The Power of Many. Building Sustainable Collective Leadership in Schools

The Power of The Building sustainable collective leadership in schools Among the many challenges faced by educational...

Author: Patrick Duignan | Helen Cannon

22 downloads 876 Views 551KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The

Power of

The

Building sustainable collective leadership in schools Among the many challenges faced by educational systems in the 21st century, leadership succession is universally recognised as being a major concern. Rather than retain the current paradigm of a single figure at the top of the school hierarchy, leading researchers Patrick Duignan and Helen Cannon argue the case for a more inclusive, collaborative and distributed leadership. They offer a series of alternative models and gather views from existing principals to demonstrate what might be possible and what might work better than the model followed today.

The Power of Many

Many

Power of

Many

Building sustainable collective leadership in schools

The authors emphasise how a new paradigm must work to not only retain those already in the job, but to also encourage potential candidates to apply for the job. They offer specific recommendations and advice on new models and paradigms to system policy makers, human resource personnel, and practitioners in schools, especially principals and assistant principals.

Patrick Duignan is an Emeritus Professor of the Australian Catholic University and Director of Leading to Inspire <www.leadingtoinspire.com.au>. He has been a teacher, principal, lecturer, professor and dean of education in tertiary institutions in Australia and overseas. Helen Cannon is the Head of Human Resource Services, Catholic Schools Office, Diocese of Broken Bay, NSW, Australia. She has been in education for over 25 years as a teacher and system director of leadership development.

Australian Council for Educational Research

ISBN 978-1-74286-013-8

9 781742 860138

Patrick Duignan and Helen Cannon

Practical guidelines are proposed that offer sustainable leadership solutions and promote educational systems and schools as ‘communities of learning’. Ultimately, The Power of Many shows how the principal shortage can and must be substantially reduced, and the collective capacity of leadership in schools enhanced and sustained.


The

Power of

Many

The

Power of

Many


Patrick Duignan and Helen Cannon ACER Press

This book is dedicated to all educators and educational leaders who work tirelessly for those in their care and who dare to dream of a different wayÂ€of living the educational adventure.

First published 2011 by ACER Press, an imprint of Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd 19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell Victoria, 3124, Australia www.acerpress.com.au [email protected] Text copyright © Patrick Duignan and Helen Cannon 2011 Design and typography copyright © ACER Press 2011 This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions permitted under the current statutory licence scheme administered by Copyright Agency Limited (www.copyright.com.au), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, broadcast or communicated in any form or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Edited by Holly Proctor Cover design by ACER Project Publishing Typeset by ACER Project Publishing Printed in Australia by BPA Print Group National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Author:

Duignan, Patrick.

Title:

The power of many : building sustainable collective leadership in schools / Patrick Duignan, Helen Cannon.

ISBN:

9781742860138 (pbk.)

Notes:

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Subjects:

Educational leadership--Australia.

Other Authors/Contributors:

Cannon, Helen.

Dewey Number: 371.2

Foreword

For at least 20 years, schools in most western nations have experienced wave after wave of politically inspired reform initiatives to raise standards, close achievement gaps and develop 21st-century skills (Hargreaves 2003). This plethora, even plague, of reforms has been wearing on teachers. Creating new leaders, more leaders and better leaders has therefore become crucial in motivating teachers to engage more enthusiastically with reform initiatives. The most common leadership answer has been to attract, identify, select and support talented principals whose heroic leadership might energise teachers to improve student learning, usually defined in terms of test scores. Although all kinds of leadership can contribute to student achievement, in the end, over 90 per cent of school leadership studies focus on the leadership of the principal or school head (Banks, Macbeth & Galton 2011). These leaders are in a bind. On the one hand, they are expected to inspire, motivate, set visions, develop trust, build teams, be transformational, create networks and raise performance to ever ascending heights. On the other, with growing centralisation of curriculum standards, of accountability through testing and even of prescribed instruction, principals are expected to implement government policies with fidelity. They have to be managers and also leaders, compliant as well as charismatic, leaders of learning who are also driven by test-score data. Little wonder that younger generations who value a reasonable work/life balance see the job of principal, with all its overload, exposure and contradictory pressures, as undoable and not worth pursuing. The result is a widespread shortage of suitable applicants for formal leadership positions. Some think the solution to the leadership crisis is in earlier identification and cultivation of leadership talent, more efficient pipelines through which that talent flows, and better coaching and mentoring for young, emerging, or aspiring leaders as they are variously called. And v

vi Foreword

who could argue with that? But there is a growing body of literature that suggests that it is the unattractive and unmanageable nature of the job that is the key issue, not any shortage of quality applicants. The task, in this sense, is not just to find and form better people for leadership, but to rethink the very notion of school leadership itself. This is what inspires and permeates The Power of Many. Its authors propose that ‘unless school leadership is reconceptualised to move away from the dominant traditional view of the principalship, it will continue to have difficulty attracting high quality applicants and meeting the challenges of future schools and schooling.’ For over 40 years, Patrick Duignan has provided leadership to educators through his research, publications and consulting. He has never twisted with the winds of change to adopt and acknowledge the latest reform agendas for his own career aggrandisement. His approach to leadership and understanding leadership has always been unswervingly ethical, spiritual and transformational. The leading edge framework of leadership capabilities developed by the Australia Council for Educational Leaders, and its emphasis on the personal and moral dimensions of leadership, has his guiding hand upon it. In the Power of Many, Duignan has embraced distributed leadership and the generational renewal of leadership succession by working with emerging scholar Helen Cannon, whose doctoral research informs much of this book, to advocate for, exemplify and articulate more shared and distributed forms of leadership in schools and school districts. ‘We cannot possibly aspire to greatness in our schools’, they declare, ‘if we do not see leadership as a collaborative venture and adventure including students, parents, and other community shareholders.’ Most principals believe that their schools already share or distribute leadership (Fink 2010). Who wouldn’t? It is no longer tenable or credible to say ‘I believe in doing everything myself’. Indeed, in our own work, Sustainable Leadership, we show that even the most tyrannical leadership is in some ways distributed – leaders need followers; drug barons require henchmen; and autocrats stimulate widespread distributed leadership in the form of resistance to their rule. It is not whether we have distributed leadership or not that is the key question, then, but how that leadership is distributed, what it looks like, the different forms it takes in different times and places, which of these are more or less desirable and which ones get the best results. Supposedly shared leadership can range widely from the delegation of a few unpopular chores like monitoring student attendance to a designated subordinate at one extreme, to total abdication of leadership by the formal leaders and mob rule at the other. In our effort to bring more clarity to the topic, we have described three categories of shared or distributed forms of leadership –

Foreword vii

structural distribution which merely delegates leadership tasks; cultural distribution in which a platform of norms and relationships is established so that shared forms of leadership become embedded in the culture of a school and emerge spontaneously as the need arises; and more political and adventurous forms of distribution which sponsor collegial debate and disagreement and encourage overt action to change unfavourable conditions and contexts (Hargreaves & Fink 2006). While much of the discourse on shared and distributed forms of leadership is still highly theoretical, what is missing are in-depth, researchbased examinations of real-world models of shared leadership in practice. The authors of The Power of Many add significantly to our knowledge of shared forms of leadership by describing the strengths and weaknesses of five operational models: 1. Business matrix management; 2. Shared and supported leadership; 3. Dual principals – split task specialisation; 4. Dual principals – job sharing; and 5. Integrated leadership. In each of these, the authors offer practical suggestions for improvement, and also provide reflective questions to enable policy makers and practitioners to connect each model to their own context. All in all, this book provides the wisdom of two authors that will help others move beyond proclaiming that they already distribute leadership or that they wish there were more distributed leadership, towards developing patterns of shared leadership that are always practical, often innovative and constantly attuned to the needs of the school, the conditions in which it operates, and the personal styles and resources that many leaders bring to their tasks. As leaders, all of us can make a difference in our own organisations. A single word or act can sometimes move events decisively in one direction or another. The Power of One should never be underestimated. But too often, and too easily, the Power of One has been interpreted as meaning the Power of Only One, the Power of One Alone, or the Power of the Heroic Individual over the collectivity or the group. When Rosa Parks courageously refused to sit where the black folks should be on the bus in Alabama, a vast effort in community organising had already and specifically selected her for that moment. Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom, to govern post-apartheid South Africa was miraculous, of course, but the miracle would have been unachievable without the support of African National Congress members within and outside prison, and without the support of the entire global anti-apartheid movement that

viii Foreword

made Mandela’s moment of freedom possible. The Power of One almost always also depends on the Power of the Many. Duignan and Cannon show us how this Power of Many can amplify the power of every one of us. That is their own power and the power of their book. Andy Hargreaves Thomas More Brennan Chair in Education, Boston College Dean Fink Independent consultant and author

References Banks, J. Macbeth, J., & Galton, M. (2011). Reinventing Schools, Reforming Teaching: From political vision to classroom reality. New York: Routledge. Fink, D. (2010). The Succession Challenge: Building and sustaining leadership capacity through succession management. London: Sage. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Contents

Foreword

v

Figures and tables

x

About the authors

xi

Acknowledgements

xii

Introduction

xiii

1 Where have all the principals gone?

1

2 Challenging the current conceptualisation of the principalship

10

3 The research purpose, scope and focus

31

4 Voices from the field: Model 1: business matrix management

39

5 Voices from the field: Model 2: shared and supported leadership

47

6 Voices from the field: Model 3: dual principals – split task specialisation 58 7 Voices from the field: Model 4: dual principals – job sharing

64

8 Voices from the field: Model 5: integrated leadership

72

9 Voices from the field: The ideal models

82

10 From principalship to authentic leadership in schools

91

11 From principalship to leadership for learning in schools

100

12 From principalship to sustainable collective leadership

110

References

120

ix

Figures and tables

Figures Figure 1.1 Position vacant – school principal

3

Figure 3.1 Model 1: business matrix management

32

Figure 3.2 Model 2: shared and supported leadership

32

Figure 3.3 Model 3: dual principals – split task specialisation

32

Figure 3.4 Model 4: dual principals – job sharing

33

Figure 3.5 Model 5: integrated leadership

33


39

Figure 4.2 Rating scale

42


47


58


64


72

Figure 9.1 Ideal Model 1: supported leadership variation

83

Figure 9.2 Ideal Model 6: shared leadership variation

83

Figure 9.3 Ideal Model 13: growing leadership capabilities

84

Figure 9.4 Ideal Model 14: focus on leading learning

84

Figure 9.5 Ideal Model 20: building leadership capacity

84

Figure 10.1 Alternative paradigm of principalship

94

Figure 10.2 New paradigm of leadership

95

Figure 12.1 Focus on leadership succession

112

Figure 12.2 Leadership: building collective sustainable capacity

114

Tables Table 10.1 Summary of major findings x

92

About the authors

Patrick Duignan is an Emeritus Professor of the Australian Catholic University and Director of Leading to Inspire. Patrick has been a teacher, principal, lecturer, professor and dean of education in tertiary institutions in Australia and overseas. His key seminal writings are included in the SAGE Library of Educational Thought and Practice in Educational Leadership, which identified the most influential articles, internationally, that have shaped the discipline over the past 40 years. A prolific author, Patrick’s most recent publication is Dancing on a Shifting Carpet: Reinventing traditional schooling for the 21st century (ACER Press 2010), co-authored with Leoni Degenhardt. Helen Cannon is the Head of Human Resource Services, Catholic Schools Office, Diocese of Broken Bay, NSW. She has been in education for over 25 years as a teacher and system director of leadership development. During this time, Helen has worked with hundreds of school principals and teachers in the recruitment, selection and appraisal of school executive staff; designing and implementing leadership programs; induction and mentoring of leaders and succession planning. Her years of experience and professional dialogue with leaders in the field led to the research for her doctoral thesis on reconceptualising the principalship which is foundational to this book.

xi

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all those participant principals and assistant principals who gave generously of their time and wisdom in the research that supports this book. Their efforts have helped ground this work in the realities of everyday practice. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Associate Professor Deirdre Duncan to the doctoral thesis which forms the research framework for this book. We wish to offer our appreciation to two internationally renowned educators, researchers and writers, Professors Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink, for providing a very insightful and inspirational Foreword to our book. We feel privileged to receive such a positive commendation from two such eminent scholars. Patrick wishes to thank his spouse, Nuala, for her enduring support and her fresh pair of eyes that cut to the chase and help eliminate jargon and unnecessary wordage. Helen wishes to thank colleagues and family members for their unflagging support and their capacity to challenge traditional thinking about the power and the potential of new ways of conceptualising leadership. Finally, we would like to thank our publisher, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), for believing in the worth of this book and for their highly professional editorial advice and support. In particular, we acknowledge the expert advice of Holly Proctor, Annemarie Rolls, Debbie Lee and Yana Gotmaker. A special thanks to Holly, our editor, who helped us clean up the manuscript and make it much more readable and to Yana for her creative work on the cover.

xii

Introduction

As the expectations of what schools should achieve have changed dramatically over recent years, countries need to develop new forms of school leadership better suited to respond to current and future educational environments. (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 31) This book is about school leadership, especially about how more traditional perspectives of leadership, focusing primarily on the role of principal and principalship, have come under increasing scrutiny and are considered by many to be inadequate to meet the complex challenges of current and future rapidly changing educational environments. The fact that it is increasingly difficult to find high-quality applicants for the principalship has further shone a spotlight on the role of principal as the primary school leadership option for the future. We are not suggesting an end to the language or role of the principal or principalship. What we are proposing is that if we want our schools to be vibrant and alive as communities of learning, we must have inclusive and collaborative forms of school leadership. In other words, we are advocating that the paradigm of leadership underpinning traditional notions of the principalship needs to change. The primary purpose for writing this book is to provide educational policy makers and leaders with insights into and advice on what are likely to be the best options for encouraging schools to meet their role as communities of learning now and in the future. A number of alternative models of the principalship are considered and analysed and, based on the findings of the research study which underpins this book (Cannon 2004), as well as the rich experiences and observations of the authors, recommendations are presented for a preferred future model of school leadership. This book has a number of characteristics that make it useful for researchers, policy makers and leadership practitioners (including teachers) in school systems and schools. These include: xiii

xiv Introduction

1. It is a research-based book based on a project analysing possible alternative forms of the principalship conducted with 148 principals and a similar number of deputy/assistant principals in a particular school system. 2. It describes and analyses a number of possible alternative forms of the principalship and then reports on their perceived usefulness, effectiveness and attractiveness, from the point of view of principals and deputy/assistant principals. 3. In addition, principals and deputy/assistant principals were asked to ‘construct’ their own model of the principalship that would respond best to the needs and demands of contemporary and future students and educational environments. Their preferred composite model is presented and explained. 4. Based on an analysis of the responses of the participants in this research to the alternative models of principalship and on their commentary and recommendations related to their preferred model, we provide a set of recommendations for collective and collaborative leadership in schools as communities of learning. These strongly support the view that the time has come for the 'new forms of school leadership' that Pont, Nusche and Moorman refer to at the beginning of this Introduction. 5. We have provided, especially in Chapter 2, strong support from cited literature for our recommendations and framework by discussing why the traditional form of the principalship is seen by many to be inadequate for the demands of today’s educational context and why there is a need not just for alternative forms of the principalship, but for alternative ways of conceptualising school leadership. These tend to place the leadership of learning as a core leadership responsibility. 6. The research methods and processes of the research are also explained, and we have made recommendations for further research.

Overview of the book Before considering alternative options for school leadership, we discuss in Chapter 1 recent contextual issues relating to the role of principal and principalship with the focus on the shortage of people applying for the position. This in itself has implications for the way the principalship is perceived by many applicants and is the springboard for the major research study (Cannon 2004), which underpins many of the arguments and conclusions in this book. It is our view that unless school leadership is reconceptualised to move away from the dominant traditional view

Introduction xv

of the principalship, it will continue to have difficulty attracting highquality applicants and meeting the challenges of contemporary and future schools and schooling. In Chapter 2, we discuss recent trends, both in the research literature and in leadership practice, that advocate and support a move away from the principalship as the focus for school leadership to more inclusive, collaborative, distributed, sustainable and collective capacity-building perspectives. There is a growing belief in much of the relevant literature that single-person leadership, such as that of the principal, is insufficient when it comes to leading learning and teaching in a complex organisation within today’s challenging educational environment. Increasingly, alternative school leadership perspectives and frameworks are being proposed and these are discussed in Chapter 2. We conclude that there is overwhelming evidence for a move ‘from principalship to leadership’ in schools, described by Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008, p. 31) in their report published by the OECD. We provide substantial references from the literature to support this point of view. In Chapter 3, the research purpose, scope and focus are discussed and explained. The original research project, which forms the core of this book, was devised as a response to the challenge to rethink the principalship to determine if new or different models would attract, or be more appealing to, aspirants to the role. It was primarily conceived as an investigation of how the principalship could be redesigned to attract quality applicants to the role and to retain quality incumbents already in the role. To guide the research, a number of research questions were generated and these are also presented in Chapter 3. Five models of principalship, derived from a review of literature and from the authors’ experiences, were presented to the respondents (148 principals and 148 vice/deputy principals) in this study for their commentary and analysis as to their usefulness, effectiveness and attractiveness. They were also invited to construct their preferred model. Using these models as a basis for investigation, we sought to explore some practical ways to redesign the principalship to attract an increasing number of high-quality applicants to the role while retaining incumbents already in the role. In Chapters 4 to 9, we report what we call ‘the voices from the field’ – voices of principals and assistant principals. Through their reflections on and critique of the five different models of principalship, they provided valuable insights into better ways of conceptualising school leadership. Their voices were informed by their experiences and a belief that there has to be a better way of leading contemporary and future schools. In Chapter 4, we present an analysis of the responses to Model 1 (business matrix management), its strengths, weaknesses, attractiveness,

xvi Introduction

need for improvement and type of professional learning required to support it. This same structure of presentation for each model is used in each of the subsequent chapters. In Chapter 5, an analysis of the findings on Model 2 (shared and supported leadership) is presented. In Chapter 6, an analysis of the findings on Model 3 (dual principals – split task specialisation) is presented. In Chapter 7, we present an analysis of the findings on Model 4 (dual principals – job sharing). In Chapter 8, we present an analysis of the findings of Model 5 (integrated leadership), and in Chapter 9, an analysis of the findings on the ideal/preferred models is presented. In Chapter 10, we provide a summary of the research, the major findings and the conclusions that can be drawn from the findings. These conclusions have been conceptualised as nine guiding principles that are the foundation for a new paradigm of principalship, one that unequivocally promotes a shared leadership perspective and a reinterpretation of the principalship within such a paradigm. In Chapter 11, we present 15 propositions for advancing the implementation of the principles and paradigm proposed in Chapter 10. A proposition is a ‘plan or scheme to be considered, discussed, accepted and adopted’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Together with the principles, these propositions provide a framework for a reinterpretation and redesign of leadership in systems and schools derived from the research that underpins this book, other literature and the joint experiences of the authors. The propositions are clustered under four headings: (1) Helping current principals stay in the role; (2) Encouraging aspirants to the role; (3) Assisting systems and governing bodies in moving towards a paradigm of shared leadership for learning; and (4) Involving the community in the new paradigm. In the final chapter, we address a key question emerging from research findings reported here: ‘What approaches to leadership will best promote, support and sustain high-quality learning environments and student outcomes in schools?’ Earlier we argue that these approaches will include inclusive, collaborative and distributed perspectives but that these should not be anchored in a school leadership that is based on the continuation of the principalship as we currently conceptualise and practise it. We propose the need to fundamentally rethink and redesign schooling and school leadership to be more inclusive, collaborative and distributed not just because the principalship is inadequate or no longer appropriate but because if we want to build world-class communities of learning, this can only be done in inclusive and collaborative ways (Degenhardt & Duignan 2010; Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008). We cannot possibly aspire to greatness in our schools if we do not see

Introduction xvii

leadership as a collaborative venture and adventure including teachers, students, parents and other community stakeholders. Our principles, propositions and framework for a reinterpretation and redesign of leadership in schools are derived from significant relevant research and other literature; the findings of the research study which underpins this book; our joint experiences over a number of years working in education at primary, secondary, system and tertiary levels; our specialist knowledge and expertise as well as doctoral qualifications in educational leadership; our work as consultants on educational leadership with a variety of educational systems and schools, nationally and internationally; and our observations and visits to other schools and school systems where groundbreaking work is underway to move their schools’ leadership from the traditional focus on the principal and principalship to a much greater emphasis on collaborative, collective, collegial and/or distributed leadership with a clear moral purpose to focus on leading learning. We believe that we provide a clear template for such a move in this book. At the end of a number of chapters (Chapter 4 onwards) we present a series of reflective action-oriented exercises to assist policy makers and leadership practitioners in schools to challenge, in a positive way, traditional leadership approaches that are critiqued in this book and to engage them in constructive dialogue on how to initiate and support positive change toward the type of school leadership described in the final two chapters. The primary intent of these reflective exercises is to get dialogue started and assist its participants to ground both the theoretical and practical discussions in this book within their own context and practices. Once this dialogue begins, we believe that it will generate its own momentum because a move to the form of leadership recommended in this book makes educational sense and has deep moral purpose supporting it.

1 Where have all the principals gone?

Introduction In this chapter we examine the reasons why contextual and role-related challenges and problems have made the principalship an unattractive job for many prospective applicants. We report a shortage of applicants for the principalship across many education systems in a number of countries and we use research findings to indicate why this is so. We also indicate in this chapter what may need to happen in order to make the principalship more attractive to potential applicants. We discuss these proposed developments in greater detail in Chapter 2 from a literature perspective and also in the later chapters using findings from the research project that underpins this book.

Principal shortages In many western countries, schools are having difficulty attracting quality applicants to the role of the principal. In Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and New Zealand many principal positions are being re-advertised, even then often failing to make successful appointments. In a number of countries, the pool of available candidates willing to consider the principal’s role as a career choice appears to be shrinking. As Caldwell (2000) commented, ‘reports from nation after nation refer to the shrinking pool of applicants for the principalship’ (p. 1) and the situation is still a problem a decade later. The reasons given by those who are in the position to apply for the principalship but are not willing to do so are that the expectations for the role are complex, demanding, even unrealistic. The changing educational context; the requirements of governments and education systems; the reform agenda, especially with regard to curriculum and accountability for results that impact heavily on schools at all levels in most western 1

2

The Power of Many

countries; and increasing parental and societal expectations have all added to the complexity and challenges of the role. The impact of these challenges on the principal’s personal and family life has been identified as a major disincentive to people choosing the principalship as a career path (Carlin et al. 2003; d’Arbon et al. 2002). The research project, which is the primary focus of this book (Cannon 2004), originated when a tracking process detected the declining numbers of people applying for principal positions in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney (148 schools), the location of the study. As data was collected and monitored over a number of years, patterns emerged indicating that the shortage of high-quality applicants for the principalship was, in some places, becoming critical. As the researcher widened the field of inquiry, literature indicated that these patterns were in evidence not only in Australia but also across many western countries.

Principal shortage: the international context A number of studies and reports, particularly from the US and the UK, have provided evidence of the principal shortage (e.g. Bianchi 2003; Fenwick & Pierce 2001; Ferrandino & Tirozzi 2000; Goldstein 2002; Pierce 2003; Pyke 2002; Schuttloffel 2003). However, there is by no means complete agreement in the literature about the nature or extent of the principal shortage. Some writers (Pounder, Galvin & Shepherd 2003) believe that evidence of the shortage is incomplete, contradictory and inconclusive, while others (Brooking et al. 2003) suggest that there is an imperfect understanding of the principal recruitment-retention problem. Brooking et al. believe the recruitment-retention problem has much to do with deeper-seated structural difficulties; for example, in many countries women comprise the majority of teachers yet constitute a minority of principals, largely confined to small schools in poorer areas. This gender imbalance in the principalship has been investigated by other researchers (e.g. Boris-Schacter & Langer 2002, 2003, 2006; Court 2001; Pierce 2000) who contend that the principalship has for many years been predicated on an outdated model of one tireless (usually male) leader. Women in the principalship have been viewed as ‘token’ (Appelt 1995; Rosener 1995) and ‘anomalies’ (Blackmore 1993; Hackney & Hogard 1998). If, as appears from much of the literature reviewed here, the model of a single (male) leader is no longer tenable, educators are left asking what a new model should look like? Another stumbling block for aspirants applying for the principalship is their perception of the complexity of the role and the heavy workload involved. A corpus of predominantly US news articles on the shortage of

Where have all the principals gone?

3

applicants for the principalship was subjected to deconstructive narrative analysis by Thomson et al. in 2003. They concluded that the dominant media representation of principals’ work is one of long hours, low salary and high stress. The media often represented the person doing the principal’s job as a ‘superprincipal’ (Pierce 2000) who had to be all things to all people. The portrait of the ‘superprincipal’ has become a feature of the literature as the list of the demands on principals and their time has grown. Copland (2001) scanned the advertised requirements for principal positions across the US and wrote a position vacant advertisement to illustrate that system and school expectations for the principal’s role were unrealistically high. The advertisement read:

Position Vacant School Principal Qualifications: Wisdom of a sage, vision of a Chief Executive Officer, intellect of a scholar, leadership of a point guard, compassion of a counsellor, moral strength of a nun, courage of a firefighter, craft knowledge of a surgeon, political savvy of a senator, toughness of a soldier, listening skills of a blind man, humility of a saint, collaborative skills of an entrepreneur, certitude of a civil rights activist, charisma of a stage performer and patience of Job. Salary: lower than you might expect. Figure 1.1 Position vacant – school principal (Copland 2001, p. 528)

While Copland acknowledges that this constructed advertisement intentionally exceeds the bounds of the ridiculous, position descriptions from various schools and systems clearly indicate that principals are expected to demonstrate most of the criteria listed in this fictitious ad. Some schools and school districts, mainly in the US, have tried to mitigate the shortage of applicants for the principalship by looking outside the educational arena. Principals and system leaders have been recruited from the military, the business world and the legal profession. In part, the rise of non-traditional principals stems from an emerging commitment to standards, standardised testing and accountability in classrooms and schools. The tests are quantifiable and neatly fit the results-oriented culture of the training grounds and corporate offices that have spawned a

4

The Power of Many

movement in some places towards this type of non-traditional recruitment. Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) suggest that many of the current responsibilities of school leaders tend to be managerial in nature, thereby taking principals away from leading teaching and learning in their schools. These authors also claim that many of these managerial responsibilities are at the expense of their educational leadership functions. While these non-traditional applicants have demonstrated a talent for leadership and administration, they have no experience or expertise in leading learning. Their schools are compliant with legislation, wellorganised, and fiscally sound but are missing leadership of the critical area of learning. This avenue for recruitment would appear to be a short-term and possibly short-sighted solution for a complex problem. Across Australia, sources including the print and electronic media, professional association publications, committee reports and scholarly sources, all drawing on combinations of anecdotal and empirical evidence, suggest serious concerns about the quality and quantity of applicants for the principalship. This trend is repeated in a number of western countries.

Principal shortage in the Australian context A review of data from Australian states provides some indication of existing and potential recruitment difficulties in the national context. In Australia, the teaching workforce has different gender distributions across primary and secondary schools and in principal positions. The Staff in Australia’s Schools study (McKenzie et al. 2008), reported that 57% of primary leaders are female, but 79% of primary teachers are female. In secondary schools, 59% of leaders are male but 56% of teachers are female. Both the teaching and leadership workforce are also ageing. The average age of teachers is 44 years and the average age of leaders is 50 years (McKenzie et al. 2008). These figures indicate that over the next decade it is likely that a large exodus of principals will occur in Australia. In 2001 in Victoria, the average age of the members of what the Victorian Education Department refers to as ‘the principal class’, which includes principals and deputy principals, was 49.5 years. There were 2809 members of the principal class in 2009, with over 70% aged between 45 and 54. Large numbers of principals choose to exit the teaching service by age 55, many driven by the incentive created by the state superannuation scheme to depart just before their 55th birthday. Given the age profile and this potential attrition factor, the supply situation into the future remains an ongoing challenge. This situation will be exacerbated because of the declining numbers of younger teachers from whom principal aspirants will emerge. Over one-


5

fifth of government teaching service staff are in the 50–54 year cohort and less than one-tenth are in the 35–39 year cohort. When comparing the government sector with the Catholic and independent sectors, there are significantly more teachers in the government sector in the 45–59 age group and significantly fewer in the 30–44 age groups. The lower proportion in the 30–44 age groups in the government sector is primarily a result of lower recruitment in the 1990s (Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2008, Teacher Supply and Demand Report). The principal aspirant pool in the state of Tasmania is also diminishing. In 1985, the average number of applicants for an advertised principal vacancy was 14, but this had declined to only eight by 1999. This trend of significant decline (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2003) was a matter of concern to the Tasmanian Department of Education. The average age of principals and assistant principals in Tasmania in 2009 was 49.7 years. As with Victoria, the situation will intensify because of the declining numbers of younger teachers from whom principal aspirants will emerge. The average age of teachers in Tasmania in 2009 was 46 years, only a few years younger than the system leaders. The average age of primary and secondary principals in 2001 in Queensland was 45 years with 51% of principals aged between 45–55 years. The recruitment pool of applicants is ‘very, very sparse’ (Education Queensland, Human Resources Branch, cited in Gronn & RawlingsSanaei 2003). There appears to be less overall difficulty with recruitment in Western Australia and South Australia (Gronn & Rawlings-Sanaei 2003) where the major problems concern remote-area appointments. In NSW, the Ramsey report (Ramsey 2002) identified a ‘malaise in the profession’ concerning declining leadership aspirations. This report also identified a generational change similar to that in Victoria, as ‘a large proportion of current school leaders will retire from all levels within the next five years’ (p. 86). The data on teacher age profiles in NSW continues to show an ageing workforce (Ramsey 2002). The ‘baby boomers’ are spread across the 45–59 age group with the majority retiring in the next four to six years. In 2009, 44% of the workforce in NSW is aged over 50 years while only 9.9% is less than 30 years. This anticipated exodus from the profession further intensifies the shortage of applicants for principal positions. This brief overview of the national scene in Australia provides some evidence of insufficient numbers of applicants to fill existing vacancies, particularly in remote areas, with trends indicating that increased retirements and lack of interest in the principalship will exacerbate the situation in the near future. This national situation in Australia is also reflected within the Catholic sector in the state of NSW within which the research study underpinning this book was conducted (Cannon 2004).

6

The Power of Many

The state context: principal shortage in NSW Catholic dioceses New South Wales in Australia is divided into 11 Catholic dioceses, each with a Catholic Education Office (CEO) or Catholic Schools Office (CSO) that administers the schools in the various dioceses. There are also a number of independent or congregational Catholic schools in the state. There are 583 Catholic schools in NSW which employ 15â•›602 teachers with a student population of 238â•›680 (Catholic Education Commission 2008). Most dioceses are experiencing declining numbers of people seeking principal positions. The average number of applicants for principal positions across all dioceses in 2002 was 3.07 (Canavan 2001). In some individual dioceses, the average number of applicants was as low as 1.33 applicants per vacancy. Because of this, the Catholic Education Commission of New South Wales commissioned the Australian Catholic University (ACU) to conduct a research project across all 11 NSW dioceses on Leadership Succession (d’Arbon et al. 2000). This project included the Sydney Archdiocese, within which the research study which is the focus of this book was conducted. The findings of the leadership succession research project (d’Arbon et al. 2000) indicated that more than half of all respondents would be unwilling to seek principalship. The reasons were consistent across dioceses and included factors such as the impact of the principalship on personal and family life; the unsupportive external environment; and the excessive demands of accountability by systems and governments. Layered throughout these challenges, however, are some that have specific impact because of the faith context. In addition to the usual challenges of leadership required of any principals, school principals in faith-based schools have the extra challenge of leading a faith community in which their personal lives and faith commitment are under scrutiny from the public, the Church and educational authorities. As well as these personal challenges, within the Catholic Church there are some global challenges that go to the very heart of the changing nature of the Catholic school. These include a crisis of values, a widening of the gap between rich and poor, a growing marginalisation of the Christian faith as a reference point and the transition from religious to lay leadership (D’Orsa & D’Orsa 1997, 2010; McLaughlin 1998). The transition of Catholic school leadership from religious to laity has been occurring over a long period. The model of principalship that is operating in most Catholic schools at present is largely predicated on the religious model, despite the fact that most principals are now members of the laity. Principals now have family, community and financial commitments that were not part of the way of life of the religious principal.


7

While principalship has been opened up to the laity, however, there would appear to be some reluctance to take up the role. As an example of this reluctance, in 2001 the recruitment situation in the Archdiocese of Sydney was at crisis point. In that same year, the Catholic Education Office (CEO) in Sydney advertised 29 principal positions but there were only 37 applications, an average of 1.28 applicants for each position. In 2002, the average for the Archdiocese of Sydney was 1.45. For all dioceses across NSW, the average was 3.07. By 2009, despite some significant succession planning initiatives in the intervening years, the average number of applicants for the principalship across all NSW dioceses declined from the 2002 figure of 3.07 to an all-time low of 3.02 (Canavan 2009). In 2009 across all NSW dioceses, there were 81 principal vacancies. There were 245 applications for these vacancies and from these applicants, 67 successful appointments were made. Fourteen positions were re-advertised and were consequently filled with temporary appointments. This would indicate that something more radical than a range of succession planning initiatives needs to happen to make the role of the principal attractive and sustainable. We contend in this book that a total reframing of the role is necessary to meet the demands of today. The Archdiocese of Sydney, where the research was undertaken, administers a system of primary and secondary schools known as systemic Catholic schools. The responsibility for the administration of the schools is delegated by the Archbishop of Sydney to the Catholic Education Office (CEO), which is a large non-government education authority. The system consists of 148 primary and secondary schools with an enrolment of some 60,â•›000 students and approximately 5000 teachers. A snapshot of the organisation taken in 2009 showed that the average age of teachers was 41 years while the average age of principals was 53 years. Approximately 34% of primary principals were over the age of 55. This ageing of the population of principals indicates that a critical number of principals will retire each year, thus further exacerbating the principal shortage in the Archdiocese education system. A snapshot from the adjacent Diocese of Broken Bay (Catholic Schools Office 2009) provides an example of similar dilemmas for recruitment to the principal role. The average age of principals in this diocese is 51 years and the average age of assistant principals who make up the group from which most applicants for the principal position come is 47 years. This would imply that the current principals and the next generation of principals will be moving towards retirement at the same time. To intensify the issue further, research indicates that many of the prospective applicants for the principal’s role will not apply as they regard the role to be too challenging and stressful.

8

The Power of Many

The school leaders’ role is complex and demanding The current context of educational leadership presents a disturbing and challenging picture (Starratt 2004, p. 1). Leaders in education, like leaders everywhere, face challenges that result from a new sociopolitical and cultural context, characterised by extreme pluralism, profound technical innovation and the pressures of globalisation. Society is experiencing a knowledge revolution, which is resulting in the emergence of a society with expectations, values, aspirations and organisations different from the past (Barber 1996; Hargreaves 2003; Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003). A number of writers have suggested the need for new types of leadership and leadership skills for organisations to be successful and sustainable in changing and turbulent times (Andrew & Crowther 2002; Duignan 2006; Duignan, Benjamin et al. 2003; Fullan 2003; Hargreaves & Fink 2006; Starratt 2004; Wallace 2001). An analysis of these commentaries indicates that school leadership is complex and demanding, and school leaders need a repertoire of skills that includes: 1. challenging the status quo and taking risks; 2. negotiating, creating and articulating a realistic vision; 3. enabling others in the organisation to be part of this vision and to act autonomously and with confidence; 4. being authentic and credible to others; 5. building organisations that are generative and based on trust and ethical relationships; 6. developing new skills in analysing cultural assumptions and traditions; 7. a willingness and ability to involve others in key decision making; and 8. a willingness and ability to share power and control in the organisation. As well as these people-oriented skills, educational leaders also have to be knowledgeable and skilled in curriculum, pedagogy, developmental psychology, assessment for learning and accountability and much more that helps to build rich and engaging environments for teachers and learners. This is a daunting list of challenges and skills. According to Schien (1996), ‘the most salient aspect of future leadership will be that these characteristics [similar to those just listed] will not be present in a few people all the time but will be present in many people some of the time as circumstances change and people develop new insights’ (p. 68). If we combine these skills, it would appear that we are looking for some very special people to fill the role of the principal and principalship in schools of the future. Where are we going to get the leaders who will have the capacity to lead these future schools? We provide answers to this question throughout this book, beginning in Chapter 2, by suggesting that


9

it is not just a matter of identifying, preparing, selecting and appointing special people to the role but it is also a matter of rethinking the nature of leadership in schools and questioning the continuing usefulness of the traditional views of school leadership, premised on the principal and principalship. In Chapter 2, we offer advice from the literature and our own experiences on how formal leaders can build sustainable collective leadership capacity in schools as communities of learning.

2 Challenging the current conceptualisation of the principalship

Introduction An emerging view from research and literature on school leadership is that school principals will have to broaden their perspectives on what it means to be a principal and on what principals should do to be effective educational leaders in the future. A number of studies and commentaries have suggested that the time is right for rethinking the way in which the principalship is conceptualised as the present model is no longer meeting the needs of schools, individuals in the principal’s role or aspirants to the role (e.g. Boris-Schacter & Langer 2002, 2003, 2006; Brooking et al. 2003; Carlin et al. 2003; d’Arbon et al. 2002; Pierce 2003; Whitaker 2002). Many of these studies have recommended rethinking or redesigning the principalship in order to attract highquality applicants to the principalship, as well as retain those already occupying these posts. In this chapter we will discuss this strong emerging trend in the literature on school leadership that advocates a move away from seeing leadership in schools as being akin to the leadership of the principal or, indeed, leadership being directly linked to the principalship. There is a growing belief that single-person leadership, such as that of the principal, is insufficient when it comes to leading learning and teaching in a complex organisation such as a school in today’s challenging educational environments. Increasingly, alternative school leadership perspectives are being proposed. We discuss these changing perceptions and conclude that there is strong evidence for what Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008, p. 31) calls a move ‘from principalship to leadership’ in schools. This examination of the changing demands on school leadership in 19 countries was published by the OECD in a report titled Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice. Pont, Nusche and Moorman state that: 10

Challenging the current conceptualisation of the principalship

11

As the expectations of what schools should achieve have changed dramatically over recent years, countries need to develop new forms of school leadership better suited to respond to current and future educational environments. (2008, p. 31) In the remainder of this chapter we will make a case for a reframing and re-forming of the role of principal and principalship (even the assistant/ deputy/vice-principalship) to meet the challenges of contemporary and future educational contexts as identified in the OECD report (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008). This book, in fact, focuses on ways and means of facilitating the move from a traditional perspective of the principalship to authentic shared leadership in schools. The major research study which underpins this book (Cannon 2004), started by exploring alternative forms of principalship but came to the same conclusion as the OECD report (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 31) that ‘a commitment to greater leadership density and capacity within schools’ is required if school leadership is to have maximum influence on the quality of learning, teaching and student outcomes now and in the future. We start our discussion by examining traditional views of school leadership that tend to equate it with the role of principal or of the principalship.

School leadership has traditionally focused on the principal and principalship Hargreaves and Fink (2006) state that educational leadership literature has been pre-occupied with ‘the leadership of principals [and with] the assumption that school leadership is synonymous with the principal’ (p. 96). In discussing the literature on shared and distributed leadership and its effects on the quality of student outcomes, they conclude that, ‘the research still ultimately equates leadership with principalship. Leadership starts in the principal’s office. The principal does the distributing of leadership or creates the culture in which distribution emerges. The primacy of the principal is assumed, not investigated’ (p. 101). There is increasing scrutiny of the effectiveness of the role of principal and principalship as the focus for the leadership of contemporary schools. Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) conclude that ‘as the expectations of what schools should achieve have changed dramatically over the years, countries need to develop new forms of school leadership better suited to current and future educational environments’ (p. 31). They conclude from their research that the role of principal and principalship

12

The Power of Many

in many countries is coming under ever closer scrutiny. Increasingly in the literature on a number of interrelated leadership concepts and practices there is either a direct or an indirect critique of the traditional views of the role of principal or the principalship. A number of reasons are given.

Leadership is too much for one person There is a general consensus that the principal of a contemporary school is a very busy person. She/he is expected to be, according to Flocton (2001), a legal expert, health and social services coordinator, fundraiser, diplomat, negotiator, adjudicator, public relations consultant, security officer, technological innovator and top-notch resource manager, whose most important job is the promotion of teaching and learning. Other labels that are relevant, we believe, are confidant, marriage counsellor, architect, engineer, and sanitary contractor. Given the complex nature of the principal’s role and the very heavy workloads reported by incumbents in the role, it would seem both sensible and necessary for them to engage with others in meeting the expectations of the job. We believe that the ‘lone ranger’ approach to school leadership is no longer desirable or practical, if it ever was. Another criticism of an excessive focus on the principalship in school leadership is that the job has become too complex and multidimensional and is, therefore, too demanding and onerous for one person. Spillane (2006), an internationally recognised expert in the area of distributed leadership, claims that ‘a quick inventory [of the principal’s responsibilities] indicates that school leaders need to know something about content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, knowledge about students, and knowledge about adult learning’ (p. 88). He also concludes that they need to have ‘some level of competence, not just in a single subject area but in several, so that they can make wise choices about hiring teachers, facilitating the selection of curricular materials, observe instruction, and make informal judgments about its quality. This is all too much for one person’ (p. 88). In many instances, school leaders are called upon to exercise responsibilities, which require expertise that no one leader would be expected to possess. As well, Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) suggest that many of the current responsibilities tend to be managerial in nature, thereby taking principals away from leading teaching and learning in their schools. They conclude that the complex role includes:


13

establishing budget and accounting systems, choosing and ordering materials, setting up relationships with contractors and vendors, designing recruitment schemes for hiring teachers, to name just a few … (p. 230) They further point out that as ‘financial and personnel responsibilities are sharply increasing, school autonomy is sometimes associated with less time and attention for improving teaching and learning’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 23). In addition, they argue that ‘as requirements for regular standardised testing are increasing, the role of the school leader has changed … from being accountable for inputs to being accountable for the performance outcomes of teachers and students … In their planning processes, school leaders are increasingly expected to align local curricula with centrally mandated standards’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 24). In the educational area, school leaders are being increasingly held accountable for ‘raising the levels of student performance, closing the gap in achievement between student populations, providing inclusive education services for such populations as students with special needs and immigrant children, reducing dropout rates and achieving greater efficiency’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 25). As systems have increasingly shifted decision-making responsibility to schools, leading to greater local empowerment, the responsibilities and accountabilities of school leaders, especially principals, have multiplied and become more complex. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that the contemporary expectations for the role of principal and the principalship are such that any single person cannot meet them. Because of the perceived complexity of the role as well as the plethora of pressures and demands on it, many potential aspirants to the role are not applying for it. This has become a serious problem in many school systems, as discussed in some detail in Chapter 1. We will, therefore, only briefly discuss the issue here as a reminder that the challenge of leadership succession is one more reason to consider alternative and more attractive forms of principalship or of reconceptualising it more from authentic and shared leadership perspectives.

Challenges of leadership succession Caldwell (2006) reports that the interim results of a two-year study conducted by the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), Eastern Leadership Centre (ELC), the University of Cambridge, the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) and the Hay Group found that

14

The Power of Many

‘the number of quality candidates to choose from [for headship] is often seen as too small or nonexistent’ (National Association of Head Teachers et al. 2005, p. 184). In Chapter 1, we indicated that this is a challenge for many educational systems in a number of countries. Many aspirants to the principalship observe the ever-increasing complexity of, and unrealistic demands on, the role and decline to apply for the position (Carlin et al. 2003; d’Arbon et al. 2002). To many ‘it has become a very unattractive job’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 30) because there are too many negative images associated with it. Pont, Nusche and Moorman point out that there is considerable research evidence to support such negative images. The conclusions from such research identify ‘overburdened roles and working conditions, lack of preparation and training, as well as inadequate salaries and rewards [as] among the top factors discouraging potential candidates from applying’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, pp. 30–31). Despite all these negative sentiments, it is only fair to point out that there is some support in literature for the influence of the principal as a leader of learning.

Support for the influence of the principal and principalship Despite the constant changes in education and educational contexts and the increasing complexity of the role, Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) point out that ‘the position of the principal remains an essential feature of schools in many countries’ (p. 31). Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) conclude from their research findings that ‘leadership is vital to the effectiveness of a school’ (p. 4) and that ‘given the perceived importance of leadership, it is no wonder that an effective principal is thought to be a necessary precondition for an effective school’ (p. 5). Quoting from a Senate Committee report in the US, they go on to claim that: It is the principal’s leadership that sets the tone of the school, the climate for teaching, the level of professionalism and morale of teachers, and the degree of concern for what students may or may not become. (Marzano, Waters & McNulty 2005, p. 5) Dinham (2008) too points to the leadership influence of principals in their schools. He concludes:


15

The degree of influence of principals was somewhat surprising … This finding could partly call into question the current concentration on the individual teacher as the major within-school factor in student accomplishment. While there is little doubt about the importance of the individual teacher, based on these findings and the literature in general, principals can create key roles in creating and maintaining the conditions and environment where teachers can teach effectively and students can learn. (p. 59) When summarising the qualities, characteristics and capabilities of 17 very successful principals across Australia who had achieved extraordinary outcomes, Duignan and Gurr (2007, pp. 158–161), highlighted the central role principals can play in their school’s success and attributed this success primarily to: 1. a clearly articulated philosophy and deep moral purpose; 2. an unwavering focus on all students and their learning needs; 3. a passionate belief in what they do; 4. a commitment to making a difference; 5. a focus on and valuing of people; 6. strong support for learning, growth and development; 7. an expectation for high professional standards; 8. a collaborative, collegial and inclusive school culture; 9. leadership seen as service; 10. the acceptance of hard work; 11. a ‘can do’ attitude; and 12. enjoyment of their job. The fact that the list is so long and challenging would suggest, however, that it would be unlikely to find all of these factors in any one person. Yet, we believe, it is both possible and desirable to ensure that all of these factors are located within a leadership group within a school community. Certainly, as we saw from the fictitious advertisement for the role of principal in Chapter 1, expectations about the principal’s role are very high and create great pressures for any principal no matter how accomplished. As the job becomes more complex and multidimensional, and as the expectations continue to rise, it is difficult to see how any one person can perform it successfully. For these reasons and others we have already discussed, it seems desirable to revisit and re-examine the relevancy of the principalship for schools now and into the future.

16

The Power of Many

Is the role of principal and principalship any longer appropriate? Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) state that: There are concerns across countries that the role of principal as conceived for needs of the past is no longer appropriate. In many countries, principals have heavy workloads; many are reaching retirement and it is getting harder to replace them. Potential candidates often hesitate to apply, because of overburdened roles, insufficient preparation and training, limited career prospects and inadequate support and rewards. (p. 9) These challenges have made school leadership a new priority in education systems around the world. The same authors argue that there is an urgent need in most educational systems ‘to enhance the quality of school leadership and make it sustainable’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 9). They further point out that ‘there is a growing concern that the role of the school principal designed for the industrial age has not changed enough to deal with the complex challenges schools are facing in the 21st century’ (p. 16). They report that a number of OECD countries are seeking ‘to develop new conditions for school leadership better suited to respond to current and future educational environments’ (p. 16). Based on their research, the point is made that: The concept of principalship is rooted in the industrial model of schooling, where one individual bears primary responsibility for the whole organisation. Leadership is a broader concept where the authority to lead does not only reside in one person, but can be distributed among different people within and beyond the school. (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 18) They suggest that it is important to note that school leadership can encompass a variety of stakeholders occupying various roles and functions ‘such as principals, deputy and assistant principals, leadership teams, school governing boards and school-level staff involved in leadership tasks’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 18). They identify four key levers to help school systems and schools reconceptualise the principalship to be more collaborative and leadership-driven (pp. 9–13).


17

1. (Re)define school leadership responsibilities to focus more on learning and teaching While research indicates that school leaders influence school and student performance, especially if they are granted autonomy to make key decisions on teaching and learning, Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) argue that it is important that ‘the core responsibilities of school leaders be clearly defined and delimited … through an understanding of the practices most likely to improve teaching and learning’ (p. 9). They also suggest that policy makers need to ‘redefine school leadership responsibilities for improved student learning’ (p. 9). Based on research from 19 countries, Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008, p. 10) identify four major domains of responsibility for doing this: 1. Supporting, evaluating and developing teacher quality, which includes promoting teamwork, teacher monitoring and professional development. 2. Goal setting, assessment and accountability, which includes setting strategic direction and goals, school planning and monitoring progress using data to improve practice. 3. Strategic financial and human resource management, which includes building financial leadership capacity in schools, and giving school leaders greater influence in the recruitment of quality teachers. 4. Collaborating with other schools, which includes skills in dialogue and networking. As school leadership has increasingly become a priority for education policy agendas internationally, the focus of this leadership has shifted from narrow school management and accountability toward enhancing the quality of learning environments, teaching, student learning and student outcomes. It is generally accepted in a variety of recent relevant literature that within individual schools ‘school leaders can contribute to improved student learning by shaping the conditions and climate in which teaching and learning occur’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 19). The research of Dinham (2009), Robinson (2008) and Robinson, Hehepa and Lloyd (2009) support this view. We believe that while recently developed school leadership frameworks for the professional learning of educational leaders help provide guidance as to the key attributes, skills, characteristics, tasks and responsibilities of effective school leaders, more importantly they identify the essence of school leadership as leading learning and teaching. (An excellent example is the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Leadership Capability Framework 2010.) The idea of leadership as an influencing process or relationship is central to this focus.

18

The Power of Many

It is recognised, however, that such leadership influence is largely ‘mediated through other people, events and organisational factors such as teachers, classroom practices and school climate’ (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 19; see also Dinham 2008; Marzano, Waters & McNulty 2005; Robinson, Hehepa & Lloyd 2009). Research on distributed leadership adds to this by suggesting that by sharing leadership with a number of key stakeholders, principals can better influence the quality of their learning environments and enhance the quality of student outcomes (Harris 2006; Spillane 2006). Meta-analysis research has also identified a number of leadership tasks or practices that help improve teaching, learning and student outcomes (e.g. Hattie 2009; Marzano, Waters & McNulty 2005; Robinson 2007). These include: supporting and developing teacher quality; helping develop challenging and engaging learning environments; setting directions and goals; establishing high expectations; and monitoring progress and providing feedback. While many of these studies focus on the influence of teachers on student achievement, they all recognise that school leadership plays a key role in helping to create favourable conditions for quality learning and teaching. There is a strong emerging view that the type of school leadership most likely to have the strongest influence on the quality of learning environments and student outcomes is some form of shared, collaborative or distributed leadership. This is a topic we will discuss in much greater detail later in this chapter but for now we include it here as the second policy leverage cited in Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008).

2. Distribute school leadership The increased complexity and multidimensionality of the principal’s role as well as the increasing responsibilities and accountabilities are creating the need for distribution of leadership, both within schools and across schools (Caldwell 2006; Harris 2006; Spillane 2006). As we have stated earlier, there is a need to broaden the concept of school leadership ‘to encourage and support team structures and processes; tie distributed leadership closer to leadership succession policies and practices; and modify accountability mechanisms to match distributed leadership structures (Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008, p. 11). Leadership for the future, we argue in this book, will have to embrace all of these factors.

3. Develop skills for effective school leadership A third policy leverage in the area of educational leadership is that school leaders will need specific training and development if they are to respond effectively to broadened roles and responsibilities To do this, Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008, pp.11–12) contend that there is a need to:


19

1. Treat leadership development as a continuum, which includes strengthening and supporting leadership skills through three career stages; namely, (i) initial leadership training, (ii) induction programs, and (iii) professional learning to cover specific needs and context (see also ACEL Leadership Capability Framework, 2010). 2. Ensure consistency of provision by different institutions, including a focus on quality and standards. 3. Ensure appropriate variety for effective training, which includes mentoring, coaching, peer and collaborative learning, and experience in real contexts. We believe that if we are to change the traditional attitudes and practices of principals, there must be a concentrated and consistent focus on leadership preparation and professional learning that promotes and supports a different conceptualisation of the principalship based on inclusive, collaborative and distributed reinterpretations.

4. Make school leadership an attractive profession A fourth policy leverage is to make school leadership an attractive and rewarding profession. The literature on educational leadership is replete with calls to improve the quality of current leadership in schools and build sustainable quality leadership for the future. (e.g. Fullan 2005; Hargreaves & Fink 2006). Evidence from leadership succession research indicates that potential applicants for the principalship are deterred by the perceived excessive workloads, inadequate compensation (salaries) for these, a lack of transparency in processes for recruitment, and insufficient options for professional support and career development (e.g. d’Arbon et al. 2002; Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008). Embedded within the four policy leverages discussed above are a number of insights for how we might begin to move from a view of school leadership firmly grounded in the principalship to one that puts authentic shared leadership, especially leadership of learning, at the centre. We will now expand on these insights.

Principalship to leadership of learning: the need for more collaborative, shared and distributed leadership in schools While many of the writers we have included in this chapter recommend that current principals need enhanced support, development, better salaries and clearer career paths, they also focus on the need to change the ways in which the principalship is conceptualised and put into practice.

20

The Power of Many

They recommend changes to school system policies that encourage and support greater distribution of leadership responsibilities within schools; generate systematic, consistent and transparent leadership succession plans and recruitment processes; develop better orientation and mentoring of new leaders to get them to think of the principalship as, essentially, collaborative and collegial leadership; create enhanced working conditions, including appropriate salaries, that attract highquality teachers and other educational leaders to schools; and demonstrate a commitment to building and sustaining greater leadership density and capacity within schools from which future high-level leaders can emerge. In short, we believe that they are recommending a radical change – a move from principalship to authentic shared leadership. The good news is, as Davies (2006) recognises, a shift in leadership emphasis has already occurred in many contemporary schools in the United Kingdom. He suggests that traditional views where ‘head teachers provide the leadership and middle managers administer [the] curriculum area have changed radically to a model of distributed leadership over the last decade’ (p. 166). He claims that increasingly, head teachers in the UK are developing a new mental model of leadership where ‘instead of seeing themselves as leaders of curriculum they … see themselves as leaders of educational leaders’ (p. 166, italics in original). Another report on improving school leadership across a number of countries, undertaken by Pont, Nusche and Hopkins (2008) under the auspices of the OECD, has focused on system leadership but its conclusions apply directly to developments in school leadership as well. This report titled Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, concluded that ‘the collective sharing of skills, expertise and experience will create much richer and more sustainable opportunities for rigorous transformation [of leadership and schooling]’ (Pont, Nusche & Hopkins 2008, p. 11). A third OECD report, Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate, focuses, especially, on how educators can build deep, rich, active and engaging learning environments. Its conclusions have many implications for school leaders and school leadership. When discussing the role of key agents in change processes in education, the report claims that an innovation’s success is, for the most part, ‘determined by the social interaction of group members through the successive stages of: awareness, expression, interest, trial and evaluation, trial period, and adoption … its implementation will depend on the ability to solve problems and establish spaces for participation’ (OECD 2008, p. 17). Such championing and supporting of social interaction and the establishment of spaces for participation in innovation imply a collaborative, shared approach to leadership in schools.


21

A number of case studies undertaken by Aguerrondo (cited in OECD 2008, Chapter 8) explore the dynamics of the processes of educational innovation and change and concludes that the driving forces of successful innovation are usually located within ‘groups directly interacting in the current situation … Innovations demand one or more actors – whether individuals or groups – to become bearers of change’ (OECD 2008, p. 179). Aguerrondo also reports that these bearers of change engage in purposeful collaborative leadership to enhance the success of the change or innovation. For school leadership practices to be distributed among a number of individuals and groups, Harris (2006) argues that: While principals are undoubtedly an important source of leadership in schools there are compelling reasons to investigate other forms and sources of leadership. For example, there is growing evidence to associate distributed forms of leadership with certain organisational benefits and student outcomes … (p. 38) She quotes directly from Leithwood et al. (2006) that distributed leadership ‘assumes a set of direction-setting and influence practices potentially enacted by people at all levels rather than a set of personal characteristics and attributes located in people at the top’ (Harris 2006, p. 38, italics in original). Instead of studying the tasks, responsibilities and experiences of individual leaders in schools, such as principals, we contend that it is more productive when trying to understand school leadership, to ‘examine the ways in which leadership practices are shared, negotiated and constructed in schools’ (Harris 2006, p. 38). Taking some cues from Spillane (2006), Harris concludes that in order to get away from narrow conceptualisations of school leadership, such as those premised on the principal or principalship, ‘the challenge is to analyse leadership at the combined and collective level, to move beyond the actions of the individual leader and to look more closely at the collaborative and shared practices that contribute to organisational knowledge and improvement’ (Harris 2006, p. 38). In fact, Harris supports Spillane’s view that distributed leadership implies ‘a way of understanding leadership that focuses upon interaction and the exploration of complex social processes’ (Harris 2006, p. 39). She references Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) to support her own view that leadership can be best understood as ‘practice distributed over leaders, followers and their situation and incorporates the activities of multiple groups of individuals’ (Harris 2006, p. 20).

22

The Power of Many

Similarly, Hargreaves and Fink (2006) argue for a collaborative and distributed form of leadership in order to bring about sustainable leadership change. They claim that distributing leadership within and across schools and other organisations ‘isn’t just common sense; it is the morally responsible thing to do’ (p. 97). Drawing on the research findings of Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), Hargreaves and Fink conclude that a greater distribution of leadership activities among teachers has ‘a positive influence on teacher effectiveness and student engagement’ (Hargreaves & Fink 2006, p. 100). Also reporting on the research findings of Silins and Mulford (2002), they argue that ‘student outcomes are more likely to improve when leadership sources are distributed throughout the school community and when teachers are empowered in areas of importance to them’ (Hargreaves & Fink 2006, p. 101). They also point out that the findings of such large-scale research studies as those of Leithwood and Jantzi as well as Silins and Mulford, with regard to the effects of educational leadership, ‘provide clear indications that some elements of shared, collaborative, or distributed leadership are strongly associated with effective leadership in schools’ (Hargreaves & Fink 2006, p. 101). Spillane (2006), amongst the foremost experts on distributed leadership internationally, argues that ‘individuals who single-handedly try to lead complex organisations like schools set themselves up for failure … A distributed perspective makes it possible for the work of leadership to be manageable’ (pp. 87–88). He claims that ‘it is unrealistic to expect any school principal to know everything about leading complex organisations like schools’ (p. 88). In terms of reconceptualising the traditional notion of the principalship, Spillane suggests adopting a distributed perspective ‘shifts the focus from leaders to leadership practice … leadership practice is the vital concern [and] practice gets defined in the interactions of leaders, followers, and their situation’ (2006, p. 89). A key challenge is, however, to determine how best to distribute leadership. According to Spillane (2006), this involves ‘the extent to which leadership is distributed in different routines, who is involved in the co-performance of various routines, and how the situation defines leadership practice’ (p. 95). Further, he argues that it is important to better understand ‘how leadership practice takes shape among the practices of [different] leaders’ because successful leadership practices are made up of ‘a collection of interacting component parts in relationships of interdependence in which the group has distinct properties over and above the individuals who make it up’ (p. 160). Caldwell (2006) too sees the need for school leaders to interact and network with each other within and across schools. He claims that effective leadership calls for leadership to be distributed across and within schools.


23

From his research and worldwide knowledge of school networking, he suggests that this involves leadership ‘in a network of schools, or across a system of schools, in a particular area where a leader, or her or his school, has expertise, as in the twinning of schools in efforts to raise the achievement of one’ (Caldwell 2006, p. 188). The same argument, we suggest, applies within any particular school. Bentley supports the move to broaden conceptualisations of leadership in schools and notes that Finland’s success at the top of the PISA tables has not come from standardised measures or accountability from ‘above’ or from the heroics of individuals, including school principals (cited in OECD 2008, Chapter 9). Instead, he states that: Finland has built up a set of institutional foundations for schooling which promote a specific combination of universal participation, specialist knowledge and flexibility. What drives it is the interaction between a deep investment in participation … and the culture of open, network-based interaction … (cited in OECD 2008, p. 228) While we are unlikely to be able to replicate what Finland has done in education in many other countries, Bentley concludes that we can at least learn from them ‘to apply the lessons of open systems’, which for us suggests a commitment to greater participation, collaboration, collegiality and sharing in education and educational leadership in our schools (cited in OECD 2008, p. 228; see also Hargreaves 2009; Hargreaves & Shirley 2009). A further challenge once leadership practices in schools are moved away from the narrow views of principalship to a broader, more inclusive and distributed view, is how we are to sustain such leadership. Without sustainable policies, processes and practices it is likely that there will be regression back to the status quo.

Sustaining distributed and collaborative leadership Sustainable leadership has a number of inbuilt principles that support collaborative and distributed approaches to leadership. A key principle is that ‘sustainable leadership spreads. It sustains as well as depends on the leadership of others … it is leadership that spreads, that is a distributed and shared responsibility that is taken as well as given’ (Hargreaves & Fink 2006, p. 95). Building the leadership capacity of many different stakeholders in school systems and schools can help ensure its sustainability, according to Fullan (2005). He recommends that both vertical (up and down) and

24

The Power of Many

lateral (networks with peers and others) capacity building are ‘essential elements of leadership sustainability’ (p. 17). We propose that the nature of the contemporary challenges faced by many educational leaders in schools requires collective and collegial responses. Many of these challenges are complex and ‘involve leadership situations where values and ethics are contested’ and where ‘conflicting human relationships and interactions often occur’ (Duignan 2006, pp. 42–43). Fullan (2005) refers to these types of challenges as ‘adaptive challenges’ (p. 53) where, for the most part, leaders do not have easy answers. These challenges take time to resolve and ‘some disequilibrium on the way to addressing the problem is inevitable’ (Fullan 2005, p. 54). It would be foolhardy, to say the least, to try to resolve such tension-ridden situations single-handedly (Duignan 2006). Dialogue and collaboration are essential leadership processes and are needed, especially in situations of tension, substantive innovation and change. In fact, Fullan (2005) refers to leadership as the ‘long lever’ of positive change in any organisation. He states that: The longest lever we have at our disposal is leadership: leadership at all levels, leaders who leave behind a legacy of leaders who can go even farther, leadership succession that provides continuity of good direction, leaders who step out to make wider contributions, and a pipeline of leaders developing their dispositions and skills well before they take their first full-time formal positions of authority. (p. 94) Sustainability of such leadership, according to Davies (2006), is inextricably linked to positive change and school improvement. He defines sustainability as: The ability of individuals and schools to continue to improve to meet new challenges and complexity in a way that does not damage individuals or the wider community but builds capacity and capability to be successful in new and demanding contexts. (p. 144, italics in original) When proposing a fourth way of educational change and reform, Hargreaves (2009) also promotes the need to generate ‘sustainable leadership that can build innovative professional communities’ and ‘… dynamic communities of distributed leadership’ (p. 29) scaffolded by a collaborative leadership capacity. This fourth way of educational change would also be characterised by a renewed professionalism, especially of teachers, and active democracy where all key stakeholders would be


25

invited to contribute to their school’s leadership and decision making (Hargreaves & Shirley 2009). When attempting such positive change, Davies (2006) acknowledges that ‘initially, the single leader may be the catalyst for the change. However, only if new strategic direction and practices are adopted by wider groups of leaders and staff in the school will they be sustainable’ (p. 144). Davies draws on the work of Hargreaves and Fink (2006), discussed elsewhere in this chapter, to argue for a number of factors that need to be in place for leadership to be sustainable. We will now discuss these and add some of our own.

Building depth, breadth, length and diversity of leadership for greater capacity There must be depth to leadership which means, according to Davies (2006), that ‘sustainable strategic change must affect the deep and underlying principles of the school’s moral purpose and its learning imperative … Profound strategic change that lasts must reach down to all aspects of the school’s activities and behaviours’ (pp. 144–145). Depth of leadership is important for another reason as well. It can refer to the involvement of different levels of leaders in leading learning in the school. It can also increase the density of leadership for learning and, thereby, grow leadership in others. Increased depth of leadership in a school will enhance the pool of aspirants for formal leadership positions and strengthen the pool of aspirants for leadership succession. There must also be breadth in leadership which Davies (based on Hargreaves & Fink 2006) explains ‘means not only spreading new ideas across the staff and students within the school [but also] extending the strategic vision, direction and understanding of strategic change across the wider school community of parents and those in the local community’ (Davies 2006, p. 145). Of course such breadth of involvement increases the diversity of opinions and perspectives and leads to more informed and robust decision making – diversity is important for high-quality decision making. Diversity of people and the information they bring helps in coming to a better decision or resolution, according to Surowiecki (2004), because it adds perspectives that would otherwise be absent and because it takes away, or at least weakens, some of the destructive characteristics of group decision making, for example, group think (p. 20). Grouping only smart people (experts) together doesn’t work that well because they tend to resemble each other in how they think and in what they can do. You are better off, Surowiecki says, entrusting a diverse group with varying

26

The Power of Many

degrees of knowledge and insight with major decisions rather than leaving them in the hands of one or two people, no matter how smart those people are (pp. 30–31). There is no evidence that one can become expert in something as broad as ‘decision making’. A group of diverse individuals will make better and more robust forecasts and more intelligent decisions than a ‘skilled decision maker’ (p. 31). Of course, greater involvement of a variety of stakeholders can lead to greater commitment and ownership of decisions. It has been long recognised in research on educational change that it is wise to engage those affected by a decision or a change in its formulation. Those engaged in making key decisions about a change (or development) are more likely to be committed to its implementation. Engagement and involvement of colleagues is also likely to build trust. People feel valued when they are included and involved and this helps build a culture of trust. Such a culture is necessary for the development of a sustainable collaborative and collegial professional learning. Increasing the depth, breadth and diversity of leadership in a school community will generate enhanced leadership capacity. We are reminded that most sporting teams use the term ‘depth on the bench’ to refer to the fact that they have a variety of expertise and capacity on the bench who can be called upon at any time to replace injured players or those not meeting expectations. Schools don’t strictly have a bench but there are many ‘experts’ both within and outside the school who are often not used or are underused and who could be invited to contribute to the leadership capacity in their school. Sustainable leadership also has a time dimension – length (Hargreaves & Fink 2006). Maintaining strong leadership and strategic change over time is easier if it is based on clear, core and enduring values (Degenhardt & Duignan 2010). Such change has to be ‘fundamental and desirable, and is not dependent on a single leader’ (Davies 2006, p. 145). When all seems to be in constant crisis and when strategic direction seems to be swamped by short-term emergencies, leaders need to focus on core values and moral purpose. These values are a lifeline for leadership when in the turmoil and white water of constant change. Sustainable collaborative leadership and capacity building in schools will depend on formal leaders identifying, recognising and nurturing leaders and leadership in their schools. The Jesuit model of leadership, which has been very successful for nearly 500 years, is based on clear principles and practices (Lowney 2003). It requires Jesuit leaders to have their eyes open to the talent and potential in their organisation. Lowney (2003) states that throughout the years this perspective changed ‘not only the way Jesuits looked at others but what they saw. Their vision became more acute and their eyes open to talent and potential’ (p. 170, italics in original). Their


27

approach and commitment to sustainable leadership capacity building is based on three imperatives summarised by Lowney (2003) as: 1. the vision to see each person’s talent, potential, and dignity; 2. the courage, passion, and commitment to unlock that potential; and 3. the resulting loyalty and mutual support that energise and unite teams (p. 170, italics in original). We believe that inherent in these imperatives are the seeds for leadership sustainability, successful leadership succession processes and the building of leadership capacity in schools. If we add to these a key educational imperative or the moral purpose of schooling – leading rich and engaging learning environments for high quality teaching and learning outcomes – we have a framework for building professional communities of learners and learning.

Building professional communities of learners and learning – the key is learning-centred leadership The moral purpose of educational leadership at all levels must be to promote and support the conditions for excellent learning and teaching. Southworth (cited in Davies 2005) refers to this purpose as learningcentred leadership and recommends that formal school leaders in the future will need to work more closely and collegially with teachers in order to have greater influence on the quality of teaching, learning and student outcomes. He argues that ‘if leadership is second only to the effects of teaching on students’ learning, how much more powerful will leadership be when it works in combination with teaching?’ (p. 76). Even a distributed approach to leadership should have as its moral purpose and central focus the improvement of learning and teaching and, by definition, such leadership, as Southworth argues, must be a collective, collegial endeavour and not be seen as the sole responsibility of any individual, such as the principal or indeed the principalship. In advocating a distributed approach to leadership, he points out that ‘when leadership is distributed we are increasingly thinking about leadership rather than just the leaders’ (cited in Davies 2005, p. 77). He claims that ‘the long-held belief in the individual leader, working in isolation, is now waning … Today there are fewer places and occasions where and when lone leadership works well. Belief in the power of one is giving way to belief in the power of everyone’ (p. 77). He recommends that ‘we need to move away from thinking about “the leader” and attend more to leadership as a collective endeavour. The idea of distributed leadership recognises that we need lots of leaders in school’ (p. 89).

28

The Power of Many

This becomes an imperative when the focus is on leadership of the learning agenda. It is not a matter of distributing or sharing leadership for its own sake. By working together as professional colleagues, we can maximise opportunities and outcomes for all students within our sphere of influence. Adamson (2008) takes a similar view when she argues that: Developing expertise among teachers and administrators in an environment in which everyone is accountable and students are the centre of learning is the primary responsibility of capacity building … capacity building is about living and working as true Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). (p. 34) She suggests that this requires all leaders and teachers to be influential instructional leaders or leaders of learning because ‘effective instructional leaders maintain a sharp focus on improving teaching and learning, as well as gathering evidence of student achievement that demonstrates this achievement’ (Adamson 2008, p. 37). It is, however, much easier to talk about sharing and distributing leadership than to achieve it. Southworth asks ‘if leadership is to be more widely distributed than in the past, what is it that is to be distributed?’ He answers: We should distribute a particular type of leadership … when leadership is distributed it is surely learning-centred leadership which needs to be more widely dispersed. Schools may not need more strategic leadership, but they do need as many leaders as possible making a positive difference to what happens in classrooms. (cited in Davies 2005, p. 89) It is not so much, we believe, that leadership should be distributed in schools because it will more strongly influence student learning but instead, that the deep moral purpose of schooling itself is the driving force for shared and distributed models of leadership. From this perspective, shared and distributed leadership doesn’t represent largesse from the top but becomes an imperative from the bottom up. It is the professional, ethical and authentic thing to do if students are at the core of our values and belief systems in schools. When the seeds are planted in the fertile soils of what really matters in schools – the quality of learning and teaching – they will grow and blossom. While each flower will have its own grace and beauty, it is in the bouquet (collective) that we can see the dazzling reflections of our moral purpose.


29

A word of caution is warranted. We need to be aware that no matter how strong our moral purpose there will always be factors and forces blocking our path. There will be obstacles. Chesterton and Duignan (2004), in a review of a national trial of a shared and distributed form of leadership in schools called ‘parallel leadership’ (Crowther et al. 2002), concluded that one of the greatest obstacles to the development of collaborative forms of leadership is that principals have a particular view of their responsibilities as principal (ultimately responsible for everything) and they find it very hard to let go of this interpretation. This same factor is identified by Southworth as an obstacle when he states that ‘distributed leadership requires senior leaders to let go. This is hard to do when accountabilities always seem to bring everything back to them’ (cited in Davies 2005, p. 90). He does point out, however, that in this regard things are beginning to improve as many formal educational leaders are starting to realise that ‘letting go does not mean abdicating responsibility. Heads, and increasingly deputies and assistant heads, are letting go and taking on new roles. They are becoming developers of learning-centred leaders [and they are] coaching and developing such leadership in others’ (cited in Davies 2005, p. 90). It would appear, therefore, that the seeds for the move from principalship to authentic shared leadership have already been planted in many schools.

Concluding comments In this chapter we have discussed an emerging perspective in the literature on school leadership that recommends school principals broaden their perspectives on what it means to be the principal of a school and on what they can and should do to be more influential educational leaders in the future. We reported on a number of research studies and commentaries on the principal, principalship and school leadership that suggest the time is right for rethinking the traditional way in which the principalship is conceptualised and practised. We suggested, based on considerable appropriate evidence, that the traditional model of principalship no longer meets the needs of schools, individuals in the principal’s role, aspirants to the role or the learning needs of many students. A number of the studies we reported on have recommended that rethinking or redesigning the principalship is necessary in order to attract quality applicants to, as well as to retain those already in the principal’s role. As we have seen, many advocate the need for a move away from seeing leadership in schools as being akin to the leadership of the principal

30

The Power of Many

or indeed, leadership being tied so closely to the role of the principal and the principalship. We also reported that there is a growing belief that single-person leadership, such as that of the principal, is insufficient when it comes to leading learning and teaching in a complex organisation, such as a school as a community of learning, in today’s challenging educational environments. In the remaining chapters of this book, we provide a number of alternative views of the principalship given by principals and aspirants to the role (including many who did not or will not apply for the job) in the research study that underpins this book, and we draw leadership implications from the findings that directly support the title of the book. We will now describe the purpose, focus, scope and nature of this research.

3 The research purpose, scope and focus

This book is based on the findings of a research project which was devised as a response to the challenge to rethink the principalship to determine if new or alternative models would attract, or be more appealing to, aspirants to the role. It was, therefore, conceived as an investigation of how the principalship could be redesigned to attract quality applicants and retain those incumbents already in the role. To guide the research, a number of questions were developed and are cited later in this chapter. A review of the literature on redesigning the principalship indicated that some different ways of reconceptualising the principalship were already being successfully implemented in different parts of the world. Court (2001, 2002) explored the complexity of the principal’s role with particular reference to co-principalship and shared leadership initiatives and reviewed a number of international studies that examined some different models of leadership. She drew on examples from the US (Dass 1995; Groover 1989), the UK (Court 2001), the Netherlands (Van de Grift & Kurek-Vriesema 1990; Vlug & Geerlings 1990), Canada (White 1991) New Zealand (Court 2001; Glenny, Lewis & White 1996) and Norway (Tjeldvoll 1985) to inform her review. Each of her examples provides some insights into creative ways in which the complexity of the principal’s role can be redesigned. From her findings, five models were developed for this study.

31

32

The Power of Many

The five models Five models, based on Court’s (2001) research findings:

1. Supported leadership, a business matrix model Model 1 A single principal with full-time release from teaching.

An assistant principal with a balance between teaching and leadership responsibilities.

A business manager responsible to the principal for administration Including: • supervision of non-teaching staff; • OH&S, buildings and grounds; • budget, resource requisitions and maintenance; and • student attendance records.


2. Supported leadership, a distributed leadership model Model 2 A single principal with full-time release from teaching.

An assistant principal with full-time release from teaching.

An expanded leadership team who have allocated time release for specific, delegated responsibilities.

Opportunities for teachers to provide leadership with regard to specific responsibilities.


3. Dual leadership, with split task specialisation A principal for administration responsible for: • development of policies and procedures; • management of finances, buildings and plant; • student attendance, time-tabling and ancillary staff; and • community relations. An assistant principal with a balance between teaching and administration.

Model 3

A principal for educational leadership responsible for: • overall planning and goals for curriculum development; • course offerings, pedagogy and teaching resources; • teaching staff appraisal and development; and • community relations.


The research purpose, scope and focus

33

4. Dual leadership, with job-sharing Model 4 Two part-time principals who share administrative and educational leadership functions.

The allocation of responsibilities negotiated and determined according to strengths and workloads of each principal.

Flexibility and opportunities for customisation.

Equal responsibility and accountability for decisions and consequences.

Opportunities for flexible part-time work.

An assistant principal with a balance between teaching and administration.


5. Integrative leadership, a two-principal model with responsibilities integrated

Two principals working together with equal authority. There is an assistant principal with a balance between teaching and administration.

Both work full-time in the principal role.

Model 5

Their collaboration is based on shared values, goals and mutual trust.

Roles are negotiated not predetermined and based on the strengths of each principal.

Each principal has equal responsibility and accountability for decisions and consequences.


34

The Power of Many

Using these models as a basis for investigation, this study sought to explore some practical ways in which to redesign the principalship. Previous research had provided detailed understandings of what was not working with the principalship and why people were not choosing to apply for or take up the role. Drawing on the wisdom and experience of practitioners in the field, this study took the previous research to the next step, by asking how the principalship could be redesigned to attract more high-quality applicants to the role while retaining incumbents already in the role. The following research questions were developed as a focus for the research.

The research questions The main research question was: How can the principalship be redesigned to attract more high-quality applicants to the role and retain incumbents already in the role? Further questions were designed to help answer this main question: 1. What are the challenges for the role of the principal? 2. What alternative models of principalship would principals recommend? 3. What models of principalship would make the role more attractive to both incumbents in the role and potential applicants? 4. What are the implications of having different models of principalship for preparing potential applicants and supporting those already in the role? These questions were then used to develop a research design and methodology. An overview of the research design is provided in this chapter.

Research design An exploratory mixed method design was chosen for this study. The purpose of this method design was to gather qualitative data that enabled the exploration of a phenomenon or issue (in this case, how the principalship could be redesigned) and then to collect quantitative data to help explain further relationships found in the qualitative data. The data gathering for the study was divided into two phases. The first phase was the qualitative phase, wherein the data was collected and analysed using focus group interviews. QSR N6, a qualitative data analysis computer program, was used to organise and help analyse the data. The second phase was the quantitative phase, wherein data was gathered using a survey constructed from the data collected and analysed in the qualitative phase.

The research purpose, scope and focus

35

The two phases were conducted with different participants (principals and assistant principals). Primary and secondary principals (N=148) of systemic schools were included as the participants of the focus group interviews for phase one of this study. The bases for their selection were: 1. principals already in the role have experienced the tensions and complexities of the role and should be able to discern different ways of conceptualising the role; 2. principals were aware of the shortage of applicants for the principalship and were prepared to offer their expertise to help solve the problem; 3. the researcher worked in the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Sydney which administers systemic primary and secondary schools, so access to this group of principals was readily negotiated; and 4. the need to attract a pool of quality applicants to the principalship is a problem for both the primary and secondary sectors of schooling so participants from both sectors were needed to inform the study.

The process for phase one During the focus group interviews, participants were presented with a booklet containing a description of each of the five models of the principalship (see above) and were asked to answer the following questions: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each model? 2. Could you suggest any improvements? 3. What would be appropriate leadership development for this model? 4. What rating would you give each model for its usefulness as an alternative model of principalship? After commenting on each of the five models, the focus groups were invited to create their ideal model, to describe it and name its strengths and possible weaknesses (if any), as well as any appropriate leadership development that would prepare principals to implement the model.

Phase two of the research Primary and secondary assistant principals (N=148) were chosen for phase two, in which participants completed a survey. The reasons for their selection can be summarised as follows:

36

The Power of Many

1. one of the aims of the research was to redesign the principalship to make it more attractive to potential applicants. The most obvious group of potential applicants for the principalship are the assistant principals; 2. the assistant principals work closely with principals and would have, from time to time, experience as acting principals. Assistant principals, therefore, are a group of stakeholders with an informed opinion and who had a good working knowledge of the principal’s role; and 3. the assistant principals would have a view about which model(s), for them, would make the principalship more attractive and possibly encourage them to apply for the position of principal. In this mixed method, collection and the analysis of qualitative data was followed by quantitative data collection in the form of a survey. The data derived from the focus group interviews then informed and influenced the design of the survey used in phase two.

The significance of the research The literature reviewed in Chapters 2 and 3 provides a theoretical foundation for schools or system of schools wishing to explore the challenges affecting the principalship as well as some possible responses to these challenges. This research is significant because it has the potential to influence three aspects of the educational landscape: (1) theory, (2) policy and (3) practice. The findings from this study could feed into policy decisions about the structures, practices and processes for the recruitment and retention of principals. They could also be used to introduce policies that challenge existing, taken-for-granted assumptions about the hierarchical ‘lone star’ model of principalship where it currently exists. Practice could be influenced as the findings from this study offer a perspective gathered from practitioners in the field, about which alternative models of principalship would meet the needs of 21st-century schools. These practitioners have analysed each model and made suggestions that, based on their experience and wisdom, would make the models more practical and more likely to meet the needs of contemporary school communities. Many of the research reports identified in earlier chapters attest to the significance of the area of study that this research project investigated. The pool of available candidates willing to consider the principal’s role as a career choice appears to be shrinking. At the same time, incumbents are feeling overwhelmed by the expectations for the role and the way it has changed over recent years. This study may be able to contribute to the acceptance and recognition, by both policy makers and practitioners in the field, of different ways of designing school leadership.

Voices from the field: Models 1–5 overview

The next six chapters reflect the voices from the field – voices of principals, assistant principals, some just beginning their leadership journeys and some very experienced. They know and appreciate how complex the work of the principal can be, and through their reflections on and analysis of the different models they were asked to critique, they have offered insights into better ways of conceptualising and structuring school leadership. Their voices are informed by their experience, critical reflection and a belief that there has to be a better way of leading schools than is currently employed. The invitation to participate in interviews and surveys on the principalship had captured participants’ imaginations and they were eager to contribute to research that they felt was of particular significance to the profession. This was demonstrated by comments such as this from an experienced primary principal: Congratulations to everyone involved in looking at this whole area – something needs to be done. I am pleased to be involved in the research. Principals need to support any trials and innovations and monitor what works. I would volunteer to try some of the models. The participants were challenged by some of the alternative models presented but they thought it important that different models be considered. An experienced principal summarised the attitude of many of the participants when she commented, ‘it is important to consider these models. Education is changing and will change dramatically in the next few years so we need flexible models of leadership and ways to organise schools differently’. Two experienced principals, one primary and one secondary, also commented on the need to explore alternative models of principalship: ‘These models challenge the paradigm [of the current construction of the principalship] and require a change of thinking on the 37

38

The Power of Many

part of principals and school administrators’ (secondary principal) and ‘changing times call for different ways of doing things. Changing models of leadership are necessary to attract people to apply for the principal’s job’ (primary principal).

The five models Participants were asked to consider five models (see Chapter 3) of leadership that were being implemented successfully in various countries around the world. Each model was analysed in terms of its strengths, weaknesses, need for improvement and the type of professional learning required to support it. Each model was also ranked for its attractiveness to incumbents already in the role and for potential aspirants to the role. Where direct comments are cited, principals in their first two years of principalship are referred to as beginning principals; participants who have been principals for three or four years are referred to as inexperienced principals; and participants with five or more years’ experience are referred to as experienced principals. The same schema is applied to assistant principals.

4 Voices from the field: Model 1: business matrix management

Model 1: business matrix management This model provides support for the principal in the areas of business and administration. The key features of this model are:

Model 1 A single principal with full-time release from teaching.

An assistant principal with a balance between teaching and leadership responsibilities.

A business manager responsible to the principal for administration including: • supervision of nonteaching staff; • OH&S, buildings and grounds; • budget, resource requisitions and maintenance; and • student attendance records.


Strengths A number of strengths were identified by the practitioners as endemic to Model 1. It was regarded as desirable by both the principals and assistant principals. They indicated that the legislative frameworks with which contemporary and future schools must comply (a feature of many western countries), together with increasing financial accountabilities, cause them to be diverted from what many of them name as their ‘core business’, which they believe is the leadership of pedagogy, curriculum, teaching and learning in their schools. They perceived this model as a viable means of restoring the balance in their use of time between administration and leading the learning 39

40

The Power of Many

agenda. Participants believed that if some of the more administrative aspects of the role were the responsibility of a business manager, they would be able to focus more of their time directly on the education of young people. The strong support for this model seems to indicate that the financial aspect is an area in which people coming into principalship have had least experience. The complexity of the financial accountabilities and the financial computer packages that are used in most schools require expertise that many educators do not possess. The possibility of engaging a business manager is, therefore, appealing for both principals and assistant principals. A male primary assistant principal supported this model for these reasons: The business matrix management model appeals to me because it allows the principal to focus on educational leadership while another person can handle most of the administrative tasks that take so much time. I entered teaching because I like the challenge of educating young people – not to be a manager of budgets, OH&S [occupational health and safety], etc. The preference for the business matrix model is in accord with the findings from a number of studies (e.g. Gilman & Lanman-Givens 2001; Long 2000), which indicate that asking principals to be the business managers and enforcers of regulations and legislation are deterrents to people seeking principalship. The appointment of a business manager to assist with the management of these tasks was seen by the participants in this study as a proactive means of enabling them to spend more time on the principal’s primary task, and the area of their greatest expertise, leading learning, and maximising opportunities and outcomes for all students. One experienced female secondary principal indicated that ‘the appointment of a business manager would allow the leader to focus on his or her own area of expertise, educational leadership. Most of us are not financial managers’. An experienced female primary principal expressed a similar view when she stated: This model would be excellent. It would free us up to remain focused on leading the learning rather than being bogged down in paperwork. It also recognises that we get promoted and work in many areas that are not our areas of expertise, for example, OH&S, budgeting, maintenance. An experienced male secondary principal expressed a similar view: This model provides clarity of leadership. The vision and mission remain the focus of the principal’s work, and the principal would have

Model 1: business matrix management

41

more time to give to being the educational leader. Schools are a business and need someone with business expertise to run them efficiently. Overall, principals in this study suggested that they would have more time to be the educational leaders and lead the learning because of the increased specialised expertise available to the school community through this model. Comments in support of this view also acknowledged principals’ limitations in the financial area. An experienced female secondary principal summed up participants’ observations: The strength of this model is that it acknowledges that most principals have moved to the position because of their excellence as teachers and leaders of learning. There would be great advantage to the school community in having someone with expertise to focus on essential but non-core activities. The time-related stressors of the principal’s role were also highlighted by a study undertaken by Ferrandino and Tirozzi (2000) who found that the principal’s time during the school day is ‘so fragmented that there is little opportunity to reflect on problems or improve performance’. In another study by Rodda (1999), many principals reported that they worked from 56 to more than 70 hours per week and yet never felt that they were ‘on top of their responsibilities’. Some participants thought it would be possible to recruit people with specific expertise from outside education. As the profession is experiencing a teacher shortage in some disciplines and some geographical areas, it was thought that recruiting for the business manager position from outside education would not take good teachers away from the classroom. A beginning principal commented that ‘these duties could be handled by people from a business background with the appropriate expertise rather than by teachers. Let the teachers teach’. An experienced principal expressed a similar point of view when she observed that ‘the person taking on leadership of administrative matters would not need to be a teacher but could come from the administrative support staff thus creating a career path. A teacher taking on this role could lose touch with curriculum’.

Rating of model Using a rating scale of one (low) to seven (high), participants were asked to rate each model for its usefulness as an alternative model of principalship. Figure 4.2 shows the rating scale used in this study.

42

The Power of Many

Rating

Usefulness as an alternative model of principalship (please circle) Low

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

High

Figure 4.2 Rating scale

The business matrix management model was rated number one by both the female primary and secondary principals. The male primary and secondary principals both rated it as their second preference. Overall it was the principals’ first preference with a rating of 5.4. Principals rated this model highly as they expressed an immediate need in this area and they believed that it could be implemented fairly quickly. The participants also identified a number of weaknesses of the model.

Weaknesses Participants in this study identified four major weaknesses of this model. First, was the time pressure for inducting someone into this role; second, decisions could be based on financial considerations only; third, the model changed little of the structure as the principal would still be accountable for everything; fourth, the cost involved in employing a person with the appropriate expertise could be substantial. While time saved was named as a major strength of the model, time pressure was also named as a weakness as the respondents believed that implementation of this model would take up a considerable amount of their time. They were explicit in the ways in which they believed their time would be spent. Some thought negotiating role descriptions for the people in an administrative support position would be very time-consuming while others believed that the amount of time taken to induct people from outside education into the culture of their schools was a factor to be considered. An experienced female primary principal stated that ‘It would be time-consuming, but necessary, to induct anyone employed from outside of education into the ethos of the school and the educational vision and philosophy that drives the school’. The second weakness of this model was perceived to be the danger that significant decisions impacting on the school could be based on financial considerations rather than on improved educational outcomes for students. Many participants believed that this model had the potential to skew the decision-making processes in the school towards a ‘bottomline economic efficiency approach’ rather than a holistic, educational and student-centred approach. A female primary principal echoed the concern of a number of colleagues when she stated that ‘decisions must


43

be underpinned by contemporary educational challenges and compassion, not just figures and the bottom line’. A third weakness identified was a concern that this model changed little of the structure in schools and that the principal was still accountable for everything. These respondents were more inclined to think that a more radical change to the principalship was preferable, a change wherein accountability was shared more widely across the school. This view was supported by comments such as one from an experienced female primary principal: ‘the principal still needs to be kept informed of all the different aspects of administration. Despite delegating these tasks, the principal is still responsible and is still the one totally accountable for everything in the school’. Another experienced female primary principal expressed a similar view: ‘this model doesn’t go far enough as the principal still needs to have a handle on everything and is still accountable for everything’. The fourth major weakness identified was the cost to employ people with expertise in administrative and financial areas. Participants in the study pointed out that a substantial salary would have to be offered to attract expert applicants and that would probably mean diverting money from teaching and learning. A male secondary principal stated that ‘while in principle I like this model I can’t see any value in promoting an alternative model that may ultimately mean there are fewer resources to support student learning’. This was a key tension for respondents in relation to this model. Assistant principals, possible aspirants to the role of principal, rated this model as their third choice overall. The main reason was that the model had the potential to divert resources from teaching and learning, the same tension identified by the principals in the study. An important focus of the research was on how participants would improve the model to make it more attractive to both incumbents in the role as well as to aspirants of the principalship. These suggestions would also assist in ameliorating and/or overcoming some of the stated weaknesses of the model.

Suggested improvements While this model was generally highly rated by participants, suggestions were offered for improvement. The improvement most often suggested was for the business manager to be given responsibility for some of the compliance and legislative requirements that have been imposed on schools in recent times in many western countries. Some of the participants indicated that compliance issues take them away from their core business of providing educational leadership for the school. Participants suggested that the legislative requirements

44

The Power of Many

and associated compliance issues could be managed by a business or administrative manager. One experienced female primary principal believed that, ‘the person appointed to this role must have a thorough knowledge of legal accountabilities and legislation as it applies to schools’. A group of secondary principals suggested that a manager of administration be appointed to take responsibility for what they termed a ‘staff of paraprofessionals’ who managed such things as finances, facilities, maintenance of technology, supervision of examinations, transport, attendance and the administration of assessment. The manager of administration would be included on the school executive to ensure that the services offered by the paraprofessionals were more directly connected to the school’s planning and strategic direction. While this suggestion has some cost implications respondents believed that freeing up teachers to concentrate on teaching and learning would have worthwhile benefits for student learning and would, therefore, justify the resource redeployment. Many primary principals suggested that a cost-effective way of implementing this model in the primary sector was to have a business manager work in a number of small schools or even in a cluster of schools. They believed that the workload in a small school would not warrant the appointment of a single dedicated business manager. If, however, the manager worked in a number of geographically close small schools the appointment would be viable. This would enable the principal to be freed from many of the administrative tasks in order to concentrate on being the educational leader. An experienced male primary principal strongly supported this model and was also mindful of the criticism that good teachers are sometimes diverted into administration because of the importance of government and system accountabilities. He summarised many of his colleagues' suggested improvements when he stated that: Employers should leave good teachers in the classroom and rather than appoint a teacher to this role … draw on expertise from the business world and, in small primary schools, employ the business manager to work across a cluster of schools and be available to visit the schools regularly. The participants in this study believed that this was a viable model worthy of serious consideration. They identified numerous strengths and some weaknesses. They felt that if their suggestions for improvement were taken into account they would rate the model even more highly as a practical, feasible way of restructuring and redeveloping the principalship.


45

As well as suggestions for improvement, participants were also asked to identify some appropriate leadership development that would facilitate the implementation of this model.

Appropriate leadership development Appropriate professional leadership development identified by participants for assisting the implementation of this model of principalship included upgrading of skills for school leaders in specific areas such as induction, delegation, communication and collaborative decision making. They believed that inserting another key player with significant responsibilities into a school staff would require new ways of working for a principal, assistant principal and other staff members. For example, specific professional development around collaborative decision making would be necessary for many in leadership positions as this structure is quite different from the present model and could involve a person with a noneducational background and expertise. Participants also noted that with this model, a principal needs to be clear about what is delegated and what is not, so another area for development was identified as being able to negotiate clear position descriptions. One experienced female secondary principal added a caution that, ‘a mindset of delegation, not abdication’ was necessary to implement this model. Induction of the business manager would require an explicit, contextualised program that would ensure that the manager had a clear understanding of the mission and strategic direction of the school as well as its educational philosophy and priorities. This would also mean changes to all other induction programs so that all members of the school community understood the new structure. The management of a team of paraprofessionals and their associated development and career-path structure was an area for leadership development that a number of respondents believed would be needed to support that particular suggestion. A secondary principal seemed to sum up this point of view very well: If we changed the model and employed people who don’t come from an educational background we need to make sure that we can offer them viable ongoing employment, that we understand their industrial awards (if applicable), that they are perceived as valued members of the school community and that the model is sustainable. There was a general consensus among the participants that any change in leadership, management or administration of the school would need to

46

The Power of Many

include a comprehensive program for including the school community in discussion about the changes and the ways in which the model would be implemented. This aspect of educating the school community became of critical importance with some of the later models that would have a more radical impact on the school community than this model.

Reflective questions Overall, principals in this study suggested that they would have more time to be the educational leaders and lead the learning because of the increased specialised expertise available to the school community through this model. 1. Do you agree with this view? Why? Why not? 2. What would be some of the advantages and disadvantages of this model for your school? 3. How could the business matrix management model assist leaders in your school to focus on educational leadership? 4. What administrative tasks could be assigned to a business manager with a broad brief? 5. What might the caution that this model needs ‘a mindset of delegation, not abdication’ mean for a leadership team considering this model?

Voices from the field: Model 2: shared and supported leadership

5

This model provides support for the principal by enabling the sharing of some aspects of leadership with members of the school leadership team and teachers who have the capability of giving leadership in specific areas. The key features of this model are:

Model 2 A single principal with full-time release from teaching.

An assistant principal with full-time release from teaching.

An expanded leadership team who have allocated time release for specific, delegated responsibilities.

Opportunities for teachers to provide leadership with regard to specific responsibilities.


Strengths This model was seen as a means of sharing leadership across a school community. Many participants expressed the view that the complexity of the principal’s role could be considerably alleviated if leaders worked more collaboratively with a larger number of staff. One experienced female secondary principal expressed the view this way: This model would develop skills and encourage other staff who may then seek principalship but it takes lots of time to delegate effectively. The principal must be committed to delegation and shared leadership and have trust in other staff. This is in accord with the findings reported in the VSAT Project Report (Carlin et al. 2003) wherein it was stated that ‘there is little doubt that the 47

48

The Power of Many

evolving complexity and uncertainty of life and work in schools compels educational leaders to work more collaboratively with a growing number of people’ (Carlin et al. 2003, p. 51). The greatest strength named by participants for this model was the opportunity it presented for developing leadership capacity within the school and across a system of schools. Nearly 70 per cent of participants commented on the opportunities presented for staff to be given the delegated responsibility for a particular curriculum or pedagogical area or a specific educational leadership task. Principals, generally, and male principals particularly, appear to see this model of delegating responsibility to others as a viable means of developing leadership capacity in a range of staff members. These findings are in accord with Harris (2006), Spillane (2006), Feiler, Heritage & Gallimore (2000), Barth (2001), Lecos et al. (2000), and Andrews and Crowther (2002), all of whom advocated distributed or shared leadership approach as a means of building leadership capacity and density and raising teacher morale. This model of shared leadership was particularly favoured by beginning principals. A female beginning secondary principal commented that ‘this model empowers staff and prepares many staff for future leadership roles’, while a male primary principal believed that ‘delegating responsibility for particular tasks to staff members with expertise in the area promotes ownership of the initiatives in more staff members, uses individual talents and develops the leadership skills of teachers’. There appears to be a number of reasons for this preference for shared leadership by people new to the role of principal. The complexity of principals’ work is a common theme in recent literature (Copland 2001; Flocton 2001; Hargreaves 2003; Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008; Rallis & Goldring 2000; Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003; Wildy & Louden 2000) and in the conversation of aspiring and new principals (Cannon 2005). It is the authors’ experience that many of these new leaders have completed or are completing masters’ degrees in educational leadership where they are being exposed to the views of leading scholars in the field who advocate more collaborative forms of leadership. The understanding that the principal’s role can be best accomplished with and through other people sharing in the leadership of the school is a strong theme in the literature and appears to be accepted thinking for many new principals. A number of inexperienced principals also favoured this model of shared leadership. This comment from an inexperienced male secondary principal seemed to summarise the views of many participants: This model develops people’s skills for future leadership positions; for example, assistant principal and principal, [and] gives more

Model 2: shared and supported leadership

49

people a sense of ownership and belonging and can apply to any size school. This model already exists in some form in some schools without any rewards or remuneration but operates on goodwill. [It] would be great to create structures to formalise the model. Two further strengths of this model were identified by a number of principals. The first was the opportunity it provided for team building and collaboration, and the second was that it used the talents and expertise of the people already on staff. These strengths were seen as worthwhile and beneficial for the school. One beginning female primary principal expressed a general sentiment when she wrote, ‘I rated this model highly because it involves a whole-school approach to learning where all staff collaborate and work as a team to maintain the educational vision as the priority’. Participants also commented that the use of internal people was an effective way of having staff take ownership of initiatives, particularly curriculum and pedagogical change initiatives where the people leading the change have recognised expertise in an area. A comment from an inexperienced male secondary principal reflected the enthusiasm expressed by advocates of this model: This is an excellent model as key people on staff are often very talented in particular areas. This broader model would create more career paths in teaching whilst sharing responsibility and ownership for initiatives.

Rating scale This model was rated second overall by the principals. Participants who rated this model as number one believed that it had more potential as a means to attract aspirants to the role and more long-term benefits for the school and the profession when compared with the other models. Assistant principals rated this model as their number one preference overall. A beginning male assistant principal commented that: Model 2 challenges the hierarchical nature of the principalship and allows the duality of the leadership team to be active with the principal and assistant principal working collaboratively to serve the needs of the school. As possible aspirants to the principalship, assistant principals were asked another question that was not asked of principals. The question was, ‘Which model would make the principalship most attractive to you?

50

The Power of Many

Eighty-eight per cent of assistant principals responded that, for them, Model 2 would be the most attractive model. Many respondents expressed the view that the complexity of the principal’s role could be considerably alleviated if leaders worked more collaboratively with a larger number of staff. An experienced male assistant principal wrote that: The principal’s role is best accomplished when the principal shares the burdens and joys of leadership with the executive and other talented teachers. It is a significant finding of this research that the vast majority of assistant principals, the most likely aspirants to the role of the principal, found a model predicated on shared leadership the most attractive of all. The incumbent principals in this study also favoured this model as an excellent means of developing individual leadership capabilities and enhancing the leadership capacity of their schools. While this model was popular with participants, particularly with those who could see the benefits of shared leadership, a number of weaknesses were also identified.

Weaknesses Participants identified six weaknesses of this model. The first weakness was the cost of resourcing the model adequately. Participants believed that staff who have the relevant expertise need to be suitably remunerated for taking a leadership role and for sharing and contributing their talents and expertise. This implies the need for a more generous staffing formula or an adequate budget to recognise and remunerate teachers who accept leadership responsibility. Participants commented that the teaching profession has, to a certain extent, been run on goodwill. Teachers want to make a difference for their students so they have often volunteered to undertake extra responsibility or to offer their expertise to the school community. They thought it was time to acknowledge these contributions in more tangible ways. One experienced female principal expressed it this way: Schools would need to have their staffing formula and allocation reviewed to make this model work. The present allowance doesn’t have enough flexibility to enable this model to be implemented justly. Those staff who contribute their time and expertise should receive appropriate salary and recognition.


51

A second weakness was the amount of time this model would require for successful implementation. There were numerous comments about the amount of the principal’s time this model would require to delegate tasks and then follow up on the implementation and evaluation of the delegated responsibilities. A number of participants also stated that when staff were delegated responsibilities to enable them to participate in a shared leadership initiative, they would also need a time allocation for planning, implementation and evaluation. A particular problem in the primary context was that time out of class for teachers leading an initiative could be seen by parents as disruptive to class routine and detrimental to student learning. The following is a selection of comments that indicate some of the difficulties participants would anticipate in implementing this model of shared leadership: The principal would still need to coordinate all areas. This would be difficult at times, especially finding time to meet with all the people with delegated leadership responsibilities. Salary and recognition would need to be given to staff contributing their expertise. (Beginning principal, female, primary) This could be very difficult and time-consuming for the principal to be pulling all the threads together. It would be hard for staff members to do various parts of the whole in isolation when they are only half informed of the whole picture. (Beginning principal, female, secondary) This model would require time release for staff to lead and monitor initiatives and should also have an increase of salary to match the extra responsibilities. (Inexperienced principal, female, primary) Release of appropriate persons from the classroom is disruptive to classes and divides a staff member’s time and priorities. (Experienced principal, female, primary) A third weakness identified by a number of participants was that the expertise required to lead a particular initiative is not always available on staff. It was also noted by some participants that even if staff have the expertise, they are often overworked and disinclined to take on more responsibility. The lack of expertise on staff seemed to be a particular issue for small primary schools where the expertise and number of people with whom to share leadership may be limited. One experienced primary principal observed that:

52

The Power of Many

The principal under this model is spread too thinly coordinating all the activities. There is a lack of people with experience to support the principal. Quality teachers for classrooms are becoming more difficult to find and strengths among staff are decreasing. Another experienced primary principal stated that ‘our staff is small and the teachers are predominantly young and inexperienced. While they may be willing, they just don’t have the expertise’. A fourth weakness identified by an experienced secondary principal was that ‘staff in the current climate do not want to take on added responsibilities’. Even if the expertise is available, staff members are not always prepared to take on additional responsibilities. Some of the previous comments would suggest that this difficulty may be overcome if teachers were paid extra for sharing their expertise or were given genuine responsibility and ownership. A fifth weakness identified by participants related to the difficulties with recruitment and retention of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Structures to support and foster shared leadership in a school are often built on the individual expertise of certain staff members. When key staff members change schools, the energy that sustained the shared initiatives, which depended on their expertise, often dissipates. There were also comments that indicated in certain curriculum areas, such as technology, mathematics and physics, the required expertise is not often available and recruitment and retention for these areas needs considerable planning. An experienced primary principal summed up the dilemma this way: Time and resources are used in recruiting, training and trying to retain suitable personnel. What happens when key people leave for promotion or other reasons? What strategies can we adopt to attract people into teaching who have the expertise we need? Recruitment and retention of staff were two significant human resources functions that emerged as issues of concern in this research across many of the models. Human resources functions and the effect they have on the principal’s role were mentioned over 300 times by participants in this research. They believed that managing the people in their schools was a challenging, demanding and highly significant part of their leadership. This aligns with the research findings of Effron, Gandossy and Goldsmith (2003), who found that strategic and proactive human resources management is important for change and growth in organisations in order to obtain and retain the best staff. The last weakness identified in this model was how accountability could be maintained with shared leadership. Some felt that ‘the buck stops


53

with the principal’ and the sharing of leadership could create confusion about who was actually accountable for a shared task. However, some felt that sharing leadership also meant sharing accountability. Participants’ comments tended to reflect what Wildy and Louden (2000) refer to as the accountability dilemma. The accountability dilemma concerns how to empower local decision making and to comply with external accountability requirements. It would seem that principals, in the current political climate, have less room to manoeuvre than in the past. External forces are increasingly impacting on their role and while they still enjoy the authority to decide how far to share leadership, they are also held rigorously accountable for the outcomes of their decisions. Another aspect of the dilemma is that increased external accountability makes principals more reliant on their staff to achieve desired outcomes and imposed targets, but instead of empowering them to do this, they tend to operate through constraining rules and regulations. Many principals seem to prefer compliant teachers to self-motivated and creative ones. Their increasing dependence on colleagues disposes principals towards sharing leadership but, in a context of unprecedented accountability, they may feel inhibited from sharing. One beginning principal commented that ‘the buck has to stop with the principal, or staff and parents become confused’, while another stated that: I am ultimately accountable for everything that happens in my school but in the best of all possible worlds final accountability needs also to be shared amongst staff. An experienced female principal encouraged some rethinking of the way things currently work when she commented: ‘one individual still carries all the responsibility. This needs to be rethought’. The dilemma for principals who want to share leadership is to be strong yet collaborative, compliant with external demands while sharing authority and responsibility with others in the school. Present structures, however, hold the principal, not the school community, accountable for the outcomes of collaborative decisions. We propose later in this book that these accountabilities need to be rethought and redesigned.

Suggested improvements There were a number of suggestions for improvement of this model to make it more practical and viable. The first suggestion related to flexible employment processes. Participants believed that if shared leadership was to be implemented, principals needed to have the flexibility to be able to

54

The Power of Many

employ staff with the required expertise on a needs basis. This could mean short-term contracts or staff members with specific expertise employed across a number of schools rather than attached to any particular school staff. It might mean seconding staff to other schools for short periods of time. Flexibility with employment procedures was seen as key to improving this model. In some schools and systems, principals have a degree of autonomy in recruiting and selecting staff while others have to function within rigid employment frameworks. At the same time, the teaching profession is generally unionised and recruitment and remuneration are often predicated on awards or enterprise agreements. The participants in this study advocated a loosening of some of these constraints to improve the implementation of this model. A second suggestion related to remuneration. Participants believed that flexible employment practices should include being able to reward staff adequately who contribute their expertise in a leadership capacity and take command of leading a particular school initiative. Some participants’ comments related specifically to staffing and resources. An experienced female primary principal commented that ‘funding would need to include adequate release for staff to take up new roles’ while another stated that ‘salaries need to be looked at – financial compensation is needed, a substantial increase with holiday trade-off’. Other participants made suggestions for improving recruitment and retention of qualified staff. An experienced female primary principal commented that ‘there is a need to attract people from outside education to fill specific roles, for example, maintenance, OH&S, finance’, while an experienced female secondary principal suggested that this model would be improved if principals ‘target specific staff who have the expertise for these leadership roles and reduce their teaching load by half’. One inexperienced secondary male principal was thinking laterally when he suggested that: A wide range of people need to be on site to make this model work. They could move laterally between areas of leadership and/or they could move between schools on a needs basis. I can see this working with areas with small numbers of students so that secondary schools would be able to offer a broad range of subject options for students. Most comments indicated that participants were advocating creative, flexible human resources practices, a pathway also advocated by writers such as MacDonald (2003) and d’Arbon et al. (2002), who suggest that innovative ways of recruiting, selecting, appointing and appraising staff are necessary for organisations and people to flourish in the future.


55

As well as suggestions for improvement, participants were also asked to identify some appropriate leadership development that would facilitate the implementation of this model.

Appropriate leadership development Participants identified a number of areas as appropriate leadership development for a school wishing to implement this model. The greatest strength of this model named by the participants was the possibility of building leadership capacity across a range of staff members. To achieve this, participants felt the ability to work collaboratively and to develop new understandings about and attitudes towards power and autonomy were important aspects of leadership development for all staff involved in the model. Helgesen (1996) discussed the need for a shift in the distribution of power which is evident in successful, innovative organisations. She concluded that: An organisation cannot be truly responsive to the needs of those it is configured to serve unless its frontline people are given autonomy and support. This is the true reason that the top-down hierarchical style of leadership is widely perceived as doomed to failure, even by those who aren’t sure why this should be so. Top-down leaders, by withholding power from those in the ranks, deprive them of the ability to use their expertise to respond directly and with speed to those they serve (p. 21). For principals, the recognition and development of high-potential staff and the acknowledgement that staff other than the principal can offer leadership were seen as critical for the success of shared leadership. This is a central finding in the research conducted by Kouzes and Posner (1995) which found that people can lead from any position if they have some vision and talent and are given opportunities and support. An experienced primary principal commented that ‘the culture of a school needs to allow for an acknowledgement that staff members other than the principal can take leadership of a particular area’. The opportunity to take on an acting role, for example as acting principal, acting assistant principal or acting coordinator, was also seen as a valuable approach to leadership development. Having first-hand experience in a role can enable staff members to understand the positive and negative aspects of the role and can help them decide if leadership is something to which they aspire. Evidence for the usefulness of the experience of an acting role can also be

56

The Power of Many

found in the literature and is advocated by writers such as Lacey (2001, 2006), McCauley et al. (1995), and Buckner and Slavenski (1994). In her research on succession planning, Lacey found that acting in a leadership role has a significant and positive impact on teachers’ leadership aspirations. Acting opportunities can be short-term, such as acting principal for three or four days while the principal is attending a conference, or longer term while he/she is on leave. Even short-term acting experiences can have a positive impact if there are genuine leadership opportunities and it isn’t just a baby-sitting exercise (Lacey 2001). Participants also recognised that a model of leadership such as this needed to be built on trust and maturity in relationships, and, therefore, appropriate leadership development needs to go far beyond traditional skill building, a conclusion also reached by Duignan, Collins et al. (2003) and Duignan (2006). An organisation or system attempting to implement a model of shared leadership needs to support leaders in developing the attributes and capabilities required by effective, authentic leaders when dealing with complexity and uncertainty in contemporary organisations. Duignan (2006) identified 10 capabilities, five of which are particularly relevant to this model. He argued that educational leaders, especially school principals, need to be: 1. Critically reflective. This is the capacity to reflect critically on the challenges and experiences of life and work. It constitutes a habit of analysing values as well as actions and interactions. Its primary purpose is for self-growth and improvement. 2. Intuitively connected. This is the ability to tap into the wisdom distilled from life’s experiences. Too frequently, intuition is dismissed as ‘soft’ logic or ‘gut’ feelings. On the contrary, intuition constitutes the fund of wisdom accumulated through experiential learnings that have stood the test of time. 3. Ethically responsible. This refers to the capability of applying ethical standards to complex and perplexing situations. Acting ethically means acting as thoughtful, caring human beings, and not as selfserving narcissists. 4. Spiritually courageous. Authentic leaders are well-rounded human beings who have struggled with the meaning of life and have spiritual scars from agonising over what is the ‘right’ thing to do when the ethical path may be fuzzy or grey. 5. Intellectually capable. Leadership demands a high level of mental acuity and discernment. Leaders need disciplined minds and must be knowledgeable and rigorous in their methods of analysis and reasoning.


57

The wisdom that underpins each of these capabilities is critical in the journey towards successful shared leadership and in building the capacity of the school community to embark on a journey into uncharted waters. Developing these capabilities is crucial in leaders who are interested in pursuing the challenges associated with sharing leadership.

Reflective questions The greatest strength of this model named by the participants was the possibility of building leadership capacity across a range of staff members. To achieve this, participants felt the ability to work collaboratively and to develop new understandings about and attitudes towards power and autonomy were important aspects of leadership development for all staff involved in the model. 1. Do you agree with this conclusion? Why? Why not? 2. How could this model assist in developing collective leadership capacity? 3. Eighty-eight per cent of assistant principals found this the most attractive model in encouraging them to seek principalship. Would this model be attractive to middle leaders in your school? Why? 4. How could you implement your own version of this model? What adjustments would you have to make to structures or to resource allocation? 5. What leadership capabilities would be required to implement this model effectively?

6

Voices from the field: Model 3: dual principals – split task specialisation

This model is a dual leadership model with a principal for administration and a principal for educational leadership. The key features of this model are: A principal for administration responsible for: • development of policies and procedures; • management of finances, buildings and plant; • student attendance, time-tabling and ancillary staff; and • community relations. An assistant principal with a balance between teaching and administration.

Model 3

A principal for educational leadership responsible for: • overall planning and goals for curriculum development; • course offerings, pedagogy and teaching resources; • teaching staff appraisal and development; and • community relations.


Strengths The greatest strength of this model was perceived as enabling both aspects of the principal’s role, namely, the educational leadership and the administration, to be achieved effectively and thoroughly. An experienced female primary principal stated that, ‘this model represents a true sharing of the two main leadership functions so I rated it highly’. Another female principal thought the model would reduce the stress of the principal’s role and she commented that, ‘this model allows for time to be devoted to each area of the principal’s role without the stress of trying to be all things to all people’. Many participants stated very simply that splitting the role would decrease the workload, lessen the stress of the job and halve the 58

Model 3: dual principals – split task specialisation

59

responsibility. An inexperienced male secondary principal suggested that ‘splitting the roles would share the workload and the stress, maintain the energy for the job and permit principals to have another life beyond school’. Some participants thought that this type of specialisation could serve to make the role more attractive to aspirants to the principalship and potentially increase the size of the pool of applicants for the principal’s job. A beginning secondary principal commented that: If this sort of specialisation was available for leadership, there should be, theoretically, more people available in the pool of applicants. Some people are really talented at administration while others are gifted educational leaders. This model could create two pathways to principalship and draw more people into the pool. This view has also been supported by a number of researchers (Educational Research Service 1998, 2000; Evans 1995, 1996; Ferrandino & Tirozzi 2000; Gilman & Lanman-Givens 2001; Long 2000; Yerkes & Guaglianone 1998) who generally conclude that the complexity of the principal’s role, the increase in administrative requirements, and the principal having to be many things other than the educational leader, have resulted in a decrease in the number of people seeking principalship. Another strength of this model was having someone with specific expertise in finance or plant management, who also understood the educational agenda, available to the school community. New principals readily acknowledge that they feel less confident in finance and administration than in educational leadership. An experienced secondary principal thought that: Having a model which recognises that a principal may have particular strengths in one of these areas rather than the other is a step closer to reality for some principals and potential principals. One of the expectations of many principals is that they take a leadership role in any building program in which the school might be involved. Therefore, having expertise available in this area was seen as another strength of this model. One experienced primary principal who had previously managed a large school refurbishment program and was at the time of this research in the middle of a major building project, commented that: As a principal in the middle of a major building project, this model is very attractive. Administration, building and plant maintenance can, at peak times, be a full-time job leaving little time for educational leadership.

60

The Power of Many

A number of participants commented that another strength of this model was that it could provide an alternative career path to principalship. In many schools, there is an expectation that the principal is a credible educational leader as well as legal expert, health and social services coordinator, occupational health and safety expert, resource manager, fundraiser, diplomat, negotiator, adjudicator, public relations consultant, counsellor, technological innovator, sanitary contractor, plumber, and electrician. Some participants commented that a dual principalship – split-task specialisation model could provide an avenue into principalship for a good administrator who was not necessarily a strong educational leader. The reality in some schools and systems of schools is that there are a number of experienced principals who were appointed to the position before the expectation of credibility as an educational leader was so explicit. The expectation when these principals were appointed was more to do with having a good administrator to manage the school efficiently. This model could be a way of deploying these principals in a role more suited to their talents and experience. In summary, the strengths of this model were perceived to be the benefits that would derive from splitting the role including decreasing the workload, lessening the stress, and halving the responsibility. Participants also believed that this model was worthwhile as it could provide an alternative career path into principalship and introduce a new person with desirable skills and experience into the school community. The participants in the study also identified a number of weaknesses associated with the splitting of the role.

Weaknesses A weakness of this model identified by over half the participants was the difficulty of negotiating satisfactory roles for the two principals and the fact that many responsibilities of the roles would overlap. It was thought that whoever was in the administrative role would be perceived by the school community as being less important than the educational leader and therefore the roles, no matter how they were negotiated, would be seen as unequal. One experienced primary principal expressed her concern when she stated that: Administration and educational leadership would have to be consistent in that the principal for administration works with, supports and enables the principal to provide educational leadership. Otherwise, they could end up working against each other.


61

An experienced secondary principal could see overlapping in particular areas that could lead to confusion for the school community. He expressed his anxiety and insights when he wrote that: There would be overlapping of significant areas such as time-tabling, funding and curriculum initiatives. There could be possible confusion in the school community. This model would require enormous trust and maturity between the two leaders. One beginning secondary principal expressed a view prevalent among many of the beginning principals, both primary and secondary, when she asked, ‘Who would want the administrative role? It is all the least interesting aspects of the principal’s role without any of the joys of educational leadership?’ It was also evident that participants were having difficulty conceptualising how such a model could operate. They felt there were potential grounds for conflict between the two principals in this model. Approximately one-quarter of the participants asked the question ‘Who is the boss?’ As one inexperienced male secondary principal asked, ‘who makes the decisions when a compromise cannot be reached?’ On further analysis the question being posed by the participants was not necessarily about being ‘boss’ but about accountability. Another weakness named by the participants was that this model might hinder meeting government, system and legislative accountabilities. The pressure to meet accountability demands has been explored by numerous researchers including Darling-Hammond (2003), Whitaker (2003) and Wallace (2001). Principals are very aware of the increased pressures of accountability and would need reassurance that, within this model, either or both principals could accommodate the demands for accountability. Another weakness identified by over 30 per cent of participants was the difficulty in finding two compatible people who are prepared to build a relationship with each other and the school community. It was felt that this aspect of the model was one of the most difficult to get right. Comments such as the following indicate the importance participants placed on building positive relationships based on trust: The success of this model depends upon the quality of the relationship between the two people, just as it does between the principal and the deputy in a more conventional leadership model. (Experienced secondary principal) The two people in these roles will need to have a solid relationship, be able to communicate honestly, negotiate and be seen to be a united front. (Beginning primary principal)

62

The Power of Many

Many researchers have written about the importance of relationships for all leaders but particularly in any shared models of leadership (Blasé & Blasé 1997, 1999; Bryk & Schneider 2002; Cannon 2008; Crowther et al. 2002; Duignan 2002; Duignan, Collins et al. 2003; Wheatley 1992, 2002). Relationships that are built on mutual trust and respect, collaboration, and a sense of shared directionality are basic to the success of any models of shared leadership. The building of such relationships requires a rethinking of power and its distribution. Power needs to be thought of as something that circulates or functions as a chain, something that is never localised in one person’s hands, never appropriated as a commodity but rather, is employed and exercised through an interconnected, net-like organisation (Foucault 1980). The last weakness for this model was identified as the time necessary for both the principals to develop a communication strategy that would enhance the successful implementation of the model. They believed that communication in a shared model such as this would require consistent approaches to communicating with each other and with staff, students and parents. Participants believed that failure to do so would jeopardise the success of the model. They noted that good communication would help build positive relationships within the school as a community.

Rating scale This model was the least favoured overall by participants in the study. While they found some strengths to commend it, they generally viewed it as an artificial splitting of the principal’s role that would be difficult to negotiate and maintain. Assistant principals rated this model their leastattractive option as an alternative model of principalship. While the model did not rate highly, some participants made suggestions that they believed would improve the model.

Suggested improvements A number of participants suggested that it would be useful to recruit people with specific expertise from outside education to take on the role of principal of administration. In doing this, they cautioned that the people recruited would need to gain an understanding of the culture of schools. An experienced female primary principal thought that ‘if the principal for administration was not an educator then problems could arise due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of how school and education works.’ Therefore, it was suggested that if the principal in the administration role came from outside education, a comprehensive induction program would need to be developed and customised to the context of the school and the needs of the individual.


63

Another suggestion for improvement was to deploy the people already in the school in different ways. An example of this was having a single principal but two assistant principals, one of whom had responsibility for educational leadership and the other with responsibility for administration. Both assistants would be responsible to the principal who is ultimately responsible for both aspects of school leadership. An experienced secondary principal commented that: You wouldn’t want to glorify ‘paperwork’ too much by appointing a principal to the administration position, so would it not be better to appoint two assistant principals, one of whom was an assistant in charge of administration? There are already a number of schools, both primary and secondary, which have two assistant principals. Because these are functioning successfully, the model is gaining currency with both principals and aspiring principals. Another suggestion for improvement was to have the two principals alternate in the two different roles, with suggestions ranging from alternating each term to alternating on a yearly basis. It was felt that being solely in either the administrative or educational roles was limiting for an individual’s development and long-term employability. Given the weaknesses identified by participants for this model along with the lack of support in the rating scale, participants indicated that spending time developing ideas for appropriate leadership development was somewhat redundant for this model.

Reflective questions A principal in this study stated that ‘the two people in these roles will need to have a solid relationship, be able to communicate honestly, negotiate and be seen to be a united front’. 1. Reflect on this statement. How could such a relationship could be developed in your school? 2. How could this model assist leaders in your school better lead the learning agenda? 3. How could this model assist in developing the collective leadership capacity in your school? 4. Would this model be attractive to middle leaders in your school? Why? 5. How could you implement your own version of this model? What adjustments would you have to make to structures or to resource allocation?

7 Voices from the field: Model 4: dual principals – job sharing

This model has two principals sharing the role. The way in which it is shared is flexible and negotiated according to the local context, and the circumstances and strengths of the two people sharing the principalship. The key features of this model are:

Model 4 Two part-time principals who share administrative and educational leadership functions.

The allocation of responsibilities negotiated and determined according to strengths and workloads of each principal.

Flexibility and opportunities for customisation.

Equal responsibility and accountability for decisions and consequences.

Opportunities for flexible part-time work.

An assistant principal with a balance between teaching and administration.


Strengths The greatest strength of this model was perceived to be the flexibility it presented for those moving towards retirement as well as for those with family responsibilities. The need to have flexible models of leadership that take into account principals’ changing life circumstances was investigated by Boris-Schacter and Langer (2006), who found that individual circumstances, a person’s stage in life, and whether or not someone was responsible for a partner, a parent or children, all affected the way in which the role of the principal was performed. The participants who emphasised 64

Model 4: dual principals – job sharing

65

the strengths of this model commented on many of the circumstances named by Boris-Schacter and Langer (2006). The average age of principals who contributed to this research was 53 years. The prospect of retirement was part of the thinking of many participants and this model was seen as a possible alternative for the future. As one experienced primary principal, when supporting the model, stated: I think this model really needs to be explored. More than half the principals are over 50 years old, so this may be a real option for the future. Perhaps some of our retiring principals would stay longer if they could work part time. It would be great to be able to share with someone who understands the job. A number of other participants commented more briefly in support of this model and the flexibility it could allow to those approaching retirement. An experienced female primary principal suggested that ‘this model allows slower movement towards retirement and also allows for different needs at different times of your life’. A similar view was expressed by an experienced male primary principal who suggested that ‘the model would allow experienced principals to stay longer in the role. There would be great synergy and creativity in having two people sharing the role’. Another beginning principal, one of the youngest in the study, offered this comment in support of the flexibility this model could provide, not only for older principals, but also for younger people with family responsibilities: There is a need to look actively at job-share as a reality for a profession where a large percentage of people are moving towards retirement and may wish to work longer at a reduced commitment of time and where females in their 30s and 40s, with young families, are not able to, nor wish to, take on roles of this multifaceted position of principalship in a full-time capacity but still aspire and have the capability to carry out the role in a part-time capacity. This view was also expressed by other participants who were aware of the need to make the role of the principal attractive to people with family responsibilities. One experienced principal summed up many of the views expressed when she stated that: This model is very important while the main pool of potential leaders is with young married people with families who cannot juggle fulltime principalship with family responsibilities.

66

The Power of Many

Over one-quarter of the participants commented on the benefits this model could offer by giving them more balance in their lives, for increasing the time they would have to devote to other endeavours, including time for study, time for family and more personal time. As one inexperienced principal put it ‘this would help a principal achieve a more balanced life with more time for family or other pursuits’. An experienced principal argued for the advantages of part time in the principalship: This model would help those principals who wish to work on a part-time basis even for short periods of time when caring responsibilities become necessary or if they have been doing the job for a long time and need a break from full-time work. It would be a way of retaining their expertise and still allowing them the time they need for other things. This accords with the findings from a number of studies which found that lack of balance and time were some of the greatest stressors for principals and major deterrents to people seeking, or remaining in, the principalship (Educational Research Service 1998, 2000; Lacey 2000; Pierce 2000; Whitaker 2003; Williams 2001). Another strength identified by participants was that having two people share the principalship meant that each would bring renewed energy and enthusiasm to their school community. An experienced primary principal, close to retirement himself, thought that ‘this model incorporates the best of other models. Having two principals who are fresh and want to keep working is a real strength. Role negotiation is a big plus’. A beginning female primary principal summed up the strengths of the model with just three words: ‘freshness, energy, sanity’. Another beginning principal was thinking of flexibility for older principals as well as the higher energy levels two people could contribute when sharing the role when she observed that ‘this might work to encourage older principals to stay on for a longer period. It would mean that the two people would have more energy to offer to the school’. This view is shared by Anderson and Lacey (2009) who explored some of the contextual complexities and challenges faced by school leaders and concluded that coleadership models may offer the possibility to increase the attractiveness of school leadership for certain people at different stages in their lives. Some participants also thought that this model could be a good means of inducting a new principal into the role. One beginning principal commented that: This would be a great way for newer principals to learn about the role. Having an experienced principal, who might be near retirement,


67

share the role with a new principal would allow the wisdom of one to guide the other. It would be like having your own personal mentor available constantly. A small number of participants thought the model was useful but felt it might be more appealing to females and made comments specific to women taking up this option. One experienced female principal thought that ‘this model is more creative and could work beautifully with the right people. Perhaps with the greater flexibility more women would be attracted to the role of principal’. An inexperienced female primary principal observed that: This model could work well for women with families. Some would like to be in the role of principal but family commitments prevent them. I became a principal quite late in life because I had to make a choice between family and professional commitments. If this model had been available I might have had other options. To encourage women to take up or continue with leadership positions earlier in their career, there needs to be a much wider range and easy access to shared and part-time leadership positions (Lacey 2001). Job-sharing, particularly in leadership positions, has some inherent communication and administrative complexities. Because of these complexities, it is sometimes considered an inefficient use of time to implement them. Efficiency, however, is not always a primary concern and there are considerable benefits, for both the organisation and the individual, from strategies that provide flexibility and support the work/ life balance (Lacey 2001; Pocock 2003).

Rating scale Participants rated this model fourth overall. Those who rated it highly were passionate about its possibilities and were prepared to accept a smaller income in return for the flexibility and life-balance that this model could provide. Some participants who gave this model a low rating did so because they were unable to conceptualise the model in any structure other than part-time, and for them this work was not viable. Some of the aspirants to the principalship liked this model if they could be paired with an experienced principal who would act as a mentor for them. These people rated it highly as they thought it could give them the support they might need to have the confidence to take up principalship.

68

The Power of Many

Weaknesses There were a number of comments that indicated support for the model but also flagged some perceived difficulties or weaknesses in its implementation. An inexperienced principal offered a caution when she commented, ‘this model could work very well as long as the correct structures were in place’. An experienced primary principal noted, ‘this [model] could work very well if both people were clear about what was expected of them’. A beginning principal commented on the need for compatibility when she stated that ‘with a person of like mind or one who complements the other, the model would work well’. The major weakness identified by participants was in the area of communication. They believed that there are communication difficulties inherent in any job-share, but those difficulties are exacerbated by the job-share being the principalship. Participants made numerous comments about the importance of communication, not only between the two principals, but also between them and the wider school community. An experienced primary principal commented that: This model requires a lot of time for communication with staff, parents and students and to work on the division of duties. It also requires inner freedom, great trust, confidence and wisdom. Another weakness of this model identified by participants was the need to find two people who were compatible with each other in a range of ways, including having a similar vision or philosophy of education. An experienced female primary principal warned about the necessity for compatibility: I think this model is excellent. I think it would work, but the two people would need to get on well, trust each other, and share a similar vision. They would also need to have shared understandings about power and authority. A study of over 100 organisations (Bohlander & Snell 2010), which implement flexible work practices and, in particular, job-share, found that compatibility of job-share partners, strong communication skills, trust between job sharers and dependability were the most important qualities of good job-share situations. The same study indicated that the greatest challenges to instituting job sharing include management of resistance within the corporate culture. The study did not find significant problems based on resentment from colleagues, scheduling difficulties, duplication of work or union negotiations. Difficulties did arise, however, from the job sharers’ differences in work styles, communications styles and quality standards.


69

Another weakness of this model was perceived to be the difficulty staff, students and parents might have in maintaining continuity and consistency in their relationship with the part-time principals. One experienced female secondary principal commented that: Confusion would reign supreme especially in a large school. There would be resentment by staff of a part-time principal when they have to work full-time. Always changing the shape of school structures can be counterproductive for those trying to work in the school. Staff, students and parents need certainty. Many participants offered suggestions for improving the model. The improvements suggested by participants were consistent across genders and sectors and were mainly to do with improving communication, consistency and continuity.

Suggested improvements The improvement suggested most often by participants was to build in some overlapping time for the two part-time principals to meet faceto-face. Participants indicated that the overlapping time could help to mitigate the difficulties associated with communication, consistency and continuity in a job-share situation. They suggested that, ideally, the overlapping time should be a day per week when both principals were at the school and were able to spend time together. An experienced female primary principal suggested that: If each principal worked three days per week I believe that most of the weaknesses of this model could be overcome. The two principals need time together to dream, plan, evaluate, discuss and ensure a consistent approach to everything they do. Participants acknowledged that there would be some costs involved in financially supporting the overlapping time but felt it would be justified as they believed it would be a most important measure to put in place to ensure successful implementation of this model. There were a number of suggestions for improvement that concerned human resources functions, namely recruitment, selection and induction issues. Participants indicated that the freedom to choose the person with whom to share the principalship was critical to the success of the model. Two experienced primary principals summed up the challenge:

70

The Power of Many

Communication and compatibility, both philosophical and personal, are vital. Therefore, who determines the partnership is critical. The principals need to have a role in determining their own selection processes. Appropriate selection processes would need to be in place to ensure that all aspects of the role are understood and, more importantly, that the people are compatible. Gratton and Syrett (1990) claim that matching potential job-share partners is complex and requires flexibility on the part of managers and human resources professionals. They advocate creatively thinking the process all the way through before beginning to recruit, considering all the possible problems and concerns that could eventuate. Having the job sharers involved in this process is critical. This involvement would be particularly important in a principal job-share, as the sharers would be creating a road that few have walked before them. The process of selection of school leaders has, however, been criticised by a number of researchers (Carlin et al. 2003; d’Arbon et al. 2000; Lacey 2001) who have suggested that selection processes are often too complex and/or flawed and lack transparency. The selection processes for any dual principalship or alternative model of leadership need to be scrutinised closely and designed to be as open and transparent as confidentiality will allow. Some participants expressed the view that the induction of new principals could be enhanced by placing a beginning principal with an experienced principal who would take on a mentoring role. This accords with the findings from Lacey’s (2001) research, which suggested that onthe-job learning with an experienced mentor was a viable way to grow in confidence and understanding. Some participants also indicated that a changed mindset about the principalship would need to be in place for an alternative model, such as this, to work effectively. An experienced male principal suggested that, ‘you would need to go into this situation with a different mindset for it to work’, while an experienced female principal observed that ‘it will take a long period of time for teachers, parents and even principals to make this mindshift.’ If this model were to be successfully implemented, those involved would need to be supported through professional development. Participants identified a number of areas for appropriate leadership development that could assist with the changing of attitudes and the general implementation of this model.


71

Appropriate leadership development Participants suggested some development and refining of communication and collaborative decision-making skills, as these are critical to the successful implementation of this model. They also suggested leadership development at a deeper level – more the building of leadership capabilities than of honing competencies or skill levels. Participants suggested that principals involved in the implementation of this model should be encouraged to support each other and take time for critical reflection, both alone and with each other. An experienced primary principal expressed this view: For this model to succeed, networking between people who are taking on these models of leadership needs to be encouraged. Opportunities for joint training and development to take place, both on and off site, should be part of the ongoing support for job-sharing principals. This should be facilitated by someone who understands the complexities of shared leadership, particularly the relational aspects. Participants also recognised that one of the most difficult aspects in the implementation of this model would be to ensure that the school community understood the model and how it was to be implemented in the school. As discussed with previous models, any change in the leadership and management of the school needs to be supported by a comprehensive program of raising awareness and the inclusion of the whole school community.

Reflective questions 1. One principal stated that ‘this model is very important while the main pool of potential leaders is with young married people with families who cannot juggle full-time principalship with family responsibilities’. In what ways would this model be attractive to younger potential leaders with families? 2. What would be some of the advantages and disadvantages of this model for your school? 3. How could this model assist in developing sustainable collective leadership capacity in your school? 4. How might you divide the responsibilities of the roles in order to enhance leadership of the educational agenda? 5. What leadership capabilities would the two leaders require for this model to be successful?

8 Voices from the field: Model 5: integrated leadership

This model is a dual principalship model with both the principals working collaboratively together on a full-time basis. The key features of this model are:

Two principals working together with equal authority. There is an assistant principal with a balance between teaching and administration.

Both work full-time in the principal role.

Model 5

Their collaboration is based on shared values, goals and mutual trust.

Roles are negotiated not predetermined and based on the strengths of each principal.

Each principal has equal responsibility and accountability for decisions and consequences.


Strengths Participants thought the greatest strength of this model was that it encouraged flexible implementation of the principalship that enabled 72

Model 5: integrated leadership

73

both principals to use their strengths. Because the model espouses no predetermined roles, the two principals are free to negotiate roles that suit their skills, abilities, knowledge and wisdom. The support for this view was reflected in comments by two experienced female primary principals. The first one observed that ‘this model gives the two principals the freedom to negotiate and perform a variety of roles across administration and education’. The second principal believed that: The integrated leadership model allows both principals to bring their own gifts to the role. It has an inbuilt learning partner as well as someone with whom to share the stress and the workload. The notion was considered a great strength by participants. An experienced male primary principal stated that: This model would be great if the two people were compatible and share a common purpose, vision and a sense of humour. The two people could be a great support to each other, and could share the stress, the workload and the wisdom accumulated over years of experience. Two heads are better than one. Another experienced primary principal expressed the view that she and her assistant principal already work in this collaborative way when she commented that: This model is collaborative and has in-built support that is both practical and emotional. The two people can share the load of meetings, community events, etc. We practically operate this way already (principal and assistant principal). Only time allocation and community perceptions keep us back. We hereby volunteer to trial this model. The collaborative nature of the model was seen as another strength by participants who commented that this model would suit them, as collaboration was their preferred leadership style. Much of the current literature attests to the advantages of collaboration as a means of leading a school. Lambert (2002, 2003) developed five critical features necessary for a school wishing to build high leadership capacity. One of these features is having roles and responsibilities that reflect broad involvement and collaboration. Other writers and researchers have also documented the collaborative nature of shared leadership and the benefits that accrue to a school community where collaboration is modelled and valued

74

The Power of Many

(Andrews & Crowther 2002; Crowther et al. 2002; Duignan, Benjamin et al. 2003; Fullan 2003; Hargreaves & Fink 2006; Wildy & Louden 2000). Some participants thought that the model could attract more applicants to the role. One female primary principal stated that ‘if the principal did not have to be all things to all people more people might consider applying for principal positions’. There are a number of researchers who have investigated the complexity of the principalship and concluded that alternative models that share school leadership are likely to attract more applicants to the role (Boris-Schacter & Langer 2002, 2006; Collarbone & Shaw 1998; Hirsch & Groff 2002; Pierce 2000; Whitaker 2003). There were also a number of participants who acknowledged the attractiveness of the model but offered a note of caution about implementation. An inexperienced primary principal expressed the concern, ‘I think that this would be the best of all models but also the most difficult to achieve. Human nature being what it is, how would you find two people who are compatible?’

Rating scale This model was rated highly by the primary principals, both male and female, but it seemed to polarise the secondary principals. The two comments that follow are typical of the differences between the female and male secondary principals in their perceptions of Model 5: I believe this is the answer. I, in fact, do this at the moment with my assistant principal who works as my co-leader. This is ideal but of course she is not recognised or paid for this. It is the way we work, though. Each person can use her own strengths and therefore the school is really moving along. It must be two compatible people or it could be a disaster. My AP is content to work like this but she is a rare person. It works so well, please consider this as a very viable option. (Experienced principal, female, secondary) There are no strengths in this model. I would not consider it. It is unworkable. (Inexperienced principal, male, secondary) The differences in the secondary male and female viewpoints were expressed by two other participants who both used the analogy of marriage to illustrate their perceptions. A female principal said ‘I like this model. It could work really well with the right people. It would be like a good small business partnership or marriage’. A male principal commented that


75

the description of the model ‘sounds like a marriage – monogamy is a challenge. This is unlikely to work’. Assistant principals rated this model as their third preference overall. Those who rated it highly liked the sharing of responsibility as well as the flexibility of negotiated roles. One experienced female primary assistant principal wrote: I prefer this model because it is equal authority and I like the option of negotiated roles. These could change from year to year, offering flexibility. Equal responsibility and accountability for decisions offers a lot of support so that one isn’t always alone in the decision making. A beginning male primary assistant principal articulated the benefits of the model for aspirants to the principalship: The workload and time commitments of a principal are major reasons why this step is not being considered by many people. As an assistant principal with a young family I am already feeling that I don’t have enough time to watch my own children as they grow up. This model would make me reconsider my position and possibly apply for principalship. While this model was popular particularly with primary principals and female secondary principals, a number of weaknesses were also identified.

Weaknesses The weakness that was named most often by participants was the potential difficulty in finding two compatible principals. The participants felt that for this model to work, the people involved would need to share a common vision, have a common educational philosophy and complementary strengths and expertise. A beginning female primary principal expressed the concern this way: I think it could be quite difficult to ensure that the two leaders employed in a school would share a similar vision for the school and complement each other’s strengths. A more experienced female primary principal echoed similar sentiments: Two heads and hearts may be better than one, but as co-leaders the two principals would need to share vision, philosophy and passion. If

76

The Power of Many

they don’t share the same understandings about collaboration, how kids learn and what makes a good school, this model will not work. The participants’ views that principals working together in this model would need to spend time together exploring their deepest-held beliefs about learning, schools and their philosophy of education are evident in other research. A study reported in Bohlander and Snell (2010) indicated that while flexible work practices have been implemented successfully in many organisations, some difficulties were reported from differences in work styles, communications styles and quality standards. Kouzes and Posner (1995) also cautioned that shared values are essential to the successful implementation of shared leadership. After compatibility, the next area of concern identified by participants was that of relationships. They observed that the key to success with this model was the development of good relationships between the two principals and among the staff and parent community. An experienced male secondary principal emphasised the centrality of relationships to the success of this model stating that: Positive relationships are at the heart of successful principalship and would be critical for this model. It takes a huge investment of time to build relationships in a school when there is only one principal. The amount of time everyone would have to spend building relationships with two principals and vice versa would, in my view, be a serious weakness of this model. Some writers indicate that shared leadership requires a new repertoire of skills and new understandings of leadership, relationships and the relinquishing of old roles and power (Blasé & Blasé 1997, 1999; Shaw 2002). Letting go old roles and power necessitates the development of collaborative decision-making processes, the creation of a shared vision, and the construction of a support network of professional relationships. Such significant role changes can produce feelings of loss of control, uncertainty, fear of failure, impatience and frustration (Bredson 1995). In spite of the uncertainty and anxiety that result from moving into shared leadership, principals reported that they were less lonely and more motivated (Blasé & Blasé 1999). They also reported that shared leadership is difficult and time-consuming but it provides rewards for those prepared to persevere. A number of participants commented on the cost of employing two principals but they also made some suggestions for mitigating the costs by deploying the assistant principal in different ways. This is followed up in the next section. Cost has been an excuse for some schools and systems


77

to avoid models that employ two principals, so some exploration of ways of deploying staff to mitigate the cost of employing two leaders is worthy of investigation.

Suggested improvements The improvement most often suggested by participants was the need to have flexible selection processes. Participants named compatibility of the two principals as the greatest barrier to success with this model, so the suggestion put forward by a significant number of participants was to make the selection processes flexible in a variety of ways. They suggested choosing your own partner and/or applying as a team for the positions of the two principals. An experienced secondary principal, who indicated that she was operating in this way with her assistant principal as her coprincipal, offered her advice: The key is to get two people who can work together and who have complementary strengths. Ideally when the two people have found each other they should be able to apply for the positions as a team. Lacey (2001) reminds us that selection processes for leadership positions, including the principalship, need to be structured so that they encourage and support the organisation in its attempts to locate and appoint highly qualified and appropriate applicants to leadership positions. The selection processes also need to encourage and support rather than deter leadership aspirants. Lacey (2000) found that selection processes for principals need to be simplified to reduce the time required for appointment, the complexity of processes, and the stress on applicants. These findings, along with the findings of other researchers (Carlin et al. 2003; d’Arbon et al. 2000) make a compelling argument for creating the flexible and transparent selection processes suggested by participants in this study. An experienced primary principal stated that ‘if the employing authority determines the partnership then I think this model is doomed’. The cost of implementing this model was identified as a weakness by a number of participants who suggested that deploying the assistant principal in different ways could mitigate the cost of employing two principals. Participants suggested that if a school chose to employ two principals, they could dispense with the role of the assistant principal altogether, thus making the appointment of two principals almost costneutral in the overall staffing budget. The second way of deploying the assistant principal, suggested by participants, was to create a collaborative model using one principal and

78

The Power of Many

the assistant principal instead of two principals. This was suggested by participants who favoured the collaborative model of leadership but felt the two-principal model was either too expensive to implement, or was changing the paradigm of the principalship too radically. A beginning male primary principal suggested that this model, using an assistant principal, would serve as a developmental model for the principalship: This essentially is the ideal model which can and does exist now where a competent assistant principal is employed with little or no classroom teaching time added to the role. Essentially, although collaborative, one person should be finally responsible. If the assistant principal was not allocated a class then this model would work well within existing structures. The assistant principal would be a principal on ‘P’ plates. An experienced female primary principal suggested something similar when she stated that: Having the assistant principal on full-time release could resource this model for immediate implementation within the existing structures. Some participants posed the question: ‘What happens if the partnership between the two principals breaks down?’ One suggestion to counteract this possibility was put forward by an experienced primary principal who suggested that ‘a collaborative contract is drawn up by the two principals and needs to be renegotiated when or if a change of partnership occurs’. A number of organisations (see, for example, Bristol University 2001) who are already implementing flexible employment practices, suggest that when one of the partners resigns, the remaining partner should be involved in the recruitment and selection process in order to ensure compatibility. For this model to succeed, as with the others, appropriate leadership development opportunities must be provided.

Appropriate leadership development Participants were of the view that leaders who might be interested in this model were likely to be experienced principals who were already competent, confident and experienced. The appropriate leadership development for this model should build on what these experienced leaders already know and can do, and focus on their formation as ‘well-rounded human beings’ (Duignan 2002). Many participants commented that the capabilities (Duignan & Marks 2003) referred to


79

in appropriate leadership development for some of the other models were also appropriate for Model 5. These capabilities are indispensable for any principal contemplating the complexity of an integrated shared leadership model. Duignan (2006) argued that leaders should not only be good managers and efficient, competent and productive practitioners but also capable human beings. As Kelly (1990) so eloquently stated, ‘In this respect it is not a matter of knowing something, but becoming someone, not just a matter of knowing relevant things, but of becoming a relevant person’ (p. 19). Stephenson (2000) defined capability as ‘an all-round human quality, an integration of knowledge, skills, personal qualities and understanding used appropriately and effectively – not just in familiar and highly focused specialist contexts but in response to new and changing circumstances’ (p. 2, italics in original). Duignan (2006), building on Stephenson’s definition, described leadership capabilities as the blending of leadership knowledge, skills and competencies, mediated through a number of human qualities, such as confidence, intuition, practical wisdom, emotional intelligence, spirituality, good judgment, demonstrated successfully in practice in changing contexts, and sustained over time. Capability is as much about who you are as a human being as it is about what you know, what skills you have, or what you do. The assumption underpinning the concept of capability is that ‘leaders not only need to be competent at their jobs, but they also must be “capable human beings” who can use their skills and competencies confidently, logically, and with good judgment and wisdom’ (Duignan & Marks 2003). Some of these key capabilities are emotional maturity, practical wisdom, passion and courage, collaborative commitment, contextual awareness, and mastery of change (Duignan & Marks 2003). Many such capabilities are fundamental for any principal who has the drive and passion to lead a school in these challenging times. All capabilities are indispensable for any principal contemplating the complexity of shared leadership in a dual principal model. Participants identified the development of leadership capabilities as important professional development for this model. Duignan (2006) argues that the starting point, for the development of capable, authentic leaders is personal transformation, leading to a deep understanding of their personal values and a passionate conviction that they can make a difference in the lives of their colleagues and those in their care. Such formational experiences should be uplifting, humanising and transformational. Formation, however, does not mean being shaped by a narrow ideology. It involves both a letting go of outmoded thinking and practices and a ‘letting come’ (Senge et al. 2004) of new, more appropriate, useful and humanising ones. It encourages us to analyse and

80

The Power of Many

challenge our assumptions and paradigms with a view to developing new ways of thinking and doing. Another suggested improvement for this model was that time was critical for principals involved in the implementation of this model: time to develop an understanding of each other’s philosophy of education, time to develop a shared vision for the school and time to develop the mutual trust that underpins this model. They would also need time to discover each other’s strengths and then to negotiate the best ways of using these strengths for the benefit of the school community. This model is based on shared values and goals, and it takes time for two people to reveal themselves sufficiently so that these fundamental values can inform wise decisions. An experienced primary principal suggested that: Principals involved in this model need to spend time together and with other leaders who are working in shared leadership. Retreats and conferences where they can take the time to share ideas and feel supported would be appropriate leadership development. These views align with the findings of researchers working with shared leadership models. Crowther et al. (2002) found that all examples of successful shared leadership were underpinned by relationships characterised by three distinct qualities: mutual trust and respect; a sense of shared direction; and allowance for individual expression. Implicit in these findings is the understanding that these qualities need time to foster their development. Shared leadership requires ethical, courageous, honest leaders who demonstrate initiative, ingenuity, creativity and authenticity (Blasé & Blasé 1999; Duignan 2002; Duignan, Benjamin et al. 2003; Fullan 2003; Hargreaves 2003). If this model of integrated leadership is to be successfully implemented, time and support for leaders working in such partnerships is of paramount importance. Another suggestion for leadership development was that the two principals, as part of their induction into this model of leadership, work with a mentor. Participants commented that a mentor could help establish productive ways of working together and assist with the formulation of collaborative accountabilities. One experienced primary principal suggested that: Having an ongoing relationship with a mentor particularly in the first few months would help to establish effective ways of working together that could result in much better outcomes for the school community than if the two principals did this alone.


81

As discussed with previous models, there was a general consensus among the participants that any change in leadership, management or administration of the school would need to include a comprehensive program for including the school community in discussion about the changes and the ways in which the model would be implemented. With shared leadership models that could be considered a radical departure from the status quo, bringing the whole school community along on this learning journey would be critical.

Reflective questions 1. Many of the respondents in this research study thought the greatest strength of this model was that it encouraged flexible implementation of the principalship that enables both principals to use their strengths. What leadership strengths would you look for in each principal in this model to provide best leadership practice for your school? 2. How could this model assist leaders in your school to better focus on educational leadership? 3. A respondent in this study stated, ‘Having the assistant principal on full-time release could resource this model for immediate implementation within the existing structures’. Would you agree? Why? Why not? 4. In what ways would this model help build the collective leadership capacity in your school? 5. What forms of leadership development would best support this model?

9 Voices from the field: The ideal models

The participants (148 principals divided into 20 groups) in the study were requested to construct their ideal models. The construction of these engaged most participants with great enthusiasm. This task entailed writing their own descriptions of the models, enumerating the strengths and weaknesses of their models and naming any appropriate leadership development that would support the implementation of such models. Participants produced 20 different models, some of which drew on parts of the previous five models. The ideal models can be divided into five categories: 1. seven groups suggested a model that included one principal with an extended executive with whom to share the leadership; 2. five groups suggested models with a principal and two assistant principals with whom to share leadership; 3. four groups suggested models with various forms of administrative support that would re-energise the principal to focus on leading the learning; 4. three groups suggested models with dual principals who would share leadership but be organised a little differently from the five models previously discussed; and 5. the last group suggested a school system could close small schools and re-deploy staff to implement a range of flexible, alternative models. Fifteen of the 20 models were directly predicated on some sense of shared leadership, four models were focused on the principal as educational leader and one model was suggesting something more radical but was also predicated on shared leadership. When given the opportunity to create their ideal models, all participants designed models that were different from the status quo. Most groups gave their models titles. These included ‘supported leadership’; ‘the well-supported principal’; ‘collaborative leadership’; 82

The ideal models

83

‘flexible model of leadership with expanded executive’; and ‘a flexible model responsive to local conditions’. These titles indicated that most participants identified some form of shared leadership as the preferred model. There were some groups, however, whose ideal model was a better-resourced single principal model with an improved staffing allocation. While these models did not specifically advocate shared leadership, they recognised the importance of increased leadership opportunities for both building the leadership capacity of the organisation and for leadership succession.

Descriptions The descriptions were presented in various ways. Most were text but some were in diagrammatic form (see Ideal Model 13). Participants sometimes incorporated aspects of the five models previously discussed but added their own variations and emphases. Some examples of the descriptions of ideal models include the following:

Ideal Model 1 Supported leadership (primary principals) A single principal who is supported by two full-time assistant principals, a personal assistant (PA) and a bursar.

The principal and assistant principals share responsibility for curriculum and religious leadership and the PA and bursar share responsibility for areas of administration including finance, technology, census, staffing and OH&S.

The PA and bursar would not necessarily come from educational backgrounds.

Figure 9.1 Ideal Model 1: supported leadership variation

Ideal Model 6 Dual leadership/split task specialisation with variations based on shared leadership (primary principals) Education principal – full-time in school.

Administration principal – shared between two small/ medium schools.

Assistant principal – with a focus as a teacher/coach.

Teacher leaders – talents and gifts of all staff are nurtured and valued.

Figure 9.2 Ideal Model 6: shared leadership variation

84

The Power of Many

Ideal Model 13 Principal and alternating assistant principals (primary principals) Principal

AP Curriculum

APs alternate roles each year

AP Administration

Figure 9.3 Ideal Model 13: growing leadership capabilities

Ideal Model 14 Principal as educational leader/teachers as leading educators (secondary principals) Principal is the educational leader.

Assistant principal is collegial support to the principal and is focused on educational leadership.

Director of administration Full-time All teachers counsel- have pastoral has responsibility for a responsibilities. staff of paraprofessionals lor. who manage: finances facilities attendance administration of assessment.

Figure 9.4 Ideal Model 14: focus on leading learning

The final group took a radical view of what could happen to facilitate the implementation of new models of leadership. They described their ideal model this way:

Ideal Model 20 Close small schools to establish new models of leadership (primary principals) Close all schools with an enrolment fewer than 200 students.

All re-deployed personnel available to establish new models of leadership.

Experienced leaders available to trial a variety of shared leadership models.

Business managers appointed to work across a cluster of schools.

Figure 9.5 Ideal Model 20: building leadership capacity

The ideal models

85

The groups analysed their own models and named a number of strengths and potential weaknesses in their models.

Strengths The ideal models were identified as having four major strengths: (1) sharing leadership; (2) enabling the principal to focus on learning; (3) building leadership capacity; and (4) flexibility. Fifteen groups (75 per cent of the participants) commented that their ideal model shared leadership in one form or another. Some described teacher leadership with teachers being enabled to share in decision making and power because the complexity of leadership tasks can be accomplished only with and through other people, concepts advocated by writers such as Spillane (2006); Harris (2006); Fullan (2003); Stoll, Fink & Earl (2003); Hargreaves (2002); Andrews and Crowther (2002); and Crowther (2001). Others saw leadership being shared at different levels including an enhanced role for assistant principals in shared leadership and a number of alternative models of dual principalships. The next most often cited strength was flexibility. Fourteen groups (70 per cent of the participants) believed that their ideal models gave the principal and school greater flexibility to achieve better learning outcomes for students. The flexibility allowed for more creative deployment of staff that would be a better fit for the local context. As one group commented ‘the model must be flexible enough to suit different situations and circumstances’ (Ideal Model 18, ‘Flexible model of leadership with expanded executive’, secondary principals). This sort of freedom and creativity to structure flexible models of leadership has also emerged strongly in literature and research (for example, Boris-Schacter & Langer 2006; Hirsch & Groff 2002; Whitaker 2002). Nine groups (45 per cent of participants) commented that the major strength of their ideal model was its ability to develop others and build the leadership capacity of their schools and the system of schools. These groups commented that their models would contribute to the leadership succession strategy of the organisation and would encourage people to apply for leadership positions. Participants included delegation of meaningful responsibility to others as a viable means of developing leadership capacity in a range of staff members. These findings are in accord with writers such as Spillane (2006); Hargreaves and Fink (2006); Harris (2006); Lacey (2001); Feiler, Heritage and Gallimore (2000); Barth (2001); Lecos et al. (2000); and Andrews and Crowther (2002) who advocated distributed or shared leadership as a means of building leadership capacity in a school and across a system of schools.

86

The Power of Many

A group of primary principals thought that their ideal model ‘encourages competent, passionate people to apply for and take up the challenge of leadership in schools’ (Ideal Model 5, ‘A flexible model responsive to local conditions’, primary principals). Another group of primary principals thought their ideal model ‘develops the leadership potential and density of the staff. It enhances, empowers and gives passion to future leadership and develops more people earlier for future leadership succession’ (Ideal Model 10, ‘The well-supported principal’, primary principals). The final group (‘Close small schools to establish new models of leadership’) were all principals of small schools who felt that their radical suggestion for the closure of small schools would enable something better to emerge. The strengths they named reflected many mentioned by other groups. The closure of financially non-viable small schools was seen as an advantage for a system of schools as the money could be used in more creative ways across other schools. They also saw the model as a way of drawing on the wisdom and expertise of experienced leaders who could team up in flexible ways to test new models of leadership. They thought that redeployed experienced leaders could be teamed with beginning principals as a way of mentoring new leaders, and they also saw a major strength of this model being the diversity of models of leadership that could be tried. Participants were realistic enough to acknowledge that even ideal models had some weaknesses. Seventeen of the 20 groups (85 per cent) identified some weaknesses in their ideal models. The weaknesses involved three main factors: the (1) cost of implementation, (2) availability and deployment of appropriate people to staff the models and (3) involvement of the school community in understanding the functioning and implications of the different models.

Weaknesses Half of the groups commented that their ideal models would have some costs involved in implementation. The costs were mostly around increased staffing allocation to maximise the functioning of the shared leadership models. Costs were divided into five categories: (1) salary for staff in recognition for specific expertise; (2) more time release for the assistant principal to enable more sharing of leadership with the principal; (3) extra coordinator points for an expanded executive who were sharing leadership responsibilities; (4) an extra salary when a dual principalship was operating; and (5) suitable remuneration for a bursar or business/ administration manager.

The ideal models

87

Ways of offsetting the costs included employing an administration manager or bursar across a number of schools. It was acknowledged that in small schools there was insufficient work for a full-time bursar so deploying the person across a cluster of schools would render the benefits while making the cost more manageable. A number of studies (e.g. Carrigan, Brown & Jenkins 1999; Cooley & Shen 2000; Educational Research Service 1998, 2000; Hirsh & Groff 2002; Whitaker 2003) that have investigated the increased costs associated with alternative leadership models have concluded that the costs are not only justified but also necessary. Applications for the principalship will only increase when employing authorities recognise that the solutions, customised and contextualised as they must be, will also involve extra resourcing. The second weakness identified by the focus groups was the availability and deployment of appropriate people to enable the different models to be implemented. It was noted by a number of groups that the expertise required to implement some of the ideal models was not always available at every school site. Creative and flexible deployment of staff both within and across schools was suggested as a means of assisting implementation of some of the models. Some examples of this creative and flexible deployment of staff included the Physics teacher who teaches in a cluster of schools and the extension Mathematics and English teachers who may teach their classes before or after regular school hours and teach students from a number of different schools. It was noted by a number of groups that in any school community there could be some resistance to new or different models of leadership. Therefore, for a different model of leadership to be implemented in a school, everyone in the school community would have to understand the model and how it would function. A comprehensive program of raising awareness and inclusion would be required to support the implementation of different models. Parents and caregivers would need to become partners in the new educational enterprise. When parents are positive about the model operating in the school they can serve as advocates for the school’s efforts to change the status quo. As Dolan (1994) writes, ‘if parents are with you, they will bring the community with them. If they are not, they will stop you dead. You will need their protection when hostile winds begin to blow’ (p. 157). The school community and the educators who serve that community share the same goal; the success of the students. Thus parents can be a powerful ally in the effort to create a school wherein a different model of leadership ultimately leads to enhanced learning outcomes for all students (Dufour & Eaker 1998). Participants named a number of areas for appropriate leadership development that could assist in the implementation of their ideal models.

88

The Power of Many

Appropriate leadership development Many of the suggestions for appropriate leadership development for the ideal models revolved around different ways of developing an understanding of collaborative leadership and learning new ways of leading. Participants suggested such ideas as networking with other schools which are also implementing alternative models of leadership, learning the art of collaborative decision making and working with a mentor to establish shared understandings of roles within a collaborative leadership framework. One of the focus groups suggested that ‘a learning support network would need to be established for principals and school leaders who are working in new/different/collaborative leadership situations’ (Ideal Model 20, ‘Close small schools to establish new models of leadership’, primary principals). Another group observed that ‘the present generation of principals would need to be educated to an understanding of a different role’ (Ideal Model 16, ‘Principal as visionary with expanded support’, secondary principals). Writers such as Atkin (2004) and Fullan (2003) have worked over many years helping leaders come to a new understanding of shared leadership. As Atkin writes, ‘the challenge for those in principalship in the 21st century is to change the focus from dictating from the top to coordinating and supporting from the centre’ (Atkin 2004, p. 5). Atkin acknowledges that this is not an easy task as our models and experiences have been predicated on old paradigms of leadership. Some participants thought that the development of role statements that would assist people in implementing the ideal models would be useful. As one group commented ‘[This model] requires clear role statements that are dynamic and change and develop as roles grow and change’ (Ideal Model 16, ‘Principal as visionary with expanded support’, secondary principals). The key insight in this comment is that the role descriptions are not set in concrete, but are dynamic, changing and responsive to the needs of the school and the individuals in the roles. This is consistent with current human resources practices (De Cieri & Kramar 2003), which advocate flexible role statements that more closely reflect the work people actually perform.

Summary of ideal models The participants who chose to create an ideal model found the task interesting and stimulating and chose to give their models names. They enjoyed distilling the essence of their discussion into a title and wrote the descriptions in many different ways including text, dot-points and diagrams. They also indicated that they tried to keep their ideal models

The ideal models

89

within the realms of what could be possible given the limited resources within which most schools must operate. In creating their ideal models, the participants combined practicality with creativity. Within the ideal models, there is ample evidence to suggest that most participants’ favoured models that were predicated on shared leadership with leadership being shared at different levels including an enhanced role for assistant principals and teachers and a number of alternative models of dual principalships. Participants recognised that the best way to accomplish the complex work of leading a school is to do it with and through other people. This is a view that is strongly supported in the relevant literature (Andrews & Crowther 2002; Crowther 2001; Duignan, Benjamin et al. 2003; Fullan 2003; Hargreaves 2002; Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003). Many models were predicated on a high degree of flexibility that responded to the local needs and enabled deployment of staff in creative ways (Day et al. 2000). Ideal models were based on the premise that the decisions for creative deployment of staff should be made at the local level rather than by any centralised bureaucracy (Hargreaves 2003). The ideal models were flexible models that can accommodate changing school needs as well as the changing strengths, expertise and needs of those in leadership (Boris-Schacter & Langer 2006; Pierce 2000; Whitaker 2003). The models also indicated that those in leadership can be as variable as their imagination and resources allow (Fullan 2003; Hargreaves 2003; Kouzes & Posner 1995). The underlying assumption in the ideal models was the centrality of learning and the role of the principal as a leader of learning. Many times the participants wrote that the reason they could see such value in creating new ways of conceptualising the principalship was their strongly held belief that the principal was the leader of learning in the school and any changes, alternative models or redesigning of the role, must support that assumption. Principals were driven by a desire to enable the best possible outcomes for all students and to create schools where everyone is able to contribute to making the school the best learning environment it can be. They also realised that to achieve this, they must harness the capabilities and talents of everyone in the school. In Better: A surgeon’s notes on performance, Gawande (2007) summed up the principals’ motivation to make their schools places of high expectations and outcomes for all, when he wrote: What is troubling is not just being average but settling for it. Everyone knows that averageness is, for most of us, our fate. And in certain matters – looks, money, tennis – we would do well to accept this. But in your surgeon, your child’s paediatrician, your police department, your local school? When the stakes are our lives and the lives of our children, we want no one to settle for average. (p. 230)

90

The Power of Many

Reflective questions Respondents in this study viewed the ideal models as having four major strengths: (1) sharing leadership; (2) enabling the principal to focus on learning; (3) building leadership capacity; and (4) flexibility. 1. How would these models help support greater sharing of leadership in your school? 2. How would these models help the principal to focus better on learning in your school? 3. How would these models help build greater leadership capacity in your school? 4. How would these models generate greater flexibility of structures, processes and resources in your school to achieve better learning outcomes for students?

10 From principalship to authentic leadership in schools

In this chapter we provide a summary of the research, the major findings and the conclusions that can be drawn from the findings. These conclusions have been formulated into nine guiding principles that are the foundation for a new paradigm of principalship, one that unequivocally promotes a sharing of leadership and a reinterpretation of the principalship within a shared leadership paradigm. A number of propositions that flow from the guiding principles have been suggested as a means of implementing this new paradigm.

A summary of the research project The purpose of this research was to determine how the role of the principal could be redesigned so that more high-quality applicants are prepared to seek principalship and principals already in the role could be retained. The major research question related to this. The study first focused on responses from current primary and secondary principals who had experience of the complexity and tensions inherent in the role and could offer suggestions and recommendations, grounded in reality, for redesigning it. The participants were presented with five models taken from the literature, and were asked to rate each model for its utility as an alternative model of principalship. They were also asked to offer comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each model, and then to suggest improvements and appropriate leadership development for each of the models. Participants were then given the opportunity to create their ideal models for the principalship. In phase two, assistant principals were selected for data gathering because one of the aims of the research was to redesign the principalship to make it more attractive to potential applicants. Assistant principals were chosen for the survey, as they were the most immediate group of potential applicants for the principalship. 91

92

The Power of Many

Summary of major findings The major findings from this research can be summarised in nine major themes: (1) centrality of learning; (2) shared leadership; (3) flexibility, customisation and contextualisation of leadership; (4) the importance of relationships for effective leadership; (5) the need for life/work balance; (6) the importance of gender sensitivity; (7) the need to build leadership capacity in schools; (8) the need for formation of leaders; and (9) how to achieve sustainability of leadership. These themes are summarised in the following table: Table 10.1 Summary of major findings

THEME Centrality of learning

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Fostering the school as a learning community is fundamental to the principalship and one of the main reasons the participants wanted shared, flexible, models of principalship.

Shared leadership Principalship is too complex and multifaceted to be accomplished by one person working alone. Leadership needs to be shared with teachers to both lighten the principal’s load and give more people a positive experience of leadership and a role in decision making. Flexibility, customisation, and contextualisation of leadership

Participants preferred multiple and flexible models of principalship that are customised and contextualised to fit the needs of the school and the repertoire of capabilities of those in leadership at the local level.

Importance of relationships

Positive relationships across the whole school community are critical to the implementation of shared, flexible models of principalship.

Life/work balance Balance relates to both the work/life balance and the balance that is necessary between the ‘systemworld’ accountabilities and the ‘lifeworld’ of the school. Both need to be restored. Gender sensitivity

There needs to be a much wider range of and easy access to shared and part-time positions to encourage women to take up, or continue with leadership positions.

Building leadership capacity

Sharing leadership and encouraging teacher leadership helps build the leadership capacity of the school and the organisation.

Formation of leaders

Professional support and formation of leaders should be differentiated to suit the varying models of principalship and the needs and experience of the individuals.

Sustainability

The present model of principalship is not sustainable. Shared, flexible models of principalship that are based on positive relationships, are gender sensitive and where learning is central are more likely to be sustainable for both aspirants and incumbents.

From principalship to authentic leadership in schools

93

These findings from both the qualitative and quantitative data coalesce to answer the main research question: How can the principalship be redesigned to attract more quality applicants to the role and retain incumbents already in the role? The findings indicate that in order to achieve this, the participants in this research study were suggesting a fundamental rethinking of the principalship – a paradigm of principalship based on a paradigm of leadership as a shared, flexible, and sustainable model with the focus on learning.

Principalship to leadership A fundamental rethinking of the principalship requires nothing less than a paradigm shift. Over 30 years ago Kuhn (1970) gave an analysis of how systems change (or don’t). Introducing the term ‘paradigm’ he outlined how we operate from mental models – paradigms – that shape everything we think, feel, and do. How we perceive and interpret experience is shaped by internal structures of beliefs and concepts – paradigms. Revolutionary development comes when the paradigm reaches a crisis, as appears to be the case with the principalship. Anomalies, things that the paradigm can’t explain (such as the shortage of applicants for the principalship, and the under-representation of women in the principalship) start accumulating. That, according to Kuhn (1970), is when we are challenged to shift paradigms. A new paradigm of principalship means changing the way the principalship is conceptualised and structured. The current paradigm of principalship continues to be, primarily, hierarchical, pressured, with increasing levels of complexity that result in increased workload, stress and reduced work/life balance. The time required to be a principal, and the pressures this places on family life, significantly inhibit the number of women who seek or remain in principalship. The current paradigm of principalship is essentially structured in the same ways in most schools, with little significance placed on the differing contexts and needs of schools and little flexibility in the structures and resourcing of schools. This constitutes a one-size-fits-all approach. While many principals struggle to maintain their role as educational leaders and keep the leading of learning at the centre of their work, the increasing pressures related to standardisation and accountability mean that often there is considerable tension between the ideal of school leadership and the reality of the principalship, between what many principals would like to do and what they actually do. Consequently, potential leaders are not choosing principalship as a career option, and incumbents in the role are reaching ‘burnout’. The current paradigm has spawned a crisis in the recruitment and retention

94

The Power of Many

of principals as is shown in the literature discussed earlier. This prevailing paradigm has reached a crisis, we believe, because it is no longer able to meet the needs of individuals in the principal’s role or aspirants to the role. The participants in this study recommended a shift to a different paradigm of principalship. No one recommended the continuation of the status quo. The changed paradigm would be based on sharing leadership rather than on a hierarchical approach, and it would have structures that are flexible and customised to the local context of the school and school community. Learning would be central and work/life balance would be essential, for all principals. This paradigm would also offer enough flexibility to encourage women to both take up and remain in school leadership. These findings led to the development of nine principles, which, we suggest, should underpin an alternative paradigm of principalship. The following diagram illustrates these principles:

Relationships

Flexibility

Learning Shared Leadership Building Leadership Capacity

Principalship Balance

Sustainability Formation of Leaders

Gender Sensitivity

Figure 10.1 Alternative paradigm of principalship

Nine principles for a new paradigm of principalship The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of a principle is ‘a primary or general truth on which other truths depend’ or ‘an accepted rule of action or conduct’. Thus, we suggest that these principles provide a framework


95

for discussion, consideration, and possible acceptance and adoption of the alternative paradigm of principalship.

Principle 1: leading learning In the alternative paradigm of principalship, the focus must remain firmly fixed on learning, which is the central purpose of schooling. In the midst of a plethora of accountability measures, societal pressures and legislative requirements, this can be a daunting challenge. Any changes to leadership structures must be predicated on the belief that learning is central to the work of schools and school leadership. To promote learning as a shared phenomenon and support others’ learning, those wishing to implement flexible models of principalship need to have a deep, current, and critical understanding of learning processes and of high-quality learning environments. To equip future generations to respond and flourish in a frenetic and unpredictable world, learning for everyone in the school community is the imperative. Instead of focusing on an alternative paradigm of principalship, we believe the emphasis should be on a paradigm of shared leadership with learning as its core, as in Figure 10.2.

Relationships Building Leadership Capacity

Sustainability

Flexibility

Leading Learning

Formation of Leaders

Shared Leadership

Balance Gender Sensitivity

Figure 10.2 New paradigm of leadership

Principle 2: shared leadership Principalship is too complex and multifaceted to be accomplished by one person working alone – the best way to achieve success in school

96

The Power of Many

principalship is to share leadership with teachers and work collaboratively with and through other people within the school’s community. Systems and governing bodies must find ways to alter the principal’s role and reduce the time demands and stresses on those in the role. A paradigm of real sharing of leadership requires the rethinking of the organisational structure and functions of the principal’s role so that teacher leadership is enabled, encouraged and supported and other personnel can assume some of the responsibilities of the principal. Sharing leadership with teachers can assist in lightening the principal’s workload and giving more people positive experiences of leadership. This is also an effective means of building both the leadership capabilities of those who share in the leadership as well as the leadership capacity of the whole school or system of schools.

Principle 3: flexibility, customisation and contextualisation There is no one best way to be principal. Many people working in education have known this for some time, yet structures and systems are still predicated on the belief that one model fits all school communities and all people filling the role of principal. The idea of one-size-fits-all is flawed because it fails to account for the uniqueness of individuals and contexts. Multiple and flexible models are preferred to meet the needs of different school communities. Flexible models of principalship need to take into account such things as the ageing nature of the workforce and the specific needs of the leadership paradigm proposed here. Just as the model of principalship currently operating in most schools is not sustainable, any flexible models that are introduced should be customised to the local context. Flexible models that can accommodate changing school needs as well as the changing strengths, expertise and needs of those in the pool of leadership are more likely to succeed. Flexible models of principalship that are customised and contextualised are the best way of meeting the needs of each school community.

Principle 4: relationships are the key Positive relationships are at the heart of successful leadership and are even more critical when creating shared flexible models of principalship that involve people working together in new and different ways. Relationships that are built on mutual trust and respect, collaboration, and a sense of shared purpose and direction are the foundations to any new paradigm of principalship. Creating these relationships requires developing new understandings of power that are more aligned to this new paradigm.


97

Present understandings in many schools are still predicated on the hierarchical model that served schools for so many years. The new paradigm challenges these old assumptions and seeks to create a different culture and learning environment. An environment characterised by mutual trust and respect is conducive to the generation of new ideas and reflective of a willingness to support and acknowledge others’ ideas. Research from the University of Auckland Centre for Educational Leaders (Eddy 2010) has found that the more leaders build and promote relationships of respect, openness and trust, the greater their influence on leading change for the improvement of student outcomes.

Principle 5: balance There are two aspects of leadership where balance needs to be restored. The first is the ‘systemsworld’/‘lifeworld’ accountability balance and the second is the work/life balance. Sergiovanni (2000) articulated a way of contrasting the standardisation and accountability agenda, with the innovation, flexibility and creativity that give significance and meaning to teachers’ work. He refers to the former as the ‘systemsworld’ and the latter as the ‘lifeworld’, terms that originally were used by Habermas (1987) to describe two mutually exclusive yet ideally interdependent domains of all of society’s enterprises from the family to the complex formal organisation. The accountability balance concerns how to empower local decision makers and, at the same time, comply with external accountability requirements. The dilemma for the principal who is wanting to share leadership is to be strong yet collaborative, compliant with external demands while sharing authority and responsibility with others in the school. The challenge for principals and system leaders is to help create a balance between the ‘lifeworld’ (the world of people, their needs and desires) of the school and the ‘systemsworld’ (structures, rules and procedures) of accountabilities. When the balance is skewed and the ‘systemsworld’ dominates, the purpose, values and relationships of the school can be compromised. The preoccupation of some sections of the education community and some governments with ‘systemsworld’ rules and regulations is a major source of disaffection for many teachers seeking principalship and a dominant tension for many principals currently in schools.

Principle 6: gender sensitivity Women should be actively encouraged to take control of their careers and join their male colleagues in aspiring to principalship, confident that they

98

The Power of Many

will be similarly targeted and supported throughout their professional journey. Employing authorities need to listen to women’s voices and incorporate their messages into support frameworks and provide structural flexibility for school leaders. To accomplish this, there needs to be a much wider range of, and easy access to, shared and part-time positions to encourage women to take up, or continue with, leadership positions earlier in their careers. This principle requires the rethinking of many of the traditional, hierarchical, structures that still characterise many schools. As well, employers must be prepared to develop creative, flexible human resources practices and procedures to ensure that women do not continue to be disadvantaged.

Principle 7: building shared leadership capacity Shared leadership requires staff with the desire and capabilities to participate in the broad work of leadership. This involves new roles and responsibilities that reframe all interactions within the school community. A school with high leadership capacity has a principal capable of collaboration and inclusive leading. The school-wide focus is on both student and adult learning and decision making is shared. Roles and responsibilities reflect broad involvement and collaboration and reflective practice/innovation as the norm. One way of building the leadership capacity of an organisation is to implement a comprehensive, strategic succession planning initiative that encourages high potential employees into leadership. As well, there is a need to put the role of the assistant/ deputy principalship under the microscope. An emerging reality in many school systems in a number of countries is that fewer and fewer people are applying for this position (see Chapter 12 for more details).

Principle 8: professional learning, support and formation School leaders require preparation and ongoing support that goes beyond competency training to broader frameworks that support the development of leadership that is grounded in values. Professional learning, support and formation for principals should be differentiated to suit the varying models of principalship and the needs and experience of the individuals. While this professional support and formation is necessary for all principals implementing all models, there must be differentiated support depending on the experience of the individuals and the type of model preferred. A beginning principal, for example, will require a different type and amount of support from a highly experienced principal.


99

Principle 9: sustainablity of school leadership Sustainability is the capacity to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with the deep values of human purpose (Fullan 2004). This principle involves vision, perseverance, courage and creativity. There is no quick and easy fix to this complex problem. To be sustainable, a paradigm of leadership should be: 1. generative and nurturing; 2. attractive to both aspirants and incumbents; 3. responsive to the changing needs of the workforce as well as the learning needs of the school; 4. manageable and supportable in terms of costs and resources; 5. able to respond to criticism and feedback; and 6. reflect a journey towards wisdom for all practitioners and administrators involved in system and school leadership. These principles provide a plan or scheme for discussion and consideration for moving towards a sustainable paradigm of system and school. It will, however, take time, energy, creative planning and goodwill to effect a paradigm shift. In the following chapter, we describe 15 propositions that flow from the guiding principles and provide the scaffolding to support this transition from principalship to shared leadership for learning in systems and schools.

Reflective questions A conclusion presented in this chapter is that the current paradigm of principalship is essentially structured in the same ways in most schools, with little significance placed on the differing contexts and needs of schools and little flexibility in the structures and resourcing of schools. This constitutes a one-size-fits-all approach. 1. Analyse this conclusion using the principles described in this chapter. Research from the University of Auckland Centre for Educational Leaders (Eddy 2010) has found that the more leaders build and promote relationships of respect, openness and trust, the greater their influence on leading change for the improvement of student outcomes. 2. What leadership lessons from this research can you apply to your leadership in your school?

11 From principalship to leadership for learning in schools

This chapter details 15 propositions for advancing the implementation of the principles for a new paradigm proposed in Chapter 10. A proposition is a ‘plan or scheme to be considered, discussed, accepted and adopted’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Together with the principles, these propositions provide a framework for a reinterpretation and redesign of leadership in systems and schools derived from the research that underpins this book, as well as other literature and the joint experiences of the authors. The propositions are clustered under four headings: (1) helping current principals stay in the role; (2) encouraging aspirants to the role; (3) assisting systems and governing bodies in moving towards a paradigm of shared leadership for learning; and (4) involving the community in the new paradigm.

Helping current principals stay in the role The following six propositions have direct impact on current principals and how they are able to manage the complexity of principalship and, at the same time, gain satisfaction in the role. The implementation of these propositions will enable current principals to feel supported and sustained in their work.

Proposition 1 That a new paradigm of principalship is necessary to articulate a contemporary understanding of ways of redesigning the principalship. It would seem that the paradigm that underpins the present view of the principalship is no longer working. The crisis in recruitment and retention of principals is one of the manifestations of this failure. Old paradigm 100

From principalship to leadership for learning in schools

101

thinkers must be challenged to accept new mental models, while those who are ready to make the shift must be supported as they withdraw from the old paradigm and take the necessary steps that create new ways of being a principal and doing the job.

Proposition 2 That frameworks be developed to guide and support the professional and personal formation of all principals, from beginning principals to the most experienced. Principalship has evolved to a point where the role has broadened, deepened and become more complex. It has become more demanding of the principal’s time, energy and resources, and incorporates elements of administration, management and leadership. For some principals, this evolution has resulted in role overload, role ambiguity and role conflict. Principalship in these challenging times requires capable leaders who demonstrate attributes such as initiative, ingenuity, creativity and authenticity. To nurture such attributes, it is essential to develop frameworks to guide and support the professional and personal formation of all principals, from beginning principals to the most experienced and wise. Some examples of frameworks which incorporate capabilities include those developed by the Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL), the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Queensland Catholic Education Commission. At the heart of these frameworks are capabilities that inspire and challenge leaders to use their skills and abilities confidently, logically, with good judgment and wisdom. In a very practical application, the frameworks can also be used to underpin position descriptions for leaders, performance appraisal and contract renewal processes.

Proposition 3 That the ageing nature of the principal workforce be taken into account when creating flexible models of principalship. The ageing nature of the principal workforce indicates that ways of retaining older, experienced principals are required. Job-sharing as people move towards retirement can be seen as a means of retaining the wisdom and experience of older principals. Job-sharing, with an experienced older principal sharing with a beginning principal, can have advantages for both. The sharing of wisdom in this context is some of the best induction possible for a beginning principal. Models where experienced principals

102

The Power of Many

mentor less experienced principals are useful for building leadership capacity and also contribute to succession planning.

Proposition 4 That an appropriate balance between the autonomy of schooling and centralised high stakes standardisation and accountability be restored. The excessive concentration on the high-stakes standardisation and accountability in many school systems and schools has demoralised many educators and is one of the dominant tensions for contemporary school principals. It is also named as one of the main reasons for teachers refusing to put themselves forward for principalship. Centrally prescribed curricula, with detailed performance targets, aligned assessments, and high stakes accountability, have defined the ‘new orthodoxy’ of educational reform worldwide, providing standardised solutions at low cost for a voting public keen on instant accountability and results. High stakes accountability and testing, in their present manifestations, appear to be a serious threat to student engagement in their own learning and to schools that foster the creativity and ingenuity required for a smart and creative society. Achieving a balance may be one of the most important purposes for future leaders and leadership.

Proposition 5 That creative deployment of staff underpin flexible models of principalship and decisions about deployment of staff within these flexible models be made at the local level. Creative and flexible deployment of staff both within and across schools is an essential means of assisting implementation of many of the models discussed in this book. Using teachers as leaders of learning and pedagogy, and having the resources to do so in creative and flexible ways, is integral to the implementation of flexible models within a new paradigm of principalship. An example of creative deployment of staff could be a bursar shared by a cluster of small primary schools, a physics teacher who teaches extension classes across a number of secondary schools or an outstanding principal who shares principalship for part of the time in his or her own school and mentors new principals for the rest of the time. The combinations and permutations are endless and are limited only by imagination, expertise, available resources and costs.


103

These flexible models will work best when based on the premise that the decisions for creative deployment of staff should be made, whenever possible, at the local level rather than by a centralised bureaucracy.

Proposition 6 (specifically for faith-based schools) That within faith-based schools, both principals and aspiring principals should have access to authentic formation programs that give them the courage and confidence to be the faith leaders in their school communities. Principals in faith-based education, like principals everywhere, face many challenges and dilemmas in their role. Layered over and through these, however, are some challenges that impact on the principalship, particularly because of the faith commitments required of their leaders. Principals in faith-based schools are called to be faith leaders in their school communities. To enable principals and aspiring principals to answer this calling, formation programs are necessary to give them the courage and confidence to be authentic faith leaders in the school and the community.

Encouraging aspirants to apply for the principalship The following three propositions are likely to encourage aspirants to seek principalship. They would assist in building the leadership capabilities of potential principals and would enhance the leadership capacity of the school and the organisation.

Proposition 7 That teacher leadership be fostered and nurtured to promote a system/school rich in leaders. Teacher leadership is seen as a means of raising the morale of teachers, gaining greater commitment from teachers in carrying out the goals of the school and assisting other teachers in improving their practices by having teacher-leaders plan with them, demonstrate lessons and provide feedback. Giving teachers leadership opportunities can also be seen as enhancing teacher professionalism, and empowering teachers. Teacherleaders have also been suggested as the most reliable, useful, proximate and professional help for overworked and overwhelmed principals. Research cited earlier suggests that, when teachers lead, principals extend their own capacity, students enjoy a democratic community of learners and learning, and schools benefit from better decisions.

104

The Power of Many

Proposition 8 That a new paradigm of principalship include flexible structures and new attitudes that encourage women to take up principalship earlier in their careers and remain in leadership while also fulfilling their caring responsibilities. To encourage women to take up, or continue with, leadership positions earlier in their careers, there needs to be a much wider range of, and easy access to, shared and part-time leadership positions including principal positions. This acknowledges the career breaks in service for child-rearing and the fact that, in many cases, it is the woman who takes on the ongoing caring responsibilities for children as well as for elderly parents. Flexible structures and new attitudes will give women a better sense of their professional worth and better career path options. In many countries, legislation has mandated that employers give consideration to women returning to the workforce after maternity leave or women who have pre-school age children. While the legislative framework has compelled employers to review non-compliant practices to conform to new requirements, legislation should not be the driving force for such changes. There are many benefits, both short and long-term, accruing to an organisation which encourages women to take up or remain in leadership while balancing family commitments. Such benefits include retention of expertise, nurturing goodwill and commitment, enabling employees to maintain well-being and enthusiasm, and reducing replacement costs.

Proposition 9 That individual circumstances, including stage in life and professional experience, of both women and men, be taken into account in a new paradigm of principalship. As suggested earlier, one of the major disincentives to people not seeking principalship is the perceived negative impact of the principalship, in its present conceptualisation, on personal and family life. Redesigning the principalship in line with the new paradigm can take cognisance of the fact that for both women and men, different times in their lives bring different demands and pressures. People’s needs are complex and require an array of possible responses. New principals, male or female, with young families, for example, are less able to manage their workloads and balance their personal obligations when both are at peak demand. We suggest that multiple and flexible models of principalship within a new paradigm of leadership can contribute to increased recruitment and retention.


105

Assisting systems and governing bodies to adopt the new paradigm Systems and governing bodies need assistance, both practical and theoretical, to move to a new paradigm of principalship. The following four propositions will enable systems and governing bodies to implement and support a new paradigm of principalship that could include a range of flexible models.

Proposition 10 That creative, flexible human resources practices and processes be developed and implemented to support the new paradigm of principalship. Many current human resources policies and practices are inadequate to implement some of the findings and recommendations from this study. Multiple and flexible models that are customised and contextualised require new and innovative ways of recruiting, selecting, appointing and appraising. A single one-size-fits-all model of human resources functions will no longer be adequate to meet the needs of schools and principals. Creative, flexible human resources practices and processes must be developed and implemented to support the new paradigm of leadership. Examples of flexible practices could include a selection process that was designed so that two people could apply jointly and be interviewed together for a dual principalship. Another example would be to devise a customised leadership structure for a particular school context based on the needs of the school and the available expertise of school personnel. New structures or circumstances would also require innovative ways of implementing an appraisal process that would be robust, transparent and tailored to the specific situation.

Proposition 11 That criteria be established for a dual/shared principalship. While criteria would need to be customised and contextualised for each situation, the following provides an example of criteria for a dual/shared principalship model. The two people involved in a dual/shared principalship would need to be compatible, have an excellent working relationship and be able to communicate effectively with each other, the staff, parents and students. They would also need to have: 1.

a shared philosophy and informed understanding of contemporary educational theory and thinking;

106

The Power of Many

2.

a shared understanding of and commitment to the mission and vision of the school;

3.

a shared understanding about effective teaching and learning and how it happens in the classroom;

4.

a shared understandings about power, authority and leadership;

5.

a demonstrated capacity to develop and lead the school executive as an effective learning team;

6.

a demonstrated ability to lead the school community in a collaborative manner;

7.

a set of high expectations for students and staff with evidence of high levels of support;

8.

a proven record of maximising student learning and achievement; and

9.

a capacity to problem-solve in a collaborative ways.

Proposition 12 That the applicants for any shared leadership position develop a proposal that addresses the established criteria and uses the criteria, outlined above, to inform and influence their thinking. The proposal could include elements such as: 1. general principles; 2. processes for community consultation; 3. criteria for shared principalship as leadership for learning; 4. mentoring responsibilities and processes; 5. terms and conditions of the shared principal arrangement; 6. conditions of salary; 7. leave eligibility; 8. role of assistant principal; 9. professional development on a pro-rata basis; 10. processes for dispute resolution; 11. evaluation of success of initiative; and 12. dissolution of the partnership. Where the partnership lapses during the school year, one of the following options will be adopted: 1.

Where X departs from the school or has an extended absence due to illness, Y will take up the full-time position for the remainder of the school year.


2.

107

Where X departs from the school or has an extended absence due to illness, a temporary part-time replacement may be appointed until the end of the year.

Proposition 13 That resourcing, both financial and human, of different models of principalship be planned for in a cohesive and coordinated way. Some of the models investigated in this study require only minor adjustments to the present model while others require a radical rethinking of how schools are staffed, structured and led. Whether the models require the employment of a business manager or paraprofessionals or a fundamental overhaul of selection, recruitment and retention processes, the successful implementation of alternative models of principalship requires a cohesive and coordinated approach to resourcing. The new paradigm of principalship will fail if the resourcing, both financial and human, is not integrated into the forward planning and budgeting of the system or school.

Involving the community in the new paradigm The following two propositions recognise that the school functions within a community context. The school community and the educators who serve that community share the same goal: the success of the students. Thus, parents can be a powerful ally in the effort to create a school wherein a different model of leadership ultimately leads to enhanced learning outcomes for all students.

Proposition 14 That the school community be included in the learning journey when an alternative model of principalship is planned for and implemented. In any school community there could be some resistance to new or different models of principalship. Therefore, for a different model of principalship to be implemented in a school, everyone in the school community would have to understand the model and how it would function. A comprehensive program of awareness raising and inclusion would be required to support the implementation of any change models (Degenhardt & Duignan 2010). Parents and school staff would need to become partners in the new educational enterprise. When parents are positive about the model operating in the school they can serve as advocates for the school’s efforts to change the status quo.

108

The Power of Many

Proposition 15 That the new paradigm of principalship assists in forming a more contemporary understanding of the principalship within the community. With more women in principalship than ever before, it is time to challenge and educate some community perceptions about the principalship. The public image of the principal and the principal’s work has remained virtually unchanged over many decades despite the fact that the people doing the job and the job itself have both changed radically. The traditional model of school principalship was based on the assumption that the principal was at the apex of the triangle of responsibilities and accountabilities. This is no longer the case, but the expectations surrounding this hierarchical model still persist with many people in the community. While the context of schooling has changed considerably, there is still an expectation from parents that principals must demonstrate total commitment to the school community to which they have been appointed. The fact that many principals are married, have children, and community responsibilities is largely ignored by many members of their community. The reality for leaders in schools is different, but the paradigm shift in the expectations and attitude of the community and employers to the principalship that should have accompanied such a transition, still, largely, needs to be effected.

Concluding comments These 15 propositions, underpinned by the principles discussed in Chapter 10, are offered by the authors as a way of effecting the shift to a new paradigm of principalship. We believe that the findings from this research, together with the propositions, represent a substantial, original and empirical contribution to the body of knowledge of how the principalship could be redesigned. What is now required is the paradigm shift that will accompany the widespread acceptance and recognition of different ways of conceptualising the principalship. This research can not only inform and influence the paradigm shift but also provide a guide to action for redesigning the principalship. When applied to both aspirants and incumbents already in the principal’s role, the findings from this research have the potential to change the educational landscape in two significant ways. We contend that if the principalship is redesigned along the lines suggested, more high-quality applicants will be attracted to the role and many incumbents already in the role will be retained. By encouraging and enabling more aspirants to


109

seek principalship and by giving experienced principals the opportunity to renew the passion for education that motivated them to seek principalship in the first place, the principal shortage could be substantially reduced or even eliminated. We conclude this chapter by arguing that the alternative school leadership perspectives and practices proposed so far in this book are strongly aligned with the spirit of the OECD report by Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) which calls for a move ‘from principalship to leadership’ in schools (p. 31). In the final chapter, we will argue that what is actually required to achieve this paradigm shift is for systems and schools to build sustainable collective leadership capacity within communities of learners and learning.

Reflective questions The propositions presented in this chapter are clustered under four headings: (1) helping current principals stay in the role; (2) encouraging aspirants to the role; (3) assisting systems and governing bodies in moving towards a paradigm of shared leadership for learning; and (4) involving the community in the new paradigm. 1. How would these propositions help you (or your principal) to continue to be effective in their role? 2. What would you do to better attract aspirants to the role of principal? 3. In what ways can system leadership policies and structures help promote and support shared leadership in schools? 4. What do we need to do as school leaders to enhance the involvement of the community?

12 From principalship to sustainable collective leadership

A key question emerging from research findings reported in this book is, ‘What approaches to leadership will best promote, support and sustain high quality learning environments and student outcomes in schools?’ We have earlier suggested that these approaches will include collaborative, inclusive and distributed perspectives but that these should not be anchored in a school leadership that is based on the continuation of the principalship as we currently find it. If they are, then all we get is an attenuation of the status quo dressed up in a new language. We propose the need to fundamentally rethink and redesign schooling and school leadership to be more inclusive, collaborative and distributed not just because the principalship is inadequate or no longer appropriate, but because if we want to build world-class communities of learning it can only be done in inclusive and collaborative ways. (Degenhardt & Duignan 2010; Pont, Nusche & Moorman 2008). How can we possibly aspire to greatness in our schools, if we do not see leadership as a collaborative venture and adventure with teachers, students, parents and other community stakeholders? Often we refer to schools as learning communities, yet it seems that when it comes to the leadership of these communities, we cannot move much beyond embellished forms of the principalship masquerading as shared, collaborative or distributed leadership. This argument is not a game of semantics. In fact, it represents a fundamental philosophical shift about the nature of collective leadership in schools, its moral purpose, focus, structures, processes and practices. For example, for some time we have recognised that teacher leadership is central to school innovation and improvement, especially with regard to curriculum and pedagogy. Yet, in many schools, practices do not match the rhetoric. We need a more holographic view of leadership where teachers’ voices, students’ voices and parents’ voices echo and reverberate throughout the school community. Increasingly attention is being given to the influence 110

From principalship to sustainable collective leadership

111

of students’ and parents’ voices within school communities but surely we must first ensure that the loudest voices regarding curriculum and pedagogy are those of highly professional teachers. If there is weak teacher voice it is unlikely that there will be influential student or parent voice. Many school system policy makers have focused on the ways and means of encouraging and supporting collaborative leadership and capacity building. Often leadership development programs focus on succession planning and include coaching and mentoring processes. These can be powerful tools for promoting, supporting and improving school leadership but we need to be aware that even when we use ‘wise and experienced principals’ in these programs, we may be continuing to underwrite a model of school leadership that is currently under siege and may even be moribund. Given the earlier discussions around the strongly supported move from principalship to leadership and all that entails, how can we be sure that those coached and mentored are learning the ‘right’ leadership things and improving the ‘right’ leadership practices to meet many current and future challenges (Duignan 2006)? Or are we simply perpetuating a model of school leadership that was designed for an earlier industrial age but not for a 21st century technologically smart, networked and creative society? We have argued in this book that we may require a seismic shift in thinking about and practising school leadership, not just alone by emphasising learning-centred leadership but by authentically living the language we so often use in schools – schools as communities of learning.

Collective leadership within schools as communities of learners and learning An organization’s most effective leaders are not just acquired, they are grown – in fact an organization has more potential leaders than they realize. (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009, p. 2) We are conscious that we have critiqued many of the policies, ways of thinking, practices and improvement programs that have been put in place with good intentions and much expertise to resolve many of the problems associated with the existing challenges of school leadership. We have no doubt that many of these programs are making a difference and leading to improvement, but our view is that there is need for a fundamental rethink of many of the ways in which we respond to the contemporary and future challenges of school leadership. We regard the concepts of leadership succession, sustainable leadership, leadership capacity building, and shared, collaborative and distributed

112

The Power of Many

leadership as closely interconnected, indeed inseparable, ideas. We contend, however, that by overly focusing on any one of these, we are, as it were, ‘putting the cart before the horse’. For example, focusing separately or exclusively on leadership succession by creating succession processes and programs may not deliver the expected results. This approach tends to emphasise succession to the principalship and then explores how other understandings and perspectives on leadership can inform policy, practices and programs related to it. There is an extensive literature that focuses exclusively on such separate areas as leadership succession, sustainable leadership, or collaborative and distributed leadership without connecting them directly to each other and to the moral purpose of schooling. For example, leadership succession is often focused on as at the centre of efforts to enhance the depth, breadth, diversity and quality of leadership in our systems and schools. This view is depicted in Figure 12.1.

LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION to some form of principalship Succession Planning

Sustainability Distributed Leadership

Coaching, Mentoring etc.

Figure 12.1 Focus on leadership succession

Similarly, we focus on ways and means of sharing or distributing leadership in schools but who is it that does the sharing and distributing? We suggest that the focus once again is on the principal and principalship. The same argument can be made for any focus on building sustainable leadership or on planning for leadership succession. What we should start with, we believe, is a moral commitment to building sustainable collective leadership capacity within a community of learners and learning. To build such environments we must deeply embed a number of leadership perspectives (e.g. succession, sustainability, collaborative) within a community of learning framework.

Schools are communities of learning For some time, schools have been regarded as communities of learning and practice. Capra (2002) suggested that any living network, such as a school as a community of learning, is a closely connected and selftransforming entity because ‘each communication creates thoughts and


113

meaning, which give rise to further communications. In this way the entire network generates itself, producing a common context of meaning, shared knowledge, rules of conduct, a boundary, and a collective identity for its members’ (p. 108). Drawing on the work of Etienne Wenger he sees communities of learning and practice as characterised by mutual engagement (through networks of communication) of its members; a joint enterprise (shared purpose and meaning), and, over time, a shared repertoire of routines, tacit rules of conduct, and knowledge (Capra 2002, p. 108). In fact, he argues that within every organisation: There is a cluster of interconnected communities of practice. The more people are engaged in these informal networks, and the more developed and sophisticated the networks are, the better will the organisation be able to learn, respond creatively to unexpected new circumstances, change, and evolve. In other words, the organisation’s aliveness resides in its communities of practice. (Capra 2002, p. 109) In schools, Wenger (1998) states that, ‘the learning that is most personally transformative turns out to be the learning that involves membership in [various] communities of practice (p. 6). At an organisational level, Wenger suggests that participative learning within communities of practice ‘means that learning is an issue of sustaining the interconnected communities of practice through which an organisation knows what it knows and thus becomes effective and valuable as an organisation’ (p. 8). While we tend to connect learning to classrooms and teachers, the fact is that ‘learning is an integral part of our everyday lives. It is part of our participation in our communities and organisations’ (p. 8). He also argues that ‘communities of practice are the prime context in which we can work out common sense through mutual engagement’ (p. 73). They are also places within which community members can: explore radically new insights without becoming … stuck in some dead end. A history of mutual engagement around a joint enterprise is an ideal context for this type of leading-edge learning … When these conditions are in place, communities of practice are a privileged locus for the creation of knowledge. (Wenger 1998, p. 214) Such communities can be safe, flexible and supportive environments for learning because they create ‘mentally and emotionally healthy working environments in which people feel that they are supported in striving to achieve their own goals and do not have to sacrifice their integrity to meet the goals of the organisation’ (Capra 2002, p. 125). They are

114

The Power of Many

spaces within which emergent thinking, risk taking, and the generation of new ideas is encouraged. Capra (2002) believes that, for the most part, new ideas, new processes and/or structures are not generated by any individual but emerge ‘as a result of the organisation’s collective creativity’ (pp. 116–117). From these arguments related to schools as communities of learning and practice, we contend that with common moral purpose and an environment safe for emergent thinking schools forge new thinking and practices about principalship. Indeed, we argue that the moral purpose driving the move from principalship to leadership in the literature is the greater need to lead schools as communities of learning (e.g. Delorenzo et al. 2009). In Figure 12.2, we propose that there is a strong emerging shift from traditional perspectives of principalship to one of building sustainable collective leadership capacity in systems and schools as communities of learning. We also propose that other recent understandings and perspectives on leadership can be used to help achieve this shift.

ac

Sh

h in g

ado

wi n g

ng

r s h ip

ade

nni

l le

P la

oo

o si es s c c Su on s u c w ith f o

n

g in tor r m Men o sF hip

Co

ion

ch

Sustai nin gL bread th, ea de p

Building Collective Sustainable Leadership Capacity – Leading learning – Talent development

I nt e r n s

at

Colla bor ati Coll on ec tiv e

n, utio rib ist e , D ractic p

gh hrou ip t h y rs ersit de , div th

Figure 12.2 Leadership: building collective sustainable capacity

The point we are making is that any attempt to build sustainable collective leadership capacity in schools as communities of learning is unlikely to happen by focusing on any of the separate leadership perspectives discussed earlier – leadership succession, leadership sustainability, shared/ distributed leadership, even coaching and mentoring. Instead of thinking about how we plan leadership succession or distribute and sustain leadership, we need to step back and reconceptualise and redesign school


115

leadership away from the frame of the traditional role of the principal and principalship (Degenhardt & Duignan 2010). In fact, Fullan (2010) addresses this issue indirectly when he claims that the missing link for system and school leadership is the ‘powerhouse force of collective capacity building and efficacy’ (p. 71). He goes on to argue that: There is no force so durable and potent as a social force. It has it all. Competencies and skills increase, quality and innovation occur hand in hand, and galeforce commitment occurs because peers commit to peers and hierarchies become flatlined in their interactions. (Fullan 2010, p. 71) He concludes that ‘collective capacity generates the emotional commitment and the technical expertise that no amount of individual capacity working alone can come close to matching’ (Fullan 2010, p. xiii). Collective capacity building should have a specific educational improvement focus. Sharratt and Fullan (2009) define such capacity building ‘as investment in the development of the knowledge, skills and competencies of individuals and groups to focus on assessment literacy and instructional effectiveness that leads to school improvement’ (p. 8). In their description of systemic leadership capacity building in York Region District School Board, in Ontario, Canada, Sharratt and Fullan (2009) highlight four enduring understandings for systemic capacity building with which we concur. These are: 1. Commitment to a shared vision and staying the course with a single priority – for example, literacy; 2. Knowledge of and resources for focused assessment linked to instruction at all levels; 3. Strategic leadership emanating simultaneously and consistently from the centre and the field; and 4. Meaningful engagement of parents and community (pp. 9–10). We need to take this latter notion seriously. Schools are communities of learners and learning and put the leadership of learning improvement centrestage. All stakeholders within a community of learning must be able to participate in leading that learning (Hargreaves & Shirley 2009) if we are to tap into the multiple talents and potential of key organisational members, depth, breadth and diversity of leadership matters. We contend that while the language of ‘principal’ and ‘principalship’ may remain in usage in the future, it is vital that the leadership paradigm that sustains it changes.

116

The Power of Many

Building sustainable collective leadership capacity within our systems and schools as communities of learning will, however, require talented people at all career stages and at all levels. The attraction and development of talented people are a key responsibility of system and school leaders.

Building collective leadership capacity using talent magnets Breakspear, Sheahan and Thurbon (2009), who focus their research on Generation Y (leaders for the future), provide advice to system and school leaders on how to attract and retain young talented teachers through courageous leadership and inspiring cultures. A key step to leaders creating such cultures is, they suggest, changing leadership mindsets and practices (p. 11). They argue that ‘once leaders have adopted these progressive, empowering mindsets, they can then move on to equipping themselves with a keen understanding of the demands and expectations of talented young staff’ (p. 13). They are especially adamant that school leaders need to provide young talented teachers with real opportunities for leadership responsibility. They recommend that: Young talent could be provided with opportunities to guide technology implementation within their faculty or stage. Other opportunities may arise in the need for updating of programs and pedagogical practice to align with best practice. These ‘side-way ladders’ of career progression provide talented teachers with ongoing challenge, stimulation and development opportunities and thus curb tendencies to go looking for such things outside the education sector. (Breakspear, Sheahan & Thurbon 2009, p. 24) Breakspear, Sheahan and Thurbon (2009) also point out that young talented teachers love collaboration and collaborative environments as ‘they can interact with like-minded talented individuals, both in internal networks and also externally’ (p. 15). They remind formal leaders in systems and schools that collaborative environments don’t emerge by chance. Leaders need to create ‘a space that facilitates interaction and exchange’ and they also need to ‘consider fashioning spaces conducive to interaction, and then formalising the use of those spaces by scheduling an “innovative lunch” or a “brainstorm breakfast”’ (p. 22). The same researchers identify six expectations of talented young staff to which system and school leaders must respond if they are to get the best out of them (Breakspear, Sheahan & Thurbon 2009, p. 15). These


117

can assist leaders to build ‘talent magnet cultures’ to attract, motivate and retain talented young people. They argue that talented people want: 1. to be recognised and valued; 2. their work to enable them to grow and make them more employable; 3. outlets for their creativity and the freedom to express themselves; 4. collaboration and collegiality (they reject isolationism); 5. to make a positive contribution to their school and community; and 6. to be on the leading edge, to drive innovation, change and improvement. The Ontario Ministry of Education (2009) also strongly supports the need for talent attraction and development within their education systems and schools. They argue that talent development should focus on: encouraging everyone in the system to see themselves as part of the leadership strategy that focuses on attracting and developing passionate and skilled leaders who can effectively support student achievement and wellbeing. Talent development throughout the system encourages staff to build leadership skills in their current role, and supports their preparation should they wish to consider other leadership positions. (p. 2) Based on key findings from literature (e.g. Breakspear, Sheahan & Thurbon 2009; Ontario Ministry of Education 2009) and our own experiences, we propose the following processes for encouraging and nurturing leadership talent attraction and development: 1. Actively identify and nurture leadership talent from multiple levels of the system or organisation. 2. Spot talent early on and throughout people’s careers. 3. Develop leadership profiles of selected personnel and provide professional leadership learning support for them. 4. Mentor and coach candidates with leadership potential using mentors from inside and outside the system, even from outside education. 5. Create cultures of trust where self-reflection and critical feedback are welcomed and used. 6. Look for and use diverse people and talents. 7. Create a culture where leadership responsibility is seen as everybody’s business.

118

The Power of Many

8 . Provide leadership opportunities (e.g. acting position, internship, shadowing) for personnel with leadership capacity. 9. Design specific projects and distribute leadership responsibilities to talented participants. 10. Generate leadership career pathways that do not necessarily culminate in the principalship. 11. Create supportive networks for potential leaders within and outside the school. The ideas and recommendations of Breakspear, Sheahan and Thurbon (2009), the Ontario Ministry of Education (2009) and the Institute of Educational Leadership seem to us to provide powerful advice and guidelines on how leaders can build sustainable collective leadership capacity in their systems and schools as communities of learning. We suggest that achieving this will depend on developing school cultures that identify, recognise, grow and nurture leaders and leadership at all levels.

Concluding remarks The focus of this book has been on how the principalship can be redesigned to attract more high-quality applicants and retain those incumbents already in the role. But there is no quick and easy fix to this problem. We contend that sustained growth in recruitment and retention to the principalship requires nothing less than a paradigm shift. Sustained support and growth for our most precious resource in schools, our students, demands nothing less. The new paradigm would be based on sharing leadership rather than on a traditional hierarchical approach. It would have structures that are flexible and customised to the local needs of the school and school community. Learning would be central and a good work/life balance would be essential, for all principals. The new paradigm would also offer enough flexibility to encourage women to both take up, and remain in principalship, while taking on caring responsibilities, which still fall largely to women. The findings from this research led to the development of nine principles, which, it is suggested, should inform and influence the new paradigm of principalship. Together with the propositions, they provide a scaffold and a guide to action for redesigning the principalship. Those who would take up the challenge to change paradigms, require the disposition to look at old landscapes with new eyes, an open mind, a generous heart, and the capability to think outside the current triangles and squares of leadership.


119

We leave the last words of wisdom to A.R. Ammons, an American poet, who wrote: don’t establish the boundaries first, the squares, triangles, boxes of preconceived possibility, and then pour life into them, trimming off left-over edges, ending potential: (p. 116) From Tape for the turn of the year by A.R. Ammons. Copyright © 1965 by A.R. Ammons. Used by permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Reflective questions 1. The following key question was derived from the findings and conclusions of this book: ‘What approaches to leadership will best promote, support and sustain high quality learning environments and student outcomes in schools?’ 2. Based on the key ideas and conclusions presented in this book, as well as on your own rich experiences as an educational leader, what can you do as a leader in your school to build the type of high quality learning environment that will help raise the levels of achievement (in the broader sense) of all students?

References

Adamson, A. (2008). Building capacity: our principal (principle) purpose. OPC Register, 10(1), 34Â�Â�–39. Ammons, A.R. (1965). Tape for the turn of the year. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Co. Anderson, M., & Lacey, K. (2009). New models of leadership for learning: Exploring the concept and practice of co-principalship job sharing. Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series, 183, 1–20. Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of the ‘black box’ of school reform. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(4), 152–159. Appelt, L. (1995). Organisational culture and the maintenance of male advantage. In B. Limerick & B. Lingard (Eds.), Gender and changing educational management. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder Education. Atkin, J. (2004, March). Learning by design. Paper presented at the Focus on Leading the Learning conference, Diocese of Broken Bay, Sydney, NSW. Australian Council for Educational Leaders. (2010). ACEL Leadership Capability Framework. Sydney, NSW: Author. Barber, M. (1996). The learning game: Arguments for an education revolution. London: Victor Gollancz. Barth, R. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443–449. Bianchi, A. (2003, August). The road less travelled: School administrators with nontraditional backgrounds. Forecast, 1(2), 1–4. Blackmore, J. (1993). In the shadow of men: Exclusionary theory and discriminatory practice in the historical construction of ‘masculinist’ administrative cultures. In J. Blackmore & J. Kenway (Eds.), Gender matters in the theory and practice of educational administration and policy: A feminist introduction. London: Falmer Press. Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1997). The fire is back! Principals sharing school governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 120

References 121

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1999). Shared governance principals: The inner experience. NASSP Bulletin, 83(606), 81–90. Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2010). Managing human resources. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Boris-Schacter, S., & Langer, S. (2002, February). Caught between nostalgia and utopia: The plight of the modern principal, Education Week, 21(21), 34, 36–37. Boris-Schacter, S., & Langer, S. (2003). Challenging the image of the American principalship. The Embattled Principal, 83(1), 14–18. Boris-Schacter, S., & Langer, S. (2006). Balanced leadership: How effective principals manage their work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Columbia University. Breakspear, S., Sheahan, P., & Thurbon, D. (2009). Talent magnets: attracting and retaining young teachers through courageous leadership and inspiring cultures. Camperdown, NSW: The Centre for Skills Development. Bredson, P. (1995, April). From gazing out the ivory tower to heavy lifting in the field: Empowerment through collaborative action research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Bristol University. (2001). Policy and guidelines for flexible work patterns. Retrieved 21 March, 2011 from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/personnel/ policies/flexwork.html Brooking, K., Collins, G., Court, M., & O’Neill, J. (2003). Getting below the surface of the principal recruitment ‘crisis’ in New Zealand primary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 47 (2), 146–158. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Buckner, M., & Slavenski, L. (1994). Succession planning. In W. Tracey (Ed.), Human resources management and development handbook. (2nd ed., pp. 561–575). New York, NY: AMACOM. Caldwell, B. (2000, June). Innovations and abandonment for successful leadership in schools of the third millennium. Paper presented at the conference of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation and Australian Primary Principals’ Association on the theme Celebrating Leadership into the Third Millennium. Christchurch, New Zealand. Caldwell, B. (2006). Re-imagining educational leadership. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press. Canavan, K. (2001). Leadership succession in Catholic schools: Planned or unplanned. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 5(1), 72–84. Cannon, H. (2004). Redesigning the Principalship in Catholic Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Strathfield, NSW: Australian Catholic University.

122 References

Cannon, H. (2008, May). Shared Leadership: Building productive relationships. Teacher, 191(4), 52–55. Capra, F. (2002). Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. New York, NY: Random House. Carlin, P., d’Arbon, T., Dorman, J., Duignan, P., & Neidhart, H. (2003). Leadership succession for Catholic schools in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The VSAT Project final report. Strathfield, NSW: Flagship for Catholic Educational Leadership, Australian Catholic University. Carrigan, J., Brown, C., & Jenkins, K. (1999, March). Principals’ salaries: Incentives or deterrents to professional advancement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. Catholic Schools Office. (2009). Workforce Planning Data Report 2004– 2009. Sydney, NSW: Catholic Schools Office, Diocese of Broken Bay. Chesterton, P., & Duignan, P. (2004). Evaluation of the national trial of the IDEAS Project. Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training. Sydney, NSW: Australian Catholic University. Collarbone, P,. & Shaw, R. (1998). Learning how to lead. Times Educational Supplement [Online]. Retrieved 10 April, 2000 from http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=81351 Cooley, V., & Shen, J. (2000). Factors influencing applying for urban principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 443–454. Copland, M. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528–533. Court, M. (2001, September). Collaborative or managerial? Reviewing international studies of co-principalship and shared teacher leadership initiatives. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Leeds, UK. Court, M. (2002, September). Talking back to New Public Management versions of accountability. Co-principal practices of mutual responsibility. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Exeter, UK. Crowther, F. (2001). Teachers as leaders: A conceptual framework. Report to the Australian Research Council. Toowoomba, QLD: University of Southern Queensland. Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. d’Arbon, T., Duignan, P., & Duncan, D. (2002). Planning for future leadership of schools: An Australian study. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 468–485.

References 123

d’Arbon, T., Duignan, P., Duncan, D., & Goodwin, K-M. (2000). Leadership succession in Catholic schools in New South Wales. Strathfield, NSW: Australian Catholic University. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003, February). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Teachers College Record. Retrieved 9 October, 2003 from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=11109 Dass, S. (1995). Inside the co-principalship: A naturalistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Davies, B. (2005). (Ed.). The essentials of school leadership. London: Paul Chapman. Davies, B. (2006). Leading the strategically focused school: Success and sustainability. London: Paul Chapman. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. De Cieri, H., & Kramer, R. (2003). Human resource management in Australia: Strategy, people, performance. Sydney, NSW: McGrawHill. Degenhardt, L., & Duignan, P. (2010). Dancing on a shifting carpet: Reinventing traditional schooling for the 21st century. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press. Delorenzo, R., Battino, W., Schreiber, R., & Carrio, B. (2009). Delivering the promise: the education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Dinham, S. (2008). How to get your school moving and improving. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press. Dolan, W. (1994). Restructuring our schools: A primer on systemic change. Kansas City, MO: Systems and Organization. D’Orsa, J., & D’Orsa, T. (1997). Reimagining Catholic school leadership for the third millennium. In R. Keane & D. Riley (Eds.), Quality Catholic Schools (pp. 72–82). Brisbane, QLD: Catholic Education. D’Orsa, J., & D’Orsa, T. (2010). Explorers, Guides and Meaning Makers. Melbourne, VIC: John Garrett Publishing. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Duignan, P. (2002). Formation of authentic leaders for Catholic schools. In D. Duncan and D. Riley (Eds.), Leadership in Catholic Education (pp. 172–184). Melbourne, VIC: Harper Collins. Duignan, P. (2006). Educational leadership: key challenges and ethical tensions. Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.

124 References

Duignan P., Benjamin, A., Burford, C., d’Arbon, T., & Associates. (2003). Contemporary challenges and implications for leaders in frontline human service organisations. The SOLR Project research report. Strathfield, NSW: Flagship for Catholic educational leadership, Australian Catholic University. Duignan, P., Collins, V., Coulon, L., & Fagan, M. (2003). Building theory in leadership through electronic networking. In K. Parry & J. Meindl (Eds.), Grounding leadership theory and research: Issues, perspectives and methods (pp. 108–123). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Duignan, P., & Gurr, D. (2007). Leading Australia’s schools. Sydney, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Learners. Duignan, P., & Marks, W. (2003, September). From competencies to capabilities – Developing shared leadership in schools. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Leadership National Conference, Sydney, NSW. Eddy, D. (2010, June). Open leadership: Conversations to build trust in your leadership of teaching and learning. Keynote address presented at the meeting of the School Leadership Teams, Diocese of Broken Bay, Sydney, NSW. Education Queensland. (1997). Standards framework for leaders. Brisbane, QLD: Author. Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. National Association for Elementary and Secondary Principals [Online]. Retrieved on 15 January, 2000, from http://www.naesp.org/ misc/shortage.htm Educational Research Service. (2000). Principal, keystone of a high achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Arlington, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals and National Association of Elementary School Principals. Effron, M., Gandossy, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2003). Human resources in the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Evans, R. (1995, April). Getting real about leadership. Education Week, 14, 29–36. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Feiler, R., Heritage, M., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Teachers leading teachers, Educational Leadership, 58(8), 66–69. Fenwick, L., & Pierce, M. (2001). The principal shortage: Crisis or opportunity? National Association of Elementary School Principals [Online]. Retrieved on 4 April, 2003 from http://www.naesp.org

References 125

Ferrandino, V., & Tirozzi, G. (2000). Our time has come. National Association of Elementary School Principals [Online]. Retrieved from www.naesp.org/misc/edweek_article_2-23-00.htm. Flocton, L. (2001, July). Tomorrow’s schools: A world of difference. Paper presented at the 5th International Confederation of Principals, Kyongju, South Korea. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1997. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go! – The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gawande, A. (2007). Better: A surgeon’s notes on performance. New York, NY: Picador. Gilman, D., & Lanman-Givens, B. (2001). Where have all the principals gone? Educational Leadership, 58(8), 72–74. Glenny, M., Lewis, D., & White, C. (1996). Power sharing at Selwyn College, Auckland, New Zealand: The co-principalship model. Management in Education, 10(4), 25, 32–33. Goldstein, A. (2002). How to fix the coming principal shortage, Time [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/columnist/ goldstein/article/0,9565,168379,00.html Gratton, L., & Syrett, M. (1990). Heirs apparent: Succession strategies for the future. Personnel Management, 22(1), 34–38. Gronn, P., & Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2003). Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2) 172–185. Groover, E. (1989). Perceptions of the co-principalship as implemented in High Point North Carolina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Greensboro, SC: University of North Carolina. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and systems, a critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2, T. McCarthy, trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Hackney, C., & Hogard, E. (1998). Women in transition: a mission of service. Advancing women in leadership, 2(1). Retrieved from http:// advancingwomen.com/awl.html Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (2009). The fourth way of educational reform. Monograph No. 45. Sydney, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Learners.

126 References

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harris, A. (2002, September). Distributed leadership in Schools: Leading or Misleading. Keynote paper presented at BELMAS annual conference, Aston University Lakeside Conference Centre, Birmingham, UK. Harris, A. (2006). Opening up the ‘black box’ of leadership practice: taking a distributed leadership perspective, International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(2), 37–45. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Helgesen, S. (1996). Leading from the grass roots. In F. Hesselbein, M.Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.). The leader of the future (pp. 19–24). New York, NY: The Drucker Foundation. Hirsch, E., & Groff, F. (2002). Principals in Colorado: An inventory of policies and practices. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures. Kelly, A. (1990). Leadership in Catholic education. In J. McMahon, H. Neidhart, J. Chapman, & L. Angus (Eds.), Leadership in Catholic education (pp. 10–39). Richmond, VIC: Spectrum Publications. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lacey, K. (2000). Survey on succession planning. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Department of Education. Lacey, K. (2001, September). Succession planning in education. ACEL Hot Topics, 4, 1–2. Lacey, K. (2006). Redesigning leadership. Independent Education, 36(3), 22–23. Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37–40. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lecos, M., Evans, C., Leahy, C., Liess, E., & Lucas, T. (2000). Empowering teacher leadership in professional development schools. Teaching and Change, 8(1), 98–113. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of different sources of leadership on student engagement on school. In K. Riley & K. S. Lewis (Eds.), Leadership for change and school reform: International perspectives (pp. 50–66). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer Press.

References 127

Leithwood, K., Macsall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R.., Memon, N., & Yaskina, G. (2006). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter. Research Report. Ontario, Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Long, A. (2000). Administrative shortage: Perception/reality/solutions. IPLA Special Edition, 13(4), 3–7. Lowney, C. (2003). Heroic Leadership. Chicago, IL: Loyola Press. MacDonald, R. (2003). Human resources: Profession at a crossroads. In M. Effron, R. Gandossy, & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Human resources in the 21st century (pp. 259–265). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCauley, C., Eastman, L., & Ohlott, P. (1995). Linking management selection and development through stretch assignments. Human Resource Management, 34(1) 93–115. McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M., & Hong, J. (2008). Staff in Australian Schools. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. McLaughlin, D. (1998). Catholic schools for the 21st century: Challenges for educational leadership. In P. Duignan & T. d’Arbon (Eds.), Leadership in Catholic Education. Sydney, NSW: Australian Catholic University. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2003). Demand and supply of primary and secondary school teachers in Australia. Melbourne, VIC: Author. National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), Eastern Leadership Centre (ELC), University of Cambridge, National College of School Leadership (NCSL), and Hay Group (2005). Leading appointments: a study into and guidance on headship recruitment. Interim Report. Retrieved from http://www.naht.org.uk OECD. (2008). Innovating to learn, learning to innovate. Paris: OECD Publishing. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009, June). Ontario leadership strategy: Leadership succession planning and talent development ministry expectations and implementation continuum (version 1.1). Ontario, Canada: Author. Pierce, M. (2000, September/October). Portrait of the ‘super principal’. Harvard Education Letter [Online], 16(5), 1–5. Retrieved from http:// www.hepg.org/hel/article/141 Pierce, M. (2003). The 21st century principal. In M. Pierce & D. Stapleton (Eds.), The 21st century principal: Current issues in leadership and policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

128 References

Pocock, B. (2003). The work/life collision. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Hopkins D. (Eds.) (2008). Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pont, B. Nusche., D. & Moorman D. (Eds.). (2008). Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pounder, D., Galvin, P., & Shepherd, P. (2003). An analysis of the United States educational administrator shortage. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 133–146. Pyke, N. (2002, February 9). Counting heads. The Tablet, pp.18–19. Ramsey, G. (2002). Quality matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Report of the review of teacher education. Sydney, NSW: New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Robinson, V. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241–256. Robinson, V., Hehepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Rosener, L. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press. Schein, E. (1996). Leadership and organizational culture. In F. Hesselbein, M.Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future. New York, NY: The Drucker Foundation. Schuttloffel, M. (2003). Report on the future of Catholic school leadership. Washington DC: The National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA). Senge, P., Schamer, C. O., Jaworski, J., Flowers, B. S. (2004). Presence: Human purpose and the future. Cambridge, MA: The Society for Organizational Learning. Sergiovanni, T. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2009). Realization: the change imperative for deepening district-wide reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Shaw, P. (2002, March). Challenges and complexities in school leadership: Finding the courage to lead. Paper presented at the Educational Leadership Conference, Wollongong University, NSW. Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood, & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 561–612). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

References 129

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Starratt, R. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stephenson, J. (1999). Corporate capability: Implications for the style and direction of work-based learning. Working Paper 99–14, University of Technology, Sydney. Sydney, NSW: RCVET. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time). London: Routledge Falmer. Surowiecki, P. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York, NY: Anchor. Tjeldvoll, A. (1985). Alternative Management Forms and School Development. Final report from the ASF project. Oslo, Norway: Institute of Educational Research/The National Council for Innovation in Education, University of Oslo. Van de Grift, W., & Kurek-Vriesema, C. (1990). School leadership in primary school. Amsterdam/Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood. (2008). Teacher supply and demand report. Melbourne, VIC: Author. Wallace, M. (2001). Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork. Educational Management & Administration, 29(2) 153–167. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organizations from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler. Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler. Whitaker, K. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment and selection: An international perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 37–54. White, R. (1991). Evaluation of the pilot co-principalship at Henry Hudson School (Research report 90-02). Vancouver, Canada: Vancouver School Board, Student Assessment and Research. Wildy, H., & Louden, W. (2000). School restructuring and the dilemmas of the principal’s work. Educational Management & Administration, 28(2) 173–184. Williams, T. (2001). Unrecognised exodus, unaccepted accountability: The looming shortage of principals and vice-principals in Ontario Public School Boards. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Principals’ Council. Yerkes, D., & Guaglianone, C. (1998). Where have all the high school administrators gone? Thrust for Administrative Leadership, 28(2), 10–14.

Index

Adamson, A. 28 age, principals average 5, 7 Anderson, M. 66 Andrews, D. 48, 85 applicants for principalship 2–4, 5–6 Atkin, J. 88 Australian Council for Educational Leaders 17, 101 balance and leadership 97 Bohlander, G. 76 Boris-Schacter, S. 64–5 Breakspear, S. 116, 118 business matrix management vii, xv, 32, 39–46 leadership development 45–6 model rating 41–2 strengths 39–41 suggested improvements 43–5 weaknesses 42–3 Caldwell, B. 1, 13, 22 Canada 1, 31, 115 Capra, F. 112, 114 Catholic Education Office (CEO) 6, 7 Catholic school leadership 6–7 Catholic Schools Office (CSO) 6, 7 collaborative leadership and communities 111–12 in schools 19–23 sustainable 23–5, 26 130

collective capacity building 115 collective leadership capacity 116–18 community and collective leadership 111–12 involving in the new paradigm 107–8 and learning 27–9, 112–16 school 110–11 conceptualisation of principalship 10–30 and leadership 19–29 one person 12–13 role 16–19 succession 13–14 support 14–15 traditional focus 11–12 Copland, M. 3 Court, M. 31, 32 Crowther, F. 48, 80, 85 Darling-Hammond, L. 61 Davies, B. 20, 24–5 Dinham, S. 14, 17, 56, 79 distributed leadership in schools 19–23 sustaining 23–5 diversity of leadership 25–7 Dolan, W. 87 dual principals criteria be established for 105–6 equal authority 33, 72, 75

Index 131

integrated leadership 33, 72–81 with job-sharing vii, xvi, 3, 64–71 with split task specialisation vii, xvi, 32, 58–63 Duignan, Patrick 15, 29, 56, 79 effective school leadership, developing skills for 18–19 Effron, M. 52 equal authority (dual principals) 33, 72, 75 Fink, Dean 11, 22, 25, 85 five models of principalship vii, xv, 32–4, 35, 38, 82 Flocton, L. 12 Fullan, M. 23–4, 85, 88, 115 gender imbalances and principalship 2, 4, 5 sensitivity and principalship 92, 94, 95, 97–8 see also women and principalship governing bodies, assistance to adopt the new paradigm 105–7 Gratton, L. 70 Gurr, D. 15 Hargreaves, Andy 11, 22, 24–5, 85 Harris, A. 21, 48, 85 Helgesen, S. 55 Hopkins, D. 20 human resource policies and practices 105 ideal models 82–90 appropriate leadership development 88 building leadership capacity 84 descriptions 83–5 focus on leading learning 84 growing leadership capabilities 84 shared leadership variation 83 strengths 85–6

summary 89 supported leadership variation 83 weaknesses 86–7 inclusive leadership 110 integrated leadership vii, xvi, 33, 72–81 appropriate leadership development 78–81 rating scale 74–5 strengths 72–4 suggested improvements 77–8 weaknesses 75–6 integrative leadership, a two-principal model with responsibilities integrated 33, 72–81 Jantzi, D. 22 job sharing (dual principals) vii, xvi, 32, 64–71 appropriate leadership development 71 rating scale 67 strengths 64–7 suggested improvements 69–70 weaknesses 68–9 Kouzes, J. 55, 76 Lacey, K. 56, 66, 70, 77, 85 Lambert, L. 73 Langer, S. 64–5 leadership and balance 97 building collective sustainable capacity 114 capabilities 84 capacity 84 Catholic school 6–7 collaborative 23–5 collective capacity 116–18 depth of 25–7 diversity of 25–7 dual, with job-sharing 32 dual, with split task specialisation 32

132 Index

effective, developing skills for 18–19 five models vii, xv, 32–4, 35, 38, 82 inclusive 110 integrative, a two-principal model with responsibilities integrated 33, 72–81 learning-centred 27–9 literature on redesigning 31 and relationships 96–7 and school communities 110–11 shared 48–9, 83, 95–6, 98, 106–7 succession vi, 6, 13–14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 83, 85–6, 111–12, 114 supported (primary principals) 83 supported, a business matrix model/ management 32, 39–46 supported, a distributed leadership model 32, 47–57 sustainable vi, 22, 23–5, 26–7, 99, 111–12, 114 sustainable collective 110–19 see also school leadership leadership in schools 19–23, 91–9 leadership development 45–6 ideal models 88 integrated 78–81 job sharing (dual principals) 71 shared and supported 55–7 leading learning 84, 95 learners professional communities of 27–9 learning communities of 27–9, 112–16 leading 84, 95 professional 98 professional communities of 27–9 and school leadership responsibilities 17–18 learning-centred leadership 27–9 Leithwood, K. 21, 22 literature on redesigning leadership 31 Lowney, C. 26–7

MacDonald, R. 54 Marzano, R.J. 14 Moorman, D. xiv, xv, 4, 10–11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 109 National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) 13 Netherlands 31 New South Wales 5, 6–7 New Zealand 1, 31 Norway 31 Nusche, D. xiv, xv, 4, 10–11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 109 OECD xv, 10–11, 16, 20–1, 23, 109 Pont, B. xvi, xv, 4, 10–11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 109 Posner, B. 55, 76 primary principals 4–5, 7, 35, 42–4, 52, 61, 63, 83–4, 86, 91 principal shortages 1–7 Australian context 4–5 international context 2–4 in NSW catholic dioceses 6–7 principal/principalship 10–30 age, average 5, 7 and alternating assistant principals (primary principals) 84 applicants 2–4, 5–6 and balance 97 close small schools (primary principals) 84 complexity of the role 2–3 current conceptualisation 10–30 dual, criteria be established for 105–6 dual, with job-sharing 32, 64–71 dual, with split task specialisation 32, 58–63 as educational leader (secondary principals) 84 encouraging aspirants to apply 103–4

Index 133

five models vii, xv, 32–4, 35, 38, 82 flexibility, customisation and contextualisation 96 and gender imbalances 2, 4, 5 and gender sensitivity 92, 94, 95, 97–8 ideal models 82–90 to leadership 93–4 to leadership of learning 19–23 and professional learning, support and formation 98 redesigning 10, 29, 31, 89, 91, 100–1, 104, 108, 118 and relationships 96–7 research design 34–5 research project 31, 91 research questions 34 resourcing financial and human 107 role 2–3, 8–9, 16–19 and school communities 107–8 and school leadership 11–12 and shared leadership 83, 95–6, 98 summary of major findings 92–3 support 14–15 supported leadership (primary principals) 83 and sustainable collective leadership 110–19 and sustainability 99 and women 2, 67, 92, 93, 94, 97–8, 104, 108, 118 principals current, helping them stay in the role 100–3 primary 4–5, 7, 35, 42–4, 52, 61, 63, 83–4, 86, 91 recruitment 7 secondary 4–5, 7, 35, 37–8, 42, 44, 74–5, 84, 91 shortages of 1–7 principalship and new paradigm alternative paradigm 94 assisting systems and governing bodies to adopt 105–7

involving the community in the 107–8 nine principles for a new paradigm 94–9 propositions for advancing 100–9 and school communities 107–8 professional communities of learners and learning 27–9 professional learning 98 Queensland 5, 101 Ramsey report 5 recruitment of principals 7 redesigning principalship 10, 29, 31, 89, 91, 100–1, 104, 108, 118 relationships and leadership 96–7 research project 31–8 design 34–5 dual leadership, with job-sharing 32, 64–71 dual leadership, with split task specialisation 32, 58–63 five models 32–4, 38 integrative leadership, a two-principal model with responsibilities integrated 33, 72–81 phase two 35–6 process for phase one 35 questions 34 significance 36 supported leadership, a business matrix model/management 32, 39–46 supported leadership, a distributed leadership model 32, 47–57 Robinson, V. 17 school communities and collective leadership 111–12 and leadership 27–9, 110–11 and learning 27–9, 112–16 and the new paradigm 107–8

134 Index

school leaders role 8–9 school leadership distributing 18 effective, developing skills for 18–19 focus on principal and principalship 11–12 profession 19 responsibilities 17–18 succession 13–14 and sustainability 99 too much for one person 12–13 secondary principals 4–5, 7, 35, 37–8, 42, 44, 74–5, 84, 91 shared and distributed leadership in schools 19–23 shared leadership 48–9, 83, 95–6, 98, 106–7 shared and supported leadership vii, xvi, 32, 47–57 appropriate development 55–7 and new paradigm 106–7 rating scale 49–50 strengths 47–9 suggested improvements 53–5 weaknesses 50–3 Sharratt, L. 115 Snell, S. 76 South Australia 5 Spillane, J.P. 12, 21, 22, 48, 85 split task specialisation (dual principals) vii, xvi, 32, 58–63 rating scale 62 segment improvement 62–3 strengths 58–60 weaknesses 60–2 Stephenson, J. 79 supported leadership, a business matrix model 32, 39–46 supported leadership, a distributed leadership model 32, 47–57 Surowiecki, P. 25 sustainable collaborative leadership 23–5, 26

sustainable collective leadership 110–19 sustainable leadership vi, 22, 23–5, 26–7, 99, 111–12, 114 sustainability of school leadership 99 Syrett, M. 70 Tasmania 5 teaching and school leadership responsibilities 17–18 UK 1, 20, 31 USA 1, 2–3, 14 Victoria 4–5 VSAT Project Report 47 Wallace, M. 61 Wenger, E. 113 Western Australia 5 Whitaker, K. 61 Wildy, H. 53 women and principalship 2, 5, 67, 92, 93, 94, 97–8, 104, 108, 118

The

Power of

The

Building sustainable collective leadership in schools Among the many challenges faced by educational systems in the 21st century, leadership succession is universally recognised as being a major concern. Rather than retain the current paradigm of a single figure at the top of the school hierarchy, leading researchers Patrick Duignan and Helen Cannon argue the case for a more inclusive, collaborative and distributed leadership. They offer a series of alternative models and gather views from existing principals to demonstrate what might be possible and what might work better than the model followed today.

The Power of Many

Many

Power of

Many


The authors emphasise how a new paradigm must work to not only retain those already in the job, but to also encourage potential candidates to apply for the job. They offer specific recommendations and advice on new models and paradigms to system policy makers, human resource personnel, and practitioners in schools, especially principals and assistant principals.

Patrick Duignan is an Emeritus Professor of the Australian Catholic University and Director of Leading to Inspire <www.leadingtoinspire.com.au>. He has been a teacher, principal, lecturer, professor and dean of education in tertiary institutions in Australia and overseas. Helen Cannon is the Head of Human Resource Services, Catholic Schools Office, Diocese of Broken Bay, NSW, Australia. She has been in education for over 25 years as a teacher and system director of leadership development.

Australian Council for Educational Research

ISBN 978-1-74286-013-8

9 781742 860138


Practical guidelines are proposed that offer sustainable leadership solutions and promote educational systems and schools as ‘communities of learning’. Ultimately, The Power of Many shows how the principal shortage can and must be substantially reduced, and the collective capacity of leadership in schools enhanced and sustained.


The Power of Many. Building Sustainable Collective Leadership in Schools

Building Leadership Capacity in Schools

The Many Facets of Leadership

The many facets of leadership

The Many Facets of Leadership

Principal Leadership in Taiwan Schools

Collaborative Leadership in Extended Schools

Building gender fairness in schools

Leadership Team Coaching: Developing Collective Transformational Leadership

Leadership for Safe Schools

Developing Leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow

Developing Sustainable Leadership

Sustainable Nuclear Power (Sustainable World)

The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools

Coaching for Schools: A Practical Guide to Building Leadership Capacity

Building hope: leadership in the nonprofit world

Building Sustainable Peace

sustainable building technical manual

Leadership (What's in It for Schools)

Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership

Solar Power in Building Design

Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies

Power Unlimited - The Corruption of Union Leadership

The Power of Collective Wisdom: And the Trap of Collective Folly

The Leadership Gap: Building Leadership Capacity for Competitive Advantage

Character Building--Thought Power

The Collective

The Collective

The Collective

The Challenges of Educational Leadership (Leading Teachers, Leading Schools Series)

The Power of Many. Building Sustainable Collective Leadership in Schools

Building Leadership Capacity in Schools

The Many Facets of Leadership

The many facets of leadership

The Many Facets of Leadership

Principal Leadership in Taiwan Schools

Collaborative Leadership in Extended Schools

Building gender fairness in schools

Leadership Team Coaching: Developing Collective Transformational Leadership

Leadership for Safe Schools

Developing Leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow

Developing Sustainable Leadership

Sustainable Nuclear Power (Sustainable World)

The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools

Coaching for Schools: A Practical Guide to Building Leadership Capacity

Building hope: leadership in the nonprofit world

Building Sustainable Peace

sustainable building technical manual

Leadership (What's in It for Schools)

Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership

Solar Power in Building Design

Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies

Power Unlimited - The Corruption of Union Leadership

The Power of Collective Wisdom: And the Trap of Collective Folly

The Leadership Gap: Building Leadership Capacity for Competitive Advantage

Character Building--Thought Power

The Collective

The Collective

The Collective

The Challenges of Educational Leadership (Leading Teachers, Leading Schools Series)

Recommend Documents