rhetoric, it is surprising that mandatory status has been dropped. Although not an explicit part of the decision, it may be related to concerns about attracting sufficient new heads. The evaluation of the College’s succession planning programme (Bush, 2011) (see below) showed that some local authorities attributed problems in making appointments, in part, to NPQH’s mandatory status.
If NPQH provides excellent preparation, as the above rhetoric suggests, dropping mandatory status may be seen as a backward step. However, despite what a previous secretary of state, in his 2007 remit letter, described as the ‘good reputation of this flagship programme’ (http://www.ncsl.org.uk#x0029;, the NPQH has been subject to many criticisms. These can be summarized as:
being below the intellectual level required for such an important and complex role (Brundrett, 2000, Brundrett et al., 2006, Bush, 1998, 1999, 2006);
being ‘too basic’ or ‘too easy’ to obtain (Bush, 2006, Bush et al., 2007);
being too reliant on a competency system (Brundrett, 2000);
having weak links with masters’ level school leadership programmes (Bush, 1998);
being based on a normative, and standardized, model of leadership (Brundrett et al., 2006).
As well as abolishing its mandatory status, the 2011 review of the NPQH led to several other changes to the programme:
There will be new essential and elective modules with longer placements, and closer links to Master's and other postgraduate qualifications, thus addressing one of the criticisms noted above.
The revised NPQH programme will have a ‘more rigorous entry process and final assessment’. Such claims are not new and it remains to be seen whether and how the current arrangements will be modified.
There will be a more diverse range of organizations, including schools, involved in delivering the programme. (http://www.ncsl.org.uk)
The College claims that ‘the redesigned NPQH will continue to provide the evidence, experience and confidence aspirant headteachers need to secure their first headship. It will take the latest research into effective school and academy leadership, as well as current and future policy developments, into consideration’ (http://www.ncsl.org.uk).
The content of the new NPQH ‘is being developed in discussion with leading headteachers, and as a result of this, the focus on leading teaching and learning, behaviour and performance management will be strengthened. The minimum amount of time that participants spend in another school will also be doubled’ (http://www.ncsl.org.uk).
The new programme will be linked with masters’ degrees, thus addressing one of the criticisms outlined above. The first participants began the revised programme in September 2012.
Ending the Monopoly
As noted above, the NPQH was previously mandatory for new first time heads and available only via the College. This monopoly position imposed great pressure on the NCSL to make sure it is ‘fit for purpose’. It also raises wider questions about control of leadership development. Simkins (2012) traces the growing centralization of this process. From ad hoc provision in the 1980s, development was increasingly ‘steered’ to ensure implementation of government policies. From 2012, the College was transformed into an Executive Agency of the Department of Education. The initial claim that the NCSL would be an ‘independent voice of school leaders’ was always too ambitious, and constrained by the secretary of state’s ‘remit letter’, setting out government expectations for the year ahead. However, the change to agency status, to enable the College to be ‘directly accountable to ministers’, removed the last vestiges of ‘independence’. The NCSL is now required to implement government policy. More than ever, leadership development is a vehicle for ensuring compliance with national imperatives.
Paradoxically, the removal of NPQH’s mandatory status appears to provide greater choice in the leadership development ‘market place’. A lack of pluralism provides a good prospect of a genuinely standardized qualification, but runs the risk of damaging the whole schools’ system if it is inadequate (Bush, 2008). The decision to end mandatory status was accompanied by a licensing system. The College ceased to be the NPQH provider and 28 licences were awarded, on a regional basis, to provide enhanced choice for schools and leaders. The licensees include ‘outstanding’ schools, as judged by Ofsted inspections, universities, local authorities and private sector bodies. This privatized model applies to NPQH and to two other qualifications (one for senior leaders and one for middle leaders), which are still in the development stage. Ministers wish to see closer links between NPQH and masters’ degrees, and licensees with higher education institution involvement will have the opportunity to develop such links. In addition, these and other providers will be free to develop alternative pathways to headships. However, NPQH will retain the advantage of being an established ‘brand’ and the National College will be able to offer subsidized places for applicants. This is hardly a ‘level playing field’ and NCSL is likely to remain the dominant force in school leadership development.
Leadership Development and Succession Planning
The imminent retirement of the ‘baby boom’ generation of principals, born in the years after the Second World War, threatens a leadership crisis in many nations. This has led to an emphasis on succession planning in some countries, notably in England, where the NCSL has introduced a programme designed to ‘fast track’ leaders into senior positions, and to encourage schools and local authorities to ‘grow their own’ leaders (Bush, 2011). While the evaluation of the programme (Bush, 2011) shows a variable response to this initiative, there is some evidence that it has energized leadership development and encouraged many more teachers to seek careers as senior leaders.
Succession planning has become increasingly important because of the shortage of headship applicants in England, as in many other countries (Bush, 2008; Thomson, 2009). The NCSL has developed its own succession strategy to address this issue in England. It identifies several ‘succession challenges’ that need to be addressed as part of a coordinated strategy.
The retirement boom; the age profile of the profession, influenced by the post-war ‘baby boom’, means that a significant number of headteachers are likely to retire in the next few years.
Perceptions of the job; the role of headteacher is perceived to be a difficult one and 43% of deputy heads say that they do not want the top job.
A drawn out apprenticeship; heads serve a long apprenticeship (on average 20 years) as teachers and deputies, before becoming headteachers. ‘Making the route to the top swifter would render it more appealing to younger teachers’. (NCSL, 2007: 7)
These factors underpinned the National College’s succession planning strategy, designed to alleviate the problem and provide a secure supply of qualified heads. The College’s approach involved the provision of earmarked funding to local authorities (LAs) to enable them to find their own ‘local solutions’ to the problem. The College also appointed 23 national succession consultants (NSCs) to work alongside LAs as they formulated their own customized responses to this problem.
There are two main strategies potentially available to address the cumulative effects of these problems, and to identify potential school leaders. First, those interested in such positions may be able to ‘self nominate’ by applying for available posts and submitting themselves to the (stated or implicit) selection criteria. This approach is typically used by education systems with a high degree of decentralization. The main limitation of this strategy is that insufficient well-qualified candidates may submit themselves for scrutiny. The second strategy, typically used by centralized systems, is a planned approach, leading to central decisions about who should be considered for promotion. This approach reduces the ‘chance’ element, and provides the potential for smooth leadership succession, but may be criticized because it does not facilitate equal opportunities (Bush, 2008). The English system devolves headteacher appointments to school governing bodies and school leaders make their own decisions about whether to apply for headships and, if so, to which schools.
As noted above, the notion of leadership ‘succession’ is more difficult to apply in such decentralized systems. Because career development is the prerogative of the applicant, rather than the employer, it is not possible to adopt a planned approach. The main limitation of this ‘self nomination’ process is that insufficient well-qualified candidates may submit themselves for scrutiny. The College recognized the problems inherent in trying to adopt a centralized approach to this issue:
This is not a problem that can be handled by government or any single agency acting alone. It is a system-wide challenge and the National College for School Leadership (NCSL), heads, governors, schools, local authorities, diocesan bodies, professional associations, the [former] Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and other national agencies all have a part to play in addressing it. (NCSL, 2007: 5)
The Scale and Nature of the Succession Problem
The National College (NCSL, 2007: 6) shows that the ‘retirement boom’ means a need for a 15–20 per cent increase in the number of school leaders ‘to maintain a healthy supply of good quality candidates for headship’. It also points to particular challenges in inner London, faith schools, notably in the Catholic sector, and small schools.
The evaluation data showed that primary schools are experiencing greater difficulties than the secondary sector, although the problems in both sectors eased following the College initiative. The data also identified four other consistent themes:
faith schools, especially in the Catholic sector, present particular problems;
small rural schools are a particular challenge because of the demands on teaching heads and the low salary differentials;
local authority (LA) ‘branding’, whether positive or negative, is perceived to affect the volume and quality of applications;
there are concerns about closure or reorganization in some areas.
Response to the Challenge
The evaluation report (Bush, 2011; Bush et al., 2009) showed that leadership development was one of three main strategies used to address these succession problems.
Leadership Development
Thompson (2010: 98) says that ‘leadership development should not be left to chance, but should be part of a planned effort at all levels from the broader organization through to the leader. This [is a] call to grow your own leaders.’ Most of the case study LAs introduced arrangements to develop their leaders. One LA planned its own ‘Leadership College’ while others targeted activities for all levels of leadership, including programmes for aspiring leaders, specific training for black and minority ethnic (BME) teachers, targeted support for NPQH graduates, a deputy heads’ support group, a middle leaders’ conference, and robust mentoring programmes at all levels. These activities might be seen as a response to a macro-level problem (headteacher shortages) rather than being motivated primarily by a concern to enhance the leadership skills and capabilities of prospective heads.
Diversity Issues
The National College believes that a diverse leadership workforce – one that draws from all the talents and experiences of people from different backgrounds – is a stronger and more effective workforce (NCSL, 2009: 1). However, this view is not reflected in the appointment of significant numbers of BME leaders in England, or in several other nations (Bush et al., 2007):
Schools in Western countries are overwhelmingly run by white administrators. This is the result of raced institutional practices which allow limited numbers of people ascribed with ‘minority heritage’ to become teachers. (Thomson, 2009: 21)
NPQH and Headteacher Supply
The NPQH became mandatory for new first-time heads during the succession planning evaluation period. This was identified as a potential problem in two of the 12 case studies. ‘The new NPQH requirement changes the scenario’. This factor may have influenced the government’s decision to withdraw mandatory status for NPQH (see above).
The Impact of Leadership and Management Development
There is widespread belief in the value of development programmes, leading to the introduction and growth of such interventions in many countries (Bush, 2008; Hallinger, 2003; Huber, 2004; Watson, 2003) and to the opening and subsequent expansion of the NCSL. The purpose of leadership and management development is to produce more effective leaders. Programmes and activities need to be judged against this criterion. Bush (2008: 108) asks whether such processes produce better leaders and whether certain approaches are likely to be more successful than others in achieving positive learning outcomes?
Leithwood and Levin (2004: 2) note that ‘linking leadership to student outcomes in a direct way is very difficult to do’. They (2004: 25) conclude that ‘a study that seeks to assess the impact that school leadership can have on school outcomes faces some formidable challenges’. This is partly because of the problems in attributing outcomes to a specific development initiative and partly because leadership is a mediated variable, impacting on student outcomes through influencing teachers’ classroom practice.
In England, there is increasing concern about whether and how leadership impacts on school outcomes:
Greater understanding is needed of the linkages and mediators between leadership and educational attainment and social outcomes. [there is a] lack of consensus about the contribution of different elements to the linkages, indirect effects and mediating factors for improving school leadership. (DfES, 2004: para. 22)
They rely mainly or exclusively on self-reported evidence. Participants are asked about their experience of the activity and, more rarely, about its impact on their schools. This is a weak approach because it is not subject to corroboration, for example by colleagues, and because it is inevitably subjective.
The evaluation is usually short term. Participants’ views are often sought during and/or at the end of the development activity. It is widely recognized that the impact of interventions, such as a leadership programme, takes time. It is unlikely that significant changes in leadership practice will have occurred during the training period.
Even where these two pitfalls are avoided, there is still the problem of attributing beneficial effects to the development activity when there are likely to be many other contemporaneous events that could also contribute to change. However, addressing the two limitations set out above would produce more credible, if not totally reliable, findings.
Conclusion: the Future of Leadership Development in England
The global interest in leadership development is predicated on the widespread assumption that it will lead to school improvement, and enhanced learning outcomes. The empirical evidence for this perspective is limited and assessing impact is difficult because of several conceptual and methodological problems, as noted above. However, there is a widespread belief that high quality leadership is directly linked to enhanced learning outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2006).
Given the importance of educational leadership, Bush (2008: 125) argues that the development of effective leaders should not be left to chance. It should be a deliberate process designed to produce the best possible leadership and management for schools and colleges. As the NCSL (2007: 17) succinctly argues, ‘leadership must grow by design not by default’, an implicit recognition that school leadership is a different role from teaching and requires separate and specialized preparation. Given this widely supported claim, the decision to withdraw mandatory status from NPQH is surprising as it is certain to lead to unqualified heads being appointed in some schools.
In the past decade, there has been a global trend towards more systematic provision of leadership and management development, particularly for school principals. Hallinger (2003: 3) notes that, in 1980, ‘no nation in the world had in place a clear system of national requirements, agreed upon frameworks of knowledge, and standards of preparation for school leaders’. In the 21st century, many countries, including England, are giving this a high priority, recognizing its potential for school improvement.
This trend is encapsulated most powerfully by the NCSL. Even following the end of mandatory status, many potential heads undertake leadership training, with a national curriculum, before becoming principals and receive national accreditation on successful completion of the activity. Much of the development work is work-based, recognizing that leadership practice takes place in schools. Increasingly, current or former principals are involved in designing, leading and delivering leadership programmes, showing that ‘craft’ knowledge is increasingly respected. The case for systematic, specialized training for principals is persuasive, and increasingly accepted, but this has been compromised by the decision to make NPQH optional for future heads.