home

=Searching for my leadership profile= (The school leader as seer, thinker and doer)

The quality of school leadership has a significant effect on the quality of schools. Furthermore, the quality of school leadership can be enhanced through education. These are two of the core assumptions in government White Paper no 13 (2007-2008) Quality in Schooling, which introduced the idea of a national training program for school leaders in Norway. Consequently, a national training programme was launched in 2009 with four providers contracted by the Norwegian Directorate for Education, and extended to include two more providers in 2010. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) joined the programme as a provider in collaboration with universities and university colleges comprising the NTNU School Leadership Network. The first student cohort at NTNU numbered approximately 60 students in two groups, one based in Trondheim and one in Tromsø. The primary target group for the programme was recently employed head teachers without formal leadership training.

In this paper we focus on leadersip challenges and learning outcomes of the first NTNU school leadership student cohort as presented by themselves in their summative assessment of the programme, as well as one of the four texts the students presented for portfolio assessment at the termination of the first course in the autum semester of 2011. The title of this particular paper was "Searching for my leadership profile", and the students were challenged to reflect on themselves as school leaders and the challenges they are facing in the light of theories and exercises that they have been exposed to during the course. Before we proceed to our findings we need to outline briefly the main features of the study programme.

The training and study programme was constructed in compliance with the requirementes presented in the Directorate's tender invitation. These were quite detailed with regard to the contents and the academic level of the course, including a prerequisite that the programme should qualify students to proceed with school leadership studies on masters degree level. Our programme is action oriented, knowledge and value based, comprising the following four main themes: school organisation, leading for learning, school in society and the role of the head teacher. (Insert rooms for learning model with comments)

The course is delivered over three semesters and gives 30 credits, the equivalent of one semester (half year) full time study. Throughout the course we meet the students for seven on-campus, three-day **seminars** with lectures, plenary and group discussions, indivdual and group guidance, and skills based exercises. Between seminars student - student and student - faculty communication is largely mediated throuh the learning management platform, e-mail and telephone. Students work on written assignments, give each other feedback on such assigmnents and receive feedback from fellow students and faculty. All students are organised in permanent groups of 7-8 students, one faculty member being assigned as supervisor to each group throughout the course.

We address our students as leaders, scholars, and individual human beings in an attempt to facilitate their professional, intellectual and personal development through a variety of learning processes. Some of these processes involve the study of relevant theory and research which is related to the practical workplace exeriences and challenges through lectures, seminars, group discussions, and written assignments. Using the the Jung Type Indicator (JTI) we encourage our students to see themselves as well as their colleagues in a new light. The JTI is a "designed to assess a person's preferences along the four dimensions of Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling and Judging-Perception" (http://www.psytech.no/downloads/reports/JTIReport.pdf). Knowing these preferences, you can to a certain extent anticipate how a person will normally act in different situations. The JTI serves as a platform for enhanced self insight and consciousness as well as a better understanding of the preferential differences among colleagues, which sometimes inspire conflicts that may be difficult to grasp from a purely rational point of view.

School leadership is increasingly described as practice (Mintzberg, Spillane). It is as much about doing things together with colleagues and making colleagues act together for the benefit of the student, as it is about planning and thinking. In order to act appropriately as a school leader you need to see (yourself and your colleagues) as well as to think. Our triangular approach to the student as leader, scholar and human being can be linked to Mintzberg's (2009; 2001) triangular understanding of management and decision making. Mintzberg uses the conceptes //art//, //craft// and //science//, representing in a broad sense, //seeing//, //doing// and //thinking//. Science, or "thinking first" (Mintzberg, 2001) represents a rational approach informed by theory and research and is associated with planning, verbal expression and facts. Art, or "seeing first" (Ibid.), is associated with visioning, imagining and ideas. It suggests that sometimes our actions and decisions are driven more by what we see - intuitively - than what we think. We have all experienced "Eureka moments", which may occur when we least expect them to. Apparently coming from nowhere, our sudden and intuitive insights are tacitly informed by years of practical and theoretical experience, filtered through preferences which may be rooted in our genealogy. Craft, or "doing first" is what we resort to when neither science nor art provide likely solutions to the challenges we are facing. Then competent people experiment, try out things to see how they work, evaluate and learn from practical experience.

Mintzberg and Westley (2001) challenge us to see the strengths and the weaknesses of each approach. "Thinking first works best when the issue is clear, the data reliable and the world structures; (...). Seeing first is necessary when many elements have to be combined into creative solutions and when commitment to those solutions is key.(...) Doing first is preferred when the situation is novel and confusing, and things need to be worked out.(...) That suggest that the advantages of combining all three approaches (ibid:93). Leaders are different, and those who favor thinking, are people who cherish facts, those who favor seeing cherish ideas and those who favor doing cherish experiences (ibid:91). For an educational programme like our, it will be important to challenge what the principals prefer, and make them see and experience another point of view. The JTI-profile is a way of focusing and reflecting on different preferations, and how they influence for instance team work.

It is also the case that the principals are individual students in our programme. They dont't attend the programme as a leader group or with other colleagues. In the project //Successful School Leadership//, the Norwegian (and Swedish)findings differed from the others in the way that the leadership in Norwegian schools was almost entirely characterized by collaboration and team efforts. Leadership practice was stretched over the work of various leaders as well as teachers and students (Møller et al 2005). This corresponds with Mintzberg (2009), who says that "Managing is a social process. Managers who try to do it alone typically end up overcontrolling - issuing orders and deeming performance in the hope that authority will ensure compliance. This may work sometimes, but it hardly taps human potential, especially among thinking people" (ibid:215). In our programme we have tried to combine Møller et al and Mintzbergs findings with the requirements from the Directorate. Our solution was to build on the principals own challenges, which was meant to be discussed in their schools before the first seminar. We say //meant to be discussed//, because we do not know if it was the case. In this way we wanted to focus on their own practice, not just "any", or general practice. We also used a lot of time in seminars in groups exchanging experiences according to both their challenges and new experiences the principals got from "homework" in the programme, like trying out to be a more appriciative leader, or working with tools according to school culture.

The programme is designed as a practical and theoreticl programme, focusing on science (theory) and craft (tools), and to some degree based on the students experienced challenges. We know its limitations, and we end this section quoting Mintzberg and his claims about developing managers: 1. Manageres, let alone leaders, cannot be created in a classroom. 2. Managing is learned on the job, enhanced by a variety of experiences and challenges. 3. Development programs come to help managers make meaning of their experience, by reflecting on it personally and with their colleagues. (Mintzberg 2009:227-228).

In out case we consider their fellow students as their colleagues, trying to get as much practice as possible into the "classroom".