Tuesday 29 August 2017

Data-driven decision-making is key pillar of educational reform initiatives in countries across the globe. While approaches to data use vary, the theory of action underlying these efforts is often similar. The common idea is that when leaders and teachers are knowledgeable about how to use data, they will become more effective in reviewing their existing capacities, identifying weaknesses, and charting plans for improvement. In the classroom, data can inform how teachers plan lessons, identify concepts for re-teaching, and differentiate instruction. For all these reasons, data use has significant implications for teaching and leadership. Ensuring equitable opportunities and outcomes for all students is also top priority of educators and policymakers. Data use can be an important lever for achieving equity, but how this may occur has not been well understood. Drawing on findings from in-depth qualitative research, this presentation will illuminate the conditions under which data-use efforts can help to open – or close – doors for students. Through a careful examination of day-to-day practices in schools and systems, this presentation will uncover how thoughtful data-use practices can expand students’ opportunities to learn, whereas misinformed use of data can limit their opportunities.

Education systems cannot afford to lose promising teachers who could be the school leaders of tomorrow. My work shows a need to promote leadership as learning for teachers and students rather than as management and administration, heavy workloads and disconnectedness from students and their learning. Conceptions of leadership that allow teachers to see professional learning as the reason for their work make a contribution to school leadership as a whole. Schools benefit from leaders at all levels no matter their distance to classrooms. School cultures can stimulate leadership practices when professional learning exchanges among teachers are reciprocated. Professional learning is dependent on school leaders making the time and space available to support and encourage teacher leadership as an attractive option for teachers. An example of a reflective tool (heuristic) is highlighted for its potential value in reflecting on the content knowledge needed by leadership aspirants making the transition to leadership for learning work. This paper draws upon the longitudinal ‘Teachers of promise’ study of New Zealand teachers’ conceptions of leadership work, experiences and insights into why it matters for the profession and individuals to ensure teacher leadership is valued and possible. We need more conceptual clarity on who counts as a leader, the scope of leadership work and how it can be supported to capture those with potential to influence the work of colleagues as well as student learners.

This paper will report on the findings of four international research projects on leadership in high-performing school systems around the world. The paper will focus on building the capacity of school leaders to exercise professional autonomy and how different levels of government achieve strategic alignment among policies in their efforts to lift performance. The paper will summarise findings reported in The Autonomy Premium published in 2016 by ACER Press, along with the findings of a national survey of principals in Australia. The major part of this presentation is devoted to comparing Australia on 15 benchmarks derived from international studies in 2017 in Australia, Canada, China (Hong Kong), England, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States. The key message will be that Australia will not become one of the top-10 high-performing systems unless there is a transformation of approaches to leadership and leadership development at all levels, and unless due account is taken of outstanding practice in schools and school systems around the nation. Innovation and the resourcefulness of leaders abounds but these must be scaled up. This paper will explore the challenges and priorities for governments and leaders in schools and school systems.

The ‘paradox’ in this title refers to a set of contradictions that sit at the heart of education policy in many school systems. Policymakers in these systems want things that, if not inherently at odds, are nevertheless in tension— such as a tightly defined set of national standards and a broad and balanced curriculum; academic stretch for the most able and a closing of the gap between high and low performers; choice and diversity and equity; and so on. The ‘quest’ is for leaders and leadership to resolve these tensions in practice. School autonomy policies have placed huge power in the hands of, and pressure on the shoulders of, leaders in high-autonomy–high-accountability quasi-market systems. Research has often focused on the values, characteristics and behaviours of effective leaders and leadership teams, but there can also be a darker, toxic side to leadership, and it is clear that leadership agency is constrained by the influence of hierarchy and markets. Meanwhile, policymakers have become increasingly concerned with how to foster innovation as they wrestle with the question of how education might adapt to the needs of an increasingly complex, globalised world. Critics argue that change has been constrained by narrowly defined criteria for success and an instrumental focus on improvement, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. What seems clear is that change will require new approaches that somehow unlock leadership agency while supporting the development of new forms of leadership that can—and consistently do—resolve the paradox. This lecture will focus on England’s efforts to create a ‘self-improving school system’, which can be seen as one response to these issues. It will draw on the findings from a three-year study of the changes in England to draw out the wider implications for research and policy on leadership and school system reform.