[ 232 ]
International Journal of
Educational Management
12/5 [
1998
] 232–239
© MCB University Press
[
ISSN 0951-354X
]
Training school principals, educating school
governors
Angela Thody
International Educational Leadership Centre, University of Lincolnshire and
Humberside, Lincoln, UK
School leadership in England
and Wales is legally shared
between the full-time princi-
pal and the part-time volun-
teers, the school governors.
Their professional develop-
ment opportunities during the
last ten years have taken
opposite directions. Princi-
pals’ development has moved
to a training focus, with a
nationalised, standardised,
competency-based qualifica-
tion for aspirant headteach-
ers. Governors’ education
remains a non-standardised,
decentralised system but has
now become largely school-
based and centred on educa-
tional issues. In exploring why
such differences have
occurred, the reasons sug-
gested concern differing role
expectations, training devel-
opments in related occupa-
tions, centralisation and
decentralisation, uncertain-
ties about the objectives of
educational leadership and
the costs of professional
development.
Introduction
Effective leadership creates effective schools.
To be effective, school leaders need profes-
sional development to improve their skills.
These are the assumptions which underpin
all of the research that has been done on effec-
tive schooling and on the importance of
preparation for, and instruction in, the neces-
sary qualities of school leadership (Caldwell
and Spinks, 1988; Fullan, 1991; National Com-
mission on Education, 1993; DfE, 1996; Earley,
1994; Audit Commission/OFSTED, 1995;
Deem et al., 1995; Esp and Saran, 1995). School
leadership in an English or Welsh school[1] is
shared between the full-time, paid principal
and a volunteer, part-time, board of gover-
nors, and this article is concerned with both
of these. This model of shared leadership is
found in many other European and Common-
wealth countries although governors in Eng-
land and Wales hold more powers than their
counterparts elsewhere.
This article is concerned with the changes
in the professional development of principals
and governors during the last ten years. It
will be suggested that the courses for princi-
pals have moved from education to training
while those for governors have moved from
training to education. The context in which
these developments have taken place will be
outlined, together with a description of the
developments themselves. Suggestions will
be made concerning the reasons for the
changes and the article concludes with reflec-
tions on the possible future of professional
development for these two groups.
In this reflection on professional develop-
ment for principals and governors, the word
“education” is used to mean the transmission
and absorption of knowledge usually through
a systematic process. “Education” has, how-
ever, acquired normative overtones in democ-
ratic systems and is often assumed to imply
the study of a wide range of topics, the devel-
opment of the critical faculties and the
encouragement of individual creativity (Kelly,
1995). A person who is educated is regarded as
one able to make choices from competing ends
and who has more learning than that which
would be regarded as strictly necessary for
the performance of a job. In contrast, a person
who has been trained is generally seen as one
who has been given guidance on the skills
needed for a specific job, requiring a focus and
discipline provided by others. A person who is
trained is assumed to be able to perform to the
standards set for a job.
Research sources
The views expressed in this article arise from
research projects which I have completed
over the last ten years on governor training,
the roles of governing bodies, the roles of
governors from business and industry, on the
history of community involvement and on
international comparisons. These have used
a survey of 1,500 governors in a Midlands
Local Education Authority (LEA[2]), face-to-
face and telephone interviews with gover-
nors, governor trainers, councillors and
clerks in two LEAs, focus group interviews
and observations of whole governing bodies
and governors’ log records (Thody, 1989,
1990a, 1990b, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1997a, 1998a,
1998b; Industry in Education, 1995; Thody and
Nkata, 1996, 1997). Other documentary
sources, on both governorship and princi-
pals’ issues, including both academic and
government publications, are referred to
above and in the course of the article. Per-
sonal research into school principalship has
included studies by observation on the activi-
ties of principals and by interviews on men-
toring as a training method for principals
(Thody, 1991, 1993; Thody and Crystal, 1995)
supported by experience in providing degree
and diploma courses for principals and in
training principals on each of the govern-
ment’s successive training programmes dur-
ing the 1990s; mentoring for newly-appointed
headteachers, HEADLAMP (short courses for
newly appointed heads) and the National
Professional Qualification for Headteachers
(NPQH for aspirant school principals) (Creis-
son and Ellison, 1998).
School leadership: shared
responsibilities
The leadership of each of England’s and
Wales’ 23,000 schools is legally shared