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
1) 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
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)
APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND
LEADERSHIP (Leithwood, 2001)
• Market approaches
• Decentralization approaches
• Professional approaches
• Management approaches
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
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”
Bildungspolitik/Öffentlichkeit
Nationaler
Bildungsbericht
Nationales
System
Qualifizierung und Entwicklung
Diagnose und Monitoring
Vernetzung und Policy Analysis
BMBWK - IQS
Systemmonitoring
Bildungsstatistik
Fokussierte Evaluation
Schule
Aggregierte Daten
Region/
Land
Vorgabe
Vergleichsdaten
Schulaufsicht
Regionaler
Bildungsplan
Metaevaluation
Krisenintervention
Schulprogramm
aggreg. Daten
Regionaler Bildungsplan
Schulleitung / SGA
Schulprogramm
Personalentwicklung
Benchmarking
aggreg. Daten
Berichte
Lehrer/
Unterricht
Selbstevaluation
Selbstevaluation
Vorgaben Vergleichsdaten
Schulprogramm
Lehrer/innen
Leistungsbeurteilung
Leistungsrückmeldungen
Individualfeedback
Referenzdaten, Standards, Instrumente
Regionaler Bildungsplan
aggreg. Daten
Nationale
Entwicklungsprojekte
SCHOOL GOVERNANCE MODELS (Examples)
• “Bureaucratic Model” (Austria, Germany)
• Local Empowerment Model
•
(Finland, Sweden)
School Empowerment Model
(UK, Netherlands)
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
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)
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)
SUBSYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
LEVEL
ACTION
LEVEL
RESULT
LEVEL
motivation/
experience
class
teams
recognition
competence
development
year
cohorts
clear
vision
awareness
of self
goal
orientation
culture
subject
teams
individual
encouragement
reflection/
anticipation
gain of
insight
structure
heterogeneous
grouping
variable
cooperation
learning
by
doing
celebrating
achievement
people
Leadership
INTERACTION
LEVEL
planning
impacts on
Awareness of the effects in taking goal-oriented steps