1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

EdD or/and NPQH

Discussion in 'Career clinic' started by maestra7, Aug 26, 2020.

  1. maestra7

    maestra7 New commenter

    Hello All,
    I hope you had a good break.

    I just wanted to see if anyone has done (or is doing) an EdD and how they found it and where they did it.
    For those that haven't and have a leadership role, do you think the NPQH was sufficient or would you have liked to have studied further?

    I have been in the profession for a decade and I am an aspiring head.

    Many thanks!
     
  2. ABCDETeacher

    ABCDETeacher New commenter

    This might sound really old fashioned but...

    I'm not sure an NPQH or a EdD would be sufficient in themselves to prep to be a HT. Experience is by far the most valuable thing you can have. If it's a choice between dedicating time to study vs dedicating time to leading a whole school initiative/supporting a local school I say the second wins every time. If you've got time to do both, then tell me how you do it!

    But, now to answer your question...

    My personal opinion is that an NPQH is more useful as it ticks a box in the desirable column on personal specs for all HT roles every single time. It's easier to do, cheaper and is grounded in 'in-school' practice so can give some useful examples or situations to transfer to a HT application.

    A EdD COULD be seen as really exciting by a certain type of school, e.g. a teaching school or a school in the private sector. It's more theoretical and research driven, and so I believe can sometimes lack that 'real world' application. It also depends a lot on what your EdD is specialising in...an EdD specialising in raising attainment for FSM boys would be super attractive to a school with 65% FSM students for example. It's not unattractive to a school with a 10% FSM NOR, it just doesn't add to your application.

    So in short...

    I think an EdD is the route it you're pursuing a qualification out of a passion and desire to learn and research the field. If your focus is simply career progression then I'd say working through NPQSL and then the NPQH is the way forward. Hope that helps.
     
  3. sidekick125

    sidekick125 New commenter

    I would completely disagree with the previous poster. A NPQH is no longer a requirement for headship. And an EdD is a worldwide qualification. If you choose to leave the U.K to teach or lead internationally, an EdD (having the title Dr. generally) will open a lot more doors than a NPQH.
     
    digoryvenn likes this.
  4. MrMedia

    MrMedia Star commenter

    I did an Ed D. I’m afraid I don’t value the NPQH. If you look at what some heads do with it - data driven (poor positivist methodology understanding), lack of awareness around leadership and management and general leadership theory, then it doesn’t hold up. It’s a pragmatic qualification which introduces heads to the various aspects to the role without the theoretical underpinnings needed to be critical.
    I’m actually inclined to think your original idea of both warrants merit. However, an Ed D takes 5 years so it’s a long game.
     
    digoryvenn and slugtrial like this.
  5. slugtrial

    slugtrial New commenter

    This seems to be the most favoured way in schools at the moment. If you are not currently doing the day job directly in school, your input isn’t valued.

    This is reflected in TES editorial policy. If you are a recently retired teacher of any rank, don’t bother submitting any articles. Your expertise won’t be recognised. If you are currently in school, then that will be okay.
    According to TES, this is because it is what readers want.
    Very short sighted and inward looking.

    I mention this here because the pragmatic side of the NPQH will be seen as ‘proper preparation’ for leadership by many, but the theoretical aspects of Ed.D dismissed.

    For me, the Ed.D is far superior. I did the NPQH in its early days. It had government driven content and we all came out with the same, prefabricated approach to leadership. Clones with no critical appreciation skills.

    I’ve retired recently and it still annoys me.
     
    MrMedia and digoryvenn like this.
  6. digoryvenn

    digoryvenn Lead commenter

    From my experience, it is still the same!
    I think an EdD would be 'better'.
     

Share This Page