ZONA ACADEMICA

What counts as quality school leadership in the 21st _{century has also forced}

providers of professional learning to reconsider what counts as quality professional leadership learning. One way to research, develop and evaluate the professional learning offered by different providers is through examining the content, methods and structure features of the PD (Davis et al., 2005). Collectively, these three features set out the guiding principles for professional learning.

Davis et al’s (2005) review of research about leadership preparation identified key features of effective program design. Space precludes including full descriptions of each of these features, but in summary, these were the features most frequently identified in the literature as being essential to the development of effective school leaders:

Box 3 Content – The content of Principal preparation and professional

development programs should be:

Research-based

Programs should include knowledge that will allow school leaders to better promote successful teaching and learning … knowledge about collaborative decision-making strategies, distributed leadership practices, a culture of collegiality and community, processes for organisational change and renewal, and the development of management competence in the analysis and use of data and instructional technologies to guide school improvement activities. (p. 9)

and have:

Curriculum coherence

A well-defined and coherent program is one that links goals, learning activities, and candidate assessments around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about effective administrative practice. Highly coherent programs offer a logical, often sequential array of coursework, learning activities, and program structures that links theory and practice and are framed around the principles of adult learning theory. The learning activities provide a scaffold on which new self-directed knowledge is constructed, foster deep self-reflection, link past experiences with newly acquired knowledge, are problem- rather than subject-centred, and offer multiple venues for applying new knowledge in practical settings. (p. 9)

Methods – Program content should be delivered through a variety of methods to

best meet the needs of adult learners and to allow principals or aspiring principals to apply the curricular content in authentic settings. This may be done through:

ƒ Field-based internships – “…adults learn best when exposed to situations requiring

the application of acquired skills, knowledge, and problem-solving strategies within authentic settings, and when guided by critical self-reflection”. (p. 10) ƒ Problem-based learning – effective preparation programs feature instructional

activities and assessments that focus on problems of practice and stimulate effective problem-solving and reflection.

ƒ Cohort groups – adult learning is best accomplished when it is part of a socially

cohesive activity structure that emphasises shared authority for learning, opportunities for collaboration, and teamwork in practice-oriented situations. (p. 10)

ƒ Mentors – The primary role of the mentor is to guide the learner in his or her

search for strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a broad repertoire of leadership skills through modeling, coaching, gradually removing support as the mentee’s competence increases, questioning and probing to promote self-reflection and problem solving skills, and providing feedback and counsel. (p.10)

Structure – Principal preparation and professional development programs should

reflect a variety of structures, collaborations, and institutional arrangements. The need for more active modes of learning based on performance has led to increased collaboration between professional associations, employers, schools and universities as equal partners in the design, implementation, and assessment of principal preparation programs. (p. 10).

The authors point out that there is little research evidence yet as to how specific program components affect leadership performance on the job or student learning outcomes. Self-reports from candidates, and in the case of preparation programs, the candidates’ principals, tend to characterise many empirical studies (Bush & Glover, 2005; Davis et al., 2005; Leithwood & Levin, 2004; Menter, Mahoney, & Hextall, 2004; Watson, 2005; Wong, 2004). Weaknesses in research design more generally, such as variables in studies not being defined clearly and evidence collected not being complex enough to reflect the realities of school life, have not helped with accumulating a robust knowledge base (Mulford & Silins, 2005).

But the emphasis on content, as defined by Davis et al (2005), is certainly consistent with research on the characteristics of effective PD programs for teachers – programs that have been shown to link to improved outcomes for students (Hawley & Valli, 1999). Also noteworthy is the emphasis on active modes of learning through taking on authentic tasks, a point also made in Chapter Four about how portfolio tasks for certification are designed to engage school leaders in active modes of learning.

In Australia, jurisdictions have developed professional learning programs that reflect many of the key features of quality professional learning (see Appendix Five for other examples from Education Departments and professional associations). However, for most teachers, the professional learning pathways to school leadership are still not very systematic or predictable.

We now review the infrastructure for professional learning for each of the five systems in this review in the light of the above features of quality professional learning. The crucial question is the way in which the system ensures there are strong links between the standards and the professional learning.

Organisation of professional learning for prospective and