1 / 13

Improving School Leadership Second Workshop of Participating Countries Brussels, 1 February, 2007

Improving School Leadership Second Workshop of Participating Countries Brussels, 1 February, 2007. Session A: School Governance and Leadership. Prof. Michael Schratz University of Innsbruck, Austria. FRAMEWORK FOR LEADERSHIP PRACTICES. Agency

galecruz
Download Presentation

Improving School Leadership Second Workshop of Participating Countries Brussels, 1 February, 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving School Leadership • Second Workshop of Participating Countries • Brussels, 1 February, 2007 Session A: School Governance and Leadership • Prof. Michael Schratz • University of Innsbruck, Austria

  2. FRAMEWORK FOR LEADERSHIP PRACTICES • Agency • “‘Transformational’ leadership practices are necessary for a successful school leader.” (Southworth, 1998, Leithwood et al., 1999) • Evidence from many schools varying in • - size • - location • - level 2) Structure Implications of accountability-driven policy context for school leaders

  3. GOVERNANCE is a useful concept not least because it is sufficiently vague and inclusive that it can be thought to embrace a variety of different approaches and theories, some of which are even mutually contradictory.” (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 37)

  4. APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP (Leithwood, 2001) • Market approaches • Decentralization approaches • Professional approaches • Management approaches

  5. APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP (Austria) • Reform initiatives are eclectic • causes overload problem by piling policies upon policies • results in sense of confusion and uncertainty •  leads to de-energizing effects of fragmentation • creates leadership dilemmas • school heads are pulled in different directions simultaneously

  6. APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP (Austria) • 4 principles for future policy development (Future Commisssion) • systematic quality management (teacher – school – policy) • more autonomy and more responsibility •  improvement of the teacher profession • more research and development and better support systems  “Good governance”

  7. Bildungspolitik/Öffentlichkeit Nationaler Bildungsbericht Qualifizierung und Entwicklung Diagnoseund Monitoring Vernetzung und Policy Analysis BMBWK - IQS Nationales System Systemmonitoring Bildungsstatistik Fokussierte Evaluation Nationale Entwicklungsprojekte Regionaler Bildungsplanaggreg. Daten Vorgabe Vergleichsdaten Schulaufsicht Region/Land Metaevaluation Regionaler Bildungsplan Krisenintervention Selbstevaluation Aggregierte Daten Referenzdaten, Standards, Instrumente Schulprogrammaggreg. Daten Regionaler Bildungsplan Schulleitung / SGA Schule Schulprogramm Personalentwicklung Benchmarking Selbstevaluation aggreg. DatenBerichte Vorgaben Vergleichsdaten Schulprogramm Lehrer/innen Lehrer/Unterricht Leistungsrückmeldungen Leistungsbeurteilung Individualfeedback

  8. SCHOOL GOVERNANCE MODELS (Examples) • “Bureaucratic Model” (Austria, Germany) • Local Empowerment Model (Finland, Sweden) • School Empowerment Model(UK, Netherlands)

  9. SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP Distribution of school leadership Making use of collective leadership capacities of schools Austria: flat hierarchical structure  strong focus on one (wo)man as a leader (school head)  leadership is not shared by many people (steering groups etc.) restricted autonomy in finances and resource allocation  few possibilities to use financial incentives  flow of resources through regional or national level (in-service, etc.) restricted curricular autonomy  little attraction for leadership in curriculum development restricted personnel autonomy  difficulty to empower for collective action

  10. Reform areas for school governance and consequences for leadership (Austria) • disentangle the complex decision-making structure (fewer levels) • move towards more local empowerment or school empowerment models •  create more autonomy in curricular, personnel, financial issues • clarify overall aims (standards) and create congruency of tasks, competences and responsibility on all levels • balance internal and external evaluation systems • specify the role of school inspectors • intensify qualification of school heads ( Leadership Academy)

  11. Basic responsibility of school leaders • Improve education for students in their own schools • Serving the best interests of their students How can this be done? • Little research evidence (challenge to follow the chain of effects)

  12. SUB-SYSTEMS RESULT LEVEL SYSTEMSLEVEL ACTIONLEVEL INTERACTION LEVEL competencedevelop-ment motivation/ experience classteams recognition people goalorientation yearcohorts clearvision awarenessof self planning Leadership impacts on individualencourage-ment reflection/ anticip-ation gain ofinsight culture subjectteams structure hetero-geneousgrouping learningbydoing celebratingachieve-ment variable cooperation Awareness of the effects in taking goal-oriented steps

More Related