May 12-15, 1996

Rationale

At the September 1995 conference entitled "Education for an Open Society", education program coordinators came together to look at education programs in the Soros network and work on developing and defining a common vision of what it means to educate children for an open society. One of the priorities identified was the development of democratic school leadership in the region. This was based on the assumption that open societies can only be built if school leaders and teachers model democratic behaviour for the children in their schools. Participants at the September conference requested that EPSU organize in-depth seminars in specific content areas with school leadership training being one of the top priorities.

Context

In order to understand the context of "school leadership training programs" in the Soros network, two questionnaires were sent out to the 24 countries of the network. The first one was a survey aimed at:

1. Identifying the countries that had such programs and those that did not.

2. Establishing whether the countries without such a program were interested in developing one.

3. Finding out how many foundations would be interested in participating in the seminar, i.e., establishing the need.

4. Developing appropriate goals for the seminar.

The responses to the survey served to clarify where the foundations were in terms of leadership training and gave us a clear indication of their priorities for the seminar. The results showed that 9 countries had school leadership training programs and 15 did not. Of the 9 countries with such a program, 7 had a "train the trainer" component, and 7 had a "network of schools" dedicated to continuous improvement. All 15 countries that did not yet have such a program were interested in starting one, and all 24 countries responded that they would be interested in attending the seminar. Based on the priorities identified by the foundations, the goals were developed.

A second questionnaire asked experienced foundations to identify the "lessons learned" by their foundation in running these programs, i.e., what advice they might have for those starting out. The summary of "lessons learned " is contained in Annex I .We also asked the "starting out" foundations what kind of help they needed to establish such a program. The summary of "help needed" is contained in Annex II.

Goals

Based on the needs’ assessments, three goals were established for the seminar:

1. To teach the content of School Effectiveness and School Improvement ;

2. To facilitate collaboration within the Soros network in the area of School Leadership Training ; and,

3. To facilitate the development of program strategies for School Leadership Training.

Foundations responded that content was their top priority for the seminar.

Target Audience

Each foundation was invited to attend the seminar in action teams of three based on the following criteria: one foundation education professional (the program officer responsible for school leadership training in countries where it exists), and two educators who are actively involved as "agents of change" in supporting the development of school leadership in their countries. The seminar, therefore, brought together a cross section of partners in the reform process: Soros education program officers, teachers, school administrators, members of pedagogical institutes, ministry officials and representatives of other NGO’s. This team approach was based on a body of educational literature that states that sustainable change happens best when teams of stakeholders work together at different levels supporting the change. It should be noted, however, that using this team approach with participants having such a wide variety of skills, knowledge and background from 24 countries made planning the content of the seminar extremely challenging. We recognized from the beginning that working with these country teams had great advantages in terms of building a multi-level change team, but had the drawback of trying to address the needs of a highly varied audience.

Methodology

The vast majority of foundations told us that they wanted a seminar that focused primarily on the "content" of school effectiveness and school improvement, and secondly on the development of strategies for school leadership training programs. The design of the seminar, therefore, was to begin with the foundation experience in school leadership training programs on the first day, followed by a plenary address by Professor Michael Fullan dealing with the moral purpose of educational change. The next two days were aimed at delivering the "content" of school effectiveness and school improvement. The last day was devoted to applying the seminar content to the creation of action plans for "Starting or Improving Educational Leadership Programs" by foundation country teams.

In order to achieve the goal of each foundation country team taking home an Action Plan for the development or improvement of educational leadership training programs, we did the following:

1. We invited and worked with a team of four presenters from England and Canada. Professor Michael Fullan(University of Toronto) is an expert in the field of managing the process of educational change . Professors Louise Stoll ( University of London) and David Hopkins (University of Nottingham) are known for their work in the field of School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Professor Charles Lusthaus (McGill University) is a Professor of Educational Administration with vast international experience in the field of program strategy development and evaluation.

2. We provided "Roadside Consulting" as an option for participants throughout the seminar. Country teams had opportunities to sign up for private consulting sessions with presenters and EPSU staff to discuss their strategies and specific country needs (see Annex III). Thirteen countries signed up for "Roadside Consulting" at last count. However, the actual number was greater. Presenters were solidly booked during breakfast, lunch, dinner and most coffee breaks. Foundation teams commented that this opportunity was extremely valuable for their programs.

3. Foundations also held lunch time meetings to discuss and present their programs, including screening of videos on the situation in their country. Countries involved in establishing Education Resource Centres had a meeting with Sylvia Sklar, Director of the Centre for Educational Leadership at McGill University to discuss the opportunities and challenges in starting and operating these centres.

4. Each participant received a large binder with materials and activities for each session of each day complemented with additional reading. Each foundation was provided with a resource package of books to take back to their foundation on Educational Change, School Effectiveness and School Improvement.

5. We asked participants for daily written feedback , establishing the strengths and weaknesses of the day and encouraging them to express their "hopes" for the following day. This daily feedback was not only collated each day, but the team of presenters worked with EPSU staff each day to adjust the schedule and content of the following day based on the feedback received.

Evaluation

Evaluation of the seminar was carried out in two ways:

1. Through daily monitoring via feedback forms filled out at the end of each day. The daily feedback was tabulated and summarized for participants at the beginning of each day.

2. A final evaluation on the last day.

Annex IV is a summary of the data obtained on the final evaluation forms. The scores are based on a five point Likert Scale , in which 5 is Excellent, 4 Very Good, 3 Good, 2 Fair and 1 Poor. The overall rating for the seminar averaging all items on the questionnaire is 4.2. This gives the seminar an overall rating of Very Good to Excellent. Participants were clearly satisfied overall. They were most satisfied with the organizing staff, the meeting facilities, roadside consulting and the educational materials received during the seminar. These items were rated 4.5 and above.

Participants were also asked to identify the main strengths and weaknesses of the seminar as well as to add general comments.

On Strengths

The participants consistently identified the following as the main strengths of the seminar:

1. The opportunity to meet colleagues from different countries and exchange experiences;

2. The high level of professionalism of the presenters;

3. Excellent organization and the sensitivity shown to the needs of the participants;

4. Quality of the content; and,

5. Access to resource material.

On Weaknesses

The main weaknesses consistently identified were:

1. The conference room as being too small, too hot and not suited to group work;

2. The heterogeneity of the participants with varying needs;

3. Too much information and not enough time to digest it;

4. Too much theory and not enough practice with case studies from the region; and,

5. Lack of school visits.

It should be noted that the list of strengths identified was much longer than the list of weaknesses. General comments taken as direct quotations from the evaluations are contained in Annex V. Overall, it is fair to say that participants found the seminar useful, motivating and enjoyable.

Outcomes and Implications

Through the generosity of the presenters and their institutions, we had the opportunity to raffle off eight scholarships (two per category) for professional development. The following is the list of prizes donated to the national foundations along with the lucky winners:

1. Mc Gill University, Centre for Educational Leadership - Scholarship for Summer Institute in Education for 1996 or 1997. Winners - Ukraine and Latvia

2. University of Toronto - Scholarship for Summer Institute in Education for 1996 or 1997.

Winners - Ukraine and Czech Republic

3. University of Nottingham - Summer Doctoral Seminar in Education in 1997.

Winners - Moscow and St. Petersburg

4. University of London - One year membership in the International School Effectiveness and School Improvement Network. Winners - St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the presenters and their universities for their generous contribution, and our congratulations to the winners.

Participants were asked to identify the kind of follow up support they would need to further their work in building leadership training programs for an open society in their country. The following is a summary of the main themes.

Support and Follow Up requested from EPSU

1. To organize annual follow up meetings on School Leadership Training to exchange experiences, evaluate progress and plan next steps. Several foundations recommended rotating these meetings in a different country each year to familiarize participants with conditions in that country and to add value to that country’s program. At least seven foundations independently offered to host such an event.

2. Many foundations requested more training organized at different levels for "train the trainer" candidates, foundation personnel, school principals, etc.

3. Access to professional expertise and consultants.

4. An on-going supply of resource materials.

5. Facilitation of information exchange on the Internet of foundation experiences in leadership training

6. Moral support and site visit consulting.

7. The facilitation of regional co-operation and a possible regional program in Democratic School Leadership Training.

Support and Follow up from National Foundations

EPSU also requested follow up from the country teams. Each country team spent the greater part of the last day developing or improving their strategy for school leadership training. Several foundations presented their strategies to the whole group. As action plans were at different levels of completion, EPSU requested that each foundation send their finalized action plan by June 20, 1996. Each team was asked to send it courtesy of their Executive Director to the June meeting in Budapest. EPSU will then compile all the Action Plans and disseminate it to the network.

Implications for the Development of Democratic School Leadership in the Network

Both formal and informal feedback from the education program officers at the seminar raised the need for a regional program in Democratic School Leadership Training. Many foundations struggle with the design and implementation of such programs, often "shopping" for foreign experts to deliver the training. Clearly, there is a need for further dialogue on this issue.