26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Quality And Benefits Of Interventions And Their Effects On The Quality Of Schools
Stephan Gerhard Huber1, Christoph Helm2, Rolf Strietholt3, Marius Schwander1, Jane Pruitt1, Gregor Steinbeiß2
1Pädagogische Hochschule Zug, Switzerland; 2Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Austria; 3IEA Hamburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Huber, Stephan Gerhard;
Steinbeiß, Gregor
Due to their location and the composition of the student body, schools in challenging circumstances face more difficult conditions. With a high proportion of students from non-privileged family situations (usually measured by the educational attainment and financial circumstances of the parents), these poorer socio-economic circumstances are often associated with special compensatory services provided by the school. In addition, schools in challenging circumstances have different organizational quality characteristics.
When quality characteristics differ, schools need external support. To be able to face these different problem and stress constellations of particularly stressed schools, it is therefore necessary to take a differentiated view of the stress characteristics as well as different school development and support approaches, which are based on the specific needs of the schools.
The necessary additional support from the system can take place, for example, within the framework of professionalization and advisory services.
This paper examines the quality and benefits of a support program for schools offering various interventions and their impact on school leadership, school development and school quality in schools in challenging circumstances.
It is based on data from the accompanying study of a program to support schools in challenging circumstances, which supports school leaders of schools in disadvantaged social environments in the further development of their school through interventions like coaching and school development counselling. It also records the quality and the change in the quality of school characteristics and examines the contribution of the interventions to these changes.
The paper is based on the following overarching questions:
- How is the quality of the interventions assessed by the school stakeholders who have a connection to the measures?
- What are the consequences of the interventions in terms of qualities and quality changes in the schools?
This research draws on several strands of literature. First, it builds on research on school effectiveness, which since the 1970s has focused on the impact of various school-related factors on students' academic performance. This has included increasing attention to schools with particular challenges in recent years, which includes a focus on school context in terms of low socio-economic status, high levels of migration, etc., which often occur in combination with dysfunctional features of school organization (e.g., Baumert, Stanat & Watermann, 2006). Second, the paper draws on research on school development and change with a particular focus on 'school turnaround', which can be seen as an educational policy initiative to change and improve the performance of these schools (Murphy & Meyers, 2008; Peck & Reitzug, 2014; Authors, 2012, 2019, 2020).
One of the key findings of the research is that improvement initiatives need to be differentiated and adapted to the needs and challenges of individual schools (e.g., Reynolds et al., 1996). With regard to the selection of strategies, different concerns have to be addressed, such as decisions on the number and size of prioritized areas, where to set the focus, the use of data, and assessments related to the capacity of the school to change as well as the degree of external support needed (Meyers & Smylie, 2017). Different models for “School Turnaround” have been tried out in the US and in England. While some models include radical approaches such as school closure and retention of staff, others concentrate on professional development (e.g., courses, peer-teaching, coaching) focusing on improving the quality of teaching and school management, establishing cooperation or even initiating school fusion between a “failing” school and a school characterized as “successful”, and improving the coordination between the school and the local authorities. The last type of model is more evident in the German speaking context (Author, 2018; Racherbäumer et al., 2013).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis five-year longitudinal mixed methods study is based on a sample of around 150 schools in North Rhine-Westphalia. Over a period of three years, half of the schools experienced further measures to professionalize school leadership (e.g., coaching of school leaders, continuous professional development program) and support school development (additional financial resources, school development counselling).
The quantitative analyses are based on a total of six surveys of staff and school leaders - three on the work situation, three on the various interventions.
On the one hand, the intervention survey serves as an implementation check with the aim of verifying whether the program has been implemented effectively. At the same time, variation in intervention quality provides an opportunity to examine whether certain dimensions of intervention quality predict school quality. In addition to a descriptive evaluation of the quality assessments of staff and school leaders, autoregressive regression analyses are conducted to examine the impact of specific program components/interventions on selected school quality characteristics during the program period. These analyses were conducted at school level, as the program was implemented at school level.
Due to the reduced sample size at the school level, the regression analyses were estimated in separate models for each explanatory variable. In each case, a characteristic of school quality at the third measurement point (dependent variable) was regressed while controlling for the same variable at the first measurement point (control variable t1), as well as a characteristic of outcome quality (influencing factor, effect variable) of a program component/intervention. This reveals whether the quality of outcomes is related to the characteristic of school quality after the program, independent of the initial value of the characteristic of school quality before the program. The control or dependent variables are based on the school mean scores of the staff's assessments of school quality at the first and third measurement time points, respectively. The influencing factors are based on the mean values of the assessments of the outcome qualities from the surveys of all different time points.
Through a comparison group design, it is possible to compare the changes in project and comparison schools and to relate them to the program interventions. To measure the changes in the schools using questionnaire data of the survey on the work situation, the effect size Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988) was calculated, which refers to the practical relevance of the results.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPresented are selected results on the perception of the quality and benefits of the different interventions as well as their effects on school leadership, school development and school quality.
The results of the study show the very positive assessment of the quality and benefits of the program modules and their positive consequences on the quality of the organization.
The results of the regression analyses provide evidence that positively perceived outcome qualities of the training program, coaching and school development counselling go hand in hand with improvements in numerous dimensions of school quality (e.g., coordination of action of school management, cooperative leadership). For example: The school members’ positive perception of the benefits (β = .26**) and reached goals (β = .28**) as well as their perception of an increase in competence development (β = .25**), behavioral (β = .27**) and organizational (β = .15*) change through the school’s work with a process consultancy for school development is associated with an improved coordination of actions of the steering group perceived by the employees.
Additionally, the effect sizes show that the majority of the project schools have developed better over the course of the program, both on the basis of the assessment of the school management and the staff, than the comparison schools, some of which have even developed negatively.
The overall findings show that there is evidence for the effectivity of the interventions of school development programs. Thus, the longitudinal study shows the contribution of different interventions on school leadership and school development of German schools in challenging situations.
Based on the results, the interventions are discussed in relation to their effects. In this way, the conditions for successful implementation can be identified and implications for practice can be derived.
ReferencesAuthors (2012, 2018, 2019, 2020)
Baumert, J., Stanat, P. & Watermann, R. (2006): Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen. Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmen von PISA 2000. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). L. Erlbaum Associates.
Meyers, C.V. & Smylie, M.A. (2017). Five Myths of School Turnaround Policy and Practice, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16:3, 502-523, DOI:10.1080/15700763.2016.1270333
Murphy & Meyers, (2008): Turning Around Failing Schools: Leadership Lessons From the Organizational Sciences. Thousands Oak, California: Corwin Press.
Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49, 8-38. doi: 10.1177/0042085912472511
Racherbäumer, K., Funke, C., Ackeren, I. van & Clausen, M. (2013): Datennutzung und Schulleitungshandeln an Schulen in weniger begünstigter Lage. Empirische Befunde zu ausgewählten Aspekten der Qualitätsentwicklung. In: Die Deutsche Schule 13, Beiheft 12, S. 226-254. Münster: Waxmann.
Reynolds, D., Bollen, R., Creemers, B., Hopkins, D., Stoll, L. & Lagerwej, N. (1996): Making Good Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and Improvement. London: Routledge/Falmer.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
From Road Map for Teacher Quality to an Integrated Approach
Helen Goode, Lawrie Drysdale, David Gurr
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Presenting Author: Goode, Helen
The purpose of this proposal is to update previous research on verifying a roadmap for school leaders to ensure teacher quality can be sustained overtime.
The research question was to explore the usefulness of the roadmap as a guide for principals to ensure teacher quality based on new data.
Background and Conceptual Framework
This paper argues that a major leadership challenge for school leaders is to attract, deploy, develop and retain quality teachers. To gain commitment and engagement of teachers over their career, we propose leaders take a strategic and long-term approach. Previously (ECER 2019/2021) we presented a roadmap as a conceptual framework. Between 2018-2022 we tested this roadmap with a range of leaders and teachers representing schools. We now present an updated version of the roadmap but with supporting evidence from over 300 case studies to demonstrate its veracity as a strategic framework. In early versions of the roadmap, we highlighted key touch points such as identifying aspirants, preparation programs, sourcing talent, induction and socialisation, professional learning, and performance management as stages in ensuring quality. Our past findings verified that leaders could ensure quality by focusing on each of these factors. Our accumulated research findings show that focusing on each touch point separately is valuable but does not explain the dynamic interaction of touch points. Our latest findings show that to be successful, leaders need to be aware that the touch points are best integrated as a process rather than distinct stages.
Current evidence-based research has shown that the ‘good’ (effective/inspiring) teacher is a significant factor in improving student outcomes (OECD, 2005; Stronge, 2007, Sammons 2017). Research shows that teachers are the most significant in-school factor influencing student learning. Estimates of the percentage contribution of teachers to student outcomes varies from 30% (Hattie 2003) to 59% (Alton-Lee 2003; Rowe 2003). Findings from the Sutton Trust (2011) demonstrated the significant difference between good teacher and bad teacher as being one full year of student growth. With the pressure to improve student outcomes and the significance of teacher quality, it is incumbent on school leaders to ensure that they attract, acquire, develop, and retain quality teachers.
In the context of increased devolution and accountability, school systems not only in Europe but in other countries now recognize the changing role of school leaders. The traditional school leader role of teacher deployment is being challenged because they are expected now to adopt a Talent Management strategy (McBeath 2007), which involves attracting, developing, and retaining quality teachers. The pandemic has seen a major change in the teaching workforce where there are teacher shortages not only in Europe but in most countries around the world. This has added pressure on recruiting and retaining teachers.
We believe the road map is also useful within the conference theme, The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research). Touch points on the road map recognise the social challenges and different values and beliefs. Leaders and teachers work within different expectations, prescriptions, reconciliations. Within this complex context the road map helps leaders identify and acquire the best candidates for the teaching profession, develop their capabilities and support them in their teaching profession. The roadmap outlines key stages of a teacher’s journey: the aspiration to teach, the preparation and recruitment into the system, and their early experiences with the teaching profession. School leaders can play an important part in at each stage: identifying, acquiring and developing teachers though what we have identified ‘touchpoints.
We argue that leaders need to understand the whole journey and intervene to help teachers reach their potential and help them to sustain it over their career.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe roadmap is built on sound theory and research. It is based on a strategic human resource management (SHRM) framework (Mercer, Barker, Bird, 2010). The authors draw on the SHRM literature and the emerging literature on SHRM in education to support the road map.
The objective of SHRM is to make the best possible use of people within the accepted social, economic and ethical framework and standards of the existing the culture or society.
SHRM is a multi-disciplinary approach which draws its theories and practices from many sources. It aims to help people to work more effectively, improve performance, provide a productive and supportive environment, improve managing and leading people, establish appropriate principles, policies and practices, and provide competitive advantage (Stone, 2017; Nieto, 2014). The key operative functions include: job design & evaluation; manpower planning; recruitment and selection; induction & socialisation; training & development; performance management; working conditions; employee relations; remuneration & benefits; retirement & redundancy (Ogunyomi, Shadare & Chidi, 2011; Mondy & Martocchio, 2015; Youssef, 2012; Dessler, 2011; Hendry, 2011). The intended outcome is to ensure the competence of an organization’s workforce to perform, compete, and innovate (Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1998). Over the past two decades the principles of SHRM have been applied to schools. Educational writers such as Runhaar (2016); Odden (2011); Kimball (2011), have championed SHRM as a disciplined approach to recruitment and development as compared with the ad hoc approach that is common in schools.
Case Studies. In 2018-2022 we tested the roadmap with over 300 postgraduate students who were completing a Masters of Education subject, Leadership for Teacher Quality, at the authors’ university. The students, both Australian and international, were a mixture of teachers, middle level leaders and principals. Within the limits of 4000-word case studies, students were required to evaluate the current practices and processes for teacher quality and quality teaching in their own school setting against the road map. A review of the related literature was required to inform their analysis. Furthermore, they were required to identify recommendations to the school's leadership group. Using a matrix highlighting touchpoints from the roadmap, the case studies were analysed and placed into themes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings showed support for the road map in a range of different educational settings, including highly challenging circumstances and diverse settings. Our updated version of the roadmap identities six touchpoints- sourcing talent, recruiting talent, induction, deployment, professional learning and performance management. These domains are based on key operational functions from the SHRM literature.
Findings from the case studies identified these leadership practices that enhanced teacher quality: induction, professional learning, professional identity, effective recruitment and selection practices, career planning, pedagogical support in the classroom, and effective feedback. Gaps in leadership practice were also identified particularly with induction and teacher evaluation. However. the most significant new finding was that these functions were integrated, for example, best practice induction involved socialisation, professional learning, coaching, establishing professional identity, and performance management.
The most effective leaders also underscored the touchpoints by developing and maintaining good working conditions, building a productive culture, and providing motivation for teachers.
In our presentation we outline practices where leaders focused on the needs in both the short and long term to build and maintain teacher commitment and engagement.
We found that successful leaders addressed individual and team needs, built individual and profession capacity, supported and resourced teaching and learning, maintained sound and healthy working conditions, developed a productive culture, helped teachers build resilience, and provided opportunities for motivation.
We accept that in different systems and in different countries there will be varying levels of devolved responsibility, leader autonomy and accountability. Leaders may have greater opportunities to impact on touchpoints in some systems, for example, recruitment and selection, whereas in other systems recruitment and selection may remain centrally controlled. However, we believe that leaders need to pay attention to the whole journey of a teacher’s career and that this roadmap highlights these touch points.
ReferencesDarling-Hammond, L (2006) Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-31
Darling-Hammond, L (2010) Teacher Education and the American Future, Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47
Day, C. (2012). New Lives of Teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(1), 7-26.
Day, C. (2017) Teachers’ Worlds and Work: Understanding Complexity, Building Quality, Routledge, NY.
Dessler, G. (2011). Human resource management. Boston, Mass.: Pearson.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at ACER Research Conference, October 19-21, in Melbourne.
Jensen, B. (2011). Better teacher appraisal and feedback: Improving performance. Melbourne: Grattan Institute.
Kimball, S. M. (2011) Principals, Human Capital Managers at Every School, Phi Delta Kappan 92(7) 13-18.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A. and Ledford, G. E. (1998). Strategies for High Performance Organizations – the CEO Report. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass Publishers.
Macbeath, J. (2006) The talent enigma, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(3), 183-204
Mercer, J, Barker, B., Bird, R. (2010) Human Resource Management in Education [electronic resource] Contexts, Themes and Impact, Hoboken: Taylor and Francis
Nieto, M. L. (2014). Human resource management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Odden, A. R. (2011) Strategic Management of Human Capital in Education. New York: Routledge
Ogunyomi, O.P. & Shadare, A.O. & Chidi, O.C. (2011). Current trends and future directions of human resource management practices: A review of the literature, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences. 29, 19-25.
OECD (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
OECD (2008). Measuring improvements in learning outcomes: Best practices to assess the value-added of schools. Paris: OECD.
Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. In Building teacher quality: Research conference 2003: 15-23. Melbourne: ACER.
Runhaar, P. (2016). How can schools and teachers benefit from human resources management? Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 45(10), 639-656.
Stronge, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Youssef, C. M. (2012). Human resource management. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
The Role of the Critical Friend in Supporting Principals to Lead School Improvement
Ryan Dunn
Melbourne University, Australia
Presenting Author: Dunn, Ryan
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Schleicher (2012) describes the fundamental role of school leaders as setting a vision and enhancing the capacities of the school community to achieve it. Similarly, other studies have identified core leadership practices exercised by principals including building vision and setting directions, understanding and developing people, redesigning the organisation and managing the teaching and learning program (Leithwood et al. 2006). It is clear schools do not become high performing in the absence of strong leadership. However, it is also apparent the single point accountability on principals to improve teaching and learning is a heavy burden to carry (Riley et al. 2021). As such, principals are increasingly encouraged to cultivate a support network to assist them through key improvement initiatives. While there are varied approaches principals can draw upon for support (see principal supervisor role, Community of Practice, executive coaching, etc) a recognised mechanism for principal support is the use of a critical friend.
A critical friend has been defined as ‘a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person’s work as a friend’ (Costa & Kallick 1993, p. 50). This has been extended to include helping schools make decisions, challenge expectations, patiently playing a role that is interpretive and catalytic, helping shape outcomes but never determining them, alerting the school to issues only half perceived, and being sympathetic to the school’s purpose (Doherty, et al. 2001). While broad definitions that allude to aspects of the role have emerged, there is still considerable debate about how to best capture the concept of a critical friend.
Arising from the ambiguous conceptualisation of a critical friend is a lack of guidance on the exact tasks a critical friend is expected to fulfil, competencies they should have, or skills and behaviours that should guide their work (MacPhail et al. 2021). It is acknowledged differences arise due to the contextual needs of a given situation (Swaffield & MacBeath 2005) and there does not appear to be one universally accepted definition, perception of, or role for critical friends in supporting and enhancing professional learning and development. This has led to a disjointed and fragmented literature which is difficult to synthesise and advance, and, it is suspected, replete with individuals in critical friend roles without calling them as such (MacPhail et al. 2021).
This study seeks to provide insights into the varied and potentially boundary spanning role a critical friend may need to draw upon. This is achieved by analysing the work of four critical friends whose primary role is to support principals to lead improvement in teaching and learning in a longitudinal mathematics professional learning program. The data presented in this study is derived from the first year of a 2-year professional learning partnership between the Melbourne Graduate School of Education (MGSE), the Maths Association of Victoria (MAV) and 39 primary school leadership teams. Prior to commencing the critical friend role in the project, the experienced educational consultants were invited to be part of a focus group. The intention of the study is to examine the way experienced consultants conceptualise the type of roles a critical friend might play as part of the improvement initiative.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA focus group methodology was adopted to examine the type of role the experienced consultants anticipated they would be required to undertake as part of the improvement program. Focus groups are particularly useful for discovering new insights (Gould et al. 2008) and therefore appropriate for examining perceptions of the types of roles the consultants anticipate will be required as part of the professional learning program. Their perception is based on their previous experience working as a critical friend coupled with their understanding of the professional learning program. Focus group methodology is suited for obtaining in-depth responses (Morgan, 1998), which in this context meant the thoughts and diverse experiences of the critical friends would be effectively surfaced. Focus groups also allow the researcher to seek clarity and ask participants to verify their statements (Krueger, 1998). Hence, if the critical friends were lacking in specificity, additional clarification was requested to ensure the researchers understanding of the role matched with the critical friend’s description. The intention of the focus groups was to generate themes that could be transformed into explicit descriptions of the role a critical friend plays when supporting principals in improvement work.
The critical friends were purposely sampled based their previous experience in this type of role. The five critical friends in the focus group interviews had a minimum of 4-years experience working with school leaders in this role.
Two 90-minute focus group sessions were held over a two-week period. The focus group included the 6 critical friends and two investigators. Following standard focus-group guidelines (Morgan, 1998), each group consisted of the same 6 participants, as well as an investigator to capture the discussion and the other investigator to undertake the role of group facilitator. Both investigators were experienced educational consultants who had been extensively involved in school improvement efforts. In addition, they had both conducted qualitative research in the past considered the appropriateness of qualitative research methodologies within this context.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe focus group sessions enabled the four consultants to highlight key aspects of how they conceptualised the critical friend role. The discussion was closely aligned to MacPhail et al. (2021) dual-continuum model. Following the focus group interviews, the data was analysed to identify patterns with how the critical friend role was conceptualised by experienced consultants working as critical friends with school leadership teams. From these patterns we derived four archetypes to make sense of, and provide insight about, the range of experiences the experienced consultants have had with the critical friend role to date, and how they consider the diverse roles they may be required to undertake. Workshop participants confirmed that the archetypes reflected the varying beliefs, attitudes and behaviours required for a critical friend to support school improvement.
In addition to eight professional learning days school principals had access to a critical friend to support their improvement work throughout the duration of the program. The intention was that the critical friend would visit each principal at their school twice every academic year to support the contextualisation of the improvement work they were undertaking in mathematics. A critical friend is espoused as being a highly adaptable form of support for the leadership of school improvement (Gurr & Huerta, 2013). Due to the adaptative nature of the critical friend there is significant ambiguity surrounding the role. The four key archetypes the critical friends anticipated they would utilise during the professional learning program and the working definitions they established are: mentor, challenge partner, more knowledgeable other, and knowledge broker. The roles and definitions will be explored as part of the presentation.
ReferencesCosta, A.L. and Kallick, B., 1993. Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational leadership, 51, 49.
Doherty, J. , MacBeath, J. , Jardine, S. , Smith, I. & McCall, J. (2001) Do schools need critical friends? In J. MacBeath & P. Mortimore (eds) Improving School Effectiveness, pp. 138-151. Buckingham: Open University Press .
Gould, D., Lauer, L., Rolo, C., Jannes, C., & Pennisi, N. (2008). The role of parents in Tennis success: Focus group interviews with junior coaches. Sport Psychologist, 22(1).
Gurr, D., & Huerta, M. (2013). The role of the critical friend in leadership and school improvement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 3084-3090.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
MacPhail, A.,Tannehill, D and Ataman, R. (2021): The role of the critical friend in supporting and enhancing professional learning and development, Professional Development in Education, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1879235
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & Scannell, A. U. (1998). Planning focus groups. Sage.
Swaffield, S. and MacBeath, J., 2005. School self-evaluation and the role of a critical friend. Cambridge journal of education, 35 (2), 239–252. doi:10.1080/03057640500147037.
Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing. 2, rue Andre Pascal, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
|
