Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 08 October 2014, At: 16:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teacher Development: An internationaljournal of teachers' professionaldevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20
Designing the implementation of theScottish qualification for headshipJenny Reeves a & Viv Casteel aa University of Stirling , United KingdomPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.
To cite this article: Jenny Reeves & Viv Casteel (1999) Designing the implementation of the Scottishqualification for headship, Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers' professionaldevelopment, 3:1, 37-48, DOI: 10.1080/13664539900200072
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664539900200072
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Designing the Implementation of theScottish Qualification for Headship
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEELUniversity of Stirling, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT The article describes some of the issues that arise in designing andimplementing a national qualification for headship. The authors explore some of theimplications of basing such a qualification on the development of leadership andmanagement practice using a framework of competences. The concomitant requirementsfor support for work-based learning, issues of access to suitable contexts for learning andsome of the cultural and structural barriers which will arise during implementation arediscussed together with the strategic implications of the way the qualification has beendesigned.
Introduction
In this article, we want to describe some of the thinking underpinning thedesign and implementation of the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH).The article is not, therefore, a description of a formal research project, butrather of a stage in a piece of action research. One of the aims that we have, asdevelopment officers, is to try and use the SQH project as a basis for furtheringour own understanding of project management. We are also interested in thelonger term in considering the work we and our colleagues are engaged in as acase study of current policy development in the area of post-initial teachereducation.
In this article we want to look particularly at two aspects of the project:first, the nature of the standard for headship that has been developed for use inScotland; and secondly, at the main assumptions and principles behind thedesign of the learning programme for the SQH and the development ofstructures for its delivery.
Background
The Scottish Qualification for Headship is an outcome of the present and theprevious United Kingdom (UK) government’s policy for the improvement ofteacher education post initial training and parallels developments in the rest ofthe UK, i.e. the Professional Qualification for Headship in Northern Irelandand the National Professional Qualification for Headship in England andWales.
Since the late 1970s the role of the head has increasingly been identifiedas a key factor in determining school effectiveness (Department of Educationand Science [DES], 1977) and, throughout the 1980s, there was a growing focuson management development in the education service. In 1988 the School
IMPLEMENTING A QUALIFICATION FOR HEADSHIP
37
Teacher Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Management Task Force was formed to introduce sound management practiceinto the school sector. The implementation of devolved school managementlent such initiatives added emphasis with the government backing training forheadteachers through specific grant initiatives such as the ManagementTraining for Headteacher programme in Scotland (1989) and the Headlampinitiative in England and Wales (1993). The introduction of a qualification forheadteachers also became an issue. In 1988, Cooper & Shute, comparingAmerican and British practice, argued that certification was clearly required toguarantee a certain level of preparation for the job and by 1994 theintroduction of a qualification for headship had become part of governmentpolicy.
The origins of the qualification can therefore be traced in:� the emphasis on the importance of the role of the headteacher in school
effectiveness (DES, 1977; Mortimer et al, 1988);� the tendency for increased centralisation within the education service in the
UK;� the continuing injection of managerialism into the public services (Clarke &
Newman, 1997);The Scottish Qualification for Headship Project began in October 1997following the outcomes of a consultative paper on the introduction of such aqualification. There is a small project team consisting of two members of theSOEID and two development officers. There is a Steering Group withrepresentatives from local authorities, the School Board Association, HEIs,business, serving headteachers, the General Teaching Council and the ScottishQualifications Authority (website www.sqh.co.uk). There is also a workingparty representing those who will be most directly concerned with theimplementation of the qualification.
So far the project team has:� published a nationally agreed standard for headship for Scotland (SOEID,
1998);� agreed a draft programme for the qualification, which is now in process of
being piloted;� distributed a draft course proposal for validation at postgraduate diploma
level to all the HEIs currently offering initial teacher education; � secured funding for the implementation and continuation of the
programme;� agreed an interim award mechanism for the Qualification through the
Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Standard for Headship in Scotland
The Standard sets out to describe a set of learning outcomes, which have to beachieved in order to qualify for the award of the SQH. It is in many ways likemost standards in terms of its purposes, use and some of its basic construction.However, it also has some features which make it unique. The background toits development lies in our frustrations with the outcomes of earlier attemptsat making courses such as the Management Training for Head Teacher
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEEL
38
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
modules more rigorously practice focused. This led a group of us working inStrathclyde Region’s Staff College to experiment with the use of functionalmanagement competences based on the framework for school managementpublished by School Management South (SMS) (Earley, 1992), itself amodification of an earlier framework developed under the ManagementCharter Initiative. Subsequently, we used a slightly modified form of the SMSframework, as a basis for supported work-based learning in a number ofschools as part of Strathclyde Region’s Management Competence Scheme andalso to develop four, part-taught and part work-based learning, modules withina postgraduate Certificate of School Management, which was validated byStrathclyde University.
Since this initial development work, in 1993/94, the framework hasundergone considerable modification as a result of a number of projectscommissioned by the Scottish Office. A series of conferences and focus groupswere held during 1996–98: first, to agree the document A Framework for SchoolLeadership and Management Development in Scottish Schools published in 1997(Casteel et al, 1997) and, secondly, to define The Standard for Headship inScotland, which was published in July this year (SOEID, 1998).
The main difference between the resulting standard and other examplesof the genre is that it is underpinned by an explicit model of professionalpractice which originated from the processes of consultation. The effect of thisis:� to give the Standard a very strong face validity with practitioners;� to raise the importance of issues of judgement, context and style in
determining competence;� to entail the design of a mixed mode learning programme.The model for practice is built on the supposition that each action/activity canbe seen as being made up of three elements:� what is done,� why it is done,� how it is done,and that these can form the basis for the critique of practice.
For example, someone might say that they intend: ‘to set up and workwith a team’ in order ‘to obtain the best possible solution to a problem becauseI believe a group will produce better outcomes’ and that they will do this‘through good communication, listening and responding appropriately tocreate an atmosphere of openness and trust where people feel able tocontribute their ideas’.
If, when we go into the details of how the initiative actually wentforward we find out that: (a) powerful members of the team were lobbiedbeforehand;(b) the agenda was arranged and agreed in such a way as to curtail thediscussion of certain matters; and (c) minutes of the meetings were ‘shaped’ toadd validity to the chair’s views and decisions; we can begin to have aninteresting conversation with the learner about the difference between herstated values and how she has actually conducted herself because the model
IMPLEMENTING A QUALIFICATION FOR HEADSHIP
39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
gives three viewpoints from which the learner can examine and analyse herpractice.
Building on this approach, competence in relation to the Standard istherefore defined as the ability to combine all three elements to achieve a‘successful’ outcome. The implication of the model is that the assessment ofcompetence is not simply a matter of displaying a ‘right’ way of doing things. Itopens up the issue to professional judgement because intentions and the basesfor decision-making become a crucial part of the equation:� Did the action embody good practice (behaviours of competent practitioners
within the field)?� Can practitioners justify their action?� Did they show appropriate use of their abilities to achieve a successful
outcome?Within the Standard these three elements of practice, why, what and how,translate into:� professional values,� management functions,� professional abilities.In developing the SQH programme we have tried to adhere to a number ofprinciples.
Principle 1: the SQH must be about developing professional practice
This principle requires us to look at two fundamental questions: What do wemean by ‘professional’? What do we mean and believe about the developmentof practice?
In terms of the first question we have found ourselves drawing verymuch on the list of professional accountabilities cited by Eraut in DevelopingProfessional Knowledge and Competence (1994, p. 236). This implies that theprogramme:� has to explicitly recognise that there is an ethical base to the practice of
school leadership and management;� has to be about learning and the development of expertise, critical reflection
and self-improvement both in relation to the individual candidate and inrelation to the system in which they operate.
Commitment to these accountabilities is contained in the first element of theStandard as the Professional Values which are seen as underpinning all of acompetent headteacher’s practice.
In relation to the second question we had to look at two strands. First, ifthe qualification was to be about practice, then it followed that any learningprogramme leading to the SQH had to have a significant practical component.This, in turn, meant that candidates needed to have access to managementdevelopment opportunities in school. Previous experience of working withcompetency frameworks had shown that the term ‘management developmentopportunity’ needed to be defined. In our experience learners need to be ableto undertake tasks where they:
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEEL
40
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
� lead and manage a group of adults engaged in a project that affects a wholeschool issue;
� take management responsibility for the project which means not onlyexperiencing the practical aspect of leading an initiative, but also thepsychological aspects of knowing that they are responsible for the outcomes.
Additionally, the requirement to develop critical reflection implies thatstructures should be in place to enable candidates to engage in professionaldialogue about the nature of their practice, as well as systems to support theirlearning through access to reading and other materials.
Besides getting as close as one can the ‘reality’ of headship through givingcandidates substantive tasks the other reality of headship which we felt had toapply was that of ambiguity. Good practice in headship will continue to changeand will always be ‘problematic’. Being a headteacher always takes place in aparticular context, which is not exactly like any other (Day & Bakioglu, 1997;Reeves et al, 1998). All headteachers operate in a field where values and beliefsare liable to be continually challenged and contested, and where their ownparticular leadership style adds to the complexities.
This assumption means that we do not regard it as possible to prescribethe ‘right’ way to be a head. Rather, we have to try, through the programme,to develop people’s capacity to learn and adapt appropriately to differentcontexts. Successful candidates need to demonstrate the capacity to thinkabove the anecdotal level and beyond the boundaries of their own experience.They will need to be competent and confident in solving problems andhandling ambiguity.
We therefore need to adopt a mixture of learning modes in ourapproach. The programme must closely interweave theory and practice if weare to meet our goal of developing candidates for headship who are ready toreflect critically on their work and equipped to develop and growprofessionally after their appointment. Currently, we are seeking to combinethe practical and the academic through a dual award and delivery system,which will maintain the involvement of higher education institutions (HEIs),professional associations and employers in a meaningful partnership. This hasalso entailed looking at a set of progressive experiences within the programmemoving through three main stages: from learning how to learn from anexperiential programme, through a substantial ‘internship’ followed by a finalsection which seeks to promote an holistic and critical understanding of schoolleadership drawing on the basis of the candidates’ experience and relating thatto a wider body of knowledge and opinion.
Principle 2: the qualification must be accessible
Again, this simple statement takes some unpacking when you get into theprocess of implementation. If you look at the potential target population forthe qualification then what immediately strikes you is the imbalance innumbers between the primary, (or elementary schools), and the secondaryschools, (high schools, gymnasia). There are a total of 2711 schools in Scotland,of which 2310 are primary schools and 401 are secondary. The annual turnover
IMPLEMENTING A QUALIFICATION FOR HEADSHIP
41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
of headteachers is expected to be in the order of 250–270 of which roughly 75%are primary posts. The implication of this is that we need to pay attention tomaking the SQH user friendly for the primary sector, where traditionallymanagement training has been more difficult to promote.
There are a number of reasons for this. One is the preponderance ofwomen within the primary sector who have generally been less confidentabout their potential to become leaders and managers and have required, for avariety of reasons, more encouragement than men both to put themselvesforward for training (Evetts, 1994) and to apply for senior posts. Secondly, theactual content and delivery of management courses has often been seen asgender biased towards a male audience (Hall, 1996). Another major ‘cultural’difference between the two sectors is that it is still relatively rare in ourexperience for primary teachers to be sponsored onto senior managementcourses prior to appointment as a headteacher, whereas in the secondarysector most candidates attending courses at a similar level are assistant ordeputy headteachers. This arises in a large part from the very differentstructures in the two sectors with senior promoted staff in secondary schoolshaving served apprenticeships in middle management posts, which generallydo not exist in the primary sector.
The second major set of implications of this principle are for theselection, funding and assessment of candidates which will have to be open,transparent and fair. Here again, there are some very real dilemmas. We havebeen concerned not to override the procedures which schools and localauthorities are required to put in place to identify the professionaldevelopment needs of teachers and to ensure that these are met. However,these vary quite widely across the country and there are significant differencesin availability of management development opportunities from authority toauthority. Currently, we are proposing that selection should be left with theemployers, since they have a vital role to play in the delivery of theprogramme and an important stake in ensuring the supply of high qualitycandidates for headship. In turn, the authorities who are working with us onthe pilots do feel there should be some guidance at national level about thecriteria for selection, and we would hope to address this with them and withthe candidates on the basis of the outcomes of the current trials. There willalso need to be a system for monitoring nationally the relationship betweenthose who are eligible for the programme and those who actually undertake it.
Even if the hurdles of entry are resolved the programme also has to be:� flexible in its delivery;� responsive to individuals and local contexts; and to� ensure parity in terms of quality across the country.There are some major problems in meeting these requirements. Scotland has avery diverse populations of schools, some of which are in areas which arephysically inaccessible and isolated. 38% of primary schools in Scotland havefewer than 120 pupils and 10% of this sample are single teacher schools(Wilson & McPake, 1998). The access to management developmentopportunities in the work-place is problematic in the very small schools which
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEEL
42
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
are typical under these circumstances. One of the pilot projects has been set upto examine the implementation of the SQH programme in small rural schools,where the work-based aspects of the programme present very real difficulties.
One of the most useful concepts in looking at the issues of access withinthe programme has been that of support for learning. This has freed us fromthinking of the programme as either ‘a distance learning course’ or a ‘taughtcourse’, and allowed us to approach the design of the programme moreflexibly by asking how support for learning can best be delivered in a variety ofcontexts. An important objective of the pilots is to explore, with theparticipating local authorities and the candidates, which structures of supportare viable and effective in different parts of the country and within the contextof different kinds of school arrangements. The role of information andcommunication technology will be crucial in this regard.
Another implication of the use of a Standard is that there is a clear casefor people to be able to claim advanced standing if they feel they candemonstrate some or all of the competences required. Again, this is an issuewe are currently exploring through the piloting process.
Principle 3: the implementation of the SQH should fit into a wider strategy for school improvement
It has been important from the beginning for the project team to see theintroduction of the SQH as part of an overall policy to support schoolimprovement, rather than ‘a thing entire unto itself’. In that sense, we wantedto try and ensure that its implementation would support and enhance currentstrategies for the development of the Scottish education service.
It should fit with and support initiatives such as:� devolved school management and development planning;� staff development and review and a consistent approach to the professional
development for all teaching staff;� school self-evaluation, the Quality Initiative.Selection for the programme should have its origins in processes of staffdevelopment and review if those procedures are to have any credence. Becausethe bulk of the programme is based on experiential learning throughcandidates carrying out projects, which the school has already identified asneeding doing it should support school development. The way in which thelearners learn, and the way in which their learning is supported should help tostrengthen school self-evaluation and processes for school improvement. Itshould encourage serving headteachers to share and delegate leadership withinthe school and to develop the potentialities of others. Through encouragingprofessional dialogue it should support collegiality and the development ofschools as a learning environment for all their members. It should helpemployers to place staff development at the centre of their concern fordeveloping and improving the education service.
The Qualification also needs to be developed in such a way that any newstructures that are formed can be adapted to support both current professional
IMPLEMENTING A QUALIFICATION FOR HEADSHIP
43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
development programmes and those which may come on stream in the future.Support for work-based learning is by no means a cheap or a simple option forprofessional development, and it will require investment of time and personnelto make it successful. For a significant number of schools developing theinternal conditions to support such school-based professional development willbe neither easy nor straightforward (Hopkins et al, 1996).
Structuring the Programme
The model of practice embedded within the Standard has clear implications forthe design of a professional programme which will enable candidates toachieve the SQH. The functional element of the Standard commits us to thedevelopment of performance and to making the reality of leading andmanaging a major vehicle for learning. This, in turn, implies that we have tobegin to borrow ideas from learning programmes which are based on concreteexperience such as apprenticeship and internship and looking to developmentor, coach and critical friend roles in support of candidates (McIntyre,1997).
On the other hand, the professional values element emphasises theconceptual aspect of developing competence and expertise, based on the beliefthat people must draw on the experience of others and notions of best practiceto ensure that they operate as effectively as possible and that they need to beable to analyse situations critically and holistically in order to decide onappropriate courses of action. That the practice of education is alwaysconcerned with ethical issues in trying to achieve the best for children andyoung people is a fundamental tenet. The model seeks to make these matters adaily, hourly, practical concern rather than confining them to a separate sphereof ‘theory’.
As a commitment to critical reflection and self-improvement is one of theprofessional values, candidates must show that they can take responsibility fortheir own learning. The programme should make adequate resources andsupport available, but the learners will have to judge what use they make ofthem. A major aim of the programme must be to equip candidates to continueto learn and develop as leaders and managers in the future.
Based on these imperatives and our own experiences of working withcompetences the programme structure follows a particular pattern therationale for which we have tried to indicate in Figure 1.
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEEL
44
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
170mm
Key: PV = professional values; PA = professional abilities; MF – management functions.
Figure 1. The relationship between the Standard and the programme structure.
IMPLEMENTING A QUALIFICATION FOR HEADSHIP
45
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
The first stage of the programme, Unit 1 The Standard for Headship, is aboutequipping people with tools and support. They need to be able to use theirexperience deliberately, rather than fortuitously, as a basis for learning, todevelop the art of critical reflection and to become more professionallyself-aware. In our experience and that of others (Reeves & Forde, 1995; Taylor,1997) this is often more difficult to do than is acknowledged by thosepromoting experiential learning and therefore the skills of critical reflection inrelation to the practice of educational leadership and management need to bean important aspect of the introduction to the programme.
The next stage is to provide candidates with concrete experiences ofleading and managing in schools alongside the means of discussing, analysingand refining their practice as they carry out this work. Units 2 and 3, ManagingCore Operations and School Improvement, will involve candidates in carryingout major projects in their schools. The first of these experiential Units willconcentrate of managing learning and teaching and people. The second Unitwill concentrate on policy development, planning and using resources tofurther the aims of the school.
The final part of the programme, Unit 4 School Leadership, aims toprovide a basis for candidates to integrate the different aspects of schoolleadership and management, and to generalise from their own experience andthat of others, so that they increase their capacity to think and act effectivelyacross the range of functions and contexts that they may be called upon tomeet. The programme is thus a mixture of modes of learning, hopefullypatterned to enable experienced professionals to develop new skills andunderstandings and capacities as effectively as possible (see Figure 2).
40mm
Figure 2. The programme structure.
We would expect most candidates to complete the SQH Programme in 2–3years. We are also piloting an accelerated route to the award for those peoplewho already have substantial and successful whole school managementexperience and can, therefore, enter the programme at Unit 4 once they havesatisfied the terms for the assessment of their competence within the contextof the four management functions.
The Structures for Delivery
In its turn, the nature of learning programme has clear implications for thekinds of structures for delivery, which will need to be developed. We have a
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEEL
46
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
commitment, from the consultation process, to use existing institutions andsystems wherever possible, but nevertheless the nature of the qualification willentail the development of a number of new arrangements. Hopefully, thesewill be consistent with the kind of structures we will need in the future todeliver other forms of certificated professional development.
3–4 monthsSchool leadershipIntegrating and extending learning4Year 3
9–12 monthsManaging school improvementThe second experiential project3Year 2
9–12 monthsManaging core operationsThe first experiential project2
2–3 monthsThe standard for headshipTaught introduction to theprogramme
1Year 1
DurationUnit TitleUnit TypeUnitYear
Table I. Timescale.
Schools and local authorities will have a vital and central role in providingcandidates with opportunities for work-based management development andfor supporting their learning through the linkage with a mentor/supporter andlocal network groups. Additionally, they will have to be involved in selectingcandidates and in the processes of assessment. All this, in turn, will entail thatlocal authorities and schools need to look at their current policies andprocedures in this area, with a view to supporting continuous professionaldevelopment for all their staff, not just for those aspiring to becomeheadteachers. The relatively small number of candidates will also require thatauthorities share arrangements for delivery. Under local governmentre-organisation there are a large number of small authorities for whom settingup their own structures will simply not be viable or worthwhile.
Institutes of Higher Education will have a role in validating theprogramme and providing quality assurance, as well as contributing to thedelivery and assessment processes. This will entail a close partnership withlocal authorities to build up practicable, integrated and efficient systems fordelivery. Because there are relatively few headteacher vacancies there will needto be no more than two or three consortia offering the programme. Oncethese have been selected training for tutors, assessors and supporters will needto be put in place to develop their capacity to deliver the programme. Forsome HEIs validating this kind of programme and the partnershiparrangements for delivering work-based learning will cause some heartsearching, particularly where such a directly ‘vocational’ focus in not a familiaractivity.
A central award and monitoring mechanism will need to be put in placeto ensure parity of provision nationally, This will either involve setting up anew body or substantive changes to the role of the General Teaching Council.
Conclusions
What we have tried to present here is our current understanding of theassumptions and principles which underpin the planning and implementationof the Scottish Qualification for Headship. We have tried to show the linkagebetween the model for practice embodied in the Standard, the principles for
IMPLEMENTING A QUALIFICATION FOR HEADSHIP
47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
implementation and the resultant ‘shape’ of the programme and its deliverystructures. We are still months away from the launch of SQH and even furtheraway from when we will begin to see how well it works in practice and wehave some solid feedback on the worth of some of these ideas.
Correspondence
Jenny Reeves, SQH Development Unit, Institute of Education, University ofStirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom ([email protected]).
References
Casteel, V., Forde, C., Lynas, R. & Reeves, J. (1997) Framework for the Development of SchoolLeadership and Management in Scottish Schools. Glasgow: SQH Development Unit.
Clarke, J. & Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State. London: Sage Publications.
Cooper, B.S. & Shute, R.W. (1998) Training for School Management, Bedford Way Papers/35:London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Day, C. & Bakioglu, A. (1997) Development and disenchantment in the professional lives ofheadteachers, in I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds) Teachers’ Professional Lives. Lewes:Falmer Press.
DES (1977) Ten Good Schools. London: DES.
Earley, P. (1992) The School Management Competences Project. Crawley: Crawley School, SchoolManagement South.
Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer Press.
Evetts, J. (1994) Becoming a Secondary Headteacher. London: Cassell.
Hall, V. (1996) Dancing on the Ceiling: a study of women managers in education. London: PaulChapman.
Hopkins, D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (1996) Developing the Quality of Education for All: progressand challenge. London: David Fulton.
McIntyre, D. (Ed.) (1997) Teacher Education Research in a New Context: the Oxford InternshipScheme.London: Paul Chapman.
Mortimer, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, P. & Ecob, R. (1998) School Matters: the junior years.Wells: Open Books.
Reeves, J. & Forde, C. (1995) Can management competences support the development of alearning organisation? Proceedings of the Scottish Educational Research Association Conference,Dundee, September.
Reeves, J., Forde, C. & Casteel, V. (1998) Developing a model of practice: designing a frameworkfor the professional development of leaders and managers, School Leadership andManagement, 18, pp. 185–196.
SOEID (1998) Managing Change in the Small School. Edinburgh: SOEID.
Taylor, I. (1997) Developing Learning in Professional Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wilson, V. & McPake, J. (1998) Managing Change in Small Scottish Primary Schools. Edinburgh:Scottish Council for Research in Education.
JENNY REEVES & VIV CASTEEL
48
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
ambr
idge
] at
16:
55 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
