are school leaders the missing link in quality improvement?

National University of Educational Planning and Administration

Are School Leaders the Missing Link inAre School Leaders the Missing Link in Quality Improvement?Quality Improvement?

August 7, 2013August 7, 2013

India Habitat Centre, New Delhi

R OP

InAo

P

TTcww

S

TD

Registration: 11a Opening and ChaProf. Govinda will gi

ntro to the ThemAshish will talk abououtcomes. Highlight

Presentations —

Training for SchoThe Kaivalya Educatarries out leadershworking with governwhere school leader

Speaker: Aditya N

The National CentreDevelopment with

Are Sch

a.m. ‐11.30 a.m.

air: Prof. R. Govive the opening rem

me: Ashish Dhawut the significance ting best practices,

— 11:50 am to 1

ool Principals intion Foundation is whip training and wnment school princrship is now being g

atraj, Founder, K

Aditya has had ovehe worked as Progarea of school lead

A Vision for Sche for School Leaderthe objective of t

hool Leader7 August 20

.

inda, VC, NUEPAmarks and speak ab

wan, CEO, Centrof school leadershhe will discuss why

12:30 pm

India working to build thorkshops for princcipals, the impact ogiven greater emph

aivalya Education

er 10 years of workgramme Director of dership, to train pri

hool Leadership rship (NCSL) is an itransforming ordin

rs the Missi012, Amaltas Ha

A – 11:30 am ‐11out the NUEPA‐CSF

al Square Foundip and the role it cy school leadership

e capacities of schocipals in governmenof its activities in trhasis from a policy p

n foundation

k experience in impthe Gujarat state oncipals in the skills

in India ntegral part of NUary schools into s

ing Link in all, India Habitat

1:40 am F partnership

dation – 11:40‐1an play in improvinneeds to be a natio

ool leaders throughnt schools in Indiaransforming schoolperspective.

proving the public eoperations for Prathneeded to turnarou

EPA, established unchools of excellen

Na

Quality Imt Centre, New D

1:50 am ng the quality of sconal priority for Ind

h the Principal Lead. This presentations, as well as at syst

education system. Pham, India. Kaivalyaund schools in rura

nder the auspices oce, and eventually

ational University of EducaPlanning and Administrat

mprovemenelhi

hool education, spia’s education goin

dership Developmen will discuss sometemic level in state

Prior to starting Kaa Education Foundal India.

of SSA, RMSA and y improving the en

ationaltion

nt?

ecifically on studeng forward.

ent Programme (PLDe of Kaivalya’s expes like Gujarat and

ivalya Education Foation works extensi

Ministry of Humanntire school system

nt learning

DP), which perience in Rajasthan,

oundation, vely in the

n Resource m through

leRim

S

1

eadership developmResearch Initiative mprove schools in I

Speaker: Dr. Kashy

1.30 pm onward

ment. NUEPA is also(UKIERI). This presndia and conceptu

yapi Awasthi, Ass

Dr. Kashyapi isleadership develas a research fell

Q&A and discu

ds: Informal Intera

o engaging with thesentation will focusalize the larger visio

sistant Professor,

currently workingopment. She has olow at the Centre o

ussion– chaired b

action, Networkin

e National College fs on the work andon for school leade

NUEPA

g with the departmver 6 years of expeof Advanced Studies

by Professor R. Go

ng, and Lunch

for Teaching and Led programmes thatership in India.

ment of school anderience in teaching s in Education (CAS

ovinda, VC, NUEP

Na

eadership (NCTL, Not NCSL is undertak

d non‐formal educat both undergradE), Baroda.

PA, 12:30 ‐1:30 p.m

ational University of EducaPlanning and Administratottingham) throughking in building sch

cation at NUEPA wuate and post grad

m.

ationaltion h the UK ‐India Educhool leadership cap

with special focus duate levels, and sp

cation and pacities to

on school pent a year

“Are School Leaders the Missing Link in Quality Improvement”

August 7 2013August 7, 2013

The Case for School Leaders (I)• “School Leaders Matter: Measuring the Impact of Effective Principals” (Education Next

Journal, 2013) – Highly effective principals raise achievement of a typical student in their schools by between 2-7 months g y p p yp y

of learning in 1 school year; ineffective principals lower achievement by same amount

• New Leaders for New Schools (2009 study)New Leaders for New Schools (2009 study)– More than half of a school’s impact on student gains can be attributed to both principal and teacher

effectiveness- with principals accounting for 25% and teachers for 33% of the effect– Principals become the highest point of leverage, and have a multiplier effect throughout the schoolsp g p g , p g– Great school leaders hire, develop and support talented teachers; and 24 out of 25 teachers say that the

# 1 factor on whether or not they stay at a school is their principal

• Wallace Foundation’s National Education Conference (2007)– School Leadership as a “bridge to school reform”; will unite different school reform efforts– “There are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around without e e a e ua y o docu e ed s a ces o oub ed sc oo s be g u ed a ou d ou

intervention by a powerful leader. Many other factors may contribute to such turnarounds, but leadership is the catalyst.”

– There are no “leader-proof” reforms, and no effective reforms without good leadership

New Delhi . Mumbai . Bostonwww.centralsquarefoundation.org

The Case for School Leaders (II)• The Beautiful Tree (James Tooley, 2009)

– Research on low-cost private schools in India, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and other countries: more than school inputs or context, learning depends on a determined and accountable school leader

• Ofsted inspection results in England– Overall performance of a school almost never exceeds quality of its leadership and management– Overall performance of a school almost never exceeds quality of its leadership and management.– For every 100 schools that have good leadership and management, 93 will have good standards of

student achievement– For every 100 schools that do not have good leadership and management, only 1 will have goodFor every 100 schools that do not have good leadership and management, only 1 will have good

standards of achievement

• Singapore International Education RoundtableSingapore International Education Roundtable– Replacing an ‘average’ principal with an outstanding principal in an ‘average’ school could increase

student achievement by over 20 percentile points

• “The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes” (2009) – “there are statistically significant empirical and qualitatively robust associations between heads’

educational values qualities and their strategic actions and improvement in school conditions leading toeducational values, qualities, and their strategic actions and improvement in school conditions leading to improvements in student outcomes”


India: The School Leadership Challenge • Extent of Problem

– DISE data: Only 59% of primary and 54% of upper-primary school even have a Head Master/ School Principal

– Breadth of School Types: Government, Affordable Private, Elite Private schools

• Roles & ResponsibilitiesRoles & Responsibilities– Not clearly defined– End up as administrative v/s Leadership role

• Recruitment & Selection– Based on seniority

N i f kill i d– No screening for skill, aptitude

• Training & Development– No (in)formal training or induction– No professional development opportunities


India: Action in School Leadership space

1. National Center for School Leadership, NUEPA

2. Kaivalya Education Foundation

3. India School Leadership Institute


ISLI (India School Leadership Institute): May 2013• ISLI Fellowship

– 1 year programme– 3 weeks academy3 weeks academy– Residencies, in US and India– Inter-sessions– Work on ARP (Action Research Plan) and SDP (School Development Plan)Work on ARP (Action Research Plan) and SDP (School Development Plan)– On-site and continued coaching support

• 6 leadership strands• 6 leadership strands– Leading for Equity– Personal Leadership

P l L d hi– People Leadership– Instructional Leadership– Operational Leadership

L di f R lt– Leading for Results

• ISLI partners: Akanksha Foundation, Mumbai; Central Square Foundation; KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program), US; Teach For India


You cannot Improve Schools without Leaders!You cannot Improve Schools without Leaders!


School Leadership Development Program

An Overview

7th August, 2013g

SLDP aims to

Kaivalya Education FoundationBuild intrinsically motivatedHMs to improve the

SLDP aims to

(KEF)/ Piramal Foundation forEducation Leadership (PFEL)

HMs to improve thefunctioning of their schools ina way that they take actionwithin their sphere of

is set up with the objective toimprove the quality of schooleducation in India by creating

pinfluence to positively impactquality of education.

education in India by creatinga sustainable program forgrooming education leaders inthe Indian Government school

Ensure HMs prioritize thefundamentals of education(Student Learning Outcomes)the Indian Government school

system.(Student Learning Outcomes)

Facilitate a shift towards ani t l l l fThe Program is known as

School LeadershipDevelopment Program (SLDP)

internal local ofcontrol, proactive problemsolving and planning.

Headmasters (HMs) as School Leaders can significantly impact Student Learningg

In the larger Key players in Within the school

A h i d bili

In the larger education system

R i d l d

implementing NCF, RTE ‐SSA

C i i• Authority and ability to influence the school environment.

• Recognised leaders within school community

• Can create positive learning environment

• Can influence learning outcomes; articulate vision for

• Link between schools and the larger system

through activity based learning, CCE etc.

school, plan strategically, take decisions for better

g y• Pipeline for new administrators.

• Can collaborate with community and SMC to create anddecisions for better

learning outcomes.to create and implement SDP

Holistic School Reform requires Skill Development andHolistic School Reform requires Skill Development and Interventions at various levels

Personal Leadership –L di S lf

Instructional Leadership – Leading

Institutional Leadership – Leading Social Leadership –

L di C iLeading Self Leadership Leading Classroom

Leadership Leading teachers Leading Community

HM creates a stimulating school

environment

HM creates democratic, child

centric environment focused on Learning

HM facilitates staff meeting for collective problem solving &

planning

HM builds continuous engagement with

community

HM reflects on his actions & behaviours

HM coaches staff through role‐

modelling observationParameters for teacher

performance

HM facilitates regular parent meetings for all

classes throughactions & behaviours modelling, observation & feedback

performance classes through teachers

HM systematises administrative work

Learning community among teachers

HM facilitates collective visioning & creating of SDP with

staff

Regular SMC meetings

C i i i i i b f i i i dCreating Intrinsic Motivation by fostering Meaning, Learning, Joy and Pride in HMs

•HMs see the meaning in their role, become ‘ ’ l dM i

HMs experience their role as limited and ‘active’ practitioners involved in an exciting ‘nation building’ activity

Meaningmeaningless, being more involved in mundane tasks for much of their time

•HMs Appreciate their knowledge and build the motivation to learn more and broaden their horizons

LearningSense of monotony in the job keeps HMs from experiencing the joy of learning

•HMs experience the joy of expressionHMs struggle to find appropriate medium of HMs experience the joy of expression through creative means, start having ‘fun’ and playful interactions with students

JoyHMs struggle to find appropriate medium of expression to connect with themselves or their students

•HMs build their team’s ability to work together purposefully and with motivation Pride

HMs experience distrust, disconnect within team; affects team motivation and productivity

Flexible Training Model caters to On‐Ground Execution and Challenges

•SLDP works with self‐motivated HMs•Forced trainings do not have participant buy‐in; Voluntary •SLDP works with self motivated HMs who voluntary enrol in the program and wish to turn their schools around.

Forced trainings do not have participant buy in; On‐ground implementation of learning low due to lack of motivation

Voluntary Enrollment

•Experiential, action‐reflection techniques in workshops to outline ways of integrating learning into day‐to‐day work activities

•Low applicability of training on the ground due to lack of focus on ways of integrating learning into action

High Applicability to field situations

•Customized support provided to HM through continuous •Standardized training content often has a Customized design, pilot, review and re‐design that keeps into account evolving learning needs

disconnect with practical development needs of HMs w.r.t. their role

Customized Support

•Sandwich Technique of workshop followed by field support, then development needs arising out of onsite challenges being addressed in next workshop; SLM provided for

•One dimensional approach leads to limited learning and Lack of follow‐up after training fails to address challenges of implementation

Workshop and Field next workshop; SLM provided for

deeper knowledgeto address challenges of implementation Field

i i l l C ll i dLong‐Term Intervention at various levels ensures Collective and Continuous Learning

•3 year continuous onsite support and •One‐time training causes short‐term action but Long term periodic training allows long term interaction for long term behavioral change

One time training causes short term action, but long‐term change not achieved due to lack of further input

Long term Engagement

•Learning through Facilitation allows HM to explore and amplify their own ideas, provides platform to share best practices

Approach of ‘giving’ training stifles HM creativity, initiative and autonomy; limited scope for cross‐learning

Facilitators, not Trainers

•Comprehensive Tracking tool Tracking efficacy of training difficult in the G th T ki measures step‐wise growth on desired

competencies and milestones

Tracking efficacy of training difficult in the absence of measurement of outcomes

Growth Tracking

•Joint work with CRCs and Block Officers to build their capacity to provide training and support to HMs

Cascade training leads to ineffective skill‐building in ground‐level officers

Involving Othersprovide training and support to HMs

Experience in 1200+ Schools across three states guides the SLDP Curriculum

State District/City Block # of Schools# of HMs Batch 1

# of HMs Batch 2

# HMs Batch 3

Total # HMs in SLDP in 2012

Rajasthan Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu 91 13 31 0 44

Nawalgarh 111 0 22 32 54

Udaipurwati 115 19 34 0 53115 19 34 0 53

Alsisar 72 0 21 21 42

Khetri 160 0 0 81 81

Churu Churu 103 7 39 0 46Churu Churu 103 7 39 0 46

Rajgarh 148 8 55 0 63

Sujangarh 110 0 39 0 39

Taranagar 91 0 0 50 50Taranagar 91 0 0 50 50

Ratangarh 119 0 0 65 65

Udaipur Dungarpur 125 0 15 35 50

Jh d lJhadol 79 0 18 32 50

Sarada 60 0 19 31 50

Bicchiwara 102 0 19 31 50

Girwa 111 0 20 30 50

Gujarat Ahmedabad ‐ 464 94 0 200 300

Maharashtra Mumbai ‐ 1327 74 0 74 148

TOTAL 3263 215 332 682 1235

800+ Govt. Schools implementing Integrated Curriculum, 75% expected outcomes achieved

Number of Schools Outcomes

Location Total SchoolsChange in GS =

0Change in GS =

1Change in GS =

2Change in GS =

3Avg. change in

GSLocation Total Schools

0 +1 +2 +3 GS

Jhunjhunu 253 109 102 37 0 0.68

Churu 201 65 109 27 0 0.81

Udaipur‐Dungarpur 202 97 96 9 0 0.56

Mumbai 148 40 66 39 3 1.03

Total 804 311 373 112 3 0 75Total 804 311 373 112 3 0.75

%age of Total 100% 39% 46% 14% 0%

Table 1: Growth Stage movement for all batches of HMs in February 2013 to April 2013 period

Integrated Curriculum of SLDP lives in 804 Govt. Schools5 zones of Field Operations –

2 Rural: Jhunjhunu and Churu; j2 Tribal: Udaipur and Dungarpur1 Urban: Mumbai;

Average GS increase of +0.75 against a target of +1 GS for the period February 2013 to April 2013)Highest movement registered in Mumbai location (+1.03 GS).

Fi B h HM h h K C i 3 YFirst Batch HMs show growth on Key Competencies over 3 Years

4 10

4.50

Rajasthan : Average Movement of HM 1 ‐ Compentency Wise

4.06 4.11 3.874.03

3.90 3.754.10

3.97

3.45 3.65

3.41

3.66

3.35

3.563.39

3 25

3.50

4.00

3.09

2.93

3.25

3.01 3.29

2.692.54

3.323.01

2.50

3.00

Apr‐12

1.882.24

2.11 2.06

2.11

1.87

2.392.10

1.50

2.00Oct‐11

Apr‐11

Dec‐10

0.50

1.00

0.00

Involvement in classroom

Attitude as a teacher

Teaching Learning Practice

Personal leadership

Institutional Leadership

Vision for the school

Relationship with KEF

Self

The path hitherto

1200+ schools implementing SLDP; 1 in 5 HMs a School Leader Curriculum ‘Role Model’

86% HMs showed positive growth in their competencies after year 1 of execution

Rigour, consistency in On‐site Support, input targets exceeded in 80% Schools

Government recognizing Education Leadership NUEPA to Pilot Curriculum withGovernment recognizing Education Leadership. NUEPA to Pilot Curriculum with ‘Leadership’ emphasis

Harvard takes notice, Senior faculty on board for Programme Design, Review and Capacity Development

NATIONAL CENTRE FOR SCHOOLNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SCHOOLLEADERSHIP-NUEPA

Transforming Schools to Learning Organizations Organizations

P IPOLICY INITIATIVES

S d Ed ti C i i (1952 53)Secondary Education Commission (1952-53)Indian Education Commission (1964-66)Programme of Action (1992)Central Advisory Board on Education (2005) Ce a v so y oa o ca o ( 005) Working Group Eleventh Five year PlanNational Curriculum Framework for Teacher National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (2010)W ki G T lfth Fi Y Pl Working Group Twelfth Five Year Plan

THE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ROLE – IN CHANGINGCONTEXT

Data

Changing and More

Dataand

evidencebased

Changing and evolving collaborative

than ever

Responsive Focused onl d hi

Successfulschoolespo s e

to its context leadershipcapacity

school leadership

today is

Complex,accountable,

relentless

Distributed across

staff andrelentlessAND

rewarding Learning-centred

staff and professional disciplines

What we know about school leadership, NCSL, 2007

SCHOOL DIVERSITY MAGNITUDE AND COVERAGESCHOOL DIVERSITY: MAGNITUDE AND COVERAGE

225 million children 5 5 million teachers in 1 4 million elementary schools5.5 million teachers in 1.4 million elementary schools Almost 62,000 government secondary schools, g y1.4 million (approx) Head Teachers and Principals 0.3 million education functionaries supporting schools across the countryacross the countryGovernment schools account for over 75% of total schools and 90% of rural schools

4

NATIONAL CENTRE FOR SCHOOLNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SCHOOLLEADERSHIP, NUEPA

VisionTo develop new generation leaders to transform To develop new generation leaders to transform schools so that every child learns and every school excelsschool excels.

Mi iMissionEnhance leadership capability at school level for institution building to deliver quality education.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT – THE NCSLLEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE NCSLEFFORT

Curriculum and Material Development Capacity Building Capacity Building Institutional Development and NetworkingR h d D l tResearch and Development

CURRICULUM FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIPDEVELOPMENT

Perspective building for School LeadershipLeading Teaching Learning ProcessLeading Self and Professional DevelopmentLeading Self and Professional DevelopmentLeading School Systems and ProcessLeading Partnerships for Effective Schools

National Centre for School Leadership

SRG provides NCSL providesS G p o desContextualization of curriculum and modules Translation

NCSL providesCurriculum Framework –Genericmodules, Translation,

State specific modular

Generic,Material and modules,Sh t d l

School Leadership Development

programmes,Field experience and Resource support

Short and long term curriculum design, Resource

p

Support Tutor‐Facilitator Critical Mass

CM and TF providesCapacity building to transform functional managers to school leadersLearns on context specific issues from HM as feedback for on‐site capacity buildingp y g

Head Master

Are School Leaders the Missing Link in Quality Improvement?

The Central Idea: Why School Leadership is Important A study by New Leaders for New Schools in 2009 found that over half of a school’s impact on student gains can be attributed to both principal and teacher effectiveness —with principals accounting for 25% and teachers for 33% of the effect. Principals become the highest point of leverage, and have a multiplier effect throughout the schools they lead. Great school leaders hire, develop and support talented teachers. 24 out of 25 teachers say that the # 1 factor on whether or not they stay at a school is their principal. A recent OECD report, Improving School Leadership, argues that school principals must play a more dynamic role to meet the educational needs of the twenty‐first century. In an outcome‐based and accountability‐driven era, principals and head‐masters have to lead their schools in the rethinking of goals, priorities, finances, staffing, curriculum, pedagogies, learning resources, assessment methods, technology, and use of time and space. In a similar vein, the Punjab State Development Report, 2002 notes: “There is no post of a headmaster in a middle school and some of the primary schools […] it is also the aptitude/attitude and vision of the school head which has a direct bearing on the quality of education. The present system of promotion for school headship is outdated. Teachers at the fag end of their service, when they prepare themselves for the bliss of retirement, get promoted to school headship. By that time they neither have the zeal nor the stamina to make any impact on the school under their charge. Moreover from teaching they are just thrown into an entirely new field of work which requires altogether new skills. So, not only must every school, have its head, but they must be sufficiently young, with enough years of service ahead in which they may translate their vision of the school into reality.” Overall in the Indian context, these challenges are further compounded by systemic issues: scale, focus of education reform on access and not quality, huge variations across and within states between government and private schools, school size, number of grades covered in the school, principal‐teacher ratios and many more.

Our challenges start at the very basic level ‐‐‐ that of the presence of a principal in every school! In 2011‐12, only 59% of primary schools (with enrolment of 150 & above) had a headmaster. The case of upper primary schools (with enrolment of 100 & above) is comparable, only 54% had a headmaster (DISE 2011‐12). Our student achievement challenges in India are therefore unlikely to be overcome until we get serious about recruiting, preparing and supporting our school principals. Understanding School Leadership: Indian Context The analysis of all six all‐India surveys of Educational Research (1974‐2006) reveals that school leadership in the Indian context has not been studied extensively. A majority of the research is within the behaviourist paradigm based on the assessment of leadership skills and styles using tools developed in the West like LBDQ (Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire). These tools only helped in measuring Indian school leaders against western norms. Such research does not represent the ethos, culture and intricacies of leadership in Indian schools. Leadership behaviour of heads had been studied in relation to the organizational climate, their personal characteristics, teachers’ job satisfaction, morale and alienation. There is a complete absence of studies on the leadership preparation and practices in the schools of India. Training and orientation of school leaders is a need of the hour. There should be provisions for in‐service training for untrained as well as trained head teachers. DISE data highlights that the total days of in‐service training head teachers received in the 2009‐10 academic session ranged from 0‐18 days. In Bihar, Jharkhand, UP and Rajasthan, this number was only 2. Furthermore, India does not offer specialized pre‐service training for head teachers. Most countries now have specialized pre‐service courses designed especially for individuals appointed as head teachers. However, in India we only have in‐ service training. In terms of education policy on school leadership, the Secondary Education Commission (1952‐53) and Kothari Commission (1964‐66) reports had explicated the roles and responsibilities of school leaders in detail. Secondary Education Commission (1952‐53) report emphasized “the reputation of the school and the position it holds in exercises over his colleagues, the pupils and their parents as well as the general public.” The committee also pointed out that schools should work “as a team engaged in a high endeavor with the headmaster as valued and more experienced member.” School leaders are expected to develop a collaborative environment and foster a team spirit among colleagues. The Mudaliar Committee (1952‐53) highlighted that a school leader should act as a link between the school and the community. The Indian Education Commission (1964‐66) and the Program of Action (1992) emphasized increasing school leaders’ administrative and financial power.

The working group report on teacher education under the 12th Five‐Year Plan (2012‐17), called for reorganization of the DIETs into four units, one of which would be responsible for Leadership and Management Education for Heads and Senior Teachers. It advocates for training to be provided on a continuous basis, and conducted in accordance with school supervision by Block/ Cluster personnel. However, the action emerging from these intended plans is still at a very nascent stage. Recognizing head teachers as a separate cadre with different roles and differential needs for leadership capacity building did not occur till 2010. Roles & Responsibilities of School Leaders Behind any great organisation is a great leader, and schools are no exception. Today, a school leader’s role should be to provide leadership, direction and coordination within the school, and across all its stakeholders. Principals are expected to be visible all the time, meeting students, parents and teachers, solving and dealing with various situations personally, and representing the school. A great school leader balances all these roles while keeping his chief responsibility, that of being the instructional leader of the school, at the forefront. A school leader is called upon to play multiple roles. He/she is expected to be an academic, personnel and financial manager. All these aspects are not mutually exclusive of each other and thus there exists a lot of overlapping in their roles and responsibilities. The CABE Committee on Universalization of Secondary Education (2005) also highlights that head of the schools hold the key to quality management and self‐renewal of schools. It points out that managing and leading schools is a specialized job and not merely an automatic extension of activities of a teacher. Most of the head teachers in Indian schools also teach in the classrooms, although inter‐state and inter‐level variations exist in the teaching load of head teachers. The teaching load of the head teacher at a lower grade level is higher as compared to those in the higher grades or at secondary or upper secondary levels. School principals in India are theoretically responsible for the entire school system today, but in practice, they box themselves in a purely administrative role. A study by Govinda (2006) on the roles of head teachers in the management of elementary schools in six states noted that centralized management has rendered head teachers completely inactive in school development planning. The study found that head teachers cannot introduce a new textbook or course of study. They have no authority in the school’s financial management. They cannot appoint a temporary teacher, recommend a substitute teacher, nor stall or reverse a transfer order.

Internationally, yet another role of school leaders has gained importance recently— which is to strengthen collaboration with other schools and communities, form networks, share resources, and work together. In this context, it is all the more necessary to revisit and redefine the roles and responsibilities of school heads. The National Centre for School Leadership (NCSL) is working towards capacity building of school‐heads to facilitate a clearly defined policy on school leadership that gives larger autonomy to school heads, and outline the roles and responsibilities of the school principal/head as leader and not merely follower. II. Recruitment & Selection of School Leaders Choosing a new leader is not an easy task for any organization, and the complex work of schools makes principal identification and selection even more challenging. The increased demand for high‐quality principals in schools requires government authorities to select school principals who are prepared to use contemporary leadership approaches to improve teaching, learning, and organizational performance. Successful leadership skills are not technical but humanistic, and include communication skills, comfort, empathy, decision making, influencing, time management, self‐management and commitment. These skills not only strengthen a principal’s ability to carry out daily work, but also attract followers towards his/her leadership that blends transformational and charismatic leadership (Sharma 2010). Different qualification requirements for school leaders that different countries have, can be placed into three different categories: 1. No common qualification requirements determined: In Sweden, principals are required to have ‘pedagogical knowledge acquired through

education and experience’, but a higher education degree is not explicitly required

2. A teaching degree and experience in education: Denmark, Germany, New Zealand

3. Leadership training in addition to the former requirements: In the United States, Canada and Australia, qualification as a principal often requires pre‐service leadership training on top of teacher education and educational experience.

In practice, there are no standard norms for the selection of school leaders in India—states have developed different rules for the mode of recruitment of school leaders. The appointment of a head teacher also depends on the total enrolment and the number of teachers. Small

primary schools with less than four teachers are not likely to have the post of head teacher (Govinda, 2002). In such cases the most senior teacher is usually expected to play the head teacher’s role. Additionally, the basic qualification for becoming a head teacher is the same as that of the teachers of a particular level at school. For instance, a primary school head is required to possess 12 years of general education followed by two years of professional training, while a secondary school the head teacher has to possess a university degree, Bachelor’s degree in education and 10 years of teaching experience. However there exist wide variations in the qualification of school heads across states and school managements. Head teachers of government schools at all levels are recruited in accordance with the recruitment rules of the state prescribed in its specific education act. Different states have different rules for mode of recruitment, either on a direct or promotional basis, and professional experience. Generally, the recruitment of heads is based either on promotional basis according to seniority or merit, or on direct recruitment. Some states also follow a combination of both i.e. promotion and direct recruitment in varying percentages. The Mudaliar’s Commission (1952‐53) report emphasized that head teachers should have at least 10 years of administrative/teaching experience, qualities of leadership and administrative abilities. Similarly, the Kothari Commission (1964‐66) also reiterated that trained and meritorious teachers need to be selected for the position of head teachers. National Commission on teachers, (1983‐85) which pointed out that choice of headmasters of a school is of crucial importance, disapproved the policy of appointing head teachers solely on seniority basis. Rather it explicated that merit should be the sole criteria for selecting the head teacher, and even in the case where a suitable candidate may not exist, a person from outside should be recruited, rather than allowing mere seniority of a person to influence this decision. Looking into the suggestions and recommendation of various education policies and the actual practices followed in the states it is clear that there is no uniform recruitment policy of the head teacher of a school. Recently, a few states in India have begun to favour direct recruitment: 1. In Gujarat, the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education board conducts the Head Teacher Aptitude Test, (HTAT) for the post of

head teacher in primary schools. The age limit for writing the test is 35 years. Candidates are required to write two papers, covering general knowledge, education policy, and the primary course syllabus.

2. The West Bengal School Service Commission conducts an examination for recruiting School Heads in non‐government aided junior high (upper primary) and high schools. B Ed. degree, Masters’ degree, and 10 years of teaching experience are required. Age limit is 55 years.

Candidates must write two papers, covering general awareness, elementary mathematics, English grammar, educational policy, administrative skills etc.

3. In Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducts an entrance test for headmasters of secondary schools. Candidates should have 5 years of teaching (or equivalent) experience in high school and be between the 24‐35 years of age. Candidates need to clear two papers, covering general studies, secondary level mathematics and statistics, educational policy, current affairs and language proficiency.

III. Certification Criteria for School Leaders Only a few countries have made significant advances in the identification of a set of commonly agreed national standards for educational leadership. Even fewer countries have used national leadership standards as a basis for the design and accreditation of leadership programs for school leaders and for the development and implementation of assessment tools for licensure/certification of principals.

• In USA, the Educational Leadership Policy Standards (ISLLC, 2008) reinforce the proposition that the school leader’s primary responsibility is

to improve teaching and learning for all children. The standards outlined below are an updated version of the 1996 Standards for School Leaders that were adopted in leadership policy responses by 35 states:

1. An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.

2. An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

3. An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and an effective learning environment.

4. An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

5. An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. 6. An educational leader promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,

economic, legal, and cultural context.

• Australia's first Australian Professional Standard for Principals was endorsed by Ministers at the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) in July 2008. The five professional practices particular to the role of the principal include: 1. Leading teaching and learning 2. Developing self and others 3. Leading improvement, innovation and change 4. Leading the management of the school 5. Engaging and working with the community

A review of the Indian landscape through the lens of certification shows more misses than hits. The root cause is the absence of a coherent policy linking an Indian school principal’s role to selection criteria and combination of pre and in‐service training and professional development. While NCSL, NUEPA in collaboration with National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL, Nottingham) is developing the National School Leadership Framework which outlines the knowledge, skills and attributes required of a school head, it does not propose any evaluation or benchmarking. Instead it opts for aspirational statements or goals that lead the school heads towards a broader and larger vision, and based on his/her contextual reality one can choose amongst the generic set of goals. These aspirational statements will then be supported with a Curriculum Framework developed by NCSL, NUEPA that will outline the perspective of the entire school development programme in the country followed by a self‐assessment plan which will help school heads assess their current positions, the performance of their schools and the required professional support. Once this is successfully piloted, the nation can decide whether a certification process for all existing and aspiring principals in India needs to be aggressively implemented as a necessary condition or could be considered as an added merit. IV. Capacity Building for School Leaders The need to strengthen preparation and professional development programmes for school leaders is recognised nationally and internationally (Huber, 2004). Research indicates that school principals heavily influence teacher working conditions and affect the ability of districts to attract and retain talented teachers (DeAngelis, Peddle, &Trott, 2002; Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest, 2008). School leadership, after

instructional quality, is the most significant school‐related contributor to what and how much students learn at school (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &Wahlstrom, 2004). The professional development programmes for school leaders across different countries can be classified in different ways— along the degree of decentralisation, the use of experiential learning, a focus on the system reconstruction or reproduction, and a focus on people or the system:

• In centralised systems such as France, Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore, there are standardised arrangements for the development of school leaders. Potential school leaders participate in mandatory programmes that are closely monitored by governments who maintain close involvement in the quality assurance process.

• At the other extreme are located New Zealand and the Netherlands. Here, there is considerable autonomy at school level, with local

rather than national determination of school objectives and plans. There is also a thriving local economy providing a range of training programmes and opportunities.

In the Indian policy landscape, the CABE Committee on the Universalization of Secondary Education (2005) recommended that heads of school must be provided with six months professional training in management of schools, with three months of practical training. The 11th Five‐Year Plan (2007‐12) document also emphasises on the capacity building of all 1,81,520 heads of schools during the eleventh plan, and entrusts on NUEPA the responsibility in collaboration with NCERT, RIEs, IASEs, CTEs and other university departments of education and management. Yet, there is still a lack of recognition of training needs and majority of school heads are still untrained and lack professional skills. One of our recommendations for school leadership training in India is to have them contextualized within our current landscape. Even with refinement in selection criteria of principals to make them more stringent and sophisticated, we cannot lose sight of the microcosm these principals need to operate in on a day to day basis. Additionally, strong induction programmes are needed to help put into practice knowledge and skills, get support in developing constructive relationships across all stakeholders in a school, and access a multitude of learning opportunities.

Personalized mentoring programmes would become very resource‐intensive, so the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) in Washington, USA, has launched an online Virtual Mentor Programme. The programme is designed to provide principals with direct access to recognised school leader practitioners for advice, guidance and/or ideas. School Leadership in India: Future Prospects

All our schools are potential untapped gold mines. They need to be entrusted to an effective leader. The current discourse on education should pay attention towards developing leadership capacities of the school heads for quality improvement and effective management of schools. We recommend four action‐oriented best practices as guiding principles in the design of the Indian Policy on School Leadership:

1. Explicit definition of key roles and responsibilities of school leader ‐‐‐ first, a context where principals do not feel shackled under the

deadweight of administrative paperwork needs to be set. Principals should view themselves as heading/ steering a school from the helm of affairs as against relegating themselves to the limited role of paper‐pusher.

2. Selection criteria to test for both technical & humanistic skills‐‐‐ though a degree in education and prior teaching experience are not to

be negated, but it must be a necessary requisite and not a sufficient one. States like Rajasthan and Gujarat are practising a path where seniority is being forced out by capping the maximum age of writing the Head Teacher Aptitude Test at 35 years.

3. Certification: This is very important at it will helps set the context; allow for corrective action in the vast pool of our existing principals. 4. Training: Principal training programs should be more selective, more focused on improvement of instruction, more closely tied to the

needs of school/ state, and provide more relevant internship experiences. Leadership preparation should not end when new principals are hired, but should continue with high‐quality mentoring and career‐long growth opportunities.

1

Factors affecting Headmaster Leadership in Government Schools of India Experiential Note from Kaivalya Education Foundation

Government schools in India have risen out of a heavily centralized education system. As a result, they have been unable to develop as autonomous units that have the freedom to educate children in ways best suited to their needs; they have instead ended up as parts of a complex bureaucratic web. Moreover, the influx of numerous schemes and bodies in the functioning of a government school has made them into institutes which act more as information dispatching centres rather than taking on the ideal role of actually ‘imparting’ education. Headmasters and teachers are more involved in administrative hassles and removed from their primary duty of ensuring the delivery of quality education. Headmasters need to be ‘thinking‐leaders,’ look at the holistic development of their schools and their overall health which involve improving academic performance, building a positive learning environment, mentoring and supporting school staff, managing various resources and school processes, engaging the community with school functioning, meeting the administrative needs and working towards a long term vision. Obviously in order to do justice to all these duties, a headmaster has no option but to be an exceptional leader. However, the current educational system in our country doesn’t provide government school heads either with the skills or the support that will enable them to play the role of effective school leaders with long‐term vision or equip them with the abilities to realize short‐term goals. Kaivalya Education Foundation (KEF) tries to fill this gap by engaging with headmasters of government schools for a period of at least 3 years in its School Leadership Development Programme (SLDP)— making exceptional school leaders out of them. The basis of this programme is to intrinsically motivate school heads so that they become active agents of change in their respective schools. This is done through systematic instilling of the meaning, learning, joy and pride in them in the context of the important roles they play in their schools. The programme is broadly divided into 4 stages: 1. Personal Leadership: the headmaster’s focus on self‐change‐‐‐ only inner change can manifest a difference in outward personality. 2. Instructional Leadership: Educational standards of a school can be influenced only by those headmasters who engage in instructional leadership. This

stage will work on that aspect of his/her role. 3. Institutional Leadership: Headmasters learn to manage and motivate their staff, create and implement effective school‐building processes and take

school management to the next level. 4. Social Leadership: Headmasters go beyond the schools and engage with communities so that members of the community start taking ownership and

responsibility in matters related to school functioning and help the school staff to further improve various school operations. Till now, KEF has provided such leadership training to more than 1200 headmasters across the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra.

2

The extensive work KEF has been doing in the field of school leadership for the past 5 years has made the organization understand the key areas where interventions are absolutely necessary if the school heads are to be further empowered for overall betterment of the government education system. Selection Process Firstly, it’s important to consider the selection process of headmasters. To execute all their designated duties to their fullest and best capacity, headmasters need certain competencies. Headmasters should be able to influence and motivate their staff, plan and manage various school processes, have sufficient knowledge of the instructional qualities required to uplift the educational standards of their schools. Unfortunately, while appointing school heads, such competencies are hardly given any consideration. In all the states KEF is operating in, school heads are mostly appointed on the basis of their experience as subject teachers. A good subject teacher however need not be a good school leader, as both these profiles require very different skill sets. In Rajasthan, primary schools normally do not have an official designation for a headmaster. One of the recruited teachers acts as a school head. However, in upper primary, senior secondary and higher secondary schools, headmasters are appointed through examinations conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). These tests are based on the subject knowledge of the candidates and the competencies and skills normally required by a headmaster are not tested. Moreover, KEF has observed that these tests are not conducted according to a fixed time schedule and the headmaster’s post is mostly filled in internally through promotions on the basis of seniority. Even in Mumbai and Ahmadabad, most school heads are selected on the basis of seniority. There is yet to be a proper appointment system of school heads that ensures they are chosen on the basis of their skills and leadership qualities, and not just because of their seniority or the length of their teaching experience. Training Programme The concept of school leadership is at a very nascent stage in India. The Indian education system is slowly waking up to the need of it and a few states have started including headmaster leadership in their government training programmes. The Rajasthan government has taken an initiative to design and execute an education leadership training programme with support from UNICEF. It has come up with a 10‐12‐day training programme for headmasters conducted during summer vacations every year. SSA is also playing a part in implementing it. However, the curriculum and execution are subject to further changes. Currently, the State Institute of Education Research and Training (SIERT) is

3

responsible for designing such training programme, and either the DIETs (District Institute for Education and Training) or the SSA gets the onus of implementation. Sadly, such training sessions are nothing but badly‐timed fragmented sessions on self‐motivation delivered in the least interactive a manner. They are not strung together cohesively and put almost no emphasis on long‐term capacity building of school heads. To tackle this issue, KEF provides constant on‐field and off‐field support to all associated headmasters. Headmasters are provided on‐field support on a daily basis in a process called Academic Support Programme (ASP) followed by 3‐day workshops on competency building every three months. All these interventions are connected to long term School Development Plans derived from the headmasters’ ideal vision for their schools. It is important to mention here that in the government system, there is a severe shortage of appropriate personnel at the ground level who can come up with effective designs for such training programmes as the bodies responsible for such tasks such as the DIETs are poorly managed and have insufficiently trained employees. Probably, realizing this, Rajasthan is also trying to come up with SIEMAT (State Institute of Education Management and Training) following the footsteps of other states like Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The quality of such training also remains to be improved in Ahmadabad and Mumbai. School heads are mostly accustomed to trainings that are mere platforms where administrative instructions are given. Such trainings have no relevance to the upliftment of the educational standard of the schools or processes that better engage the staff and community in school operations. These so‐called trainings are done only to instruct headmasters on how to fill up a particular document needed in the systemic red tape of school bureaucracy. In Rajasthan, a typical month in a headmaster’s calendar consists of 24 working days. Out of these, the headmaster has to attend 4 meetings per month conducted by the Gram Panchayat. The Block Officer, by compulsion, holds 3 meetings in a month with headmasters, and further 4‐5 days go behind various administrative training programmes. Thus, a headmaster hardly gets 15‐16 days in his/her school to make an impact. Lack of Autonomy Even as far as autonomy is concerned, school heads have very little scope to exercise their own choices. The first point in this context is regarding the school curriculum. Headmasters have no option of providing any input to the design or the content of the curriculum followed in the schools despite being closest to the ground realities. Secondly, despite being largely responsible for managing the human resources of schools, headmasters have no say in determining the quality and composition of their school staff. In all the three states that KEF is working in, there are many able headmasters who are suffering from serious teacher shortages and similarly, there are many good schools getting hampered by the sudden transfer of teachers.

4

Headmasters are also handicapped when it comes to determining budgets for their schools. They have no say in this regard and have to manage with whatever funds they get from the government under specific heads. Kaivalya Education Foundation Kaivalya Education Foundation (KEF) has been set up with the objective to improve the quality of primary education in India by creating a sustainable programme for grooming education leaders in the Indian governmental school system. With the belief that system change is firmly rooted in self‐change, KEF currently runs two major programmes‐ Principal Leadership Development Program (PLDP) for government school headmasters and Gandhi Fellowship Program for young nation‐builders.

The programmes are currently being run in the states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat with the key participants being government school children, headmasters and motivated Indian youth.

As an organization committed to educational transformation, we aim to improve this situation by enabling the headmasters of each primary government school to constructively solve the challenges and devise strategies to deliver quality education to the students. In equipping the headmasters to take charge to resolve the problems they face on‐ground, it is possible to rebuild the educational institutions from ground up and thereby provide a momentum for a larger systemic change. With this in mind, KEF has designed the PLDP, a unique part‐time training program for government school headmasters to develop leadership skills and relevant knowledge in order to positively impact the quality of education in schools.

Case Study Dharampal Arya, a headmaster associated with us in Rajasthan, ends up paying a huge amount of money for his school from his own pocket every year. The annual sum that he gets from the Rajasthan State Government is fixed and dispatched to him as a one‐time payout in the month of April. He gets Rs. 12,000 for major infrastructural work of the school, Rs. 10,000 for additional repairs and maintenance and a separate paltry amount for learning materials. Before spending even a rupee from these funds, he is mandated to seek approval from the School Development and Management Committee (SDMC). Also the rule that he has to spend the amount within a month of its receipt makes it all the more difficult for him to sustain the school for an entire year. The same problem is faced by many other headmasters working with us. Thus, improper selection methods, poor on‐the‐job headmaster training and a significant lack of autonomy are creating severe hindrances in the way of creating successful school leadership in the government schools of our country. Corrective action is imperative and long overdue and decisions ought to be taken at the earliest to remedy the prevalent public education system and effectively elevate its standards.

5

Running in tandem with the PLDP is the Gandhi Fellowship Programme, a two‐year leadership programme for talented young graduates from India’s top colleges that takes them through a two year journey of self‐discovery, personal transformation and social change. Fellows support the PLDP headmasters in their journey of change while simultaneously participating in various processes designed specifically to facilitate self‐realisation, skill development and discovery of their private dreams. With rigorous grassroots work in the schools and a multitude of experiences to trigger self‐change, the program equips fellows with the skills and know‐how to create change on the issues that they are passionate about. KEF currently works with over 1,200 government schools across 3 states to cause a disproportionate change in the quality of education. The focus is creating Education leaders who have the skills and capacity to formulate innovative ideas for the problems their schools face and turn their schools around into quality institutions.

Principal Leadership Development Program (PLDP)

Kaivalya devised the Principal Leadership Development Programme (PLDP) to strike at the root of the schools education problem. It is a four‐year part time leadership training program for government school principals to develop the mindset, leadership skills and instructional knowledge required to improve quality and inclusiveness in their schools. It aims to address the fact that Headmasters of government schools are not adequately trained to run a school as an independent unit. Over the course of 4 years, Headmasters undergo processes that result in significant personal transformation, a life‐long commitment to social change and skill‐building for school development. The programme tackles real problems existing in government schools, supporting headmasters to find solutions to turn around their failing schools and, in the process, creates leaders out of mere administrators.


National Centre for School Leadership (NCSL)

The National Centre for School Leadership (NCSL)— an integral part of NUEPA— was established by Ministry of Human Resource

Development with the prime purpose of transforming ordinary schools into schools of excellence and bringing improvement in the

entire school system through leadership development. At the same time, the Centre addresses to the reform agenda and development

interventions for schools as articulated in the Right to Education Act 2009 (RTE Act) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan

(RMSA). The Centre therefore envisages covering the various stages of school education, primary, secondary and higher secondary,

indicating the importance of recognizing the school as a basic unit of change. From this perspective, leadership is seen as having a

much wider connotation, not confined to the management of physical and human resources alone, but from a strategic standpoint

involving translation of school-based vision into practice as the foremost step for school improvement.

NCLS’s priority therefore, is to prepare school leaders, to build leadership capacities for change and enlarge spectrum of their

functioning beyond administration to effective leadership, and enable them to transform schools. This approach involves continuous

engagement of administrators and practitioners to transform the roles of school heads and senior teachers from direct instructional

leadership to a broader role of orchestrating decision-making. This is often done through a team of teachers, and a wider range of

individuals, including administrators, community members, School Management Committees (SMCs), parents and other stakeholders.

NCSL aspires to comprehensively address this very significant and neglected area in school education.

The NCSL envisions a flexible programme framework capable of addressing diversity in schools across the country through

leadership development. The programme intends to cover a whole range of schools under different kinds of management, of different

sizes, and those which cater to diverse social groups. Government schools, private schools receiving grants-in-aid from the

Government, and tribal schools, schools in left wing extremist areas, desert and flood prone areas will all be covered through this

programme. The objective of the programme is to build leadership at all levels —institution, village, block, district, state and nation—

to bring about a change in the way schools and school education systems are managed and led.

Vision:

To develop a new generation of leaders to transform schools so that every child learns and every school excels.

Mission:

To enhance leadership capability at school level for institution-building in order to deliver quality education.

Twin Focus:

Leadership development: new, current, aspiring school heads to develop schools of today

Leadership succession: future leaders to govern next generation schools

Core Functions:

Improve leadership practices at different levels of school education

Generate new knowledge and expand knowledge base by undertaking, aiding, promoting and coordinating research

Plan, design and organize scalable and sustainable programme committed to bring real changes in schools

Establish leadership-based academia and a critical mass of well-trained teams of trainers/facilitators in the states/UT for

organizing short and long-term programmes

Provide technical support and consultancy services to Ministries and Departments of Education in states/UTs and to state/UT-

level institutions to enable them to effectively address school leadership development closer to contextual issues and

challenges.

Establish an institutional mechanism and process for sharing of existing and new knowledge and cutting-edge developments,

mainly on

o Research results

o Best practices and innovations

Establish institutional collaboration with

o Wider number of individuals, specialists, experts and professional institutes

o International institutions with similar leadership development programmes as NCSL

Programme Strands:

School leadership development is guided by diversity and change, preparing prospective leaders, strengthening leadership capabilities

of existing leaders and looking beyond the present to a futuristic outlook. NCSL has conceptualized school leadership development

through operational activities along the four strands:

The Centre’s work on Curriculum and Material development will provide the foundation for capacity building of State Leadership

Development Teams to the heads of schools. Interactions in the field with school leaders, leadership development faculty and

education officials will feed into the other two key components of the Leadership Development: Institution Building and Networking

and Research and Development. Recognizing the interdependence of the thrust areas, programmatic activities have been designed to

ensure synergy between curriculum development, field trials and review and feedback to generate:

(i) New knowledge on school leadership development in India

(ii) Robust school leadership development programmes and materials in face-to-face and online delivery modes, and

(iii) State capacity at various levels to design and transact school leadership development initiatives and to provide ongoing support

to emergent professional learning communities of school leaders.

The four strands have been conceptualized so as to give an organic shape to the programme. In this framework, capacity building,

which is the core function, is supported by other strands to build sustainability within the programme.

Partnerships:

In order to carry out the mission of the Leadership Development Programme, which is need-based, context-specific and embedded in

the language and culture of the state, the Centre requires the active support and partnership of state governments. Presently NCSL,

NUEPA is focussing on working with Gujarat, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, West Bengal,

Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The Centre is proposing to build a core team for leadership development in every state

which would provide both academic and administrative support. The NCSL programme will partner with Professional Institutes

(resource institutions), both governmental and non-governmental, already engaged in school leadership development in the state,

along with the system’s own resource institutions and the official structures at the state district, block and cluster levels, towards

building systemic capacity for school leadership development. The NCSL will identify interested faculty from professional institutes,

proactive education officials at all levels of the school education system and civil society organizations to associate with the

programme for leadership development of school leaders.

NCSL, NUEPA also works with international partners like the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL, Nottingham)

under the UK India Education Research Initiatives along all four strands as conceived by NUEPA.

CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL LEADERS

Walking through the streets of Devsar village to Devsar

Vidhyamandir, Navsari at 8 a.m., I saw that children were

getting ready for school and by 8:15 a.m., they started their

journey to school. My curiosity aroused, I asked them the

reason for being so early. To my surprise, they told me that

everyday their head teacher comes at 8:30 a.m. and those who

wish to learn drawing, music, or mathematics or something that

they have not understood in regular class are allowed to go in

at 8:30 a.m. I made a visit to the school with the children and

found the head teacher seated with a group of children. The

classroom walls were painted black to a height of three feet to

give children space for their creativity. There was a group of

children drawing on those black boards as per the direction of

the head teacher; another group of students was practising on a

harmonium and other musical instruments while the teacher

enthusiastically instructed them.

I joined the children for prayer at 10 a.m. I saw students from

each class getting up and questioning their fellow classmates; if

any one of them was unable to answer, the senior students

would answer for them or else the teacher would. Unlike other

primary schools, the school has subject-wise distribution of

time-table from classes I to VII so as to provide variety as well

as expertise to the students. The school offers a range of

facilities through community funds.

An interaction with members on different committees and the

principal revealed a seamless process of coordination,

cooperation and harmony of thoughts and activities amongst all

these stakeholders.

Shri Chandu Bhai is the principal of Vyara Prathmik Shala.

The school does not have a boundary-wall; instead it is bound

by flower creepers and henna plants on all four sides. The

community has taken up the cause of the school to such an

extent that it takes full care of it and the principal does not have

to bother about its maintenance. The school has a huge

volleyball and a kho-kho court and subject-wise class rooms.

The walls, trees, drinking water tank, toilets are all painted

with educative messages written on them so that students are

made aware of good behaviour in school without being

preached to and enforced upon.

There are letters and integers carved out of tins and hung on

trees so that students learn outside of classes. When Chandu

Bhai had joined the school, it had only one classroom; today

there are seven, a mid-day meal shed, a medicinal plants

garden, a huge lawn and a bank of teaching material. The

students at each level are fluent in different subjects. There are

subject-wise classrooms and Chandu Bhai does not complain

of the problem of multigrade teaching in his school as students

are free to decide what subjects they wish to study. Subject

teachers take care of their respective subject rooms and when

children from different grades come to learn a specific subject,

grade-wise grouping is done and tasks allotted. There is peer

teaching, which not only promotes learning without interfering

in any student’s progress, but also gives scope to self-

development and confidence-building.

The Sisodiya Prathmik Shala is situated in the Navsari

district and the campus is worth envying; at first sight one may

not believe that this elementary school has science and

mathematics rooms with required lab arrangements, a computer

lab, a medicinal plants garden, an exercise ground with all

facilities, students studying in groups on their own facilitated

by teachers. In an interaction with the head teacher, we were

glad to learn that he had planned the expenditure for each

minute aspect, made savings from available grants and

organized them so that maximum benefit for students could be

worked out. He said that students from poor communities

should not suffer due to paucity of funds and lack of facilities

and feel deprived; instead they should feel proud of their

schools and enjoy the process of learning.

In keeping with his vision, children actually enjoy the school

and are lucid in age-appropriate concepts, able to use the

different facilities provided to them on their own and confident

with computer skills, reading, writing and mathematical ability.

Teachers also showed a lot of interest in teaching.

A visit to Gangapol Senior secondary Girls’ School, Jaipur

gives you an opportunity to meet a committed and

compassionate leader. Smt. Ansuya Sharma joined the

Gangapol School in 2004. Broken tin sheds, loosely hanging

fans, torn floor sheets, unusable blackboards, no benches,

undisciplined children, school areas illegally encroached upon

and a very poor Muslim community which did not value girls’

education were some of the challenges she encountered. Her

struggle to reinstate the school began by filing a case against

the illegal encroachment which she won after a legal battle of

eleven and a half years, meeting the community and

understanding their economic and social problems and

addressing those adequately, interacting with children,

motivating teachers and participating in the community’s

development process.

Today the school has science labs, computer labs, a projector,

well-furnished classrooms, free healthy meals and regular free

health check-ups, an unmanned “My Shop” which sells all

required study items at minimal rates with the sale amount duly

deposited in a given box.

Twice a week, classroom observation is done and once a week,

students’ performance and home copies are evaluated. Children

are trained in vocational skills like making washing powder,

working on jewellery, marble items, decorative pieces and

mehendi-art. The improvement in the children’s performance,

behaviour, health and vocational skills has been so significant

that today the school strength has increased from 600 to 2100.

A year ago when the school head was transferred to another

school, the community went on strike for two days and forced

the local MLA to intervene in the process.

Knowledge Resources on School Leadership

REPORTS AND RESEARCH STUDIES

Assessing the Effectiveness of School Leaders http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge‐center/school‐leadership/principal‐evaluation/Documents/Assessing‐the‐Effectiveness‐of‐School‐Leaders.pdf Wallace Foundation, 2009 Capturing the Leadership Premium: how the world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future http://www.mineduc.cl/usuarios/fde/doc/201202221325220.Informe%20Mckinsey.pdf McKinsey, 2010 Changing Role of School Leadership http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB09_Leadership08.pdf National Education Association (NEA), Washington DC, U.S.A.

Good Principals Are the Key to Successful Schools: six strategies to prepare more good principals http://publications.sreb.org/2003/03V03_GoodPrincipals.pdf Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, U.S.A. How the World’s Best Performing School Systems Come Out on Top http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/social_sector/latest_thinking/worlds_most_improved_schools McKinsey, 2007 Improving School Leadership http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/40545479.pdf OECD Directorate for Education and Training Policy Division, 2008

International Survey on Educational Leadership http://www.oph.fi/download/143319_International_survey_on_educational_leadership.PDF Finnish National Board of Education, 2012 Shaping the Future: How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in the Decade Ahead http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Roundtable.pdf McKinsey: Report on the Internatinal Roundtable, Singapore, 2009 RELATED RESOURCES Free and Compulsory Education Bill and Other Issues Related to Elementary Education http://www.teindia.nic.in/Files/Reports/CCR/cabe/Fcebill.pdf Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee, Government of India, 2005. Kothari Commission Report: http://www.teindia.nic.in/Files/Reports/CCR/KC/KC_V1.pdf Ministry of Education, Government of India, 1964‐66. Mudaliar Commission Report: http://www.teindia.nic.in/Files/Reports/CCR/Secondary_Education_Commission_Report.pdf Ministry of Education, Government of India, 1952‐1953. National Council for Teacher Education: National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, Government of India, 2010. http://www.ncte‐india.org/publicnotice/NCFTE_2010.pdf Role of Head teachers in School Management in India: Case studies from six states: Govinda, R., ANTRIEP, 2002

BOOKS

Charisma and Leadership in Organizations By Alan Bryman, 1992.

Leadership for Institution building in Education By Marmar Mukhopadhyay, 2004 Development in Practice: Primary Education in India, World Bank Study, published in 1997


About the Organisers NUEPA (http://www.nuepa.org/) The National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) is actively engaged in teaching, research and advisory services in the areas of educational policy, planning and administration. The core activities of the University include: providing technical support to Central and State Governments in educational policy and planning; organising professional development programmes including an M.Phil‐PhD programme and two diploma programmes in educational planning and administration addressed to national and international mid‐level education professionals; research in all aspects of school and higher education; advisory services to national and international organisations; clearing house for dissemination of knowledge and information; and providing a forum for exchange of ideas and experiences among policymakers, planners, administrators and academicians. The University is the apex national institution actively engaged in educational research, training and advocacy. The National Centre for School Leadership (NCSL) at NUEPA is committed to building leadership capacities for improving schools in India. For more information, please contact us at – [email protected]

Central Square Foundation (http://www.centralsquarefoundation.org/) The Central Square Foundation is a venture philanthropy fund focused on demonstrating high quality in the school education space. We are strictly a philanthropic funding and capacity‐building organization that operates by making early and growth stage grants in education‐focused NGOs. Our focus is on initiatives that are impactful, efficient and effective with the potential to scale so as to affect systemic change. We are data driven, seeking empirical, fact‐based information to inform our views and insights. In specific we support initiatives around the following themes –

• High Quality Affordable Schools • Human Capital Development • Technology in Education • Accountability and Community Engagement

We have also co‐funded India School Leadership Institute (ISLI) with a group of international foundations. ISLI draws on international best practices and models for training high potential school leaders in India to create excellent affordable schools, which will set new standards of performance among children from disadvantaged communities. The Akanksha Foundation is currently incubating the programme in partnership with Teach For India and KIPP. For more information, please contact us at – [email protected]

are school leaders the missing link in quality improvement?

Government & Nonprofit

nuepa wuateandpostgradm

anplayinimprovinne schools

centrofschoo forprinccipals

whichperience inrajasthan

adityanthenati withare