Pedagogic leadership: redefining successful school leadership

The public perceptions of successful school leadership have changed in the last 50 years. Previously, the headmaster or headmistress was the respected senior pedagogic leader in the school. Programs of work, pedagogy, blackboards, children’s work books and discipline were all scrutinised by this omnipotent figure who struck fear into the newly appointed teachers. Society changed in the 1970s with the anti Vietnam War marches, Whitlam’s sacking, long hair, the Beatles, the pill, dope and the hippies changing people’s attitudes to once respected professions like teaching. As Goodlad (1984, p.7) noted, in the 1970s the United States followed a similar path to Australia, and it saw the church and the household seriously weakened, and as a result:

‘the almost unquestioned supportive relationship between home and school that characterised earlier periods deteriorated substantially. The child spanked in school . . . often was spanked again at home. The child spanked at school in 1975 frequently became the pivotal figure in a suit against the school brought by his parents’.

Schools too suffered in this iconoclastic, societal upheaval. At this time in the United States the influential Coleman report claimed that what children learn at home was more important than what they learn at school, and Jencks’s work on IQ, challenged public perceptions of purpose of schools and their effectiveness. Schools were seen as child minding facilities.

New public management, neoliberalism and successful school leadership

Contemporary education across the Western world has been deeply influenced by two related ideologies that have had their roots in economic reforms of the 1980s. In Britain and Australia education was influenced by economic rationalist reform that was called New Public Management (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow & Tinkler, 2006; Gronn, 2003a, 2003b; Moos, 1999; Sachs, 2003), while the United States was heavily influenced by a related change ideology that is called Neoliberalism (Hursh, 2007, pp. 493-518). The economic rationalist (Pusey, 1992) changes in society were influenced by labour becoming more expensive, the economic impact of globalisation, and the baby boomer generation being seen as a future drain on state finances with governments being hard pressed to meet traditional welfare expectations. Moos (1999, p. 42) put the impetus for New Public Management down to the influence of globalisation, which was seen to be related to three changes:

• the ease with which idea, finance, manpower and good can be moved around the world makes the concept of the global village a reality within which governments have to act
• the power of the transnational companies cannot be ignored
• the influence of international organisations (i.e. the erosion of the autonomy of national governments through transnational trade agreements; the changing pattern of world employment and the fact that we live in a global society which is at risk).

As a result of the influence of globalisation, Sachs and Logan (1997, as cited in Sachs, 2003, p.20) identified six precepts underlying the managerialist changes to the public sector that were based on the beliefs that:

• traditional structures, procedures and services are inefficient
• there are a generic set of skills called management
• private enterprise management approaches are superior to other alternatives
• managerial and structural reforms guarantee revision to practice that results in increased productivity
• government services can be quantified for accountability purposes; and,
• reform is management-led.

These precepts influence Edmonds’s (as cited in Rowe, 2004, p.4) five-factor model of effective school leadership that identified purposeful educational leadership; challenging teaching and high expectations of students’ achievements; involvement of and consistency among teachers; a positive and orderly climate; and frequent evaluation of student progress.

In any examination of New Public Management, it is important to attempt to differentiate leadership from management. Leadership and management are fundamentally different, yet complementary, particularly in the school situation where principals require both leadership and management skills. In Table 1 (below), the three chief integrating themes of New Public Management are shown (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow & Tinkler, 2006, p.471).These three themes have influenced the operation of schools, as well as other government agencies. The components of the three themes of NPM that have influenced education are: competition by comparison; improved performance measurement; league tables; voucher schemes; outsourcing; performance-related pay; PFI (private finance initiative); and public-private partnerships.

In the United States, the ideology of neoliberalism developed at the same time as New Public Management in Australia and the united Kingdom, and for the same reasons. While President Bush is credited with solidifying neoliberalism (Hursh, 2007, p.495), the philosophy evolved in the economic circumstances of the 1980s. ‘Neoliberalism promotes personal responsibility through individual choice within markets. The individual is conceived as an autonomous entrepreneur who can always take care of his or her own needs’ (Hursh, 2007, p. 496). The Hursh thesis is that neoliberalism influenced schooling in the United States after the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983. The commission report blamed the economic recession of the early 1980s (Hursh, 2007, p.489), and the consequent American fear of being less economically competitive than other countries, on schooling.

Table 1:The characteristics of neo-liberalism and New Public Management

The managerialist push in education, which has underwritten many of the educational changes in the last two decades, resulted in major changes the public perceptions of schools, school leadership, and to the way schools operate in a structural and curricular sense (Rowe, 2004, p. 2). Glickman (1998, p.1) noted the public school system:

‘... is being attacked continuously, with some calling to replace public schools with privatization, tuition vouchers, and unbridled free choice. By some inverse logic, the term private, whether applied to schools, contractors, or business, is now seen as better than public. Downsizing, deregulation, and other efforts to swell economic efficiency and productivity are now the greater goals of society rather than the healthy growth and development of our citizens. As a result of increased accountability and scrutiny of schools’ operations, principals’ time for pedagogic and curriculum issues in schools has become limited because they are engaged in expanding managerial and accountability demands on their time.’

In Western Australia, the intended reform of the public school system was signalled by the release of the Beazley Report (1983). With the publishing of policy papers by the State Labor government, Western Australian schools began a reform aimed at the development of school-based planning, increased accountability and flatter district and central office structures in 1987. Better Schools in Western Australia: A program for improvement (Ministry of Education, 1987) advocated self managing schools, maintaining educational standards, community participation in school management, equity, enhancement of teacher professionalism and responsiveness to change. Managing for Balance: A Public Sector Management Strategy (Government of Western Australia, 1992) supported and extended the 1987 push by reiterating the principles of reform: client focus, results through people, flexibility and responsibility, results focus, strategic orientation and a whole-of-government approach.

The managerialist approach in education, while designed to enforce accountability through measurable standards, also facilitated the deconstruction of the curriculum into discrete, outcome-based packages that could be taught by a variety of methods, media, or service providers. Beare (2001, p. 97) concluded:

‘It is hardly surprising that the school effectiveness movement also coincided with the movement towards school and system restructuring, and towards the introduction of the new managerialism across all areas of government enterprise, which came with the same economic transition. Education policymaking was slipping out of the hands of the providers (schools, teachers, and educators) and increasingly falling into the hands of those on whom the economic transition was impacting, those who understood economics, politics and business.’

The managerialist preoccupation with outcomes, to the exclusion of inputs was rarely challenged. However, the Blair Government in England reached a watershed understanding that transformation of government institutions, including schools, was a more appropriate approach to ensure the change is embedded and there was a policy shift from ‘standards not structures’ to ‘new structures for higher standards’ (D. Hargreaves, 2003, p.18). The purist model of NPM based on outcomes had failed. This change of emphasis has implications for schools in that school structures, which are closely related to teachers’ pedagogic practices, will allow staff to re-examine the implications of pedagogic innovation on students’ learning.

New Public Management redefined successful school leadership because the changed context in which schools operated had generated a new and different set of beliefs about what successful school leaders should do. Suddenly competition, corporate values, efficiency, effectiveness, privatisation and deregulation were the values that defined the new, successful school leader. It appeared that the school’s accounts and strategic planning, accompanied by sanctions, had become more important than teaching and learning to school principals.

Pedagogic leadership

As a result of the New Public Management and neoliberalist changes, principals were put in danger of pedagogic obsolescence because the pressure to focus on the administrative component of their jobs deprived them of the opportunity to teach. In Australia, the change in nomenclature from head teacher to principal was accompanied by a developing stereotypical view that the principal was the senior person in the school office who attended to financial and staffing issues. Successful school leadership must be that which addresses the core business of schools- teaching and learning. Financial management is simply a strategy to enable support for teaching and learning.

Pedagogic obsolescence

The new pressures of accountability through New Public Management and a public that no longer respected institutions, and it was noted by Resnick and Glennan (2002, p. 162) that principals have had a diminishing influence on teachers’ pedagogic practices:

‘Meanwhile, district administrators, from principals to central office staff spend relatively little time in classrooms and even less time analysing instruction with teachers. They may arrange time for teachers' meetings and professional development, but they rarely provide intellectual leadership for growth in teaching skill.’

This view was supported by Downey, Steffy, English, Frase and Poston (2004, p.99) who recorded how little time principals actually spent in classrooms:

‘We know from research that most principals spend from 10 to 80 per cent of their time in and around the office area. An additional 23 to 40 per cent is spent in hallways and on the playground. About 11 per cent is spent off campus, and only about 2.5 to 10 per cent is spent in classrooms’.

Murphy and Hallinger (1992) questioned the notion of balancing, and considered that it was impossible for one person to give adequate attention to both roles. They suggested the need for empowering others to assume and exercise leadership roles. In addition, they required leadership to be viewed in terms of what it enables others to do rather than prescribing what others should do.

In asking teachers about principals’ instructional leadership, Blase and Blase (2000) found that '... talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional growth are the two major dimensions of effective instructional leadership'. The principals' role in this process becomes problematic when they do not have pedagogic credibility or the time to engage teachers in dialogue about teaching and learning. Fink and Resnick (2001) posit that principals become removed from the instructional aspect of teaching when their knowledge and skills become outdated:

Principals' time is filled by the many demands of administrative functions. Like most people, they also tend to gravitate toward doing what they know how to do. Unsure of what to look for or how to intervene when they visit classrooms, principals tend to visit rarely, perhaps only to make formal evaluations. With their knowledge of teaching growing dated they delegate questions of instruction and professional development to others.

Added to this situation, growing teacher empowerment has pushed the principals further out of the pedagogic leadership loop (Fink & Resnick, 2001). It appears that the problems experienced in pedagogic leadership of the demands on principals’ time and the pedagogic de-skilling of principals also occur in Australian schools.

Leading teaching and learning

Pedagogic leadership is about changing the school's culture in relation to teaching and learning, and it is broader than the instructional leadership promoted in American schools. We take the broad view of teaching and learning that acknowledges the relational basis of learning and accepts that the culture and context of classroom influence students' learning. Pedagogy is a planned action, designed by human agency that acknowledges the social, political, and moral context of the learning act, which directly results in the acquisition of new knowledge, beliefs or skills for the learner (MacNeill, Cavanagh & Silcox, 2005). School principals should have a direct role in influencing teachers' pedagogic practices, and they should remain head teachers.

A good example of pedagogic leadership is quoted by Wortham (as cited in Blankstein, 2004, p.70) who made the point that while establishing the school's learning culture she spent up to 50 per cent of her time in classrooms, which is quite different from Wolcott's (1973, p.89) experience at Taft Elementary School and the research of Downey, Steffy, English, Frase and Poston (2004). In establishing a school's pedagogic culture, it appears that school leaders spend more time in the initial stages of establishing the pedagogic culture than when it is up and running, so the stage of development should be considered when making judgements about principals' roles.

A major counterbalance to pedagogic change is structural change, and Elmore, Peterson and McCarthey (1996, p. 7) warned that externally driven structural change in schools is often ‘ . . . to appease certain key political constituencies' but at the school level ... transformation of teaching practice is fundamentally a problem of enhancing individual knowledge and skill, not a problem of organisational structure; getting the structure right depends on first understanding that problem of knowledge and skills’ (Elmore, Peterson & McCarthey, 1996, p. 240).

In an Australian context, Rowe (2004, p.19) strongly supported the findings of Elmore, Peterson and McCarthey. Associated with the raft of structural change issues is the regulatory context in which the school staff operate. In all schools the principal's role is clearly defined and this definition forms a critical component of the principal's performance management. To a large degree the parameters of the principal's role are defined in terms of key areas of accountability, which includes budgetary management, human resource management, and students' learning outcomes. Budgetary issues are regarded as of primary importance because failures in this area often result in sackings while it is rare for a principal to be dismissed because the standard of students' learning is poor.

The MetLife (2003, p.36) examination of school leadership in America ranked financial issues as the greatest challenge for principals, which supported the belief that managerialist pressures impact heavily on principals in the contemporary climate. With potential sanctions in place, most principals will ensure that the accountable aspects of the role are attended to, even at the risk of ignoring the key purpose of schooling – students' learning.

A model of pedagogic leadership

Research by MacNeill (MacNeill, Cavanagh and Silcox, 2005) identified eleven dimensions of successful, pedagogic leadership. The model (Figure 1, below) puts students’ learning first and then backward maps to the pedagogic leaders’ behaviours that bring about changes in the teachers’ pedagogic practices.

Figure 1. Principals’ pedagogic leadership behaviours in changing teachers’ pedagogic practices.

It was interesting that the highly motivated teachers who were interviewed, were themselves motivated by a moral obligation to the students and society, and they used this dimension to measure the success of principal pedagogic leaders. This finding is now being confirmed in a variety of research papers.

Implications for principal practice

While developing the school vision is now seen as passé in some quarters, it remains extremely important in developing a shared sense of direction in schools. The visioning process, if done properly, will win commitment, not compliance. Aspirant principals who claim to have written the school’s vision in the first few weeks of an appointment to a school have missed the point, and an opportunity to lead.

Expert knowledge about teaching and learning needs to be honoured in schools. Principals need to be able to offer expert advice on a range of pedagogic and curricula issues. It is the kiss of death for principals not to keep up-to-date with the changes in learning and teaching that affect the schools’ operations.

Change affects schools daily, yet it is something that principals learn on-the-job, with varying degrees of success. While the principles of change have portability, the local context must be considered as the impact of change will vary from school situation to school situation. The opportunity for principals’ to discuss change processes would be very useful.

Engaging and empowering of staff is the true measure of a principal’s leadership. The old myth of the hero principal riding into town, turning around the failing school and then riding off into the sunset, is fictional. Unless the change is embedded in the beliefs and practices of staff, nothing will change when the principal leaves town. Apart from that, the hero principal model devalues the knowledge and skills of school staff.

Closely aligned with the empowering and engagement of staff is the presence of multiple levels of leadership. Schools are complex organisations and one person cannot be the leader of everything. The growing commitment to distributed leadership is important in bringing about better practice in schools. Unfortunately, New Public Management has tended to push principals back into their offices. For a pedagogic leader this is like being condemned to carrying the drinks for the team and not being allowed to take to the field. However, carrying the drinks is a state of mind. Principals have the power to assign to others the drinks carrying duties. The question to be asked is, “What is the most important activity taking place in this school?” If the answer is learning and teaching, get someone else to attend to the book keeping!

Creating and sharing knowledge is really important because it allows everyone to keep abreast of current research and practices. Apart from joining professional associations, principals and teachers could enrol in a university course (or at least become a registered user in a university library), become a member of a collegial reading group or visit and network with other schools that have identified successful informed practices. These days, staff with library and internet access can be notified of every new article that is published in the areas of pedagogic interest. Realising that one is not alone in the leadership task is a starting point. Principals can stay at the cutting edge of knowledge even in isolated school locations.

The days of schools standing apart from their communities is well finished. The knowledge, resources and support that comes from developing a learning community outside the school fence is important. Aboriginal communities, particularly, are a rich source of learning opportunities for staff and students alike.

When considering change in schools, most of the change is tweaking an existing program. Reculturing / renewal are substantial, whole-school change that permanently changes the school cultures. In some situations tweaking gets in the way of the major issues that need to addressed.

For any school leader, gaining commitment for high standards is of critical importance for teachers’ sense of pride and the schools’ sense of efficacy. A particular concern that we have seen is where teachers think that surviving in a remote location is worthy of applause. Clients are short-changed if any measure of effectiveness other than that related to students’ learning is used.

References
Beare, H (2001). Creating the future school. London: Routledge/ Falmer.
Beazley, K.M. (1984). Education in Western Australia. Report of the Committee of Inquiry, appointed by the Minister for Education in Western Australia, under the Chairmanship of Mr. K.E. Beazley, AO. Perth: Government Printer.
Blankstein, AM (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blase, J, & Blase, J (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how teachers promote teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration 38(2), 130-141.
Downey, CJ. Steffy, B.E., English, F.W., Frase, L.E., & Poston, W.K. (2004). The Three-minute Classroom Walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin,
Dunleavy, P, Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006, July). New Public Management is dead- Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494.
Elmore, RF, Peterson, PL & McCarthey, S (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning and school organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fink, E., & Resnick, LB (2001, April), Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598–606.
Glickman, C. (1998). Revolutionizing America's schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Goodlad, .JI (1884). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Government of Western Australia. (1992, August). Managing for change: A public sector management strategy. Perth, Western Australia: Author.
Gronn, P (2003a). Distributing and intensifying school leadership. In N. Bennett & L. Anderson (Eds.), Rethinking educational leadership (pp. 60-73). London: Sage.
Gronn, P. (2003b). The new work of educational leaders. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Hargreaves, D (2003). Education epidemic: Transforming secondary schools through innovative networks. London: Demos.
Hursh, D. (2007, September). Accessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518.
MacNeill, N, Cavanagh, R, & Silcox, S (2005). Pedagogic leadership: Refocusing on learning and teaching. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 9(2). Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/.
Martinez, E, & Garcia, A (1996). What is neoliberalism? A brief definition for activists. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
MetLife (2003). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: An examination of school leadership [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssets/20781259951075837470V1F2003%20Survey.pdf
Ministry of Education (Western Australia) (1987). Better schools in Western Australia: A programme for improvement. East Perth: Author.
Moos, L. (1999). New dilemmas in school leadership. Leading & Managing, 5(1), 41-59.
Murphy, J & Hallinger, P (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation [Electronic version], Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77–89.
Pusey, M (1992). Economic rationalism in Canberra: A nation building state changes its mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, LB, & Glennan, T.K. 2002, Leadership for learning: A theory for action. In A.M. Hightower, M.S. Knapp, J.A. Marsh, & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School Districts and Instructional Renewal (pp 160–172). New York, Teachers College Press,
Rowe, KJ (2004, August). The importance of teaching: Ensuring better schooling by building teacher capacities to maximise the quality of teaching and learning provision- Implications of findings from emerging international and Australian evidence based research. Paper presented at the Making Schools Better Conference, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Sachs, J (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Wolcott, HF (1973). The Man in the Principal’s Office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr Neil MacNeill is Principal of Ellenbrook Primary School. Dr Steffan Silcox is Principal of Ballajura Community College. Associate Professor Rob Cavanagh is a lecturer at Curtin University of Technology. All are located in Western Australia, Australia.