School leadership and educational reform: interpreting national mandates BOWDEN ROOM

Professor Tony Bush Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Nottingham School leadership and educational reform: interpreting national mandates

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM: INTERPETING NATIONAL MANDATES Tony Bush

Educational reform – a global phenomenon England is not alone in seeking to reform education – many countries are doing so Reform is driven by concern for the impact of school outcomes on global competitiveness Reform is also underpinned by ideology – based on political beliefs about schooling Global comparisons of learner outcomes influence politicians and policy-makers

PISA RANKINGS 2012 PISA rankings are the ‘world’s premier yardstick’ for evaluating the quality, equity and efficiency of school systems (OECD Secretary-General) ‘PISA allows governments and educators to identify effective policies [to] adapt to their own contexts (Ibid) The foci of PISA in 2012 were maths, reading and science, based on tests of 15 year olds

Comparing three countries Nottingham university operates in China (near Shanghai), Malaysia (near KL) and the UK Shanghai tops the world rankings but does it represent China? Malaysia is in the bottom quarter (and its Education ‘Blueprint’ focuses on how to improve its ranking) UK has a middle ranking, with little change since the 2009 evaluation

Selected PISA scores - Mathematics 1.Shanghai Singapore Hong Kong 561 OECD average UK USA Malaysia Peru 368

Selected PISA scores - Reading 1.Shanghai Hong Kong Singapore UK 499 OECD average USA Malaysia Peru 384

Selected PISA scores - Science 1.Shanghai Hong Kong Singapore = UK 514 OECD average USA Malaysia Peru 373

PISA scores – what can we learn? Is the sampling reliable? The top systems are in Asia (mainly Chinese) Spending levels are not a reliable guide to learning outcomes – see USA scores Policy reforms appear to have limited impact – PISA scores change only modestly over time How can we improve English outcomes?

Factors influencing learner outcomes The socio-economic context – poverty, family structures, language capability & background The policy framework – formation and implementation Classroom practice – subject knowledge, pedagogy, classroom management School leadership – heads, senior leaders, middle leaders, leadership teams

Implementing reform in England Policy change is problematic in education Many centres of change – 20,000 schools and up to 250,000 classrooms Implementation varies according to the skills and motivation of teachers and leaders Enforcement (by Ofsted) leads to a uni- dimensional approach Changes are too frequent – 20 major acts since 1988 (Gibton 2013) – leading to implementation ‘fatigue’

NCSL – an agency for change? The NCSL (launched in 2000) was a prime vehicle for policy implementation (e.g. NPQH, modular curriculum, succession planning) Never the ‘independent voice of school leaders’ (Southworth 2004) but there was two-way communication Now amalgamated with the TA as NCTL Now a government agency (no independence) Leadership dimension has been reduced

Qualified teachers and leaders QTS has been compromised and now relies too much on subject knowledge The removal of mandatory status for NPQH is a backward step NPQH is not perfect but having qualified leaders is better than unqualified heads (think medicine, law, engineering, airlines) China and Singapore have mandatory headship training

Conclusion Reform is a global phenomenon, driven by international comparisons England is ‘mid-table’ in the PISA rankings Learner outcomes depend on context, policy imperatives, teaching, and leadership Implementation is problematic with so many schools and classrooms NCTL has been reduced to an agency with a narrow agenda (what happened to research?) Consistent policies are the key to success (see China and Singapore) What can we expect post-2015?

Thank you Comments and questions welcome You can contact me at:

School leadership and educational reform: interpreting national mandates