Designing individualised leadership development programmes

Abstract

The recruitment of sufficient numbers of suitably qualified teachers into headship is an international issue and to address this in Scotland alternative headship preparation programmes were trialled to provide greater flexibility in order to better match the individual development needs and circumstances of the aspirant head teachers. Drawing from the evaluation data of one of these programmes, the National Flexible Routes to Headship, the article analyses the key learning processes critical for the design of individualised leadership development programmes. The article begins with the policy context from which the proposal for the alternative headship preparation programmes emerged.

Keywords:

• leadership development
• individualised learning
• headship preparation
• experiential learning

Introduction

Scotland is facing a number of challenges with regard to the recruitment of head teachers particularly, as the age profile indicates that a substantial proportion will be retiring from the profession over the next few years (MacBeath et al. 2009). The need to increase the pool of eligible teachers was identified as a key objective and while it was acknowledged that the extant programme:

the SQH (Scottish Qualification for Headship) has proved to be a successful and valuable way of preparing and developing aspiring head teachers … Feedback from the profession has been that teachers need to have a choice of routes to achieving the SfH. (Scottish Executive 2006a, 1)

The National Flexible Routes to Headship (NFRH) Programme was one of the three flexible headship preparation programmes developed in Scotland (Torrance 2011) which use experiential methodologies, particularly coaching, to enable aspirant head teachers to meet the Standard for Headship (SfH; Scottish Executive 2005) which is required for appointment to a head teacher post.

The central design principle of the NFRH is flexibility to enable participants to pursue learning opportunities pertinent to their development as aspiring head teachers in ways that suit their personal circumstances and learning styles (Scottish Executive 2006a) in order to meet the SfH. This flexible approach is based on a planned and agreed programme of activities to meet the specific learning needs of individual participants (Scottish Executive 2006b). On the face of it, there is an elegant simplicity in the creation of flexible approaches designed to address the needs and circumstances of individual participants. However, such programmes make particular demands on learners and those who support them. This article uses the evaluation data to propose a number of key learning processes which are critical to the design of individualised leadership development programmes. The various components of the programme are outlined; then using the data on the learning experiences of the participants, the nature and construction of individualised leadership development programmes are examined. The final discussion examines some critical issues related to coherence and progression in individualised programmes, leading to the achievement of a set of external criteria whether this be a professional standard, licence for principalship or an academic award.

Individualised learning

While personalisation is an important principle in school curricula in the UK (DfES 2004; Scottish Executive 2004), there is a limited discussion of personalisation or individualisation on teacher's professional learning. Individualisation is evident in the use of work-based learning contracts (Thompson et al. 1996) and learning contracts in higher education (Laycock and Stephenson 1992). Muir, Beswick, and Williamson (2010) report on an individualised programme for teachers who used video to explore their teaching. In their evaluation of the pilot programme of the revised National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) in England, Crawford and Earley (2011) use personalisation of learning as a criterion and this largely relates to the school-based components of the programme. Power (2011) reports on a programme in Australia where an academic worked with a group of teachers to devise individual professional development plans based on a reflective tool ‘The Quality Teacher Model’ (298) and while the self-determined nature of the learning was found to be valuable there were issues around the evolutionary nature of these plans as new ideas and activities were pursued. There is no in-depth discussion of the principles underpinning the construction of individualised leadership development programmes. This article draws from the evaluation study of the NFRH to explore the processes of learning underpinning individualised leadership development programmes.

The NFRH programme model

The consultation document (SEED 2006a, 8–9) indicated that activities in a flexible programme would be:

• based on the SfH,

• grounded in the professional actions required of a head teacher,

• personalised,

• based on appropriate professional knowledge and understanding.

The compulsory components of the programme set out subsequently (SEED 2006b, 2.2) were:

• attendance at a residential preparatory course,

• engagement with a qualified coach,

• production of a reflective commentary and portfolio of evidence for assessment against the SfH.

Each participant would produce and agree with their local authority (LA) the ‘plan of activity’ to address their identified leadership development needs in order to demonstrate their achievement of the SfH. Possible opportunities were identified as follows: development or enquiry projects, diverse leadership and management activities in school and other contexts, building community relationships, acting up or shadowing, development activities in other sectors, professional reading, seminars, conferences and master classes, accessing SQH activities, modular programmes, virtual learning groups, school or LA community of practice (SEED 2006b, 2.12).

At one level, the idea of developing a ‘plan of activity’ addressing the learning needs of the individual participant seems to be a straightforward process. However, such an approach demands that the learner has a clear understanding of the purposes and processes of learning they will engage to plan and overtake a coherent and meaningful programme of development. The data reveal the participants’ struggles to understand the expectations and purposes of specific activities and how these fit together in a coherent learning process. The data indicate that in order to address issues of coherence and progression the programme had to evolve. Although the initial expectation had been for bespoke programmes based on individual plans of activity, there emerged a number of issues which led to the establishment of a number of common components undertaken by all the participants.

The components of the programme

The NFRH drew from the SQH programme (Reeves et al. 2002) and has a number of components. Some of these components were established at the outset of the programme, for example the 360-degree feedback questionnaire and the Professional Learning Plan (PLP), while other aspects, particularly coaching, assumed a greater importance as the programme progressed and then other activities such as additional conferences were introduced during the programme. The components of the programme were:

• The Emotional Competence Index (ECI): a 360-degree feedback process focused on personal and interpersonal skills. Feedback was gathered anonymously from the participant's colleagues and discussed with a trained reviewer.

• Three Residential Conferences: induction, assessment and transformational leadership.

• PLP: using the ECI and self-evaluation, participants produced a PLP to address the SfH.

• School-based development work: sets of tasks to overtake elements of the SfH identified in the PLP.

• Local Authority Continuing Professional Development (CPD) : residentials and courses, typically management tasks such as financial training, health and safety, personnel issues or CPD related to their school-based project and personal skills training such as coaching or presentation skills.

• Coaching: one-on-one sessions, two hours in length held every two to three weeks.

• Learning log: to be maintained by each participant.

• Assessment tasks: a reflective commentary (10,000 words), a portfolio of evidence, a field visit and panel interview.

The evaluation of the NFRH programme

An evaluation was undertaken of the NFRH (Davidson et al. 2008). Data collection was over an eight-month period coinciding with the midway and end points of the first cycle of planning, learning and assessment. A range of methods were used as follows:

• Content analysis of documentation and participant materials including 17 individual PLPs and 7 journals.

• Interviews: 76 interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via telephone with two rounds of interviews with participants (57) and coaches (8) and one with the project management (11).

• Focus groups: three focus groups with participants and one with the coaches.

• Field observations of the final assessment presentations by 14 participants who submitted in the first cycle and a member of the research team attended most management meetings during the evaluation period.

• Analysis of participants’ submissions: portfolios of evidence and reflective commentaries from the first 14 participants.

This range of methods generated substantial amounts of data and the following process was adopted for analysis in the evaluation:

• For the documentation (policies, plans, guidelines and conference materials): review of each set of notes and summary analysis – purposes, programme, activities and procedures.

• For the materials generated by participants (personal learning plans, reflective journals, portfolios and commentaries): review each set of notes and summary analysis – patterns and key issues.

• For the field notes (meetings of project team, final assessments): coding of each set of notes and summary analysis of each set – areas and key issues.

• For the interviews and focus groups: transcripts of each interview and focus group were coded and tested through reading and rereading for dominant themes. Within each theme detailed reading to identify consistent patterns and differences.

Learners' experiences

To track specifically the issue of the learners’ experiences the transcripts of interviews and focus groups were returned to. Participants had been interviewed twice, at a midway point and the end of the programme. From this analysis, a broad chronological framing was developed: initiation, planning, working and learning, assessment. The other data were then located within this broad framing (Table 1).

Table 1. Framework for the programme and organisation of data.

Phase	Activities	Data
Initiation	• 360-degree feedback task • Induction conference • Initial meetings with coach	• Transcripts of first set of interviews – coaches and participants • Analysis of documents related to setting up programme and induction conference
Planning	• Coaching sessions • Development of PLP • Network meetings • Further conference	• Transcripts of first set of interviews – coaches and participants • Sample of PLPs
Working and learning	• Coaching sessions • Network activities • CPD opportunities	• Transcripts of first and second set of interviews • Analysis of documents related to second conference • Reflective logs • Notes from meetings
Assessment	• Formative and summative tasks • Coaching sessions • Field assessment	• Second set of interviews • Portfolios and commentaries • Analysis of documents related to second and third conferences • Final assessment observations • Notes from meetings

This data were examined to identify the key learning tasks the participants had to accomplish:

• induction: (1) undertake a 360-degree feedback process and (2) making sense of the requirements and the programme;

• planning: produce a detailed personal learning plan to meet the SfH;

• working and learning: (1) leading in school including the school-based task and (2) the opportunities to discuss their experiences;

• assessment: participants were required to (1) provide evidence they had achieved the SfH and (2) reflect on and account for their learning.

From this tracking of tasks, a set of key learning processes were identified.

Learning processes in individualised leadership development programmes

A number of learning processes in the NFRH were identified which emerged as crucial to individualised programmes:

• looking at self

• making sense of the learning process

• planning learning

• taking action

• making the case

• reflecting on learning.

In the pilot programme, there were ongoing modifications, additions and adjustments to the programme. These changes were often in response to the experiences of learners and the need to revisit earlier tasks. Therefore, although these processes are set out as a simple linear process there is a fluidity with earlier processes and outcomes of these being revisited, modified and expanded upon. Quotations from the transcripts of interviews are included in the discussion.

Looking at self

To create an individualised learning programme, some means of evaluating current skills, understandings and practice are an obvious starting point. This process needs to be rigorous and comprehensive, include feedback from others and be based on external measures of practice in order to provide relevant and detailed material from which relevant targets and learning opportunities can be generated.

The first element of the self-evaluation process in the NFRH was the 360-degree feedback. Some participants had already used this type of instrument, but for most it was a new and personally challenging exercise. While viewed positively by the majority (‘it's a really, really brilliant thing that’, Int11), its purpose, usefulness and impact were unclear. One participant commented that ‘it wasn't really put across to our cohort just how important that was’ (Int29). The lack of clarity in framing the activity left some people feeling discomfited with limited opportunities to fully explore the feedback and implications of this for their leadership. As one participant put it: ‘10 minutes to digest it and then have a conversation with someone one had never met’ (Int12). This meant that some people carried the legacy of ‘two pages of what was wrong with me’ (Int17). On the other hand, the ECIs were referred to regularly in the coaching sessions and in preparation for the assessment tasks. For many, it was only later that the ECI became a powerful tool for learning, particularly the more careful second administration:

It also posed new questions for things that you could work on so it meant that the development work you then undertook over the next 18 months was really focussed on what you needed rather than what you thought you needed. (Int43)

While such tools as the ECI provide potentially powerful development opportunities, clarity of purpose and use as well as considerable time and care in giving feedback to individuals are essential. This is not straightforward and carries high emotional content, so learners need considerable support in developing skills for self-evaluation, making sense of the data and particularly coming to terms with feedback from others, which is perceived to be deeply personal.

Making sense of the learning process

Coming to terms with the feedback from the ECI was a vital first step but equally important was the participants’ understanding of the nature of learning underpinning the programme and the implications for them as learners. From the data, it is evident that during the first two conferences learners struggled to grasp the nature of the programme and the processes of professional learning. There was a lack of clarity initially and this was partly due to the construction of this programme as ‘flexible’ which for participants signalled a non-academic programme based on their leadership practice. This disjuncture came as something of a shock to almost everyone: ‘at first when it was sold to us … the written aspect … that there wouldn't be the same written aspect to it as with the SQH’ (Int5). Words used by the participants to describe their experience at the initial conference were highly emotional: bombarded, befuddled, agitated, shocked, washed out, confused, panicked, scary and overwhelming. While these feelings dissipated over time, participants typically looked back on this experience as being thrown in at the deep end and struggling to make sense of it and these feelings were not transitory: ‘We didn't get on day one what we would be expected to do. We were three months into the process before we were understanding really what we were doing’ (Int9).

While the tensions over the academic dimension might be specific to the NFRH, it does point to the wider issue of participants’ understanding of the nature of learning in individualised programmes. Part of the issue lies in the difference between practice and practice-based learning where critical thinking, knowledge and understanding underpin the development of practice: ‘It was frustrating to begin with because it wasn't what I thought I was getting into and I thought … I was going to have to cover a lot of stuff already done and have evidence for that’ (Int16). There is a tension between the aspiration to develop a learner-centred programme and the need to meet external criteria. In the NFRH, this led to additional events bringing all the participants together for conferences on planning, learning and assessment in order that learners would understand the aims, purposes and demands of the programme.

Planning learning

The ideas of confusion and struggle and the need to make sense of pre-set demands are also evident in the work on the professional learning plan (PLP). Here the issues related to the process of planning learning were identified by participants and coaches and echoed the analysis of a sample of PLPs. From the participants’ perspective, the development of a PLP was to some extent, an unwelcome part of the programme: ‘I found it difficult, heavy going, it discouraged some people’ (Int9). The apparent lack of clarity led to participants developing their own formats with some more detailed than others. The analysis of the PLP indicated that there were wide variations in terms of layout, length and detail, as well as in the extent of the coverage of the SfH. Some participants reported that they had assiduously tried to cross-reference their skills to the SfH, embedding these in their PLP, while others expressed difficulties in coming to terms with what was expected in relation to the SfH. Reflecting on the SfH and gathering evidence to self-audit were widely perceived as both difficult and unrewarding tasks. It was also widely suggested by the participants that there might be less mechanistic and tedious ways of accomplishing the desired end. Strong words were sometimes used to describe the plan – ‘pain and torture’ (Int39).

There was little articulation of the rationale for the PLP in the preliminary proposal for the NFRH, beyond perceiving it as a straightforward document in which participants would draw on the ECI and the self-audit to identify needs and match these to one or more of the several activities listed in the briefing paper (SEED 2006b). However, clearly this was not a straightforward task. The PLPs were predominantly constructed on the basis of ‘gap filling’, a set of unrelated meet aspects of the SfH: ‘The audit trail … threw up some gaps that were needed in accordance with the standard, then what you wanted to do in school yourself … all kind of came together to generate this plan’ (Int4). In only a small number was there any clear sense of the process and progress of learning, in which the participants indicated their intention to develop knowledge and understanding to support their practice. Further, few plans emphasised the need for reflection, critical understanding, the use of learning logs, reflective journals and other processes and in those instances where such aspects were included, the impact and evaluation of the participants’ learning tended to be constructed in terms of the success of a project and with little sense of their development as a school leader.

There is no doubt that the development of the PLP is a challenging task and unless there is a clear conceptualisation of the nature of professional learning underpinning individualised programmes and this is explored with learners, there is little sense of active engagement by the learner in the construction of their own learning programme. It becomes simply a task to complete: ‘I think there is value for sitting down and actually planning what you need to do … It's not something I've been back to check’ (Int30). As the programme evolved, some participants saw benefit in the PLP process, ‘I think doing the professional learning plan at the time seemed very, very difficult but when I look back we've actually moved on quite a bit and it has all made sense’ (Int26) and engaged in iterative processes of planning, action and review.

Taking action: current and prior experiences

The practice-based element of the NFRH programme had a high degree of individualisation. Here participants could draw upon their current remit, lead a school development priority or put forward their previous work in school to be accredited. The earlier issue of the limitations of the planning process led participants, in some instances, to undertake a series of disconnected actions in which there were few opportunities for the holistic development of leadership to contribute to school development. In the responses, participants constructed their development in terms of having the necessary range of experiences rather than building and appraising knowledge and practice through mutual interrogation: ‘the trick for me was to get a project which was core to what I was doing in my day-to-day job and use that to generate evidence’ (Int16) and ‘what I did was I looked at our action plan for the school … and knew what was coming up and linked the programme I had to do anyway and just tweaked them slightly for the PLP’ (Int12).

The further issue related to the balance between planned activities and the use of prior practice. While there was scope for accreditation, the process by which claims for accreditation were made – the portfolio of evidence and reflective commentary –raised substantial concerns for some participants: ‘I thought it would have offered more opportunities for prior learning … there was whole sections of building community [a professional action in the SfH] which I felt I had achieved through previous work’ (FG2). The tension lay partly around the difference between prior practice and prior experiential learning. In the participants’ view, accreditation should have been based on what they had done in school and so largely focused on specific tasks or remits rather than a more expansive idea of experiential learning to achieve a professional standard which combines action with values, knowledge and skills. Therefore, the lengthy process of preparing material for the accreditation of prior experiential learning was perceived initially at least as unnecessary and onerous.

Reflecting on practice

Reflection was a central element of the NFRH with several components designed to support reflection: learning logs, coaching and learner networks. These components had differential levels of success: while coaching became the spine of the learning process in the NFRH, and to a lesser degree learner networking, learning logs were problematic.

Learning logs

Participants were introduced to the idea of learning logs at the preparatory conference and they were accepted as ‘a good thing’ (Int31) but in the event, it was, as some participants said, ‘ignored’ or ‘intermittent’. This was partly explained by the open and unstructured way in which the log was introduced with no ‘push’ unlike the requirement to produce the PLP. ‘I don't think anybody in our cohort took it seriously’, claimed one participant, ‘because it wasn't presented to us as being a really good tool to help you when it comes to writing up your reflective commentary’ (Int14). Another participant said that to take time out in the course of a busy day ‘felt like … you're cheating your employer’ (Int46).

Where the learning log was used, participants reported that it enabled them to make sense of their experiences, particularly the more emotional and challenging sides of leadership. For example, one participant described how the log could be very helpful in preparing for a coaching session:

I did use the learning log for that, the little book. I did kind of note down things that I wanted to speak to [my coach] about before I went, not a formal agenda or anything like that, but just a few notes of things I wanted to share with [the coach]. (Int44)

The importance of privacy as well as the therapeutic nature of logs and similar reflective tools are dimensions that have to be recognised: ‘The situation in there that, had it fallen into the wrong hands – you know, I hadn't thought about until I thought I'd lost it’ (Int39). In the NFRH using a learning log was not a process that all participants found easy but reflection was vital. As one participant said, pointing to her head: ‘The learning log is just up here now rather than written down’ (Int35), while others commented on its benefits in stimulating dialogue: ‘For me it was very helpful … I think writing something down was helpful anyway and realising a bit of tension, but it definitely did help to see patterns in my behaviour’ (Int36). Towards the end of the programme, some participants regretted that there had not been a greater emphasis on maintaining the log as a source of evidence for the portfolio or the commentary: ‘now I am writing up I do wish I had more in my learning log to look back on’ (Int23). Limited use of the learning logs underlined the importance of reflection by other means.

Coaching

In the initial proposal for the NFRH, each participant would work with a coach but there was little to suggest the importance coaching assumed as the programme evolved. Two key issues can be identified from the evaluation: first, the contribution of coaching to individualised leadership development programmes and second, the wider roles played by the coaches in ensuring the overall coherence of the programme. This is a fine distinction but one that is vital in designing individualised learning programmes. We will consider the first issue here and come to the question of the roles played by the coaches later.

Coaching in the NFRH followed Whitmore's (2002) GROW Model (goal, reality, option, will) where there is a clear focus on reflection leading to action on the part of the learner. Thus, coaching provided an important means of relating experience and learning to improve leadership practice. The coaching process had a substantial impact on the development of the participants as leaders: ‘coaching … has helped me realise along the journey what my actions and values and thoughts mean in terms of leadership. And that comes about largely through the dialogue’ (Int3). Coaching provided structured opportunities for setting and reviewing targets from the PLP but more importantly, coaching provided opportunities for in-depth sense-making and reflection:

it's very useful for me to talk through what I've being doing in terms of driving forward my personal plan … [the coach] will analyse part of that with me and when I am talking about it to [the coach] she helps to just clarify things in my mind, in terms of what I did and being reflective. (Int7)

Coaching and reflection intertwined in the building of a sense of self-efficacy and the strengthening of interpersonal skills.

Learner networking

While coaching was one-to-one in individualised development programmes the social dimension of learning remained important. The NFRH included conferences, local residential courses and learner networks and their number and significance grew as the programme developed, providing a complementary form of support and renewal, opportunities to share and work with colleagues. These were occasions for meeting others facing similar challenges and created a strong sense of solidarity: ‘The peer support as well the opportunity to meet with like-minded colleagues and discuss issues, that we've got a lot in common and we can support each other’ (FG2). These opportunities were widely seen as a strength of the programme, which underlines the need for this form of lateral exchange on a face-to-face basis as well as on an ad hoc basis, thereby serving a quasi-therapeutic purpose: ‘It's just if you've got any problems you know that you've got a very good network of people to talk with and discuss things and again they can always present you with a different side of things’ (Int2). This exchange between participants progressively strengthened with a number commenting during the second round of interviews on the lasting value of these collegial networks: ‘Just having contacts out there, both of a personal and friendly nature, but also contacts that I would now feel very comfortable in getting in touch with at a professional level’ (Int47).

Making the case

An important aspect of individualised programmes leading to an external award such as a professional standard or licence is the assessment process. Assessment in such programmes makes particular demands on learners. As there is no set curriculum in individualised programmes, learners need to demonstrate explicitly what they have learned from their own programmes of learning. A substantial proportion of work on the NFRH related to the completion of the formative and summative tasks. Thus, critical issues that need to be considered in the design of individualised programmes concern the relationship between learning and assessment and the type of tasks used to assess the achievement of a professional standard.

In the NFRH, there was an attempt to forge a developmental link between assessment and learning through the extensive use of formative assessment. Participants completed an initial written task of 3000 words, which they submitted to their coach for written formative feedback. Subsequently, the full reflective commentary of 10,000 words and the portfolio of evidence were submitted for formative assessment to the coach and to a second coach who acted as assessor before the final submission. The preparation of the written tasks absorbed valuable coaching time:

I lean on X [the coach] a great deal for advice about the way things should be written up because that is my major concern at the moment and I'd like to get to the point with X where I am confident about writing so I know I've got the right structure. (Int17)

There is no doubt that considerable effort, hard work and investment of time had gone into the reflective commentaries and portfolios. Once they understood the framework for the reflective commentary, participants reported that they found this valuable: ‘the commentary has been much more useful for me, in terms of my learning and understanding what it is I am doing in this school and what I am like as a leader in this school’ (FG3). However, it was in the portfolio where there was the danger that the ‘gap filling’ evident in PLPs became an elaborate process of giving an account of each of these tasks: ‘It did make me look at the standard … consider why I was putting particular pieces of evidence in, but I think it could have been less onerous in terms of cross referencing’ (Int38).

As part of the evaluation, the reflective commentaries and the portfolios of evidence submitted in the first wave of assessment were reviewed by the evaluation team using the SfH and the criteria for assessment agreed by the project management group. There was a wide variation in the quality of the participants’ reflections, ranging from some thoughtful submissions to many largely descriptive pieces of work. The quality of reflections was affected by the use made by the participants of literature to inform their analyses. There were examples where there seems to have been a considerable shift in the participants’ understanding not only of their own learning as a professional, but also about the nature of practice and the place of theory and ideas about leadership. However, many were operating at a fairly superficial level here and there was not a lot of evidence of encounter with, and reflection on, quality research evidence firstly to support the integration of theory and practice and secondly, to interrogate and justify effective practice in school and finally set it in the framework of whole-school capability for change or the wider political context which influence school leadership.

The analysis of portfolios indicated that the evidence provided was extensive, but often descriptive rather than evaluative, and the claims for competence made against the SfH were often limited to evidence of action taken – for example, meetings held – rather than evidence of impact, particularly on pupil learning. In the strong examples of portfolios of evidence, there was a greater sense of coherence but for many participants this was a meaningless task: ‘The portfolio of evidence … was probably the most difficult thing … just the actual labour, it was labour intensive probably unnecessarily so’ (Int40). These issues reflect the construction of leadership in self-evaluation and planning, which led to a sense of randomness in the activities undertaken and the range of items of evidence detailing each of these. Only some of the candidates began to understand the underpinning purpose:

the portfolio of evidence it was a time-consuming job but it was quite a satisfying and rewarding exercise because at the end you have your kind of complete folio of what areas in the standards you have met from the various experiences. (Int35)

In the assessment tasks including the final presentation and interview, there was a strong sense of a personal journey in the forming of a leadership identity and confidence: ‘I can visualise myself in a headship role and I think even in terms of my general demeanour and behaviour I'm becoming more leaderly’ (Int16). However, in the written assessments there was a lack of evidence of the leadership process being contested or seen as problematic, and a lack of understanding of dilemmas of headship which were clearly a significant focus for the coaching sessions. Typically participants reported that coaching ‘really making you think why you were doing things and challenging this’ (Int12) and through coaching one participant reported that ‘one of the best experiences has been being opened up to academic reading and literature’ (Int22). This does point up the need for some kind of academic support in individualised programmes that lead to external awards. This support is not just in relation to writing, use of reading and presentation of materials support to enable participants to move beyond recounting experiences to a more consistent and critical engagement with issues, dilemmas and the level of strategic thinking vital for school leadership. Thus, learning in individualised programmes is multifaceted and involves a range of processes which need to be brought together in a coherent and progressive programme.

As the NFRH developed, a more extensive common programme was established to provide greater coherence and the role of the coach was much expanded beyond the one-to-one coaching encounters. Much rested on the quality of the coach in ensuring this programme was a worthwhile learning experience for the participant. However, there were significant tensions. The data shed some light on the way the support sought by participants required the coaches to take on a number of different roles in addition to coaching: tutoring, mentoring, facilitating and assessing (Forde et al. 2013). The multiple roles limited opportunities for performance coaching to develop the leadership skills and confidence of the individual participant. These multiple functions resulted in other processes such as tutoring lacking coherence with no clear delineation of areas of content or required reading. The blurring of coaching, mentoring, tutoring and assessing meant that a substantial portion of time was spent on the development of the written tasks for assessment. Thus, the coaching process that sustained the individual nature of the learning process, as it was constructed and presented to participants, was vulnerable to becoming fragmented, mechanistic and leading to a superficial engagement on the issues and tensions of headship.

Discussion: designing individualised leadership development programmes

An ‘emerging hallmark of the [NFRH] pilot programme was an emphasis on what might be termed personal transformation’ (Davidson et al. 2008, 12) and so the NFRH as an individualised learning programme is not simply a set of tasks to enable participants to demonstrate they have achieved specific elements of the SfH but is about their holistic development as a leader. Therefore, through a coherent programme participants need to engage in a powerful combination of many forms of learning that addresses their learning needs which in turn will lead to improvement in practice. These forms of learning include practice-based learning, conceptual learning, social cohort learning, peer learning and reflective learning.

Gathering feedback and self-evaluation are important starting points in an individualised programme. In the NFRH, these tasks were conceived of initially as straightforward preparatory tasks that could be completed relatively rapidly. However, Brookfield (1995) argues that self-evaluation is a skilled, transformative process and potentially disruptive. The process of self-evaluation carried high emotional content for many participants in the NFRH and had wider ramifications. Through this process participants began to critically appraise their frames of reference as leader (Mezirow 1997). Self-evaluation then is not simply the means of identifying a list of strengths and weaknesses on which to base a learning plan, but instead can be conceived of as an autobiographical process of inquiry into identity, values and practice (Elbaz-Luwisch 2010). Participants need substantial support to absorb the feedback, to relate this to their understandings of self and what they see as important in leadership before recognising the significance of this material for their development as leaders. An autobiographical approach to self-evaluation is iterative with considerable amounts of time needed in exploring self, defining self as a leader, and making sense of the demands of the programme before any formative planning process can begin.

Planning learning focused initially on the production of an adequate plan but this needs to be conceived of as a much deeper process of understanding the ideological construction of leadership underpinning particular programmes. Planning also entails the participants translating these ideological constructions into a coherent programme of activities. Thus, planning learning emerges as a sense-making process (Weick 1995). Although Weick was examining organisational contexts, his construction of sense-making can be applied to this process of planning learning where participants work to make sense of themselves as developing leaders and the ways in which their practice is to change. Reeves (2008) argues that a learning plan is a processual document that becomes more detailed and nuanced as the learner progresses. These learning plans are dynamic and their value initially is as a means for understanding the requirements of the programme and the processes of learning and subsequently as means for reflection; these are documents that need to be reviewed, refined and modified as the development programme progresses and as the participants make greater sense of their development. Importantly, sense-making for Weick (1995) is not simply an intellectual activity but needs to be externalised and so social learning, in the case of the NFRH through coaching, is a crucial dimension of planning learning in individualised programmes.

We should be cautious, however, of conceiving individualised learning as each participant working through a programme of tasks with just a coach. In individualised programmes other forms of social learning become equally important. Stoll et al. (2006) point to the potential of collaborative learning found in professional learning communities (PLC) and this was capitalised up to a degree. The positive evaluation of the conferences and networks from participants and coaches alike indicates the importance of social cohort learning. These events provided strong emotional support and were opportunities for participants to make sense of the programme, themselves as learners and to share experiences with like-minded others. The focus was on support and understanding the demands of the programme, and the first two conferences dealt with the programme, assessment and coaching. Only in the third conference on transformational leadership was there a greater emphasis on content.

Scribner and Donaldson's (2001) analysis of cohort learning points to a tension where the affective domain can overshadow other forms of learning, particularly cognitive development and knowledge building. While recognising the importance of networking there is a missed opportunity in the NFRH for collaborative reflective professional inquiry (Stoll et al. 2006, 226) in exposing and examining tacit knowledge through the lens of theoretical knowledge. The analysis of the portfolios and commentaries highlighted concerns about the depth of knowledge and participants’ ability to integrate theory and practice and this raises questions about the pedagogies underpinning individualised programmes.

A number of pedagogic practices were incorporated into the NFRH programme: coaching, tutoring, facilitating, mentoring and assessing. These processes are important in individualised development programmes. Forde, McMahon, Gronn, and Martin (2013) provide an account of the coach in the NFRH needing to adopt a wide range of pedagogic practices in order to create coherence in the programme. The experiential-based pedagogies of coaching, mentoring and facilitating were found to be powerful in promoting reflection and providing feedback on practice. However, what was less explicit and less coherent was an approach to cognitive development and the building and interrogation of different forms of knowledge. In individualised learning programmes, there is a tension between creating a learning programme relevant to the individual and the coverage of a ‘curriculum’, that is the development of a body of knowledge and the use of these ideas in the interrogation of practice. Knowledge building was evident in some instances where a participant might discuss a text with the coach, particularly in relation to the reflective commentary. However, the analysis of these reflective commentaries indicated that there was no coherent or systematic approach to knowledge development. Torrance (2011), discussing other examples of coached programmes of leadership development, notes that different pedagogic practices are disaggregated into different roles: coach, assessor, mentor and tutor and the tutor worked with participants through a planned programme of reading and discussion. There is a balance to be struck between coverage of a ‘curriculum’, addressing specific learning needs and practice of participants but individualised programmes would benefit from some framework which facilitates coherent engagement with theoretical material.

One of the critical features in relation to leadership development in Scottish educational policy is the question of impact on the institutional context (Menter, Holligan, and Mthenjwa 2005), but the relationship between leadership development and practice in school is complex (Reeves and Forde 2004). The individualised development plan needs to be contextualised within the school setting but school and individual development should not be conflated. From the evaluation data, the distinction between planning action and planning learning emerged as important. In plans that focused on tasks to be completed there was a blurring between a school action plan and a participant's learning plan. This led to limited planning where elements such as building understanding and examining purposes were seen, initially at least, as additional demands that took time away from the job. Wright (2009) in her study of reflective practice and school improvement points to the importance of reflection both individually and working with other principals in strengthening the resilience and practice of principals to achieve effective change in school. Part of the challenge therefore in designing individualised leadership development programmes is realising a construction of professional learning which links the development of the individual leader to the process of organisational improvement and where practice-based learning comes together with other forms of learning.

From this analysis of the learners’ experiences, there are a number of recommendations we would make regarding the NFRH and other individualised leadership development programmes.

Recommendations

1. A model of practice-based learning needs to be articulated at the beginning of a programme with time given for participants to make sense of this approach to learning.

2. Self-evaluation, planning learning, building knowledge, taking purposeful action and reflection should be conceived as dynamic processes running throughout an individualised programme.

3. Participants need to access different types of support in building skill and knowledge, making sense of their learning and the impact of this on their practice as leaders and so a range of pedagogic practices need to be built into such programmes.

4. Support for personal growth is a critical component of individual learning but the task is the enhancement of sound practice in school and a balance across the affective, social and cognitive domains of learning is necessary.

Notes on contributors

Christine Forde is Professor of Leadership and Professional Learning and Head of the Research and Teaching Group Professional Learning and Leadership in the School of Education at the University of Glasgow, UK. Currently, her research focuses on leadership development, experiences of headship, accomplished teaching and teacher leadership. She also has an interest in gender and education.

Margery McMahon is a senior lecturer and Director of the GU International Educational Consultancy Unit in the School of Education at the University of Glasgow, UK. Her research interests include professional development, accomplished and expert teaching and international education.

Peter Gronn is Professor of Education at the University of Cambridge, UK, where he is Head of the Faculty of Education. He has had extensive research experience in government and non-government school systems, and with public sector agencies in Australia and the UK. He is a leading international scholar in the general field of leadership and specifically in educational and school leadership.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Scottish Executive Schools Directorate, Teachers Division who commissioned the Evaluation of the Flexible Routes to Headship Pilot Project. The authors acknowledge the work of Dr Julia Davidson as project manager of the Evaluation project and thank her for her substantial contribution and the other members of the research team Prof. John MacBeath and Margaret Martin. The authors would also like to acknowledge and thank the participants, coaches and project management team who readily participated in the evaluation research project.