ACEL Leading & Managing | Volume 20 Number 1 | Autumn/Winter 2014
Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders
Volume 20 Number 1 2014
ISSN 1329-4539
Leading & Managing
Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Patron: Emeritus Professor Frank Crowther AM, The University of Southern Queensland
EDITORS Associate Professor Dorothy Andrews & Dr Marian Lewis Leadership Research International Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts The University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
EDITORIAL BOARD
Professor Lawrence Angus Emeritus Professor Frank Crowther AM Dr David Gurr Head, School of Education Leadership Research (LRI) Senior Lecturer, University of Ballarat University of Southern Queensland Melbourne Graduate School of Education P O Box 663 Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350 University of Melbourne Ballarat, Victoria, 3353 Australia Australia Victoria, 3010 Australia
Professor Les Bell Emeritus Professor Neil Dempster Professor Gabriele Lakomski Centre for Educational Leadership Griffith Institute for Educational Research Centre for the Study of Higher Education and Management Griffith University Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Leicester Brisbane, Queensland, 4111 Australia University of Melbourne 162-166 Upper New Walk 715 Swanston St, Victoria, 3010 Australia Leicester Emeritus Professor Patrick Duignan LE1 7QA, United Kingdom Director, ‘Leading to Inspire’ Associate Professor David Ng Foo Seong P O Box 161 Policy & Leadership Studies Associate Professor Michael Bezzina Isle of Capri Q 4217 National Institute of Education (NIE) Director, Teaching and Learning Australia 1 Nanyang Walk Singapore 637616 Catholic Education Office Sydney 38 Renwick Street Dr Scott Eacott Professor Viviane Robinson Leichhardt NSW 2040 Australia Faculty of Education Head of School of Education Australian Catholic University Faculty of Education Associate Professor Pam Bishop North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia University of Auckland, New Zealand Associate Dean, Graduate Programs, & Assoc Prof, Educational Leadership Associate Professor Lisa Ehrich Faculty of Education School of Learning & Professional Professor Louise Stoll Western University Studies, Faculty of Education Visiting Professor 1137 Western Road, London Queensland University of Technology Institute of Education Ontario, Canada N6G 1G7 Kelvin Grove Campus University of London Brisbane, Queensland, 4059 Australia 20 Bedford Way Professor Pam Christie London WC1 H OAL, UK School of Education Professor Colin Evers University of Cape Town Professor of Educational Leadership Associate Professor Karen Trimmer Private Bag X3, Rondebosch School of Education Faculty of Business, Education, Law & Arts Cape Town 7701 University of New South Wales University of Southern Queensland Republic of South Africa Sydney, New South Wales, 2052 Toowoomba Q 4350 Australia Australia Professor Neil Cranston Professor Charles Webber School of Education Professor Mike Gaffney Dean, Faculty of Continuing Education University of Tasmania Faculty of Education, Science, and Extension, Mount Royal University PMB 66 Technology & Maths 4825 Mount Royal Gate S.W. Hobart, Tasmania, 7001 University of Canberra Calgary, Alberta T3E 6K6 Australia ACT, 2601 Australia Canada
ISSN 1329-4539
Leading & Managing
Volume 20 Number 1 Autumn/Winter 2014
CONTENTS Editorial Marian Lewis ii Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland
Editors: DOROTHY ANDREWS & MARIAN LEWIS
Articles Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners 1 SUSAN LOVETT, NEIL DEMPSTER & BEV FLÜCKIGER
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 11 CHRISTINE CUNNINGHAM
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 32 RAY BLOXHAM, LISA C. EHRICH & RADHA IYER
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 48 (RON) KIM KEAMY
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 63 ERASMUS K. NORVIEWU-MORTTY, GLENDA CAMPBELL-EVANS & MARK HACKLING
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 80 ADELE CRANE & JOHN DE NOBILE
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 93 SCOTT EACOTT
Book review The Self-Transforming School 106 B.J. Caldwell & J.M. Spinks MICHAEL GAFFNEY ii Leading and Managing, Vol 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. ii-iv
Editorial
In many ways, and from a range of perspectives, this issue is illustrative of the impact of current discourses on educational leadership. Taken together, the articles question or challenge prevailing discourses or, at least, suggest the need to do this. The exercise of power, in one form or another, is a key element in a number of the articles. Important questions are raised, including how important is it to recognise the political nature of leadership and decision making? How can dialogic spaces be created that allow new conversations to take place – whether in intercultural spaces or through student advocacy? Other significant questions relate to how power is used to reinforce particular agendas and how significant initiatives might avoid being modified and absorbed into existing systems that change their parameters. It is an interesting issue and you are invited to explore the articles, identifying what you see as the emerging themes and question. It is hoped that discussion will indeed be prompted. In the first article, Lovett, Dempster and Flückiger report on the Principals as Literacy Leaders with Indigenous Communities (PALLIC) project. A total of 48 schools, located across three Australian states and territories, participated in the 2011-2012 project which sought to support literacy learning (specifically reading) through a modularised professional learning program. Recognising the importance of both home and school in successful learning, ‘two way’ leadership partnerships with indigenous members of each participating school’s community were established. This required engaging in dialogue in shared inter-cultural spaces, where equal value is given to the cultural knowledge and experience of Indigenous people and school leaders, and where the focus is on helping children with their reading. The article reports on initial questionnaire responses from principals and Indigenous leadership partners which indicate some success – though it is recognised that creating intercultural spaces, within the community, where leadership can be shared, is not without its challenges. Further work may be required to develop processes that support this effort. The notion of power relationships in the sharing of leadership is not specifically addressed – but this is at the heart of the article which follows. In the second article, Cunningham critiques decision making from an emancipatory perspective – taking the position that decision making is a privilege of power and that it is problematic to analyse it within an apolitical framework. The article reports on research carried out with a cohort of educational leadership Master of Education students in Western Australia – who shared their current experiences of school decision-making practices and also imagined what this could plausibly be like if their organisations were transformed. They were asked to respond to three situational leadership scenarios and the preference expressed for participatory decision making in the ‘preferred world’ is interesting and contributes to a theme clearly emerging in this issue. As Cunningham notes, focusing on the process of decision making in schools opens up the possibility of discussing power and privilege – and this has the potential to change the focus of discussion and bring out some of the assumptions about leadership that tend to be hidden in ‘usual’ practice, including the (perhaps) assumed political neutrality of school leadership. This would also allow schools to be influential role models for students by demonstrating more participatory democratic ways of making decisions. In the third article, the theme of educational leadership and power relationships is also explored, though from a different perspective. Insights are provided about how power operates in Editorial iii
large bureaucratic systems. Bloxham, Ehrich and Iyer report on a study into the work of Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance (ARDs-SP) in Queensland whose role, since 2010, has been to improve student learning through the supervision of principals. In Queensland, as elsewhere, principals are under pressure to demonstrate their success through improved student learning, as evidenced in test results. The article explores how ARDs-SP see their role and analyses how micropolitical forms of power operate within this supervision. The authors draw on the Blasé and Andrews (1995) micropolitical leadership matrix that incorporates three different power arrangements (power over, through and with) within four different leadership styles. The findings and discussions make interesting reading, including the observation that ARD-SP leadership focuses on meeting the corporate agenda through the supervision of principals. It is also observed that a focus on compliance and meeting corporate goals leads to a limited view of school leadership and the importance of local school contexts is not recognised. In perhaps another example of contemplating what is against a background of what could be, Keamy reports on the case study of a college that embarked on a whole-of-school innovation involving the implementation of the Advocacy Model of Student Support. In a time when many secondary school students are increasingly disengaging and becoming alienated from school, it is clearly important to take steps to develop positive teacher-student relationships. This article raises the possibility of a new dialogic space being opened, one with the potential to change the discourse of power in classrooms. The Advocacy Model of Student Support has the potential to change the way that students and teachers interact by opening up new possibilities, with the teacher getting to know students as individuals and actively advocating on their behalf. This change would involve a reimaging of school and the role played by the teachers. Keamy reports that the case study school adapted aspects of this project, introducing learning communities in the school, each containing a number of learning mentor groups. While this may have had positive effects in the building of relationships and the early identification of difficulties faced by students, it meant teachers took on a group mentoring rather than an individual advocacy role. It is suggested that teachers may have come to a better understanding of the importance of building relationships with students. It could perhaps be concluded that while the Advocacy Model of Student Support had the potential to change the way teachers and students related to each other and to fundamentally alter the power relationships within the school, what was implemented here is consistent with the absorption of the individual advocacy approach within existing structures, producing benefits but within existing parameters. In the next article Norviewu-Mortty, Campbell-Evans and Hacking report on case studies of four disadvantaged rural schools in Ghana – two identified as high achieving and two as low achieving junior high schools. The study sought to understand what factors contributed to the success of the high achieving schools so those understandings could be used to address the very pressing problem of low academic achievement in other similar schools. Observation, along with interviews and focus group discussions with a range of stakeholders, provided the basis for some interesting findings. A number of key factors that contributed to school effectiveness were identified, highlighting the importance of the role played by the principal. This led to the development of a model for effective leadership which has the potential to improve teaching and learning and, therefore, student outcomes. The study identifies seven essential properties of iv Marian Lewis
effective school leadership across the four case study schools and indicates that the presence of the interrelated and interconnected essential leadership properties, captured in a model, was what made the difference between a successful junior high school in a disadvantaged rural area and a school where student academic achievement was low. The authors suggest that the model has implications for the professional development of principals, in (but not confined to) emerging nations such as Ghana. The findings open the way for interesting discussions about how these findings both compliment and add to the effective school literature. In another article that recognises the importance of supporting students in secondary schools, Crane and De Nobile report on a small study investigating the role of year coordinators (year advisors) in three independent girls’ secondary schools in New South Wales. Consideration is given to how these roles may be monitored in terms of both providing support to students and doing so in a way aligned to school goals. The importance of the leadership aspects of coordinator roles and the collegial nature of their work is noted. As indicated by Keamy in an earlier article, positive teacher-student relationships are very important. This article reports that the year advisors have a good sense of the ‘whole child’ and are able to interact with parents, providing proactive pastoral care that is complex and multi-dimensional. This study is concerned with the actual role played by these year coordinators and how their performance may be monitored through the application of best practice pastoral care standards, definition of outcomes to be met and the development of benchmarks. It would be interesting to see how this might translate into a larger study with a more diverse cohort of schools and larger number of year level coordinators. The impact of different context seems likely to prove significant and perhaps the voices of students and parents could also be heard. The final article in this issue highlights the changing nature of the research landscape in the performative regime of contemporary universities in Australia – as research policy has sharpened its focus on increasing publication outputs and gaining research funding. Building on his earlier (2009) Leading and Managing article, Eacott examines the production of peer-reviewed articles in a sample of internationally recognised educational leadership, management and administration journals from 2008-2012. The production of journal articles by Australian based researchers in a selection of 12 educational leadership journals was surveyed to see if there were any identifiable changes in the pattern of productivity, given the changing research environment. A number of interesting observations emerge from the data presented in the article, including the ongoing struggle of education researchers for legitimacy, the greater spread of educational research across institutions and the importance of linking Australian based research on educational leadership to Australian policy and practice. As Eacott points out, the impact of research may better be measured by its impact on policy and practice here than by other metrics relating to international journals.
Dr Marian Lewis Leadership Research International (LRI) Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland Email: [email protected] Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 1-10
Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners
SUSAN LOVETT University of Canterbury, NZ
Email: [email protected] NEIL DEMPSTER Griffith University
Email: [email protected] BEV FLÜCKIGER Griffith University
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: The project known as Principals as Literacy Leaders with Indigenous Communities (PALLIC) was developed by Griffith University in partnership with the Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA). The 2011 and 2012 participating schools were located in remote Indigenous and urban and regional settings across three Australian states and territories. The project included an enabling element in its design, namely the inclusion of Indigenous Leadership Partners from the schools’ communities. This was in response to findings from existing research work such as that by Priest et al. (2008); Frawley and Fasoli (2012); and Muller and Associates (2012) claiming that full partnerships between homes and schools enhances children’s learning. We discuss the project’s impact on the participants and their work to establish a two-way leadership partnership around literacy learning, specifically in the teaching of reading using survey data.
Purpose of the Article
The purpose of this article is to analyse and discuss data from a study of educational leadership in Indigenous school communities in the light of positions derived from research literature on shared leadership and cross cultural community connections which support children learning to read. To undertake this task, we first describe the Principals as Literacy Leaders with Indigenous Communities (PALLIC) Project on which the study was centred. This is followed by an explanation of literature informing two of the project’s design positions, the first on leadership as a necessary process to make a difference to children’s learning by acknowledging and engaging in dialogue in open ‘intercultural spaces’; the second on leadership partnerships for learning in and beyond the school. In the third part of the article, we show how the two positions were expressed in the design of a short initial questionnaire for the leadership teams involved in the project. We 2 Susan Lovett, Neil Dempster & Bev Flückiger
then present and analyse the data produced before drawing conclusions and discussing them in the light of the literature related to the two positions.
Outline of the PALLIC Project
The PALLIC Project was an educational leadership endeavour funded by the Australian Government in 2011-12. It gained approval from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) under the Government’s initiative called: Closing the Gap – Expansion of intensive literacy and numeracy programs for under achieving Indigenous students. Forty-eight schools in three government jurisdictions, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory took part. Education Queensland was responsible for hosting the project and for contracting the Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA) to implement and manage it in the schools which were located in remote Indigenous communities and in regional/urban areas with significant proportions of Indigenous children. APPA in turn, sub-contracted Griffith University to design and implement professional leadership learning modules with an accompanying research program. A distinctive feature of the approved project was the establishment of leadership teams consisting of the principal and at least two local Indigenous people. These the project called Indigenous Leadership Partners to acknowledge the importance emphasised in relevant research literature of Indigenous leadership roles in children’s literacy learning, more about which is said later. The Indigenous Leadership Partners were, more often than not, Indigenous people working in the schools or closely affiliated with them. The project’s professional learning program was designed around five modules combining two areas of knowledge and understanding: (i) what it takes to connect leadership with learning and (ii) what it takes to learn to read in Indigenous communities. Each of the modules was research-based and aimed at creating shared understanding of the strategies needed to enable leadership teams to take action in their local contexts. The purposes of the five modules are outlined in brief below.
Module 1: Leadership for literacy learning The first module introduced participants to a framework or Blueprint derived from a research- based synthesis of meta-analytical studies of leadership for learning. Following the module, principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners were asked to apply the framework to scaffold improvement discussions about eight dimensions influential in literacy learning in their schools.
Module 2: Learning to read The second module presented research findings on what it takes to learn to read, highlighting what the project called the ‘Big Six’: oral language, phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Follow-up application asked principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners to commence the development of a local version of a reading practices guide based on the Big Six with teachers.
Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners 3
Module 3: Analysing data The third module focused on the qualitative and quantitative data necessary to gain: (i) diagnostic assessment of children’s achievement in the Big Six as a foundation for future planning; and (ii) an informed understanding of how actions in each of the Blueprint dimensions contribute to improvements in reading. After this module principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners were asked to carry out the necessary assessments to identify reading strengths and weaknesses as well as to commence the development of a home reading practices guide with family or community ‘leaders of reading’.
Module 4: Planning for reading improvement action Module 4 engaged participants in how to plan evidence-informed strategies for reading improvement based on diagnostic assessment related to the Big Six. The primary purpose was to enable principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners to lead the development of Reading Action Plans (RAPs) back at school.
Module 5: Evaluating Reading Action Plans Using program evaluation research findings, participants were exposed in Module 5 to processes designed to enable them to plan and implement school-based evaluations of their Reading Action Plans. This task was carried out subsequent to the module over a period of approximately six months. Intrinsic to the design and conduct of the professional learning modules was a series of research-derived positions related to the leadership of learning, how children learn to read, reading interventions, shared leadership and support for leaders learning on-the-job. Two of these positions are particularly relevant to the present article. We turn now to the literature to explain them and present an indicative overview of supporting literature.
Literature which Informed Two of the PALLIC Positions
1. The PALLIC position on leadership Compelling research evidence shows that quality leadership makes a difference to children’s learning and achievement no matter the context (Bishop, 2011; Day et al., 2010; Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2006; MacBeath & Dempster, 2009; Masters, 2009; OECD, 2008; Robinson, 2009). That said, schools situated in Indigenous communities present principals with particular challenges because the cultural knowledge of Indigenous peoples is different from their own. Principals working in Indigenous communities need to accept and respect difference and learn how to create and interact in open ‘intercultural space’ (Taylor, 2003) where the cultural knowledge and experiences of Indigenous people are given equal value and voice in shaping the ways that schools and their communities create effective learning environments for children. Taylor defines this intercultural space as: The ‘meeting of two distinct cultures’ through processes and interactions which retain the distinctive integrity and difference of both cultures and which may involve a blending of elements of both cultures but never the domination of one over another. (p. 45)
4 Susan Lovett, Neil Dempster & Bev Flückiger
Indeed Angelides (2012) suggests that if there is a serious intent to offer equal opportunities to all learners then this means identifying what and how leadership actions can enhance children’s learning. In the context of Indigenous communities, such consideration of leadership requires a rethinking of how to blend two cultures for the sole purpose of helping children and their learning. As sources for learning are derived from schools and their communities, Priest et al. (2008) advocate that ‘both ways’ leadership is one way to formally recognise Indigenous people as active and necessary contributors to children’s learning, signalling the limitations of relying on mainstream knowledge for this work. The abbreviated phrase warrki jarrinjaku: ‘working together everyone and listening’ encapsulates how ‘both ways’ leadership was realised in their work in a remote central Australian context with senior Anangu and Yapa women. The hard work required to make intercultural spaces a reality is acknowledged. Hernandez and Kose (2012) suggest that a first step is supporting principals to acquire new understanding and skills so they become culturally sensitive and competent. Likewise Frawley and Fasoli (2012) advocate intercultural leadership capabilities for ‘both ways’ education. They note that the report, Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage: A generational plan of action (2008) with targets for the future does not address the preparation and ongoing support for current and aspiring educational leaders’ intercultural capabilities, saying this is a serious omission. They also draw attention to the small number of research studies concentrating on educational leadership in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. What is reported, they say, confirms the very real challenges and constraints encountered by principals when attempting to negotiate school community partnerships in their respective communities, all of which are unique. One project entitled ‘The Linking Worlds Research’ (Frawley et al., 2010) has made some headway dealing with the uniqueness of school leadership in remote and indigenous contexts. Its research team emphasises that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people must be willing to step into an intercultural space where new leadership practices can be learned. The difficulty of this step is noted by Fitzgerald (2003, p. 10) who argues that Indigenous educational leaders ‘. . . face the dilemma of double consciousness as they struggle to interpret, negotiate and survive in two distinct-cultural worlds’. Non-Indigenous educational leaders are similarly challenged to convey convincingly, the message that Indigenous people’s knowledge is valued and deemed crucial for the success of children’s learning in school. Working in intercultural space necessitates new learning for school leaders which Hansuvadha and Slater (2012) refer to as cultural competence. This term is defined as the knowledge about how one’s personal beliefs inform interactions with other cultural groups. Moreover Lindsey, Roberts and Campbell-Jones (2005) suggest culturally competent leaders know how to add to, rather than subtract from, the cultural identity of Indigenous peoples. This is an important precursor to ‘both ways’ leadership. The need for intercultural space to be inclusive and fluid is depicted as a ‘yarning space’ by Flűckiger, Diamond and Jones (2012) who report ways in which school leaders can listen to the stories of Indigenous peoples on what matters to them about their children’s learning and then use that knowledge to foster further opportunities for Indigenous people to share their ideas and expertise and initiate changes. Yarning is not about power and control residing with the school and remaining unchallenged. Instead it is a co- constructed space in which both school and community contribute.
Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners 5
In summary, we note a small though significant recent shift in the educational leadership literature which is giving greater prominence to the recognition of culturally diverse perspectives in the leadership of learning. We also recognise that a focus on generic leadership knowledge, skills and attributes in remote Indigenous schools is insufficient because these cultural contexts are unique and learning to lead in them requires a sophisticated understanding of this phenomenon and thus an alternative approach (Hallinger, 2011). We argue that the position we take is that alternative, endorsing the ‘both ways’ leadership concept put forward by Priest et al. (2008) where decisions and plans for education take place in a space in which both non-Indigenous and Indigenous understandings are voiced so that the knowledge systems of both cultures can be brought together in the interests of children learning to read (Ober & Bat, 2007). In short, leadership needs to be sensitive and responsive to context, yet able to harness its strengths; and as Hallinger’s (2011) review of 40 years of leadership research highlights, much greater attention needs to be paid by researchers to understanding what works and why in different cultural contexts like those in the PALLIC Project.
2. The PALLIC position on shared leadership through partnerships Making improvements in learning and achievement requires parents, teachers and community members to work together. While this may seem self-evident, it is easier in the saying than the doing as the literature we have examined shows. The PALLIC position on shared leadership through partnerships originates from a search of two areas of recent literature: parents as partners in learning (deFur, 2012; Emerson et al., 2012); and partnerships with Indigenous parents and communities (Bishop, 2011; Muller & Associates, 2012). Lessons from policy and practice provided by Emerson et al. (2012) in a report on parental engagement in learning and schooling suggest ‘families, schools and communities contribute in unique and complementary ways to a child’s learning process’ (p. 12). Therefore, approaches to promote home and community partnerships must recognise that there are multiple actors (parents, teachers, and members of the wider community) who contribute. In other words, the notion of ‘parallel leadership’ between principals and teachers within the school, as articulated by Andrews (2008), needs to be extended. That extension embraces the idea of multi-lateral leadership as a partnership involving the people most significant in influencing and supporting children’s learning – principals, teachers, parents and community members. Indeed this tells us that in the PALLIC Project, all should be included as leaders of reading. Formal schooling is just one of many ways that children learn and develop. Emerson et al. (2012) suggest ‘parents can play a critical role in providing learning opportunities at home and in linking what children learn at school with what happens elsewhere’ (p. 7). Partnerships need to value parents’ roles. Muller and Associates (2012) argue that the decisive factor determining the success of home-school and community partnerships for an Indigenous context is the attitude and commitment of the principal. They write that successful principals ‘give high priority [to the partnership ideal] . . . and they devote considerable time and resources to it’ (p. 16). Likewise Auerbach (2009) argues that the commitment of school leaders is vital to school community connections yet she claims it is poorly documented in the literature and insufficiently addressed in training for administrators. Muller and Associates (2012) propose a child-school-family partnership model which consists of six elements. These are an open-door policy, a place for parents, conversations which focus on
6 Susan Lovett, Neil Dempster & Bev Flückiger
children and their learning, the visibility and availability of parents and teachers and respect and celebration of Indigenous cultural knowledge. They also suggest that from research, both old and new, several concrete ideas emerge. These are the need for outreach by the schools, personal contact by the school and having a designated parent liaison person whose sole job is to keep in touch with parents. In Indigenous communities, it helps greatly when this person is from that particular cultural group. The importance of relationship building (Bishop, 2011; Ishimaru, 2013) receives frequent mention in the literature on partnerships with Indigenous peoples. Lester (2011) specifies several levels for relationship building which matter particularly for remote rural settings: professional, school-based, personal and community-wide. She writes: Principals and teachers who understand the importance of relationship building – especially its personal and community-wide facets − who take the initiative in establishing and nurturing relationships and improving them through reflection over time, are more successful at motivating, inspiring and aligning country people to facilitate change. (p. 79) While Lester’s (2011) work does not report specifically on remote Indigenous community schools, nevertheless, her findings carry important messages for shared leadership through partnership building. She shows that trust and respect take time to develop and that ‘relationship building may be an important precursor to success, because key stakeholders can withdraw their support and thereby block innovation’ (p. 85). Time spent on fostering reciprocal exchanges matters just as much as a focus on the talk. To sum up, learning in Indigenous school communities must capitalise on the leadership contributions of the key people concerned with children’s growth and development. Gaining their involvement as partners relies on, as mentioned earlier, what Priest et al., (2011) call a ‘both ways’ leadership approach – an approach which is orientated towards the needs of the whole community rather than one part of it. The creation and continuation of partnerships requires outreach from the school, a deep commitment to shared leadership by the principal and trusting relationships with Indigenous parents and community members. All this takes time and respectful acceptance of the cultural reciprocity necessary to sustain good working relationships in open intercultural space. Thus, shared interest in the ways children grow and learn depends on working with parents and community members regardless of whether community members are parents of school children. Sharing leadership through partnerships is helped as Flűckiger, Diamond and Jones (2012) have already told us, by ‘yarning up’. This process signals how Indigenous community members can begin to see themselves as leaders when their voices are heard and valued. It is the encouragement of shared leadership voice and activity from mainstream and Indigenous communities (Priest et al., 2011) that is promoted in the PALLIC project. Having examined briefly source material underpinning the two positions related to leadership in the PALLIC Project, we now explain one of the research instruments used to gather data not only on these positions but also on the extent to which the project’s leadership for literacy frameworks and processes were applied and reported in observable actions in Indigenous school communities.
Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners 7
Data Gathering Method
Indigenous Leadership Partners (N=43) and principals (N=48) were surveyed during Module 5, nine months into the project, seeking their responses to an 11 item questionnaire directed towards gaining an understanding of the strength of agreement the respondents had to the leadership and literacy positions, frameworks and partnership processes forming the nucleus of the PALLIC Project. Here we report on five of the 11 items from that questionnaire. Figure 1 lists the five items and presents the data collected, displaying mean scores for each in histogram form. These items relate specifically to partnerships to promote and support children learning to read between principals and Indigenous people and between home and school.
Presentation of the data Overall, Indigenous Leadership Partners were slightly more positive than principals on the matters that relate to connections between them and home and school (see Figure 1). The fact that they were engaged with their principals in a leadership role is a positive finding. This is no better evident than in the results for Item 6 where Indigenous Leadership Partners showed their strongest agreement (4.18) indicating that the relationship between themselves and principals was well established. Principals (3.81) agreed that this partnership was well established with their mean only slightly lower than that for their Indigenous Leadership Partners. There was close agreement (Principals: 3.36; Indigenous Leadership Partners: 3.4) on progress made on a Home Reading Practices Guide (Item 5). The data on Item 11 show that Indigenous Leadership Partners rated interest amongst parents and community members in Reading Action Projects slightly higher than Principals (Principals: 2.77; Indigenous Leadership Partners: 3.17). Item 3 relates to parents’ and family members’ learning about the Big Six in the teaching of reading and shows that principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners were in fairly close agreement about the limited learning that had occurred, suggesting that there is still a lot to be done (Principals: 2.64; Indigenous Leadership Partners: 2.92). The lowest rated item (Item 7) shows that both groups of respondents agreed that there was limited success in finding leaders of reading from the community (Principals: 2.52; Indigenous Leadership Partners: 2.48), with the latter a little less positive about success than principals.
Discussion
From the data presented in Figure 1, three main findings are warranted. First, the positions and processes requiring out of school support (Items 3, 5, 7 and 11) have proven difficult to implement. Second, there is encouraging evidence from the responses to Item 6 on in-school leadership partnerships that principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners were making influential inroads on the key PALLIC position of leadership ‘both ways’. However, this was reported as occurring within the school rather than beyond it. Third, the positive tendency in the stance taken by Indigenous Leadership Partners on matters that connected their work on literacy with the community is an encouraging sign that they valued their leadership involvement. The extension of this initial in-school success to include and involve other Indigenous family and community
8 Susan Lovett, Neil Dempster & Bev Flückiger
members in partnerships from outside the school gates in productive ‘both ways’ leadership is a challenge, which the data suggest, remains open.
FIGURE 1: PRINCIPALS' AND INDIGENOUS LEADERSHIP PARTNERS' VIEWS ON PARTNERSHIPS
Mean Score 1: Strongly Disagree − 5: Strongly Agree
Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners 9
Taken together, these findings show that the conditions for an open intercultural space in which leadership decisions and planning can occur, as Taylor (2003) advocates, were being observed in the PALLIC Project, but that space was occupied for the most part, by principals and their Indigenous Leadership Partners. The strong agreement by both principals and Indigenous Leadership Partners that their partnership was valued points to the development of a parallel form of leadership (Andrews, 2008) rather than the multi-lateral leadership espoused by Auerbach (2009), Muller and Associates (2012) and Emerson et al. (2012). In addition, the inference may be drawn from the data that principals were committed to forming helpful partnerships with their Indigenous Leadership Partners, hence the high value placed on it by them. However, though Auerbach (2009, p. 9) asserts that ‘the commitment of school leaders is vital to school community connections’, our findings suggest that while this may be essential, it is not sufficient. The data on the lack of real traction in enrolling family and community members as leaders of reading or in gaining their interest in school actions on reading show up this partnership problem. Lester’s (2011) research suggests that there is further work necessary in the PALLIC Project schools on the building of relationships so a principal’s and a school’s outreach is based on a platform of respect and trust in open intercultural space. Our findings confirm what Frawley and Fasoli (2012) and Muller and Associates (2012) have found, that while sound principles for shared leadership action with Indigenous community members are quite explicit in their research findings, this knowledge does not translate easily into practice. In other words, the exposure of principals and local Indigenous people to the PALLIC Project positions on leadership did not guarantee their application.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while there is some promise in results produced just nine months after the commencement of the project, the findings are indicative of the very real challenges faced in developing school and community leadership partnerships so essential in supporting Indigenous children learning to read. Knowing what principals and their Indigenous Leadership Partners encountered during their exposure to PALLIC’s five leadership learning modules, we suggest that far greater attention needs to be placed on a repertoire of outreach strategies to lift the concept of leadership in open intercultural space from the confines of the school into the community. With this added knowledge and much hard relationship work, engaging in leadership ‘both ways’, we contend, will enable new leadership partnerships to form, be valued and become self-sustaining.
References
ANDREWS, D. (2008) Working together to enhance school outcomes: An Australian case study of parallel leadership, Leading and Managing, 14(2), pp. 45-60. ANGELIDES, P. (2012) Forms of leadership that promote inclusive education in Cypriot schools, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(1), pp. 21-36. AUERBACH, S. (2009) Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools, The School Community Journal, 19(1), pp. 9-13. BISHOP, R. (2011) Education leaders can reduce educational disparities, in T. TOWNSEND & J. MACBEATH (Eds), International Handbook of Leadership for Learning (Dordrecht, NLD: Springer), pp. 1069-1081.
10 Susan Lovett, Neil Dempster & Bev Flückiger
DAY, C., HANSON, K., MALTBY, J., PROCTOR, C. & WOOD, A. (2010) Hope uniquely predicts objective academic achievement above intelligence, personality, and previous academic achievement, Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), pp. 550-553. Doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.009. DEFUR, S. (2012) Parents as collaborators. Building partnerships with school- and community-based providers, Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), pp. 58-66. EMERSON, L., FEAR, J., FOX, S. & SANDERS, E. (2012) Parental Engagement in Learning and Schooling: Lessons from research (Canberra: A report by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) for the Family-School and Community Partnerships Bureau). FITZGERALD, T. (2003) Changing the deafening silence of indigenous women’s voices in educational leadership, Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), pp. 9-23. FLÜCKIGER, B., DIAMOND, P. & JONES, W. (2012) Yarning space: Leading literacy learning through family-school partnerships, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(3), pp. 53-59. FRAWLEY, J. & FASOLI, L. (2012) Working together: Intercultural leadership capabilities for both-ways education, School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 32(4), pp. 309-320. FRAWLEY, J., FASOLI, L., D’ARBON, T. & OBER, R. (2010) The Linking Worlds Research Project: Identifying intercultural educational leadership capabilities, Leading & Managing, 16(1), pp. 1-15. HALLINGER, P. (2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research, Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), pp. 125-142. HANSUVADHA, N. & SLATER, C.L. (2012) Culturally competent school leaders: The individual and the system, The Educational Forum, 76(2), pp. 174-189. HERMANDEZ, F. & KOSE, B. (2012) The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity: A tool for understanding principals’ cultural competence, Education and Urban Society, 44(4), pp. 512-530. ISHIMARU, A. (2013) From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school reform, Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 3-51. LEITHWOOD, K., DAY, C., SAMMONS, P., HARRIS, A. & HOPKINS, D. (2006) Seven Strong Claims about Successful Leadership (Nottingham: National College for School Leadership). LESTER, N.C. (2011) Relationship building: Understanding the extent and value, Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), pp. 79-93. LINDSEY, R.B., ROBERTS, L.M. & CAMPBELL-JONES, F. (2005) The Culturally Proficient School: An implementation guide for school leaders (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin). MACBEATH, J. & DEMPSTER, N. (2009) (Eds) Connecting Leadership and Learning (London: Routledge). MASTERS, G. (2009) A Shared Challenge: Improving literacy, numeracy and science learning in Queensland primary schools (Melbourne: ACER). MULLER, D. & ASSOCIATES. (2012) Parents as Partners in Indigenous Children’s Learning (Canberra: Family-school and Community Partnerships Bureau). Accessed 23 April, 2014, from
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 11-31
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia
CHRISTINE CUNNINGHAM Faculty of Education and Arts, Edith Cowan University
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: Decision making is a key concept within educational leadership theory. Power is wielded in schools every time a final decision is made because decision making is a privilege of power. This article critiques decision making from an emancipatory orientation and views it as an important topic of study carried out in continual view of our students which role models to them how a community should decide together. The research case study underpinning this article examined leadership practices in some Western Australian schools using a hybrid decision-making continuum. Experienced school leaders and teachers engaged in studying a Masters in Educational Leadership were asked their thoughts on what would occur in plausible, alternative present and future decision-making scenarios in their schools. The data reveal that a concentration of authority is dominant in the case study participants’ schools’ leadership practices and this finding suggests that current leadership practices are counter to any teaching of our young to become active citizens in a deep, participatory democracy.
Decision Making in Schools
Decision making is the key concept within this article about educational leadership in schools. In a complex structural organisation, such as a school, power is wielded every time a final decision is made. A final decision is defined as one that cannot easily be un-decided by others with either formal or informal powers in that school community. The choice to focus on decision making rests on the argument that the ability to enact decision making is a privilege of power. This article critiques leadership powers and decision-making processes from an emancipatory orientation, and therefore problematises privilege being analysed within an apolitical framework that fails to, or only cursorily, situates schools within an Australian socio-economic system dominated by patriarchy and neo-liberal decision making (Aveling, 2007; Cunningham, 2013; Smyth et al., 2009). Decision making is an important topic of study within the theory of educational leadership because it is carried out in continual view of children, teenagers and young adults and role models how a community should decide together. This role modelling can go on for more than a decade of students’ lives. Social and cultural reproduction theory (Apple, 1982) tells us that what our young see continually role-modelled in principal-staff relationships and behaviours − have implications on how they will go on to act and express leadership in their working and civic lives in the future.
12 Christine Cunningham
The first section of this article analyses decision making through the lens of linear leadership behaviour continuums. There are such continuums from across epistemological paradigms (e.g. Gunter, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973). While many fail any power distribution complexity or multiplicity test such continuums can help ‘reveal where the locus of power is situated’ (Youngs, 2008, p. 6) in a school community’s decision-making structures. This follows with explanation of the research case study which underpins this article. The case study examined leadership practices in some Western Australian schools using a hybrid decision-making continuum. The study was designed as a continuum survey and participants were experienced school leaders and teachers engaged in studying a Masters in Educational Leadership. The continuum survey revealed what the participants thought would occur in plausible, alternative present and future scenarios for decision making in their schools. The third and final section of this article highlights the concentration of authority the data suggest is dominant in the case study participants’ school leadership practices. It uses this finding to join with those who ‘casts doubt on the validity of . . . focused-distributed’ continuums (Gronn, 2009, p. 392) and to open a space for a wider conversation of educational leadership for deep, participatory democracy (Giroux, 2013; Hatcher, 2005).
The Central Role of the Principal
The role of principal is key to any discussion of leadership in Western Australian schools. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) describes a principal’s role as ‘the leading educational professional in a school’ whose role ‘in the twenty first century is one of the most exciting and significant undertaken by any person in our society’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). These words of embellishment are written by a regulatory authority which at the same time expects principals working in ‘all schools and education systems’ to ‘know, understand and do’ the Australian Professional Standards for Principals (AITSL, 2011, pp. 1). Of principals, the Standards require that they: . . . define challenges clearly and seek positive solutions, often in collaboration with others. They know when decisions are required and are able to use the available evidence and information to support, inform and communicate their decisions. (p. 7) Great power is concentrated in the position of the principalship, because this one leader may not only make final decisions but also choose what decisions need to be made. The Standard attempts to mitigate the principals’ power somewhat in the way they describe a principal’s decision-making powers with caveats. It also requires that school ‘leadership is distributed and collaborative with teams working together to accomplish the vision and aims of the school led by the principal’ (p. 2). Led by the principal reveals the Standards’ predilection for ‘heroic leadership’ as Australian school principals are authorised with great decision-making powers linked to tepid distribution and collaboration standards that do not require principals to actually share their decision-making powers directly with others. This is Weberian instrumentalism (Weber, 1947) at its most obvious and shows that in Australia the Standards have politically domesticated ‘distributed’ and
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 13
‘collaborative’ leadership adjectives which are ‘now promoted as part of the discursive armoury of official policy making’ (Gronn, 2009, p. 384). Principals can share their powers, but do they? One way to search for answers to this question is by examining the historical changes in linear leadership behaviour continuums which have been influential in educational leadership theory. Continuums summarise the ‘confusions, contradictions and utopian depictions’ of a school leadership phenomenon that posits both great power in the role of principal and at the same time urges, at least on paper, a ‘seductive invitation . . . for staff to share leadership for the benefit of learners’ (Lumby, 2013, pp. 581 & 583).
Linear Leadership Behaviour Continuums
Linear leadership behaviour continuums first emerged from the managerial academy with seminal work from Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958/1973). They created and later redeveloped an oft-cited leader-follower continuum.
FIGURE 1: TANNENBAUM AND SCHMIDT LEADERSHIP CONTINUUM
Source: Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973, p. 4) The Tannenbaum and Schmidt Leadership Continuum, or TSLC, was created within a functionalist framework which sees a working community as a hierarchically structured organisation. They considered ‘. . . how modern managers can be “democratic” in their relations with subordinates and at the same time maintain the necessary authority and control in the organizations for which they are responsible’ (1973, p 3). The TSLC offered a range of possible leadership behaviours ‘. . . related to the degree of authority used by the boss and to the amount of freedom available to subordinates in reaching decisions’ (p. 5), but also conceded that multiple forms of involvement occur in an organisation at any one time. This concession re-energised the use of the TSLC into the 1980s and 1990s. In the education academy, linear leadership behaviour continuums and categorisations have come to some prominence in twenty-first century literature associated with educational leadership
14 Christine Cunningham
articles theorising concepts such as distributive and collaborative leadership. In 2004 in England, a global educational management consultancy firm developed the following linear leadership continuum which has become an influential model in the UK school system (Hay Group, 2004).
FIGURE 2: HAY GROUP CONTINUUM
Then came Hargreaves and Fink (2006, p. 113) and their thermometer metaphor for a linear leadership behaviour continuum (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3: THERMOMETER CONTINUUM
The previous three leadership continuums are functionally insightful as they can tell us how, and how much, leaders seek ideas and support from staff lower in an organisational hierarchy.
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 15
However, each author opts for the most extreme option on the collaborative end of the scale to be anarchy or neglect. These pessimistic categorisations read as exaggerated and political choices, because even while it is not overtly saying, it is conveying the meaning, that once a staff becomes assertive in their opinions and actions a dreadful revolution within the hierarchy will occur that leaders will find ‘too hot’ to handle and chaos will be the inevitable result. This reads into a leadership narrative trapped in a ‘zero sum game, where giving power to another decreases one’s own’ (Lumby, 2013, p. 584). It also cocoons continuum analysis within a leadership hierarchy framework where ‘preferences of the dominant group may appear so normal, so everyday to themselves and others, that both their dominance and their contestability does not even occur to people’ (Lumby, 2013, p. 585). In 2005 Hatcher countered the functional distributed/collaborative leadership narrative, arguing that distributed leadership could only be an authentic concept in education when the goal leads not to anarchy but the emergence of a collective democracy. In that same year, Gunter developed a critical linear leadership behaviour categorisation to counter the functional continuum frameworks. Gunter’s ‘Critical Categories of Distributed Leadership’ framework moves the extreme point of the collaborative axis from an anarchical vision to a far more hopeful, deeply democratic vision.
FIGURE 4: GUNTER’S DEMOCRATIC CATEGORISATION
Source: Gunter (2005, p. 52)
Gunter’s ‘authorised’ category of distributed leadership acknowledges that functional forms of distributed leadership can coerce staff to work in teams to do tasks that were once the responsibility of others whose roles were cut in efficiency drives: the so-called work intensification imperative. Her ‘dispersed’ category shows us that the tools needed to build a democratic community are already emerging in some informal leadership environments in schools, but it is only when the formal leadership hierarchy transforms too that democratic leadership can emerge. By 2008, Youngs argued that many leadership continuums are designed ‘within a framework of authority’ (p. 6) and that a better conceptualisation is via his graph that measures concentrated
16 Christine Cunningham
to dispersed authority on one axis and either a managerial or holistic intention for pursuing distributed leadership on the other axis (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5: INTENTIONALITY CONTINUUM
By adding in the concept of intentionality, Youngs argues that leadership practices derive from human agency and a principal’s intentions should be examined to understand what framework they are operating towards. Then in 2009, Gronn pointed out the uselessness of all adjective based labelling of leadership practices and opted for a ‘hybrid configuration [to] more accurately describe situational practice’ (p. 385) which acknowledged the blending of individual and team oriented decision making in any organisation’s structures. Gronn’s notion of hybridity links well to the organisational phenomenon of heterarchy, which is an alternative model to viewing organisational structures from a linear perspective. Heterarchy is a concept that ‘provides a framework for understanding the kinds of reciprocal, multilevel, and non-linear phenomena’ (Crumley, 2005, p. ix) that operate at so many levels and layers within a school community. The critical theorists’ contributions address some of the instrumentalism criticisms of leadership behaviour continuums that are self-confined ‘within a framework of authority’ (Young, 2008, p. 6). They make overt the underpinnings of earlier continuums that elevate the formal role of principal to indispensable in any school community. This was a needed first step. Now, it is perhaps timely to address an omission of leadership continuums, both functional and critical, which is that they articulate their various big picture visions of what is ‘good’ leadership, but they do not directly address final decision-making processes; and in fact, ‘to decide’ is often mistakenly intermeshed with weaker processes such as consult and inform. These latter processes do not offer access to the privilege of having a say in the final decision that is made. But final decision-making processes do show us tangible access to privilege and is therefore worth analysing. How a principal makes decisions and what decisions are put on the agenda of decision-making forums can add to what the previous continuums show us by allowing us to directly analyse the tactics school leaders use to command or collaborate in their school community. In the following section of this article, the specifics of my research project are the background upon which to continue this discussion on leadership behaviour continuums.
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 17
The Western Australian Case Study
As a senior lecturer in Educational Leadership at a large West Australian university, I teach Masters of Education students who enrol in on-shore and off-shore units, such as Leadership for School Improvement and Accountability, Leadership for Community Engagement and Educational Leadership in the Global Context. My students are aspiring to be, or are already, leaders of educational organisations in schools and other named centres of learning across the entire education sector from early childhood through to tertiary. I garnered my participant cohort that is the focus of this article from on-shore, Australian students. The Australian case study is actually from a larger, comparative research project I conducted in 2012, which also involved a case study in China with participants volunteering from a cohort of off-shore Masters students, whom I also taught. The Australian participants were all undertaking units of study into a Masters in Education with a Leadership specialisation. I acquired the following demographic information from these 33 participants: • The gender division was 19 females and 14 males. This is similar to the reality that the Australian education sector is dominated by female staff, but there are more males in leadership roles. • Most participants were born in the 1960s and 1970s. There were only a few Baby Boomer participants and a slightly larger, but still quite small, number born in the 1980s. • Just over half of the participants did not have a leadership role within their current school, while just under half of the participants were either middle managers or in executive roles, and so did have leadership experience in their school. • The public/private split in the participation rate is 13:20. The presence of more private school participants in this sample may suggest that privately employed educators are slightly more inclined to seek advanced qualifications as currency in the competition to win leadership roles. • Participants worked across the learning levels from pre-kindergarten through to vocational, but most participants work in the primary and secondary school sectors. • The number of years the 33 participants had been working as an educator varied quite widely. The only two years of experience a little lower in representation are, unsurprisingly, those very early and those quite late in their careers. This may suggest that interest in leading schools via enhanced academic qualifications is most keenly desired by people in the middle-years of their career. In summary, while the Australian participant cohorts have many independent variables in their work lives, the averages show us that: half of the participants are leaders and half followers; females and private organisation participants dominate; and most participants are middle careerists in their 30s and 40s. The survey instrument I developed and tested relied on the participants having enough shared experiences and knowledge of leadership literature, through their assigned readings in the Masters units they were undertaking, to be able to be considered both experienced and expert educators and therefore research participants. The overall aim of surveying expert educators on their opinion
18 Christine Cunningham
and experiences was to find out what sort of leadership the participants believed was currently happening in their schools at the time of the data collection; and also to imagine their current organisation as transformed and fully effective and then choose what sort of decision-making practices should occur in that scenario. The survey was developed around answering two research questions: 1. Who makes the final decisions in your school? 2. How do the people who make final decisions in your school, make them? The survey introduced the participants to a hybrid decision-making continuum which I developed using the Tannenbaum and Schmidt Leadership Continuum (TSLC) as a starting point but reworded for an education context and with altered choices at the distributed end of the continuum to erase abdication as an end result and replace it with leadership practices more conducive to an emancipatory orientation. I chose the TSLC because I do not believe it has been used in the educational context before and it is an exemplar continuum for offering leadership options within the ‘malestream’ (Lumby, 2013, p. 590) paradigm of leadership theory. Also, the TSLC criteria were written as a different way of delivering leadership decisions and this way to categorise helped me write new emancipatory categories (Figure 6).
FIGURE 6: HYBRID LEADERSHIP DECISION-MAKING CONTINUUM
Tells Coerces Consults Shares Delegates Includes Role Models
Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal All staff Staff and makes a sells ideas consults and other hands over participate students decision behind the about an staff make decision in decision participate and already issue and a decision making to making in decision announces made then makes together other staff equally making it decision to a decision together staff alone
The second section of the survey presented three different situational leadership scenarios for the participants to consider. The scenarios were designed to consider the breadth of issues school leadership must decide upon. A continuum only captures a basic estimate of a leadership situation; at least by adding in three different decision-making scenarios to the data collection instrument participants had a chance to show whether a school’s leadership practice is flexible or predictable. The survey was converted into tablature and graphic form using SPSS software and then analysed by a small team of myself and a research assistant. I have presented the findings from my data in several research workshops to groups of participants, colleagues and some of the 2013 cohort of Masters of Education students at my university. I have also presented my findings at an international leadership conference and also received feedback through the peer-review process during submission to this journal. The responses, suggestions and questions given during these reviewing processes have helped clarify my understandings and analysis and shaped the article to what you read today.
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 19
A hybrid decision-making continuum In the first part of the survey, participants were asked to choose how they believed their school makes decision in general using my hybrid decision-making continuum. The results were thus:
TABLE 1
Leader/s Frequency Percent Sells 6 18.2 Coerces 8 24.3
Consults 13 39.4
Shares 5 15.2 Delegates 1 3.0
Total 33 100.0
There was a broad spread of leadership decision-making behaviours found in the case study Australian schools. The highest grouping, 39.4% of the participants, indicated that when making decisions their principal is most likely to present the issue, gets suggestions and then makes the final decision alone. Taken together, the autocratic practices of ‘tell’ and ‘coerce’ dominate with 42.5% of the responses. Less than 20% of the participants indicated that their leader would share or delegate final decisions to a joint leader/staff configuration. Table 2 records the participants’ leadership decision-making behaviours that they believed their school would practice operating in a ‘preferred world’ leadership environment.
TABLE 2
Leader/s Frequency Percent Suggests 1 3.0
Joins 1 3.0
Shares 10 30.3
Delegates 15 45.5
Role Models 6 18.2
Total 33 100.0
In dramatic contrast to Table 1, which showed participants choosing a spread of leadership behaviours from across the continuum but erring on the autocratic side of the continuum, Table 2 shows an incredible swing to the democratic end of the continuum – with 94% of the participants on this end of the decision-making continuum. What is more, with 45.5% of participants opting
20 Christine Cunningham
for the second most extreme level of distributed leadership – delegation – this does seem to suggest a strong belief in the cohort that their schools should practice more inclusive forms of decision making. Add to that, the 18% who would like to include students into decision-making processes as well, and it seems participants are deeply unsatisfied with the way their schools are enacting leadership.
Situational leadership scenarios In the second section of the survey I added situational leadership variables into the study to consider changes in leadership behaviours when different situation variables (including time, ethical risk and the importance of a decision) are taken into account. I was guided in the writing of this part of the survey by situational leadership theories, such as those analysed by Lambert (2007, p. 315), who found in her research that ‘principal behaviors are different during each phase, borne of a consciousness that allows principals to orchestrate their own behavior in relation to others’. I constructed this part of the survey with three different situations in mind: a) A crisis situation – a student death from an accident in the school stairwell b) An ethically sensitive scenario – the bequeathing of a substantial sum of money c) A symbolic, reputational scenario – changing the school motto For each of the three scenarios, participants were asked to first indicate who would make the final decision in their current school. Then, who should make the final decision in an ideal school. The choices were:
FIGURE 7
Leader a single authoritative person in a school who would make the final decision alone Leadership team a combination of authoritative people who make the school’s ultimate decisions together Some staff senior teaching and learning staff members, as part of the final decision making, along with the leadership team All staff final decision makers as the leader along with the leadership team and all teaching and learning staff members All staff and students final decision makers as all staff and at least some student representatives
In section two of the survey I wanted to find a way to measure if power and authority has been shared at the point of ultimate action and responsibility in schools by knowing how final decisions are made at certain times and by whom. I devised questions using language and concepts more commonly used by political scientists and then developed a decision-making framework that had four mechanisms which participants could choose from (Figure 8).
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 21
FIGURE 8
Issuing a directive a directive is given by the decision makers to the followers and the decision makers expect that the followers will follow the directive Absolute majority in an official forum, leaders and non-leaders vote as equal decision- voting making actors and when a position accrues 50%+1 favour it becomes the accepted decision Negotiation to in an official forum, leaders and non-leaders negotiate together to try consensus or vote and reach unanimity; but if that is not achievable in a certain timeframe (or other threshold) then the group, as equal decision-making actors, opts to resort to a super majority vote and when a position accrues 66%+1 favour it becomes the accepted decision Consensus In an official forum, leaders and non-leaders negotiate together as equal decision-making actors and ultimately reach unanimity (consensus) on one choice that becomes the accepted decision.
Scenario one: A crisis situation Scenario one was constructed as an emergency situation: A student dies due to an accident involving a stair rail breaking at the school and a decision has to be made whether to close the facility for a short period of time. Table 3 presents the participants’ views on who would make the final decision in their school. It shows that almost all Australian participants believed the decision to close the school would be made by one leader, or a small team of leaders, in positional authority. Only one participant thought that some other staff, with no formal positional authority, would be involved in the final decision and no participants thought the decision would involve wider staff or students.
TABLE 3
Who would make the decision? Frequency Percent Leader 16 48.5
Leadership team 16 48.5
Some staff 1 3.0
Total 33 100.0
Table 4 represents the participants’ view on how the final decision would be made in relation to the closure of the school for a short period of time. The table includes ‘missing’ as a criterion because on this occasion one participant did not respond to the question.
22 Christine Cunningham
TABLE 4
How would the decision be made? Frequency Percent Directive 15 45.5
Vote 3 9.1
Negotiation 7 21.2 Consensus 7 21.2
Missing 1 3.0
Total 33 100.0
Nearly half of the participants declared that in such a crisis scenario the decision makers would most likely use a directive style. The uses of negotiation or consensus were both chosen by 21% of the participants. Taken together with the Table 3 results, the data suggest that the majority of participants in this study believed their schools would make decisions in a crisis situation in a top-down, directive manner or by a leadership group after unanimity is reached by that small group. This finding mirrors the information garnered in the first section of the survey that suggested an autocratic predilection in decision making too. Still in regard to this emergency scenario, Table 5 presents the findings of ‘who should’ make the final decision in a ‘preferred world’ school as perceived by the 33 Australian participants.
TABLE 5
Who should make the decision? Frequency Percent Leader 3 9.1
Leadership team 20 60.6
Some staff 1 3.0
All staff 9 27.3
Total 33 100.0
This table registers quite a significant change from the ‘real world’ scenario outlined in Table 4. In the ‘preferred world’ schools, over 60% of the participants have placed their choice with a leadership team from which 37% of those participants have shifted their choice away from having a single leader making the decision alone. In addition, over 27% of participants shifted their choice to all staff being involved in the decision making. These results show a distinct preference from participants for more people to be involved in an emergency decision-making situation. Table 6 illustrates the participant’s thoughts on ‘how should’ the final decision be made in their school in an emergency situation.
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 23
TABLE 6
How should the decision be made? Frequency Percent Directive 4 12.1
Vote 3 9.1
Negotiation 17 51.5 Consensus 9 27.3
Total 33 100.0
Again here, a big shift has occurred by almost half of the participants away from their perceptions of ‘real world’ leaders issuing decisions as a directive as Table 4 indicated. The findings in Table 6 show that in excess of 75% of the participants now choose in their ‘preferred world’ a final decision requiring a negotiated or consensus agreement on whether the school should close for a short period of time.
Scenario two: An ethically sensitive situation Scenario two was a constructed as an ethically sensitive fiscal scenario: The school is bequeathed a sum of AU$50,000 by an alumni to be spent on resources. The gift is a relatively sizeable sum of money (the trigger in this ethically sensitive situation) and a decision is required as to how to spend the money within the school. Firstly, Table 7 shows the participant’s views on who would make the final decision in their school as to how to spend the money.
TABLE 7
Who would make final decision? Frequency Percent Leader 3 9.1
Leadership team 20 60.6
Some staff 1 3.0
All staff 9 27.3
Total 33 100.0
More than 60% of participants believed that a small leadership team would make the decision in this ethically sensitive scenario. Less than 10% chose just one leader in this scenario, which is far fewer than those who thought just one leader would make the decision in the emergency scenario. In addition, more than 27% signified that all staff would determine how the money
24 Christine Cunningham
should be spent, which is a category that was not opted for by any participant for the emergency situation in scenario one. Table 8 shows that the most commonly chosen option for this ethically sensitive scenario, from 45% of the participants, was the option to vote on how the money should be spent. The next 27% indicated that all of the staff members would discuss the proposal and reach an agreement. Just over 15% thought that the decision makers in their school would issue a directive to make the final decision.
TABLE 8
How would final decision be made? Frequency Percent Directive 5 15.2
Vote 15 45.5
Negotiation 3 9.1 Consensus 9 27.3
Missing 1 3
Total 33 100
Still examining the data regarding the ethically sensitive scenario, Table 9 demonstrates the participants’ views on who should make the final decision if their school was bequeathed the sum of money in a ‘preferred world’ scenario.
TABLE 9
Who should make final decision? Frequency Percent Leader 1 3.0
Leadership team 16 48.5
Some staff 4 12.1
All staff 12 36.3
Total 33 100.0
Similar to the same ‘should’ question in the first scenario, the participants have moved their choices away from the leader or leadership team as the decision makers. Now only a minority, 48% of the participants, think that the leadership team should make the final decision as to how the money should be spent on resources – which is a 12% drop from Table 7. In addition, a third of the respondents indicated preference for all of the staff to be involved as final decision makers – which is a 9% increase in this more inclusive option. Also, greater than 12% now prefer that at least some staff should make the final decision, which is a higher percentage than in Table 7 too.
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 25
Table 10 registers a combined percentage of more than 90% of respondents believing that decision makers in their school should decide how to spend the $50, 000 by consensus, or start by sincerely attempting to come to a consensus decision before resorting to a super majority vote. These results indicate that many participants place a lot of faith in consensus decision making as a good process to best resolve ethically sensitive decisions.
TABLE 10
How should the final decision be made? Frequency Percent
Directive 1 3.0
Vote 2 6.1
Negotiation 10 30.3
Consensus 20 60.6
Total 33 100.0
Scenario three: A symbolic, reputational situation Scenario three constructs a situation based on a reputational, symbolic decision that has long-term significance but which could be decided through a slow, thorough and inclusive process. In this scenario: The school wants to update its image by changing its motto. The choices had been narrowed down to five finalist mottos and the winning motto now needs to be decided. Table 11 indicates that, 57% of participants believe the leader, or a leadership team, would make the final decision as to which motto would be selected. On the other side of the continuum, less than half, but still 42% of participants, thought that some or all staff would be involved in the decision-making process – which is a much larger group choosing these options than the similar question in the first two scenarios.
TABLE 11
Who would make the decision? Frequency Percent Leader 6 18.2
Leadership team 13 39.4
Some staff 2 6.1
All staff 12 36.3
Total 33 100.0
26 Christine Cunningham
There is a reasonable spread across all four choices of decision-making mechanisms in Table 12, and taken with the data from Table 11, it tells us how mostly leaders, or the leadership teams, would make the final decision by negotiation or consensus in the participants’ beliefs about this scenario. The negotiation and consensus mechanisms were more common choices for participants than the 18% of whom indicated that the decision makers would be directive in choosing the winning motto and the 15% of participants who believed their school would use a 50%+1 vote to determine the best motto out of the five.
TABLE 12
How the final decision would be made? Frequency Percent Directive 6 18.2
Vote 5 15.2
Negotiation 12 36.4 Consensus 10 30.3
Total 33 100.0
In the ‘preferred world’ survey questions for scenario three, Table 13 presents the findings on who should make the final decision in this symbolic, reputational scenario.
TABLE 13
Who should make the decision? Frequency Percent Leadership team 14 42.4
All staff 15 45.5
All staff and students 4 12.1
Total 33 100.0
A single leader is completely missing from the choices made by participants in this preferred scenario and only 42%, chose a leadership team as the best option for making the decision on what the final motto for the school would be. We also see a large minority of participants, 45%, thinking that all staff should be involved in the final decision regarding the motto. For the first time in the entire data set across all three scenarios (albeit across a very small group of participants who make up just 12% of respondents), participants believe that including all the staff and at least some students into the decision-making group for deciding the ultimate new motto is the best choice. The final table in the survey sought the perspectives of the participants in relation to how should the final decision about the school motto be made in a ‘preferred world’. No participant
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 27
thought that the motto should be chosen by directive and only 6% thought an absolute majority of 50%+1 is good enough either. Two-thirds of the participants view full consensus as the preferred decision-making mechanism for choosing the winning motto. Another third signified that the staff should also try to reach a collective agreement but a 66%+1 could break a deadlocked decision if necessary.
TABLE 14
How should the final decision be made? Frequency Percent Vote 2 6.1
Negotiation 9 27.3
Consensus 22 66.7
Total 33 100.0
Summary comment In section two of the survey, three situational scenarios were constructed to see if an emergency situation, an ethically sensitive situation and a reputational situation would alter both the choice of who would make the final decision in a school and how that final decision would be made. The findings suggest that the situation does impact these two choices with decision making very concentrated in an emergency situation and less so in the two other scenarios. The findings also indicated quite strongly that most participants would prefer school decision makers to include more staff in the final decision and that the way decisions be finalised should use negotiation and attempts at reaching consensus more so than the current reality allows for in Australian schools.
Discussion
Findings from a small case study by present-day educational leaders, and would-be leaders, offers just a snapshot of Australian perceptions about leadership theories and their links to actual organisational practices in schools. Since it is a case study it is not able to be generalised to a statistically significant cohort, nonetheless, it does offer quite a unique window into the experiences of committed educators in Australia who are highly qualified teachers and leaders, many of whom are long-serving in their careers, and all who are life-long learning students as well.
Current perceptions of Australian school leadership The information coming across from the survey findings suggests that autocratic/singular responsibility for decision making was what a majority of participants believed is the general modus operandi in their school leadership’s current decision-making practices. This finding was tempered when the variable of situationality was added into the research survey. Participants believed their school would exercise some leadership flexibility by altering
28 Christine Cunningham
the number of decision-making people and the mechanism arrangements used to decide each scenario. The findings of the three scenarios were similar to the hybrid linear leadership decision- making continuum data but different enough to suggest that participants are observing in their schools some idiosyncratic capacities of principals to include others in decision-making scenarios that do not require urgent finalisation. The limits of this capacity to distribute decision-making privileges seem to be confined by a leadership orientation embedded in a functionalist paradigm and thus highly constrained within Youngs’ ‘framework of authority’. Foucault (1983) understood organisations confine power by structural impediments and these constraints of leadership are very hard to break away from because ‘schools are not currently structured in ways that facilitate either the growth of leadership or lateral leadership’ (Hopkins & Jackson, 2003, p. 101). Democratic decision-making advocates have not been able to move their ‘ethical conception[s] . . . into the institutional structures that would ensure everyone could in fact exercise democratic agency by right rather than as a licensed delegation of power within an unchanged positional hierarchy (Hatcher, 2005, p. 258). So this raises the question: where is strategic power held in a school? The case study affirms it is currently firmly with the formal leader. If this in any way mirrors the state of play in most Western Australian schools, then many people working even in the higher, and middle levels of hierarchical organisations are feeling disenfranchised and powerless, just as Jarvis (2012) argues lower level workers feel too.
Preferred future alternative scenarios for Australian school leadership Participants’ clear preference for collective, professional responsibility for decision making shows an unwillingness to remain disenfranchised and powerless, at least at the theoretical level. With such strong support for the democratic side of the decision-making continuum evidenced in the findings of the participants, it seems that they believe when all staff are involved in making decisions, in contrast to the more autocratic way decisions making continues to be in their schools, then staff feel empowered because they feel ownership of the choices made and actioned. The data suggest that the participants’ critique is that there is not enough inclusivity yet, as the preferred alternative scenario responses suggest that leadership should include more participants in the decision-making processes for all situations. In fact, the strength of the data surprised me because I had created a crisis scenario where I thought the decision would most likely be a very quick, exclusive process as time is essential in the decision-making process. However, in the crisis scenario, a majority of participants still preferred more than one leader to be involved in making the decision whether to close the school. Still, there may be a very long way to go to change the mindset of educators to reach for the type of democratic decision making that is deeply inclusive. Only four participants in the research could imagine a ‘preferred world’ where students are involved in making a final decision in any school scenario. To have so few participants thinking it would be preferable to have student voices in the decision-making mix indicates this is a very low level of democratic visioning. It certainly is far from the envisioning critical theorists have for school democratisation in Australia and sadly seems to answer in the latter to Down’s (2004) poignant question: [W]hether students are to be inculcated into the dominant ways of looking at the world or whether we are to develop truly democratic spaces within schools and the larger social order? (p. 15)
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 29
Participatory decision making Decision making has been the focus of this article and participatory democracy was the favoured option envisioned in the hybrid leadership continuum I developed for the Australian research project. My continuum offered categories which included inclusive participatory options as decision-making processes in schools. While no evidence of such processes being practiced in today’s school came out of my research, concentrating on the four decision-making mechanisms that might be used by school decision makers in Australia (directions, voting, negotiations and consensus) shows us that in the professional opinions of the case study participants, decision- making mechanisms that involve voting or consensus are the empowering ways forward. Do these findings suggest that teachers and principals in the sector are envisioning the kind of changes necessary to grow deeply democratic principles into the decision making that goes on in Australian schools into the future? That is an area for future analysis but the changes that need envisioning do not have to be utopian. As Hatcher (2005) and Woods & Gronn (2009) have reminded us, it is not that many decades ago when radical, participatory decision-making practices occurred in school communities in Australia and other nations. In Victorian and Spanish schools, teachers elected their principals; in Britain staff meetings were ultimate decision-making forums; in the USA democratically structured schools included their entire faculty in important decision- making processes; and today, Steiner schools around the world continue to reject hierarchical staff structures and reject the role of principal. Participatory decision making has so much going for it, and school staff, students and other stakeholders could ‘consciously and as ethical agents participate in the co-creation of their environment’ (Woods & Gronn, 2009, p. 447). Voting is one way to co-create a school environment but participatory democracy that occurs through mechanisms that seek decision making by consensus should be an emancipationist’s ultimate goal. Advocates for consensus decision making envisage creative decision-making processes that: . . . include all the people making the decision. Instead of simply voting for an item, and letting the majority of the group get their way, the [entire school community] is committed to finding solutions that everyone can live with. This ensures that everyone’s opinions, ideas and reservations are taken into account. But consensus is more than just a compromise. It is a process that can result in surprising and creative solutions – often better than the original suggestions. (Turning the Tide, n.d., p. 1) If Australian schools role modelled such an organisational structure to its students and to its local communities we could grow the kind of future adult citizens who make creative, democratic decisions.
Conclusion
In this article I have reported the findings from an Australian case study on leadership decision making in educational organisations. The Australian case study participants have indicated a strong preference for participatory decision-making leadership behaviours and for the use of consensus and super majority voting mechanisms when school leaders make final decisions in a variety of contexts. Certain limitations became apparent in the enactment of this research particularly that close examination of linear leadership behaviour continuums do not provide capacity to analyse micro-political or heterarchical decision-making processes in school settings.
30 Christine Cunningham
Still, this research project contributes to the field of education leadership theory because it is based on the assumption that focusing in on who makes decisions in schools and their processes of decision making is a tangible way to examine whether education leaders actually share their power and authority with others. By focusing on decision making, this article has attempted to move the academic discussions about distributed and collegial leadership frameworks directly into a conversation about power and privilege. Schools are complex hierarchical and heterarchical organisations and in Australia the principal holds immense formal and informal power. With great power and privileges comes great responsibility for a principal to model good decision-making practices in his or her leadership because ultimately we must consider what leadership behaviours in schools we want to provide for our children.
References
APPLE, M. (1982) Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education: Essays on class, ideology, and the state (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul). AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE FOR TEACHING AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP (A.I.T.S.L.). (2011) Australian Professional Standards for Principals (Melbourne: Educational Services Australia). AVELING, N. (2007) Anti-racism in schools: A question of leadership? Discourse: Critical Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(1), pp. 69-85. CRUMLEY, C.L. (2005) Remember how to organize: Heterarchy across disciplines, in C.S. BEEKMAN & W.S. BADEN (Eds), Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology (Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Press), pp. 35-50. CUNNINGHAM, C. (2013) The Australian baccalaureate: A preliminary study, Curriculum Perspectives, 33(3), pp. 46-57. DOWN, B. (2004) From patriotism to critical democracy: Shifting discourses of citizenship education in social studies, History of Education Review, 33(1), pp.14-27. FOUCAULT, M. (1983) The subject and power, in J.D. FAUBION (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984 (Harmondsworth: Penguin), pp. 326-348. GIROUX, H. (2013) Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a democratic future (Portland: Book News Inc). GRONN, P. (2009) Leadership configurations, Leadership, 5(3), pp. 381-395. GUNTER, H. (2005) Leading Teachers (London: Continuum International Publishing Group). HARGREAVES, A. & FINK, D. (2006) Sustainable Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). HATCHER, R. (2005) The distribution of leadership and power in schools, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), pp. 253-267. HAY GROUP. (2004) The Five Pillars of Distributed Leadership in Schools. A study carried out for the National College for School Leadership (Nottingham: NCSL). CD_ROM, 2004 release. HOPKINS, D. & JACKSON, D. (2003) Building the capacity for leading and learning, in A. HARRIS, C. DAY, D. HOPKINS, M. HADFIELD, A. HARGREAVES, & C. CHAPMAN (Eds), Effective Leadership for School Improvement (London: Routledge Falmer), pp. 84-103. JARVIS, A. (2012) The necessity for collegiality: Power, authority and influence in the middle, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(4), pp. 480-493. LAMBERT, L.G. (2007) Lasting leadership: Toward sustainable school improvement, Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), pp. 311-322. LUMBY, J. (2013) Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), pp. 581-597. SMYTH, J., ANGUS, L., DOWN, B. & MCINERNEY, P. (2009) Activist and Socially Critical School and Community Renewal: Social justice in exploitative times (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers). TANNENBAUM, R. & SCHMIDT, W. (1973) How to choose a leadership pattern, Harvard Business Review, May-Jun, pp. 3-12 (originally published in March-April, 1958).
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia 31
TURNING THE TIDE. (n.d.) Making Decisions by Consensus. Retrieved 5 May, 2014, from:
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 32-47
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education
RAY BLOXHAM Department of Education, Training and Employment, Queensland
Email: [email protected] LISA C. EHRICH Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove
Email: [email protected] RADHA IYER Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: The position of Assistant Regional Director, School Performance (ARD-SP) was established by the Department of Education and Training (DET), the government provider of public education in Queensland, in 2010, to improve student learning across Queensland by providing close supervision of principals. Based on interviews with 18 ARDs-SP and two of their immediate supervisors, this article explores their views about this relatively new position and their understandings of the role. Following Blase and Anderson (1995), it uses micropolitical leadership theory to analyse comments made by the participants. A key finding was a view of leadership based on a differentiated supervision model whereby ARDs-SP worked with principals to ensure they met the corporate agenda. Participants’ comments favoured a leadership approach that was both adversarial (drawing upon power over and power through) and facilitative (drawing upon power through and power over) and for those principals deemed under- performing, an authoritarian leadership approach was apparent.
Introduction
There is little doubt that change has beset education institutions over the last three decades. In keeping with global reform and trends, Australia has followed many other countries down the measurement of educational outcomes track and enforced high-stakes testing as part of its external accountability push. In 2008, Australia introduced NAPLAN – the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy whereby all students in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 are assessed in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy every year. NAPLAN results in addition to other high-stakes testing results are published in newspapers and on the Australian government’s website, My School (http://www.myschool.edu.au).
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 33
The current climate has placed much pressure on school principals to bring about improvements in student learning. In both policy documents and much of the writing about leadership, there has been a big emphasis on school leadership, at all levels, to turn schools around and to increase test result scores. The prevailing view of good performance is one that is linked to high-stakes testing results. In other words, a school that produces high test scores is viewed as a successful school and the success is attributed to its principal and a school that produces poor tests scores is viewed as unsuccessful with its failure attributed to the principal. This very simplistic standardised measurement is one that undervalues important contextual factors (such as the socio- economic status of students) and overvalues (either positively or negatively) the agency and capacity of individuals such as school principals and teachers in their ability to bring about change in schools. According to some commentators (see Biesta, 2009; Nichols & Berliner, 2010) the measurement culture has had a huge influence not only on educational policy but also educational practice. Of particular interest to this study is the position of the Assistant Regional Director- School Performance (ARD-SP), the immediate supervisor of school principals in public schools in Queensland, and how they view their role in this increasingly accountable environment. While their role in the supervision of principals has been identified in the policy literature of the Department of Education and Training (DET, 2011), other aspects of their leadership in terms of how they work with principals is less clear. For this reason, a study that explores the nature of the role is timely and relevant. Further, the significant role played by ARDs within the supervisory model set up in Queensland is illustrative of the dynamics of micro-leadership, one that needs deeper study. Such a study would enable comprehension of the manner in which power operates, both at the liminal and subliminal levels, within large bureaucratic systems. This article begins discussing the Queensland policy context before it moves on to consider and apply the model of micropolitics from Blase and Anderson’s (1995) seminal work to understand the way in which ARDs-SP describe their work. This study provides an overview of the issues around supervision of principals by ARDs-SP in Queensland, Australia. We undertake an analysis of the micropolitical forms of leadership as demonstrated by ARDs-SP and analyse how power operates within their supervisory status. We argue that power is interpreted in multiple ways as authoritative, facilitative and as shared responsibility. The article illustrates the moral, ethical dilemmas experienced by ARDs-SP as they undertake their responsibility within the corporate agenda.
Background: Queensland Policy Context
Based on less than ideal NAPLAN scores for Queensland, the Queensland Government established the Queensland Education Performance Review (QEPR) headed up by Geoff Masters (CEO, ACER) to investigate curriculum in primary schooling identified as literacy, numeracy, assessment and teacher quality (Masters, 2009a, 2009b; Queensland Education Performance Review Steering Committee, 2008). Masters (2009b) defined school accountabilities for performance in terms of student performance in NAPLAN tests and focused these school accountabilities on the principal. Hence, one of his key recommendations concerned school leadership and its role in improving student learning in Queensland schools. According to Masters
34 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
(2009b), school leaders will need to: (1) establish high expectations of student and staff behaviour and academic performance for every student (underpinned by school leader expertise in data analysis and interpretation); (2) ensure quality teaching (underpinned by school leaders’ direct monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance); and (3) allocate school resources to maximise learning for students (targeting the early years). In making the case for improved student outcomes as a key indicator of effective school leadership, Masters (2009b) has employed a narrow and limited conception of school leadership. His report is a view from the top, with the leadership of schools characterised as disconnected from the centre, individualistic and as something done to, done for, and done on behalf of others, rather than a more contemporary conception of leadership as distributed, as fluid, emergent and concerned with capabilities (Gronn, 2000, 2010, 2011) and micropolitical (Anderson, 2009; Blase & Anderson, 1995). This disconnection is prominent, as it needs to be acknowledged that schools rely heavily on the roles played by both administrators and teachers in sustaining performance. By leadership as fluid and emergent, we imply the possibility of a school leadership configuration (Gronn, 2010) as a shared initiative where leaders frequently change roles. Importantly, as a hybrid form of operation (Gronn, 2011) it can ensure informal ways of configuring leadership and the need for expediency as change moves closer to the pedagogical domain. In keeping with the activities of the Queensland Education Performance Review, the Department’s bureaucratic structure and lines of responsibility were reorganised in 2009. A key part of this was a restructuring of Education Queensland (EQ), that sector of DET responsible for public school education in Queensland. Education Queensland regions were restructured from 10 to seven and saw the redefinition of the Regional Director’s role. It was at this time that the position of Assistant Regional Director – School Performance (ARD-SP) was created (DET, 2010). Recruitment for this position occurred towards the end of 2010 and by early 2011 there were 20 ARDs-SP in the role, working with more than 1200 schools throughout Queensland. Before the ARD-SP position was created, earlier iterations of the position were called District Director (DD), Executive Director, Schools (EDS), and Executive Director, School Improvement (EDSI). An important policy that provides insights into the nature and focus of the ARD-SP role is the Principal Supervision Capability Development (PSCD) (DET, 2011). This document states that EQ principals will be supervised by the ARD-SP who will ensure all principals will understand DET expectations; establish benchmarks for improvement; establish school improvement strategies; identify areas for growth and sources of support; and monitor performance outcomes (DET, 2011). The supervision of school principals by ARDs-SP is viewed in the PSCD (DET, 2011) as having a strong focus on accountability, performance, and outcomes, and a minimal focus on contributing to the support, development and growth of principals. This lies in contrast to earlier iterations of the position which have highlighted the dual role of supervisors as being concerned with accountability and development. This perspective also lies in contrast to literature in the field of supervision (see Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993; Walkley, 1998) that states that supervision should have both a development and an accountability focus. According to the PSCD (DET, 2011), the ARD-SP is charged with discussing and confirming the principal’s compliance, though it is not made clear to whom this will be reported. What also
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 35
remains unclear is how occasional conversations with school principals during visits to their schools will allow ARDs-SP to effect change as implied in the current EQ improvement agenda. An important focal point for discussion between ARDs-SP and principals is the School Performance Profile. This is the primary data set and point of reference employed by supervisors when monitoring Queensland public schools. It includes information on school outcome measures in regard to student learning and teachers’ work. This is the document that principals are required to speak to and justify in terms of their actions or inactions. Principals are evaluated against an expectation of improvement or performance achievement standards established at higher levels of the education system. The corporate managerialist approach to leading education is clearly evident in the Masters (2009b) report and the DET policy documents and procedures that have followed. Just as principals are required to establish ‘benchmarks for improvement and design an explicit strategic improvement agenda to achieve the intended targets’ (DET, 2011, p. 3), so are ARDs-SP required to help school leaders implement ‘individualised strategies to improve school performance’ (DET, 2011, p. 3). This leads to the question of micropolitical leadership evident in present practices as the work of ARDs-SP has been construed, by them and their superiors, as working closely with individual principals.
Micropolitical Leadership
Foregrounding the researchers’ interest in power, authority and control, as it applies to ARD-SP leadership, required a particular approach to the study and for this reason, only one leadership theory − micropolitics − is examined. Micropolitics puts at the centre of its analysis, a discussion of power and the use of influence through strategies such as power distribution, values allocation, coalition (and partnership building), manipulation of symbols, and conflicting ideologies (Marshall, 1991) and in this, it is political in contrast to many leadership theories that are apolitical (Blase & Anderson, 1995). According to Blase (1991b), micropolitics is ‘the use of formal and informal power by individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organizations. In large part, political actions result from perceived differences between individuals and groups, coupled with motivation to use power to influence and/or protect’ (p. 11). Thus it is concerned not only with cooperative and consensual forms of power but also conflictive and coercive power. Mawhinney (1999, p. 167) takes this idea further when she says: Power relationships are established by individuals and groups to manage potential or real conflict and to enforce a dominant agenda of action, and to maintain order and regulate behaviour both formally and informally through influence and authority. Given the focus of the ARD-SP role which is one of close supervision played out within the context of a relationship with individual principals in their schools, micropolitics as a field of study has much potential and promise for understanding the way in which leadership is understood and enacted. There are a number of influential authors in the field of micropolitics, among them Ball (1987, 2009); Blase (1991a, 1991b, 1993), Bjork and Blase (2009), Blase and Anderson (1995); Hoyle (1999); Greenfield (1991, 2004); and more recently Flessa (2009). Of these authors the work of Blase and Anderson (1995) is considered seminal. 36 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
The next part of the discussion explores Blase and Anderson’s theory of micropolitics. According to these authors, micropolitical theory can be understood in terms of power over, power through and power with. Power over is an authoritarian form of leadership with domination and control as the way to secure power, which is seen as a scarce resource (Fennell, 1999) and potentially destructive to relationships in organisations (Smeed et al., 2009). According to Blase and Anderson (1995), power through sees power as shared or facilitative. This means that organisational goals are promoted as central to governance and the inspiration by which others (individuals or groups) are motivated towards reaching mutually desirable ends (Fennell, 1999), thus imbuing a sense of joint ownership throughout the organisation. Fennell (1999) insists that power through characterises the leader’s role as balancing the context complexity and the effective management of decisions of others rather than the leader making all the decisions and managing the work of others. Blase and Anderson (1995) contend that policy implementation and facilitation originating from the hierarchy beyond the school gate is conducted as power through. Power with is seen as ‘inherently relational in context’ (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 14). It is a form of empowerment of others where the participation in organisational life by others is viewed as a right not a privilege. Smeed et al. (2009) state that power with is characterised as democratic, inclusive and trusting. Blase and Anderson indicate that power with is the most effective form of power as it promotes collaboration. The next part of the discussion explores Blase and Anderson’s micropolitical leadership matrix that incorporates the three different types of power arrangements. The matrix posits these within four distinctive leadership styles: authoritarian leadership; adversarial leadership; facilitative leadership; and democratic/empowering leadership. Authoritarian leadership is said to take place in a closed school environment where school principals exercise control through formal structures and enforce policies and rules. This style of leadership allows for little negotiation. A power over approach underpins authoritarian leadership as it is a dominant and controlling approach (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Adversarial leadership shares with authoritarian leadership a power over approach since adversarial leaders tend not to share power; they use it in traditional ways. What distinguishes them from authoritarian leaders is that they pursue their ideological visions with considerable aggression. They also have a ‘greater appearance of openness’ (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 18). In addition to using a power over approach, adversarial leaders use power through to influence and motivate staff. In contrast to the previous two approaches, facilitative leadership is a more subtle and diplomatic approach that relies on strategies that are less reactive and more humane. It allows the opportunity for others to participate in decision making. According to Blase and Anderson (1995), it ‘appropriates a discourse of change and participation while engaging in bureaucratic manipulation towards pre-established goals’ (p. 20). The conception of power, then, is seen first as power through (the motivation of others) and second as power over because power over is exercised through the hierarchy of the system. The democratic leadership approach sees power as power with in terms of decision making and because of its concern for justice. It involves a genuine exchange of opinions without fear or retribution. According to Blase and Anderson (1995), this approach does not engage in manipulation; on the contrary it relies on cooperation and empowers individuals and groups to act Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 37
collaboratively and creatively. This leadership approach has the expectation of collaborative teamwork where the colleagues of the leader are motivated to reciprocate on agreed upon norms. The next part of the article discusses the methodology of the study before exploring the findings in the light of Blase and Anderson’s (1995) micropolitical leadership theory.
Methodology
This article reports on one aspect of a larger study (Bloxham, 2013) and analyses participants’ accounts in terms of micropolitical insights. In addition to interviews, the article also refers to key policy documents, departmental reports and other types of documents pertaining to the role of ARD-SP. The participants in the study are considered ‘elite’ (Beamer, 2002) due to their status and the limited number of people who occupy this position in Queensland. Currently there are 20 ARDs- SP who have been appointed to this position and, of these, 18 agreed to participate in this study, in addition to two of their supervisors. The two supervisors of the ARDs-SP include the Deputy Director General (DDG), a direct-line manager and supervisor to executive leaders in the Department, and an Assistant Director General – School Performance (ADG-SP), who coordinates the role. Both of these senior executives had been involved in the initial development of the role and were in a good position to comment on it. In the study, both sets of participants were asked to reflect on the role of the ARD-SP by considering the leadership aspect of the role and how ARDs- SP enact the role. Both face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews were carried out with participants. The face-to-face interviews took place at participants’ work location. The interviews ranged from between 30 minutes and 90 minutes. All participants permitted the interviews to be audio- recorded. Transcripts were returned to participants for checking and verification. All participants returned their transcripts and very few made revisions to the original. Data analysis followed the constant comparative method where coding was undertaken in two steps (Charmaz, 2006). The first step involved a close reading of the raw data (interview transcripts), going line by line and searching for key ideas that related to the theoretical framework. The second step sorted, integrated and synthesised the important sub-theme categories. From here, four key themes as these emerged from the data were identified. At the same time, a theme coding system (based on theoretical constructs taken from Blase and Anderson, 1995) was used to assist in the reorganising of the data in order to assist in the discussion. Following is the table that represents the sub-themes from the raw data, the four key themes as these were identified through re-reading the data and the key findings as these relate to the data.
38 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
TABLE 1
Sub-Themes Four Key Themes Micropolitical Findings (from the raw data) (synthesis of sub- constructs (Blase & themes) Anderson, 1995) Performance Leadership as
meeting the corporate agenda
• Differentiated Supervision Supervision of
supervision principals via • Performance conversation conversations • Intervention (targeting performance). • Power over • Supervision and Professional Challenge • Power Authoritarian capacity building through Leadership for the principal • Power with • Workload • ARD-SP / Adversarial Principal Leadership Relationship.
• The change System sustainability Facilitative agenda Leadership • Change agents • Future leaders. Democratic / Empowering Leadership
The findings are now discussed as they are framed in the Findings column from the table above.
Findings
A significant theme that emerged from the data was the view that ARD-SP leadership focused on meeting the corporate agenda through the supervision of principals. Conversations were identified as the key process through which ARDs-SP supervised principals.
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 39
Leadership as meeting the corporate agenda Participants referred to their role as meeting the corporate (improvement) agenda via the supervision of principals for improved school and student performance. This was aptly expressed by Participant 9 who said: Setting goals, setting targets, negotiating what is realistic, but also a challenging improvement step for a school to take; and then aligning the strategy and reflecting with the principal on the appropriateness of the strategy; reflecting with the principal on the relative success or lack thereof of a strategy. I think whilst we can call that supervision, there’s also a leadership component there. You’re walking beside them and reflecting with them the whole time on the effectiveness of their leadership and challenging them to improve that. One of the senior executives saw the corporate lens of leadership as an appropriate one for ARD-SP leadership. For instance, this person saw the principal positioned as ‘having the legislative responsibility to run their school’ and that the ARD’s job was ‘to have the leadership conversations with the principal’. This was seen as important so that the system’s priorities and targets were upper most in the principal’s mind, otherwise, as the senior executive said: ‘They can easily get caught just in their own context, without looking at the broader [context]’. ‘Broader context’ here means the corporate agenda with little reference to the school context, the diversity of staff, students, parents and community or the capabilities of the principals. There was no question that the improvement agenda, via test scores, was the core agenda. For example, Participant 19 said: ‘Improvement is the given, it’s just the rate of improvement that’s negotiable’. What was apparent from participants’ comments was that the system’s improvement agenda is clearly defined, tightly aligned, and rigorously prosecuted through the use of corporate data presented as the School Performance Profile and that this data set is the basis for ARDs-SP to determine school and principal achievement and improvement. The School Performance Profile encompasses a variety of systemic data much of which is targeted towards the teaching and learning performance of the school and students’ academic performance. As noted by Participant 16: ‘That [School Performance Profile] is what has become the main tracking device that we’ll work with principals on’. Power over and power through become apparent where the corporate agenda transcends the local school context and where school goals and targets are determined by those beyond the school gate. The next part of the discussion refers to principals’ conversations, the process through which ARDs supervised principals.
Supervision of principals via conversations Supervision of principals took place within the context of a relationship with ARDs-SP: one centred on a superordinate-subordinate relationship (Walkley, 1998) where principals were held accountable for the work they do. ARD-SP participants commented that relationships with principals were central to their principals’ performance as well as their own success in the role. Yet the view of supervision was one of overseeing principals’ performance rather than any notion of capacity building. For instance, Participant 2 said the role ‘separated supervision of the principal from capability development . . . [in order] to provide a sharper focus [on] accountability’. Both of the senior executives made it clear that the role did not involve direct capability development; rather ARDs-SP could encourage principals to access coaches, mentors
40 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
and undertake relevant programs as they were required. ARDs’-SP role, then, was focused on performance. The ARD-SP participants in this study as well as the two senior executives saw ARD conversations with the principal as a critical part of the ARD role and a point of leverage in the system’s Agenda for Improvement 2011-2015 (Queensland Government, 2011). Participant 1 said: ‘Feedback is the most important part of the role . . . the critical point of change is the quality of feedback the principal gets, about how to move forward and why they need to move forward’. One senior executive said: ‘The Assistant Regional Director’s job is to know how that school is going [performing] . . . [and] to be the external conversation with the principal’, and noted: ‘the supervisor [ARD-SP] is to work with the principal on their performance development plan’. In these instances, feedback can be construed as intervention to address a principal’s weak performance or failure to achieve expectations. Most of the ARD-SP participants were clear that their role required them to intervene when necessary, guided by a differentiated approach depending on how well the schools were performing. For example, participants referred to the need for intervention strategies for poor or low performance. As Participant 10 explained: What we're really saying is that there will be schools that have a somewhat lower level of intervention from me and there will be schools that would have a higher level of intervention in terms of my presence. In terms of intervention strategies for low performing schools, Participant 9 said ‘. . . I will mandate what needs to happen in a school, particularly if it’s not only poor performing, but the leadership at the school has, over time, . . . not demonstrated the capacity to shift’. For poor performing schools, the ARDs-SP indicated that they increase the frequency and intensity of their conversations and interactions with principals while those who are doing well are left alone. Participant 1 summed it up well: ‘The schools that are running well are left to continue running well, and those that are needing support or struggling . . . is where you spend most of your time’. Based on participants’ comments, interventions for under-performing schools seemed to be characterised as focused, direct, and explicit and with little room for principal negotiation in the management of their performance. In some instances, performance management of principals was presented as ‘business as usual’, however, it was also apparent that managing the unsatisfactory performance of principals was a cause for consternation among ARDs-SP. Senior executives were of the view that poorly performing individuals attracted attention and required a response (Marzano & Waters, 2009), and that challenging underperformance by principals was an integral part of the ARD-SP role in order to improve the system’s performance. Comments provided by the participants are now discussed in relation to the four leadership styles put forward by Blase and Anderson (1995). Participants’ comments fell within three of the four leadership styles.
Authoritarian leadership There was consistent and almost universal support for the view that the ARD-SP role required the use of an authoritarian leadership approach particularly as a means to address under or poor principal performance. ARD participants reported that they relied on the system’s data via the school performance profile to inform their ‘performance conversations’ with principals where they challenged them to see that ‘improvement is not an option, only the rate of improvement’.
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 41
Participant 18 said: So in a case . . . [of poor performance], it’s been a case of frequent and specific and intense conversations around the school’s data and what’s necessary for improvement, with a view to the principal having a clear understanding of my expectations and ultimately making a decision about whether he wants to be the principal at the school leading an improvement process with me supervising him closely, or whether he wants to make another choice. Participant 10 was one of only a few ARDs who had a contrary perspective. This participant said: ‘My role is not to go in and tell the principal how to run their school’. In presenting this view, participant 10 appeared to eschew an authoritative or directive position. This same participant appeared to have an optimistic view of the initial success of the ARD position and that much had been achieved with their cohort of principals. Both of the senior executives reflected Participant 10’s position when they said that the ARD role was to ‘persuade and influence’ despite having ‘the ability to be directive’. As one said: ‘if you become directive too soon, you will close down the conversation and not allow . . . [principals] the space and time to grow’. Based on participants’ comments, there were many illustrations of a power over leadership approach being enacted by ARDs and these related mostly to under-performing principals. For example, Participant 6 said: ‘The way I work with those people [i.e. poor performing principals] is . . . to be very direct in what I need them to do’. Participant 14 said: ‘If they’re not improving or in fact declining then they get directed to the targets that are going to be set for student achievement . . . The conversation then goes, well this is the target, this is the expectation’. The aforementioned quote is a clear example of how ‘the rules of the game’ have been established and negotiation is minimal demonstrating a power over, authoritarian approach (Blase & Anderson, 1995).
Adversarial leadership A significant number of comments made by ARDs appeared to be illustrations of an adversarial leadership approach. Like authoritarian leadership, adversarial leadership is characterised by a closed leadership style meaning leaders rarely share power (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Importantly, this approach promotes the leader’s moral vision and strong ideological commitment. From ARDs-SP and the senior executive leaders’ comments, it was apparent that they were drawn to a very narrow and corporate view of the moral dimension of public education that focused primarily on delivering prescribed outcomes that met the Department’s agenda. Much of the data illustrates that ARDs-SP have a power over relationship (Blase & Anderson, 1995) with principals because of the hierarchical nature of the position. From their statements and that of their two supervisors, ARDs-SP are encouraged to work with principals to build consensus in organisational life whereby principals are persuaded to ‘love’ the corporate culture and support this as a morally inspired, corporate consensus (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993). This was highlighted by Participant 10 who said: ‘It’s about how the principal leads this [school improvement] in such a way that it engenders that moral purpose underneath that we’re doing because it’s morally right’. In contrast to authoritarian leadership, adversarial leadership has the appearance of openness and consensus building yet can be considered confrontational and/or aggressive. For example, Participant 2 said:
42 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
We have had a discussion about . . . [performance targets] and settled on something at the end of that . . . there have been some [discussions] where what they have brought to the table is not what I thought and so we’ve had a discussion around that and justified how we got there in terms of the evidence we’ve got and either . . . I agreed with what they had concluded or they agreed with what I had concluded. It was the weight of the argument which established that, based on the evidence. This quote suggests openness and some negotiation between the ARD and the principal. However, it concludes with a win-lose position established in whose argument has greater importance. As described by Blase and Anderson (1995), Anderson (2009) and Bacharach & Mundell (1993), paternalism is an indicator of an adversarial approach to leadership and allowing for some dissent within unilaterally defined limits, sees this ARD’s-SP approach to leadership as paternalistic, that is, control oriented and authoritative (Anderson, 2009). Inherent in an adversarial approach is a high energy, highly engaging approach aimed at persuading (Ball, 1987), motivating and mobilising (Anderson, 2009; Blase & Anderson, 1995). This idea was illustrated in some of the ARD-SP participants’ comments particularly in relation to persuading and motivating principals to achieve the corporate agenda. For example, Participant 11 said: ‘I see my role to keep them focused, but also help generate some enthusiasm around the task, the privilege that they have actually in assisting young people fulfil their potential and their life’.
Facilitative leadership Well-acknowledged by ARD participants and strongly supported by the senior executives was a view of ARD leadership that could be considered an open approach; one less reactive and more diplomatic. Evident in the comments made by many participants were illustrations of a facilitative approach whereby leaders ‘facilitate[ed] the process through which others share responsibility and authority’ and in doing so employed strategies of ‘negotiation, compromise, and mutual accommodation’ (Blase & Blase, 1997, p. 138). For example, Participant 16 said: My firm belief here is that the principal has got to be able to see and it’s my role as an Assistant Regional Director through dialogue with that principal to enable them to see that the [performance] target is meaningful, it needs to be a stretch and it needs to be owned and really genuine; pursued by the whole school. An illustration came from Participant 19 who illuminated an appropriation of the discourse of change and participation while engaging in bureaucratic manipulation towards pre-established goals (Blase & Anderson, 1995) when he/she asserted: I do a lot of work with making sure they are believing in the vision and believing in what we’re being asked to do and what we should be doing . . . every interaction with the principal whether it be informal or formal . . . is still a chance for me to get a sense of where their thinking’s at, to reposition their thinking if it needs repositioning, to make sure they’re engaging fully around those things. Participant 14 commented on working with a principal who was characterised as effective and whose school was improving well. This person said: ‘The conversation tends to be more of an intervention – negotiation . . . an agreement that, yes, you’re heading in the right direction. What do I [the ARD] need to do to help you [the principal] resource and progress that situation’. This approach was a dominant one for ARDs to use when they were working with principals who were perceived as successful. In these cases, principals were treated in a more facilitative and collegial
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 43
manner. This approach also reduces the likely impact of authority on subordinates whilst maintaining the call for school improvement. These interactions would be construed by ARDs-SP as achieving role success through their mentor role and as sources of optimism. Both senior executive participants stressed a facilitative leadership approach when asked to describe the work that ARDs-SP would perform with principals although they acknowledged the necessity for ARDs to be directive when needed. One senior executive said their preference was for ARDs to persuade and influence (power through) so as to keep the conversations open and principals learning rather than being directive (power over) thus shutting down the conversation. Yet as discussed previously, a facilitative approach was more likely to be employed by ARDs-SP when principal and/or school performance was meeting or excelling corporate expectations.
Democratic empowering leadership In response to questions relating to ARD leadership and the importance of relationships with principals, it was apparent that ARDs and senior executive participants alike indicated the importance of being supportive of principals. However, the prescriptive and direct nature of the ARD-SP role which is ‘to develop collective capacity and ensure consistency of practice’ within a declared ‘unrelenting focus on improvement (Queensland Government, 2011, p. 1) makes it challenging for ARDs-SP to approach their work in a manner that is fully democratic/empowering. Interviews with participants did not reveal power sharing or the genuine exchange of opinions as a leadership strategy within the ARD role. The ARD leadership role was consistently aligned to United in our Pursuit of Excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) by participants. The current improvement agenda sits neatly within a corporate managerialist view of public education. This view of education works to preclude findings of a democratic/empowering approach within a system predicated on hierarchy (positional authority) and strongly motivated by prospects of narrow improvements to school and student academic performance, particularly when measured by NAPLAN. The narrow data driven interpretation of education performance indicators imposed on schools heightens principals’ accountability and necessitates traditional modes of supervision such as power over in supervisory relationships and minimises the likelihood for genuine democratic or empowering leadership by ARDs-SP.
Discussion and Conclusion
The interview data from ARD-SP participants in this study favoured a leadership approach that was more than simply power over or an authoritarian leadership approach. ARDs-SP favoured either a leadership approach that was primarily power over supported by power through or a leadership approach primarily as power through supported by power over. Both leadership approaches are articulated within Blase and Anderson’s (1995) micropolitical leadership matrix, firstly as adversarial leadership (predominantly power over) and second as facilitative leadership (predominantly power through). This idea is supportive of the theoretical contention that the approaches are not pure forms of leadership (Blase & Anderson, 1995). As to which of the four approaches ARDs-SP relied upon, it appears that the approach chosen was a differentiated one; one that was closely aligned to principal/school performance. For example, the majority of ARDs-
44 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
SP made it clear that for poor school or poor principal performance they became increasingly directive and less willing to negotiate. Similarly, for performance that was perceived as meeting or exceeding corporate expectations, a more facilitative or power through approach was called upon. The research data presented here as participant quotes and policy quotes supported the idea that there was significant pressure on ARDs-SP to perform; more particularly, it seemed increasingly difficult for them to ‘under-perform’ in any aspect of the role (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001). The role carries a clear weight of expectation in improving the organisation’s performance and as such a clear sense of ARD-SP agency or compliance is critical. The role of the ARD-SP in Education Queensland organisational life places them in a dynamic and potentially conflicted policy environment (Simkins, 2005) and at the confluence of significant pressures to do with power, authority and control. This arises from inter alia conceptions of their authority, organisational complexity around their position, and conceptions of their role as predominantly accountability driven. ARDs’-SP work of supervision operates within a highly complex context. Supervision within this context, articulated by participants as predominantly oversight of their subordinates and with an explicit performance improvement agenda, can be described as summative, evaluative and accountability driven (Pollock & Ford, 2009) and aligned to an historical view of supervision (Walkley, 1998). The nature of the ARD-SP role, as articulated in interviews by ARDs-SP and their superiors, meant it was devoid of a formative, cooperative and developmental approach (Pollock & Ford, 2009). The findings from this study confirmed some significant features of the micropolitical literature (see Ball, 1987; Blase & Anderson, 1995; Greenfield, 1991, 2004) that maintains there are distinctive qualities at play between such key players as the ARDs-SP and principals. From an analysis of the ARDs’-SP comments discussed in this article, micropolitical strategies such as power distribution, values allocation, coalition (and partnership building), manipulation of symbols, and conflicting ideologies (Marshall, 1991) were apparent in their statements. These strategies are considered below in light of participant responses detailed above. The participant interviews captured for the most part frank and open talk. None expressed frustration with principals; rather they saw themselves as partnering with principals to achieve school and system improvement and in this light it can be argued that ARDs-SP saw their relationship with principals as a partnering of equals. Faced with the effort of getting on with and guiding the work of principals in Queensland public schools, it can be discerned from the interview data that participants gave a generally optimistic view of ‘walking beside’ public principals, rallying them behind the corporate improvement agenda. It can be argued from the interview data that to lead principals to acceptance and agreement with the pre-determined goals of Education Queensland, supported by School Performance Profile data and a concerted corporate improvement agenda, was demonstrated in the kinds of phraseology that would also inspire principals to continue to commit to the current agenda. Based on participants’ comments, the ARD-SP role provides a space for them to draw upon moral and ideological sources of power that reside in the situation of public school education as well as their own values and beliefs. The role emphasises an interpersonal quality and, as such, is heavily dependent upon the face-to-face expressive interactions with principals as the vehicle for influence. This naturally builds upon the potential for collaboration that characterises much of
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 45
contemporary educational leadership work within schools (Gronn, 2000, 2003, 2008, 2009; Harris, 2008, 2010, 2011; Spillane, 2006). Interview responses indicated that ARDs-SP generally proceeded from the assumption of a moral purpose and ideological commitment to their work as it has been construed within current Education Queensland policy, and promoted this to principals. Except for under-performing principals, the ARD-SP style of managing and leading did not seek to persuade or influence principals through confrontation or aggression like the adversarial approach described by Blase and Anderson (1995) nor did it seek to control principals through formal structures and enforcement of policies and rules aimed at maintaining existing power relations as in the authoritarian approach depicted by Blase and Anderson (1995). Rather the approach as preferred by ARDs-SP in this study was more like that of Blase and Anderson’s (1995) facilitative approach in which interactions were diplomatic, employing the discourse of change and participation so as to soften the impact of authority without reducing the demands for improvement. The value of a facilitative leadership approach is that it moves ARDs’-SP work beyond a conflict and exchange model of power and influence to a shared model that perceives power through with negotiation and ideological commitment as central to serve the best interests of all students. The concept of a facilitative approach to managing and leading in the ARD-SP role is synchronous with the view that public education as a system is primarily normative and the most potent sources of power are the shared beliefs, values, and ideals of the participants themselves (Greenfield, 1991). This study aimed to conceptualise leadership of executive leaders with a focus on the micropolitical leadership approach these leaders brought to their day-to-day interactions with public school principals. As the study highlights, the ARDs-SP have a perception of each school through the Performance Profile and, being less context bound, they do not have first-hand experience of schools. ARDs-SP perceived leadership as being supervisory and driven by a moral purpose. While being directed by performance management, their focus was on balancing competing interests of democratic approach, equality and social efficiency (Cranston et al., 2010). Adopting an adversarial or facilitative approach for the ARDs-SP was determined by the school performance that then reflected on the principal’s performance, which illustrates the corporate agenda of the state and government bodies. Thus, their leadership approach took on a fluid style through instances of power over and power through. In conclusion, the study found that the challenge for ARDs-SP is to build a shared vision at the moral and ideological level among the principal population for whom they are responsible in order that principals increasingly desire to perform their work well because they believe it is in the best interests of all students.
References
ANDERSON, G.L. (2009) Advocacy Leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis). BACHARACH, S.B. & MUNDELL, B.L. (1993) Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro and logics of action, Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 423-452. DOI: 10.1177/0013161x93029004003 BALL, S. (1987) The Micropolitics of the School: Towards a theory of school organization (London: Methuen). BALL, S.J. (2009) Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’, Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), pp. 83-99. Retrieved October, 2013, from:
46 Ray Bloxham, Lisa C. Ehrich & Radha Iyer
BEAMER, G. (2002) Elite interviews and state politics research, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(1), pp. 86-96. DOI: 10.1177/153244000200200106 BIESTA, G. (2009) Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), pp. 33-46. Retrieved October, 2013, from:
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education 47
HELLAWELL, D. & HANCOCK, N. (2001) A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: Between hierarchical control and collegiality? Research Papers in Education, 16(2), pp. 183-197. Retrieved October, 2013, from:
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 48-62
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study
(RON) KIM KEAMY College of Education, Victoria University, St Albans Campus
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The Advocacy Model of Student Support was developed as part of an ARC project with the intention of assisting students to engage in and complete post-compulsory schooling. Whereas a conventional view of student advocacy is that it be undertaken on an individual basis between an adult advocate and the student, one of the participating schools, ‘Boulder College’, instituted a whole-of-school approach to student support. In this article the College’s approach is evaluated via the Transformation in Action Framework (DEECD, 2009). One concern is the College’s selective adaptation of the Advocacy Model and its use of group rather than individual approaches to learning mentorship. A second concern is that staff members were not being trained to act as advocates for students because of their limited exposure to the work of Carl Rogers (1969). Despite this, the leadership of the College managed to raise the consciousness of staff members about the importance of building productive relationships with students.
Introduction
In many cases, young people in our schools occupy a borderland where there exists an unnatural boundary between them and those who determine what their experiences will be. Others speak on their behalf, they speak for them, they speak about them, but they rarely speak with them [original emphases]. (Groundwater-Smith, Mitchell & Mockler, 2007, p. 159) Engaging with young people in secondary schools – in whatever form this engagement might take – can be one of the more challenging tasks confronting teachers. Because not all schools ‘can meet the diverse academic, social and emotional needs of young people during their formative stages’ (Faci, 2011, p. 70), some students in secondary schools are increasingly being seen as being ‘at risk’ of not engaging with learning or with schools in general (Black, 2006). According to Wyn (2003), one of the most common reasons for students’ alienation from schooling and the development of associated negative learning identities is the absence of relationships between teachers and students. What is needed, says Munns (2004), is an interruption to the discourses of power in classrooms; a disruption to the ways in which students and their teachers interact with each other. One such approach to enhancing student engagement and reducing students being at risk of not completing schooling by disrupting existing teacher- student interactions is by building more productive relationships via the Advocacy Model of Student Support (Schmidt & Neville, 2011).
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 49
‘Advocacy’, as it is understood in this model, is concerned with ‘a commitment to supporting, espousing and arguing on behalf of students’ (Schmidt & Neville, 2011, p. 26) by a teacher- advocate who works with relatively small groups of students and who is prepared – and supported by the school – to meet with each of these students for approximately 20 minutes every two weeks. A teacher-advocate, at least in an idealised sense, finds him or herself interacting with the students and increasingly understanding their life stories and educational profiles. A teacher- advocate facilitates connections with school-based agencies, and ensures that a student’s perspective is put forward in any disputes with teachers or the school administration. Importantly, Schmidt and Neville say, the teacher-advocate does not give up on the students for whom they are responsible. The Advocacy Model is informed by Attachment Theory – whereby a central (attached) person provides the child with a feeling of security and helps the child to learn to cope with the environment and other people (Doring, 2008). Attachment Theory builds upon the work of Carl Rogers (1969) and the realisation he reached in the 1960s about the significance of good relationships between a therapist and client. This thinking has been extended to the need for good relationships between teacher-advocates and students, that is, relationships ‘characterized by empathy, genuineness and acceptance’ (Schmidt & Neville, 2011, p. 45). The roles of teacher- advocates can become quite complex, particularly when teachers are required to move away from their typical functions of ‘directing, evaluating, reprimanding and advising’ (Schmidt & Neville, 2011, p. 44), and towards ‘the attempt to understand how the student perceives the world of learning, and how he or she may be helped to connect with it’ (p. 45). The Student Advocacy Model, which was initiated in Victoria’s Department of Education and Training in 1997, has two fundamental components: the first is the one-to-one relationship between a student and a teacher-advocate, and the second is the development of an online tool. In the first component, the students involved are each ideally matched with an advocate who meets with the student regularly to discuss their learning and assist them to cope with the demands of school. The second component of the Student Advocacy Model is the development of an online set of instruments known as the Student Achievement Inventory (SAI, 2008), which is designed for students to explore such things as their learning styles, their attitudes towards subjects, and their long-term and short-term goals with the support of their advocates (Schmidt & Neville, 2011). According to the Australian Guidance and Counselling Association (AGCA, 2006), quantitative and qualitative data arising from an evaluation of the Advocacy Program in 1999 for the state’s education department indicated significant increases, not only in student retention, but also in academic results, leading to the conclusion that: ‘by increasing a student’s sense of connection, increased school retention, learning, and improved academic results will result’ (McCann, cited in AGCA, 2006, para. 11). At Boulder College, a fictitiously named secondary, co-educational Catholic school in regional Victoria, the school community embarked on a whole-of-school change, with part of this change including an adaptation of aspects of the Student Advocacy Model. With over 1,100 students and approximately 120 members of staff, Boulder College was one of six Victorian secondary schools – 3 state metropolitan, 1 state regional, and 2 Catholic regional – that participated in an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage research project entitled:
50 (Ron) Kim Keamy
‘Engaging adolescents in schooling: A longitudinal study of student use of electronic self- assessment tools within advocacy models of student support’. In this article, I provide a case study of Boulder College and its whole-of-school change, and interpret this progression with the assistance of the Transformation in Action Framework provided by Victoria’s Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD, 2009, formerly known as the Department of Education & Training). The Framework, illustrated in Figure 1, has been developed by the University of Melbourne for the DEECD, and arose from action research projects in 162 Victorian government schools that focused on the transformation of learning environments. According to this model, change activities can be considered against each variable described in the framework so that progress towards transformation of student learning is realised. The overall purpose in school transformation according to this perspective is seen to be improvements in students’ learning – the same driver for the whole-of-school change at Boulder College – which is my main reason for choosing the Framework as a structure to explain the case study.
FIGURE 1: TRANSFORMATION IN ACTION FRAMEWORK
Source: DEECD (2009, p. 9)
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 51
Presenting this as a case is informed by Brady’s (2004) use of case methodology, with Border College providing the required bounded system in such an approach. The value of this case study methodology is twofold: it allows investigation and generalisations about how one school is approaching whole-of-school change, and it is valuable in its own right because of the College’s selective adaptation of the Student Advocacy Model. The study is also exploratory in nature, and because of this, is deliberately descriptive in parts because this approach manages to capture the complexities of what has been happening within the College.
Understanding the Transformation at Boulder College
The ‘School leadership’ and ‘Vision for improved student learning’ transformation variables provide the necessary and overarching two-way flows in the Transformation in Action cycle. The Transformation Variables in the DEECD (2009) framework are similar to the school-based variables included in the Linking Leadership to Learning structure advanced by Leithwood et al. (2004), with particular overlap in relation to school leadership; school conditions; teachers, and classroom conditions (including instructional approaches). In the Leithwood et al. structure they conclude that leaders play critical roles in identifying and supporting learning, structuring the social settings and mediating the external demands. This is a perspective reinforced by the Council of Australian Governments (2006) and Dinham, Aubusson and Brady (2008), with their recognition that a school’s leadership can generate the pre-conditions for improving student learning by creating a climate for teachers to teach and for students to learn. This idea of a ‘climate’, however, understates the complexities that can exist in a school and these are better captured in Smyth et al.’s (1999) interpretation of a culture, namely: Culture . . . involves aspects of disagreement, contest, and multiple voices, all of which are operating not so much in opposition to one another, as trying to give expression to their differences. To speak of culture, therefore, is to refer not to something that is inert or static, but to struggle among groups and individuals, all of whom are seeking to give meaning to their lives and actions. (p. 7) A school’s leadership may well generate the pre-conditions for improving student learning, but as Smyth et al. (1999) see it, the contested meanings; the structures that enable and disable reform, and a recognition of the power differentials at play, are amongst the defining elements of a school culture in the school reform process. In the following discussion the case of Boulder College and the experience of embarking upon a change process are considered against each of the variables in the Transformation in Action cycle (DEECD, 2009). This discussion is informed by a series of research activities undertaken at the College. The first research activity involved an evaluation of the College’s leadership structure (Keamy, 2009) in which data were gathered via five focus group discussions with staff members; a Web-based survey in which salient comments from focus group discussions were included and which was open to all members of staff; and a drop-box and e-mail contact for additional suggestions from staff members. In this 2008 study, 27 members of staff participated in focus group discussions and 32 surveys were completed. The second research project involved an in- depth interview one year later with the assistant principal at Border College because she was the
52 (Ron) Kim Keamy
designated person in the College with carriage of the change to learning communities (which will be explored in detail later in this article).
Transformation in action: Vision for improved student learning The vision for students and staff at Boulder College was that they work and study in a supportive and engaging environment, and that they would be lifelong learners and critical thinkers (Boulder College webpage). Germaine to this article, the College’s espoused graduate outcomes included their students knowing and valuing themselves; as well as being creative problem-solvers who were flexible, resilient, and environmentally and socially responsible. The College saw itself as addressing the needs of 21st century learning, informed by theorists such as Beare (2001). The whole-of-school transformation means that each learning community within the College was comprised of a group of students and staff identified by a unique name, who worked, played and competed together. Each student belongs to one of six learning communities and stays with their learning community while at the College. Each learning community is made up of seven learning mentor groups. The learning community structure has been based on insights built up by College staff into learning and teaching that suggest that in order for students to maximise their potential as learners they must know how they learn best and be able to use this information effectively in their learning, feel connected to a community, and have a strong relationship with at least one adult who knows them as a learner. Each learning community in the College was to be the responsibility of the learning community members; they would evolve over time, and develop their own unique rituals and identity. Within each learning community were learning mentors who met regularly with their assigned students to monitor learning, support their goal-setting and get to know the students as individuals. The principal and two assistant principals were learning mentors, and in several instances, non- teachers were also learning mentors, appointed on the basis of their levels of qualification and personal qualities, for this was seen to be consistent with the commitment of having at least one adult who knew each student as a learner. The learning mentor was there to support students in making subject selections, accessing resources or supporting staff as needed, as well as liaising with parents. Each learning mentor had approximately 13 students and remained with them while at Boulder College. Students with particular needs or interests were matched to learning mentors who could best support them and who were capable of developing supportive relationships with a range of students. Family members found themselves in the same learning communities but would usually be in different learning mentor groups. Significantly, the word ‘advocate’ had not been used – either in the title given to learning mentor, or to the description of their roles, which was a noticeable difference from the idealised version of the Advocacy Model (Murphy, 2002; Schmidt & Neville, 2001, 2011). The shift to learning communities was a pragmatic one, as explained by the assistant principal: Our numbers were increasing rapidly and we were looking for a way to . . . support our students in a smaller environment, and just not support their learning . . . we came up with three . . . parts of a foundation for the project and that was: that each student should know themselves as a learner going into the 21st century; that each student should have one adult here at [Boulder] College who knows them very well, and especially as a
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 53
learner – how they learn best. And the last part was that each student should belong to a community and be known and valued within that smaller community. Progression towards learning communities, however, had not always been seen in such optimistic terms. At the time of the 2008 evaluation of the College’s leadership structure (Keamy, 2008), the concept – at that stage little understood – was on many staff members’ minds in focus group discussions. As it was conveyed in the focus groups, a learning adviser structure – for at that stage of its evolution ‘learning adviser’ was the term used by staff at the College – would most likely see one teacher working with a small pastoral group at a particular year level, with this teacher remaining as the learning adviser as the students progressed from one year level to the next. This would have had an immediate impact upon Boulder College’s pastoral care structure, which saw daily gatherings between a particular teacher and a group of students from across different year levels (i.e. Year 7 to Year 12). Several staff members in focus groups expressed their concern about these Homebase meetings, saying that they no longer provided a pastoral role for students across different year levels and that they amounted to little more than marking the attendance roll. When raised in focus group discussions, the alternative position to Homebase meetings was that of learning advisers. The proposition – ‘The idea of a learning adviser with a teacher and the same group of students moving from year to year is worth considering’ – appeared as a survey item on the subsequent Web-based survey designed to canvass a broader cross-section of the College’s staff members about issues identified in the focus group meetings. On a 6-point Likert scale, the staff response provided a Rating Average of 5.19, which suggested Agreement to Strong Agreement for this proposition by the 32 staff members who responded to the item. Even though staff members felt that not enough was known about what the role/s of learning advisers might be, as the broader school community had not, at that time, had the opportunity to discuss the concept, there was support for the introduction of learning advisers (who later became known as learning mentors). According to the assistant principal, and following the earlier research into the leadership structure in the school and my observation that it was potentially dangerous for the College’s leadership to introduce whole-of-school change without the participation of the broader school community (Keamy, 2009), the College conducted meetings with the broader school community, where the College explained the new structure and also briefly introduced parents to the online Student Achievement Inventory (SAI, 2008). Taking a proactive stance, the College followed this up with a short survey of parents after the learning mentors were put into place, with the parents being asked questions about their knowledge of their child’s learning mentor and the types of contact they had with the learning mentor.
Transformation in action: School leadership The year 2006 saw the arrival of a new principal to Boulder College, and like most principals, she inherited a leadership structure that had been in place for several years – a structure that ‘has struggled to accommodate the educational demands that have progressively been imposed on it’ (Keamy, 2009, p. 8). In the first year of her principalship, she oversaw the development of a Year 7 integrated studies program, which went on to be implemented in 2007. The Year 7 program heralded inevitable changes for the students in the middle years of schooling and for the overall school structure because: ‘[t]he College was challenging the taken-for-granted assumptions about
54 (Ron) Kim Keamy
how the curriculum had hitherto been delivered – a genie was released from the bottle’ (Keamy, 2008, p. 3). Following extensive consultations within the College; visits by some College personnel to schools elsewhere in Australia and Canada; doctoral research into student support programs being conducted by a staff member, and surveys with staff members to monitor acceptance of the program, the College introduced learning communities and the associated Learning Mentor Program in 2010, the intention being ‘for students to be supported and engaged in their learning, as well as feeling safe and happy within their learning community’ (interview with assistant principal, 2010). The assistant principal described how the decision-making process played out, and this involved the initial establishment of a group of 16 interested staff members to identify these ‘foundation points’. The investigative work being done, the leadership team at the College later disbanded the initial working group and established a much smaller group to concentrate on drafting documentation to take to the staff on a regular basis: . . . so [we] were sort of knocking off some of the people’s concerns as [we] went. You still had a small group a small number, at the end, were still concerned, but all of the others had moved on because their concerns had been alleviated. (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) The importance of teachers participating in decision making has been acknowledged by Leithwood et al. (2004), particularly when there is a direct impact upon their work in classrooms. This fundamental participation in decision making appears to have been addressed by the leadership team at Boulder College in the way they provided many and frequent opportunities for staff to work through their concerns, although the sense of the leadership team ‘knocking off some of the peoples’ concerns’ suggests that on one hand, enabling structures may have been established; but on the other, that a power imbalance existed that meant that teachers may not have had as much control over the school reform as anticipated (Smyth et al., 1999). Fullan (2006), too, draws attention to the need for individual and collective motivation for change, for without this, he contends, improvement is not possible. The fact that ‘a small number’ of staff remained concerned – and potentially unmotivated – about the changes, suggests that Boulder College may be pursuing a most-of-school change rather than a whole-of-school change to which it aspires.
Data collection and use: Do we know our students? The College has had a history of some evidence-based decision making and this evidence was not limited to its own collection of data in relation to matters such as student attendance and student achievements. It also included consideration of findings of internal working parties and staff- initiated research (such as that by Ryan, 2006). External data collection had also been encouraged, such as an evaluation of the College’s leadership structure (Keamy, 2008), and participation in the ARC Student Advocacy research project, which had the capacity to provide extensive data in relation to Student Profiles and Student Learning Preferences (two of the survey tools on the SAI). Data collection, as shown in Figure 1, does not only occur as a first step in Transformation in Action; it is an iterative process, with data being continually collected about students and used to inform the subsequent steps in the process outlined by DEECD (2009). The importance of establishing baseline data is a fundamental aspect of ensuring precision when improvements are
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 55
hoped to be made (Fullan, Hill & Crevola, 2006). Missing from the dataset at the College, however, was baseline data on behaviour management, which the assistant principal nominated as a future priority: I really like to be able to get the baseline and tick it against what we are doing. . . . I am keen to see how in the next couple of years the new mentor program effects the way that we manage student behaviour, because I am hoping that we do see greater relationship develop between student and learning mentor group and the accountability for that relationship and therefore less of that hierarchical management and behaviour where we have to move them up to someone who does a stricter job. Improvements in students’ behaviour can be premised upon an increased sense of responsibility for the choices that students make as well as the feeling that they are valued as learners (Brady & Scully, 2005), which were shared priorities of the Student Advocacy Model and the College’s Learning Mentor Program. Whereas the assistant principal identified gathering baseline data in relation to behaviour management as a future priority, given the College’s emphasis on evidence-based decision making, the absence of baseline data on behaviour management issues prior to the introduction of learning mentors and learning communities was surprising.
Teacher knowledge, understanding, skills and practice: How do we need to teach? The benefits of the innovation for the students were envisioned by the College to be improved results; enhanced learning skills; increased independence as learners; increased feelings of connectedness and confidence; increased opportunities to participate in school events/activities; increased opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with other students and staff, and increased opportunities for student leadership and control. This latter point is particularly important for students in their middle years of schooling and beyond, who are increasingly becoming ‘part-time adults, making adult choices and decisions about many aspects of their lives’ (White & Wyn, 2008, p. 151). This requires teachers – and learning mentors – to think carefully about what it takes to ‘involve and include learners’ in order to challenge traditional power structures between teachers and students (Munns, 2004, p. 6). The assistant principal advised that all staff at Boulder College were convinced of the likelihood of achieving improved outcomes for students: Everybody agrees with the ideology; everybody agrees that the rationale for learning mentor is correct and that we need to participate in that because it is right for kids and it is right for 21st century learning. The use of the word ‘everybody’ provides a sense that there was overwhelming agreement in the College, but later in the interview, the assistant principal alluded to the differences in expectations and contested meanings (Smyth et al., 1999) that existed. A concern of the teaching staff, it transpired, was their apprehension about their ability to perform these new roles: The questions are around . . . consistency across communities in dealing with behaviour: ‘Am I going to be able to be a learning mentor and support the students like everybody else? Am I going to have time to do this job? Am I going to understand the . . . use of the technology? And the time − will I lose time out of my classes to have this learning
56 (Ron) Kim Keamy
mentor period?’ So it was about certainly about time certainly about capacity to do . . . but no question about the rationale. (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) The ‘capacity to do [the role]’, as noted by the assistant principal, was a real concern, especially considering the generic expectations of 21st century teachers espoused by the College. According to the DEECD (2009), teachers must be able to call upon a ‘suite of skills and practices’ such as inquiry project-based learning; strong and practical teamwork; scaffolded constructivist individualised learning and a focus on higher order thinking. ‘Success’, the DEECD (2009) claims, ‘is contingent on rigour, positive relationships, consistency and collective application’ (p. 11), and given the required emphasis on establishing positive relationships with the students, the innovation presented a potential transformation to teacher identity. Changes to what the teachers were expected to do and how they were expected to do it marked a significant moment in the teachers’ lives as they reflect upon their professional knowledge and practices, students’ achievements, and reconfigured ideas (Churchill et al., 2011). Embarking on the Learning Mentor Program also involved apprehension about working conditions: . . . finding time in the curriculum and finding time for staff to do the role have probably been the two . . . biggest issues, and yet in saying that, staff have done everything and more that we have asked of them. But we do know they are also saying ‘You want us to do this, you need to give us the time to do it’, and we agree. . . . ‘Where are we going to get the time for this?’ and ‘Don’t take it out of my class time.’ and ‘Have I got the skills to do this?’ and they were mostly fear things, so right till the very end there was still a questioning from just a few people about ‘How I am going to fill seventy minutes if I’m, you know, how am I going to work out how I do this role?’ (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) The time available for teachers to do their work is finite, even though additional time spent on major school improvements can contribute to a greater professionalisation of the role of teachers (Johnson, 2003; Leithwood, et al., 2004). Class sizes also became an important feature of the change at Boulder College. Leithwood et al. (2004) maintain that class size reduction ‘[has] the potential to significantly increase student achievement, provided that suitable changes are made in teacher practices which take advantage of fewer students’ (p. 59). The establishment of learning mentor groups at Boulder College with 13 students in each group appears to have optimised instructional and relational opportunities between students and staff – at least at a group level. Many of the factors that typically have the potential to hinder change, such as workload implications for teachers; the development of teacher expertise, and the necessary adjustments to the school’s organization (Brady & Kennedy, 2003) appear to have been considered in the introduction of learning communities at Boulder College, yet there was still further work to be done if the learning mentors could be considered as student advocates, which is addressed in the following section.
Professional learning and curriculum leadership: What do we need to learn and what do we need to teach? In the Transformation in Action Framework the Professional Learning and Curriculum Leadership variables are considered separately, but I have combined them here because of the connection between what is being addressed by way of whole-school curriculum planning and the
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 57
professional learning that has taken place in order to move the Learning Communities Program from an innovation to an institutionalised, sustained change (Fullan, 2001; Print, 1993). It is also important to note that Boulder College, in its commitment to ensuring that students are able to form ongoing relationships with at least one adult in the school, had looked carefully at the available expertise within the College. Consequently, the principal, both assistant principals, and a number of non-teaching staff such as library staff, careers counsellor, and science technician, were all learning mentors. This posed challenges for the leadership team, because they realised that the College would not have been able to run the program if it were staffed only by teachers, yet they knew that they needed to be able to: . . . stand the test of parents who were saying ‘How can you be a learning mentor when you are not a teacher?’ We had to choose people who had done some level of study, or were engaged in some form of study, so that they were experiencing what it was like to have that teaching and learning in place. . . . And [non-teaching] staff, we paired them up with people who were strong teachers, so that they had that support. (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) Great care had been taken in the allocation of learning mentors, and the College had ensured that each learning community (with 14 staff members) had a community leader to whom they could turn for support or additional expertise. Added to this was the College’s existing Special Education Department and the Wellbeing Department, which also provided a service for learning mentors ‘who are feeling like they are not confident in their own skills or they need to debrief or talk about a concern’ (interview with assistant principal, 2010). These structural aspects were important to the professional learning that took place in the College, for the potential of making ‘continuous learning and improvement not only possible but manageable’ (Johnson, 2003, p. 5). The College had approached the professional learning of learning mentors by providing professional development in the areas of conflict resolution; having difficult conversations with students and parents; and mandatory reporting requirements of suspected illegal behaviour such as physical, verbal or sexual abuse. Focusing professional learning on how learning mentors were able to act as student advocates – that is, providing one-on-one advocacy support as envisioned by Schmidt and Neville (2011) – will form the second stage of the Learning Communities Program, according to the assistant principal. A key part of a student advocacy model, write Schmidt and Neville, is the professional learning that is required by learning mentors of the educational philosophy of Carl Rogers in relation to student-centred teaching (Neville, 2008). What appears to be missing from the preparation that learning mentors have received was an explicit introduction to the educational philosophy and psychology of Rogers (1969). For the Student Advocacy Model to function effectively, learning mentors must have an understanding of the person-centred approach developed by Rogers and be able to apply it in their interactions with students. Extending teachers’ practical theories – why teachers choose to do what they do when they teach – ‘requires unpacking the building blocks’ of those theories (Churchill et al., 2011, p. 468), and will necessarily impact upon the teachers’ identities in the process. The assistant principal saw one-on- one advocacy support as a second stage of the Learning Communities Program and this would entail considerable organisation – and potentially a considerable reframing of the role of the learning mentor – in the school to make this possible. Neville (2012) argues that, on the basis of experience with the Student Advocacy Model to date, the:
58 (Ron) Kim Keamy
[M]odel works best when the teacher/advocate not only provides a secure and reliable relationship (which may well be provided in a conventional teacher role) but focuses specifically on listening to the student rather than on directing, evaluating and advising — functions which teachers habitually exercise but which are counter to good practice in an advocacy role. . . . Both students and teachers are much more likely to regard group approaches as not very helpful either in encouraging school engagement or in dealing with personal problems. (pp. 26-27) A particular aspect of the Student Advocacy Model is that students have opportunities to develop strong relationships with at least one adult and for advocacy to be approached on a one-to- one basis with students (Schmidt & Neville, 2011). The Boulder College approach in its first stage of implementation was based on a group advocacy approach, which: . . . [was] not only a clear departure from the espoused implementation model of Advocacy programs but it is also in danger of replicating the very conditions that are, for some students, weakening their connectedness to school. (Henry, Barty & Tregenza, 2002, p. 35) On the face of it, Boulder College may be challenging the idealised Student Advocacy Model by not approaching advocacy on a one-to-one basis with students. It could, however, be argued that the whole-of-school approach to student advocacy is tackling the challenge in another way – a way in which: Students are better prepared for learning when they are healthy, safe and happy, therefore, student welfare is the responsibility of all staff working in a whole school context. Student learning cannot be separated from welfare [original emphases]. (Department of Education & Early Childhood Development, 2013, para. 1) This view is reinforced by Henry, Barty and Tregenza (2003), when they also point to whole- of-school change as being necessary to address issues of student support: . . . the raising of consciousness of student well-being issues amongst teachers, a better awareness of early intervention into student problems and a realization that cultural change at the school level is needed in order to more fully address issues of student support. (p. 58) The Transformation in Action Framework’s (DEECD, 2009) professional learning variable states that professional learning is characterised by a number of things, including: ‘A focus on improved learning outcomes and new teaching strategies practised in the learning environment’ (p. 7). Border College would appear to have its work cut out for itself in the second stage of the learning communities innovation if it is to enable one-on-one rather than a group approach to student advocacy, but even despite the professional learning team structure that exists in the learning communities and the commitment to its whole-school vision for improving student outcomes, it remains unclear how the College might resolve this apparent dilemma. It is also unclear how the College will resolve a number of matters described in the following section that pertain to its use of information and communications technologies (ICTs).
Use and application of resources including ICT: How do we resource the students, teachers and school? Central to the introduction of learning communities was the incorporation of content and activities via information and communication technologies (ICTs). In addition to the many ICTs already
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 59
used in the College, two specific platforms had been accessed in order to assist learning mentors to better understand their students’ learning: Blaze PLTS (The Learning Organisation, 2011), which offers a framework for considering the characteristics of successful learners by considering their personal, learning and thinking skills; and the Student Achievement Inventory (SAI, 2008) Specific training in the use of the SAI had been held off at Boulder College until ‘concerns about the technology’ had been resolved. Because of these concerns – namely the bandwidth to accommodate approximately 1,200 users, and the desire to customize the wording of the SAI surveys to meet the needs of Boulder College – the College opted to use only four of the full suite of SAI tools. Staff members were reportedly initially ‘very impressed’ by what they saw of the SAI at a College briefing before learning communities were introduced, but: At that stage the technology wouldn’t have supported everybody having a go at it but we just gave them a taste of it and they thought it was fantastic. So that’s why we were not game enough to put it in until it was exactly perfect, ready to go. (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) At one point, however: . . . we were not sure if we would be able to use the SAI at all because with any new program and the greater time required of staff, if we were to launch anything that didn’t work staff would not do it. We wouldn’t get a second chance. (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) It is not difficult to imagine the disappointment to learning mentors and students should accessing tools central to the student advocacy aspect of the learning communities innovation prove problematic, and the assistant principal may have been correct in her summation that the College ‘wouldn’t get a second chance’. As if to underscore this concern, the partners in the ARC research project that were responsible for the integration of the SAI components would have also been the same people wanting to enhance staff members’ understanding of Rogers’ person-centred approaches. It is possible to imagine disenchanted members of staff drawing connections between the two and spurning further professional learning opportunities due to their experience with the SAI. The learning communities and learning mentor innovation at Boulder College, when analysed using the Transformation in Action Framework of the DEECD (2009), is an example of a whole- of-school approach ‘for students to be supported and engaged in their learning, as well as feeling safe and happy within their learning community’ (interview with assistant principal, 2010). The College’s leadership team had, since the arrival of the new principal in 2006, utilised data to inform and reinforce the College’s changing direction, but not gaining baseline data in relation to student behaviours was a notable oversight. There remained some technological issues affecting the full incorporation on the Student Achievement Inventory and some gaps in terms of staff members’ awareness of the person-centred approach of Rogers, along with what is entailed in being an advocate for students.
Sharing and transferring knowledge and good practice: How do we share? The introduction of the Learning Communities Program, whilst still in an innovation phase, had been traced by researchers involved in the ARC research project, and an internal reference group with the assistance of an external consultant monitored what the College was doing in the program
60 (Ron) Kim Keamy
‘to ensure we are still on track with the vision’. Earlier in the ARC research project, despite being keen to talk with the other participating schools about what they were doing, because each school was approaching the incorporation of student advocacy so differently, this became a difficult conversation to have: When we were in Melbourne we were probably the school that was most advanced in what we were doing, like closer to getting it started. So there was probably at that stage no benefit in us talking with the other schools because we were all doing it quite differently too. (Interview with assistant principal, 2010) The assistant principal indicated that once the difficulties accessing the SAI were resolved, then the College would be better placed to talk with other schools about it. This aspect of sharing knowledge and good practice was an important future step, because as the DEECD (2009) Transformation in Action Framework suggests, it will provide opportunities to extend the focus on addressing students’ learning needs beyond school boundaries.
Conclusion
Of the main challenges facing Boulder College as it introduces its whole-of-school innovation to a learning community model is its selective adaptation of the Advocacy Model of Student Support, and in particular, its use of group rather than individual approaches to learning mentors. Whilst being an innovation, and one that can be explained in terms of the DEECD’s (2009) Transformation in Action Framework, it may just become ‘another program innovation’, bereft of ‘enduring capacities’ or ‘new collaborative cultures’, to draw upon a critique of change in schools offered by Fullan (2006, p. 6). A further problem lies in the way staff members are being prepared for their roles as learning mentors due to an incomplete, shared sense of ‘vision and purposeful direction’ (Smyth et al., 1999, p. 10). By not incorporating professional development activities that introduce learning mentors to the work of Rogers, the approaches that learning mentors are likely to follow are small- group teaching activities that largely ignore the complex work of building relationships ‘characterized by empathy, genuineness and acceptance’ (Schmidt & Neville, 2011, p. 45). If, as it seems to be the case, the major reason for introducing learning mentors to the school is to have an impact upon student behaviour, then focusing on this without having either accurate baseline data or staff functioning without an awareness of Rogerian principles suggests that interventions are likely to be group-based teaching activities. The superficiality of understanding and inability to go into deep learning, observes Fullan (2006), points to an inadequate theory of action, and that ‘nothing will count unless people develop new capacities’ (p. 9). The opportunity to disrupt the traditional ways that students and teachers interact with each other (Munns, 2004) may not yet have been achieved. Notwithstanding apprehension between an idealised version of student advocacy (as argued by Schmidt and Neville, 2011) and a whole-of-school approach that the College has followed, the College’s introduction of the Learning Communities and Learning Mentor Program may have shifted the consciousness of staff members about the importance of early intervention into student problems (Henry, Barty & Tregenza, 2003), as well as the potential for teachers and students to build relationships with each other (Wyn, 2003). As Leithwood et al. (2004) argue:
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study 61
School administrators, in particular, help develop professional community through their attention to individual teacher development, and by creating and sustaining networks of conversation in their schools around issues of teaching and learning. (p. 66) Time will reveal the impact of the innovation, not only in terms of whether it becomes institutionalised as an enduring, sustainable change, but also in terms of its efficacy in addressing issues of student support with parallel changes in staff members’ awareness and professional practices. As Leithwood et al. (2004) would suggest, the innovation will need to have sustained conversations around issues of teaching and learning. Particular conversations that the leadership at Boulder College need to have will be to determine whether they really intend the Learning Communities Program and the learning mentors within them to take on the role of an advocate, as opposed to that of a mentor (Schmidt & Neville, 2011). Associated management decisions will need to focus on how the College progresses the program to its second stage without losing any goodwill that it may have amassed, and how staff will extend their practice theories (Churchill et al., 2011), both individually and as part of professional learning teams within the learning communities. Going on past experience, the leadership team at Boulder College appears prepared and inspired to continue these necessary conversations, but as Fullan (2006) cautions: It is essential to understand this thinking [about action] deeply, rather than just knowing the concrete strategies. If you do understand the thinking you spontaneously get the strategies right, and self-correct as you experience them unfolding. If you don't understand the thinking you are more likely to use even the best strategies (such as capacity building) superficially or in a piecemeal fashion. (p. 11)
References
AUSTRALIAN GUIDANCE AND COUNSELLING ASSOCIATION. (2006) Mental Health and Wellbeing: Resources, programs and research. Advocacy project. Retrieved 20 August, 2011, from:
62 (Ron) Kim Keamy
FACI, P.S. (2011) The Culture of Mainstream Schools and its Relationship to Young People at Risk. Unpublished Master of Education thesis (Melbourne: The University of Melbourne). FULLAN, M. (2001) The New Meaning of Educational Change, 3rd edn (New York: Teachers College Press/Routledge). FULLAN, M. (2006) Change theory: A force for school improvement, Seminar Series Paper No. 157. Retrieved 18 May, 2014, from:
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 63-79
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana
ERASMUS K. NORVIEWU-MORTTY Edith Cowan University
Email: [email protected] GLENDA CAMPBELL-EVANS Edith Cowan University
Email: [email protected] MARK HACKLING Edith Cowan University
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: Driven by the moral need for a solution to the low academic standards in disadvantaged rural schools in Ghana, this research studied two high-achieving and two low- achieving disadvantaged junior high schools from the Saboba rural district using case study methods. Qualitative data were obtained through observation, interviews, and focus group meetings with 100 participants comprising principals, teachers, students, parents, local education officers and community leaders. A thorough analysis and interpretation of the data resulted in identifying seven essential properties of school effectiveness present in the effective disadvantaged schools and missing from the less-effective disadvantaged schools. These are: shared school vision; principals’ positive personal attributes; successful instructional and managerial leadership; thriving collegial leadership; dynamic school and community partnerships for recruiting resources; innovative physical and human resourcing; and emerging positive values. These were represented as a model that improves teaching and learning, and boosts learning outcomes in disadvantaged rural schools in Ghana.
Introduction
This study was initiated to examine and respond to the growing problem of low academic achievement, as observed in some rural Ghanaian junior high schools. The worrying state of academic achievement at the junior school level in rural Ghana is reported in the literature (Ministry of Education Science and Sports, 2007b; Norviewu-Mortty, 2010, 2012; Scadding, 1989).
64 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
Two decades of generalised low achievement of Ghanaian students in kindergarten, primary and junior high schools (JHSs) from 1980 to 2010 is well illustrated by the below-average performance recorded by many students who sit the Basic Education Certificate Examinations (BECE) when they complete middle school (Ghana News Agency, 2008; Tettey, 2003; World Bank, 1996). The situation of student achievement in Ghanaian junior high schools, and most especially in the rural communities, is dire: Five Junior High Schools in the Twifo-Hemang-Lower-Denkyira (rural) District in the Central Region (of Ghana) scored zero percent in the 2008 Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE). . . . Mr Samuel Agyeibie-Kessie, the District Chief Executive, disclosed this at the assembly’s general meeting at Twifo Praso on Friday. (Ghana News Agency, 2008, p. 1) This low academic achievement of rural students in some junior high schools in Ghana has not improved as explained by Sixtus Adikwo, the Director of Education of the Kpandai rural district in Northern Region of Ghana. During a meeting of stakeholders to evaluate the performance of all students in the rural district at the 2013 Basic Education Certificate Examinations, he said: Poor performance by students at the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) level in the (rural) Kpandai District has triggered an emergency stakeholder meeting to develop strategies to arrest the trend. The district which recorded 63 percent in 2010 saw a sharp decline to 36 percent in 2011, 26 percent in 2012 and 22 percent in 2013. (Myjoyonline News, 2012b, p. 1) Since the rural population of Ghana is greater than its urban population (Lamptey, 2010) the low achievement rates in the rural basic schools impact negatively the overall academic performance of all basic schools in Ghana. We have noticed that, little is being done by Government to address the issue of poor learning outcomes at the basic level. According to the National Education Assessment (NEA) tests in 2009, less than 30% of primary school children reach proficiency levels in English and Mathematics. In 2011, over 40% of candidates who sat for the BECE failed the examination and could not gain placement in any of the second cycle institutions, representing a below average performance. (Myjoyonline News, 2012b, p. 1) The low BECE scores in 2008 and 2011 are symptomatic of the significant decline in the academic performance of students from public junior high schools in rural communities in Ghana during the past two decades (Educational Research Network for West and Central Africa-Ghana, 2003; Ministry of Education Science and Sports, 2007b; Peil, 1995). The Ghana Ministry of Education acknowledged the enormity of academic underperformance by junior high school students. Despite the numerous interventions to improve education, achievement levels of school children, especially at the basic level, were low. The results of public schools in the Criterion Reference Tests (CRTs) conducted from 1992 to 1997 in English and Mathematics indicated an extremely low level of achievement in these subjects. (Ministry of Education Science and Sports, 2007a, p. 3)
The average BECE pass rate in Ghana between 2001 and 2011 was 60% (Myjoyonline News, 2010, 2012a). Since success at the BECE is required for admission to senior high school, many Ghanaian youth from the rural disadvantaged schools have not been able to continue their education beyond the junior high school (Akyeampong, 2007; Myjoyonline News, 2012a).
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 65
The purpose of this article is to present an effective rural school leadership model derived from the data to describe the best leadership practices which transformed low-achieving disadvantaged rural schools into top-achieving schools. This article thus, presents principally, the seven essential properties of effective Ghanaian disadvantaged rural schools and how these have combined and integrated a strategic scheme that improves teaching and learning, and leads to better learning outcomes. This model may become a useful tool in the training and professional development programs for future and potential school leaders in rural Ghana. The article presents the research context followed by a description of the data sample and collection. The findings are presented in the form of seven essential properties of effective schools. The article concludes with a model for leadership in disadvantaged rural schools and suggestions for its use and implications.
The Context
The education system of Ghana is modelled on the British system (Zureich, 2012). Excluding the kindergarten, pre-tertiary education in Ghana comprises six years of primary schooling, three years of junior high school and three years of senior high school (Ministry of Education Science and Sports, 2007a). All students sit the Basic Education Certificate Examinations conducted by the West African Examinations Council at the end of their final year of JHS (year nine). The Ghana Ministry of Education emphasises that, ‘the principal purpose of basic education is to help the pupils acquire basic literacy in English language and good knowledge in Mathematics. This would serve to develop further their abilities and talents through additional education and skills training’ (Ministry of Education-Ghana Education Service, 1998, p. 2). However, as the quality of education at the basic school level continued to decline during the 1980s and 1990s, the Ghana Government responded with a specific education reform program: the Free Compulsory and Universal Basic Education (FCUBE) policy to improve the quality of education at kindergarten, primary and middle school levels (CRIQPEG, 1996; Kadingdi, 2004; Ministry of Education, 1996, 1997). Besides the provision of new general structures, the FCUBE policy made years one to nine of school free and compulsory for all Ghanaian children. In anticipation of the implementation of the FCUBE policy, the then Minister of Education acknowledged the poor academic standard of junior high schools and outlined the rationale for the FCUBE. The greater majority of primary 6 pupils are functionally illiterate in English and Mathematics. Without functional literacy pupils won’t gain comprehension and skills in other subjects, they will not be prepared for the world of work. . . . To examine strategies for providing effective basic education, to revitalize the teaching and learning in the schools is the focus of our policies and of this forum. (Ministry of Education-Education Reforms Review Committee, 1994, p. 3) In 2003, seven years after the FCUBE policy was implemented, only eight of the 13 Northern Region districts recorded at least a 50% pass rate on the BECE benchmark. In 2004, the number of districts dropped to seven, and this further declined to only four districts in 2005. Education statistics of the period showed that junior high schools in Saboba district were among the lowest- performing schools (GES: Saboba-Chereponi, 2005; GES: Saboba-District, 2006; Northern Network for Education Development, 2006).
66 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
Research and reports on efforts to enhance student learning are fairly limited in scope in respect of African schools. However, school improvement has been extensively researched in Western schools and reported in the literature. Thus, the Western research into practices and factors that help to enhance teaching and learning and student achievement has presented a variety of options. Interestingly, a major research project carried out by Cambridge University in Ghana, around the same time as this research (Jull, Swaffield & MacBeath, 2014), established a school leadership framework incorporating five principles: focus on learning, conditions for learning, learning dialogue, shared leadership, and shared sense of accountability. The article also concurs with Cowie and Crawford, as cited by Jull, Swaffield and MacBeath (2014, p. 70) that ‘there is an international consensus among policy-makers that the capacities of those who aspire to become a principal need to be developed’.
The Research
This study opted for a theory of knowledge that identifies truth or meaning as the outcome of our interactions with the realities in our world. Meaning is therefore constructed from the engagement of the mind with people, culture, nature, situations, environment and events, and with physical and social realities. Meaning is not posited there for the researcher to discover as it pertains in objectivism. The interactions between the researcher and the participants in their environment and situations construct the meanings or interpretations that emerge. Thus, the same reality or phenomenon can be interpreted differently by different persons. This process of knowing or obtaining meaning is referred to as constructivism by Guba and Lincoln (1989). For the purpose of this research constructivism was adopted as the epistemological perspective with a focus on the meaning-making activity of the researcher with participants. A case study approach was used to explore the differences in the academic achievement of students from different disadvantaged, rural JHSs of the Saboba locality, Ghana. This locality was selected because it is one of the most deprived regions of the country, and has also shown a decline in the achievement of JHS students during recent years (GES: Saboba, 2010; GES: Saboba-Chereponi, 2005, 2008; Myjoyonline News, 2012b; Northern Network for Education Development, 2006). Further, the first named author has taught in the locality for more than eight years (2000 to 2008). This study sought to gain an explanation of what accounts for the disparity in academic performance of students from disadvantaged rural schools that are located in the same area, and have similar resources and challenges. How does one explain the fact that the academic achievements of students in one rural public school are high, while those of the neighbouring rural public schools are low? Two high-achieving disadvantaged JHSs with the pseudonyms, Aarie and Baarie, and two low-achieving disadvantaged JHSs, Caarie and Daarie, all from the Saboba locality were selected for the study. These four JHSs were chosen through an analysis of the results of Basic Education Certificate Examinations of all Saboba schools from 2005 to 2009. The average BECE performance of each of the four selected schools was compared with all the other schools in the locality. Whereas the 2009 BECE results of the first two selected schools (Aarie and Baarie) represent the average best achievement rate, those of the other two selected schools (Caarie and
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 67
Daarie) represent the average lowest achievement rate in the Saboba locality. Thus, participants were purposively selected (Berg, 2001; Creswell, 1998, 2006) to establish specific boundaries for the case and thus, determine who was to be studied and in what settings (Berg, 2001; Flick, 2009; Stake, 2000). Research data, collected through semi-structured interviews, focus groups, direct observations, field notes and document analysis were obtained in the four schools in Saboba, Ghana between November 2009 and April 2010. Interviews and focus group meetings were conducted with 100 participants. These comprised four serving principals, two ex-principals, 18 teachers, 48 students, parents, and officers from the District Office of the Ghana Education Service, community leaders, including the local traditional chief and the Saboba District Chief Executive. All interviews and focus group meetings were digitally recorded and transcribed. Field notes were taken during interviews and focus group meetings, daily research journaling, collection of artefacts in the form of photographs of the milieu, as well as an analysis of relevant local education documents, helped to supplement and corroborate the data gathered from interviews and focus group meetings. This helped to improve triangulation (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002). Multiple data collection techniques, and a variety of data sources and types allows for cross- checking and triangulation of data within each case (Creswell, 2006; Patton, 2002) and this enhanced the credibility of data and research findings (Burns, 2000; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Further, a cross-case analysis, which compared and contrasted findings from each case studied, enabled the identification of specific themes, which are referred to as ‘the essential properties’ that account for the high achievement of students from certain disadvantaged rural schools. After transcribing the audio-recorded data and documenting data records, salient aspects of data were identified, grouped and labelled, as the core ideas of each case. The core emergent ideas from the case narrations were represented in the form of Key Findings (KFs).These KFs from each case were aggregated and analysed for common elements, giving rise to seven cross-case essential properties of successful school leadership in the participant context. The following explains and develops in detail each of the seven essential properties, the core elements of effective leadership in these disadvantaged rural schools.
Analysis and Findings: Seven essential properties of effective schooling
A cross-case analysis that draws on the key findings of each of the four schools studied gave rise to seven essential properties of effective school leadership across the participating schools. These seven essential properties are the core elements of the effective leadership practices that highlighted the difference between high-achieving and low-achieving disadvantaged rural schools in the Saboba locality. These essential properties are: shared school vision, the principals’ positive personal attributes, successful instructional and managerial leadership, thriving collegial leadership, dynamic school and community partnerships for recruiting resources, innovative physical and human resourcing, and emerging positive values.
68 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
These essential properties of effective school leadership explained not only what constituted the failings of leadership in the low-achieving rural schools but also, most essentially, what defined the series of actions or strategies employed by the effective principals to improve academic standards (Norviewu-Mortty, 2012).
Essential property one: Shared vision Vision is often defined as that ability to think about, and plan for the future by using intelligence and imagination (Soanes & Hawker, 2008). Day (1999) believes that a shared school vision and mission by principal, students and staff can influence school transformation (see also Sammons, Gu, Day & Ko, 2011). This position is supported by Dawson (2007, p. 6) who said: ‘The old paradigm where vision/mission/values statements were created by managers and “imposed” upon the workers in an attempt to motivate them is obsolete’. Elements of clear and collective school vision and mission were evident in the two high- achieving schools studied (Norviewu-Mortty, 2012). The principals of Aarie and Baarie crafted with their teachers, students and parents, a concise school vision and mission that acknowledged the prevailing academic context of the school, and they took action to improve it. Principal Arrack and his staff had a distinct vision and mission for the school. The principal led his teachers and students not only in developing the vision and mission but also, in encouraging them to support and work towards achieving it. He employed the school vision in garnering the successful cooperation of teachers, students, parents and community for improving standards. Aarie’s vision was the commitment to maintaining the school’s rise to a top academic achieving school and its mission was to prepare Aarie students to be confident and ready for the BECE. Also, in the light of Baarie’s school vision of improving the school’s academic reputation, Principal Barrack and his staff conducted a school evaluation and discovered certain negative practices that were responsible for the persistent low academic achievement of students. After a thorough consultative evaluation of the school’s low academic standards, Barrack and his staff developed a vision and mission that inspired them to check student and teacher absenteeism and lateness, ensured robust teaching supervision and revamped teaching and learning. In the low-performing Caarie and Daarie, although the principals knew and were inspired by the school vision and mission, this was not overtly communicated to the teachers, students and parents. Thus, these principals had difficulty in rallying the cooperation and support of the school community towards achieving their vision of improving the learning environment and academic achievement. For example, Darrack stated his personal school vision and mission as making: ‘Daarie an outstanding institution of high academic achievement with top BECE results, through improvement of teaching and learning and with aid of school partners’. However, he neither involved the school community in developing it nor made it explicit. This hindered a coordinated action in addressing school problems. The data demonstrated that the principals who rallied and empowered their school community, comprising teachers, students, and parents, through a clear school vision and mission, as argued by other scholars (Beaulieu, Israel & Wimberley, 2003; Glaze, Pervin & Maika, 2007; Mazibuko et al., 2008), succeeded in effecting a positive change that created better teaching and learning, which in turn engendered improved academic standards.
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 69
Essential property two: Principals’ personal attributes Positive personal attributes are defined as personal qualities or desirable characteristics of an individual (Williams, 2005). They consist of the positive traits of character of the individual, such as being a good listener, open-minded and caring, sympathetic towards the concerns of others, inspiring, a team player and committed to one’s goal (Kotelnikov, 2001; Stevens, 2003). These personal qualities or dispositions are often employed by successful leaders to create a positive response to their initiatives, policies, instructions and actions from their followers. This concept of the influence of the leader’s personal attributes on the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of those being led is well developed by Berson, Oreg and Dvir (2008), and also by Schein (1992) and Schneider (1987) as well as by Carpenter, Geletkanycz and Sanders (2004). Hambrick and Mason (1984) also remarked that the leader’s personal attributes influence the leader’s decisions, options and choices. In this study, both principals who were effective demonstrated positive professional and personal attributes such as friendliness, commitment, and interest in the school and students. Arrack was not only noted for his friendliness, human relational skills and accessibility to students, staff, and parents but also for his exemplary conduct, and arbitration skills. Some students of Aarie, edified by the conduct of Arrack, especially his punctuality, began to arrive at school on time, while teachers who admired his arbitration skills and resourcefulness became more cooperative and committed. In Baarie, Barrack not only influenced his teachers, students and parents by his open-mindedness, his spirit of dialogue and consultation but also his deep respect and support for his teachers and students. These personal attributes, admired by their collaborators, helped these principals to create better rapport with staff, students and parents in making decisions, and garnering support in implementing them and thus, influencing positively, teacher professionalism, student discipline and learning. However, in the less-effective participating schools, although the professional and personal attributes of the principals were acknowledged, these hardly influenced the behaviour and attitudes of staff and students. For example, although Carrack’s attributes of commitment, sympathy, perseverance and dialogue were admired, her lack of managerial skills prevented the effective harnessing of these attributes to command respect, authority, obedience, collaboration and commitment from her staff and students. Carrack, despite her personal attributes failed to gain a positive response from staff and students in her efforts to improve academic standards, as teacher and student lateness and absenteeism persisted.
Essential property three: Successful instructional and managerial leadership This research revealed that the two effective disadvantaged rural school principals demonstrated their instructional leadership through their multiple teacher supervision activities and regular checks on student learning. Elements worthy of note in Arrack’s actions were correcting teachers’ lesson notes, direct coaching of some teachers and the random check of students’ work and the conduct of academic and staff meetings to evaluate students’ learning. To balance the effects of poor teaching on students’ learning caused by inadequate primary school education, other strategies and practices which had direct positive influence on instruction and learning were developed. These were extra tutorials, student group studies, regular supervised class tests, debates
70 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
and quizzes. Others were multiple practice examinations and teacher improvisation in Science and ICT to compensate for the lack of equipment, and instruction by volunteer expert subject tutors and teachers. The ‘expert teacher’ was a qualified teacher but the ‘expert tutor’ was not. However, both had demonstrated great knowledge and skill in specific concepts and were thus, voluntarily engaged to teach those concepts. These were some of the standard practices employed for improving teaching and learning and preparing students to be BECE confident and ready. Management of staff and students to enhance staff professionalism and student discipline also featured prominently among the numerous tasks of principals who headed the two disadvantaged but effective rural schools, Aarie and Baarie. These effective principals also implemented short- term strategies such as benchmarking teacher performance to promote teacher competency. The performance of each teacher was measured by the level of achievement of students at the end-of- term examinations in the subject taught by that teacher. The performance of each teacher was subsequently compared to that of other teachers, and those whose students excelled were awarded token prizes to serve as an incentive for other teachers. These instructional efforts were inspired and consolidated by well-reflected, creative managerial initiatives and actions. For example, as a short-term strategy, Barrack provided welfare and support to teachers. This invigorated cordial relationships between teachers and the principal and strengthened teacher instructional confidence, motivation and responsibility. Also, through Barrack’s sustained involvement with local politicians and education officers he procured further assistance in the form of text books, repair of school furniture, wiring and electric installation in classrooms. His cooperation with teachers to supervise students working at school farms resulted in good harvests that generated additional income to support teaching and learning. The principal of Baarie lobbied the local education authorities for the recruitment of more experienced, trained teachers, and also, sought the active cooperation of parents and teachers in enhancing teaching and learning. Barrack and his teachers implemented also a second strategy, in the short-term, which was to restore student discipline and create an academically challenging and healthy environment that sustains learning. Managerially, they instilled strict discipline among students through deterrence measures (punishments) and through positive means (rewards) such as awards for hard work, academic excellence and good conduct. These measures resulted in four positive transformations. Firstly, teachers recommitted themselves to teaching effectively and students responded positively to disciplinary measures and showed renewed enthusiasm for studies. Secondly, disciplinary measures dissuaded students and reduced absenteeism and lateness to school. Thirdly, students became sanitation and health conscious and also took their studies more seriously and actively participated in all academic activities and, as a result, academic work and students’ achievement improved. It is noteworthy that at the very beginning of Barrack’s appointment he devoted significant time, energy and resources to management issues, such as meeting parents and encouraging them to assist the school, checking teacher and student absenteeism and lateness, and planning with staff on improving the learning environment. He dedicated less time and energy to actual supervision of instruction in the classrooms at that time. Barrack began to place more emphasis on his instructional leadership role, only after student discipline and teacher professionalism improved.
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 71
These standard practices of Arrack and Barrack blended to some extent the interplay between their instructional and managerial roles as principals. Both school leaders devoted, in the long run, more time and energy to actions that directly contributed to improving teachers’ classroom teaching and students’ learning. Their success in reducing teacher and student absenteeism and lateness boosted the quality of teaching and learning during school contact hours. These are the practices that created an effective learning environment that enhanced both teaching and student learning, and consequently, helped in preparing students to be confident and ready to sit the BECE. However, the efforts of the less effective principals who attempted certain instructional strategies such as, use of extra tutorials, practice examinations and class tests to improve student learning and raise achievement, failed, as they lacked the managerial skills to garner the cooperation of their staff and students. Carrack’s inability to curb the problem of lateness, despite her many initiatives to do so, rendered the introduction of extra tutorials to cover the syllabuses ineffective. Carrack undertook other instructional initiatives, such as coaching teachers, and organising some professional learning workshops but these made little improvement to students’ learning, as lack of commitment of many teachers and students persisted. Inadequate supervision of staff, lack of collaboration among teachers and principal and absence of dialogue with students led to the failure of extra tutorials as a strategic tool for improving learning in Caarie. Teachers continued to teach new concepts during extra tutorials, and delayed in correcting and giving appropriate feedback on practice examination scripts, and thereby deprived students of effective preparation prior to sitting their final examinations. Lack of instructional leadership and management skills of Carrack and Darrack created more problems for teaching and learning. Daarie’s ineffective teaching and learning environment was partly caused by the lack of teaching ability and unprofessional conduct of the many unsalaried, untrained ‘helper teachers’ on staff. These teachers wanted some form of financial support for their work and were open to coaching to improve their teaching skills and professionalism, but Darrack was unable to provide the leadership to achieve that. Darrack’s inability to resolve the economic challenges faced by these unsalaried helper teachers partly provoked teacher apathy and unprofessional conduct. Consequently, not even Darrack’s personal teaching capability, as attested by students, or his individual commitment in organising extra tutorials in the English language, were sufficient to garner teachers’ cooperation in addressing the school’s low standards.
Essential property four: Thriving collegial leadership This research has attested the role played by collegiality in the more effective schools. Both principals of Aarie and Baarie carried out an evaluation of the academic environment of their schools in direct consultation with their teachers. They collegially identified the negative practices that impeded effective learning and ways to resolving them. Their consultations through regular staff meetings and dialogue with students, and sometimes with parents, resulted in concerted strategic decisions and implementation in resolving some of the school’s teaching and learning challenges. It was through such collegial dialogue that Barrack opted together with his staff to overhaul the teaching and learning landscape of their low-achieving school and improve standards. Other collegial efforts by Barrack were his successful consultation with parents and earning their partnership in resourcing the school.
72 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
Further, both effective principals developed a collegial working relationship with their teachers and students through participatory decision-making processes, including regular teaching- staff meetings, consultation with implementation committees and heads of departments and regular dialogue with students. Arrack demonstrated his collegial leadership through specific pragmatic acts such as occasional classroom teaching, sharing of personal teaching resources and speedy, respectful arbitration of conflicts among staff. In the less-effective schools, although the principals sometimes demonstrated collegiality through consultation with their teachers, often the lack of commitment on the part of the teachers, exhibited by continual absenteeism and lateness, impeded the collective implementation of those decisions. In the less-effective schools, poor collegial efforts of the principals, demonstrated by lack of effective communication and collaboration among the parties, prevented the charting of a common course of priorities and strategies in addressing the school’s academic problems. Thus, the individual efforts of these principals to improve academic standards were either jeopardised or compromised by the absence of a dynamic collegial spirit and commitment. For example, in Caarie, the use of extra-tutorials to help students complete in time, the academic syllabus prior to sitting the BECE rather became an obstacle to learning due to poor communication. Instructional leadership efforts therefore, are necessary but not sufficient to improve academic standards, as their effectiveness depends largely on the level of collegiality demonstrated by the principal and staff. Case data demonstrated that the success of Barrack, in transforming his low-achieving school into a top-achieving school within a short period of time, and the ability of Arrack to sustain the top academic performance of Aarie, were possible because each of them exercised effective collegial leadership. Barrack evaluated the prevailing low academic standards of Baarie with all his staff at regular staff meetings, and together, they identified the issues and agreed on what strategies were necessary to resolve them. In Baarie, teacher unprofessional conduct like lateness and absenteeism reduced considerably because Barrack and his teachers identified it as a key factor that created poor teaching and learning in the school. The teachers subsequently conducted themselves more responsibly. Thus, the efforts of consultation, regular staff meetings, pep talks and support for teachers were the actual collegial acts which galvanised team spirit and commitment from Baarie teachers and helped Barrack in his instructional initiatives and efforts.
Essential property five: Dynamic school and community partnerships for recruiting resources In this study, effective principals initiated partnerships with parents and the local community to recruit resources to promote and enhance efficient teaching and learning, and better academic outcomes. The principal of Aarie conscientiously partnered with the local community by promoting an active Parent Teacher Association (PTA) that recruited local resources to support teaching and learning, teachers’ welfare and to enhance student discipline. On his appointment, Barrack renewed regular meetings with PTA executives and parents, an action he perceived as the best way of sustaining student discipline and parents’ support which was necessary for creating an effective learning environment. He revived the interest of parents in school affairs and parents began to pay levies to fund school programs and also assisted the school in student disciplinary issues. As a sign of respect for local ethos by teachers and students, the principals of Aarie and
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 73
Barrie regularly paid courtesy visits to the traditional chief and elders, local government and education officers and to some parents. Similarly, less effective principals attempted to improve their relationship with the executive members of the Parent Teacher Association, parents and community but they failed. Sometimes, this was caused by a lack of engaging dialogue between the school and parents. At other times, it was due to a lack of determination, commitment and perseverance from these principals. However, sometimes even the minimal efforts of these principals were frustrated by parents’ apathy towards school or by disagreements within the PTA on ways of resolving the many challenges. Darrack’s inability to dialogue effectively with parents hindered consensus on which infrastructure problems should be prioritised and resolved. Moreover, the parents and the local community of the schools, headed by less-effective principals, did not give any support to the teachers, as illustrated by the gross neglect of non-salaried helper teachers of Daarie. This research demonstrated how the principals of Aarie and Baarie, unlike those of Caarie and Daarie, successfully transformed their schools and created better teaching and learning environments through the promotion of better rapport with the executive members of the Parent Teacher Association, and with parents and the local community (Norviewu-Mortty, 2012). Further, their interaction with parents, through regular PTA meetings, helped to sustain an active relationship that supported the recruitment of needed resources to enhance teacher support, teaching and learning. Unlike in developed Western schools, these local resources were critical for they helped these principals to procure teaching and learning materials (Norviewu-Mortty & MacNeill, 2011) and also to give token remuneration for teachers who taught extra tutorials and also, to support ‘helper teachers’.
Essential property six: Innovative physical and human resourcing This research identified a series of physical resource challenges faced by all four participating schools. Among these were: inadequate infrastructure in respect of classrooms, school furniture, lavatories, library, ICT and science equipment and facilities, and a host of teaching and learning issues, such as text books. Human resource challenges faced by all four schools also emerged from the data and these included: the use of untrained and unsalaried helper teachers, teaching overload, teacher unprofessionalism and teacher apathy and non-commitment. The data also showed examples of resilience, perseverance and ingenuity of some effective principals in harnessing inadequate physical and human resources to create a learning environment that fostered effective learning and higher achievement. In the absence of qualified trained teachers to teach specific subjects, the principal of Aarie recruited, on a voluntary basis, expert tutors and expert teachers from the locality to teach during extra tutorials. Both Arrack and Barrack devised strategies that helped compensate for the inadequacies in physical and human resourcing (Norviewu-Mortty, 2012). These principals initiated an active partnership with parents and community in order to recruit additional funding to support teachers’ welfare and to purchase teaching and learning materials. Their collaboration with local education officers and politicians also helped in finding further assistance in physical resourcing of their schools. The inability of the two less-effective principals of Caarie and Daarie to initiate strategies to resolve even to a minimal degree, their physical and human resource inadequacies had adverse
74 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
effect on their individual efforts towards improving teaching and learning. For example, Darrack failed to resolve the problem of inadequate school furniture and congestion in the classrooms because he was unable to rally the parents to collectively appreciate these issues and seek common solutions. Darrack and parents remained divided on issues related to infrastructural resourcing to improve standards. Carrack, on the one hand, succeeded in collaborating with education officers to bring electricity to Caarie, a major boost to learning, as students were able to return to school in the evening and study. However, she was unable to improve and sustain her relationship with parents and the PTA for further recruitment of physical resources to facilitate and improve teaching and learning. Further, in the face of acute human resourcing challenges in Daarie, namely lack of trained teachers and the unprofessionalism of untrained, non-salaried helper teachers (Norviewu-Mortty, 2012), Darrack failed to initiate concrete steps towards resolving these issues. Good human resource management positively influences good physical resource management. Torrington, Hall and Taylor (2005) emphasised that all successful leaders are effective human resource managers who meet the classical four organisational objectives of adequate staffing, performance, change management and administration. Arrack and Barrack developed strategies that enhanced supervision of teachers’ work and students’ learning. They also demonstrated improved management of the necessary changes that they had initiated in order to mitigate teaching and learning inadequacies. Torrington, Hall and Taylor (2005) also stated that successful human resource management is that which enables the staff and the authorities to agree on the nature and objectives of their working relationship and ensures the fulfilment of that agreement. By crafting and promoting a common vision and mission for their respective schools, both Barrack and Arrack rallied their teachers, students and parents through the Parent Teacher Association, in identifying firstly, the issues militating against effective teaching and learning, and secondly, in collectively agreeing on and implementing specific strategies towards improving the status quo. In Baarie, teachers not only acknowledged the unprofessional conduct of some of their colleagues but some accepted the challenge and changed. These effective heads of disadvantaged schools had demonstrated, to some extent, good human resource management that enhanced their efforts to create an adequate learning environment that boosted learning and academic achievement.
Essential property seven: Emerging and developing positive values This study has observed that the personal positive conduct of the effective principal, his or her sense of duty, dialogue, collegiality and team spirit coupled with the orderly school atmosphere positively influenced the attitudes and behaviour of teachers and students. Students in Aarie and Baarie gradually developed positive attitudes such as punctuality and orderliness, and exhibited commitment, perseverance and pride in sustaining their school’s academic improvement. The cordial relationship that existed between staff and students and the efforts of students to imitate the positive dispositions of their principal and teachers were responsible for the emerging values. Less positive attitudes such as student lateness, absenteeism and failure to do class assignments were discouraged through dialogue, dissuasion, persuasion and regular supervision. For example, in Aarie and Baarie, students were self-reliant and took their own responsibility to improve learning. They organised group studies in their homes where some of their colleagues would help reteach or explain concepts not well understood during the normal lessons at school.
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 75
In the high-achieving disadvantaged schools, and due to the collaboration among teachers and students, some students responded positively to their school’s policy on the promotion of healthy environment and personal physical fitness. They improved their personal hygiene and healthy lifestyle, and as a result, the rate of absenteeism and lateness due to poor health reduced considerably. Although the principals of the less-effective disadvantaged schools demonstrated a number of positive attributes and values, these did not influence much or alter positively the behaviour and conduct of their teachers and students. For example, students of Daarie admired the punctuality of Darrack, yet many of those students kept coming to school late. It is through working together as a team with similar interests and collective objectives that the positive attitudes and values of an individual may influence the conduct of other members to the point of altering behaviour (Sergiovanni, 2001). Consultation, team spirit and concerted efforts were rare in the less effective disadvantaged schools and, as a result, the attitudes of students and teachers remained unchanged, possibly hampering the development of values such as punctuality and commitment. For example, some students and teachers of Caarie and Daarie continued to be absent from school and came to school late. The failure to change attitudes rendered any concerted effort to redress low academic standards less effective. The principals of Aarie and Baarie led their respective schools by example which affirmed Sergiovanni’s (2001) conclusion that when values and positive attitudes have become established in a school, they easily become powerful socialisers of thought and programmers of certain behaviour. These seven essential properties of effective leadership that characterised the leadership of the high-achieving disadvantaged, rural junior high schools in the Saboba locality were not sufficiently present in the less-achieving rural schools. The presence and strength of the essential properties are represented in Norviewu-Mortty (2012, pp. 186-187) likening the high, average or low level of effectiveness of each of the four schools to the green, amber and red of traffic lights with green representing high effectiveness. Thus, the overall effectiveness of a school can be illustrated by the number of green, amber and red lights. The level of school effectiveness that fostered an improved learning environment and better academic results depended on how many of the essential properties were present in a particular school. The presence of one or two or more elements of effectiveness in a school was no guarantee of its effectiveness but rather, the cluster and the interconnectedness of all the seven essential properties. Thus, each of these essential properties was necessary, but not a sufficient condition for enhancing higher academic standards. The following model helps elucidate the relationships between the seven essential properties and answers the research question: How do principals of disadvantaged rural schools in the Saboba District of Ghana create an environment that fosters high standards of students’ academic performance?
Effective Disadvantaged School Leadership Model
The findings of the research have been represented in a leadership model (Figure 1) which seeks to represent the essential properties of effective school leadership in disadvantaged rural schools in Ghana. Present in the model are the essential properties deemed to be responsible for the
76 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
difference between low and higher achieving rural schools in the research sample. This model represents how the interconnectedness and interrelationship of the seven essential properties of effective leadership accounted for the transformation from low to high academic achievement that took place in the effective disadvantaged rural schools of Saboba. The model consists of six different spheres of near equal size interconnected with one another. The designation of near equal size of the spheres is to show that although each of the essential properties was of similar importance, the level of significance of some essential properties might be slightly higher than that of others, depending on the context and setting of the school. The six spheres represent the first six essential properties which in combination led to the emergence of positive values. These values in turn created an effective learning environment and improved academic standards that produced better results at the Basic Education Certificate Examinations.
FIGURE 1: A MODEL OF INTERCONNECTED ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EFFECTIVE DISADVANTAGED RURAL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
2. 3. 4 5. Thriving Shared school Successful Dynamic school collegial vision instructional and and community leadership managerial partnerships for leadership recruiting 6. 1. resources Innovative Principal’s physical and positive human personal resourcing attributes
7. Emerging positive values
Effective learning environment, and improvement of academic standards
Improved BECE results
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 77
This model thus, illustrates how all of the essential properties worked together to produce the positive result of higher academic achievement of students of disadvantaged rural schools in the Saboba locality. No individual essential property that emerged from the study is sufficient by itself to transform low academic standards of a disadvantaged rural school to improved student learning and achievement. It is the interaction of the first six essential properties of effectiveness that resulted in the emergence and acquisition of positive values in the effective schools. These in turn created an encouraging teaching and learning environment which fostered higher academic standards, and improved student performance, evidenced by better BECE results. This research not only affirmed that many of the principles of effective school leadership in the literature of Western developed countries have some application to disadvantaged rural schools in Ghana but also highlighted the significance of the interconnectedness of the essential properties of effective leadership in enhancing disadvantaged rural students’ learning and achievement. The research demonstrates that the onus of positive transformation from a low-performing disadvantaged rural school to a high-performing disadvantaged rural school rested on the key strategic initiatives of effective principals. The four principals in the study led schools where students all came from disadvantaged rural backgrounds, where resources were equally limited, where many teachers were untrained, and where community support varied (Norviewu-Mortty, 2012). Yet two of the four were able to create school conditions and learning environment where students were supported to succeed academically. This difference can be explained in part by the degree of presence of the essential properties of successful school leadership represented in the Figure 1 model of leadership. Use of the model in professional training of principals facing similar challenges in other Ghanaian schools and beyond may assist practicing principals in their efforts to improve learning and achievement for the students in disadvantaged, rural schools. While models represent a short-hand way of expressing key ideas, in many ways the model developed in this research provides a more complete program for emerging nations. Thus, these findings contribute to crafting future professional development programs for principals of disadvantaged rural schools in Ghana. Finally, the use of professional development programs, geared towards improving the skills of principals and teachers, including untrained teachers, remains a useful strategy in promoting teacher efficacy and student learning and achievement in disadvantaged, rural schools in Ghana.
References
AKYEAMPONG, K. (2007) 50 Years of Educational Progress and Challenge in Ghana, paper presented at the Educational Expansion and Access in Ghana: A review of fifty years of challenge and progress, Parliament Offices, Westminster, London (13 November). BEAULIEU, L.J., ISRAEL, G.D. & WIMBERLEY, R.C. (2003) Promoting educational achievement: A Partnership of families, schools, and communities, in D.L. BROWN & L.E. SWANSON (Eds), Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 273-289. BERG, B.L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 4th edn (Needam Heights MA: Allyn and Bacon). BERSON, Y., OREG, S. & DVIR, T. (2008) CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), pp. 615-633. BURNS, R.B. (2000) Introduction to Research Methods, 4th edn (Melbourne: Pearson Education).
78 Erasmus K. Norviewu-Mortty, Glenda Campbell-Evans & Mark Hackling
CARPENTER, M., GELETKANYCZ, M. & SANDERS, W. (2004) Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition, Journal of Management, 30(6), pp. 749-778. CRESWELL, J.W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five traditions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). CRESWELL, J.W. (2006) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). CRIQPEG. (1996) Centre for Research into Improving Quality Primary Education in Ghana: Phase 2 study report (Cape Coast, Ghana: University of Cape Coast). DAWSON, M. (2007) School Vision and Mission Statements: What do they mean to the work of teachers? Paper presented at the ACEL New Imagery for Schools and Schooling: Challenging, Creating, and Connecting Conference, Darling Harbour, Sydney, NSW (10-12 October). DAY, C. (1999) Developing Teachers (London, UK: Falmer Press). DENZIN, N.K. & LINCOLN, Y.S. (Eds). (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORK FOR WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA-GHANA. (2003) Quality of Basic Education in Ghana: Annotated bibliography on the quality of education (Accra, Ghana: ERNWACA-Ghana). FLICK, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th edn (New Delhi: Sage). GES: SABOBA. (2010) Saboba District Education Directorate Fourth (4th) Quarterly Report October to December 2009 (Saboba, Ghana: Ghana Education Service, Saboba). GES: SABOBA-CHEREPONI. (2005) School Mapping Report for Saboba-Chereponi District (Saboba, Ghana: Ghana Education Service, Saboba). GES: SABOBA-CHEREPONI. (2008) Annual District Performance Reporting: Saboba-Chereponi District (Saboba, Ghana: Ghana Education Service, Saboba). GES: SABOBA-DISTRICT. (2006) 2006 Saboba-Chereponi District Education Report (Saboba, Ghana: Ghana Education Service, Saboba). GHANA NEWS AGENCY. (2008, November 24) Five schools score zero percent in 2008 BECE, Daily Graphic (Ghana), p. 3. GLAZE, A., PERVIN, A. & MAIKA, B. (2007) Student achievement: A focus on leadership, Leadership in Focus, 6(Winter), pp. 23-25. GUBA, E.G. & LINCOLN, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage). HAMBRICK, D. & MASON, P. (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers, Academy of Management Review, 9(2), pp. 193-206. JULL, S., SWAFFIELD, S. & MACBEATH, J. (2014) Changing perceptions is one thing…: Barriers to transforming leadership and learning in Ghanaian basic schools, School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 34(1), pp. 69-84. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2013.849679 KADINGDI, S. (2004) Policy initiatives for change and innovation in basic education programmes in Ghana, Educate: The Journal of Doctoral Research in Education, 4(2), pp. 3-18. Retrieved June, 2008, from:
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana 79
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SCIENCE AND SPORTS. (2007a) History of Education (Ghana). Retrieved June, 2008, from:
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 80-92
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability
ADELE CRANE Macquarie University
Email: [email protected] JOHN DE NOBILE Macquarie University
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: In Australian secondary schools year coordinators (also known as year advisors) are considered part of middle leadership. They have played a significant role in schools for many years. However, there is a dearth of empirical research on the work of year coordinators with much of the research on middle leadership focused on subject coordinators and their equivalents. As a result, there is no up-to-date research on what they do and how effective they are in schools. This article presents research conducted in three independent girls’ schools. The aim of the investigation was to investigate the role of year coordinators from three schools as well as discuss how their roles might be monitored to ensure the work is aligned to school strategic goals and optimise service to students.
Introduction
Middle leaders in secondary schools are teachers and other staff members who occupy a ‘middle layer’ in the school organisational chart between senior leadership, such as the principal and deputy principal, and classroom teachers and general staff (Fleming, 2000; Gurr & Drysdale, 2013). They may include subject coordinators, heads of department, teacher leaders, curriculum coordinators and year coordinators (Bennett et al., 2003; Dinham, 2007; Fleming, 2000; Gurr & Drysdale, 2013; Turner & Sykes, 2007). The term ‘middle managers’ has been used to describe individuals who are in formal roles of responsibility and who collectively form the middle leadership level in schools (Hannay & Ross, 1999; Wise, 2001). In recognition of the increasingly important role they play in schools, recent literature has been referring to them as middle leaders (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013; Koh et al., 2011; Turner & Sykes, 2007). Therefore, for consistency in this article and in light of their evolving role, the term ‘middle leader’ will be used. The main purpose of middle leaders in secondary schools is to assist with the smooth running of the organisation (Brooks & Cavanagh, 2009; Fleming, 2000). Some of their specific responsibilities range from supervision of teachers and cohorts of students through to
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 81
implementation of programs and projects as well as organisation of events (Bennett et al., 2003; Fleming, 2000; Wise, 2001). They are, increasingly, motivators and organisers of people as well as professional developers and mentors (Dinham, 2007; Fleming, 2000; Wise & Bush, 1999). Middle leaders are, along with higher levels of leadership, critical to a school’s successful functioning (Bollington, 2004; Turner & Sykes, 2007). Middle leadership positions are active in leading people and working towards improving education outcomes (Bollington, 2004; Fleming, 2000). Much of what middle leaders do is grounded in collegiality because of the close contact they have with teachers and their mediations between them and senior leadership (Bennett et al., 2003; Busher & Harris, 1999). Middle leaders need to collaborate with staff in both directions, upwards to principals and other executive staff and downwards to staff and students (Bennett et al., 2003; Kerry, 2005). Middle leaders combine both leadership and management skills to meet the requirements of their jobs effectively. The role of year coordinator is common amongst secondary schools in Australia. The position is also frequently titled ‘year advisor’ with secondary schools using one title or the other to describe essentially the same position. The title ‘advisor’ suggests an emphasis on relationships with students, staff and other members of the school community while ‘coordinator’ suggests an emphasis on tasks done and the management of aspects of school organisation. They have also been referred to as pastoral coordinators or pastoral heads due to the primary focus of the role in certain schools, as well as grade level coordinators and stage coordinators. Whatever the title, the role descriptions are usually identical and any differences usually an artefact of school culture or priorities rather than the position itself. While year coordinators are often seen as ‘on par’ with subject coordinators or heads of department and similar positions in secondary schools (Fleming, 2000; Gurr & Drysdale, 2013), the lion’s share of the literature on middle leadership in secondary schools has been focused on subject coordinators (Adey, 2000; Bennett et al., 2003; Hannay & Ross, 1999; Kerry, 2005; Ribbins, 2007; Turner & Sykes, 2007). In an English study of secondary school middle leaders that focused entirely on heads of department, some participants ‘annotated their questionnaires to add that they were thinking of pastoral staff such as the form tutor or head of year’ (Wise & Bush, 1999, p. 189). In their study of Western Australian secondary schools Brooks and Cavanagh (2009) included the equivalents of year coordinators among other middle leaders, but most of the quotes and anecdotes concerned subject coordinators. Clearly, researchers cannot afford to ignore year coordinators. Yet they seem to have. Brooks and Cavanagh (2009) do shed helpful light on this issue, with more than one of the interviewees suggesting that subject coordinators were more valued than other middle leaders in their schools. This is perhaps due to the possibility that their role may take on a higher profile due to curriculum development and change responsibilities and the frequent association between the work of subject coordinators and student achievement (Dinham, 2007; Glover et al., 1999; Ribbins, 2007). The limited literature that does exist on year coordinators suggests that they do play an important role in schools. Busher and Harris (1999) described ‘pastoral heads of department’ as persons to whom teachers may be responsible for certain aspects of their work (p. 307). In his seminal book on middle management in secondary schools, Fleming (2000) described year coordinators (‘year heads’) as middle level leaders who had good knowledge of the academic achievements and the potentials of all students in the relevant cohort. A teacher or head of
82 Adele Crane & John De Nobile
department could refer to the year head for information on the academic progress or behaviour patterns of particular students or groups of students. They were often the first line of communication for parents who have concerns about their children’s progress or treatment at school. In his comprehensive appraisal of leadership preparation and succession in Australia and New Zealand, Macpherson (2009) described year level coordinators as part of the middle management echelon equivalent in status to heads of department, and as team leaders who include pastoral duties among their responsibilities. Lodge’s (2006) findings in the context of English schools confirmed these roles, adding some dimensionality to them. Year coordinators (referred to as ‘head of year’) in the participating schools had two main functions: to look after the welfare of students and to ensure they are progressing academically. The welfare function has been a major thrust of the role, with little change over the last two decades. The job involved being knowledgeable of students in a cohort and coordinating any assistance they might need from within the school as well as outside agencies. Increasingly, and perhaps due to the welfare role, these heads of year have been required to deal with behaviour management and discipline issues as well. As a result of what they viewed as a misrepresentation of their role, a rather cynical description of the role of heads of year was used by staff, manifested by the turn of phrase, ‘wiping noses and kicking butts’ (Lodge, 2006, p. 5). The role of year coordinators with regard to student achievement steadily sharpened in focus at these schools. A bigger emphasis on improving student performance was noted by the heads of year in each school. They have become more involved in monitoring students’ test results, leading year teams in designing interventions, and preparing students for tests and other major assessments than ever before (Lodge, 2006). They are also more active in assisting students with specific learning skills. As year coordinators have a strong sense of the ‘whole child’ they are often the people interacting with parents and the wider community. In identifying the key roles, Lodge refers to their role as major communication conduits between home and school. They are the ones often organising meetings of parents, both as whole groups to provide information as well as in smaller group arrangements to discuss student behaviour issues such as follow-up on behavioural interventions (Lodge, 1999, 2006). They also have been reported to collaborate with parents to solve behavioural problems such as truancy or wellbeing issues and informing parents on progress (de Jong & Kerr-Roubicek, 2007). Brooks and Cavanagh (2009) echoed previous literature when they reported that these middle-leaders were often the first point of contact when parents had concerns or queries about their children. This interaction, especially with parents, has traditionally been associated with the pastoral care and welfare dimension of the role and it is apparent that year coordinators are, by nature of the job, expected to be effective networkers and proactive pastoral care agents for students in their cohort. In Australian schools, pastoral care is an expected component of education. It has been part of the service provided by schools for a long time, and is valued by parents (de Jong & Kerr- Roubicek, 2007; McCuaig, 2012). Pastoral care is an umbrella term that groups together a variety of systems, staff and work done within a school (Calvert, 2009). Pastoral care is complex and multi-dimensional (de Jong & Kerr-Roubicek, 2007; Hearn et al., 2006). Most secondary schools
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 83
have staff members that are appointed in specialist pastoral positions. Year coordinators are an example of middle leaders who are key influencers within the pastoral care system of schools. Given their importance to student welfare and the core business of schooling, it is interesting to note that the literature on the role of year coordinators is very limited, often with a focus on the overall provision of pastoral care. Consequently, no study could be found that looked into how these roles in particular might be monitored. We assert that while having role descriptions might be helpful in clarifying work, monitoring or supervision will serve the function of keeping individuals in those positions accountable for their work and perhaps ensure their effectiveness in schools and that year coordinators are not overloaded with work and responsibilities (Ovando & Ramirez, 2007). The study reported here was an attempt to advance that knowledge by exploring year coordinators in one context: independent girls’ schools. This context was chosen because the distinct and homogenous nature of the culture of these types of schools (Jackson & Bisset, 2005; Trickett et al., 1982) and their ability to focus on the particular needs of a cohort (Jackson & Bisset, 2005), would offer an uncomplicated focus for analysis of the role of year coordinators. The key question guiding the study was: What role do year coordinators play in secondary schools and how are they monitored?
Method
This study examined the roles of year coordinators in three independent girls’ schools with the aim of establishing their purpose and roles and to examine the accountability procedures they might undergo. The nature of the current study was exploratory, using a small sample of participants, the data from whom could form the basis of a larger, questionnaire and interview based subsequent study. Interviews can be effective tools for investigating complex concepts, such as organisational roles as emerging ideas can be explored and aspects of the role better explained (Merriam, 2009). In order to answer the research question, in-person interviews with year coordinators were conducted using an interview guide approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2008) to collect qualitative data. Relevant school documents and policies were also obtained where possible for closer examination and triangulation of data (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). Ten Sydney metropolitan independent girls’ schools were randomly selected from a possible list of 28 available from the Association of Independent Schools New South Wales (AISNSW) website. Three schools agreed to participate. Two were located in the metropolitan northwest region and one was located in the metropolitan north region as defined by the AISNSW. A year coordinator with a minimum of one year experience in the role from each school agreed to participate in an interview. Interviews were conducted between August and November 2011. Participants were asked to describe their role in terms of the line of authority (Where would you place your position on an organisational chart? Who do you directly report to?), and the typical responsibilities they have (What are your main roles as year coordinator?). They were also asked questions pertaining to the nature of the cohorts and staff they directly work with, and the frequency and nature of formal meetings and other communication avenues with staff and students. Interviews concluded with questions concerning their accountability to the school and the support given to them.
84 Adele Crane & John De Nobile
Results
The results are presented sequentially in order to build a logical description of the role of year coordinators. In order to protect the privacy of participants and schools (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000) pseudonyms have been used for each school and the participants are not named.
Background of each school All three schools were well established secondary girls’ colleges. Alexander College had an enrolment of approximately 800 students. Bellview College had an average enrolment of just over 700 students. Both of these schools have a history going back more than 100 years. The third school, Callam College, had an average annual enrolment of between 1240 and 1260 students. This school had been established for 80 years at the time of the study. While Bellview College and Callam College had year coordinators, Alexander College referred to this position of responsibility as ‘year advisor’. A summary of relevant demographics for these schools is presented in Table 1. For consistency, the term year coordinator will be used for all participants.
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF THE THREE SCHOOLS AT TIME OF STUDY
Alexander Bellview Callam Year Groups K - 12 K - 12 K - 12 Total Students 798 718 1250 Average Secondary 95 85 150 Year Group Size
K = Kindergarten, 12 = Grade 12
Each of the year coordinators participating in the study had more than a year of experience in the role. The year coordinator interviewed at Alexander College had been in the position for three years. She had extensive classroom teaching experience (over 30 years) and had taught at three demographically similar schools. She had been working at her current school for eight years. The year coordinator interviewed from Bellview College had been in the position for two years. He had 13 years’ teaching experience and was also a head of department responsible for two other staff members. He was in his eighth year at the college. A year coordinator from Callam College that had initially agreed to be interviewed became unavailable due to changed circumstances, so the Director of Curriculum, who had longstanding experience on school executive teams, including five years in the current role, and extensive familiarity with the year coordinators at the school, agreed to be interviewed.
Hierarchy and roles In an attempt to confirm the location of these year coordinators within the school leadership structure, each was asked to whom they are required to report in the senior leadership. At
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 85
Alexander College year coordinators are required to report to the Director of Pastoral Care. The year coordinator at Bellview College is supervised by the Deputy Principal-Pastoral Care. At Callam College the year coordinators report to relevant deans. Year coordinators of grades 7, 8 and 9 report to the Dean of Middle School, while the year coordinators of grades 10-12 report to the Dean of Upper School. Each year coordinator had oversight of a cohort of students from a particular grade, and led a group of up to eight teachers within that grade. All three interviewees identified the role of year coordinator or advisor as ‘middle leaders’. However, there were indications that the position of year coordinator was not seen in every school as equal in status to that of other middle leaders such as subject coordinators. The year coordinator at Alexander College recognised that year coordinators were ‘at the same level’ in the school’s hierarchy as heads of department ‘on paper’, but not in reality, noting, as an example, that in the staff photographs each year the heads of department sat in the front row with the senior executive staff while the year coordinators did not. The divide between the two types of coordinators was clear at Bellview College. The year coordinator there asserted that a higher status was given to heads of department, and that this preference was shown in various ways, such as professional development training weekends only being offered for heads of department. Callam College seemed to be addressing this issue, having conferences for all those in middle management positions at their school, inclusive of year coordinators and the interviewee did not indicate any difference in status between year and subject coordinators. Bellview and Callam Colleges both had formal policies regarding the position of year coordinator. These policies outlined the general responsibilities of the positions and the lines of reporting. They also had role descriptions available for all positions in a staff handbook. Both schools emphasised the pastoral care roles, as well as listing a range of overlapping duties under the headings of administration (such as attending meetings, coordinating programs, maintaining student records), event organisation (such as organising cohort social functions and guest speakers) and general duties (such as involvement in extra-curricular and other activities where required). Alexander College did not have an up-to-date published role description of their year coordinator. Year coordinators at Alexander College were encouraged to ‘do it the best way that you can and given 100% support and advice’ from the Director of Pastoral Care, the immediate supervisor of year coordinators. As there was no definite structure given for this role, the year coordinator at Alexander College felt that ‘freedom had been given’ to her to do the role the best way she could using the individual strengths she had. There were similarities as well as subtle differences in the roles year coordinators played in their respective schools. Many of the activities mentioned by the three year coordinators reflected similar role descriptions. The year coordinator from Alexander College described the main purpose of her role as keeping in mind the needs of the students throughout the day, a key component being communication. She felt that ‘half the role is sending emails’. When questioned about this she explained that the communication part of her role included that with students formally in groups as well as informally with individuals, and communication with staff and parents through discussion and emails. The main focus of these interactions was student wellbeing and discipline matters as well as, with staff, sharing ideas about good practice in regard to pedagogy and behaviour
86 Adele Crane & John De Nobile
management for individuals of particular concern. The latter activity could also be interpreted as a professional development role. The year coordinator from Bellview College described his main role as the pastoral care of students, including meeting with parents of students to discuss academic or behavioural issues. He also listed completion of administration duties, such as coordinating as many as eight pastoral care tutors and record keeping as an important part of the role. His duties also included some event organisation. This year coordinator thought that the individual strengths and beliefs of each individual in this role strongly influenced the way this position was undertaken. Year coordinators at Callam College were primarily dealing with particular pastoral needs of students, planning and coordinating of the pastoral care program that was suitable for the age group, communicating with members of the school community and dealing with behaviour issues. Unlike practice in the other two schools, the year coordinators at Callam College were expected to meet individually with each student in their given cohort. It was recognised that a large amount of time is needed to fulfil this requirement and that this was reflected in a significantly reduced teaching load. Similarly to their colleagues at Alexander College, the year coordinators at Callam College were involved in professional development of staff through encouragement, checking in, monitoring and sharing ideas in relation to teaching and catering to the various needs of students.
Interaction with other staff In all three schools investigated there was a focus on keeping middle leaders involved in curriculum and learning. They were also engaging with several other staff members in caring for students. The year coordinator at Alexander College described a culture where all staff members were involved in pastoral care throughout the day, not just within allocated times. There was a culture present in this school that each lesson and interaction with students had a pastoral care element as each student was regarded holistically. The year coordinator reported that she met with her year group at least every fortnight. The focus of these meetings typically included information sharing, teaching about life skills, recreation or even student performances. It was a time for the group to ‘gel’. Sometimes the meetings were run by the students themselves with her present. At Alexander College year coordinators met with teachers once each term to discuss any concerns about students, updates of progress with students receiving specific help, and information sharing. The year coordinator met with the Director of Pastoral Care every fortnight. The focus of these meetings was ‘most commonly students of concern, discussion of school activities, sharing of ideas relating to these and encouragement from the director’. She found the support and constant communication with the Director and school counsellor ‘empowering’, although noted that there was limited communication with other year coordinators. The year coordinator at Bellview College reported that he ran year cohort meetings every week. The primary focus of these meetings was administration, acknowledgement of achievements and sometimes education. He reported that ‘it is a chance to have a guest speaker such as the school counsellor to address pastoral care issues such as bullying, mental health and so on’. Occasionally whole grade discipline matters needed to be addressed. In a recent example the students ‘needed reminding about correct conduct when walking past shops and other businesses
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 87
on the way home from school’. Less occasionally, the meeting would have an educative purpose, such as an aspect of a life skill or safety. This year coordinator met with homeroom teachers and pastoral care tutors at the beginning of each term to discuss the terms and goals and identify and/or discuss the progress of students with issues. Bellview College had formal meetings once a term (about every 3 months as a timeframe) where ‘middle managers from both academic and pastoral roles discuss every student in the secondary school to ensure that all students are cared for as required’. Fortnightly meetings with the Deputy Principal-Pastoral Care and the year coordinator from an adjacent year group occurred to ‘discuss any urgent issues arising [since last meeting] and upcoming events’. Callam College had many formal meetings structured into the school program to allow for constant monitoring of the academic care of ‘student as a whole person’, along with the year coordinators regularly meeting with the students in their given cohort individually. The year coordinators at this school organised meetings of their year cohorts every fortnight. The primary focus of these meetings was administration, discipline and acknowledgement of student achievements. Additionally, and unlike the other two schools, year coordinators were required to meet with each student at least once every half year to check on their general welfare and progress and to keep in touch with the students generally. It was an opportunity for students to raise concerns or for a year coordinator to flag issues raised by other staff. The interviewee from Callam College reported that year coordinators conducted fortnightly recess-time meetings with teachers and one hour meetings at each staff development day. These cohort-based meetings were mainly about monitoring students, discussion of cohort-based programs as well as sharing and comparison of ideas. Year coordinators at Callam College met fortnightly with their respective deans to discuss any current issues. These meetings were also opportunities for year coordinators to receive mentoring or other assistance from their deans.
Resources for effective leadership The topic of resources emerged as a theme across all three interviews so it is included here. All three schools provided their year coordinators with an individual office so that they could meet with students, staff or parents privately. At Alexander and Callam Colleges these offices were located near the student locker areas so students have easy access to these key people. At Bellview College the year coordinator’s office was close to students for two of the six secondary year groups. Providence of such a facility by the school indicates some importance of this position as well as providing practical benefits. There is need for time to be allowed for staff to meet with students and have the opportunity of building relationships (de Jong & Kerr-Roubicek, 2007). Year coordinators at all three schools received a small allocation of time off face-to-face teaching to tend to their duties, but only the coordinators at Callam College received a significant time compensation specifically for meeting with students and this was due to the higher student advising load mentioned earlier. The year coordinator at Alexander College was encouraged to attend professional development courses on pastoral care. She was given no training for this role within the school, but was given ongoing support. This was the same at Bellview College. Year coordinators at Callam College had no training program either, but did receive a lot of mentoring from the dean
88 Adele Crane & John De Nobile
and sometimes the counsellor. Additionally, year coordinators at that school were included in leadership training for all middle management staff once a term.
Accountability measures Alexander College and Bellview College had no formal accountability system in place for year coordinators. The year coordinator at Alexander College asserted that the school does have a culture of continually reviewing pastoral care, but not of the year coordinators specifically. At Bellview College the Deputy Principal-Pastoral Care reviewed the pastoral care programs created by the year coordinators regularly as part of school review and strategic planning processes, but not the performance of year coordinators themselves. Callam College had a formalised procedure where the year coordinator was required to work through a guided self-reflection task, which includes generic type questions on identifying challenges they faced in the role, things that they were able to achieve and were pleased with as well as changes they would like to make in the future. These responses then formed the basis of a formal review discussion with the relevant dean, who was then able to report on progress to the principal.
Discussion
The status of year coordinators relative to other leadership positions was found to be similar to how the middle leadership layer has been conceptualised by Fleming (2000) and others (Bennett et al., 2003; Gurr & Drysdale, 2013) in that they are perceived as middle leaders and do the kinds of jobs that middle leaders would be expected to do, such as lead teams and be responsible for aspects of school organisation. However, it seems that not all middle leaders enjoy the same level of recognition and support. There is literature to suggest that those with key positions in providing pastoral care, like year coordinators, are often undervalued and not well resourced (Calvert & Henderson, 1995). This emerged as an issue for the three year coordinators studied here. The level of resources allocated within a school to pastoral care will be influenced by the importance seen of this area (Best, 1999a). Resources important for year coordinators include facilities, time and training (de Jong & Kerr-Roubicek, 2007). There is often a great divide between academic learning and pastoral care (Calvert & Henderson, 1995), but ideally the two should be integrated as they are closely interconnected (Hearn et al., 2006). We found, however, that while year coordinators were given some resources of time and space to conduct their work, they did not appear to have the same value or status as subject coordinators. This may hold implications for their role in wider school strategic planning and development, and especially how well their expertise and knowledge is being utilised by schools for their betterment. Calvert and Henderson (1995) found that the role of year coordinator can vary greatly between schools. However, there was a high degree of similarity between the three year coordinators interviewed. All three schools had expectations of their year coordinators to be responsible for the pastoral care of the students in their year group and there was also a strong focus on communication with other staff and parents. Effective middle leaders are required to
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 89
collaborate and communicate with staff at all levels (Kerry, 2005) and this expectation was certainly true for the year coordinators reported on here. All three schools used the more common horizontal structure of organisation in which students were grouped according to their academic year. Best (1999a) found that 72.9% of 167 teachers surveyed were from schools that implemented a traditional horizontal pastoral structure. This aids in the grouping of students with comparable development issues (Treston, 1997). Meetings with students were commonplace, particularly with the whole year-cohort, and the purpose of these was predominantly administrative information sharing, educational or discipline related. The amount of one-to-one contact with students varied between schools, which, again, could reflect how pastoral care is conceptualised by the school (Calvert & Henderson, 1995; Collins, 1999). Like Lodge (2006) had found, the year coordinators studied here needed to know their students well, but there did not seem to be as heavy a focus on improving student results other than ensuring needs were met and necessary support provided. It is worth noting that year coordinators were meant to monitor student progress and highlight students who were considered to be underperforming across all subjects. None of the year coordinators interviewed mentioned any significant role in regards to tests or assessments. This might be because that is the domain of subject or department heads as Dinham (2007) had found in a study also conducted in New South Wales secondary schools. However, from their recent study of Australian middle leaders Gurr and Drysdale (2013) asserted that middle leadership did not always live up to potential in relation to student improvement. They suggested that more support and guidance from senior leadership and professional development in the area of leadership could improve their impact on student achievement. This brings us to the issue of accountability. Within the wider educational community there is a growing trend towards accountability and continuous improvement and this is inclusive of the role of year coordinators (Kamener, 2012; Lodge, 2006; Marshall, Cole & Zbar, 2012). For improvement to occur and attainment of goals to happen, regular evaluation is needed (Marshall, Cole & Zbar, 2012). However, only one of the schools, Callam College, had anything that looked like a systemic evaluation process. A healthy pastoral care system is open to continual review (Collins, 1999). Review of their work can help year coordinators to recognise the boundaries of their role and ensure they are utilising all the support structure and resources available to them in the most effective manner. It can help them to identify areas in which they would benefit training in (Kamener, 2012; Marshall, Cole & Zbar, 2012). It would also allow them to reflect on their achievements and ensure they are meeting the needs of the role and the care of students and staff under their leadership. All three schools, but especially Alexander College and Bellview College, would benefit from establishing an accountability system with their next level supervisors, to which they already have a reporting relationship. There has been some best practice pastoral care standards developed within Australia and also internationally (Hearn et al., 2006). Potentially these could be the basis or reference point of best practice standards to be achieved by year coordinators in the pastoral domain of their roles. Defining outcomes to be met, measuring progress and taking into account the diversity of the role all present challenges. Each school and year coordinator is different but standards or benchmarks
90 Adele Crane & John De Nobile
could be developed and used for ongoing evaluation and to identify the needs of each of the stakeholder groups (Hearn et al., 2006; O’Grady, 2010). Hearn et al. (2006) found that a perceived weakness of pastoral care roles included the thought of their ‘fundamental complexity and the burden of overload in meeting these obligations’ (p. ii) along with the lack of professional education for staff. There can be a problem that year coordinators can be given unrealistic responsibilities; this could be due to an overload of administration tasks (Lodge, 1999). Clear role descriptions and support from a school’s structure can help to prevent this. Schools should ensure that the expertise of such teachers is used most effectively working within the school community and if administration assistance is needed, such support should be given. If policy is implemented, there also needs to be regular review and updates as for any other school policy (Hearn et al., 2006). Structured roles and expectations should assist a year coordinator to both know their limitations in skills and ensure that unrealistic expectations are not placed on them by other members of the school community. For example, it should be clear that a year coordinator is not a counsellor (Martin, 1994). McKenzie, Mulford and Anderson (2007) propose that leaders need to be clear in expectations of their role to avoid an overload of duties and to ensure they retain their primary focus. Although this statement was made in regards to principals and leaders at higher levels, it also applies to middle leaders. Each school displayed some elements of distributed leadership (Harris, 2008). Year coordinators have a holistic knowledge of students and they can be the ones that coordinate the team response when needed (Best, 1999b). The year coordinator position relies on people. Therefore, a year coordinator needs to carefully lead their team of teachers plus be open and utilise the support from all levels within the school structure. The year coordinators interviewed each led a team of seven or eight teachers. There are many people involved with the care of students. The collective approach of a group of staff as directed by the school’s policy and culture to utilise the skills and expertise of a wide range of people are key elements of distributed leadership (Harris, 2008).
Conclusion
There are similarities in the role of year coordinators between the three schools investigated. The role tends to be more one of management of a small team of staff, communication between different levels of the school structure and leadership of students. Schools can support this role by ensuring that they create and implement policy and structure inclusive of a role description to aid year coordinators in establishing boundaries, ensuring a collaborative approach and utilising distributed leadership. Schools can also support year coordinators by providing time, resources and training, something that was seen in all schools investigated to some degree. Accountability systems can support staff in the role of year coordinator in helping them highlight achievements and identify where more support or training is required. Year coordinators are important middle leaders in the functioning of a school and, hence, need to be supported, trained and valued.
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability 91
References
ADEY, K. (2000) Professional development priorities: The views of middle managers in secondary schools, Educational Management & Administration, 28(4), pp. 419-431. BENNETT, N., NEWTON, W., WISE, C., WOODS, P.A. & ECONOMOU, A. (2003) The Role and Purpose of Middle Leaders in Schools: Full Report. National College for School Leadership. Retrieved 21 May, 2014, from:
92 Adele Crane & John De Nobile
KOH, H.H., GURR, D., DRYSDALE, L. & ANG, L.L. (2011) How school leaders perceive the leadership role of middle leaders in Singapore primary schools, Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4), pp. 609-620. LODGE, C. (1999) From head of year to year curriculum coordinator and back again? Pastoral Care in Education, 17(4), pp. 11-16. LODGE, C. (2006) Beyond the head of year, Pastoral Care in Education, 24(1), pp. 4-9. MACPHERSON, R. (2009) The professionalisation of educational leadership: Implications of recent international policy research in leadership development for Australasian education systems, Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 24(1), pp. 53-117. MARSHALL, G., COLE, P. & ZBAR, V. (2012) Teacher Performance and Development in Australia (Canberra: AITSL). MARTIN, D.C. (1994) The organization of pastoral care in independent secondary schools in Australia, in P. LANG, R. BEST & A. LICHTENBERG (Eds), Caring for Children: International perspectives on pastoral care and PSE (London: Cassell), pp. 141-158. MCCUAIG, L.A. (2012) Dangerous carers: Pastoral power and the caring teacher of contemporary Australian schooling, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(8), pp. 862-877. MCKENZIE, P. MULFORD, B. & ANDERSON, M. (2007) School leadership and learning: An Australian overview, 2007 - The Leadership Challenge - Improving learning in schools, conference proceedings. Retrieved 14 October, 2011, from:
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 93-105
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications
SCOTT EACOTT Faculty of Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: Research is pivotal to the advancement of knowledge. Contemporary policy conditions have seen a significant shift in research policy stressing the importance of productivity in the form of outputs (e.g. publications), research income and research training. Most notably in this changing context is the necessity for academics to publish more and generate higher levels of research income. This article builds from an earlier published piece (Eacott, 2009) that looked at the production of peer-reviewed papers in a sample of internationally recognised educational leadership, management and administration journals over an extended period – 1977-2007. In this article, the analysis took place over the past five years (2008-2012) to investigate whether there have been any changes in the production of research papers in the sample journals. While raw numbers of outputs and contributors have plateaued, the spread across Australian universities has also flattened. On the basis of the data presented, Australian based researchers are producing a sizeable amount of published research on educational leadership, management and administration. In this unique time and space, the challenge now remains to effectively integrate research, policy and practice for the benefit of Australian schools, and most importantly, students.
Introduction
There is little doubt that the Australian and international research environments are changing. For education as a discipline, the performative regime of the contemporary international research context is the greatest challenge since the amalgamation of colleges of advanced education with universities. That is, the nuances of the rating (a.k.a. ranking) systems such as the Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) has the potential to provide evidence – the seductive language of managerialism – that questions the legitimacy of disciplines, and especially those which sit outside the natural sciences (e.g. education). For education research, this is a particular issue. In ERA2012, the second round of this rating regime, education as a field of research (one of 22 in total) featured as one of the weakest areas accounting for four and a half percent of the national research productivity (outputs such as peer-reviewed books, book chapters, journal articles, and
94 Scott Eacott
conference papers) and only receiving two percent of national competitive research income.1 In ERA2010, education was responsible for five percent of productivity and one percent of research income. Most significantly, in both ERA2010 and ERA2012, on a five point scale, education research was rated ‘below world standard’. In a context where brand management has never been more important for universities in a global market place, combined with fiscal contraction in the form of ‘efficiency dividends’ and also the potential re-distribution of university funds to pay for Gonski reforms, the state of education research is at a significant junction. This is particularly so when politically we have the US example of No Child Left Behind (2002) calling for schools to only adopt research proven programs, and the English example of Michael Gove (the rather infamous Education Minister) pushing an implicit agenda of policy-driven evidence (as opposed to evidence-driven, or even research-informed policy). The weak profile of education in the academy is nothing new and is experienced by education academics on a daily basis through numerous apparatus including research funding regimes, journal rankings (even if they are now defunct in the ERA), promotion systems (particularly at the higher levels of Associate Professor and Professor), research fellowships, post-docs, and so on (Eacott, 2013a). As a speciality, educational leadership, management and administration research has a relatively weak quality profile – over an extended period of time – within the weak profile of education research (see: Eacott, 2010; Gorard, 2005; Griffiths, 1959; Immegart, 1975). However, geographically, as an intellectual home, Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) has a rich tradition of contributing to educational leadership, management and administration scholarship, particularly from a socially critical perspective (Bates, 2010; Gunter, 2010). Significantly, Australian based discourses are not homogenous. For example, while Brian Caldwell was writing and advocating for self-managing schools (see: Caldwell & Spinks, 1988, 1992, 1998, 2013), John Smyth and colleagues were critiquing them (see: Smyth, 1989, 1993, 2011). This diversity of opinion reflects the vibrancy of an intellectual field and reflects the complexity and contested nature of educating and school leadership. On an international scale, Australian based scholars have been key players in the International Successful School Principalship Project (see: Drysdale & Gurr, 2011; Gurr & Drysdale, 2007, 2008; Gurr, Drysdale & Goode, 2010; Gurr, Drysdale & Mulford, 2005, 2006) and the International Study of the Preparation of Principals (see: Clarke & Wildy, 2010; Clarke, Wildy & Pepper, 2007; Clarke, Wildy & Styles, 2011; Wildy & Clarke, 2008, 2009; Wildy, Clarke & Slater, 2007; Wildy et al., 2010). Theoretically, Richard Bates’ (1983) Critical Theory of Educational Administration and Colin Evers and Gabriele Lakomski’s (see: 1991, 1996, 2000) Natural Coherentism have made significant intellectual contributions. At a national level we have also had the An Exceptional Schooling Outcomes Project (AESOP) led by Steve Dinham and colleagues (see: Dinham, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010). These are just a small sample of the work being undertaken by Australian based scholars in educational leadership, management and administration leading to a critical mass of publications. As a scholarly community however, the
1 In relation to research productivity, this reflects some 375 books, 3,715 book chapters, 9,282 journal articles and 5,252 conference papers over the period 2005-2010 with an upward trend. In relation to research income, this result is made up of: 0.9% of Category 1 (National Competitive Grants); 3.6% Category 2 (Other Competitive Public Sector Funding); 2.6 Category 3 (Both Australian and International Industry Funding); and 0.6% Category 4 (Co-operative Research Centre Funding). Overall, this means that education research received $182,068,131 over 2008-2010.
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 95
Australian educational leadership, management and administration academy is in a period of transition. As I have argued elsewhere: . . . there is a significant changing of the guard underway within the Australian academy. While it has been some time since the passing of the pioneering scholar Bill Walker, a number of professors in the area have, or are about to, retire. Richard Bates, and many of the University of New England alumni, Patrick Duignan, Bill Mulford, Ross Thomas and David Gamage, just to name a few, and the Journal of Educational Administration, one of the longest serving and most popular international journals in the area, has moved off- shore (Hong Kong). It has become increasingly difficult to fill vacancies in the area (as it is in schools), and a number of universities have turned to sessional (very good) staff to teach courses. In this context, both Gronn (2008) and Smyth (2008), building from Bates and Eacott (2008), lament the marginalisation of a once-fertile scholarly arena in favour of a fanatical concern with ‘operational and technical matters’ (Thomson, 2001) and the matching rapidity of Australian scholars exiting the field to more interesting and intellectually rewarding areas of research and scholarship. (Eacott, 2013b, pp. 118-119) This article is a revisiting of my controversial 2009 article on the publication outputs of Australian based educational leadership research. This article is however less ambitious in scope and more guarded in its assertions (arguably something that comes with advanced age). My goal here is to survey the production of journal articles by Australian based researchers (those identifying with an Australian institution) in a purposively selected set of educational leadership journals during the five years since the previous article (2008-2012). Specifically, my interest is as to whether there have been any observable changes in the pattern of productivity in the context of increasing regimes of rating and ranking academic units, and by virtue academics, on the basis of productivity. Description of the Study
The data generation for this article was undertaken by a systematic search of the Table of Contents of every issue of 12 identified journals over the period 2008-2012 (five years). I explicitly sought to identify papers that had at least one author identifying with an Australian institution. Table 1 lists the journals searched. Unlike the 2009 article, the list is not stratified based on any external journal ranking system, rather listed in alphabetical order. I have included the ERA journal rank despite these no longer applying.2 This is for two reasons: i) while they are now defunct, many institutions continue to use them in various internal institutional structures and for the most part, they were in play during the sample period; and ii) despite their flaws, I believe that these categories validate the choice of journals as reflective of leading international, and appropriate local, journals from which to base this article. As additional information, I have included the rating with the European Reference Index for the Humanities.3 The key reason for including this
2 In the now defunct ERA journal ranking system an ‘A*’ journal was considered in the top 5% of journals for the field, ‘A’ was the next 15% (and in the assessment, A* and A were grouped together), ‘B’ the next 30%, and ‘C’ the bottom 50%. 3 The ERIH employs three categories: NATional, which are European publications with scholarly significance but limited to a geographic region; INTernational, which is broken into two sub-categories – INT1 that are high visibility and influential international publications cited across the world, and INT2 that are international publications with significant visibility and influence in different countries. New journals (less than three years old), un-submitted journals (this was the responsibility of publishers) or journals which did not meet the criteria are not rated.
96 Scott Eacott
information is because it demonstrates the international scope of the journals as the ERIH rates journals on the basis of their foci and scope/reach. The three journals not listed in the ERIH include: the Australian Council for Educational Leaders journal (Leading & Managing), the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management journal (International Studies in Education Administration) which is in a transition period, and surprisingly the BELMAS journal (Educational Management, Administration and Leadership) which is one of the few journals in the field listed with the prestigious Index of Social Sciences published by Thomson Reuters (a number of other journals are pursuing this currently).
Some Caveats
To prevent some of the mis-readings or misappropriation of the 2009 article, I am going to explicitly outline what this article is, and more importantly, what it is not. Following the 2009 article, I received numerous emails from individuals asking inquisitively where they ranked, or more assertive (dare I say aggressive) emails alerting me to how I overlooked certain publications, or defamed individuals by their non-inclusion. This serves to highlight the sensitivity of any system which seeks to rank or rate individuals, but at the same time, is so central to the performative regime of the contemporary enterprise university. So to be clear, my goal is to illuminate some of the changes in the production of scholarly outputs (specifically peer-reviewed journal articles) by Australian based scholars during a period of substantive change in the national research sector. In locating the generated data in a particular time and space, I seek to offer some (speculative) reasons and potential implications of any changes. It is important to note that the sample journals are exactly that, a sample. They do not cover the entire scope of the educational leadership, management and administration intellectual space. That being said, they do represent a core group of internationally, and nationally relevant journals in the field. Journal articles are however just one means of disseminating knowledge. While they are privileged in the ERA assessment, and are arguably the currency of the academic, it is important to recognise that what is presented in this article is not the whole of any individual academic or institution’s work. Therefore, this article is not a ranking exercise. This may seem at odds with how the data are presented later, but the purpose is descriptive rather than ranking. Just as trends in different aspects of school performance experience ebbs and flows, so too do academic careers as one focuses on different theoretical and empirical problems over time, not to mention different stages of the project cycle. The key feature to stress is that this article is focused on a macro-level analysis of articles in the core set of educational leadership, management and administration journals. I seek to illuminate some of the changes during the past five years in the production of journal articles during a period of substantive change in the national research environment and discuss some reasons, and possible implications of such moves. Further work is being undertaken to analyse the theoretical and methodological nature of the work.
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 97
TABLE 1: LIST OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP JOURNALS SEARCHED
Journal ERA ERIH
Educational Administration Quarterly A* INT2 Educational Management, Administration and Leadership A - International Journal of Educational Management B INT1 International Journal of Leadership in Education B INT1 International Studies of Educational Administration - - Journal of Educational Administration C INT1 Journal of Educational Administration and History B INT2 Journal of Educational Change B INT1 Journal of Education Policy A* INT1 Leading & Managing C - School Effectiveness and School Improvement A INT1 School Leadership & Management A INT1
Results
To locate this discussion in the contemporary condition of education research in Australia, I am going to outline how the sector rates. In ERA there are 22 two-digit Fields of Research (FoR, see www.arc.gov.au/era/default.htm) divided into a further 179 four-digit FoRs, with further portioning down to the six-digit level. The particular FoR of interest in this article is the two-digit ‘13 Education’, in particular ‘1303 Specialist Studies in Education’ and although data are not presented at the six-digit level, specifically, the six-digit ‘130304 Educational Administration Management and Leadership’. Table 1 displays the performance of Australian institutions who submitted for assessment in 1303. Mindful that a rating of ‘3’ means being assessed ‘at world standard’, we see in ERA2010, 17 out of 36 institutions being rated at world standard or above, and in ERA2012, 21 out of 34 at or above world standard (Table 2). These data reflect a general improved performance by institutions – even if that simply means they got better at playing the system. Alarming though is that while the average is improving, the mean for the sector remains below ‘3’ – at world standard. This has particular implications for how education research (1303 is consistent, if not the best performing 13 FoR code) is perceived in the academy.
TABLE 2: PERFORMANCE OF 1303 IN ERA2010 AND ERA2012
1 2 3 4 5 Average
ERA2010 6 13 12 4 1 2.5 ERA2012 2 11 15 5 1 2.8
98 Scott Eacott
To maximise the research performance, universities are adopting a range of different strategies. For some, there is the redistribution of resources to build critical mass of researchers in key areas. In education this is somewhat problematic. While it is possible for various natural science faculties to develop highly specialised / niche research programs that directly inform teaching programs, almost all universities offer education – primarily in the form of initial teacher education. Although places like Deakin were able to build an internationally recognised program (both research and teaching) on critical social theory in the 1980-1990s (see Tinning & Sirna, 2011), contemporary regulatory arrangements (e.g. 4NSWIT and AITSL) are standardising education teaching programs with flow on effects for research – particularly when the contemporary enterprise university is more often seeking to meet the perceived needs of the profession in the name of attracting students and being relevant, rather than establishing and developing important research programs which can advance the profession. Other institutions are articulating multiple academic pathways, such as research-only and teaching-only (a savvy way of hiding academics with low, or no, research productivity in an ERA assessment period as teaching only staff are removed from the denominator), in addition to the traditional teaching and research (and administration) profile of academic work. At the end of the day however, despite the rise of public relations based rating systems (e.g. QS University World Rankings), the most prestigious ranking regimes, Times Higher Education and Shanghai, privilege research. Therefore, to rise in the rankings in the global higher education marketplace, institutions need research. Not only do institutions need research, but high quality research and lots of it. But has this impacted upon the production of Australian based research in educational leadership, management and administration published in international peer-reviewed journals? Table 3 combines the data generated for this article (2008-2012) with that of the 2009 article (1977-2007) to show two key measures: i) the volume of publications (weighted for authorship); and ii) the number of individual authors. Over the past five years, Australian based authors have generated 218 (weighted for authorship) articles in the 12 identified journals. These 218 articles were produced by 247 individual authors. That is, an average of 43.6 papers per year being produced by 49.4 individuals per year. Both of these values are consistent with the data from the 2000-2007 period of the 2009 article. They do however represent a significant increase, or growth in research outputs, from the 1990s and earlier.
TABLE 3: QUANTITY OF OUTPUTS
Time Period 1977-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2007 2008-2012
Total articles 36 229 313 358 218 Per Year Average 12.0 22.9 31.3 44.8 43.6 Total authors 42 203 310 386 247 Per Year Average 14 20.3 31.0 48.3 49.4
4 NSWIT – NSW Institute of Teachers; AITSL – Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 99
The international reach of this research is also captured in the spread of collaborators published with Australian based researchers. Co-authors were drawn from Canada (5), China (2), England (3), Finland (1), Hong Kong (1), New Zealand (1), Norway (1), Scotland (1), Singapore (2), Thailand (1), and the US (3). Conventional wisdom in research management is that work co- authored with European or American colleagues (and better still if at least one from each) is better cited, so such a spread of collaborators, even though for a small part of the sample (n=21, 9.63 per cent) is a promising sign, but one beyond the scope of this article to explore in greater depth. An inevitable question arises as to who is publishing in educational leadership, management and administration. Figure 1 visually displays the sample authors (unidentified) and the number of weighted publications during the sample period across the sampled journals. Across the sample, 187 authors are linked with a single (unweighted) publication. Many of which are co-authored. This leaves 61 authors linked to two or more papers. These 61 individuals (24.60 percent of the sample) are responsible for 110.14 weighted publications, or 50.52 percent of the sample. Upon further investigation, the 16 most published individuals in the sample produced 26.45 percent of the total output (see Table 4). That is, 6.45 percent of the identified authors produced just over a quarter of all outputs in the sample over the period of the study.
FIGURE 1: WEIGHTED PUBLICATIONS BY SAMPLE AUTHORS
Eight of the 16 most published researchers are linked with five or greater articles, reflecting an average of one or greater unweighted publications per year. When weighted, the average across the sample period for the top 16 ranges from 0.40 through to 2.10 per year, which is not too dissimilar to the 1977-2007 values. I am reluctant to make too much of these data, but I am going to make one observation here, and return to this issue in the discussion. There are a number of
100 Scott Eacott
authors identified in the top 20 in the 2009 article that also appear in the top 16 of this collection period: Bill Mulford; Neil Cranston; John McCormick; Helen Wildy; Lisa Ehrich; Jill Blackmore; Brian Caldwell; and John Smyth. This group represents half of the top 16. The consistency of this group, in addition to the emergence of a new group of voices, is a productive sign for the scholarship of educational leadership, management and administration in Australia, but this is a point to which I shall return.
TABLE 4: MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCHERS 2008-2012
Author Total Articles Weighted Publications
Eacott, S. 11 10.50 Mulford, B. 11 4.72 Cranston, N. 8 4.28 McCormick, J. 8 3.83 Wildy, H. 8 3.67 Niesche, R. 5 3.33 Ehrich, L.C. 8 3.24 Clarke, S. 7 3.17 Archard, N. 3 3.00 Blackmore, J. 3 3.00 Caldwell, B. 4 3.00 Smyth, J. 4 3.00 Bezzina, M. 4 2.83 Andrews, D. 4 2.08 Lakomski, G. 3 2.00 Starr, K. 2 2.00
While an analysis of individual contributions is of interest (at least to some), in the context of this article, an institutional level analysis may provide greater insight into any changes in practice and productivity. Table 5 displays the data using institutional affiliation. As with previous tables, this combines the 1977-2007 data with the latest data generated. I have only included institutions with affiliated data in the past five years. A number of things stand out. First, the number of non- university affiliated publications (the dominant category in the past three decades) has significantly reduced. Such a dramatic shift in such a short period of time, as the data from 1977- 2007 show a very different narrative, is potentially pointing to the impact that the shifting research policy environment has on researchers and research productivity. Second, unlike past time periods, the last five years has seen a flattening of research productivity in the area. The time of domination from New England, Melbourne and Monash appears to have been replaced with a more evenly distributed spread of research productivity.
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 101
TABLE 5: DISTRIBUTION BY INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION
Time Period Institution 1977-1979 1980s 1990s 2000-2007 2008-2012
ACU 0.87 1.31 3.06 4.18 Ballarat 1.31 0.87 2.62 2.76 Canberra 0.44 1.75 1.75 1.61 CSU 0.44 1.75 4.07 Curtin 1.75 6.55 0.87 1.46 Deakin 4.80 6.55 6.99 3.68 Edith Cowan 0.87 5.24 3.06 1.61 Griffith 0.87 1.31 7.86 6.36 La Trobe 1.75 0.87 3.93 2.38 Macquarie 0.44 0.44 7.90 Melbourne 7.42 11.35 10.48 7.03 Monash 5.56 10.04 11.35 14.41 2.30 New England 16.67 15.28 12.23 3.49 1.07 NSW 3.06 5.24 3.93 2.61 Newcastle 2.78 0.87 3.49 2.62 7.75 Non-affiliated 27.78 21.40 10.04 17.47 4.64 Queensland 11.11 4.80 4.80 7.86 2.74 QUT 2.78 0.87 7.42 10.04 5.79 South Australia 0.44 2.18 3.49 3.05 Southern Qld 2.18 2.34 Swinburne 0.87 1.31 0.87 1.15 Sydney 2.78 1.31 4.80 3.93 2.22 Tasmania 2.62 3.93 6.55 6.74 Western Aust 13.89 4.37 12.23 6.55 5.59 Western Syd 0.87 2.18 4.37 2.15 Wollongong 1.31 0.87 3.06 2.53
Discussion
In the 2009 article it was noted that the number of non-university affiliated papers was in decline, and this trend has continued at a rapid rate. This is understandable given the annual Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE). These data are used in
102 Scott Eacott
the distribution of the Australian Government’s research block grants, including the Research Training Scheme (RTS), Australian Postgraduate Awards (APA), International Postgraduate Research Scholarships (IPRS), Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG), Joint Research Engagement (JRE), and Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE). With increasing fiscal contraction in the sector, maximising the funding allocation to institutions to support a range of different schemes through research output is central to ongoing research viability. This is also played to through the increasing attention – particular in the natural sciences – to the PhD by publication and the assigning of university (rather than school/workplace) affiliation by candidates. The funding implications and the broader goals of improving rankings in global league tables are the contemporary conditions of the Australian academic. ERA is a separate but related issue (especially with the next round scheduled for 2015, with the end of 2013 as the deadline for the publication audit). With increasing calls for transparency and accountability in the allocation of public funds, research productivity and quality is a perpetual issue for universities. This operates at two (at least) levels: first, there is the distribution across institutions; and second, the distribution within institutions. In the former, despite claims of Australia having a relatively flat university system, when it comes to research the system is highly stratified. The dominant group (e.g. the Group of Eight – Adelaide, ANU, Melbourne, Monash, NSW, Queensland, Sydney, and Western Australia) has considerable sway, primarily on the basis of history and track record. This trajectory however is rarely, if ever, built on education, not to mention educational leadership, research. This speaks to the point of distribution within institutions. On average, education research in Australia was rated as below world standard. Even in the institutions where it was rated at or above world standard, rarely is education one of the identified research strengths. Therefore, it is an ongoing struggle for legitimacy in the academy for education researchers and a need to demonstrate an upward trajectory in research productivity. The data presented in this article are far from definitive. They were not generated from a comprehensive analysis of all publications by Australian educational leadership, management and administration scholars. After all, it would be impossible to conduct such an audit. In addition, such an exercise would be equally problematic for who it did include and who it did not. But the data generation is not random either; rather it is reflective of the ongoing efforts of Australian based researchers. What the data generated for this article show is that on average each year there is a wealth of educational leadership, management and administration research being conducted by Australian based scholars. While I accept that this article has not conducted an analysis of the ‘quality’ of this research, all of the papers identified in the sample were published in international peer-reviewed journals recognised by major agencies. This provides a built-in quality assurance measure – even if peer-review is not a flawless system. As noted previously, I will be pursuing a content analysis of this work elsewhere. This is to enable the ongoing research program to speak to Smyth’s (2008) observation that educational leadership, management and administration has been marginalised and suffered a rapid departure of scholars whose work is beyond the pursuit of technical and operational matters. At this point therefore, I can only comment on the quantity of research. The number of repeat names from the 2009 article is a positive sign that there is a core group of Australian based researchers producing a significant amount of peer-reviewed papers. In addition, the emergence of newer voices in the
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 103
mix is a positive sign for the area. With the demographic shift in the profile of Australian based scholars, it is important that those current performers continue and we see the emergence of the next generation of key scholars. Both of which I believe is evidenced in these data. Furthermore, we are seeing a far greater spread of research from different institutions. Unlike different times in the past, there is no clear cut institution that dominates the production of research in the area. There are clearly pockets, especially with groupings such as Leadership Research International (University of Southern Queensland), the Centre for Creative and Authentic Leadership (ACU), and the Australian Educational Leadership Centre (Wollongong), just to name a few. To look closer at the three highest producers in the sample (Macquarie, Newcastle, and Melbourne), all had many contributors to their result. Macquarie’s performance of 17.16 weighted publications was constituted through the work of a critical mass of 20 individuals, led by Nicole Archard with 3.00. Newcastle’s 16.83 publications drew on 12 different researchers (although 60% of that came from one person). Melbourne’s 15.27 publications came from 16 different researchers, ranging from 0.33 through to 2.00 publications. Research has many different audiences and arguably academic papers are written for any audience of fellow academics and university students – in the case of educational leadership, management and administration, post graduate coursework students and higher degree researchers. Therefore, it is difficult to equate the production of research with impact – even potential – in practice. However, if education is to flourish as a profession, then the construction of research informed policy and practice is an imperative. This goes beyond the linearity of either research driving policy / practice or policy / practice driving research. The relationship is one of reciprocity with research informing policy and practice as much as it does in reverse. As a result, unlike the natural sciences where constructs are frequently universal, education policy and by virtue leadership, management and administration is parochial. This is an important observation. During a time when researchers are increasingly encouraged to publish in leading international journals, at the same time as there are increasing calls to demonstrate impact, we are arguably at a key junction for the relationship between Australian based researchers and school systems, individual schools and staff. While there remains an ongoing fascination with shiny things from afar (e.g. the obsession with Finland; calls to replicate South East Asian models; or the North American keynote), on the basis of the data presented in this article, I argue that it is time to re-engage with the breadth of Australian based research.
Conclusion
This article revisits early work on the contribution of Australian based scholars in a sample of international peer-reviewed journals in educational leadership, management and administration. The data presented have confirmed the previous work that since 2000 we have seen an increase in the quantity of articles and individual contributors to the discourses. In itself this is not surprising given the shifting research policy conditions, and arguably a trajectory that will continue as education research, and specifically educational leadership research, aims to establish and sustain itself – at scale – at or above world standard. It is in this particular time and space that I argue we have a unique opportunity to bring schools, school system, professional associations and the Australian educational leadership academy into greater conversation with one another. As a
104 Scott Eacott
nation, Australia has long punched above its weight in the production of peer-reviewed research and this article has demonstrated this continued performance. The challenge now lies in integrating the work of policy, practice and research. This is a challenge for each and every Australian educator and one where the stakes – our children’s learning – can get no higher.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Chelle Heath for her assistance in generating the data from which this article is based. That being said, all errors, omissions and oversights are my sole responsibility.
References
BATES, R.J. (1983) Educational Administration and the Management of Knowledge (Melbourne: Deakin University Press). BATES, R.J. (2010) History of educational leadership and management, in P. PETERSON, E. BAKER & B. MCGRAW (Eds), International Encyclopedia of Education (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 724-730. CALDWELL, B.J. & SPINKS, J.M. (1988) The Self-Managing School (Lewes, UK: Falmer Press). CALDWELL, B.J. & SPINKS, J.M. (1992) Leading the Self-Managing School (London: Falmer). CALDWELL, B.J. & SPINKS, J.M. (1998) Beyond the Self-Managing School (London: Falmer). CALDWELL, B.J. & SPINKS, J.M. (2013) The Self-Transforming School (London: Routledge). CLARKE, S. & WILDY, H. (2010) Preparing for principalship from the crucible of experience: Reflecting on theory, practice and research, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(1), pp. 1-16. CLARKE, S., WILDY, H. & PEPPER, C. (2007) Connecting preparation with reality: Primary principals’ experiences of their first year out in Western Australia, Leading & Managing, 13(1), pp. 81-90. CLARKE, S., WILDY, H. & STYLES, I. (2011) Fit for purpose? Western Australian insights into the efficacy of principal preparation, Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), pp. 166-178. DINHAM, S. (2005) Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes, Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), pp. 338-356 DINHAM, S. (2007a) The secondary head of department and the achievement of exceptional student outcomes, Journal of Educational Administration, 45(1), pp. 62-79. DINHAM, S. (2007b) How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student success and school renewal, Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), pp. 263-275. DINHAM, S. (2008) How to Get Your School Moving and Improving (Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Press). DINHAM, S. (2010) Leadership for Exceptional Educational Outcomes (Brisbane: Post Pressed). DRYSDALE, L. & GURR, D. (2011) The theory and practice of successful school leadership in Australia, School Leadership & Management, 31(4), pp. 355-368. EACOTT, S. (2009) A review of Australian publications in educational leadership journals, Leading & Managing, 15(1), pp. 53-67. EACOTT, S. (2010) Bourdieu’s strategies and the challenge for educational leadership, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(3), pp. 265-281. EACOTT, S. (2013a) ‘Leadership’ and the social: Time space and the epistemic, International Journal of Educational Management, 27(1), pp. 91-101. EACOTT, S. (2013b) Rethinking ‘leadership’ in education: A research agenda, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(2), pp. 113-125. EVERS, C.W. & LAKOMSKI, G. (1991) Knowing Educational Administration: Contemporary methodological controversies in educational research (London: Pergamon Press). EVERS, C.W. & LAKOMSKI, G. (1996) Exploring Educational Administration (Oxford: Elsevier). EVERS, C.W. & LAKOMSKI, G. (2000) Doing Educational Administration (Oxford: Elsevier).
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications 105
GORARD, S. (2005) Current contexts for research in educational leadership and management, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), pp. 155-164. GRIFFITHS, D. (1959) Research in Educational Administration: An appraisal and a plan (New York, NY: Teachers College). GUNTER, H. (2010) A sociological approach to educational leadership, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), pp. 519-527. GURR, D. & DRYSDALE, L. (2007) Models of successful school leadership: Victorian case studies, in K. LEITHWOOD & C. DAY (Eds), Successful School Leadership in Times of Change (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer- Kluwer), pp. 39-58. GURR, D. & DRYSDALE, L. (2008) Reflections on twelve years of studying the leadership of Victorian schools, International Studies in Educational Administration, 36(2), pp. 22-37. GURR, D., DRYSDALE, L. & GOODE, H. (2010) Successful school leadership in Australia: A research agenda, International Journal of Learning, 17(4), pp. 113-129. GURR, D., DRYSDALE, L. & MULFORD, B. (2005) Successful principal leadership: Australian case studies, Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), pp. 539-551. GURR, D., DRYSDALE, L. & MULFORD, B. (2006) Models of successful school principal leadership, School Leadership & Management, 26(4), pp. 371-395. IMMEGART, G.L. (1975) The Study of Educational Administration 1954-1974: Myths, paradoxes, facts and prospects (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND [NCLB]. (2002) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). SMYTH, J. (Ed.) (1989) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership (London: Falmer Press). SMYTH, J. (Ed.) (1993) A Socially Critical View of the Self-Managing School (London: Falmer Press). SMYTH, J. (2008) Australia’s great disengagement with public education and social justice in educational leadership, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(3),pp. 221-233. SMYTH, J. (2011) The disaster of the ‘self-managing school’ – Genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 43(2), pp. 95-117. TINNING, R. & SIRNA, K. (Eds) (2011) Education, Social Justice and the Legacy of Deakin University: Reflections of the Deakin diaspora (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers). WILDY, H. & CLARKE, S. (2008) Principals on l-plates: Rear view mirror reflections, Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), pp. 727-738. WILDY, H. & CLARKE, S. (2009) Using cognitive interviews to pilot an international survey of principal preparation: A Western Australian perspective, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), pp. 105-117. WILDY, H., CLARKE, S. & SLATER, C. (2007) International perspectives of principal preparation: How does Australian fare? Leading & Managing, 13(2), pp. 1-14. WILDY, H., CLARKE, S., STYLES, I. & BEYCIOGLU, K. (2010) Preparing novice principals in Australia and Turkey: How similar are their needs? Educational Assessment Evaluation & Accountability, 22(4), pp. 249-252.
Leading & Managing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, pp. 106-109
A review of Caldwell B.J. and Spinks, J.M. (2013) The Self-Transforming School (Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge), ISBN: 9780415660594, 224 pp.
Reviewed by: MICHAEL GAFFNEY University of Canberra
Email: [email protected]
What is a successful school? What factors influence school success? And what do school and school system leaders need to bear in mind in working to ensure such success? The new book by Brian Caldwell and Jim Spinks entitled The Self-Transforming School tackles these questions. The authors have made an enduring and unique contribution to theory and research in school policy and management in Australian and internationally over more than 25 years. This latest contribution provides an authoritative and comprehensive overview of the contemporary issues, dilemmas and paradoxes confronting those with responsibility for improving the performance of schools and school systems. It is, in a profound way, both a culmination of the authors’ professional experience, scholarship and vision on the challenge of school improvement, as well as a significant resource for those engaged in education policymaking and practice at school, system and government level. The central argument of the book is that ‘significant, systematic and sustained changes in schooling are required to secure success for all students in all settings’ (p. ix). The authors describe a self-transforming school as a school that has the capacity to make decisions that lead to such an outcome. In essence, the book is both a call and a guide for higher levels of professionalism among teachers and school executive; greater trust from system bureaucrats and ministerial staffers, and better strategic alignment in education governance and funding arrangements from governments and education authorities. This is a book with a comprehensive brief and scope, and for these reasons should be especially studied by those engaged in policy making aimed at improving the performance of school systems. The authors make a strong case regarding the pitfalls of what they regard as the ‘command- and-control’ approach to systemic improvement, arguing that in too many cases (Australia included) international research highlights that prolonged and inappropriate emphasis on standardisation, accountability compliance in the areas of curriculum, assessment, achievement measures and teacher performance stifles systemic improvement efforts. Rather they propose a conceptualisation (see Chapter 3) where schools can be progressively ‘unchained’ from system control and allowed greater autonomy. Interestingly, while their logic in describing the shift of a school from command-and control systemic arrangements to becoming self-managing, and then to being self-transforming is sound, their vision could be considered profoundly counter-cultural to the contemporary practice and mindsets of Australian Ministers of Education (at Commonwealth, state/territory levels) and their senior advisors and department executives. Short election cycles at multiple levels of government, international league tables of school performance, lessening willingness and capacity of government to fund education in light of increasing costs in other areas of social policy (e.g. health and ageing), all point to the continuing orthodoxy of using
The Self-Transforming School 107
command-and-control tactics ‘to get the schools to change!’ Hence, a point to ponder throughout the book is exactly how one might encourage ‘transformation’ in those with the political power to disrupt that orthodoxy. In making the case for school transformation, the authors draw on a large body of international research and practice on systemic improvement. Their coverage of school education policy, programs and performance in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, Finland, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Shanghai, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States is informative, concise and includes an insightful critique highlighting the complexity of comparing different contexts. This complexity is centred upon questions about how to maintain an appropriate balance between control and autonomy as schools and school systems work to improve performance. Put another way, the authors recognise (in a similar way to Mourshed, Chijioke and Barber, 2010) in their report on How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better that different combinations of both characterise schools as they move through the stages of improvement. One question about this connection though is ‘what causes what?’ or ‘what comes first?’ For example, do schools moving from poor to fair performance or from good to great performance have their systemic controls lifted before, during or after improvement is demonstrated? In this respect, the book does not take a definitive position but instead offers informed advice to policymakers and education system leaders about being aware of the importance of monitoring performance and policy alignment. Caldwell and Spinks move beyond this synthesis of international trends and developments to consider the processes of educational change itself. They provide a series of case analyses to illustrate the issues that confront schools on their journey to becoming self-transforming. Assumptions about change and innovation, and the criteria and timeline for measuring effects are clearly explained as school-based and systemic phenomena. The authors provide a useful overview of questions that need to be addressed in relation to the nature of the innovation and the capacity of educators at school and system level to work with and lead the implementation of such innovation. As well as revisiting some classic theories (Chin & Benne, 1969), they also describe more recent research by Miles and his colleagues (2002) on change in public sector organisations in Canada and China. Their research emphasises the need to build trusting relationships – or as the authors put it (from the Chinese translation), to ‘banquet frequently’! A further dimension of the nature of school transformation is treated in Chapter 9. It deals with the changes to teaching and learning that are accompanying the development and more widespread use and integration of digital technologies. As with other themes covered throughout the book, the authors have done their homework in searching and synthesising the research and leading edge thinking and practice. In discussing the disruptive changes already taking place in the design and delivery of learning opportunities for young people, Caldwell and Spinks provide an informed and hopeful overview of the potential of emerging technologies (including in direct instruction) to powerfully support the transformation of schools and schooling. In light of the earlier discussions about the nature and consequences of command and control approaches in narrowing curriculum and restricted forms of assessment, this chapter opens the door to broader, more comprehensive and engaging forms of educational provision – including global curricula, re-invigoration of the Arts, and increasing diversity in the way schools are organised. All these point to the need for schools to be freed from the industrial age, bureaucratic compliances of
108 Michael Gaffney
traditional command-and-control education authorities. To survive and prosper in these circumstances, schools need to be able to make their own decisions about how to position themselves and anticipate and respond to changes in the educational landscape. In short they need to become self-transforming. The latter parts of the book are focused around the range of resources, referred to by the authors as different forms of ‘capital’ that self-managing schools can use to become self- transforming. Four forms of capital are described: financial, dealing with the types, levels and allocation of funding to support student learning; social, referring to the strength of formal and informal partnerships and networks that a school has to support learning; spiritual, relating to the strength of moral purpose and the coherence and alignment of values held by members of the school community; and intellectual, referring to the level of knowledge and skill possessed by those working in or for the school. Together, these forms of capital provide the means for a school to create its future. At least three issues however need to be considered in working with these forms of support. First, the financial, social, spiritual and intellectual forms of capital need to be aligned. The role of school leaders is to work to ensure such alignment. For example, what is funded and how it is funded, what teachers do with those funds, how the social fabric of the school supports and is supported by such funding, and how the funding coheres with the moral purpose and values shared by members of the school community need to be integrated. The authors consistently remind the reader about this issue throughout Chapters 10-12. Second, the forms of capital are significantly influenced by what happens outside the school – for example, in the ways governments choose to develop and implement policy (including funding policy). This means that school leaders need to be consistently aware of the broader educational and political environment. To this end the authors provide useful insights about the need for school leaders to continue to develop their knowledge base through networking. Third, Caldwell and Spinks recognise that trends and influences on schooling are difficult to forecast. Hence building and aligning capital for transformation always has an element of unpredictability. In a somewhat novel but engaging way, the authors choose to quote former United States Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld’s description of ‘unknown unknowns’, i.e. things that we don’t know we don’t know, to illustrate their point. And so in hindsight, they remind us of the need for some caution as we project, predict or conjecture about the future. In this, their latest book, Brian Caldwell and Jim Spinks have provided us with a synthesis of international contemporary factors and issues surrounding school transformation. They have revisited their previous work and tabled their ideas for the future shape of schooling. This book is a comprehensive compilation of insights, reflections and opinion based on authoritative research and experience. Caldwell and Spinks deliberately address the critiques and controversies arising from their earlier publications relating to school based management, especially issues around the future of public education. In The Self-Transforming School, they centre their arguments on the urgency of changing schooling to ensure all students succeed regardless of what school they attend. They take aim at the prevailing orthodoxy of the multi-government, multi-levelled political and bureaucratic machinery designed to ensure command and control. In its place they argue for schools to have the authority and control to customise their offerings to reach every student and the trust to build their forms of supporting capital. Their argument is well put.
The Self-Transforming School 109107
References
CHIN, R. & BENNE, K.D. (1969) General strategies for effecting change in human systems, in W.G. BENNIS, K.D. BENNE & R. CHIN (Eds), The Planning of Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), pp 32-59. MILES, M., THANGARAJ, A., WANG, D. & MA, H. (2002) Classic theories, contemporary applications: A comparative study of the implementation of innovation in Canadian and Chinese public sector environments, Innovation Journal, 7(3), pp. 1-23. MOURSHED, M., CHIJIOKE, C. & BARBER, M. (2010) How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better (London: McKinsey & Company).
Professor Michael Gaffney is Convener of the Doctor of Education Program at the University of Canberra. He is Adjunct Professor and a former Foundation Chair of Educational Leadership at the Australian Catholic University, and a Professorial Fellow at Charles Darwin University.
ISSN 1329-4539
Leading & Managing
Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders
Notice for Contributors
The use of two active, present participles in the journal title appears, perhaps, slightly unorthodox, but the choice is deliberate. Leading & Managing (L&M), for us, assumes that while leading and managing are qualitatively different activities, in reality they complement one another, and are vital to the effective performance of complex organisations and groups. We think managing is best thought of as tied to the performance of specific roles and organisational responsibilities. While this may also be true of leading, it is invariably not the case. Instead of providing just one more scholarly vehicle for concentrating on leadership and management as conventionally understood and statically defined functions we believe L&M highlights two key organisational processes: the acts of leading and managing. Specifically, we have aimed L&M at personnel working at all organisational levels and in all sectors and systems, principally, but not exclusively, in the sphere of education, with that word understood in its widest sense. We have set two goals for L&M: (1) to advance understanding of what it means to lead and to manage, the experiences of organisational personnel while engaged in leading and managing and the experiences and reflections of those who find themselves being led and managed; and (2) to improve the practice of leading and managing through empirical research and theoretical analysis. In the belief that no one particular school of thought ever has a monopoly on wisdom or truth, we want L&M to be eclectic in its scope and tolerant of diverse standpoints. Accordingly, we welcome manuscript contributions from a plurality of perspectives. These may report empirical research, best practice and pedagogy, propose intervention and consultancy strategies, or comprise discussions of theory and methodology. We ask contributors to bear in mind the following broad indicators of quality writing when preparing manuscripts for submission. Above all, we seek significant contributions to L&M which advance understanding of leading and managing. We ask that authors should demonstrate their familiarity with current developments in the field and strive to bring to bear distinctive and new perspectives on their chosen topics. We expect arguments to be tightly structured, clearly presented and written in prose that is accessible to a diverse readership. Leading & Managing is the official journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders. It is published twice each year by the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, National Office, PO Box 876, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012, and is printed by Complete Colour Printing Pty Ltd, 84-86 Herald Street, Cheltenham, VIC, 3192, Australia. © Copyright, Australian Council for Educational Leaders. This issue published 2014. All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISSN 1329-4539 Leading & Managing Subscription Form For Non-ACEL Members
TO: ACEL National Office P.O. Box 876 Strawberry Hills, N.S.W. 2012 Australia FAX: 1800 680 561 EMAIL: [email protected]
Please begin my subscription to Leading & Managing, in one of the following categories commencing with the next issue:-
WITHIN AUSTRALIA Cost includes GST.
Online/Electronic: ! $78.00: two issues. Print Copies (AUSTRALIA) ! $85.00, includes postage: two issues. Print Copies (OVERSEAS) ! $98.00, includes postage: two issues. To be pre-paid in Australian dollars; cheques must be drawn on an Australian bank.
PAYMENT Payment detail ! Master Card: ! VISA ! Cheque (made payable to ACEL)
Card Number ���� ���� ���� ���� Expiry Date (MM/YY) �� / �� CCV ���
Name on Card Signature:
Name:
Address:
City: State: Postcode:
Phone: Email: (Photocopy of Subscription Form accepted)
ABN 75 132 672 416
ISSN 1329-4539
ISSN 1329-4539
Leading & Managing
Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders
Preparation of Manuscripts
Leading & Managing is a scholarly, refereed journal and observes the normal processes of blind review. All manuscripts should be sent to the editors, Associate Professor Dorothy Andrews & Dr Marian Lewis, Leadership Research Institute, Faculty of Education, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia. To facilitate the review process an electronic version is to be sent as an email attachment to [email protected] or [email protected] in a Word.doc format. Contributors should note that articles accepted for publication in L&M become the copyright of the Journal. Manuscripts should be between 5,000 and 7,000 words in length. They must be typed, double-spaced and with ample margins, on A4 paper, on one side only and with all pages numbered. The front page should bear the manuscript title, the author’s name and institutional affiliation. The second page should carry the title and an abstract of 100−150 words. Avoid the excessive use of dot points. Spelling will be checked to conform to the most common usage found in The Macquarie Dictionary (4th Edition, 2005). For style, the Style manual (Commonwealth of Australia, 6th Edition, 2002) will be used as the reference document. Headings should appear in lower case and bold type and should be centred. Sub-headings should be in lower case, underlined and be left justified. The first sentence of the initial paragraph under headings and sub-headings should be left justified; thereafter indent the first sentence of succeeding paragraphs. Notes appear at the end of the article, but authors are urged to avoid excessive footnoting. Illustrations, tables and figures should be numbered and included in their preferred position included within the text. References should be indicated in the typescript by giving the author’s surname, year of publication and page numbers, e.g. (Smith, 1995, pp. 1-2). Several articles by the same author and published in the same year should appear as Smith 1993a, 1993b, 1993c etc. All references cited should be listed in alphabetical order, by year and with page numbers, on a separate page headed References at the end of the article, in the following form: Referencing your own work – to ensure that anonymity is preserved, the author should replace in both the text and reference his/her name and replace it with ‘author’ or ‘author(s)’.
For articles: YAMMARINO, F.J., SPANGLER, W.D. & BASS, B.M. (1993) Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 81-102.
For books: BASS, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press).
For chapters: TRICE, H.M. & BEYER, J.M. (1986) Charisma and its routinisation in two social movement groups, in B.M. STAW & L.L. CUMMINGS (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 8 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press), pp. 113-164.
ACEL Leading & Managing Volume 20 Number 1 Autumn/Winter 2014
Editorial Marian Lewis Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland
Editors: DOROTHY ANDREWS & MARIAN LEWIS
Articles Educational Leadership with Indigenous Partners SUSAN LOVETT, NEIL DEMPSTER & BEV FLÜCKIGER
Decision-Making Processes and Educational Leadership in Australia CHRISTINE CUNNINGHAM
Micropolitical Insights into Assistant Regional Directors’ Leadership in Queensland Education RAY BLOXHAM, LISA C. EHRICH & RADHA IYER
Student Advocacy, Whole-School Change and Transformation in Action: A case study (RON) KIM KEAMY
A Model for Effective Leadership in Disadvantaged Rural Schools in Ghana ERASMUS K. NORVIEWU-MORTTY, GLENDA CAMPBELL-EVANS & MARK HACKLING
Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’ Schools: Their role and accountability ADELE CRANE & JOHN DE NOBILE
The Changing Nature of Australian Based Educational Leadership Research Publications SCOTT EACOTT
Book review The Self-Transforming School B.J. Caldwell & J.M. Spinks MICHAEL GAFFNEY