Competence of The Leadership Influence School Improvement

ISSN 2029-6894.
ANDRAGOGIKA, 2016, 1 (7)
DOI:
COMPETENCE OF THE LEADERSHIP

INFLUENCE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
Kęstutis Trakšelys1, Julija Melnikova2, Dalia Martišauskienė3
Abstract
School leadership is now an education policy priority around the world. As countries
are seeking to adapt their educational systems to the needs of contemporary rapidly
evolving society, expectations for schools and school leaders are changing. School
leadership practice has been greatly influenced by changes in educational governance
and school contexts. Many researchers agree that school leaders are crucial for school
success and sustainable educational reform, and there is a strong need for leaders who
demonstrate key attributes and qualities of professionalism. In these circumstances,
the attention should be drawn to professional training and development opportunities
for school leaders as well as to knowledge and skills that today’s school leaders should
possess in order to manage schools successfully.
Introduction
Modern education management conceptions regard school leadership as key

dominant of successful school activity. Scientific researchers disclose the links
between leadership and school results. Various methodological approaches can be
identified (leadership as a factor of school effectiveness: Bagdonas, 2002; Gurr,
2005; 1996; Leithwood, 1992; Reynolds, 1992; leadership and pupils’ academic
outcomes: Žvirdauskas, 2006; Caldwell, 2002; Fullan, 1998; Tomlinson, 1999; le-
adership and school as learning organization: Simonaitienė, 2004; Caldwell, 2002;
Fullan, 1998; Tomlinson, 1999). In the current study it is complied with the provi-

1
Kęstutis Trakšelys – socialinių mokslų daktaras (edukologija), Klaipėdos universiteto Tęstinių
studijų instituto lektorius, Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto Edukologijos katedros docentas.
Moksliniai interesai: andragogika, švietimo sociologija, socialinė stratifikacija ir lygiavertiškumas.

2
Julija Melnikova – socialinių mokslų (edukologija) daktarė, Klaipėdos universiteto Humanitarinių
ir ugdymo mokslų fakultetas. Moksliniai interesai: mokyklos vadovų lyderystė, kokybės vadyba,
edukaciniės švietimo informacinės technologijos.

3
Dalia Martišauskienė – socialinių mokslų (edukologija) daktarė, Klaipėdos universiteto Sveikatos
mokslų fakulteto Visuomenės sveikatos katedros docentė. Moksliniai interesai: švietimo kokybė
ir kokybės kultūros raiška, švietimo organizacijų vadyba, švietimo paslaugų vartotojų poreikių
tenkinimas.
78
COMPETENCE OF THE LEADERSHIP INFLUENCE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
sion, that in “paradigm of change” the deep changes of school have become rele-
vant – school is obliged to promote its own improvement, i.e. become a learning
organization, which is able to redesign itself and is capable of inventing own new
models in response to external changes. In such a context school leadership under-
goes transformation. New roles of school heads presuppose appropriate fields of
activities and functions.
Under the conditions of systemic change the arrangements of school heads
competencies development have undergone transformation (Bush, 2008). Leaders-
hip development should respond the needs of school heads in different stages of
professional and organizational socialization (Crow, 2001; Heck, 2003). In addi-
tion, leadership development should be linked with management career path in
education (Bush, 2008; Huber, 2004; Hallinger, 2003) and refer to a specific quality
assessment conception (Želvys, 2003; Dempster, 2002;). Recognizing that school
heads’ competencies development has an indirect impact on school results (Bush,
2008; Hallinger, 2003; Lindstrom, Speck, 2004), in the paradigm of permanent
change there is a strong need to ensure the quality of school leadership develo-
pment by re-examining quality determining factors: peculiarities of content, pro-
cess, context, assessment (Bolam, 2004; Bush, 2008; Goldring et al., 2010; Guskey,
2004; Hallinger, 2003).
Substantiation of research relevance. The question of school heads’ competen-
cies and competencies development receive much attention in foreign scientific li-
terature, however there is a lack of focused empiric researches. Although the majo-
rity of education management theorists (Avolio, 2005; Brundrett et al., 2006; Bush,
2008; Goldring et al., 2010) explicitly recognize that school heads competencies
development has an impact on school results, but it remains an axiom statement.
For instance, Brundrett et al., (2006) argue that leadership development is a „stra-
tegic necessity“ because of the intensification of the principal‘s role in the context
of rapid change. Avolio (2005) makes a compelling case for systematic leadership
development based on the view that leaders are „made, not born“. Hallinger (2003),
Huber (2004; 2008) stress the relationship between leadership development and the
quality of school leadership, Lindstrom, Speck (2004) argue that school leaders-
hip development is the essential factor of school improvement. Leithwood (2009)
emphasizes the links between leadership development and school results. However,
empirical support for such assumptions is weak and usually of descriptive nature
only (Bush, 2008; Leithwood, 2009).
Strategic documents of European Commission (A Memorandum on Lifelong
Learning, 2000; EC Communication „Improving Competences for the XXI Cen-
tury: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools“, 2008; Work Programme
„Education and Training“, 2010) argue that the quality of schools can be improved
by well prepared, trained and continuously developed school heads. It is emphasi-
79
Kęstutis Trakšelys, Julija Melnikova, Dalia Martišauskienė
zed in the implications of European Council on school heads‘ and teachers‘ profes-
sional development (2009) that “considering that school heads have a significant
impact on educational environment as well as on motivation of personnel, work
results, teaching practice, on the believes and needs of students and their parents,
there should be ensured sufficient opportunities for school heads to retain and de-
velop skills for effective leadership. Such a provision on school heads’ professional
training corresponds with the recommendations of OECD, ETF, CEDEFOP as well
as with Bologna Process. The major regulatory documents of Lithuanian education
policy (State Strategy on Education 2003–2012; LR Law on Education (2003);
Education Guideline (2002)) as well stress the significance of competent leadership
and school heads’ competencies development under the conditions of education
change. The documents emphasize the quality of school leadership that is necessary
for successful implementation of reforms. Professional leadership is treated as an
important premise for school autonomy and innovativeness.
Recognizing the significance of school leadership, there have been implemen-
ted different projects in Lithuania (School Improvement Programme 2002–2005,
Improvement of School Structure 2006–2009, Time for Leaders 2007–2013). The
project “Time for Leaders” stresses the importance of sound school leadership as
a factor of school improvement. It should be noted, that these projects are based
on global trends in education management and apply foreign models in Lithuanian
education thus ensuring successful dialogue between Lithuania and Western coun-
tries. The impact of global trends on Lithuanian education and modelling of its
segments according to foreign examples is encouraged by various international
organizations and foundations: Organization for Economic Co-operation and De-
velopment (OECD), European Training Foundation (ETF), European Centre for
the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP), World Bank etc. This fact
is important for research, which is also based on foreign countries (UK and USA)
expertise in school leadership development, but is designed and implemented in
Lithuanian context.
During the last few years various sociological studies, commissioned by Min-
istry of Education and Science, have been conducted („The expression of school
principal leadership traits“, 2006; Modern management functions in the organiza-
tion of school activity“, 2008 etc.). It is important to mention, that these particular
studies are defined as diagnostic, i.e. aimed on diagnosis of current situation (Biti-
nas, 2006). However, research, aimed on examining of school heads’ competencies
development as a theoretical object, have not been revealed.
On the basis of analysis of sociological research, reports of Ministry of Educa-
tion and Science, expertsʼ evaluation reports, recent legal documents it has become
clear that there occur purposeful transformations in the field of school headsʼ com-
petencies development in Lithuania. However, research results suggest that the cur-
80
rent professional training and development of school heads is usually interpreted in

a narrow sense as a response to visible needs of school (Leadership in education:
Lithuania report, 2008). This direct response is fragmentary, underpinned by con-
crete situation and therefore a broader approach, tied with more ambitious aims,
conformed with the requirements of change and targeted on the demands of con-
stantly changing school, is not promoted. There is a lack of strong empirical evi-
dence on the aspects of school heads’ competencies, lack of systematic research on
the process of competencies development, insufficient data on the factors, influenc-
ing quality of competencies development. Hence, the optimization of school heads’
competencies development in the context of education management paradigm shift
is the relevant scientific problem, which is concretized by the problem questions:
• How the areas of school heads’ activity and their leadership models are
changing in the context of education management paradigm shift and,
accordingly, which relevant competencies should be developed?
• How should be arranged the development of school heads’ competencies
seeking to ensure successful acquisition and development of relevant com-
petencies?
• What is a hypothetical model of interconnection between school heads’
competencies development and school improvement, focused on the para-
digm of systemic change?
The object of the research – school heads’ competencies development

The aim of the research – to design a theoretical model of interconnection
between heads’ competencies development and school .
Research methods
Scientific literature analysis has helped to analyze theoretically school heads’

activity areas, leadership models, and necessary competencies in the context of
education management paradigm shift as well as to disclose the principles of arran-
gements of competencies development and to determine the factors of its quality.
Documents analysis has helped to complement the notions of school heads
competencies, leadership development and its transformation.
1. The theoretical background of the study
Theory of paradigm shift. The shift of education management paradigm is subs-

tantiated on the Kuhn (2003) conception of paradigms in science. The notion “para-
digm” refers to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular
period of time. Each paradigm exist until the inner contradictions have matured,
81
then a new paradigm is developing instead. This promotes a scientific progress. It

is hold to the opinion that paradigms do not deny each other; new paradigms are
incommensurable with old ones and several paradigms can coexist simultaneously.
It is emphasized that the shift in paradigms provokes the necessity to solve new
problems, anticipate new perspectives; therefore the analysis of paradigms is the
indispensable context or background for the design of the research.
Philosophy of Pragmatism, which treats the purpose of education as developing lear-
ner’s ability to solve real life problems and, having achieved the expertise on their solution,
to achieve maximum personal well-being without prejudice to the norms of society. In a
constantly changing life conditions, education endeavours to assist individual to change
adequately. The central category of education is the personal expertise of a learner.
Theory of Social Reconstructionism, which emphasizes the necessity to res-
tructure the system of institutional education in order to achieve purposeful impro-
vement of society. The process of continuous change requires competent, creative,
critically thinking members of society, who would be able to implement social
reforms. The system of institutional education should flexibly respond to changes
in social environment and to carry out a social order.
The concept of lifelong learning, which stresses the development of human po-
tential through the process of constant support for an individual, stimulating and
empowering him/her to acquire through the life all the necessary knowledge, skills,
values and understanding and to apply them confidently in various life roles. In the
conditions of accelerating change, rapid renewal of information individual is obliged
to learn constantly: to acquire new social and professional competencies, upgrade
existing qualification or to acquire a new (Barkauskaitė, 2006; Longworth, 1999).
School heads’ competencies development as the object of the research is groun-
ded in multidiscipline approach, combining the spheres of education management,
human resource management, theory of professional education, andragogy, which
allows to achieve deeper epistemological understanding of the particular object.
School heads’ competencies development is analyzed in a holistic approach.
Holistic approach to the object of research allows to examine it as a single complex
system, with reference that the object’s components as a whole is greater then their
sum. According to this approach, it is sought to provide the complex view of school
heads’ competencies development as a phenomenon (Bitinas, 2006). This requires
the analysis of school leadership as well as of the development of school leaders in
conjunction with school improvement.
Systems theory allows substantiating the interconnection between school heads’
competencies development and school improvement as a sustainable and coherent
system, consisting of interrelated parts. Systems theory stresses that any system se-
gment’s activity affects the overall system performance, and this interaction is cha-
racterized by coherent mutual interdependence and interrelation (Bertalanffy, 1969).
82
The development of school heads’ competencies is based on the theories of adult

learning:
Constructivist learning theory, which argues that the reality cognition is based
on individual knowledge structures that are formed on subjective experience, while
learning occurs when a person doubts about his/her beliefs, personal theories and
current understanding. Knowledge creation is an active process, because a learner
develops new concepts, ideas, meanings on the basis of previously acquired know-
ledge and experience (Piaget, 1976). Self-directed learning theory, which explains
the learning process as a learner’s responsibility for his/her learning and learning
outcomes (Knowles, 1975). According to this theory, a learner is able to identify
his/her own learning needs, taking into account the planned life path. The one is
able to identify current and future roles, is characterized by motivation, ability to
plan the learning process and its outcomes, choose the learning strategy, taking into
account the results and circumstances of life, to adjust the learning plan and repre-
sent acquired competency (Jucevičienė et al., 2010). Experiential learning theory,
which emphasizes the effectiveness of learning through experience. Experiential
learning occurs while observing and reflecting one’s experience, and on the basis
of experience abstract concepts are formed and justified in new situations. Expe-
riential learning theory stresses the holistic nature of learning, the idea of sustai-
nable development and highlights he experience as the key assumption of learning
(Jarvis, 1987; Jarvis, Holford, Griffin, 2004; Kolb, 1984). Conceptions of reflection
and critical reflection, which emphasize the abilities of an individual to explore
own activity on the basis of life experience, seeking to deeper understanding of
linkages between events, foreseeing of goals, anticipating problems in unfamiliar
situations etc. (Argyris et al., 1985; Willis, 1980). Action science theory, which
treats the practical knowledge as a tacit knowledge. According to this theory, tacit
knowledge could be expressed by reflexive exploration. From action science theo-
ry perspective, the activity of an individual is based on rules and hidden personal
acting theories. When confronted with any situation, a person guides his/her own
action theories that help to “create” an action form the repertoire of acquired con-
ceptions, activity schemes, strategies (Jucevičienė et al., 2010; Argyris et al., 1985).
2. The process of school leadership in the context of education management

paradigm shift
In this chapter it is sought to define the notion of education management para-

digm and to detail the core paradigms as well as their implications on school leader-
ship. The education management paradigm is defined as an approach to designing
of a model / strategy of education (Mulford, 2008). On the basis of scientific litera-
ture analysis (Želvys, 1999; Fullan, 2003; Mulford, 2003; Olsen, 2002) three main
83
paradigms are identified: Old Public Management, New Public Management, and
the “Paradigm of Change”. It is suggested in the study that the paradigms presup-
pose organization of education and are reflected in the nature of leadership and in
principals’ roles.
The paradigm of Old Public Management in education assumes that schools are
hierarchical systems in which heads use rational means to pursue agreed goals. He-
ads possess authority legitimized by their formal positions within the organization
and are accountable to governing bodies for the activities of their institutions. It is
pointed to some advantages and weaknesses of bureaucratic approach in education
and stated that irresponsibly to the inadequacy of OPM under the conditions of sys-
temic change, it still has much to contribute to understanding of school operation.
New Public Management, emerged as the dominant paradigm in many countries
under the conditions of rapid globalization and technology progress. Under the inf-
luence of NPM the restructuring of education has been characterized by such trends
as decentralization, accountability and markets, community involvement. New pu-
blic management expanded the role of school principals. School heads became ma-
nagers, responsible for strategic planning, management of human resource, human
relations and conflicts, information and projects etc. in their organizations. The
implementation of the certification system was an important step, seeking to ensure
the quality of school heads’ management activity.
The paradigm of systemic change is stipulated by knowledge society and its
challenges. It is argued in the study that in order to meet heightened, multiply
expectations placed by systemic change, schools need to become learning organi-
zations, consciously and continuously pursuing their improvement. Schools as le-
arning organizations are capable for adapting in changing consequences and stand
out by virtue of trusting and collaborative climate, a shared and monitored vision,
initiatives and risks, ongoing and relevant professional development, distributed
leadership etc. It is argued in the study that school improvement depends on princi-
pal, who can foster the necessary conditions for sustained school activity in rapidly
changing society.
The rapid paradigm shift expanded expectations for school heads emphasizing
the need for schools as learning organizations continuous improvement. This has
strong implication on core areas of school heads’ responsibilities and their func-
tions. School heads have a significant impact on school processes and catalyze
school improvement and becoming a learning organization.
The analysis of scientific literature (Leithwood et al., 2004; Waters, Marzano,
McNulty, 2003) allowed identifying the core areas of school heads’ activity. School
heads are responsible for the managing of educational process, school managing
and administrating, direction setting and organization redesigning. Each area in-
volves specific functions of school principals. The area of managing of educational
84
process covers principal’s direct participation in educational process, organization

and evaluation of educational process as well as creation of sustainable learning
environment. The area of school management and administration involves resource
management, monitoring of effectiveness and accountability for school results. The
area of direction setting covers creation of school vision and its implementation,
strategic planning, formation of values system, planning of organizational develop-
ment. The field of organizational redesigning involves creation of school culture
and climate, development of leadership, partnership networks, designing of school
image, organizational learning, change management, etc.
The analysis of school heads’ activity areas and functions is linked to the con-
ception of first order and second order changes (Lethwood, 1992; Waters, Marza-
no, McNulty, 2004). First order changes explain leadership functions in a stable
environment. Second order changes are aimed primarily at changing organization’s
normative structure and foster school becoming a learning organization. The first
and second order changes require specific practical actions from school heads. That
is why the analysis of leadership models is important.
Leadership models is a methodological approach to the analysis of school heads
practical activity and its impact on school organization. The scientific literature
confirms that there is a relationship between school leadership and school improve-
ment, so it is important to deconstruct leadership to examine the extent to which the
various models facilitate the conditions that allow for school improvement. There
are various typologies of leadership models. Eminent among them are the instruc-
tional, transactional, and transformational models of leadership. These three mod-
els of leadership are subject to scrutiny in this chapter, using a typology adapted
from Leithwood, Jantzi, Steinbach (1999).
Instructional leadership focuses on teaching and learning and on the behavior
of teachers in working with students. Heads’ influence is targeted at student learn-
ing via teachers. Instructional leadership is important for improving the quality
of learning. Transactional leadership supports the implementation of the school
mission through resource management. Transactional principals focus on nurturing
the on-going climate of the school through development of positive interpersonal
relationship among members of organization and effective day-to-day operational
procedures for the school. Transformational leadership describes a particular type
of influence process based on increasing the commitment of followers to organi-
zational goals. This form of leadership assumes that the central focus of leadership
ought to be the commitments and capacities of organizational members. Higher
levels of personal commitment to organizational goals and greater capacities for ac-
complishing those goals are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productiv-
ity. Transformational leadership is essential for schools as learning organizations.
85
It is argued in the study that schools, reflecting on the demands of society, should
be delivering. Acknowledging with such demands provokes the role of principal
become complex, emphasizing that of change agent, strategic planner, and a leader.
This role far exceeds the role of instructional leader. Instructional leadership while
suitable for addressing first order changes such as curriculum innovation is inadequ-
ate for the kind of systemic changes. Therefore while instructional leadership is still
important, the paradigmatic shift to a transactional and a transformational model of
leadership may be necessary for the effective functioning of modern school. So, there
is no one best model of leadership for all situations; rather, effective principals adopt
the integrated leadership model appropriate for the situations. Hence, it is argued
that the integrated model of school leadership presupposes school improvement. The
successful realization of leadership models requires appropriate competencies, there-
fore the attention is drawn on the analysis of school heads’ competencies.
The quality of leadership is vital for school improvement and students outco-
mes. Hence, the attention is drawn to the development of appropriate competencies
of school heads.
3. The notion of school heads’ competency and the holistic capability model
The notion of competency and capability are analyzed in the subchapter. The
managing and leading tasks of school leadership are both complex and interrela-
ted, so that there are no clearly defined concepts of leadership competence and
competency. Competency refers to the capacity to perform professional work and
is developed by means of professional education and training (Eraut, 1994; Scott,
2010; Stephenson, 2000; Trotter, Ellison, Davies, 2001). Competence in general is
understood as the whole of values, skills, knowledge and understanding which ena-
bles the person to act successfully in a certain field of life (Recommendation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on Key Competences for Lifelong Lear-
ning, 2005). Competence is constituted by a number of professional competencies
as well as practical experience. Therefore it is important to identify the structure of
the school heads’ professional competence.
A competence model is a list of competencies required for a specific job or field
of occupation, a commonly recognized body of knowledge, skills competencies
and behavioural models and qualities that help the individual to perform his/her
job as successfully as possible and provide the basis for individual evaluation and
development. The competence model consists of:
• core competencies (they complement specific competencies required for a
specific job or field of occupation);
• knowledge required for these competencies;
• skills and abilities based on competencies.
86
On the basis of theoretical analysis (Bush, 2008; Hallinger, 2003; Huber, 2004;
Leithwood et al., 1999; Scott, 2010) the holistic model of school heads’ competen-
ce was developed.
The holistic competence is a combination of six competencies: personal, social,
instructional, educational, self-management and managerial competencies.
Personal competency is understood as self-recognition and self-analysis. The
ability to analyze one’s strongest and weakest traits is a precondition for the deve-
lopment of a mature personality and successful self-realization. Social competency
is associated with high communicational culture in organization. This is the ability
of school leaders to create and sustain collaborative culture, mutual respect and
understanding. In a wider range, it’s creating of a partnership with community.
Instructional competency of a school leader is an ability to manage effectively the
educational process, design curricula, monitor academic achievements, etc. School
leaders demonstrate expert knowledge of teaching-learning process, inform, plan,
implement, monitor and evaluate it, manage educational curriculum, build an en-
vironment that maximizes students learning, this competency empowers school
leaders to develop and sustain learning communities in a school. Educational com-
petency is expressed in self-education. Changes in education as well as in modern
society inspire the life-long learning that is why educational competence has beco-
me very important today. Self-management competency is a skill of carrier plan-
ning. School leaders use their knowledge and research data to maximize overall
performance of themselves and their organizations. They effectively develop plans
and evaluate the implications for their actions. Managerial competency is an ability
of a school leader to seek for overall school as organization effectiveness, to ground
management on modern management principles such as quality management; hu-
man resource management; learning organization management, etc. School leaders
efficiently and effectively apply expert knowledge of legislative, syllabus and po-
licy requirements. School leaders develop and implement effective personnel ma-
nagement structures, strategies and procedures. School leaders manage effectively
and accountably within their delegated responsibilities. School leaders create and
utilize effective management systems and processes.
The possession of competencies in the six domains is necessary but not suffici-
ent for effective professional performance under the conditions of systemic change.
Equally important is the possession of the following higher order thinking skills:
emotional intelligence, critical thinking, diagnostic skills (Scott, 2010). Emotional
intelligence means that school leaders have highly developed personal and inter-
personal skills based on the ability to empathize with the perspective of others.
School leaders have the capacity to interact with people and work constructively
in a team. Critical thinking helps school leaders see the core issues and anticipate
difficulties in complex technical and human situations. Diagnostic skills mean that
87
school leaders accurately read the signs to figure out what is actually going on in
each new situation.
The model of holistic capability constitutes from professional competencies,
each including professionally specific skills and knowledge, as well as the domains
of emotional intelligence, critical thinking and diagnostic competency that ena-
ble to respond to the challenges of the systemic change. The analysis of literature
shows that the focus on capability requires a shift in a professional training and de-
velopment of school heads. Professional training and development aim at transfer
of professional knowledge, while the development of competencies focuses on me-
tacognitive skills, which allow applying new skills in a professional environment.
4. Principles of arrangements of school heads’ competencies development
The development of school heads’ competencies is implemented to develop

or change the management practices in schools and is to be linked to meaningful
change. Therefore the attention is drawn to the principles of sustainable school
leadership development. The chapter discloses core principles as requirements for
effective arrangements of the development of school heads’ competencies. It is
argued that in the paradigm of change school leadership development should be a
purposeful, consistent and coherent process, reflecting the needs of school heads at
various stages of professional and organizational socializations (Bush, 2008; Hal-
linger, 2003; Huber, 2004; Leithwood et al., 1999).
The managing and leading tasks of school leadership are both complex and
interrelated, so that there is no clearly defined concept of leadership. Most defini-
tions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process
whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person or group over other people
or groups to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization
(Yukl, 2002). Leadership cannot be regarded as a singular activity carried out by
the principal. Most schools now have an extensive leadership apparatus, including
deputies and/or assistant principals. Recently the developing interest is connect-
ed to distributed leadership (Hargreaves, Fink, 2006), which means involvement
of larger numbers of staff in school leadership. The emphasis of this article is on
school leaders, including but not confined to school principals.
In a paradigm of distributed leadership school leadership and questions concer-
ning the optimum approaches for leadership succession have become matters to
which increasing concern has been devoted in education systems internationally.
Effective succession means having a clear strategy to create positive and coordi-
nated flows of headship (Bush, 2008; Hargreaves, Fink, 2006). In many countries,
leadership succession relies on self-selection of talented candidates rather than on
clear strategies to identify and develop future leaders. Research reports (Hargrea-
88
ves, Fink, 2006) quite clearly show that insufficient attention is being given to iden-
tifying and fostering potential future leaders in most countries. Self-identification
as leaders is a gradual process of trial and error during which individuals are emo-
tionally vulnerable and often lack professional and systems support (Gronn, 1999).
Researches (Bush, 2008; Hargreaves, Fink, 2006; Pont et al., 2008) argue that
more emphasis should be put on nurturing and developing leadership within scho-
ols, it should be focused on how best to identify and support future leaders early in
their careers. That is why succession planning is essential to widen the applicant
pool for school leadership and increase the quantity and quality of future school
leaders. Succession planning involves fostering interest in leadership by providing
opportunities for teachers to participate in leadership and to learn more about the
day-to-day tasks it involves, as well as offering training for aspirant leaders. Indi-
viduals who have gained some experience in leadership or aspects of it are more
likely to be interested in leadership and to be confident in their capacity to do it. It
is therefore important that potential leaders are given opportunities to participate in
leadership early in their careers. This can be done by distributing leadership within
the school and encouraging teachers to take on responsibility for certain areas or
aspects of leadership. Interest in leadership can also be fostered by shadowing pro-
grammes which allow teachers to observe and learn more about the concrete acti-
vities it entails.
High potential teachers need to be identified proactively and encouraged to de-
velop their skills. Professional development opportunities can be a good way for te-
achers to test their potential for management and leadership. Training opportunities
may be targeted to develop leaders for schools particularly in need, or they may be
embedded in larger strategies for school leadership development. In addition, inclu-
ding leadership topics in initial teacher training can foster interest among teachers
with leadership potential in the longer term (Pont et al. 2008).
Succession planning is essential to increase the quantity and quality of future
school leaders. It is a way to counteract principal shortages and to ensure that there
is an adequate supply of qualified personnel to choose from when the incumbent
leader leaves the position. Succession planning involves proactively identifying
potential leaders and encouraging them to develop their leadership practices. This
can be done by offering training programmes for aspiring leaders and providing
opportunities for young teachers to learn more about leadership through close con-
tact with current leaders. It can also be done by including leadership topics in initial
teacher training.
Consistent with the concept of lifelong learning, and assuming school leaders-
hip involves a career - the stages in a school leader’s career are receiving growing
attention. For example, implicit in the data collected in Earley at al’s (2002) re-
cent study is a call for a coherent school leadership professional development fra-
89
mework which begins shortly after qualification as a teacher and continues through
and beyond headship. A number of models have been developed to describe various
stages of school leadership career (Bush, Jackson, 2002; Bush, 2008). The eminent
among them is a five stage structure: Emergent leadership for teachers who are be-
ginning to take on management and leadership responsibilities, including heads of
subject/area. Established leaders for experienced leaders who do not intend to pur-
sue headship, including assistant and deputy heads. Entry to headship for aspiring
to first headship and newly-appointed first-time headteachers. Advanced leadership
for experienced headteachers looking to develop their professional qualities, com-
petences and expertise. Consultant leadership for experienced headteachers and ot-
her school leaders who are ready to further develop their facilitation, mentoring and
coaching skills. The framework is thought to provide a coherent and flexible model
for the development and support of school leaders at all stages of their career.
Leadership development needs to be seen as a lifelong learning process. Most evi-
dence on development impact points to the fact that leadership development is broader
than specific programmes of activity or intervention. It can be learned and developed
through a combination of formal and informal processes throughout the different stages
and contexts of leadership practice. The school leadership career needs to be supported
through the different stages in a balanced manner, including pre-service, induction and
in-service provision and be complemented when important changes come about.
The significance of pre-service preparation of school leaders has been analyzed
by Browne-Ferrigno (2003), Bush, Jackson (2002), Hallinger (2003). The notion of
preparation suggests a preconceived orientation towards career development by the
potential principals and/or other education system participants. In many countries
it is required for aspiring principals to complete approved pre-service qualification
before being considered for an appointment, in other settings, there are no formal
prerequisites except for the need to be qualified and experienced teachers. Hallinger
(2003) argues that the considerable criticism of pre-service courses reflects their lack
of coherence and detachment from the realities of the principal’s workplace. The
predominant mode of delivery usually is lecture and discussion. Recognizing the im-
portance of pre-service preparation for aspiring principals (Bush, Jackson, 2002) it
is agreed that there is a need for a fundamental rethinking of the content, structure,
delivery, and assessment of leadership learning. This involves the development of
a framework for leadership preparation to ensure that formal university based pro-
grams and programs offered by and other providers of leadership development are
complementary. Research studies have been designed to identify characteristics of
effective leadership preparation programs. Some of the characteristics of effective
programs include (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003): a clear sense of mission and purpose;
curriculum coherence and alignment, including integrated sets of topics based on
learning objectives; linkages between certification requirements and professional de-
90
velopment; instructional strategies related to the nature of the material taught and the
learner needs, including: experiential learning, new information technologies, small
group work, simulation, videotapes, role-playing, and case study; length and time
structure; linkage to the mission, beliefs, and values of relevant employing authori-
ties; and learning strategies that motivate through thinking, reflection, and analysis,
with a strong component of coaching and feedback.
Preparation for leadership should be part of a continuous process involving both
formal study and field based learning. The important connections between the self-
identity and career goals of individuals need to be taken into consideration when
planners are designing leadership learning opportunities.
Great attention in education management literature is dedicated to the process
of induction to school leadership (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Bush, Middlewood,
2005). Induction is the process by which new incumbents become familiar with the
context in which they are leading, including the school culture. All first time parti-
cipants need professional socialization (preparing to enter profession) and organi-
zational socialization (learning how to lead in a particular context) is also required.
Induction has three main dimensions (Bush, Middlewood, 2005): 1) Socialization:
enabling the employee to become part of the organization; 2) Achievement of com-
petent performance: enabling the new employee to contribute to the organization
effectively; 3) Understanding the culture: enabling the employee to appreciate the
core values of organization.
Induction may be a deliberate process with clear objectives and defined com-
ponents or an incidental activity, largely determined by the principal. Regardless
of its nature, a learning process is inevitable, whether planned or unplanned. In
some countries newly appointed principals receive little induction - a one or two-
day induction program at the beginning of the school year, with some in-servicing
regarding the employing authorities’ agenda for the year, is considered sufficient. In
other settings new principals have a formal, structured program available to them
as one component of a multi-faceted approach to enhancing their leadership capa-
bilities and building leadership capacity in schools. Newly appointed principals are
in special need of assistance when taking on responsibility for a school (Browne-
Ferrigno, 2003). Integrated and articulated strategies of professional support, gui-
dance, and development must be available to new principals. These might include
mentoring; inter-school and district visitations; peer pairings; network interactions;
face to face and online sharing of good practice; and access to modular programs
to address specific skills in areas of leadership responsibility relevant to the par-
ticular setting in which principals are located. Induction programs might include
the development of mentoring relationships by joining early career principals with
experienced principals; on line discussions; collaborative inquiry, participation in
networked learning communities; coaching; inter-visitations; and engagement in
91
seminars and other learning activities relevant to their own needs and the needs of
their school and employing authority.
Successful induction should smooth the path for new principals, accelerate their so-
cialization, enable them to make sense of the complex reality of the school leadership
and built their confidence to perform the role effectively. Inadequate or tacit induction is
likely to slow down the learning process, and leave principals with damaging sense of
uncertainty about whether they are leading effectively or not. Where induction occurs, it
may be regarded as a key stage in the ongoing process of continuing development.
Researches draw attention on the significance of professional development
for successful school leadership (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Bush, 2008; Hallinger,
2003). Leadership development is often a generic term to describe any form of
preparation or training for headship, or it is specifically used to refer to activities
undertaken following appointment as a principal, that is in-service training. In-
duction is one phase of this process but leadership development should be seen as
any professional activity undertaken once principals have taken their posts. Such
provision may be complimentary to pre-service preparation or as a substitute for it.
In studies of the professional development needs of experienced principals atten-
tion has been drawn to the need for experienced principals to have available to them
a range of learning opportunities from which selection can be made in accordance
with specific needs. These learning experiences may usefully involve: study groups;
advanced seminars; reading and discussion groups; presentations by current thinkers
or expert practitioners; attendance at national academies or conferences; and opportu-
nities to become coaches, facilitators, or trainers themselves (Bush, 2008). Hallinger
(2003) argues that in-service opportunities are often haphazard, under-funded and
limited in both scope and content. The content of in-service programmes, however, is
more varied in approach than the pre-service curriculum and is more firmly connected
to the needs of principals. The greater involvement of practitioners in planning, men-
toring and delivering programmes has had a beneficial effect and is in sharp contrast
to pre-service programmes. In-service learning should not however be haphazard or
fragmented. Rather the curriculum should be: carefully designed with attention to
prior learning; coordinated and aligned across all learning providers and activities;
provide core skills and knowledge that will enhance leadership, but also knowledge
and skills related to the specific certification requirements (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003).
The continuing professional renewal of experienced principals is an important
part of what is essentially a process of lifelong learning. At the same time as programs
of professional development should be made available to principals seeking to enhan-
ce their own professional growth and development, principals themselves can play an
important part in the professional advancement of aspiring principals and others who
have been newly appointed to the position of principal, and indeed to other positions
of leadership in schools and educational institutions more generally.
92
One of the issues of a major importance is a necessity to ensure coherence of

provision by different institutions. A broad range of providers can cater to the varied
training needs for school leadership. Training is provided by Ministries of Education
or local governments, or outsourced to specialized institutions, to teacher training
institutions or to a specialized body established to focus on school leadership training.
Universities have also a broad range of supply. In addition, teacher and school lea-
ders’ institutions have developed their own training programmes. Where there is no
national orientation but a range of institutions catering to local or regional needs, it is
important to have clear standards that ensure that suppliers focus on good leadership
development. Designing, delivering and assessing leadership programmes require
complex skills, including leadership experience, understanding of relevant research
and literature, and highly developed oral and written communication skills. That is
why a lack of suitable course leaders and stuff may be experienced. Bolam (2004)
discusses the challenge facing research-ambitious universities to produce high-quali-
ty research and publications on school leadership development. Another strategy is to
encourage practitioner research, develop school leaders to become consultant leaders
and contribute to programmes as facilitators, consultants and coaches.
The analysis of leadership development programmes (Bush, 2008; Bush, Jack-
son, 2008; Pont et al, 2008) allows generating a “content model” for leadership
development. Programmes may vary in structure, content and effectiveness. Some
of the differences perceived depend on how the role of school leadership is con-
ceived. Whether school leadership development focuses on managerial responsibi-
lities, including business skills and resource management, and/or on instructional
leadership skills will depend on the level of autonomy and decentralisation granted
to schools and the roles leaders are asked to play. However, a core curriculum most
likely comprises five main themes: Instructional leadership: the topics related to te-
achings and learning, pedagogical leadership, managing teaching and learning. Le-
aders seek to achieve good outcomes by influencing the motivation, commitment,
capability of teachers. They monitor teaching and learning to check that high stan-
dards are being achieved. So the course modules on instructional leadership need
to address these themes. Law: The purpose of a module is to ensure that leaders
understand the main requirements effecting schools and their management. Finan-
ce: Principals need skills to set and manage budget, audit spending and ensure that
expenditure is targeted and meets school objectives. Managing people: Principals
may be responsible for the full range human resource management: staff selection,
induction, mentoring, staff development, deployment, appraisal, discipline. Modu-
le should include these themes. Administration: administration should be regarded
as a function that supports the educational purpose of a school.
The most controversial area associated with principal development is that con-
cerned with the setting of standards for school leadership, and the licensure/certi-
93
fication of leaders (Bush, 2008). The standards are being used for certification as a
principal, for principal evaluation and for professional development programmes.
These principles underpin the knowledge requirements, personal qualities, and
actions of leaders certain leadership areas. These standards offer a framework to
guide professional learning and a basis for the development of leadership program-
mes. 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 the licensure/certification of beginning
principals and the re-licensure of practicing principals.
There are two basic approaches to standards of school leadership: competency ba-
sed approach and performance based approach (Louden, Wildy, 1999). A competency
framework for standards of school heads work usually identifies key areas of principal’s
responsibility. Within each of key areas there is a subdivision of further competencies.
The standard of performance in each competency is to be judged by certain indicators of
principal’s work. The competency based model for standards is one that describes obser-
vable behaviors based on a close scrutiny and analysis of the role of school principals.
The weaknesses of this approach are the hierarchical lists of dispositions, knowledge
and duties; the decontextualizing of performance and the promise of false dichotomies
of those who reach a prescribed standard and those who fail. The purpose of the per-
formance based model for leadership standards is to specify and illustrate the range of
performance within the school principal’s work. The project consists of three stages.
The first stage is an initial research into selecting dimensions of school head’s work and
establishment of a continuum of performance. The second phase provides an account on
of the content of principal’s work. The third stage is designed to develop progress maps
that describe the progression in development in performance in each dimension. Rich in
reality of case studies, performance based approach appears a potential alternative to lists
of hierarchical duties and responsibilities in competency based model as well as provides
insight to leadership development programmes.
Differences in approach reflect deeply held differences in philosophy regarding
professional learning and career planning. On the one hand, it is argued that the
presence of standards and mandatory requirements creates hurdles that function as
disincentives for people who might consider applying for leadership positions. On
the other, the determination and assessment of standards and certification is neces-
sary in order to enhance professionalism and ensure quality.
A recent study by Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) identified differentiated elements
as contributing to the success of pre-service and in-service training programmes.
For successful pre-service training, starting with the targeted recruitment and
selection of teachers with leadership potential, key elements were:
94
• a coherent curriculum aligned to state and professional standards which

emphasize instructional leadership and school improvement;
• active student-centered instruction;
• social and professional support as well as formalized mentoring and advising;
• designed internships that provide exposure.
Successful training of practicing principals involves them having a training

continuum, which includes pre-service, induction and in-service. Particular ele-
ments that made for successful training are:
• leadership learning grounded in practice, including analysis of classroom
practice,
• supervision and professional development using on-the-job observation;
• collegial learning networks such as principals’ networks, study groups and
• mentoring or peer coaching that offer communities of practice and ongoing
sources of support.
The delivery methods and timing of preparation and professional development

may vary dependently on specific national contexts. Some countries or regions may
focus primarily on on-the-job development, while other countries emphasize strong
initial training for leadership. A third strategy is to provide specialized training at
educational institutions at different stages of a leader’s career. The content of leaders-
hip development programmes needs to be tailored specifically to the changing needs
of the participants, whether it is pre-service preparation, induction during the first
years, or in-service provision for more experienced leaders. An overview of how the
programmes for each stage link with each other and with leadership standards and/
or certification requirements is vital for a strategic view of leadership development.
Of particular importance is the need to contextualize approaches to ensure relevance
and to customize approaches to ensure responsiveness to particular needs. The num-
ber of continuing professional learning approaches identified is of particular impor-
tance. These approaches – reflective practice, action science, mentoring, field based
learning, etc. – are considered to be essential elements in a framework intended to
support continuing professional development for school leadership.
5. The theoretical model of interconnection between development of school

heads’ competencies and school improvement
School leadership and questions concerning the optimum approaches for effective
recruitment, assessment and development of principals have become matters to which
increasing concern has been devoted in education systems internationally. Systems of
preparatory training, certification, selection, assessment, induction and ongoing deve-
95
lopment for school leaders are necessarily rooted in specific national conditions and
contexts. In evaluating these diverse approaches, researches should first of all acknow-
ledge the vital importance of culture and context shaping education, leadership and lea-
dership development in each country (Bolam, 2004). However, despite such differences,
there has been a global trend toward more systematic provision of leadership and mana-
gement development for school leaders directly tied to school improvement process. Hu-
ber (2004) offers generalizations about current trends in school leadership preparation:
• Stronger coherence and coordination around state leadership development vision
and practice standards, national accreditation standards, and research findings;
• Stronger focus on instructional leadership and leadership for change, impro-
vement, and reform;
• Greater emphasis placed on identifying and recruiting potentially stronger
and more effective leaders;
• Greater emphasis placed on the importance of leadership at all levels (teacher
leaders, school leaders, district leaders, and state leaders) coupled with an
emphasis of continuous evolution and development of leadership capacity;
• Stronger use of both informal and formal internship and mentoring features as spe-
cific components of both initial preparation and continuing education programs;
• Increasing partnerships and coordination between universities, regional
service centers, departments of education, local districts, and private foun-
dations and corporations;
• Emphasis on acquisition and continued enhancement of knowledge, skills,
competencies, and practices.
The above mentioned factors have an indirect positive impact on school impro-
vement process. Basing on the data of longitude researches, Bush (2008), Watson
(2003) provide an approach to school leader professional development which:
• is centrally concerned with improving the quality of schooling and the
achievement of pupils;
• is systematic, comprehensive and of high quality;
• makes available continuing opportunities for every career phase;
• has a concern for practical skills but also for a more philosophical approach;
• involves a range of providers;
• provides core training, but supports development opportunities that mean
more than this; and,
• is based on the best available evidence and fosters the research that gene-
rates this.
On the basis of the theoretical analysis of school leadership development orga-

nization the model of school leadership development system is designed (Fig.1).
The criteria for the model analysis are summarized in the table 1.
96
Overall school improvement
Vision and responsibilities of school

leadership
School leadership standards (competences)
System of leadership
succession
Career development options Recruitment system
for school leaders
Providers of
Stages of leadership career leadership
Employment status Pre-service development
and duration training programs
Emergent leader
Need
Entry to headship analysis
Remuneration and Induction
motyvation system Established leaders Content
Curricular
Advanced leadership coherence
In-service Methods
Retention system
Consultant leadership training Structure
Coherence
Certfication/licensure
requirements
Implementation of Education strategy
Fig. 1. Theoretical model of interconnection between development of school

heads’ competencies and school improvement (Source: authors)
Researches (Bolam, 2004; Pont et al., 2008) have introduced the main criteria
for the analysis of school leadership developments systems. Summarizing the intro-
duced criteria the following theoretical approach to school leadership development
system analysis is developed:
97
Table 1. Criteria for the analysis of the model of school leadership development
(adapted from Bolam, 2004)
Sub-model Key issue
Vision and What concept of school leadership underpins the vision of school leadership
responsibilities of development?
school leadership What is the level of school leadership autonomy ?
Are the core leadership responsibilities defined and delimited? What are
they?
What leadership competences should school leaders possess? Is there a
School leadership leadership framework/standards/competences that provide guidance on the
framework/ main responsibilities of effective school leaders and signal the vision of
standards school leadership.
(competences) Are the standards a basis for consistent recruitment, training and appraisal
of school leaders?
How does leadership development system interrelate with leadership
standards? Do leadership standards guide professional development of
school leaders?
Does the system ensure leadership competences acquisition and
development process?
School leadership Are there clear strategies of school leadership succession planning in a
succession country?
Does succession planning involves identifying potential leaders and
encouraging them to develop leadership practices?
Is there a systematic framework insuring that the recruitment procedures
Recruitment for and criteria used are effective, transparent and consistent?
school leadership What are the eligibility criteria for school leadership?
What are the selection criteria for selection candidates from a pool of
eligible candidates?
What are the recruitment procedures?
Career Are there career development prospects for school leaders?
development Are there any opportunities provided to step up towards new opportunities
options for school (e.g. jobs in educational administration; consultant leadership etc.)?
leaders
Employment status What is the employment status of a school leader?
and duration What is the duration of appointments to principalship?
Remuneration and What are the factors influencing the motivation of individuals to apply for
motivation system school leadership (e.g. intrinsic motivation; factors related to recruitment
and working conditions; work overload, work-life balance; salary levels;
career prospects etc.)?
Are the incentives promoted that add
Retention system value to leaders’ professional experiences, work conditions
and personal concerns.
Certification/ How does leadership development system address certification/licensure
licensure requirements?
requirements Are the programmes adjusted to certification requirements?
Needs analysis How are school leaders’ development and training needs established?
How are the needs and demands of school leaders analyzed?
98
Sub-model Key issue

School leadership Does leadership development for school leaders include preparatory,
development induction and in-service components? What are their broad features?
Is the leadership development coherent? Are the system components
interrelated?
How does leadership development system correspond to participants needs
at various leadership career stages?
How does leadership development system meet organizational challenges
to leadership (succession, recruitment, appointment, etc)?
How leadership development corresponds to succession planning?
How leadership development responds to leadership retaining strategy?
How are the programmes funded (e.g. nationally, locally, by individual
grants, etc.)?
How large is the budget?
Is the budget sufficient?
Providers of Who are the providers or suppliers? (e.g. universities, national and local
leadership educational institutions, etc). Do they have a capacity to “deliver”?
development Do leadership development programmes carry accreditation, if so, from
programs whom (e.g. government, university, etc.)?
How are they co-coordinated (e.g. by government, university, etc.)?
Is there enough information about the choice of the programmes? Are the
programmes available for all willing to participate?
Is the network of leadership development providers coherent?
Is there enough information about leadership development opportunities?
Are there competent lecturers?
Main features of Are the school leadership development programmes compulsory?
the programs How are the programmes funded (e.g. nationally, locally, by individual
grants, etc.)?
What are the main content areas of training programmes?
Is the process linked to performance management and/or national leadership
standards? Is the process linked to certification/licensure requirements?
Are the programmes standardized or personalized?
What methods are used in school leadership development programmes?
What are the core modules in the curriculum? How the curriculum underpins
leadership concept?
What part does theory play?
What classroom-based methods are used? What field-based methods are
used?
What role is played by information and communication technology,
e-learning?
A theoretical model of interconnection between development of school he-

ads’ competencies and school improvement provides a starting point for the cons-
truction of a methodological framework for school leadership development studies
in Lithuania that would respond a global trend towards more systematic provision
of leadership development as human resource management, particularly for school
principals.
99
As the expectations of what schools should achieve have changed dramatically

over recent years, Lithuania as well as other European countries needs to develop
new forms of school leadership better suited to respond to current and future edu-
cational environments. In order to do so, according to Pont et al (2008), Lithuania
needs to address two sets of challenges simultaneously.
First, Lithuania needs to support and retrain the school principals who are cur-
rently on the job. Most of them were hired into schools in educational environments
that were fundamentally different from today. Over time the rules of engagement
for principalship/leadership have changed. As the roles and responsibilities of prin-
cipals have evolved, the terms and conditions of service also need to be revised.
Today’s school leaders need to learn to adopt new forms of more distributed lea-
dership. They need in-service training to develop and update their skills and they
need more adequate rewards and incentive structures to stay motivated on the job
and provide high quality leadership.
Second, Lithuania needs to prepare and train the next generation of school le-
aders. Especially at a time of high demographic turnover in leadership, thinking
about and caring for the future is an essential aspect of system leadership. Lasting
improvement depends on a clear definition and better distribution of leadership tas-
ks within schools, planned succession mechanisms, professionalized recruitment
processes, preparatory training, mentoring of new leaders, working conditions that
attract high quality graduates to educational leadership and a commitment to gre-
ater leadership density and capacity within schools from which future high level
leaders can emerge.
At the same time, it is important to contextualize school leadership policies.
There is no single model of leadership that could be easily transferred across diffe-
rent school-level and system-level contexts. The specific contexts in which schools
operate may limit school leaders’ functions, or provide opportunities for different
types of leadership. Depending on the school contexts in which they work, school
leaders face very different sets of challenges. Approaches to school leadership poli-
cy need to be based on careful consideration of the context in which schools operate
and their particular challenges.
A theoretical model of interconnection between development of school heads’
competencies and school improvement introduced in the studyprovides a starting
point for the construction of a methodological framework for school leadership
development studies in Lithuania that would respond a global trend towards more
systematic provision of leadership development, particularly for school principals
and the process of school improvement.
100
Conclusions
• In the current study school heads’ competencies development as an object

of the research is conceptualized in the context of education management
paradigms. The analysis of education management paradigms sets a fra-
mework for describing processes in education, disclosing casual links and
searching for perspective decisions. Theories, conceptualizing paradigms,
allow to explain the changes in school management that encompass the
transformation of school heads roles, activity areas, functions, leadership
models, subsequently specific competencies have become relevant, what
leads to the necessity to revise the principles of competencies development.
The design of the research is rooted in the paradigm of systemic change and
in the theories that conceptualize this particular paradigm (school improve-
ment, school as learning organization).
• The theoretical analysis of the process of school leadership discloses the
key areas of school heads’ activity and their functions. It is argued that
school heads are responsible for the management of educational process,
school management and administration, school redesigning and direction
setting. The analysis of activity areas and functions is adjusted to the con-
ception of first order and second order changes that allows characterizing
the activity of school heads under the conditions of systemic change.
• The conception of school heads’ leadership models as a methodological
approach for the analysis of principals’ practical activity provides a possi-
bility to identify theoretically connections between leadership and school
processes. It is stated that realization of an integral leadership model (that
combines instructional, transactional and transformational leadership) pre-
supposes school improvement in the paradigm of systemic change.
• The conceptions of school heads’ competency and holistic capability are
defined by means of theoretical analysis. It is revealed that under the con-
ditions of systemic change school heads must possess the holistic capabi-
lity that includes certain competencies: management of educational pro-
cess, strategic, operational, interpersonal, personal, continuous learning as
well as dimensions of emotional intelligent, critical thinking and diagnostic
competency. Each competency is constituted of certain skills. School heads
competencies are the key premise of their management competence.
• The certain principles of the arrangements of school heads’ competencies
development have been extracted by means of theoretical analysis. In the
paradigm of systemic change school heads’ competencies development
must be a purposeful and a coherent process tailored to different stages
of management career in education and must adjust appropriately to meet
101
the specific needs of school heads and their organizations. School heads’
competencies development must be a priority of school heads’ as human
resource management.
• The factors, constituting the quality of school heads’ competencies deve-
lopment, are identified theoretically. It is argued that in the paradigm of
systemic change the quality of competencies development depends on the
peculiarities of content, process, context and assessment as well as on con-
sistent analysis of needs for competencies development.
• A theoretical model of school leadership development provides a starting
point for the construction of a methodological framework for school lea-
dership development studies in Lithuania that would respond a global trend
towards more systematic provision of leadership development as human
resource management, particularly for school principals.
Straipsnis gautas 2016 02 16

Spausdinti rekomendavo doc. dr. Lidija Ušeckienė
References
Arbatauskas, A. (sud.). (1996). Vadovams apie vadybą. Atestacija. Vadyba. Ugdymo filosofija. Vil-
nius: Leidybos centras.
Argyris, C., Putnam R., Smith D. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1985).Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Avolio, B.J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: made/born. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bagdonas, A, Jucevičienė, P. (2002). Švietimo subjektų interesai, jų laukai bei juos įtakojantys veiks-
niai. Socialiniai mokslai, 1 (33), 54–61.
Bagdonas, A. (2002) Bendrojo lavinimo mokyklos veiklos efektyvumo vertinimas: švietimo subjektų
interesų raiška ir kongruencijos ypatumai. (Daktaro disertacijos santrauka. Socialiniai mokslai,
edukologija, KTU).
Barkauskaitė, M. (2006). Suaugusiųjų pedagogikos gairės. Vilnius: VPU leidykla.
Barkauskaitė, M., Gudžinskienė, V. (2007). Aukštosios mokyklos dėstytojų pedagoginių kompetencijų
bei gebėjimo taikyti šiuolaikines studijų technologijas tobulinimo inovatyvi modulinė programa.
1 knyga. Vilnius: VPU leidykla.
Baršauskienė, V., Janulevičiūtė, B. (1999). Žmogiškieji santykiai. Kaunas. Technologija.
Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.
Bitinas, B. (2006). Edukologinis tyrimas: sistema ir procesas. Vilnius: Kronta.
Bolam, R. (2004). Reflections on the NCSL from a historical perspective. Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, 32 (3), 251–267
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: role conception, initial socialization, role identity
transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468–503.
Brundrett, M., Fitzgerald, T., Sommefeldt, D. (2006). The Creation of National programmes of school
leadership development in England and New Zealand: a comparative study. International Studies
in Educational Administration, 34 (1), 89–105.
Būdienė, V. (1997). Kai kurie sisteminių švietimo pokyčių aspektai. Kn. Švietimo reformos vertini-
mai. Vilnius: VPU.
Būdienė, V. (2000). Monitoringas ad hoc. Mokykla, 5, 2–5.
102
Budreckienė, V., Janiūnaitė, B. (2010). Mokyklos vadovo inovacinės veiklos prielaidos: Lietuvos
atvejis. Socialiniai mokslai, 2(68), 26–36.
Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management in education. London: Sage.
Bush, T. (2010). Theories of educational leadership and management: Fourth Edition, London: Sage.
Bush, T., Jackson, D. (2002). Preparation for school leadership: international perspectives. Educatio-
nal Management and Administration, 30 (4), 417-429.
Bush, T., Middlewood, D. (2005). Leading and managing people in education. London: Sage.
Caldwell, B. (2002). A blueprint for successful leadership in an era of globalization in learning: Impli-
cations for preparation, licensure, selection, evaluation, and professional development. In W. Lin
(ed.). National Taipei Teachers College Principals’ Centre.
Caldwell, B. J., Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Cibulskas, G., Janiūnaitė, B. (2001). Individualaus pasipriešinimo edukacinėms novacijoms priežastys
ir raiškos tipai: bendrojo lavinimo mokyklų vadovų požiūris. Socialiniai mokslai, 1 (27), 59-66.
Cibulskas, R. (1996). Mokyklos vadovų veiklos pagrindinės nuostatos ir motyvacija. Pedagogika,
32, 77-85.
Crow, G. (2001). School leader preparation: a short review of the knowledge base. NCSL Research
Archive. Prieiga per internetą: www.ncsl.org.uk/Crow.
Crow, G. M., Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding one’s way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dalin, P., Rolff, H.G., Kleekamp, B. (1999). Changing the school culture. London: Sage Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders for
a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership programmes. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University.
Dempster, N. (2002). The professional development of principals: a theoretical framework. The
Practising Administrator, 24 (1), 17-19.
Dempster, N., Logan, L. (2002). Expectations of school leaders. In J. MacBeath (ed.). Effective school
leadership: Responding to change. London: Paul Chapman.
Dobranskienė, R. (2002). Mokyklos bendruomenės vadyba. Vilnius: VPU.
Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York: Random House.
Earley, P., Evans, J. (2004). Making a difference? Leadership development for headteachers and de-
puties – ascertaining the impact of the NCSL. Educational Management, Administration and
Leadership, 32 (3), 325-338.
Early, P. (1997). Mokyklos vadybos standartai. Švietimo studijų sąsiuvinis. Švietimo vadyba 1. Vil-
nius: Solertija.
Earley, P. (1992). Using competences for school management development. British Journal of In-
service education, 18 (3), 176-185.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Europos Komisijos komunikatas „Gebėjimų ugdymas XXI amžiuje: Europos bendradarbiavimo mo-
kyklos klausimais darbotvarkė“. (2008). SEC(2008)2172.
Europos Sąjungos Tarybos išvados dėl mokytojų ir mokyklų vadovų profesinio tobulinimosi
(2009/C/302/04). Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys (2009 m. gruodžio 12 d.).
Europos šalių apžvalga. Lyderystė švietime. Lietuvos ataskaita. (2008). www.lyderiulaikas.smm.lt/
II/222_CR_lt_Layout.doc.
Evans, P. M., Mohr, N. (1999). Professional development for principals. London: Seven core.
Fullan, M, (2003). Change Forces with a Vengeance. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful School Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: Sage.
Fullan, M. (1998). Pokyčių jėgos: skverbimasis į ugdymo reformos gelmes. Vilnius: Tyto alba.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2008). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M.(1996). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. R. Guskey, M. Hu-
berman (eds.). Professional development in education: New paradigms and practice. New York:
Teacher College.
103
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. London: Sage.
Fullan, M., Hargreaves A. (1991). Whatʼs worth fighting for? Working together for your school. To-
ronto, Ontario Public School Teachersʼ Federation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York.
Garalis, A. (1999). Naujas vadovo mąstymas: kaitos procesų valdymas švietimo sistemoje. Pedago-
gika, 38, 78–87.
Goldring, E. B., Camburn, E., Huff, J. T., Sebastian, J. (2007). Assessing learning centred leadership.
Paper prepared for the Wallace Foundation Grand on Leadership Assessment.
Goldring, E. B., Huff, J. T., Stitziel Pareja, A., Spillane, J. (2008). Measuring principals’ content
knowledge of learning-centered leadership. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ame-
rican Educational Research Association in New York, NY.
Goldring, E., Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school effective-ness. Scho-
ol Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5 (3), 239–253.
Goldring, E. B., Huff, J. T., Spillane, J., Barnes, C. L. (2009). Measuring the instructional leadership
expertise of principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 1-31.
Goldring, E. B., Pasternack, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school effectiveness.
School effectiveness and school improvement, 5, 237-251.
Goldring, E. B., Preston, C., Huff, J. (2010). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional develo-
pment for school leaders. Paper presented for the Asian Leadership Roundtable. Institute of Edu-
cation, Hong Kong.
Goleman, D. (2003). Emocinis intelektas. Vilnius: Presvika.
Gronn, P. (2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders. Changing leadership practice in an era of
school reform. London: Paul Chapman.
Gurr, D. M. (1995). Principal and teacher perspectives on the leadership role of principals in schools
of the future. Research and Practice in Educational Administration, 6, 81-106.
Gurr, D. M. (1996). On conceptualizing school leadership: time to abandon transformational Leaders-
hip. Leading and Managing, 2(3), 221-239.
Gurr, D. M., Drysdale, L., Mulford, M. (2005). Successful principal leadership: Australian case stu-
dies. Journal of educational administration, 43 (6), 539-551.
Guskey, T. R. (2004). Profesinio tobulinimosi vertinimas. Vilnius: Garnelis.
Hallinger, P. Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behaviour of principals. Ele-
mentary school journal, 86 (2), 217-247.
Hallinger, P. (1998). Educational leadership and students’ achievement. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 10 (4), 50-65.
Hallinger, P. (2000). A review of two decades of research on the principalship using the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (3), 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (2008). Methodologies for studying school leadership. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the annual conference of AERA. New York.
Hallinger, P., Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution to school effectiveness. School
effectiveness and school improvement, 9,157-191.
Hallinger, P., Heck, R.H. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management. Where does
the field stand today? Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 33 (2), 229-244.
Hammond, R. L. (1973). Evaluation at the local level. B. R. Worthen, J. R. Sanders (eds.). Educational
Evaluation: theory and practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hargreaves, A. (1993). Individualism and individuality: reinterpreting the teacher culture. In J. Little,
W. McLaughin (eds.). Teachersʼ work. New York: Teacherʼs College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1999). Keičiasi mokytojai, keičiasi laikai. Vilnius: Tyto alba.
Hargreaves, A., Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
104
Hargreaves, A., Halász, G., Pont, B. (2008). The Finnish Approach to System Leadership. A case
study report for the OECD Improving School Leadership activity. Prieiga per internetą: www.
oecd.org/edu/schoolleadership.
Hargreaves, A., Reynolds, D. (1989). Decomprehensivization. In A. Hargreaves, D. Reynolds (eds.).
Education policies: controversies and critiques. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, D. (2004). Personalising Learning: Next Steps in Working Laterally. London: Specialist
Schools and Academies Trust.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2006). A New shape of schooling? London: Specialist Schools and Academies
Trust.
Hart, A. W. (1993). Principal Succession: Establishing Leadership in Schools. Albany, NY: Suny
Press.
Heck, R. (2003). Examining the impact of professional preparation on beginning school administra-
tors. In P. Hallinger (ed.). Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global
perspective. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Huber, S. G. (1997). Headteachers’ views on headship and training: a comparison with the NPQH.
School of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Huber, S. G. (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: an international comparison of
development programs in 15 countries. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Huber, S. G. (2008) Management and leadership development. In: International encyclopaedia of
education. Elsevier.
Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning and social context. London: Croom Helm.
Jarvis, P. (1998). Besimokanti visuomenė – šiuolaikinio pasaulio reiškinys. Mokykla, 1 (2), 1–6.
Jarvis, P. (2001). Mokymosi paradoksai. Kaunas: VDU.
Jarvis, P., Holford, J., Griffin, C. (2004). The theory and practice of learning. London: Kogan Page.
Jucevičienė, P. (1996). Organizacijos elgsena. Kaunas. Technologija.
Jucevičienė, P. (1998). Edukologijos idėjos Lietuvos švietimo sistemos modernizavimui. Kaunas:
Technologija.
Jucevičienė, P. (2003). Pedagogo IKT kompetencijos dinamiškos struktūros pagrindimas. Socialiniai
mokslai, 2 (39), 70–81.
Jucevičienė, P. (2010). Universiteto edukacinė galia: atsakas į XXI amžiaus iššūkius. Kaunas: Tech-
nologija.
Jucevičienė, P., Lepaitė, D. (2000). Kompetencijos sampratos erdvė. Socialiniai mokslai, 1 (22),
40–49.
Jucevičius, R. (1996). Vadybos pagrindai. Kn.: N. Večkienė (red.). Švietimo vadybos įvadas. Kaunas:
Technologija.
Jucevičius, R. (1997). Strateginis organizacijų vystymas. Kaunas: Technologija.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf.
Knowles, M. S. (1975a). Self-Directed learning. Chicago: Follet.
Knowles, M., Holton E., Swanson, R. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult edu-
cation and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Knowles, M. S. (1975b). Self-Directed Learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Cam-
bridge Books.
Kofman, F., Senge P. (1995). Communities of Commitment: The Heart Of Learning Organizations.
In Ch. Sarita, J. Renesch (eds.). Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s
Workplace. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiental Learning: Experiance as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Kučinskienė, R. (2003). Ugdymo karjerai metodologija. Klaipėda: KU leidykla.
Leithwood, K., et al. (eds.). (1996). International Hand-book of Educational Leadership and Admi-
nistration, part 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49
(5), 8-12.
105
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly,

30 (4), 498–518.
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Jour-
nal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217–235.
Leithwood, K. A., Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in principals’ problem solving. Educational Adminis-
tration Quarterly, 25 (2), 126-161.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., Cousins, J. B. (1992). Developing Expert Leadership for Future Schools.
London: Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckin-
gham. Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D, (2005). A Review of Transformational School Literature, Research 1996–
2005. Montreal: AERA.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. (1999). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions
and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K., Levin, B. (2009). Understanding and assessing the impact of leadership development.
In J. Lumby, G. Crow, P. Pashiardis (eds.). International handbook on preparation and develo-
pment of school leaders. New York: Routledge.
Leithwood, K., Levin, B. (2004). Assessing school leaders and leadership programme effects on
pupil learning: Conceptual and methodological Challenges. London: Department for education
and skills.
Leithwood, K., Reidlinger, B., Bauer, S., Jantzi, D. (2003). Leadership program. Open University
Press.
Leithwood, K., Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia:
Temple University.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership student
learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Levine, D. U., Lezotte, K. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: a review and analysis of research
and practice. Madison.
Levine, D. U., Lezzotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: a review and analysis of research
and practise. Madison: National Center for Effective Schools Research.
Lindstrom, P. H., Speck, M. (2004). The principal as professional development leader. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Longworth, N. (1999). Making lifelong learning work. London.
Louden, W., Wildy, H. (1999). Circumstance and proper timing: Context and the construction of a
standards framework for school principal’s performance. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(3), 398–422.
Mečkauskienė, R. (2009). Mokyklos vadovo vaidmenų transformacija. Jaunųjų mokslininkų darbai,
1 (22), 184–186.
Mečkauskienė, R. (2010). Mokyklos valdymo kaitos veiksniai ir kryptys. Pedagogika, 99, 23–30.
Mortimore, P. (1995). The primary head: roles, responsibilities and reflection. London: Sage.
Mulford, B. (2003). Leadership for organizational learning and improved students outcomes. Cam-
bridge Journal of Education, 33 (2), 175-195.
Mulford, B. (2008). School leaders: changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness.
A paper commissioned by the Education and Training Policy Division, OECD, for the Activity
Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers.
Murphy, C. (1997). Finding Time for Faculties to Study Together. Journal of Staff Development. 18
(3), 29–32.
Murphy, J. (2003). Developing standards for school leadership development: a process and rationale.
In P. Hallinger (ed.). Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: a global pers-
pective. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
106
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Managerial
Applications. New York: The Free Press Macmillan.
Murphy, J., Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation: An analysis. School
leadership and management, 26 (2), 183-195.
Olsen, J. (2002). Towards a European administrative space? Advanced research on the Europeani-
sation of the Nation-State (Arena), University of Oslo, Working Paper Nr. 26. Opportunities.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 213-232.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., Hopkins, D. (2008). Improving School Leadership, Vol. 2: Case Studies on
System Leadership, OECD, Paris.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership, Vol. 1: Policy and Practice,
OECD, Paris.
Purkey, S. C., Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal,
83(4), 427-452.
Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Grade retention and school adjustment: An explanatory analysis. A Proposal
to the Institute of Education Sciences. Florida.
Reynolds, D. (1991). Changing ineffective schools. In M. Ainscow (ed.). Effective schools for all.
London: Fulton.
Reynolds, D. (1992). School effectiveness and school improvement. A working paper. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: a review of effectiveness
research. A report by Institute for the Office of Standards in Education.
Scheerens, J. (1992). Schools Effectiveness. London: Cassel.
Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness. Fundaments of Educational Planning, 68, 52-68.
Scott, G. (1999). Change matters: making a difference in education and training. St. Leonards: Allen
and Unwin.
Scott, G. (2003). Learning principals: leadership capabilities and learning research in NSW. A report
prepared for the NSW Department of Education and Training.
Scott, G. (2010). Learning leaders in times of change. Sydney: NSW DET.
Simonaitienė, B. (2004). Mokykla – besimokanti organizacija. Kaunas: Technologija.
Simonaitienė, B. (2007). Mokyklos – besimokančios organizacijos vystymas. Kaunas: Technologija.
Simonaitienė, B., Targamadzė, V. (2002). Bendrojo lavinimo mokyklos, kaip besimokančios organi-
zacijos, veiklos charakteristikos teorinis pagrindimas. Tiltai, 1, 95–105.
Stephenson, J. (1992). Capability and quality in higher education. In J. Stephenson, S. Weil (eds.).
Quality in learning: a capability approach to higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Stephenson, J. (2000). Corporate capability: implications for the style and direction of work-based
learning. Sydney: University of Technology.
Stephenson, J., Weil, S. (1992). Quality in learning: a capability approach to higher Education. Lon-
don: Kogan Page.
Tomlinson, H. (1999). Recent development in England and Wales: The National Professional Quali-
fication (NPQH) and the Leadership Programme for Serving Headteacher (LPSH). International
Studies in Educational Administration, 29(2), 50-60.
Trotter, A., Ellison, L., Davies, B. (2001). Determining and developing competencies in schools. In
B. Davies, L. Ellison (eds.). School leadership for the XXI century: A competency and knowledge
approach (3rd edition). London: Routledge.
Trotter, A., Ellison, L. (1997). Understanding competence and competency. In B. Davies, L. Ellison
(eds.). School leadership for the 21st century. A competency and knowledge approach. London:
Routledge.
Večkienė, N. (red.). (1996). Švietimo vadybos įvadas. Kaunas: Technologija.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that Sparks Learning. Educational Leaders-
hip, 61, 48-51.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership. London: Sage.
107
Willis, Q. (1980). The work activity of school principals: An observational study. The Journal of
Educational Administration, 18 (1), 27-54.
Želvys, R. (1999). Švietimo vadyba ir kaita. Monografija. Vilnius: Garnelis.
Želvys, R. (2001). Švietimo vadyba ir kaita. Vilnius: VU leidykla.
Želvys, R. (2003). Švietimo organizacijų vadyba. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Želvys, R. (2009). Lietuvos švietimo politikos kontekstas. Kn.: T. Bulajeva, L. Duoblienė (sud.).
Lietuvos švietimo politikos transformacijos. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
Želvys, R. (sud.). (1997). Švietimo vadyba. Švietimo studijų sąsiuvinis, 1. Vilnius: Solertija.
Želvys, R., Būdienė, V., Zabulionis, A. (2003). Švietimo politika ir monitoringas. Vilnius: Garnelis.
VADOVO KOMPETENCIJŲ ĮTAKA MOKYKLOS TOBULINIMUI
Santrauka
Mokyklos vadovų kompetentingo vadovavimo ir kompetencijų ugdymo(si)

svarbą nuolatinės švietimo sistemos kaitos sąlygomis akcentuoja ir Lietuvos
švietimo politikos dokumentai. Tai aktualizuoja mokyklų vadovų plataus spekt-
ro kompetencijų ugdymosi ir jų nuolatinio plėtojimo, kompetencijų ugdymo sis-
temos modernizavimo, kompetencijų ugdymo renginių kokybės užtikrinimo
problematiką. Remiantis nuoseklumo principu, kompetencijų ugdymo procesas turi
apimti pirminio rengimo, įvedimo į pareigas ir nuolatinio kompetencijų tobulinimo
etapus. Sistemingumo principas atsiskleidžia karjeros švietimo srityje koncepcijo-
je. Tad mokyklų vadovų kompetencijų ugdymas turėtų būti nuoseklus, sistemingas
procesas, suderintas su mokyklų vadovų karjeros etapais ir specifiniais poreiki-
ais bei lūkesčiais. Šios vadovų išugdytos kompetencijos mokyklos bendruomenei
laiduoja švietimo paslaugų (edukacinių ir socialinių) efektyvumą, rezultatyvumą,
naudingumą ir prieinamumą.
108

Competence of The Leadership Influence School Improvement

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Competence of The Leadership Influence School Improvement

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ISSN 2029-6894.

ANDRAGOGIKA, 2016, 1 (7)

COMPETENCE OF THE LEADERSHIP

Kęstutis Trakšelys1, Julija Melnikova2, Dalia Martišauskienė3

Modern education management conceptions regard school leadership as key

rent professional training and development of school heads is usually interpreted in

The object of the research – school heads’ competencies development

Scientific literature analysis has helped to analyze theoretically school heads’

1. The theoretical background of the study

Theory of paradigm shift. The shift of education management paradigm is subs-

then a new paradigm is developing instead. This promotes a scientific progress. It

The development of school heads’ competencies is based on the theories of adult

2. The process of school leadership in the context of education management

In this chapter it is sought to define the notion of education management para-

process covers principal’s direct participation in educational process, organization

4. Principles of arrangements of school heads’ competencies development

The development of school heads’ competencies is implemented to develop

One of the issues of a major importance is a necessity to ensure coherence of

• a coherent curriculum aligned to state and professional standards which

Successful training of practicing principals involves them having a training

The delivery methods and timing of preparation and professional development

5. The theoretical model of interconnection between development of school

On the basis of the theoretical analysis of school leadership development orga-

Overall school improvement

Vision and responsibilities of school

School leadership standards (competences)

Implementation of Education strategy

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of interconnection between development of school

Sub-model Key issue

A theoretical model of interconnection between development of school he-

As the expectations of what schools should achieve have changed dramatically

• In the current study school heads’ competencies development as an object

Straipsnis gautas 2016 02 16

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly,

VADOVO KOMPETENCIJŲ ĮTAKA MOKYKLOS TOBULINIMUI

Kęstutis Trakšelys, Julija Melnikova, Dalia Martišauskienė

Mokyklos vadovų kompetentingo vadovavimo ir kompetencijų ugdymo(si)

S-ar putea să vă placă și