Conference Agenda

Based upon competency models of school leadership and improvement in Canada and Australia, the Diocese of Down and Connor (Northern Ireland) designed a Self-Reflective Framework to enhance the ethos and mission of faith-based schools.

Since its implementation in 2014, this Self-Reflective Framework seeks to engage school Principals and practitioners in assessing and developing their own school in embedding the following areas:

(i) School Mission

(ii) Religious Education

(iii) Catholic Leadership

(iv) Learning and Teaching

(v) Inclusion and Diversity

(vi) Social Justice and Respect for the Environment

(vii) Partnership and Community Outreach

This paper examines the effectiveness of this self-reflective framework in taking forward school development in faith-based schools.

It begins with an examination of the competency models of leadership and development that provided the foundations for the development of the Self-Reflective Framework. Particular attention is given to how this process of self-reflection compares and contrasts with earlier inspectorial models of school development in faith-based schools.

The paper continues by outlining the structures of accountability within the self-reflective framework and considers how this relational approach provides new opportunities for engagement with schools as they take personal ownership of self-identified areas for development.

This research draws upon qualitative data gathered from questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with practitioners in schools, school boards of management, educational trustees and diocesan support services to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of this new model of school improvement.

The research demonstrates how this Self-Reflective Framework not only provides a particularly useful model in taking forward school improvement and its implications for existent support structures for faith-based schools and institutions. The research also demonstrates how this self-reflective and relational approach towards staff development provides a viable and more effective alternative to inspectorial models that facilitates collaborative styles of leadership.

Objectives

Literacy coaches play leadership roles through managing literacy programs, organizing professional development activities, and helping school leaders (Ferguson, 2013). In the Chinese context, literacy coaches are called jiaoyanyuan and are considered as teacher mentors and teacher researchers (Zhang & Yuan, 2019). Diener (2009) believed that it is essential to learn about people’s work-related well-being, however, there has been a lack of research about literacy coaches’ well-being. This gap is significant because literacy coaches can contribute to teaching and school improvement significantly. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the well-being of literacy coaches in the Chinese school context.

Research questions

The main research questions of this research are:

How do Chinese literacy coaches perceive their own well-being?

What are the factors affecting these literacy coaches’ well-being?

How do Chinese literacy coaches deal with challenges to their well-being in different career stages?

Theoretical framework

Well-being has been studied through a combination of subjective theories and objective theories, which have suggested that individuals’ well-being is the objective part of subjective life experiences. In the six-factor model of psychological well-being proposed by Ryff (1989), individuals’ well-being is measured by grades in six aspects, including “autonomy,” “environmental mastery,” “personal growth,” “positive relations with others,” “purpose in life,” and “self-acceptance” (Ryff & Singer, 2006). Literacy coaches’ well-being is influenced by many internal factors like their attitude toward their job and external factors like school culture. Literacy coaches’ subjective well-being may be influenced by their goals in their jobs. The six-factor model of psychological well-being is a great model for uncovering the subjective and objective factors that may influence individuals’ well-being. This study will also take account of career stage using the four career stages scholars have outlined: exploration phase, establishment phase, maintenance phase, and disengagement phase (Savickas, 2002).

Methods and data sources

Semi-structured interviews were used to answer the research questions. Eight well-experienced literacy coaches were selected through the snowball method. Each interview lasted for 45–90 minutes. Comparative analysis was used to conduct the data analysis.

Findings

According to the data analysis, literacy coaches have three career stages including the exploration phase, establishment phase, and maintenance phase. In these three stages, happiness is the main factor that affects teacher professional development and school improvement. Working pressure, income, and social relationships were identified as the three main factors that affect the literacy coaches’ well-being. This study also identified the strategies literacy coaches use to deal with challenges to their well-being such as exercising and talking with peers.

Significance

This research may contribute to knowledge about teacher leaders’ professional growth in the workplace. In addition, studies about literacy coaches’ well-being may provide implications for district leaders, policymakers, principals, and teachers by pointing out how to effectively collaborate with literacy coaches. Moreover, research about literacy coaches’ well-being is beneficial for school improvement.

Connection to the conference theme

Through this exploration, evidence can be offered to schools and education bureaus to help literacy coaches’ have a better emotional state, which will benefit school effectiveness and improvement.

Background and Framework

Women have populated the majority of the educational workforce, yet men have assumed a disproportional amount educational leadership roles (Bailes & Guthery, 2020; Tallerico & Blount, 2004; White, 2023). Women working as educational leaders are not only under-represented, but also earn lower salaries than their male counterparts (Grissom et al., 2021; Loder, 2005; Pounder, 1988; Sanchez & Thornton, 2010). To help eliminate gender employment and salary gaps, research needs to identify factors that may be contributing to these disproportionalities.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine individual-, school-, and district-level factors that may be related to the salaries of principals. Specific research questions examined if factors at all examined levels contributed to principal salary and the gap between men and women school leaders.

Methods and Data Sources

The data analyzed in this paper come from one state in the United States. We analyzed datasets published by the Pennsylvania Department of Education for the year 2021-2022 which included demographic and salary information for individuals identified as principals. In our hierarchical regression models, we included annual salary as the outcome variable. The first model included only individual characteristics. The second model added school-level characteristics and the third model added district-level characteristics. The final sample included only principals leading schools identified as traditional public schools.

Results

Women accounted for 42% of the sampled principals. Among the 1,112 principals who identified as female, 70% worked at the primary level. In contrast, 47% of the 1,518 principals who identified as male worked at the primary level. Approximately 14% of both women and men principals held a doctoral degree. However, women principals averaged more years of experience than their male counterparts, as well as held posts in schools with fewer students.

The results of the hierarchical regression models returned several significant and meaningful results. First, the results indicated that male principals were consistently and significantly paid more than their female counterparts. After including school and district characteristics, the gender discrepancy in principal salary increased to an average pay differential of $3,121 (p < .01). Second, results indicated a positive association between school enrollment and salary, $10.53 (p < .01). With women principals leading schools with approximately 100 fewer students than men, women would average an additional $990 less than their male counterparts. Third, the number of women principals employed by an LEA has a negative association of $931.00 (p < .01) on the average annual salary of their colleagues.

Educational Importance and Conference Theme Connection

Based on these results, educational governing bodies should advocate for more equitable hiring and compensation practices. Such practices might include more formal training on how to select school leaders, as well as increased public data reporting and monitoring. This study connects with the conference theme of ensuring quality professional education for enhanced school effectiveness and improvement. The underrepresentation of female principals, as well as the pay gap, artificially limits the size and quality of the effective principal labor pool.

Introduction

This paper reports on the ways in which teaching principals in rural schools in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, Canada enact instructional leadership within the five leadership domains conceptualized by Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008). Although participants suggested that they were “not where they wanted to be” in their efforts to enact instructional leadership, their actions demonstrate exemplary practice in this regard. The primary research question that guided this study was “In what ways do the dual roles of teaching principals (administration and teaching) impact the way in which teaching principals conceptualize and enact instructional leadership?” Further, we were interested in the ways that remaining engaged in teaching duties informed principals understanding of instructional leadership and in their sense of self efficacy as instructional leaders.

Methodology

This phase of our study employed the qualitative approach (Merriam, 2009) of interpretive description. We conducted school observational visits and face-to- face semi-structured interviews with 10 principals from rural schools in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Participants worked in school configurations that included elementary/middle schools, high schools, and K-12 composite schools. Enrollments ranged between 40-170 students, staffed by 4.75-9 full time teaching equivalents and 1-4 full- time support staff equivalents. The only selection criterion for participants was that the principal must have at least 20% of his/her work assignment as a teaching assignment. The respondents held teaching responsibilities between 20%-70% of their full-time load. Seven of the 10 participants were in their first three years of the role. Interviews lasted between 60 to 90 minutes, were digitally audio-recorded, and then transcribed. The transcripts of the interviews were coded for themes and categorized for conceptual patterns (Stake, 2000) related to the five leadership practice dimensions of instructional leadership (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).

Findings

The findings of the study are organized around teaching principals’ senses of guilt in not achieving their vision of being an instructional leader, as well as evidence in their actions of the five leadership practice dimensions: establishing goals and expectations; planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning and development; resourcing strategically; and, ensuring an orderly and supportive environment. The teaching principals in our study are highly cognizant of, and focus their efforts on, building relational trust with staff, parents, and students in their local rural communities, and they integrate their leadership knowledge to solve the complex problems found in these schools. Teaching principals have integrated these leadership capabilities in their enactment of instructional leadership in a plethora of ways—they simply have not been recognizing it as such. School districts and teachers’ associations must change the nature of the discourse around instructional leadership so that teaching principals do not measure their efficacy as instructional leaders based only on their ability to visit classrooms. The constitution of the role of the teaching principalship must be reconceptualized to make recommendations on optimal parameters within which instructional leadership expectations are realistically manageable.