International Patterns in Principal Preparation: Commonalities and Variations in Pre-service Programmes

Site Selection

For the purposes of this study, we identified five leadership programmes from five different societies for analysis (that is, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the USA). Given the aim to draw international comparisons in leadership preparation, selection criteria addressed congruence around indicators of excellence and diversity of context.

At the state level, each of the selected programmes is located in jurisdictions reported as top performers in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We recognize that PISA results do not evidence a direct relationship to leadership preparation. However, PISA results are closely followed by policymakers, stimulate international competition and legitimate reform efforts (Afonso and Costa, 2009; Rautalin and Alasuutari, 2009). High performing societies become magnets of interest for researchers and policymakers looking for strategies to improve their own educational systems (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). Accordingly, performance on PISA is recognized in consultancy reports (Barber et al., 2010), policy papers (National Governors Association et al., 2008) and academic research (Matthews et al., 2008) on school leadership, and informs our selection. Each of the jurisdictions selected for study performs in the top 10 of PISA measures. Further, the selected programmes are offered in jurisdictions identified for excellence in educational leadership (Barber et al., 2010). Given the diverse performance on PISA that is found within large federations such as the USA and Canada, this helped to narrow our selection (for example, to specify New York and Ontario).

The five programmes were selected to illuminate commonalities and variations in high-quality pre-service programmes, which aim to develop key knowledge and skills of individual leaders. However, we note that there is substantial critique of this structural-functionalist approach to studies on leadership development programmes (Gronn, 2003; O’Reilly and Reid, 2010; Simkins, 2012). Specifically, Gronn’s conceptualization of ‘designer leadership’ problematizes current leadership development programmes which are predominantly aligned with standards-based approaches. Based on Foucault’s concept of ‘disciplined subjectivity’, Gronn (2003: 283–284) argues that both aspiring and practizing leaders are expected to subject themselves to standards-based leadership development programmes by ‘acting in conformity with a leadership design blueprint’ which is ‘accredited by the standardizers, typically a state agency’ such as the National College for School Leadership. For Gronn, standards-based leadership development programmes are viewed as social apparatuses to achieve disciplined subjectivity. Similarly based on the Foucauldian perspective, O’Reilly and Reid (2010: 960) posit that there has been ‘an emerging set of beliefs that frames and justifies certain innovatory changes in contemporary organizational and managerial practice’, which they call ‘leaderism’. They further argue that leaderism as a public policy discourse is predominantly permeated in current leadership development programmes in the UK and that it functions as a social and organizational technology for control. In line with this problematization of current leadership development programmes, Simkins (2012: 634) suggests more studies on leadership development programmes from constructivist perspectives in that the goals and outcomes of leadership development programmes may be contested areas and ‘the formation of leader identity is at least as significant an issue as the development of specific skills and qualities’. Reflecting such substantial critique, we wish to note that follow-up studies using critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995, 2003) are needed for analysing goals, strategies and outcomes embedded in leadership development programmes with more critical perspectives.

At the programme level, selection criteria used recently delineated research-based indicators of exemplary leadership programmes with high performance outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010). These include alignment to ‘state and professional standards’, an emphasis on ‘instructional leadership and school improvement’, student-centred learning, knowledgeable faculty, cohort structures, ‘formalized mentoring and advisement’, rigorous participant selection and site-based internships (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010: 181–182). Although the selected programmes share such features, commonalities and variations in their development, employment and emphases need to be further understood. Selecting programmes with broadly shared features allow for a more fine-grained analysis of similarities and distinctives.

Each programme leads to a credential accredited by regulatory agencies or universities. We exempted Victoria, Australia from this final selection criterion in order to meet selection criteria for the diversity necessary to obtain an international perspective on principal preparation in high performing educational systems. Additionally, we justify this decision because of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the state’s various leadership development programmes, while not required, are figuring as important in leader recruitment. We note that of the top ranked PISA performers, most do not have required pre-services preparation programmes, which eliminated countries such as Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands from our selection.

Finally, we limited our study to systems that operate leadership programmes in the medium of English. This served practically to assist in data collection and analysis as the selected systems had documents in English which were publically available on the Internet or by request.The selection criteria in terms of congruence are summarized in Table 1. ¹ Table 1 also presents the selection criteria applied for diversity. This reflects variation in geographic location and culture (Asia, Australia and North America), in qualification system structures (from centralized and required to decentralized and not required), variation in testing and performance cultures, in political systems (federal and unitary states), and in programme providers (universities, professional associations and non-governmental agencies). Our selection does not cover all possible high performing programmes, however we contend that it exemplifies a diverse enough range of systems, providers and programmes from which to inform our conclusions about commonality and variation in international programmes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Selection criteria.

	Congruence	Diversity
State level indicators	Top performers on PISA	In geographical location and culture (Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ontario, New York)
	Recognition in consultancy reports	In political system: federations and unitary states
		In educational system (for example, testing and performance cultures)
Programme level indicators	Provide accredited credential	In principal qualification regulation (from centralized and required to decentralized and not required)
	Qualification as a requirement for principal appointment (except Australia)	Degree bearing and non-degree bearing programme.
	Meets criteria of exemplary leadership programme.	Providers range from universities, to professional associations, to not-for-profit agencies.

Sources and Data Collection

The data set comprises reviews of programme evaluation reports, in-house materials such as syllabi and Internet searches. Each of the researchers initially explored different programmes, contacted key personnel, searched the Internet, and uncovered academic papers and internal documents related to the specific programmes. While Internet data often provided the general structure of programmes, the evaluation reports, programme guidelines and interviews served to tease out key or unique features of each. (See Appendix 1 for sources in addition to those provided in the reference list.)

Analytical Strategies

We devised a comparative analytic framework based on our review of extant literature. Leithwood and Levin’s (2008) leadership development typology informed the initial draft of the framework (their influence is referenced in the framework in Appendix 2). Leithwood and Levin (2008) observe a lack of a comprehensive leadership typology. Accordingly, through the literature review we identified other facets of leadership preparation programmes and wrote descriptors of each in order to build a broader analytic typology. We used each item in the expanded typology to guide our initial analysis. We met regularly throughout the process of data collection and analysis to review and revise the conceptual framework. We added, merged and renamed the codes iteratively. Renaming or developing new codes proved essential. ²

Initially, the literature review suggested multiple content areas. While we used these to code programmes, given that our purpose aimed for comparison we used a constant comparative approach (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2007) to identify content common across the five programmes. This process led to the creation of a separate code to stress the prominent or distinctive features of the respective programmes. The source of content also emerged as significant given the varied roles of frameworks, academics and practitioners in structuring and delivering programme content.

Nearer to the end of our analysis we arranged the codes under five broad themes: purpose, framework, content, delivery and operational features. However, in this paper we limit our discussion to the three themes that emerged as most significant and interrelated: ³ framework, content and operational features. For example, frameworks often inform content areas, operationalize programme purposes and drive programme features and delivery. Although we do not analyse purpose and delivery, these overlapping influences and connections are explored later in this article.

As we developed new codes, we wrote new definitions as a ‘code book’ that provided ‘observable boundaries’ for each code (Quartaroli, 2009: 265) and met frequently to ensure consistency in our application of the codes to analysing the respective programmes. Where applicable we followed Leithwood and Levin’s (2008) model of defining each code along a continuum that expresses a range of possible manifestations. To reflect this range in the coding process, we devised key word descriptors, or sub-codes (see Appendix 2). ⁴

In order to organize the data in a manner suitable for comparison, we constructed a range of data displays (Miles and Huberman, 1994) for each programme. The displays took the form of matrices to summarize the data and partially ordered displays to evaluate the interrelationship among programme components (that is, codes). Within the cells of each matrix we placed extracts from the raw data, summaries and/or keyword descriptors. This provided a basis for cross-case comparison. We worked together to reduce the data (further honing our codebook) and create cross case matrixes to compare the data across programmes. The displays (further reduced into Appendix 3) provided the basis for writing up the findings.

Canada (Ontario): Principals Qualification Programme (PQP)

In Canada, the province of Ontario has long mandated a pre-service qualification for entry into the principalship, termed the Principals Qualification Programme (PQP). The PQP is regulated by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), which mandates programme expectations, content requirements and learning outcomes. The OCT also accredits providers, which include six universities and three professional associations (Ontario College of Teachers, 2011). The OCT’s guidelines in turn cohere to the Ontario Leadership Framework, developed by the Institute for Education Leadership (IEL, 2008), which cites Leithwood et al.’s (2006) influential research synthesis as providing the framework’s theoretical underpinnings. These informed four of the framework’s leadership domains (IEL, 2008):

In sum, the framework used in Ontario is research informed, adapted by the IEL, mandated by the OCT and implemented by different providers. In addition, beyond training for aspiring principals, the framework informs various facets of leader development, including mentoring (Ontario, 2010a), and performance appraisal (Ontario, 2010b) and is delineated for principals, district supervisors, and government and Catholic schools.

We have selected the PQP delivered by the Ontario Principals Council (OPC) for analysis. The OPC, as the professional association for principals, offers a programme distinctive from those typically run through universities. The OPC delivers the PQP throughout the province in urban and rural districts, making it one of the most widely distributed leadership programmes in the province. This scope is reflected in the number of candidates who complete the programme annually, placing the OPC as the PQP’s largest provider. While the PQP does not award a postgraduate degree, agreements between the OPC and three universities in Canada, Australia and the UK allow credit to be transferred into master’s degree programmes offered by the respective universities.

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

The Australian state of Victoria has placed leadership development as key to the state’s school improvement efforts (Elmore, 2007). This has led to the creation of the Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership, an agency within the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), which supports leadership development for current and aspiring school leaders. It is responsible for the implementation of the government’s Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders (Department of Education, 2007). The framework is derived from the work of Sergiovanni (1984, 2005) and accordingly targets the following domains.

It provides competency indicators for each domain and informs principal induction, development, selection, mentoring, succession planning and professional learning (Department of Education, 2007).

In Victoria, there is no single credential required of principals; however, the Bastow Institute has developed a range of pathways for leader development. These range from weekend workshops to a 2-year Master of School Leadership (MSL) delivered by two providers: the University of Melbourne and Monash University (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2010). The Bastow Institute serves to regulate and accredit the MSL. We focused on the MSL delivered by the University of Melbourne as it is the state’s largest university, a significant international leader in educational research, and a major provider of pre- and in-service training for teachers and leaders in Victoria.

Singapore: Leaders in Education Programme (LEP)

Since 1997, Singapore’s educational reforms have been aligned with its vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ and further specified in 2005 through the state’s policy initiative ‘Teach Less Learn More (TLLM)’ (Ng, 2008, Ministry of Education [MOE], 2005). Under TLLM, the role of school leaders has been redefined to stress the development of creative and innovative transformational leaders, and instructional leaders capable of creating and implementing innovative programmes for diverse learners (MOE, 2005; National Institute of Education [NIE], 2010). The underlying goals of this vision are summarized as (1) developing all students into lifelong learners through critical thinking, (2) forging creativity and entrepreneurship in schools and (3) creating a culture of learning and innovation across various societal sectors and levels (Ng, 2008). To achieve these goals, Singapore mandates a single pathway to the principalship through the Leaders in Education Programme (LEP), which in 2001 replaced the Diploma in Educational Administration. It is delivered only by the NIE.

In keeping with government policy, the LEP draws its framework from international models, which are adapted to focus on promoting creativity, innovation, diversity and distributed leadership. To provide a coherent framework to deliver these aims, Singapore, like Victoria, draws on Sergiovanni’s Five Forces of Leadership but also applies Howard Gardner’s (2008) Five Minds for the Future to identify key competences and attitudes, termed mind-sets, that are ‘needed to perform the roles’ (NIE, 2011: 5–6). Summarizing Gardner (2008: 3):

The framework, developed by faculty at the NIE and endorsed by the MOE is applied narrowly to the LEP, for which it was specifically created.

Hong Kong: Certification for Principalship (CFP)

Until 1999, leadership preparation in Hong Kong followed no clear and coherent pathway. A shift towards involving academics and practitioners in developing and delivering a mandatory leadership preparation credential occurred in response to two consultation reports in 1999 and 2002, resulting in establishing the Certification for Principalship (CFP) as a mandatory entry requirement for principals. Currently, the government licenses three providers, all tertiary institutes, to deliver the CFP. Providers must demonstrate an alignment of the programme they designed to a required framework, Key Qualities of the Principalship in Hong Kong (Education Department, 2002; Walker et al., 2002; Walker and Kwong, 2006).

The Hong Kong framework is located in a wide range of international research, which has been adapted in response to research conducted on leadership in the Hong Kong context (Walker et al., 2002). It comprises four leadership domains:

These in turn inform six core areas of programme foci:

The six core areas are further delineated by a structure of values, knowledge, skills and attributes that guide leadership development programmes for aspiring principals, which the CFP targets, newly appointed principals and serving principals (Education Department, 2002).

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

New York City comprises the largest public school district in the USA. Its recent reform efforts explicitly highlight leadership, empowerment and accountability as three key pillars in reform. These aim to close the achievement gap by stressing high standards for students and the use of data to drive improvement and shape accountability processes (Fryer, 2011). Within this context, the New York City Leadership Academy’s (NYCLA) Aspiring Principals Programme (APP) has demonstrated its success in raising student outcomes (Corcoran et al., 2009).

The APP programme framework differs from the PQP and MSL in that it is developed by the provider, the NYCLA and derived from multiple standards set at the national, state and city levels. Termed the Leadership Performance Standards Matrix, the framework emphasizes transformational and instructional leadership and drives content and assessment across 12 dimensions:

This framework guides ‘participant selection, curricular scope, assignments, programme advancement, interventions and the comprehensive evaluation of each participant’ (NYCLA, 2012). Graduates must demonstrate competency in each dimension, further delineated by 55 behavioural criteria, which are in turn defined along a continuum of not meeting, progressing towards and meeting the standard. The Matrix has in turn been applied to the development of a Leadership Performance Planning Worksheet in conjunction with the states of Delaware and Kentucky and the Wallace Foundation. The Worksheet is used in the development of novice principals and is aligned to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008), which are derived from a database of 83 international empirical studies and 47 other references. In this sense, the NYCLA’s Matrix has wide influence, although not through the initial mandate of a singular state regulator.

Frameworks

The preceding section points to several commonalities in terms of programme frameworks. The formation of frameworks is significantly influenced by governments, central/district offices and/or international pools of research, and are mediated by regulating agencies and programme providers. Typically, the frameworks do not stand in isolation, but are often applied or adapted to guide a range of leadership development strategies and programmes. Framework developers look to extant internationally respected theories and/or empirical research to underpin them but make adaptations to account for the local context. Ontario does so by adding a fifth dimension to the Leithwood et al.’s (2006) framework, Hong Kong by adjusting international findings to account for local leadership research, and Singapore by focusing the framework on national policy concerns of nation building and international competitiveness. In the case of New York’s APP, standards are developed from a range of sources and are focused locally on leadership preparation in underperforming schools.

Variations occur in the source of the frameworks and in their application. The programmes in Ontario, Hong Kong and New York look to syntheses of research from which programme standards and structures are derived. Ontario applies a synthesis by Leithwood et al. (2006) originally published by England’s National College of School Leaders, so in a sense borrows an extant framework that informs practices elsewhere. Hong Kong’s framework is derived from an international synthesis of literature filtered through research on leadership in the local context, and the NYC Leadership Academy on a synthesis of standards which are in turn underpinned by research. The Singaporean and Australian programmes provide interesting variations. Although both articulate explicit frameworks, rather than being derived from large-scale research syntheses, they are inspired by Sergiovanni’s model which in turn is based on empirical research.

Common Content Areas

We note that each programme emphasizes facets of instructional and transformative leadership and addresses specific topics as determined by their respective frameworks. As presented in Appendix 3, there is a great deal of commonality across a plurality of topics. The most salient common feature across the programmes is that ‘content is to some extent determined in the form of centrally defined competency frameworks’ (Ontario, Victoria and Hong Kong) or ‘frameworks developed by the provider but which draw on a range of sources for their construction’ (Singapore and New York). Where content expectations are delineated by regulators, providers shape programme content by allocating instructional resources, determining assessment strategies and stressing areas of respective expertise. Coupled with this overall commonality across programmes (see Appendix 3 for more details about commonality), we wish to highlight that there are context-specific variations across programmes, which are teased out below in detail. Variations in context and content source shape programme foci, at time narrowing the focus to the needs of communities and students.

Key Foci

Sources of Content

In each of the programmes, content is derived from leadership frameworks, however other factors may shape programme specificity.

Operational Features

Summary

We identified that the overall trajectories of leadership preparation programmes have converged across the five high-performing education systems in terms of three interdependent programme components – that is, framework, content and operation. Apart from these commonalities, we also note that differing local and national contexts have an impact on creating variations in terms of the enactment of the programme. These are summarized (see Appendix 3) as follows.

First, major commonalities in terms of framework include:

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

Second, with respect to content, major commonalities include:

Content tends to emphasize a change orientation and stresses instructional and transformational leadership. Content variations include:

Finally, major commonalities in terms of operational features include:

The variations of operational features are summarized as follows.

Implications for Policy, Practice and Research

To this point we have posited a typology of leadership development programmes and used this to described five high-quality leader development programmes and outline key areas around which programmes share commonality and exhibit variations. These findings point to several features that researchers and providers of leader development programmes may consider.

First, leadership frameworks inform each programme. How broadly these frameworks are applied vary. The benefits of aligning all leadership development and evaluation in a jurisdiction to a common framework allows for a common leadership language to be shared among government, regulators, providers and participants across a system. This may further promote opportunities for continued professional learning in networks across schools (for example, networked learning communities). Such benefits should be considered in light of the need to maintain the flexibility of providers to address local needs in context. In brief, programme developers may consider the impact of broadly applied leadership frameworks when they further develop or revise programmes for potential/aspiring principals.

Second, a wide degree of openness to participation of qualified candidates may impact healthily on a system’s leadership language and networks for those who wish to build their leadership capacity without aspiring to the principalship immediately. Where programmes allow all qualified candidates to participate they may provide a vehicle to broadening the pool of school leaders with diverse backgrounds. As Ontario, Victoria and Hong Kong apply their frameworks to a wide range of programmes, admitting participants who may not become principals serves to increase the capacity of middle leaders who share a common leadership language. Multiple providers enable a broad scope of admissions. Possible merits of this model would include that the potential of leadership preparation programmes to train numbers beyond the positions immediately available for the principalship may provide the potential of a common leadership language (Walker et al., 2011), and may serve to encourage teachers to see themselves as leaders (Townsend, 2011). This may increasingly boost a shared understanding of leadership among teacher-leaders at various levels within a school, not just principal aspirants. And from a practical point of view, accepting large numbers of candidates who meet admission requirements for programmes (for example, the Hong Kong and Ontario programmes) would ease the issue of principal shortage in high-needs schools. For example, unlike many inner city and poor US school districts (Owings et al., 2011), completion rates of leadership development programmes dramatically exceed principal positions in Ontario.

Third, at the same time, programmes that are highly selective/competitive and provide a limited number of places (for example, the cases of Singapore and New York City) may promote (1) smoother, more predictable programme operation or management, (2) programmes that can be organized and implemented around team-based learning units, (3) participants who can access more customized and intensive learning opportunities and (4) given that the programmes involve a limited number of fully funded places they may be more attractive to a wider range of talent. Reflecting differing merits between programmes focusing on greater openness and those emphasizing selective participation, we wish to emphasize that a guiding principle may concern the extent to which a jurisdiction intends to promote a common understanding of leadership for all potential leaders, regardless of the actual position they will take up in schools. Programme developers also need to explore whether the selective model benefits their educational system by considering the possibility of public funding, the overall status of supply and demand for principals, and the need for quality control for various leadership preparation programmes.

Fourth, our analysis draws predeominantly on documentary sources that emphasize program design. We have observed that programme developers look elsewhere to inform programme frameworks. However, as is common with many reform efforts, international borrowing may emphasize the needs of the state but it is in implementation on the ground where adaptations are made that account for local contexts. Although the diverse aims of states and the expertise of providers may explain some variation in programmes, how societal-cultural differences shape variation requires further research informed by rich qualitative data and the attentiveness of programme designers. The documentary data analysed in this study was not condusive to eludicating cultural impacts on programme variation.

Finally, the study demonstrates that across all programmes, regardless of their national context, the role of the practitioner as mentor and trainer is gaining in currency, with alignment to frameworks at times being the primary academic contribution. Where regulators delegate provision to accredited universities, professional and non-profit agencies, a measure of choice may be offered to candidates. This appears a significant option in larger jurisdictions. However, providers should carefully consider the differing expertise that academics and practitioners can bring to leadership preparation programmes. The emerging, but relatively recent, primacy of practitioners over academic staff in programme implementation appears to lend credibility and relevance to leadership preparation programs. Although, the implications of this development are not fully understood, it behoves scholars to consider specifically how their role in the tripartite relationship can better inform leadership preparation programs (Walker, 2011).

The days of including practitioners just to legitimize a programme by giving a one-off talk are gone. Rather, tripartite relationships can promote the development of ‘scholar-practitioners’ who have rich leadership credibility, informed by a formal knowledge base to which they contribute. In this regard, programme developers need to consider the differing expertise that academics and practitioners offer in programme content and operation (Walker and Dimmock, 2005). This will impact on the extent to which programmes offer orientations that stress research and theory and the application of theory and government policy to an immediate local context.