Leading change in ILE: Buildin leadership capacity Dianne Smardon and Jennifer Charteris University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
For many years we have been interested in the engine room of school improvement – the practices that strengthen organisational capacity and leadership at all levels of schools. Today there is immense transformation underway in Aotearoa schooling. With the expectation that all schools become Innovative Learning Environments (ILE), and administrations reframed into Communities of Learning (CoL), it is timely that we write about the nature of leadership as a process of organisational capacity building in this change milieu. The relentless focus on change, both within schools in general and in leadership practices in particular, have ongoing implications for school leaders. Bogotch (2016) notes that schooling structures and practices have fundamentally remained in place over a few centuries. In light of this stasis, she presents us with provocative questions for leadership in the 21st century. Firstly, do apparently good ideas go out of date? Secondly, does a correspondingly sequential and linear approach to complex schooling issues preclude us from recognising future possibilities? With the challenge to implement ILE for future focused learning, we invite you to further consider the nature of leadership required in NZ schools. Adjectival Leadership There is a proliferation of catch-all categories that conveniently partition leader practices, yet nod to the inherent complexity of leadership dynamics. Adjectival leadership has been the rage over the last couple of decades. We have adaptive, aesthetic, charismatic, community, complexity, constructivist, cultural, distributed, craft, reflective, flexible, instructional, managerial, servant, sustainable, synergetic, systemic, systems, and transformational leadership (See Quantz et al., 2016). In what can be seen as a ‘research epidemic’ where writers scramble to forge careers by framing a new leadership territory, practitioners can be left with binary boundaries figuring where they fit in these new typologies. Perhaps we need to look beyond the rigidity of these categories to consider the dynamic of situated action and aspirational imagination? Quality research informs rather than drives practice. The term ‘driven’ undermines principal decision making capacity. Its rigidity deprofessionalises school leaders who are positioned as accountable for the evidence that they use to support and justify decision making. In short, it undermines leader agency. We prefer the perspective articulated by Bogotch (2016) that “leadership calls for us to act, not for us to follow the actions directed by others for others” (p. 2). Whether we call it pedagogical leadership, instructional leadership, or learning leadership, a focus on capacity building and the importance of learning outcomes for children are inextricably linked. The growth of ‘leadership for leadership’
has been apparent in the research we have been conducting into student and teacher agency and participation in school decision making. Although more longitudinal research is required to examine the long-term impact of distributed leadership development, there is a growing body of scholarship on principals’ efforts to foster leadership capability across their contexts (Klar et al., 2016) (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Principal as leadership capacity builder framework (Note: A conceptual framework for understanding the principal’s role in increasing leadership capacity to realize increased student learning.) (Klar, Huggins, Hammonds & Buskey, 2016, p. 117) The push for all Aotearoa schools to move to ILE requires a leadership focus on flexibility and an emphasis on school communities collaboratively evolving and adapting to changes in educational practices. Fullan and Langworthy’s (2014) ‘New Pedagogies for Deep Learning’ model can be useful for considering the nature of flexibility. It is premised on the ubiquitous use of digital technologies where teachers and students discover and master content together, co-create and use knowledge and develop pedagogical capacity. We suggest the conception of flexibility holds much potential as a signature pedagogy in ILE. (See Figure 2.) Further, we envisage that processes which foster deep learning can be connected with leadership that fosters the various dimensions of this model.
Figure 2. New pedagogies for deep learning (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 3). Leadership for pedagogical capacity building is fluid and reflexive. Fullan and Langworthy (2014) identify a range of indicators of pedagogical capacity in teachers that leaders can utilise to foster deep learning and a climate for innovation as part of implementing ILE with staff. We adapt and add to these also on the basis of our own research work with stakeholders in schools (Smardon & Charteris, 2014). We envisage that leaders:
ng school wide Jennifer Charteris
Foster relational trust with students, teacher, leader peers, community and other stakeholders; ■■ Seek and provide mentoring for leadership at all levels of the school; ■■ Promote the development of challenging learning goals, tasks and criteria for success to facilitate the creation and use of new knowledge (leader peers, teachers and students); ■■ Encourage varied teaching strategies and provide support for their development; ■■ Provide high-quality feedback and learning systems that strengthen feedback loops within and across schools; ■■ Foster a culture of collaborative inquiry into the impact of teacher pedagogy on students; ■■ Model and support teachers and students to develop a disposition to learn (growth mindset); and ■■ Support teachers and students to continuously discover and create digital learning tools and resources. ■■
It must be noted that what has been termed ‘new pedagogy’ is not new for many leaders and teachers who have been moving in the digitally infused, flexible learning environment direction over the last decade. Nor is the notion of leadership capacity building across school communities new for many Aotearoa school leaders. Yet, there are changes in the digital and political landscape that increasingly require student, teacher and principal adaptability and leadership capacity. With the added mobility and choice inherent in ILE, ongoing digital innovation, agency and leadership capacity are important dimensions of learning schoolwide. All participants in ILE require opportunities to move beyond instrumental conceptions of ‘managing self ’ to engage in complex, relational activities. Systemic changes in Aotearoa Education provoke a challenge for principals to mediate and broker change for innovation, as leaders who lead leaders. References Bogotch I. (2016). “What and where is education today? A leadership perspective”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19:1, 1–4, DOI:10.1080/13603124.2015.1096074
Quantz, R., Cambron-McCabe, N., Dantley, M & Hachem, A. (2016): Culture-based leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education. DOI:10.1080/13603124.2015.1099741 Smardon, D., & Charteris J. (2014). Strengthening teacher coleadership through professional inquiry. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 29(2), 73–83. About the Authors Ms Diane Smardon has provided professional learning for principals and teachers that aimed to raise student achievement. She is based in Hamilton and undertakes contract work for the University of New England as a teacher educator in Nauru. Dr Jennifer Charteris is currently Senior Lecturer of School Pedagogy at the University of New England in Armidale Australia.
Resene Such Fun
Resene Bright Spark
Bring out the best in your school Save time and money with free Resene School Services. We have assisted thousands of schools with their painting and decorating projects. Let us help you with yours.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. (New Pedagogies for Deep Learning White Paper). London: Pearson. Retrieved from www.michaelfullan.ca/ wpcontent/uploads/…/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf Klar, H., Huggins, K., Hammonds, H., & Buskey, F. (2016). Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: a postheroic approach to leading school improvement, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(2), 111–137. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2015.1005028
Dianne Smardon
Resene Flourish
To find out more visit: www.resene.co.nz/schoolservices
N Z Principal | N o v e m b e r 2 0 16