Educational leadership programmes in the UK

The literature

A thorough literature search reveals that Cooper and Kelly (1993) carried out the last major study on stress and head teachers in the UK in 1993. This comprehensive study looked at occupational stress amongst 2638 head teachers across the age phases from Primary to Higher Education. A couple of smaller-scale studies have been carried out at county level by Phillips et al. (2007, 2008) in more recent years. The conclusions of these studies were the same: school leaders show higher levels of stress than other professions, they have poor mental health and work–life balance, and school leader research needed to be developed with regard to the dimensions of stress that are particular to school leadership.

However, to this day, no research has been carried out on the content of school leader training programmes in the UK with regard to stress, well-being and work–life balance. Chaplain (2001) commented about the paucity of literature examining school leader stress and pointed out that stress from the teacher’s perspective was the main focus of research. Research from the last ten years has not seen a shift in this trend. There is little being published across the social humanities spectrum specifically exploring school leader stress. Holt and Turner (2005: 14) in their study remarked that the ‘…literature review identified only 12 published articles in refereed journals, the majority of which were individual centred strategies based on stress management’. Bristow et al. carried out an extensive review of the literature for the National College two years later and commented, ‘There is a limited amount of research literature that focuses on these issues specifically in relation to headship’ (Bristow et al., 2007: 8). The need for further empirical data on the relationship between well-being, stress, job satisfaction, work–life balance and head teacher roles was one of the conclusions of this study.

In Chaplain’s study, 84 per cent of the participating head teachers felt stressed most of the time, with 55 per cent perceiving very high levels of stress on a regular basis. The causes of this stress (see stressors section) were mainly two-fold: having to manage different and diverse areas (e.g. school budgets, standards, behaviour) and managing interpersonal relationships with and between adults. External pressures and resulting administration was a third cause of stress noted in this study. Gaining autonomy and remaining ‘in control’ were key coping mechanisms adopted by head teachers in this study as a means of combating stress.

Approximately half of the participants in the Holt and Turner study said that they were either considering leaving their workplace or the profession itself owing to stress (Holt and Turner, 2005: 4). This corresponds with the reported levels of distress by school leaders of 50 per cent in the same study. In addition, over 80 per cent of participants were able to identify physical or behaviour symptoms as a result. The major causes of stress at work were found to be work overload and lack of time. Interestingly, and in contrast to the study by Chaplain, one of the main barriers to being able to cope with stress was noted to be the need for self-sufficiency and control, and this may have inhibited school leaders asking for support.

Bristow et al. identified with the findings of Chaplain, Turner and Holt with constraints on time being identified by 70 per cent of study participants, together with the multitasking nature of daily routines (62%) as the main causes of stress (Bristow et al., 2007: 55). However, it also found that what are for some the most difficult and stressful aspects of the head teacher role are for others the most rewarding. This points to differences in individual coping mechanisms, perhaps owing to greater work–life balance, social networking, or more importantly, as the study indicates, greater distributed leadership in these schools as a key element in reducing stress.

A better understanding of the subject might be achieved by taking a broader perspective. To understand the general mechanisms of stress – that is, how it affects the general population – might provide a ready lens for seeing how it manifests, particularly in the school setting and in particular for the school leader.

Very often, stress is understood as a problem unto itself, as the ISMA definition indicates. But what of the issue of dealing with the pressures in life before they become excessive? The growing teacher vacancies reported by the BBC are, among other things, a means by some of managing school stress by avoiding the excessive pressures and demands located there. This avoidance begs for a better understanding of what leads some teachers to seek promotion to these positions that may increase stress, and what leads others to avoid them.

The literature surrounding well-being and stress focuses on motivation for life satisfaction to understand the attraction/avoidance issues overall. Being acquainted with this literature provides a stepping stone into the stress experienced in school leadership as well as an understanding of the motivation to seek out leadership positions in the main. Tooby and Cosmides (1996), for instance, explore well-being as an outcome of materialism and a personality factor, whether it is located within relationships, in work or in some combination of these.

It is clearer today than ever that the materialistic approach to well-being, happiness and stress reduction does not relieve stress. Rather, given the work of Brickman and Campbell (1971), Pittman (1985) and others it can be, instead, a virulent source of its own anxiety. What is called the ‘hedonic treadmill’, acclimatizing to each new promise of stress-reduction, never creates a feeling or sense of satisfaction.

So, is well-being and its counterpart, stress, dependent on personality? Some personal characteristics have, in fact, been found to strongly relate to well-being as well as to stress. Extraversion, a characteristic that tends to focus interest on things outside the self, seems to account for an individual’s ability to process rewarding stimuli for longer periods than introversion. This may partly explain why extraverts tend to be more contented than introverts (Lyubomirsky, 2001). At the same time, neuroticism, a characteristic that tends toward hostility, impulsivity and self-consciousness, is negatively correlated with happiness (Diener and Emmons, 1985) – and understood to be a stress creator within the individual as well as in others.

Hence, it is useful to look at well-being within the domain of personal relationships. Here the research points out what psychologists have said for decades – that receiving social support is strongly related to dealing well with life stresses (Pavot et al., 1990). Linked with this is the complementary finding that giving social support is just as strongly related to well-being and stress reduction (Herzberg et al., 1998). According to Warr’s investigation (1999) there are many features of the workplace that contribute to personal happiness as well. Interestingly, these include many interpersonal circumstances such as the support of one’s supervisor, contact with others, respect of peers and the like. Presumably the workplace – as it relates to stress and well-being – provides interpersonal opportunities to be explored or missed altogether.

Stressors

Now that the larger context of stress dynamics has been explored, it is important to move away from vague interpretations that hinder an understanding of the issue in individual lives. It is clear that different people handle stress differently: one may be energized or stressed by the same pressures. This is backed by Chaplain (2001), who states:

Clearly, the level of personal, interpersonal and organizational resources an individual perceives they have available is pivotal in understanding to what extent they feel prepared to cope with specific events. (Chaplain, 2001: 3)

However, here we are talking about adverse reactions to excessive demands on the role of school leaders in the sense of the ISMA definition. According to Kemeny (2003) and others, it is better to speak of stressors, quite specifically of stressors that are often traumatic and have a clear onset (an accident or loss of a loved one, for example) and those that are more chronic, such as an on-going illness. Work specific causes of stress among school leaders may include: multitasking; accountability; pupil performance; discipline; work–life imbalance; working relationships; inadequate management training; allocation of resources; inspection by Ofsted; performance monitoring; parents or clients; change (policy and government directives); and average hours in excess of the Working Hours Directive (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2003).

More commonly, the effect of stressors on individuals is thought of in terms of an individual’s predisposition to develop a disorder of some sort – such as alcoholism. Individual vulnerabilities can come about via genetics or may be learned. However, unless a stressor of great intensity switches the vulnerability into a liability the susceptibility may go untreated altogether. This points to the need for the adequate training of school leaders in stress management, giving them the skills and specific tools to recognize and cope with work-related stressors. So, what is the current training provision in the UK?

What is the status of training provision in the UK?

To answer this question, the main training institutions in the UK were contacted between September 2010 and July 2011 via email with a questionnaire to determine the content and pertinence of training programmes they were either directly coordinating or that they were involved with. These included:

the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL)

Because training is also offered through Higher Education (HE) institutions and universities, all relevant UK university departments and HE institutions were also contacted, amounting to 239 institutions. Specialist institutions that were taken out of the list of 325 HE, FE and Universities (as provided by UCAS) included: art, medical, drama and language colleges and institutions for the study of religion or finance.

The questionnaires asked education departments (and professional bodies such as the NAHT) whether training was provided for school leaders and if so to provide details about the kind of programmes they offer. The specific details being sought concerned the degree to which provision was made for stress preparation and allowed for the terms ‘well-being’ and ‘life-balance’ to be indicative of the research subject. Course leaders were also asked to comment on whether such training would be considered part of future courses and the reasons for this.

The Department for Education (specifically the Rt Hon. Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education at the time of the research) was questioned about its role concerning school leader welfare and the content of training programmes. Finally, ISMA was asked about their involvement with training in the UK.

The resulting data from retuned questionnaires, telephone interviews and email communication collected over the ten month period of this study were tabulated using keyword analysis associated with stress and well-being. The details associated with pertinent courses were clarified by numerous email and telephone conversations with key personnel and permissions sought for quotations and name citation.

Findings

ISMA validates stress management trainers and sets criteria for stress management professionals in the UK. However, this does not extend at present to school leaders in particular. When contacted, ISMA was not able to say which HE institutions or universities provide courses in the UK with content that prepares school leaders for the stress of their roles. ² It is illustrative of the current training situation in the UK that ISMA is also not liaising with the Quality Assurance Agency, which helps regulate university course standards, although they did comment that they would welcome a dialogue with them if they were contacted.

John Bennett, Director of Management and Professional Services (MAPS) at ASCL explained how the training they provide is almost exclusively targeting senior and middle leadership positions. In addition, the training programmes are designed with a view to helping these school leaders manage the stress in their teams rather than giving them the tools to manage the stresses of their own roles. Explicitly, the aims for the ASCL course ‘Promote well-being and manage stress’, for example, were:

…to encourage the well-being of their staff and manage stress constructively in the school. ³

When asked in the questionnaire whether ASCL saw a need to develop courses and modules that relate to stress, well-being or work–life balance for school leaders, Mr Bennett replied:

Yes – but given how hard pressed schools and colleges are financially, we do not intend to offer any more support/courses in this area than at the current time – there will not be sufficient take up to make it viable.

Indeed, after inquiry, Mr Bennett confirmed that the course ‘Promote well-being and manage stress’ is no longer available.

The National College is responsible for the training of aspiring school leaders in the UK through the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH). This qualification was mandatory in all UK maintained schools until the December 2011 press release by the National College that announced it was becoming optional in early spring 2012 and that the standards were being raised to more closely resemble a Masters degree (National College, 2011). The pertinence of the NPQH to this research was determined through emails and telephone conversations with key personnel and project managers at the National College.

The National College explained that their stance, and the position of the research currently being carried out by the College, is to approach the impact of stress on school leaders indirectly. The courses, such as those within the NPQH and the support given to new Heads through the Head Start programme, offered practical advice about how school leaders may succeed and manage workloads effectively together with coaching and mentoring support, which could include helping trainee heads through stress-related problems should this be raised as an issue. Importantly, the National College felt that issues relating to stress management were not best met through their courses and support but that local help for stress management might be sought by school leaders. The importance of the online training provision was stressed by the National College and that a personalized programme allowed for support ‘…where trainee heads indicate that this is a concern to them within the headship role’ (National College, 2011: email communication).

The approach (although admittedly under review) of the NPQH is to create an individual programme very much tailored to the needs of the trainee who undergoes a period of self-evaluation and exploration, discovering areas to develop and receiving tutoring and coaching for this. However, preparing for the stress of their new roles is not implicit in this training. At the time of the research, two online units were available through the NPQH, specifically ‘Managing self and others’ and ‘Work–life balance’. The aims of the latter course were:

to increase knowledge of the legal context in relation to work–life balance

The National College, through the NPQH, is therefore taking an administrative, practical approach to managing work–life balance issues in school in order to improve school efficiency and personal effectiveness.

The Department for Education made reference to the NPQH and its content:

As I am sure that you are aware we have asked the National College to review the content of the NPQH and as part of that review we will be looking at the balance of provision for stress management training within the programme. (DfE email communication, 2011)

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Education declined the invitation to comment on the importance of such training for aspiring and extant school leaders.

The NAHT responded that they intended to include workshops on well-being in their education conference 2011 and that they would be prepared to develop day courses dependent on the success of the workshops at the 2011 conference. There was not enough interest in this workshop, however, and so the course was not offered. The NAHT further responded that they would not be offering day courses of this kind because of the lack of interest.

However, a well-being workshop being run by What Box? Associates, for example, was run during the March 2011 NAHT conference. The purpose of the workshop ‘Wellbeing: Nuke the Work–life Myth’ was to help school leaders look at work–life balance. Specific goals offered by this course were to:

Discover what 99 per cent of people don't get about work–life balance and relationships

Concerning the provision of courses on stress in general, the NAHT replied:

The NAHT run courses that look at stress preparation indirectly, such as preparing for an Ofsted inspection. (NAHT communication, 2012)

The questionnaire returns from the HE institutions and universities were disappointing, with only 60 out of 239 completed. However, all schools of education, management and leadership departments in the UK were targeted, and confirmation was received upon receipt of the questionnaire by all concerned. Indeed, many promised to return the questionnaires but did not, despite many gentle reminders. Is it possible that the lack of response was in part owing to the lack of training available? Certainly, the responses given indicated an interest in the subject and even a willingness to develop modules within existing programmes. At present, however, no such courses have been identified from this study.

Ann Birch, for example, is Head of the Centre for Continuing Professional Development at the School of Education in Swansea Metropolitan University. She commented:

Leadership in schools is closely linked to stress and poor work–life balance. I will consider models for developing a module and would like to see examples of other such modules.

With regard to the need for training to be developed specifically for school leaders, Programme Director of the MA in Education at Swansea, Junnine Thomas-Williams, replied:

Yes. Particularly in the current climate. I have only recently taken over the Masters Programme and can see where this would fit. I would welcome any suggestions for taking this further.

Concluding remarks: Who cares?

The picture from the main bodies that speak for school leaders in the UK is disconcerting. Despite the evidence provided by the press, the National College publications and research, the NPQH and the Government’s own Health and Safety Executive findings, there are no organizations in the UK offering any course specifically preparing school leaders for the stress of their roles. The review of the NPQH by the National College on behalf of the Department for Education will hopefully result in the inclusion of stress-related modules and training for future school leaders. The Department for Education has certainly indicated that they would be looking at the current imbalance in the provision of such training.

The ACSL have indicated that financial constraints of schools and colleges may lead to the poor take-up of such courses. It is possible to suggest that school leaders themselves may be reluctant to come forward for such training as an admittance of feeling stress may not be seen well. However, the evidence for work-related stress among school leaders makes training and preparation essential: it should be mandatory.

The position of the National College is surprising given the recommendations of the 2007 National College study ‘A life in the day of a head teacher’ (Bristow et al., 2007) that further research is needed into the role of the head teacher with specific reference to understanding the impact of stress, work–life balance and well-being and job satisfaction. Given the recognition by the National College of work-specific stressors for school leaders and the importance in the UK of the NPQH as a standard to achieve upon entering headship, it is astonishing that this organization has not made stress-related training more explicit and necessary.

One possible way forward would be for the Quality Assurance Agency, who helps regulate university course standards in the UK, to get in touch with the ISMA to create a set of standards for school leader courses and to include stress preparation within these. Indeed, the ISMA has communicated that they would welcome such a dialogue with the QAA. However, this may be problematic given the current independence of UK universities to govern course content and who may not be interested in a prescriptive list of requirements. The literature does encourage the academia and more centrally governed bodies such as the National College to become more aligned within national programmes:

If school leadership courses are to be successful they must integrate the best of academic programmes and take full account of emerging research evidence. (Brundrett, 2006: 32)

This research has stimulated much thought and interest among the UK institutions that took part in the study. It is sincerely hoped that as a result new stress preparation courses will be developed specifically with the school leader in mind. A better idea of the current provision of stress-related training in the UK could be gained from a more active participation from everyone concerned, and to this end it would be helpful if a school of education or relevant department would put together a list of all FE, HE and university departments offering training for school leaders.

On 25 January 2011, the Secretary of State for Education announced the review of the National Curriculum. New Programmes of Study have been drawn up both at the Primary and Secondary level and have been ready for schools to look at from August 2012. This review will necessarily create an additional workload for school leaders (and teachers) and inevitably stress. There is still time to prepare extant and aspiring school leaders. Returning to the opening question, however, and ‘Who cares for the school leader?’, the results that have been found in this study speak for themselves and will allow you to draw your own conclusions.