Adaptations of International Standards on Educational Leadership Preparation in Egypt.
This paper is a case study of one leadership preparation program, utilizing US school leadership standards and practices, offered in Egypt. This case study illuminates how cultural and policy distinctions impact differing necessities of educational leadership, and how those necessities conflict or concur with the international standards and assumed best practices. In particular, it serves as an exploration of policy borrowing, considering that leadership preparation in developed countries has been, on some levels, an issue of occupational field professionalization. Introduction The preparation of educational leaders has become, in some regard, a standardized practice throughout the world, based on professional knowledge of best practice, empirical evidence, and organizational leadership theory. In large part, PISA and national exams have encouraged a consistent set of views about what constitutes instructional leadership. Standards, particularly from English speaking countries, such as the US and the UK, have provided relatively common understandings on school leadership throughout the world. And naturally, preparation programs have followed suit, often instituting courses that look remarkably similar. This is a noteworthy feat for the professionalization of the occupation of school leadership, as it has instituted common boundaries of practice that span national borders. In some sense furthering the professionalization of the field it makes a case for the de contextualization of school leadership practice. Yet leadership practices and needs within schools vary tremendously, not just between countries, but within countries, as well. What follows is a case study of one leadership preparation program, utilizing US school leadership standards and practices, offered in Egypt. This case study helps us to better understand how cultural and policy distinctions impact differing necessities of educational leadership, and how those necessities conflict or concur with the international standards and assumed best practices. Ted Purinton is Dean of the Graduate School of Education at the American University in Cairo and Associate Professor in the Department of International and Comparative Education. Dalia Khalil is an instructor at the Graduate School of Education at the American University in Cairo. 1 Purinton and Khalil: Adaptations of International Standards on Educational Leadership Published by New Prairie Press, 2017 3 Educational Considerations In particular, it serves as an exploration of policy borrowing, considering that leadership preparation in developed countries has been, on some levels, an issue of occupational field professionalization. Professionalization of School Leadership The field of school leadership has achieved many markers of professional status in the past few decades, particularly in developed countries. In Europe and North America, a postgraduate degree or certification is typically required to work as a school administrator. And increasingly a professional doctorate is either expected or encouraged. Various standards for practice have been developed, disseminated, and governmentally adopted. Though countries utilize differing standards, and in the US even, some states have adopted their own distinctive standards, in developed countries, the general tenor of the standards is exceptionally similar. For instance, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration in the US lists this item in its 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders: Standard 1 Mission, Vision, Core Values point "G" Model and pursue the school's mission, vision, and core values in all aspects of leadership. The General Teaching Council for Scotland lists this item in its 2012 Standards for leadership and management: Standard 2 Strategic Vision, Professional Knowledge and Understanding and Interpersonal Skills and Abilities, point 2.1, second paragraph: Leaders steer the creation and the sharing of the strategic vision, ethos and aims for the establishment, which inspire and motivate learners, staff and all members of the learning community and its partners and sets high expectations for every learner. Worded differently, yes, but it is the same concept. And if we were to provide further examples within these two sets of standards, or on this particular item with standards from additional countries and states, we would see that the field of educational leadership has largely consolidated on the tasks, responsibilities, core values, and behavioral codes that it sees as its professional identity. These two features governmentally mandated certification for practice and common codes of practice orientation are attributes of professional status. They indicate that in exchange for consistent practice adhering to the common codes delineating practice that yields desired outcomes for the public regulatory controls are instituted, allowing those who have certification to practice, and preventing those who do not have certification from practicing (Purinton 2011) Yet there is more to professionalization. Most essentially, a profession shares a common approach to examining and solving a particular problem, and it does so by utilizing a common body of knowledge gained from intensive study and guided practice (Abbott 1988) In studies of professionalization, the subject the application of this body of knowledge on a problem is usually discussed more than the object, the problem itself. In most professions, the problem seems self evident: in medicine, it is human health; in law, it is a case; in engineering, it is a commission. In teaching, which has been labeled a semi profession (Krejsler 2005) it is student learning. In educational leadership, what is the problem to be solved? The answer to this question depends on many factors. On the one hand, how a school relates to its community, students, their families, and the government varies not just between countries and states, but also between individual schools. Indeed, the various standards have attempted to bring closure to this issue. On the other hand, given the variation alone between the role of parents of American and many European schools, it is clear that there is no single way to lead a school across cultures. Largely, there is for medicine and engineering, and to some extent for law (within common or civil law variants) and academia. Indeed, there is no common set of expectations across countries for the work of teaching (Givvin et al. 2005) though that, too, could change rapidly in the years ahead with increasingly standardized expectations and exams (Meyer and Benavot 2013) Furthermore, when contrasting teaching to school leadership, teaching seems to welcome the hallmarks of professionalism more so than school leadership (Purinton 2012) particularly because school leadership is often portrayed in political or bureaucratic terms. Regardless, as has been noted, school leadership practice has been increasingly defined by the various standards, and as such, these remarkably similar standards are shaping a global emergence of professional expectations for school leadership. Perhaps what makes teaching more of a candidate for professionalization than school leadership is that one significant marker of professionalism is autonomy, and the accompanying professional control over the terms of practice (Krauss 1996) By virtue of the inherent isolation of teaching (Lortie 1975) its work is done more frequently without the interference of management. In school leadership, similar to other managerial positions that have had great debate over the extent to which they could be professionalized, autonomy over terms of the work is not present. In other words, school leadership is very much susceptible to context. And nowhere is that more clear than in the location of this case: Cairo, Egypt. Though based at an "American" university, offering a liberal arts education, with a high percentage of American faculty, and an even higher percentage of faculty having earned doctoral degrees in the US, its Graduate School of Education is a case in point of the difficulties of adapting one country's system of education in another. With a variety of degree programs, the Graduate School of Education has attempted to replicate the progress and the structures of American colleges of education, particularly as they have increased their focus on professionalization over the past couple decades. As such, standards of practice, and their corresponding bases of knowledge, are very important. With the adoption of Professional Standards for Educational Leaders to guide the content of the school's Professional Educator Diploma program in Educational Leadership, the school made a very deliberate choice on the professional qualities it would expect to see in its graduates. However, context matters a great deal, 2 Educational Considerations, Vol. 43, No. 3 [2016] Art. 3 https:/newprairiepress.org/edconsiderations/vol43/iss3/3 DOI: 10.4148/0146 9282.1015 4 Vol. 43, No. 3, Summer 2016 and when examining the distinctions between educational systems in the US and Egypt, one finds very quickly that these standards may, in fact, complicate the learning and practice of educational leadership in Egypt. Overview of Education in Egypt Egypt's public educational system is the largest in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region estimated at more than 20 million students (Oxford Business Group 2016) The education system in Egypt is a K 12 structure that starts at the primary level at the age of 6 years. Both the primary and preparatory (grades 7, 8, 9) stages form the basic education stage, which is compulsory for all children in Egypt. Upon the completion of grade 9, students receive the Basic Education Certificate, which specifies where students will be placed in the secondary stage. High scoring students qualify for general secondary education and later can qualify for higher education