In this article we draw on a recent book that we edited (School Leadership and Education System Reform, Earley and Greany, 2017), which draws together perspectives on research, theory and practice in relation to school leadership in England today from a range of contributors. This article pulls together a number of themes from the book, but particularly those that relate to leadership and professional development. It argues that educational policy in England and many other parts of the world currently revolves around two inter-connected challenges: a paradox and a quest.
A paradox
The paradox is actually a set of contradictions that sit at the heart of education policy in many school systems. Policy makers in these systems want things that, if not inherently at odds, are nevertheless in tension – freedom and control; tightly defined national standards and a broad and balanced curriculum; choice and diversity and equity; academic stretch for the most able children and a closing of the gap between high and low performers; competition and collaboration. In other words they want their educational cake, but they also want to eat it.
Policy borrowing and the drive for ‘high performance systems’
Having lost faith in what Barber (2015) calls the post-war ‘trust and altruism’ model of public service delivery, in which local authorities ran schools with minimal central oversight, policy makers have devolved decision making power and resources to schools, including those for professional development, in the belief that this will improve quality and increase innovation. In order to incentivise these outcomes they have put in place accountability systems that combine quasi-market pressures (such as parental choice of school coupled with funding following the learner) with central regulation and control.
At one level these quasi-market shifts reflect a pragmatic policy response aimed at securing improved outcomes, efficiency and innovation, founded on managerialism and theories of New Public Management. The development of international league tables via PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS means that policy makers are more aware than ever of how their school systems are performing. Associated studies draw on these results to try and distil the secrets of high performing systems (Mourshed et al., 2010; Jensen et al., 2012), including their professional development and leadership development practices (Jensen and Downing, 2017, OECD, 2016; Sellen, 2016), although such ‘policy borrowing’ is not without its critics (Coffield, 2012; Hargreaves, 2012).
Education as a private, rather than public, good