There is no future without system leadership

Professor Brian J. Caldwell Educational Transformations Melbourne, Australia

Professor Brian Caldwell with his recently published book Re-imagining Educational Leadership. It is not possible to describe what schools will be like in 2050. At best, we can determine what most will be like in 2020 by describing what exceptionally successful schools are doing in 2006 and making some projections based on developments in technology and societal patterns in an era of globalisation. What we do know for the longer term is that we will need to re-make education. We need leadership of the highest order to shake the system out of its lethargy. We are still stuck in the least desirable of the six famous OECD scenarios – ‘bureaucratic systems continue’. We need system leadership, that is, leadership of a school system and leadership in a school system. This paper draws on themes in my recent book Re-imagining educational leadership to present a manifesto for system leadership that ensures the future of schools.

What will education be like 40 years from now? I can’t tell you. Nobody can. But I can tell you that it must be totally different because if it is the same as it is today, we’re dead. Current approaches will be irrelevant, marginalised, the world will be different. You may want it to be the same, but it can’t be the same.

This is a dramatic if not startling way to begin. It is seen in a paraphrasing of the remarks of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at a national day rally in August 2005, highlighting the need to ‘remake Singapore – our economy, our education system, our mindsets, our city’. This was a remarkable call to action, especially to leaders in education, given that Singapore students rank first in the world in mathematics and science in grade 4 and grade 8, as revealed in the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). However, as cast above, it could well be a call to action for education in other countries.

The same statement could have been made 40 years ago. Who could have imagined in the mid-1960s what schools would be like in the mid-2000s? Regrettably, in some circumstances, the architecture might be recognisable, but the pedagogy has changed dramatically, especially in the use of information and communications technology. In the past, public schools were operating within a more-or-less hierarchical arrangement, with few synergies outside their immediate communities. Notions of a knowledge society or globalisation were virtually unknown.

The next 40 years will be different – dramatically different – for we are in ‘fast forward’ mode. Even the next 10 years are likely to see breathtaking change and leadership of the highest order will be required. There is surely a need to re-imagine educational leadership.

The way forward

There is no one best way to proceed that will suit every setting and, even when one is determined, it is certain to change in a relatively short time. This is what Bentley and Wilsdon (2004) called ‘the adaptive state’ – ‘we need new systems capable of continuously reconfiguring themselves to create new sources of public value’. One thing is certain: ‘the era of the large, slow moving, steady, respected, bureaucratic public services, however good by earlier standards, is over’ (Barber, 2004).

Support

In the developed economies, the centralised arm of the public service must henceforth be conceived of almost exclusively as an agency of support – deep support – for schools. Small parts of the agency will help develop the framework within which schools in the system will operate. The framework will be largely concerned with standards, mechanisms for resource allocation to schools and accountabilities. Increasingly, if best practice is a guide, deep support for schools from a central agency is likely to be just one of many sources of support. A central role ought to include support for schools as they endeavour to locate and deploy support from other agencies. As the former head of the public service in Australia has declared: ‘the goal of government should be to build stronger communities, not bigger bureaucracies’ (Keating, 2004). 

Hyman (2005) expressed it another way in 1 out of 10: from Downing Street vision to classroom reality. Peter Hyman left 10 Downing Street, after many years as speech writer and advisor to the prime minister, to work as an assistant to the headteacher at Islington Green School. ‘For lasting change to occur in public services, politicians need to show more humility and bring on board the professionals’ and ‘governments must take the need to let go more seriously, and to empower the frontline. It must produce a climate where frontline public servants do not become risk-averse. This means less dictating, less putting up pots of money to be bid for – ambitious targets, yes, accountability, yes, but also back creativity and imagination’ (Hyman, 2005).

The school leader’s office ought to be a paperless office.School leaders everywhere resent the mountain of paperwork they are required to deal with. It goes without saying that this must be reduced to an absolute minimum. Part of the deep support to be expected of centralised services is to furnish every school and every leader with a state-of-the-art computer-based system to assist every aspect of school operations, including curriculum, pedagogy, accounting and accountability. Some schools are doing this well from their own resources but it is a capacity that ought to be built for all. School leaders are lagging far behind their counterparts in health care and airline services when it comes to managing information about the individual. How much more important it is in schools, where the focus is on personalising learning. The school leader’s office ought to be a paperless office.

A related issue is the amount of support for principals. There can be few enterprises as large as a typical secondary school, where the chief executive does not have a personal assistant and several managers to deal with business and finance. Why not such support for principals? It is inexplicable that such support is not included in the basic package of support for leaders of schools in the public sector, when it is taken for granted for their counterparts in the independent sector. The notion of a ‘package’ is stressed because the way in which the resource is used will vary from school to school.

Networks

Some governments or systems of education have failed to come to terms with scenarios for the future of schools, such as those formulated in the OECD’s Schooling for Tomorrow project (OECD, 2001). Take-up is limited to barely a handful of countries. Most are still determined to ensure that ‘bureaucratic systems continue’ when it is patently clear that they have reached a plateau in what they can achieve, despite the best efforts of highly committed people. Such systems have literally ‘hit the wall’.

Networks are central to the logic of the preferred scenarios.Networks are central to the logic of the preferred scenarios. Networks are not simply bureaucratically organised clusters of schools for geographic convenience in disseminating information and securing compliance. They are powerful learning communities in their own right, sharing knowledge, solving problems and pooling resources.

The notion of ‘system leadership’ is emerging in England where networking is proceeding apace through the networked learning communities of the National College for School Leadership and the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. System leadership calls for leadership to be distributed across schools, as well as within a school. This is an element in the new enterprise logic. This might be leadership in a network of schools, or across a system of schools, in a particular area where a leader, or her or his school, has expertise, as in the twinning of schools in efforts to raise the achievement of one. At first sight, there is a contradiction, or at least the potential, to add to the workload or stress levels of already fully engaged principals. This was not the experience of leaders in schools where transformation had been achieved. However, it is important that system leadership be supported by other approaches described above.

Profession

One of several factors accounting for the success of Finland in PISA is the quality of its teachers. Finnish teachers are highly valued professionals who are expected to have high levels of pedagogical expertise and flexibility in order to achieve learning success with all students in heterogeneous groups. Applications to tertiary education studies are so high that just 10-12 per cent of applicants are accepted in teacher education programs (Linnakylä and Välijärvi, 2003). All teachers are required to have a masters degree in either pedagogy or the subject that they wish to teach.

It will require leadership of the highest order at every level of government and in universities to achieve an expectation that all teachers should hold a masters degree before taking up their appointments. In addition to such a qualification, and the assumed capacities that follow, schools must also become powerful learning communities, if teachers are to be at the forefront of professional knowledge. They should remain so, even when these standards of initial teacher education are achieved.

Schools should have the capacity to attract and appropriately reward the best of professional talent, reflecting a conceptual shift from a ‘workforce’ approach to a ‘talent force’ approach (Rueff and Stringer, 2006). Local sourcing should give way to global sourcing. These ideas have only now hit the headlines in education, as some schools have engaged in robust approaches in their search for talent. Strategic outsourcing to achieve transformation is a powerful strategy that poses no risk to top-class professionals who hold ongoing appointments (Linder, 2004).

Infrastructure

One of the most distressing aspects of the educational scene are the structural constraints on schools that seek to achieve transformation (‘high levels of achievement for all students in all settings’). This refers to the deplorable state of school buildings in many nations. For the most part these reflect the judgement of David Hargreaves that schools are ‘a curious mix of the factory, the asylum and the prison’ (Hargreaves, D., 1994). While some improvements have been made since he made that statement, it is nigh on impossible for some schools to personalise learning using appropriate technologies in a pleasant environment for students and staff. England, Scotland, and Singapore have, to their credit, declared a national priority on the replacement, refurbishment or re-design of schools, but there is little evidence that a commitment has been made in most nations, including Australia.

A manifesto for those who seek to shape the future of schools

A manifesto for those who seek to shape the future of schools can be gleaned from themes in Re-imagining Educational Leadership.

1. The majority of schools should be re-built to ensure their design is relevant to curriculum and pedagogy in the 21st century and that they meet standards for attractive and satisfying workplaces for high-level professionals. Such schools will be consistent with a ‘re-schooling’ rather than a ‘status quo’ scenario (in the OECD formulation of scenarios for the future of schools).

2. There should be substantial increases in salaries for leaders of the largest and the most challenging of schools, reflecting the demands of the role and the need to attract top-class applicants. A package of the order of $250,000 per year, as is currently available for principals in London, is a reasonable benchmark.

3. Schools should have the capacity to attract and reward the best of professional expertise from anywhere in the world in a landmark shift from a ‘workforce approach’ to a ‘talent force approach’.

4. Schools should adopt strategic outsourcing where particular short-term needs must be addressed in efforts to achieve radical transformation. Such an approach poses no threat to the security of staff whose high-level professional services will be required on a continuing basis.

5. One piece of strategic outsourcing, urgently required at the system level, is for high-level work-flow specialists to determine how the mountain of inappropriate paperwork and compliance requirements in schools can be reduced and appropriate ‘packages’ of leadership and management support for school leaders can be designed.

6. The overwhelming majority of staff who are not employed in schools should have a service role in support of schools. New standards of professional support from system-level personnel are as important as standards for school leadership.

7. Such system level support should be seen as just one source of support in a market of providers that shall include support generated within networks of schools and private companies, many of which shall be established by outstanding practitioners, either currently serving or in new career mode.

8. The notion of ‘system leadership’, as currently evolving in some school systems, shall be embraced, providing an opportunity for outstanding school leaders to support a number of schools, while retaining appointments in their own schools.

9. A priority should be placed on building partnerships between schools and other enterprises in educational and non-educational settings, in the public and private sectors. Public and private funds should be provided to support the work of trusts or other non-profit entities, whose role it is to forge such partnerships so that the task does not fall exclusively on school leaders, especially those in disadvantaged settings.

10. Every school leader should have the opportunity to learn at first hand how transformation has been achieved in different settings. In addition to visits to such settings, a range of approaches utilising state-of-the-art technologies shall be utilised. Master classes by outstanding school leaders shall be employed in professional development and graduate programs.

Can such a manifesto be implemented in the next five years, in time to lay a foundation for success for schools in the future? I am optimistic, but it will require all stakeholders, especially governments, to recognise the scale of the problem and at least set in place a plan that can provide a foundation for optimism. Promising incremental change will not suffice.

References

Barber, M. ‘Delivery: Why it Matters, What is Means?’ 22 January 2004. Presentation at a conference on ‘Tackling Inequalities in Newham to Improve Health’ organised by Your Newham Local Strategic Partnership, Newham Primary Care Trust, Newham Council and University of East London.
Bentley, T. and Wilsdon, J. ‘Introduction: The Adaptive State’ in Bentley, T. and Wilsdon, J. (eds) The adaptive state: strategies for personalising the public realm. 2004. London: Demos. Chapter 1.
Hargreaves, D. The mosaic of learning: schools and teachers for the new century. 1994. London: Demos.
Hyman, P. 1 out of 10: From Downing Street vision to classroom reality. 2005. London: Vintage.
Keating, M. Who rules? How government retains control of a privatised economy. 2004. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Linder, J. Outsourcing for radical change: a bold approach to enterprise transformation. 2004. New York: Amacom.
Linnakylä, P. and Välijärvi, J. ‘Finnish students’ performance in PISA - Why such a success?’ Published as ‘Das erfolgreiche abschneiden von finnischen schülern bei de PISA-Studie. Welche erklärungen gibt es dafür?’ In Forum Jugendarbeit International. 2003. Hänisch, D. und Schwalbach, R. (toim) Bonn: Internationaler Jugendaustausch und Besucherdienst der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 284- 295. Paper presented in English at the ‘Finland in PISA-Studies- Reasons behind the Results’ Conference. March 14-16, 2005. Helsinki. Available at: www.oph.fi.
OECD. What schools for the future? 2001. Paris: OECD. Chapter 3, ‘Scenarios for the Future of Schooling’.
Rueff, R. and Stringer, H. Talent Force: A New Manifesto for the Human Side of Business. 2006.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.