Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol12.Issue5.1998:
Training school principals, educating school
governors
Angela Thody
Inte rnatio nal Educ atio nal Le ade rship Ce ntre , Unive rsity o f Linc o lnshire and
Humbe rside , Linc o ln, UK
School leadership in England
and Wales is legally shared
between the full-time principal and the part-time volunteers, the school governors.
Their professional development opportunities during the
last ten years have taken
opposite directions. Principals’ development has moved
to a training focus, with a
nationalised, standardised,
competency-based qualifi cation for aspirant headteachers. Governors’ education
remains a non-standardised,
decentralised system but has
now become largely schoolbased and centred on educational issues. In exploring why
such differences have
occurred, the reasons suggested concern differing role
expectations, training developments in related occupations, centralisation and
decentralisation, uncertainties about the objectives of
educational leadership and
the costs of professional
development.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [ 1998] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 232 ]
Introduction
E ffective lea der sh ip cr ea tes effective sch ools.
To be effective, sch ool lea der s n eed pr ofession a l developm en t to im pr ove th eir sk ills.
Th ese a r e th e a ssu m ption s wh ich u n der pin
a ll of th e r esea r ch th a t h a s been don e on effective sch oolin g a n d on th e im por ta n ce of
pr epa r a tion for, a n d in str u ction in , th e n ecessa r y qu a lities of sch ool lea der sh ip (Ca ldwell
a n d Spin k s, 1988; F u lla n , 1991; N a tion a l Com m ission on E du ca tion , 1993; DfE , 1996; E a r ley,
1994; Au dit Com m ission / OF STE D, 1995;
Deem et a l., 1995; E sp a n d Sa r a n , 1995). Sch ool
lea der sh ip in a n E n glish or Welsh sch ool[1] is
sh a r ed between th e fu ll-tim e, pa id pr in cipa l
a n d a volu n teer, pa r t-tim e, boa r d of gover n or s, a n d th is a r ticle is con cer n ed w ith both
of th ese. Th is m odel of sh a r ed lea der sh ip is
fou n d in m a n y oth er E u r opea n a n d Com m on wea lth cou n tr ies a lth ou gh gover n or s in E n gla n d a n d Wa les h old m or e power s th a n th eir
cou n ter pa r ts elsewh er e.
Th is a r ticle is con cer n ed w ith th e ch a n ges
in th e pr ofession a l developm en t of pr in cipa ls
a n d gover n or s du r in g th e la st ten yea r s. It
w ill be su ggested th a t th e cou r ses for pr in cipa ls h ave m oved fr om edu ca tion to tr a in in g
wh ile th ose for gover n or s h ave m oved fr om
tr a in in g to edu ca tion . Th e con text in wh ich
th ese developm en ts h ave ta k en pla ce w ill be
ou tlin ed, togeth er w ith a descr iption of th e
developm en ts th em selves. Su ggestion s w ill
be m a de con cer n in g th e r ea son s for th e
ch a n ges a n d th e a r ticle con clu des w ith r efl ection s on th e possible fu tu r e of pr ofession a l
developm en t for th ese two gr ou ps.
In th is r eflection on pr ofession a l developm en t for pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s, th e wor d
“edu ca tion ” is u sed to m ea n th e tr a n sm ission
a n d a bsor ption of k n ow ledge u su a lly th r ou gh
a system a tic pr ocess. “E du ca tion ” h a s, h ow ever, a cqu ir ed n or m a tive over ton es in dem ocr a tic system s a n d is often a ssu m ed to im ply
th e stu dy of a w ide r a n ge of topics, th e developm en t of th e cr itica l fa cu lties a n d th e
en cou r a gem en t of in dividu a l cr ea tivity (Kelly,
1995). A per son wh o is edu ca ted is r ega r ded a s
on e a ble to m a ke ch oices fr om com petin g en ds
a n d wh o h a s m or e lea r n in g th a n th at wh ich
wou ld be r ega r ded a s str ictly n ecessa r y for
th e per for m a n ce of a job. In con tr a st, a per son
wh o h a s been tr a in ed is gen er a lly seen a s on e
wh o h a s been given gu ida n ce on th e sk ills
n eeded for a specific job, r equ ir in g a focu s a n d
disciplin e pr ovided by oth er s. A per son wh o is
tr a in ed is a ssu m ed to be able to per for m to th e
sta n da r ds set for a job.
Research sources
Th e view s expr essed in th is a r ticle a r ise fr om
r esea r ch pr ojects wh ich I h ave com pleted
over th e la st ten yea r s on gover n or tr a in in g,
th e r oles of gover n in g bodies, th e r oles of
gover n or s fr om bu sin ess a n d in du str y, on th e
h istor y of com m u n ity in volvem en t a n d on
in ter n a tion a l com pa r ison s. Th ese h ave u sed
a su r vey of 1,500 gover n or s in a Midla n ds
Loca l E du ca tion Au th or ity (LE A[2]), fa ce-tofa ce a n d teleph on e in ter view s w ith gover n or s, gover n or tr a in er s, cou n cillor s a n d
cler k s in two LE As, focu s gr ou p in ter view s
a n d obser va tion s of wh ole gover n in g bodies
a n d gover n or s’ log r ecor ds (Th ody, 1989,
1990a , 1990b, 1994a , 1994b, 1994c, 1997a , 1998a ,
1998b; In du str y in E du ca tion , 1995; Th ody a n d
N k a ta , 1996, 1997). Oth er docu m en ta r y
sou r ces, on both gover n or sh ip a n d pr in cipa ls’ issu es, in clu din g both a ca dem ic a n d
gover n m en t pu blica tion s, a r e r efer r ed to
a bove a n d in th e cou r se of th e a r ticle. Per son a l r esea r ch in to sch ool pr in cipa lsh ip h a s
in clu ded stu dies by obser va tion on th e a ctivities of pr in cipa ls a n d by in ter view s on m en tor in g a s a tr a in in g m eth od for pr in cipa ls
(Th ody, 1991, 1993; Th ody a n d Cr ysta l, 1995)
su ppor ted by exper ien ce in pr ovidin g de gr ee
a n d diplom a cou r ses for pr in cipa ls a n d in
tr a in in g pr in cipa ls on ea ch of th e gover n m en t’s su ccessive tr a in in g pr ogr a m m es du r in g th e 1990s; m en tor in g for n ew ly-a ppoin ted
h ea dtea ch er s, HE ADLAMP (sh or t cou r ses for
n ew ly a ppoin ted h ea ds) a n d th e N a tion a l
P r ofession a l Qu a lifi ca tion for Hea dtea ch er s
(N P QH for a spir a n t sch ool pr in cipa ls) (Cr eisson a n d E llison , 1998).
School leadership: shared
responsibilities
Th e lea der sh ip of ea ch of E n gla n d’s a n d
Wa les’ 23,000 sch ools is le ga lly sh a r ed
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
between a sch ool pr in cipa l a n d a body of
exter n a l, la r gely n on -edu ca tion a list, sch ool
gover n or s. Th e sch ool pr in cipa l is a fu ll-tim e,
pa id em ployee, wh o m u st be a qu a lified
tea ch er a n d wh o u su a lly a lso h a s a post-gr a du a te de gr ee in edu ca tion a n d con sider a ble
exper ien ce of sch ool m a n a gem en t. Th e sch ool
gover n or s a r e pa r t-tim e, u n pa id volu n teer s
wh o give th eir tim e to h elp a dvise a n d dir ect
th e policies of th e sch ool. E a ch sch ool h a s
between ten a n d 22 gover n or s, th e n u m ber
in cr ea sin g a s th e n u m ber of stu den ts
in cr ea ses. Th ese gover n in g bodies con sist of
elected pa r en ts, elected tea ch er s a n d
a ppoin ted r epr esen ta tives of th e loca l politica l pa r ties wh o con tr ol loca l gover n m en t.
Th ese th r ee gr ou ps th en collectively co-opt
r epr esen ta tives of th e loca l com m u n ity wh o
m ay in clu de bu sin ess people, com m u n ity
a ctivists, m em ber s of loca l a ssocia tion s a n d
r epr esen ta tives of r eligiou s gr ou ps. Th u s th e
exper t pr in cipa l sh a r es sch ool lea der sh ip
w ith a n on -exper t body bu t on e wh ich pr ovides th e pr in cipa l w ith a m ea n s of con su ltin g th e view s of a sch ool’s exter n a l sta k eh older s.
Th e ta sk of sch ool lea der sh ip is exten sive
a n d in clu des r espon sibilities for both en su r in g th a t sch ools a r e solven t bu sin esses a n d
th a t th ey a ch ieve a ca dem ic su ccesses for
th eir stu den ts. A sch ool pr in cipa l h a s to be
both a com peten t bu sin ess execu tive a n d
in str u ction a l lea der, wh ile gover n or s h ave to
be aw a r e of th e n eeds of both a spects of
sch oolin g in or der to give a ppr opr ia te a dvice
a n d to m on itor wh eth er or n ot th e pr in cipa l
a n d sta ff a r e a ch ievin g th eir ta r gets. All
sch ools a r e fu lly self-m a n a gin g a n d th e pr in cipa l a n d gover n or s a r e join tly r espon sible
for m a n a gin g h u m a n , fi n a n cia l a n d ph ysica l
r esou r ces. Th is in clu des m a k in g th e sch ool’s
str a te gic pla n a n d m on itor in g it to see it is
im plem en ted. Th e sch ool m u st a lso decide
h ow to distr ibu te its r esou r ces a m on g a ll of
th e sch ool’s r equ ir em en ts, in clu din g tea ch er s’ sa la r ies. Th e pr in cipa l’s sa la r y is deter m in ed by th e gover n or s a n d a ll sta ff a r e
a ppoin ted, a n d ca n be pr om oted or dism issed
by th e gover n or s. P r in cipa l a n d gover n or s
m u st en su r e th a t th e N a tion a l Cu r r icu lu m is
deliver ed to a ccepta ble n a tion a l sta n da r ds (a s
tested by n a tion a l exa m in a tion s). Th ey m u st
be a ble to dem on str a te to th e gover n m en t’s
in spector a te, th e Office for Sta n da r ds in E du ca tion (OF STE D) th a t th e lea der sh ip of th e
sch ool is effective a n d efficien t.
Th e power s ou tlin ed, of both sch ool pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s, h ave in cr ea sed to th eir
pr esen t a pogee ver y r a pidly over th e la st ten
yea r s a n d th eir gen er a l dir ection h a s
r em a in ed u n ch a n ged despite th e 1997 ch a n ge
fr om a Con ser va tive to a La bou r gover n m en t.
Th e developm en ts a r e sim ila r to th ose in
a lm ost a ll oth er OE CD cou n tr ies bu t h ave
been m ost exten sive in E n gla n d a n d Wa les
(Bola m , 1997, p. 267). Reflectin g on h ow pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s h ave been pr epa r ed for
th ese developm en ts m ay, th er efor e, be u sefu l
for oth er cou n tr ies con sider in g a dva n cin g
th eir ow n r efor m s fu r th er.
Professional development for
principals and governors: ten years
of change
Accom pa n yin g th e sch oolin g r efor m s a s
descr ibed wer e con com ita n t ch a n ges in th e
pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities for
pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s. Th ese a r e su m m a r ised in Ta ble I.
For pr in cipa ls, th e m ovem en t h a s been to a
n a tion a lised, com pu lsor y, com peten cy-led
tr a in in g (Cr eissen a n d E llison , 1998). For
gover n or s, th e m ovem en t is to a
decen tr a lised, vir tu a lly sch ool-ba sed, n on com pu lsor y, w ider edu ca tion for th eir pr ofession a l developm en t.
Th er e h a s been con sen su s a m on g gover n m en t, pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s a n d to som e
exten t, h igh er edu ca tion in stitu tion s, th a t th e
developm en t of th e N P QH is a ccepta ble a n d
m u ch of it h a s a r isen fr om pr eviou s r esea r ch
w ith in h igh er edu ca tion a bou t th e desir a bility of a com peten cy a ppr oa ch to tr a in in g
(Heller a n d P a u tler, 1990, p. 142; E a r ley, 1993;
E sp, 1993; J ir a sin gh e a n d Lyon s, 1996). Th er e
a r e, of cou r se, discu ssion s a bou t th e desir a bility of th e pr ecise for m a t a dopted a n d
deba te a bou t th e pr escr iptive n a tu r e of th e
tr a in in g m a ter ia ls, bu t th ese a r e a r gu m en ts
a bou t th e n iceties of th e idea r a th er th a n of
th e idea itself.
For gover n or s, th e ch a n ge h a s been to su ppor tin g gover n or s’ lea r n in g r a th er th a n to
dir ect th eir k n ow ledge a cqu isition . Gover n or s r epor t gr ea t ga in s in con fi den ce fr om
th ese a ppr oa ch es (Th ody, 1997a ). Th e con ten t
of cou r ses, wh eth er on or off site, h a s two
pr in cipa l foci – tea ch in g, lea r n in g a n d a ssessm en t m eth ods a n d m icr o-politica l sk ills of
m a n a gem en t. With in th ese two a spects th er e
w ill be n u m er ou s differ en t dir ection s wh ich
gover n or s m ay follow, in clu din g, for exa m ple,
liter a cy, n u m er a cy, in tr odu ction s to a n y of th e
m a in cu r r icu lu m su bjects, h ow to spea k con fiden tly a t m eetin gs, h ow to n e gotia te su ccessfu lly w ith tea ch er s or h ow to pla n a n
a gen da . Oth er topics w ill r a n ge w idely fr om
ch ild a bu se, or r eligion in sch ools, to th e
le ga lities of a dm ittin g a n d exclu din g stu den ts
fr om sch ool or a ppr a isin g sta ff. Most gover n or s w ill u n der ta k e on ly on e or two su ch
cou r ses so th a t th e k n ow ledge of a n y on e
[ 233 ]
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
[ 234 ]
Table I
Pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt fo r princ ipals and go ve rno rs
Principals, pre-1997
Governors, pre-1990
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optional
Mainly part-time higher degrees over several years
University or LEA provided
Wide educ ation, theory and prac tic e
Aimed to produc e reflec tive princ ipals (Sc hon, 1987) through ac tion learning and a researc h
orientation
Not standardised ac ross the c ountry
Targeted government funding to ensure spending on princ ipals’ training
Central guidanc e and pressure through the enc ouragement of sc hemes for mentoring and
HEADLAMP short c ourses for newly-appointed princ ipals and through advisery and dissemination
bodies, the Sc hool Management Task Forc es and the National Development Centre
Termed, “ professional development”
Optional
Short c ourses – 1 day to 8 weeks part time, non-ac c redited
LEA provided, most LEAs have governor training c o-ordinators
Aimed to offer the legal information about governorship
Foc us was to produc e c ompetent governors
Not standardised
Small amount of targeted government funding, reserved for governor training
No c entral guidanc e, e.g. eac h LEA devised own c ourses
Termed, “ training”
Principals, post-1997
Governors, post-1990
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Professional Qualific ation for Headteac hers (NPQH), introduc ed in 1997, bec oming
c ompulsory by 2002 for all aspirant princ ipals
Assessment required for entry to NPQH and to be awarded the NPQH
Higher degrees still available through universities
NPQH organised by regional spec ialist c onsortia awarded c entral government c ontrac ts
Emphasis on the ac quisition of management c ompetenc es and skills
Aims to c reate effec tive princ ipals raising standards, being ac c ountable
Standardised c ore modules on strategic direc tion and ac c ountability; modules on learning and
teac hing, people and relationships, effec tive management of financ ial and physic al resourc es
Targeted funding must be spent on NPQH
Central direc tion and c ontrol through a pre-set c urric ulum, c entrally produc ed training materials,
standardised assessment c riteria for entrants, standardised training materials and c ommon
training for trainers
Termed, “ training”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optional
No entry, nor c onc luding, assessment
Both off-site and in-sc hool c ourses ar offered but the latter are most popular; short,
non-ac c redited c ourses of 1/ 2 days
LEA organised
Disc usses teac hing and learning, wide ranging skills and knowledge of educ ation
Aims to c reate effec tive governors raising standards, being ac c ountable
Not standardised
Small amounts of funding are made available but it is subsumed into sc hool budgets
and sc hools c an c hoose whether or not to spend it on governor educ ation
Not c entrally direc ted
Termed, “ development”
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
gr ou p of people wh o for m a gover n in g body is
lik ely to be diver se a n d m ay n ot collectively
cover a ll th e r espon sibilities of gover n or s. In
a 1997 su r vey of 50 pr im a r y a n d 13 secon da r y
sch ools in on e LE A (Th ody, 1997a ) on ly on e
w a s fou n d wh ich h a d or ga n ised th eir pr ofession a l developm en t so th a t ea ch gover n or h a d
a tten ded som e cou r ses to en su r e th a t ever y
du ty of th e gover n in g body h a d been stu died
by a t lea st of on e of th eir m em ber s.
Changes in education and training
for principals and governors: a
projected rationale
Role expectations
Th e opposite dir ection s followed by pr ofession a l developm en t for pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s cou ld be r ela ted to th e gr ea ter r ole cer ta in ty for pr in cipa ls wh o a r e expected to
em body th r ee m a jor tr a dition s. F ir st, th er e is
th e n in eteen th -cen tu r y m or a l lea der, h igh ly
edu ca ted, w ith str on g socia l con tr ol objectives, secon d, th e m id-twen tieth cen tu r y pr ofession a l exper t lea din g cu r r icu lu m in n ova tion a n d socia l en gin eer in g for equ ity w ith a
str on g em ph a sis on pa r ticipa tor y decision
m a k in g a n d, th ir d, fr om th e la te 1980s
on w a r ds, th e ch ief execu tive of a bu sin ess.
Wh ile th e oth er tr a dition s r em a in , th e m ost
r ecen t is a ccepted, a n d pr om u lga ted by th e
gover n m en t a s th e dom in a n t on e in r espon se
to m eetin g th e n eeds of th e self-m a n a gin g
sch ool. For th is r ole, th e com peten cy-ba sed
tr a in in g of th e N P QH ca n be seen a s m ost
su ita ble.
Th e im por ta n ce of r eta in in g th e ea r lier
tr a dition s of pr in cipa lsh ip is, h owever, r ecogn ised in th e N P QH tr a in in g. Wh ile th e tr a in in g m a ter ia ls a r e ver y pr escr iptive, th er e is
str ess th r ou gh ou t on listen in g to th e view s of
sta ff, pa r en ts, gover n or s a n d stu den ts, in th e
tr a dition s of th e m id-twen tieth cen tu r y
sch ool pr in cipa l a n d on developin g va lu es
a n d vision s, in th e tr a dition s of th e
n in eteen th -cen tu r y sch ool pr in cipa l. Ma n y of
th ose wh o m u st pa ss th eir N P QH w ill a lso
ch oose to a dd a post-gr a du a te de gr ee to th eir
qu a lifica tion s a s well a n d u n iver sities a r e r ew r itin g th eir Ma ster s’ de gr ee cou r ses to per m it a ccr edita tion to pa r t of th eir de gr ees to
th ose wh o h old th e N P QH.
For gover n or s, th er e is n o clea r defin ition
of th eir pr im a r y r ole wh ich cou ld lea d to th e
pr odu ction of a sin gle tr a in in g m odel. Ar e
gover n or s a dviser s to pr in cipa ls or a con du it
for th e view s of exter n a l sta k eh older s? Ar e
th ey join t m a n a ger s w ith th e pr in cipa l or
m on itor s of th e wor k of th e pr in cipa l a n d
sta ff ? Ar e th ey pa r t of a sch ool’s m a n a gem en t
tea m or r epr esen ta tives of gover n m en t to
wh om th e sch ool is a ccou n ta ble? Do gover n or s a n d th eir a ssocia tion s h ave a pa r t to
play in n a tion a l policy m a k in g? Th e ou tcom e
of th is u n cer ta in ty is u n r esolved deba tes
a bou t wh a t gover n or pr ofession a l developm en t is for a n d wh a t, th er efor e, m igh t be a
desir a ble for m a t for it. Cu r r en t gover n or
pr ofession a l developm en t does pr odu ce its
expected ou tpu ts of m or e gover n or s wh o a r e
better in for m ed a bou t edu ca tion (DE S, 1989;
Pou n ce, 1993; Sch lech te, 1995; N or th a n ts, 19941995, 1995-1996) bu t th er e a r e deba tes over
wh eth er or n ot it sh ou ld in cr ea se its em ph a sis on edu ca tion a l developm en t (Br ow n in g,
1997) a n d over wh eth er or n ot sca r ce
r esou r ces sh ou ld be focu sed a lm ost en tir ely
on in du ction or spr ea d m or e th in ly to m eet
som e of th e n eeds of m or e exper ien ced gover n or s (J on es, 1997). Som e gover n or s a r e dissa tisfied w ith existin g tr a in in g cou r ses a n d
th ese a r e bein g ca n celled for la ck of en r olm en ts (N or th a n ts, 1994-1995, 1995-1996; Th ody,
1997a ) bu t th er e is a ccepta n ce of th e va lu e of
sch ool-ba sed gover n or edu ca tion . Th er e is
som e eviden ce th a t th e tr a in in g en cou r a ges
gover n or s to feel in a dequ a te wh en dea lin g
w ith pr ofession a l edu ca tion a l m a tter s
(Ba con , 1978; Tu r n er et a l., 1991; Wa r in g, 1992;
Th ody, 1994b) bu t th e pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities for gover n or s h ave given
th em a n ew -fou n d politica l con fiden ce (Deem
et a l., 1995; Th ody, 1995, 1997).
Training developments in related
occupations
Sch ool pr in cipa ls a r e in cr ea sin gly r e ga r ded
a s th e equ iva len ts of sen ior m a n a ger s in
m ediu m -sized bu sin ess en ter pr ises, m a n a gin g a n n u a l bu dgets of between h a lf a n d fou r
m illion pou n ds. For sim ila r posts in pr iva te
sector bu sin esses, m a n a ger s a r e n ow tr a in ed
follow in g th e com peten cy fr a m ewor k s developed by th e M a n a gem en t Ch a r ter In itia tiv e
la u n ch ed in th e m id-1980s. E ver y m a n a gem en t post is gr a ded a t Levels 1-5 a n d for ea ch
of th ese th er e a r e r ela ted com peten ces to be
a cqu ir ed. Th e com peten cy lists for sch ool
pr in cipa ls a r e n ot exa ct r eplica s of th ese, bu t
th ey do em body th e sa m e a ppr oa ch es. Th e
m essa ge wh ich th e gover n m en t w ish es to
em ph a sise is th a t of sch ools a s bu sin esses in
a m a r k et-led econ om y for edu ca tion .
Gover n or s’ pr ofession a l developm en t h a s
n ot followed th e com peten cy r ou te, possibly
beca u se oth er volu n ta r y jobs a r e n ot in clu ded
in th e N a tion a l Voca tion a l Qu a lifica tion s
str u ctu r e. It m ay a lso be beca u se a r igor ou s
com peten cy r ou te a n d a r equ ir em en t th a t
gover n or s ca n n ot ser ve w ith ou t h avin g a
qu a lifi ca tion wou ld deter m a n y fr om becom in g gover n or s. It m ay be beca u se th e tim e is
n ot yet com e for esta blish in g com peten ces for
[ 235 ]
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
gover n or s; th ose for sch ool pr in cipa ls n eeded
m or e u r gen t settlem en t a n d wer e m or e
a m en a ble to r a pid cen tr a l a ction th a n gover n or s’ pr ofession a l developm en t, wh ich is still
fir m ly w ith in th e pu r view of th e LE As.
Sch ool pr in cipa l developm en t be ga n leavin g
th e con tr ol of th e LE As fr om th e ea r ly 1980s
bu t it is n ot u n til th e la te 1990s th a t it h a s
m oved a lm ost com pletely to cen tr a l con tr ol.
Per h a ps gover n or tr a in in g w ill follow in du e
cou r se.
Centralisation and decentralisation
Th ese two a r e th e a ppa r en tly com petin g
tr en ds in edu ca tion in tr odu ced fr om th e la te
1980s on w a r ds. To cen tr a lise th e system ,
th er e is n ow a N a tion a l Cu r r icu lu m for a ll
sta te sch ools, n a tion a l sta n da r ds to be
a tta in ed a r e set by th e cen tr a l gover n m en t
a n d a ll sch ools a r e su bject to fr equ en t in spection s wh ich oper a te a ccor din g to n a tion a llyset r equ ir em en ts. To decen tr a lise, sch ools
h ave becom e in dividu a lly self-m a n a gin g.
P r ofession a l developm en t for pr in cipa ls a n d
gover n or s ca n be seen to em body th e sa m e,
con tr a dictor y tr en ds. Sch ool pr in cipa lsh ip
tr a in in g follow s th e cen tr a lisa tion m odel a n d
sch ool gover n or tr a in in g follow s th e decen tr a lised m odel.
In cen tr a lisa tion , on e cou ld detect th e gover n m en t’s in ten tion to con tr ol th e tea ch in g
pr ofession m or e str on gly a n d en su r e th a t
pu blic edu ca tion is r espon sive to gover n m en t
a n d pu blic dem a n ds. N eith er pr in cipa ls n or
gover n or s ta k e decision s on wh a t is ta u gh t
n or on h ow it is ta u gh t (su r ely th e m ost
im por ta n t a spects of edu ca tion ) bu t on ly on
th e a dm in istr a tion of th e sch ool. If
cen tr a lised con tr ol is th e in ten tion of th e
gover n m en t, a s it a ppea r s to be, th en th e
n a tion a lisa tion of th e tr a in in g of sch ool pr in cipa ls is yet a n oth er pa r t of th e con tr ol m ech a n ism .
Gover n m en ts’ decision to dim in ish th e
pr eviou s lea d r ole of th e u n iver sities a s th e
m a in pr ovider s of cou r ses in edu ca tion a l
lea der sh ip m ay a lso be in dica tive of th is
desir e to con tr ol wh a t is ta u gh t to pr in cipa ls.
Th is is despite th e la ck of u ser cr iticism s of
u n iver sity cou r ses. Br itish cr itics a r e ver y
m ild com pa r ed w ith th ose wh ich fa ce, for
exa m ple, US u n iver sity edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tor pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m m es (J a cobson ,
1990); Br itish u n iver sity cou r ses for sch ool
pr in cipa ls a r e r ecogn ised for th eir a da pta tion
to th e r ea l wor ld n eeds of pr a ctition er s a n d
for th e pa r tn er sh ips en gen der ed between
u n iver sities a n d sch ools.
Th e cen tr a lisa tion a gen da h a s n ot been
a pplied to gover n or s’ pr ofession a l developm en t. As yet, gover n m en t h a s n ot been decisive on gover n or s’ r oles n or th eir tr a in in g
[ 236 ]
a n d th e deba tes on th ese r em a in u n r esolved.
Per h a ps gover n m en t con sider s gover n or s to
be less im por ta n t to sch ool ou tcom es th a n
pr in cipa ls. Th is con clu sion is su ppor ted by
th e 1998 le gisla tion wh ich w ill per m it gover n or s’ power s to be decr ea sed, a lter ed or su spen ded in th e n ew E du ca tion a l Action Ar ea s
for th e im pr ovem en t of fa ilin g sch ools. With ou t cen tr a l in ter ven tion , th er e is u n lik ely to
be a n a tion a lly a gr eed pr ofession a l developm en t pr ogr a m m e for gover n or s. Th e Gover n or Tr a in in g Co-or din a tor s for ea ch LE A do
m eet a n d discu ss issu es of com m on con cer n
bu t th e deter m in ed in dividu a lism of th eir
em ployer s, th e LE As, pr even ts th eir decidin g
on com m on pr ogr a m m es.
Uncertainty about the objectives of
educational leadership
Th e gover n m en t’s desir e to cen tr a lise in
or der, a ppa r en tly, to con tr ol m ay h ave a less
sin ister in ter pr eta tion . Su ccessive gover n m en ts m ay well h ave felt th a t th e th eor etica l
a r gu m en ts a m on g a ca dem ics a bou t wh a t
con stitu tes effective pr in cipa lsh ip for effective sch ools wer e obstr u ctin g th e n ecessa r y
dir ection to th e edu ca tion of pr in cipa ls. Th e
a r gu m en ts h ave been pr eva len t sin ce th e
disciplin e of edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tion
beca m e a ccepted a r ou n d 25 yea r s a go a n d, a s
yet, th er e is n o r esolu tion of th em h er e or in
oth er cou n tr ies (Bola m , 1997, pp. 275-6). Th er e
is a gr eem en t th a t tr a in in g n eeds im pr ovem en t, h er e a n d in oth er cou n tr ies (J a cobson ,
1990, p. 33) bu t n ot h ow it sh ou ld be im pr oved
n or to wh a t en ds. With th e cu r r en t n eeds for
sch ools to r a ise sta n da r ds in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les, a ccor din g to gover n m en t, th en som eon e m u st obviou sly ta k e a ction to decide h ow
to tr a in a ppr opr ia tely th ose wh o m u st r a ise
sta n da r ds. Aca dem ics deba te, gover n m en ts
decide.
N on eth eless, gover n m en ts h ave n ot yet
decided a bou t gover n or tr a in in g a n y m or e
th a n h ave a ca dem ics. Th e a ca dem ic deba te
a bou t th e r oles a n d tr a in in g of gover n or s h a s
been r efer r ed to a bove. Th e gover n m en ta l
deba te is illu str a ted in pu blica tion s su ch a s
th e DfE (1996) Gu id e to Good Gov er n a n ce. Th e
politica l deba te w a s eviden ced in th e r a pid
ch a n ges in le gisla tion con cer n in g gover n or s
between 1986 a n d 1988. In th e 1986 E du ca tion
Act, gover n or s wer e given th e power to decide
a sch ool’s cu r r icu lu m . By 1988, th is power
w a s w ith dr aw n a n d r epla ced w ith
gover n m en t dir ection of th e cu r r icu lu m . Th e
la ck of decision on gover n or s m ay be beca u se
th ey h ave been su bject to m u ch less stu dy
th a n h ave sch ool pr in cipa ls; even by th e la te
1990s, r esea r ch is n ot exten sive com pa r ed
w ith th a t devoted to sch ool pr in cipa ls over a
m u ch lon ger per iod.
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
Costs of professional development
Th e politica l a n d fin a n cia l costs of dir ect
in ter ven tion in pr ofession a l developm en t for
pr in cipa ls m ay h ave pr even ted ea r lier m oves
to a qu a lifica tion su ch a s th e N P QH. Politica lly, th e pr in cipa ls’ pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s
a r e str on g a n d a r e th em selves exten sively
in volved in tr a in in g pr ovision . Th ey h ave
a ssessm en t cen tr es for ser vin g a n d a spir in g
pr in cipa ls a n d r u n sh or t cou r ses. Th e u n iver sities h ave, for m a n y yea r s, dom in a ted th e
pr ovision of a ccr edited cou r ses for pr in cipa ls.
Gover n m en ts h ave n ow decided th a t th ey
ca n r isk en ter in g th e ter r itor y of th ese esta blish ed sta k eh older s, per h a ps beca u se th e
pu blic’s estim a te of th e sta tu s of th e tea ch in g
pr ofession h a s declin ed sin ce th e m id-1980s
a n d beca u se of th e u n iver sities’ depen den ce
on gover n m en t fu n din g a n d th e in tr odu ction
of gover n m en t con tr ols on u n iver sities
th r ou gh a ssessm en ts of th eir tea ch in g a n d
r esea r ch . In su ch a clim a te, th e a ddition of
con tr ol over pr in cipa ls’ qu a lifi ca tion s is n ot
u n expected a n d opposition to it fr om w ith in
th e edu ca tion pr ofession s is u n lik ely to be
well r eceived pu blicly.
F in a n cia lly, gover n m en ts h ave tr ied
ch ea per option s for pr in cipa ls’ pr ofession a l
developm en t bu t h ave a ba n don ed th ese (e.g.
m en tor in g). Gover n m en ts h ave r ejected
expen sive, elitist idea s su ch a s a sta ff colle ge,
a n d n ow a ppea r to h ave con clu ded th a t wh a tever is don e w ill be expen sive. If it is to be
expen sive, th en it w ill be con tr olled to en su r e
th a t in vestm en t pr odu ces th e ou tcom es
desir ed.
Th e in vestm en t in ea ch a spir a n t pr in cipa l’s
tr a in in g w ill be in th e r e gion of £2,000-£3,000
bu t th e n u m ber s to be tr a in ed a r e sm a ll com pa r ed w ith th e n u m ber s of gover n or s n eedin g
pr ofession a l developm en t. Th er e a r e a ppr oxim a tely 350,000 gover n or s, th e m a jor ity of
wh om w ill ser ve for fou r yea r s. E ver y fou r
yea r s, th er efor e, th er e w ill be n ew gover n or s
to tr a in ; sin ce th e fir st gover n in g bodies wer e
a ppoin ted u n der th e cu r r en t le gisla tion in
1988, it is possible to estim a te th a t a r ou n d on e
m illion people h ave ser ved a s gover n or s.
E ven a sh or t in du ction cou r se for th is n u m ber wou ld pr ove ver y expen sive. Politica lly,
th e gover n or s’ n a tion a l a ssocia tion s a r e n ot
str on g a n d a r e on ly ju st be gin n in g to lea r n
h ow to pr essu r ise gover n m en ts. Possibly th ey
h ave n ot yet been a ble to exer t en ou gh pr essu r e to per su a de gover n m en ts to dedica te
m or e r esou r ces to gover n or s’ pr ofession a l
developm en t or gover n or s’ loca l pr ofession a l
a ssocia tion s pr efer to en cou r a ge loca l tr a in in g pr ovision in or der to avoid losin g th eir
ow n sta tu s w ith loca l gover n or s.
Reflections on the future
P r in cipa ls’ pr ofession a l developm en t h a s
m oved to a tr a in in g m odel wh ile gover n or s
h ave m oved to a n edu ca tion m odel. Th e possible r a tion a le for th ese ch a n ges a ppea r s to r ely
on con tr a diction s to su ppor t ea ch developm en t. It m ay be possible to expla in th e con tr a diction s sim ply beca u se th e r oles of pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s a r e differ en t yet th ey both
sh a r e th e sa m e r espon sibilities a n d both a r e
le ga lly lia ble for a ch ievin g sch ool effectiven ess.
In m y opin ion , th e ch a n ges a r e m or e a fu n ction of tim e th a n of n or m a tive pr in ciples
dr ivin g ea ch distin ct evolu tion . It seem s to
m e lik ely th a t gover n or pr ofession a l developm en t w ill m ove to a com peten cy listin g of
sk ills a n d per h a ps a n a tion a l cu r r icu lu m
pr om u lga ted th r ou gh su ch m ea n s a s a m u ltim edia CD a s a gr eem en t gr ow s over wh a t
gover n or sh ip en ta ils, a s exper ien ce of th eir
tr a in in g gr ow s, a s th eir k n ow ledge of edu ca tion in cr ea ses, a s gover n m en ts decide on th e
politica l im por ta n ce of gover n or s a n d a s
r esea r ch r epor ts in dica te th e dir ection s to
ta k e. Su ch a n a ppr oa ch wou ld be a ddition a l
to existin g pr ovision , in th e sa m e w ay a s is
n ow m a n da tor y for a spir in g pr in cipa ls. P r in cipa ls ca n con tin u e w ith post-gr a du a te edu ca tion wh ile a lso a cqu ir in g th eir N P QH.
In deed, th ey w ill n eed to; on ce ever y a spir a n t
pr in cipa l h a s r ea ch ed th e ba sic sta n da r d
dem a n ded by th e gover n m en t, selection
boa r ds w ill n eed to u se oth er cr iter ia to distin gu ish a pplica n ts for posts a n d on e of th ese
cou ld be th e possession of a post-gr a du a te
qu a lifi ca tion . In th is w ay, both th e edu ca tion
a n d tr a in in g m odels w ill co-exist.
Th is co-existen ce sh ou ld en a ble th e r oles of
pr in cipa ls a s in str u ction a l lea der s a n d a s
bu sin ess execu tives to oper a te con cu r r en tly
r a th er th a n bein g seen a s m u tu a lly exclu sive
or in a h ier a r ch y in wh ich th e pr in cipa l a s
edu ca tion a l lea der h a s pa r a m ou n tcy. Gover n or s a lso n eed th e k n ow ledge th a t w ill en a ble
th em to m on itor both th e r oles oper a ted by
pr in cipa ls.
Wh a tever h a ppen s, th ese ch a n ges in pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities for pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s a r e im por ta n t; th er e a r e
sh or ta ges of people w illin g to ser ve in eith er
ca pa city. Va ca n cies for pr in cipa ls’ posts n o
lon ger a ttr a ct th e la r ge n u m ber s wh o u sed to
a pply in th e 1980s a n d m a n y pr in cipa ls h ave
ta k en ea r ly r etir em en t, leavin g sch ools
u n a ble to fi ll th eir pla ces. At th e fir st gover n or election s in 1988, th er e wer e m or e th a n
en ou gh volu n teer s to n ecessita te con tested
election s for m ost pla ces. By th e 1996 gover n or election s, th er e wer e r a r ely con tested
[ 237 ]
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
election s a n d in n er city sch ools h ave difficu lty per su a din g a n yon e to sta n d a s gover n or.
If eith er of th ese sh or ta ges ca n be r ela ted to
la ck of su ita ble tr a in in g, th en it is to be h oped
th a t th e ch a n ges w ill a m elior a te th e situ a tion . P r in cipa ls h ave r epor tedly ta k en ea r ly
r etir em en t beca u se th ey feel in ca pa ble of
copin g w ith th e str esses of th e cu r r en t bu sin ess execu tive m odel of pr in cipa lsh ip. Th e
N P QH tr a in in g is design ed to pr ovide th e
sk ills to en a ble pr in cipa ls to oper a te th is
en tr epr en eu r ia l m odel. Th e sim ila r ity
between th e N P QH a n d oth er m a n a ger ia l
qu a lifica tion s is a lso design ed to r a ise th e
sta tu s of pr in cipa lsh ip a n d th e gover n m en t
h opes, th er eby, to a ttr a ct th ose fr om ou tside
edu ca tion to th e job. Th er e is yet little eviden ce th a t th is is h a ppen in g bu t th e N P QH
m ay m a k e it m or e of a possibility.
Notes
1 Scotla n d a n d N or th er n Ir ela n d, th e oth er two
con stitu en t n a tion s of th e Un ited Kin gdom , a r e
n ot in clu ded in th is pa per a s th ey h ave a differ en t system to th a t of E n gla n d a n d Wa les.
2 Th er e a r e 114 LE As ea ch r espon sible for m ost
of th e sta te pr ovision in th eir a r ea s.
References
Au dit Com m ission / OF STE D (1995), L esson s in
T ea m w ork : How S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies Ca n
B ecom e M ore Effectiv e, HMSO, Lon don .
Ba con , W. (1978), Pu blic A ccou n tab ility a n d th e
S ch ool S ystem , Ha r per & Row, Lon don .
Bola m , R. (1997), “Ma n a gem en t developm en t for
h ea dtea ch er s”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 25 N o. 3, pp. 265-83.
Br ow n in g, F. (1997), “Wh ite w a ter r a ftin g”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 11 N o. 2, pp. 13-14.
Ca ldwell, B. a n d Spin k s, J . (1988), T h e S elf M a n a gin g S ch ool, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Cr eisson , T. a n d E llison , L. (1998), “Rein ven tin g
sch ool lea der sh ip – ba ck to th e fu tu r e in th e
UK?”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l
M a n a gem en t, Vol. 12 N o. 1, pp. 28-38.
Deem , R., Br eh on y, K. a n d Hea th , S. (1995), A ctiv e
Citiz en sh ip a n d th e Gov er n in g of S ch ools,
Open Un iver sity P r ess, Bu ck in gh a m .
DE S (1989), R epor t on S ch ool Gov er n or T ra in in g
Projects in T en L EA s S u ppor ted b y Ed u ca tion
S u ppor t Gra n ts, 1986-7 a n d 1987-8, DE S/ N F E R,
Lon don .
DfE (1996), Gu id a n ce on Good Gov er n a n ce, DfE ,
Lon don .
E a r ley, P. (1993), T h e S ch ool M a n a gem en t Com peten ces Project, Sch ool Ma n a gem en t Sou th ,
Cr aw ley, E ssex.
E a r ley, P. (1994), S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies: M a k in g
Progress?, N F E R, Slou gh .
E sp, P. (1993), Com peten ces for S ch ool M a n a gers,
Koga n P a ge, Lon don .
E sp, D. a n d Sa r a n , R. (1995), Effectiv e Gov er n ors
for Effectiv e S ch ools, Ca ssells, Lon don .
[ 238 ]
F u lla n , M. (1991), Th e N ew M ea n in g of Ed u ca tion a l Ch a n ge, Ca ssells, Lon don .
Heller, R.W. a n d P a u tler, A.J . (1990), “Th e a dm in istr a tor of th e fu tu r e: com bin in g in str u ction a l
a n d m a n a ger ia l lea der sh ip”, in J a cobson , S.
a n d Con w ay, A.J . (E ds), Ed u ca tion a l L ea d er sh ip in a n A ge of R efor m , Lon gm a n , N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
In du str y in E du ca tion (1995), A ll T h eir T om or row s: T h e B u sin ess of Gov er n in g, In du str y
E du ca tion , Lon don .
J a cobson , S. (1990), “Refl ection s on th e th ir d w ave
of r efor m : r eth in k in g a dm in istr a tor pr epa r a tion ”, in J a cobson , S. a n d Con w ay, J .A. (E ds),
Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip in a n A ge of R efor m ,
Lon gm a n , N ew Yor k , N Y.
J ir a sin gh e, D. a n d Lyon s, G. (1996), T h e Com peten t
Hea d : A J ob A n a lysis of Hea d s’ T a sk s a n d
Person a lity Fa ctors, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
J on es, J . (1997), “Th e in du ction n eeds of n ew
gover n or s”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 11
N o. 2, pp. 8-9.
Kelly, A.V. (1995), Ed u ca tion a n d Dem ocra cy: Pr in ciples a n d Pra ctice, P a u l Ch a pm a n , Lon don .
N a tion a l Com m ission on E du ca tion (1993), L ea r n in g to S u cceed , Hein em a n n , Lon don .
N or th a n ts (1994-5) (1995-6), Gov er n ors’ T ra in in g
R eview, N or th a m pton sh ir e Gover n or s’
Ser vice, N or th a n ts Cou n ty Cou n cil, E du ca tion a n d Libr a r ies.
Pou n ce, M. (1993), “Gover n or tr a in in g”, M a n a gin g S ch ools T od ay, Vol. 3 N o. 3, pp. 25-8.
Sch lech te, D. (1995), “Th e tr a in in g n eeds of sch ool
gover n or s: ou r a ppr oa ch ”, L ea r n in g R esou rces
J ou r n a l, Vol. 11, pp. 28-31.
Sch on , D.A. (1987), Ed u ca tin g th e R efl ectiv e Pra ctition er: T ow a rd s a N ew Design for T ea ch in g
a n d L ea r n in g in th e Profession s, J ossey Ba ss,
Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. (1989), “Wh o a r e th e gover n or s?”,
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion , Vol. 17 N o. 3, pp. 139-46.
Th ody, A.M. (1990a ), “Gover n or s of th e sch ool
r epu blic”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 18 N o. 2, pp. 42-5.
Th ody, A.M. (1990b), “Th e r oles of sch ool gover n or s”, u n pu blish ed P h D th esis, Un iver sity of
Leicester, Leicester.
Th ody, A.M. (1991), “Str a te gic pla n n in g a n d sch ool
m a n a gem en t”, S ch ool Orga n isa tion , Vol. 11
N o. 1, pp. 21-36.
Th ody, A.M. (1993), “Men tor in g for n ew ly
a ppoin ted sch ool pr in cipa ls: th e E n glish a n d
Welsh system ”, in Ca ldwell, B. a n d Ca r ter, E .
(E ds), T h e R etu r n of th e M en tor, F a lm er P r ess,
Lon don a n d Melbou r n e.
Th ody, A,M. (1994a ), “P r a ctisin g dem ocr a cy:
bu sin ess com m u n ity gover n or s in E n glish
a n d Welsh sch ools”, R esea rch Pa pers in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 9 N o. 3, pp. 339-67.
Th ody, A.M. (1994b) (E d.), S ch ool Gov er n ors: L ea d ers or Follow ers?, Lon gm a n s, Ha r low.
Th ody, A.M. (1994c), “Obser vin g a n in eteen th
cen tu r y h ea dtea ch er ”, Histor y in Ed u ca tion ,
Vol. 23 N o. 4, pp. 355-73.
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
Th ody, A.M. (1995), “Th e gover n or -citizen : a gen t
of th e sta te, th e com m u n ity or th e sch ool?”, in
Ma cbeth , A., McCr ea th , D. a n d Aitch ison , A.,
Collab ora te or Com pete? Ed u ca tion a l Pa r tn er sh ips in a M a rk et Econ om y, F a lm er P r ess,
Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. (1997), Eva lu a tion of N .E. L in cs. Gover n or S u ppor t S er vices, com m ission ed r epor t
for N.E . Lin cs LE A.
Th ody, A.M. (1998a ), “Th e top, m iddle a n d bottom :
str a te gies in edu ca tion gover n m en t”, T ota l
Qu a lity M a n a gem en t, Vol. 9 N os 2, 3,
pp. 383-94.
Th ody, A.M. (1998b), “P a r tn er sh ip: lesson s fr om
th e pa st”, in Stott, K. a n d Tr a ffor d, V. (E ds),
Pa r tn ers in Ch a n ge: S h a pin g th e Fu tu re, Middlesex Un iver sity P r ess, Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. a n d N k a ta , J . (1996), “Wh o is a llowed
to spea k ? A com pa r ison of E n glish a n d Uga n da n sch ool gover n a n ce: P a r t I”, In ter n a tion a l
S tu d ies in Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Vol. 24
N o. 1.
Th ody, A.M. a n d N k a ta , J . (1997), “Wh o is a llowed
to spea k ? Uga n da n a n d E n glish gover n a n ce:
P a r t II”, In ter n a tion a l S tu d ies in Ed u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 25 N o. 1.
Th ody, A.M. a n d Cr ysta l, L. (1995), “Men tor in g:
cu ltu r a l r ein for cem en t or desta bilisa tion ?”,
in J a cobson , S.L., Hickox, E .S. a n d Steven son ,
R. (E ds), S ch ool A d m in istra tion : Persisten t
Dilem m a s in Prepa ra tion a n d Pra ctice, Gr een wood, Westpor t, CT.
Tu r n er, G.B., Mou n tfi eld, B. a n d Mor r is, B. (1991),
“Sch ool gover n or tr a in in g in Ha m psh ir e: a n
eva lu a tion ”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 19 N o. 3, pp. 173-9.
Wa r in g, S. (1992), “Gover n or tr a in in g: em power m en t or em a scu la tion ?”, S ch ool Orga n isa tion ,
Vol. 12 N o. 1, pp. 77-82.
Further reading
Bola m , R. (1986), “Th e N a tion a l Developm en t
Cen tr e for Sch ool Ma n a gem en t Tr a in in g”, in
Hoyle, E . a n d McMa h on , A. (E ds), T h e M a n a gem en t of S ch ools: World Yea r b ook of Ed u ca tion , 1986, Koga n P a ge, Lon don .
Br igley, S. a n d Stoyle, I. (1988), “Assessin g tr a in in g
n eeds: pa r en t gover n or s, volu n ta r y sch ool
gover n or s”, S ch ool Gov er n or, J u n e, pp. 30-1.
Bu r k e, J . (1995) (E d.), Ou tcom es, L ea r n in g a n d th e
Cu r r icu lu m : Im plica tion s for N V Qs, GN V Qs
a n d Oth er Qu a lifi ca tion s, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
E ver a r d, K.B. (1984), M a n a gem en t in Com preh en siv e S ch ools – W h a t Ca n b e L ea r n ed from
In d u str y?, Un iver sity of Yor k , Yor k .
Gr a ce, G. (1995), S ch ool L ea d ersh ip: B eyon d Ed u ca tion M a n a gem en t, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Hu gh es, M. (1982), “P r ofession a l developm en t
pr ovision for sen ior sta ff in sch ool a n d colle ges”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion , Vol. 10 N o. 1, pp. 29-45.
J effer ies, G. a n d Str ea tfi eld, D. (1989), R econ stitu tion of S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies, N F E R,
Slou gh .
Ma le, T. a n d Da r esh , J . (1997), “Cr ossin g th e bor der in to sch ool lea der sh ip: exper ien ces of
n ew ly a ppoin ted h ea dtea ch er s in E n gla n d”,
pa per pr esen ted a t th e An n u a l Meetin g of th e
Un iver sities Cou n cil for E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion , F lor ida .
N a tion a l Con su m er Cou n cil (N CC) (1986), S ch ool
Gov er n or T ra in in g, 1986 – A S u r v ey of Cu r ren t
L EA Provision , N CC, Lon don .
Tea ch er Tr a in in g Agen cy (TTA) (1998), Prepa re
for Hea d sh ip: In for m a tion for T ra in ers for th e
N PQH, TTA, Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. (1992), M ovin g to M a n a gem en t: S ch ool
Gov er n ors in th e 1990s, F u lton , Lon don .
[ 239 ]
governors
Angela Thody
Inte rnatio nal Educ atio nal Le ade rship Ce ntre , Unive rsity o f Linc o lnshire and
Humbe rside , Linc o ln, UK
School leadership in England
and Wales is legally shared
between the full-time principal and the part-time volunteers, the school governors.
Their professional development opportunities during the
last ten years have taken
opposite directions. Principals’ development has moved
to a training focus, with a
nationalised, standardised,
competency-based qualifi cation for aspirant headteachers. Governors’ education
remains a non-standardised,
decentralised system but has
now become largely schoolbased and centred on educational issues. In exploring why
such differences have
occurred, the reasons suggested concern differing role
expectations, training developments in related occupations, centralisation and
decentralisation, uncertainties about the objectives of
educational leadership and
the costs of professional
development.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [ 1998] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 232 ]
Introduction
E ffective lea der sh ip cr ea tes effective sch ools.
To be effective, sch ool lea der s n eed pr ofession a l developm en t to im pr ove th eir sk ills.
Th ese a r e th e a ssu m ption s wh ich u n der pin
a ll of th e r esea r ch th a t h a s been don e on effective sch oolin g a n d on th e im por ta n ce of
pr epa r a tion for, a n d in str u ction in , th e n ecessa r y qu a lities of sch ool lea der sh ip (Ca ldwell
a n d Spin k s, 1988; F u lla n , 1991; N a tion a l Com m ission on E du ca tion , 1993; DfE , 1996; E a r ley,
1994; Au dit Com m ission / OF STE D, 1995;
Deem et a l., 1995; E sp a n d Sa r a n , 1995). Sch ool
lea der sh ip in a n E n glish or Welsh sch ool[1] is
sh a r ed between th e fu ll-tim e, pa id pr in cipa l
a n d a volu n teer, pa r t-tim e, boa r d of gover n or s, a n d th is a r ticle is con cer n ed w ith both
of th ese. Th is m odel of sh a r ed lea der sh ip is
fou n d in m a n y oth er E u r opea n a n d Com m on wea lth cou n tr ies a lth ou gh gover n or s in E n gla n d a n d Wa les h old m or e power s th a n th eir
cou n ter pa r ts elsewh er e.
Th is a r ticle is con cer n ed w ith th e ch a n ges
in th e pr ofession a l developm en t of pr in cipa ls
a n d gover n or s du r in g th e la st ten yea r s. It
w ill be su ggested th a t th e cou r ses for pr in cipa ls h ave m oved fr om edu ca tion to tr a in in g
wh ile th ose for gover n or s h ave m oved fr om
tr a in in g to edu ca tion . Th e con text in wh ich
th ese developm en ts h ave ta k en pla ce w ill be
ou tlin ed, togeth er w ith a descr iption of th e
developm en ts th em selves. Su ggestion s w ill
be m a de con cer n in g th e r ea son s for th e
ch a n ges a n d th e a r ticle con clu des w ith r efl ection s on th e possible fu tu r e of pr ofession a l
developm en t for th ese two gr ou ps.
In th is r eflection on pr ofession a l developm en t for pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s, th e wor d
“edu ca tion ” is u sed to m ea n th e tr a n sm ission
a n d a bsor ption of k n ow ledge u su a lly th r ou gh
a system a tic pr ocess. “E du ca tion ” h a s, h ow ever, a cqu ir ed n or m a tive over ton es in dem ocr a tic system s a n d is often a ssu m ed to im ply
th e stu dy of a w ide r a n ge of topics, th e developm en t of th e cr itica l fa cu lties a n d th e
en cou r a gem en t of in dividu a l cr ea tivity (Kelly,
1995). A per son wh o is edu ca ted is r ega r ded a s
on e a ble to m a ke ch oices fr om com petin g en ds
a n d wh o h a s m or e lea r n in g th a n th at wh ich
wou ld be r ega r ded a s str ictly n ecessa r y for
th e per for m a n ce of a job. In con tr a st, a per son
wh o h a s been tr a in ed is gen er a lly seen a s on e
wh o h a s been given gu ida n ce on th e sk ills
n eeded for a specific job, r equ ir in g a focu s a n d
disciplin e pr ovided by oth er s. A per son wh o is
tr a in ed is a ssu m ed to be able to per for m to th e
sta n da r ds set for a job.
Research sources
Th e view s expr essed in th is a r ticle a r ise fr om
r esea r ch pr ojects wh ich I h ave com pleted
over th e la st ten yea r s on gover n or tr a in in g,
th e r oles of gover n in g bodies, th e r oles of
gover n or s fr om bu sin ess a n d in du str y, on th e
h istor y of com m u n ity in volvem en t a n d on
in ter n a tion a l com pa r ison s. Th ese h ave u sed
a su r vey of 1,500 gover n or s in a Midla n ds
Loca l E du ca tion Au th or ity (LE A[2]), fa ce-tofa ce a n d teleph on e in ter view s w ith gover n or s, gover n or tr a in er s, cou n cillor s a n d
cler k s in two LE As, focu s gr ou p in ter view s
a n d obser va tion s of wh ole gover n in g bodies
a n d gover n or s’ log r ecor ds (Th ody, 1989,
1990a , 1990b, 1994a , 1994b, 1994c, 1997a , 1998a ,
1998b; In du str y in E du ca tion , 1995; Th ody a n d
N k a ta , 1996, 1997). Oth er docu m en ta r y
sou r ces, on both gover n or sh ip a n d pr in cipa ls’ issu es, in clu din g both a ca dem ic a n d
gover n m en t pu blica tion s, a r e r efer r ed to
a bove a n d in th e cou r se of th e a r ticle. Per son a l r esea r ch in to sch ool pr in cipa lsh ip h a s
in clu ded stu dies by obser va tion on th e a ctivities of pr in cipa ls a n d by in ter view s on m en tor in g a s a tr a in in g m eth od for pr in cipa ls
(Th ody, 1991, 1993; Th ody a n d Cr ysta l, 1995)
su ppor ted by exper ien ce in pr ovidin g de gr ee
a n d diplom a cou r ses for pr in cipa ls a n d in
tr a in in g pr in cipa ls on ea ch of th e gover n m en t’s su ccessive tr a in in g pr ogr a m m es du r in g th e 1990s; m en tor in g for n ew ly-a ppoin ted
h ea dtea ch er s, HE ADLAMP (sh or t cou r ses for
n ew ly a ppoin ted h ea ds) a n d th e N a tion a l
P r ofession a l Qu a lifi ca tion for Hea dtea ch er s
(N P QH for a spir a n t sch ool pr in cipa ls) (Cr eisson a n d E llison , 1998).
School leadership: shared
responsibilities
Th e lea der sh ip of ea ch of E n gla n d’s a n d
Wa les’ 23,000 sch ools is le ga lly sh a r ed
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
between a sch ool pr in cipa l a n d a body of
exter n a l, la r gely n on -edu ca tion a list, sch ool
gover n or s. Th e sch ool pr in cipa l is a fu ll-tim e,
pa id em ployee, wh o m u st be a qu a lified
tea ch er a n d wh o u su a lly a lso h a s a post-gr a du a te de gr ee in edu ca tion a n d con sider a ble
exper ien ce of sch ool m a n a gem en t. Th e sch ool
gover n or s a r e pa r t-tim e, u n pa id volu n teer s
wh o give th eir tim e to h elp a dvise a n d dir ect
th e policies of th e sch ool. E a ch sch ool h a s
between ten a n d 22 gover n or s, th e n u m ber
in cr ea sin g a s th e n u m ber of stu den ts
in cr ea ses. Th ese gover n in g bodies con sist of
elected pa r en ts, elected tea ch er s a n d
a ppoin ted r epr esen ta tives of th e loca l politica l pa r ties wh o con tr ol loca l gover n m en t.
Th ese th r ee gr ou ps th en collectively co-opt
r epr esen ta tives of th e loca l com m u n ity wh o
m ay in clu de bu sin ess people, com m u n ity
a ctivists, m em ber s of loca l a ssocia tion s a n d
r epr esen ta tives of r eligiou s gr ou ps. Th u s th e
exper t pr in cipa l sh a r es sch ool lea der sh ip
w ith a n on -exper t body bu t on e wh ich pr ovides th e pr in cipa l w ith a m ea n s of con su ltin g th e view s of a sch ool’s exter n a l sta k eh older s.
Th e ta sk of sch ool lea der sh ip is exten sive
a n d in clu des r espon sibilities for both en su r in g th a t sch ools a r e solven t bu sin esses a n d
th a t th ey a ch ieve a ca dem ic su ccesses for
th eir stu den ts. A sch ool pr in cipa l h a s to be
both a com peten t bu sin ess execu tive a n d
in str u ction a l lea der, wh ile gover n or s h ave to
be aw a r e of th e n eeds of both a spects of
sch oolin g in or der to give a ppr opr ia te a dvice
a n d to m on itor wh eth er or n ot th e pr in cipa l
a n d sta ff a r e a ch ievin g th eir ta r gets. All
sch ools a r e fu lly self-m a n a gin g a n d th e pr in cipa l a n d gover n or s a r e join tly r espon sible
for m a n a gin g h u m a n , fi n a n cia l a n d ph ysica l
r esou r ces. Th is in clu des m a k in g th e sch ool’s
str a te gic pla n a n d m on itor in g it to see it is
im plem en ted. Th e sch ool m u st a lso decide
h ow to distr ibu te its r esou r ces a m on g a ll of
th e sch ool’s r equ ir em en ts, in clu din g tea ch er s’ sa la r ies. Th e pr in cipa l’s sa la r y is deter m in ed by th e gover n or s a n d a ll sta ff a r e
a ppoin ted, a n d ca n be pr om oted or dism issed
by th e gover n or s. P r in cipa l a n d gover n or s
m u st en su r e th a t th e N a tion a l Cu r r icu lu m is
deliver ed to a ccepta ble n a tion a l sta n da r ds (a s
tested by n a tion a l exa m in a tion s). Th ey m u st
be a ble to dem on str a te to th e gover n m en t’s
in spector a te, th e Office for Sta n da r ds in E du ca tion (OF STE D) th a t th e lea der sh ip of th e
sch ool is effective a n d efficien t.
Th e power s ou tlin ed, of both sch ool pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s, h ave in cr ea sed to th eir
pr esen t a pogee ver y r a pidly over th e la st ten
yea r s a n d th eir gen er a l dir ection h a s
r em a in ed u n ch a n ged despite th e 1997 ch a n ge
fr om a Con ser va tive to a La bou r gover n m en t.
Th e developm en ts a r e sim ila r to th ose in
a lm ost a ll oth er OE CD cou n tr ies bu t h ave
been m ost exten sive in E n gla n d a n d Wa les
(Bola m , 1997, p. 267). Reflectin g on h ow pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s h ave been pr epa r ed for
th ese developm en ts m ay, th er efor e, be u sefu l
for oth er cou n tr ies con sider in g a dva n cin g
th eir ow n r efor m s fu r th er.
Professional development for
principals and governors: ten years
of change
Accom pa n yin g th e sch oolin g r efor m s a s
descr ibed wer e con com ita n t ch a n ges in th e
pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities for
pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s. Th ese a r e su m m a r ised in Ta ble I.
For pr in cipa ls, th e m ovem en t h a s been to a
n a tion a lised, com pu lsor y, com peten cy-led
tr a in in g (Cr eissen a n d E llison , 1998). For
gover n or s, th e m ovem en t is to a
decen tr a lised, vir tu a lly sch ool-ba sed, n on com pu lsor y, w ider edu ca tion for th eir pr ofession a l developm en t.
Th er e h a s been con sen su s a m on g gover n m en t, pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s a n d to som e
exten t, h igh er edu ca tion in stitu tion s, th a t th e
developm en t of th e N P QH is a ccepta ble a n d
m u ch of it h a s a r isen fr om pr eviou s r esea r ch
w ith in h igh er edu ca tion a bou t th e desir a bility of a com peten cy a ppr oa ch to tr a in in g
(Heller a n d P a u tler, 1990, p. 142; E a r ley, 1993;
E sp, 1993; J ir a sin gh e a n d Lyon s, 1996). Th er e
a r e, of cou r se, discu ssion s a bou t th e desir a bility of th e pr ecise for m a t a dopted a n d
deba te a bou t th e pr escr iptive n a tu r e of th e
tr a in in g m a ter ia ls, bu t th ese a r e a r gu m en ts
a bou t th e n iceties of th e idea r a th er th a n of
th e idea itself.
For gover n or s, th e ch a n ge h a s been to su ppor tin g gover n or s’ lea r n in g r a th er th a n to
dir ect th eir k n ow ledge a cqu isition . Gover n or s r epor t gr ea t ga in s in con fi den ce fr om
th ese a ppr oa ch es (Th ody, 1997a ). Th e con ten t
of cou r ses, wh eth er on or off site, h a s two
pr in cipa l foci – tea ch in g, lea r n in g a n d a ssessm en t m eth ods a n d m icr o-politica l sk ills of
m a n a gem en t. With in th ese two a spects th er e
w ill be n u m er ou s differ en t dir ection s wh ich
gover n or s m ay follow, in clu din g, for exa m ple,
liter a cy, n u m er a cy, in tr odu ction s to a n y of th e
m a in cu r r icu lu m su bjects, h ow to spea k con fiden tly a t m eetin gs, h ow to n e gotia te su ccessfu lly w ith tea ch er s or h ow to pla n a n
a gen da . Oth er topics w ill r a n ge w idely fr om
ch ild a bu se, or r eligion in sch ools, to th e
le ga lities of a dm ittin g a n d exclu din g stu den ts
fr om sch ool or a ppr a isin g sta ff. Most gover n or s w ill u n der ta k e on ly on e or two su ch
cou r ses so th a t th e k n ow ledge of a n y on e
[ 233 ]
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
[ 234 ]
Table I
Pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt fo r princ ipals and go ve rno rs
Principals, pre-1997
Governors, pre-1990
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optional
Mainly part-time higher degrees over several years
University or LEA provided
Wide educ ation, theory and prac tic e
Aimed to produc e reflec tive princ ipals (Sc hon, 1987) through ac tion learning and a researc h
orientation
Not standardised ac ross the c ountry
Targeted government funding to ensure spending on princ ipals’ training
Central guidanc e and pressure through the enc ouragement of sc hemes for mentoring and
HEADLAMP short c ourses for newly-appointed princ ipals and through advisery and dissemination
bodies, the Sc hool Management Task Forc es and the National Development Centre
Termed, “ professional development”
Optional
Short c ourses – 1 day to 8 weeks part time, non-ac c redited
LEA provided, most LEAs have governor training c o-ordinators
Aimed to offer the legal information about governorship
Foc us was to produc e c ompetent governors
Not standardised
Small amount of targeted government funding, reserved for governor training
No c entral guidanc e, e.g. eac h LEA devised own c ourses
Termed, “ training”
Principals, post-1997
Governors, post-1990
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Professional Qualific ation for Headteac hers (NPQH), introduc ed in 1997, bec oming
c ompulsory by 2002 for all aspirant princ ipals
Assessment required for entry to NPQH and to be awarded the NPQH
Higher degrees still available through universities
NPQH organised by regional spec ialist c onsortia awarded c entral government c ontrac ts
Emphasis on the ac quisition of management c ompetenc es and skills
Aims to c reate effec tive princ ipals raising standards, being ac c ountable
Standardised c ore modules on strategic direc tion and ac c ountability; modules on learning and
teac hing, people and relationships, effec tive management of financ ial and physic al resourc es
Targeted funding must be spent on NPQH
Central direc tion and c ontrol through a pre-set c urric ulum, c entrally produc ed training materials,
standardised assessment c riteria for entrants, standardised training materials and c ommon
training for trainers
Termed, “ training”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optional
No entry, nor c onc luding, assessment
Both off-site and in-sc hool c ourses ar offered but the latter are most popular; short,
non-ac c redited c ourses of 1/ 2 days
LEA organised
Disc usses teac hing and learning, wide ranging skills and knowledge of educ ation
Aims to c reate effec tive governors raising standards, being ac c ountable
Not standardised
Small amounts of funding are made available but it is subsumed into sc hool budgets
and sc hools c an c hoose whether or not to spend it on governor educ ation
Not c entrally direc ted
Termed, “ development”
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
gr ou p of people wh o for m a gover n in g body is
lik ely to be diver se a n d m ay n ot collectively
cover a ll th e r espon sibilities of gover n or s. In
a 1997 su r vey of 50 pr im a r y a n d 13 secon da r y
sch ools in on e LE A (Th ody, 1997a ) on ly on e
w a s fou n d wh ich h a d or ga n ised th eir pr ofession a l developm en t so th a t ea ch gover n or h a d
a tten ded som e cou r ses to en su r e th a t ever y
du ty of th e gover n in g body h a d been stu died
by a t lea st of on e of th eir m em ber s.
Changes in education and training
for principals and governors: a
projected rationale
Role expectations
Th e opposite dir ection s followed by pr ofession a l developm en t for pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s cou ld be r ela ted to th e gr ea ter r ole cer ta in ty for pr in cipa ls wh o a r e expected to
em body th r ee m a jor tr a dition s. F ir st, th er e is
th e n in eteen th -cen tu r y m or a l lea der, h igh ly
edu ca ted, w ith str on g socia l con tr ol objectives, secon d, th e m id-twen tieth cen tu r y pr ofession a l exper t lea din g cu r r icu lu m in n ova tion a n d socia l en gin eer in g for equ ity w ith a
str on g em ph a sis on pa r ticipa tor y decision
m a k in g a n d, th ir d, fr om th e la te 1980s
on w a r ds, th e ch ief execu tive of a bu sin ess.
Wh ile th e oth er tr a dition s r em a in , th e m ost
r ecen t is a ccepted, a n d pr om u lga ted by th e
gover n m en t a s th e dom in a n t on e in r espon se
to m eetin g th e n eeds of th e self-m a n a gin g
sch ool. For th is r ole, th e com peten cy-ba sed
tr a in in g of th e N P QH ca n be seen a s m ost
su ita ble.
Th e im por ta n ce of r eta in in g th e ea r lier
tr a dition s of pr in cipa lsh ip is, h owever, r ecogn ised in th e N P QH tr a in in g. Wh ile th e tr a in in g m a ter ia ls a r e ver y pr escr iptive, th er e is
str ess th r ou gh ou t on listen in g to th e view s of
sta ff, pa r en ts, gover n or s a n d stu den ts, in th e
tr a dition s of th e m id-twen tieth cen tu r y
sch ool pr in cipa l a n d on developin g va lu es
a n d vision s, in th e tr a dition s of th e
n in eteen th -cen tu r y sch ool pr in cipa l. Ma n y of
th ose wh o m u st pa ss th eir N P QH w ill a lso
ch oose to a dd a post-gr a du a te de gr ee to th eir
qu a lifica tion s a s well a n d u n iver sities a r e r ew r itin g th eir Ma ster s’ de gr ee cou r ses to per m it a ccr edita tion to pa r t of th eir de gr ees to
th ose wh o h old th e N P QH.
For gover n or s, th er e is n o clea r defin ition
of th eir pr im a r y r ole wh ich cou ld lea d to th e
pr odu ction of a sin gle tr a in in g m odel. Ar e
gover n or s a dviser s to pr in cipa ls or a con du it
for th e view s of exter n a l sta k eh older s? Ar e
th ey join t m a n a ger s w ith th e pr in cipa l or
m on itor s of th e wor k of th e pr in cipa l a n d
sta ff ? Ar e th ey pa r t of a sch ool’s m a n a gem en t
tea m or r epr esen ta tives of gover n m en t to
wh om th e sch ool is a ccou n ta ble? Do gover n or s a n d th eir a ssocia tion s h ave a pa r t to
play in n a tion a l policy m a k in g? Th e ou tcom e
of th is u n cer ta in ty is u n r esolved deba tes
a bou t wh a t gover n or pr ofession a l developm en t is for a n d wh a t, th er efor e, m igh t be a
desir a ble for m a t for it. Cu r r en t gover n or
pr ofession a l developm en t does pr odu ce its
expected ou tpu ts of m or e gover n or s wh o a r e
better in for m ed a bou t edu ca tion (DE S, 1989;
Pou n ce, 1993; Sch lech te, 1995; N or th a n ts, 19941995, 1995-1996) bu t th er e a r e deba tes over
wh eth er or n ot it sh ou ld in cr ea se its em ph a sis on edu ca tion a l developm en t (Br ow n in g,
1997) a n d over wh eth er or n ot sca r ce
r esou r ces sh ou ld be focu sed a lm ost en tir ely
on in du ction or spr ea d m or e th in ly to m eet
som e of th e n eeds of m or e exper ien ced gover n or s (J on es, 1997). Som e gover n or s a r e dissa tisfied w ith existin g tr a in in g cou r ses a n d
th ese a r e bein g ca n celled for la ck of en r olm en ts (N or th a n ts, 1994-1995, 1995-1996; Th ody,
1997a ) bu t th er e is a ccepta n ce of th e va lu e of
sch ool-ba sed gover n or edu ca tion . Th er e is
som e eviden ce th a t th e tr a in in g en cou r a ges
gover n or s to feel in a dequ a te wh en dea lin g
w ith pr ofession a l edu ca tion a l m a tter s
(Ba con , 1978; Tu r n er et a l., 1991; Wa r in g, 1992;
Th ody, 1994b) bu t th e pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities for gover n or s h ave given
th em a n ew -fou n d politica l con fiden ce (Deem
et a l., 1995; Th ody, 1995, 1997).
Training developments in related
occupations
Sch ool pr in cipa ls a r e in cr ea sin gly r e ga r ded
a s th e equ iva len ts of sen ior m a n a ger s in
m ediu m -sized bu sin ess en ter pr ises, m a n a gin g a n n u a l bu dgets of between h a lf a n d fou r
m illion pou n ds. For sim ila r posts in pr iva te
sector bu sin esses, m a n a ger s a r e n ow tr a in ed
follow in g th e com peten cy fr a m ewor k s developed by th e M a n a gem en t Ch a r ter In itia tiv e
la u n ch ed in th e m id-1980s. E ver y m a n a gem en t post is gr a ded a t Levels 1-5 a n d for ea ch
of th ese th er e a r e r ela ted com peten ces to be
a cqu ir ed. Th e com peten cy lists for sch ool
pr in cipa ls a r e n ot exa ct r eplica s of th ese, bu t
th ey do em body th e sa m e a ppr oa ch es. Th e
m essa ge wh ich th e gover n m en t w ish es to
em ph a sise is th a t of sch ools a s bu sin esses in
a m a r k et-led econ om y for edu ca tion .
Gover n or s’ pr ofession a l developm en t h a s
n ot followed th e com peten cy r ou te, possibly
beca u se oth er volu n ta r y jobs a r e n ot in clu ded
in th e N a tion a l Voca tion a l Qu a lifica tion s
str u ctu r e. It m ay a lso be beca u se a r igor ou s
com peten cy r ou te a n d a r equ ir em en t th a t
gover n or s ca n n ot ser ve w ith ou t h avin g a
qu a lifi ca tion wou ld deter m a n y fr om becom in g gover n or s. It m ay be beca u se th e tim e is
n ot yet com e for esta blish in g com peten ces for
[ 235 ]
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
gover n or s; th ose for sch ool pr in cipa ls n eeded
m or e u r gen t settlem en t a n d wer e m or e
a m en a ble to r a pid cen tr a l a ction th a n gover n or s’ pr ofession a l developm en t, wh ich is still
fir m ly w ith in th e pu r view of th e LE As.
Sch ool pr in cipa l developm en t be ga n leavin g
th e con tr ol of th e LE As fr om th e ea r ly 1980s
bu t it is n ot u n til th e la te 1990s th a t it h a s
m oved a lm ost com pletely to cen tr a l con tr ol.
Per h a ps gover n or tr a in in g w ill follow in du e
cou r se.
Centralisation and decentralisation
Th ese two a r e th e a ppa r en tly com petin g
tr en ds in edu ca tion in tr odu ced fr om th e la te
1980s on w a r ds. To cen tr a lise th e system ,
th er e is n ow a N a tion a l Cu r r icu lu m for a ll
sta te sch ools, n a tion a l sta n da r ds to be
a tta in ed a r e set by th e cen tr a l gover n m en t
a n d a ll sch ools a r e su bject to fr equ en t in spection s wh ich oper a te a ccor din g to n a tion a llyset r equ ir em en ts. To decen tr a lise, sch ools
h ave becom e in dividu a lly self-m a n a gin g.
P r ofession a l developm en t for pr in cipa ls a n d
gover n or s ca n be seen to em body th e sa m e,
con tr a dictor y tr en ds. Sch ool pr in cipa lsh ip
tr a in in g follow s th e cen tr a lisa tion m odel a n d
sch ool gover n or tr a in in g follow s th e decen tr a lised m odel.
In cen tr a lisa tion , on e cou ld detect th e gover n m en t’s in ten tion to con tr ol th e tea ch in g
pr ofession m or e str on gly a n d en su r e th a t
pu blic edu ca tion is r espon sive to gover n m en t
a n d pu blic dem a n ds. N eith er pr in cipa ls n or
gover n or s ta k e decision s on wh a t is ta u gh t
n or on h ow it is ta u gh t (su r ely th e m ost
im por ta n t a spects of edu ca tion ) bu t on ly on
th e a dm in istr a tion of th e sch ool. If
cen tr a lised con tr ol is th e in ten tion of th e
gover n m en t, a s it a ppea r s to be, th en th e
n a tion a lisa tion of th e tr a in in g of sch ool pr in cipa ls is yet a n oth er pa r t of th e con tr ol m ech a n ism .
Gover n m en ts’ decision to dim in ish th e
pr eviou s lea d r ole of th e u n iver sities a s th e
m a in pr ovider s of cou r ses in edu ca tion a l
lea der sh ip m ay a lso be in dica tive of th is
desir e to con tr ol wh a t is ta u gh t to pr in cipa ls.
Th is is despite th e la ck of u ser cr iticism s of
u n iver sity cou r ses. Br itish cr itics a r e ver y
m ild com pa r ed w ith th ose wh ich fa ce, for
exa m ple, US u n iver sity edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tor pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m m es (J a cobson ,
1990); Br itish u n iver sity cou r ses for sch ool
pr in cipa ls a r e r ecogn ised for th eir a da pta tion
to th e r ea l wor ld n eeds of pr a ctition er s a n d
for th e pa r tn er sh ips en gen der ed between
u n iver sities a n d sch ools.
Th e cen tr a lisa tion a gen da h a s n ot been
a pplied to gover n or s’ pr ofession a l developm en t. As yet, gover n m en t h a s n ot been decisive on gover n or s’ r oles n or th eir tr a in in g
[ 236 ]
a n d th e deba tes on th ese r em a in u n r esolved.
Per h a ps gover n m en t con sider s gover n or s to
be less im por ta n t to sch ool ou tcom es th a n
pr in cipa ls. Th is con clu sion is su ppor ted by
th e 1998 le gisla tion wh ich w ill per m it gover n or s’ power s to be decr ea sed, a lter ed or su spen ded in th e n ew E du ca tion a l Action Ar ea s
for th e im pr ovem en t of fa ilin g sch ools. With ou t cen tr a l in ter ven tion , th er e is u n lik ely to
be a n a tion a lly a gr eed pr ofession a l developm en t pr ogr a m m e for gover n or s. Th e Gover n or Tr a in in g Co-or din a tor s for ea ch LE A do
m eet a n d discu ss issu es of com m on con cer n
bu t th e deter m in ed in dividu a lism of th eir
em ployer s, th e LE As, pr even ts th eir decidin g
on com m on pr ogr a m m es.
Uncertainty about the objectives of
educational leadership
Th e gover n m en t’s desir e to cen tr a lise in
or der, a ppa r en tly, to con tr ol m ay h ave a less
sin ister in ter pr eta tion . Su ccessive gover n m en ts m ay well h ave felt th a t th e th eor etica l
a r gu m en ts a m on g a ca dem ics a bou t wh a t
con stitu tes effective pr in cipa lsh ip for effective sch ools wer e obstr u ctin g th e n ecessa r y
dir ection to th e edu ca tion of pr in cipa ls. Th e
a r gu m en ts h ave been pr eva len t sin ce th e
disciplin e of edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tion
beca m e a ccepted a r ou n d 25 yea r s a go a n d, a s
yet, th er e is n o r esolu tion of th em h er e or in
oth er cou n tr ies (Bola m , 1997, pp. 275-6). Th er e
is a gr eem en t th a t tr a in in g n eeds im pr ovem en t, h er e a n d in oth er cou n tr ies (J a cobson ,
1990, p. 33) bu t n ot h ow it sh ou ld be im pr oved
n or to wh a t en ds. With th e cu r r en t n eeds for
sch ools to r a ise sta n da r ds in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les, a ccor din g to gover n m en t, th en som eon e m u st obviou sly ta k e a ction to decide h ow
to tr a in a ppr opr ia tely th ose wh o m u st r a ise
sta n da r ds. Aca dem ics deba te, gover n m en ts
decide.
N on eth eless, gover n m en ts h ave n ot yet
decided a bou t gover n or tr a in in g a n y m or e
th a n h ave a ca dem ics. Th e a ca dem ic deba te
a bou t th e r oles a n d tr a in in g of gover n or s h a s
been r efer r ed to a bove. Th e gover n m en ta l
deba te is illu str a ted in pu blica tion s su ch a s
th e DfE (1996) Gu id e to Good Gov er n a n ce. Th e
politica l deba te w a s eviden ced in th e r a pid
ch a n ges in le gisla tion con cer n in g gover n or s
between 1986 a n d 1988. In th e 1986 E du ca tion
Act, gover n or s wer e given th e power to decide
a sch ool’s cu r r icu lu m . By 1988, th is power
w a s w ith dr aw n a n d r epla ced w ith
gover n m en t dir ection of th e cu r r icu lu m . Th e
la ck of decision on gover n or s m ay be beca u se
th ey h ave been su bject to m u ch less stu dy
th a n h ave sch ool pr in cipa ls; even by th e la te
1990s, r esea r ch is n ot exten sive com pa r ed
w ith th a t devoted to sch ool pr in cipa ls over a
m u ch lon ger per iod.
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
Costs of professional development
Th e politica l a n d fin a n cia l costs of dir ect
in ter ven tion in pr ofession a l developm en t for
pr in cipa ls m ay h ave pr even ted ea r lier m oves
to a qu a lifica tion su ch a s th e N P QH. Politica lly, th e pr in cipa ls’ pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s
a r e str on g a n d a r e th em selves exten sively
in volved in tr a in in g pr ovision . Th ey h ave
a ssessm en t cen tr es for ser vin g a n d a spir in g
pr in cipa ls a n d r u n sh or t cou r ses. Th e u n iver sities h ave, for m a n y yea r s, dom in a ted th e
pr ovision of a ccr edited cou r ses for pr in cipa ls.
Gover n m en ts h ave n ow decided th a t th ey
ca n r isk en ter in g th e ter r itor y of th ese esta blish ed sta k eh older s, per h a ps beca u se th e
pu blic’s estim a te of th e sta tu s of th e tea ch in g
pr ofession h a s declin ed sin ce th e m id-1980s
a n d beca u se of th e u n iver sities’ depen den ce
on gover n m en t fu n din g a n d th e in tr odu ction
of gover n m en t con tr ols on u n iver sities
th r ou gh a ssessm en ts of th eir tea ch in g a n d
r esea r ch . In su ch a clim a te, th e a ddition of
con tr ol over pr in cipa ls’ qu a lifi ca tion s is n ot
u n expected a n d opposition to it fr om w ith in
th e edu ca tion pr ofession s is u n lik ely to be
well r eceived pu blicly.
F in a n cia lly, gover n m en ts h ave tr ied
ch ea per option s for pr in cipa ls’ pr ofession a l
developm en t bu t h ave a ba n don ed th ese (e.g.
m en tor in g). Gover n m en ts h ave r ejected
expen sive, elitist idea s su ch a s a sta ff colle ge,
a n d n ow a ppea r to h ave con clu ded th a t wh a tever is don e w ill be expen sive. If it is to be
expen sive, th en it w ill be con tr olled to en su r e
th a t in vestm en t pr odu ces th e ou tcom es
desir ed.
Th e in vestm en t in ea ch a spir a n t pr in cipa l’s
tr a in in g w ill be in th e r e gion of £2,000-£3,000
bu t th e n u m ber s to be tr a in ed a r e sm a ll com pa r ed w ith th e n u m ber s of gover n or s n eedin g
pr ofession a l developm en t. Th er e a r e a ppr oxim a tely 350,000 gover n or s, th e m a jor ity of
wh om w ill ser ve for fou r yea r s. E ver y fou r
yea r s, th er efor e, th er e w ill be n ew gover n or s
to tr a in ; sin ce th e fir st gover n in g bodies wer e
a ppoin ted u n der th e cu r r en t le gisla tion in
1988, it is possible to estim a te th a t a r ou n d on e
m illion people h ave ser ved a s gover n or s.
E ven a sh or t in du ction cou r se for th is n u m ber wou ld pr ove ver y expen sive. Politica lly,
th e gover n or s’ n a tion a l a ssocia tion s a r e n ot
str on g a n d a r e on ly ju st be gin n in g to lea r n
h ow to pr essu r ise gover n m en ts. Possibly th ey
h ave n ot yet been a ble to exer t en ou gh pr essu r e to per su a de gover n m en ts to dedica te
m or e r esou r ces to gover n or s’ pr ofession a l
developm en t or gover n or s’ loca l pr ofession a l
a ssocia tion s pr efer to en cou r a ge loca l tr a in in g pr ovision in or der to avoid losin g th eir
ow n sta tu s w ith loca l gover n or s.
Reflections on the future
P r in cipa ls’ pr ofession a l developm en t h a s
m oved to a tr a in in g m odel wh ile gover n or s
h ave m oved to a n edu ca tion m odel. Th e possible r a tion a le for th ese ch a n ges a ppea r s to r ely
on con tr a diction s to su ppor t ea ch developm en t. It m ay be possible to expla in th e con tr a diction s sim ply beca u se th e r oles of pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s a r e differ en t yet th ey both
sh a r e th e sa m e r espon sibilities a n d both a r e
le ga lly lia ble for a ch ievin g sch ool effectiven ess.
In m y opin ion , th e ch a n ges a r e m or e a fu n ction of tim e th a n of n or m a tive pr in ciples
dr ivin g ea ch distin ct evolu tion . It seem s to
m e lik ely th a t gover n or pr ofession a l developm en t w ill m ove to a com peten cy listin g of
sk ills a n d per h a ps a n a tion a l cu r r icu lu m
pr om u lga ted th r ou gh su ch m ea n s a s a m u ltim edia CD a s a gr eem en t gr ow s over wh a t
gover n or sh ip en ta ils, a s exper ien ce of th eir
tr a in in g gr ow s, a s th eir k n ow ledge of edu ca tion in cr ea ses, a s gover n m en ts decide on th e
politica l im por ta n ce of gover n or s a n d a s
r esea r ch r epor ts in dica te th e dir ection s to
ta k e. Su ch a n a ppr oa ch wou ld be a ddition a l
to existin g pr ovision , in th e sa m e w ay a s is
n ow m a n da tor y for a spir in g pr in cipa ls. P r in cipa ls ca n con tin u e w ith post-gr a du a te edu ca tion wh ile a lso a cqu ir in g th eir N P QH.
In deed, th ey w ill n eed to; on ce ever y a spir a n t
pr in cipa l h a s r ea ch ed th e ba sic sta n da r d
dem a n ded by th e gover n m en t, selection
boa r ds w ill n eed to u se oth er cr iter ia to distin gu ish a pplica n ts for posts a n d on e of th ese
cou ld be th e possession of a post-gr a du a te
qu a lifi ca tion . In th is w ay, both th e edu ca tion
a n d tr a in in g m odels w ill co-exist.
Th is co-existen ce sh ou ld en a ble th e r oles of
pr in cipa ls a s in str u ction a l lea der s a n d a s
bu sin ess execu tives to oper a te con cu r r en tly
r a th er th a n bein g seen a s m u tu a lly exclu sive
or in a h ier a r ch y in wh ich th e pr in cipa l a s
edu ca tion a l lea der h a s pa r a m ou n tcy. Gover n or s a lso n eed th e k n ow ledge th a t w ill en a ble
th em to m on itor both th e r oles oper a ted by
pr in cipa ls.
Wh a tever h a ppen s, th ese ch a n ges in pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities for pr in cipa ls a n d gover n or s a r e im por ta n t; th er e a r e
sh or ta ges of people w illin g to ser ve in eith er
ca pa city. Va ca n cies for pr in cipa ls’ posts n o
lon ger a ttr a ct th e la r ge n u m ber s wh o u sed to
a pply in th e 1980s a n d m a n y pr in cipa ls h ave
ta k en ea r ly r etir em en t, leavin g sch ools
u n a ble to fi ll th eir pla ces. At th e fir st gover n or election s in 1988, th er e wer e m or e th a n
en ou gh volu n teer s to n ecessita te con tested
election s for m ost pla ces. By th e 1996 gover n or election s, th er e wer e r a r ely con tested
[ 237 ]
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
election s a n d in n er city sch ools h ave difficu lty per su a din g a n yon e to sta n d a s gover n or.
If eith er of th ese sh or ta ges ca n be r ela ted to
la ck of su ita ble tr a in in g, th en it is to be h oped
th a t th e ch a n ges w ill a m elior a te th e situ a tion . P r in cipa ls h ave r epor tedly ta k en ea r ly
r etir em en t beca u se th ey feel in ca pa ble of
copin g w ith th e str esses of th e cu r r en t bu sin ess execu tive m odel of pr in cipa lsh ip. Th e
N P QH tr a in in g is design ed to pr ovide th e
sk ills to en a ble pr in cipa ls to oper a te th is
en tr epr en eu r ia l m odel. Th e sim ila r ity
between th e N P QH a n d oth er m a n a ger ia l
qu a lifica tion s is a lso design ed to r a ise th e
sta tu s of pr in cipa lsh ip a n d th e gover n m en t
h opes, th er eby, to a ttr a ct th ose fr om ou tside
edu ca tion to th e job. Th er e is yet little eviden ce th a t th is is h a ppen in g bu t th e N P QH
m ay m a k e it m or e of a possibility.
Notes
1 Scotla n d a n d N or th er n Ir ela n d, th e oth er two
con stitu en t n a tion s of th e Un ited Kin gdom , a r e
n ot in clu ded in th is pa per a s th ey h ave a differ en t system to th a t of E n gla n d a n d Wa les.
2 Th er e a r e 114 LE As ea ch r espon sible for m ost
of th e sta te pr ovision in th eir a r ea s.
References
Au dit Com m ission / OF STE D (1995), L esson s in
T ea m w ork : How S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies Ca n
B ecom e M ore Effectiv e, HMSO, Lon don .
Ba con , W. (1978), Pu blic A ccou n tab ility a n d th e
S ch ool S ystem , Ha r per & Row, Lon don .
Bola m , R. (1997), “Ma n a gem en t developm en t for
h ea dtea ch er s”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 25 N o. 3, pp. 265-83.
Br ow n in g, F. (1997), “Wh ite w a ter r a ftin g”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 11 N o. 2, pp. 13-14.
Ca ldwell, B. a n d Spin k s, J . (1988), T h e S elf M a n a gin g S ch ool, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Cr eisson , T. a n d E llison , L. (1998), “Rein ven tin g
sch ool lea der sh ip – ba ck to th e fu tu r e in th e
UK?”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l
M a n a gem en t, Vol. 12 N o. 1, pp. 28-38.
Deem , R., Br eh on y, K. a n d Hea th , S. (1995), A ctiv e
Citiz en sh ip a n d th e Gov er n in g of S ch ools,
Open Un iver sity P r ess, Bu ck in gh a m .
DE S (1989), R epor t on S ch ool Gov er n or T ra in in g
Projects in T en L EA s S u ppor ted b y Ed u ca tion
S u ppor t Gra n ts, 1986-7 a n d 1987-8, DE S/ N F E R,
Lon don .
DfE (1996), Gu id a n ce on Good Gov er n a n ce, DfE ,
Lon don .
E a r ley, P. (1993), T h e S ch ool M a n a gem en t Com peten ces Project, Sch ool Ma n a gem en t Sou th ,
Cr aw ley, E ssex.
E a r ley, P. (1994), S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies: M a k in g
Progress?, N F E R, Slou gh .
E sp, P. (1993), Com peten ces for S ch ool M a n a gers,
Koga n P a ge, Lon don .
E sp, D. a n d Sa r a n , R. (1995), Effectiv e Gov er n ors
for Effectiv e S ch ools, Ca ssells, Lon don .
[ 238 ]
F u lla n , M. (1991), Th e N ew M ea n in g of Ed u ca tion a l Ch a n ge, Ca ssells, Lon don .
Heller, R.W. a n d P a u tler, A.J . (1990), “Th e a dm in istr a tor of th e fu tu r e: com bin in g in str u ction a l
a n d m a n a ger ia l lea der sh ip”, in J a cobson , S.
a n d Con w ay, A.J . (E ds), Ed u ca tion a l L ea d er sh ip in a n A ge of R efor m , Lon gm a n , N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
In du str y in E du ca tion (1995), A ll T h eir T om or row s: T h e B u sin ess of Gov er n in g, In du str y
E du ca tion , Lon don .
J a cobson , S. (1990), “Refl ection s on th e th ir d w ave
of r efor m : r eth in k in g a dm in istr a tor pr epa r a tion ”, in J a cobson , S. a n d Con w ay, J .A. (E ds),
Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip in a n A ge of R efor m ,
Lon gm a n , N ew Yor k , N Y.
J ir a sin gh e, D. a n d Lyon s, G. (1996), T h e Com peten t
Hea d : A J ob A n a lysis of Hea d s’ T a sk s a n d
Person a lity Fa ctors, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
J on es, J . (1997), “Th e in du ction n eeds of n ew
gover n or s”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 11
N o. 2, pp. 8-9.
Kelly, A.V. (1995), Ed u ca tion a n d Dem ocra cy: Pr in ciples a n d Pra ctice, P a u l Ch a pm a n , Lon don .
N a tion a l Com m ission on E du ca tion (1993), L ea r n in g to S u cceed , Hein em a n n , Lon don .
N or th a n ts (1994-5) (1995-6), Gov er n ors’ T ra in in g
R eview, N or th a m pton sh ir e Gover n or s’
Ser vice, N or th a n ts Cou n ty Cou n cil, E du ca tion a n d Libr a r ies.
Pou n ce, M. (1993), “Gover n or tr a in in g”, M a n a gin g S ch ools T od ay, Vol. 3 N o. 3, pp. 25-8.
Sch lech te, D. (1995), “Th e tr a in in g n eeds of sch ool
gover n or s: ou r a ppr oa ch ”, L ea r n in g R esou rces
J ou r n a l, Vol. 11, pp. 28-31.
Sch on , D.A. (1987), Ed u ca tin g th e R efl ectiv e Pra ctition er: T ow a rd s a N ew Design for T ea ch in g
a n d L ea r n in g in th e Profession s, J ossey Ba ss,
Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. (1989), “Wh o a r e th e gover n or s?”,
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion , Vol. 17 N o. 3, pp. 139-46.
Th ody, A.M. (1990a ), “Gover n or s of th e sch ool
r epu blic”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 18 N o. 2, pp. 42-5.
Th ody, A.M. (1990b), “Th e r oles of sch ool gover n or s”, u n pu blish ed P h D th esis, Un iver sity of
Leicester, Leicester.
Th ody, A.M. (1991), “Str a te gic pla n n in g a n d sch ool
m a n a gem en t”, S ch ool Orga n isa tion , Vol. 11
N o. 1, pp. 21-36.
Th ody, A.M. (1993), “Men tor in g for n ew ly
a ppoin ted sch ool pr in cipa ls: th e E n glish a n d
Welsh system ”, in Ca ldwell, B. a n d Ca r ter, E .
(E ds), T h e R etu r n of th e M en tor, F a lm er P r ess,
Lon don a n d Melbou r n e.
Th ody, A,M. (1994a ), “P r a ctisin g dem ocr a cy:
bu sin ess com m u n ity gover n or s in E n glish
a n d Welsh sch ools”, R esea rch Pa pers in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 9 N o. 3, pp. 339-67.
Th ody, A.M. (1994b) (E d.), S ch ool Gov er n ors: L ea d ers or Follow ers?, Lon gm a n s, Ha r low.
Th ody, A.M. (1994c), “Obser vin g a n in eteen th
cen tu r y h ea dtea ch er ”, Histor y in Ed u ca tion ,
Vol. 23 N o. 4, pp. 355-73.
Ange la Tho dy
Training sc ho o l princ ipals,
e duc ating sc ho o l go ve rno rs
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 3 2 –2 3 9
Th ody, A.M. (1995), “Th e gover n or -citizen : a gen t
of th e sta te, th e com m u n ity or th e sch ool?”, in
Ma cbeth , A., McCr ea th , D. a n d Aitch ison , A.,
Collab ora te or Com pete? Ed u ca tion a l Pa r tn er sh ips in a M a rk et Econ om y, F a lm er P r ess,
Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. (1997), Eva lu a tion of N .E. L in cs. Gover n or S u ppor t S er vices, com m ission ed r epor t
for N.E . Lin cs LE A.
Th ody, A.M. (1998a ), “Th e top, m iddle a n d bottom :
str a te gies in edu ca tion gover n m en t”, T ota l
Qu a lity M a n a gem en t, Vol. 9 N os 2, 3,
pp. 383-94.
Th ody, A.M. (1998b), “P a r tn er sh ip: lesson s fr om
th e pa st”, in Stott, K. a n d Tr a ffor d, V. (E ds),
Pa r tn ers in Ch a n ge: S h a pin g th e Fu tu re, Middlesex Un iver sity P r ess, Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. a n d N k a ta , J . (1996), “Wh o is a llowed
to spea k ? A com pa r ison of E n glish a n d Uga n da n sch ool gover n a n ce: P a r t I”, In ter n a tion a l
S tu d ies in Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Vol. 24
N o. 1.
Th ody, A.M. a n d N k a ta , J . (1997), “Wh o is a llowed
to spea k ? Uga n da n a n d E n glish gover n a n ce:
P a r t II”, In ter n a tion a l S tu d ies in Ed u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 25 N o. 1.
Th ody, A.M. a n d Cr ysta l, L. (1995), “Men tor in g:
cu ltu r a l r ein for cem en t or desta bilisa tion ?”,
in J a cobson , S.L., Hickox, E .S. a n d Steven son ,
R. (E ds), S ch ool A d m in istra tion : Persisten t
Dilem m a s in Prepa ra tion a n d Pra ctice, Gr een wood, Westpor t, CT.
Tu r n er, G.B., Mou n tfi eld, B. a n d Mor r is, B. (1991),
“Sch ool gover n or tr a in in g in Ha m psh ir e: a n
eva lu a tion ”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d
A d m in istra tion , Vol. 19 N o. 3, pp. 173-9.
Wa r in g, S. (1992), “Gover n or tr a in in g: em power m en t or em a scu la tion ?”, S ch ool Orga n isa tion ,
Vol. 12 N o. 1, pp. 77-82.
Further reading
Bola m , R. (1986), “Th e N a tion a l Developm en t
Cen tr e for Sch ool Ma n a gem en t Tr a in in g”, in
Hoyle, E . a n d McMa h on , A. (E ds), T h e M a n a gem en t of S ch ools: World Yea r b ook of Ed u ca tion , 1986, Koga n P a ge, Lon don .
Br igley, S. a n d Stoyle, I. (1988), “Assessin g tr a in in g
n eeds: pa r en t gover n or s, volu n ta r y sch ool
gover n or s”, S ch ool Gov er n or, J u n e, pp. 30-1.
Bu r k e, J . (1995) (E d.), Ou tcom es, L ea r n in g a n d th e
Cu r r icu lu m : Im plica tion s for N V Qs, GN V Qs
a n d Oth er Qu a lifi ca tion s, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
E ver a r d, K.B. (1984), M a n a gem en t in Com preh en siv e S ch ools – W h a t Ca n b e L ea r n ed from
In d u str y?, Un iver sity of Yor k , Yor k .
Gr a ce, G. (1995), S ch ool L ea d ersh ip: B eyon d Ed u ca tion M a n a gem en t, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Hu gh es, M. (1982), “P r ofession a l developm en t
pr ovision for sen ior sta ff in sch ool a n d colle ges”, Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion , Vol. 10 N o. 1, pp. 29-45.
J effer ies, G. a n d Str ea tfi eld, D. (1989), R econ stitu tion of S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies, N F E R,
Slou gh .
Ma le, T. a n d Da r esh , J . (1997), “Cr ossin g th e bor der in to sch ool lea der sh ip: exper ien ces of
n ew ly a ppoin ted h ea dtea ch er s in E n gla n d”,
pa per pr esen ted a t th e An n u a l Meetin g of th e
Un iver sities Cou n cil for E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion , F lor ida .
N a tion a l Con su m er Cou n cil (N CC) (1986), S ch ool
Gov er n or T ra in in g, 1986 – A S u r v ey of Cu r ren t
L EA Provision , N CC, Lon don .
Tea ch er Tr a in in g Agen cy (TTA) (1998), Prepa re
for Hea d sh ip: In for m a tion for T ra in ers for th e
N PQH, TTA, Lon don .
Th ody, A.M. (1992), M ovin g to M a n a gem en t: S ch ool
Gov er n ors in th e 1990s, F u lton , Lon don .
[ 239 ]