Discussion+2

According to the first report from the national evaluation team "the Norwegian program for school leaders shares some common characteristics of modern training programs for school leaders, building on national standards and goals, prioritizing the core tasks of schools, and a mode of operation with room for personal development and closeness to practical school leadership. The program is not related to one single theory of leadership, but draws on empirical research about what leads to effective school leadership. This emphasis is also in accordance with research in the field of school leadership - though the research does not seem to create much agreement on which theories are best suited with regard to the concrete findings that have been made” (Lysø, Stensaker, Aamodt & Mjøen, 2011).

They go on to point out that the international academic community share neither a common definition of leadership nor an agreement that it is possible to describe "effective school leadership" irrespective and independent of context (Ibid.).

 We assume that a national training program for school heads is intended to play a significant part in national educational policies aiming to improve the quality of Norwegian schools. Norwegian student learning outcomes do not meet the expected high standards according to PISA and similar international reports, student retention rates in upper secondary schools are too low according to national reports, and sub-standard teaching is tolerated by too many heads in too many schools (TALIS report (XXXX). These are some of the generally acknowledged challenges faced by the Norwegian school system. Even if the feedback we as program providers receive from students and school owners is overwhelmingly positive, there is still a risk that the qualification program for school heads may not have the desired effects on any of the major challenges that Norwegian schools are grappling with. There are in our opinion two main reasons for this.

 1. Lack of program focus. The public tender from the Directorate for Education, which initiated the program, emphasizes the responsibility of the school head for everything that happens between the four walls of a school and outlines a school leadership program which spans quite a wide range of topics under the following five headings:
 * student learning outcomes and context
 * leadership and management
 * collaboration, developing the organization and supervision of teachers
 * development and change
 * the role of the head teacher
 * (NB: does the program have a statement of purpose?) **

 There are strong arguments for organizing a leadership qualification program which is generic in the sense that it is not primarily designed to ameliorate the particular challenges faced by Norwegian schools at the moment. It is, however, legitimate to ask whether we are trying to do too much in too short a time, with too little effect. After all, the volume of the course does equal only one semester of full time studies. The course is stretched over three semesters, but most students take it in addition to a full time job and family responsibilities. The great majority of the students consequently find themselves in a time squeeze which affects their learning outcome in a negative way. Furthermore, this is a two-tired program aiming to develop the academic skills needed to qualify the students to proceed with school leadership studies on master's level as well as leadership skills of a more practical kind.

 Within the framework provided by the Directorate and the study program agreed upon in our contract we have attempted to simplify and strengthen our program focus. As program providers we still have a feeling that more could have been done, in collaboration with other providers and our contract partners, to deliver a more action oriented training program with a prime focus on instructional leadership that facilitates and enhances student learning in a wide sense. It is interesting to observe that a considerable number of our students name instructional leadership as one of the most predominant challenges they are facing. This circumstance is corroborated by the TALIS report, where Norwegian school leaders are found to spend a larger proportion of their time on administration than most of their European colleagues. Vibe (2010) finds that three out of four Norwegian school leaders would have preferred to spend more time and effort on instructional leadership and less on administration than they do.

There are two main reasons why this is so, and why it is difficult to do anything about it. First, theories of lose coupling (Elmore, 2000) still have a strong standing in many Norwegian schools, which implies that significant pedagogical issues closely related to the schools’ core activities to a large extent have been left to the priorities of individual teachers. Loosely coupled organizations are easy to manage, but hard to change (Lillejord, 2011). Many of our students consequently see the development of a more collective school culture as one of their main challenges. Secondly, the predominance of New Public Management thinking has over the past 10 – 15 years caused a deregulation of administrative responsibilities and duties to the school level. School heads have increasingly been poised as middle level municipal leaders rather than leaders of learning. This line of development has probably strengthened the school leadership focus on matters of finance and logistics rather than on pedagogy and didactics.

2. The program is focused on individuals and lacks a systemic perspective Sustainable quality development in schools can not be achieved on an individual and individualistic basis, neither for leaders nor for institutions. Discussing the need for lateral capacity building, Fullan (2007) emphasizes the need for //lateral// capacity building, where enhancing the quality of other schools in the district is an integral part of developing the quality of your “own” school: “Intra and inter-school learning are required for system transformation. All schools in the district need to develop in concert” (Fullan, 2007, p. 152). Consequently, a systemic approach to school development requires strong involvement of local government agencies responsible for schools and school development as well as an alignment of policies and interventions across the levels of school and community, district and state (Ibid).

Fixen et al (2005, p. 74): emphasize the need for a systemic approach when devising implementation strategies: “The essential challenge is to ensure that the incentives, structures and operations at the systems, organizational, and practitioner level are consistent with each other and aligned in a way that supports the desired practitioner behavior (p. 74).” Half-hearted attempts cause frustrations on all levels.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">One of the major challenges faced by our students is the development of collective school cultures. According to xxxxx there is ample evidence that schools with collective cultures handle issues of development and improvement better than schools with individualistic cultures. Furthermore, improving the quality of individual schools must be aligned with policies on local, district and state level and argues in favour of establishing “collaborative cultures within and across three levels: school and community, district and state” (Fullan, 2007, p. 152).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The students are recruited to the program on an individual basis, after individual initiative. Applications have to be supported by the municipality before they are accepted by the directorate, but school head participation in the program is not integrated into local school development projects. Indeed, some of the school owners seem to be rather oblivious of the program, its intentions and potentials. Thus, school owners remain in the periphery of the program. In the public tender potential providers were required to outline how they were planning to cater to the school ownership level – more as an act of duty than a feature of paramount significance to the ultimate success of the program.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">In the original bid from the NTNU school leadership network we introduced a corps of local mentors whose function it would be to follow up our students in their workplaces, as mediators between the school/student and school leadership levels. On the advice of the Directorate the mentor corps was taken out of the bid. We are now striving to cultivate our links to the school leadership level in other ways, with variable success. It is particularly hard to establish sound connections with small municipalities, where school heads need for local support is no less than I smaller communities.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Albert Shanker Institute. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Lillejord, S. (2011). Kunsten å være rektor. I J. Møller & E. Ottesen//, Rektor som leder og sjef. Om styring, ledelse og kunnskapsutvikling i skolen//, kap. 13. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.