Preparation for school principals

The case for providing specific preparation for school principals is well established. While almost all principals begin their professional careers as teachers, teaching qualifications and experience are insufficient to prepare professionals for the demanding and very different role of principal. Evidence from both developed (e.g. Daresh and Male 2000) and developing (Bush and Glover, in press; Bush and Oduro 2006) contexts shows that untrained new principals experience great difficulty in adapting to the very different demands of the leadership role. Given the mounting evidence of the link between leadership and learning outcomes (e.g. Leithwood et al. 2006), providing comprehensive training programmes for new principals may be regarded as vital.

In practice, however, many education systems fail to provide any systematic training for new principals while others may allow or encourage it, but do not make it a condition for appointment. In England, the previous requirement that new head teachers must have the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) was dropped by the coalition government in 2012, on the dubious grounds that schools should be able to choose who to appoint. However, there is growing interest in formal preparation for principals in several settings, as this issue of the journal illustrates. The issue features papers from eight countries on four continents, providing further evidence of the global significance of the field of educational leadership and management.

The first paper, by Shun-wing Ng and Sing-ying Elson Szeto, addresses this issue in the context of Hong Kong. They report that the Education Bureau has commissioned universities to provide structured professional development courses for aspiring, newly-appointed and serving principals. They carried out research with 32 newly-appointed principals and conclude that local features exert significant influence on these principals. While there is some evidence of an international curriculum for leadership preparation (Bush and Jackson 2002), the Hong Kong research is a timely reminder of the need to adapt provision to meet the specific needs of principals and their contexts.

Norman McCulla and Leoni Degenhardt report on a ‘Flagship’ leadership development programme for independent school teachers in New South Wales, Australia. Drawing on formal evaluations, and action research, the authors note that these participants focused more on personal values and inter-personal relationships, rather than the instructional, organisational and contextual domains of leadership. They conclude that there are no ‘short cuts’ in the effective preparation of school leaders, a salutary message for all providers.

Ludwig Eger and Dana Egerova note that three new training courses for head teachers were introduced in the Czech Republic after the fall of the communist regime, drawing on experience of the UK and the Netherlands. One of these programmes is compulsory for newly-appointed heads. Drawing on a literature review, interviews, documentary analysis, and a survey of participants, they conclude that project management, including risk and change management, should become priorities in head teacher preparation.

In the next article, Sigriour Margret Siguroardottir and Runar Sigborrson examine the relationship between leadership capacity and school improvement in an Icelandic elementary school. They conducted a longitudinal study of this school, drawing on interviews with the principal, senior and middle leaders, and classroom teachers, over a one school year. Their findings showed that the principal had reshaped the school’s culture and raised the level of leadership capacity. They conclude that leadership capacity and school improvement are interwoven and that it is difficult to work towards one without the other.

The next two papers focus on aspects of distributed leadership, which has become the normatively preferred leadership model in the 21st century. Jonna Kangas, Tuulikki Venninen and Mikko Ojala discuss how this relates to professional development in early childhood education in Helsinki, Finland. Drawing on action research with participants in many such centres, these authors comment that development should begin with the needs of each participant community, rather than being defined by universities, for example. They note that distributed leadership was more evident among participants in less senior positions, and conclude that administrative control should be reduced and staff expertise, guidance and counselling should be emphasised.

Liesbeth Piot and Geert Kelchtermans analyse the collaboration between principals in four Flemish (Belgian) school federations. The Flemish government provides incentives to encourage such collaborations and almost 500 had been established by 2011. The authors adopted a micro-political perspective, and case study research, to examine four of these federations. They note that the interests of principals mainly related to their own schools and that their actions were driven by such interests. They conclude that federations can support school development but only in the absence of serious conflicts between interests.

In the next paper, Mary K Sheard and Jonathan Sharples discuss evidence-based practice as a management tool for school improvement. (Mary sadly died following the acceptance of this paper and I offer my condolences to her family, friends and colleagues.) The authors report on an enquiry into a network of three primary schools in the north of England. They note changes in classroom practice following engagement with research and conclude that school leaders should work with researchers to improve school effectiveness.

The next article provides a rare contribution to the limited literature on school leadership in Namibia. Clive Smith and Angelina Amushigamo examine the relationship between leadership and learner behaviour in a context in which the practice of corporal punishment is deeply entrenched. They conducted case study research in a deprived rural area in northern Namibia, drawing on interviews and observations. The data show that the school principal has been instrumental in creating a culture characterised by values of respect, care, positive relationships, a sense of belonging, and collaboration, leading to a reputation for exemplary learner behaviour.

The final paper in this issue, by Karen Anderson, examines the application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice through a literature review. She notes that most researchers use Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’ to investigate the work of principals, but argues that studying strategies should be the initial focus to foreground leadership practice. She concludes that using strategies as a primary investigative tool can assist in identifying the ‘practical mastery’ that secondary school principals apply in their everyday work.