The call for school-based leadership development to address future needs in education

Mr Steve Kennaugh
Emmaus Catholic College
Kemps Creek, NSW, Australia

School-based leadership and development initiatives could help to tackle many of the challenges facing schools at present and in the future.

One significant problem facing schools at present is the current/impending shortage of appropriate leaders to take on senior leadership positions. Educations systems, universities and independent bodies are currently offering professional development opportunities. Research concludes, however, that, for a variety of reasons, individuals are choosing not to aspire to leadership positions in a secondary school.

Schools, leaders within schools and systems need to examine the role of the principal and senior leadership itself and the part that school-based leadership succession and development programs can play in preparing leaders for the future.

Why are systems and schools not investigating more thoroughly the role that current leaders can play in the development of enthusiasm and encouragement of their staff, as well as providing an avenue for future mentoring opportunities and development of a culture of leadership within the school? This process would significantly promote leadership development within schools and go a long way towards schools being able to meet the challenges they face and being better prepared for future challenges.

As the research has indicated, there is a need to attract, induct and nurture potential, aspiring and new administrators (Yerkes & Guaglianone, 1998) to provide a well-prepared pool of candidates for leadership in schools.

… the concept of shared leadership is gaining momentum.From an empirical perspective, a number of contextual issues underpin the problem of leadership development.  The number of candidates that are available for leadership positions is said to be declining (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003).  Indeed, the number of staff willing to take on senior leadership positions is declining (d’Arbon, 2003). In light of these research findings, the concept of shared leadership is gaining momentum (VSAT, 2003). In any educational context, there are mixed reactions as to who should be responsible for leadership development and the succession dilemma.  Although some ownership of professional development in this area should be the responsibility of the individual, it is also the responsibility of leadership within schools (Canavan, 2001) to take an active role in developing future leaders. This can be approached through positive role modelling (Gilman & Lanman-Grieves, 2001) and mentoring (NAESP, 2003). Empirical data is now emerging that questions current processes and calls for a redesigning of the selection process (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wilson, 2003) to better reflect the changing needs of educational leadership and leadership succession as a concept.

At present, leadership succession is a problem being confronted by most educational systems worldwide.  Even countries that have little concern about the quality of available principals, such as Singapore and Hong Kong (Walker, Scott & Cheng 2003) are focusing their development program on improving the quality of present and future principals. Research studies suggest that the current group of established principals will be retiring in the next few years (NAESP, 2003), while, at the same time, there is a concern about the quality of the applicants for those positions (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003; d’Arbon, Duignan, Duncan & Goodwin, 2001).  Research also suggests that the candidate pools are diminishing, with employers in some instances struggling to fill vacancies and meet demand (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei).  In some cases, positions need to be re-advertised (Canavan, 2001) due to a lack of suitable candidates, even in schools deemed to be attractive to potential applicants (d’Arbon, 2003).  In some quarters, research points to the applicants failing to meet the criteria for short-listing (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei; Pounder, Galvin & Shepherd, 2003), while others suggest that, despite a large pool of quality candidates, few actually apply for these positions (Williams, 2003).  The question of who is responsible for this dilemma is suggested by some to be due to processes in districts and systems and not lack of supply (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wilson, 2003). Whatever the cause, there is a concern over the future leadership supply in Catholic schools; with some claims that it is at crisis level (Quinn, 2002; d’Arbon, Duignan, Duncan, 2002).

A number of issues have emerged in the leadership succession area that supports the research in this area. As the role of the principal has expanded (d’Arbon, 2003) there has been a degree of disengagement (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003) concerning the aspiration to lead, on the part of potential candidates. As it is accepted that leadership is key for school development, the setting of goals for leadership development (Canavan, 2001) and alternative development programs (NAESP, 2003) need to be initiated and followed through. Good on-the-job training (NAESP, 2003) and acting leadership opportunities (Draper & McMichael, 2003) go some way to developing well-adjusted leaders to fulfil succession needs. The problem underlying this context is that current leadership succession and development programs are not producing the quality and quantity of leaders that schools require. School-based leadership and development initiatives provide the opportunity to initiate and instil the desire to, enthusiasm in, and informing of another group of leaders, perhaps the leaders of the immediate future.

Scholarly conversation surrounding leadership succession is overwhelming in its acceptance of the problem. The average age of principals around the world is increasing (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2003) and, therefore retirements are looming. Research emphasises that the replacement of principals is a real and critical problem (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). Inherent in this need to examine development and succession initiatives is evidence to suggest that the replacement shortage falls under three areas: the lack of appropriate applicants, reluctance to take on leadership positions and the lack of applicants in general. International shortages in principal applications (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei) are supported by national research findings. At the same time, the quality of candidature is reported to be diminishing, with those who are applying lacking in terms of experience and desired attributes or appointability (d’Arbon, Duignan & Duncan, 2002;   Williams, 2003; Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei). In addition, a culture of reluctance to take on leadership positions is developing, although some teachers may be capable of making the transition (d’Arbon, 2002). Researchers (Draper & McMichael, 2003) have attempted to group teachers into career path stages, which has helped to identify one aspect of the problem.

To encourage teachers with ability and enthusiasm to take on future leadership positions, detailed succession planning is now being undertaken and decisions on approaches to this being made (Canavan, 2001).  In the past, this has been neglected (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). For succession planning to create real improvements in suitable applicants for leadership, there needs to be a clear and shared understanding of what the future goals of the school organisation are (Lacey, 2002). Calls for a redefinition of the principal are echoed internationally (Yerkes & Guaglianone, 1998).  It is claimed that the responsibility for leadership development in Catholic schools should come from current leaders developing leadership in others (Canavan). Responsibility needs to be shifted to some degree from systems to school leaders who have undergone training and professional development, both on and off the job. At present, a majority, if not all of the responsibility for leadership development, is taken on by school systems. This has resulted from the expanding role of the principal (Brooking, 2003) and reluctance on the part of both the school leaders and supportive systems to impart this additional responsibility to them.

It is … important to maintain a balance between managing the school and being an educational leader …In recent years, the role of the principal, and indeed leadership roles in general, have become complex and multi-dimensional. Traditionally, principals were responsible for the management of schools, but the role has expanded to include a variety of other responsibilities (Winston, 2002). Wylie (as cited in Brooking, 2003) reported that, in comparison with the situation prior to 1989, all principals were working longer hours, were doing less ‘direct’ professional leadership and more management and administrative work. Leading schools is a complex task. Meeting the needs of individual students, their parents, the whole school population and the school community, is coupled with demands and accountability measures imposed by the system and the Commonwealth.  It is therefore important to maintain a balance between managing the school and being an educational leader (ACE, 2002), the more traditional role of the principal.

As the complexity of leadership in schools is growing, the provision of strategies, such as the quality mentoring of future leaders, is required.  Although mentoring can be conducted in a formal or informal way, it is key to developing a process (NAESP, 2003), as well as quality and effective leaders of tomorrow (Quinn, 2002; NAESP). Mentoring is seen as a very important ingredient for instilling confidence in potential leaders and imparting knowledge of job requirements and development of the spiritual aspect of leadership in Catholic schools (University of San Francisco Conference, 2001). In solving the succession problem, the mentor or leader plays a role in attracting, inducting and nurturing potential, aspiring and new administrators.

One approach to solving the succession problem in schools is that of a shared or collaborative leadership approach. Although some schools have adopted this philosophical model, others have lagged behind in its implementation, preferring to stay with a ‘chief executive approach’ to school leadership (Brooking, 2003).  The professional collegiality and shared responsibility (Brooking) offers a support to both the principal leader and those aspiring to leadership due to the experiences they are empowered to undertake and the ability to develop themselves. Acting leadership opportunities are being promoted by systems that have greater need for flexible appointments to leadership. If there are real opportunities to experience the job (Lacey, 2002) managed well (Draper & McMichael, 2003), then the insights and experiences may entice people into seeking permanent appointments (Draper & McMichael).

Partnership, equity, ownership and an individual’s personal commitment are building blocks of shared leadership.In balancing all the needs of leading a school, both schools and systems need to re-examine the approaches that they promote regarding the principalship, and consider the possibility of redesigning and managing it differently (Draper & McMichael, 2003). Suggestion has been made that talents and energy in schools go largely untapped (Lambert, 2004). New processes that stress a collaborative approach and collective responsibility to counter the old bureaucratic ways are being put forward (Lambert). Increasing the use of empowered teams and the flattening of organisational structures brings into question the traditional models of leadership. One approach is the fostering of shared leadership (VSAT, 2003). Although this concept threatens some in traditional leadership contexts, it is not about teacher power. Shared leadership can be summarised on the premise that people doing a job are in the best place to improve it. Partnership, equity, ownership and an individual’s personal commitment are building blocks of shared leadership. Rather, it is about mobilising the untapped attributes of teachers working towards collaboration in a specific school context (IEL, 2001). 

Developing a leadership capacity in a school brings clarity to the changing role of the principal. Principals who go it alone find that schools become overly dependant on their leadership (Lambert, 2002). Collaborative leadership styles acknowledge that viewpoints other than the leaders can offer alternative solutions and improvements (Mullaly, 2003). Empowering leaders are humbly aware that some people can do things better than they can (Mullaly). There are a number of models for teacher leadership available to schools and systems.  The challenge is to find a model that best fits each individual school context (IEL, 2001).  Teachers within an individual school choose a variety of career-path options, which can influence the role they play in a shared leadership framework (Draper & McMichael). The movement away from a traditional approach to leadership (Brooking, Collins, Court & O’Neill, 2003) and movement toward a shared leadership model may enable minority groups to feel more empowered and re-examine possible leadership career path options, thus eliminating the likelihood of disengagement.
 
It is the leader’s role in the school to impart a vision or philosophy underpinning the direction of the school.  In a way, the leader will be developing leadership in others (Canavan, 2001). To aid in this process, a succession management plan needs to be developed (Canavan). It would be helpful if it were proactive in nature, as it would then prepare people for a position if it becomes available (Canavan). Succession programs should be strategic in nature (Lacey, 2002), incorporating an appropriate blend of theoretical and practical elements (NAESP, 2003) of leadership.  Some research states that principals are coming into positions with the skills to succeed, but have not had many years forming their leadership approach. Yet others state that the skill neglected by programs preparing Catholic school personnel is the practise of deciding how decisions are made.  An explanation of this occurrence may be found in the increase in teacher mobility (University of San Francisco Conference, 2001), which needs to be incorporated into programs to achieve understanding of leadership and make programs more appropriate (d’Arbon, 2003).

Guidance should not be administered by the designated leader but on the basis of the individual’s knowledge at hand. Development of leadership capacity in a school community will counter this need (Lambert, 2002). Coaching aims to expand a teacher’s focus from self, as reflective practitioner, to leading others (Lambert, 2004). Mentoring involves coaching, feedback and modelling and can lead others into leadership (Lambert). With the emphasis on self-development, the employee is empowered to take more control of what happens to them in their career (Clutterbuck, 2001). Effective mentoring moves between stretching and nurturing in tune with the needs of the mentee (Clutterbuck). Mentors need to develop a wide competency base, which can be taken up by the institutions for which they work.

Teacher leadership emerges strongly, while principals and other administrators rethink their roles in order to facilitate learning communities (Lambert, 2004). The constructivist leader must be willing to ask new questions and challenge assumptions through reflection, sharing and dialogue (Thompson, 2004). The constructivist leader understands that learning is a reciprocal process that occurs in a community for their common good (Thompson).

Distributed leadership is currently receiving much attention and growing empirical support (Harris, 2004). Studies show that student outcomes are more likely to improve where there is a notion of distributed leadership (Harris). The focus is on creating shared contexts for learning and developing leadership capacity for the leaders themselves. In order for this paradigm to be successful, it requires those in formal leadership to relinquish power and control to others (Harris). Critique of positional or authoritative leadership has generated a range of more inclusive conceptions of leadership than existed previously. The challenge from a leadership development perspective is to integrate these conceptions into a context that is meaningful and contextualised.

Seen by many possible aspirants as a disincentive is the requirement of a certain degree of certification or qualification, in order to be considered for, or promoted, to a position of leadership within a school. There is little evidence to justify most of the certification requirements for today’s administrators (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wilson, 2003). When participants discern that courses undertaken are relevant to operating a school (Gilman & Lanman-Grieves, 2001) a rethink of current offerings is required and alternatives offered. Education systems, as well as government bodies, have imposed accountability systems to excessive levels (VSAT, 2003), including testing procedures (Pounder, Galvin & Shepherd 2003).

Some capable candidates lack confidence in the ethics of selection processes. This acts as a further disincentive to applying for promotions positions. Concerns about the transparency, procedural fairness and the recruitment of panel members (VSAT, 2003) are coupled with the perceptions of the complexity and intrusive nature of selection processes, serving as a disincentive for senior leaders (d’Arbon, Duignan & Duncan, 2002).  Career and life experiences of leaders who do not follow a typical sequence appear not to be valued (Lacey, 2002). Coupled with the haphazard and serendipitous nature of the process (Quinn, 2002), this calls for a valuing of non-traditional career paths, to eliminate the bias and cronyism perceived by participants (Williams, 2003).

The manner in which current principals and leaders conduct themselves in their roles, and the responsibilities associated with the job, are causing those in these positions to question their continuation in the job and provide some explanation as to why aspiring principals may not be applying for principal positions (d’Arbon, 2003). This perception is made worse by personal impressions conveyed to aspiring leaders by their role models (Williams, 2003). This is an aspect of behaviour that more principals are recognising (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). 

Greater emphasis is now being placed on the development of leadership programs within organisations (Fulmer & Goldsmith, 2001) and linking the goals of the organisation into the leadership development process to develop their own leaders, rather than buying them (Fulmer & Goldsmith). Leaders who contribute to this process contribute to the organisation significantly (Canavan, 1999) in a leader-developing-leader role, fostering a positive mentoring situation and ensuring it is seen as a process (NAESP, 2003). 

Flexible options of leadership and rewards are now being considered by systems (Canavan, 2001) in the same way that private schools operate. Opportunities for professional renewal, vacation policies and authority commensurate with responsibilities (Gilman & Lanman-Grieves, 2003) are also being offered.  Other strategies include income and bonuses relative to school size (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wilson 2003) and flexible work options, such as supporting family and spouse relocation (VSAT, 2003). Sabbatical leave at the end of each contract (Lacey, 2002) may also support continued professional development and a perception of support of, and for, the position.

Reconceptualisation of the position of principal indicates a variety of options that systems and schools can evaluate within their contexts.  The reduction of multiple areas of responsibility (VSAT, 2003), co-principalships (Gilman & Lanman-Grieves, 2002), associate principalships and collaborative teams (Draper & McMichael, 2003) all lead towards a shared leadership philosophy, serving not only to decrease the workload of the principal, but also to provide the opportunity to develop aspiring leaders who want professional collegiality as they begin in the role of principal or as a member of a leadership team (Brooking, Collins, Court & O’Neill, 2003).

Re-examination of selection processes and the human resource function has, as its object, the appointment of the best person for the job (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wilson, 2003; Canavan, 2001). While there are suggestions that changes are required in selection and appointment processes (VSAT, 2003), human resource personnel in some cases prefer traditional criteria (Roza, 2003). They need to overcome the history, habits and cultural biases that have led them to favour a narrow set of candidates (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wilson, 2003) and to realise that different institutions require different leaders (Canavan, 2001).

Realistic expectations of leadership need to be established through professional development opportunities.Professional development opportunities for both aspiring leaders and those currently in a principalship are required for leadership development to be successful. These programs must be meaningful to participants and relate to continuing professional development for those in leadership positions (VSAT, 2003). They must also identify competencies and attributes that educational systems require in their future leaders (VSAT). As part of these programs, the ethical development of leadership is to be enhanced (VSAT), while frameworks need to be established to identify and profile potential school leaders (VSAT). Realistic expectations of leadership (Draper & McMichael, 2003) need to be established through professional development opportunities. Through the instillation of an acceptance of ownership for professional development and career planning, (Canavan, 2001) this can be achieved. 

The provision of specific professional development programs, aiming at middle management in schools, is serving to both identify and develop future leaders in schools. At a school level, there needs to be solid lines of communication provided for aspiring leaders to enable employees to translate feedback and assessment results into career goals that are realistic in nature (Canavan, 1999).

Innovative programs of professional development include exchange programs and summer residences (Quinn, 2002) and compulsory programs of development at a systems level (Walker, Scott & Cheng, 2003), in a lecture and tutorial group arrangement. Acting leadership positions tend to play an important role in career decision-making of aspiring leaders (Draper & McMichael, 2003). These experiences need to have an element of induction and support (Draper & McMichael) and must be genuine experiences for them to be meaningful (Lacey, 2002).

It is acknowledged that any person aspiring to senior leadership requires a variety of talents to be successful (Yerkes & Guaglianone, 1998). Institutions can play a part in the development of current and future leaders through clear definitions of the role (Yerkes & Guaglianone). The provision of authentic leadership roles for teachers, especially minority groups and women, could also change the face of leadership in schools (Yerkes & Guaglianone) without undermining the integrity of the selection process.

Some research critiques these conclusions (Pounder, Galvin & Shepherd, 2003), noting that leadership shortages have been reported in these areas of the principalship for some 30 to 40 years. A thorough review of the research, moreover, suggests that the inherent crisis is only starting to develop due to the impending retirement of current principals and the ageing teacher population.

The real and urgent problem of leadership development in schools has prompted researchers to call for an effective leadership succession process and to co-opt current leaders to prepare future leaders (Canavan, 2001; Smeltzer, 2002). They also assert that many courses undertaken by teachers are irrelevant to running schools (Gilman & Lanman-Grieves, 2001). To fill the gap between what is currently offered on succession management, a school-based program should attract, induct and nurture potential, aspiring and new leaders to a level where they can make decisions about their future career path in a school context.

Current research findings indicate that potential leaders are making conscious decisions not to apply for senior leadership roles within schools.  The research project that I am currently undertaking calls for current leadership to take a proactive role in contributing to the development of future leaders. Current leaders will be called upon to facilitate the modules in the program at the school level. In contextualising the literature on leadership succession, it is important that a school understanding of leadership is addressed and a shared leadership framework promoted. This is currently being initiated in an ad hoc way in most schools, thus losing some of its effectiveness as a tool for change.

The literature has acknowledged the need for positive mentoring experiences, school proactivity in succession programs, leaders developing future leaders and the need for a pool of applicants to be developed for prospective positions becoming available. References to this effect can be found in the literature review. Yet there is little call for school-based initiatives to support the current professional development offerings and articulate current research and approaches being undertaken at present in the area.

School-based programs offer the opportunity to incorporate literature proposing effective succession and development practices, while integrating a contextual element. In doing so, they aim to provide schools and systems with a viable option for leadership development to meet the needs of future educational contexts.

References

Australian College of Education. Excellence in school leadership. Background paper. Retrieved 7 July 2002 from: www.austcolled.com.au
Brooking, K, & Collins, G & Court, M & O’Neill, J.  ‘Getting below the surface of the principal shortage recruitment ‘crisis’ in New Zealand primary schools’. 2003. In Australian Journal of Education 47(2), pp.146-158.
Canavan, K. Building blocks for leadership succession in Catholic education. 2001.Sydney, Catholic Education Office Sydney.
Clutterback, D.  Quiet transformation:  The growing power of mentoring. 2000/2001. Mt Eliza Business Review, Summer/Autumn, pp.47-52.
Catholic educational leaders prepare for their successors:  A Conversation. 2001. A summary of the 8-12 June 2001 conference at the University of San Francisco.
d’Arbon, T.  Career aspirations of potential applicants for principals of Catholic schools: An Australian perspective. Paper presented at the NZARE, AARE Conference. 2003. Auckland, New Zealand.
d’Arbon, T, Duignan, P & Duncan, D.  ‘Planning for future leadership of schools:  An Australian Study.’  In Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 2002. pp.468-485.
d’Arbon, T, Duignan, P, Duncan, D, & Goodwin, K. (2001).  Planning for the Future Leadership of Catholic Schools in New South Wales. BERA 2001 Annual Conference. Leeds, UK.
Draper, J & McMichael, P. ‘The rocky road to leadership.’  In Australian Journal of Education. 2003. 47(2), pp.185-196.
Fulmer, R, & Goldsmith, M.  The leadership investment.  2001. New York: American Management Association.
Gilman, D & Lanman-Grieves, B. ‘Where have all the principals gone?’ In Educational Leadership. 2001. 58(8), pp.72-74.
Gronn, P & Rawlings-Sanaei, F.  ‘Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership disengagement’.  In Australian journal of education. 2003.  47(2), pp.172-194.
Hargreaves, A & Fink, D. (2003).  ‘Sustaining leadership.’  In Phi Delta Kappan. May2003.pp.693-700.
Institute for Educational Leadership. Leadership for student learning: Redefining the teacher as leader. 2001. Institute for Educational Leadership.
Lacey, K. Succession planning in education. 2002. APAPCD.
Lambert, L.  ‘Beyond instructional leadership:  A Framework for shared leadership.’ In Educational Leadership. 2002. 59(8),  pp.37 -40.
Lambert, L (n.d). ‘Framing reform for the new millennium:  Leadership capacity in schools and districts.’  Retrieved 15 January 2004 from: www.umanitoba.ca
Mullaly, M.  Educator Development Series:  Shared leadership in Catholic schools. Session 6: ‘The Art of Transformational Leadership.’  In Today’s Catholic Teacher, April 2003 (36), pp.36-43.
National Association of Elementary School Principals (2003).  Making the case for principal mentoring.  Brown University.
Pounder, D., Galvin, P., & Shepherd, P.  ‘An analysis of the United States educational administrator shortage.’  2003. In Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), pp.133-145.
Quinn, T. ‘Succession planning:  Start today.’ In Principal leadership, 2002. 3(2), Retrieved 23 March  2003 from National Association of Secondary Schools Principals database.
Roza, M, Celio, M, & Harvey, J, & Wishan, S.   A matter of definition:  Is there truly a shortage of school principals? 2003.  Washington:  University of Washington.
Smeltzer, C.  ‘Succession planning.’  In Journal of nursing administration. 2002. 32(12), 615, Retrieved August 4, 2003, from Ovid database.
VSAT Project.   Leadership succession for Catholic schools in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. 2003. Sydney:  Flagship, ACU National.
Walker, A, Scott K & Cheng, Y. ‘Principal supply and quality demands:  A take of two Asia-Pacific city states.’ In Australian journal of education. 2003. 47(2), pp.197- 208.
Williams, T. ‘Ontario’s principal scarcity:  Yesterday’s abdicated policy responsibility – today’s unrecognised challenge.’ In Australian journal of education. 2003.  47(2), pp. 159-171.
Winston, E. ‘Principal openings abundant.’ 16 May 2002.  In Cincinnati enquirer. Retrieved 20 October 2003 from www.enquirer.com
Yerkes, D & Guaglianone, C. ‘Where have all the high school administrators gone?’  In Thrust for educational leadership.  November/December 1998. 10-14.