Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2013 Walker 405 34

Article
International Patterns
in Principal Preparation:
Commonalities and Variations
in Pre-service Programmes
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
41(4) 405434
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213485466
emal.sagepub.com
Allan Walker, Darren Bryant and Moosung Lee
Abstract
This article illuminates major features of high-quality leadership programmes across different education systems. We do so by focusing on capturing commonalities and variations in high-quality
pre-service programmes from five differing societies, all of which are high-performing education
systems. To this end, we first delineate key profiles of each programme. Based on that, we discuss
commonalities and variations in leadership programmes in terms of framework, content and
operational features. Finally, we flesh out important implications for policy and practice.
Keywords
high-quality leadership programmes, international comparison, leadership development, preservice programmes, principal, principal preparation
Introduction
Leadership is a critical determinant of organizational performance across organizations, including
schools (Barber et al., 2010; McCall, 1998). While often indirect, the impact of principals leadership on various indicators of organizational capacity and performance is significant (Bryk et al.,
2010; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). In this context, increasing attention is being paid
internationally to developing high-quality school leadership programmes (Barber et al., 2010).
System leaders are enamoured by their potential to equip potential principals for their work by
emphasizing instructional and organizational leadership (Bush and Jackson, 2002). Following
general agreement of the importance of meaningful preparation to successful school leadership,
research has documented indicators and/or features of high-quality leadership programmes (for
example, Barber et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Huber and West, 2002; Peterson,
2002; Pounder, 2011). Empirical research in the USA points towards a consensus regarding
programme features that best prepare aspiring principals (Pounder, 2011).
Corresponding author:
Darren Bryant, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, SAR1 Hong Kong.
Email: dabryant@ied.edu.hk
405
Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016
406
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)
Recognizing the need to expand our understanding of leadership preparation internationally,

this article aims to investigate how state-of-the-art leadership development has been conducted
across a number of different national contexts. Because purveyors of leadership preparation programmes look to practices elsewhere as models for improvement, this article will advance understanding of how programmes converge or are differentiated internationally by providing insights
into developing trajectories of principal preparation.
This article articulates the critical features of five principal preparation programmes selected
from Asia, North America and Australia by focusing on the following overarching question.
How are the leadership preparation programmes similar or differentiated internationally?
We address this question by focusing on the following three sub-questions.
Are there any common or different frameworks which bind leadership development
programmes with related leadership functions or local conditions?
What major content areas are delivered through the programmes?
How are programmes operationalized in terms of provider expertise, formal credentials and
participant selection?
Based on the answers to these questions, we provide a number of implications for principal leadership programme development. In doing this, the article identifies major directions that principal
preparation programmes are taking to meet the complex needs of principals working in everchanging global contexts in general, and various forms of educational reforms in particular
(Cheng, 2009).
This article consists of five parts. First, it briefly reviews relevant literature in order to provide a
comparative analytic framework for this study. Second, it describes the methodology employed in
this study in terms of site selection, data collection and analysis. The third part delineates major
features of the programmes used for analysis. Fourth, the findings are analysed in terms of two
major analytic categories: programme commonalities and variations in context. Finally, implications for programme development are discussed in-depth.
Literature Review
Over the last 20 years, school principals work has increased in complexity in response to wideranging reforms such as the coupling of school-based management with accountability measures
(Ball, 2008; Cheng, 2009; Gronn and Rawlings- Sanaei, 2003; Lee et al., 2012a; Lim, 2007; Walker
and Ko, 2011), standardized testing (Carnoy and Loeb, 2002) and the use of data related to student
learning outcomes to drive school improvement (Lee et al., 2012b). The pressures of implementing
such changes in schools, the skills needed to make them work and the time commitments required
have resulted in many potential leaders electing not to enter the principalship (Caldwell, 2003; Casavant and Cherkowski, 2001; MacBeath, 2011; Walker and Kwan, 2010). In Asian societies, such as
Hong Kong and Singapore, this problem is not evident (Walker and Qian, 2006). Nevertheless, the
bulk of recent research on leadership preparation has been conducted in western societies.
Within this context, preparing effective school leaders has been placed at the core of many educational reform agendas (Bryant et al., 2012) and has been the subject of much research. Indeed,
recent studies have focused on indicators of effectiveness of high-quality leadership programmes.
For example, Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) studied eight pre-service principal training
406
Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation
407
programmes in the USA, which were selected for their strong outcomes. Despite varied
approaches, the following features were embedded in each:
the alignment of a coherent curriculum with externally developed state and/or professional
standards;
an emphasis on instructional leadership and school improvement to guide the programme
philosophy and curriculum;
the use of active and student-centred learning strategies;
a teaching faculty that includes practitioners and scholars who are experts in their fields;
diverse support structures such as formal mentoring systems and cohorts;
a rigorous approach to participant selection;
supervised internships or school attachments.
Consistent with these indicators, the overall trajectory of leadership preparation programmes
has converged across different societies. Based on our previous work (Walker et al., 2011), we
particularly note this convergence in terms of three interdependent components of leadership
programmes that is, framework, content and operation.
With the increasing global emphasis on accountability, states or professional associations
frequently mandate leadership frameworks that are centrally defined and aligned to district or state
level educational policies (Bryant et al., 2012). Within jurisdictions, various providers may be
endorsed to deliver leadership programmes that meet the requirements stipulated in the frameworks. A possible consequence of this alignment is a narrowed choice of programme content and
learning outcomes for aspiring leaders, regardless of the selected provider (Huber and West, 2002;
Roach et al., 2011).
Although conducted mostly in western countries, previous research suggests a high level of commonality in the content of contemporary leadership development programmes. For example, Bush
and Jacksons (2002: 421) study of leadership preparation programmes in North Carolina, Ontario
and England found a shared emphasis on organizational, transformational and instructional leadership as well as traditional content areas such as professional development, finance, curriculum, and
external relations.
A body of research also shows that common features embedded in leadership programmes include
the engagement of participants in the field through experiences such as internships or university
district partnerships (for example, Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Perez et al., 2011; Piggot-Irvine,
2011). Both tactics aim to address the provision of authentic leadership experiences for programme participants. Perez et al.s (2011: 217) study of an 18-month-long field experience
found that participants developed a better understanding of school leaderships complexity and
particularly in the leaders role in fostering trust and relationships, encouraging collaboration,
and building leadership capacity within schools. The internship serves to contextualize skills
that are otherwise explored through simulations, case studies and problem-based learning, learning strategies that fall short of the same urgency, sense of responsibility, and discomfort
(Perez et al., 2011: 218219) encountered in the principalship. In such programmes, field
experiences form the centerpiece of authentic leader development.
Another notable common feature is participation in action-oriented projects and experiential
project based learning that allow application of learning in real-world contexts. Findings by
Piggot-Irvine (2011) suggest that for such approaches to be effective they require careful delineation of scope, time constraints and support from academic staff and/or mentors. This suggests that
407
408
leadership projects would benefit from being coupled with extended periods in the field and welldeveloped mentorship structures. In sum, over the last decade traditional (Grogan et al., 2009)
programmes held only in university classrooms have given way to school-based leadership development that emphasizes learning through practice in context (Piggot-Irvine, 2011).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) suggest that excellent leadership programmes demonstrate positive relationships between universities and districts. More specifically, Sanzo et al. (2011) report
that when courses are taught in an integrated fashion involving both university faculty and district
leadership, participants seemed more able to connect theory to practice.
Many of the above developments reflect a swing towards learning through practice. This development has been reinforced in many countries by the involvement of professional associations,
unions and non-governmental agencies as programme providers alone or in partnership with
universities and/or as contributors to state leadership frameworks (Bryant et al., 2012; Huber,
2004; MacBeath, 2011).
All these features illustrate a degree of convergence in terms of the operational features in
current leadership development programmes; however, we also contend that differing district and
national contexts impact on the operation of leadership development programmes (Leithwood and
Levin, 2008). Operationalizing leadership programmes seems to be inextricably intertwined with
local needs or local leadership cultures. Thus, whereas contemporary leadership programmes
employ similar features in terms of framework and content, state goals and local needs significantly impact on enactment (Bryant et al., 2012). Given that most previous research targeted
western-based leadership programmes, we believe that a focus on eastern societies may help identify variations. For instance, systems such as Hong Kong and Singapore that perform at the high
end of international measures and which retain examination-oriented cultures, may honour differing values that inform leadership preparation. We believe that capturing both commonality and
variations in quality leadership programmes will provide a fuller picture for school leadership
programme developers and policymakers. This perspective sets the scene of our inquiry.
Methodology
Site Selection
For the purposes of this study, we identified five leadership programmes from five different societies for analysis (that is, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the USA). Given the aim
to draw international comparisons in leadership preparation, selection criteria addressed congruence around indicators of excellence and diversity of context.
At the state level, each of the selected programmes is located in jurisdictions reported as top
performers in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We recognize that
PISA results do not evidence a direct relationship to leadership preparation. However, PISA results
are closely followed by policymakers, stimulate international competition and legitimate reform
efforts (Afonso and Costa, 2009; Rautalin and Alasuutari, 2009). High performing societies
become magnets of interest for researchers and policymakers looking for strategies to improve
their own educational systems (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). Accordingly, performance on PISA is
recognized in consultancy reports (Barber et al., 2010), policy papers (National Governors
Association et al., 2008) and academic research (Matthews et al., 2008) on school leadership, and
informs our selection. Each of the jurisdictions selected for study performs in the top 10 of PISA
measures. Further, the selected programmes are offered in jurisdictions identified for excellence in
408
409
educational leadership (Barber et al., 2010). Given the diverse performance on PISA that is found
within large federations such as the USA and Canada, this helped to narrow our selection
(for example, to specify New York and Ontario).
The five programmes were selected to illuminate commonalities and variations in high-quality
pre-service programmes, which aim to develop key knowledge and skills of individual leaders.
However, we note that there is substantial critique of this structural-functionalist approach to studies on leadership development programmes (Gronn, 2003; OReilly and Reid, 2010; Simkins,
2012). Specifically, Gronns conceptualization of designer leadership problematizes current
leadership development programmes which are predominantly aligned with standards-based
approaches. Based on Foucaults concept of disciplined subjectivity, Gronn (2003: 283284)
argues that both aspiring and practizing leaders are expected to subject themselves to standardsbased leadership development programmes by acting in conformity with a leadership design
blueprint which is accredited by the standardizers, typically a state agency such as the National
College for School Leadership. For Gronn, standards-based leadership development programmes
are viewed as social apparatuses to achieve disciplined subjectivity. Similarly based on the Foucauldian perspective, OReilly and Reid (2010: 960) posit that there has been an emerging set
of beliefs that frames and justifies certain innovatory changes in contemporary organizational and
managerial practice, which they call leaderism. They further argue that leaderism as a public
policy discourse is predominantly permeated in current leadership development programmes in the
UK and that it functions as a social and organizational technology for control. In line with this
problematization of current leadership development programmes, Simkins (2012: 634) suggests
more studies on leadership development programmes from constructivist perspectives in that the
goals and outcomes of leadership development programmes may be contested areas and the
formation of leader identity is at least as significant an issue as the development of specific skills
and qualities. Reflecting such substantial critique, we wish to note that follow-up studies using
critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995, 2003) are needed for analysing goals, strategies and
outcomes embedded in leadership development programmes with more critical perspectives.
At the programme level, selection criteria used recently delineated research-based indicators of
exemplary leadership programmes with high performance outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2010). These include alignment to state and professional standards, an emphasis on instructional
leadership and school improvement, student-centred learning, knowledgeable faculty, cohort
structures, formalized mentoring and advisement, rigorous participant selection and site-based
internships (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010: 181182). Although the selected programmes share
such features, commonalities and variations in their development, employment and emphases need
to be further understood. Selecting programmes with broadly shared features allow for a more
fine-grained analysis of similarities and distinctives.
Each programme leads to a credential accredited by regulatory agencies or universities. We
exempted Victoria, Australia from this final selection criterion in order to meet selection criteria
for the diversity necessary to obtain an international perspective on principal preparation in high
performing educational systems. Additionally, we justify this decision because of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the states various leadership development programmes, while not required,
are figuring as important in leader recruitment. We note that of the top ranked PISA performers,
most do not have required pre-services preparation programmes, which eliminated countries such
as Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands from our selection.
Finally, we limited our study to systems that operate leadership programmes in the medium of
English. This served practically to assist in data collection and analysis as the selected systems had
409
410
Table 1. Selection criteria.
State level
indicators
Congruence
Diversity
Top performers on PISA
In geographical location and culture (Hong Kong,

Singapore, Australia, Ontario, New York)
In political system: federations and unitary states
In educational system (for example, testing and
performance cultures)
In principal qualification regulation (from
centralized and required to decentralized and
not required)
Degree bearing and non-degree bearing
programme.
Recognition in consultancy reports
Programme
level
indicators
Provide accredited credential
Qualification as a requirement for

principal appointment (except
Australia)
Meets criteria of exemplary leadership
programme.
Providers range from universities, to professional

associations, to not-for-profit agencies.
documents in English which were publically available on the Internet or by request.The selection criteria in terms of congruence are summarized in Table 1.1 Table 1 also presents the selection criteria
applied for diversity. This reflects variation in geographic location and culture (Asia, Australia and
North America), in qualification system structures (from centralized and required to decentralized and
not required), variation in testing and performance cultures, in political systems (federal and unitary
states), and in programme providers (universities, professional associations and non-governmental
agencies). Our selection does not cover all possible high performing programmes, however we contend that it exemplifies a diverse enough range of systems, providers and programmes from which to
inform our conclusions about commonality and variation in international programmes.
Sources and Data Collection

The data set comprises reviews of programme evaluation reports, in-house materials such as syllabi
and Internet searches. Each of the researchers initially explored different programmes, contacted key
personnel, searched the Internet, and uncovered academic papers and internal documents related to
the specific programmes. While Internet data often provided the general structure of programmes, the
evaluation reports, programme guidelines and interviews served to tease out key or unique features of
each. (See Appendix 1 for sources in addition to those provided in the reference list.)
Analytical Strategies
We devised a comparative analytic framework based on our review of extant literature. Leithwood
and Levins (2008) leadership development typology informed the initial draft of the framework
(their influence is referenced in the framework in Appendix 2). Leithwood and Levin (2008)
observe a lack of a comprehensive leadership typology. Accordingly, through the literature review
we identified other facets of leadership preparation programmes and wrote descriptors of each in
order to build a broader analytic typology. We used each item in the expanded typology to guide
our initial analysis. We met regularly throughout the process of data collection and analysis to
review and revise the conceptual framework. We added, merged and renamed the codes iteratively.
Renaming or developing new codes proved essential.2
410
411
Initially, the literature review suggested multiple content areas. While we used these to code programmes, given that our purpose aimed for comparison we used a constant comparative approach
(Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2007) to identify content common across the five programmes.
This process led to the creation of a separate code to stress the prominent or distinctive features of the
respective programmes. The source of content also emerged as significant given the varied roles of
frameworks, academics and practitioners in structuring and delivering programme content.
Nearer to the end of our analysis we arranged the codes under five broad themes: purpose,
framework, content, delivery and operational features. However, in this paper we limit our discussion to the three themes that emerged as most significant and interrelated:3 framework, content and
operational features. For example, frameworks often inform content areas, operationalize programme purposes and drive programme features and delivery. Although we do not analyse purpose
and delivery, these overlapping influences and connections are explored later in this article.
As we developed new codes, we wrote new definitions as a code book that provided observable boundaries for each code (Quartaroli, 2009: 265) and met frequently to ensure consistency
in our application of the codes to analysing the respective programmes. Where applicable we
followed Leithwood and Levins (2008) model of defining each code along a continuum that
expresses a range of possible manifestations. To reflect this range in the coding process, we
devised key word descriptors, or sub-codes (see Appendix 2).4
In order to organize the data in a manner suitable for comparison, we constructed a range of data
displays (Miles and Huberman, 1994) for each programme. The displays took the form of matrices
to summarize the data and partially ordered displays to evaluate the interrelationship among programme components (that is, codes). Within the cells of each matrix we placed extracts from the
raw data, summaries and/or keyword descriptors. This provided a basis for cross-case comparison.
We worked together to reduce the data (further honing our codebook) and create cross case
matrixes to compare the data across programmes. The displays (further reduced into Appendix 3)
provided the basis for writing up the findings.
Programme Profiles, Contexts and Frameworks

In this section, we describe key features of the selected programmes and some of their distinctive
features in order to provide readers with profiles of each programme, their respective frameworks
and the contexts in which they operate.
Canada (Ontario): Principals Qualification Programme (PQP)

In Canada, the province of Ontario has long mandated a pre-service qualification for entry into the principalship, termed the Principals Qualification Programme (PQP). The PQP is regulated by the Ontario
College of Teachers (OCT), which mandates programme expectations, content requirements and
learning outcomes. The OCT also accredits providers, which include six universities and three professional associations (Ontario College of Teachers, 2011). The OCTs guidelines in turn cohere to the
Ontario Leadership Framework, developed by the Institute for Education Leadership (IEL, 2008),
which cites Leithwood et al.s (2006) influential research synthesis as providing the frameworks
theoretical underpinnings. These informed four of the frameworks leadership domains (IEL, 2008):
setting directions;
building relationships and developing people;
411
412
developing the organization;

leading the instructional programme.5
In sum, the framework used in Ontario is research informed, adapted by the IEL, mandated by
the OCT and implemented by different providers. In addition, beyond training for aspiring principals, the framework informs various facets of leader development, including mentoring (Ontario,
2010a), and performance appraisal (Ontario, 2010b) and is delineated for principals, district
supervisors, and government and Catholic schools.
We have selected the PQP delivered by the Ontario Principals Council (OPC) for analysis. The
OPC, as the professional association for principals, offers a programme distinctive from those
typically run through universities. The OPC delivers the PQP throughout the province in urban and
rural districts, making it one of the most widely distributed leadership programmes in the province.
This scope is reflected in the number of candidates who complete the programme annually, placing
the OPC as the PQPs largest provider. While the PQP does not award a postgraduate degree, agreements between the OPC and three universities in Canada, Australia and the UK allow credit to be
transferred into masters degree programmes offered by the respective universities.
Australia (Victoria): Master of School Leadership (MSL)

The Australian state of Victoria has placed leadership development as key to the states school
improvement efforts (Elmore, 2007). This has led to the creation of the Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership, an agency within the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), which supports leadership development for current and aspiring school leaders.
It is responsible for the implementation of the governments Developmental Learning Framework
for School Leaders (Department of Education, 2007). The framework is derived from the work of
Sergiovanni (1984, 2005) and accordingly targets the following domains.
Technical: Thinks and plans strategically, aligns resources with desired outcomes, holds self
and others to account.
Human: Advocates for all students; develops relationships; develops individual collective
capacity.
Educational: Shapes pedagogy; focuses on achievement; promotes enquiry and reflection.
Symbolic: Develops and manages self; aligns actions with shared values; creates and shares
knowledge.
Cultural: Shapes future; develops a unique school culture; sustains partnerships and
networks. (Department of Education, 2007)
It provides competency indicators for each domain and informs principal induction, development,
selection, mentoring, succession planning and professional learning (Department of Education, 2007).
In Victoria, there is no single credential required of principals; however, the Bastow Institute
has developed a range of pathways for leader development. These range from weekend workshops
to a 2-year Master of School Leadership (MSL) delivered by two providers: the University of
Melbourne and Monash University (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development,
2010). The Bastow Institute serves to regulate and accredit the MSL. We focused on the MSL
delivered by the University of Melbourne as it is the states largest university, a significant international leader in educational research, and a major provider of pre- and in-service training for
teachers and leaders in Victoria.
412
413
Singapore: Leaders in Education Programme (LEP)

Since 1997, Singapores educational reforms have been aligned with its vision of Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation and further specified in 2005 through the states policy initiative Teach
Less Learn More (TLLM) (Ng, 2008, Ministry of Education [MOE], 2005). Under TLLM, the
role of school leaders has been redefined to stress the development of creative and innovative
transformational leaders, and instructional leaders capable of creating and implementing innovative programmes for diverse learners (MOE, 2005; National Institute of Education [NIE], 2010).
The underlying goals of this vision are summarized as (1) developing all students into lifelong
learners through critical thinking, (2) forging creativity and entrepreneurship in schools and (3)
creating a culture of learning and innovation across various societal sectors and levels (Ng,
2008). To achieve these goals, Singapore mandates a single pathway to the principalship through
the Leaders in Education Programme (LEP), which in 2001 replaced the Diploma in Educational
Administration. It is delivered only by the NIE.
In keeping with government policy, the LEP draws its framework from international models,
which are adapted to focus on promoting creativity, innovation, diversity and distributed leadership. To provide a coherent framework to deliver these aims, Singapore, like Victoria, draws on
Sergiovannis Five Forces of Leadership but also applies Howard Gardners (2008) Five Minds
for the Future to identify key competences and attitudes, termed mind-sets, that are needed to perform the roles (NIE, 2011: 56). Summarizing Gardner (2008: 3):
the disciplined mind develops expertise in at least one discipline that entails a specific set
of skills, knowledge and understanding;
the synthesizing mind collects, analyses, evaluates and synthesizes information from wideranging sources;
the creating mind moves knowledge ahead of technological advances through innovative
questioning and thinking;
the respectful mind, cognizant of the globalized worlds interconnectivity, negotiates differences among individuals and societies;
the ethical mind acts for the greater social good over self-interest.
The framework, developed by faculty at the NIE and endorsed by the MOE is applied narrowly
to the LEP, for which it was specifically created.
Hong Kong: Certification for Principalship (CFP)

Until 1999, leadership preparation in Hong Kong followed no clear and coherent pathway. A shift
towards involving academics and practitioners in developing and delivering a mandatory leadership preparation credential occurred in response to two consultation reports in 1999 and 2002,
resulting in establishing the Certification for Principalship (CFP) as a mandatory entry requirement
for principals. Currently, the government licenses three providers, all tertiary institutes, to deliver
the CFP. Providers must demonstrate an alignment of the programme they designed to a required
framework, Key Qualities of the Principalship in Hong Kong (Education Department, 2002;
Walker et al., 2002; Walker and Kwong, 2006).
The Hong Kong framework is located in a wide range of international research, which has been
adapted in response to research conducted on leadership in the Hong Kong context (Walker et al.,
2002). It comprises four leadership domains:
413
414


strategic leadership;
instructional leadership;
organizational leadership; and
community leadership.
These in turn inform six core areas of programme foci:

strategic direction and policy environment;

learning, teaching and curriculum;
teacher professional growth and development;
staff and resources management;
quality assurance and accountability;
external communication; and
connection to the outside world.
The six core areas are further delineated by a structure of values, knowledge, skills and attributes
that guide leadership development programmes for aspiring principals, which the CFP targets, newly
appointed principals and serving principals (Education Department, 2002).
The United States (New York City): Aspiring Principals Programme (APP)
New York City comprises the largest public school district in the USA. Its recent reform efforts
explicitly highlight leadership, empowerment and accountability as three key pillars in reform. These
aim to close the achievement gap by stressing high standards for students and the use of data to drive
improvement and shape accountability processes (Fryer, 2011). Within this context, the New York
City Leadership Academys (NYCLA) Aspiring Principals Programme (APP) has demonstrated its
success in raising student outcomes (Corcoran et al., 2009).
The APP programme framework differs from the PQP and MSL in that it is developed by the
provider, the NYCLA and derived from multiple standards set at the national, state and city levels.
Termed the Leadership Performance Standards Matrix, the framework emphasizes transformational and instructional leadership and drives content and assessment across 12 dimensions:

personal behaviour;
resilience;
communication;
focus on student performance;
situational problem-solving;
learning;
accountability for professional practice;
supervision;
leadership development;
climate and culture;
time, task and project management, and;
technology. (NYCLA, 2012)
This framework guides participant selection, curricular scope, assignments, programme

advancement, interventions and the comprehensive evaluation of each participant (NYCLA,
414
415
2012). Graduates must demonstrate competency in each dimension, further delineated by 55 behavioural criteria, which are in turn defined along a continuum of not meeting, progressing towards
and meeting the standard. The Matrix has in turn been applied to the development of a Leadership
Performance Planning Worksheet in conjunction with the states of Delaware and Kentucky and the
Wallace Foundation. The Worksheet is used in the development of novice principals and is aligned
to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008),
which are derived from a database of 83 international empirical studies and 47 other references.
In this sense, the NYCLAs Matrix has wide influence, although not through the initial mandate
of a singular state regulator.
Commonalities and Variations in Leadership Preparation Programmes

Frameworks
The preceding section points to several commonalities in terms of programme frameworks. The formation of frameworks is significantly influenced by governments, central/district offices and/or international pools of research, and are mediated by regulating agencies and programme providers.
Typically, the frameworks do not stand in isolation, but are often applied or adapted to guide a range
of leadership development strategies and programmes. Framework developers look to extant internationally respected theories and/or empirical research to underpin them but make adaptations to account
for the local context. Ontario does so by adding a fifth dimension to the Leithwood et al.s (2006)
framework, Hong Kong by adjusting international findings to account for local leadership research,
and Singapore by focusing the framework on national policy concerns of nation building and international competitiveness. In the case of New Yorks APP, standards are developed from a range of
sources and are focused locally on leadership preparation in underperforming schools.
Variations occur in the source of the frameworks and in their application. The programmes in
Ontario, Hong Kong and New York look to syntheses of research from which programme standards
and structures are derived. Ontario applies a synthesis by Leithwood et al. (2006) originally published by Englands National College of School Leaders, so in a sense borrows an extant framework
that informs practices elsewhere. Hong Kongs framework is derived from an international synthesis
of literature filtered through research on leadership in the local context, and the NYC Leadership
Academy on a synthesis of standards which are in turn underpinned by research. The Singaporean
and Australian programmes provide interesting variations. Although both articulate explicit frameworks, rather than being derived from large-scale research syntheses, they are inspired by Sergiovannis model which in turn is based on empirical research.
Common Content Areas

We note that each programme emphasizes facets of instructional and transformative leadership and
addresses specific topics as determined by their respective frameworks. As presented in Appendix
3, there is a great deal of commonality across a plurality of topics. The most salient common
feature across the programmes is that content is to some extent determined in the form of centrally
defined competency frameworks (Ontario, Victoria and Hong Kong) or frameworks developed
by the provider but which draw on a range of sources for their construction (Singapore and New
York). Where content expectations are delineated by regulators, providers shape programme content by allocating instructional resources, determining assessment strategies and stressing areas of
respective expertise. Coupled with this overall commonality across programmes (see Appendix 3
415
416
for more details about commonality), we wish to highlight that there are context-specific variations
across programmes, which are teased out below in detail. Variations in context and content source
shape programme foci, at time narrowing the focus to the needs of communities and students.
Key Foci
National and Local Contexts. By analysing the programmes comparatively, contextual features
emerge as drivers of content selection. In some instances, statutory or national aims determine the
key areas of content foci. The OPCs PQP programme draws particular attention to issues pertaining to inclusion and diversity, which reflects Canadas constitutional status as a multicultural and
bilingual country, and legislative requirements to address issues of access for aboriginal peoples as
well as those with learning and developmental challenges (Ontario Principals Council, 2011a,
2011b). The content of Singapores LEP aligns to aims of nation-building in an era marked by
international competitiveness, globalization and societal change. This includes an emphasis on
knowledge creation and innovation, the development of networks, understanding international and
corporate leadership contexts, and social constructivist processes (MOE, 2005; NIE, 2010, 2011).
To provide instruction in these areas, the LEP comprises foundational coursework at the NIE, a
school attachment in which candidates are meant to generate innovative solutions to problems
of practice, a school based Creative Action Project and participation in a learning community
called the Learning Syndicate as well as management dialogue sessions and industrial attachments (LEP, 2011). In Victoria, the states emphasis on leadership development informs MSL content through the governments Developmental Learning Framework and to 13 core leadership
modules developed by the Bastow Institute. In contrast to the state defining content, New York
Citys APP targets concerns of the local school district, which includes a large number of inner
city schools. Local need drives its focus, emphasizing instructional leadership as the way to narrow the achievement gap. This specifically involves leadership preparation for instructional
improvement in low-performing schools located in high poverty communities.
Sources of Content
In each of the programmes, content is derived from leadership frameworks, however other factors
may shape programme specificity.
Student and Community Need. Hong Kongs CFP addresses all of the common content areas, but a
dual emphasize on a needs analysis (for example, participants self-analysis) and the academic
practitioner nexus shapes programme content. The needs analysis forms a profile for individual
participants that is based on extensive multi-point feedback (Walker and Kwong, 2006: 8). Participants respond to the needs analysis by creating a learning portfolio that demonstrates their
in-school learning development. Instructors, mentors and syndicate group leaders, who are senior
school principals, use individual needs-analysis results to provide feedback and guide participants
development. The needs analyses are in turn used to create a cohort profile that allows instructors
to tailor the content of subsequent modules to address the identified learner needs in alignment to
the framework. In the OPCs PQP, the involvement of practitioners, serving principals and district
specialists, as primary instructional leaders, guest lecturers and mentors is intended to permit a
focus on the particular needs of the wide-ranging communities in which the programme is
delivered.
416
417
Professional and Academic Content. Providers expertise, and that of their faculty members, focus
programme content. The OPCs status as a professional organization gives its PQP curriculum
writers access to its counselling and legal arms. This informs content pertaining to law and ethics,
giving it particular currency in these areas. In New York, the APPs content, skills and assessment
are delivered in a 6-week summer intensive course and through leadership development sessions
during a 10-month school residency. However, the interpretation or emphasis of content within
these components are influenced by the contextual aims of the programme and its strong practitioner orientation, with instructors and mentors comprised of current and retired school leaders and
district personnel. Melbournes MSL emphasizes leaders self-knowledge through positive psychology to ground effective leaders (Waters and Luck, 2011), apparently drawing on the academic
expertise of the programme director in organizational psychology. Delivered by a major research
university, the MSL programme provides students with access to international researchers via the
University of Melbourne faculty and visiting academics. The MSL differs from the other programmes we examined given its exceptionally strong emphasis on developing leaders as researchers who make contributions to theory through action research. Thus, in addition to being guided by
a mandated framework, content is shaped by the particular expertise of its academics, who provide
a stronger academic orientation than the other models examined.
The above indicates that while frameworks, often informed by state legislation, determine the
primary content direction, content specification is mediated by identified student community needs
and the particular expertise and organizational purposes of the providers.
Operational Features
The Practitioner Turn. Perhaps of greatest significance is the trend towards practitioners taking on
expanded roles in leadership preparation. Across all programmes, practitioners play crucial roles
in providing guidance to aspiring leaders through mentorship or job shadowing in participants
own schools or in schools allocated by the respective programmes. Practitioners tend to be
involved in all aspects of the programme including on-site or in-class mentoring, formative and
summative feedback, and, particularly in the OPCs PQP and NYCLAs APP, as formal instructors
and assessors, replacing positions conventionally held by university staff. Practitioners are seen to
lend credibility by providing relevant tacit knowledge that permits the tailoring of programmes to
the needs and resources of the local district, school and community context. The use of professional mentors in Victoria or district leaders in Ontario also provides the potential of contextualizing the content and skills articulated in the framework. Whereas Hong Kongs CFP, the University
of Melbournes MSL, and the NIEs LEP emphasize content derived from research and academic
networks, they still use practitioners as the oil to make the programmes work.
Tripartite Collaboration. Selected leadership programmes depend on the tripartite collaboration
among government/regulator, provider and schools. This collaboration informs the development
of leadership frameworks, programme regulation and content. Although the relationship of regulator to provider often appears mandated, the development of programme requirements may
emerge through consultative processes. For instance, in Ontario providers were included in planning the redevelopment of the PQP requirements. Tripartite collaboration permits multiple providers to deliver the programmes in a manner that ensures some continuity in philosophy and content
and simultaneously catering for local needs by drawing on local expertise. In most programmes,
this occurs at the school level where mentors guide aspiring leaders in their development. The MSL
417
418
exemplifies tripartite collaboration in that participants work with three mentors reflecting professional, academic and in-school programme aims. This mirrors the tripartite aims of encouraging
participants progression along the developmental framework, honing their skills as researchers
and ensuring that their work meets school needs.
Provider Expertise. Across the systems studied, elements of choice are offered to candidates. For all but
Singapore, candidates may choose from different providers. The aspect of providing some measure of
choice to leadership candidates appears a significant operational feature of leadership training
programmes. However, once admitted to an individual programme limited choice is offered as candidates progress as cohorts thorough a prescribed curriculum. The providers we examined in Ontario,
New York, Victoria and Hong Kong are each among one of several in the respective jurisdictions. Programmes are shaped by the providers particular expertise. Programmes offered by professional associations and not-for profit groups draw on networks and resources that differ from university-based
programmes. They tend to emphasize practitioner orientations, local networks, and content derived
from professional sources. For example, the OPC draws on its professional networks to identify top
school leaders to act as instructors.
Formal Credentials. The programmes deliver a range of credential options. All but the MSL leads to
a formal and required licensure needed to become a principal. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the MSL is becoming a highly regarded credential for school principals. In addition to
formal licensure, some programmes offer pathways to academic credentials, although in different
ways. The MSL alone terminates in a postgraduate degree. However, in Ontario, the OPC is
affiliated with universities in Canada, Australia and the UK which recognize its PQP as partial
credit towards their master degree programmes. In Hong Kong, all providers are universities and
the CFP is recognized as postgraduate credit at the discretion of the various universities. The
Singaporean and New York programmes lead to the earning of a license but not a postgraduate
degree.
Selection. All programmes have rigorous selection criteria, which typically require the prior completion
of other academic or professional development programmes as well as the endorsement of a participants supervisor. In Ontario, Melbourne and Hong Kong, qualified participants may join the respective programme. This broad based selection contrasts with New York and Singapore in which
applicants compete for limited places. New York selects only 23 per cent of applicants those considered most likely to succeed in the challenging inner city context (NYCLA, 2011) whereas Singapore
limits places to vice-principals and Ministry of Education officers, which also selects participants. This
limited selection may also reflect the framework and local goals of the respective programme.
Conclusion
Summary
We identified that the overall trajectories of leadership preparation programmes have converged
across the five high-performing education systems in terms of three interdependent programme
components that is, framework, content and operation. Apart from these commonalities, we also
note that differing local and national contexts have an impact on creating variations in terms of the
enactment of the programme. These are summarized (see Appendix 3) as follows.
418
419
First, major commonalities in terms of framework include:

frameworks are based in empirically grounded research or theory;
frameworks are derived from research syntheses or widely respected international sources;
frameworks provide the potential of a common leadership language across the respective
jurisdiction;
frameworks are adjusted to suit jurisdictional needs.
At the same time, however, major variations range from:
explicitly articulated to programme structure to implicitly applied in instructional tools;
derived from a synthesis of research to derived from a singular theoretical construct;
mandated from the top (Ontario, Hong Kong and Victoria) or framed by programme developers
(Singapore and New York).
Second, with respect to content, major commonalities include:
established frameworks drive overarching content;
provider expertise determine specific foci;
practitioner involvement supports contextualization of content;
Content tends to emphasize a change orientation and stresses instructional and transformational
leadership. Content variations include:
specific programme foci are dictated by local concerns as mediated by the particular expertise
of academic and/or practitioners;
content ranges from addressing national priorities such as globalization and the knowledge
society (Hong Kong and Singapore) to more pragmatic concerns of the local context (for
example, NYC on closing the achievement).
Finally, major commonalities in terms of operational features include:
programmes accept aspiring and potential principals;
programmes have admission requirements (for example, experience and professional
qualification);
successful completion of a programme results in formal licensure/certification this is
required by the system although some provide credit toward formal degrees;
programmes are offered by multiple providers who are centrally selected/regulated (except
Singapore);
practitioners roles in programmes are expanding as programmes emphasize contextualized
knowledge and skills.
The variations of operational features are summarized as follows.
Some programmes (for example, the cases of Singapore and New York City) involve a
limited number of fully funded places to attract a wider range of talent.
419
420
Other programmes (for example, the cases of Hong Kong and Ontario) focus more on wider
access to potential leaders and so an expanded pool of future principals. (In Ontarios case,
completion rates now exceed principal positions.)
As such, programmes which encourage wide access are offered on a part-time basis
(Ontario, Melbourne-Victoria, Hong Kong); highly selective programmes (New York City
and Singapore) are offered only on a full-time basis.
While programmes depend on a tripartite partnership among academics, practitioners and
bureaucrats, variation in operational features across programmes is shaped by the key
providers particular expertise and emphasis.
Implications for Policy, Practice and Research

To this point we have posited a typology of leadership development programmes and used this to
described five high-quality leader development programmes and outline key areas around which
programmes share commonality and exhibit variations. These findings point to several features
that researchers and providers of leader development programmes may consider.
First, leadership frameworks inform each programme. How broadly these frameworks are
applied vary. The benefits of aligning all leadership development and evaluation in a jurisdiction
to a common framework allows for a common leadership language to be shared among government, regulators, providers and participants across a system. This may further promote opportunities for continued professional learning in networks across schools (for example, networked
learning communities). Such benefits should be considered in light of the need to maintain the
flexibility of providers to address local needs in context. In brief, programme developers may
consider the impact of broadly applied leadership frameworks when they further develop or revise
programmes for potential/aspiring principals.
Second, a wide degree of openness to participation of qualified candidates may impact healthily
on a systems leadership language and networks for those who wish to build their leadership capacity without aspiring to the principalship immediately. Where programmes allow all qualified
candidates to participate they may provide a vehicle to broadening the pool of school leaders with
diverse backgrounds. As Ontario, Victoria and Hong Kong apply their frameworks to a wide range
of programmes, admitting participants who may not become principals serves to increase the
capacity of middle leaders who share a common leadership language. Multiple providers enable
a broad scope of admissions. Possible merits of this model would include that the potential of
leadership preparation programmes to train numbers beyond the positions immediately available
for the principalship may provide the potential of a common leadership language (Walker et al.,
2011), and may serve to encourage teachers to see themselves as leaders (Townsend, 2011). This
may increasingly boost a shared understanding of leadership among teacher-leaders at various
levels within a school, not just principal aspirants. And from a practical point of view, accepting
large numbers of candidates who meet admission requirements for programmes (for example, the
Hong Kong and Ontario programmes) would ease the issue of principal shortage in high-needs
schools. For example, unlike many inner city and poor US school districts (Owings et al.,
2011), completion rates of leadership development programmes dramatically exceed principal
positions in Ontario.
Third, at the same time, programmes that are highly selective/competitive and provide a
limited number of places (for example, the cases of Singapore and New York City) may promote (1) smoother, more predictable programme operation or management, (2) programmes
420
421
that can be organized and implemented around team-based learning units, (3) participants who
can access more customized and intensive learning opportunities and (4) given that the programmes involve a limited number of fully funded places they may be more attractive to a
wider range of talent. Reflecting differing merits between programmes focusing on greater
openness and those emphasizing selective participation, we wish to emphasize that a guiding
principle may concern the extent to which a jurisdiction intends to promote a common understanding of leadership for all potential leaders, regardless of the actual position they will take
up in schools. Programme developers also need to explore whether the selective model benefits their educational system by considering the possibility of public funding, the overall status of supply and demand for principals, and the need for quality control for various
leadership preparation programmes.
Fourth, our analysis draws predeominantly on documentary sources that emphasize program
design. We have observed that programme developers look elsewhere to inform programme frameworks. However, as is common with many reform efforts, international borrowing may emphasize
the needs of the state but it is in implementation on the ground where adaptations are made that
account for local contexts. Although the diverse aims of states and the expertise of providers may
explain some variation in programmes, how societal-cultural differences shape variation requires
further research informed by rich qualitative data and the attentiveness of programme designers.
The documentary data analysed in this study was not condusive to eludicating cultural impacts
on programme variation.
Finally, the study demonstrates that across all programmes, regardless of their national context,
the role of the practitioner as mentor and trainer is gaining in currency, with alignment to frameworks at times being the primary academic contribution. Where regulators delegate provision to
accredited universities, professional and non-profit agencies, a measure of choice may be offered
to candidates. This appears a significant option in larger jurisdictions. However, providers should
carefully consider the differing expertise that academics and practitioners can bring to leadership
preparation programmes. The emerging, but relatively recent, primacy of practitioners over academic staff in programme implementation appears to lend credibility and relevance to leadership
preparation programs. Although, the implications of this development are not fully understood, it
behoves scholars to consider specifically how their role in the tripartite relationship can better
inform leadership preparation programs (Walker, 2011).
The days of including practitioners just to legitimize a programme by giving a one-off talk are
gone. Rather, tripartite relationships can promote the development of scholar-practitioners who
have rich leadership credibility, informed by a formal knowledge base to which they contribute. In
this regard, programme developers need to consider the differing expertise that academics and
practitioners offer in programme content and operation (Walker and Dimmock, 2005). This will
impact on the extent to which programmes offer orientations that stress research and theory and
the application of theory and government policy to an immediate local context.
421
422
Appendix 1: Additional Documentary Sources

Ontario, Canada
Ontario College of Teachers (2009) Principals Qualification Programme: Interim Accreditation Application
Guide for Providers.
Ontario Principals Council (2010) Principals Qualification Programme Part I: Practicum Handbook.
Toronto District School Board (2008) Our children, our schools: The environmental scan of the TDSB. Available at: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/environmental_scan_2007/docs/ Escan080902R
ed.pdf 20080902 (accessed 4 February 2011).
Victoria, Australia
Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership (2009) Master of school leadership [Brochure]. Melbourne:
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and Melbourne Graduate School of
Education.
Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership (2010) Master of school leadership selection criteria and how to
apply [Brochure]. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and
Melbourne Graduate School of Education.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2009, November). Blueprint for Education and
Early Childhood Development: One Year on. Melbourne: State of Victoria.
Waters L, Beatty B. and Luck F (2010) Master of school leadership: annual report. Report, Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, Australia, December.
New York City
New York City Leadership Academy (n.d.). Leadership performance planning worksheet for new school
leaders.
New York City Department of Education (n.d.). NYC DOE school leadership competencies. New York City:
NYC Department of Education. Available at: fromhttp://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6047BE91-B51E4E6989ED-E12C7E3395CF/0/SchoolLeadershipCompetenciesContinuum.pdf (accessed 2 March 2011).
Singapore
National Instittue of Eduction (n.d.) Leaders in education programme. Available at: http://www.nie.edu.sg/
studynie/leadership-programme/leaders-education-programme (accessed 28 January 2012).
National Institute of Education (n.d.) A learning programme for future principals: the new leaders of innovative learning organizations. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University.
National Institute of Education (2009) Leaders in education programme: handbook for participants. Singapore:
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Hong Kong
Education Bureau (2010). Education Bureau Circular No. 10/2010 Certification for Principalship. Hong
Kong: Education Bureau.
422
423
Appendix 2: Analytical Framework
Purpose
Purpose
Framework
Theoretical underpinnings
Systemic coherence
Curriculum coherence
Degree of structure
Indicates how a particular programme is intended to shape leaders

development.
From undefined or eclectic connection with leadership theories to
explicitly articulated leadership theories or models (Kelly and Shaw,
2008), such as Sergiovannis Forces of Leadership.
From programmes independent of articulated leadership frameworks
(such as degrees and programmes developed by a university or
professional bodies with no articulation to state standards) to those
fitted within a centrally defined leadership development framework
(such as a coherent set of leadership dimensions around which
leadership selection, training, mentoring and succession programmes
are articulated).
From frameworks that apply narrowly to a singular programme to
frameworks shared widely across many leadership development
programmes.
Curriculum coherence and alignment across various learning components
that is, whether linkages across major learning components are
explicitly articulated (or implicitly embedded) in a programme; whether
major learning components are sequentially (or simultaneously)
allocated, and whether major learning components are hierarchically
arranged according to the level of learning components (for example,
basic, intermediate, advanced).
From [formally structured] (such as a principal qualification programme or
a graduate degree) to non-formal or [informally structured] (such as
networks, book clubs, or personal mentoring arrangements) (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288) or a mixture of both.
Content
(The first nine are indicated as common areas in Appendix 3; Osterman and Hafner, 2008)
Theory and research
The extent to which programmes teach seminal and cutting edge
leadership theories as well as training in practitioner-oriented research
methodologies (such as action research).
Teaching and learning
Considers the extent to which programmes focus on leadership in the
domain of teaching and learning (for example, areas such as instruction,
curriculum, assessment, technology and inclusion in education).
Society, culture and
Considers the impact of social and cultural forces on the school and the
community
relationship of schools to the community (for example, community
relations, its involvement in schools and the community as a resource).
Personal awareness (or
Considers the impact on leadership of self-nurturing and personal compersonal leadership)
petencies (such as the impact of individual personality type and emotional intelligence on leadership and relationships in schools) as guidance
for reflective practice (such as developing a personal philosophy of
education and leadership).
Organizations
Considers topics such as the use of data for school improvement, planning
and change; building school culture, shared meaning, common mission
and vision.
(continued)
423
424
Appendix 2. (continued)
Leading and managing
Policy and politics
Law and ethics
Economics and finances

Key foci
Source of content
Delivery
Learning components
Mode
Practicum
Project
Practitioner role
Practitioner activity
Assessment of participants
Operational features
Target groups
Selection
Time
Formal outcome
Provider
Considers themes from conventional management practices (such as

personnel management, staff selection, and supervision) to effective
leadership strategies (such as distributed leadership and problem
solving).
Considers policies enacted by the state (such as issues pertaining to
governance, the relationship of the principal to the school board,
accountability for student learning and resource utilization).
Familiarizes candidates with legislation, collective agreements, student and
teacher discipline, and other legal and ethical responsibilities of
principals and school staff.
Provides training in fiscal planning and budget administration.
Indicates particular strengths or noted features of the programme.
How content is derived for the programme.
Indicates the major programme components around which instruction and
assessment are organized.
From strictly conventional face-to-face classroom instruction to blended
approaches that include face-to-face, distance and on-site learning
(Grogan et al., 2008).
Outlines the major features of practicum design such as its duration,
location and tasks (Perez et al., 2011).
Outlines the nature of capstone projects: from small-scale learning projects to extensive action research projects.
Indicates the range of practitioner involvement such as coaching in
leadership (professional mentor), instructional leadership, academic
guidance (academic mentor), job shadowing, or formative feedback on
site-based projects (in-school mentor).
Explains how practitioners are involved in teaching the programme and
carry out their roles.
Indicates overarching assessment protocols, such as an emphasis on
summative assessment according to fixed standards (mastery) or the
extent to which participant may revise work in response to feedback.
From leaders close to a principalship to those with future aspiration.
From competition for a limited number of places to open and unlimited
admission based on meeting prescribed qualifications.
From short-term (such as individual workshops or conferences) to
longer-term . . . (such as graduate degrees or formal qualifications programme) (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288). From part time to full time.
From no license to a local or national license (such as a qualification issued
by a particular district or jurisdiction) to a broadly recognized degree
(such as a masters degree). (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288)
From programmes provided by the employer to those provided by
professional associations or non-profit agencies to those provided by
universities (Leithwood and Levin, 2008: 288).
From independently delivered programmes to those accredited and
regulated by a central authority.
(continued)
424
425
Appendix 2. (continued)
Partnership
Funding
Teachers/facilitators
Learning groupings
Evaluation and development
Formal venues
Summary
Programme encapsulation
From programmes designed and /or delivered independent of other

stakeholders (such as course content defined by individual instructors)
to programmes designed in consultation with school districts,
professional bodies and community stakeholders (Grogan et al., 2008).
For example, tripartite partnership comprises a main operational agency
(for example, university, professional association, or non-profit organization), a sponsoring/supervising agency (for example, government),
and associate schools as local partners for on-site practicum (Hammond
et al., 2010; Sanzo et al., 2011).
The source of funding for programme participants.
From conventionally instructed by academic staff to exclusively
practitioner-led or a combination thereof.
From courses, workshops or seminars selected according to individual
interest to cohort approaches with progression through a programme
defined for a specified group or somewhere in between (Grogan et al.,
2008).
From a static, established programme to one frequently revisited and
redeveloped. From internally evaluated to the provision of evidence to
external evaluators or regulators.
From programmes provided at central locations (such as universities to
which participants commute) to those delivered on-site or within participants communities. (Leithwood and Levin, 2008)
From formal and didactic (such as focus on research, theory, management
principles and administrative behaviour) to the development of critical
thinking and analytical skills through reflective or craft models that
emphasize professional inquiry, reflection, or context embedded
content (such as practicum, mentoring, problem-based learning, jobshadowing, simulations and portfolio approaches). (adapted from
Leithwood and Levin, 2008)
425
426

Formally structured
Degree of structure
Key Foci
Formally
structured
Explicitly
articulated
Sequential,
hierarchical
Centrally defined
Widely spread
Sergiovannis
(1984, 2005)
Forces of
Leadership
Develop
transformative
leaders through
action research.

Singapore
Mixed
Explicitly articulated
Sequential, hierarchical
Centrally defined
Widely spread
Derived from various

standards
Mixed
Implicitly embedded
Non-sequential
hierarchical
Centrally defined
Narrowly spread
Social constructive-ism
for knowledge creation
Prepare leaders with

Produce and create the
focus on disadvant-aged
knowledge to school
communities.
leaders for the 21st
century.
New York

Formally structured
Sequential, hierarchical
Centrally defined
Widely spread
Six core areas of

leadership
Prepare leaders to lead

schools over the next
decade.
Hong Kong
(continued)
Theory and Research, Teaching and Learning, Society and Community, Personal Awareness (or Personal Leadership), Organizations, Leading
and Managing, Policy and Politics, Law and Ethics, Economics and Finances
Inclusion
Academic
Instructional Leadership Knowledge creation and Self-analysis
excellence
innovation
Diversity
Disadvantaged
Academic-practitioner
communities
nexus
Ethical responsibility
Cutting edge
Social constructivist
Inner-growth
Close achievement gap process-as-content
curriculum
Well being
Access to world Networking
class academics
Sequential,
hierarchical
Curriculum
coherence
Content
Common Areas

Centrally defined
Widely spread
Systemic coherence
Develop leaders for

school improvement
grounded in their
context.
Melbourne
Leithwood et al.
(2006). Successful
School Leadership
(NCSL)
Framework
Theoretical
underpinnings
Purpose
Purpose
Ontario
Appendix 3: Programme Comparison Table
427
Action Research
Project
Implement
innovation
60 hours
Own school
Tasks negotiated
Action Research
Project
Implement school
improvement
In-school mentor
External supporter
Provide formative
feedback on project
implementation
Guide proposal
development and
assesses final product
Practicum
Project
Practitioner role
Practitioner activity

Duration of
programme
Own school
Tasks negotiated

Face-to-face
On-line
School-based
Mode

Research and
scholarly
development
Assesses all
assignments
Guide
professional
development
according to
framework
Ensure
congruence of
project with
school priorities
Mentors residency
activities
Guide professional
development according
to nine leadership
dimensions
In-school mentor
External supporter
School-based project
10 months
School residency
Tasks negotiated
Face-to-face
School-based
Courses
Project
New York
Academic mentor
Professional

mentor
In-school mentor
Face-to-face
On-line
School-based

Courses
Project
Journal
Melbourne
Courses
Practicum
Project
Journal
Delivery
Learning components

Ontario
Appendix 3: (continued)
Courses
Project
Overseas visit
Journal
Portfolio
Mentor opportunities
from principals at
assigned schools
In-school mentor
External supporter
Innovative school
project
Implement innovation
6 months
School attachment
Face-to-face
On-line
School-based

Singapore

(continued)
Support professional
development of APs
Act as trainers,
mentors and
facilitators in the
designated programme
Share experience with
participants
Assessor
Portfolio assessor
Co-instructor
Action learning project
None
Face-to-face
School-based
Coursework
Project
Needs Analysis
Portfolio
Hong Kong
428

Coursework:
10 months (approx)
part time
250 hours
Practicum:
10 weeks minimum
60 hours minimum

Multiple providers
(Universities and
professional
associations)
Centrally regulated
Time
Formal Outcome
Providers
Local

License

Required

Credit toward degree

Unlimited places
Members of state
school system

5 years experience
District approval

Unlimited places
Masters degree or
equivalent
Qualified in 3 of 4
year-level ranges
District approval
Selection

Multiple providers
(Universities)

Centrally
regulated
No License
Not required
Full Degree
2 years part-time
240 hours x 4
courses
7 full day
intensives per
course
Aspiring/ potential
principals
Assessment of
Participants
Aspiring/ potential
principals

Aspiring/ potential
principals
Summative
Mastery-based
Singapore
Multiple providers
(Universities and
professional
associations)
Centrally regulated
Local
License
Required
Non-degree
14 months full time
National
License
Required
Non-degree
Single provider
(University)
Centrally regulated

6 months full time

(continued)
Multiple providers
(Universities only)
Centrally accredited
National
License
Required
Credit toward degree
2 years part-time
Unlimited places
Open
Aspiring/ potential
principals
Summative
Mastery-based
Re-doable
Hong Kong
Limited places
Limited places

3 years experience
Vice-principals and MOE
officers
Highly selective
admission process (23% Selected by Ministry of
selection rate)
Education
Aspiring/ potential
principals
Summative
Mastery-based
New York
Summative
Mastery-based
Melbourne
Summative
Mastery-based
Re-doable

Operational Features
Target groups
Ontario
429
Intermittently
redeveloped
Centralised
Context
embedded
(strong)
Reflective inquiry
(strong)
Skills-orientation
(limited)
Theory-driven
(strong)
Task-orientation
(strong)
Research-led
(strong)
Intermittently
redeveloped
Generative evaluative
processes
Provide evidence
External
Localised
Context embedded
(strong)
Reflective inquiry
(strong)
Skills-orientation
(moderate)
Theory-driven
(limited)
Task-orientation
(strong)
Evaluation and
Development
Formal Venues
Summary
Context embedded
(strong)
Reflective inquiry
(strong)
Skills-orientation
(limited)
Theory-driven (limited)
Task-orientation
(Strong)
Centralised
Provide evidence
External
Cohort model
(team-based)
State funded
Not available
Cohort model
Self-funded
Cohort model
Funding
Learning Groupings
Practitioners only
Academics and
Practitioners
Practitioners only
Teachers/Facilitators

Hong Kong
Context embedded
(strong)
Reflective inquiry
(strong)
Skills-orientation
(limited)
Theory-driven (strong)
Research-led (limited)
Task-orientation
(Strong)
Centralised
Intermittently
redeveloped
Provide evidence
Cohort model
(team-based)
Government funded
Academics and
practitioners
Context embedded
(strong)
Reflective inquiry
(strong)
Skills-orientation
(moderate)
Task-orientation
(strong)
Theory-driven
(limited)
Localised
Provide evidence
External
Static
Broken cohort model
Self-funded
Academics and
practitioners
Tripartite partnership
(Academic, bureaucratic,
(Academic,
practitioner)
bureaucratic,
practitioner)
(Academic,
bureaucratic,
practitioner)
Singapore
New York
Tripartite partnership Tripartite

(Academic,
partnership
bureaucratic,
(Academic,
practitioner)
bureaucratic,
practitioner)
Melbourne
Partnership
Ontario
430
Notes
1. Further areas of congruence and diversity emerged through the study, which will be reported in the
findings.
2. For instance, the importance of the theoretical underpinning to overall programme coherence, structure
and systemic alignment became prominent in our analysis and several new codes beyond Leithwood and
Levins (2008) structure were justified to analyse these aspects of leadership programme framework. We
split apart other codes or merged them together. For instance, Nature of Tasks became Learning Components and Mode. This segmentation distinguishes the teaching and learning strategies from their delivery
method: face-to-face, distance, or blended learning.
3. Discussion of other categories may be found in Bryant et al. (2012) and Walker et al. (2011).
4. For example, we indicate whether coherence across the various learning components of the curriculum are
explicitly articulated in programme documentation, or if they are implicitly embedded, with evident
coherences that are not formally defined in the programme design. This terminology is delineated in our
typology. The result of this part of our analysis is an expansion of the leadership programme typology that
may serve to inform future research, particularly for comparative purposes. To more clearly portray this
development, Appendix 2 shows the framework, or code book that emerged iteratively through the interaction of literature review and data analysis and cites the sources that inform the respective codes.
5. A fifth domain, securing accountability emerged from the accountability requirements of the Ontario
context (IEL, 2008).
References
Afonso N and Costa E (2009) The influence of the programme for international student assessment (PISA) on
policy decision in Portugal: the education policies of the 17th Portuguese constitutional government.
Educational Sciences Journal 10: 5364.
Ball SJ (2008) The legacy of ERA, privatization and the policy retreat. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership 36(2): 185199.
Barber M, Whelan F and Clark M (2010) Capturing the leadership premium: how the worlds top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future. Report of Mckinsey and Company. Available at:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Education/
Knowledge_Highlights/*/media/Reports/SSO/schoolleadership_final.ashx (accessed 15 February 2011).
Bryant DA, Walker A and Lee M (2013) The impact of international, national, and local forces on the enactment of quality leadership preparation programmes. In: Brundrett M (ed.) Principles of School Leadership.
London: SAGE, 279308.
Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons From
Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bush T and Jackson D (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international perspectives. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 30(4): 417429.
Caldwell B (2003) A blueprint for successful leadership in an era of globalization ion learning. In: Hallinger P
(ed.) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers,
2339.
Carnoy M and Loeb S (2002) Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross- state analysis.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 305331.
Casavant MD and Cherkowski S (2001) Effective leadership: bringing mentoring and creativity to the
principalship. NASSP Bulletin 85(6): 7181.
430
431
Cheng YC (2009) Hong Kong educational reforms in the last decade: reform syndrome and new developments. International Journal of Educational Management 23(1):6586.
Corbin J and Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3 rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Corcoran SP, Schwartz AE and Weinstein M (2009) The New York City Aspiring Principals Programme: a
school-level evaluation. Report, Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
Available at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/iesp/featured/APP (accessed 1 February 2011).
Council of Chief State School Officers (2008) Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC as adopted by
the national policy board for educational administration. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/
Publications/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_ISLLC_2008_as_Adopted_by_the_National_
Policy_Board_for_Educational_Administration.html (accessed 15 January 2012).
Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Darling-Hammond L, Meyerson D, LaPointe M, et al. (2010). Preparing Principals for a Changing World:
Lessons From Effective School Leadership Programmes. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Department of Education (2007) The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders. Melbourne:
Department of Education.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2010) A-Z of Programmes. Melbourne: Bastow
Institute of Educational Leadership. Available at: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/bastowin
stitute/leadership/atoz.htm (accessed 8 February 2011).
Education Department (2002) Continuing professional development for school excellence. Consultation
paper on continuing professional development of principals. Hong Kong: Printing Department.
Elmore R (2007) Educational Improvement in Victoria. Victoria: Department of Education, Office for
Government School Education.
Fairclough N (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough N (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Fryer R (2011) Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. NBER
Working Paper, 16850. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850 (accessed 20 February 2012).
Gardner H (2008) 5 Minds for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Grogan M, Bredeson PV, Sherman WH, et al. (2009) The design and delivery of leadership preparation. In:
Young MD, Crow GG, Murphy J and Ogawa RT (eds) Handbook of Research on the Education of School
Leaders. New York: Routledge, 395416.
Gronn P (2003) Leadership: who needs it? School Leadership & Management 23(3): 267291.
Gronn P and Rawlings-Sanaei F (2003) Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership disengagement. Australian Journal of Education 47(2): 17284.
Huber SG (ed.) (2004) Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International Comparison of
Development Programmes in 15 Countries. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Huber SG and West M (2002) Developing school leaders: a critical review of current practices, approaches
and issues, and some directions for the future. In: Leithwood K and Hallinger P (eds) Second International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
10171002.
Institute for Education Leadership (IEL) (2008) Putting Ontarios leadership framework into action: a guide
for school and system leaders. Available at: http://www.education-leadership-ontario.ca (accessed 28
January 2011).
Kelly C and Shaw JJ (2008) Comprehensive leadership development: a portrait of programmes. In: Young
MD, Crow FF, Murphy J and Ogawa RT (eds) Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders.
New York: Routledge, pp. 499514.
431
432
Lee M, Louis KS and Anderson S (2012b) Local education authorities and student learning: the effects of
policies and practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23(2): 133158.
Lee M, Walker A and Chui YL (2012a) Contrasting effects of instructional leadership practices on student
learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational Administration 50(5): 586611.
Leithwood K and Levin B (2008) Understanding and assessing the impact of leadership development. In:
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiardis P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development
of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 280300.
Leithwood K, Day C, Sammons P, et al. (2006) Successful School Leadership: What it Is and How it Influences Pupil Learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Lim LH (2007) Illuminating the core of Singapore school leadership preparation: two decades of in-service
experience. International Journal of Educational Management 21(5): 433439.
Louis KS, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom KL, et al. (2010) Investigating the links to improved student learning:
final report of research findings. University of Minnesota. Available at: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/
Leadership/Learning-from-Leadership_Final-Research-Report_July 2010.pdf (accessed 14 August 2011).
MacBeath J (2011) No lack of principles: leadership development in England and Scotland. School Leadership and Management 31(2): 105121.
Matthews P, Moorman H and Nusche D (2008) Building leadership capacity for system improvement in
Victoria, Australia. In: Point B, Nusche D and Hopkins D (eds) Improving School Leadership (Vol. 2): Case
Studies on System Leadership. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 179213.
Miles MB and Huberman MA (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ministry of Education (MOE) (2005) Framework for teach less, learn more: recommendations. Available at:
http://www3.moe.edu.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm (accessed 28 February 2011).
National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers and Achieve Inc (2008) Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-class Education. Report. Washington, DC:
National Governors Association.
National Institute of Education (NIE) (2010) Leaders in Education Programme: Handbook for Participants.
Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
National Institute of Education (NIE) (2011) Leaders in Education Programme: Handbook for Participants.
Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
New York City Leadership Academcy (NYCLA) (2012) Aspiring principals programme. Available at: http://
www.nycleadershipacademy.org/aspiring/aspiring. Available at: http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/
aspiring/aspiring (accessed 18 February 2012).
New York City Leadership Academy (NYCLA) (2011) NYC aspiring principals programme. Available at:
http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/knowledge/lppw (accessed 5 June 2011).
Ng PT (2008) Developing forward-looking and innovative school leaders: the Singapore leaders in education
programme. Journal of In-Service Education 34(2): 237255.
Ontario (2010a) Ontario Leadership Strategy: principal/vice-principal performance performance appraisal.
Technical requirements manual. Queens Printer for Ontario.
Ontario (2010b) Ontario Leadership Strategy: mentoring for newly appointed school leaders, requirements
manual. Queens Printer for Ontario.
Ontario College of Teachers (2009) Principals Qualification Programme: Guideline. Toronto: Ontario.
Ontario College of Teachers (2011) Course providersproviders. Available at: http://www.oct.ca/additional_
qualifications/providers/? langen-CA (accessed 20 January 2012).
Ontario Principals Council (2011a) Principals Qualification Programme Part I: Candidate acceptance
package.
432
433
Ontario Principals Council (2011b) Principals Qualification Programme Part II: Candidate acceptance
package.
OReilly D and Reed M (2010) Leaderism: an evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform.
Public Administration 88(4): 960978.
Osterman KF and Hafner MM (2008) Curriculum in leadership preparation: understanding where we have
been in order to know where we might go. In: Young MD, Crow GG, Murphy J and Ogawa RT (eds)
Handbook of Research Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 269318.
Owings WA, Kaplan LS and Chappell S (2011) Troops to teachers as school administrators: a national study
of principal quality. NASSP Bulletin 95(3): 195211.
Perez LG, Uline CL, Johnson JF, Jr, et al. (2011) Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: the
transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 217257.
Peterson K (2002) The professional development of principals: innovations and opportunities. Educational
Administration Quarterly 38(2): 213232.
Phillips D and Ochs K (2003) Processes of policy borrowing in education: some explanatory and analytical
devices. Comparative Education 39(4): 451461.
Piggot-Irving E (2011) Principal development: self-directed project efficacy. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 39(3): 283295.
Pounder DG (2011) Leader preparation special issue: implications for policy, practice and research. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 258267.
Quartaroli MT (2009) Qualitative data analysis. In: Lapaan SD and Quartaroli MT (eds) Research Essentials:
An Introduction to Design and Practices. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 259274.
Rautalin M and Alasuutari P (2009) The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central
government. Journal of Education Policy 24(5): 539556.
Roach V, Smith LW and Boutin J (2011) School leadership policy trends and developments: policy
expediency or policy excellence? Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 71113.
Robinson VMJ, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of
the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635574.
Sanzo KL, Myran S and Clayton JK (2010-2011) Building bridges between knowledge and practice. Journal
of Educational Administration 49(3): 292312.
Sergiovanni TJ (1984) Handbook for Effective Department Leadership: Concepts and Practices in Todays
Secondary Schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sergiovanni TJ (2005) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Simkins T (2012) Understanding school leadership and management development in England: retrospect and
prospect. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(5): 621640.
Townsend T (2011) Changing times: new issues for school leaders. School Leadership and Management
31(2): 9192.
Walker A (2011) Clones, Drones and Dragons: Ongoing Uncertainties Around Successful School Leadership. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Available at: http://www.ied.edu.hk/cplectures/eng/resources.php (accessed 9 April 2012).
Walker A and Dimmock C (2005) Developing leadership in context. In: Coles M and Southworth G (eds)
Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow. Milton Keyes: Open University Press, 8094.
Walker A, Dimmock C, Chan A, et al. (2002) Key qualities of the principalship in Hong Kong. Report. Hong
Kong Centre for the Development of Educational Leadership.
Walker A and Ko J (2011) Principal leadership in an era of accountability: a perspective from the Hong Kong
context. School Leadership and Management. 31(4): 369392.
433
434
Walker A and Kwan P (2010) Leadership in diverse cultures. In: Peterson P, Baker E and McGraw B (eds)
International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 824831.
Walker A and Kwong KSC (2006) School Management Training Country Report: Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, Peoples Republic of China. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Walker A and Qian H (2006) Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole. Journal of
Educational Administration 44(4): 297309.
Walker A, Lee M, Bryant D, et al. (2011) Principal preparation programmes: a synthesis of best practice internationally. [Confidential]. Submitted to National College for Leadership of Schools and Childrens
Services.
Waters L and Luck F (2011) Master of School Leadership: 2011 Programme Information Handbook.
Melbourne Graduate School of Education.
Author biographies
Allan Walker is Joseph Lau Chair Professor of International Educational Leadership, Chair of the
Department of Educational Policy and Leadership and Director of the Asia Pacific Centre for
Leadership and Change at the Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Darren Bryant is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Leadership at the
Hong Kong Institute of Education. His research interests include middle leadership and leader
development.
Moosung Lee is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong.
His research focuses on social capital, social networks, lifelong learning and school improvement.
434

Educational Management Administration &amp; Leadership 2013 Walker 405 34

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Educational Management Administration &amp; Leadership 2013 Walker 405 34

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Article

Allan Walker, Darren Bryant and Moosung Lee

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Recognizing the need to expand our understanding of leadership preparation internationally,

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Table 1. Selection criteria.

Top performers on PISA

In geographical location and culture (Hong Kong,

Recognition in consultancy reports

Provide accredited credential

Qualification as a requirement for

Providers range from universities, to professional

Sources and Data Collection

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Programme Profiles, Contexts and Frameworks

Canada (Ontario): Principals Qualification Programme (PQP)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

developing the organization;

Australia (Victoria): Master of School Leadership (MSL)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Singapore: Leaders in Education Programme (LEP)

Hong Kong: Certification for Principalship (CFP)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

These in turn inform six core areas of programme foci:

strategic direction and policy environment;

This framework guides participant selection, curricular scope, assignments, programme

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Commonalities and Variations in Leadership Preparation Programmes

Common Content Areas

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

First, major commonalities in terms of framework include:

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Implications for Policy, Practice and Research

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(4)

Appendix 1: Additional Documentary Sources

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Walker et al.: International Patterns in Principal Preparation

Appendix 2: Analytical Framework

Indicates how a particular programme is intended to shape leaders

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on March 31, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2013 Walker 405 34

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2013 Walker 405 34