The International School Leadership Development Network:

A BELMAS-UCEA Collaborative Research Project

Bruce Barnett

University of Texas at San Antonio

Howard Stevenson

University of Lincoln

Paper presented at the Values and Leadership Conference, Victoria, British Columbia. September 2011

The International School Leadership Development Network:

A BELMAS-UCEA Collaborative Research Project

In 2010 the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) and the British Educational Leadership Management and Administration Society (BELMAS) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which committed the two organizations to work together more closely and to identify opportunities for engaging members in collaborative international work. The project described in this paper is a direct outcome of the MoU.BELMAS and UCEA have both agreed to support a collaborative research project that focuses on a significant issue of interest to members in both organizations, and that explores this issue from an international perspective.

Following extensive discussions at UCEA and BELMAS conferences in 2009 and 2010 and a survey of members in both organizations, the focus of the project began to unfold. Titled the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN), a key aim of the project is to make a significant contribution to knowledge in the field of educational leadership and administration. The intention of the ISLDN is to facilitate an international comparative study of how those involved in school leadership are supported in their preparation and development as leaders. This could include how leadership development is supported through both formal and informal networks, succession planning, teacher leadership, as well as exploring the policy context which seeks to shape leadership preparation and development in different national setting. (Further project details are available at

The emergence of the ISLDN comes at a time when global interest in school leadership is gaining attention, as captured in the recently-published handbook of research on leadership education that “meets a growing need to identify, describe, critique, and enrich the international literature on school leaders’ preparation and development” (Lumby, Crow, & Pashiardis, 2008, p. 1).In an effort to increase its international footprint, UCEA established an Associate Director of International Affairs responsible for developing international research and learning opportunities (Barnett, 2009). In his Presidential address to the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM), Petros Pashiardis (2008) argued that understanding globalization and the context within which school leadership needs to be examined and improved requires a redefinition of relationships between individual nations and the rest of the world, between public andprivate institutions, and between economic prosperity and poverty. Moreover, he contended that globalization requires the formation of regional and international networks of nations, international and non-governmental organizations, and multinational companies, because the educational policies of any one nation should no longer be examined without looking at educational policy worldwide (Pashiardis, 2008).

Coupled with the globalization of education has been the formation of partnerships between higher education institutions and other agencies and organizations (Saffu, 2000). Partnerships, often referred to as networks, alliances, collaboratives, or coalitions (Bickel & Hattrup, 1995), are established with the intent that “partners form a mutually rewarding relationship with the purpose of improving some aspect of education” (Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, 1986, pp. 12-13). Examples of high-profile university partnerships include the:

  • Academic Cooperation Association (2009), an association of primarily European universities that coordinates international exchange programs, research studies, and publications;
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is devoted to meeting global workforce needs, increasing higher education opportunities for disadvantaged groups, and promoting policies to strengthening research capabilities of higher education institutions (UNESCO, 2009);
  • European Commission’s (2009) Erasmus Program, an initiative that supports professional study and work programs for European higher education students and faculty; and
  • Fulbright Foundation (2009), which funds higher education students and faculty interested in international research, study, and employment.

Various conceptualizations of inter-organizational partnerships have been developed. Intrilligator (1992), for instance, conceived the interdependency between organizations as a continuum, ranging from cooperative to coordinative to collaborative relationships. Another representation by Barnett, Hall, Berg, and Camarena (1999) suggested four partnership models (vendor, collaborative, symbiotic partnership, and spin-off) to capture deeper levels of interdependency between educational organizations and external agencies. Finally, Barnett and Jacobson (2010) proposed three types of partnerships--organization-sponsored, university-sponsored, and faculty-driven--that reflect how organizations and individuals are engaging in collaborative educational leadership research and development.

The ISLDN is a prime example of an organization-sponsored partnership (Barnett & Jacobson, 2010), one that is being supported by BELMAS and UCEA. To capture the history of the project, the paper begins by describing how the project formed using an Expression of Interest process. The results of these submissions are summarized, highlighting the emerging research areas and suggestions for the direction and focus of the project. Our attention then moves to recent events that have clarified the direction of the project, particularly the meeting of project team members at the 2011 BELMAS Conference and the activities proposed for the remainder of 2011. The paper concludes by examining how the formation and operation of the ISLDN compares with other cross-national research projects and partnerships.

The Formation of the ISLDN

Background

To gauge initial interest in ISLDN participation, an Expression of Interest (EOI) process was initiated in the latter part of 2010. Prior to advertising the EOI, BELMAS and UCEA governing bodies agreed to support the project for three years, allowing time to form teams, agree on a project design, collect and analyse data, and begin to generate and disseminate findings. Given the flexible nature of the project, participants will decide if they wish to extend their involvement beyond this timeframe, and in what form.The project is being coordinated by Bruce Barnett (Associate Director of International Affairs, UCEA) and Howard Stevenson (Co-Research Coordinator, National Council, BELMAS) who are responsible for establishing research teams, conducting working sessions with team members, facilitating communication between teams, and reporting progress to their respective governing bodies.

EOI applications could be submitted by individuals or groups of people. Within the UCEA network, participants should be based within UCEA member institutions (where a group submission is presented, the group co-ordinator should be based within a UCEA institution). Members of BELMAS and their linked organizations (e.g., Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management) were eligible to apply. Because the ISLDN is conceived very flexibly, it was envisaged that participants could contribute in a variety of ways, such as conducting research, serving as a project consultants, or supporting networks of colleagues across projects.

Support for the Project

The ISLDN was notconceived as being a fully-funded research project. Given the breadth of participation, it was not considered feasible to fund project members for their time or travel expenses. However, UCEA and BELMAS are committed to supporting the project in several important ways:

  • Leadership support - through the UCEA Associate Director of International Affairs and the BELMAS Co-Research Co-ordinator;
  • Networking and collaboration support - given the international nature of the project, BELMAS and UCEA will provide resourcing to support communication, such as the hosting of discussion forums and blogs;
  • Dissemination support - both organizations are committed to making space available at their respective conferences for the project group to meet and report work in progress. UCEA and BELMAS journals will also be available as outlets for project dissemination; and
  • Financial support - some limited financial support may be available to contribute to costs of equipment, data collection, and travel. Applications for financial support can be made once the project is established and the resource implications become clearer.

EOI Submissions and Responses

EOI proposals were submitted to the project coordinators by 31 January 2011. Submissions focused on these issues:

  • Reasons for interest in the project;
  • Thoughts on project design;
  • Role envisioned in the project (e.g., researcher, consultant, cross-project networking);
  • Evidence of previous work in relevant areas dealing with school leadership preparation and development, especially from an international perspective; and
  • Evidence of ability to access potential data sources (e.g., contacts with potential case-studies, links to relevant organizations).

The EOI process resulted in 36 submissions (15 from UCEA members, 18 from BELMAS members, and three from non-members). To obtain feedback about the project, several individuals within the two organizations reviewed the set of proposals. Rather than judging the merits of the submissions, they provided their impressions about the trends and direction of the project. In particular, reviewers addressed these questions:

  1. What are the key research areas that emerge regarding leadership preparation and development?
  2. How do these projects connect to a common direction and focus?
  3. What suggestions do you have for how the coordinators should coordinate the project?

Based on the project coordinators’ observations and the feedback from the reviewers, trends emerged regarding the respondents, the areas of research, and project coordination, which are summarized below.

Research teams. The EOI responses represented a host of regions around the world: Australia and New Zealand, Scandinavia, United Kingdom, Asia, Africa, Western and Eastern Europe, Middle East, the Caribbean, and North America. A notable void is no work was proposed in Central and South American countries. Proposals considered a variety of issues, such as school context (urban, rural, low-performing), national context (developed and developing nations), occupational role (superintendents, principals, assistant principals, teacher leaders), research design (within one nation, cross-national comparison), and providers (universities, educational agencies). Proposals revealed broad categories of research teams and national samples:

  • Individuals and teams of scholars from one or two institutions (or from a single nation) who do not have a clearly-defined area of study;
  • Researchers already engaged in a project with a specific national focus;
  • Teams or individuals with a clearly articulated transnational focus; and
  • Studies of a single nation versus comparative studies across countries.

Research areas. Many of the submissions did not identify a specific research area, indicating a willingness to participate regardless of the project focus. There were, however, several topics that emerged dealing with the two major areas of the ISLDN: (a) school leadership preparation and (b) school leadership development.
1. School leadership preparation. The following topics were identified in the proposed studies aimed at understanding leadership preparation:

  • Programs aimed at preparing school leaders capable of: (a) turning around low-performing schools, (b) leading innovation and change, (c) being strategic leaders, (d) advocating for democratic and shared leadership for social justice, and (e) adapting to national reform mandates;
  • Gender-specific preparation and support for female school leaders;
  • Preparation by alternative private providers; and
  • Best practices in leader preparation.

2. School leadership development. Several topics emerged from the proposals dealing with the development of practicing school leaders: (a) assessing training effectiveness, (b) creating and testing training materials, and (c) comparing development practices across countries. These proposals not only sought to understand the knowledge bases and best practices within and across nations, but also to capture the workplace practices of school leaders.

Project coordination. Suggestions were offered for how to coordinate the project, such as sharing data, publishing research, and establishing face-to-face and electronic forums to exchange information and develop professional research communities. Because these are intended to be minimally-funded research projects, the intent is create a self-organizing network.Given the broad range of interests, the goal of the ISLDN is to be inclusive and to involve as many participants as possible. In presenting these findings with the two governing bodies, they have suggested creating an organizational structure capable of handling the volume and breadth of topics being proposed. Several practical and logistical considerations will guide the project:

  • Create a cross-organizational advisory group to offer advice on the types of research to support, review project progress, establish criteria for admitting new project participants, account for the expenditure of funds, and propose future directions and expansions;
  • For each research strand, identify a facilitator or coordinator who would be responsible for overseeing the studies within each strand. Facilitators will report progress to the two project managers;
  • Develop a written document for the research teams describing the expectations for: (a) communicating with facilitators and project managers, (b) completing project milestones, (c) clarifying how additional researchers or teams may become involved, and (d) reporting progress and findings at conferences, publishing research, and attending meetings to discuss the work; and
  • Create links on the UCEA and BELMAS websites dedicated to posting project updates, findings, and future initiatives.

A summary of the EOI responses was shared with ISLDN participants, who were asked to indicate: (1) which of the emerging research areas are of greatest interest to the team and (2) if a member of the team would be able to attend the 2011 BELMAS and/or UCEA conferences to discuss the direction, design, and logistics for the project. Responses to these questions were received from 34 respondents. (Two participants have dropped out because of other professional commitments.) Table 1 summarizes the areas of research interest.

Table 1. Research Interests of ISLDN Members

  1. Leadership PreparationN
  • Leaders for low-performing schools6
  • Leaders for innovation and change6
  • Strategic leadership7
  • Democratic/social justice leadership 11
  • Leaders adapting to national reforms 10
  • Preparation for female school leaders5
  • Best practices in leadership preparation7
  • Leadership Development
  • Assess program effectiveness5
  • Create and deliver materials6
  • Compare practices across countries 12

Clarifying the Direction of the ISLDN

During the July 2011 BELMAS Conference, a session was conducted with ISLDN participants to: (1) update them on the level of interest in the proposed research areas, (2) obtain their reactions and ideas, and (3) determine next steps in organizing teams around common areas of interest. Based on earlier responses of team members, the project organizers shared the summary of themes dealing with preparation and development (see Table 1). Time also was allocated for participants to break into several large groups to share their reactions about the direction and process of the project. Several ideas emerged from these group discussions:

  • Refine the question intended to guide the overall work of the network and each of the research projects;
  • Move from learning about leadership development to understanding the actual practices of school leaders in different national contexts;
  • Ensure projects compare data and perspectives across national contexts;
  • Possibly eliminate the distinction between leadership preparation (i.e., learning activities prior to taking on a formal leadership role) and development (i.e., learning activities engaged in on the job); and
  • Define what is meant by “effective leadership.”

Because no clear agreement was reached regarding how to combine or collapse research areas, during the remainder of the conference, the project coordinators spoke with participants about their reactions to the session and advice for how to move the project forward. They also consulted with individuals who have conducted similar large-scale international projects (International Successful School Principalship Project, International Study of the Preparation of Principals). Their advice was to collapse submissions into a manageable number of projects. Therefore, the project coordinators proposed two overarching themes to guide the initial formation of research projects:

  1. Preparation and development of leaders working in high-need schools and
  2. Preparation and development of democratic and social justice leaders.

Next Steps

To move the ISLDN forward, the following timeline of events is projected for the remainder of the year:

  1. By 1 September 2011, participants will provide the project organizers with the following information:
  • Which theme they are most interested in pursuing and the counties where their work will be conducted and
  • Who will be attending the next meeting of ISLDN members, which will occur during a pre-session at the UCEA Convention in mid-November.
  1. By 1 October 2011, project coordinators will communicate the following information with participants:
  • A summary of the teams’ research interests, countries being studied, and participation in the UCEA pre-session and
  • A draft of the structure for the UCEA pre-session meeting.
  1. By 1 November 2011, project coordinators will provide the location and final agenda for the UCEA pre-session meeting.

Conclusions

The ISLDN is not the first cross-national collaborative research project examining school leadership development and practice. For instance, almost 20 years ago, Parkay and Hall (1992) coordinated the Beginning Principal Study (BPS), a comparative investigation of the transition of novices into the principalship in different national contexts. More recently, the International Successful School Principalship Project(ISSPP) is a decade-long collaborative of 16 nations, which aims to reveal the practices successful principals use in a variety of national contexts (e.g., Jacobson, Day, & Leithwood, 2005; Ylimaki & Jacobson, 2011). In addition, the International Study of the Preparation of Principals (ISPP)is a consortium of researchers and recently-appointed principals who are devoted to understanding how useful principal preparation programs are for novice principals around the world (e.g., Cowie & Crawford, 2008;Scott & Webber, 2008). Both of these initiatives are examples of “faculty-driven” partnerships, comprised of individual researchers who form alliances with colleagues from other countries to conduct research and deliver professional development programs (Barnett & Jacobson, 2010). In most cases, these individuals have received little funding or support from their employers or other sources for their time and travel expenses.