IMPROVING SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN CENTRAL EUROPE final report of the project: School Leadership for Effective Learning involving the countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia 2010 Prof. Dr. Michael Schratz – Mag. Martin Hartmann Mgr. Eliška Křižková – Glynn Arthur Kirkham MSc, Med, BEd (Hons), Cert. Ed.– Mgr. Eva Keclíková Dr. Tibor Baráth – Dr. Mária Szabó – Emese Abari-Ibolya Prof. PaedDr. Alena Hašková Phd.– Ing. Vladimír Laššak Phd. Dr. Justina Erčulj – Mag. Polona Peček
Transcript
IMPROVING SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
IN CENTRAL EUROPE�nal report of the project:
School Leadership for E�ective Learning involving the countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovakia and Slovenia
2010
Prof. Dr. Michael Schratz – Mag. Martin Hartmann
Mgr. Eliška Křižková – Glynn Arthur Kirkham MSc, Med, BEd (Hons), Cert. Ed.–
Mgr. Eva Keclíková
Dr. Tibor Baráth – Dr. Mária Szabó – Emese Abari-Ibolya
Prof. PaedDr. Alena Hašková Phd.– Ing. Vladimír Laššak Phd.
Dr. Justina Erčulj – Mag. Polona Peček
IMPROVING SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN CENTRAL EUROPE
�nal report of the project
School Leadership for E�ective Learning
involving the countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia
2010
IMPROVING SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN CENTRAL EUROPE
�nal report of the project
School Leadership for E�ective Learning
involving the countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia
2010
Prof. Dr. Michael Schratz – Mgr. Martin Hartmann
Mgr. Eliška Křižková – Glynn Arthur Kirkham MSc, Med, BEd (Hons), Cert. Ed.
– Mgr. Eva Keclíková
Dr. Tibor Baráth – Dr. Mária Szabó – Emese Abari-Ibolya
Prof. PaedDr. Alena Hašková Phd. – Ing. Vladimír Laššák Phd.
Dr. Justina Erčulj – Mag. Polona Peček
5
Impressum
Chief Editor: Emese Abari-Ibolya and Dr. Tibor Baráth
Responsible for publication: Péter Tordai, director
Design and layout: Bernadett Baukó
Written by: Prof. Dr. Michael Schratz – Mgr. Martin Hartmann,
Mgr. Eliška Křižková – Glynn Arthur Kirkham MSc, Med, BEd
(Hons), Cert. Ed.– Mgr. Eva Keclíková, Dr. Tibor Baráth – Dr. Mária
Szabó – Emese Abari-Ibolya, Prof. PaedDr. Alena Hašková Phd. –
Ing. Vladimír Laššák Phd., Dr. Justina Erčulj – Mag. Polona Peček
All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publishers.
4is publication was funded by the Hungarian Ministry of National
Resources and the European Commission.
CONTENTS
I. School leadership for e!ective learning – de"ning and understanding the school leaders’ competencies
1. Results of a Central European project on school leadership 2. School leadership competencies and standards in an international context 3. Professional standards for school leadership 4. School leadership in central europe 4.1. Country situation on school leadership - Austria 4.2. Country situation on school leadership – the Czech Republic 4.3. Country situation on school leadership – Hungary 4.4. Country situation on school leadership – Slovakia 4.5. Country situation on school leadership – Slovenia 5. Description of the project school leadership for e<ective learning 6. Methodology applied in the project 7. Workshops – concepts and results 8. Lessons from case studies 8.1. Austria 8.2. 4e Czech Republic 8.3. Hungary 8.4. Slovakia 8.5. Slovenia 9. De=ning and analysing leader competence pro=les 10. Competence expectations and school autonomy 11. Conclusions and recommendations for policy-makers
II. Case studies 12. Introduction 13. Case studies from Austria 13.1. Case study 1 - Austria 13.2. Case study 2 – Austria 13.3. Case study 3 – Austria 14. Case studies from the Czech Republic 14.1. Case study 1 – the Czech Republic 14.2. Case study 2 – the Czech Republic 14.3. Case study 3 – the Czech Republic 15. Case studies from Hungary 15.1. Case study 1 – Hungary 15.2. Case study 2 – Hungary 15.3. Case study 3 – Hungary
10
11172124
31334156
6796
111
116117119
158
189
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
6 7
DEAR READER,
As a result of the changes we face all around us, the concept of life-long learning has been incorporated into the everyday life of knowledge-based societies. "e speed at which new information comes and old information goes, the pace at which new jobs are created together with their own knowledge base, the rate and scale of technological, social and organisational changes all require and necessitate learning new knowledge and adapting to changes. "ese changes reshape the connection between education and work signi#cantly. "is is characterised well by the fact that the labour market is becoming increasingly better at de#ning what competencies are required from people when ful#lling certain tasks and positions. At the same time, the importance of the individuals’ role, task and responsibility in and towards the continuous improvement of their own expertise is also growing. As a result of these, the role of the sector that enables individuals to prepare themselves for the changes that support their learning and which forms a bridge between the world of work and the individual is also changing. In the industrially-developed and post-industrial countries, it is more and more common to see that the various social players – the world of labour, training institutions, governments and the civil sector – develop clearly-de#ned standards for the people who work in di$erent sectors and thus ful#l di$erent tasks. By creating clear-cut de#nitions of the standards, they aim to improve targeted training, further training and the harmony between individual and organisational endeavours, which will eventually lead to successful operational activities. A prime example of the systematic articulation of competencies is the one that took place in the United Kingdom. "e organisation that supports lifelong learning, i.e. Lifelong Learning UK, is one of the 25 sector councils that de#ne the expected competencies for a given occupation (see www.lluk.org). Out of the 25 sector councils, the importance of the lifelong learning council is paramount as it embraces #ve larger #elds: community learning, further training programmes (non-university programmes for those above 16), higher education, library and archives, information service and work-based learning. "rough these, LLUK has a decisive role in the training of professionals in various sectors. "is is why de#ning the necessary competencies for workers working in the #eld of lifelong learning has received special emphasis. "e European Union #nds it of utmost importance to create the possibilities for teachers to be involved in quality learning. To this end, the EU has speci#ed recommendations as to what competencies need to be developed by the national systems for teachers-to-be (see Common European Principles for Teacher Competencies and
16. Case studies from Slovakia 16.1. Case study 1 – Slovakia 16.2. Case study 2 – Slovakia 16.3. Case study 3 – Slovakia 17. Case studies from Slovenia 17.1. Case study 1 – Slovenia 17.2. Case study 2 – Slovenia 17.3. Case study 3 – Slovenia
212
240
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
8 9
Quali$cations, http://www.pfmb.uni-mb.si/bologna/principles.pdf ). A similarly important $eld is the preparation of school leaders (in the publication the following expressions are used by the authors as synonims of the term „school leader”: principal, headteacher and director) and the acquisition of the competencies that are necessary for a high-quality performance in their profession. All around the world, it is increasingly common to see competence expectations de$ned for school leaders. In England, the competencies that are necessary to be acquired by leaders have been de$ned (National Professional Quali$cation for Headship). Since April 2004, those applying for a leader’s position have had to go through training built around these standards in order to apply for the role of headteacher (see http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/). In the USA, competence standards for school leaders were developed in 1996 and, on the basis of experience, in 2008, a review and adjustment of these expectations took place. %e competence expectations are detailed on the homepage of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration: see http://www.ccsso.org/. In 2009, the Ministry of Education in Canada published a programme under the name of Ideas to Action, which was aimed at supporting the training and development of school leaders in Ontario (see http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/IdeasIntoAction09.pdf ). Last but not least, those countries which carried out this project co-operated in the antecedents of that as well, and they dealt with the role of school leadership in improving the learning possibilities for students. %e project report included recommendations for decision-makers and one of them was the development of national standards for school leaders. %e project de$ned a very demanding aim to elaborate leadership competence structure and standards on a transnational level, which would be applicable in the systems of the participating countries. %ere are national standards and competence models for school leaders, but this aspiration has some signi$cance beyond itself. %e basic question is that whether, in the fast-changing world with the resultant increasing globalization, such a change in the job of the school leadership can have a common competence structure, without damaging the national habits, values or practice. As you will see going through the book, on this question the answer is mostly positive. %e changes we mentioned above, the complexity and turbulence of our world – including the school as well – need professional leadership. %erefore, it is necessary to de$ne what makes the leaders professional: namely what competencies the leaders should have. We base our approach on the behavioural sciences. Behaviour mirrors the competencies through the actions, activities, dispositions, and – as modern human
resource management makes clear – the $tness for a particular job depends strongly on it. To continue, e&ectiveness in a job can increase with the orientation and in*uence of behaviour. %e project dealt with how the competencies can be de$ned, described, and – based on evidence – be developed. We hope that research and development carried out in the frame of this project – de$nition of the competence structure, description of leadership pro$les, etc. – can contribute to the exploration of the complexity of the school leadership, its deeper understanding, and through that its development. Next, we give an overview about the structure of the book. It is separated into two parts. Part A deals with de$ning and understanding the school leaders’ competencies. Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5 build up the international and central European context for the readers regarding the competence structures and standards and the main goals of the project. Chapter 3 introduces us to a brand new approach of explanation of professional competence standards for school leaders. Chapter 6 de$nes the research method and models for establishing the competence requirements, gives information about views and priorities of decision-makers and actual leaders regarding school leaders’ competencies. %e main $ndings give an overview about the main results. Chapters 7, 9, 10 introduce the readers to the interpretation and description of national school leaders’ pro$les analysing and comparing them to draw up their common elements. %ese chapters also give new information about the relationship of the competencies and the level of school autonomy. Chapter 8 summarizes the lessons from the case studies in each country. Part A ends with conclusions and recommendations for decision-makers. Part B includes three case studies from each country which present leadership competencies in di&erent situations. %e cases are from di&erent levels of the system, and focus on the competencies of the leadership. %ese studies help the readers to think about the importance of the leadership competencies: their present state and their development. %e challenge for our readers may be to interpret the di&erent cases either in the professional standards (Chapter 3), or $nd out what pro$le might $t to the actors of the cases applying the RDA competence measurement and development model (Chapter 5, 7, 9, 10). Finally, the editors want to thank you all the authors of the book for developing and working on the di&erent chapters and give feedback to improve the content. Special thanks go to Glynn Kirkham, who has made small improvements in the English and suggested several changes which make the report more understandable.
�e Editors
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
96 97
Tibor Baráth10. COMPETENCE EXPECTATIONS AND SCHOOL AUTONOMY
One of the pivotal questions during the realisation of the project and reaching its objectives was whether the di$erences between the participating countries educational systems and the di$erences in the everyday practice of school leadership can still allow us to de%ne transnational competence standards for leaders. &is question may also be put as follows: Do the national characteristics of the education system and its historical di$erences have a larger impact on the leader expectations or the fact that the school is basically an organisation that has its special features therefore everything that we know about modern organisations and its leadership is also applicable here? To continue, our globalising and post-modern world – even if its characteristics are present in our society and school to varying extents and in various aspects – de%nes more or less those key competencies that school leaders must have in the 21st century. A short, one-year project cannot have the ambitious aim to answer the above question in great depths. However, we can expect it to provide an answer that can be justi%ed with information and facts that – within the limits of the project framework – help us understand and explain the above issue. To this aim, referring also to the previous CECE project, we chose to examine how much the responders (decision-makers and school leaders) experience the level of autonomy and how much autonomy they feel is necessary. We asked them in the questionnaire how much autonomy is present currently in the key %elds of leadership, i.e. budget, HR, content management, and we also asked if they wish to increase or decrease the level of this autonomy. &e reason why we chose autonomy was because we felt this is a decisive factor, because autonomy is a central reform topic in Europe and around the world in the last two decades (see: OECD, 1993; OECD 2001; EURYDICE, 2007). All countries with their various management systems want their leaders to prepare for their job. &erefore it is the very nature of the task, and the way people think about the role of the school and learning in society and in the development of reproduction, that can make considerable di$erences. For instance, we can imagine how di$erent a director’s task is if he/she has to adjust the learning process and its content together with the school organisation and the evaluation process to the students’ actual preparedness, intentions and endeavours or if he/she has to just stick to the contents (curricula, syllabuses, learning tools, etc.), and the room for manoeuvre is actually limited to the organisation of application. Does this leader have a role or possibility to de%ne his/her own organisational goals? To what extent does he/she have a say in decisions about material and human resources? &e areas mentioned
here are all in close connection with autonomy and its amount. Next we are going to describe the results of the research conducted in this %eld.
10.1. Perceived autonomy
We examined the level of autonomy in four %elds, i.e. selection and application, operation control, management, and curriculum and programme; as well as globally. With the help of key component analysis, we can examine whether the areas of autonomy show any correlation with each other. With the key component analysis method we can get independent variables that are not in correlation with each other. &e research found that the various perceptions of institutional autonomy show the characteristics of a single-dimension scale (α=0.748), therefore they can be interpreted as a single new variable, which is the level of autonomy. (Table 10.1)
Table 10.1: Level of the autonomy (Result of the Principal Component Analysis)
Component
1
q5H1 Autonomy and scope of action of the school leader on the whole. (Currently) .770
q5H5 &e school leader’s scope of action, in+uence and impact on the co-workers’ (teachers and other
sta$ ) selection, employment and discharge. (Currently)
.758
q5H5_A &e school leader’s scope of action, in+uence and impact on the regulation of the school
functioning (e.g. organizational and operational rules). (Currently)
.753
q5H3 &e school leader’s scope of action, in+uence and impact on the school budget and %nancing
management. (Currently)
.713
q5H2 &e school leader’s scope of action, in+uence and impact on the curriculum and pedagogical
program of the school. (Currently)
.562
When we examine the di$erence between the countries in terms of this new variable, then – with the help of factor analysis – we can %nd out whether the di$erence between the averages is small or large. In table 10.2 we can see that the 5 countries fell into three categories. Austria di$ered from the other countries, as the respondents perceived a rather low level of autonomy. (&is is also re+ected in the averages of 1.54-3.04 on a scale of 1-5; see Table 10.1 in the Appendix). Slovenia got in one group with Hungary, as this group experience a medium-level of autonomy, and thus di$ers from the other countries. Hungary actually fell into two groups and in this respect it only di$ered from Austria. Lastly, Slovakia and the Czech Republic formed one group, where the members perceived the highest level of autonomy (2.97-3.99; 3.13-4.05).
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
98 99
Table 10.2: �e level of perceived autonomy
country N Subset for alpha = .05
1 2 3 1
3 Austria 100 -1.00
1 Slovenia 57 -.19
5 Hungary 175 .16 .16
4 Slovakia 110 .26
2 Czech Republic 111 .48
Sig. 1.000 .099 .154
According to the school leaders and the decision-makers, the level of autonomy in the various areas does not show a signi#cant di$erence in terms of the sample as a whole (Appendix Table 10.1). It is possible that this is in connection with the number of participants of the respondent groups (the decision-makers accounted for one-#%h, while the school leaders four-#%hs of the participants). We can see that the decision-makers are a little bit more satis#ed than the directors, on average. However, in certain #elds of autonomy, the di$erence may be medium or large and the averages on a #ve-grade scale can even be 0.5-0.8 (see Appendix Table 10.2).Next we are going to examine which statements of the ones describing leader behaviour – on the basis of which the pro#les were de#ned – have an impact on the level of autonomy. We used the method of regression analysis (backward) for our research. As a result, only those statements remained of the original 32, that have a signi#cant relationship with the dependent variable, i.e. the level of autonomy22. &e results are summarised in Table 10.3. &e Table suggests the following conclusions.
Table 10.3: �e factors that have an impact on the level of perceived autonomy
Statements β standard β Sign.
(Constant) -1.469 .457 -3.218 .001
q2W1 Knows the conditions of the (micro and macro)
environment and follows up with changes (Importance)
.379 .093 .216 4.074 .000
q2W2 Uses the appropriate people for the appropriate processes
(builds on strengths and weaknesses), knows their demands,
manages di$erent possibilities, takes into consideration their
abilities and capacity. (Importance)
-.180 .094 -.096 -1.908 .057
q2W4 Keeps di*culties a challenge to solve. (Importance) -.284 .088 -.171 -3.212 .001
22 &e positive value of standardised variables with an average of 0 and a scope of 1 (standard β) shows that the value changes of the
given variable results in the increase of the level of autonomy, while the negative value one results in the reduction of the latter.
q2W14 Keeps track of national and international trends of his/her
profession. (Importance)
.175 .084 .112 2.086 .038
q2W19 Able to enforce own ideas, will and interests. (Importance) .195 .085 .115 2.292 .022
q2W21 Able to form and develop a community. (Importance) -.216 .096 -.125 -2.249 .025
q2W23 Persistently works on ful#lling his/her goals. (Importance) .291 .094 .170 3.084 .002
through in-service trainings and self-development. (Importance)
-.213 .091 -.126 -2.344 .020
Factors with negative impact:• q2W2 (use of appropriate people): If the leader wants to behave according to this,
then he/she needs a larger room for manoeuvre, so if he/she wishes to organise work like this, and if the regulatory environment does not support this, then the director may feel dissatis#ed with the level of autonomy.
• q2W4 (di*culties as challenge): &e intention to respond to challenges may necessitate #nding individual procedures and solutions. Here again, limitations can occur, which may hinder the leader’s actions, and this may have a negative impact on the perception of autonomy.
• q2W21 (forming a community): Building a community – similarly to the previous one – requires considerable room for manoeuvre this means that the process can be restrictively standardised.
• q2W32 (development of own skills): Greater knowledge, experience and a broader scope of view mean that the person has a deeper understanding of matters, is more critical and discovers easily the disturbing and limiting circumstances, which can lead to the decrease in his/her satisfaction with the level of autonomy.
&e factors that have negative impact are the ones that pose limitations to the leaders, therefore they can be considered as features decreasing the level of autonomy. We can see that these features are mainly the characteristics of a leader who has a more intensive connection with his/her environment and who is extroverted. Openness, adaptivity and dynamism are of key importance.
Factors with positive impact:
• q2W1 (knows environment): &e understanding of the environment and the rules can make people more acceptive, and the understanding of the correlation of things can increase adaptivity.
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
100 101
• q2W14 (track of professional trends): Understands the world therefore, he/she can accept the possibilities and the limitations more easily.
• q2W19 (enforce ideas): #nds his/her way among the rules and regulations, i.e. these do not mean any boundaries, the results provide the person with a feeling of success. $is person can #ght for what he/she needs.
• q2W23 (persistenly work towards goals): Endurance bears its fruit, therefore this person concentrates on work.
• q2W29 (supports initiatives): For this person, the room for manoeuvre is guaranteed by the opportunity to motivate others; the lack of autonomy is substituted by internal resources.
$ese factors that have a positive impact on the level of perceived autonomy, are the characteristics of mainly the organisation and the leader, i.e. the features of an introverted leader. Of course this should not come as a surprise; a leader who is open, initiating and active can see the limitations coming more easily and identi#es them as the boundaries of autonomous operation. An introverted leader is less hindered by external environmental factors, also because of his/her endeavours towards independence. We have tried to #nd the correlation between the features described as necessary and the perceived level of autonomy. Similarly, we can analyse how the operational and behaviour characteristics that leaders possess have an impact on the level of autonomy. (See Table 10.3. in the Appendix). On the basis of the correlation between the level of autonomy and the characteristic features describing and de#ning the leaders’ competencies, in conclusion, we can say that the factors and characteristics that require the increase in the directors’ room for manoeuvre can have a negative impact on the perceived level of autonomy. $is can be explained by the fact that the lack of the autonomy the leader #nds necessary, restricts the leader in his/her actions and the realisation of his/her endeavours. On the other hand, the features that increase the leader’s adaptivity, i.e. the ones that assist the leader in reaching his/her goals within the existing boundaries, increase the satisfaction with autonomy. $is can be explained by the fact that the director can realise his/her endeavours even within the existing limits and thus does not experience these limitations negatively.
Our main conclusions in terms of the relationship between the behaviour forms describing the competencies and the satisfaction with autonomy can be summarised as follows:• $e world that we live in is becoming increasingly complicated and complex.
$erefore knowing our way around in this world is also getting increasingly di%cult and the complexity of the decisions made within the organisation is also increasing, i.e. the decision-making processes are becoming increasingly stochastic. $is necessitates an overview (and the necessary knowledge) of complicated systems and the ability to handle problems as challenges as well as to take risks.
• For education management this situation sends out the message that the level of autonomy perceived by the leaders can be in&uenced by its own tools. In other words, through setting expectations, performing evaluations, the selection of leaders as well as through training them, educational management can strengthen certain behaviour forms while leaving untouched or limit other ones directly and indirectly. $e fundamental question is how targeted this process is, and what competencies the leader who is in the centre of the entire process has.
• Probably the most important part of forming and debating over leader competence standards is this very process, which enables us to compare di*erent interpretations and approaches, reaching a consensus or a compromise, and make it possible for leaders and the environment to come up with a clear-cut and motivating expectation system.
10.2. �e required level of autonomy
Besides examining the level of autonomy, we also asked our respondents to tell us what changes they feel necessary, taking the current level of autonomy as a starting point. We asked whether they felt the level of autonomy was appropriate or if it was necessary to decrease or increase it. Similarly to when we analysed the level of autonomy, here again we applied the method of principal component analysis. During the examination of the change, the #ve factors were subdivided into two components each. One of these subcomponents included the room for manoeuvre for business management and for the school leader, the other principle component covered the impact the leader had on operation, regulation, curriculum and school programme. $e #rst one can be termed as management rights (the in&uence of the leader on organisational management), and the second one can be termed as content area (here we can #nd the content of the school’s operation). Selection and employment belong to both areas, i.e. the area of management rights and the area of content. $is is logical since the selection of teachers and other employees as well as their employment primarily belong to management rights (its value within this component is the highest, i.e. 0.565). At the same time, the activity of the employees – mostly teachers – belongs to the content component,
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
102 103
therefore it is part of that too, although to a lesser extent (the value here was 0.331). %e results expressed in &gures are shown in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4: Level of required autonomy (Result of the Principal Component Analysis)
Component
1 2
q5P3 %e school leader’s scope of action, in*uence and impact on the school budget and
&nancing management. (Change)
.849 -.112
q5P1 Autonomy and scope of action of the school leader on the whole. (Change) .834 .095
q5P5 %e school leader’s scope of action, in*uence and impact on the co-workers’
(teachers and other sta+ ) selection, employment and discharge. (Change)
.565 .331
q5P5_A %e school leader’s scope of action, in*uence and impact on the regulation of
the school functioning (e.g. organizational and operational rules). (Change)
-.059 .853
q5P2 %e school leader’s scope of action, in*uence and impact on the curriculum and
pedagogic program of the school. (Change)
.175 .725
If – similarly when we analysed the level of autonomy – we perform factor analysis regarding the two components, we can &nd out which countries request similar or di+erent extent of changes in the two components of leader in*uence and impact practice. In the case of management rights, Slovenia and the Czech Republic di+er from each other and the other three countries that belong to one group. %is particular group felt that an increase in management rights was necessary, while the other two felt that an actual decrease was preferred. (Table 10.5)
Table 10.5: !e change in the required level of autonomy in terms of management rights
Country N Subset for alpha = .05
1 2 3 1
1 Slovenia 51 -1.3210456
2 Czech Republic 111 -.9756848
4 Slovakia 110 .3326030
5 Hungary 174 .4615407
3 Austria 96 .6122908
Sig. 1.000 1.000 .115
%e factor analysis leads to the formation of di+erent groups in terms of the required level of leader rights in the &eld of content. In this area, Slovenia and Hungary belong to one group, and they feel the decrease of these rights is required, i.e. in the &eld of content management, a higher than school level decision-making would be preferred. Hungary, however, belongs to the same group as Slovakia also, which is signi&cantly
di+erent from Slovenia. Although both countries’ respondents would suggest a decrease in leader rights, the Slovakian leaders and decision-makers would feel this necessary to a lesser degree. Austria and the Czech Republic form the third group, on this &eld of autonomy, they feel that leader rights should increase signi&cantly in an optimal case. (Table 10.6)
Table 10.6: !e change in the required level of autonomy in terms of content operation
Country N Subset for alpha = .05
1 2 3 1
1 Slovenia 51 -.5659089
5 Hungary 174 -.4303451 -.4303451
4 Slovakia 110 -.0580446
3 Austria 96 .5054384
2 Czech Republic 111 .5549930
Sig. .901 .094 .998
10.3. %e pattern of the countries regarding the level of autonomy, management rights and content operation With the help of these three newly created indexes, six clusters can be formed. Each of the three indexes is standardised variables (0 mean, 1 variation). %e statistical analysis included all respondents into the cluster that fell closest to them on the basis of their responses to the three &elds.
Table 10.7: !e clusters of autonomy areas
Level of autonomy Change of autonomy –
management issues
Change of autonomy –
content (work of the school,
curriculum)
Cluster Mean Mean Mean
1 .11 -.4548538 -.4094202
2 -.06 .3051287 -.2035830
3 .18 -.6624434 .2511364
4 .37 -.3624375 .1151556
5 -.71 .8394353 1.1516620
6 -.02 .7934511 -.7216871
Total .01 .0055517 .0005774
Based on the means of the responses the six clusters are characterised by the following:1. Cluster (the regulated leader): their satisfaction with the existing level of autonomy
is average, they would like to signi&cantly decrease the leader’s room of manoeuvre
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
104 105
and in%uence on all &elds. 'is group of leaders and decision-makers would keep leader autonomy within clear boundaries.
2. Cluster (the organisation manager leader): respondents who are satis&ed with the level of autonomy, who would signi&cantly increase the leader’s scope of responsibility in the management of the organisation (business management, regulation of operation), but at the same time, they would wish to decrease their powers in the &eld of pedagogy.
3. Cluster (the pedagogical leader): the group of people who are rather satis&ed with the level of autonomy, who would signi&cantly like to decrease the power of the leader in terms of operational roles, however, who would increase the in%uence of the leader on pedagogical processes. 'e respondents in this group &nd the school a place where the director’s job is to deal with pedagogical, curricular issues and professional &elds related to these matters.
4. Cluster (satis&ed operational leader): this group of respondents feel the most satis&ed with the level of autonomy as they currently perceive it. At the same time, they also wish for changes, namely the decrease in management autonomy and the responsibility for the organisation as a whole, while they wish for a slight increase in the &eld of pedagogical decisions.
5. Cluster (the autonomous leader): this group of respondents are very dissatis&ed with the current level of autonomy, and wish for a marked increase of autonomy in both &elds. Here we can see the birth of a leader who assumes responsibility for the entire organisation and who has strategic objectives regarding the school’s operation.
6. Cluster (the classic manager): this group feels an average satisfaction with the current level of autonomy. 'ey would radically like to increase the decision-making rights regarding the organisation, and to the same extent, they would like to decrease the decision-making rights in terms of the school’s content activity. 'e leader in this case is responsible for mainly &nances, employment and the regulation of the organisation’s operations, but not the content issues. 'is might mean that either a strict state control exists in this &eld or the management if this latter area is delegated to a lower level manager.
Although they are di+erent, the six clusters also have common patterns to show. 'e “regulated leader” and the “autonomous leader” (cluster 1 and 5) are each other’s opposite, which is manifested in the large di+erences in the mean &gures and their opposite indications. 'e “organisational manager” and the “classic manager” are similar (cluster 2 and 6). 'e level of their satisfaction is practically identical, the
members of cluster 6 (classic managers) wish for changes in the same direction in the &eld of leader rights as the members of cluster 2 (organisational managers) but to a much greater extent. Lastly, the patterns of the “pedagogical leaders” and the “satis&ed operators” are similar, too. 'e former ones are slightly less satis&ed with the level of autonomy than the members of cluster 4 (operational leaders), while at the same time they wish for a greater extent of change in the &elds of management rights and content management. 'e required direction of change, however, is the same in the two clusters. From the above cluster formation we can see that the school leaders and decision-makers of the countries that participate in the project see di+erent areas and cornerstone of management in several cases, and accordingly, there are several di+erences that can be identi&ed when it comes to determining the competencies necessary for successful leadership. 'is is in harmony with the fact that the leader pro&les that were based on the opinions of leaders and decision-makers of the various countries show di+erences, even if not extreme ones, as we have described in the chapter on Leadership competencies. It is worth looking at how the respondents are broken down among the six clusters in the di+erent countries. 'is is demonstrated in Table 10.8. 'e cluster with the largest number of respondents is that of cluster 3, i.e. that of the “pedagogical leaders”; here we can &nd the Slovene and the Czech respondents in the biggest proportion. In a similar cluster, i.e. cluster 4 (satis&ed operational leader), all countries, with the exception of the Austrian leaders and decision-makers are represented with quite a signi&cantly sized group (14-19%). Behind cluster 3, the two other most “populated” ones are cluster 1 and 6. In the former one (regulated leader), the group of Slovenians is of the highest proportion (36%), but the other countries’ groups are also signi&cant (14-20%). 'e latter cluster, i.e. cluster 6 (classical managers) has a special feature, namely that this is the only one, which contains respondents of only three countries (Austria, Slovakia and Hungary), and Hungarians form the largest group (40.2%). 'e two clusters with the smaller “population” are clusters 5 and 2 (autonomous leader and organisational mangers). 'e cluster of “autonomous leaders” show quite a considerable variation, the Slovenian respondents are present in the smallest proportion (2%), while the Austrians are present in the largest proportion (35.4%). Cluster 6 (classical managers) is well-balanced, the proportion of the di+erent countries varies between 10-20%. If we look at the breakdown of respondents by countries, we can draw the following conclusions. 88% of the Slovenian respondents can be found in clusters 1-3-4 (regulated leader, pedagogical leaders, satis&ed operational leader). 'ey tend to be satis&ed or
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
106 107
rather satis%ed with the current level of their autonomy. If it depended on them, they would decrease the autonomy considerably or signi%cantly in the %eld of management rights, and they relate di&erently to the autonomy a leader has in the %eld of content operation. In the case of the Czech directors and decision-makers, we can see a similar breakdown, nearly 50% of them can be found in cluster 3 (pedagogical leaders), while a further 36% are in clusters 1 and 4. *e breakdown of the Austrian respondents is quite di&erent from the previous one, the relative majority of them (35%) can be found in cluster 5 – i.e. in the “autonomous leader” cluster, while the others are more or less to a similar extent divided between the other clusters, with the exception of cluster 4 (satis%ed operational leader). Obviously, this is due to the fact that in cluster 4, the respondents are the ones who are satis%ed with the level of autonomy, and what characterises the Austrian respondents is the very opposite of this (see Table 10.2). *e Slovakians’ cluster presence is characterised by the fact that their breakdown is the most even one, and their proportion present in the clusters di&ers from 11.9%-20.2%. Lastly, in the case of Hungarian school leaders and decision-makers, we can see that they are mostly present in cluster 6 the “classic manager” (40.2%), and there is hardly anyone who belongs to cluster 5 the “autonomous leader” (6.3%), and the others are scattered among the other four clusters in varying proportions.
Table 10.8: �e breakdown of respondents by countries among the clusters
TSC_9182 Two-step Cluster Number Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
Country 1
Slovenia
Count 18 5 19 7 1 0 50
% 36.0% 10.0% 38.0% 14.0% 2.0% .0% 100.0%
2 Czech
Republic
Count 22 12 53 18 6 0 111
% 19.8% 10.8% 47.7% 16.2% 5.4% .0% 100.0%
3 Austria Count 14 14 19 3 34 12 96
% 14.6% 14.6% 19.8% 3.1% 35.4% 12.5% 100.0%
4
Slovakia
Count 22 19 13 20 21 14 109
% 20.2% 17.4% 11.9% 18.3% 19.3% 12.8% 100.0%
5
Hungary
Count 23 19 19 32 11 70 174
% 13.2% 10.9% 10.9% 18.4% 6.3% 40.2% 100.0%
Total Count 99 69 123 80 73 96 540
% 18.3% 12.8% 22.8% 14.8% 13.5% 17.8% 100.0%
10.4. Conclusion – relation between the level of autonomy, management rights and content operation
*e level of school leaders’ autonomy and the satisfaction with autonomy are two, fundamentally independent dimensions of autonomy itself. It can happen for example that one is satis%ed with the level of autonomy if a rather wide management right power exists, because he/she feels that there is appropriate room for manoeuvre and he/she has the right management tools to lead the organisation – in this case the school – successfully and e:ciently. With the existence of the same power, one can also be dissatis%ed as he/she feels that the management tools are not su:ciently present, or because he/she feels depressed by the wide ranging areas of decision-making and the responsibility that is coupled with this autonomy. Our research conducted with the aim of de%ning leader competence standards also gives an insight into the evaluation of the two afore-mentioned dimensions of autonomy (we can presume that the extent of change grows if the relevant group is more dissatis%ed with the current level of autonomy). According to our intentions, this current research and development project can contribute to the mapping of the relevant competencies and their relationship with autonomy, and may serve as a basis for targeted further examinations built on the connections explored by us here, which can eventually assist the formation of transnational competence standards in an operative, i.e. practically adoptable manner that would have an impact on everyday activities. Our second key conclusion may be that the competence kit, i.e. the required behaviour and action patterns that can be considered optimal in a given system, may be di&erent according to the characteristic features of the actual system. In many respects, a successful leader has to be able to behave di&erently if he/she operates basically as a pedagogical leader than if he/she is responsible for the entire organisation’s operation by having strong powers in the %elds of business management, infrastructural operation and development, or employment, etc. (See the signi%cant di&erence in terms of cluster membership of Austrian and Hungarian respondents). *is suggests that the decision-makers of educational management can hope to see highly prepared school directors if they make it clear what quali%cation and skills they are expected to possess. *is formal element of this clear-cut articulation of expectations is quali%cations and experience, etc., but the decisive element is the manner of operation, behaviour and results. *is means that the decision-makers’ vision of the future, the society of the future and the role of the school within this vision determines considerably the necessary leader competencies. To give an example, let us look at what is in the centre of a
Improving School Leadership in Central Europe
108 109
school’s operation. Is it teaching or is it learning? Regardless of how intertwined these two concepts are. In the %rst case, the emphasis is on the curriculum, the requirements, the teaching aids and tools that lead to achieving these requirements, but %rst and foremost on the teachers using these aids and tools professionally. In the latter case, the starting point is the student, the groups of students, their needs, their knowledge and attitudes, where the learning process is based on the assessment of these and it is therefore tailor-suited. &e role of the teacher in this case is that of a trainer who can stand a proper diagnosis. &e above example may be extended to the level of the organisation: i.e. what does the school have the possibility to do, what in(uence does it have, what freedom does it have to de%ne its own objectives and to choose the necessary tools and ways to achieve these objectives. Turning back to the original question, we can conclude that the clear-cut expectations of the decision-makers can de%ne the necessary competencies directors need to ful%l their tasks. Decision-makers therefore should be aware of the fact that their expectations, and the selection, the training, the evaluation and motivation systems built on these expectations have an impact on the operation of the educational system, and through this on the quality of one of the main social subsystems. &e opinions explored by us, the leader competence pro%les and their detailed descriptions and the examination of the leader competencies and autonomy will hopefully promote a professional and targeted discourse to take place between those involved, which can lead to the clari%cation of expectations from directors. A wider discussion on competencies can involve parents, students, employers alike, and thus can assist in a uniform understanding of issues between the parties, and eventually will lead to the emergence of a motivating environment for leaders, which naturally consists of accountability for the results, and the need and possibility for further learning and improvement.
10.5. Appendices
TablesAppendix Table 10.1: �e level of perceived autonomy in the groups of school leaders and decision-makers
qtype Type of questionnaire N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
q5H1 Autonomy and scope of action
of the school leader on the whole.
(Currently)
1 School leaders 440 3.15 .857 .041
2 Decision-
makers
113 3.24 .947 .089
q5H2 &e school leader’s scope of
action, in(uence and impact on the
curriculum and pedagogic program
of the school. (Currently)
1 School leaders 439 3.53 .943 .045
2 Decision-
makers
113 3.54 1.027 .097
q5H3 &e school leader’s scope
of action, in(uence and impact on
the school budget and %nancing
management. (Currently)
1 School leaders 439 2.69 1.186 .057
2 Decision-
makers
112 2.78 1.121 .106
q5H5 &e school leader’s scope of
action, in(uence and impact on the
co-workers’ (teachers and other sta+ )
selection, employment and discharge.
(Currently)
1 School leaders 439 3.38 1.306 .062
2 Decision-
makers
113 3.05 1.475 .139
q5H5_A &e school leader’s scope of
action, in(uence and impact on the
regulation of the school functioning
(e.g. organizational and operational
rules). (Currently)
1 School leaders 440 3.80 .897 .043
2 Decision-
makers
113 3.69 1.010 .095
Appendix Table 10.2: Means of autonomy level by country and responder groups (Currently and needed
