invest in professional development anywhere as much as they should, even though people are their basic asset and they spend 90 percent of their budget on staffing,” said Greany, the former Director of Research and Policy at the National College. The articulation of the leadership progression in England has been refined over the past 15 years. Initially, according to Melling of the National College, the leadership curriculum for each level focused on a set of stand-alone courses and yearlong non-modular programs for school leaders. Over time, using “customer research” that showed that school leaders wanted more flexibility, the courses evolved into a more coherent sequence of professional development modules and experiences that linked to master’s-level content and led to the national qualification. “The evidence internationally is that there may be many approaches to leadership development, but that most successful systems have a clear approach,” said Melling.
Early on, the National College worried that educators would take the subsidized courses for the credential without ever moving into leadership positions in their schools. Therefore, to minimize educators’ taking the courses merely for personal interest, there is a pre-enrollment screening process. For the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), there is a nationally run process in which candidates must submit a written application to demonstrate their leadership and participate in an in-person interview. For the National Professional Qualification for Middle Leadership (NPQML) and the National Professional Qualification for Senior Leadership (NPQSL), which were introduced in 2012, the provider of the training is required to assess the suitability of participants joining the program. After candidates pass the screening process, they must complete a set of required and elective modules and then pass an end-of-program assessment. These barriers are intended to weed out the faint of heart, but also likely deter some potentially talented candidates.
Like the national curriculum, the delivery model has also evolved. From 2000
through 2005, the National College both developed and directly delivered, through a commissioning process, the training for school leaders across the country. Trainers were either full-time National College employees or retired school leaders who
Like all small- and medium-sized
enterprises, schools don’t invest in
professional development anywhere
as much as they should, even though
people are their basic asset and they
spend 90% of their budget on staffing.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education 17
contracted with the National College to do this work. Initially, the training was offered to individuals, but the National College began to recognize the power of cohorts to enable peer learning and support.
As the National College refined the quality of the curriculum and made the experience for participants more robust, its centrally delivered model became
increasingly out of step with the government’s decentralization efforts. In response, both the leadership delivery model and the certification model were modified. In 2010, the Cameron government decided that the National Professional
Qualifications for Headship should be optional. This represented a paradigmatic shift in thinking—from seeing the qualification as a basic requirement for holding a school leadership position to viewing it as a mark of quality that aspiring leaders seek out. “Our aim in 2010 was to make the NPQH the qualification of choice,” said Melling of the National College. “So what we did was to redesign it with a higher entry bar and an application process and make it more rigorous, so it would be the preferred qualification with a higher quality candidate,” he explained. According to Taylor, the National College’s chief executive, survey results suggest that 80% of educators think the qualification is desirable or necessary. The effect that this shift will have is unclear, and the school practitioners I talked to still viewed the qualification as an important signal of their preparation to lead. Notably, the shift eliminates a barrier for entrants from other fields who wish to become school leaders.
In 2012, in response to criticism that the system was too centralized and that the National College did not have the resources to provide adequate leadership training nationally, the National College announced that it would no longer commission leadership development training or limit the number of people who could be trained. It undertook a review of its delivery model and subsequently licensed 33 providers across the nation to deliver the leadership development modules that culminate in national qualifications. The licensees pay a small fee to the central government for use of the National College training materials (which they are expected to use, but report using only to varying degrees). Each licensee is made up of a partnership of a variety of entities in the English system. Partners include universities, non-profit leadership development organizations (including trusts), teaching schools (schools sanctioned to lead other schools), chains of schools (similar to charter management organizations in the U.S.), and for-profit organizations.
The role of the National College shifted again in 2012 when it was brought into the government as an Executive Agency of the Department for Education, which reduced its autonomy to develop leadership policy for the nation.
18
Building a Lattice for School Leadership
Currently, the government often subsidizes demand for the services of the 33 leadership providers across the country. Thus, while schools generally have a professional development budget, many are asked to pay only a portion of the actual cost of leadership development. This creates an attractive incentive for schools to send aspiring leaders to the licensees for leadership training. Although licensees are only three years into the current model, many I interviewed have more demand for their leadership development offerings than they have the capacity to provide. However, this picture of excess demand for leadership training may not represent the entire country, as market reactions may differ in regions where there are fewer school leaders available.
It is also unclear to what extent the current system is building capacity across the nation or whether it is merely leading to more competition for the current supply of leadership talent. Though there are stories in the press about schools having trouble finding qualified leaders, the national figures do not show evidence of a shortage of school principals. According to Greany, now at the Institute of Education at the University of London, salaries for head teachers have gone up at a rate greater than inflation, “which shows there is a war for talent, but its unclear whether this is due to the increasing challenge of the profession or due to a leadership shortage.” Since leaders are on school contracts, there is a fair amount of poaching of leaders going on in the system. “So one question is,” Greany added, “is more capacity being developed in the system or are schools merely competing for a fixed supply of talent?”
The numbers do suggest, however, that the national qualification, at least for head teachers, has become an important credential for leading a school. Since 1997, according to government figures, approximately 35,000 educators have graduated with the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), and well over half—around 58%—of current head teachers hold the NPQH (Gibbs, 2011). Graduates for the 2-year middle leadership and senior leadership programs, initiated in 2012, are just starting to emerge.
In another step toward de-emphasizing the centralized leadership development model in favor of a school-led approach, in 2014 the National College announced that it would stop developing the leadership curriculum, that it would make its curriculum and materials publicly available online in 2016, and that the licenses issued to leadership development providers would be allowed to expire in 2016. The system is moving toward a more horizontal, school-led model, while retaining the more vertical national qualification system. According to Melling of the
National College, “The goal is to move to a system where the school system is taking ownership. We are developing our thinking alongside the system to determine the model for delivery beyond 2016. There are challenges in a system where there is a strong appetite for a national benchmark and a national qualification that ensures quality and consistency across the country while also recognizing that there is a diverse marketplace with many routes to training leaders.”
Consortium for Policy Research in Education 19