School Leadership Policy Development through Stakeholder Dialogue: The EPNoSL Virtual Platform by EPNoSL

Lifelong learning: policies and programme

European Policy Network On School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) Grant Agreement EAC-2010-1388 Specific Agreement number: EAC-2013-0536

DELIVERABLE 3.2 School Leadership Policy Development through Stakeholder Dialogue EPNoSL Virtual Platform Version 1.0:

Date: 10-07-2015

With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) Work Package:

No. 3, Knowledge Exchange and Stakeholders Networking

Author of the synthesis:

Nóra Révai, Dóra Tomcsik

Contributors of webinars:

Carl Bagley, Sophie Ward, Norrie Mac Kay, Philip Woods, Amanda Roberts, Michael Schratz, Tanja Westfall-Greiter, Helmuth Aigner, Jonas Höög, Lejf Moos, Ana Paula Silva, Carmo Climaco, Aija Tuna, Huub Friederichs

Status, Version No.

Submission date:

10 July 2015

Start Date of the Agreement:

12 January 2014

Duration of the Specific Agreement

18 Months

Dissemination Level:

Public

Project coordinator:

Kathy Kikis-Papadakis, FORTH/IACM katerina@iacm.forth.gr

Financing:

With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Page 2 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Abstract This report has been developed in the framework of the European Policy Network of School Leadership (EPNoSL) projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third work package (WP3) and presents the online knowledge management activities of EPNoSL. In particular, it gives an overview of the EPNoSL approach to generating stakeholder dialogues, analysis the interactions that have taken place in the 2014-2015 webinar series and presents statistical data with regards to the participation and involvement of the different stakeholder groups as well as the evaluation and impact of these activities.

Page 3 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Table of Content Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 EPNoSL approach to stakeholder interaction ......................................................................................... 6 Analysis of interactions in view of enhancing understandings on school leadership ............................. 9 Evaluation and impact of webinars on school leadership development .............................................. 17 Participation and involvement of stakeholders .................................................................................... 25 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 29 References ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Annex ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

Page 4 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

The European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL) set the objective of facilitating knowledge exchange between policy-makers, practitioners, researchers and other SL stakeholder groups both at the EU and national levels. This objective involved promoting networking and collaboration between and with stakeholder groups and regions / countries. In the framework of Work Package 3 these objectives were realised through 3 interrelated branches of activities:   

online discussion forum (webinars), national and regional networking activities carried out by EPNoSL partner organisations, the development of a set of case studies that report on good policy practices in the EPNoSL partner countries.

The main expected output was the mutual learning process taking place at the international, regional and national levels, namely, knowledge exchange and sharing between different actors of the field of school leadership: practitioners, researchers and academics and policy-makers. This report focuses on the ways in which stakeholder dialogue generated in EPNoSL webinars contributed to school leadership policy development. Firstly, we will present the EPNoSL approach to stakeholder interaction over the 4 years (Section 1), we will then give a somewhat more detailed overview of the approach taken in 2014-2015 (Section 2). In Section 3 we will summarise the evaluation of the webinars and discuss their impact on school leadership development and finally we will investigate the profiles of participants and contributors with the help of statistical data on the participation and involvement of different stakeholders.

Page 5 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

EPNoSL approach to stakeholder interaction Knowledge management (KM) is a relatively new field first used in the field of business, referring primarily to organisational knowledge. It has expanded recently, various fields regard KM as important such as information and media, public health of public policy. Its importance in education is emphasised from various perspectives: 



Education systems have often been described as highly complex systems in the 21th century, involving various levels and actors which influence their processes. This complexity is one of the raison d’être of knowledge management in the field of education. (Szegedi, 2014 in Révai et al, 2014) “Knowledge is embedded in particular social environments such as academic disciplines, practitioner communities, or expert groups” (Oborn, Barrett and Racko, 2010 in Burns, Fazekas, 2012). The different discourses of these contexts make it necessary to translate knowledge generated in one context in order to make it meaningful and readily available in another. (Burns, Fazekas, 2012)

International policy networks, such as the European Policy Network on School Leadership (EPNoSL), are seen as knowledge governance instruments, which are becoming increasingly more influential in education policy making (Burns, Fazekas, 2012; Bagley, Ward, 2013; Revai et al., 2014). This section will give an insight into how knowledge management was conceived in EPNoSL, what the main spaces created to facilitate the transfer of knowledge were and how KM activities were structured. Knowledge management in EPNoSL was conceived to fulfil the following objectives:  



“To promote discourse and networking between diverse stakeholders groups on current pitfalls for school leadership and documenting lessons learnt. To design, develop and implement collaborative activity-based tools under the scope of enhancing self-reflections on SL roles, tasks, responsibilities and accountability, qualifications and quality assurance and accreditation parameters from an equity and learning perspective. To enhance the networking capacity amongst target groups within national contexts on pertinent factors relating to the selection and preparation of School Leadership.” (Specific Work Programme 2012-2013)

As mentioned in the introduction, KM activities were designed to facilitate knowledge sharing between policy-makers, practitioners (school heads, teachers, teacher and leader trainers, etc.) and researchers both within the EPNoSL partnership and at the national level of the participating countries. The figure below represents how the concept of KM was realised within EPNoSL:

Page 6 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Figure 1: Knowledge management spaces in EPNoSL – adapted from Révai et al., 2014.

Figure 1 shows the two spaces of knowledge transfer, which also serve to foster the generation of new knowledge. The left side is the Virtual Platform (VIP), the international virtual space where EPNoSL partners and other actors in the field of education – those invited by EPNoSL partners and European associations through their professional networks – come together to share their knowledge, while the right side is the multitude of the national networks on school leadership created by EPNoSL members. Clearly, the two spaces overlap and it is difficult to analyse and interpret their impact on school leadership development separately. This report will consider the impact from the point of view of the EU online space, whereas Deliverable 3.1 will focus on the impact from the perspective of national networking. The design of online knowledge exchange has been based on the thematic focus of EPNoSL since the beginning of the project. The aim was to mediate EPNoSL understandings on school leadership towards other stakeholders as well as to enhance these understandings through the interaction of participants. In order to ensure a true knowledge exchange, an interactive form was chosen, which allowed for presenting but also provided sufficient space for discussions and interactions. Two main channels were used: webinars and online fora. In Period 1 of EPNoSL (2011-2012) knowledge exchange was organised in the form of a 6 week long E-learning forum that contained 4 webinars and 4 online discussions based on a keynote article (see programme in Annex 1). In the second period (2013) the online forum was coined the EPNoSL VIP (Virtual Platform) with the objective of creating a brand for these activities. The VIP then consisted of 6 webinars and 6 thematic online discussions organised in a 7 months period (see programme in Annex 2). In the last phase of EPNoSL (2014-2015) the VIP was a webinar series of 5 webinars each of which linked and discussed an EPNoSL policy toolset and a case study with the aim of mediating EPNoSL understandings (from Period 1 and 2) at the European level (see programme in Annex 3). Concerning the online forum discussions, the English language was noted as one of the obstacles for involving a large number of stakeholders across Europe. It was thus decided to launch national online forum discussions instead of one international forum. [How many NF were organised]The national fora were designed and implemented by the EPNoSL partners (for more information on these fora see Deliverable 3.1). Page 7 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) In the following we will focus on the 2014-2015 VIP series and give an insight into the ways in which the webinars contributed to a deepening the understanding of the policy toolsets and the case studies.

Page 8 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Analysis of interactions in view of enhancing understandings on school leadership In this section we will give an overview on how the webinars supplemented and enhanced the policy toolkit and the case studies, what links were established. We will also present the ways in which webinars contributed to a cross-European knowledge sharing and to enhancing the understandings on various areas of school leadership. In order to understand the role of the webinars we will first overview the purpose of the EPNoSL policy toolkit and the case studies and outline the thematic structure of the webinars. Policy toolkit The interactive web platform of the EPNoSL policy toolkit defines the purpose as follows: “The purpose of the EPNoSL toolkit is to guide reflections on the requirements for school leadership policy action planning across EU countries and regions. The EPNoSL toolkit seeks to ensure that the issues of equity and learning achievement underlie reflections on school leadership policy planning and encourages all school leadership stakeholders, including policy makers, school heads, teachers, administrators, parents and pupils to engage in a constructive dialogue.” The website also draws the attention to diverse policy development activities (national workshops, conferences, forum, etc.), in which “the School Leadership Policy Reflection Toolkit is used to advance and deepen understanding between stakeholders and promote the development, planning and implementation of effective school leadership policies”. Besides national events, these activities can also refer to the international webinar series. One of the primary purposes of the 2014-15 webinars was to introduce the toolsets and by generating dialogue through the toolsets the objective was also to contribute to deepening the understanding with regards to school leadership policies. Case studies The case studies illustrate practices that stand out in terms of: 

Developing/implementing school leadership policy (e.g. the policy process followed, noteworthy because of characteristics such as its participative nature, efficiency, fairness, etc.)



Enhancing school leadership by helping to bring about o improved school leadership processes (e.g. improved efficiency, fairness, etc. in the practice of school leadership), o leadership development (e.g. improved knowledge, understanding and capabilities), and o improved outcomes of school leadership (e.g. improvements in learning, equity).

Case studies are derived from a particular national context. However, they also demonstrate elements that can be shown to have relevance to different nations and cultures in Europe. The objective of developing case studies was to identify and disseminate good practices in the field of school leadership policy in Europe. This was in line with one of EPNoSL’s main goal: enabling policy makers and other stakeholders in the field of school leadership at local, regional, national and crossnational levels to share knowledge, experiences and lessons learned about school leadership. The goal was thus to showcase some school leadership policies that have proven their effectiveness and efficiency or are promising practices in terms of enhancing equity and learning.

Page 9 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) In the webinars the presentation of the case studies had the purpose of illustrating school leadership policies in a certain area of school leadership as well as to facilitate reflection on policies in light of the related policy toolsets. Thematic structure of the webinars Concerning the thematic structure of the 2014-2015 VIP series, the policy tools developed in WP2 and the case studies developed in WP3 served as the start points on which the discussions evolved. The webinar presentations and discussions aimed to enhance both the toolsets and the case studies by establishing links between them: the good practices described in the case studies provided specific illustrations for certain toolsets and vice-versa the toolsets constituted a wider conceptual framework for these good practices. Table 1 outlines the thematic structure of the webinar series and shows how the toolsets and the case studies were connected. Webinar 1

Toolset Policy Response The toolset is intended to help policy makers and school leaders develop solutions to problems around policy implementation. This toolset is informed by the principles of creative interpretation and the translation of abstract ideas into practice, and views policy as a process of creative social action.

Case study Leadership Capacity and Equity Building through the Review and Revision of the Scottish Teacher Education Standards The case study illustrates the practice of developing and implementing school leadership policy. Good practice from: UK (Scotland)

Developed by: UK (England)

Webinar 2

Distributed Leadership The purpose of this toolset is to help policy-makers develop and implement policy that supports distributed leadership (DL) in schools, and to do this in ways that advance equity and learning. Developed by: UK (England)

Teacher Leadership at the New Middle School (NMS) – System-wide reform for enhancing equity and learning in Austria’s lower secondary schools As part of the system wide reform process started in 2008, several new teacher leadership roles have emerged since then. The presentation will elaborate on the most visible of these teacher leaders, the "Lerndesigners." Good practice from: Austria

Webinar 3

Educating School Leaders This toolset is intended to

The National Principal Training Program in Sweden

Questions  How can policy making be viewed as a process of creative social action?  How can school leaders be supported to actively participate in the policy making process to develop contextually relevant and responsive policy that effectively supports equity and learning?  How can reviewing the Teacher Education Standards in Scotland contribute to the promotion of leadership and to the improvement of issues of equity across all of the Standards?  What is distributed leadership (DL)? What are the benefits it can bring to schools? Why is it important for policymakers to support the development of DL? Why is it important to review how well distributed leadership for equity and learning (DLE) is operating in a school?  Who are the Lerndesigners? How can they contribute to fostering innovative learning environments and increasing equity in the lower secondary education in Austria?  How can the link between management and

Page 10 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) help policy makers and school leaders reflect upon different types and approaches to school leadership professional development as well as initial preparation of school leaders. Developed by: Austria

The programme is governed by the Swedish National Agency for Education. It is designed for advanced university level (Master) and is mandatory for all newly appointed principals. The aim of the programme is to contribute to the fostering equity and learning in Swedish schools. Good practice from: Sweden

Webinar 4

Autonomy School autonomy is understood as room for manoeuvre given to organisations and professional actors to take their decisions concerning equity, teaching and learning. The presentation explores how far the frames, values and norms may influence school autonomy. Developed by: Denmark Stakeholders’ collaboration The toolset proposes useful assessment indicators (hard and soft) in alternative models of schools’ evaluation, which may lead towards provisory answers and therefore guidance for public discussion involving as many educational stakeholders as possible.

Webinar 5

Developed by: Portugal Accountability The toolset is intended to help policy makers and school leaders reflect upon different conceptualizations of accountability and their implications for policy formation. The toolset explores how equity and learning can be the guiding principle for accountability. Developed by: Sweden and Finland

Initiative “Change Opportunities for Schools” (Developing Schools in the Multifunctional Community Centres) The aim of the initiative was to promote using small schools as educational, cultural and social support centres and encouraging municipalities and local communities to see the small schools as intellectual and physical resource in the context of regional development which can provide a range of services relevant to the needs of local communities and promote the development of entrepreneurship. The case study serves as an illustration for both presented policy toolkits. Good practice from: Latvia The approach to Early School Leaving: Policy in the Netherlands One aspect of accountability can be reducing early school leaving (ESL). The Dutch approach to tackle ESL is comprehensive and requires the cooperation of all stakeholders in the community. With its integrated approach and accurate record-keeping system the approach might serve as a model for other

leadership be explored in the school context? What makes leadership for learning successful in complex change processes?  How can a training programme equip principals, heads of preschools and other school leaders with the knowledge and skills required to be able to manage their responsibilities and achieve the goals set up?  From what aspects can we reflect on autonomy in education? What kind of autonomy of leadership is there and what opportunities does it bring to further equity and learning?  What kind of information on the education delivery processes do the different stakeholders need so that they may be involved in the discussion of the schooling issues, such as the internal organization, staffing and resourcing, the curriculum management issues? How can different stakeholders be informed and empowered to participate in the decision making?

 How can accountability mechanisms be better integrated with educational policies on equity? How can policy support enabling and efficient accountability practices across the education system?  What is the Dutch approach towards decreasing and preventing Early School Leaving? How do schools shape and give substance to the approach in terms of accountability?

Page 11 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) policy practices. Good practice from: the Netherlands Table 1: Thematic structure of the webinars

To reinforce the role of the webinars in linking these EPNoSL products, some of the webinar recordings were then embedded in the interactive web platform of the policy toolkit. Thus the webinar on educating school leaders can also be found within the toolset with the same title embedded in the Competency Framework tool, the webinar on autonomy can be found as a good practice example in the toolset on autonomy. Deepening the understandings on school leadership development In the following we will list the ways in which the interaction between the webinar participants contributed to deepening the understandings on school leadership development. In particular we will show how the toolsets and the case studies complemented each other and how the discussion resulted in a better understanding of both. 1. Abstract and theoretical to practical and tangible In certain cases the policy toolset is mainly based on theoretical and conceptual understandings and one of the main contributions of the case study was to bring these understandings closer to the actual field work: to the work of school leaders, leader and teacher educators or to that of policymakers by means of one or several concrete examples. This was done either by explicitly stated links between the good practice and the toolset presented or through implicit links. These links were either established by the speakers themselves referring to each other’s presentations or by the participants or the moderator. Example 1 Webinar 1 – Understanding the concepts of the Policy Response toolset with the Scottish case study An illustration for an explicitly stated link is from Webinar 1 on policy response. Sophie Ward (University of Durham) explained that various barriers to policy implementation may disrupt the policy process such as language problems, policy perceived as too distant from everyday experience or lack of ownership. Norrie MacKay (General Teaching Council for Scotland) referred back to how school leaders can often feel distant from the policy goals and explained that the GTCS’s response to that was to revise the Scottish standards by actively involving stakeholders. He also underlined that by the process of revision they wanted to “make sure that standards were not just documents that sat on a shelf, but are used”, which illustrates how this facilitated policy enactment. Thus the case study appeared as an example for removing barriers to the policy process. During the discussion in Webinar 1 one of the participants linked the toolset and the good practice explicitly with a question: “Thinking about the policy trophy animation [lego animation featuring in the toolset], were there any sharks and skeletons in the Scottish standard revision process?” The question led to Norrie MacKay’s further explanation on the barriers, naming the strong hierarchical approach in schools and their rigid structure as a difficulty when it came to a wider interpretation of leadership roles. While such a rigid structure proved to be helpful in terms of getting tasks done, delineating responsibility, it was unhelpful insofar as it led people to think that unless they were in a leadership role, they had no leadership responsibility. Since the new standards set expectations for everyone in terms of leadership competencies, this hierarchy was a barrier. The links between the good practice and the toolset however do not necessarily have to be explicit in order to facilitate the participants’ understanding. For example in the same webinar policy was

Page 12 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) described as creative social action, in which talking, listening and consulting are key words. The case study – without explicitly mentioning the notion of creative social action – highlighted the importance of “listening to them, working with them, engaging them” [them referring to school leaders, teachers and other stakeholders] in the revision process. Participants could thus better interpret an abstract notion by having a specific example. The presented case study was not the only example illustrating the toolset, the presenters of the toolsets themselves often enriched their presentations with specific examples of their own national context to illustrate certain ideas or models. In Webinar 4 on stakeholder collaboration for example Ana Paula Silva (University Lusofóna) provided several examples from the Portuguese context to illustrate the toolset. The presentations were in each webinar followed by a facilitated discussion which provided further opportunities for exchanging and sharing knowledge and deepening participants’ understandings on theoretical concepts. The moderator and the participants often asked questions which referred to illustrating a model or abstract concepts and theories with practical examples on e.g. school leader training or school leaders’ everyday work. The moderator and the participants also linked certain aspects of the presentations to their own experience, which may have helped the others to connect more abstract concepts, models or ideas to practice. In addition, metaphors were used several times to convey meanings in both the presentations and the discussions. The clear need for specific examples underlines the importance of vignettes or practices which is a feature of several policy toolsets within the toolkit. Example 2 Webinar 3 – Understanding the Educating School Leaders toolset through discussion In Webinar 3 on capacity building the moderator, Ema Perme (Slovenian Ministry of Education), asked the speakers to provide examples for the models they presented. As a response Michal Schratz (University of Innsbruck) illustrated how the jin-jang management and leadership model could be used in leadership training: “Look at the model and write down your activities during the last few days. Would they be on the management or leadership side?” He explained that usually far more activities and decisions are collected on the management side, which can kick-start a discussion on why the everyday pressure determines the activities and nature of decisions to such a large extent and how it would be possible to spend more time to be at the creative end. This explanation also illustrated what could be a starting point for getting to the so called “next practice” described as a model in the policy toolset. In the same webinar the moderator and the participants asked for examples on how productive energy – in the Bruch & Vogel Energy matrix model (2005) – could be boosted in a school and what specific steps could be taken. Helmuth Aigner (University of Innsbruck) explained through school heads’ and teachers’ attitude towards the reforms concerning secondary final examinations in Austria how the different energies work and emphasised that the key in changing the culture is transforming the energy into a positive one. Michael Schratz explained how the changing of mindset may actually happen during a training occasion. He uses the saying ‘you can’t step into the same river twice’ to illustrate “how to enlighten the horizon” or “open the mind” as described in the Scharmer U-model included in the toolset. He tells school leaders “you can’t step into the same school twice”, by which he illustrates downloading the patterns of the past. That is, in order that a principal can open their mind rather than think in terms of taking a step from A to B, when they step in the school in the morning they could talk to a teacher or think of something that has happened to them at home. As Schratz explained “although routines are important, the obstacle is always the habits we have”.

Page 13 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) 2. Underlining the core message through repetition and emphases A main contribution of the webinars and the interactions to deepening the understandings reflected in the policy toolsets and the case studies was that they provided room for transferring the core messages by putting emphasis on certain elements. Repetition, explicit emphasis, highlighting certain aspects or messages by drawing conclusions were forms of conveying the key messages in all webinars. 3. Bringing in a new issue, concept or perspective In some of the webinars the discourse around the toolset and the case study was enriched by an issue, concept or perspective that the participants, the moderator or the speakers raised. In these cases the purpose was to compare or contrast these with concepts and ideas presented by the speakers, which in all cases allowed participants to express their own point of view, and to critically reflect on the concept/idea presented, its context and the related phenomena and perceptions. Contrasting perspectives and ideas allowed for the different stakeholders – e.g. representatives of parents’ associations or policy-makers – to represent their standpoints. The two examples below illustrate how this happened in the discussions. Example 4 Webinar 2 – Understanding distributed leadership by comparing it to another concept In Webinar 2 on distributed leadership for equity (DLE) Philip Woods (Universtiy of Hertfordshire) presented the DLE toolset which included an introduction to the concept itself and how it is linked to democratic values. Jens Bolhöfer (Ministry of Education in Lower Saxony), the moderator asked what the difference was between distributed leadership and participatory leadership. Philip Woods explained that the difference depended on how the term participatory leadership was used and further developed how DLE was to be understood in the toolset: “If it is about consulting people and listening to people, then DL is more than that becasue it involves the power of a variety of people to take leadership. DLE is a system in which people feel that they are able to take things forward, to have ideas and implement them – not in a chaotic way but in a culture where people have a common understanding of aims. DLE includes participation, inclusion, involvement, so it is much more democratic in the richest sense of the term. It is about students’ learning in a rich and deep way.”

Example 5 Webinar 4 – Contrasting how the role of parents can be viewed in education In Webinar 4 on stakeholder collaboration Ana Paula Silva (University Lusofóna) spoke about the school – family relationship. In the chat a participant, Eszter Salamon (EPA), asked whether parents should not rather be regarded as co-educators instead of service consumers. Ana Paula Silva situated this phenomenon or perception in the wider context of structuring schools and culturing schools. She explained that policy can put in place structures that help change the culture and foster the involvement of partners and stakeholders in decision making regarding education. As an exampole she mentioned boards set up in Portugal where parents could participate and have a voice. However, she underlined that “changing the culture and the values is difficult: parents are not yet seen as partners or as co-educators as Eszter Salamon wrote in the chat.”

4. More insight into certain aspects Most typically presenters enhanced both the toolset and the case study by providing deeper insights into some aspects such as the rationale behind the structure, the key notions and the approach of the toolset, background information and more details about the national context for the case Page 14 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) studies, examples for various activities that were not part of the toolset or the case study itself. These insights enriched the written reports and the toolkit platform, and in many cases helped participants to link policies or research to practice or vice versa. Example 6 Webinar 4 – More details on schools as community centres in Latvia reveals the effects at various levels In Webinar 4 on stakeholder collaboration Aija Tuna (Education Development Center, Latvia) provided a great deal of details and extra information with regards to Latvian case study on schools as community centres. She highlighted the main approach of the initiative “Change Opportunities for Schools”, which was a shift from deficit thinking to capability thinking, that is, instead of asking for what applicants (schools) lack, the publishers of the call for proposal asked for what resources (skills, capacity, experience) they had. Ms. Tuna also gave a number of examples for activities the schools were doing with the local community. Thus she illustrated how the communication changed in some cases between the school and the municipality: a relationship centred around problems and questions of money turned into a real collaboration regarding education. Another example was intergenerational co-operations as senior citizens engaged in various projects with students. Interestingly, the co-operation with and between ministries also changed as greater emphasis was put on a cross-sectorial approach. This latter example showed the effects of the “Change Opportunities for Schools” project on higher level policy, which was not mentioned in the written case study itself. 5. Trans-European thinking – contrasting national approaches, systems A key purpose of the international webinars is to create room for cross-European dialogues. As Carl Bagley emphasised during the discussion of webinar 1 on policy response the primary aim of EPNoSL is to develop connections across the countries. As two main ways for dialogues to happen he mentioned technology, such as the webinars, and pan- European associations and professional organisations (EPA, ETUCE, EFEE, etc.), both of which have the potential to cut across European nation states. Mr. Bagley also stressed the importance of subsidiarity: what EPNoSL is trying to do is “to identify the key source of principles, the idea then is that each nation state through its own historical, cultural, social, political land interprets and moves forward on those particular principles in a way which they feel is possible, achievable and correct for their own particular country and nation state”. In view of the above a key feature of the EPNoSL webinars is dialogue between the countries in which participants can identify those key principles but also share how these are contextualised in their countries, what they have learned. Typically all participants, speakers and moderators link the concepts, ideas or practices to their own context. The examples below illustrate some of the contrasting contextualisations. Example 7 Webinar 5 – Accountability concerns in Finland and in Sweden In Webinar 5 on accountability Jonas Höög (University of Umea, Sweden) presented the definition for accountability included in the toolkit, which is based on the Swedish approach. In reaction to this Mika Risku (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) explained that Finns have problems with the concept of accountability, but he added that the toolkit definition includes responsibility and transparency, which Finns can also accept. There is great emphasis in Finland as well on social objectives in addition to the academic ones. Regarding accountability in Sweden, Jonas Höög contrasted the results in terms of pass rate (proportion of students who passed the exam in year 9) and school marks and suggested that those schools where the difference between these are high may raise concerns. Mika Risku on the other Page 15 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) hand explained that similar graphs in Finland may not be the basis for judging school functioning since the system allows to individualise student goals, thus it is possible that students pass with regards to their individual goals even though they would not be able to cope with the national criteria. According to Risku building on students’ self-confidence may be one of the reasons why Finland lacks the two lowest percentiles of academic achievement in PISA. Another issue of accountability was the discrepancy between national test results and school marks. In Sweden the mathematics school marks are much higher than what students achieve in the national tests, which – as Mr. Höög explains – may suggest that teachers and schools don’t follow the curriculum and instead of developing more complex competencies, they continue to teach students to count. Again in Finland similar consequences would not necessarily be valid. 6. Self-reflection on EPNoSL and its products In Webinar 1 discussion also evolved around the role of EPNoSL, the role of the different kinds of members of EPNoSL as well as the purpose and meaning of EPNoSL products such as the policy toolkit or the case studies. Realising cross-European dialogue has two dimensions: one is in terms of cutting across countries, while the other is cutting across stakeholder groups. Carl Bagley stressed that it was a critical factor for pan-European organisations to map into other European organisations, so that you have parents’ associations engage in dialogue with trade unions’ associations or school leader associations across Europe. The section on participation and involvement of stakeholders will show to what extent these dimensions were achieved. Regarding the toolsets developed in EPNoSL, discussions during the webinar on policy response highlighted the importance of keeping in mind that they are not to be used or applied in prescribed and unique ways, but that they can be modified and utilised in different ways. The purpose of these tools in terms of developing school leadership policies across Europe is to facilitate mechanisms to get colleagues talk amongst themselves and reflect on how they can move policy forward. The intention of the policy toolset as Mr. Bagley explained is that it feeds into the subsequent toolsets insofar as the principles laid down here can be applied to reflect on the implementation of specific policies e.g. on accountability or distributed leadership.

In conclusion we have seen that the interactions and discussions evolving in the webinars enriched the toolsets and the case studies in several ways and contributed to deepening the understandings on school leadership development. In the following we will summarise participants’ perceptions on the webinars.

Page 16 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Evaluation and impact of webinars on school leadership development In this section we will summarise the participants’ evaluation on the webinars with regards to their general satisfaction, and to what extent the presentations and the discussions impacted on their own knowledge and influenced their professional work. This summary is based on two datasets: 1) the evaluation questionnaires sent out after each webinar to all participants; 2) an impact questionnaire sent out in June 2015 (two months after the last webinar) to EPNoSL project partners. Evaluation questionnaire The purpose of the evaluation questionnaires was to collect information from the participants about their general satisfaction of the webinar, their satisfaction with each of the presentations and the discussion, and on how the webinar influenced their professional work. (See the questionnaire and the dataset in Annex 4) For most questions a 1-5 Likert scale was used, these were complemented by some open questions. Since the response rates of the questionnaires were rather low (see Table 2), the confidence level of the results is accordingly lower. Nevertheless, we will shortly summarise the most important statistics, in which we only draw conclusions with regards to the respondents. Figure 2 shows respondents’ professional background, where knowledge brokers are those involved in knowledge translation and dissemination such as EU project co-ordinators, representatives of organisations that have knowledge brokerage agency functions. No. Of respondents

Webinar 1

No. Of participants in this webinar 57

Fill in rate

Webinar 2

22.81%

Webinar 3

21.05%

Webinar 4

30.00%

Webinar 5

32.35%

19.30%

Table 2: Response rates of webinar evaluation questionnaires

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

1 1 1 3

1 1 1

1 1 0

1 1 0 2

1 3 1 0

5 4 8

30% 10%

Knowledge broker Policy-maker

40% 20%

Other

6 4

Researcher, academic Practitioner

5 2

0% Webinar Webinar Webinar Webinar Webinar 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 2: Respondents’ background

Page 17 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) The overall satisfaction of the respondents with the webinars was high: 4.32 points on the average for all webinars ranging from 4.25 (webinar 3 and 4) and 4.44 (webinar 5). On the other hand, their level of satisfaction with the technical aspects was considerably lower: 3.89 average points globally, with webinar 1 and 3 judged as the most problematic ones with 3.45 and 3.50 points. In fact, a new webinar platform was used in the last phase of the project (2014-2015), and due to a lack of experience of the speakers, the technical support and the participants some technical (sound) problems occurred. Participants evaluated the presentations along the following aspects:     

It was inspiring. It was dynamic. It was easy to understand. It was relevant to my professional field. I gained new insights into the topic.

Globally, the presentations received high rating with an average of 4.19 points for the toolset presentations (all webinars, all aspects) and 4.11 points for the case study presentations (all webinars, all aspects). There was no significant difference among the evaluation scores of the different aspects neither in the case of the toolset presentations, nor with regards to the case study presentations. The two best rated toolset presentations were that on capacity building (Webinar 3 by Michael Schratz and Helmuth Aigner) and on accountability (Webinar 5 by Jonas Höög and Mika Risku). Concerning the case studies, respondents were the most satisfied with the one on the Scottish teacher standard revision (Webinar 1 by Norrie Mac Kay) and the case study on Latvian school community centres (Webinar 4 by Aija Tuna). 5,00 4,50 4,00 Toolset presentation

3,50

Case study presentation 3,00

Discussion

2,50

2,00 Webinar Webinar Webinar Webinar Webinar 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 3: Respondents’ global satisfaction with the webinar presentations and the discussions

The evaluation questionnaire also inquired about the extent to which the webinars influenced participants’ professional work along three aspects:   

The webinar gave me ideas on what (processes, practices) I can change in my organisation. The webinar gave me ideas on what (processes, practices) I can change at the local level. The webinar gave me ideas on what (processes, practices) I can change at the regional or national level.

Page 18 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) The scores given to these questions (see Figure 4) were considerably lower than those related to satisfaction, however the average points still suggest that respondents feel that they gained ideas as to what they can change. In most cases the webinars’ influence is the greatest with regards to organisational changes, only in the case of accountability is the potential influence at the regional, national level the highest. 5,00 4,50 4,00 in my organisation

3,50 3,00

at the local level

2,50 at the regional, national level

2,00 1,50 1,00 Webinar Webinar Webinar Webinar Webinar 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 4: Webinars’ influence on respondents’ professional work.

It would also be interesting to examine whether these responses depend on the respondents’ professional background. Unfortunately the sample is far too small to draw statistically reliable conclusions on this aspect, but the data seem to underpin what would be a logical hypothesis: practitioners feel that they can mostly influence the organisational level and least the regional/national level, researchers the three show rather similar results, whereas policy-makers have the most potential to influence the regional/national level. Interestingly, this small sample shows that the group that gained the most ideas as to how and what they could influence was that of knowledge brokers (all knowledge brokers rated both the organisational and the local level as 5 and the average of the regional/national level scores is 4.86). A potential explanation could be that knowledge brokers specifically look for ideas in the webinars that they can use to induce change at various levels. Further comments with regards to the presentations or the discussion revealed very little about the influence or impact of the webinars. Most were general positive comments (e.g. “I enjoyed the webinar”, “Presentations were inspiring and empowering”, etc.), some were more specific positive feedback such as the presentation gave a very clear understanding of the "successful policy". Clearly the technical difficulties provoked the most negative feedback. Concerning how respondents can you use what they learnt in their professional work, their answers can be summarised as follows. They felt that…      

they could use specific knowledge gained (e.g. about standards, or a specific tool presented) they could share ideas with my colleagues they gained motivation to involve more stakeholders (e.g. teachers, community members) the webinars informed their research on school leadership: e.g. new perspectives and insights they could adapt the ideas to their job they could draw conclusions; gained motivation with regards to their own professional work by observing participants’ reactions to the presentations and discussions.

Page 19 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) All in all, the data gathered from the evaluation questionnaires suggest that the webinars were relevant to the professional field of the participants who gained new insights and ideas as to how they can change processes and practices with regards to school leadership at various levels. However, because of the low response rate and the not too high participation numbers (see section on participation and involvement) it was decided that more data should be gathered to get a clearer picture of the impact of webinars. In the following section we will summarise the results of the impact questionnaire. Impact questionnaire In order to have more information on the impact of the webinars a short questionnaire was sent out to EPNoSL partners. Altogether 21 responses were received covering 18 countries and one answer represents a European level organisation (EFEE). The questionnaire aimed at investigating how the webinars were used in the partner countries, how they were promoted and what kind of impact they had. Concerning the promotion of the webinars, more than half of the partners promoted the webinars in at least 2 different ways, including EFEE, so in all partner countries information was available for stakeholders on the webinars. On the other hand, less partners used the webinars explicitly/actively in their national network or events: 7 partners responded they did not use the webinars in any way. The table below shows the ways in which partners used the webinars.

We involved people in the discussions during the webinar(s).

23.8%

We put a link to the webinars on our website.

28.6%

We showed extracts of (or whole) webinars during national events.

23.8%

We summarised contents of the webinar(s) and published them on our website.

4.8%

We summarised contents of the webinar(s) and used the summaries in our events.

14.3%

We mentioned the webinar(s) in our national events.

33.3%

We didn't use the webinars in our national network / events.

33.3%

Table 3: Use of webinars in EPNoSL countries

Partners evaluated the impact of the webinars along 7 aspects, Figure 5 below shows the results. Clearly, there are several aspects the impact of which is difficult to judge such as whether the knowledge and/or understanding of national stakeholders on school leadership has improved (34% could not tell) or whether they have contributed to generating dialogue among national stakeholders (24% could not tell). More than two third of partners said that the webinars had at least some impact (rated 3, 4 or 5) on the following:   

their own knowledge and/or understanding on school leadership has improved; the webinars have contributed to introducing new concepts, understandings, perspectives or ideas in their national context; the webinars have contributed to a greater understanding of school leadership development for equity and learning in their national context.

On the other hand more than one third of the partners considered the impact of the webinars as very little or none (rated 1 or 2) with regards to their contribution to  

the raising awareness and use of the EPNoSL policy toolkit in our national context; introducing and disseminating good school leadership policy practices to our national stakeholders.

Page 20 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Figure 5: The impact of the webinars on various aspects of SL development

Page 21 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) What this result seem to suggest is that stronger impact is felt in terms of widening perspectives or deepening understandings in general than relating the webinar content (presentations and the discussion) to specific EPNoSL products (toolkit and case studies). It thus seems that these products functioned well as tools to transfer knowledge in the webinars, but the webinars did not necessarily function well as a dissemination channel of specific products. The impact of each webinar (see Figure 6) was not measured along the different aspects, data gathered shows that partners found it difficult to judge the impact of the webinars (over 30% who could not tell in nearly all cases). Results suggest that the webinar that made the highest impact was that on distributed leadership for equity and learning. 100%

0% 5%

90%

80%

24%

29%

70% 19%

50%

19%

29% 38%

60%

14%

10%

24%

10% 14%

14%

5 4 3

40%

14%

1 I can't tell

30% 52% 20%

43%

38%

43%

29% 10%

0% 5. [Webinar 1: 5. [Webinar 2: 5. [Webinar 3: 5. [Webinar 4: 5. [Webinar 5: Policy Response] Distributed Capacity Autonomy and Accountability] Leadership] Building] Stakeholders' Collaboration] Figure 6: Impact of each webinar

Concrete examples have also been collected on the impact of the webinars on school leadership development in the partner countries. Several partners described in what ways the webinars were promoted or used rather than giving specific examples in terms of impact. However, some were mentioned: ď&#x201A;ˇ

webinars raised the awareness of educational experts of understandings on SL for equity and learning issues (Lithuania)

Page 22 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)          

webinars helped introduce new concepts on SL for equity and learning, exchange good practices, reflect on existing policy and practice (Lithuania) webinars motivated to continue learning and work on the issue, to continue cooperation in the group and enlarge cooperation links (Lithuania) clarifying new conceptual framework (Italy) the connection between the international (EPNoSL) project group and national networks has led to sustainable cooperation (Germany) topics discussed during webinars have been included in CPD programs for school leaders (Latvia) the resources we produced for the webinar have moved on our own thinking. We have also used them in other contexts. webinars were connected to a national knowledge sharing platform for pedagogical innovations (France) regional inspectors use EPNoSL instruments in their work (France) EPNoSL approaches are adopted by the National Teacher Training Institution (France) webinars strengthened the approach in which accountability and distributed leadership are discussed in the principal training programme and with stakeholders on the national policy arena (Sweden)

Partners’ type of engagement in the webinars show that the impact of the events cannot simply be measured by participation statistics, as in all cases a large proportion (around one third in most cases) of the project partners watched the webinar recording afterwards (see Figure 7 below).

Figure 7: Partners’ type of engagement

Page 23 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) This figure also shows that most EPNoSL partners engaged in some way only with a subset of the webinars, not in all of them, two of the respondents (9%) did not engage in any way with any of the webinars. More information on the overall participation statistics will be analysed in the next section, in which we also present data about the engagement of various stakeholders in the online activities.

Page 24 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Participation and involvement of stakeholders Dóra Tomcsik In this section we will first summarise the participation statistics related to the webinars of the 3rd phase of EPNoSL and then give an overview of the participation and involvement throughout the whole project between 2011 and 2015. Participation and involvement in 2014-2015 The five webinars count 19 contributors as presenters and two people who were responsible for the organisation and the IT support of the activities. Webinars had all together 226 participants, of which 83 were face to face participants at the Lithuanian University of Education (LEU), who were members of the Lithuanian national network and who watched the webinars in a room together). Figure 8 shows the number of participants per webinar, the average number of participants is approximately 40.

60 50

40 14

30 20

11 15

36 24

10 0

Webinar 1 Policy response

Webinar 2 Distributed leadership

Webinar 3 Capacity building

Online participants

Webinar 4 Autonomy and stakeholders' collaboration

Webinar 5 Accountability

LEU face-to-face participants

Figure 8: Number of webinar participants

As far as the presence of the different stakeholder groups is concerned, we cannot give precise percentages of the 4 groups (researcher/academic, policy maker, knowledge broker, practitioner) as not every participant’s professional background was known. Nevertheless, Figure 7 gives us an idea of the distribution of participants according to which stakeholder group they represented. Despite some variations from webinar to webinar, it can be observed that in most cases either academics/researchers or knowledge brokers participated in the highest proportion. The participation rates of practitioners and policy makers were lower compared to the other two stakeholder groups, nevertheless all groups were represented in all events.

Page 25 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

100%

17%

90% 80% 70%

31%

17%

14%

16%

14%

17% 11%

17%

60% 50%

0% 11%

15%

13% 23%

19%

53%

40%

26%

27%

34%

14% 30% 20%

40% 28%

26%

Webinar 2 Distributed leadership

Webinar 3 Capacity building

10%

24%

29%

21%

0% Webinar 1 Policy response

academic, researcher

knowledge broker

Webinar 4 Webinar 5 Autonomy and Accountability stakeholders' collaboration policy maker

practitioner

Sum

unknown

Figure 8: Percentage of webinar participants by stakeholder group

In the following we will overview some statistical data gained by the examination of the EPNoSL VIP portal from the data provided by Google Analytics. Data was extracted for the time period of 5th November 2014 and 4th July 2015. The portal (www.schoolleadership.eu) - in the given time period – had 24387 unique page views and 32885 page views (not unique). The average time a visitor spent on the portal was 1:34 minutes. The EPNoSL VIP subpage is ranked as the 6th most visited page of the portal (it is also ranked high among the first and the second interaction pages), with 592 unique page views of the EPNoSL VIP blog (“Discussions” subpage of the VIP platform), and 223 unique page views of all those subpages, where webinar recordings were uploaded, that is, considering all the other VIP subpages with diverse content, the VIP page counts all together more than 2943 unique visitors. The average time spent on both of these subpages (EPNoSL VIP Discussions and Resources) is approximately 3:00 minutes. Regarding each of the webinar recording subpages, data shows (see Figure 9) that besides the actual participants a relatively large number of people engage with the webinars after the event by visiting either the EPNoSL subpage or the recording on the EPNoSL youtube channel. The largest interest was provoked by webinar 1 and 4 (over 200 unique viewers altogether), while the least popular webinar was the last one.

Page 26 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

200

190

180 152

151

160

137

140

115

120 100

80 61 60 41 40

0 Webinar 1 - Policy response

Webinar 2 Distributed leadership

Webinar 3 Capacity building

No.of unique visitors

Webinar 4 Autonomy and stakeholders' collaboration

Webinar 5 Accountability

No.of Youtube link viewers

Figure 9: Statistics about the Webinar recording subpages

The average time spent on each of these pages indicates how much the visitors/viewers engaged with the content. For all the webinar subpages the average time is around 5 minutes (see Table 4). Regarding that the average time spent on any of the EPNoSL portal subpages is 1.6 minutes, these amounts are relatively high, suggesting that viewers engage more with the webinar videos. At the same time it also shows that the majority of the viewers do not watch longer extracts on the website. Unfortunately we do not have any data on how long the youtube viewers spent on the page. Avg. time spent on the webpage (min)

Webinar 1

Webinar 2

Webinar 3

Webinar 4

Webinar 5

5.7

5.1

5.2

4.8

Table 4: Average time spent on the subpages of the webinar recordings

Let us now compare some of the key data for the 3 phases of EPNoSL. Participation and involvement in 2011-2015 In the following we will summarise the popularity of the EPNoSL VIP page1 based on the data provided by Google Analytics. Table 5 shows that the number of unique visitors varied to quite a large extent in the three project phases, even though the length of the analysed periods was similar (8-9 months). The reason is not perfectly clear as the promotional strategies were rather similar in the three phases. The relatively lower number in the first period could be due to the fact that EPNoSL was still less known among stakeholders. It is possible that EPNoSL partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; motivation to promote the virtual platform was the highest in the second phase. 1

During the first project phase it was called E-Learning Forum.

Page 27 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) 1st phase

2nd phase

3rd phase

1165

6801

2943

Number of unique visitors

Table 5: Number of unique visitors of the VIP webpage during the three project phases

Data about the webinar participants (see Figure 10) reveals that the average number of participants was very similar in the three phases: 28 in the first, 31 in the second and 28 in the third project phase. During the first phase there was no data collected about the stakeholder groups. Comparing the data between the second and third project phases, the following tendencies can be observed:   

in general the proportion of the different groups are rather similar in all the webinars regardless of the project phase; academics/researchers were represented with the highest rate in most webinars in both project phases; webinars of the second phase were more popular among practitioners than those of the third phase.

45 40

10 12

1st project phase academic, researcher

Webinar 2

Webinar 1

Webinar 4

Webinar 3

Webinar 2

Webinar 1

2 3

3 4

policy maker

4 3

0 2 3

2nd project phase knowledge broker

4 Webinar 5

Webinar 4

2 5

Webinar 3

Webinar 2

Webinar 1

Webinar 6

7 8

Webinar 5

Webinar 4

Webinar 3

3rd project phase practitioner

unknown

no data

Figure 10: Percentage of webinar participants by stakeholder groups

All in all, it seems that while the number of participants did not vary to a huge extent among the different phases of the project and in all three phases the number of online visitors was high, yet it is the online activities of the second project phase which attracted the most stakeholders.

The analysed periods start with the first Webinar at each stage and ends with the official ending of the project phase. Thus the periods are as follows: st th th 1 phase: 27 March 2012 – 30 December 2012 nd th th 2 phase: 8 May 2013 – 30 December 2014 rd th th 3 phase: 5 November 2014 – 5 July 2015

Page 28 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Conclusion The primary objective of the webinars was to generate dialogue between different stakeholders across Europe on particular areas of school leadership through the EPNoSL toolsets and the related case studies. In particular, the aim was to mediate EPNoSL understandings as well as to enhance these understandings through the interaction of participants. In conclusion we have seen that the interactions and discussions evolving in the webinars enriched both the toolsets and the case studies in several ways and contributed to deepening the understandings on school leadership development. More specifically, six different types of contribution have been identified:      

bringing the abstract and theoretical closer to the practical and tangible, underlining the core message through repetition and emphases, bringing in a new issue, concept or perspective, providing more insight into certain aspects, generating trans-European thinking – contrasting national approaches, systems, generating self-reflection on EPNoSL and its products.

Concerning the impact of the webinars on various aspects of school leadership development in Europe, data gathered with the help of two questionnaires (evaluation and impact) suggest that participants appreciated the presentations and the discussions, that is, they found the EPNoSL input as valuable for their professional work. At the same time however it is more difficult to judge the actual impact in terms of improving the knowledge of various stakeholders or generating change at various levels (organisational, local, regional/national). Data suggest that the webinars did have a certain amount of impact on people’s thinking of school leadership, in particular, they contributed to widening perspectives and deepening understandings. The strongest impact was felt with regards to the improvement of participants’ knowledge and/or understanding on school leadership; introducing new concepts, understandings, perspectives or ideas; and the contribution to a greater understanding of school leadership development for equity and learning in the various national contexts. On the other hand much smaller impact was reported in terms of the raising awareness of the EPNoSL products (toolkit and case studies). Participation statistics show that all the main target groups of EPNoSL – researchers/academics, practitioners, policy-makers and knowledge brokers – were represented in the events, although in rather different proportions. In absolute numbers the most actively involved stakeholder groups were those of researchers and of knowledge-brokers, whereas the least involved groups were policymakers and practitioners. It is worth comparing this result with that of the report on national networking (Deliverable 3.1, Csernovitz, 2015), which reveals that within the national networks practitioners and policy-makers were the most represented groups. The two results together suggest that researchers and knowledge brokers have the function of mediating international knowledge to the national stakeholders where the other two groups represent the majority. Although the impact of the virtual platform of EPNoSL with its webinars and forums is hard to measure, on the whole it seems that these activities did contribute to deepening the understandings and shaping the European thinking on aspects of school leadership for equity and learning. Since the recordings and discussions will remain available online, through the national networks of EPNoSL partners they have the potential to continue to influence school leadership development in Europe.

Page 29 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

References Bagley, C., Ward, S. C., 2013: Policy Response: A Critical Engagement. EPNoSL VIP keynote paper: http://www.schoolleadership.eu/sites/default/files/carl_bagley_sophie_ward_policy_responsea_critical_engagement.pdf Csernovitz, A., 2015: EPNoSL’s support to enhance Networking at the National / Regional Levels. Project report. Fazekas, M. and Burns, T., 2012: “Exploring the Complex Interaction Between Governance and Knowledge in Education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 67, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9flcx2l340-en Révai, N., Erculj, J., Horváth, A., Lukács, L., Szegedi, E., 2014: Knowledge is Connections – Reflections on knowledge management activities in EPNoSL. Project report: http://www.schoolleadership.eu/sites/default/files/epnosl-d3.1-knowledge-is-connections_0.pdf

Page 30 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Annex Annex 1: E-learning forum programme 2012 E-learning forum

The European Policy Network on School Leadership organizes a 6-week long e-learning forum to generate interaction between different stakeholders (policy makers, practitioners, researchers and academics and social partners) on the issue of school leadership. The forum comprises webinars, thematic forum discussions and videos, which are supplemented with a wide range of reference materials available in the network’s resource library. The forum will be running from 26th March to 4th May 2012 and will be accessible on www.schoolleadership.eu. Structure The e-learning forum consists of 3 main elements: short videos, webinars that are followed by forum discussions and keynote thematic articles that are followed by forum discussions. The forum will be closed by a week of reflection, during which a general evaluation will be carried out including a description of personal “learning outcomes” and plans regarding how the personal experience can be re-invested in the institutional context. 1. Videos Experts and practitioners recorded 2-3-minute videos in which they give their personal statement on school leadership. The videos can be commented during the entire period. 2. Webinars and thematic discussions Each week there is a webinar organized on a specific topic. The webinar starts with a 20-minute keynote presentation of a speaker on the topic, which is followed by a 40-minute facilitated discussion. A forum is then created to provide space for further discussion for the rest of the week. Participants can also access the resource library where they can find suggested reading material for each thematic area. 3. Keynote article and thematic discussion Each week a short (discussion-stimulating) keynote article is published on a specific topic. The article is followed by a forum to provide space for further discussion of the questions raised in the article. Participants can also access the resource library where they can find suggested reading material for each thematic area. Discussions continue for one week for each thematic area and are moderated by the writer and a supporting moderator.

Page 31 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) Programme Week 1: 26/03/2012 – 01/04/2012

Week 2: 02/04/2012 – 08/04/2012

Week 3: 09/04/2012 – 15/04/2012

Week 4: 16/04/2012 – 22/04/2012

Week 5: 23/04/2012 – 29/04/2012

Following the call for video contribution Videos and comments

2-3 minute videos of partners and stakeholders involved in school leadership from any target group giving their “personal statement” on school leadership are uploaded and can be commented by the participants continuously

Webinar: 27th March 15:00 CET

Webinar: 10th April 10:00 CET

Title: International Developments in System Leadership

Title: How can school Title: Structuring and leaders translate culturing schools external expectations Speaker: Olof into internal sense? Johansson Speaker: Lefj Moos Facilitator: Mika Risku Facilitator: Lejf Moos and Andrej Koren Thematic discussion following the Thematic discussion webinar: 18th April – following the 22th April th webinar: 11 April – Moderator: Olof 15th April Johansson and Mika Moderator: Lejf Moos Risku and Andrej Koren

Speaker: Jacky Lumby

Webinar and thematic discussion

Facilitator: Huub Friederichs

Thematic discussion following the webinar: 28th March – 1st April Moderator: Huub Friederichs

Webinar: 17th April 15:00 CET

Page 32 of 36

Webinar: 24th April 15:00 CET Title: How can preparation for leadership and ongoing development and support be constructed for all the leaders within each school? Speaker: Tom Hamilton Facilitator: Fred Verboon

Thematic discussion following the webinar: 25th April – 29th April

Week 6: 30/04/2012 – 04/05/2012

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) Moderator: Tom Hamilton and Fred Verboon

Keynote article and thematic discussion

Article published: 26th Article published: 2nd March April

Article published: 16th Article published: 23rd April April

Title: Working with Title: partners and the Quality management external environment and evaluation in Writer: Gerry Mac schools from the Ruairc perspective of school leadership

Title: Understanding and empowering teachers - School leaders’ competency standards and their applicability Writer: Peter Earley

Writer: Hasso Thematic discussion Kukemelk following the article: 26th March – 30st April Moderator: Gerry Mac Ruairc

Thematic discussion following the article: 16th April – 20th April

Thematic discussion following the article: 2nd April – 6th April

Moderator: Peter Earley

Moderator: Hasso Kukemelk

Title: Control or autonomy: What opportunities and challenges are being created for school leaders by current trends in the governance of education? Writer: Philip A. Woods

Thematic discussion following the article: 23rd April – 27th April Moderator: Philip A. Woods

Homework and evaluation

webinar and article evaluation

Page 33 of 36

webinar and article evaluation

homework and general evaluation

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010)

Annex 2: EPNoSL VIP programme 2013-2014

Page 34 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) Annex 3: EPNoSL VIP programme 2014-2015

Annex 4: Evaluation questionnaire and responses

EPNoSL VIP Webinar Evaluation Evaluation questionnaire.pdf Summary - all responses.xlsx

The attached pdf file is the evaluation questionnaire for Webinar 3, the others contained the same questions. The table contains the whole dataset for all webinars.

Page 35 of 36

European Policy Network on School Leadership (EAC/42/2010) Annex 5: Impact questionnaire and responses

Webinars' impact questionnaire.pdf

Webinars' impact questionnaire (Responses).xlsx

The attached pdf file is the webinarsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; impact questionnaire, the table contains the dataset.

Page 36 of 36