The findings indicate that the optimal relationship between the national stan- dards and the assessment system has not been achieved in either jurisdiction. In Hong Kong, although the assessment system makes frequent reference to the national standards, it fails to employ their key qualities as the basis for eval- uating participant learning. Given that the standards were constructed with as- sessment in mind (Walker et al., 2000), this constitutes a noteworthy and signif- icant omission, arguably impoverishing the assessment process and rendering it opaque. This situation does not appear to be commented on in the literature, as it has been in other research. For example in an American study by Johnston and Thomas (2005) of the Portfolio Assessment for School Leaders, it was stressed that the portfolio components were aligned with the relevant Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards.
In England, with some minor changes to the assessment system, the docu- ments could be very closely aligned, both conceptually and structurally. Howev- er these findings demonstrate that when the new national standards were writ- ten (2015) this was not attempted, which contrasts with the previous standards of 2004. Unlike Hong Kong, neither English document makes reference to the other. The implications of these findings are examined in the conclusion.
Compared to Hong Kong the English assessment system provides a much more coherent account of the leadership skills and qualities it sees as important for headship. Overall these closely mirror the research findings on effective leadership practices. Somewhat paradoxically it is the Hong Kong national standards that provide a detailed and coherent picture of the leadership prac- tices which are valued, with the assessment system only providing decontextu- alised extracts drawn from the national standards as examples.
This issue arises because final assessment is in the form of a portfolio, and the assessment requirements indicate that it is the candidate’s ability to analyse
and reflect on their leadership learning journey that is evaluated. Burgoyne (1989) notes that portfolios are used in the creative professions as a basis for judging competence and ability. He regards their use in assessing managerial competence as feasible and worthy of consideration, as a portfolio could em- phasise the qualitative nature of managerial abilities. However the findings pre- sented here indicate that, without strong and ongoing collaboration between participants and tutors over the development of the portfolio, participants will not find it meaningful to their development as leaders, and view it as an arbitrarily imposed extra burden. The essential finding is that the assessment process, through the portfolio, does not attempt to measure objectively performance lev- els in the specific leadership practices set out in the national standards. That this is both feasible and expected in other jurisdictions is confirmed by Johnston and Thomas’ (2005) research. The wider question about ‘process’ versus ‘prod- uct’ as the best way to assess readiness for headship is discussed in the next chapter.
Several negative perceptions of the Hong Kong CFP assessment process were shared by nearly all providers and graduates. These included the quality and standards of formative and summative assessment feedback and the unsuitabil- ity of the portfolio as a mode of assessment. In essence graduates’ dissatisfac- tion stemmed from an incomprehension of how the assessment process arrived at its judgements. Assessors did not echo these views, instead stressing the importance of reflection and individual potential in achieving success as a prin- cipal. Providers, assessors and graduates all shared the perspective that the CFP was a preliminary step in leadership development, with the NAP pro- gramme seen as much more significant in developing successful principal per- formance.
The finding that English graduates overall had a supportive view of the 2012 NPQH programme reinforces Crawford and Earley’s (2011) evaluation of the 2011 NPQH pilot.
However they note the enthusiasm and commitment of the pilot participants and observe that: “As successful graduates of the programme it is perhaps unsur- prising that their comments were generally positive” (p. 109). They also observe that since many other evaluative studies: “have focused on the views of recent
successful graduates it is hardly surprising that their experience is invariably re- ported in positive terms” (p. 112). Crawford and Earley draw attention to the dangers of an over-reliance on the perceptions of a single population when re- searching the efficacy of SLDPs, particularly of a population who have had a successful experience and have benefited from participation.
The research for this thesis obtained the views of not just programme gradu- ates, but of providers and assessors, two other groups that arguably have a more detached and professional perspective. It was a common perception of all three sets of English respondents that, although not flawless, the competency- based assessment framework was an appropriate construct to assess readi- ness for headship, and that it did this accurately and reliably. The gateway as- sessment, which determines who has access to the programme, was also felt to be fit for purpose by all three sets of respondents. By focusing explicitly, if not exclusively, on the assessment process, this study also extends the scope of recent SLDP research, which has concentrated on programme features (Dar- ling‐Hammond, et al. 2007; Darling‐Hammond, et al. 2010).
While providers and assessors felt the NPQH should continue, with its manda- tory status restored, they also felt that it was subjected to too much political in- terference. This had manifested itself in the assessment system through the dominance of competencies focused on resource and financial management at the expense of other important qualities.
Overall the findings expose a sharp contrast in the perceptions of the respon- dents from the two jurisdictions regarding the fitness for purpose, comprehensi- bility and educative potential of each assessment system. The implications of this are discussed in the next chapter.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Summary overview of the answers to the first three research