Summary: This paper discusses the findings of a small scale exploratory research study on school leadership development programmes in Latvia. A brief international perspective on leadership development practices is given to appreciate more clearly the issues facing the Latvian context. The evaluation of current research in this field reveals a number of key trends in school leadership training frameworks. This indicates a changing landscape where traditional models of delivery are being succeeded by more innovative approaches. Semi-structured interviews with three Programme Leaders and the Head of the Association of Educational Leaders of Latvia were conducted to elicit key empirical data. The findings point to a variety of provision with many good elements. However, it is clear that there is an urgent need to develop a more consistent and improved system based on a coherent, strategic and effective framework that addresses trends in the global educational world and recognizes and responds to the Latvian context.

1. Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy
6th International Scientific Conference
THEORY FOR PRACTICE IN THE EDUCATION OF CONTEMPORARY
SOCIETY
29.–31. MARCH 2012
RIGA, LATVIA
ALEKSANDRS ZLATOPOSLSKIS, BRENDAN HIGGINS
University of Leeds, United Kingdom
EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE APPROACH TO SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN LATVIA
Summary: This paper discusses the findings of a small scale exploratory research study on
school leadership development programmes in Latvia. A brief international perspective on
leadership development practices is given to appreciate more clearly the issues facing the
Latvian context. The evaluation of current research in this field reveals a number of key trends in
school leadership training frameworks. This indicates a changing landscape where traditional
models of delivery are being succeeded by more innovative approaches.
Semi-structured interviews with three Programme Leaders and the Head of the
Association of Educational Leaders of Latvia were conducted to elicit key empirical data. The
findings point to a variety of provision with many good elements. However, it is clear that there
is an urgent need to develop a more consistent and improved system based on a coherent,
strategic and effective framework that addresses trends in the global educational world and
recognizes and responds to the Latvian context.
INTRODUCTION
A few decades ago “it would be accurate to assert that no nation in the world had in place
a clear system of national requirements, agreed upon frameworks of knowledge, and standards of
preparation for school leaders” (Hallinger, 2003, 3). Currently leadership development in
education has gained increasing attention as complexity and accountability in leading schools
increases. Research indicates there are strong links between school leadership and school
performance (e.g. Harris, 2004; Huber, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2006; Bush 2008), thereby
challenging governments to ensure development of highly performing headteachers. Not
surprisingly there is a broad diversity of school leadership development systems internationally
and each country has to identify the most suitable approach for its context.
In Latvia there are no explicit government policies on school leadership development,
although school headteachers (and teachers) are required to undergo in-service professional
development courses for a minimum of 36 hours every three years (LR Ministru Kabinets 2007).
There are various providers of short courses, however substantial training of school leaders is
carried out by three higher education (HE) institutions (based on professional master’s (PM)
programmes) – at University of Latvia, University of Liepaja and Riga Teacher Training and
Educational Management Academy.
THE AIM OF THE STUDY
This paper reports on the findings of an exploratory research study on school leadership
development programmes in Latvia based on empirical data, acquired through interviews and
examination of documents. The aims of the study are to:
Explore and compare the three leadership development programmes.
Understand whether the programmes develop leaders relevant to the Latvian context?
1

2. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION
Across the world there is a wealth of different leadership development programme (LDP)
structures and hardly any country has a system that is similar to another. The “primary building
blocks” for an LDP as offered by McCarthry and Forsyth (2009, 88) provide a simple
framework: a) induction (recruitment and selection to leadership preparation); b) curriculum; c)
structure; d) delivery; e) field components. However, when we start to unravel each of these
building blocks, a whole set of options and opportunities emerge of how they can be carried out.
Thus there are many questions to be addressed in determining the most suitable system of LDPs.
For example Bush (2008) suggests to ask: a) Who provides the training? b) Pre-service or in-
service training? c) Centralised or pluralist programmes? d) Certification or ad-hoc learning?
Huber (2004, 25) also suggests - optional or mandatory; monopoly or market? The range of
possibilities is vast – e.g. Huber (2004, 16) provides at least 19 combinations across the world
just for the question of ‘who provides the training’.
McCarthry and Forsyth (2009, 114) emphasise that “a review of research on the
preparation of school leaders reveals more gaps than it does answers to questions regarding what
constitutes best practices”. Thus there is no single ‘best way’ developed yet of how to build and
carry out school LDPs. However, Huber (2004) summarises a list of tendencies in school
leadership development based on his research of LDPs in 15 countries:
• Central quality assurance and decentralised provision
• New forms of cooperation and partnership
• Dove-tailing theory and practice
• Preparatory qualification
• Extensive and comprehensive programs
• Multi-phase designs and modularisation
• Personal development instead of training for a role
• The communicative and cooperative shift
• From administration and maintenance to leadership, change and continuous improvement
• Qualifying teams and developing the leadership capacity of schools
• From knowledge acquisition to creation and development of knowledge
• Experience and application orientation
• New ways of learning: workshops and the workplace
• Adjusting the program to explicit aims and objectives
• New paradigms of leadership
• Orientation towards the schools
In terms of the contents, Bolam (1999 in Bush, 2008, 34) states that leadership
development can be grouped into four modes: a) knowledge for understanding; b) knowledge for
action; c) improvement of practice; and d) development of a reflexive mode. Bush adds that
content-led programmes, which are typical for universities, “may be regarded as predominantly
aiming at ‘knowledge for understanding’” but “in the twenty-first century, however, the
emphasis has shifted from content to process” (ibid: 50).
Traditionally the structure of LDPs followed the typical higher education degree
programmes, but in recent times there has been a shift to innovative structures. Huber (Huber,
2003, 281) provides three ‘idealised’ models encountered around the world of how LDPs can be
arranged, which are divided into four stages – orientation, preparation, induction and continuous
development.
“An international comparison shows that there is a tendency to move away from the
idea that adequate preparation and development could be completed in a specific time
frame using a standardized program. Instead, school leadership development is more
and more regarded as a continuous, life-long process linked to the career cycle and to
the specific needs of the leaders and those of their school.” (Huber 2008, 167–168)
2

3. As for traditional forms of delivery - lectures, seminars, group activities – they mainly
provide knowledge which is either out of context or hypothetical as well as with minimal
participation in practice (Taylor et al., 2009). The current trend is to move from traditional
course-based designs towards more experimental methods such as role playing and simulation
exercises, etc. “In many countries, programs use workshops and confront participants with
modelled situations of school leadership work and carefully constructed cases, and involve them
in a cooperative problem-solving process, such as the case method or the problem-based learning
(PBL) approach” (Huber, 2008, 170).
The delivery becomes more focused on individualised learning and student-centred
learning, and that “becomes manifest through facilitation, mentoring, coaching and consultancy”
(Bush, 2008, 42). At the same time learning in groups plays “a significant part in many
development programmes” and some of the strategies to deliver it are action learning, residential
and off-site learning, networking and school visits (Bush, 2008, 47).
Taylor et al (2009) devised an illustration of the main learning and teaching methods,
which is seen in the figure below. It depicts what types of knowledge students acquire and what
is the level of participation in the community of practice depending on the delivery methods and
means used.
Figure 1.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data for the study was collected through four semi-structured interviews and document
analysis. Such qualitative methods are appropriate as they help to “elicit the ‘meaning’ of events
and phenomena from the point of view of participants” (Johnson, 1994, 7). The semi-structured
interview, allows for flexibility and breadth of response. Purposive sampling (Fogelman and
Comber, 2007) was selected and the programme leaders of the three educational LDPs in Latvia
were interviewed as they are entitled to represent views about the whole programme. The fourth
interviewee chosen is the chair of the Association of the Educational Leaders of Latvia, which
allows representative opinion from leadership practitioners’ point of view, and enables
triangulation (Johnson, 1994, 8) of some data. Interviews were carried out face-to-face and a
3

4. voice-recorder was employed to ensure accurate representation of data, as well as notes were
taken.
The interview schedule had 12 questions arranged in three sections exploring the
context, the programme and the future development potential. The reviewed documents included
web pages and those used for programme accreditations thus assisting in the triangulation of
certain data obtained in the interviews. To ensure respondent anonymity and confidentiality
programmes are referred to as Programme 1, 2 and 3 and the respondents as Leader 1, 2 and 3
and the fourth respondent is Head of Association (HoA).
RESULTS
Commenting on the system of the school leadership development in Latvia, respondents
(Leader 2, Leader 3 and HoA) were in agreement that there is no such system. HoA emphasised:
“Still in Latvia there is no constructive, not even mentioning effective, school leader
development before they take on the post, nor a further education when they are in the
post, neither there is any motivation evoked to study on a Master’s programme .”
Having done such a programme it is not a prerequisite to become a headteacher. Neither
does it provide any benefits in terms of career or salary improvements. Leader 3 also highlighted
existence of competition by other options to access similar education, e.g. by local authorities or
projects funded by the European Union. HoA notes that decline in the number of applicants to
the programmes stimulates universities to lower the requirements, which was also collaterally
mentioned by the Leaders 1 and 2 during the interview.
Further, as one of the main hindrances for building an effective leadership development
system in Latvia, three respondents (Leader 1 and 2, and HoA, from the interview) highlighted
the absence of the professional standards for headteachers. A weak link in the system is also said
to be the recruitment of headteachers, which occasionally can be subjective and obscure (Leader
1 and 2, from the interview; Tikmere, 2009).
In terms of the educational leadership arena Leader 3 states that “the environment is
controlling, but it should be directed more towards a developing one” and therefore, they state,
there is a need for more evident leaders in the education system (From the interview).
The Programmes
Based on the document analysis and supported by the interview, Programme 2 (PM in
School Organisation) is focused more on an educational organisation, processes within it and
preparing a headteacher as a person who can bring change. Programme 1 (PM in Educational
Management) has a wider view on education as the system not only an organisation, however is
more academic and aimed at developing ‘knowledge and understanding’ and ‘research and
evaluation skills’. Programme 3 (PM in Management Sciences), is a general organisational
management programme with a specialism in educational management. It has strong focus on
developing the team and organisational culture. Creation of all the programmes where reported
to be based on initiatives of academics with no specific directions from the government.
Induction. During the interviews Leaders did not back up the publicly available
admission requirements and as the main one for all the programmes was a previous higher
education qualification. Thus HoA was critical about the students being potentially admitted to a
programme without any teaching or management experience.
Curriculum and Structure. Structure was reported to be determined mainly by the
higher education programme requirements and provided little flexibility. Programme 1 is based
on the headteacher standards which were then publicly available as a project proposal for the
government. For the Programme 2- standards developed by the programme providers where
used. Programme 3 uses the more general ‘professional standard of chief executive officer’.
Leader 3 and Leader 2 agreed on the point that educational leadership nowadays is
mainly underpinned by the theories of general organisational management, thus it played a huge
part in the curriculum. Leader 2 mentioned that there is not much literature dedicated to
educational management in Latvian language and that interpretation of general organisational
4

5. theories and their adaption to the educational settings is part of their programme, which can be
challenging for some students.
Delivery. When describing methods of programme delivery answers varied across the
programmes. Leader 1, in contrast to the programme description, said that methods are mainly
traditional. Focus is more on the academic knowledge as “it remains [applicable] for a longer
time” (From the interview), whereas practical knowledge becomes dated faster. Practical parts of
the teaching and learning consist of analysis of current laws in education as well as analysis of
packages of data provided to students which they have to analyse by using SPSS or Moodle
interfaces.
Leader 2, however, explained that in addition to the traditional methods (lectures,
seminars) they use discussions, individual projects and practical tasks (including PBL) in a
group. The academic focus is around one third of the programme and the practical is around two
thirds. She also noted that lecturers’ task is not as much to present the information as to bring
participants together and let them share their opinions between each other.
Innovative approach to learning and teaching is likewise used on the Programme 3 and
Leader 3 added that they also use the simulation game “Marketplace” and complete tests which
help to determine participants’ leadership approaches. Leader 2 was the only one, though, who
explicitly emphasised that they promote development of student self-reflection. Nevertheless,
she noted that the methods they use do not explicitly focus on development of leadership skills.
Field components. According to the programme description the practice modules
consist of 6 or 8 credit points. All programmes have a significant focus on the collection of data
for the master’s thesis during their practice. Programme 2 stands out with their two part
approach- two weeks for the research practice of comparing three institutions; and a six week
leadership practice of shadowing a headteacher. Afterwards the students present and discuss their
experiences with their course mates.
HoA highlighted several weaknesses of the performance of the practice. First,
headteachers occasionally are not willing to take on practitioners. Second, practice is not long
enough and that students are mainly concerned about collecting data for their research project,
which she “wouldn’t even call a practice” (from the interview). She was also critical about the
inexperienced students and added that not every student on the practice is necessarily intending
to become a headteacher.
Other Matters. Three respondents (Leader 2, Leader 3 and HoA) admitted that such
master’s programme is more suitable for experienced professionals. Moreover all respondents
acknowledged that completion of the programme does not ensure that a graduate will necessarily
be a good leader. “I’m not at all saying that we prepare leaders” says Leader 1 (From the
interview). People come with different reason to study here, “if you interviewed students I don’t
think even a half would want to become headteachers” (Leader 1, from the interview). Leader 1
and Leader 2 also added that they do not have such authority to assess students’ leadership
potential.
Future Development Potential. Programme 2 was reported to be undergoing
conversion from the ‘School Organisation’ to the more general ‘Organisational Management’
with specialisms in educational management, business management and public management, due
to two reasons. Firstly, it will be aligned with the professional standard of the chief executive
officer and will allow issuing the professional qualification. Secondly, and it is a response to
decline in applicant numbers (Leader 2, from the interview). They anticipate, however, that the
broadened scope of the programme might potentially result in loss of the focus of understanding
of the contexts of corresponding organisations of participants.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
First, it is imperative to point out that there is insufficient local empirical research on
educational leadership and context in Latvia and the absence of any local research on leadership
development, currently making it difficult to build a coherent and valid impression on these
subjects. Further triangulation and deeper exploration would also be necessary by more
5

6. comprehensive analysis of wider range of documents, by interviewing other lecturers on the
programmes and by gathering data on students’ perceptions.
System of School Leadership Development
The absence of a coherent and nationally coordinated system of leadership development
provision creates several dangers. Thus, for example, low headteacher recruitment
requirements, foster fall of motivation to acquire additional training, which in turn reduces
number of applicants to LDPs. This in turn lowers selection criteria for the programmes, which
further reduces the profile of the programme participants. That further diminishes learning
experience on the programme.
Because of this lack of national coordination LDP providers in Latvia operate in an
environment heavily influenced by the market forces. Due to a number of constraints beyond
their influence, e.g. decreasing pupil and school numbers, limited financial resources for schools
and ambiguous recruitment procedures, they seem to lack leverage for action and thus exercise
reactive rather than proactive strategies, which further weakens provision of leadership
development.
Leadership Development Programmes
All three programmes are different, depending on what their providers regard as
important. One offers a more traditional and academic approach providing mainly ‘knowledge
for understanding’. Another incorporates innovative learning methods, such as simulated
problem-based learning, and focuses on developing teams, values and culture, and may be
regarded as providing ‘knowledge for action’. The third provider, potentially, most closely
corresponds to the recent international trends. It is extensively based on real-life PBL, group
work and self-reflection and is oriented towards organisational improvement and change. It may
be regarded as aiming at ‘improvement of practice’ and ‘development of a reflexive mode’.
The shift away from dedicated educational leadership development is amplified by the
re-active choice in favour of general organisational management programmes (Programmes 2
and 3). It means that only one specialized provider of educational leadership has remained in the
country. Moreover, it was found to have more academic focus, which is completely opposite to
the recent international trends.
Programme providers and professional’s views suggest that these particular PM
programmes are not necessarily providing a benchmark for improvement of leadership
capacity. Owing to the lack of authority and leverage the programme providers have limited
capacity to implement substantial improvements at the system level and are constrained adopting
reactive rather than proactive strategies.
There could be two general strategies for the future course for school LDPs. One is a
complete restructuring of the programme provision to mach it possibly close to modern trends.
Another, more favourable and discussed here, is effective utilisation of the structures already in
place. To ensure effective development of school leaders it would still have to undergo
fundamental improvements, but they could be more time and cost effective. If analysed in the
light of recent international trends, all programmes could be further improved in virtually all the
aspects of Huber’s list and other authors’ recommendations. This paper would not do justice to
this subject if it claimed to offer a comprehensive set of suggestions, as even the programme
providers have different views on that. However, their views by and large are complementary not
mutually exclusive, so some areas of potential improvement are identified and offered here.
There are a number of other opportunities to acquire education for the purposes of
developing leadership practice, such as short in-service training courses and projects funded by
the European Union. However, these are reported to be mainly one-off occasions, rather
opportunistic and lacking coordination between one another. To improve the system the
existing structure of the in-service courses could be utilised but national coordination
would be required, because the authority of PM programme providers is limited. To ensure
more effective use of government funding for the PM programmes, it could be provided only to
appointed headteachers, otherwise the investments are often made in students who don’t become
6

7. headteachers. Further research would have to be done in effectively every stage of LDPs and
other related matters such as:
Impacts of the PM programs on the improvement of further practice.
Participants’ evaluation of the programmes and differences of learning experience
between aspiring (or novice) and experienced heads.
Issues related to the provision and quality of field components.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings indicate urgent action to improve provision of educational leadership
development in Latvia is required. The re-active approach of programme provision (due to
constraints of higher education requirements) and absence of national strategies hinders the
creation of a coherent and effective system and risks putting a complete halt to the process.
It is reported that there are many exceptional examples of good leadership practice in
Latvia, however, there are also some instances of inappropriate practice. These are often due to
uneven distribution of power across local authorities around the country and often non-
transparent recruitment practice and other poorly regulated processes related to school
leadership. The need for more and stronger leaders for Latvian schools is acknowledged,
increasing the importance of rigorous LDPs.
A notion of school leadership as a separate profession with specialised training and
requirements is firmly established with the LDP providers in Latvia and increasingly among
professionals. However, some concerns are created by the shift from specialised educational
management programmes towards a general organisational management.
School LDPs explored in this assignment are traditionally organised in the form of
professional masters’ degrees, which allow programme providers to incorporate elements of
practice and issue a professional qualification award. The absence of professional standards for
headteachers, as well as reducing enrolment on the programmes is encouraging the providers to
respond to market forces and shape their programmes based on the standards of general
organisational managers, which may result in a decline of student experience.
In terms of developing high quality leaders in line with recent international trends
there are concerns about each stage of the programmes. For example, the entry requirements
are seemingly low; there is room for incorporating more innovative delivery methods; the
curriculum can be made more process oriented; the structure is relatively inflexible and field
components/practice could be extended and significantly improved.
The findings indicate that the system at present is not sufficiently facilitating
development of leaders relevant to the Latvian context. Currently exceptional leaders
would emerge by chance or through their own initiative, since the system hardly facilitates
their intentional identification and systematic development. Headteacher development as a
systematic process is not yet efficient, effective and properly coordinated. Nevertheless,
providing that pro-active strategies are implemented, there are sufficient foundations to
develop a more effective system.
REFERENCES
1. Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and Management Development in Education. London: Sage.
2. Fogelman, K. & Comber, C. (2007). Surveys and sampling. In: Briggs, A. R. J. & Coleman, M. (Eds.) Research
Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage, p. 125–141.
3. Hallinger, P. (2003). Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development: a Global Perspective. Lisse,
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
4. Harris, A. (2004). Distributed Leadership and School Improvement: Leading or Misleading? Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, Vo. 32, p. 11–24.
5. Huber, S .G. (2003). School Leader Development: Current Trends from a Global Perspective. In: Hallinger, P.
Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development: a Global Perspective. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets
& Zeitlinger Publishers, p. 273–289.
6. Huber, S. G. (2004). Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: an International Comparison of
Development Programs in 15 Countries. London: Routledge Falmer.
7

8. 7. Huber, S. G. (2008). School Development and School Leader Development. In: Lumby, J., Crow, G. &
Pashiardis, P. International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders. UK, Oxon:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis, p. 163–176.
8. Johnson, D. (1994). Research Methods in Educational Management. Harlow: Longman.
9. Leithwood, K., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven Strong Claims about School Leadership. School
Leadership and Management: Formerly School Organisation, Vol. 28(1), p. 27–42.
10. LR Ministru Kabinets (2001). MK noteikumi Nr.481 “Noteikumi par otr l me a profesion l s augst k s
izgl t bas valsts standartu”. [Regulations No. 481 “Regulations regarding the State Standard for the Second
Level Higher Professional Education]. R ga: VSIA “Latvijas V stnesis”. (in Latvian).
11. McCarthy, M. M. & Forsyth, P. B. (2009). An Historical Review of Research and Development Activities
Pertaining to the Preparation of School Leaders. In: Young, M. D., Crow, G. M. et al. (Eds.) Handbook of
Research on the Education of School Leaders. UK, Oxon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis, p. 86–128.
12. Taylor, D. L., Cordeiro, P. A. & Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). Pedagogy. In: Young, M. D., Crow, G. M., Murphy, J.
& Ogawa, R. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge,
p. 319–370.
13. Tikmere, I. (2009) Visp rizgl tojošo skolu direktoru darb pie emšanas pieredze un prakse Latvij . [Headteacher
Recruitment Experience and Practice in General Education Schools in Latvia]. Masters thesis. R ga: R gas
Pedago ijas un izgl t bas vad bas akad mija. (in Latvian)
MA International Educational Management graduate
Aleksandrs Zlatopolskis
University of Leeds
Student Support Office
School of Education, University of Leeds,
Address: Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
Phone: +44(0) 113 343 4570
Fax: +44 (0)113 343 4541
E-mail: a.zlatopolskis@leeds.ac.uk / aleksandrs.zl@gmail.com
Tutor – Masters in Teaching & Learning, and MA International Educational Management
BSc, MA, NPQH
Brendan Higgins
University of Leeds
School of Education, University of Leeds,
Address: Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
Phone: +44(0) 113 343 8389
Fax: +44 (0)113 343 4541
E-mail: j.b.higgins@leeds.ac.uk / brendanjhiggins@msn.com
8