Developing Effective School Leaders? Initial Views of the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH)

Journal of In-Service Education ISSN: 1367-4587 (Print) 1747-5082 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie19 Developing Effect...
Author: Milo Freeman
3 downloads 0 Views 187KB Size
Journal of In-Service Education

ISSN: 1367-4587 (Print) 1747-5082 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie19

Developing Effective School Leaders? Initial Views of the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH) Jim O'brien & Janet Draper To cite this article: Jim O'brien & Janet Draper (2001) Developing Effective School Leaders? Initial Views of the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH), Journal of In-Service Education, 27:1, 109-122 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674580100200144

Published online: 16 Feb 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 152

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie19 Download by: [37.44.207.46]

Date: 22 January 2017, At: 15:12

Journal of In-Service Education, Volume 27, Number 1, 2001

Developing Effective School Leaders? Initial Views of the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH) JIM O’BRIEN & JANET DRAPER University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article outlines the rationale for and the development of the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH). It describes the context of standards and competences within which the SQH has been developed, and the nature of the consultation process undertaken. The qualification itself has a four-unit structure, with two units of school-based learning. It may be taken in two modes, a full four-unit form and an accelerated route for those with attestable experience. Evaluation data are reported from the first group of candidates to complete the qualification, who had followed the accelerated route. The findings are very positive, which might be expected from an enthusiastic first group of volunteers, but they also raise a series of questions for further study, particularly in relation to assumptions about a single model for headship of schools of all sizes and sectors, and for candidates with a very varying range of prior experience.

Context Effective school management, school effectiveness and school improvement have had a high profile internationally in the final decade of the twentieth century, and this is particularly true in Scottish education (Knowles & Wight, 1995). The Improving School Effectiveness Project (ISEP) in Scotland (MacBeath & Mortimore, 1997) has provoked interest from other educational systems within the United Kingdom and beyond, while initiatives such as the promotion of school self-evaluation (HMI, 1992) and ‘How good is our school?’ (SOEID, 1996) are becoming an international phenomenon (MacBeath, 1999; MacBeath et al, 2000). Despite warnings of the pitfalls of school self-evaluation including potential for self-delusion and denial (Riddell & Brown, 1991, p. 73), such approaches are increasingly complementary to external inspection and play an increasingly important role in the quality assurance armoury.

109

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

Various factors in the effective school have been identified. These include school climate and ethos with shared values, expert and skilled teachers having high expectations of and positive relationships with pupils, involving pupils purposefully in learning and providing an attractive work environment that illustrates pupil work. The importance of school leadership has been emphasised and consistently identified as a key constituent of effective schools by government departments and in the school effectiveness literature (DES, 1977; Southworth, 1990; Murphy, 1991; Sammons et al, 1995). The new Scottish Executive has endorsed the United Kingdom declared educational priority of raising educational standards, necessitating ‘ the highest qualities of leadership and management at all levels in schools but particularly at the top where the driving force for improvement must originate’ (SOEID, 1997). It is accepted that aspiring head teachers require to be fully trained and developed in the necessary leadership and management skills, abilities and values in the form of an appropriate qualification for the demanding post of head teacher. The distinctiveness of Scottish education (Greaves & O’Brien, 1996; Clark & Munn, 1997) within the United Kingdom may be strengthened now that Scotland has its own Parliament once again. For some years, especially when the Conservatives were in power, there were continuing fears of policies being imported from south of the border; much has been made of the Scots ability to mediate such proposals, and to avoid the perceived excesses of the TTA and of OFSTED, which have no authority in Scotland, but clearly policy development was heavily influenced by initiatives originating in England and Wales. Thus, the research context is also one which has witnessed the introduction of school-higher education partnerships in initial teacher education with a distinctive Scottish approach, teacher appraisal (after further consultation now called personal development and review) and continuing professional development (CPD) frameworks (O’Brien & MacBeath, 1999; O’Brien, 1999; SOEID, 1998b) bringing with it a vocabulary of competences or standards, job descriptions and personal development plans (Day, 1994). This context has recently seen the publication of the McCrone report, the committee of inquiry into teachers’ professional conditions of service, which offers a wider and more individually focussed conception of CPD (SEED, 2000). The McCrone report highlights the significance of CPD for all teachers and sees motivation and individual work satisfaction as important goals for CPD: a far cry from the agendas focused on systemand school-change which have driven CPD developments in recent years. Management Training for School Leaders In Scotland, the quality and importance of school leadership and management in effective schools was stressed by several important

110

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS

reports (HMI, 1984, 1988, 1989). SOEID, local authorities, higher education institutions (HEIs) and schools have invested a lot (in both a monetary and human resource sense) in a wide range of management training initiatives. The most comprehensive of these have been SOEID’s Management Training for Head Teachers (MTHT) modules and Staff Development and Appraisal in the early 1990s. MTHT involved the development nationally of a series of nine management training modules published between 1989 and 1991. Such modules dealt with key areas such as principles of management, curriculum, personnel and resources. Education authority advisers and head teachers who became trainer/tutors (Grant, 1995) working in close collaboration with the teacher education institutions (TEIs) and using government ear-marked funds, ensured that the take-up among head teachers and senior school personnel was significant. An evaluation of the programme suggested that it was found to be more useful by heads in primary than in secondary schools (Draper et al, 1994). Other initiatives made significant additional demands on head teachers, viz. the promotion of school development planning (under-pinned by school self-evaluation using ‘How good is our school?’ (SOEID, 1996)) devolved management schemes and the introduction of staff development and appraisal. Prompted perhaps by the development of standards in England and Wales, and by the need to bring coherence to a range of initiatives linked to professional development and effectiveness, and Improving School Effectiveness, steps were taken to consult widely on the creation of a standard for the Scottish Qualification for Headship (SQH). Many teachers had taken MTHT modules and while some had been accredited to an extent, no coherent qualification existed, and it was believed that a national framework might offer advantages and provide incentive. Additionally, the EA arrangements had changed, with the reversion to smaller unitary authorities in the reorganisation of local authorities. Issues of scale and capacity came together with changes in the role of heads occasioned by school development planning, and devolved school management and quality assurance initiatives providing heads with greater responsibilities and demanding enhanced leadership. The Development of the Scottish Qualification for Headship Reports on standards and quality in Scottish schools had suggested that leadership in the great majority of primary and secondary schools was good or very good, but in about 20% of schools the same report identified areas of weakness in leadership and in 5% of schools, leadership was considered unsatisfactory. Research was commissioned to investigate and propose the functional management competences required of the new breed of head teachers envisaged (Casteel et al, 1997). The

111

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

framework for education management in Scotland is thus based on four key functions: • managing policy and planning (which includes developing partnerships with pupils, parents, the school board and the local community); • managing teaching and learning (through establishing effective structures, ethos and context); • managing people (with the stress on leadership and teamwork); • managing resources and finance. Competences for each of these functions have been agreed with the profession through a consultative process involving a development group working on a draft standard, the results of which were consulted upon in a series of meetings located throughout the country. This led to redrafting and refinement. When consulting on the proposed qualification for Scottish head teachers, the Government (SOEID, 1997) reaffirmed that: The performance of any organisation, large or small is crucially dependant on the quality of its leadership. Schools be they nursery primary special or secondary, are no different from other organisations in that respect. Good headteachers can help schools rise to the challenge of curricular change and transform teaching and learning conditions whilst ineffective heads can block improvements and stifle initiative. Specific issues on which comments were invited included: • the need for the establishment of such a qualification and a timetable for its introduction; • whether the qualification should be extended to cover existing headteachers; • whether the proposed qualification should be mandatory for headship appointees; • how the new qualification should relate to existing higher education qualifications and arrangements. Competences and Standard: the SQH approach developed in the ‘pilot’ programme The Standard for SQH (SOEID, 1998a) is firmly based on a series of competences, related to the agreed key aspects of the role, which the Government assumes should ensure successful candidates are ready to assume the role of head teachers. Without the formal pre-assessment associated with the NPQH in England and Wales, individual strengths and development needs still require to be taken into account so that the standard is centred on the individual’s values, aptitudes and attitudes, plus the knowledge and skills associated with such a senior management position.

112

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS Unit 1 Understanding the standard for headship in Scotland The professional values The management functions The professional abilities Self-evaluation, against the standard Review The quality initiative in Scotland Raising achievement

Unit 2 The key function: managing learning and teaching Monitoring and evaluating quality in learning and teaching Critical issues in improving classroom practice. The school curriculum Analysing and using curricular information Creating a culture for achievement Innovation: ICT and the curriculum Parents and learning

Managing change

The key function: managing people

Project planning

Recruitment and selection Building and developing teams Communicating effectively

Quality assurance in managing people

Unit 3 The key functions: managing policy, planning, resources and finance Working with the community

Unit 4 Identifying, analysing and using critical incidents: reviewing your personal development as a leader and manager

Planning in schools

Planning the comparative study

Identifying needs and priorities Analysing capacity and capability

Reading the environment: thinking strategically – managing multiple changes at a variety of levels New forms of public management: models of excellence in education and other public services The meaning of effective school leadership: different models of leadershipdifferent definitions of educational purposes. Efficiency and effectiveness using information to maximise performance models of evaluation The context for the practice of headship; lifecycles of schools – difference environments/ different communities/ different priorities Preparing for final assessment

Principles of implementation Costing development and maintenance Resourcing development and monitoring budgets Problem solving and decisionmaking Evaluating effectiveness and efficiency

Continuing professional development Managing performance issues Figure 1. Units of the SQH.

There is an emphasis on the practical, including an industrial experience, underpinned by theoretical insights with delivery modes, a mix of schoolbased and higher education approaches being accredited as part of Modular Masters Schemes (Landon, 1995) and leading to a postgraduate Diploma award by the HEI, while the professional endorsement (SQH) is certificated at present by the First Minister of the Scottish Executive. The 113

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

General Teaching Council (Scotland) offers such professional accreditation for newly-qualified teachers, and is seeking to extend its powers and authority to cover SQH, and any subsequent standards and qualifications when they appear as a result of further proposals to develop a general CPD Framework (SOEID, 1998b; O’Brien, 1999). Throughout 1998 and 1999 there have been a series of pilot initiatives. Units of study have been developed and tested in various parts of the country. The standard route is expected to take a minimum of 2 years and involves 4 Units of study (Figure 1). The Study One particular group took the first accelerated route which involved completion of Units 1 and 4 and their assessments plus the provision of a portfolio of evidence to confirm they had sufficient knowledge and skills associated with Units 2 and 3. We were interested in how the accelerated candidates had reacted to this experience, how in such a short period they felt they had achieved the standard and associated competences and what messages could be learned for future leadership training. Methods A questionnaire on the experience of taking the accelerated route was sent to all 21 who had taken the accelerated course. The questionnaire asked about the process and content of the course, the impact of the course on knowledge, skills and attitudes, current job, career to date and future plans, and comprised both open and closed questions. Eight respondents were subsequently selected for follow up interviews by telephone, which explored support, course content and balance, the role of peer networks, reflection and the accelerated route itself. Accelerated Route Sample Twenty-one staff (termed candidates by SQH) took the accelerated route: 17 returned the questionnaire, four of them male. There were nine candidates from primary schools, five from secondary and three from special schools. Two were assistant head teachers, four were Deputy head teachers, three held acting head teacher posts and eight now held head teacher posts (five in primary, one in secondary and two in special schools; Table I).

114

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS

Average age Age range Average years teaching

Sample

Males

Females

Primary

Secondary

Special

43.4

44.5

42.9

41.8

44.5

46.7

20

19.3

17.8

20.8

24

29

34.0

34.0

28.4

37.7

(34-49) 19.6

Experience range

(11-26)

Average age first promotion

33

First promotion range

(26-40)

Table I. Sample.

All had completed SQH except two: a continuing candidate (AHT, male, secondary) and one who had withdrawn (HT, female, primary). They believed they had been selected for the course on the basis of their prior experience, potential and effectiveness at work or academic background. Findings The findings below draw on both questionnaire and interview. Males and secondary candidates had achieved their first promotion at a younger age than females or primary staff. However, primary staff were the youngest taking the SQH and had shorter careers in teaching. This, in part, probably reflects the shorter career trajectory to headship in primary (five stages as opposed to six or seven in secondary). Staff in special schools had later initial promotion, were older and had more teaching experience by the time they took the SQH. Half of the primary candidates, one of the five from secondary and two of the special school candidates were head teachers by the time they had returned the questionnaire. Some had been promoted while taking the course. Experience of the Course: process and content Some aspects of the course experience were reported as being very influential: most influential were interactions with the peer network, which was established through the course, the residential approach which enabled the network to develop and the reading which formed part of the course. Least influential were tutor support, the application process and the reading of national documents.

115

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

Mean

SD

3.9 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.6

1.96 2.48 2.71 2.42 3.11 3.18 1.83 2.75 3.03 2.02 2.38 2.36

Most influential Peer network Residential approach Reading Formal inputs Formal assessment Critical funds Informal dialogue Access to experts Accelerated route National documents Application process Tutor support Least influential

Table II. Influence of aspects of the course process.

Reflecting on the course, 13 (five being HT) felt existing head teachers would benefit, while three rejected this suggestion. Most (14) rejected the suggestion that the accelerated route would be appropriate for all those with promoted experience. It was suggested that not all staff in senior management teams were headship material. Coping with the time demands of SQH alongside a full time job in the senior management team was seen as problematical. Asked to offer advice to colleagues thinking of taking the course, the main emphasis in the responses was on the demanding nature of the course and the need to collect evidence on activities. Planning time to cope was suggested as important and the benefits were highlighted of reading and seeking help with academic work. Outcomes of the Course Headship and Skills Most participants reported that the course had been useful in clarifying thinking. Those who were now head teachers reported that they had found the course offered a very useful opportunity to reflect on their practice, and that to some extent it endorsed their practice. Those who aspired to headship reported that the course had given them the confidence to believe they could do the job and hence were more likely to apply for headship than might have been the case.

116

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS

All 17 respondents agreed they were now clearer about what headship involved, and reported they had a better understanding of the qualities and value base which are seen as underpinning effective headship. Over half (10) had developed in the technical area. Twelve reported they had developed in the personal and 12 in the inter-personal area. Three (two being HT) reported they had made no progress in any of these areas. A few suggested they had developed an appetite for academic work and would be seeking other opportunities. Impact on Current Job/Practice Five had changed how they did their current job in contrast to four who had not. Heads reported that they put greater emphasis on staff development, and on ethos and image than they would otherwise have done, while non-heads mentioned those involved in school as working together. Those who had changed role spoke of being more confident and more influential. They drew on their reading and felt more aware of issues than before. One head spoke of habits being ‘already formed’, suggesting it was more difficult, for new experiences to impinge, but several mentioned that doing their job was developing in itself and that it was therefore difficult to separate out the effects of the course from other influences. Of eight non-respondents to this question, six were recently appointed head teachers. Twelve (five head teachers) reported some frustration with their current job, including shortage of time and becoming caught up in day-to-day matters. Twelve (of whom six were head teachers) had had scope to put their ideas into practice, while four, one a head teacher, would like more opportunity to do so. All new jobs bring surprises, even when there are effective preparation and induction programmes (Louis, 1980). Those who had become heads had been most surprised by the change in status and in how they were treated and also by the extent to which time was taken up with little issues: it was easy to be sidetracked from main concerns. One had been surprised by how enjoyable the job could be! Course participants thought Local Authorities could benefit from staff participation in the SQH as staff would have experience of SQH and could contribute to the training, and also because they would be more effective managers, be able to ‘rescue schools’, could be promoted to head teacher posts and could join working parties. Impact on Career Plans and Goals All but one believed they could now submit a stronger application for headship. Ten reported they were now more likely to apply for headship

117

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

and five (four being HT) that the course had no influence on their plans to apply. Nine intended to apply for promotion in the next 5 years. The four who did not are already head teachers. (Three head teachers and one acting head teacher did not respond to this question.) Nine planned to apply for headship: the other eight were already heads. Clarity of goal had been achieved in the past 5 years for most of those who responded. Eight had headship as their ultimate career goal, while two were interested in quality assurance or joining the EA Directorate. Three (all heads) had goals of enjoying their job and four were not clear what their goal was. Discussion Most of the participants had found the course useful and all who had completed were pleased to receive the qualification. Taking part in the course had given opportunities for reflection, and for the development of confidence that they could be head teachers and do the job effectively. They were now much clearer about what headship involved. None had been discouraged from seeking headship, but given this was a pilot and specially selected accelerated group (both factors which would lead one to expect high levels of enthusiasm, ambition and commitment about headship), this is not surprising. Subsequent data from later and full course recruits may differ. However, taking the course had been very demanding alongside a full-time post and the process of gathering evidence had been difficult. While some of these problems may relate to the accelerated nature of the course, it remains the case that all of the present Scottish headship training is planned as on-the-job training, without time out to reflect. This is likely to mean that the full benefit of reflection, especially of supported reflection through reading and time to talk with colleagues is likely to be severely restricted. Time to experiment with action and to reflect on that action will be limited by the accelerated nature of the course. With such a pattern, collection of evidence is more likely to concentrate on past relevant activities, rather than on newly planned ventures, and may emphasise practices and techniques to be avoided rather than involving the testing of new ways. Skills development in particular will be limited, since the need is not just for knowledge of effective or desirable behaviour, but also for opportunities to practice those skills to make those behaviours part of an individual’s repertoire. This is probably particularly the case for those who achieve headship during the course, and may have led to their comments about ‘ endorsing practice’ and ‘habits already formed’. Those still seeking headship during the course will have new opportunities to start again when they take up new posts. For those already in new headship posts it may be too late or there may be too little time for effective reflection on practice. This would suggest

118

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS

an alternative route for those who are about to become heads (where this can be predicted!) and a quite different route encouraging, and supporting new experimentation for those already in head teacher posts. Looking Ahead As we enter the next phase of data collection, involving both those who have just completed the SQH and those who finished the accelerated route a year ago, a number of research issues emerge. How might follow-up research of SQH candidates help improve schools and leadership in particular? Leadership itself is, of course, a ‘fuzzy’ concept and candidates bring their own individual strengths to the notion including their capacity or otherwise to engage in a form of collective leadership. While the team dimension of both school management and of educational change is increasingly recognised as important (e.g. Hall & Wallace, 1996; Wallace & Huckman, 1996), it is as individuals that aspiring heads embark on the SQH: team learning occurs in conjunction with other aspiring headteachers, but not necessarily with immediate ‘on-the-job’ colleagues. Nor does the school effectiveness literature provide much qualitative information on the chemistry or dynamics of management, either within the team or in its wider relationship to the school. Is there a fundamental tension between the notion of management teams and the development of individual head teachers as leaders? Do management teams exercise collective leadership and, if so, how are they prepared for this? There is also a need to identify the potential range and differences that exist across management styles, which are perceived to be effective. Are there clusters of core management skills and strategies, which run across schools and social contexts, or are there distinctly different models or models appropriate to different social settings? It is difficult to believe that some differentiation would not be helpful when contrasting the needs of a leader of a small rural primary school and a large inner urban secondary. In addition, in a rapidly changing CPD context with McCrone’s renewed emphasis on the individual needs of teachers, a highly post- or role-focused standard and training course may come to seem rooted in an earlier era. The SQH appears secure in context, design and consensus, but a fundamental review may prove necessary as a national Framework of CPD Standards emerges in the near future. The Standard for Headship may remain but one may query if SQH is a qualification of the past or a preparation for the future based on genuine participation and partnership in the search for improvement and greater effectiveness?

119

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

Correspondence Dr Jim O’Brien, Faculty of Education, University of Edinburgh, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, United Kingdom (jim.o’[email protected]). References Casteel, V., Forde, C., Reeves, J. & Lynas, R. (1997) A Framework for Leadership and Management Development in Scottish Schools. Glasgow: QIE, University of Strathclyde. Clark, M.M. & Munn, P. (Eds) (1997) Education in Scotland: policy and practice from pre-school to secondary. London: Routledge. Day, C. (1994) Personal Development Planning: a different kind of competency, British Journal of In-Service Education, 20, pp. 187-301. DES (1977) Ten Good Schools. London: Department of Education and Science. Draper, J., Kidd, J., Knowles, I. & Turner, D. (1994) Evaluation of Headteacher Management Training. Edinburgh: Moray House Institute. Grant, M. (1995) High Hopes or Hemlock: quality assurance in Highland Region, in I. Knowles & J. Wight (Eds) High Hopes or Hemlock? Assuring Quality in Schools. Edinburgh: Moray House Publications. Greaves, E.A. & O’Brien, J. (1996) Recent Changes in the United Kingdom System of Teacher Education, in T. Sander, F. Buchberger, A. E. Greaves & D. Kallos (Eds) Teacher Education in Europe: evaluation and perspectives. Osnabruck: SIGMA Project of European Commission. Hall, V. & Wallace, M. (1996) Let the Team take the Strain: lessons from research into senior management teams in secondary school, School Organisation, 16, pp. 297-308. HMI (1984) Learning and Teaching in Scottish Secondary Schools: school management. Edinburgh: HMSO. HMI (1988) Effective Secondary Schools. Edinburgh: HMSO. HMI (1989) Effective Primary Schools. Edinburgh: HMSO. HMI (1992) Using Ethos Indicators in Primary School Self-Evaluation. Edinburgh: SOEID. Knowles, I. & Wight, J. (Eds) (1995) High Hopes or Hemlock? Assuring Quality in Schools. Edinburgh: Moray House Publications. Landon, J. (1995) In-service and Professional Development: the emergence of postgraduate award schemes, in J. O’Brien (Ed.) Current Changes and Challenges in European Teacher Education: SCOTLAND. Bruxelles: Moray House Institute of Education Professional Development Centre in association with COMPARE-TE European Network. Louis, M.R. (1980) Surprise and Sense-making, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, pp. 226-251. MacBeath, J. (1998) Effective School Leadership: responding to change. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. MacBeath, J. (1999) Schools Must Speak for Themselves: the case for school selfevaluation. London: Routledge.

120

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS

MacBeath, J. & Mortimore, P. (1997) Effective Schools: are they improving? Paper delivered to the Tenth International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Memphis, January. MacBeath, J., Schratz, M., Meuret, D. & Jakobsen, L. (2000) Self-evaluation in European Schools: a story of change. London: Routledge. Murphy, J. (1991) Restructuring Schools: capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press. O’Brien, J. (1999) Standards and Competences: towards a Scottish framework for the continuing professional development of teachers, paper delivered to the International Conference on Teacher Education and Development (ICTED), Hong Kong, February. O’Brien, J. & MacBeath, J. (1999) Coordinating Staff Development: the training and development of staff development coordinators. Journal of In-Service Education, 25, pp. 69-83. Riddell, S. & Brown, S. (Eds) (1991) School Effectiveness Research: its messages for school improvement. Edinburgh: HMSO. Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: a review of school effectiveness, research for the Office of Standards in Education. London: OFSTED. SEED (2000) A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century, The report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Professional Conditions of Service of Teachers, ‘McCrone Report’. Edinburgh: SEED. SOEID (1996) How Good is Our School?: self-evaluation using performance indicators. Edinburgh: Audit Unit, HMI, SOEID. SOEID (1997) Proposals for Developing a Scottish Qualification for Headteachers, Consultation Document. Edinburgh: SOEID. SOEID (1998a) The Standard for Headship in Scotland. Stirling: SQH Unit. SOEID (1998b) Proposals for Developing a Framework for Continuing Professional Development for the Teaching Profession in Scotland, Consultation Document. Edinburgh: SOEID. Southworth, G. (1990) Leadership, Headship and Effective Primary Schools, School Organisation, 10, pp. 29-47. Wallace, M. & Huckman, L. (1996) Senior Management Teams in Large Primary Schools, School Organisation, 16, pp. 309-323.

121

Jim O’Brien & Janet Draper

122

Suggest Documents