Work on the new model of the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) was undertaken by ULTRALAB following a government review by Dame Patricia Collarbone. The aim was to provide a flexible and agile course suited to a professional body who would need to cope with the anticipated educational change of new century. The mode of delivery of the new course was delivered to be online. The new NPQh courses started in January 2000.This paper sets the context for the development of Virtual Heads, the online element of NPQH and describes the structure of the online element. It also documents some early indications.
The government elected in 1997 stressed education, education,
education and yet it faced a profession which had been subjected to a
decade of change and was disillusioned and suffering from low
self-esteem. That new Labour government was committed to raising
standards for all children but recognised that to achieve this goal
they needed to harness, and develop, the leadership skills of the
present and future headteachers. A set of standards for the
profession was produced by the Department for Education and
Employment (DfEE (2000a)).
Within this climate the concept of a National College of School
Leadership (NCSL) was born. The NCSL was launched in November 2000 by
the Prime Minister. The College aimed to offer heads, deputies and
other school leaders professional support to enable them to transform
schools to meet the needs of the new century. NCSL has taken over
responsibility from the DfES for managing and developing the three
main national leadership programmes (National Professional
Qualification for Headship - NPQH, Leadership Programme for Serving
Heads - LPSH and the Headteachers Leadership and Management Programme
- HEADLAMP)
These three programmes are concerned with the continuing professional
development of the teaching profession and NPQH is specifically
designed to develop the leadership skills of those who aim to achieve
headship. As the DfES guidance for schools pamphlet begins,
The best school leaders establish a shared vision of school
improvement; inspire pupils, staff, parents and all those in the
wider school community; plan and monitor progress; empower and
develop teachers and other school staff; and refresh the vision,
setting new goals for continuing and continuous improvement.
Implicit in the development of NPQH is that leadership skills can be
taught. The NPQH qualification is concerned with growing and
nurturing leaders for tomorrows schools. As Senge commented in 1996,
"we are coming to believe that leaders are those people who 'walk
ahead', people who are genuinely committed to deep change in
themselves and in their organisations." For Senge they lead through
developing new skills, capabilities, and understandings. And they
come from many places within the organisation.
As the DfEE (2001) state, "good leadership is an essential component
of a successful school. We know that good leadership from governing
bodies, headteachers and their senior team creates an environment in
which teachers can give of their best. We are committed to giving
school leaders the best possible preparation and development." School
leadership has been emphasised and identified as one of the key
constituents of effective schools (Southworth 1990, Sammonds et al
1995) An individuals effectiveness as a school leader depends on
their ability to nurture themselves in order to ensure self renewal.
To keep progressing they need to be on an upward spiral of learn -
commit - do. These qualities are at the core of the model of
excellence, which underpins LPSH and has informed the new programme
for NPQH.
The new NPQH programme was born in 1997 when the government examined
the role of the head teacher, with the aim of helping those aspiring
to headship to prepare for it. As part of this process of developing
the new NPQH model the government set up a Select Committee which
looked at the role of the head teacher. The outcomes of this Select
Committee helped to inform the development of the national headship
training programmes.
The new NPQH model was developed after
consultation). One of the key messages
to come out of the consultation was that future leaders needed to be
able to use ICT in an effective way. Hence an ICT element was added
to enhance the programme.
As this century unfolds it is necessary for schools to be dynamic,
adaptable and creative. Already, it is accepted that well over 60% of
the jobs that pupils in schools will be undertaking by the year 2010
have not yet been thought about. This requires school leaders who can
adapt to the challenges the future brings. The old model of NPQH was
a model of information dissemination, the main complaint (again,
evidence/reference needed) being that the information required
changed before the course was completed. Thus the new model of NPQH
needed to be sensitive to, and respond to, change. Such change will
come about during a candidates period of study. ICT enables this to
be incorporated and to enable the qualification to remain relevant to
the needs of future leaders. Implicit in the new model therefore was
the need to change the culture amongst tutors and course providers
from one of using a static body of knowledge to a dynamic exchange of
viewpoints supported by the latest evidence. This cultural change
would then be transferred to candidates.
The driving forces behind this radical rethink were not only
political, but also educational. Anecdotally the traditional course
had a reputation for being disjointed from reality and perhaps, more
fundamentally, hard to access (candidates were expected to travel to
remote learning centres once every three weeks). It was also rooted
in old educational theory (learning by receiving information). As the
investigation into NPQH found many candidates felt that tutors simply
passed information to candidates and expected them to comment and
critique the information. Feedback on the old model emphasised the
value for candidates of meeting other candidates and sharing views
and ideas in the lunch, coffee breaks or pub after the course
ended.
To simply follow the old model of NPQH the materials that comprise
the units of study would have been placed online for distance
learning. Britain and Liber (1999) have studied a range of online
learning environments used in Higher Education and postgraduate work.
They identify the traditional distance learning approach and contrast
it with the conversational approach that has four key characteristics
applied to academic learning. This approach is based on the work of
Laurillard (1993). For NPQH the emphasis was clearly on two key
characteristics; participation and group dynamics. The value of these
characteristics is supported by ULTRALAB's previous work on online
communities (Talking Heads - communities of serving Headteachers,
Chestnet - a community of health professionals). ULTRALAB has
developed and researched the use of community for school students and
adults as a vehicle for learning and for small and medium enterprises
(Chapman and Ramondt, 1998).
ULTRALAB's research philosophy is based on the work of Vygotsky and
his notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in which the
tasks and concepts that are still being developed are within a
learner's ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). A learner progresses with concepts so
that they move outside of the ZPD by dialogue with others and through
self-dialogue. Palincsar (1986) is most explicit in considering
dialogue; It is the means by which learners are provided with
scaffolded instruction. It is through this scaffolding that social
learning takes place (Bruner, 1996).
The tutors in the new NPQH model are expected to be responsible for
this scaffolding but this requires a change of philosophy on their
part. Wenger (1998) has developed the pedagogical theory to apply it
in an online context . He states that learning is only possible when
the acquisition of skills and behaviour is combined with the
understanding of meaning. Thus the position of language and dialogue
is central. By articulating a shared terminology, Wenger argues
learning moves from the abstract to the concrete in the minds of the
learners, and this is one of the aims of the new model of NPQH and
specifically the online element of NPQH, Virtual Heads. Learning in
this way is a social activity.
In this sense learning can only be truly successful when learners are
fully engaged and are able to explore their understanding by dialogue
and negotiation with fellow learners. In doing this they test their
learning, refine and develop it. Ultimately they own the learning and
its structure. Empowering users is one of ULTRALAB's core
philosophies. We have noted that learners take ownership of their
learning through active participation in communities as they move
from a model of dependence and structure to one of initiating and
leading discussions. Similarly the role of the tutor moves from one
of control to one of facilitator. This confirms the model posed by
Chapman and Ramondt (1998) and is underpinned by Vygotsky
(1978).
The new NPQH was designed as a dynamic, flexible programme
with an underpinning philosophy of constructivism and participation.
The course enabled the learner to select areas of study, to be self
paced, and thus self directed and to enable pragmatism to develop
into a more reflective dialogue based on theoretical models of
leadership. To develop an online course with agility and flexibility
provided a challenge.
The new online system combines four components: content,
distribution, infrastructure and learning environment. The course
materials DfEE (2000b), 32 paper based units that formed the primary
content, were to be put into a dedicated web site. This web site has
been developed by ULTRALAB to eventually become the sole distribution
channel of the content.
The content within the web site was produced by a dedicated team of
writers led by Dame Pat Collarbone (Director of the London Leadership
Centre). It was linked to an online learning community, Virtual
Heads, facilitated by ULTRALAB facilitators. This community space
also provides localised communities (online tutorial groups) in which
NPQH tutors encourage and orchestrate meaningful debate between
candidates and give shape to the learning.
The online learning environment was provided by Oracle in the form of
Think.com. Think.com is an online CMC (Computer Mediated
Conferencing) system, designed in partnership with ULTRALAB, to
support online collaborative learning.
Access to the course materials was via a hyperlink from within
Think.com communities. This allowed candidates to use one ID and
password (that used to access the community software) and emphasised
to candidates the importance placed on the community and discussion
elements of the course because the online course materials could only
be accessed by passing through the community space.
Learning in the new model of NPQH is based on a individualised
programme negotiated contract between candidate and tutor. The online
elements provide four arenas in which learning can take place.
1. The materials web site, discussed above. Candidates are able to
use this to access both the course materials and resources and
up-to-date information from external web sites. For example when
studying the issues around setting a school budget, the website
contains background information, links to organizations such as the
Audit Commission and spreadsheet models that can be downloaded and
tailored to an individuals needs.
2. Hotseats, in which candidates, and tutors, can engage in dialogue
with guest speakers. At any one time there are two hotseats, each
serving different needs. One guest is an expert, often a DfES policy
leader. Here candidates can gain insights from those people
responsible for implementing policy and can test their own
understanding and context against a national picture. The other guest
is a serving headteacher, providing candidates with a case study of
another school and a leader who is an
exemplar,
Over a period of time these hotseats will constitute a
considerable resource. Combining different authorities views on an
issue will provide a powerful stimulation to dialogue. The
asynchronous nature of the hotseats means that high profile and busy
individuals can reach a wider audience and contribute at a time and
place convenient to themselves.
3. Discussions with a wide range of fellow candidates. The
online communities are designed so that candidates belong to a much
larger tutorial group online than is possible in a face-to-face
model. They are constituted of over 50 teachers from all phases of
education. These communities provide tutor-led discussions that are
based on the activities within the units.
It is in this forum that candidates are able to share their
pragmatic, school based experiences and tutors are able to enhance
those experiences by drawing the candidates into a more reflective
mode drawing on leadership theory, policy expertise and experience. A
strong sense of community, built on sharing and trust should
develop.
4. Discussions with a tutor and a small group of candidates.
This smaller group is supported by some face-to-face tutorials and
candidates are encouraged to meet and visit each others schools. The
online discussions here are focused on the learning that each
candidate has recorded. It is anticipated that candidates will
'collect' comments, discussion points, questions and answers from
other parts of the online environment that are relevant and key to
their own learning and share these with their group. These form a
candidates summary of learning, which is shared and discussed with a
tutor and which is the principle record of the formative
learning.
Learning through these online opportunities is based on the principle
of reflective activity in a candidates school. The activities and
content of the units are not to be studied in a remote, linear,
academic manner but based on the needs, and pace of the individual
candidate. The course encourages candidates to test their ideas out
in school and to compare their findings with those of colleagues. One
specific advantage of the online environment is that the learning
experience of individual, is no longer isolated. It is complemented
by that of others in the tutor group, across the region and
nationally with input from fellow candidates, tutors and national
figures. In the old model the information, teaching and learning and
feedback were restricted to a small group of approximately a dozen
candidates and their tutor. The new model allows for a much greater
interchange of ideas and experiences and a more reflective mode of
learning
Work in other ULTRALAB projects (Learning in the New Millennium,
Online Network, Schools OnLine) suggest that it takes roughly three
months for participants to feel comfortable in an online community
and to share their successes and failures with real honesty and
trust. For the new NPQH (Virtual Heads was launched on 15th January
2001) this is a very early stage in the development to draw any firm
conclusions. However the experience of the first cohort suggests:
Candidates more readily engage in a direct question and answer with a
nominated expert (the hotseat) than share their learning with peers.
This may be because it is seen as a form of one-to-one communication
that is more easily accessible than discussion in a group, which
takes more confidence.
Summaries of learning presented to tutors often contain a richness
that is not borne out by the contributions in public debate. This may
be because the summary is individualised and personal and allows the
candidate to make statements that are for discussion rather than ones
which are supported by evidence.
Some candidates need to have feedback from, and presence of, their
tutors in the community spaces to sustain the discussion.
Moving tutors from 1-1 to community/group discussion requires both
acceptance of the new technology and understanding of the new
culture. Where tutors have problems, they often fall back onto
e-mails with individuals.
The ratio of contributions to hits ranges from 1:5 to 1:10. In other
words candidates read 5 to 10 times as much as they contribute. This
is in line with other online community projects run at
ULTRALAB.
These findings suggest a need for closer and more explicit
integration of the different aspects of the online NPQH. Candidates
who have commented on hotseats, and others who have read those
comments, need to be given more direction to share their thoughts
with their tutor group. Tutors need to look for opportunities to
critically examine these contributions and use them as stimulus for a
more in-depth localised discussion, reflecting also on the content of
the materials and external resources.
The philosophy of the new model with its emphasis on self pace and
self direction needs to be fully understood by candidates and tutors.
Currently tutors are questioning their role and even their name in
the new model, believing that the term mentor/coach is more
appropriate to the culture of the new model. Early feedback indicates
that candidates, as mature professionals, need to re-examine their
understanding of their own role and that of the tutor in a self
directed learning model.
Research into the new model NPQH is ongoing and, in line with
the new programme, the structure and nature of the communities will
change in line with feedback from tutors and candidates and research
findings.
Britain, A. A. and Liber, O (1999) A Framework for Pedagogical
Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments, Bangor, University
of Wales (available at
http://www.jtap.ac.uk/reports/htm/jtap-041.html)
Bruner (1996) The Culture of Education, Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University.
Chapman and Ramondt (1998) Online Learning Communities, Chelmsford,
ULTRALAB (available at
http://www.ultralab.ac.uk/papers/online_learning_communities/)
DfEE (2000a) National Standards for Headteachers (available at
http://www.ncslonline.gov.uk/ncsl/index.cfm?pageid=210), London,
Department for Education and Employment
DfEE (2000b) NPQH Access and Development Stage Materials, London,
Department for Education and Employment
DfEE (2001) Building on Success, London, Department for Education and
Employment
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching - a framework
for the effective use of educational technology, London,
Routledge.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded
instruction. Educational Psychologist, 26, 73-98.
Sammons, P. Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. Key Characteristics of
Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness. London:
OFSTED
Senge, P (1996) Introduction to Synchronicity: The Inner Path of
leadership, Jaworski, J., San Francisco: Berrett Koehler
Southworth, G, (1990) Leadership, Headship and Effective primary
Schools, School Organisation, No. 10
Vygotsky (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and
Identity. New York: Cambridge University
Press