improvement’; ‘leadership styles’; and ‘individual characteristics’. It has been
noted that this is a very different model from the National Standards that
underpin its two sister programmes since it concentrates on leadership
effectiveness and performance and encompasses a very different approach to
measuring leadership capacity than does NPQH final assessment (Tomlinson,
2004: 235).
Since the establishment of the three headship programmes, a number of
reviews and revisions have been undertaken. By 2005, all three were in their
second or third incarnation, with more changes in the pipeline for HIP (jocularly
referred to as ‘HIP replacement’). These can be seen as intended to streamline
elements of each programme (possibly related to cost-cutting) and can also be
linked to strengthening the centralised control of delivery through increasingly
stringent quality assurance systems. Of the three programmes, HIP has always
stood out as an anomaly, in that it has attempted to remain responsive to the
individually expressed needs of first time headteachers, thus maintaining a
higher degree of choice and flexibility in its make-up and delivery. Recent
changes to the programme during 2005 have included the national development
of materials for the delivery of ‘core’ workshops, the topics for which have been
prompted by government priorities, and also a planned amalgamation of New
Visions and HIP within an early headship framework by September 2006.
The stated focus of this article is on headship/principalship training and
development but it is apposite to note that the functions and activities of the
improvement’; ‘leadership styles’; and ‘individual characteristics’. It has been
noted that this is a very different model from the National Standards that
underpin its two sister programmes since it concentrates on leadership
effectiveness and performance and encompasses a very different approach to
measuring leadership capacity than does NPQH final assessment (Tomlinson,
2004: 235).
Since the establishment of the three headship programmes, a number of
reviews and revisions have been undertaken. By 2005, all three were in their
second or third incarnation, with more changes in the pipeline for HIP (jocularly
referred to as ‘HIP replacement’). These can be seen as intended to streamline
elements of each programme (possibly related to cost-cutting) and can also be
linked to strengthening the centralised control of delivery through increasingly
stringent quality assurance systems. Of the three programmes, HIP has always
stood out as an anomaly, in that it has attempted to remain responsive to the
individually expressed needs of first time headteachers, thus maintaining a
higher degree of choice and flexibility in its make-up and delivery. Recent
changes to the programme during 2005 have included the national development
of materials for the delivery of ‘core’ workshops, the topics for which have been
prompted by government priorities, and also a planned amalgamation of New
Visions and HIP within an early headship framework by September 2006.
The stated focus of this article is on headship/principalship training and
development but it is apposite to note that the functions and activities of the
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
