Building Capacity of School Leaders Strategies that Work Jamaica’s Experience1 Harriet Nannyonjo Education Global Practice The World Bank April, 2017 1 This paper was prepared by Harriet Nannyonjo, Education Global Practice, The World Bank. Data collection was supported by Kristin Fox, consultant; National College of Education Leadership (NCEL) and National Education Inspectorate (NEI). Table of Contents Jamaica’s Experience .................................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Context .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................... 5 What do effective school leaders do? ...................................................................................................... 5 What are the good practices in preparing school leaders? ...................................................................... 7 The NCEL Effective Principals’ Training Program...................................................................................... 9 Methodology and Data collection ............................................................................................................... 12 Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 What are the key good practice features of Jamaica’s school leadership Program? ............................... 12 Challenges of the NCEL program ........................................................................................................... 17 Principal’s practices after training .......................................................................................................... 18 Teachers’ views of Principal practices.................................................................................................... 22 Impact on school outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 25 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 29 References ................................................................................................................................................... 30 Annex 1: Details of training modules ......................................................................................................... 36 NCEL Questionnaire - to be completed by the school principal ................................................................ 37 NCEL Questionnaire - to be completed by a teacher .................................................................................. 40 2 Acronyms CSEC Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate CXC Caribbean Examinations Council EOs Education Officers GFLT Grade Four Literacy Test GNAT Grade Nine Achievement Test JTC Jamaica Teaching Council LDAP Leadership Development Action Plan NCEL National College of Education Leadership NEI National Education Inspectorate NER Net Enrollment Rate 3 Introduction Research demonstrates that improvement in student achievement is contingent on talented school leadership (Louis et al., 2010). School leadership impacts teacher motivation, the conditions and the environment in which teaching and learning takes place, and the school's interaction with the broader community. Effective school leadership is far from the norm. Many countries simply assume that school leaders will discharge responsibilities and initiatives without determining whether the school leaders have the knowledge, skills and understanding to be effective. Moreover, programs to prepare and or support school leaders are either lacking or ineffective. Jamaica is one country that has invested in a comprehensive school leadership development program. The Government of Jamaica established the National College for Education Leadership (NCEL) in 2011. NCEL was intended to serve the following purposes: (i) improve children’s education achievement and well-being through excellent school leadership; (ii) identify and develop future school leaders by equipping them with the requisite knowledge and skills; (iii) bring coherence to existing training and leadership development programs in education by ensuring that there are specific requisite skills and competencies; and (iv) enhance the capacity of school boards to exercise their statutory responsibilities. The NCEL program includes several key features of good practice in developing school leaders and has already developed a reputation in the Caribbean for developing school leaders who focus on teaching and learning and turning around schools. The program has received requests from other Caribbean states to offer similar services. NCEL has also received a Bright Spot Award in innovations by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Jamaica’s approach to leadership development is part of a broader national policy for transforming the country’s education sector. In an effort to support continuing development of existing principals, the NCEL introduced an Effective Principals’ Training Program designed to develop skills for serving principals and to address any capacity gaps identified by the National Education Inspectorate (NEI). The purpose of this report is to examine literature about good practices in developing capacity for school leadership, identify key good practices in the Jamaica NCEL program and report on leadership practices of principals who were trained under this program. Context Jamaica has succeeded in increasing access at lower levels of education but challenges pertaining to quality remain. By 2009, the net enrollment rates (NER) for primary education averaged nearly ninety five percent and increased at the secondary level from fifty seven percent in 1975 to seventy eight percent in 2007. Jamaica determined that there was an urgent need to improve the quality and standards of education if the country is to build a dynamic globally competitive economy. The 2009 Grade Four Literacy Test revealed that thirty percent of fourth grade learners had not mastered at their grade level material. The National Grade Nine Achievement Test (GNAT) scores for 2009 revealed low student performance in English language (51.5%) and mathematics (43.9%). The percentage of Grade 11 cohort in public schools passing the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC), administered by the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), had only 4 increased in English language from an average of twenty eight percent in 2001 to thirty-five percent in 2009 and in math from seventeen percent to twenty percent. Addressing these challenges was the primary focus of Jamaica’s education reform efforts, including school improvement policy and leadership development. Jamaica’s School Improvement Policy Jamaica’s school leadership program is part of a national shared vision focusing on present and future school leaders. In 2004 the Government of Jamaica commissioned a Task Force on Educational Reform to review and address the quality challenges and to formulate an action plan with the goal of creating a world class education system. The Task Force articulated a National Shared Vision to enhance quality, access, enrolment, participation, sector accountability, transparency and performance. The Task Force was informed by a detailed study of international good practice including research on effective schools. To this end, it recommended a set of strategies; inter alia, improving teaching and learning; strengthening school leadership and governance and community participation. The need to strengthen school leadership was justified by local needs and international perspectives. Jamaica’s Vision 2030 emphasizes the need to strengthen the quality of leadership in schools and to provide more training opportunities to ensure that school leaders are better prepared to discharge their duties. A comparative analysis of successful education systems presented in the McKinsey Report of 2007, documented the fact that successful education systems emphasize strengthening school leadership among other things. The need to strengthen school leadership in Jamaica was also highlighted in the Chief Inspector’s Report 2010 that identified lack of strong leadership in almost all the schools in Jamaica. Structure of the remainder of this report The following section provides a review of the literature on school leadership, including good practices in preparing school leaders. This is followed by a description of the methodology of the study, then a description of the key features of the leadership training program in Jamaica, including these conform with international best practice. Next changes in the leadership practices of a cohort of Principals who have completed a training program. Finally, some conclusions are drawn. Literature Review What do effective school leaders do? Pioneering research on school leadership concluded that effective school leadership is correlated with improved school outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2005; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008). These researchers found that the effects of leadership on student outcomes operate mainly through two main pathways: through support and development of teachers and teaching processes, and via 5 processes that affect the organizational conditions of the school. Processes include building school community partnerships and developing school procedures and plans, as well as at the classroom level, through focus on instruction and assessment. Each of these categories has been linked to improvement in student learning outcomes. Figure 1 demonstrates the centrality of school leadership and provides a summary of the leadership interactions to improve school outcomes. Figure 1 Framework demonstrating the centrality of school leadership to school outcomes Family Government School background policies conditions Student Teachers School Leadership Learning, attendance, actions/practices enrollment, graduation Leadership development Classroom Graduation conditions rates Wider community Source: By the author based on research literature Consistent with earlier research the framework does not posit direct effects of leadership behaviors on student success but rather it charts the impact of school leaders on student learning as mediated by other people, events and organizational factors such as teachers and school climate (Hallinger and Heck, 1998) which in turn lead to student success. The framework also suggests that there are aspects of the context within which leadership and schooling take place that bear on leadership. Government policies, family background, the wider community (including the media, unions, professional associations, and business groups) influence school leadership practices which in turn influence conditions in schools, classrooms, and the professional community of teachers. And of course leaders are influenced by their own professional learning experiences and by student and family backgrounds. School leadership helps to shape school conditions (for example, goals, culture, and structures) and classroom conditions (instruction content, classrooms size, and teaching methods) that in turn lead to improved outcomes. 6 Earlier research has consistently highlighted key leadership practices and strategies of effective leadership. Reviews by Leithwood & Jantzi in 2000 and again in 2008 suggest the following practices as being the most critical to school effectiveness and performance: (i) setting direction, by developing a consensus around vision and goals; (ii) working directly with teachers to improve instruction and effectiveness in the classroom; (iii) regularly monitoring teaching and student progress; (iv) fostering collaboration and engaging families and community. Effective school leaders engage all stakeholders in a collaborative process to develop a clear vision and concrete goals focused on student learning and growth and keeping those goals at the forefront of the school’s attention (Leithwood et al., 2004). They communicate to all the stakeholders and constituencies both in and outside the school about the school vision and goals (Leithwood and Riehl (2003). They systematically collect and analyze data to monitor progress towards school goals, identify the underlying causes of deficiencies or success in student achievement (Louis et al., 2010; Douglas Reeves, 2006). They also train staff members to analyze the data in different ways and use it to guide instruction (Powell, 2004). Moreover, they undertake an array of activities to monitor the quality of instruction, such as ongoing classroom observations and feedback to teachers (Robinson, 2007; Heck et al., 1992). Research is unanimous that effective leaders create opportunities for relevant and sustained professional development which is a powerful tool for improving teacher quality, the most important school level determinant of student performance (Marzano et al., 2003). They also ensure that teachers do not work in isolation from one another, but, instead, work collaboratively, giving each other help and guidance to improve instructional practices (Marzano et al. 2003). Such collaboration serves to increase commitment to the common good (Pounder (1999) and encourages a focus on shared practices and goals (Chrispeels, Castillo, & Brown (2000). Effective leaders implement joint planning time for teachers and other structures as mechanisms to develop a culture of learning and professional behavior (Murphy, 2005). Effective school leaders act as advocates of their school and engage other stakeholders—parents and school communities—in school activities (Louis et al. 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Several findings have reported positive relationships between family involvement and social and academic benefits for students (Henderson and Mapp, 2002; Shaver & Walls, 1998). What are the good practices in preparing school leaders? Acknowledging that leadership is vital and what attributes of leadership practices make a difference is one thing, systematically developing these practices and attributes is another. What do we know about developing school leaders who can successfully transform schools? Davis et al., 2005 recommend the following: standards-based curriculum emphasizing instructional leadership, organizational development and change management; field-based internships with skilled supervision; cohort groups that create opportunities for collaboration and teamwork in practice-oriented situations; active instructional strategies that link theory and practice, such as problem based learning through case studies; strong partnerships with schools to 7 support quality, field-based learning. Research on in-service leadership programs by Peterson and Kelley (2002) also concluded that stronger programs offer combined on-site training, practice and coaching which are closely linked to participants’ work; and foster a sense of membership. Moreover, Leithwood et al. (1996) found that teacher perceptions of principals’ leadership effectiveness were strongly influenced by program features such as instructional strategies, cohort membership, and program content. Davis et al’s (2005) review of research about leadership preparation identified the following key features of effective program design which are most frequently identified in the literature as being essential to the development of effective school leaders: Content which includes knowledge that will allow school leaders to better promote successful teaching and learning, especially knowledge about collaborative decision-making strategies, distributed leadership practices, a culture of collegiality and community, the development of management competence in the analysis and use of data and instructional technologies to guide school improvement activities. Program content delivered through a variety of methods to best meet the needs of adult learners and to allow trainees to apply the curricular content in authentic school settings. This may be done through: Field-based internships – which expose trainees to situations requiring the application of acquired skills, knowledge, and problem-solving strategies within school settings and when guided by critical self-reflection under the guidance of a veteran practitioner -mentor. Bottoms et al., 2003, proposes adopting field-based experiences as a central focus and high priority area in the training of school leaders. Murphy, 2005 also emphasizes the practical aspects: although adequate theories would make the education world a better place, theory without practice is a like a “bridge to nowhere”. Mentoring – This involves a more experienced individual guiding a less experienced one/mentee in his or her search for strategies to resolve problems (Pont et al. 2008). This helps to boost self- confidence, and develop a broad repertoire of leadership skills through modeling and coaching. Mulford, 2003 indicates that because adult learners respond more to demonstration, modeling and learning by doing, mentoring is well-placed to meet their needs. In the United States and Britain, mentoring is a standard part of principal preparation programs. Hobson, 2003 found that most graduates who were mentored in the course of formal development rated mentoring as the most important part of the program. Cohort groups – adult learning is best accomplished as part of a socially cohesive activity structure that emphasizes learning opportunities through collaboration and teamwork in practical situations. Linking school leadership standards to professional learning: Cheney and Davis, 2011 suggest setting high standards that emphasize quality of school leadership accreditation through evaluation of capabilities during leadership development. Standards for school leadership can act as an important frame of reference for the development and implementation of a professional learning 8 infrastructure. Orr and Barber (2006) found that a standards-based curriculum, and internships were significantly, but differentially, related to leadership knowledge and skills. Emphasizing performance-based methods and assessment rather than course completion alone. Effective preparation programs feature instructional activities and assessments that focus on problems of practice and stimulate effective problem-solving and reflection. Emphasis on portfolio tasks for certification is designed to engage school leaders in active modes of learning. Using performance-based methods as part of an overall program approach portrays what Fullan, 2002 notes as a shift from “acquisition” of information to its “use” in relation to a given school context. The NCEL Effective Principals’ Training Program The NCEL Effective Principals’ Training Program is a professional development program targeting existing principals of primary and secondary schools. It is designed to assist school principals to effectively manage inputs and to improve processes as well as to address the challenges they face in running schools with a view of improving student learning. The program is based on six attributes of effective school leaders namely: leading personal growth and development, leading student learning, leading organizational management, leading for capacity building and sustainability and leading for legal and fiduciary responsibility. Based on these leadership capabilities NCEL developed seventeen modules designed to improve competencies of school principals. These modules are based on international best practices, local supervisory and NEI reports, and focus group discussions with principals and other education personnel. Table 1 shows the linkage between capabilities and the modules developed. NEI is a quality assurance agency which appraises school effectiveness in the delivery of education services, and provides recommendations for improvement. NEI uses indicators for school inspection focused on the following criteria:  A clear school mission  Instructional leadership  Opportunity to learn – time on task  Monitoring of student progress  A safe and orderly environment  Positive school and home relations 9 Table 1: A Framework for Linking Standards, Capabilities and Modules to ensure Leadership Accountability Capabilities Modules Round 1 of training Round 2 of training Leading Personal  Self-Management Growth and  Ethical Leadership Development  Becoming a Reflective Practitioner Leading Student  Improving Education for  Effective Classroom Learning Boys Observation and Feedback  Conflict and Behaviour Management Leading  Roles and Responsibilities  School Governance Organisational of the School Principal  Creating a Culture of Management  Preparation for the New Accountability School year  Safety and Security  School Planning and Data Management Leading for  Quality Educational  Emotional Intelligence Capacity Building Leadership  Managing Media Relations and Sustainability  Human Resource Management  Towards a Service Oriented School Leading for Legal  School Financial  Procurement: Policies and and Fiduciary Management Practices Responsibility  Records Management The initial training (Round 1 of training) provides exposure to eight (8) modules carefully selected from a menu of 17 modules. This initial training involves three intensive residential days of face- to-face training followed by preparation and implementation of LDAP. The program consists of case studies (experiential) presentation, modeling, practice and interactive assignments focused on the following areas:  Identifying key contributions to effective school leadership  Understanding the impact of leadership roles and responsibilities on the outcomes of the school and community  Understanding the implications of the Financial Administration and Audit Act for effective management of school funds  Using accurate data to inform school directions and policies  Putting in place systems to address safety and security concerns 10  Providing effective instructional leadership in an effort to improve teaching practice and student learning outcomes. Program participants Training is organized in cohorts based on specific criteria. Principals are invited to attend the development program and are certified upon successful completion. Priority was given to school leaders whose inspection results pointed to a need for immediate support, were newly appointed, tenured principals identified as underperforming and Education Officers [EOs] who are entrusted with the responsibility of supervising principals. Cohorts 1 – 8 comprised 572 participants. There were clear criteria for constituting the cohorts for school leaders to be trained to ensure that they had some commonalities (see Table 2). Table 2 Process by which Cohorts were selected Cohort Training Process by which cohort was selected Number Dates 1 Nov. 22 – 24, Regional Directors were asked to identify the 77 2012 participants by virtue of performance; school size; location; school type; and years of experience. 2 March 6 – 8, Newly appointed EOs and principals of schools 24 2013 deemed by the NEI as being in need of immediate support 3 April 10 – 12, Principals who were appointed between 2011 and 94 2013 2013 4 July 8 – 10, Principals of schools who were inspected by the NEI 36 2013 and found to be in need of immediate support 5 September 24 Newly provisional and tenured Principals and 97 – 27, 2013 Education Officers 6 February 3 – Principals of schools who were inspected by the NEI 82 4, 2014 and found to be in need of immediate support 7 July 28 – 30, Newly appointed and tenured Principals and 87 2014 Education Officers 8 October 21 – Principals of schools who were inspected by the NEI 26 22, 2014 and found to be in need of immediate support 9 January 21 - Tenured Principals of schools identified as 49 23, 2015 underperforming. Total 572 Questions Recognizing this background, the study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What are the key aspects of the Jamaica NCEL school leadership program? 11 (2) Do graduates from the NCEL program demonstrate leadership practices that are associated with effective schools? Methodology and Data collection The team used quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to understand how the program was structured and views on the helpfulness of the program in developing school leadership capacity. The team interviewed NCEL staff, graduates of the program, teachers, members of the school boards and students on their perception of the changes in leadership practices; reviewed program documents; surveyed graduates of the program about their practices before and after the program; interviewed and surveyed teachers with whom the graduating school leaders work, and examined data on achievements and trends to collaborate their views with outcomes. Interviews were only conducted for the ten schools visited as part of this study. Survey The team sent out survey questionnaires to 4202 graduates of the NCEL program and to a subset of teachers in the schools led by focus principals. This was through Survey Monkey. The total number of respondents was 385 school principals3 and 400 teachers. Principals’ surveys captured program participants’ assessments of their sense of effectiveness of the program in improving their leadership practices in the schools where they work. Teacher surveys asked about their principals’ practices. Survey items were drawn from Leithwood and Jantzi’s (1999, 2000) studies of effective school leadership practices and the professional standards for school leaders Jamaica. Quantitative data was analyzed for school leaders and teachers from 385 schools for which responses were received from both principals and teachers. The results were also used in comparisons with before and after the training program. The team also conducted semi-structured interviews with school principals, teachers and education officers. Findings What are the key good practice features of Jamaica’s school leadership Program? Jamaica’s school leadership program has several core elements which are consistent with international best practices in developing capacity of school leaders, including: (i) based on research and needs; (ii) inclusion of field experience and practical aspects (iii) cohort model; (iv) uses certified practitioners; (v) mentorship; (vi) competence-based and integrates theory and The team used Survey Monkey and did not send questionnaires to some of the principals because they had been transferred to new schools. No information was obtained on why some of the principals did not respond. 3 The high non response rate was mainly as a result of time constraints on the part of school principals and some of them were in process of being transferred to new schools. 12 practice that links to schools; and (vii) based on professional standards. In addition, the Jamaica program exhibits high political commitment. Based on research of school effectiveness and needs of school leaders. The program is based on needs analysis and gaps informed by research on school effectiveness in the Jamaican context. The needs analysis and results of NEI were used to determine the leadership development requirements of school leaders in the Jamaican context. The attendees view the training as very relevant to their needs because the modules include problem-based learning case studies, applied tasks related to leadership roles and responsibilities and development action plans linked to the real-life demands of school-level practice. Participants expressed satisfaction with the program. They considered the training rewarding because of its focus on real life experiences in schools and the insight provided in problem solving. Program content includes a strong focus on instructional improvement and school transformation. The program includes a strong focus on teaching and learning— including use of data to diagnose the learning needs of students, providing feedback to teachers on teaching practices and planning professional development. Furthermore, the program aims to develop transformational leaders dedicated to improving the school as an organization and who are ready to develop structures that support high quality teaching and learning through enhanced teacher collaboration, enhance the capacity of the teachers to meet the needs of students (including a specific module for boys education) and implement reform strategies that will improve student outcomes. The focus of the Jamaica training addresses the criticism in many of the current courses that cover general management principles, school laws, administrative requirements, and procedures, with little emphasis on student learning, effective teaching, professional development, curriculum, and organizational change (Elmore, 2000). The focus on these areas is critical for leadership of instruction and professional development, organizational design of schools that promote teacher and student learning and building communities across diverse school stakeholders. Inclusion of field experience and practical aspects. The field experience aspect of the program was applauded by participants. Participants are of the view that the program is comprehensive and offers practical suggestions and solutions. These modalities expose principals to strategies which help them to improve systems at school they lead or to start the journey towards improvement. Most participants stated that the field experience component forced them to reflect on what they had been taught in the context of their own school and provided the opportunity to implement some of the numerous innovative ideas shared during the training. An education department official who participated in the training indicated they had gained a new perspective. “My eyes were opened to the gaps which exist in classroom teachers who become school principals, even after they complete a Master’s Degree in Educational Administration.” Uses cohort groups constituted based on specific criteria that reflects commonalities of leaders or their schools. The program uses supportive relationships such as cohort groups and mentoring relationships that is consistent with Leithwood et al., (1996) regarding what works in preparing school leaders. Each participant is part of a cohort. Each cohort forms a learning community that offers formal and informal principal’s networks and peer coaching. Principals indicate that cohort groups serve several purposes including: (i) maximizing learning through sharing experiences and as a sounding board when they encounter challenges in their schools; (ii) providing opportunities 13 to share knowledge, and forums in which they collectively reflect on emerging issues; (iii) allowing they to turn to someone in a similar job and ask for advice when encountering a new situation; (iv) acting as a critical professional resource in school leadership work which can be used as a “sounding board”; and (v) helping to build an environment where ideas can be tested in a shared and non-judgmental setting. Principals also indicate that cohort groups help them to keep in touch with one another as they meet on a monthly basis to share experiences in addition to regular social media contacts to provide peer support and coaching. They rely on these groups to share experiences and knowledge and to solve problems. Principals credited the regular meetings with their peers as an invaluable knowledge base of experiences and resource for ideas from peers. Delivery of modules by certified and experienced practitioners. The modules are delivered by a carefully selected team of leadership practitioners whose expertise in the respective field is considered exceptional, including highly respected current or retired school leaders. This ensures that the courses are more authentic and reflect real experiences and examples from respected leaders in the education system. Mentoring or coaching. The program includes mentoring and coaching that supports modeling observations of practice, and feedback from more seasoned or even retired principals recognized to have done well as school leaders. Link to the overall sector reform program. The program is linked to the overall education system transformation program, which includes school development planning and improvement. Some of the training cohorts were explicitly linked to the results of the National Education Inspectorate and preparation of an action plan to address the weaknesses identified and monitoring the implementation of that plan is part of professional development. Program content is aligned with professional standards. The program includes a series of modules developed around professional standards that provide common expectations for knowledge, skills and dispositions of school leaders. These are aimed at developing professional practices required of effective school leaders. The development of content of the program is based on research and analysis of the needs. This is consistent with the results of a meta-analysis of studies of effectiveness of managerial development programs. This analysis found that practitioners can attain substantial improvement in both knowledge and skills if sufficient front-end analysis is conducted to assure that the right training is offered to the right leaders (Sanders & Simpson, 2005). The professional standards provide a set of common expectations for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of school leaders that are grounded in principles of effective teaching and learning (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). The alignment with professional standards addresses the criticism by for example (Peterson, 2002) relating to lack of alignment with standards for effective leadership and administrative practice. The standards-based approach strengthens the focus on improving instruction and school improvement. This was reinforced by development and implementation of leadership development action plans and submission of professional portfolio, assessment and certification. The standards are also used for performance appraisal of the school leaders and this further strengthens the role of the standards in strengthening leadership capacity. 14 The NCEL program integrates theory and practice through LDAPs and case studies . The modules stress the importance of problem-based learning situations that integrate theory and practice in line with Hallinger & McCary (1992) in that they include field-based projects, analysis and discussion of case studies and a portfolio of evidence about practice. The use of case studies and problem-based learning has several advantages: First, it exposes trainees to concrete elements of real-world practice and is consistent with earlier research (Kolb & Boyatzis, 1999) which suggests that most adults learn best when exposed to situations requiring the application of acquired skills, knowledge, and problem-solving strategies within authentic settings. Second, it offers opportunities that foster deep reflection and help trainees to link experience with newly acquired knowledge. Third, it supports the connections and understanding with real world problems. Fourth, implementation of LDAPs provides an opportunity to work with the day-to-day demands of school leadership under the watchful eye of an expert mentor. Each participant by way of reflection and self-assessment is required to articulate how competence in at least four modules will be developed. Two weeks are permitted for submission of a Leadership Development Action Plan [LDAP]. This is subject to a review process aimed at ascertaining compliance with minimum standards. Subsequent to the approval of the LDAP, participants engage in a three month field experience in which they implement the strategies geared at helping them develop the relevant competencies. At the end of the field experience, a professional portfolio [informed by professional standards determined by the Jamaica Teaching Council (JTC) which comprises evidence of competencies developed is submitted for assessment. The assessment of competencies is led by a team of two individuals who were trained and certified by the National Education Inspectorate [NEI] as lead inspectors. Competence-based training that involves certification. The program uses various assessments to ascertain attainment of competencies as part of the certification process. The system requires certification for all school leaders following the training program. Competency evaluation includes both quantitative and qualitative data in an effort to determine the competency level prior to certification. Primary data sources include interviews with the participants and relevant personnel in the school. Observations of the context are also key. Secondary data sources include the Leadership Development Action Plan (LDAP); the professional portfolio with evidence of success, documentation and other evidence deemed pertinent to the strategies implemented. Figure 2 presents the school leadership development pathway. Based on evaluation of the portfolio, school leaders who are deemed competent are certified and those not deemed competent are required to re-enroll the training. Non-compliance with the requirement to re-enroll triggers Ministry of Education accountability measures, including the Ministry of Education taking over the management of the school. High level of political commitment. Another significant feature of the Jamaica program is the high level of bi-partisan political support and commitment to the program. The Minister of Education updates parliament on the program on a regular basis as part of the report on the activities for improving education outcomes in Jamaica. In one presentation the Minister stressed the importance of school leadership stating: “This is a critical area, as several pieces of research have indicated that the quality of leadership in a school is a determining factor in how effectively that institution carries out its core functions of teaching and learning.” 15 Figure 2 Leadership proficiency pathway Source: Jamaica National College of Education Leadership Records. Link to professional standards. The opportunities for professional learning for current and aspiring principals are set out in the national standards for school principals. These standards are consistent with the research findings on effective school leadership. They are aligned with Ministry of 16 Education policy directions for school leadership. The standards were designed to provide the knowledge and skills necessary for proficiency in leadership. They serve the following purposes: (i) clarify the knowledge and skills necessary for effective school leadership; (ii) provide a basis for scoping the spectrum of leadership development; (iii) help school leaders assess their own competencies and capabilities; (iv) guide the monitoring and evaluation of school leaders; (v) inform the development of policy to support the training and deployment of school leaders; and (vi) promote the link between effective leadership and improved learning outcomes. Another key feature of the program design was the close monitoring and feedback loop to ensure program quality. The program included a monitoring and evaluation program which evaluated each of the cohorts. The results informed adjustments in subsequent cohort training. The evaluation covered participant views of the content of the program, delivery methods (for example, case studies, discussions, group work, practical application of knowledge and skills) of the program, presenters, overall quality of the program, time allowed for the program and cohort composition. Challenges of the NCEL program Although the training content was very well received by participants there were several challenges. These included: resistance to the program, absence of a legal framework and limited staffing, and time clashes between of face-to-face training requirements and regular work during the school year. The challenges were identified through the strong monitoring and evaluation system which was an integral part of the NCEL training program design. Resistance to the program. Competency based training was new to school administrators many of whom already had graduate degrees in educational leadership. They needed to be convinced about the benefits of participation in the program. This led to resistance to participation at initial stages. The program requirements included attending the sessions; generating a leadership development action plan (LDAP) that was focused on improving their competencies; implementing and recording evidence of leadership competencies; producing a professional portfolio, and accepting the award of a competency rating subsequent to a triangulated process of assessment. These challenges were addressed through the following actions:  engaging in a series of consultations with school leaders, school boards and education officers;  marketing the program through social and traditional media;  making public the performance of the school leaders; and  demonstrating the impact of competence- based training on school performance as reported by state agencies such as the National Education Inspectorate Lack of legislative and policy framework. The lack of a legal framework to hold school leaders accountable for their participation in and performance post training made it difficult to achieve full compliance. In order to address this challenge, NCEL took the following actions: 17  proposed changes to the Education Act;  collaborated with the Teachers’ Services Commission, the body that ratified the appointment of principals;  persuaded the Minister of Education to adjust the requirements to become a principal to include participation in the program and in the interim  incentivized the participants. Those who performed well on the program had their names and photographs published in the daily newspapers. The ultimate incentive was for the principals to receive a principal’s license following successful completion of the program. Limited initial NCEL capacity. The College started with a small staff complement that was insufficient for number of school principals who needed to be trained. In order to address this challenge, NCEL engaged trainers and assessors who were / had been successful and highly respected school leaders; made the follow up process entirely online; and developed strategic and operational plans against which to report progress against targets. Too many sessions delivered in a short period of time. Participants stated parts of the training were rushed and crammed with too many things within a short period of time. This was addressed by making the program modular and to enable the participants to focus on the most critical modules and residential to allow for longer days. The timing of the face-to-face sessions was initially done during the school year yet principals preferred this to be done during the summer. This was addressed through changing the training sessions to be delivered during the summer which was outside the school year. Principal’s practices after training The influence of the training is reflected in how school principals execute their leadership and the impact on their schools, teachers and students. Leadership practices were examined in two ways: what the principals reported as their leadership practices based on how frequently they engaged in various activities over the past one month, and the changes they reported in their schools since they completed the training. Since self-reports by principals are subjective, the study also examined what the teachers said about practices by principals and changes they had observed. In addition, there were discussions with members of school boards and parents for the schools visited and examination of data about changes in practices. Frequency of effective leadership practices In answers to the survey questions, school principals reported the frequency with which they engage in various activities. After attending the program they spent on average more time on instruction and school improvement activities. They were more likely to report that they observe instruction, monitor students’ work, meet with teachers to provide feedback on how to improve instruction, plan professional development activities, foster teacher collaboration, use data to plan improvement activities, track the performance of boys, (See Figure 3 and Table 2). The Principals were also more likely to engage with the school community, work with teachers to develop short- 18 term goals and organize professional development activities. The frequency of practices is further demonstrated in graph 1 below. Table 2: Principal’s Practices before and after training4 Please indicate how often do you engage in the Percentage Percentage following activities in your role as principal of this indicating more indicating more school? than once or twice than once or a month before twice a month training after training N=385 N=385 Observe instruction in classrooms 30 70 Use data to monitor school and student progress and 63 88 identify problems Meet with teachers to provide feedback on how they 20 56 can improve instruction Engage in school or instructional improvement 60 75 activities Collaborate with principals from other schools 37 65 Engage the school community in matters of the 52 65 school Monitor the performance of boys 20 75 Work with teachers to develop short term goals 30 73 Use data to plan school improvement activities 38 83 Work with teachers to solve school problems 53 88 Organise teacher professional development activities 38 68 Meet with teachers 33 66 Regarding observing instruction and support to teachers, principals expressed that they now schedule weekly classroom visits to observe teaching and learning in the school and provide feedback to teachers on how to improve instruction. They also monitor lesson plans on a weekly basis and review test papers to ensure that they are in line with what is being taught and worked with teachers to establish a Curriculum implementation team. Some have put in place a system to ensure accountability and monitor teacher performance. Members of the school boards note a stronger team spirit and focus of working towards targets and purpose. Principals also report more engagement in the following effective leadership practices: consensus building around the school goals, working according to school goals, use of data and improved teacher collaboration. Principals characterized their schools’ improvement strategies, including: (i) shared vision and consensus among staff about the school’s goals; (ii) encouraging collaboration among teachers that is focused on improving instruction; (iii) using student 4 Percentage of 385 scoring 2, 3 or 4. 19 performance data to develop and implement school improvement goals; (iv) encouraging teachers to use student learning data to plan instruction; (v) facilitating professional development for teachers; (vi) discussing student academic progress with teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses; and (vii) building productive relationships with the community (see Table 3). Figure 3: Percentage of school leaders engaged in specific practices of a weekly basis before and after training Figure 3: Leadership Practices Before and After Training Track performance of boys Leadership practices Provide feedback to teachers Teacher collaboration Collaboration with other school leaders meet with teachers weekly Observe instruction weekly 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of school leaders Before training After training Regarding use of data for planning, principals indicate that the leadership training strengthened their understanding of some very crucial aspects of leadership for transforming a school, including a culture of school planning and management that is based on data. They also noted acquisition of skills to improve relationships both internally and with the wider community. School principals pointed to a stronger focus on how to improve the way boys are taught in the school and greater awareness of how boys learn. Teachers noted how they have been influenced by their principals to plan lessons which now includes differentiated teaching strategies, greater use of manipulatives, and incorporates more resources in the teaching processes. 20 Table 3: Principals’ Perception of practices, strategies and climate in the school before and after the program5 Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree Percentage who Percentage with each statement relating to your strategies, agree or who agree or practices and climate in your school before and after strongly agree strongly agree the program: before Program after Program N=385 n=385 School improvement strategies: Build consensus among staff about the school’s goals 48 82 Encourage collaboration among teachers focused on 54 82 improving instruction Use student performance data to develop school 38 84 improvement goals Ensure learning is at the center of strategic planning and 46 88 resource management Encourages distributed leadership in the school 44 88 Teachers work according to the school’s educational goals 56 88 Encourage teachers to use student learning data to plan 48 86 instruction Facilitate professional development for teachers 44 74 School leader discusses student academic progress with 50 74 teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses School climate and conditions: Create a task oriented atmosphere in the school 64 84 Ensure teachers know what is expected of them and feel 66 88 responsible for student learning Set high standards for students and staff 66 84 Encourage collaboration in solving school problems 50 84 Engage school community 50 78 On encouraging distributed leadership, principals indicate conducting workshops to build capacity of senior teachers as Grade Supervisors to support student learning. Teachers indicate that it is no longer a one-man show: senior teachers now work closely with teachers to identify any grade level challenges; they coordinate the standardized lesson planning to include different types of assessment and a reflective evaluation for their respective grades. They also organize monthly grade level meetings to discuss best practices and report on students’ academic progress. As for community engagement, principals report having developed clear goals and indicators of success and how to organize regular parent teacher association (PTA) meetings to ensure they provide opportunities to listen and learn from families and students. They indicate providing information to parents on the performance of their children on a regular basis. 5 Percentage of 385 who agree or strongly agree 21 This information was corroborated by members of school boards who reported observing significant changes. School board members observed seeing major changes in how the school is managed. They note that the principal organizes regular PTA meetings and involves the school board and teachers in planning how to improve the performance of all students in the school. They also indicate that the level of collaboration with the school community and focus on student performance is much more evident now. Parents reported regular PTA meetings, regular information about their children’s performance and a more welcoming school administration. Figure 4: Changes in effective leadership strategies Use data to inform decisions Monitor classroom activities Use of student perform data for Before training planning After training Working towards school goals 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Percentage of school leaders Another principal stated that “teacher collaboration is now the norm and it is no longer a one-man show. I conducted workshops for middle managers to build their capacity as Grade Supervisors to support students learning. In addition, we standardized lesson planning to include different types of assessment and a reflective evaluation. We instituted monthly grade level meetings to discuss best practices and report on students’ academic progress”. Teachers’ views of Principal practices The team asked teachers the same set of questions as Principals and their responses are provided in Table 4. As can be seen comparing Tables 3 and 4, teachers confirm their Principals views. 22 Table 4: Teachers’ Perception of practices, strategies and climate in the school before and after the program6 Please indicate the extent you agree or disagree with Percentage who Percentage each of the following statements relating to your agree or who agree or principal’s strategies, practices and climate in your strongly agree strongly agree school before and after the program before program after Program N=385 n=385 School improvement strategies: Builds consensus among staff about the school’s goals 24 79 Encourages collaboration among teachers focused on 44 82 improving instruction Uses student performance data to develop school 34 78 improvement goals Ensures learning is at the center of strategic planning and 58 80 resource management Encourages distributed leadership in the school 42 84 Teachers work according to the school’s educational 22 75 goals Encourages teachers to use student learning data to plan 42 84 instruction Facilitate professional development for teachers 24 82 School leader discusses student academic progress with 22 84 teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses School climate and conditions: Creates a task oriented atmosphere in the school 56 80 Ensures teachers know what is expected of them and feel 54 82 responsible for student learning Sets high standards for students and staff 52 88 Ensures collaboration in solving school problems 36 78 Engages school community 52 82 Both teachers and school leaders noted that shared responsibility has been implemented in a variety of ways such as: collaborative planning for the new school year, increasing the role of senior teachers in lesson planning, and the establishment of cross-cutting committees with responsibility for academic and non-academic areas of school life, chaired by selected staff. 6 Percentage of 385 who agree or strongly agree 23 On engaging the school community, a variety of strategies and tools were employed to increase stakeholder involvement and satisfaction. In addition to consultations, some principals established committees to interface, at various levels, with external constituents, including potential donors. For example, one school had a meet and greet committee, while another aimed at soliciting support for various activities. Open day was reintroduced at one school. Some schools have introduced visitor feedback questionnaires which asks visitors to rate their visit to the school. This helps schools to assess the effectiveness their customer services and to identify the areas where they need to improve in serving their clients. Some schools also hold PTA social interaction evenings and provide more regular student reports to parents. Both school principals and members of school boards indicate receiving positive feedback from the community and other external stakeholders. Teachers’ perceptions Teachers affirmed a shift in their views of school improvement strategies and school climate and conditions. The survey results indicate teachers observed changes in school principal’s practices in the following areas: (i) improved consensus building; (ii) encouraging collaboration among teachers focused on improving instruction; (iii) use of student performance data to develop and school improvement goals, (iv) encouragement of distributed leadership; (v) facilitating teacher professional development; and (vi) discussing student academic progress with teachers. Regarding school climate and conditions, teachers are more likely to report: (i) a task oriented atmosphere; (ii) knowing what is expected of them and feeling responsible for student learning, (iii) engaged school community, collaboration in solving school problems; and (v) high standards for teachers and students. Teachers confirmed that the school principal schedules weekly class visit to observe teaching and learning and to provide guidance to teachers, engaging in instructional improvement activities, working with teachers to resolve problems and meeting with teachers (Table 5). Teachers noted the transformation in behavior and practices of the school principal following the training. They pointed to an improved atmosphere at the school as evidenced from a very high level of collaboration between the principal and teachers and the community in addressing school challenges like student performance and attendance. Teachers indicate that they have already seen an improvement in student attendance as a result of the initiatives put in place and expect to see improvement in learning because they discuss how to improve on a regular basis and agree actions to support students better. Teachers confirmed that the principals now schedule weekly class visits to observe teaching and learning and to provide guidance to teachers (See Table 5). In addition, teachers also confirmed the principal monitoring lesson plans to ensure that they are in line with what is being taught. 24 Table 5: Teachers’ perception of Principal’s Practices before and after training How often does the school principal engage in the Percentage Percentage following activities in your role as principal of this indicating more indicating more school? than once or than once or twice a month twice a month before training after training (N385) (N385) Observe instruction in classrooms 30 68 Use data to monitor school and student progress to 52 83 identify problems Meet with teachers to provide feedback on how they 43 80 can improve instructional practices Engage in school or instructional improvement 38 83 Collaborate with principals from other schools 25 65 Engage the school community in matters of the school 43 63 Organise teacher collaboration to develop new 35 88 teaching practices Monitor the performance of boys 30 73 Work with teachers to develop short term goals 30 65 Use data to plan school improvement activities 48 70 Organise teacher professional development activities 35 55 Meet with teachers 20 80 Teachers perceive a stronger focus on improving instruction, and stronger collaboration among teachers, schools and the community. They are more likely to report that the principal observes instruction in classrooms more than once or twice a month; monitors students’ work once or twice a week; meets with teachers to provide feedback once or twice a month; engages in instructional improvement activities once or twice a week; works with teachers to develop short term goals once or twice a month; and organizes professional development for teachers once or twice a month. Teachers noted major changes, including the principal involving them in setting goals and defining priorities for the school, working together to identify challenges and agree specific actions needed to improve learning for all students, and they feel supported by the principal. They also noted regular professional development activities for teachers and a sense of community in their school. Impact on school outcomes While it may be too early to see results in learning achievement, some schools report that the training and actions taken by school principals are already leading to improvement in school outcomes. 25 Another caution with these results is separating the impact of leadership training from other factors that influence student achievement for example student background factors, changes in teachers, principal tenure among other factors. The analysis separates out schools which have received additional interventions for example specific literacy training for teachers, furniture or new school principal. The study also captures stakeholder views of their perceived impact of the program. An analysis of performance of primary schools whose principals were trained indicates that eighty- three percent of the schools recorded an average percentage point increase of nine in Grade Six Achievement Test in language arts. Sixty four percent of the same schools recorded an increase in mastery levels of an average percentage point increase of 21 on the Grade Four Literacy Test. Figure 5 presents the trend in the average performance of primary schools whose principals were trained. These graphs indicate a positive trend in student performance. Figure 5. Primary school performance 2011-2014 90 80 Percentage of school leaders 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GFLT GAIN GSAT LANG GSAT Com GSAT MATH Type of Assessment 2011 2012 2013 2014 Improvements were also recorded in Caribbean Secondary Examinations (CSEC) in English, mathematics, and matriculation (see Figure 5). Principals interviewed note improvements in Caribbean Secondary School Examinations Council results and believe that this has largely been as a result of the strong focus on learning as a result of the training provided by NCEL 26 Figure 5. Secondary Education Performance 70 Percentage of students scoring pass mark 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Academic Year CSEC Math CSEC Eng CSEC Matricu Principals indicate improvement in school performance. A principal from one school said the following: “at first I didn’t like it, but a lot of the ideas now being implemented in my school are from that training. We have realized significant improvements in Caribbean Secondary School Examinations Council results for 2014 compared with 2012 and 2013. These improvements are as a result of our strong focus on learning, improvements in lesson planning and regular monitoring of teacher practices, guidance provided to teachers ….. all of these are as a result of the training I received” 27 A principal from one of the schools identified by NEI as in need of immediate support observed the following: “student performance is steadily improving as a result of the strategies put in place following my training. I conducted a detailed examination of students’ assessment results and trained teachers on using their student data to guide planning. As a result, heads of departments are better able to identify areas of need and class teachers are better able to track individual students’ performance and make appropriate lesson plans. We jointly agreed school goals and everyone in the school understands these goals. We meet regularly with staff to review progress and discuss strategies. I also organize professional development activities for teachers to address weaknesses identified. We see a significant change in student performance and I attribute this to the training I received. I am now more comfortable in carrying out my roles and responsibilities as an instructional leader; this has resulted in improvement in lesson delivery, time management and student behavior. We have also noted an improvement in school/community relationship.” About 80 percent of schools report improved attendance. School principals noted improved attendance due to early intervention because of use of data to identify problems and possible causes. One of the principals said the following: “attendance improved due to early intervention. Because of use of data, we found that students are absent on the days the school does not provide lunch. We then worked with the business community who are now providing support to enable the school to provide lunch for the days the school was not in position to provide meals. The training equipped me with skills to reach out to the broader school community to pursue school goals.” 28 Conclusion This report identified the key aspects of Jamaica’s school leadership development program and changes in practices after the principals attended the training. Findings suggest that the school leadership program has changed the behaviors and practices of school principals with the primary focus on improved instruction and student performance, improving school climate, supporting teachers, improving collaboration in planning school improvement, all of which have been shown to lead to improved student outcomes in other country contexts. The design of the NCEL program includes several elements that are considered as good practice and are consistent with research literature. These include: (i) using a research-based curriculum linked to professional standards and needs of school leaders; (ii) integration of theory with practice; (iii) cohort groups and mentoring relationships; (iv) strong focus on instructional improvement and school transformation, and (v) use of successful and highly respected school leaders. So what is it that makes the initial assessment of this program positive? The answer to this question is grounded in principles of effective school leadership in responding to the specific needs of the School Principals in Jamaica. This is reinforced by the practical aspects of the program as reflected in the competence-based focus of the training, followed by professional support through cohorts groups and mentoring. In addition, political commitment is vital to success, particularly in situations of budgetary constraints and likely resistance by the school leaders who may feel that they already know their job since many have been principals for a long time. The strong monitoring and evaluation program also helped to ensure that weak areas are identified and addressed in good time. Political commitment arising from a bi-partisan task force and through Parliament during the implementation has helped to catalyze transformation of school leadership. In examining Principals’ current leadership practices and school improvement work, the study found large differences in the leadership practices before and after the Principals attended the leadership training. The NCEL trained Principals engage in practices associated with effective leadership: have a greater focus on fostering instructional and school improvement through a variety of leadership, organizational and professional development strategies. They encourage collaboration among teachers, use student learning data to develop and implement school improvement plans, they put learning at the center of their planning and resource use, set high standards for both teachers and students; prioritize development and support for their teachers. The skills and dispositions of school leaders are backed by responses from teachers in schools which were surveyed. These pointed to stronger focus on instructional improvement, more support to teachers and stronger collaboration than before the training. Schools are beginning to demonstrate improvement in performance. The qualitative information points to improvement in principal’s behaviors as the main driver of this improvement. This may strengthen the justification for strengthening the focus on building capacity for school leadership in developing countries where learning outcomes remain very low. 29 References Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company. Benecivenga, A. S. & Elias, M. J. (2003). Leading schools for excellence in academics, character, social-emotional development. Bulletin, 87 (637), 60-72. Berliner, Betts, Julian R. & Grogger, Jeff, 2003. "The impact of grading standards on student achievement, educational attainment, and entry-level earnings," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 343-352 Beyer, B. (2009). An Imperative for Leadership Preparation Programs: Preparing Future Leaders to Meet the Needs of Students, Schools, and Communities. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(1), 1-12. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture, and gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 314-329. Bottoms, G., O'Neill, K., Fry, B., & Hill, D. (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: six strategies to prepare more good principals. Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board. Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan. B., and Lee, G., (1982). The Instructional management Role of the Principal. Education Administration Quarterly, 18, 34-64. Creemers, B.P.M., & Reezigt, G.J. (1997). School effectiveness and school improvement: Sustaining links.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8 (4), pp. 396-429. Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos; The School Redesign Network at Stanford University. 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Hargreaves, A., G. Halász and B. Pont (2008), “The Finnish Approach to System Leadership”, a case study report for the OECD Improving School Leadership activity, in Pont, B., D. Nusche and D. Hopkins (eds.), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, OECD, Paris. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School 30 leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Dimmock, C. (1999), “Principals and school restructuring: conceptualizing challenges as dilemmas”, Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (5), 441-462. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (Eds.) (2000). Future school administration: Western and Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes, Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), pp. 338–356. Duignan, P.A. and Collins, V. (2003) “Leadership challenges and tensions in service organizations” in Bennett, M. C. and Cartwright, M. (eds), Leadership of effective education, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Easton, Lois Brown. 2008. "From Professional Development to Professional Learning." Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 89 no. 10: 755–759. Edmonds, R. and J. R. Frederiksen, Search for Effective Schools. The Identification and Analysis of City Schools that are Instructionally Effective for Poor Children. Cambridge. Harvard University, Center for Urban Studies. 1978 Elmore, Richard F. 2000. Building a New Structure for Leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, Richard F. 2002. "Hard Questions about Practice." Beyond Educational Leadership, vol. 59 no. 8: 22–25. Elmore, R. (2008), “Leadership as the Practice of Improvement”, in Pont, B., D. Nusche and D. Hopkins (eds.), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, OECD, Paris. Foster Allen, E. 2010. Chief Inspectors' Report. Ministry of Education: Kingston, Jamaica Fullan, Michael. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London, England: Falmer. Fullan, M. (2001), The New Meaning of Educational Change (third edition), Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. Gray, J. (2000), Causing Concern But Improving: A Review of Schools’ Experience, Department for Education and Skills (DfES), London. Hallinger, P. and R. Heck (1998), “Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-1995”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (2), 157 191. 31 Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. (pp. 9-40). The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hallinger, Philip, and Ronald H. Heck. 2010. "Collaborative Leadership and School Improvement: Understanding the Impact on School Capacity and Student Learning." School Leadership and Management, vol. 30 no. 2: 95–110. Heck, R. (1992). Principal instructional leadership and the identification of high- and low achieving schools: The application of discriminant techniques. Administrator’s Notebook, 34(7), 1-4. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hobson, A. J. (2003). Mentoring and coaching for new leaders. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Hopkins, D. (2008), “Realising the Potential of System Leadership”, in Pont, B., D. Nusche and D. Hopkins (eds.), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, OECD, Paris. Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212. Jim Mosenthal, Marjorie Lipson, Susan Torncello, Barbara Russ and Jane Mekkelsen. Contexts and Practices of Six Schools Successful in Obtaining Reading Achievement. The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 104, No. 5 (May, 2004), pp. 343-367 Lieberman, A., Falk, B., & Alexander, L. (1994). A culture in the making: Leadership in learner- centered schools. New York: Columbia University Teachers College, National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. Kaagan, S. S., and Makle, B. W. (1993). Leadership for Learning, Perspective, 5(1). 1-16. Kaagan, S. (1998). Leadership development: the heart of the matter. International Journal of Educational Management. 12 (2), 74-81. 32 King, M. B. and F. M. Newman. 2001. Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. The International Journal of Educational Management 15 (2): 86±94. Knapp, M. S., M.A. Copland, J.E. Tabert (2003), Leading For Learning: Reflective Tools for School and District Leaders, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Seattle. Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D. (1982) The Role of the Elementary Principal in Program Improvement, Review of Educational Research, 52(3), pp. 309-339. Leithwood, K. and D. Jantzi (1990), “Transformational Leadership: How Principals Can Help Reform School Cultures”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1 (4), 249-280. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Coffin, G., & Wilson, P. (1996). Preparing school leaders: What works? Journal of School Leadership, 6(3), 316-342. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational school leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199. Leithwood, K. and C. Riehl (2003), What We Know About Successful Leadership, Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom. 2004. How Leadership Influences Student Learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota. Leithwood, K. (2005), “Understanding Successful Principalship: Progress on a Broken Front”, Journal of Educational Administration, 43 (6), 619. Louis, K. S., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798. Louis, K.S., & Miles, M.B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Marzano, Robert J., Debra J. Pickering, and Jane E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 33 Marzano, Robert J. 2003. What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R., T. Waters and B. McNulty (2005), School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia. McKnight, C., J.J. Crosswhite, J.A. Dossey, E. Kifer, J.O Swafford and K.J. Travers (1987), The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing US School Mathematics from an International Perspective, Stipes, Champaign, IL. McLaughlin, M. W. and Talbert, J.E. (2002). Professional Communities and the Artisan Model of Teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. 8 (3/4) pp 325-343 Moos, L. and S. Huber (2007), “School Leadership, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Democratic and Integrative Leadership” in Townsend, T. (ed.) (2007) International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. Paris: OECD. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Research on educational leadership: Issues to be addressed. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5(3), 297-305. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research- based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27, 179-201. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. University of Wisconsin- Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools. Newmann, F. M. (1997). How secondary schools contribute to academic success. In K. Borman & B. Schneider (Eds.). Youth experiences and development: Social influences and educational challenges. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Orr, M. T., & Barber, M. E. (2006). Collaborative leadership preparation: A comparative study of innovative programs and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 16(6), 709-739. Orr, T. M., & Barber, M. E. (2009). Program evaluation in leadership preparation and related fields. In M. D. Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy, & R. T. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the education of school leaders (pp. 457–498). New York: Routledge. 34 Patton, Daniel C., and Lorena Munoz. 2008. Examining Middle Schools That Narrowed the Achievement Gap in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District Research and Planning. Leadership: A Bridge to School Reform, 17–24. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Peterson, P. L. (1988), “Teachers’ and Students’ Cognitional Knowledge for Classroom Teaching and Learning”, Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 9-15. Peterson, K. D. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly. 38(2), 213-232. Pont, B., Nusche, D., Moorman, H (2008). OECD Report: Improving school leadership Vol. 1 OECD: Paris Pont, B, D Nusche and D Hopkins (eds.) (2008), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, OECD, Paris, France. Portin, Bradley S., Michael S. Knapp, Scott Dareff, Sue Feldman, Felice A. Russell, Catherine Samuelson, C., and Theresa Ling Yeh. 2009. Leadership for Learning Improvement in Urban Schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Purkey, S. C, and Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective Schools. A Review. The Elementary School Journal. 83 (4). 427-452. Robinson, V.M.J. (2007), School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why, Australian Council for Educational Leaders,Winmalee, NSW, Australia. Reeves, D. B. (2006). Leading to change: Preventing 1,000 failures. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 88–89. Wellisch, J., A. Macqueen, R. Carriere and G. Duck (1978), “School Management and Organization in Successful Schools (ESAA In-Depth Study Schools”, Sociology of Education, 51 (3),211-226. 35 Annex 1: Details of training modules Roles and Responsibilities of the Principal: Introduces participants to competencies which include strategic planning, leading learning and teaching; developing a learning community; promoting positive behavior; creating institutional effectiveness; managing fiscal resources; ensuring accountability; and building community. Quality Educational Leadership: Empowers participants to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of an Instructional leader on the effectiveness of a school; importance of planning; the role of the principal in planning; the importance of collaboration and communication to the effectiveness of a school; interpersonal skills and relations on the effectiveness of a school; and the importance of school culture, professionalism and ethics in creating and maintaining a healthy school environment. School Planning & Data Management: Promotes an understanding of types of school data and the use of this data to promote learning; identifies good practice in the effective use of data to promote learning and staff development and overall school improvement; possible challenges in collecting and using school data; provides a guide for ways to integrate data into the school improvement process and how to use data to guide decision making about instruction, curriculum, and school programs. Customer Service Oriented Schools: Provides school leadership with the working knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to embrace, design and implement a service-based and customer- focused philosophy/orientation in the schools in their care. It also provides principals with an understanding of the importance of ‘service leadership’ in schools and how to lead the change toward a service oriented school. Human Resource Management: Exposes participants to the tenets of performance planning, measurement and appraisals. Improving Education for Boys: Develops an awareness that boys do have different learning styles from girls so much so that they will make the necessary adjustments to their curriculum and school organization to facilitate and capture the learning styles of the boys in their schools. Preparation for the New School Year: Encourages reflection on the past year to determine a collective response that focuses on possible solutions to any issues and improvements that need to be made; and resource requirements to ensure a seamless start to the academic year. School Financial Management: Promotes an understanding of financial management issues in the school context management tools for controlling expenditure and understanding the Principal’s role in Public Sector Accounting. 36 NCEL Questionnaire - to be completed by the school principal Confidentiality All information that is collected in this survey will be treated confidentially. You are guaranteed that neither you, this school nor any of its personnel will be identified in any report of the results of the survey. About the Questionnaire This questionnaire asks for information about school leadership in relation to the training received through NCEL. This is an opportunity for you to provide feedback on the program and influence future initiatives. The person who completes this questionnaire should be the principal of this school. This questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Thank you very much for your cooperation What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2) What is your training NCEL Cohort? -------------- Number of years a s school principal 0 -2 ( ) 3- 5 ( ) 6+ ( ) Please indicate how often do you engage in the Yearly Once or Once Daily following activities in your role as principal of this (1) twice a or (4) school? 1=once a year; 2= once or twice a month; month twice a 3= once or twice a week; 4=daily (2) week (3) Observe instruction in classrooms Use data to monitor school and student progress and identify problems Meet with teachers to provide feedback on how they can improve instruction Engage in school or instructional improvement activities Collaborate with principals from other schools Provide information to parents and guardians about student and school performance Engage the school community in matters of the school Foster teacher collaboration to develop new teaching practices Track the performance of boys Work with teachers to develop short term goals 37 Use data to plan school improvement activities Work with teachers to solve school problems Organize teacher professional development activities Meet with teachers Please indicate the extent you feel each Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly statement characterize your strategies, disagree (2) agree or (4) agree practices and climate in your school before (1) disagree( (5) and after the program 3) 1= Strongly disagree. . .5= Strongly agree School improvement strategies: Build consensus among staff about the school’s goals Encourage collaboration among teachers focused on improving instruction Use student performance data to develop and implement school improvement goals Ensure learning is at the center of strategic planning and resource management Encourages distributed leadership in the school Teachers work according to the school’s educational goals Encourage teachers to use student learning data to plan instruction Facilitate professional development for teachers School leader discusses student academic progress with teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses School climate and conditions: Create a task oriented atmosphere in the school Ensure teachers know what is expected of them and feel responsible for student learning Set high standards for students and staff Encourage collaboration in solving school problems Engage school community 38 Please indicate any changes you have noticed in the following areas since you attended NCEL training: a) Student performance b) Student Attendance c) Enrollment d) Drop out rates e) Please indicate any other changes This is the end of the questionnaire. Thank you for your participation 39 NCEL Questionnaire - to be completed by a teacher Confidentiality All information that is collected in this survey will be treated confidentially. You are guaranteed that neither you, this school nor any of its personnel will be identified in any report of the results of the survey. About the Questionnaire This questionnaire asks for information about school leadership in relation to the training received through NCEL. This is an opportunity for you to provide feedback on the program and influence future initiatives. The person who completes this questionnaire should be a teacher in the school This questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Thank you very much for your cooperation What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2) Please indicate how often the school principal Yearly Once or Once Daily engages in the following activities in your role as (1) twice a or (4) principal of this school? 1=once a year; 2= once or month twice a twice a month; 3= once or twice a week; 4=daily (2) week (3) Observe instruction in classrooms Use data to monitor school and student progress and identify problems Meet with teachers to provide feedback on how they can improve instruction Engage in school or instructional improvement activities Collaborate with principals from other schools Provide information to parents and guardians about student and school performance Engage the school community in matters of the school Foster teacher collaboration to develop new teaching practices Track the performance of boys Work with teachers to develop short term goals Use data to plan school improvement activities Work with teachers to solve school problems 40 Organize teacher professional development activities Meet with teachers Please indicate the extent you agree or Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree with each of the following disagree (2) agree or (4) agree statements relating to your principal’s (1) disagree( (5) strategies, practices and climate in the 3) school before and after the program : 1= Strongly disagree. . .5= Strongly agree School improvement strategies: Build consensus among staff about the school’s goals Encourage collaboration among teachers focused on improving instruction Use student performance data to develop and implement school improvement goals Ensure learning is at the center of strategic planning and resource management Encourages distributed leadership in the school Teachers work according to the school’s educational goals Encourage teachers to use student learning data to plan instruction Facilitate professional development for teachers School leader discusses student academic progress with teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses School climate and conditions: Create a task oriented atmosphere in the school Ensure teachers know what is expected of them and feel responsible for student learning Set high standards for students and staff Encourage collaboration in solving school problems Engage school community Please indicate any changes you have noticed in the following areas since you attended NCEL training: 41 a) Student performance b) Student Attendance c) Enrollment d) Drop out rates e) Please indicate any other changes This is the end of the questionnaire. Thank you for your participation 42