The
“Officers to Education” Project - a Retrospect
Alex
Schneider and Rina Barkol
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his prologue to the
The intention of raising standards and
aspirations in education is an outcome of the expectation that principals will
make their mark in a feasible way, not only in the schools they lead but also
on the wider school community and society in general (Chen 1999; Caldwell,
2003). The challenge, therefore, is to find and train educational leaders who
will translate their commitment into a vision, who will raise standards and
aspirations across school, community and society. But where will these
educational leaders come from? What mission will they be qualified to
accomplish? What challenges will they be competent to face? (Chen 1999; Barkol,
1999)
Literature Review
From
teaching to principalship –a critical look
Schoolteachers worldwide were, and remain, the main source of future school leaders. Sarason (1982, p.14) suggests that there should be some consideration that should “cause one to pause before accepting what seems obvious and reasonable” and, since there are key elements in principalship that differ from that of being a class teacher, we should be looking for school principals elsewhere. Sergiovanni (1992 and 1995) expands upon this idea and emphasises that, since school principals require qualities different to those used previously, there is a need to try to recruit principals from beyond the classroom who may have developed these skills in other fields of work. Barkol (1996) raises issues that, in her opinion, may make teachers not fully fit for principalship, such as the need for a holistic perception of the school, the ability to diagnose its function within the environment, and the requirement of both managerial and leadership skills. These pre-requisites do not exclude teachers from becoming principals (with the necessary training) but raise another possible solution. Barkol (1996) further suggests that, since teachers might be insufficiently qualified to serve as school principals, maybe one can find candidates suitable for running schools elsewhere, in different social groups, not necessarily within the education system but among people who were trained for and have managerial and leadership qualities.
Principalship
challenges in the twenty-first century
The 21st century is characterized by communication and
technological developments that force organizations to develop their
capabilities for adaptation and adjustment to changing circumstances and
environments. The structure and development
of future organizations will be altered along with shifts in its surroundings
and requisites (Friedman, 2000).
If high flexibility is the key word future
organizations depend on, there full commitment by employees to the organization
and its aims should be developed. Responsible and loyal workers are essential
for any organization, as well as the intelligent use of teams flexible enough
to respond to different missions, and demonstrating basic professional skills
and understanding are able to augment variation.
The implication of these changes for the educational world had already
been identified by Davies (1997), who stated:
"In this world the
globalization of economic systems, technological advance and the increased
expectations that society has of its education system have replaced past
certainties with new and uncertain frameworks. Dynamic changes have become the
order of the day. How do leaders and managers meet this challenge and develop
approaches in order to operate successfully in this new environment? (p.
11)
This new environment of technological changes in sectors such as medicine
and engineering has accelerated changes in approach, technique and
instrumentation. These did not immediately affect the world of principalship or
the definition of the school principal’s role, which until the last three
decades had been considered traditional and conservative. However, the last
thirty years of the 20th century marked a change in educational
attitudes throughout the western world, a change that intensified towards the
conclusion of the 20th century with moves towards new organizational
approaches such as school-based management. The need to implement these changes
has produced a new and more complex set of challenges for educational leaders
(Hallinger, 2003; Moos and Moller, 2003; Murphy and Beck, 1994; Schneider,
2004)
One way of responding to the challenge is by
re-training and developing qualified people within the education field and
beyond. But can changing competencies, developing abilities and capabilities of
leadership, management and pedagogy through appropriate training, qualify
persons from both the education field and from other fields for the task of
school leaders as professional experts? The
"Officers to Education” project presents a
possible solution to this challenge.
With
the renewal of Jewish settlement in the
In l951, the Israeli government decided
that all teachers and principals working in elementary schools (1st
to 8th grades) should become government employees supervised by the
Ministry of Education. All personnel
matters (e.g., hiring and firing) would be the responsibility of the Ministry
of Education. The existing educational systems were overwhelmed by new
responsibilities, and were formally combined into a centralized system in order
to achieve national educational goals. At this stage, two main authorities held
general responsibility for educational systems:
1.
Ministry of Education - responsible for all pedagogical aspects
including the employment of teachers.
2.
Local Authorities - responsible for administrative matters concerning
logistics, buildings, maintenance and secretariat systems.
The situation regarding secondary schools was similar,
with lesser responsibility for personnel for the Ministry of Education; this
responsibility was transferred to the local authorities.
“Hamenahel”-the
Israeli school principal
During
the early days of the state, teachers and principals were considered equal and
perceived as a unified group, loyal to the administration and in agreement with
the aims of the social and national mission (Chen, 1999). Also, at this time, Israeli principals were regarded as “Head Teachers” or
“Senior Teachers” and were called in Hebrew
“Hamenahel”- the manager. Actually, they did not achieve high prestige as their mission was thought
to be rather simple. For its part, the
Ministry of Education tried as much as possible to help with school management tasks by freeing the principals from administrative and
personnel matters. Thus, principals were free to devote most of their time and
energy to the twin aims of pedagogical leadership and advancing national
values.
The
managerial side of the teaching mission, grouping students into classes,
providing a curriculum for each teacher and for each class, appointing teachers
to key positions, and seeing to it that routine performance was undertaken
according to regulation, was considered to be simple compared with the
proficiency expected of a teacher teaching students.
It
was the government’s responsibility, as part of the centralized educational
system, to select school principals recommended by school inspectors. Teachers nominated themselves as candidates for the position of school principal. These
nominees faced, along with other candidates, a selection committee composed of representatives from the Ministry of Education as
chairs, representatives of local school authorities, and representatives of the
Teachers Union. The idea of appointing
teachers to school principal positions was that he/she would learn about school
organization ‘on the job’.
The
principal was seen first as a teacher,
responsible mainly for the pedagogical side of schools, and only secondarily as holding a
managerial position. This was emphasised by the fact that only those with five
years experience in teaching could be nominated and receive a senior
appointment. Demonstrating this rule, it
is a fact that, even today, school principals are supposed to teach at least
six hours a week in the classroom. This has been changing in the last decade
with the advent of the school-based management approach where principals
acquire an overall responsibility for management as well as responsibility for
the involvement of the wider community in the direction of the school.
As
early as 1973, Minister of Education Yegal Alon foresaw the change demanded in the principal's role. He stated:
“In the future we will have to expect more guiding and instructing
roles from principals. The Ministry of
Education thinks of the principal and the staff as delegates, following office policy, representing
teachers’ opinions and knowledge, and being aware of students' and parents' reactions in all aspects of
educational activity. The principal has a broad responsibility for his
educational institution.” (p. 367)
In
Chen (1999) gives the following description of a principal:
“In the past, the principal gained his training on
the job, when his job was extended, and educational management was developed, it was understood that the principal mission
required special systematic training.” (p.307).
In 1977 the Deputy Director
of the Ministry of Education, (Israeli,
1977) devised
a plan for the development and training of principals, including preparation programmes for senior educational administrators, in which he
recognized that additional training was needed for aspiring principals. He recommended that all new principals should
have an academic degree, or at least
a diploma, in educational administration
At the beginning of 1980 a unit for training senior staff was established by the
Ministry. This has led to the establishment of headteacher training courses, both in universities and colleges, providing training in three elements; leadership, management and
pedagogy. The regulation
requiring new principals to have either an academic
degree or a diploma in educational administration was first enforced in 1984. Today all
principals are expected to have an academic degree; therefore, it is only
recommended that candidates have a diploma in educational administration. Participation
in the programme was, at one stage, a requirement for attending a selection
committee for principal.
Chen (1996)
identifies, as a target for the profession, that all those involved in
principal pre-service planning should do their best to promote levels of
expertise, leadership ability and the status and prestige of the future
principal.
Special emphasis is
placed then, in
Friedman (2000),
analysing training and selection of school principals, states that new training
and selection systems are based on the assumption that successful teachers are
not necessarily becoming successful principals without proper theoretical and
practical training. So, if a proper theoretical and practical training can turn teachers into
principals, maybe it can also do the same to transform candidates from other
professions.
There are increasing difficulties in mobilizing highly qualified
teachers for principal positions. A ten
percent turnover in principals every year caused the Ministry of Education to
look for new ways of recruiting principals (Barkol, 1996).
The Israeli
Defence Forces (IDF)
was founded with the creation of the state in May 1948. The IDF was charged with being responsible
for the sovereignty and
security of the state and assisting
the state in the mission of absorbing new immigrants. The IDF is based upon two
main factors: firstly, a regular army with a small number of career officers
commanding units of compulsory service men and women joining the army at
eighteen and serving three years for men and two years for women. Secondly, the
reserve army in which every
qualified man serves at least one month every year in reserve until he is 47. The service in the Army (to include navy and air forces) is compulsory. There is a collective national consensus
supporting the need for conscription. The army was not, and is not,
distinct from Israeli society. Indeed,
it is a well-integrated and appreciated element. Compulsory service for men and women, and the
reserve system, forge very strong ties between society and the military.
The military system in
During
the first years of the state, Israeli society was relatively small and
intimate. The over-riding idea at that time was that all resources and the
infrastructure within the state, physical or personal, were part of the overall
struggle for independence. The new state viewed the military ethos as part of a
new heritage and was committed to retiring officers. Enjoying high prestige
many retired officers turned to politics both at the national level (Moshe
Dayan, Igael Yadin, Itzhak Rabin, Haim Bar-Lev, Ariel Sharon) and the local
level (Shlomo Lahat) with a degree of success that encouraged others to follow. But, it was
not only high prestige that caused military people to go into politics. A sense of mission led them to offer service
to their nation.
At that time (1948-1958), appointments as directors
of industrial companies were based mainly on ties with the government’s leadership.
Since, during these years, retired military officers enjoyed a high status
within the establishment and Israeli society, and since government and
government affiliated organizations owned most of the large companies in the
marketplace, retired military officers were appointed to high managerial
positions and directorships in public organizations. Privately owned businesses also seemed to
prefer retired military officers in leadership and management positions. The
results were that most retired officers from the level of colonel and above
were appointed to leadership and management positions. This express route
raised, at a later stage, some objections and resentment since workers at those
places felt they lost chances of promotion.
After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, a shift in the
attitude toward the military occurred in which the glory of being an
ex-military officer was not enough. People were judged in accordance with their
ability and performance. The process of positioning officers into managerial
positions that had continued for almost 40 years started to raise questions.
During the last decade, workers’ unions openly questioned the appointment of
outsiders to senior management positions. Beigelman (1999) claimed that an
officer in a civilian managerial position was not necessarily the best choice
and did not automatically offer success. The aura that regarded retired military personnel as the ultimate
manager was reduced and, in many
organizations, there was a change of attitude towards bringing managers in from external systems (Beigelman, 1999).
The last decade has emphasized the change in attitudes toward retired
military personnel. Competition for managerial positions has grown and society
structures have changed. The structural changes in the
economy created a situation in which vacant managerial positions became scarce and harder to get.
Since the growth
in the military forces was accompanied by a large number of retiring officers,
and with managerial positions becoming scarce, the IDF was forced to try and find ways of
preparing retiring officers for civilian life.
A response was
made at two levels. Firstly, from within
the military establishment. The IDF, being a large and complex organization,
operates as a large financial corporation.
Deploying advanced management styles, officers from major rank and
above, are required to go through a management qualification process. Many of
the officers are in charge of military units with sizeable budgets and control
a great number of subordinates. Upon retirement, officers of high rank are
usually well qualified and up-to-date with modern management tools and the
abilities required running organizations.
Secondly, the IDF developed a special programme for
preparing retiring officers to assimilate into civilian life. The process included the completion
of a BA degree and special courses to qualify them for integration into
civilian systems. Being part of such a
small society exposes military personnel to civil society enabling them to
grasp alternative realities.
Retirement and the
transition to civil life from military service (although until the age of 50
they are required to serve at least one month per year in reserve duty) is a forced mid-life change of career. Doering and Rhodes (1989) emphasize the
inherent challenges in this phenomenon.
They identify the need to establish a set of new values different from
those directing his early career; likewise there is a need to change professional qualities and attitudes when leaving
their previous occupation (Bar Zohar, 1997). Yukl (1998) emphasizes extensive
expertise and a well-established net of external relations. In the case of retired officers, they may have
established in their military career aptitudes and abilities relevant for work
in civilian society.
In
the early years of the new state of
The first year of the course is devoted to pedagogy and
methodology. After the completion of a
year-long full week study programme, graduates are
granted a “teaching certificate” which
enables them to teach at the high school level (each candidate
specializing in an academic subject). In
the second year of the programme candidates usually
start working as teachers and they attend the
school principal course for one study day per week.
This initiative was established in
order to meet two pressing needs of that time. The first was to provide
employment in the civil sector for the group
of early retiring highly ranked officers; the second, to
address the shortage of educational leaders serving as qualified
school principals in a new, challenging environment.
However,
the need to fill the shortage was not the only reason. According to Barkol
(1996), the educational system was interested in recruiting and re-training military
officers for principalship in particular, and into education in general, for
several reasons. They had not yet
experienced “burnout” because they had just entered the system. They were
loaded with managerial experience as an outcome of their years of
experience. They were mostly male,
unlike the majority of people in education who were mainly female.
Additionally, they brought with them into the field of education the status and
prestige gained through military service as officers.
Retired
military officers choose to become school principals for varied reasons (Barkol
1996). Retired officers seek prospects in civil society enabling them to
achieve a respectable second career. The education field enables them to
contribute to what is still considered a national cause. Officers often feel
that their former status as military commanders or managers is not so far from
what is demanded of them as teachers and principals.
The project has currently been
in operation for more than twelve years, during which time almost 300 students
have completed the two elements of the re-training. More than 65 percent are
teachers and about 12 percent of them are acting as school principals.
The education
system feels that this forced change of career offers a unique opportunity. It
enables schools to recruit retired officers into the field of education as
their second career, extending leadership and bringing fresh vision into
schools.
Structuring
the re-training course presented a challenge to the planners at
The
emphasis of the course is on both the pedagogical elements and the necessary
exposure to school as a unique organizational system with a unique culture.
Topics such as school systems and dilemmas of school life are part of this
approach. The course consists of three
main elements:
1. A theoretical component
with the main emphasis on school as an organization, and related elements of school
leadership.
2. A semi-theoretical
practical part that consists of workshops, simulation and role-playing.
3. A practicum for the
implementation of all elements.
Towards
the end of the course, graduates start competing for school principal
appointments. The appointment process varies with the size and level of school.
At the elementary and junior high school level, where personnel matters are the
responsibility of the Ministry of Education, the candidate for the position of
school principal will respond to an advertisement in the newspaper and will
attend a selection committee. This
committee will have representatives of the Ministry of Education as chairs with
further representatives from the local authority and the teacher unions. The
candidate will have to present to the committee his qualification and his
educational perspective and vision. The preferred candidate selected by the
committee is recommended by all three members (preferably), or at least by two
of them (Ministry of Education and local authority), to the director general of
the Education Ministry for approval and appointment. The same procedure applies
to the selection of principals for high schools or privately owned schools. In
such cases it is the local municipality or the owner who chairs the selection
committee.
During
the last few years, mayors have become more involved in the selection process
of school principals for their towns. Involvement of mayors in the process is
because their success as mayor depends very much on the performance of the
educational systems in their town. School
principal performance is a key element in the overall success of the
educational system. Therefore, there is a tendency on the part of mayors to
prefer ex-military officers to serve as school principals as they have proven
their leadership and management abilities during their former career. This
enables those newly re-trained retired officers to join the education system
and prove their qualifications and abilities as educational leaders from a
different source. This preference of mayors is
often not in line with the Ministry of Education whose representatives tend to
prefer those coming from a teaching career.
The purpose of the following study is to try
to find an appropriate way of incorporating candidates from other fields into
the field of education as school principals by listening to what they have to
say. This may help to locate and map their strengths, weaknesses, qualities,
abilities and capabilities; they can then be offered a specially designed
pre-service training programme. So, how does the officers' talk shed light on the issue of preparing
a principals' re-training course for people coming from a different career?
The following is a
qualitative-interpretative study based on graduates' talk: two meetings with graduates of the “Officers
to Education” project were conducted. These meetings took place two months
after the conclusion of their study year. The August 2001 meeting consisted of
15 graduates and the August 2002 meeting consisted of 14 graduates.
Students were used to having
this kind of group meeting to discuss course topics as the reflections of
students on the course affected the structure of the next year’s course. The
dialogue between students and course designers was very productive and was
based on the principle that participants of a principals’ course are to
identify and understand their own requirements and needs.
The meetings were conducted as
group discussions and dealt with the following topics:
§
Mid-life change of career, to include the need for an
interval between the teaching certificate and the principals’ course.
The
two specific meetings mentioned were recorded and the recording serves as data
for this study.
Data analysis
The recorded material was
transcribed and then content analysed. The writers identified categories
relevant for the research question.
Findings
“I got better tools to be able to do my
job”
In general the
students reflected satisfaction with the balance of course topics. They
emphasized the importance of pedagogy and educational management as new
elements for them.
“Pedagogy
as a whole was not a new topic for me, but the unique involvement of the
principal in pedagogy, as well as elements of educational management, were very
important to me. I feel I got better tools to be able to do my job.”
(MD)
“We only
now understand what we got at the course and it is very much appreciated. We
thought at the beginning it was too much theory, but now we understand the
relevance, especially in educational management; we thought we were very well
qualified in management and discovered that there is a new world out there that
we are not very familiar with.” (MH)
GH said that she felt
very confident in her leadership qualities and management abilities when she
joined the course but felt unsure about her capabilities in pedagogy.
“I feel much better now, I don’t know all
about pedagogy, and I am sure there will be teachers in my school that will
know more, but I know now what question I should ask and where to look for the
answers”.
Some graduates, like EY,
requested more practical tools to be provided in the course. He felt that the
practice part of the course did not provide enough operational tools for
practicing principalship:
“…it is a new
area for me, and once I am appointed I will have to start working, therefore I
need some more tools fitted for school principalship for my tool box”.
However, on the other hand, BK,
who was already an acting principal, felt the course made a real contribution
in providing him with principalship tools.
“The course was
for me a time off from all the pressure of principalship and at the same time
provided me with the right perspective for what I was doing. I think that
already being a principal enabled me to determine what was really important and
what was not, I do feel the course contributed to my success.” (BK)
Others agreed, and added:
“The course final
paper, “The Portfolio” I had to submit at the end of the course, was a very
good and practical tool that helped me in preparing for principalship. It
helped me to reflect on what I received through the process and only then did I
realize how much I had acquired.” (BS)
However, others were critical
and asserted that the training process could not respond to all the factors
required for principalship. It is such a large gap to fill at once, therefore
it should be understood that it is not the end of the process, but just the
beginning.
There were a large number of
suggestions for additional training areas; GR felt that:
“…there is a need to try and pay more
attention to the way education should be implemented in the future to include
new initiatives and developments in the field of education, especially since we
are expected to be initiators more than the others”.
PR, who was appointed as the
head of an education department at a local authority in the middle of the
course, felt that since school evaluation was an important factor in school
life, aspiring principals should be better trained for that and therefore the
course should provide more on that topic.
There were some other voices
too; a few of the students were not completely happy with the concept of the
training. AS claimed he wanted a different kind of training, more personal and
intimate, in the shape of a mentoring
process. He felt that would provide him
with better tools since studying in a large group makes it difficult for
individual students.
"We were treated as adult
learners"
There was common agreement in the appreciation
of the way students were treated: “…we
enjoyed the course and appreciate the way we were treated as adult learners”
(S.L). “The fact that we were treated in the course as adults helped us to
go through the process of climbing the step from an outsider into principalship”
(DL).
Students felt that the course
was designed with a lot of sensitivity to their needs and requirements.
Treating them as adult learners and taking into account their remarks made them
more involved and helped them to go through the process, which, as a mid-life
change of career, was not an easy one. YK emphasized the importance of course
participant’s backgrounds on their ability to determine their requirements. A
characteristic of this particular course was that members also contributed by sharing
much of their personal experiences to each other. “I learnt as much from my
friends as from my teachers; we do carry with us a wealth of knowledge that, by
sharing, everybody can gain from” (YK).
In general, those graduates who
were already in management positions were more specific in their comments in
accordance with the role they were performing. The rest referred to standards
and the quality of particular teachers. The students in general wanted more
exposure to schools, which they felt was required for their professional
future.
“No need for any more
time”
Discussing the need
for one year, or more, of practical teaching before going into principalship,
MS, like many others, did not want to waste any time:
“…we are
well qualified and we do not have any time to spare, therefore we should start
trying to get principals positions immediately. Like any position we got in the
army, we have to accept it and be able to perform it at once, the process of
training was long and there is no need for any more time”.
SL, already acting as a deputy principal, also
thought that it was best to go directly into principalship. He felt he was
provided with the right tools for principalship and, along with him performing
the job of deputy principal, felt he was receiving the required elements for
the job. Z was an exception saying that there should be at least one year of
practical teaching:
“…experiencing
teaching and knowing school as a teacher gives you a different dimension that
we lack; we should have a “time off” before resuming the hard mission of
principalship to assimilate what we have studied
UT felt that there was
a need for an in-depth acquaintance with school life and the education system as
a whole before trying to be appointed as a school principal. He agreed it was a
very personal thing:
“…it has
to do with what stage of the process you are at; along with the professional development
process it is the build up of confidence as well. Only when that ends are you
ready for your mission”.
DG emphasized the need for
gaining experience in the education field before going into principalship. The
training phase for a mid-life change of career should, in his opinion, be short
and concentrated: “It is understood that we will need to acquire some of the
missing elements in the future”. He requested the need: “To balance
between a long process of acquaintance with the education world on the one hand
and the need for returning as fast as possible back to the field on the other
hand”. His suggestion that: “It should be understood that we will need
to acquire some of the missing elements in the future” should be considered
very seriously as part of a life long learning process.
The transfer to a new area of
occupation requires not only the basic training, but also an on-going
development and learning process throughout professional life. The training
process forms the basis of knowledge to accept the mission but, in order to be
able to perform the mission; there is a need for a long and continuous process
of acquiring new abilities and capabilities.
As for presenting this
opportunity to join the field of education to ex military, it was very much
appreciated, but it was mentioned that it was for the benefit of both sides:
“It does give us
an opportunity for a new career, but the fact that we chose that field is also
a great contribution for the other side. We bring with us a lot of experience
in many fields and areas, not just how to conduct a war. Being responsible for the lives of other
people develops in us a sense of sensitivity and responsibility that we carry
with us, which could be very beneficial to any organization and especially to
schools.” (
The understanding of this mutual
benefit enables the “newcomers” to feel they are appreciated, which affects
their motivation.
“They did not
know how to accept me; I was a male, older than most of them, with a well-known
military background, and yet very enthusiastic. It was not easy, but slowly I
gained their trust, especially when I was ready to take responsibility for trip
safety and a security issue which they felt was a burden.” (UM)
Graduates were also aware of
what FS described as “elements that are threatening schools”;
inspectors, counsellors, as well as processes such as establishing work or
action plans, things ex-military are very familiar with but which might be a
problem for teachers: “…so when we get in, we are also considered
threatening outsiders and it takes time to accept us” (EM).
The fact that those who do not
achieve principalship are appointed as classroom teachers or subject leaders is
also very important: “…it shows me that I am appreciated and my abilities
are recognized” (AM). It is understood that competition for those positions
is heavy and yet these sub principal positions do serve as a
compensation/compromise.
The approach
that soldiers should be regarded as young people and pedagogy does apply to
them is also found in the officers' talk.
They emphasize that there is little difference between their students
today and the soldiers they commanded yesterday. NH feels that the reason for his choice of education as a second career is, as he
puts it,
the fact that: I like young people",
he likes to influence them and he sees a lot of similarities between schools
and military service. AH feels he reached the conclusion that: "through
practically all of my military service, I was dealing with educating young
people" and he decided to implement this experience and knowledge in the school system. Though they feel they
have already been pedagogues dealing with young soldiers, the insecurity they
feel about their pedagogical background leads them to try and increase their knowledge
in the field through the training process towards principalship.
The process of transition
from the military to education is a major change in the middle of the officers'
careers. The length of time taken to re-train is a crucial element in a
mid-life career change. In this case the re-training process takes two years,
much shorter than the training process demanded from young people starting an
educational career, but not very short for adults. Making it longer by compelling
them to acquire experience as teachers will make the entire re-training process
unattractive, as was explained in the officers' talk. Thus, the re-training
process in mid-life should be an intensive short programme in order to appeal
to the relevant candidates.
The retraining period
should provide its graduates with the required knowledge as well as with
confidence in their ability to face the new challenge. In this case it was done
by treating the learners as adults according to the principles of andragogy
(Knowles, 1990). The fact they were thus treated was very much appreciated by
them. It was also realized that, although the graduates were mature grown-ups
with proven successes in the past, and although they wanted to be an active
part of the learning process with their teachers, they needed much
encouragement and support during the training phase. The fact that they learnt
as a cohort helped regain this confidence .The importance of the cohort was
strongly expressed by them.
The graduates were regarded
with a lot of suspicion at schools in the beginning but, when time had passed
and they were better known, they were more warmly accepted and appreciated.
More than 72 percent of the project’s graduates remain in the field of
education, even if not appointed as school principals; therefore, both
participants and the authorities consider the project to be a success.
The
officers find similarities between their military careers and their educational
careers - in both they are responsible for the well being of young people. In
this sense they consider the new career as a continuation rather than a change.
The results of this study show that a
re-training process in mid-life can be successful if the process is not too
long, if the participants are treated as adults, with respect and
understanding, and if they are grouped together so that they may regain
confidence with the help of the group. The initial phase is difficult for both
sides, but they learn to live together. Points of similarity between the old
and the new career may help in the process of adjustment. These findings may
shed some light on the issue of re-training processes in mid-life, not only
with relevance to the educational system in
Alon, Y. (1973) ‘Education in the seventies, implementing policies’,
in Ormian, H. (ed) Education in Israel,
Bar Zohar, Y. (1997) The
Transfer of Retired Officers at Mid Life for a Second Career in the Field of
Education, Bait Berl:
Barkol, R. (1996) ‘Retraining military officers as school principals’, International Journal of Education Reform, vol. 5 (3), pp.305-309.
Barkol, R. (1999) ‘Where shall school principals come from? –
Retraining of retired military officers to principalship’, O.D. in
Beigelman, N. (1999) To the General Director Armchair, Tel Aviv: Marive (in Hebrew).
Blair, T. (1999) Speech to the New Heads Conference, (Online
http://www.ncsl.org.UK/index.cfm?pageid=college-nhc1999-tb, retrieved
Caldwell, B. J. (2003) ‘
Chen, M. (1996) ‘Academic preparation of principals in
Chen, M. (1999) ‘Leadership and management in educational systems’,
in Peled, E. (ed) Fifty Years of Israeli Education,
Davies, B. (1997) ‘Rethinking the educational context – a re-engineering approach’, in Davies, B. and Ellison