1. Introduction
From a developmental point of view, the most promising [leadership] intervention, coaching, has a mixed record when it comes to its efficacy. The research picture is unclear (Conger, 2004, p. 139).
As is evident from Jay Conger's assessment of the impact of coaching, the jury of the research community is still out. In Scotland it is a relatively recent leadership development initiative, and the centre-piece of the Flexible Routes to Headship ( FRH) pilot. While the evaluation of the FRH was not entered into as a validity test of Conger's assessment, the findings certainly have a direct bearing on his claim. As will be evident in the findings documented in this report, we believe that coaching has a significant contribution to make to the formation and development of school leaders, as does the FRH itself. Indeed, with the particular interests of Scottish schooling and its leaders in mind, our hope is that both the letter and spirit of our recommendations will be interpreted as strengthening the contribution that may be made by the availability of this alternative route.
The life-span for the FRH pilot was envisaged by the then Scottish Executive as 20 months. It commenced in February 2007 and, at the time of drafting this report (June 2008), it had nearly four months left to run. The nine months allotted by the Executive for the conduct of this evaluation, therefore, fell broadly across the mid-point of that life-span. By the time of the completion of this report, about half the candidates were deemed to have satisfied the requirement for the Standard for Headship ( SfH), and may be thought of as the first cohort of graduates of the pilot. The remainder of their peers are expected to complete towards the end of 2008.
The evaluation team has been aware that the FRH is not the only programme of its type and that two similar schemes are operating in Scotland. Our assumption is that, either immediately or in the not too distant future, the option for teachers to pursue a flexible route to the SfH will be available nationally, if this is seen as serving their development needs and those of the school system more broadly. For this reason, we have chosen as our report title the words used by one of our informants, "mixed economy", because, as we see it, these encapsulate the future of head teacher development in Scotland. As is evident in the broad thrust and detail of our recommendations, we see a revised version of the FRH as having a legitimate place alongside the existing Scottish Qualification for Headship ( SQH) one that incorporates the amendments we have suggested-as an alternative to satisfying the SfH. Prospective head teachers would then be able to choose from one of two available two routes, each with their different and unique emphases, but equivalent in the demands they make, the quality they endorse and in the status they confer.
As suggested by the Table of Contents, the sequence of our discussion observes a fairly conventional format. Immediately following the Executive Summary of our findings there is a consolidated list of the Recommendations embedded throughout the report. The next six sections of report ( sections 4-9) summarise aspects of the "infrastructure" of the pilot programme. The FRH itself really comes alive, hopefully, in sections 10 and 11 where we concentrate on the participants' experiences of the programme and its impact on them. In section 12 we discuss issues and implications for the adoption of the FRH by Scottish LAs. During the data collection phase of the evaluation the team adhered fairly closely to the methodology it originally proposed in its submission to the Scottish Executive's call for tenders. A summary of the tender specifications and our methodology, along with selected examples of our research instruments are to be found in the Appendices.
Throughout this report, we cite extracts from our data, in particular the transcripts of interviews and focus groups. To retain the anonymity of our informants we have de-identified these extracts. Finally, a quick perusal of our reference list will confirm that we have made only sparing use of both the research and development literature on coaching and leadership. This was a decision partly forced on us by time pressures but also because the opportunity for a more extensive engagement with this material will arise when we consider the wider significance of our findings in scholarly fora.
Notes on Usage:
1. Although what was previously known as the Scottish Executive is now the Scottish Government, depending on the timing of particular documents we are considering in the report we have retained both titles in our discussion.
2. As is evident from section ii, we have been sparing in our use of acronyms and abbreviations. Most of these are well-known. The convention we have observed is to cite the full title on the occasion of first usage in the text. This is followed immediately by the bracketed acronym which is used from that point on in the text, with the only variation occurring when we may have quoted from original sources.
Julia Davidson
Christine Forde
Peter Gronn
John MacBeath
Margery McMahon
Margaret Martin
19 September 2008