26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Autonomy in Educational Leadership: Elements Opening and Closing Decision-making in Quality Assessment and -Development
Rikke Axelsen Sundberg
University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway
Presenting Author: Sundberg, Rikke Axelsen
The concept of quality in education is an important framing for both policy and practice, spanning through international, national and local levels of policymaking and school leadership (Kauko et al., 2018). In a European context, there has been a move towards more output-control of schools in many countries (e.g. Sweden and Ireland), often combined with decentralised governing systems where school districts and schools are given extended autonomy, and in turn opening up for more diverse schooling. In these systems, quality control focus on the end “product” of schooling through for instance standardized testing or examinations rather than on processes, giving school leaders the possibility to take local context into account when making decisions on quality development (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). However, quality imperatives defined externally might in some cases differ from professional standards, ethics or beliefs held by the diversity of professionals working within education. This means that school leaders face and are expected to make decisions based on at times contesting ideas of what constitutes quality and how to assess and work towards this, both in long term strategic work and in day-to-day decisions (Brauckmann et al., 2023).
The aim of this study is thus to gain more knowledge about which and how different elements might inform educational leaders’ decision-making processes on an institutional level by focusing on the opening and closing of decision-making related to quality assessment and quality development. While granted extended autonomy, school leaders’ scope of action is nevertheless regulated by many different elements like policy events, administrative systems, and negotiations between different groupings and levels both within and outside of schools. As an example, an explicit expectation from local policymakers to increase interdisciplinarity and collaboration across subjects with the aim to enhance the quality of schooling might collide with some teachers’ professional stance against the idea of interdisciplinarity and collaboration revealing different professional understandings of what constitutes quality in education. While research on autonomy in education has increased the last decades, there is still a need for more empirical research on leadership autonomy that considers the dynamic and multidimensional character of the phenomenon (e.g., Wermke et al., 2023). Taking a particular interest in the distribution of autonomy between local schools and county municipalities, the exploration in this paper is guided by the following research questions:
Which elements inform or regulate decision-making processes related to quality assessment and -development in local education leadership, and further How is leadership autonomy distributed and negotiated between schools and county municipalities?
The study is framed by a conceptual understanding of autonomy in schools as a multidimensional and context dependent phenomenon made up of several levels and domains (Gobby et al., 2022; Salokangas & Wermke, 2020). Understanding policy as enacted and organising normative discourse (Ball et al., 2012; Levinson et al., 2020) this paper zooms in on leadership autonomy on an institutional level (i.e. schools and county municipalities) (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007) and focus on the domains of development and administration (Salokangas & Wermke, 2020). While exploring the phenomenon of leadership autonomy in a Norwegian context, the regulation of school leaders’ decision-making by many different elements is not unique to Norway. This indicates that findings from this study is important far beyond the Norwegian context, particularly to countries with decentralised governance systems where local autonomy plays a central role in achieving high quality education. The study also contributes to deepening our understanding of the development of school leadership as a profession in its own right.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTaking an abductive approach to the topic, the study is designed as a small-scale ethnographic exploration of the everyday work of 17 school leaders in two upper secondary schools and one county municipality in Norway (Erickson, 1986; Sandler & Thedvall, 2017). During a time span of one schoolyear, nearly 100 hours of meeting observations and field conversations, as well as documents like meeting agendas and minutes, local and national policy documents actively used by the leaders were collected and analysed. Data material from the local education authority include semi-structured interviews, as well as documents. Inspired by the “zooming in” and “zooming out” of micro-process studies (Little, 2012), observations were guided by questions on leaders’ situated and enacted collective decision-making in matters concerning quality assessment and quality development, who or what informed or impacted decisions as well as what documents or artefacts were important in the process.
The two schools participating in this study were chosen through convenience sampling. As a result of a research- and development collaboration between the university and these schools, the author was invited to follow the leader-groups of the two schools over a full schoolyear. School 1 (Ibsen) is a large upper secondary school primarily offering university-preparatory programmes while school 2 (Haaland) is a smaller upper secondary school primarily offering vocational education programmes. During the school year in question, Ibsen was focusing particularly on a project of restructuring their study programmes on offer, whereas Haaland had chosen adapted education as a particular area for quality enhancement. While the two schools are located in two different (but neighbouring) municipalities, they are administered by the same school owner, which in the case of public upper secondary schools in Norway is the county municipality. This local education authority particularly stressed enhancement of professional learning communities in local schools through their policy documents. All data material was transcribed and organised in NVivo and analysed using thematic analysis in order to identify areas of decision-making as well as the diversity of actors, ideas and artefacts informing these decisions (Ball et al., 2012; Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsReflections on preliminary findings indicate that leaders’ decision-making in schools related to quality assessment and -development, while largely framed and initiated by local and national policy events and documents, is particularly challenged by aspects of teachers’ professional, social, and emotional needs. As an example, the initial idea of restructuring the study programmes at Ibsen to enhance interdisciplinary work was largely moderated due to a group of teachers arguing emotionally for the importance of collaborating closely with other teachers within the same subject area. Administrative structural elements like scheduling, and physical elements like school buildings also restricted the leaders’ decisions to a large extent. While possibly always precent in school leadership autonomy, findings also indicate that conflicting elements rise to the surface when larger changes to practice are required, i.e. when implementing new curricula reforms or reorganising institutions. At Haaland, the leaders’ attempts to develop formative assessment practices as a result of changes to the national curricula, was met with resistance particularly amongst maths-teachers. When several large development processes take place in parallel, communication between institutional leadership levels seem to be crystallised. This might generate more room to manoeuvre within the institutions as a result of reducing elements informing decision-making, but can at the same time cause a feeling of “being left to ourselves” (school leader, Haaland) and being more exposed to risk when external elements are not there to guide or restrict decision-making.
ReferencesBall, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Routledge.
Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., & Ärlestig, H. (2023). Bringing context and educational leadership together: fostering the professional development of school principals. Professional Development in Education, 49(1), 4-15.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Unpacking autonomy and control in education: Some conceptual and normative groundwork for a comparative analysis. European educational research journal EERJ, 6(3), 203-213.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M. Wittrockk (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). MacMillan.
Gobby, B., Wilkinson, J., Keddie, A., Blackmore, J., Eacott, S., MacDonald, K., & Niesche, R. (2022). Managerial, professional and collective school autonomies: using material semiotics to examine the multiple realities of school autonomy. International journal of leadership in education (ahead-of-print), 1-17.
Kauko, J., Takala, T., & Rinne, R. (2018). Comparing politics of quality in education. In J. Kauko, T. Takala, & R. Rinne (Eds.), Politics of Quality in Education: A Comparative Study of Brazil, China, and Russia (pp. 1-17). Routledge.
Levinson, B. A., Winstead, T., & Sutton, M. (2020). An Anthropological Approach to Education Policy as a Practice of Power: Consepts and Methods. In G. Fan & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Studies: Values, Governance, Globalization, and Methodology (Vol. 1, pp. 363-379). Springer.
Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding Data Use Practice among Teachers: The Contribution of Micro-Process Studies. American journal of education, 118(2), 143-166.
Salokangas, M., & Wermke, W. (2020). Unpacking autonomy for empirical comparative investigation. Oxford Review of Education, 46(5), 563-581.
Sandler, J., & Thedvall, R. (2017). Introduction: Exploring the Boring. An Introduction to Meeting Ethnography. In J. Sandler & R. Thedvall (Eds.), Meeting Ethnography: Meetings as Key Technologies of Contemporary Governance, Development, and Resistance (pp. 1-23).
Wermke, W., Nordholm, D., Anderson, A. I., & Kotavuopio-Olsson, R. (2023). Deconstructing autonomy: The case of principals in the North of Europe. European educational research journal EERJ, 147490412211386.
Wermke, W., & Salokangas, M. (2021). The Autonomy Paradox: Teachers’ Perceptions of Self-Governance Across Europe. Springer, Cham.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Exploring the Relationship between Principal Retention and School Improvement: First Evidence from Public Schools in Chile
Sergio Galdames1, Gonzalo Ruz1, Paulina Morales2, Alvaro Gonzalez3
1Universidad de Santiago, Chile; 2Universidad de Chile, Chile; 3Universidad Catolica Silva Henriquez, Chile
Presenting Author: Galdames, Sergio
Previous research has highlighted the fundamental contribution of leadership to educational improvement (Leithwood et al., 2020). Although there are different conceptual approaches to leadership, the evidence is conclusive in identifying the crucial role of principals in school success (Day et al., 2010). During the last decades, studies on the importance of school leaders have been accompanied by a growing global concern about a shortage of people willing to lead schools. There is a common agreement across most educational systems that school leadership has lost popularity, generating a scenario where fewer people are interested in applying, and more leaders are leaving the position (Hancock et al., 2019). As Towers points out, the challenges of recruitment and retention has generated "a leadership crisis" (2022, p. 206). This crisis is not new (Gajda & Militello, 2008) as evidence of this difficulty could be found as early as the 1980s (Simpson, 1987), with a spike at the turn of the century (Earley et al., 2009) and consolidation during the last decade (DeMatthews et al., 2022). Even though retention studies have increased in recent years, this area is still in "its infancy" (Hansen, 2018, p. 88).
Previous research has been categorical in explaining the negative consequences of rapid and disorganised principal change (Bartanen et al., 2019). While a certain level of rotation could be seeing as a positive element in schools with severe difficulties, ineffective leadership or communities seeking innovation (Davis & Anderson, 2020), the evidence is conclusive in identifying negative consequences when the change of directors occurs suddenly and repeatedly. As Mascall and Leithwood point out, "While principal turnover is inevitable in every school, too rapid turnover—or succession—is widely thought to present significant challenges to districts and schools" (2010, p. 368). Frequent leadership changes are associated with cycles of decline in school performance (Béteille et al., 2012), which can be explained by the loss of trust in the educational community, reconfiguration of collective memory, changes in school cultures, reallocation of resources, and restoration of visions (Pendola & Fuller, 2021).
In Chile, massive changes have been introduced during the last decade to enhance principals' performance, including a professional framework framing practices and responsibilities and an investment in professional development for current and future principals (Campos et al., 2019). In 2011, law 20.501 reshaped the selection process for principals, focusing the responsibilities of leaders on school improvement and instructional change through a 5-year performance agreement between principal and the local authority. Each selected principal must implement an improvement plan, setting goals and objectives around student’s learning (Montecinos et al., 2015). Yet, after a decade of implementation, little is known about the policy's success, particularly in selecting and retaining principals, and even less about the relationship between principals' retention and improvement. Building upon a decade of data, this paper aims to contribute to the global and local debate about principals' career path and school improvement. The main questions this paper seeks to answer are:
- What is the percentage of retention of school principals?
- What is the probability of retention of a female principal compared to a male principal with the same characteristics (age, region, and type of school)?
- Is there a significant difference in retention analysing principals by age, region, or type of school? If so, where is the difference?
- Is there a relationship between principal retention and school improvement? If so, how is the relationship?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedUnder a quantitative paradigm, we explore the last decade of principal selection and retention. Using a publicly available database from the Civil Service, we analysed all the hiring decisions in primary and secondary public schools in Chile, from the first selection in January 2012 to the last in December 2021. Particular attention is given to the cases in which principals were hired for two consecutive terms to lead the same schools.
Over 6.520 selection processes were analysed, where 4.242 principals were selected. To answer the research questions, first we use descriptive analysis and Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) to estimate the probability of retention of a female principal using a linear combination of the previously identified independent variables (age, region, and type of school). For the MLR, initially we identify the equation for the nominal dependent variable, and then we will estimate the probability of retention of a female principal. We will also use the Wald test to determine if the coefficients in the MLR are significantly different than zero. If the coefficient is different than zero, we will assume that its contribution is significant. Finally, we estimate the odds ratio of retention of a female principal compared to male principals.
To estimate if the differences are statistically significant, we will use a 3-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc tests. The 3-way ANOVA will allow us to determine if there is a three-way relationship among the independent variables (age, region, and type of school) and principal retention. If the F value is statistically significant, we will follow the analysis with post-hoc test to determine where the difference is.
Finally, we explore the relationship between principal retention and school improvement. We used two points of data (2016 and 2019) from the Quality Agency (similar to England’s OFSTED), which categorise schools on four levels of performance (insufficient, medium-low, medium, and high), to establish the direction of improvement. We organised the schools following the model initially proposed by Stoll and Fink (1996). We test this relationship using a Chi-Square test of independence.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsEven though our focus is on principal retention, we notice massive problems in selection. More than 1/3 of the selection process concluded without having selected a principal. This frequency is relatively stable across years and locations. This finding suggests administrative district-level challenges or professional development difficulties that might spill over into retention.
Only 20% of the principals selected got a principalship in the same schools for a second term, 6% obtain a similar position in the same municipality (district), 10% in the same region, and 5% in a different region. Most principals (58%) were selected only once.
Female principals have a significantly higher probability of retention (p < 0.001), where the odd of retention for a female principal is 1.217 higher than for males. We also notice that men tend to migrate longer distances (move across Chile) when securing a second principalship, whereas females tend to stay more often in the same school or district.
Our initial findings strongly suggest a positive relationship between retention and improvement. Using the performance categorisation of the national Quality Agency, our analysis indicates that more frequently improving schools are the ones retaining principals; while strolling and declining schools tend to change principals more rapidly. More work is needed to establish the characteristics of this relationship.
ReferencesBartanen, B., Grissom, J. A., & Rogers, L. K. (2019). The Impacts of Principal Turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 350-374.
Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904-919.
Campos, F., Valdés, R., & Ascorra, P. (2019). ¿Líder pedagógico o gerente de escuela? Evolución del rol del director de escuela en Chile. Calidad en la Educación, 51, 53.
Davis, B., & Anderson, E. (2020). Visualising differential principal turnover. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(2), 177-198.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., & Gu, Q. (2010). Ten strong claims about successful school leadership. En N. C. for L. of S. and C. Services (Ed.), National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services.
DeMatthews, D. E., Childs, J., Knight, D., Cruz, P., & Clarida, K. (2022). More than Meets the Eye: Rural Principal Turnover and Job-Embeddedness before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-24.
Earley, P., Weindling, D., Bubb, S., & Glenn, M. (2009). Future leaders: The way forward? School Leadership and Management, 29(3), 295-306.
Gajda, R., & Militello, M. (2008). Recruiting and Retaining School Principals: What We Can Learn from Practicing Administrators. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(2), 14-20.
Hancock, D., Müller, U., Wang, C., & Hachen, J. (2019). Factors influencing school principals’ motivation to become principals in the U.S.A. and Germany. International Journal of Educational Research, 95(April), 90-96.
Hansen, C. (2018). Why Rural Principals Leave. The Rural Educator, 39(1), 41-54.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22.
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in Leadership: The District’s Role in Managing Principal Turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367-383.
Montecinos, C., Ahumada, L., Galdames, S., Campos, F., & Leiva, M. V. (2015). Targets, threats and (dis)trust: The managerial troika for public school principals in Chile. education policy analysis archives, 23(1), 1-24.
Pendola, A., & Fuller, E. J. (2021). Adapt or Abandon: Demographic Shocks and Principal Turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(4), 704-726.
Simpson, T. (1987). Headteacher stress. School Organisation, 7(3), 281-285.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing Our Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Open University Press.
Towers, E. (2022). Why do Headteachers Stay in Disadvantaged Primary Schools in London? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(2), 206-221.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Leading school development: A systematic review
Fred Carlo Andersen1, Marit Aas1, Kirsten Vennebo1, Erlend Dehlin2
1Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway; 2The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Presenting Author: Andersen, Fred Carlo;
Aas, Marit
Leading school development has emerged as one of the key areas within school leadership research (Kovačević & Hallinger, 2019), and in recent decades there has been a growing interest in school leadership, both from institutions, in research and in policy-making. In particular, the interest has been linked to identifying what successful school leadership is in the sense of being effective in improving students' learning outcomes. A recent review of research (Hallinger & Kovačević, 2019) identified leading school change and improvement (LSCI) as one of the key themes or Schools of Thought that have emerged in the evolution of educational administration (EA) as a field of study. Moreover, Kovačević and Hallinger (2019) quantitatively document and synthesize the knowledge base on leading school change and improvement (LSCI) from 1960 to 2017. They show that there has been a largely increasing interest in the research field, LSCI, in particular the last four decades. Their analysis revealed four distinct and partly overlapping directions, or research traditions. Although these four traditions have their own characteristics, they complement and overlap each other. One, Instructional leadership for school improvement (ILSI) is defined by its focus on instructional leadership, influenced by principals' leadership related to that of students learning outcomes. Two, Transformational leadership for school improvement (TLSI) draws inspiration from transformational leadership that has been developed within private sector. This direction focuses on how leaders, primarily principals, create organizational conditions that can promote school development. Three, Shared leadership for change (SLC) direction shares a similar focus on how management can develop and maintain the same organizational conditions that create change. In contrast to TLSI and ILSI as researchers with a focus on distinct leadership styles, SLC researchers tend to adopt a less "uniform" conceptualization of the "source" to management. Four, School improvement (SI) is mainly associated with British and Northern European researchers and has been heavily influenced by school effectiveness studies. Writers within the SI direction seem to focus somewhat less on management but focuses more on school improvement.
Research based on reviewes largely contributes to theorizing within the field. But like Kovačević & Hallinger (2019) point out, the theoretical ideas must be tried out and tested empirically. This implies a great need for more empirical research within the field of LSCI. Thus, the current study aims to produce expanded knowledge within the field through examining empirical research contributions that in the period 2010–2020 are published in a selection of the most influential international journals in the field, in addition to central Nordic journals. The following research question is examined in 45 included articles: What are the characteristics of leadership in the development of schools, and what implications do the findings have for school leadership? Based on the included articles, there seems to be a consensus that the hallmark of leading school development is that leadership can be characterized as a collaborative activity. The articles are categorized into five leadership categories that represent various characteristics of leadership, new leadership tasks and various leadership expectations: Distributed leadership, leadership for learning, leadership in learning organisations, democratic leadership and leadership of organizational development. The categories have grown out of the empirical material. This means that the articles use the terms in their research presentation, either to describe theoretical features of leadership or as analytical concepts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe review can be described as a Rapid Review (Khangura et. Al, 2012) which is designed to create reviews in line with certain procedures. A strength of the science mapping methodology is its ability to handle large amounts of data extracted from an existing database of studies. A rapid review has limitations. However, the format has nevertheless been developed in a way that the same requirements for systematics and transparency that apply to any systematic review also apply to this. This review has three limitations: 1) it includes articles published in selected peer-reviewed journals; 2) it is limited to studies published between 2010 and 2020; and 3) languages are limited to English and the Scandinavian languages. The process of selecting articles for review was conducted through several steps. In the first step, we sorted out relevant studies based on title and abstract. In the second step, the 81 publications with potential relevance were read in full text. Six researchers assessed, independently of each other, the studies' quality and relevance. After step two, 45 studies remained, which are included in the review. As a basis for synthesis, the articles were categorized into five categories, which were described and prepared for a configurative synthesis (Gough et. Al, 2017). Configuration is about bringing the findings from the studies together so that they can show us potential connections and develop new knowledge. Each category is introduced by a brief definition.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn sum, the 45 articles show a clear shift towards what Kovačević and Hallinger (2019) describe as shared leadership for change. We wanted to draw attention to leadership that takes place in the school organization or between levels in the education system, with the aim of obtaining knowledge that can help us to understand connections between leadership and school development.
Studies show the connection between different leadership styles such as instructional leadership and transformational leadership and students' learning outcomes. Instructional Leadership provides knowledge about how successful leaders should lead to improve students' learning outcomes (Hallinger, 1990; Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Similarly, transformational leadership emphasizes how successful leaders should interact with their employees (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The reviewed articles show that many researchers are now concerned with gaining knowledge about how leadership takes place in practice, and why, and not least how leadership can be understood from a different perspective than from the individual leader. This does not mean that the individual leader is less important than before, but that the research is more concerned with studying how leadership takes place within different school contexts. Acknowledging that society is changing fast requires, according to the OECD report "School Leadership for 21st century learning", school leaders who are both innovative and collaborative (OECD, 2013). It involves a shift in research focus from what school leaders ought to do to what they can do. A consistent finding seems to show that there is a clear shift in the direction of schools being developed through collaborative activities and development processes between leaders and teachers, and that leading the collective processes appears to be the most prominent leadership challenge.
ReferencesDalin, P. (1994). Skoleutvikling: teorier for forandring. Universitetsforlaget.
Dalin, P. (1995). Skoleutvikling: strategier og praksis. Universitetsforlaget.
Fullan, M. (2002). The latest ideas on school reform. Leading and learning for the 21stC, 1(3).
Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (Red.). (2017). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews.
Hallinger, P. (1990). Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Sarasota, FL:
Leading Development Associates.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: a review of
methodological issues, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, &
Weaver, Hart (Eds.), The International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Kluwer.
Hallinger, P. & Kovačević, J. (2019). A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational
Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018. Review of Educational Research 89(3), 335–369.
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J. & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews,10(1), 1-10.
Kovačević, J. & Hallinger, P. (2019). Leading school change and improvement. Journal of Educational Administration 57(6), 635-657.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A Review of Transformational School Leadership Research 1996-2005. Leadership and policy in Schools. Special issue on "International Perspectives on Leadership for Social Justice", 4(3), 177-1999.
OECD. (2013). Leadership for 21st Century Learning, Educational Research and Innovation. OECD Publishing.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
The Principal’s Visionary Commitment to Action: One School System Case Study
Joan Conway, Dorothy Andrews
University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Presenting Author: Conway, Joan
This paper reports on a partnership research project between a large Catholic School System in Australia and the Leadership Research International (LRI) team at the University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ), Australia. The university researchers built on the premise that strengthening leadership contributes to successful and sustained school improvement and focused on a selection of successful or effective schools as deemed by the School System in partnership.
The research project was stimulated by the work of Hallinger and Heck (2010) who maintained that leadership is a catalyst for enhanced student learning outcomes: “studies of school improvement must assess change (i.e. improvement or decline) in the school’s academic processes and learning outcomes over a period of time. . .[and]. . .that school improvement leadership is directed towards growth in student learning” (p. 96). Additionally, this study also noted their qualification that “Effective leadership styles and strategies are highly contextualised. . .school’s culture, or capacity for educational improvement. . .[and]. . .collaborative [school] leadership, as opposed to leadership from the principal alone” (p. 107). Thus, the study explored, How does an understanding of the impact of context, culture, and collaboration contribute to the strengthening of leadership for school improvement?
The study drew on a definition of sustainable school success from previous school-based school improvement case study research (Andrews, Crowther, Morgan, & O’Neill, 2012; Andrews & USQ-LRI Research Team, 2009) where school success was constituted as:
. . .enhanced school achievements in agreed high priority goal areas, based on documented evidence of those achievements and teachers’ expressed confidence in their school’s capacity to extend and sustain those achievements into the future. (Andrews & USQ-LRI Research Team, 2009, p. 4)
And then reviewed the literature around the factors contributing to school success: context, culture, collaboration, system-school alignment or coherence, and effective leadership.
The work of Owens and Valesky (2015) addressed the importance of Complex Adaptive Systems as “dealing with participants in ways that bring about desirable changes in the structure . . . [and] in the character and quality of the social environment in which people work” (p. 98). It was realised that this view of individual schools being part of a school system needed to accommodate the notion of being an organisational system with subsystems where activities they carry out are related to each other. However, as many (Harris & Jones, 2018; Leithwood, 2010) have revealed, all schools are not the same and are required to be responsive to their unique communities as complex adaptive systems within systems.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study was conducted in two phases with a mixed methods sequential research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) where quantitative data formed the initial basis for the selection of “successful” schools, and a qualitative data collection of leadership perspectives focused on leadership for sustainable school improvement. Relevant data from the School System Office was used to select the participant schools where “success” was measured of student outcomes using a mix of standardised tests and final year 12 results. This database informed a purposive sampling of schools that were deemed to be successful. As context was an important aspect in this study, the following criteria were used for selection of participant schools: a mix of Primary/Elementary (4) and Secondary/High schools (4); School enrolment (98-1200); Socio-economic status (below and above the ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) mean (https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf)); nature of the student cohorts (co-educational and single sex); and experienced and inexperienced principals (new and longer term). All schools were long-established with a strong link to their foundational religious order.
In the qualitative phase, each selected school was visited by LRI/UniSQ researchers who interviewed the leadership team and then the principal, followed by an interview with each school’s School System support person. Throughout this data collection, the following questions were used to guide the semi-structured interviews: (1) What is meant by ongoing school success for this school? (2) What evidence is available? and (3) What factors contribute to ongoing school success? Analysis of the data included a cross-case analysis followed by a workshop where principals scrutinised the findings and discussed their understandings of effective leadership for successful school improvement. The guiding questions of the multi-phased analysis were: (1) What emerges in understanding the impact of context, culture, and collaboration contributing to the strengthening of leadership? and (2) What other factors might contribute to the reported outcomes?
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsParticipants acknowledged indicators of school success as the quantitative markers of external testing results but also valued student and staff wellbeing, and the community perception of the school. Factors identified as contributing to this success varied across the schools reflecting the context and the culture of the school and their interrelatedness, and the principal’s leadership experience and expectations within their current context. Responses related to their perspectives about effective leadership included: focus on the importance of learning; building relational trust; a strong vision for school improvement articulation; and building staff capacity.
Overall, each principal expressed in their personal and professional ways, A Visionary Commitment to Action with a notion of presence as one who is ready, fresh, supported, and trusting characterised by image, impression, and connection within their context. Of note, was the manner in which the effective principal manoeuvred and managed the dynamics of interrelationships in the school community, both within schools and with the school system personnel. The principal’s effectiveness was enhanced by a collaborative, contextual, and collegial relationship between themselves and school system personnel. This study highlighted the imperative of collective responsibility for school improvement in the development of an organisational culture of collaborative leadership building on the skills sets and emotional intelligence levels of collaborative leadership in situ.
Finally, a model theorising the Effective School Leader in Action: A System-School Relationship was developed. It is anticipated that this model might be suitable for adaptation in many schools and might be of assistance in developing strong ties between principals and their system support personnel. Of extended interest will be the explicit detail of the culture, the context, and the degree of collaboration experienced in each site of study and how further consideration of such emergent understandings might contribute to the strengthening of leadership for school improvement.
ReferencesAndrews, D., & USQ-LRI Research Team. (2009). A research report on the implementation of the IDEAS Project in Victoria, 2004-2008. Toowoomba, Australia: Leadership Research International, University of Southern Queensland.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-46.
Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. C., & Kimber, M. P. (2006). Ethical dilemmas: The bread and butter of educational leaders' lives. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 106-121.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd Ed. Sage.
Crowther, F., & Associates. (2011). From school improvement to sustained capacity: The parallel leadership pathway. Corwin.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & D'Amour, L. (2012). Understanding school districts as learning systems: Some lessons from three cases of complex transformation. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 373-399. doi:10.1007/s10833-012-9183-4
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ford, J., Harding, N. H., Gilmore, S., & Richardson, S. (2017). Becoming the leader: Leadership as material presence. Organizational Studies, 38(11), 1553-1571. doi:10.1177/0170840616677633
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
Gu, Q., & Johansson, O. (2012). Sustaining school performance: School contexts matter. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 301-326. doi:10.1080/13603124.2012.732242
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95-110.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2018). Why context matters: A comparative perspective on education reform and policy implementation. Educational Research for Policy & Practice. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9231-9
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2016). School improvement in high capacity schools: Educational leadership and living systems ontology. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(5), 853-868.
Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 252-263.
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform (11th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (2011). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. Doubleday.
Sutton, P. S., & Shouse, A. W. (2016). Building a culture of collaboration in schools. Ph Delta Kappan, 97(7), 69-73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716641653
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2017), 9-20. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001
|
