This section provides a brief overview of relevant principal leadership literature while the following section narrows the focus more closely to principal leadership in school contexts offering the IB (3.3 Principal leadership in IB schools). These reviews show a broad consensus around practices which comprise effective principal leadership. To this extent, the presence of IB programmes is not sufficient to warrant an alternate construction of principal leadership. Rather, this section highlights the need to consider more closely what is understood by leadership contexts, how principals perceive school culture, and how these may feature in subjective experiences for principals who lead Australian IB schools.
Major reviews of school leadership from the past decade consistently show principal leadership comprises a core set of responsibilities and functions (Day, Gu, et al., 2016; Day et al., 2010; Dinham, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2008; National College for School Leadership, 2007; PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC), 2007; Robinson, 2007; Robinson, Hohepa, & Lloyd, 2015; Robinson et al., 2008). These responsibilities and functions are codified in Australia through an Australian Standard for Principals (AITSL, 2014; Dinham, Anderson, Caldwell, & Weldon, 2011), hereafter referred to as the Standard. There is now widespread acceptance across contemporary Australian society that principals’ work is central to effective education (ACEL, 2015; AITSL, 2011; Dinham, 2016; Gurr, 2008, 2014; MCEETYA, 2008), which must, by definition, include schools offering IB programmes. Similarly, these reviews highlight that a school’s context is critical to understanding principal leadership (Leithwood et al., 2008;
National College for School Leadership, 2007). It is widely agreed the range of core practices is small and it is the adaptive capacity of the principal in employing these practices to suit their particular context which is critical to their leadership. In this research, the inclusion of IB
programmes is an essential part of the leadership context for principals in Australian IB schools, thus driving the central research question: how does the presence of IB programmes impact upon the leadership of principals in Australian schools?
Consensus around the core work of the principal in Australia emerged during the first decade of this century, concurrent with greater educational policy centralisation (Lingard, 2000; Mulford et al., 2009; Savage, 2016). A connection between these two is seen in the expectation Australian principals are accountable for leading schools which meet the aspirations of the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008). The Standard acknowledges that pursuit of these aspirations locates principals’ work:
in a complex, challenging and changing environment, leading and managing the school of today, ever-conscious of the needs of tomorrow (AITSL, 2014, p. 6). The Standard is built upon “essential elements of effective leadership practices” (Ingvarson, Anderson, Gronn, & Jackson, 2006, p. 106), themselves reflecting similar international findings. Around the same time that Ingvarson et al. (2006) reviewed principal leadership standards for their Australian context, Leithwood et al. (2008) articulated the four tasks of principals as building vision and setting direction, understanding and developing people, redesigning the organisation, and managing the teaching and learning programme. A review of school leadership in the UK (PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC), 2007) similarly identified that principals set
strategic direction and ethos, promote and develop the quality of teaching and learning, and develop and manage people.
These findings resonate with findings of two earlier major Australian studies. Silins and Mulford (2004) identified Vision and Goals, Culture, Structure, Intellectual Stimulation,
Individual Support, and Performance Expectation as the tasks of principals in schools which foster effective organisational learning. Dinham’s (2005, pp. 159-173; see also Dinham, 2016)
original research on leadership for exceptional schooling outcomes found the following principal attributes and practices evident:
External awareness and engagement; A bias toward innovation and action;
Personal qualities and attributes such as being “‘open’, ‘honest’, ‘fair’, ‘friendly’ and ‘approachable’” (Dinham, 2005, p. 346);
Vision, expectations, and a culture of success; Teacher learning, responsibility, and trust;
Student support, common purpose, and collaboration; Focus on students, learning, and teaching.
Similar findings are seen in the five dimensions identified by a more recent extensive review by Robinson et al. (2015, p. 95):
Establishing goals and expectations; Resourcing strategically;
Planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; Promoting and participating in teacher learning and development; and, Ensuring an orderly and supportive environment.
These are consistent with the substance of the widely endorsed Standard (Dinham, Collarbone, Evans, & Mackay, 2013), articulated through the five Professional Practices:
1. Leading teaching and learning; 2. Developing self and others;
3. Leading improvement, innovation and change; 4. Leading the management of the school; and
5. Engaging and working with the community (AITSL, 2014, p. 11).
There are several factors of effective principalship around which there also appears a broad international consensus. First, the varied contexts and characteristics of schools greatly impact the leadership of principals (OECD, 2016). Day et al.’s (2011) review of 60 studies identifies school size, level (primary/middle/secondary), academic climate, collective teacher
efficacy, trust, length of experience, and district and/or national policy contexts among the most significant variables. Earley et al. (2012) indicate both local and broader external contexts impact the leadership of the principal, particularly regarding implementation of changing government curriculum policies, relationships with local educational partners, and, for some principals, providing support for governors given their “relative lack of educational expertise” (Earley et al., 2012, p. 74). Considerable variance in skill and expertise is similarly evident across four cases in a Western Australian study of independent public school governance (Gray et al., 2013). Dinham (2005, 2016) notes successful principals not only have awareness of their wider contexts, but positive attitudes towards engaging with those contexts.
Second, while principals are essential to effective student learning, their effectiveness is indirect, rather than direct (Day, Gu, et al., 2016; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Mulford et al., 2007; Silins & Mulford, 2004). Effective principals are those who have been found to focus on culture and school climate (Deal & Peterson, 2016; Dinham, 2016; Gruenert &
Whitaker, 2015; Kaplan & Owings, 2013) as well as on developing staff capabilities. One meta- analysis of the impacts of different types of leadership on students’ academic and non-academic outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008) found particular significance in goal setting (effect size = 0.42), oversight of the curriculum (0.42), and promoting and participating in teacher learning and development (0.82).
Third, a heroic, singular, model of leadership is unrealistic, deficient and dangerous. Contrasted with this, broad-based, multi-person configurations of leadership are shown to
support both principals’ effectiveness and sustainability. Gronn (2003a, 2008, 2010) indicates the concept of distributed leadership is a welcome development in conceptualising how leadership is practiced in schools. This is due to criticism of individualistic charismatic/transformational
leadership models that have a tendency to “exaggerate the agency or ability of one person to make a difference” (Gronn, 2010, p. 416; Tourish, 2013). By contrast, holistic and distributed leadership “highlights people’s interdependence or mutual dependence” (Gronn, 2010, p. 418, emphasis in original; Harris, 2008; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008).
Fourth, schools in which collaborative cultures are found show evidence of successful student learning. Dinham’s (2005, 2016) study identifies collaboration as a significant factor in effective principal leadership, echoing Mulford and Silins’ (2003) finding that effective
leadership for improved student learning is “both position-based (head teacher) and distributive (administrative team and teachers)” (Mulford & Silins, 2003, p. 183). In one study of senior school leadership teams, Barnett and McCormick (2012) conclude that belief in the design and successful use of teams by principals is likely held as a prior belief of the principal or based on successful previous experience.
These responsibilities and practices manifest across varying theoretical models. Bush and Glover (2014) reviewed nine models, including transformational leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, 2006), instructional leadership (Dinham, 2016; Robinson et al., 2008), moral and ethical leadership (Bhindi & Duignan, 1997; Duignan, 2006; Fullan, 2003; Starratt, 2004), and
distributed leadership (Gronn, 2003a, 2003b; Harris, 2008). These models provide principals with valuable ways of conceptualising school leadership, but within a wider conception of contextual contingency. Gurr (2014, p. 86) reports successful principals “employ multiple
conceptions of leadership (they are not wedded to the use of narrow concepts like instructional or transformational leadership) and utilise a core set of practices focused on setting direction, developing people, leading change and improving teaching and learning”. Hallinger and Heck (2010, p. 107) conclude their study on leadership for improving schools that “leadership styles
and strategies are highly contextualised” and should consider both the initial conditions of the school’s position, as well as its capacity to respond to its situation. Gronn’s (2010, p. 422) more recent work replaces distributed leadership with configurations of leadership, which he defines as “a pattern or an arrangement of co-occurring elements”. Viewed through this perspective, leadership is enacted through an ever-changing set of networked relationships which are developed, engaged, and dissolved as the needs of the moment require. To this end, he argues researchers should examine the “creative ways in which [school] leaders accommodate
contingent circumstances as these arise, rather than strait-jacketing them in normative models of leadership” (Gronn, 2010, p. 425).
Hallinger’s (2011) review is notable for its highlighting of temporality as a context for understanding and researching leadership. He specifically notes that tools available to principals to lead their school, such as those examined in the previous paragraphs, are not all equally effective all the time. He advises principals “to read your context correctly and adapt your leadership” (Hallinger, 2011, p. 137) to its unique needs. He draws attention to Day et al. (2010) who identify the importance of phases of leadership. Day et al. (2010) show that although principals do draw on the core range of skills, the needs of the school and its developmental phase affect how principals deploy these skills. Their three-year study of schools in which improvement in student learning outcomes occurs while maintaining the same headteacher reports that priorities in the early phase of a principal’s appointment tend to focus on setting direction and expectations, as well as developing system structures and accountabilities. These more transformational forms of leadership (Day, Gu, et al., 2016) give way over time to more distributive and instructional forms of leadership as a consequence of perceived “confidence and stability [achieved] in the foundational and developmental phases (Day, Gu, et al., 2016, p. 243).
Hallinger (2011, p. 138) concludes that we “require both quantitative and qualitative studies that describe successful leadership practices across different school levels, at different points in the “school improvement journey” and across different cultures”, highlighting that distinctions of context necessarily impact how principals might enact their role. This is in contradistinction to Gurr’s (2014, p. 86) conclusion that “context and culture can influence leadership practice, but not as much as some might think”.
Finally, as the task of leading a school continues to be increasingly complex, issues of principal well-being and strategies for leadership sustainability have emerged (Deloitte Consulting Pty Ltd, 2017; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Mulford, 2008; Victoria Department of Education and Training, 2004). Riley’s (2017) longitudinal study of principal health and well- being reports that job demands of principalship and job resources available are imbalanced. Over a period of 6 years and 5,247 respondents (Riley, 2017, p. 13), more than one quarter of
participants report working in excess of 60 hours per week, and a further half report working in excess of 50 hours per week. These hours reflect recent findings on principal workload in New South Wales government schools (n = 732). Participants report a range of 40-94 hours, with M = 60 and Mdn = 60 (McGrath-Champ, Wilson, Stacey, & Fitzgerald, 2018, p. 34). This pattern is consistent with findings from Victorian government schools that are well over a decade old (Victoria Department of Education and Training, 2004), and Riley (2017, p. 13) notes that “average working hours have remained stable over the 6 years of the survey” consistent with these other reports.
Although stability of hours worked appears consistent across time, changing circumstances create new challenges for principals and raise concern for how principals effectively manage themselves as leaders. The impact of mental health issues for staff and
students, ubiquity of technology, and increased accountability and compliance measures have increased in recent reports. Highest rates of stress remain the quantity of work and lack of time to focus on teaching and learning (Deloitte Consulting Pty Ltd, 2017; Riley, 2017). Of relevance to this current investigation are increases between 2011 and 2016 of both rise in Expectations of the employer (M = 6.44, SD = 2.44, n = 2049 [2011]; M = 6.92, SD = 2.58, n = 2785 [2016]) and Government initiatives (M = 5.98, SD = 2.51 [2011]; M = 6.52, SD = 2.52 [2016])(Riley, 2017, p. 67; scale is 0-10).
Riley (2017, p. 12) finds that “the problems and the solutions are very similar in all sectors so the differences between the sectors are more superficial than substantive”, a view reflected in similar reports targeting sectoral populations and contexts (Australian Lutheran Institute for Theology and Ethics, 2013; Australian Secondary Principals' Association, Australian Heads of Independent Schools Association, & Catholic Secondary Principals Australia, 2008; Kidson, 2008). This suggests principals in Australian IB schools are unlikely to have
significantly different experiences of leadership, but lack of any previous research into this context warrants exploration of these ideas within this current study. For this reason, it is included as part of Research Question 3.
The review of literature and relevant data in Chapter Two identified governance as a key context for exploration in this research. The review of principal leadership literature in this section leads to subsequent identification of research questions 2 and 3:
2. What beliefs are held by principals in Australian IB schools about: i. the role of vision and direction setting;
ii. their focus of action;
iii. the nature of school culture?
3. What processes do principals in Australian IB schools use: i. to enable effective school administration;
ii. for decision-making purposes; iii. to sustain themselves as leaders?
The context of Australian IB schools is absent from the leadership literature reviewed above, reinforcing the value of this current research. The following section complements this through an overview of leadership literature in other IB contexts.