NSW Secondary Principals Council

NSW Secondary Principals’ Council Role of the Principal Project Report on travelling research groups

Background

A significant element within the “Role of the Principal Project” was to research the Principal’s role as it operates in different jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand. Initial contacts were provided by the various state representatives of the Australian Secondary Principal’s Association (ASPA). The nominations by each state representative were made on the basis that the Principals were experienced school leaders, currently in principal positions and with a sound understanding of both their role and the operation of the system supporting them in that role.

Contacts were also established with officials in a range of educational settings. As such, an ongoing benefit of the program will be the capacity for continuing conversations as an interstate and international (NZ) level around the issues of school leadership.

Funding support was accessed via the NSW Department of Education and Training “Leadership Fellowship Program” as well as the SPC’s own funds. Jurisdictions researched included Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, the A.C.T. and New Zealand, with each travelling group consisting of several NSW Principals. A research “Code of Practice” was established which governed the protocols appertaining to the visits, and outlined a series of parameters aimed at obtaining a level of consistency across all groups in relation to the conduct of the visits. These protocols guaranteed a high level of confidentiality, anonymity for participating Principals, and high levels of professional integrity in the use of any findings.

Prior contact with participating Principals was established in order to allow them the opportunity to gain a broad understanding of the purpose and focus of each visit. A reporting matrix was developed which provided a common structure within which each travelling group would synthesise and report upon their findings. The matrix included an opportunity for Principals in other jurisdictions to identify what they saw as key features of their role and how they are supported in that role. It then provided an opportunity for discussion and reflection upon how these features were different to the NSW situation and a judgement in relation to the advantages and disadvantages of those features. Each visit was built around a common series of questions which, without being proscriptive, provided a framework for discussions and also an element of commonality across all travelling groups. The discussion questions and complete reporting matrix from each visit are attached to this document as appendices. In most cases the travelling group spent a full day in discussion or shadowing the Principal at their school, followed by a day of debriefing and synthesising with colleagues, follow up questions with the Principal if necessary and then finalization of matrix documentation before returning home.

It is important to note that no claim is being made as to this section of the project providing definitive research. In perspective, each group consulted with a handful of Principals only in each jurisdiction primarily for the purpose of gaining a broad snapshot of how the role is undertaken in different systems. It should also be noted that whilst some features of the role were judged to be more, or less, positive when compared to the NSW situation, it is sometimes difficult to make such assessments in isolation from the totality of the system.

Without exception, one aspect of the findings was common. Each of the Principals visited was highly motivated, dedicated, hard working and clearly passionate about their school and their role. The NSW Secondary Principals’ Council is extremely grateful to all of the Principals visited for their honesty, support and generosity with their valuable time.

Queensland

There were two separate travelling groups researching different areas of the Queensland system. One group of Principals visited three very demographically different schools in and around a large regional inland city, whilst the other group visited a series of city based schools in the densely populated south east area of the state. In general it seemed apparent that the role of the Principal in Queensland and the challenges they face on a regular basis are similar to those in NSW. There was a sense of high levels of accountability, broad expectations of what the Principal and the school would be able to do, and high levels of frustration at the limited levels of system support available to the school. It was apparent that on the one hand the schools appeared to be well resourced, with much higher levels of flexibility in a wide range of areas of school operations, yet on the other hand less apparent system support and a sense of school isolation.

Features viewed as positive in comparison to NSW:  Much greater levels of staffing flexibility, with more capacity to provide teaching allowances across a range of executive positions.  Much higher levels of remuneration for senior ancillary staff, with greater expectations of their skills and role.  Greater control over school maintenance issues, assisted by the employment of a school registrar (bursar) responsible for managing most school based issues.  Significantly more flexibility in terms of curriculum structure, courses and assessment particularly in Years 7-10.  Greater capacity for schools to supplement school global budgets by submissions for special needs.  More flexibility in relation to school suspension procedures with a greater sense of responsibility placed upon parents for supporting school exclusion.  Broader range of school data provided by the system, including a range of qualitative “student and parent opinion” data given high levels of importance, parallel to academic data.

Features viewed as negative in comparison to NSW:  Much of the system accountability, whilst heavily linked to planning documents and budgets, was seen as superficial and counter productive.  Less external support available to Principals either by the system, or professional networks.  “ Diminished work performance” procedures for teachers were seen as cumbersome and rarely used.  Very little system support for training and development, or student welfare.  Teachers’ “Code of Conduct” is viewed as proscriptive and primarily aimed at delivering upon government agendas.  Extremely limited leadership development programs at a system level, and very few induction programs for school leaders.  No provision of teaching allowance or financial remuneration for Year Coordinators or Student Advisers.

Western Australia

The team which visited Western Australia accessed schools in both metropolitan and more remote areas. It was clear that one of the most significant challenges faced by both Principals and the system is the incredible diversity of needs of schools ranging from the well populated south western areas to the extreme isolation of many of the outback areas. This was also reflected in the responses from principals in relation to the focus questions as their situations, needs and perspectives were so varied. There was a general sense that the system was mainly focused upon the needs of the more populated areas of the south west corner and that continuity of service in areas outside this were an ongoing challenge for the system as a whole. Features viewed as positive in comparison to NSW:  Greater flexibility in terms of curriculum design and structure with a range of entrepreneurial vocational programs and a greater focus upon designing curriculum to meet the needs of all students.  Employment of a school bursar responsible for managing school finance, properties and non-teaching staff.  Higher levels of technology support in terms of both hardware and ongoing support.  Reduced responsibility in the area of resource management allowed greater capacity to work on building school capacity and working with the community.  The existence of a highly successful leadership centre which develops, coordinates, accesses or delivers quality programs.  Strong student welfare teams involving both school and district staff with a shared responsibility for managing difficult and needy students.  Substantial incentives for staffing remote and difficult to staff schools.

Features viewed as negative in comparison to NSW:  Whilst schools have greater flexibility in terms of curriculum structure there appeared to be less system support for curriculum implementation, especially in remote areas.  Cumbersome procedures for managing teachers experiencing difficulty with their performance.  Limited support for Principals in relation to legal issues, staff welfare and principal welfare.  Lack of system support in relation to code of conduct issues.  No specific Principals’ professional organization.  Perceived poor relations between Principals and the teaching union.  Allocation of school psychologist at the rate of one per 2000 students was seen as grossly inadequate. South Australia

The team visited a range of schools in both metropolitan and country areas. It is noteworthy that the size of the system in South Australia is relatively small and compact when compared to many other states. Whilst the state is not physically small, the population is centred largely in the south eastern corner and in a handful of sizeable regional centres. There was, possibly as a result of this, a sense that the system was more in tune with the needs of schools and apparently higher levels of innovation in terms of both school and curriculum structures.

Features viewed as positive in comparison to NSW:  Greater flexibility in terms of the school’s capacity to determine executive roles and responsibilities.  More flexibility in relation to ancillary staff roles, with a bursar employed to manage a wide range of administrative and OH&S issues.  Limited tenure for both teaching and executive staff, subject to ongoing performance reviews.  Higher incentives for staffing isolated and difficult to staff schools.  A high proportion of senior departmental staff had recent school experience.  There were high levels of cooperation between schools, their communities, District offices and neighbouring schools, with clusters of schools often working on common focus areas.  Greater capacity for the school to remunerate and support staff in student welfare roles.  Data measurements are made against socio economically “like” schools.  High levels of system support for schools to engage in long term learning programs, with external support, and integrated local planning and system accountability.

Features viewed as negative in comparison to NSW:  The limited tenure of staff and executive, whilst potentially and advantage, sometimes leads to a lack of continuity at the school level.  Generally the school staffing model is very complex.  The contract system for Principals places a high premium on the Principal’s relationship with the School Governing Council.  Little evidence of system support for principal welfare.  Limited evidence of support at the system level for managing student welfare or supporting schools beyond the school based allocation of resourcing.  A highly detailed Annual School Report process with a preoccupation with data analysis.

Australian Capital Territory The team visited a range of schools in the ACT and was able to quickly gather a succinct picture of the Principal’s role in the Territory given the small size of the system and the comparatively less diverse range of geographic and socio economic contexts. In spite of this there were variations in the emphasis placed in different elements of the role from Principal to Principal. The A.C.T. system also has the capacity to interact fairly easily with the NSW system, particularly in relation to staff interaction and exchange of professional dialogue on an informal basis.

Features viewed as positive in comparison to NSW:  The system is by its nature small, and therefore there is greater access to the CEO and minister. This is beneficial to the community and to principals.  Greater flexibility to determine executive positions through the issue of staffing points to each school. This capacity was highly valued by the principals.  Principals feel valued and felt that they had a greater capacity to influence and make a difference within the system.  Collaborative policy development processes appears to be a vehicle for greater ownership and input by principals.  Recent publication of new student welfare protocols seems to be establishing a very clear link between good discipline and pedagogy.

Features viewed as negative in comparison to NSW:  A very flexible curriculum particularly 7-10 provides a level of autonomy in local design, but it requires a significant amount of planning time on the part of individual schools and school leaders.  Ineffectiveness of the staff improvement program that includes staff being moved to another school and therefore impacts on the principal’s capacity to maintain the quality of staff.  There appears to be no system support for principal welfare.

Victoria

The team visited a wide range of schools in what is a fairly diverse system. General impressions were that the schools were, in comparison to NSW, very well resourced and with a significantly greater level of school determination of school resources. There was also a sense of higher levels of accountability commensurate with this greater flexibility, and a sense of greater use of meaningful school data, especially in relation to comparisons with schools in similar circumstances.

Features viewed as positive in comparison to NSW:  Flexibility of staffing allows principal’s to employ both teaching and non- teaching staff and adjust duties. This can include the proportion of senior executive, bursars, business managers and principal’s secretary who are paid at appropriate levels.  Fund management can include the capacity to ‘cash in’ some of the staffing money to re-direct to properties, and the capacity to form a co-operative and take out a loan (non-interest) for additional buildings or other areas of need.  Strong clusters of innovations with high school and primary links.  School evaluation was strong, using extensive data (outside body gathered data) and measuring against ‘like school’.  Strong principal’s induction program and financial support for developing principals.

Features viewed as negative in comparison to NSW:  Increased levels of principal responsibility and accountability without commensurate remuneration. Also, inordinate amount of time taken on staff reviews (sometimes up to two terms).  Staffing structure means that principal generally does not have direct contact with students.  School Council provides another level of accountability that includes signing off all financial transactions and endorsing the principal at the end of contractual period.

New Zealand

This team visited twelve schools in and around Auckland, the Ministry of Education and the Educational Review Office. New Zealand education has moved from a centralised structure to one in which schools have considerable responsibility for their own governance and management. This operates within a framework of guidelines, requirements and funding arrangements set by central government. The existing frameworks were set up in 1989 when the Department of Education was replaced with an expanded ministry, with separate educational agencies having national responsibility for quality assurance. The authority for most educational service provisions lies with each school’s Board of Trustees (BOT). State schools include integrated schools (former private, mainly Catholic), and each school is given a decile ranking of socio-economic advantage, in which the provision of resources (and principal salaries) is linked.

Features viewed as positive in comparison to NSW:  Each school is allocated management units for leadership and management positions, with the flexibility to purchase more units if required. Positions may include up to six DP’s in some schools, associate principals, business managers, directors of studies and welfare, and PA’s for principals.  All staff are selected by the principal and approved by the BOT. There are salary allowances for difficult to staff schools.  Overseas students contribute large amounts to schools, with some earning well over a million dollars.  A legislative base supports a number of school operations such as enforcing uniform and some fees.

Features viewed as negative in comparison to NSW  Staffing concerns include a shortage of quality applicants and adequate succession planning. Some schools will do better than others, but overall the process is time consuming. Advertising for positions can be wide, including principals travelling overseas on occasions for recruitment purposes. All staff are on contracts and are appraised each year according to agreed contract requirements.  Principals often perceived as managers, many with no direct role in educational leadership or contact with students. These roles are delegated via a management team.  The Board of Trustees (equivalent to school council) has legislated authority, which can be a layer of protection for the principal, but can also provide increased workload for the principal (eg large number of meetings, suspensions, properties).  Staff efficiency processes (a small number involved) are similar to NSW, although principals can be subject to litigation as a result of dismissal. Indemnity insurance is taken out by the BOT.  Principal organizations are not strongly developed or supported and don’t provide the level of collegiality and welfare support for principals as evident in NSW.  There is no superannuation, although there is varying use of incentives, eg cars, rent-free homes, reduced mortgages, overseas study.

Concluding comments

The travelling research program proved to be invaluable in providing first hand information about how schools in other jurisdictions operate in reality, as distinct from impressions gained from more formal sources. In addition to the value of the program to the “Role of the Principal Project” it also provided an outstanding opportunity for a diverse group of NSW Principals to dialogue with each other about their own roles, and to broaden their personal understandings of other systems. Above all, it provided many ideas which were able to be considered and possibly incorporated into suggestions as to how Principals in NSW could fulfil their role with even more distinction than they already demonstrate.