School Leadership Training under Globalisation: Comparisons of the uk, the us and Norway
Arild Tjeldvoll
Christopher Wales
Anne Welle-Strand
In common the three countries see a need for increased quality of schooling as necessary because of globalisation. Leadership is crucial to achieve quality. However, there are distinct critiques in all countries fearing ineffective bureaucratization. There is resistance among education researchers towards the market orientation and the application of the language of business. Universities have played a conservative role. In terms of differences, the uk is uniform by its centrally organised National College, while the us with over 500 programmes and no national coordination shows complexity, if not chaos. Norway, with its National Network gives much freedom to individual institutions, although the diversity leads to tensions when the municipalities now can choose the training providers. All three nations are attempting to ‘reframe and reform’. Some educators think the defining factors will be quality of performance and quality of collaboration, while others believe that there must be a shift from focus on performance to focus on learning.
Key Words: globalisation, school leadership, training, policy jel Classification: 120,123,128
Introduction
According to the oecd Report, New school management approaches, into School leadership across nine countries, ‘School management is essentially a twentieth century invention’ (oecd 2001, 17). The current situation, it is claimed, arose from the need to ‘download’ managerial responsibility to the individual school leader. The Report argues that these developments have placed the role of the school manager under the spot-
Arild Tjeldvoll is a Professor at the University of Oslo, and an Affiliated Professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Anne Welle-Strand is a Professor at bi Norwegian School of Management and Director of the School’s Centre of Education Management Research.
Christopher Wales is a doctoral student at the Centre of Education Management Research, bi Norwegian School of Management.
Managing Global Transitions 3 (1): 23–49
24     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
light. In an era of focus upon increased accountability and quality, the school leader’s role is changing and the question as to how well they are prepared for it is a valid one. Two of the countries highlighted in the OECD Report are the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Related to an ongoing comparative study on school leadership training in five countries it is found interesting to make a comparison of school leader training in the uk and us with a third oecd nation, Norway.1 To which extent is there convergence or recurring difference in how school leadership training is organised in the three countries - and, how are current policies assessed by education researchers in these countries? As an introduction we present what education researchers in the three countries see as the historical development of leadership programmes, followed by analysis of how training is currently organised. Finally, we wonder if globalisation makes it likely to see convergence, or recurring differences between them.
The United Kingdom
There has been much written about the development of educational ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ in the uk. Hence some key information has to be omitted, in favour of a brief outline of key elements in the British tradition. In the 1970s there was little reason to consider, and no apparent imperative to be interested in, educational management (Day et al. 2000, 7), in an educational system described as a ‘triangle of tension’ between central government, local government and individual schools (Garner 2000). Garner argues, however, that since the 1988 Education Reform Act (era), the triangle has been redefined to one of a tension between society, the state and providers of education (Garner 2000). Much of the political decentralisation that took place during this period seems to be aimed more at removing the powers of middle and local layers of government, than at directly improving schools. This changed the role of the school leader significantly, within a class structure still evident and a country used to gaps in society.2
Martin McLean (1997) considers the political tradition of the uk to be one of pluralism, and its curriculum tradition essentialist (Holmes and McLean 1992). While his definition of pluralism is helpful, Little and Smith’s (1992) definition of realism seems to be a more appropriate definition for the system in the uk. Garner adds that ‘Education has been seen as instrument of both control and entitlement’ (2000, 99).3 This led to two main educational philosophies of education simultaneously;
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     25
the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and education as a technical device, product focused and meeting society’s needs. This, according to Garner, has been the focus for the last 20 years in the uk. This sets the scene for an understanding of school leadership practices in the uk.
In terms of school leadership, the ‘time of change’ that Day et al. (2000, 6), describe has seen a focus on quality of headship, which impacts the motivation of teachers and quality of teaching. This focus upon quality has been a key development in the uk. Day et al. (2000, 7–10) argue that these initiatives are to be welcomed, but point also to the changing context in the uk, especially one of increased accountability and market orientation for head teachers. In quoting Gerald Grace they see that ‘contemporary head teachers are [...] expected to “market the school”, “deliver the curriculum”, and to “satisfy the customers.”’ The language of business has become the language of the staff room, which is where the pluralistic focus has been most sharply felt. Southworth suggests that the tradition of school leadership in England is individualistic, proprietal, pivotal and powerful (in Walker and Dimmock 2003,200).
Brundrett’s recent research (2001) revealed a patchwork of provisions, including certificate, diploma, ma, mba, MEd, msc and EdD courses which, despite such confusing variety, provides a comparatively structured provision of progressive academic qualifications grounded in both theory and practice. Slowly the purely academic basis was being changed, with the focus drawing away from the universities as sole providers. It was at this stage in the early 1990s that the concepts of leadership and management were being rethought.
MacBeath (2003) writes that leadership itself is ‘a term full of ambiguity and a range of interpretations [...] that can mean just what we want it to mean’. The trend was a shift from notions of management, to re-branding movements, projects and organisations under the leadership banner, which creates a distance between leadership and management -the latter being seen as a more limited concept and too closely associated with managerialism, a somewhat discredited approach based on rational, ‘scientific’ principles.
Nathan (2000) highlighted a need for new head teachers to receive proper preparation and more induction, arguing that this was even more necessary after the era 1988, which changed head teachers from administrators of lea policies with limited budgets into managers of an organisation with decision and policy making powers, and resulted in a totally delegated budget.
Volume3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
26     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
The United States of America
In a review of the isllc Standards,4 Murphy (2003a) shows the development of school administration in the usa that is a helpful accumulation and update of previous research. The initial phase was formed from philosophy and religion which resulted in a kind of doctrine of applied philosophy. Murphy sees little of this concept from the 1800s of administrator as ‘philosopher-educator’ surviving as the profession develops. The profession was ‘constructed [...] on a two layered foundation’ (2003a, 6) with concepts and theories drawn from management and the behavioural sciences. The idea of school leader as business manager developed early in the twentieth century and continued alongside new principles in the business world of how the corporate sector should be managed effectively.
Changes in the usa post World War 11 impacted upon school leaders. The new gurus of development were scientists. The quest for a ‘science of administration’ in schools, based on the behavioural sciences developed ‘a ladder shaped structure for the profession, with one leg fostering the growth of ideas from management and the other leg nurturing the development of concepts from the social sciences’. The solution was to deal with unanswered questions by adding lengths to either side of the ladder, believing that management problems require new management approaches and theoretical problems require new theories of science, following the vogues of sociology from political science to anthropology to postmodernism and to the new favourite Emotional intelligence.
Change, it is therefore argued, would need to come from a new arena. Murphy sees the development of isllc as the new pathway and believes that focus should be placed on the effectiveness of the organic whole, where the most important issues are quality, equity and the value added dimension. The aim is to change school administration from management to educational leadership and from administration to learning, while linking management and behavioural science knowledge to the larger goal of student learning. This is not a new alternative, but a re-framing. The isllc standards are seen as the Change Engine. This may answer the problem raised by Young et al. (2003,1), of how to rebuild the foundations of school administration ‘within the practice and academic domains of the profession’. The isllc has refocused school leadership to being about students, learning and teaching away from an organizational understanding of schools towards that of a community approach.
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     27
Norway
It was in 1936 that the term ‘overlærer’ (head teacher) first appeared, implying the idea of the school leader as ‘first among equals’. In the 1970s focus was placed on the assumed authoritarian relationship between teacher and pupil. Any focus on authority of either head teacher or teacher at that time was deemed to hinder and inhibit true dialogue and communication. The head teacher was still the first among equals, in what Telhaug and Mediås (2003) refer to as a flat structure. The education system of Norway has developed firstly along encyclopaedic curriculum lines and then towards progressivism, within the social democratic tradition of Scandinavia, and needs to be seen in the light of regionalism (Smith 1997).
Karlsen (2002) argues that it is only since the 1990s that focus has shifted to the power relationship between the adults in the school system. This recent development has focused on the planning, effectiv-ity and control of the educational process. This shift essentially moved the school head teacher from being the first among equals to a professional management representative for the education system (2002, 27). The development of terms used is interesting. Karlsen asserts that the term ‘rektor’,5 which appeared post 1975 as a development from the term ‘skolestyrer’ (literally meaning school manager), may be more associated with the Macro level of thinking, whilst the new favoured term ‘skoleleleder’ (school leader) is more suited to the organisational level. This is attributed to the beginning of the period of New Public Management (npm) (Karlsen 2002, 28). In the Norwegian context ‘leadership’ used to mean, in principle, to control the relationship between the inside and outside of an organisation, the result being that as long as clear roles and regulations are followed, leadership with authority is not needed, merely a gifted administrator (Karlsen 2002, 76). This is contrasted with the concept of‘management’, which has more to do with control. It is important to distinguish between actors, their influence, direct and indirect and processes, including strategies and dynamics.
Stålsett (2000, 281) writes that the leadership focus in schools should be on ‘pedagogical leadership’, that is, to concentrate on planning for and inspiring the main pedagogical processes of school, learning and development. This is a widespread norm amongst academics in the field of education and pedagogy in Norway (e.g. Grøterud and Nilsen 2001, Lillejord 2003, Møller 1996). The different opinions between the Ministry
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring 200s
28     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
and education researchers about the need for a more executive school leader can also be related to different interpretations of the level of professionalism of Norwegian teachers. If, as has been claimed (Tjeldvoll 1980a), a de-professionalisation process among teachers has taken place since the 1960s, the authorities’ initiatives for a stronger leadership make sense. Teachers and education researchers (many of them former teachers) may have in common values and interests that are contrary to the Government’s, of either left or right ideological orientation. Also in the Norwegian context, globalisation has impacted the education system and forced change upon the authorities. As a result the general focus of school leadership has become increasingly goal-oriented.
With no qualification initially available at universities or colleges, especially as the rektor was merely a promoted teacher, in-service training courses were instigated by the authorities in Norway from the 1970s. There was much variation in both content and delivery style reflecting the more decentralised nature and an ‘accept all views, favour none’ mentality in Norwegian school politics (Andersen 2002). The role of a school leader was not to be as concrete as it had been seen in the uk.
A period of increased decentralisation in the 1980s (Andersen 2002,17) saw each school taking more responsibility for the content of the school day. Three programmes were introduced during the period 1980–2000 aimed at renewing and developing the role of school leadership and, ultimately, the system itself. The first programme, in the period 1981– 1986, aimed at school development combined with leadership training, seemed to weaken the school leader’s position. The Ministry’s Board for Lower Secondary and Primary Education commissioned a nation-wide external evaluation of the programme (molis). The evaluation’s conclusion was that the programme had been a complete failure, firstly in terms of having goals that were not consistent with current education policy goals, secondly, the content of the training courses was neither consistent with the programme itself nor national policies. The training activities were incidental, and there was no evaluation of the participants’ learning achievements. At the school level there were no effects observed whatsoever (Johansen and Tjeldvoll 1987). In a follow-up report the evaluators outlined recommendations for a new programme that would be rational and consistent in terms of theoretical underpinning and policy relevance and with consistency amongst programme goals, training activities and evaluation procedures (Johansen and Tjeldvoll 1988).
However, subsequent programmes, although increasingly accepting
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     29
the necessity of increasing both administrative and pedagogical competence of the school leader, failed to succeed in achieving the double goals of school leadership competence and school development. It seems that the project managers lacked theoretical understanding and practical skills for programmes of this character. A more important reason for the lack of success is probably the fighting behind the scenes between different stakeholders having conflicting interests. Especially the main teacher trade union was negative towards seeing the appearance of a new school leadership profession that might disturb and curb their traditional, next-to-complete control over classroom activities. In the molis Evaluation there were found several indications of teachers and head teachers together sabotaging the programme, because real involvement would require them to change ways of working in a more innovative pedagogical way, which they thought would imply more work for them (Johansen and Tjeldvoll 1987). Teacher autonomy can result in either innovation or conservation. The quality of the school leader is likely to be decisive for one or the other. In 1993 the municipality was given responsibility to decide who should provide school leadership education.
Summarised, the development in the uk has been from decentralised to centralised control measures of school development, particularly indicated by the head teacher being expected to implement centrally decided policies. In the us a long period of understanding school leadership from the view of ‘administrative science’ seems to be challenged by pressures to focus more on leadership than on administration. In Norway an early period with the head teachers as an administrator, as the ‘first among equals’ was followed by instituting the rector as a manager above his ‘equals’. This development has over the recent decades been challenged by ideas of ‘pedagogical leadership’. However, the present policies seem to reinforce the management character of the role, stimulated by the influence of New Public Management ideas.
In the next section we will observe the present situation in the three countries, and try to track the influence of different stakeholders, interests and ideologies upon programmes for school leader training.
Uniformity, Complexity and Freedom
Key differences between the three countries are obvious. The us is a federal state with education ministries only at state level, and with strong local influence at district and community levels. Educational philosophy is pragmatist and progressivist. The uk used to have a decentralised sys-
Volume3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
30     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
tem, but Post era 1988 has turned both highly centralised and school-based simultaneously. Educational philosophy is essentialist and elite-oriented. Norway is a small country, with a centralist policy tradition, although significantly influenced by local interests and values. The teachers’ union and ‘the education lobby’ still have a strong influence on policy formation and implementation. Educational philosophy historically was encyclopaedic, but since ww 11 American progressivism has become increasingly more dominant. These differences given, what the three, however, now have in common are governments who see increased quality of education output as crucial for their future competitiveness in the global knowledge economy. In this section we try to see how this common policy interest plays out in terms of how training is organised and assessed by education researchers in the three countries.
the uk: cooperation and uniformity?
THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
2001 saw the first graduates of new headship training programmes as a result of the Government setting up the National College for School Leadership (ncsl) in 2000. In September 2000 the former Secretary of State, for the then Department for Education and Employment, David Blunkett, transferred responsibility for the administration of the three national headship training programmes to ncsl to be a ‘single national focus for school leadership development, research and innovation’ (DfEE 2000). The College has three core areas of activity:6
1.  leadership development (national and partnership programmes, including the National Professional Qualification for Headship (Headlamp) and the Leadership Programme for Serving Head-teachers,
2.  research and development and
3.  online learning, networks and information - including Talking Heads and Virtual Heads, which are the College’s online communities.
The process is underway to dovetail the many paths available today into educational leadership. According to Bush et al. (1999), ncsl shall: ‘Promote clear links between npqh and appropriate Master’s degrees, as advocated by the Secretary of State, to enable aspiring heads to “twin track” towards both qualifications and to move freely between routes in accordance with their professional development needs’. These ideas
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation      31
have also been raised by Brundrett (2001) pointing out that the ‘national programmes have created a complex, highly structured and centralized provision, which has led to concern about the dangers of establishing a heavy bureaucratic apparatus’. Along the same lines, Glatter claims that ‘all our experience, both within education and outside it, shows that it would be counterproductive’ (in Brundett 2001). He recognised that the ncsl could change this, but that still remains to be seen.
In its Framework for leadership (2002), ncsl highlight that a National Leadership Learning Network will draw together all existing strands as well as addressing more issues besides. Brundrett commenting upon ncsl’s programme, claims that in the post-modern, pluralistic era ‘competence-based training should have assumed apparent dominance’ (2000, 366) and that simplicity and measurability may be the key to its success, but at the same time be cause for critique ‘as simplistic, atomistic and behaviourally determinist’. Brundrett’s concern is whether these programmes are merely reductionism, or whether they ‘develop the kind of reflective knowing and higher order cognitive abilities that will undoubtedly be required by leaders in the increasingly complex world of educational leadership in the twenty-first century’. He further pointed out (Brundrett 2001) that ‘the uk has moved toward more cognitive-based learning in concert with practice experiences’, closer to the American style of training. He hopes that balance will be brought between theory and practice in the training programmes.
The programmes have been criticised in a national evaluation for not showing a ‘clear progression in the content of the three national training programmes for head teachers’ (ofsted 2002, 6), and are under re-evaluation, as are the National Standards in order to make them both ‘inspirational and aspirational’ as opposed to the criticism of being ‘overcomplicated and uninspiring [...] and only used to a limited extent by head teachers and other stakeholders’ (ncsl 2003). The first diagram in fig. 1 attempts to represent the current situation in the uk.
usa: complexity or chaos?
Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham (2003) write that the most central question in the usa today is what does it mean to lead? They point out that whilst ideas have changed about school leadership and needs have changed amongst school leaders and even institution members seem to embrace these ideas - the programmes themselves have not changed to any noticeable effect. The isllc Standards mentioned in section 2 were
Volume3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
32     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
Current leadership training structures in the UK
Current leadership training structures in Norway
Thick line circle indicates an actor in the process of school leadership training.
Broken lined circle indicates movement.
Thick lined arrow indicates focus of actor.
Dotted line indicates growing communication and cooperation.
Broken lined arrow indicates Government implementation.
HEIs - Public higher education institutions.
GOV- Government (SU - Norwegian national education office).
PRIV - Private higher education institutions, and consultancy firms etc.
HEAD - Individual headteacher.
KS - The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (NALRA)
in Norwegian Kommunenes Sentralforbund, KS). NCSL - National College for School Leadership.
figure i   The current situation in the uk and Norway: The National College for School Leadership and the National Network for School Leadership
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     33
rapidly adopted by 30 of the 50 state departments of education and have become the central point of a process of re-conceptualization of school leadership. The curricula of preparation programmes in universities are now being reformulated to include the teaching of the Standards together with the core courses such as school finance, law, curriculum development and instructional supervision.
Wagner points out that the main challenge to school leaders nowadays is to develop a framework for change by recuperating the spirit of community at each school. Schools have developed themselves as bureaucracies often managed by leaders who rely on compliance and not on commitment, as leaders in communities do, and they ‘[require] a leader with qualities of heart and mind that are very different from those associated with the traditional role model’ (Wagner 2001). Murphy (2003b) sees ‘a movement away from a century-long preoccupation with management ideology and with the dominant metaphor of superintendent as manager’.
There are over 500 training programmes and over 60 doctoral programmes for educational leadership in the United States and a wide variety of approaches and models. Two leading institutions are Harvard University and Stanford University. The Change Leadership Group at Harvard University focus primarily on the reinvention of the American school system through the return of the spirit of community. The emphasis is put on the development of leaders able to create a new framework for change. Other examples of a more humanist approach towards educational leadership are the training programmes and ongoing research at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay and at the University at Buffalo in the State of New York.
The training programme of Stanford University seems to follow a different tendency. In the Joint Degree Programme of the Graduate School of Business and the School of Education, the student obtains simultaneously a Master’s degree in Business Administration and a Master’s degree in Education. The focus of the programme is to prepare students to apply management skills to the field of education. The programmes focus on issues such as the application of technology to education, educational policy and management. The training programme of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania also follows this more business-influenced approach. The universities of New Mexico and San Diego aim at providing professionals with ability to improve learning not only at the school level but also in the business world, military and government.
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
34     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
In the usA a recent article by Townsend (2002,31) highlighted dissatisfaction with Doctor of Education (edd) programmes describing them as to ‘seemingly fail to provide practitioners with the knowledge, skills, and behaviours needed for effective leadership in educational settings’ These degrees seem to offer institutions with more status than the qualification offers to graduates. This further highlights the question raised by the ‘conservative’ Thomas B. Fordham Foundation’s Broad Manifesto Better leaders for America’s schools: Are school leaders merely ‘certified’ or are they ‘qualified’ for their role? The Manifesto (Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute 2003) concludes that The United States is approaching a crisis in school leadership. Nearly 40% of its 92,000 principals are eligible to retire in the next four years. They say that in many school systems, two-thirds of the principals will reach retirement age during this decade. These, they call the leaders that they already have, not the same as the leaders they say that they need. Their solution is to open up roles to those from non-educational backgrounds to lead the schools of tomorrow.
The League: Interdependence, Complexity and Collaboration
The usA is considered too complex to reduce to a simple response to the question of reforming school leadership training, but Young et al. (2003), in their ncaelp report, attempt to offer a new metaphor that may help resolve some of the underlying problems and lead to a possible refram-ing. As described earlier, each state in the usa has freedom to set up expectations and requirements for its school leaders. Young et al. (2003) argue that most programmes offered by institutions have therefore been at the whim of the ethos of the institutions themselves and reflect little of what is required of school leaders today, in relation to state and federal education policies.
Young et al. (2003) use two key words to describe the situation in the us today as one of‘complexity’ that requires ‘collaboration’. Quoting Ser-giovanni (1991) it is suggested that, in order to develop a new leadership practice, the metaphors must be changed and they present a strong case for Costas’ metaphor of a league to be applied to schools leaderships Costas points out that in a league, each franchise is not independent, but interdependent. The necessary interdependence of schools and educational institutions is forced by what the authors term ‘the only lasting definition of success [...] the achievement of children’ (1991, 22). This idea is paramount to all schools, but seems especially relevant in
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation      35
Educational Leadership Faculty		Other departments & college organisations		College of Education (Dean)
University context
Professional associations
State and national context
figure 2   The league of key-stakeholders contributing to
the quality preparation of educational leaders
(Young, Petersen, and Short 2003, 24)
the American culture and climate today. The authors claim that the impact upon leadership preparation ‘must be the development of competent, compassionate, instructional leaders committed to the success of every child’, maintaining that it is vital for all schools that their ‘concurrents’ are in just as healthy a position as they are themselves - where the perception of health should be equally understood by stakeholders and customers. The authors take the idea one step further and suggest that programmes for the preparation of educational leadership should adopt the same protocol as Costas suggests baseball should, in order to enter a period of growth again.
Young et al. (2003) consider there to be too many fragmented and conflicting programmes available to school leaders in the us today. No ‘national standards’ have been enshrined as yet in the us, unlike the uk. It would seem that with globalisation leading to demands and pressures upon universities to compete in attracting customers, this fragmentation will continue as development takes place with no fixed norms and little ‘national accountability’. That is, without a national system of evaluation and inspection, fragmented competition will continue to dominate current thinking. Of course, given that education, according to the Constitution, is a state task, this issue may always be an unresolved problem
Quality
leadership
preparation
program
Administrator field practitioners
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
36     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
in the us. However, the problem could perhaps be overcome with the recognition of ‘collective responsibility among stakeholders and an intention to associate in the preparation of competent, compassionate and pedagogically oriented leaders’ (2003, 23). The decisive proposition that each of the key stakeholders could adapt and work collectively is helpful. However, most of these issues are shrouded by their key issue, that what is preached is not practised. Intentions are not enough, binding structures and accountability are needed. These pointers tie in with the results from the Wallace foundation’s Making sense of leading schools (Portin et al. 2003), that most school leaders believe that the skills they developed in their jobs have come since they were settled in post. Comments from providers in the uk note that after 5 years in post there is little difference between those who have received training in school leadership and those who have not (Wales 2004).
NORWAY: FREEDOM AND TENSION?
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
In 1998, as the most recent nationwide school leader in-service training project was implemented, a regional network for school leadership programme providers was set up. The University of Oslo (uio) was given responsibility as leader of this network. The purpose of the Network was to draw out the best of the competence in school leadership training that had been developed in all regions of Norway and to develop it further. This was to be partly focused on by improving it based programmes that would provide greater access for all. In 2000 the project was completed, and was handed over to the Learning Centre at the Ministry of Education, for further development. At this point, and confirmed later in the Government white paper of 2002, uio was given the national role for coordinating school leadership programmes amongst the 19 other participating higher education institutions. The focus of the Network is to build up a decentralised resource bank, share experience, focus on research and reflect on international developments. Significantly there is no requirement to run the same types of programme in each region.
In 2001 an analysis of the last nationwide in-service training programme was made by Møller8 (2001). Although this was not an overall evaluation of all institutions’ findings it does contain interesting material. The Network of providers led to a great difference in what was on offer, especially in terms of a theoretical versus a practical based structure to the programmes. Møller criticised the Government’s revision
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     37
in 2000, amongst other things, for a shift towards mainly it provision and learning, over and above the more broadly based approach of the first programmes. She saw all of the new developments in the light of the previously mentioned shift by the Government towards New Public Management and application of goal and result orientated philosophies. Møller maintained that the difference between private and public leadership was becoming less clear. The fact that the municipal school administration had been made responsible for leader training makes the shift towards the private somewhat inevitable, since the training provider would be chosen according to the municipal administration’s interpretation of quality, relevance and price. In the country at large there would operate highly different understandings of goals as far as the role a school leader should play. The municipality stands between the Ministry of Education and the school. Møller highlights what she terms the Government’s rhetoric on the importance of curriculum analysis and school development, whilst the municipality seemed to be focusing on making their school leaders like all other local authority leaders and becoming more like small businesses trying to ‘sell themselves’. Implicit in her view seems to be that there is a contradiction between school leadership and leadership as a profession.
Møller throughout her report focuses on this shift away from the tradition of control of the Norwegian school system by the ‘education lobby’.9 At the same time she highlights the issue of the shift away from using primarily the public teaching institutions for leader training. She notes that whilst the Ministry of Education had given the role of Network coordinators to its Universities, Colleges and teacher training institutions, it was bi Norwegian School of Management, a private business school, that was called upon to train the Ministry’s top administrators in leadership of the education system (Møller 2001,20). But is this an unrealistic a situation? Møller herself admits that this may be due to greater satisfaction with the quality of the programme and a perception of the training being of greater relevance. Her fear is of programmes with a focus away from the basic goal of the Norwegian school system at the administrative level that in turn will influence the school at the lower level. The irony is, however, that Møller’s own programme in school leadership at uio in 2003 is being widened to target leaders from other sectors than education. The University seems being drawn into making competitive based reforms (Carnoy 1999), if it wants to stay in business.
Despite the fact that the training programmes are stated to be assessed
Volume3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
38     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
according to the Ministry of Education’s aims (Stålsett 2000), the ‘patchwork provision’ that has been on offer in Norway has not been structured in the same way as in the uk. The 2002 Government white paper highlighted the fact that research showed that about 60% of school leaders had no formal leader training and only 8% had 20 study points10 or above. In addition to improved teacher training, the Government saw professional training for all school leaders as the most important measure for the general quality improvement of Norwegian education. Competition is encouraged and private providers are welcome.
University of Oslo has already taken ‘the market challenge’ and is developing its school leadership programme into a Master’s in Educational leadership, which is aimed at both teaching professionals and those working in public administration. The latter target group might be seen as the University adapting to npm rationales. This course will be developed in cooperation with two other higher education institutions. It is a part time course, relying on a theoretical and practical approach with a heavy focus on personal guidance for candidates. Other institutions have offered courses in school leadership that are much shorter, modular programmes that can be tailored to suit individual needs (e.g. Buskerud University College). With more focus on the development of Master degrees many of these types of courses are disappearing or being subsumed into other programmes. There has also been the development of a national it cooperative project in further education of school leaders called Rektorskolen (the Head Teacher School) aimed at teachers and others wishing to develop skills for educational leadership. This programme has been available to all since autumn 2003.
Today there continues to be a heated debate around the focus upon leader of a school as a manager or as a ‘pedagogical leader’ (Telhaug and Mediås 2003). This question ought, however, to be seen as part of deeper changes in the Norwegian society; moving from collectivist welfare state and progressivist school philosophies towards a liberalist market economy, and school quality related to the knowledge economy. It also has much to do with the break up of the Welfare State and relative national autonomy as a result of globalisation.
Another question being raised about the future of the Network and the development of its ideas is a proposal for the 2003 plan for the National Network for School leadership to seek closer cooperation with ncsl (Møller 2003). This could be an interesting development, but exactly how similar are they in practice? There is a special focus with those academics
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     39
who hold a similar educational philosophy to their own, for example Chris Day talking of the ‘intelligent head with an intelligent heart’ (Day et al. 2ooo, 24). Which academic group/education philosophy is the most dominant in the two countries?
Also interesting developments may take place in the private universities and the extension of their Master programmes in educational leadership and management. Will they develop in parallel, in competition or cooperation, and how will they be affected by the particular Norwegian tradition of educational progressivism? These questions need further analysis, and only some of them will be focused on in the next section. The second diagram in fig. 1 (see page 32) attempts to represent the current situation in the Norway.
Converging or Different Rationales and Strategies?
Walker and Dimmock (2003) claim that there has been much borrowing in the arena of educational leadership:
The content of educational leadership programmes has considerable similarities in different countries, leading to a hypothesis that there is an international curriculum for school leadership preparation. Most courses focus on leadership, including vision, mission and transformational leadership, give prominence to issues of learning and teaching, often described as instructional leadership, and incorporate consideration of the main task areas of administration or management, such as human resources and professional development, finance, curriculum and external relations (Bush and Jackson 2002, 420–421).
Returning to Brundrett’s dichotomy (Brundrett 2000; 2001), and taking the UK as a starting point, what has been the recent development? Has it moved away from the ‘simplistic, atomistic and behaviourally determinist’ approach and has there been congruence with the us and other countries?
NATIONAL POLICY BACKGROUND
MacBeath notes that the current governments in the United States and the UK have placed education at the head of their policy programmes, and in an interesting development have made themselves figureheads for the development. This has also been true to a great extent in Norway,
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring 200s
40     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
where the current (2004) education minister Kristin Clemet has continued to head up policy development. MacBeath (in Walker and Dimmock 2003,104) writes that countries today are bound together by globalisation. This factor is important, as he notes how hopes for school leadership have been based on what he claims to be several myths, including acceptance of the business model, objective measurement for improvement, economic productivity and standards. This seems to be a common approach amongst politicians across the three countries. It would seem that this concurs with the earlier mentioned metaphor of ladder extensions of Murphy (2003a). It does seem bizarre to suggest that leadership of schools should now be refocusing on the learner again, what else could really be the focus of learning institutions? This has been the focus all the time, many would think, while others wonder if the teaching profession as such or the administrative apparatuses have become ends in themselves, with a primary concern for their own material interests, with less focus on children’s learning achievements. However, attention has varied about the significance of non-academic goals, and which organisational means would lead to high quality learning for all.
To adopt the league metaphor of Young et al. (2003) would demand outstanding quality of each individual provider in order to secure survival of the whole league. However, will each individual provider be nationally accountable in the us? A college will perhaps focus on equipping a group of prospective leaders through a nationally relevant curriculum, but will the individual leaders be accountable in their special situation and local climate? A network will allow for breadth and diversity, but can accountability be achieved without any standard format that can be tested or referred to nationwide? Accountability proved by systematic external evaluations seems to be a common denominator of policies in all three countries. However, MacBeath (2003) claims that research does not suggest that overall standards improve as a result of evaluations.
Murphy (in Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham 2003) calls for leaders to embed new dimensions in their approach to all pupils at their school, by becoming moral stewards, educators and community builders. Surprisingly enough these factors seemed to have been suggested for some time, discussed and been approved of, but still do not make it into programmes. Educators do not seem to have been able to convince the policy makers and mandators of education about the relevance and wisdom of their suggestions. Or, maybe the educators have not been sufficiently motivated to follow ‘the call’ of Murphy and others? If Murphy’s
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     41
new dimensions were taken seriously by policy makers and educators in administrative positions one would expect to see the dimensions as main criteria of goal achievement expressed in terms of reference for external evaluations. And the us, unlike the uk, without a national system of stringent testing, will find it increasingly harder to hold programmes to a desired common standard. Related to accreditation requirements, maybe ‘learning management competence’ of the leadership of the institutions offering training programmes ought to be externally evaluated? An interesting interconnecting line needs to be drawn to both the National network for school leadership in Norway and the National College for School leadership in the uk. The us could be described as sitting in between the uk and Norway, but at this present time due to the ideological climate considerably closer to the uk. The Norwegian educationalist academic response would tend to suggest that the mood is one of being able to select those ideas that suit development in what is seen as a well balanced system, whereas the current Christian Party-led conservative coalition government11 calls for more wide-sweeping changes, claiming that the very basis for the education system and its training is in need of an overhaul. Over and above, the Norwegian scene can be seen as a battle between the Conservative party, parts of the Labour Party, the business community on the one hand, and, on the other the Socialist Left Party in association with the Education Lobby.
PROVIDERS
In a time when research suggests that school leaders may come from non traditional backgrounds (Slenning 1999; Nytell 1994), Murphy asserts that leaders must still be constructed as educators and be ‘much more knowledgeable about the core technology of education in particular’ (2003b, 10) and among educators there is still great reaction to employing non-teachers as school leaders. Of course, this point of view can both be due to reasons of principle, or to protecting the profession from invaders.
Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham (2003) highlight that ncaelp sponsored articles have recognised a diversity of providers for school leader training in the United States, something which mirrors to some extent the uk experience, but has had relatively little impact in Norway. However, instead of offering a pre-packaged programme like the centralised focus directed by the ncsl in the uk, the American system has been far more fluid. One wonders if a similar approach to that in the uk
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
42     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
would have developed in Norway had there been a national requirement for leadership training and development. Most of all these ncaelp papers have highlighted the shift away from university involvement, not so much at the pre-service preparation stage, but within professional development. The UK has seen more initial training offered by private companies, but within a prescribed curriculum.
THE FUTURE
Whereas each country will need to adopt programmes to suit their societal culture (Walker and Dimmock2oo3), academic quality and policy relevance, especially the needs of the knowledge economy, must be assured. But how will it be assured? There is a need for greater leader autonomy anchored in solid professional competence based on profound theoretical understanding of organising of learning, of national education policy goals and of ‘educational efficiency’, as well as skills in planning, implementing and evaluating how the school organisation meets the goals of the students, the community and the nation. To evaluate school leaders according to these criteria, and only let leaders who meet the standards keep their job, will require huge paradigm shifts in each of the three countries.
However, if we use the label of learner centred lifelong learning, obviously the learner is at the centre and all resources must be directed to developing, training and supporting school leaders in this ultimate goal. The learner’s achievement level is the ultimate criterion of success for the school leader. This might require each country to break with their treasured traditions and adopt an approach like that of a league;: real involvement of all stakeholders, and taking responsibility for finding the common ground necessary for cooperation and accountability in terms of reaching equity by delivering quality education to all students. However, the key agent, decisive for making such educational justice happen, is the professional school leader. This leader ought to be employed on contract with a competitive salary, and the contract renewed only when the external evaluation had confirmed that he or she had made the school reach the goals of learning achievements of quality for all students.
To what extent, however, could - as Murphy (2003b) and Wagner (2001) call for - schools be perceived as communities again? One might argue that they have neither developed as organizations nor as communities, but finding another definition is difficult. The individual school may more closely represent either of these ideas depending on the influ-
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     43
ence of the individual approach of the school leadership, but in general practice, the political atmosphere has always decided the path a school shall take. One must therefore follow developments in education policy and curriculum traditions to come closer to a satisfactory definition.
There is also the issue of licensure across all countries. Just who should we look for, leaders with ‘hearts’ and ability for the role that are willing to be trained, or should we train the interested and formally qualified and then see if they are good enough and employable? Murphy (2003b) claimed that leadership should be determined by backward mapping from student learning. Therefore, simply put, key leaders would invest in the core business of schools, that is, organising of goal-effective learning for all students. Simply put, first, we look for people having demonstrated that they can organise learning effectively; secondly, within that group we look for people who can demonstrate that they can make their teacher colleagues develop their professionalism; and thirdly, within the group covering these two first criteria, we select those who have also demonstrated that they can manage (administratively) the school as an organisation in an effective and efficient way.
These factors seen together return us to the issue of whether teachers and only teachers make good school leaders. Murphy’s suggestions that practicing teachers make the best future school leaders could be questioned (2003a). Among the applicants scoring highest on learning management, personnel management and organisation management, those short-listed should be given a probation period - to prove, in practice, that they can deliver. Whatever their professional background, those who make their school deliver successful organising of learning making all learners strive to achieve optimally according to their abilities - they are the good school leaders.
Concluding Remarks
The purpose of this paper was to reflect upon a) to which extent there is convergence or recurring difference in how school leadership training is carried out in three countries, and b) to identify how current policies are assessed by education researchers in the three countries.
Convergence or Recurring Differences?
Globalising factors have increased demands for greater standards and improved skills of school leaders. The onset of competition creates a dichotomy in relation to their role. Although schools are enclosed within
Volume3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
44     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
national boundaries (and often regional to local ones) the effects of their outcomes are felt on a national and worldwide scale. Results matter and leaders are increasingly made to become more accountable. Accompanying decentralisation and public spending cutbacks have placed greater managerial responsibility upon the school leader role.
Alongside this one must recognise historical, social and societal contexts and backgrounds when examining school leadership practices. In one respect, each of the models mentioned in this paper might appear to provide internally appropriate responses to match cultural conundrums. However, at least in Western Europe, there appears to be a growing convergence towards even greater decentralisation of management responsibility and alongside central control of curriculum and targets. This increased accountability will require more consistent standard setting at national levels. Here the network model will find difficulty in retaining its coexistence of diversity, with insitutions finding greater difficulty in securing funding to promote the variety of programmes. The emphasis on ‘education’ over ‘training’ may continue to remain popular at the practitioner level, at least for some, but inappropriate at the mandator level. The claim for academic freedom may be relegated to the passing of the Humboldtian style University.
At the same time, the professional college model will need to make greater provision for bottom-up change whilst downloading state desires. Tension between implementers of national programmes, i. e. between the public and private instituions, will need to be regulated more. Is a national qualification enough to ensure the progression needed to manage a complex organisation such as a school and develop skills through the leadership and management team?
The league model remains at its conceptual stage and may develop to be nothing more than a good idea. Questions remain as to whether it is the golden middle way between the rigid structure of a college model supported by a national qualification and the diversity and fluidity of the network approach. It may ‘suit’ the American situation merely because of the geographic and societal complexity, but a reconsideration of the model - developing cooperation and competition at the same time -may be too hard to manage.
Educational Researchers’ Assessment of Current Policies
What are the similarities and differences between the three countries? An interesting similarity between Norway and the us is that education
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     45
researchers in both countries are suggesting a move away from greater focus on managerial practice towards the teaching process, in Norway expressed as the need for ‘pedagogical leadership’ and the head teacher as ‘the first among equals’. However, programmes in the us maintain the understanding of organizational management: a leader with authority above the staff is needed. Collaboration and linkage between stakeholders are seen as the way ahead in the us. Similar moves are now seen in the Norwegian network. Debate as to who makes up the stakeholders is perhaps a little more deferential, and collaboration is spread less widely in Norway. The dilemma is as yet unresolved in the us.
One factor that has been seen in all three countries is that active reform has taken place outside of the university. The slow moving universities have been extremely reluctant to either give up ground to others or change internally, or perhaps merely to respond to public policy. In the us competition is forcing their hand, in Norway it seems that a crisis of culture is forcing this, and in the United Kingdom it is governmental reform all stemming from the same external, globalizing pressures.
All three nations are attempting to ‘reframe and reform’, and some educators think the defining factors will be quality of performance and quality of collaboration, while others believe that there must be a shift from focus on performance to performance on learning.
Acronyms
DfEE Department for Education and Employment
era Education Reform Act 1988
lea Local Education Authority
moliš Miljø og ledelse i skolen (Environment and School Leadership)
ncaelp National Commission for the Advancement of Educational
Leadership Preparation ncsl National College for School Leadership npm New Public Management
npqh National Professional Qualification for Headship uio University of Oslo
Notes
1 The direct reason for doing this comparison is a Norwegian research pilot project on School Manager Training for Accountable Quality Education (head), funded by the Research Council of Norway’s special programme for Research on Innovation and Renewal of the Norwegian Public Sector 2002–2006. The purpose of the head Pilot was to
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
46     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
prepare a four year action research and comparative research project (2004–2007) on curriculum, organisation and achievements of school manager training programmes within ‘the value chain of education’ in Norway (see www.bi.no/cem).
2  Societal culture in the uk is said to be based on three continuing ideologies; individualism, intelligence and behaviour - described as normality (Garner 2000, 98).
3  At the same time the 1960s saw departure to a more child centred approach to the learning environment.
4  The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (isllc) Standards for School Leader’s, developed by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration and by representatives of 23 state departments of education (see http://www.sru.edu/depts/educatio/National %2oStandards%2oPrincipalship.doc). This document is composed of six standards, all beginning with the sentence ‘a school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by [...]’:
Standard 1: Facilitating the development, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the community.
Standardi: Advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conductive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Standard 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Standard* Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Standards: Acting with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Standard 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural contexts.
5  In Norwegian the title is rektor - from the Latin word meaning ‘to rule over’.
6  Http://www.ncsl.org.uk/index.cfm?pageid=ldf.
7  Applied by Costas to baseball.
8  Møller, in addition to analyzing the programme as a researcher, also played two other roles: the administrative coordinator of the Network and teacher at uio’s programme in school leader training.
9  The Norwegian ‘education lobby’ consists of the dominant teacher union, the education administrative bureaucracy at municipality, county and central levels, the majority of teachers and researchers
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     47
of the field of education at the universities and colleges - and the ‘Teachers’ Political Party’ in Parliament - The Socialist Left Party.
10  Equivalent to less than one semester of full time study.
11  The Norwegian Government 2004 is a coalition of the Conservatives, the Christian People’s Party and the Liberals, led by a Prime Minister from the Christian People’s Party.
References
Andersen, L. A. 2002. Skoledelse fra år 2002: En analyse av opplœringspro-grammerfor skoledere fram mot ledelses utvikling i skolen. Oslo: Peda-gogisk Forskningsinstitutt.
Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 2003. Better leaders for America’s schools: A manifesto with profiles of education leaders and a summary of state certification practices. The Broad Foundation: Los Angeles; Thomas B. Fordham Institute: Washington.
Brundrett, M. 2001. The development of school leadership preparation programmes in England and the usa: A comparative analysis. Educational Management and Administration 29 (2): 229–45.
Brundrett, M. 2000. The Question of Competence: The origins, strengths and inadequacies of a leadership training paradigm. School Leadership and Management 20 (3): 353–69.
Bush, T., L. A. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter, and P. M. Ribbins. 1999. Educational management: Redefining theory, policy and practice. London: Paul Chapman.
Bush, T., and D. Jackson. 2002. A preparation for school leadership international perspectives. Educational Management and Administration 30 (4): 417–27.
Cambron-McCabe, N., and L. Cunningham. 2003. National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership: Opportunity for transformation. Commission Papers, National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation.
Carnoy, M. 1999. Globalisation and educational reform: What planners need to know. Paris: unesco.
Day, C, A. Harris, M. Hadfield, H. Tolley, and J. Beresford. 2000. Leading schools in times of change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
DfEE. 2000. Department for Education and Employment remit letter for ncsl, 25 September. Http://www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/ remit-letter-25092000.pdf.
Garner, P. 2000. Vision or revision? Conflicting ideologies in the English education system. In Education in a global society: A comparative perspective, eds. K. Mazurek, M. A. Winzer, and C. Majorek, 95–111. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Volume3 · Number 1 · Spring2005
48     Arild Tjeldvoll, Christopher Wales and Anne Welle-Strand
Grøterud, M., and B. S. Nilsen. 2???. Ledelse av skoler i utvikling. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
Holmes, B., and M. McLean. ?992. The curriculum: A comparative perspective. London: Rutledge.
Johansen, K., and A. Tjeldvoll. ?987. Skoleledelse og skoleutvikling: Enped-agogisk evaluering av et landsomfattende etterutdanningsprogram for skoleledelse. Oslo: Solum.
Johansen, K., and A. Tjeldvoll. ?988. Evaluering av Ledelse i skolen: Teori-grunnlag Oslo: University of Oslo Institute for Educational Research.
Karlsen, G. E. 2??2. Utdanning, styring og marked: Norsk utdanningspoli-tikk i et internasjonaltperspektiv. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Lauglo, J. ?998. Populism and education in Norway. In Education and the Scandinavian welfare state in the year 2000: Equality, policy, and reform, ed. A. Tjeldvoll. New York: Garland.
Lillejord, S. 2??3. Ledelse i en lœrende skole. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Little, R., and M. Smith. ?992. Perspectives on world politics: A reader. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
MacBeath, J. 2??3. The alphabet soup of leadership. Inform, no. 2; University of Cambridge.
McLean, M. ?997. Leadership in education: Comparative and contextual perspectives. In Democracy or Nationalism Education in Post-Communist Europe, eds. A. Tjeldvoll and P. Nagy. Oslo: Institute for Educational Research.
Møller, J. ?996. Lœre å oglede: Dilemmaer iskolehverdagen. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Møller, J. 2???. ProsjektprogrammetLedelsesutviklingiskolen, ?u??. En opp-summering og analyse av gjennomføringen på nasjonalt nivå. Oslo: Institutt for Lærerutdanning og Skoleutvikling Universitet i Oslo.
Møller, J. 2??3. Nasjonalt Nettverk for Skoleledelse: Utkast til plan for 2??3. Oslo: Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling, Univer-sitetet i Oslo. Http://www.ils.uio.no/studier/utdanningsledelse/ nasjonalnett/nnettprosjektplan.html
Murphy, J. 2??3a. Reculturing educational leadership: The ????? standards ten years. Paper prepared for the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Http://www.npbea.org/Resources/?????_??_ years_9–?3.pdf.
Murphy, J. 2??3b. Reculturing the Profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Commission Papers. National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation.
Nathan, M. 2???. A Handbook for headteachers. London: Kogan Page.
n???. 2??2. A Framework for leadership. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Managing Global Transitions
School Leadership Training under Globalisation     49
Nytell, U. 1994. Govern or to be governed? A study of school leaders work and working conditions. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
of?t?d. 2002. Leadership and management training for headteachers. Report by ?mi 457. London: Office for Standards in Education.
O?CD. 2001. New school management approaches. Paris: o?cd.
Portin, B., P. Schneider, M. DeArmond, and L. Gundlach. 2003. Making sense of leading schools: A study of the school principalship. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. Http://www.crpe.org/pubs/pdf/ MakingSense_PortinWeb.pdf
Sergiovanni, T. 1991. The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slenning, K. 1999. Future school management: Do plans and needs match? A comparative study with examples from four o?cd countries. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Institute of International Education.
Smith, M. 1997. Regions and regionalism. In Issues in world politics, eds. B. White, R. Little, and M. Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Stålsett, U. E., ed. 2000. Ledelse av skoleutvikling: Oppfølging av Luis-programmet. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.
Telhaug, A. O., and O. A. Mediås. 2003. Grunnskolen som nasjonsbygger: Fra statspietisme til nyliberalisme. Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag.
Tjeldvoll, A. 1980a. Læreryrketiforandring En deprofesjonaliseringsprosess. Oslo: University Press.
Townsend, B. 2002. Rethinking the Ed.D., or What’s in a Name? A paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, California, November 21–24. Http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/????_townsend.pdf
Wagner, T. 2001. Leadership for learning: An action theory for school change. Phi Delta Kappan 82 (5): 378–83.
Walker, A., and C. Dimmock, eds. 2003. School leadership and administration: Adopting a cultural perspective. London: Routledge Falmer.
Wales, Christopher. 2004. Same problems, different solutions? Developments in school leadership training in Wales and Norway. Master thesis, University of Oslo.
Young, M., G. Petersen, and P. Short. 2003. The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Commission paper, National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation.
Volume 3 · Number 1 · Spring 200s