through the improvement of quality teaching
1.2.1 Current environment surrounding quality teaching
Quality teaching as a concept is gaining momentum throughout Australia in response to contemporary accountability environments demanding high quality education for all children (Jensen & Reichl, 2011). National frameworks for Quality Teaching and state based initiatives highlight this. The NSW Quality
15
Teaching Framework and Queensland Productive Pedagogies are programs which are based on improving teacher effectiveness in Australian schools. Various mainstream and social media emphasise the confused manner in which leadership and quality teaching are perceived or considered. Conflicting
arguments between journalists, educators and politicians saturate the senses as each presents their understanding and stance on the issue. Parts of the discussion include: outstanding and fondly remembered individual teachers; criticism on the introduction of performance based pay for Australian schools; the adoption of Australian frameworks, standards and charters to raise professional standing amongst educators; increasing entry levels at university; improving remuneration of the profession and other accountability based drivers. All of these are raised with varying levels of debate.
Researchers from the field of educational leadership counter with accumulated evidence indicating that measures such as performance based pay and increased remuneration serve to motivate only a few teachers (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), and increase competition amongst staff. At worst, such interventions can lead to teaching to the test, alienation and prejudice, or spending time constructing portfolios for financial rewards (Ingvarson, Kleinhenz & Wilkinson, 2007). Teachers and educators responded to the debate with reports of increased levels of stress, a sense of devaluing of the profession and pressure to perform (Williamson & MyHill, 2008). Queries are raised as to the equity and validity of quality teaching measurements. Certainly there exists a lack of clarity as to how quality teaching is defined (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Indeed, it is argued, the
16 persisting effect of such increased accountability is often to diminish teachers’ autonomy and challenge their identities (Day & Smethem, 2009).
Similarly, school leaders frequently report raised levels of stress in the context of current expectations of increased student learning outcomes within the confines of Australian contexts (Watson, 2005). Rather than support the improvement of quality teaching, such top-down controls and quick fix solutions may be seen to erode it (Mulford, 2011).
Beyond the heated debate lie federal policy directions aimed at improving quality teaching in an effort to raise Australia’s declining ranking in the OECD
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other international benchmarking tests: the aim is to be ranked fifth in 2025. This comes in response to the more recent construction of a global society through technology,
communication and transport which has, in turn, globalised education.
1.2.2 Globalisation of education
The introduction in 2000 of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) annual review, Education at a Glance, along with its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (testing 15 year old competence in mathematics, literacy and science) has caused a shift in the manner in which the world considers education. This, along with other rigorous
international benchmarked testing over the past 15 years has resulted in a
globalisation of education where national trends are comparable and transparent. These trends have been compared, analysed and interpreted by politicians, the educational community and general public alike. The cascading effects have
17 resulted in political, societal and community pressure on educational leadership to provide an expected high quality equitable learning for all students to a world class standard. Australia is no exception to the effects of these global trends, with increasing pressure on educators.
In Australia there is a wide array of schools, both effective and ineffective. Close analysis of the OECD 2001 PISA report involving testing of 32 nations, revealed that whilst Australian students performed well, disparities among students were wider than in most nations, favouring girls, urban areas, high socio economic backgrounds and non-indigenous students (Caldwell, 2003b). Today, Australia has shown stagnating results and is ranked at ninth, fifteenth and tenth
(respectively in reading, mathematics and science) at 2010 in PISA testing (Fullan, 2011). Australian schooling was ranked as high quality, yet low equity. Furthermore, the gap between the high and low performing students remains among the widest in OECD (Thomson & Bortoli, 2009).
Concerns with equity and quality of student learning outcomes are further driven by national testing and school review. The conflict between present realities and the desirability for improvement and, indeed, profound change and
transformation, presents a major challenge at all levels of governance within Australia (Mulford, 2008). Thus, following these influences of a new
globalisation of education and Australia’s educational positioning in the world, Australia has launched its ambitious reform agenda to raise its international performance and to be ranked as overall number five by 2025.
Numerous international studies examining high performing and improving school systems (Caldwell & Harris, 2008; Hopkins & Higham, 2007; Mourshed et al.,
18 2010) have informed Australian efforts at school improvement. To understand the keys to improvement, there have been attempts to compare the success of other nations, identify the factors contributing to that success and explore how countries moderate the effects of social background (Schleicher, 2012). A synthesis of findings from high performing and improving systems in relation to leadership and quality teaching is outlined below.
1.2.3 Studies examining high performing and improving school systems
High performing and improving educational systems successfully transform their schooling through an unrelenting focus on improving teacher quality which is supported by a deep commitment to school improvement and high expectations for teacher and student learning (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Caldwell & Harris, 2008; Hopkins, Harris, Stoll & Mackay, 2011; Jensen, Hunter, Sonneman & Burns, 2012; Luke, 2011; Mourshed et al., 2010). Findings are depicted in Table 1.1 (see page 19).
Evaluation of these studies highlighted two discrepancies for Australian school leadership: they are systems, not school based studies and the research is predominantly in nations other than Australia. There is the exception of a small sample in Barber & Mourshed (2007) and Caldwell & Harris (2008). System- wide studies are concerned with and designed for the system (Mulford, 2011). They give little explanation for how to enact improvement within schools,
particularly how to obtain sustainable improvement at an Australian school level. The systems based studies were often characterised by lists or frameworks of what should be done and how to assess evaluate and improve standards, providing principles for improvement. Importantly, the failure to consider the contexts,
19 Table 1.1
High performing and improving systems based studies
Common theme Leaders’ practice Systems Source
Strong commitment to school improvement with high expectations, core beliefs and values
Strong core beliefs and values which underpinned practice High expectations for
improvement Strong vision for school
improvement High moral purpose
8 transforming systems (including Victoria, Australia) 20 educational systems (not Australia); UK (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Caldwell & Harris, 2008; Higham & Hopkins, 2007; Higham et al., 2011; Mourshed et al., 2010). Student learning monitored through data and supported through personalised learning
Successful system leaders maintained and monitored robust data sets of student achievement and needs to inform future planning and improvement efforts Underperformance identified
quickly with appropriate support given when needed
8 transforming systems (including Victoria, Australia) 20 educational systems (not Australia) UK (Caldwell & Harris, 2008; Higham & Hopkins, 2007; Mourshed et al., 2010). System performance and improvement classified according to student achievement at differing stages Diagnosis of school
performance based on strong data sets and classified according to improvement or performance stage Selection and action of
relevant interventions and measures for improvement in teacher quality according to context and diagnosis
20 systems (Australia included) 20 systems- not Australian British systems (Day et al., 2010; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Higham & Hopkins, 2008; Mourshed et al., 2010) System leaders using a core repertoire of leadership practices, chosen according to improvement phase, enacted according to context
System level interventions typically involved:
curricula and standards; remuneration and rewards; assessment;
data systems; improvement policy
documents; and other pedagogical reforms. 20 systems (not Australia) UK (Day, Hopkins, Harris, Leithwood, Gu, Brown, Ahtaridou & Kington, 2009; Mourshed et al., 2010) Common patterns of educational change adopting cyclical, iterative patterns of improvement Unrelenting focus on improving teacher quality Compelling vision informing
strategic plan for improvement Building foundations of
collaboration and supportive climate
Diagnosis of school
performance based on strong data sets
Selection and action of relevant interventions 20 systems UK Singapore (Higham et al., 2011; Hopkins & Higham, 2007; Hogan & Dimmock, 2011; Mourshed et al., 2010).
20 environments, support and realities faced by Australian educators is to be
questioned. Worse still, piecemeal attempts to replicate reforms (some of which have been less than successful) from other nations or systems, where there are major cultural and historical differences, is perhaps placing Australia in the unenviable position of pursuing the wrong drivers for reform. This may
inadvertently result in decreases in student learning rather than increases (Fullan, 2011).
The differences in culture, environment and conditions which facilitate or perpetuate improvement in high performing and improving systems is often misrepresented in the public and political debate. For example, Finland, which boasts only five percent performance variation among its schools (Schleicher, 2012), possesses a large social, child welfare and societal support network around education which taken alongside educational measures, improves socio-economic and background factors impacting on student learning (Hargreaves, 2009;
Sahlberg, 2009). As a nation Finland’s wealth is more evenly distributed, taxes are high to support child welfare and education, gender equity is strong, students have access to the Pupil Welfare Team when in school and the educational system has neither public nor private schools. Indeed all students, regardless of socio- economic background have access to high quality education (Sahlberg, 2009). Thus, whilst system-wide studies assist in identifying basic building blocks for improving teacher quality, they are perhaps culturally or organisationally relevant to other nations. They do little to explain what happens at a school level in
creating the culture, environment and professional learning opportunities
21 school. Local school based studies are of utmost import for leadership within Australian schools.
Therefore, in considering the current debate and policy direction to improve teacher quality within Australian schools, it is timely for Australian research to supplement the emerging body of international knowledge with studies from the best within our nation, from our own schools. Indeed, developing our
understanding of how successful school leaders influence quality teaching within the Australian school profession itself may be both prudent and advantageous in raising Australia’s international performance and standing. As Masters (2012) stated recently in the Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, “It’s
about the quality of teaching; it’s about the quality of leadership (and) the question is how we build that across the country in all our schools”.
1.3 The gap in literature examining how successful school leadership