Bringing context and educational leadership together: fostering the professional development of school principals

This is the published version of a paper published in Professional Development in Education.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., Ärlestig, H. (2020)

Bringing context and educational leadership together: fostering the professional development of school principals

Professional Development in Education

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1747105

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-170166

ARTICLE

Bringing context and educational leadership together: fostering the professional development of school principals

Stefan Brauckmann, Petros Pashiardis and Helene Ärlestig

ABSTRACT

Policy makers increasingly acknowledge that problems and challenges arising at the school level should be resolved on site. At the same time, the political expectation to delegate more responsibility to the individual school is rather heavily contrasted with the weak knowledge about how this new public management approach can be translated into successful leadership practices. Thus, considering that there is a close relationship between context and leadership, principal preparation programmes should be guided by a deeper examination of contextual factors.

Against this background, we aim to critically examine existing views of practitioners and researchers on the challenge of establishing more con- text-sensitive school leadership preparation programmes in an era of New Public Management in Education. In doing so, we introduce the Swedish Model of principal preparation as an example for a more context-sensitive leadership preparation program. To that end, we argue that a di fferentiated perspective about contextual conditions and their role as facilitators or obstacles to e ffective leadership must be further explored.

Moreover, school leaders should be encouraged to consider the relevance of such approaches to their own needs.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 24 July 2019 Accepted 22 March 2020

Professional development;

school leaders; autonomy;

context; Sweden; new public management; e ffectiveness;

leadership preparation

1. Introduction

In recent years, a shift of perspectives can be observed internationally, about the way schools are being a ffected by problems which are increasingly global, and the realisation that the solutions are mainly local. Drifts in values, new technology as well as other societal changes have enhanced expectations, at the same time as policy makers acknowledge that problems and challenges which arise at the school level should be resolved on site, thus relying to a greater extent on an e fficient as well as e ffective site-based management (Pont et al. 2008, Gurr and Drysdale 2016, Sebastian et al.

2018). This change is expected to generate or enhance strategic leadership actions, thus allowing for the design of more and better contextually-bound solutions for the respective schools. In particular, new instruments of governance are needed, which are characterised by a greater degree of autonomy and accountability. These instruments are intended to support policy-makers and school principals in terms of targeting speci fic aspects of school development in order to operate as quality assurance mechanisms.

At the same time, we do know that the success of leadership relies on the choice and combination of di fferent leadership styles, as well as the specific situation and context underlying those particular combinations (Brauckmann and Pashiardis 2011, Nir and Hameiri 2014, Brezicha et al. 2015).

Therefore, considering that contexts and leadership actions are intricately intertwined, leadership preparation programmes should adopt those governance principles guided by the concept of New Public Management and a stronger consideration of contextual factors such as the national and

CONTACT

Stefan Brauckmann

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

local area close to school (ACTS), which is deemed to be more promising to secure success (Schwarz and Brauckmann 2015). Moreover, the political expectation to delegate more responsibility to the individual school is rather heavily contrasted with the weak knowledge about how this new public management approach can be translated into successful leadership practices. In fact, little is known about what kind of governance mix (the interplay of autonomy and accountability), and under which conditions, leads to what kind of ‘leadership challenges’ and ‘leadership consequences’. The question of context-relevant professionalisation of school principals can be attributed to the broader context of research into e ffective leadership knowledge application on site. Findings from this line of research also indicate that the process of using evidence from the e ffective leadership paradigm is often more complex than policy makers might assume (Mowat and McMahon 2019, Hallinger 2018, Leithwood et al. 2008).

Against this background our article is based on the assumption that, in order to have compre- hensive leadership preparation programmes, we need to be context-sensitive; however, this alone is not enough. Instead, leadership training and practices should be related to expected results, the process variables leading to student learning as well as the context which enables better academic results. As a consequence, a familiar problem occurs in a new context, i.e. if, and how, theoretical knowledge about e ffective leadership can be transformed into leadership practices which is relevant for the local school context. For quite some time now, a signi ficant divide was observed between the acquisition of research-based leadership knowledge and its actual use on site by school principals (McCarthy 2015). Obviously there is no straightforward transfer which leads from the research- based knowledge body on e ffective leadership to context relevant leadership practices. These findings are supported by research on evaluation utilisation in the Anglo-American area, which is nowadays a well-established field of research with a thematically broad scope (Pannell et al. 2015, Grissom et al. 2019).

As a consequence, within this article, we aim to systemise and critically examine existing views on the challenge of establishing more context-sensitive school leadership preparation programmes in an era of new public management in Education. Their particular conceptual and procedural challenge consists, on the one hand, in being oriented towards the findings of school leadership e ffectiveness research and, on the other hand, address the immediate inner and outer school context, as they are perceived and experienced by the respective school principals. In an interna- tional context, little is known as to the extent of how far the content of leadership programs is being used for school context-related leadership actions (Pannell et al. 2015, Grissom et al. 2019). For instance, a way forward could be to strengthen principals ’ own ability for interpretation and analyses through preparation programmes. At this point, it would be useful to explain how we use the term ‘preparation programme’ in this paper and why we tried to avoid ‘principal training’.

We consider preparation to be a more inclusive term, which includes both theory and practice and it can happen either before you take the job or while on the job (as is the case in Sweden). Thus, we think of the Swedish program as a preparatory programme for principals already on the job.

Training on the other hand, is a narrower term which mainly focuses on practice. As far as we know the Swedish principalship program, is more geared towards practice, however, there is quite a strong theoretical component, and this is why we prefer to use preparation instead of training.

Thus, we will introduce the Swedish Model as an example for a more context sensitive leadership preparation program and will further discuss preliminary research findings from the international literature on the perception of a more context-sensitive approach. Throughout the paper, the following aspects will be addressed in particular:

(1) New Public management (with a particular emphasis on the interplay between autonomy and accountability) and its impact on the understanding of leadership oriented towards (or reduced to) e ffectiveness and efficiency.

(2) The dilemma of transferring research-based findings focusing more on output-oriented

school leadership styles into a school principal`s practical leadership arsenal.

(3) The way current leadership preparation programmes could be responding in a productive as well as a pragmatic way to the dilemma of being output-driven oriented and context aware;

in this regard, we will focus and re flect upon experiences from the national Swedish school leadership preparation program.

2. More autonomy and responsibility as a challenge for school leaders

The demand for more school autonomy as an enabling factor in the quality development of schools and their teaching and learning received additional impulses and accentuations especially in the 1990s through modern approaches to organisational and management theory (Gobby et al. 2018).

In this context, the school ’s self-administration or self-regulation seems to be of great importance.

Closely related to this was (and still is) the discussion about the competences and quali fications of school principals, especially as schools are increasingly asked to take on more responsibility for the learning outcomes achieved. The fact that the structure of tasks and responsibilities (sometimes inheritably) deviates from the traditional role of school management, means that (correspondingly) accentuated quali fication and support measures for members of school management come more into the focus of empirical school management research (He ffernan 2018).

Bearing in mind that the state is responsible, one way or the other, for monitoring schools, the enhancement of school autonomy creates tensions in the relationships within individual schools, which are particularly experienced by school principals themselves (Langfred and Rockmann 2016).

They are positioned at an interface between external and internal school environments and, according to school legislation of a particular country/jurisdiction, the school principal holds overall responsibility for the school. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that school sta ff and, especially, principals are always ready and willing to undertake reforms inspired by the leading ideas of New Public Management. Besides, other contextual conditions to which school leaders ’ actions are subjected to are constantly changing. For instance, changing contextual conditions at the level of the individual school are characterised by the heterogeneity of the student body, a partly growing in fluence of parents on inner-school decision-making processes, demographic develop- ments and associated school mergers as well as the implementation of new pedagogical concepts such as inclusion. These factors apparently require even greater sensitivity on the part of school leaders towards both the outside- as well as the in-school contexts.

Whatever the chosen model, be it through general education legislation, speci fic legislation or more flexible regulations, autonomy was imposed on schools in nearly all countries through legislative procedures (Schleicher 2012). Not all schools themselves did seek autonomy; the legisla- tion included provisions for the transfer of new duties without the schools having any right to express their views on the matter (Hughes et al. 2013). In fact, oftentimes schools acquired new responsibilities against their own wishes. In addition, many management-related decisions, espe- cially financing and staffing issues, are intricate, complex and have not taken into consideration the context of the individual school. Therefore, the expectations, alongside with the strengthening of more autonomy, changed the current professionalisation settings of school leadership in a way that the question of systematically gathered information on professionalisation and training of school leaders gains more signi ficance. This has led to a high demand for qualification programmes and support strategies for the leaders of educational institutions which have traditionally a long history in education systems such as those of England and the USA (Ni et al. 2017, Cli ffe et al. 2018).

3. School leadership preparation within di fferent contexts – what do we know?

Not least owing to an increase in the empirical evidence base of school leadership actions as

a central component of school quality assurance and development (see Robinson et al. 2008,

Brauckmann and Pashiardis 2011, Ärlestig et al. 2016), many educational policy makers in

Europe and beyond have developed strategies for the recruitment, selection, preparation, further

quali fication and support of school leaders. This was deemed necessary in order for them to professionally ful fil this new and central role of quality development and quality assurance agent (for an overview, see Lumby et al. 2008). Such strategies expect school leaders to learn leadership concepts in professional development courses, leading to modi fied leadership activities.

Furthermore, these new leadership activities are assumed to have a positive impact on teacher professionalisation thus improving the teaching and learning that takes place in schools, at least for the interim period (Lee et al. 2012, Tran et al. 2018).

In particular, initial and further quali fication measures targeting the formal professionalisation of school leadership actions concern increased demands for entering the profession (Young and Grogan 2008) and mostly the establishment of leadership academies (Hean and Tin 2008).

Moreover, in some countries, agreement on nationwide quality standards for school leadership actions (see Ingvarson et al. 2006), as well as the conceptualisation of competence-based quali fica- tion frameworks (CCSSO 2000) is being sought. Such frameworks relate to the respective career stages of particular school leaders (Oplatka 2011), to enable adequate initial and further training of skills required for relevant tasks and activities, including the required professional skills (Hean and Tin 2008).

From a scienti fic perspective, criticism from school leadership researchers is constantly being raised claiming that school leaders with ‘uniform design’ are thus created (Southworth 2002), who are unable to appropriately react to speci ficities of their individual school contexts (Salazar 2007, Brezicha et al. 2015). An example in this regard, is the professional development programme o ffered to Cypriot principals, once they are promoted to the level of school principal. The very basic training o ffered in this program lacks any relevance to the context in which these principals will operate. Instead, a ‘one-size fits all approach’ is implemented, regardless of the needs expressed by school leaders themselves. However, data analysis of the participants ’ views in this programme in Cyprus, revealed that they prefer speci fic preparation and training, especially designed for their needs and according to their speci fic leadership post (Michaelidou and Pashiardis 2009).

Occasionally, awareness for problem-based learning can be observed in formal professionalisation processes as opposed to the traditional focus on thematically centred learning. In some cases, a growing awareness is observable for increasing the correspondence between the knowledge a school leadership candidate already possesses and the quali fication measure (McCarthy 2015, Pashiardis & Brauckmann 2019). Thus, the idea is that most of the principal preparation programmes have a generic content which does not acknowledge the speci ficities of localities and the variations and in fluence of cultural contexts.

Altogether, the majority of the formal opportunities o ffered for professionalisation target con- text-independent generic skills, whilst professionalisation at an informal level is more strongly characterised by its reference to context and problems (Crow 2001, Walker 2015, Ärlestig et al.

2016). During the last two decades, researchers have indicated that, in terms of improving the e ffectiveness of school leadership actions, these two strands of qualification should functionally be better aligned:

“School leaders today require greater leadership skills for strategic resource management and for guiding teaching and learning. The skills needed for such a role, which can be distributed, cannot be developed solely in one programme, but rather in a combination of learning, coaching and practising that develops formally and informally. What is required is the knowledge of how best to combine these approaches to provide a holistic learning experience to meet the needs of leaders at di fferent career stages” (Pont et al. 2008, p. 211).

In the above quotation, we would add, ‘and not only to meet the needs of leaders at different career stages, but to also bear in mind the different phases of development in the various educational contexts in which these leaders operate’. Comparative studies on school leadership so far provide little information on the systemic contexts underlying school principals’ actions (Brezicha et al.

2015). For instance, systemic framing of school leadership includes the underlying legal framework

(setting) and the structure of its regulations as well as state-organised support systems (e.g.

quali fication and training programmes) aiming to empower school leaders to do what they are supposed to do, in a particular country/jurisdiction. Against this background there is a growing understanding in recent years for the fact that school leaders ’ (principals’) actions are subject to many conditions (Hallinger and Truong 2014). For instance, awareness for the impact of the school ’s history or legislative framework on the leaders’ actions developed only hesitantly. At the same time, the assumption that generic leadership styles exist, which have a positive e ffect on the school ’s output, needed to be revised, corrected or modified given evidence from international school leadership and school e ffectiveness research. Traditional ideas concerning the existence of generally e ffective leadership styles have been increasingly challenged, not least because of findings from school e ffectiveness research (Grissom et al. 2015).

4. Increasing the e ffectiveness of school leadership preparation – what should we know?

International research on school leadership has so far mainly focused on the categorisation of training contents; conceptualisation and conduct, the mandatory or non-mandatory character of training programmes and the determination of professional fields of action (Huber 2004).

Research still knows relatively little about the use and effects (see Davis et al. 2005, Darling- Hammond et al. 2007, Dempster et al. 2011) and equally little about structural conditions underlying ‘successful’ professionalisation programmes. In particular, this would concern the fit of personal needs (e.g. motivation) with structural conditions (support given in choice for a measure). Even more so, this would also concern the relationship between professionalisation initiated (and oftentimes demanded) by external sources, and that which is initiated by school leaders themselves. Still, there is a general assumption that professionalisation has a positive effect on the knowledge, skills and behaviour of participants (Grissom et al. 2019). Hence, there is an implicit assumption that the professionalisation of school leaders will lead to improved leadership practice even though the empirical evidence for drawing such a conclusion is, at best, scant and very limited (Pannell et al. 2015, Grissom et al. 2019). At present, it remains open how training of technical skills by formal or informal professionalisation processes works. In total, it should be noted that knowledge is yet insufficient regarding training pathways that are most apt for the qualification of school leaders and their increasingly more complex fields of action, respectively how school leaders can best take professionalisation on themselves (Macpherson 2009). This implies identification but also the replication of effective preparatory programmes and appro- priate structures.

If certain competencies characterise the professionalism of school leadership members and if these were to be acquired in so-called competence-based qualification and professionalisation measures, it remains to be seen in how far the acquisition can be visible regarding real-life situations (Tucker et al. 2012). Furthermore, it is yet unclear in how far target-prioritised competencies can be defined, given that school leaders need to take on different approaches, sometimes simultaneously, dependent on the context of their individual school (i.e. administrator, creator, educator, and teacher), thus creating their own ‘leadership cocktail mix’ (Brauckmann and Pashiardis 2011). At present, it remains unclear how technical skills and practices can be acquired, notwithstanding furnishing participants in professionalisation courses with fundamental knowledge about the underlying pedagogical gains being associated with more school autonomy. Only by raising awareness for a systemic grounding and functional determination of the changed role of school leadership, will it be possible to increase school leaders’ readiness to professionalise (Yoder et al.

2014). The educational leaders of tomorrow have to be aware of their new roles and responsibilities,

understand and accept them and finally make sense out of them. In this phase they are serving

primarily as a flexible anchor and a reliable compass in an environment which changes drastically

and constantly and might (therefore) lead to many inconsistencies and uncertainties among other

staff members. Hence, a new context-oriented perspective has become increasingly relevant in

school leadership research which has so far, at best, been considered occasionally. The concept has been taken on by very few recent research activities and fleshed out (Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017, Hallinger 2018).

Against that background, we would like to describe an existing program which combines (to a great extent) theoretical perspectives and local context examples for principals ’ professionalisation, which is being o ffered in Swedish national principal program.

The program combines both context- independent generic skills, whilst creating opportunities for real life application and experimentation of new ideas at the schools where principals are employed. Thus, participants are able to apply generic leadership knowledge and competences into applied situations which are customised according to the speci fic context in which their school resides. The preparation and training takes place both in traditional classes and on-site when the principals are working, which provides opportunity for re flection and coaching in real problem situations (Johansson 2001a, 2001b, Murakami et al. 2014, Norberg 2019). A short description of the Swedish principal preparation program follows in the next section.

5. Paving the way for context-sensitive leadership preparation programmes – insights from Sweden

To transfer from teacher to a competent principal requires both knowledge and experience. As was previously mentioned, demands on what to accomplish comes from several levels of governance and actors; the national/political level, national agencies, school owners such as municipalities and independent schoolboards as well as teachers, students, parents and the general public. Often, individual principals have higher expectations on themselves in relation to what is expected from other actors.

In an increasingly complex environment, the amount of knowledge about topics that relate to schooling, curriculum, organisation, management, school improvement and societal changes grows immensely. Moreover, the core in a principal ’s knowledge becomes more and more context dependent (Clarke and O ’Donoghue 2017, Hallinger 2018). When a professional principal role has a common value and knowledge base, principals are better able to meet additional demands over and above the mission of schooling and are better equipped to handle con flicting requirements.

To view principals ’ leadership and role as something that can be learned needs a structured view on how to build principal preparation and training. It is impossible to fit in all aspects and knowledge into a single programme, as previously stressed; this means that preparation pro- grammes or introduction to the work as a principal are important as a base for building a deeper knowledge in a national preparation program. Even after the completion of a national prepara- tion program, it is necessary to have in-service training or university courses in order to meet individual challenges, societal and organisational changes and courses with the intention to develop experienced principals. What kind of preparation and training is necessary also depends on whose perspective is adopted. It is not always the same content that is required from the national level, the districts, the teachers or the individual principal, as these contexts vary to a great extent.

In Sweden there is a long tradition of o ffering the national principal program (Johansson 2001a, 2001b). The program is currently hosted by 6 universities at the request of The Swedish National Education Agency.

This makes it possible to meet expectations from several levels and create a common knowledge framework that all principals in Sweden should take a part in. According to recent evaluations, 97%

of the participants have indicated that the program is very good or good.

At the same time, the program emphasis that to be successful there needs to be a combination of theory and practice. At this point, again, we would like to remind readers how we use the term

‘preparation programme’ in this paper. We consider preparation to be a more inclusive term, which

includes both theory and practice and it can happen either before you take the job or while on the job (as is the case in Sweden).

Thus, Sweden´s principal preparation and training di ffers (in relation to many other countries) since the Swedish National Principal Training Program is o ffered for the first time when the participant has a position as a principal or deputy principal. Principals are required to finish the three-year program within four years in their first principal position. Some of them have a recruitment course and some have experience as teacher leaders, deputy principals or substitute principals, while others don´t have any leadership training or experience. The participants are expected to use 20% of their working time on the program.

The program has three main courses: Legislation on schools and the role of exercising the functions of an authority; Management by goals and objectives; and School leadership. In the national regulation for the program three main aims are stated, so that all participants get the knowledge in order to be able to:

(1) Be responsible so that students and children get an equal and legally accurate education (2) Create prerequisites to goal ful filment on an individual as well as on an organisational level

and

(3) Be responsible that all aspects of the school activities improve (Förordning 2011, p. 183

).

The Swedish Agency for Education dictates the objectives that the program needs to meet, according to national legislation. Based on the objectives, the universities can then formulate and contextualise the program. This means that the program di ffers slightly but it is still based on the same intentions and national expectations. The responsible directors for the university programmes meet regularly with representatives from the Swedish Agency for Education in order to evaluate and improve on the program. Moreover, trainers that work in the program meet nationally to get updates and discuss current issues twice a year. Each 6th year new national objectives are presented and the universities apply to get the programmes by sending in a declaration of how they will interpret the content and organise the teaching and learning.

Within the content of the program it is important to combine practice, policy, theory and earlier research (Törnsén and Ärlestig 2018). Since all principals have their own schools it is easier to connect the literature and new insights with the participants ’ own experience and local challenges. The program is structured with three-day meetings twice each semester in conference hotels so that an environment is created where the participants can concentrate on their learning, away from their daily stressful duties. Before the meetings the participants read literature and conduct di fferent tasks in relation to the meetings ’ themes. During the meetings the participants get input from principal trainers, have seminars to deepen what they have read and practiced as well as being mentored in relation to real-life dilemmas. After the meetings they can take their new knowledge back to their school in order to deepen the understanding and then start to work on the tasks for the next meeting.

The program is very interactive and intends to provide principals with a research-based leader-

ship training. The participants bring their own experience of what it means to be a principal and the

training provides them with the opportunity to get various tools and discuss how they can be used,

which gives them the skills to transform more generic knowledge into their own context. This could

be done by classroom observations in relation to a speci fic area. After the observation the principal

writes a summary of what s/he has seen. The protocol is discussed in class and thereafter the

participants provide feedback to their teachers. At the next meeting the focus is on what happened

when the teachers got their feedback. Another example is how principals work with systematic

quality assurance. Each participant chooses an area in which they know the organisation is under-

performing or an area where they have very limited data. During the course each participant gathers

data, reads research, analyses findings in conceptual models and suggests strategies how to move

forward. In the last meeting leaders from the districts are invited and the participants present their

findings in round table discussions (Ärlestig 2012) The program prepares them to have a structured

but also critical view in order to make them more independent and able to take well-informed decisions.

Furthermore, the way the program is structured, it is designed to meet the interests and use the knowledge from several levels. The state interests, which are expressed through the national agency, are to ensure that the principals know and follow national regulations and that principals work with school improvement processes in relation to national policy. The National Agency provides objectives and aims as well as resources to the university in order to run the program. The Agency also arranges meetings in order to assure that the education o ffered to the principals includes the right content and is more or less uniform across the country. Both national and local context are a ffecting the individual principals’ prerequisites and challenges (Ärlestig and Nordgren 2019). By using a combination of lectures and readings (theory and research findings), policy (reforms and current evaluations) together with the principals ’ own experience and examples (practice), the program creates both generic knowledge and speci fic knowledge related to the individual participant and situation (Johansson 2002). Meta re flection, critical thinking and the ability to use earlier knowledge become part of the way to handle concrete issues and problems. One way to assure the quality of the programmes is that each participant answers a national survey before they start the program, in the middle of the program and when they have finished the program. In this way, the needs of the participants are taken into consideration, and by the end of the program, we can have an impression about how successfully the needs were covered.

The universities provide research-based education. In the Swedish Education Act it is stated that the work in schools should be based on scienti fic research and proven experience. The universities can contribute with knowledge based on both well-known and accepted research and the latest research within the selected areas. They also provide methods to work systematically and to become aware of di fferent perspectives and methods’ strengths and limitations. Striving to be a modern education program, more and more of the tasks and content are o ffered in interactive learning methods. Input from professors are followed by tasks that include knowledge and dilemmas from their current practice. Their experience and new input constitute an important part to (together) understand and try out old as well as new perspectives. The participants ’ various contexts and prior experiences help to understand that there are many ways to reach the same objectives. The program also provides group coaching. In groups of 5 –6 together with a tutor, one participant provides a real dilemma from their practice. Through a strict communication method, they deconstruct the dilemma to create a wider understanding in order to find several alternative solutions. A process that creates both a deeper understanding but also a chance to discuss possible e ffect of different scenarios is thus utilised (Foshaug Vennebo and Aas 2019). This means that the program creates opportunities to apply new knowledge in real life situations as well as time for re flection and to create professional networks.

6. Context- related school leadership research and its (possible) impact on principal preparation programmes

Framework conditions change and they may cause tension which might result in new leeway for school leaders. The survival of individual educational institutions might not least depend on a school’s ability to forge an alliance between the institution and its surrounding environment, thus being a powerful, structurally anchored and flexible actor in the political arena of decision- makers. Studies on environmental conditions of school leadership actions present an area that still needs to be investigated (Hallinger 2018), e.g. whether and to what extent leadership actions are structurally or culturally determined. Preparation programmes such as the Swedish one, might offer some insightful orientation notes in this regard.

Another area that needs to be further studied concerns possibilities and processes of changes in

the contexts that shape structural and cultural characteristics. Everyone shares responsibility in

shaping an organisation (each individual is part of it) thus they take part in shaping it. Networking

of di fferent spheres of influence needs to be investigated. So far, too little attention has been paid to the genesis of environmental conditions (historical contexts; social, political, societal context, conditions of system structure, room to manoeuvre for actions and decisions) and whether these must be taken for granted (Hallinger 2018). Instead, one might critically re flect on decisions that were led by the seemingly unalterable, determining conditions. It would thus be possible to probe considerations of plausibility according to which the form of a decision (respectively of reaching a decision) also signi ficantly shapes the precursor conditions. We cannot predict how far the enablement of stronger professional self-governance (as is intended by the ‘twins’-accountability and autonomy and the development of school concepts that are appropriate to the given situation), is framed by destabilisation.

We do know however, that despite historical and political changes, schools display the survival of traditional lines. This, once more, reveals that macro-social and macro-political conditions do not pre-shape an education system nor an individual school in a determinist way (school and its actors are somewhat able to shape their environment). Rather, at the borders of systems and institutions, selection of information and decision-making processes are realised as an interpretation following their own logic, enabling room to manoeuvre in ‘relative autonomy’. Context-related school leadership research should pay particular attention to these interfaces; as a result, principal preparation programmes should take such research outcomes seriously as well.

Having those potential dilemmas in a school (regarded as an expert organisation) in mind, a di fferentiated perspective needs to be taken on about contextual conditions and their role as facilitators or obstacles to e ffective leadership conduct for shaping and making rich learning environments. We can assume to find different patterns impacting on school leadership actions, for example owing to the social environment or daily routine in a school organisation. Thus, the question of contextual conditions also implies the question of obstacles to certain leadership styles or management practices owing to certain (structurally or culturally-based) patterns of facilitating or obstructing certain leadership styles and management practices. As authors in their di fferent concepts of organisational leadership and school development (Wayman et al. 2012), have con- sistently indicated, there is no alternative to a data-based analysis of a school ’s situation as it currently is (see the Swedish example of principal preparation). This seems to be a conditio sine qua non when establishing a foundation to process organisational and school development. A more context-oriented leadership preparation/professionalisation approach will draw together (in the long run) the notion of strategic development and action planning as a means of improving educational and public sector provision. School leadership, at both the school and the district level, will be encouraged to consider the relevance of such approaches to their own needs and to that of their institution at a variety of levels. By drawing upon this, they might also be encouraged to consider what school as well as teaching related leadership lessons might be learnt which are relevant to their own context.

It still remains a big challenge to reconstruct the concrete actions taken by school principals

following the delivery of scienti fically grounded knowledge on effective school leadership. In fact,

there might be a multitude of leadership activities not at all being related to the robust findings of

leadership e ffectiveness research. School principals obviously enter an (also) context driven deci-

sion-making process about if, and how, they wish to use the acquired knowledge on e ffective

leadership. Spillane et al. (2002) refer to this process as sensemaking or interpretation, also in

juxtaposition to the context of their schools. We might assume that the process of decision-making

about research findings and their relevance for a school principal´s own context is characterised by

the ambiguity of how to relate the available universal evidence to the speci fic and unique contextual

challenges (Donmoyer et al. 2012). Leadership knowledge becomes relevant and inspires leadership

action once school principals can cope with the meaning and action-speci fic effects of this body of

research-based evidence to their own contextual situation and school at hand (Honig and Coburn

2008). This should (in turn) be of great importance for all principalship training: A theoretical base

that principals can interpret and re flect on, in relation to various contexts and situations.

Oftentimes, a combination of di fferent theories is necessary to make more sustainable and informed decisions, decisions that are context sensitive and evidence-based.

Moreover, school leaders could be encouraged to consider the relevance of such approaches to their own needs and to that of their institution at a variety of levels and, by drawing upon this, they might also be encouraged to consider what lessons might be learnt which are relevant to their own context. We are certain that some of these ideas will further enhance and improve the dialogue for the initial and further preparation and training of school leaders needed in the future. This dialogue becomes especially important in light of the fact that, school leadership preparation in England (which has a long history), has once more, been left on an ‘ad hoc basis’

(Cli ffe et al. 2018).

Notes

1. https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/kurser-och-utbildningar/rektorsprogrammet —befattningsutbildn ing-for-skolledare retrieved 2020-02-23.

2. https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/kompetensutveckling/rektorsprogrammet —befattningsutbildning- for-skolledare Retrieved 2019-04-21.

3. Internal report, Evaluation of the Swedish National Principal Training Program 2019, Swedish National School Agency.

4. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-2011183- om-befattningsutbildning_sfs-2011-183 Retrieved 2019-04-24.

Disclosure statement

No potential con flict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Ärlestig, H., 2012. The challenge of educating principals: linking course content to action. Planning and changing, 43 (3&4).

Ärlestig, H., Day, C., and Johansson, O., 2016. A decade of research on school principals. Vol. 21, Studies in Educational Leadership. Cham: Springer International Publishing. (red).

Ärlestig, H. and Nordgren, R.D., 2019. School leader production in Sweden and California: a critical analysis. In: A.

B. Danzig and R.B. Black eds. Who controls the preparation of education administrators? 157 –183.

Brauckmann, S. and Pashiardis, P., 2011. Contextual framing for school leadership training. empirical findings from the Commonwealth Project on Leadership Assessment- and Development (CO-LEAD). Journal of management development, 31 (1), 18 –33.

Brezicha, K., et al., 2015. One size does not fit all: differentiating leadership to support teachers in school reform.

Educational administration quarterly, 51 (1), 96 –132. doi: 10.1177/0013161X14521632

CCSSO, 2000. Standards-based professional development for school leaders. Washington, DC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium.

Clarke, S. and O ’Donoghue, T., 2017. Educational leadership and context: a rendering of an inseparable relationship.

British journal of educational studies, 65 (2), 167 –182. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2016.1199772

Cli ffe, J., Fuller, K., and Moorosi, P., 2018. Secondary school leadership preparation and development: experiences and aspiration of members of senior leadership teams. Management in education, 32 (2), 85 –91. doi: 10.1177/

0892020618762714

Crow, G.M., 2001. School leader preparation. a short review of the knowledge base. National College for School Leadership. Available from: www.ncsl.org.uk/researchpublications

Darling-Hammond, L., et al., 2007. Preparing school leaders for a changing world: lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Davis, S., et al., 2005. Review of research. school leadership study. Developing successful principals. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, commissioned by the Wallace Foundation.

Dempster, N., Lovett, S., and Flückiger, B., 2011. Strategies to develop school leadership: a select literature review.

Melbourne, Australia.

Donmoyer, R., Yennie-Donmoyer, J., and Galloway, F., 2012. The search for connections across principal prepara- tion, principal performance, and student achievement in an exemplary principal preparation program. Journal of research on leadership education, 7, 5 –43. doi: 10.1177/1942775112440631

Foshaug Vennebo, K. and Aas, M., 2019. Leading professional group discussions: a challenge for principals?

International journal of leadership in education, 2 (22), 1 –15. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2018.1562099

Gobby, B., Amanda, K., and Blackmore, J., 2018. Professionalism and competing responsibilities: moderating competitive performativity in school autonomy reform. Journal of educational administration and history, 50 (3), 159 –173. doi: 10.1080/00220620.2017.1399864

Grissom, J., Mitani, H., and Woo, D., 2019. Principal preparation programs and principal outcomes. Educational administration quarterly, 55 (1), 73 –115. doi: 10.1177/0013161X18785865

Grissom, J.A., Kalogrides, D., and Loeb, S., 2015. Using student test scores to measure principal performance.

Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 37, 3 –28. doi: 10.3102/0162373714523831

Gurr, D. and Drysdale, L., 2016. Practicing successful and e ffective school leadership: Australian and Pacific perspectives. In: P. Pashiardis and O. Johansson, eds. Successful school leadership: international perspectives.

London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi, Sydney: Bloomsbury, 139 –153.

Hallinger, P., 2018. Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational management administration &

leadership, 46 (1), 5 –24. doi: 10.1177/1741143216670652

Hallinger, P. and Truong, D.T., 2014. Exploring the contours of context and leadership e ffectiveness in Vietnam.

Leading and managing, 20 (2), 43.

Hean, L. and Tin, G., 2008. Envisioning in school leadership preparation and practice: the case of Singapore.

International studies in educational administration, 36 (1), 72 –80.

He ffernan, A., 2018. Power and the ‘autonomous’ principal: autonomy, teacher development, and school leaders’

work. Journal of educational administration and history, 50 (4), 379 –396. doi: 10.1080/00220620.2018.1518318 Honig, M.H. and Coburn, C., 2008. Evidence-based decision making in school district central o ffices: toward a policy

and research agenda. Education policy analysis archives, 22 (4), 578 –608. doi: 10.1177/0895904807307067 Huber, S.G., 2004. Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: an international comparison of development programs

in 15 countries. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

Hughes, K.B., Silva, S.A.M., and Normore, A.H., 2013. eds. Identifying leaders for urban charter, autonomous and independent schools: above and beyond the standards vol: 18. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Advances in Educational Administration.

Ingvarson, L., et al., 2006. Standards for school leadership: a critical review of the literature. Teaching Australia.

Canberra: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd.

Johansson, O., 2001a. Swedish school leadership in transition: in search of a democratic, learning and communicative leadership? Pedagogy, culture & society, 9 (3). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1080/14681360100200122 Johansson, O., 2001b. School leadership training in Sweden – perspectives for tomorrow. Journal of in-service

education, 27 (2), 185 –202. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1080/13674580100200176

Johansson, O., 2002. Om rektors demokratiska lärande och kommunikativa ledarskap [Principals democratic, learning and communicative leadership, in Swedish]. In: L. Lundberg, ed.. Görandets lov – lov att göra: om den nya tidens rektor [The praise of doing -the freedom to do: the principal of today, in Swedish]. Umeå: Centrum för skolledarutveckling.

Langfred, C.W. and Rockmann, K.W., 2016. The push and pull of autonomy: the tension between individual autonomy and organizational control in knowledge work. Group & organization management, 41 (5), 629 –657.

doi:10.1177/1059601116668971

Lee, M., Walker, A., and Chui, Y.L., 2012. Contrasting e ffects of instructional leadership practices on student learning in a high accountability context. Journal of educational administration, 50 (5), 586 –611. doi: 10.1108/

09578231211249835

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D., 2008. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School leadership and management, 28 (1), 27 –42. doi: 10.1080/13632430701800060

Lumby, J., Crow, G., and Pashiardis, P., 2008. International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders. New York: Routledge.

Macpherson, R., 2009. How secondary principals view New Zealand ’s leadership preparation and succession strategies: systematic professionalization or amateurism through serial incompetence? Leading & managing, 15 (2), 44 –58.

McCarthy, M., 2015. Re flections on the evolution of educational leadership preparation programs in the United States and challenges ahead. Journal of educational administration, 53 (3), 416 –438. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2015 Michaelidou, A. and Pashiardis, P., 2009. Professional development of school leaders in Cyprus: is it working? ’.

Professional development in education, 35 (3), 399 –416. doi: 10.1080/19415250903069359

Mowat, J.G. and McMahon, M., 2019. Interrogating the concept of ‘leadership at all levels’: a Scottish perspective.

Professional development in education, 45 (2), 173 –189. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2018.1511452

Murakami, B., Törnsén, M., and Pollock, K., 2014. School principals ’ standards and expectations in three educational

contexts. Comparative and international education, 43 (1).

Ni, Y., et al., 2017. The evaluation of educational leadership preparation programs. In: M.D. Young and G.M. Crow, eds. The handbook of research on the education of school leaders. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 285 –307.

Nir, A.E. and Hameiri, L., 2014. School principals ’ leadership style and school outcomes. Journal of educational administration, 52 (2), 210 –227. doi: 10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0007

Norberg, K., 2019. The Swedish national principal training programme: a programme in constant change. Journal of educational administration & history, 51 (1), 5 –14. doi: 10.1080/00220620.2018.1513912

Oplatka, I., 2011. Principals in late career: toward a conceptualization of principals ’ tasks and experiences in the pre- retirement period. Educational administration quarterly, 46 (5), 776. doi:10.1177/0013161X10380905

Pannell, S., et al., 2015. Evaluating the e ffectiveness of traditional and alternative principal preparation programs.

Journal of organizational & educational leadership, 1 (2), Article 3.

Pashiardis, P., 2014. Modeling school leadership across Europe: in search of new frontiers. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

Pashiardis, P. and Brauckmann, S., 2019. New public management in education: a call for the edupreneurial leader?

Leadership and policy in schools, 18 (3), 485 –499. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2018.1475575

Pont, B., Nusche, D., and Moorman, H., 2008. Improving school leadership policy and practice. Vol. 1, Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD.

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C.A., and Rowe, K.J., 2008. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the di fferential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44 (5), 635–674. doi: 10.1177/

0013161X08321509

Salazar, P.S., 2007. The professional development needs of rural high school principals: a seven-state study. The rural educator, 28 (3), 20 –27.

Schleicher, A., 2012. Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century. Lessons from around the World. OECD Publishing.

Schwarz, A. and Brauckmann, S., 2015. Between facts and perceptions: the area close to school as a context factor in school leadership. Schumpeter Discussion Papers 2015-003. Available from: http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/

servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-4477/sdp15003.pdf

Sebastian, J., Camburn, E.M., and Spillane, J.P., 2018. Portraits of principal practice: time allocation and school principal work. Educational administration quarterly, 54 (1), 47 –84. doi: 10.1177/0013161X17720978

Southworth, G., 2002. Lessons from successful leadership in small schools. In: K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger, eds.

Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 451 –484.

Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., and Reimer, T., 2002. Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72 (3), 387 –431. doi: 10.3102/00346543072003387 Törnsén, M. and Ärlestig, H., 2018. Ledarskap i centrum: om rektor och förskolechef (2. Ed.) [Leadership at the centre:

about principals and preschool leaders, in Swedish]. Malmö: Gleerups.

Tran, N.H., Hallinger, P., and Truong, T., 2018. The heart of school improvement: a multi-site case study of leadership for teacher learning in Vietnam. School leadership & management, 38 (1), 80 –101. doi: 10.1080/

13632434.2017.1371690

Tucker, P.D., Young, M.D., and Koschoreck, J.W., 2012. Leading research-based change in educational leadership preparation: an introduction. Journal of research on leadership education, 7 (2), 155 –157. doi: 10.1177/

1942775112455267

Walker, A., 2015. Clones, drones and dragons: ongoing uncertainties around school leader development. School leadership & management, 35 (3), 300 –320. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2015.1041488

Yoder, N., Freed, D., and Fetters, J., 2014. Improving school leader preparation: collaborative models for measuring e ffectiveness. Washington, DC: Center on Great Teachers & Leaders at American Institutes for Research.

Young, M.D. and Grogan, M., 2008. Leadership preparation and development in North America. In: J. Lumby, G. Crow, and P. Pashiardis, eds. International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders.

New York: Routledge, 303 –324.