Teachers' perspectives of 'effective' leadership in schools

Teachers' perspectives of 'effective'

leadership in schools

Stephen John Moir

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of

Master of Education (Educational Management)

Submitted January 2013

Melbourne Graduate School of Education

The University of Melbourne

i

Abstract This study sought to understand ‘effective’ leadership from the perspective of teachers

and then develop dimensions from these findings to evaluate the effectiveness of leaders

within secondary school settings. To develop leadership capacity in schools there is a

need to understand what teachers perceive to be ‘effective’ leadership as well as what

teachers perceive to be both the factors that either encourage or act as barriers to the

development of leadership capacity.

Most of the leadership research has focused on primary schools whereas this study

relates to secondary schools, where there is a different structure of leadership –

particularly including Heads of Faculty as middle leaders. The dominant research

paradigm for this research was qualitative (teacher interviews and observations of staff

faculty meetings) although quantitative methods (teacher questionnaires on trust and

organisational learning, student questionnaires, and achievement data from NCEA

results) were also used. The participants in this study were 18 teachers from three

different secondary schools in Canterbury, New Zealand.

It was found that secondary teachers wanted acknowledgement and recognition for their

efforts and they wanted to know that their leaders listened to, valued and understood

their contributions. ‘Effective’ leaders were found to be strong in interpersonal skills as

transformational leaders and were identified by trust, respect, effective communication,

leading by example, and being supportive. Successful schools that had greater success

in creating classroom conditions that students experienced positively were found to be

the schools that also had higher organisational learning scores and higher relational trust

scores.

ii

iii

Declaration This is to certify that

1. this thesis comprises only my original work towards the masters except where

indicated in the Preface,

2. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used,

3. the thesis is 26,326 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies

and appendices.

Stephen Moir

iv

v

Acknowledgments I am grateful to many people who have helped and supported me throughout this study

and throughout this year. A number of people have shown faith in me and given me

support towards completing this thesis, but this has not been the greatest challenge I

have faced this year. A huge number of people have supported me and my family as we

have faced the challenge of not only completing this thesis but doing so while I received

chemotherapy throughout the year for aggressive cancer. I have been blessed to receive

prayer and practical support from people I barely know as well as support from very

faithful friends, family and church family.

I am grateful for the financial support I have received this year. A study leave award

from the Ministry of Education through the TeachNZ study awards scheme provided me

with 32 weeks leave on full salary this year to pursue the completion of this thesis and I

am very grateful for the combination of time and financial support to pursue the

completion of this thesis. I am also grateful to the scholarships office at the University

of Melbourne who awarded me an Australian Postgraduate Award this year with a

generous living allowance.

I would like to thank the teachers who participated in this study. I fully understand how

busy teachers are and I really appreciate the time these 18 teachers gave to this research.

I would also like to thank the principals and senior management of each school for

giving me access to their teachers and providing support in setting up the research in

each school. I would like to thank Kate Divett for transcribing the interview recordings

into notes. I also appreciate the expressions of enthusiastic support and genuine interest

in this research by both teachers and their senior leaders.

I would like to thank John Hattie for being my supervisor, for guiding me through this

process so patiently and for being a great ‘bloke’. John supported me when the news on

the health front was not at all good, providing understanding and unquestionable

support and faith in me. It has been a real blessing to work with John Hattie this year,

and not just because he is considered something of a ‘guru’ status in educational

research, but also because he has helped me to persist through the red tape and keep a

positive focus on completing this thesis at a time when working on this thesis was a

major focus in my life that I really enjoyed working towards that gave me an escape

from focussing on cancer. I also thank Chris Jansen for being my local sounding board,

and for assisting sorting through many issues.

vi

Finally, I would like to thank my wife and my three boys who have always loved me

and supported me. I am fortunate to have a wife that has been so patient, understanding

and loyal. She has supported me every step of the way, always believing in me, always

watching out for me, always loving me. I love you Anne and I love our beautiful boys.

vii

Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. i

Declaration....................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ v

Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii

Figures ............................................................................................................................. ix

Tables .............................................................................................................................. ix

Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ................................................... 1

1.2 Understanding the Context: Educational Change in NZ Schools ...................... 2

1.3 Leadership in Secondary Schools in New Zealand............................................ 4

Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Leadership Defined ............................................................................................ 7

2.3 Effective Leadership .......................................................................................... 8

2.4 Distributed Leadership ..................................................................................... 10

2.5 Middle Leaders in Secondary Schools ............................................................. 12

2.6 Conceptions of Leadership .............................................................................. 13

2.7 Teacher Leadership .......................................................................................... 15

2.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 17

Chapter Three: Research Methodology .......................................................................... 19

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Methods ........................................................................................................... 20

3.3.1 Selection of Participants and Settings ...................................................... 20

3.3.2 Data Collection ......................................................................................... 21

3.3.3 Improving the Method .............................................................................. 25

3.3.4 Reordering the Interview Schedule .......................................................... 26

3.3.5 Selection of statements for response ........................................................ 26

3.4 Administration of Student Perceptions Survey ................................................ 28

3.5 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 29

3.6 Rigour, Trustworthiness and Validity .............................................................. 29

3.7 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................... 30

viii

Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Three Case Studies ........................................................................................... 33

4.2.1 Case Study One ........................................................................................ 33

4.2.2 Case Study Two ........................................................................................ 35

4.2.3 Case Study Three ...................................................................................... 38

4.2.4 Summary of these case studies ................................................................. 40

4.3 Overall Coding of Teachers ............................................................................. 41

4.3.1 Males versus Females ............................................................................... 42

4.3.2 More than Ten Years’ Experience versus Less Experienced ................... 45

4.3.3 Heads of Faculty versus Classroom Teachers ......................................... 46

4.3.4 Subject matter ........................................................................................... 48

4.3.5 School Differences ................................................................................... 50

4.4 Faculty Meetings .............................................................................................. 52

4.5 NCEA Analysis by Faculties ........................................................................... 55

4.6 Some Main Themes from the Interviews and Faculty meetings ..................... 56

4.6.1 Leadership actions .................................................................................... 56

4.6.2 Transformational versus Instructional/Pedagogical leadership ................ 58

4.6.3 Organisational Learning and Trust differences ........................................ 61

4.7 Student Perceptions of Teachers and HOFs .................................................... 62

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Future Research and Conclusions ..................... 69

5.1 Importance of this study .................................................................................. 69

5.2 Key Findings .................................................................................................... 70

5.3 Major Themes .................................................................................................. 71

5.3.1 Leadership Actions and Organisational Commitment.............................. 71

5.3.2 Transformational versus Instructional/Pedagogical Leadership............... 72

5.3.3 Organisational Learning and Trust differences ........................................ 73

5.3.4 Student Perceptions of Teachers and Heads of Faculty ........................... 74

5.3.5 School Differences ................................................................................... 75

5.3.6 Faculty Meetings ...................................................................................... 77

5.4 Future Research ............................................................................................... 77

5.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 78

References ...................................................................................................................... 81

ix

Figures Figure 1: Number of comments from the teachers coded by the three schools.............. 52

Figure 2: Number of comments from the teachers relating to the more formal and more

collegial Heads of Faculty ................................................................................ 54

Figure 3: Mean responses to the 7 Dimensions from the Student Perceptions of teachers

by lower and upper secondary schools students ............................................... 64

Tables

Table 1: Teacher Organisational learning and Improved Student Outcomes

questionnaire .................................................................................................... 23

Table 2: The Tripod Questionnaire ................................................................................ 25

Table 3: Teacher Interview Schedule: ............................................................................ 27

Table 4: Frequency of comments about the major comments by teachers about leaders

attributes ........................................................................................................... 42

Table 5: Number of comments about leadership from Males and Females ................... 43

Table 6: Number of comments about leadership from teachers with less or more than 10

years experience ............................................................................................... 45

Table 7: Number of comments about leadership from Heads of faculties and other

teachers ............................................................................................................. 47

Table 8: Number of comments about leadership from mathematics and other teachers 48

Table 9: Number of comments about leadership from Science and other teachers ....... 50

Table 10: Number of comments about leadership compared across schools ................. 51

Table 11: Number of comments about leadership from teachers with more collegial and

more formal HoF .............................................................................................. 55

Table 12: Number of comments relating to Transformational Leadership (Relational,

Trust, & Respect) ............................................................................................. 59

Table 13: Number of comments relating to Pedagogical Leadership ............................ 60

Table 14: Means for the Organisational Learning scales ............................................... 62

Table 15: Teachers' strengths ......................................................................................... 65

Table 16: Teachers' weaknesses ..................................................................................... 66

Chapter One: Introduction

1

Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The position of principal is complex and demanding and there is increasing demand for

more and more effective forms of leadership (National Council for School Leadership,

2007). To increase leadership capacity in schools there is a need to understand what

teachers perceive to be ‘effective’ leadership as well as what teachers perceive to be

both the factors that encourage the development of leadership capacity and the factors

that act as barriers to the development of leadership capacity.

Muijs and Harris (2007) stated that while the quality of teaching has a strong influence

on the motivation and achievement of students, the quality of leadership has an indirect

yet powerful impact on student achievement, as the quality of leadership can have a

major influence on the motivation of teachers and the quality of classroom teaching.

Though the middle leader in secondary schools (e.g., Dean, Head of Faculty) has a more

direct impact on the quality of classroom teaching as a team leader, Robinson, Hohepa

and Lloyd (2009) acknowledged there had been little in the way of research focussing

on the quality of leadership of middle leaders. For these reasons, the roles of middle

leaders in utilising their leadership/ influence to bring about school improvement and

improved student outcomes deserves further examination. For this study, the focus will

include middle leaders in the form of Heads of Faculty (HOF, HOC or HOD) in

secondary school settings.

The aim of this research is to develop an understanding of ‘effective’ leadership from

the perspective of teachers and then develop dimensions from these findings to evaluate

the effectiveness of leaders within secondary school settings. The research project will

investigate how teachers perceive leadership in their fellow teachers, their middle

managers, and their senior managers. The Key Research Question is “How do teachers

perceive ‘effective’ leadership?”

This research project aims to:

1. Provide perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership in schools from the teachers’

viewpoint, which aims to provide understandings and insights as to what it

means to be an ‘effective leader’ in school contexts.


2

2. Provide contemporary contextual findings on teacher leadership and building

leadership capacity, which will be compared and contrasted with findings from

studies in the USA and the UK.

3. Focus on the work of middle leaders in schools who can be expected to have a

more direct effect on student outcomes as team leaders. There is a need for more

focus on the influence of middle leaders as instructional leaders.

4. Develop dimensions for evaluating the effectiveness of school leaders based on

teachers’ perspectives.

This research will provide understanding of teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’

leadership, and this understanding aims then to contribute towards the development of

dimensions for evaluating ‘effective’ leadership based on teachers’ perspectives.

1.2 Understanding the Context: Educational Change in NZ Schools

Educational reforms in New Zealand have been radical. In the last three decades there

have been significant reforms in school governance, qualifications framework,

curriculum development, and a focus on student achievement.

In the 1980s the Department of Education was replaced with self-managing schools,

managed by boards of trustees through the Administering for Excellence (the Picot

Report) and Tomorrow’s Schools. From 1989, the role of the principal moved from

primarily facilitating and providing support, to responsibility for property, personnel

and staff development. School governance that had been highly centralised was now the

responsibility of Boards of Trustees. Every school has its own governing board with

great autonomy, yet most trustees are parents who are not educational professionals.

These trustees may need to have a greater understanding of pedagogy in order to have a

more meaningful role in improving outcomes for students and this presents a significant

challenge for principals as they work with their trustees.

In the 1990s the focus was on curriculum change with the implementation of The New

Zealand Curriculum Framework with its essential learning areas. A series of curriculum

documents were published through the 1990s that were based on outcomes rather than

content. The reforms were labelled the ‘Achievement Initiative’ with emphasis on

curriculum reform, assessment learning, and professional development. The

professional development associated with the introduction of each curriculum statement


3

was inadequate, and mainly left to each school to resolve. Many in the profession were

stunned by the speed and extent of the curriculum changes in the 1990s (Fancy, 2004).

Standards based assessment for senior students came in the form of NCEA (National

Certificate of Educational Achievement) which was introduced between 2002 and 2004,

replacing the norm-referenced School Certificate and Sixth Form Certificate

qualifications. The qualifications framework (New Zealand Qualification Authority)

now integrates vocational and academic learning with the aim of providing a more

networked and collaborative system so students will be able to access the best possible

sources of learning (Fancy, 2004).

Through the 1990s and 2000s there has been a focus on achievement initiatives such as

literacy, numeracy and ICT clusters. These later reforms were developed more

collaboratively with teachers. Major reform initiatives in literacy, numeracy, ICT,

special education and assessment emphasised the importance of professional input

along with strengthening professional practice and professional leadership.

The recent focus has been on strengthening the assessment practice of teachers,

especially shifting to assessment for learning. Over the last decade the Ministry of

Education has released a number of Best Evidence Synthesis publications which are

widely used in schools for evidence based improvement of pedagogy. Professional

practice has been built through better articulation of expectations (standards based

assessment), increased transparency (ERO - Education Review Office), developing

nationally benchmarked information (asTTle - Assessment Tools for Teaching and

Learning), developing assessment resources (ARB – Assessment Resource Bank) and

developing innovative diagnostic tools (asTTle and SEA – School Entry Assessment).

There is currently a focus on transforming schools to meet the needs and demands of the

21st century. Indeed, in New Zealand there is a renewed focus on life long learning and

‘learning for understanding’ to prepare young people for participation in today’s

knowledge or information society. New Zealand schools have now implemented a new

curriculum that was less prescriptive than the curriculum developed in the 1990s. The

New Zealand Curriculum (2007) outlines knowledge, competencies and values that

New Zealanders deem important to become confident, connected, actively involved

lifelong learners in the knowledge age, but also gives schools the scope, flexibility and

authority they needed to design their knowledge age curriculum to reflect the aspirations


4

of their communities. This new curriculum provides a framework based on values and

competencies that views learning outcomes as holistic.

Standards based assessment in the form of NCEA and National Standards policy is

currently being utilised by the central government to increase accountability on teachers

for showing evidence of improved outcomes for students. The central government has

been concerned with the wide disparities in achievement evidenced in the achievement

of New Zealand students in PISA assessments, and has moved to increase

accountability for improved student outcomes in primary schools through National

Standards Policy. Primary schools are now required to report the number of their

students that are above, below or well below the national standards in reading, writing

and mathematics. This policy has been controversial, with no trial of the standards and

unrealistic expectations on schools regarding implementation of the standards that put

deadlines ahead of resourcing and professional development that support this change.

The success of the implementation was also inhibited by a move from focussing on

Levels (which has been the system for about 20 years) to focussing on Years.

1.3 Leadership in Secondary Schools in New Zealand

The Ministry of Education has the improvement of achievement rates in literacy and

numeracy as a sector priority, and to do this they have said they will ensure teachers

have the right skills and support they need to teach quality education to students. This

priority is also reflected in the National Standards policy with a focus on literacy and

numeracy. There has been much focus on the leadership needed to deliver on these

programs. The Ministry of Education recently made significant investments in

developing leadership capacity through developing the Aspiring Principals Program, the

First Time Principals Program, and publishing the ‘Kiwi Leadership for Principals’.

Through the Kiwi Leadership for Principals (2008) document, the Ministry of

Education have formally commented on the need to develop teacher leadership by

saying that the principal is in a critical position to lead change but cannot do it alone, so

“empowering others throughout the school to develop and exercise leadership roles and

to share in the leadership of change is both desirable and achievable” (p. 16).

One of the more important shifts has been to see leadership throughout the school and

not just ascribe principals the role of “leader”. Leadership can now be seen as fluid

rather than positional, moving according to the expertise required. Senior leaders in

schools are those that hold formal roles such as Principal or Deputy Principal. Middle


5

Leaders also hold formal positions of leadership, but these are roles where teachers as

leaders work more closely with classroom teachers, such as syndicate leaders in primary

schools or Heads of Faculty in secondary schools. Though the middle leader has a more

direct impact on the quality of classroom teaching as a team leader, Robinson, Hohepa

and Lloyd (2009) acknowledged there had been little in the way of research focussing

on the quality of leadership in middle leaders and there is little New Zealand research

that directly links school leadership with student outcomes. For these reasons, the roles

of middle leaders in utilising their leadership/ influence to bring about school

improvement and improved student outcomes deserves further examination. The Best

Evidence Synthesis on Leadership also drew on research findings from a

disproportionate number of primary schools in reaching their conclusions, with only 4

of the 27 individual studies of the impact of leadership on student outcomes occurring

in secondary school settings. To address some of the gaps in the research, the focus of

this study will include middle leaders in the form of Heads of Faculty (HOF, HOC or

HOD) in secondary school settings.

To ensure teachers have the right skills and support, the Ministry of Education have said

they will develop the Professional Leadership Plan with a focus on developing

leadership to improve student achievement in literacy and numeracy. The proposed plan

was developed in close consultation with the sector with professional development

planned for 2009 and 2010 as a result. The PLP includes clear expectations for

principals:

1. Improving learning outcomes for every student with a particular focus on Māori

and Pasifika achievement,

2. Ensuring effective teaching,

3. Developing the school as a learning organisation,

4. Building networks,

5. Developing leadership in others (Erb, 2009).

The plan also includes priority measures to attract, develop and retain principals and

other leaders. This research also has the development of leadership capacity as a key

focus. To develop leadership capacity we need to understand what the effective

leadership qualities are and to gain quality descriptive information we need to

understand the perspectives of those being lead, in this case the teachers. Teachers can


6

give us their insights into the factors that encourage the development of leadership

capacity and the factors that act as barriers to the development of leadership capacity.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

7

Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of existing literature related to

leadership in schools. Different definitions of leadership will be considered and

leadership characteristics and qualities will be evaluated to determine what we mean by

“effective” leadership in schools. Various conceptions of leadership held by teachers

will be considered and discussed. Distributed leadership structures will also be

considered as an essential ingredient in school improvement, especially in the ways

distributed leadership provides a school culture for the successful development of

leadership capacity.

2.2 Leadership Defined

There are many models, styles and approaches to leadership. Preferred modes of

leadership have changed with an increasing focus in the research literature on

instructional leadership and transformational leadership (Leithwood, Jantzi &

Steinbach, 1999), and a recent move away from specific leadership styles to a

recognition of leadership as much more complex than one style. There has been a shift

towards more shared forms of leadership in schools (Harris & Muijs, 2003). There has

also been a shift of focus moving away from leadership competencies towards

considering leadership capability to encourage development and shared leadership

(Duignan, 2004).

In the school context we are talking about educational leadership with educational

purpose. Educational leadership is “leadership that causes others to do things that can be

expected to improve educational outcomes for students” (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd,

2009, p. 70). Thus, a major purpose of educational leadership is to improve teaching

and learning.

A great deal of recent research has focussed on instructional or pedagogical leadership

as the way forward. Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009), for example, found that

pedagogical leadership was three to four times more effective in improving student

outcomes than transformational leadership. Instructional leadership was distinguished

by “leadership in establishing an academic mission; providing feedback on teaching and

learning; and promoting professional development” (p. 88). Robinson et al. (2009) also

noted that the effect of instructional leadership was lower for secondary schools, which


8

suggests that strong leadership oversight of teaching and curriculum can have a strong

impact in primary schools while the impact in secondary schools is more limited.

The transformational leadership model inspires higher levels of commitment to the

organisation and its purposes through motivational processes (Bush, 2008).

Transformational leadership is identified by inspirational motivation, idealised

influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration (Barnett &

McCormick, 2004). Transformational leadership behaviours have been shown to

increase teacher motivation (Barnett & McCormick, 2003) and increase teachers’

commitment to organisational change (Yu, Leithwood & Jantzi, 2002).

Transformational leaders work with and through others to achieve goals rather than

exercising control over others. Transformational leaders inspire their followers, give

them intellectual stimulation and show concern for each individual. It can be argued that

transformational leadership’s real strength is that is can create a collaborative staff

culture leading to innovation from those that are inspired and encouraged to take risks,

so transformational leadership creates the culture of risk taking and innovation for

developing leadership capacity in schools.

Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) claimed that research on educational leadership

has been more concerned with relationships between adults in a school community

(transformational leadership), rather than the impact of leadership on student outcomes

(instructional leadership) and suggest that the impact of leadership could be increased

by “closely integrating leadership theories and practice with the evidence concerning

effective teaching and learning” (p. 47).

While transformational leadership has an emphasis on relationships and pedagogical

leadership has a specifically educational purpose, it has been argued that both are

needed and are indeed complementary. When setting goals for example, there is the task

aspect of determining the standard to be achieved and the relational aspect of ensuring

staff understand and become committed to the goal. Whether one or the other, or both

make the difference is an empirical question.

2.3 Effective Leadership

The concept of effective leadership is often associated with school effectiveness, and

‘effectiveness’ has often been defined in relation to a quantifiable measure of student

outcomes such as exam results. Such an approach has been criticised for not taking


9

sufficient account of other potential educational outcomes such as student welfare,

socialisation and self-esteem (Bush, 2008). While traditional measures of academic

achievement were important for respondents, so were a range of other outcomes. In this

section the key characteristics of effective leadership in different school contexts will be

identified from the research.

Many researchers describe effective leadership as an ‘influencing process’ (Yukl, 1989;

Duignan, 2004). Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) commented that “leadership

involves influencing people to think and act differently, either directly or indirectly” (p.

68). The degree of influence a person has is largely reliant on their personal integrity,

the degree to which they can be trusted and their ability to build and sustain

relationships. Duignan argued for a shift from focusing on leadership styles to focusing

on improving leadership capabilities and speaks of ‘capable human beings’ who “use

their knowledge, skills and competencies confidently and with good judgement… in

response to change, and improve circumstances” (p. 6).

In their extensive empirical study of contemporary leadership in primary and secondary

schools in England, Day, Sammons, Leithwood and Hopkins’ (2011) demonstrated that

heads of successful schools improve the quality of student learning and achievement

through who they are (their values, virtues, dispositions and competencies), as well as

their use of change strategies and improvement strategies.

Effective leaders have a strong sense of self. Both Fullan (2003) and Cammock (2001)

speak of the need for leaders with humility who seek to serve others. When Fullan

refers to moral purpose in leaders, he is referring to leaders acting with the intention of

making a positive difference in the lives of teachers, students and the school as a

community. This moral leadership is leadership with positive and purposeful influence.

Fullan found that charismatic leaders achieved short term gains, but at the expense of

long-term development, as these leaders could not receive let alone reflect on the voice

of the critical voices in the organisation, whereas Cammock identifies a need for leaders

with both skill and soul, with a sense of ‘calling’ that flowed from their core identity

and values, who wanted to make a difference and who were motivated by a desire to

serve others.

There have been many claims about the attributes of effective leaders. For example,

effective leaders are typically deemed to provide a clear sense of direction, be strategic,

inspirational, charismatic and self-confident, communicate a vision, and foster trust,


10

belonging and commitment (Bryman, 2007). Effective leaders respond appropriately to

different contexts. Researchers have spoken of leaders being sensitive to the context

(Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999) and leadership as being situational (Southworth,

2004).

Others have argued that effective leaders bring about successful school improvement by

building the capacity for change and development within the school (Muijs & Harris,

2006). Effective leaders have excellent relationship management skills. The invitational

leader is able to ‘invite others personally’ by building relationships and Stoll and Fink

describe the invitational leader as one “who is optimistic, respects others, trusts others

and acts with intentionality [to] build the kind of relationships which result in truly

collaborative school cultures” (1996, p. 114). It seems there is a link between

invitational leadership that encourages personal and professional development and

transformational leadership (Sarros and Santora, 2001) with its focus on adult

relationships. Effective leadership is an influencing process, where the leader has a

strong sense of self, excellent relationship skills, an ability to respond appropriately to

the context, and a desire to serve others and develop leadership capacity in others.

2.4 Distributed Leadership

There are many conflicting definitions of distributed leadership, which have contributed

to some confusion over what distributed leadership entails. Definitions that focus on

building or growing capacity are the most useful. Harris (2004) defined distributed

leadership as “a form of collective leadership in which teachers develop expertise by

working together”…and she “equates this with maximising the human capacity within

the organisation” (p.14).

Robinson et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis on school leadership identifies the knowledge,

skills and dispositions required by educational leaders, yet they note that it is

unreasonable to expect an individual to possess all these qualities. Duignan (2006)

stated that leaders have to “work with and through others to achieve their organisation’s

vision and values” (p. 22). There are clearly major implications here for leadership

development. Fullan (2003) claimed that a “headteacher should be judged on how many

effective leaders they leave behind” (p. 25). To develop sustainable leadership, the

focus in schools needs to move from the leadership qualities of the principal to

developing and enlisting leadership capacity across the school community.


11

There are a number of arguments or rationales for why leadership should be distributed,

including: power distribution; increasing complexity; efficiency; increasing

participation; increasing capacity; reflecting structures of learning organisations; and

continuity of leadership.

For leadership to be distributed successfully, barriers have to be overcome through

intentional development of conditions that support the distribution of leadership:

collaboration; innovation; shared decision-making; and empowerment. For distributed

leadership to occur there are cultural conditions which have to be intentionally

established and maintained (Youngs, 2008). The cultural conditions that nurture and

sustain the growth of leadership capacity include: trust; respect; alignment; common

purpose; and, risk-taking. To develop leadership capacity, people need ‘opportunity’

(Southworth, 2004; Hopkins & Jackson, 2003) to develop these skills, the right team

environment, and ‘time to reflect’ (Southworth) on their professional practice.

Trust is one of the more important factors central to distributed leadership (Youngs,

2008; MacBeath, 2005). Trust is the glue that holds relationships together. There needs

to be mutual open dialogue based on trust, collaboration and collegiality. Oduro (2006)

went as far to say that the most favourable condition for promoting distribution of

leadership in a school is trust. West-Burnham (2004) found that organisations that are

high on trust tended to out-perform those that were not, because “trust is the basis of

personal and organisational effectiveness” (p. 3).

The right conditions for developing trust occur in team environments. Teacher

leadership flourishes most in collaborative settings (Muijs & Harris, 2007; Barth, 2007)

and creating a culture of trust that allows collaboration to grow is therefore crucial.

Team environments are nurseries for growing leadership capacity as they provide

opportunities for collaboration and shared decision-making, especially when there is a

common focus on improving teaching and learning. Thornton (2010) noted that schools

need to build more team structures and better utilise existing meeting times to increase

leadership capacity. Staff team meetings could be used as opportunities to share best

practices and exchange ideas related to school improvement.

Leadership capacity can be developed by:

1. Involving others in decision making (Hopkins & Jackson, 2003; Harris, 2004).

2. Allocating important responsibilities to teachers (West-Burnham, 2004).


12

3. Changing organisational structures by working with and through teams or

networks (Harris, 2004; Hopkins & Jackson, 2003; West-Burnham, 2004).

4. Developing a learning culture/professional learning community (Hopkins &

Jackson, 2003; Fullan, 2007; West-Burnham, 2004).

5. School leaders leading professional learning and development (Robinson, 2008).

6. School leaders modelling they are both leaders and learners (Southworth, 2004;

MacBeath, 2005).

Harris (2002) found improving schools had a culture of collaboration and a commitment

to work together. Similarly, Williams (2009) found that schools that are successful in

sustaining school improvement have positive impacts on student learning, and build

capacity for leadership within the organisation.

2.5 Middle Leaders in Secondary Schools

Within the middle management role, there is real potential of organisational change and

improvement. Heads of Faculties can play a central role in defining and sustaining

collegial sub-cultures, by ensuring that departments operate as socially cohesive

communities where all members work collaboratively with a high degree of

commitment (Busher & Harris, 1999). The Head of Faculty can foster collegiality

within the group by shaping and establishing a shared vision. Transformational leaders

not only manage structure but they purposefully impact upon the culture in order to

change it. An important dimension of the Head of Faculty’s work is to shape and

manage departmental culture.

How well middle managers act as transformational leaders and exercise inter-personal

skills will affect the extent to which they build a genuine collaborative culture (Blase

1995). The leadership style of subject leaders is fundamentally important in shaping the

direction and cohesiveness of subject faculties (Busher and Harris, 1999). While the

principal sets the structural and cultural conditions that teachers operate in, the head of

faculty can be expected to have much more direct impact on student outcomes as an

instructional leader who provides feedback on teaching and learning, establishes goals

and expectations, manages resources strategically and promotes professional

development.


13

2.6 Conceptions of Leadership

This section investigates the research on teachers’ conceptions of leadership. Hattie

(2009) presented perspectives on teaching and learning held by teachers and students

that make student learning visible to teachers and make teaching visible to the students.

He argued that teachers are most effective when they see learning through the eyes of

students, and students are most effective when they see teaching as the key to their on-

going learning. A similar analogy can be applied to leadership, ‘when leaders see

leadership through the eyes of the teacher and when teachers see themselves as their

own leaders.’ Through this research it is hoped that formal positional leaders will be

able to evaluate the effectiveness of their leadership through the dimensions of

leadership developed from teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership. Furthermore,

teachers will see themselves as leaders and the more that teachers see leadership as a

positive influencing process, the more they can exercise leadership and develop

leadership capacity for school improvement.

Source: Hattie, J. (2009, September). Visible learning. [PowerPoint slides] Presentation

to the Treasury. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from:

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicaopoptions/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-

hattie.pdf

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicaopoptions/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-hattie.pdf

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicaopoptions/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-hattie.pdf


14

School principals can influence teachers’ role and behavioural perceptions about their

occupation and their job satisfaction. In a report on a survey of 22 positive behaviours

of principals towards teachers, teachers gave highest marks to principals who respected

and valued them as professionals (Richards, 2007). They also valued support in matters

of discipline. Emotional support and safety was most important to teachers in their first

six years of service, for teachers with 6 to 10 years experience the greatest need was to

be respected as individuals, and for teachers with 10 or more years’ experience the

greatest need was respect for their knowledge and experience.

Participation in shared decision making processes increases ownership and job

satisfaction for teachers, and teachers report greater satisfaction in their work when they

perceive their principal as someone who shares information with others, delegates

authority, and keeps open channels of communication with teachers (Bogler, 2001). It

seems relationships are the key, as teachers appreciate being valued (Mulford & Silins,

2003), and likewise the most effective teachers are those that put great emphasis on the

student-teacher relationship (Gay, 1995). In their study in Australian secondary schools,

Mulford and Silins (2003) found schools where the teachers reported higher levels of

organisational learning were more successful in creating classroom conditions that

students experienced positively. Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2000) also found that

“collective teacher efficacy [teacher efficacy refers to the extent to which a teacher feels

capable to help students learn] is a significant predictor of student achievement … [and]

is greater in magnitude than any one of the demographic controls [including Socio

Economic Status]” (p. 500).

Teachers’ commitment to teaching is affected by the type of leadership that their leaders

exhibit. Leaders who provide supportive feedback and willingness to collaborate on

ideas are likely to have committed teachers in their schools (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;

Reyes & Pounder, 1993; Weiss, 1999). School leaders are thus expected to develop the

relationship between school leader and teacher as one of regard, mutual respect and

honest contact. To develop caring relationships, it has been claimed that school leaders

need to build and maintain a culture of trust, honesty and open communication (Beatty,

2002).

Blasé (1993) found that the strategies and goals employed by effective principals were

consistent with the professional norms and values of teachers. The most common

strategies were control oriented and included modelling (optimism, consideration and

honesty), use of rewards, praise, visibility, support and communication of expectations.


15

Goals cited by effective principals most frequently were teacher satisfaction, school

climate, esteem and morale and these goals were described as ‘other oriented’ rather

than self-oriented. Improved classroom performance was seen as the goal and outcome

of principal-teacher interaction in most cases.

2.7 Teacher Leadership

There is a shift towards more shared forms of leadership in schools. These include

distributive leadership, transformative leadership, and teacher leadership.

Teacher leadership is an essential aspect in developing teachers’ professionalism.

If teachers do not take leadership roles, the educational outcomes which educators

aspire to, are unlikely to be achieved (Moore, 2001, Harris & Muijs, 2003).

The era of the heroic leader has passed and “all teachers have leadership potential and

all teachers can benefit from exercising that potential. Schools badly need the leadership

of teachers” (Barth, 2007, p. 14). No longer is leadership positional and defined by

formal roles; instead, leadership can be thought of as an influencing activity. When

teachers lead, the school community benefits from better decision making, improved

teaching practice and improved educational outcomes for students (Barth, 2007;

Thornton, 2010).

Barth (2007) defined teacher leadership as “the act of having a positive influence within

the school as well as within the classroom [or] initiatives by teachers which improve

schools and learning” (p. 11). If we could start with all teachers having this perception

of leadership then we would be more successful in encouraging more teachers to take on

wider responsibilities and exercise greater positive influence in their school

communities.

Kiwi Leadership for Principals gives stated recognition that the principal is in a critical

position to lead change but cannot do it alone and that “empowering others throughout

the school to develop and exercise leadership roles and to share in the leadership of

change is both desirable and achievable” (Ministry of Education, 2008: 16). The

concept that there is inherent capacity for leadership within many if not all members of

the organisation, is central to teacher leadership.

Leadership needs to be seen as the domain of many rather than the chosen few and

should be best understood in the school context as taking responsibility to positively

influence educational outcomes. This concept of leadership is “fluid” (Muijs & Harris,


16

2007; Robinson et al., 2009) and the “exercise of leadership shifts according to the

expertise and skills required by the task at hand” (Robinson et al., 2009, p. 67).

One example of a teacher leadership role is the Specialist Classroom Teacher (SCT)

initiative in New Zealand secondary schools (Dempster, Lovett & Flückiger, 2011). It

began as a pilot program in 2006 which was favourably reviewed (Ward, 2007) and has

continued with modifications ever since. Under the Ministry provision, each secondary

school in New Zealand is given a monetary allowance so that it can appoint one teacher

to the SCT position. Provision is also made for four or more hours (depending on school

size) or additional staffing time so that the SCTs have time for this work.

The model provides a structure which allows teachers to seek assistance to improve

their pedagogy. The purpose of the SCT is to contribute to the enhancement of quality

teaching practices by providing learning support to other teachers in the school, with a

particular focus on mentoring and supporting beginning teachers.

To develop a school culture that supports the development of teacher leadership, the

following elements must be intentionally developed and maintained (Muijs and Harris,

2007; Youngs, 2008): relational trust (Harris, 2002; Youngs, 2008; MacBeath, 2005;

Oduro, 2006; West-Burnham, 2004; Muijs & Harris, 2007); collaboration (Muijs &

Harris, 2007; Barth, 2007); shared vision(Muijs & Harris, 2007; Thornton, 2010);

innovation through risk taking (Barth, 2007; Oduro, 2006); and recognition (Muijs &

Harris, 2007; Kurtz, 2009).

In the UK context, top-down initiatives from central government were found to stifle

teacher initiative and leadership capabilities, as did lack of time for teachers to engage

in activities outside of the classroom (Muijs & Harris, 2006). In the current context in

New Zealand primary schools, the national standards policy is another top-down

initiative from central government. The national standards policy is focussed on

increasing accountability on primary teachers for showing evidence of improved

outcomes for students, yet it seems that this may well stifle initiative. This may well be

worthy of further investigation.

To build the capacity for school improvement, collaborative processes must be fostered

and developed with a concern for maximising the professional learning of teachers

(Muijs & Harris, 2006). Team environments are nurseries for growing leadership

capacity as they provide opportunities for collaboration and shared decision-making,

especially when there is a common focus on improving teaching and learning.


17

Many researchers have argued that the principal needs to expect and articulate teacher

leadership as a goal of the school (Muijs & Harris, 2007; Barth, 2007).

The claim is that the principal needs to build relational trust (Harris, 2002; Youngs,

2008; MacBeath, 2005; Oduro 2006; West-Burnham, 2004; Muijs & Harris, 2007),

empower others (Oduro, 2006), and share in the successes and the failures (Barth,

2007). The principal’s role is to develop and maintain both structural and cultural

supports to develop leadership capacity across the school (Harris, 2002; Elbot & Fulton,

2008) in which teacher leadership can grow (Harris, 2006) and then step back (Hopkins

& Jackson, 2003). Specific attention needs to be given to providing opportunities for

teachers to work collaboratively in team environments (West-Burnham, 2004) and

building confidence in teachers by encouraging risk taking and innovation (Barth, 2007;

Oduro, 2006) and then recognising, acknowledging and appreciating these initiatives

(Kurtz, 2009; Muijs & Harris, 2007).

Teachers take risks in a ‘no blame’ environment where mistakes are not seen as a mark

of failure, but as an opportunity to learn (Oduro, 2006; Muijs & Harris, 2006).

Encouraging teachers to take initiatives to lead and providing opportunities to lead has

been associated with higher levels of teacher retention, stronger feelings of

empowerment and greater job satisfaction (Harris & Muijs, 2001).

A school culture that promotes collegiality, trust and collaborative working

relationships and that focuses on teaching and learning is more likely to be self-

renewing and responsive to improvement efforts (Hopkins, 1996). Schools that build

capacity for leadership within the organisation are successful in sustaining school

improvement that has positive impacts on student learning (Williams, 2009; Harris,

2002).

2.8 Conclusions

While transformational leadership has an emphasis on relationships and pedagogical

leadership has a specifically educational purpose, it has been argued that both may be

needed and thus considered complementary. Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) found

that pedagogical leadership was three to four times more effective in improving student

outcomes than transformational leadership, but also noted that the effect of instructional

leadership was lower for secondary schools, which suggests that strong leadership

oversight of teaching and curriculum can have a strong impact in primary schools while

the impact in secondary schools may be more limited.


18

Effective leadership is an influencing process, where the leader has a strong sense of

self, excellent relationship skills, an ability to respond appropriately to the context, and

a desire to serve others and develop leadership capacity in others. Effective leaders

intentionally establish and maintain the cultural conditions for distributed leadership to

occur (Youngs, 2008). To build the capacity for school improvement, collaborative

processes must be fostered and developed (Muijs & Harris, 2006) by developing teams

with a common focus on improving teaching and learning (West-Burnham, 2004).

Improving schools have been found to have a culture of collaboration and a

commitment to working together (Harris, 2002).

In this study it was expected that there would be some variance among teachers in

perceptions and understandings of leadership, dependant on whether or not the

participant interviewed was in a formal leadership position within the school as Head of

Faculty, and how well the vision for teacher leadership was articulated (Muijs & Harris,

2007). It is also likely that some teachers will have a limited perception of leadership

and will be reluctant to take on responsibilities (MacBeath, 2005). Some teachers are

expected to equate leadership with financial recognition through extra salary units

(Barth, 2007), while other teachers will view leadership more broadly, as an influencing

process (Duignan, 2004; Fullan, 2007). One of the aims of this research was to not only

find out what the perceptions of leadership are, but why the participants had these

perceptions.

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

19

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the research design used in this study and the reasons for the

selection of methodology and methods. It then outlines how participants and settings

were selected, how data was collected and analysed, how issues related to rigour,

trustworthiness and validity were addressed, and how ethical considerations were

addressed.

This study focused on teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership in schools.

Qualitative methodology was used for this study as the focus was seeking to interpret

how others interpret or understand things and occurred in context. Mixed research

methods were used in this study, which means data was collected through both

qualitative methods (interviews of teachers and observations of staff team meetings),

and quantitative methods (teacher questionnaires, student questionnaires, analysis of

achievement data) to explore teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership in schools.

3.2 Methodology

Methodologies are the theoretical perspectives or logic that underpins the choice of

methods, while methods are specific techniques, tools or strategies to collect and

analyse data. Qualitative researchers seek to interpret how others interpret or understand

things. The qualitative researcher’s goal is “to better understand human behaviour and

experience…to grasp the processes by which people construct meaning and to describe

what those meanings are” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 43). Research takes place in

context as the qualitative researcher “seeks to provide a precise/valid description of

what people said or did in a particular research location” (Davidson & Tolich, 1999,

p.28).

Qualitative researchers are concerned with context, as qualitative researchers assume

that human behaviour is significantly influenced by the setting in which it occurs, that

the social phenomena is situational, and data collected in the research location can be

supplemented by understanding gained from being on location (Bodgan & Biklen,

2007; Stake, 2003). This study has a dominant qualitative methodology as the purpose

is to better understand teachers’ perspective of ‘effective’ leadership in schools by

gaining rich descriptive data in context.


20

3.3 Methods

This is a mixed methods study as data were both qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative methods employed in this study include interview comments from teachers

and students and observations of staff in team meetings. This provides what Bodgan and

Biklen (2007) describe as a “rich description of people, places and conversations” (p. 2).

Observations and interpretations could then be validated through triangulation of

multiple perspectives and/or comparison with other case studies (Stake, 2003).

Quantitative methods employed in this study included teacher questionnaires on trust

using a Likert scale, teacher questionnaires on organisational learning with a four point

Likert scale, student questionnaires with a five point Likert scale, and achievement data

from National Certificate of Education (NCEA) results over the last five years for each

faculty.

3.3.1 Selection of Participants and Settings

Senior leaders in schools are those that hold formal roles such as Principal or Deputy

Principal. Middle Leaders also hold formal positions of leadership, but these are roles

where teachers as leaders work more closely with classroom teachers, such as syndicate

leaders in primary schools or Heads of Faculty in secondary schools.

To address some of the gaps in the research, the focus of this study will include middle

leaders in the form of Heads of Faculty (HOF, HOC or HOD) in secondary school

settings. Given this focus it made sense to identify settings where teacher leadership

was occurring in schools, so perceptions of this phenomenon could be observed in

context. The selection of settings and schools was therefore purposive rather than

random or representative. Schools were sought where the perceptions of teacher

leadership could be observed.

The schools where teacher leadership is clearly evident are likely to be schools where

those in formal leadership positions are committed to developing leadership capacity by

providing opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively in professional learning

communities. To identify these schools, key informants were utilised, as Muijs and

Harris (2007) did in their study. Key informants would most likely be experienced

practitioners who spend significant time in schools, such as leadership advisers or

professional contract providers. These experienced practitioners have the skills to

identify teacher leadership and therefore recommend school settings for this research.

For this study, the key informant was a leadership adviser who spent significant time in


21

schools. He was asked to identify schools that were building capacity for leadership

within their organisation and/or where leadership is distributed. He identified three

schools, which included a mix of large and small, urban and rural schools. Within each

school there were six teachers who participated.

The participants included the teachers and their Head of Faculty. Within each school,

two faculties were involved with the Head of Faculty and two other teachers

participating from each faculty. There were three participants in each faculty and two

faculties from each school, so there were six teachers involved from each school. As

there were three participating schools in this study, this gave 18 teachers altogether who

participated in this study, and from these 18 teachers there were six Heads of Faculty.

The participants included 11 female teachers and 7 male teachers. The teaching

experience of participants ranged from 2 years to 38 years with a mean of 15.9 years’

experience.

3.3.2 Data Collection

Three methods were used to collect data from teachers - interviews, questionnaires and

observation. Student data was also collected through questionnaires on student

perceptions and academic achievement through NCEA results. Data was collected in

three different school settings.

Evidence considered included coded teacher interview transcripts, organisational

learning questionnaires and trust questionnaires completed by teachers, and

observations of staff faculty meetings. As Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009)

suggested the impact of leadership could be increased by “closely integrating leadership

theories and practice with the evidence concerning effective teaching and learning” (p.

47), evidence considered also included student perceptions, and NCEA analysis by

faculties. The information gained from the teachers and students from questionnaires

was both quantitative (circle an option on a five point scale) and qualitative (comments).

The comments supported the numerical data and gave richer description.

The research indicates that teacher leadership capacity can be developed through

providing opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively in teams (Barth, 2007;

Muijs & Harris, 2007; Thornton, 2010; West-Burnham, 2004). Therefore, permission

was sought to observe various team meetings within the school setting as one aspect of

data collection. From this, data was collected through field notes.


22

When interviewing participants, it was important to outline the nature of the research,

the ethics protocol and then start with appropriate small talk to develop rapport with

participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), before launching into the questions and probes. It

was important to build relationship and put the participants at ease, as without trust and

mutual respect it would be difficult to gain the rich descriptive data we sought.

Interviews occurred with teachers and middle leaders/teacher leaders.

Semi–structured interviews with probes were utilised to gain understanding of different

perceptions within the school of ‘effective’ leadership. Interviews are powerful tools for

gaining understanding of what people are thinking and why, as questions and

supplementary probing questions can be asked. Interviews and observations were

utilised to get a greater “in-depth understanding of the topic or issue from the

participant’s perspective” (Mutch, 2005, p. 127). These methods were employed to

gather the rich descriptive data we were seeking. The researchers were then able to

write in an engaging style, quoting participant’s comments and drawing connections to

other research.

Semi-structured interviews were chosen over structured interviews as this allows the use

of probes to encourage participants to elaborate, and thus gain greater understanding. In

this context, the decision was made to not use focus groups, as participants may not talk

candidly about negative experiences of leadership when another person involved was in

the same room. It is believed that semi-structured interviews would give the researcher

the flexibility to use prompts to encourage elaborations and seek greater understanding

of experiences and perspectives and gain quality data through candid responses.

Trust is central to distributed leadership (Youngs, 2008; MacBeath, 2005) and West-

Burnham (2004) found that organisations that are high on trust tended to out-perform

those that were not, because “trust is the basis of personal and organisational

effectiveness” (p. 3). It was suspected that given the emphasis in the research on the

importance of trust, this could well be a factor to give consideration to, so utilising five

questions on relational trust developed by Bryk and Schneider (2002), a closed

questionnaire on relational trust with a five point Likert scale was used with teachers.

The questions were: Teachers in this school trust each other (Trusting and Collaborative

Environment); It’s okay in this school to discuss feelings, worries, and frustrations with

other teachers (Shared and Monitored Mission); Teachers respect other teachers who

take the lead in school improvement efforts (Risk Taking/Initiatives); Teachers at the


23

school respect those colleagues who are expert at their craft (Ongoing, relevant

professional development); and To what extent do you feel respected by other teachers?

(Relational trust).

As noted in the literature review, there is much support for a positive relationship

between transformational leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour across

different settings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). For this study the

organisational learning questionnaire (Mulford, Silins & Leithwood, 2004) was utilised

to collect data on school culture. It was expected that ‘effective’ leadership could not be

measured by student achievement alone, and improvement in school culture is a good

measure of ‘effective’ leadership. From the LOLSO (Leadership for Organisational

Learning and improved Student Outcomes) surveys, Mulford, Silins and Leithwood

(2004) found that organisational learning involved the sequential development of “a

trusting and collaborative climate, having a shared and monitored mission, and taking

initiatives and risks within the context of supportive, ongoing, relevant professional

development”(p. 5). Through the use of a closed questionnaire with a four point scale

(rarely, sometimes, often, nearly always), the four dimensions of organisational learning

(‘trusting and collaborative environment’, ‘shared and monitored mission’, ‘risk-

taking/initiatives’ and ‘ongoing and relevant professional development’) were measured

in this study as teacher participants were interviewed. The questions are presented in

Table 1.

Table 1: Teacher Organisational learning and Improved Student Outcomes

questionnaire

Q Statements: Circle the appropriate response below

1 Discussions among colleagues are honest and candid Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

2 There is mutual support among teachers Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

3 We actively seek information to improve our work Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

4 Colleagues are utilised as resources Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly Always

5 There is on-going professional dialogue among teachers Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

6 We disagree without becoming disagreeable Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

7 Teachers have the opportunity to participate in significant school-level policy decisions

Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly Always


24

8 We have a coherent and shared sense of direction Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

9 We critically examine current practices Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

10 Teachers and senior management work in partnership to learn and solve problems together


11 We share information with parents and the community Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

12 The effectiveness of teaching programs are regularly monitored Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

13 School leaders protect those that take risks Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

14 Senior management are open to change Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

15 School structures support teachers initiatives and risk-taking Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

16 Senior management empower teachers to make decisions Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

17 Teachers who show initiative are recognised, acknowledged and appreciated.


18 Teachers feel free to experiment and take risks Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

19 Teachers are valued Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly Always

20 We monitor what is happening beyond the school to find out about best practice


21 We make good use of professional readings Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

22 Groups of teachers receive training in how to work and learn in teams Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

23 We make good use of membership to teacher professional associations Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

24 We make use of external advisers Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly Always

25 Adequate time is provided for professional development Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always

26 Teachers engage in ongoing professional development Rarely Sometimes Often Nearly

Always Are there any comments you would like to make? To gain feedback on students’ perceptions, the Tripod survey was used (Table 2). This

student perception survey was used in the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET)

project with 3000 teachers in the USA, and was based on more than a decade of work

by the Tripod Project for School Improvement team led by Ferguson of Harvard


25

University. The primary measures of instructional quality in the Tripod surveys are

gathered under seven headings called the Seven C’s. The seven are: Care, Control,

Clarify, Challenge, Captivate, Confer and Consolidate. The Seven C’s are grounded

upon a great deal of education research by many researchers over the past several

decades. Researchers over many decades have suggested that students will engage more

deeply and master their lessons more thoroughly when their teachers care about them,

control the classroom well, clarify complex ideas, challenge them to work hard and

think hard, deliver lessons in ways that captivate, confer with them about their ideas and

consolidate lessons to make learning coherent. To ensure honest feedback for this study,

the Tripod surveys were administered confidentially, so that teachers could not tie

responses back to students. The questions are:

Table 2: The Tripod Questionnaire

1. My teacher in this class makes me feel that s/he really cares about me 2. My teacher really tries to understand how students feel about things 3. Students in this class treat the teacher with respect 4. Our class stays busy and doesn't waste time 5. My teacher has several good ways to explain each topic that we cover in this class 6. My teacher explains difficult things clearly 7. In this class, we learn a lot almost every day 8. In this class, we learn to correct our mistakes 9. My teacher makes lessons interesting 10. I like the ways we learn in this class 11. Students speak up and share their ideas about class work 12. My teacher respects my ideas and suggestions 13. My teacher checks to make sure we understand when s/he is teaching us 14. The comments that I get on my work in this class help me understand how to

improve

3.3.3 Improving the Method

To improve the quality of the questions, Study One involved interviews of three

teachers in one secondary school setting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The purpose of

this study was to improve the method.

One of the teachers interviewed was the Head of Faculty (HOF). This role included

responsibilities for resourcing, teaching and learning in a curriculum area. This middle

leader was expected to have a more direct influence on teaching and learning as an

instructional leader. One of the other teachers interviewed was a Specialist Classroom

Teacher (SCT). The SCT is a relatively new initiative whereby a teacher leadership role


26

is created within each secondary school by funding and a time allowance from the

Ministry of Education. The SCT role is strongly focused on learning, on finding ways

for teachers to have conversations about student learning and achievement in

classrooms. In effect, two of the three teachers interviewed were in teacher leadership

roles with a formal rather than informal position of leadership.

From the reflections on study one, changes were made to the method in these areas:

1. Reordering the semi-structured interview schedule

2. Selection of the open response statements for use in the semi-structured

interview.

3. Administration of student surveys

3.3.4 Reordering the Interview Schedule

During these interviews it became apparent that the order of the semi-structure

interview schedule needed to be modified to have these open-ended discussion prompt

statements following on from the discussion of perceptions of leadership and ‘effective’

leadership in particular. Originally the semi-structured individual interview had prompt

statements to give open-ended responses at the end of the interview.

The order of questioning was changed to package these responses in the middle of the

interview and have further questions about distributed leadership and teacher leadership

following on from these prompt statements. This change of order gave richer descriptive

data from the prompt statements and the questions that followed. The prompt statements

engaged the participants in further discussion which allowed them to give clearer

thought to the original questions about perceptions of leadership and ‘effective’

leadership in particular, so the participants were not coming in ‘cold’ so to speak.

3.3.5 Selection of statements for response

At the end of each individual semi-structured interview in study 1, participant teachers

were asked to give feedback on which statements resulted in the best discussion on

leadership in schools from their perspective or would have resulted in good discussion

for those statements not selected for the current interview. From this, the prompt

statements to be used were narrowed down to six foci (Table 3).


27

Table 3: Teacher Interview Schedule:

1. What does leadership mean to you? Key words to describe leadership? Characteristics? Qualities? Process?

2. Effective leadership a. Can you tell me a story/stories of a situation(s) where you experienced

effective leadership?

b. Can you tell me a story/stories of a situation(s) where you experienced ineffective leadership?

c. What made it effective? What made it ineffective?

d. What was the difference between these two experiences?

e. What are the characteristics of effective leadership?

f. How effective are your leaders? (HOD? Principal?)

3. Response to statements: a. “Leadership rather than leaders is what is needed”

b. “Educational leadership is leadership that causes others to do things that can be expected to improve educational outcomes for students”

c. “Effective leadership is a social influencing process and is ‘fluid’ rather than positional: i.e. depending on the expertise and skills required, different individuals can exercise leadership”

d. “When school professionals trust one another and sense support from parents, they feel safe to experiment with new practices”

e. “People take risks in an environment where mistakes are not seen as a mark of failure, but as an opportunity to learn”. Teachers are then more likely to have the confidence to take up leadership opportunities.

f. “Leaders who show regard for others and treat them with respect, and are seem by them as having integrity and respect, are trusted. Such leaders can foster the levels of inquiry, risk-taking and collaborative effort that school improvement requires”

4. Distributed Leadership Who is responsible for making leadership decisions in your school?

Why is this? Does this vary? Has this changed?

5. Teacher Leadership Initiatives - to what extent are you/teachers able to take initiatives (new ideas/methods…) or initiate decisions in your school? What supports are there to these initiatives? What obstacles/barriers are there to these initiatives?

Opportunities - what opportunities have you/teachers had to lead? How did this occur? What context?


28

3.4 Administration of Student Perceptions Survey

Research into school improvement has been criticised for only focusing on student

achievement data as evidence of ‘effective’ school improvement or ‘effective’

leadership and not taking account of other potential educational outcomes such as

student welfare, socialisation and self-esteem (Bush, 2008). Data on student

achievement data based on standardised and/or national testing is easier to gather, but

for this study we wanted to collect student voice and perceptions as valid outcomes as

well.

Prior to the interview, each participant teacher was asked to administer a student

perceptions survey based on the Measures of Effective Teaching project (Gates

Foundation, 2010) to one class. These data was then analysed after the interviews and

was shared with individual teachers in a subsequent meeting to coach teachers how to

use this as a reflective tool to gain feedback to improve teaching and learning. Teachers

appreciated the feedback they received through this tool and this seemed to fit with the

philosophy that educational research should help a school to improve, as Frost (2006)

argues it is “unethical to carry out research that has no direct and immediate benefit to

the subjects of that research” (p. 2).

There was a perceived potential problem to be overcome to ensure integrity with the use

of a five point response scale on the student surveys, to reduce the number of students

that just elect to go down the middle with a three option for all responses with

apparently little thought. Hence, it was decided that when talking to Heads of Faculty

(HOF) about administering the student surveys and passing this information to the

teachers within their department involved in this research, the following suggestions

would be made:

1. That the teacher administering the survey encourage the students to give

considered responses by making a comment such as “this is to help us to

improve the teaching and learning in this class”.

2. Students need to be given adequate time to give thoughtful responses – suggest 5

to 10 minutes at the end of a class. Students should not be rewarded for finishing

quickly and be allowed to go early, but must remain for the entire 10 minutes

and endeavour to right at least one suggestion at the bottom of the page.

From the results from the student surveys in study one, it appeared that the feedback

from senior students was more positive towards their teachers than the responses from


29

junior students. This may well reflect the difference between compulsory subjects at the

junior level and optional subjects for the senior students, or this may reflect the

difference in maturity between younger and older students. To investigate and mitigate

these effects, it was decided that the questionnaires would be administered to both a

junior class (Y9 or Y10) and a senior class (Y11 to Y13) by each participant teacher.

3.5 Data Analysis

Data analysis was both qualitative and quantitative. Using a qualitative approach, field

notes were taken with observers’ comments, and interview notes were coded and from

these codes, emerging themes/categories were identified. The identified themes then

helped to focus subsequent observations.

Quantitative analysis of the closed response questionnaires also occurred. Codes

developed from interviews with teachers were quantified into frequency distributions to

make comparison between teachers. Mean responses from teachers on Organisational

Learning dimensions and Relational Trust were calculated. A maximum-likelihood

factor analysis was used on the measures of instructional quality in the Tripod surveys

(called the Seven C’s). A multivariate analysis of variance was used to see if there were

mean differences across the 7 C-scales, and an estimate of the reliability for the 14 items

in the student perceptions tripod survey was also calculated.

Coding categories were not pre-assigned, but were identified from the observations of

what participants did and said. To ensure the coding was reliable, the coding of the

questionnaires was checked by the research supervisor and changes were made where

necessary. As codes were accumulated and sorted into themes/categories, the analysis

move from the particular to the general and from the descriptive to the interpretative

(Larkin, 2011). This form of analysis is an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, as

the aim is to offer insights into how the teachers in their school context make sense of

leadership and teacher leadership in particular.

3.6 Rigour, Trustworthiness and Validity

Larkin (2011) argued that in qualitative reports it is important that the interpretations are

transparent and plausible. To achieve this transparency, the reported findings included

extended quotations of participant voice alongside the interpretations. This also allows

the reader to check the validity of the interpretations by comparing the raw data with the

interpretations made by the researcher.


30

Triangulation has been adopted as a way to make qualitative research “more objective

and less subjective” (Lichtman, 2006, p. 195). Triangulation refers to the idea that

multiple sources (Davidson & Tolich, 1999; Lichtman, 2006; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998)

or multiple perspectives (Stake, 2003) bring credibility to an investigation. This study

has data triangulation and environmental triangulation, in that data was collected from

different sources (observations and interviews) and different locations or settings

(Lichtman, 2006). Observations and interpretations in this study were validated through

triangulation of multiple settings and multiple sources of data, as well as comparison

(Stake, 2003) with other case studies.

Another way to evaluate rigour is to look for evidence of a transparent analysis, where

the researcher is aware of the context and owns their own perspective and reflects on

possible subjectivity and bias in their interpretations. The researcher did this by showing

awareness of context and using plenty of participant voice. When this honesty and

transparency is combined with a credibility which is established by linking to relevant

research and use of participant voice, the research is not only rigorous and trustworthy,

it is also an engaging experience for the reader.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

Research ethics can be thought of as the moral or appropriate way of acting in the

process of research. This moral code helps establish relationships with those involved.

Tolich and Davidson (1999) stated that “ethics is a process more than a problem to be

resolved [and] you must think about ethics at every step of your research, from its

design, right through to what you report in your findings” (p. 87).

The most pressing ethical issues to be addressed in this study was in relation to gaining

permission and access, gaining informed consent, and assuring confidentiality. The

main objective was to do no harm. As a student at the University of Melbourne, ethical

approval was sought and approved from the Human Research Ethics Committee before

undertaking any research that involves people. Once ethical approval was granted, the

researcher could then sought consent from the participants and began to collect data.

Bogdan and Biklen (2007) note that getting permission to conduct a study also involves

“laying the groundwork for good rapport” (p.85) and they suggest that meeting and

talking with participants may be necessary to gain approval. When making an approach

to a school Bogdan and Biklen suggest researchers should put people at ease by offering

a low-key explanation of their research and playing down their status. In this study,


31

possible school settings were identified by key informants, so positive approaches to the

school were well received. It may be that the researcher said something like “we have

heard great things about teacher leadership in your school and that is why we have come

to see you”. In gaining access, the researcher also assured the school that participants

can choose to read the transcribed interview notes and would receive a summary of the

results when they become available. To gain formal permission to proceed with the

research at each school, the Principal (on behalf of the Board of Trustees) received an

information sheet outlining the research with a process for giving approval clearly

outlined. The information contained in these sheets was similar to those provided to the

participant teachers.

Once the researcher gained access to the school, all participants were then informed

about the research. An information sheet was provided in plain language. With this

information sheet in hand, the participants were requested to give written consent to

participate in the research, as long as the consent form that they signed indicated that:

• they understood the information given.

• their participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time.

• they agreed to the publication of results with the understanding that their identity

would be preserved through the use of pseudonyms and limited description.

• they understood that information collected from observations and interviews

would only be viewed by the researcher and their supervisor.

• the data collected would be securely stored throughout the study and once the

study was complete, this data would be destroyed.

Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that information

would be kept confidential. Confidentiality was maintained during data collection and

in writing about the findings. The face-to-face interviews were conducted individually

and the details of the interviews were kept in confidence. Participants were reminded

about their rights to withdraw from the study and my contact address and phone number

as well as my supervisor’s contact details and the contact details of the Human Research

Ethics at The University of Melbourne were all provided if they required any further

information, or had any concerns. When reporting these findings, pseudonyms were

used for all participant teachers and their schools. Participants' were given a transcript


32

of the interview to check for accuracy, sign and return to me to store. Through all these

measures the researcher attempted to minimise the potential risks to the participants.

Chapter Four: Findings

33

Chapter Four: Findings 4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings on “teacher’s perceptions of

‘effective’ leadership” from the research that took place in three secondary schools in

Canterbury, New Zealand. Evidence considered included coded teacher interview

transcripts, organisational learning and trust questionnaires completed by teachers and

observations of staff faculty meetings. Student perceptions and NCEA analysis by

faculties were also considered.

To set the scene, an outline of one interview from each of the three schools is presented.

The analysis of teacher’s perceptions of leadership based on the coded categories will

then be discussed, before considering specific differences between perceptions of male

and female teachers, experienced teachers and less experienced teachers, Heads of

Faculty and classroom teachers, and then Maths and Science teachers and other

teachers. Finally, some main themes will be considered, including transformational

versus instructional leadership, male perceptions versus female perceptions, differences

on measures of organisational learning and trust measures, leadership actions that

influence commitment, and student perceptions of middle leaders.

4.2 Three Case Studies

4.2.1 Case Study One

The first case study comes from a female teacher that we will call Carla. Carla described

an effective leader as an effective communicator, who treats people with respect and has

good relational skills. This description was consistent with the characteristics of a

transformational leader, who has a focus on relationships

“I think it would be someone who relates really well to people and

treats them with respect, and communicates clearly, and is able to

think on their feet and be adaptable. So I would say a People

Person”.

When asked about the actions of leaders that increase or reduce commitment, Carla

referred to the importance of acknowledgement:


34

“So I think that I’m a person who likes to be acknowledged when

I've done something well, and I don't think that happens here all

that much, actually”.

Carla identified strongly with her faculty and the faculty leader:

“My Head of Department is a really important leader for me. I

know that I'm supposed to say the Heads of Houses but I don't

really have that much to do with them. You don't really see their

leading as being so obvious or active”.

When asked about shared planning, Carla commented:

“You see, I wouldn’t even know how to do that. [John] asked me if

I'd like to do some shared planning at the beginning of the year,

and I was really intimidated because I felt as though I didn't know

what to do, and he's really good and so I didn't want to let him

down by my part not being good enough. So I wouldn't even know

where to start with that”.

During the interview, Carla was asked to comment on a statement that linked trust to

experimenting with new teaching practices. Carla made the link between risk-taking and

a culture of trust:

“You do have to trust one another, you have to know that if you try

something and it doesn't work, it's a safe environment to do that

and no one's going to shoot you down and say ’She’s a really crap

teacher’“.

Carla was then able to make links between a culture of trust and risk-taking as a teacher

and the culture of trust we strive to create and maintain in the classroom to encourage

students to take risks as part of the process of learning:

“When I teach, I always say at the start of the year [with] ‘If I was

teaching you something that you already knew, that would be

stupid, so therefore I am teaching you stuff that you don't know,

and so therefore you are going to make mistakes.


35

You don't know it, and in order to make mistakes, you have to be

able to challenge yourself and you have to be able to give it a go.

Part of that is making mistakes, and it needs to be a safe

environment where you're not laughed at’ and all that stuff”.

At the end of the interview Carla was asked to identify the key characteristics of an

‘effective’ leader. This time she not only identified the relational aspects, but she also

identified vision, aspects of work ethic (reliable and hard-working), and key

dispositions related to trust (integrity) and respect (role model):

“Clear communicator; someone with vision and integrity; someone

who treats others with respect and is respected in return; someone

who's reliable and hard-working, and so all the characteristics that

they would want in others they need to have themselves, so a role

model of those things. Someone with ideas; someone who's able to

listen to other ideas; someone who's approachable”.

4.2.2 Case Study Two

The second case study comes from another female teacher in another school we will call

Leah. Leah is a middle leader as she is the Head of Faculty. These middle leaders had

quite different perspectives of who the leaders are in the school, identifying the formal

positional leaders such as the principal, but also identifying colleagues in their

department that show initiative and student leaders. When asked to identify the leaders

in the school, Leah commented:

“There's quite a few [leaders], not just the Principal. If I think

about my Department, I've got a number of emerging leaders - a

new teacher that is really making some good waves, again by being

onto it, thinking outside the box, and just being really organised

and being willing to be part of something, passionate about things

and doing it in a really, really positive way. There are students in

the school who are emerging leaders as well - some of them much

more advanced than some of the teachers in terms of their

leadership capabilities”.

When initially asked to describe leadership, Leah spoke of development, vision and

guidance. She spoke of developing people in her team and giving guidance towards

achieving a goal:


36

“Facilitation, I think... um... development, allowing the people that

work with me to develop in their own right. I suppose guidance -

having a bit of a holistic view of where I see the Department going,

and then guiding my team to that point as well”.

When asked to identify the key differences between ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’

leadership, Leah identified communication and enthusiasm:

“Communication would be a massive part of that. I'm sure they

both have (or had) visions that they saw the school going to, the

direction the school was travelling in, but whereas one perhaps

didn't share that very well, the other one did. I think the other thing

is enthusiasm. I didn't see the enthusiastic side of the second

Principal, whereas I do see the enthusiastic side and just the

energised side of the first Principal I was talking about”.

Later on, when describing why her leaders are effective, Leah mentioned

communication again, as well as transparency. It seemed that teachers’ perceived

effective communication to be an important characteristic of an ‘effective’ leader:

“Transparency and communication in the role are key.

There are so many issues that arise because somebody has got the

wrong end of the stick. And if you're upfront, you're transparent in

the way you're doing things, even if it's just a quick email or phone

call to say "I know you asked me to do this, I haven't been able to

because of this, it's still in my mind" or you contact a parent and

say "this situation has happened, I'm dealing with it, I'll let you

know the details". It just does make a difference, and I think

effective leadership is all about that”.

During the interview, Leah was asked to identify leadership actions that improved or

reduced her commitment to the school. The leadership actions that improved her

commitment to the school were role modelling and genuine recognition:


37

“If I'm seeing other people doing a really, really good job, it makes

me want to do a good job as well….. but equally there’s a lot of

teachers in the school who probably feel that they're not recognised

as well as they should be, for things that they do on a daily basis.

We're very good at celebrating. You can possibly see, although I

don’t have any here, our celebrate posters, where we celebrate lots

of stuff that the students do. I think there could be more staff

members on there”.

Leah then explained that it would be issues around trust that would reduce her

commitment to the school:

“For me personally, not wanting to come to school or not coming

to work because of a leadership thing would be some lack of trust

somewhere, where somebody might think that I've not done my job

properly in their eyes”.

As a middle leader, Leah was very intentional about developing leadership capacity

within her team by giving leadership opportunities to members of her team:

“One of my big drivers, as somebody that promotes, or tries to

promote Professional Development, I strongly feel that my teachers

should be encouraged to take a leading role in terms of the courses

they manage. So we do have - if you’re teaching a course with

more than one teacher involved in, I ask one of those teachers to

take the leadership in terms of managing that course. And it is

more than [the] managing process, but equally things like

moderation, and other things that we have to do as part of the

system in the school. They have to take leadership and facilitate

those kinds of meetings. So I do try to build in those, I do try and

share it round a little bit so that everybody has the opportunity to

build those... because it is a hard task, taking groups and

facilitating the meeting”.

Likewise, Leah recognised that her principal had been very purposeful about developing

leadership capacity through team environments. The principal had created professional

learning teams as safe environments where teachers could view mistakes as

opportunities to learn, and from these teams the teachers were afforded leadership


38

opportunities when they took the lead in reporting their learning back to their colleagues

in their faculties:

“The Professional Learning Teams are across Departments and

personally I don't know of anybody who’s felt unsafe in an

environment where they’re not working with people they work with

everyday. They've gone out and they've got members from the

Technology, the Arts, PE, all of the other big Departments and the

kind of expressive Departments in a room, working together to

learn together. And I think that is quite a safe environment…. most

of the school is really on board with making mistakes to be able to

learn, and therefore it is safe”.

4.2.3 Case Study Three

The third case study comes from a male teacher we will call Andrew. The two teachers

above tended to describe leadership with terms that were about trust, respect, guidance,

support, effective communication and relational aspects. While Andrew also described

leadership using ‘respect’, his other descriptors were quite different to what we might

expect to hear from a female teacher:

“Respect... authority... forward-thinking... enthusiastic”.

When asked to describe a situation where he had experienced effective leadership,

Andrew talked about the calm and understanding response of the senior leaders in the

school in the middle of the crisis caused by the significant earthquakes experienced in

Christchurch throughout 2011:

“We had quite good, effective leadership in terms of giving us time

away from school, instead of bringing us back when it wasn't

necessary. Especially from our Principal, recognising that there

were external factors we had to take care of first.

So there wasn't the pressure on...there wasn't this pressure of ‘we

have to have this meeting on this day’. It was more ‘if you can

make it - come. If you can’t - because we know some of the houses

are stuffed and things like that - don't’. And it was just the calmness

as well from Senior Management, when we were suffering from the

aftershocks as well”.


39

Later in the interview, Andrew again referred to leadership in the context of the

earthquakes that were affecting everyone in Christchurch, but this time he talked about

how he appreciated ‘strong leadership’, and being able to ‘trust’ leaders to make the

right decision in that context:

“Strong leadership in certain events, like earthquakes. Or other

things we've had around school - just... yeah. You can know that

they’re the person you can trust to make whatever decisions are

needed - but they can make [the] decision, and they're confident

within themselves on making decisions”.

When Andrew was asked to describe effective leadership, he referred to ‘effective

communication’, ‘being a role model’, ‘lack of bias’, ‘praise’ and ‘presence’:

“Effective leadership is sort of role modelling values and positive

behaviour. Going back to effective communication again - effective

leadership is also not having... trying not to have bias towards

groups of people…positive feedback - giving praise, but I also think

showing your face around school. I think that's very important”.

Andrew was also asked to identify what makes his Head of Faculty (middle leader)

effective. Andrew identified his ‘calmness’, ability to ‘think outside the square’, ‘clear

communication’, ‘administrative skill’, ‘presence’ and ‘flexibility’. Effective

communication and presence were themes that were recurring in this interview:

“The calmness, but also the way he thinks outside the square.

So if we've got problems - well not problems, but issues that we

need to... or frameworks that we're given to work in, he'll think

slightly outside of the square. Usually that will mean circumventing

some workload, which is quite good. I think... yeah no. I mean... I

definitely see him as my HOF leader, no doubt about it. There's

clear communication with him, he shows his face, he comes

around, he's very good with paperwork and in meetings. Also, he's

quite flexible - if there's no need for a meeting he won't have a

meeting”.

During the interview, Andrew described how there was the potential to lose respect for

leaders when the leaders were not willing to have the difficult conversations that need to


40

happen. The context Andrew referred to was a situation where there was a class of 35

students and a class of 15 students in the same line doing the same subject, but from his

perspective the principal was not willing to address the inequalities in workload as there

were strong personalities involved:

“I think - well, come on. You're a leader, you're paid to do it, I

know that you do lots of hours but this is where you've got to make

a decision… For me, I guess people have to earn the respect you

give you them….. And if it carries on, you can't help thinking... this

is not a strong leader”.

Andrew perceived a leader to be amongst other things a ‘manipulator’:

“A leader is a manipulator at times… If you want certain staff to be

in certain projects, then you will manipulate the situation, so you

will shoulder-tap some staff to do that, because you know they're

the best to do that job, or you might encourage them to apply….

that relationship between school and community... you've got to

manipulate it at times, to make sure that the relationship is still

seen in a positive light”.

At the end of the interview Andrew was again asked what effective leadership is. This

time his response was much broader. Clear communication and forward thinking were

still important, but this time he also included encouraging initiatives from teachers,

respect, knowing your limits and delegating:

“Clear communication... forward thinking - I still think that... I

think... probably I would change that now and have encouragement

of initiatives from just the general staff, what we were just talking

about. I think that I would include that in there…. respect - flying

both ways… also someone who knows when they can't do

something…. Knows their limits, and can delegate or bring in

something outside, or something into the decision-making, or to do

a job, or do a role. Knowing when to stand back”.

4.2.4 Summary of these case studies

When asked to identify who are the leaders within the school, 10 of the 14 teachers

questioned identified the formal leaders such as the principal, deputy principal(s), and


41

Head of Faculty. The teachers identified strongly with their department and had far

more dealings with their Head of Faculty as leader than their principal and were more

likely to identify their Head of Faculty as a positive leader than their principal that they

had limited interaction with.

The Heads of Faculty as Middle Leaders often had quite different perspectives of who

the leaders are in the school, identifying the formal positional leaders such as the

principal, but also identifying colleagues in their department that show initiative and

student leaders. We could see this in Leah’s response to the question “who are the

leaders in this school?” during the teacher interview.

Though the greatest potential opportunity for sharing ideas and resources occurs in what

Busher and Harris (1999) would call a ‘unitary’ department, a department where only

one area of subject knowledge is taught, it seems secondary teachers’ value their

autonomy and are so used to working independently, they are threatened by the prospect

of working together or working differently. Carla’s response to the opportunity of

working together on some shared planning was an example of this.

When asked about the actions of leaders that improve or reduce commitment, these

three teachers made comments about the importance of ‘acknowledgement’ and

‘recognition’. When asked to describe ‘effective’ leaders, these three teachers’

comments were consistent with the characteristics of a transformational leader, with a

focus on relationship. ‘Trust’ and ‘effective communication’ were mentioned

frequently. The male teacher, Andrew, also often referred to the need for an ‘effective’

leader to have a ‘presence’.

4.3 Overall Coding of Teachers

When the coded responses from the teachers’ interviews were combined, it was possible

to draw conclusions as to teachers’ overall perception of ‘effective’ leadership. It was

also possible to separate these responses to investigate differences between male and

female teachers, experienced and less experienced teachers, heads of Faculty and other

teachers, and teachers of Mathematics or Science as distinct from other teachers.

The overall claim from this analysis of the interviews is that secondary teachers were

seeking leaders they could ‘trust’ and ‘respect’, ‘communicated effectively’, ‘lead by

example’ and were ‘supportive (Table 4)’. These were clearly the top five

characteristics of ‘effective’ leaders based on teachers’ perceptions (and accounted for

almost 30% of all comments). That is, secondary teachers perceive effective leaders to


42

be people they can ‘trust’, who respect others, and are respected in return. These

effective leaders will be effective communicators who lead by example, are supportive,

have vision and both seek and give feedback in order to improve.

Table 4: Frequency of comments about the major comments by teachers about

leaders attributes

Code No. Code No. Trust 44 Approachable 11 Respect 39 Guidance 11 Effective communication 38 Initiatives supported 11 Role Model / Modelling / Lead by example

26 Teams / teamwork 11

Supportive 25 Acknowledge teachers 10 Vision 16 Honesty 10 Feedback / seek feedback 15 Integrity 10

Listens well 13 Leadership opportunities

10

Positive relationships 12 Organised 10 Relational qualities appear to be important to secondary teachers. These teachers

recognise that effective leaders are trustworthy, build relational trust, show regard for

others and earn respect. They listen well, are approachable and build and sustain

positive relationships. These leaders are people of integrity who are honest and well

organised. They build commitment by acknowledging teachers contributions, support

teachers who show initiative and utilise teams to provide professional development and

provide leadership opportunities to build leadership capacity.

4.3.1 Males versus Females

There were seven male teachers and eleven female teachers interviewed (Table 5). The

first thing to note is that there was a great deal of agreement between male and female

teachers on the characteristics of an ‘effective’ leader. ‘Trust’ and ‘Respect’ featured in

the top three responses for both male and female teachers and ‘Role Model / Modelling

/ Lead by Example’ featured in the top five responses for both male and female

teachers. A leader with ‘vision’ and a leader who sought and gave ‘feedback’ was also

valued by both male and female teachers.


43

Table 5: Number of comments about leadership from Males and Females

Males (7) Top coded Interview Responses

Females (11) Top coded Interview Responses

Code No. Code No. Effective communication 23 Trust 28 Respect 17 Respect 22 Trust 16 Supportive 19 Role Model/Lead by example 14 Effective communication 15 Feedback 6 Role Model/Lead by example 12 Initiatives supported 6 Guidance 11 Supportive 6 Approachable 10 Vision 6 Positive relationships 10 Decision maker 5 Vision 10 Fair allocation of resources 5 Seek feedback 9 Listens well 5 Acknowledgement 8 Presence 5 Teams/teamwork 8 Consults 4 Accountability 7 Courageous 4 Honesty 7 Expert skills 4 Initiatives/Innovation fostered 7 Inclusive 4 Integrity 7 Open door 4 Listens well 7 Opportunities to lead 4 Collaborative 6 Organised 4 Leadership opportunities 6 Risk taking supported 4 Organised 6 Passionate 6

While ‘effective communication’ was rated highly by both males and females, for male

teachers ‘effective communication’ was the most identified characteristic of an effective

leader. Distinct from their female colleagues, males were more likely to want effective

leaders to have a ‘presence’, to be ‘courageous’, to be ‘decision makers’ that ‘allocate

resources fairly’. From the interviews the male teachers commented:

“Good leaders must have the courage of their convictions, and they

must be prepared to sometimes make tough calls”.

“I look around the school and I look at things like Science, and I

think ‘How did they get to have so many resources and be so big?’

And I look at us in this old, tired part of the school that hasn't been

painted in donkey's years, and I dunno - I think the equity of things

across Faculties isn't that great”.


44

“My rule of thumb for the Head of Faculty is that everyone has a

Junior class, no one has more than two, you try and spread the

Senior Classes around. And when I see other faculties where you've

got part-timers with no junior classes, and Heads of Department

with no Junior classes, then I think you're abusing the power you

have as a leader there, and I don't think that's a good idea”.

“From my perspective, Senior Management doesn't do anything

[about unfair allocation of classes] because of the personalities

involved….I think - well, come on. You're a leader, you're paid to

do it, I know that you do lots of hours but this is where you've got to

make a decision….For me, I guess people have to earn the respect

you give you them”.

Female teachers identified ‘trust’ as the most important characteristic of effective

leaders. A ‘supportive’ leader was also more important to female teachers. Sometimes

teachers referred to terms such as ‘approachable’ or ‘honest’ in the interview, yet what

they were really talking about was whether or not they considered their leader to be

trustworthy:

“I think they need to be approachable - I think they need to

probably be quite straight up - not playing games, so you know this

is where you stand and this is what's going on. And I think honesty

helps - so you know if you communicate with them, you expect

honesty back. I think that provides a safe environment when you’re

dealing with someone in leadership, if you know there's an honesty

factor there”.

“A huge part of effective leadership is about how you interact with

the people that you're leading, and how you're able to... yeah, a lot

of it's about trust and respect, I think”.

“I think the effective way [of leadership] is.... I felt like I'd been

heard, and that I was important and... supported, yeah... whereas

the ineffective way, I just feel like I'm being ignored”.

Unlike their male colleagues, female teachers were more likely to want effective leaders

to be ‘approachable’, to give ‘guidance’ and to build and maintain ‘positive

relationships’.


45

“Effective leadership is having positive relationships between

people who have a mutual respect for one another….You don't have

to be in a position of leadership to be a leader, basically you've got

to have those attributes of being able to form positive

relationships”

4.3.2 More than Ten Years’ Experience versus Less Experienced

For experienced teachers (with more than ten years teaching experience) and less

experienced teachers (with 10 years teaching experience or less) there was agreement

that both groups of teachers sought leaders that were ‘trustworthy’, showed regard for

others and earned their ‘respect’. Both groups described an ‘effective’ leader as one they

can trust and respect (Table 6).

Table 6: Number of comments about leadership from teachers with less or more than

10 years experience

10 years experience or less More than 10 years experience Code No. Code No. Effective communication 27 Trust 20 Respect 24 Respect 15 Trust 24 Role Model / Lead by example 15 Supportive 16 Vision 13 Feedback / seek feedback 12 Effective communication 11 Role Model / Lead by example 11 Supportive 9 Guidance 9 Collaborative 8 Accountability 8 Teams/teamwork 8 Approachable 8 Initiatives/Innovation fostered 7 Clarity 8 Listens well 7 Positive relationships 7 Presence 7

For the less experienced teachers, ‘effective communication’ was the most important

characteristic of ‘effective’ leaders and leaders that were ‘supportive’ and

‘approachable’ were valued more. This is consistent with earlier findings that less

experienced teachers value the emotional support and safety that formal leaders can

provide (Richards, 2007).


46

“He's always backing us up and checking on us, making sure that

everything... is flowing in terms of class management, work

management, workload. He's always just... I guess looking after us

from all aspects”.

For the more experienced teachers, they wanted a leader with ‘vision’, who ‘listens

well’, ‘encourages innovation’, works ‘collaboratively’, and works with and through

teams to provide professional development and leadership opportunities. For the

experienced teachers it was not the support from the leaders that was of prime

importance, but the way that the leaders worked with them.

“My previous principal - when they had leadership meetings, they

co-constructed what the school... she didn't come in with what the

school was going to be - it was all co-constructed around things

that... this is where I take us from last year, this is where we got...

what do we need to work on now? You could actually see the

planning going on the whiteboard, and then from that the team

picked out what the goals were going to be. You could definitely

see it was collaborative in nature”.

4.3.3 Heads of Faculty versus Classroom Teachers

It was suspected that Heads of Faculty, as middle leaders, may have a different

perspective on leadership than the classroom teachers that do not have formal leadership

roles. Barnett and McCormick (2004) referred to a bias in leadership perceptions of

teachers, as perceptions of leaders who work closely with a principal may be quite

different to the perception of classroom teachers who may not work as closely with a

principal. The theory would then be that teachers’ perceptions of leadership is affected

by their proximity to the exercise of leadership and understanding around leadership

decisions made. Certainly, we have already indicated that classroom teachers identified

strongly with their department and had far more dealings with their Head of Faculty as

leader than their principal and were more likely to identify their Head of Faculty as a

positive leader than their principal that they had limited interaction with.

“My Head of Department is a really important leader for me. I

know that I'm supposed to say the Heads of Houses but I don't

really have that much to do with them. You don't really see their

leading as being so obvious or active”.


47

There was a great deal of agreement between these groups on the top four

characteristics of 'effective' school leaders. When identifying ‘effective’ leaders, ‘Trust’,

‘Respect’, ‘Leading by Example’ and ‘Effective Communication’ featured in the top

responses from both Heads of Faculty and Other Teachers (Table 7). ‘Trust’ was the top

identified coded response in the interviews by both groups of teachers, with ‘Effective

Communication’ more important to the classroom teachers and ‘Leading by Example’

more important to the Heads of Faculty.

Table 7: Number of comments about leadership from Heads of faculties and other

teachers

Heads of Faculties Other Teachers Code No. Code No. Trust 14 Trust 30 Respect 10 Effective communication 29 Role Model / Lead by example 10 Respect 29 Effective communication 9 Supportive 21 Vision 9 Role Model / Lead by example 16 Teams/teamwork 7 Approachable 11 Collaborative 6 Feedback / seek feedback 10 Decision maker (evidence based) 6 Accountability 9 Supportive 5 Guidance 9 Consults 4 Listens well 9 Distributed leadership 4 Positive relationships 9 Fair allocation of resources 4 Acknowledge teachers 8 Hard working 4 Open door 8 Honesty 4 Honesty 7 Initiatives/Innovation fostered 4 Initiatives supported 7 Integrity 4 Organised 7 Leadership opportunities 4 Presence 7 Listens well 4 Vision 7

A ‘supportive’ leader was identified more by the classroom teachers. The teachers

identified a number of relational factors very highly, including ‘approachable’, ‘listens

well’ and ‘positive relationships’. A leader who gives and seeks ‘feedback’ and

provides ‘guidance’ and ‘accountability’ was also identified frequently by the classroom

teachers.

In contrast, the Heads of Faculty frequently identified a leader with ‘vision’, who

‘consults’ and works ‘collaboratively’ and is a ‘decision maker. These leaders work

through and with teams to make decisions and build leadership capacity.


48

“[A leader is] somebody who makes a final decision, after listening

to the views of others”.

The teachers identified the relational factors highly, while the HOFs as leaders

themselves, placed more value on the way the leaders worked – consulting, making

decisions and working collaboratively.

4.3.4 Subject matter

As the interviews with teachers took place it seemed there were some distinctive

responses given my Mathematics and Science teachers when compared to responses

from other teachers. Initially it seemed that Math and Science teachers valued clarity

more than other teachers. To investigate these differences further, the coded responses

from the interviews given by teachers in these curriculum areas were compared with

other teachers (Table 8 and 9).

There was a great deal of agreement by the Mathematics teachers and the other teachers

that 'effective' leaders are characterised by ‘trust’, ‘respect’ and ‘effective

communication’. They also both agreed that these leaders were ‘supportive’, ‘lead by

example’, ‘listened well’ and ‘supported initiatives’.

Table 8: Number of comments about leadership from mathematics and other teachers

Mathematics teachers Other teachers Code No. Code No. Trust 15 Effective communication 29 Respect 13 Trust 29 Role Model /Lead by example 10 Respect 27 Effective communication 9 Supportive 16 Supportive 9 Feedback / seek feedback 14 Integrity 7 Role Model / Lead by example 13 Acknowledge teachers 6 Vision 13 Approachable 5 Positive relationships 12 Listens well 5 Guidance 9 Accountability 4 Open door 9 Consults 4 Leadership opportunities 8 Decision maker 4 Listens well 8 Honesty 4 Teams/teamwork 8 Initiatives supported 4 Initiative supported 7 Passionate 4 Organised 7 Presence 7


49

The ‘leading by example’ characteristic was identified more by the mathematics

teachers and ‘effective communication’ was more important to the non-mathematics

teachers.

“I think you have to lead by example. I think there are times when

you can't, but I think where you can, you should show you're

prepared to do what everybody else is doing”.

“Well, leadership has to lead, but not drive. When I say drive - not

to be pushy, but... so there's examples of leadership by example,

innovation, things like that, and also to encourage, rather than

push. I believe once you get to push, then you get resistance, and

resistance is not good”.

“[Leadership is] leading by example, don't expect any more out of

your staff than you can do yourself”.

The mathematics teachers put greater focus on dispositional qualities (honesty and

integrity), the ability to make decisions (consults and makes decisions), and

accountability:

“You’ve got to be able to trust your leader, you've got to be able to

respect them, you've got to know that they’re not lying to you.”

“Hopefully I listen to people before I make a decision.”

“Well, they've got to be open and trustworthy, and lead by

example. Those are the key things that I see.”

In contrast to the mathematics teachers, the other teachers identified leaders with

relational skills (builds and maintains positive relationships, open to new ideas with

their open door policy, listens well, gives guidance) and leaders with ‘vision’ who were

‘organised’, sought and gave ‘feedback’ and had a ‘presence’. These 'effective' leaders

worked with and through ‘teams’ to ‘provide leadership opportunities’.

Science teachers identified ‘effective communication’ as the most important

characteristic of ‘effective’ leaders, followed by ‘trust’, whereas for other teachers it

was ‘trust’ followed by ‘respect’. Leaders who ‘listened well’ and provided ‘leadership

opportunities’ were identified as 'effective' leaders by Science teachers.


50

Table 9: Number of comments about leadership from Science and other teachers

Science teachers Other teachers Code No. Code No. Effective communication 11 Trust 37 Trust 7 Respect 34 Listens well 6 Effective communication 27 Leadership opportunities 5 Supportive 23 Respect 5 Role Model / Lead by example 21 Role Model / Modelling 5 Feedback / seek feedback 12 Vision 5 Approachable 11 Clarity 4 Vision 11 Open to other's ideas 4 Guidance 9 Teams/teamwork 4 Initiatives supported 9 Integrity 9 Positive relationships 9

Science teachers do not prioritise ‘supportive’ and ‘approachable’, as their non-science

colleagues do, but they do value leaders with ‘vision’ who provide ‘clarity’. For

example, in one of the interviews with a science teacher the teacher often referred to

‘effective’ leaders who provide clarity through effective communication:

“You always get the feeling she's trying to keep the staff and school

well informed about what's going on around them…

The reason why I see that as good leadership skills is that as an

individual teacher, you don't feel as though you’re the last person

to know…. If you're not personable, then you're going to struggle to

get your ideas or concepts across….. She is always good at letting

us know when they’re on and what needs to be done for them….

He's really good at keeping us up-to-date with what's happening…

he's really good at passing on that information…. keeping you

informed of the little things or the big things you need to do, and

giving you clear timeframes”.

4.3.5 School Differences

There were 18 teachers from three Canterbury schools involved in this research study.

There were 262 codes developed from interviews with teachers and 636 coded


51

comments altogether. There was a great deal of agreement between these schools on

what an ‘effective’ leader is, with ‘Trust’, ‘Respect’ and ‘Effective Communication’ as

the top three coded responses on 'effective' leadership from each school (Table 10).

From the comments made in the interviews by teachers and the feedback on the

relational trust questionnaires, it was clear that School A experienced issues of lack of

trust between teachers, and ‘trust’, ‘respect’ and ‘effective communication’ were all top

responses with very little between them. Beyond these top responses, the teachers from

this school identified ‘effective’ leaders that were ‘supportive’, ‘approachable’ and

‘honest’. Teachers at School A were largely looking for relational aspects in an

‘effective’ leader.

Table 10: Number of comments about leadership compared across schools

It can be seen in Figure 1 that School B had a higher frequency of coded responses on

‘trust’ and ‘respect’ than any other school. Beyond the top 3 responses, teachers at

School B identified a number of features of 'effective' leaders, including building and

maintaining ‘positive relationships’, ‘listening well’, ‘leading by example’, being

School A School B School C Code No. Code No. Code No. Effective communication 11 Respect 18 Trust 16

Trust 11 Trust 17 Effective communication 14

Respect 10 Effective communication 13 Respect 11

Role Model/Lead by example 7

Positive relationships 9

Role model / Lead by example 11

Supportive 7 Seeks feedback 7 Supportive 11

Approachable 6 Listens well 7 Initiatives supported 6

Honesty 6 Role model / Lead by example 7 Consults 5

Accountability 5 Supportive 7 Presence 5 Integrity 5 Teams/teamwork 7 Passionate 5 Vision 7

Problem Solving 5 Leadership opportunity 6

Vision 5 Clarity 5

Get to know staff on a personal level 5


52

‘supportive’, seeking and giving ‘feedback’, working with and through teams for

professional development, providing ‘leadership opportunities’, and having a sense of

‘vision’. Teachers in School B could see many of these leadership qualities in both their

Principal and in their Heads of Faculty. Beyond the top 3 responses, teachers at School

C identified 'effective' leaders who ‘lead by example’, ‘supported initiatives’, had a

‘presence’, were ‘supportive’ and ‘consultative’.

Figure 1: Number of comments from the teachers coded by the three schools

4.4 Faculty Meetings

Six meetings across two different faculties within each school were observed. In half of

the observed faculty meetings, the Head of Faculty lead the meeting from the front of

their classroom. The teachers in these meetings were seated and largely passive. The

Hoof would stand at the front of the room and dominate the discussion and did not seem

to effectively draw other teachers into participating. There was a very low rate of

contribution from teachers when meetings were run this way.

In these meetings it seemed the main concern was to get through the meeting as soon as

possible. The opportunity for collaboration and ownership of decisions was missed. In

most cases, the way these meetings were run reflected the leadership style of the HoF

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

A

B

C


53

and in most cases these were Mathematics faculty meetings. Comments made by

teachers in the interviews reflected these frustrations with the HOF’s leadership style:

“He's very well-meaning, but sometimes a little too... stuck in the

way that he thinks things are going to be done, or what's best, so

not always willing to consider that there might be some other

options”.

“My frustrations with him is that he doesn't delegate - so in a way

he's not doing his leadership job, because he's letting another

leader get away with doing nothing, so we're not moving forward

as we should be”.

The other half of the meetings that were observed were much more collaborative and

collegial. Teachers sat together in a group with the HoF, a clear agenda was provided,

food was available, nearly all teachers contributed to discussions and they did so in a

very collegial way. Rather than a meeting dominate by just discussion, teachers were

involved in activities within the meeting that they could then take back to the classroom.

These meetings had a much more inviting atmosphere and at times there was quite a

busy ‘buzz’ with all teachers involved in an activity. Teachers with limited experience

were also given opportunity to lead aspects of one of the observed meetings. It was later

discovered that this opportunity was intentional leadership development by the HoF.

Again, these meetings were a reflection of the leadership of these HoFs, and in these

cases the leadership was collaborative, respectful, organised, worked with and through

teams, and provided leadership opportunities.

When the teachers’ coded interview responses on their perspectives of ‘effective’

leadership were split into these two groups (based on HoF more formal and more

collegial), it was found that regardless of the leadership style they experienced, teachers

in both groups desired a leader who is trustworthy, who is respected and shows respect,

who communicates effectively, leads by example and is supportive (Figure 2). To

illustrate how often these responses came up, here are some examples of how teachers

described ‘effective’ HoF leadership in their interviews:

“Leading by example, making holistic decisions with vision, fair

and sound communicator”.


54

“I think leadership is having a mutually respectful relationship

with someone who can guide you through challenging

circumstances.

I think respect is integral to leadership, and the basis of respect is

positive relationships”.

“It would be around trust, the importance of communication, and a

level of strength and confidence - knowing what they’re talking

about”.

“A clear communicator; somebody who is fair and consistent;

somebody who holds people accountable…someone that is visible

and approachable; ….someone who is really a competent

practitioner themselves, who can lead by example”.

Figure 2: Number of comments from the teachers relating to the more formal and

more collegial Heads of Faculty

Beyond these areas of agreement, Table 11 provides the coded responses from the

interviews sorted by formal and collegial HoFs. Teachers observed in the formal

meetings were seeking a leader who is honest, approachable, has integrity and works

collaboratively. From their meetings they would not be getting the collaboration they

were seeking and their HOF may have appeared to be not very approachable as their

HOF was dominating discussion. In contrast, the teachers that were in the more

collegial meetings where collaboration was already occurring sought ‘effective’ leaders

who had a sense of vision, provided guidance, listened well and built positive

relationships, working with and through teams.

05

1015202530

Resp

ect

Effe

ctiv

e…Tr

ust

Supp

ortiv

eRo

le M

odel

/…Fe

edba

ck /

seek

…Po

sitiv

e re

latio

nshi

psVi

sion

Gui

danc

eLi

sten

s wel

lTe

ams/

team

wor

kCl

arity

Initi

ativ

es/I

nnov

ati…

Lead

ersh

ip…

Ope

n do

orPr

esen

ceAp

proa

chab

le…

Inte

grity

Colla

bora

tive…

Hone

sty

Ackn

owle

dge…

Pass

iona

te…

Collegial

Formal


55

Table 11: Number of comments about leadership from teachers with more collegial

and more formal HoF

Collegial Team Meeting Formal Team Meeting Code No. Code No. Respect 25 Trust 22 Effective communication 24 Respect 15 Trust 23 Effective communication 14 Supportive 13 Role Model / Lead by example 14 Role Model / Lead by example 12 Supportive 12 Feedback / seek feedback 11 Approachable 8 Positive relationships 10 Integrity 8 Vision 10 Collaborative 7 Guidance 8 Honesty 7 Listens well 7 Acknowledge teachers 6 Teams/teamwork 7 Passionate 6 Clarity 6 Vision 6 Initiatives/Innovation fostered 6 Leadership opportunities 6 Open door 6 Presence 6

4.5 NCEA Analysis by Faculties

As noted in the Method Chapter, in New Zealand secondary schools the primary

qualification for Y11 to Y13 (15 to 18 years) students is the National Certificate of

Educational Achievement (NCEA). For each faculty, the performance of students in the

externally assessed NCEA examinations was compared to the national pass rates and

national rates of achievement at the Merit and Excellence level.

There was a significant improvement in pass rates and endorsement rates from 2010 to

2011 in all faculties, though this increase was more notable in the English, Science and

Social Science faculties than it was in the Maths faculties. For example, in one faculty

the Level One endorsement rate (percentage of merit and excellence passes) increased

from 44% to 68.3%, and in another faculty the Level Three endorsement rate increased

from 22% to 48.4%. This is what some are calling the ‘earthquake effect’. There was

considerable disruption to class time with school closures due to earthquakes and

aftershocks and this lead to high levels of stress for many students, particularly as they

had to travel significant distances to share school sites and facilities following the

damage of school buildings from the earthquakes. The Christchurch students were not

expected to achieve as well in the NCEA external examinations in 2011, but against all


56

odds the Christchurch students outperformed student NCEA external results in all other

regions in New Zealand.

It could very well be that the teachers were more ‘caring’ and more in tune with the

needs of students following these earthquake events. This would certainly explain the

mathematical discrepancy as the analysis of the student surveys showed that the

mathematics teachers in this research study often had ‘caring’ as a weakness rather than

a strength of their teaching, so while other teachers were more caring and gained

significant improvements in NCEA achievement in external examinations, the

mathematics faculties did not make the same significant gains, as most of these teachers

did not have strengths in the ‘caring’ dimension. Such speculation, of course, needs

further research.

When comparisons were made between schools by looking at achievement in NCEA

external assessments in comparative faculties (for example, English vs. English), it was

found that academic performance was stronger in School B than School A, and

academic performance in School C was also stronger that academic performance in

School A (thus highest in C then B then A). The issues with lower levels of trust

between teachers and the less collegial faculty meetings observed in School A, were

indicative of a group of professionals that were not working together as effectively to

optimise student achievement, and this bears out in the comparative NCEA analysis.

In contrast, the teachers in school B and school C could see many of the leadership

qualities they desired in both their Principal and in their Heads of Faculty. The middle

leaders in school B and school C were more likely to run collegial meetings that were a

reflection of the leadership style of these HOFs - the leadership was collaborative,

respectful, organised, worked with and through teams, and provided leadership

opportunities. Schools B and C had superior academic achievement as measured by

NCEA achievement in externally assessed achievement standards.

4.6 Some Main Themes from the Interviews and Faculty meetings

4.6.1 Leadership actions

School leaders can foster teachers’ organisational commitment by being more aware of

how their behaviour affects teachers’ organisational commitment. To assess how the

actions of leaders impact on teachers’ commitment to the school, teachers were asked

“What do the leaders in this school do that either improves or reduces your commitment

to the school?”


57

When it comes to key actions by leaders that reduce teachers’ commitment to the

school, the teachers identified situations where their ideas were not valued or their ideas

were dismissed:

“If I come up with a good idea and it's ignored, I'm like Gee,

great…”

“Well you feel that you're undervalued, where you feel that your

opinion is worth less than somebody else’s, just because it's your

opinion, as opposed to being thought of as an opinion of equal

value”.

“A good way for a leader to destroy your sense of satisfaction is to

devalue what you do, and to focus too much on criticism and not

enough on praise. People need to be affirmed, they need to be told

(even if it's obvious) that they’re doing a good job”.

The teachers identified ‘acknowledgement’ or ‘recognition’, and being ‘listened to’ or

‘heard’ or ‘understood’ as the leadership actions that improve commitment. The

teachers wanted acknowledgement/recognition for their efforts and they wanted to know

that their leaders listened to, valued and understood their contributions.

“If they say to me ‘I hear what you're saying, I understand that, but

I’m going to do what I'm doing because of this, this, and this’, I feel

much happier with the process. I feel like the person has

acknowledged me, and listened to me, and said ‘Yes, I understand

what you're saying, but for these reasons that you haven’t

mentioned, I'm going to do this anyway’ ”.

“They value the opinion that I have, and so that creates good

satisfaction for me”.

“They're very good at acknowledging when you've done something

extra and thanking you for it - it might be just an email or a

personal , face-to-ace ‘thanks for that’, or it might be a little

handwritten note from the Principal in your pigeonhole.”

Through transformational leadership, school leaders can develop and foster positive

feelings and attitudes of teachers regarding their vocation, and it simply comes down to

recognition and valuing the ideas and opinions of teachers by listening well.


58

Just as the most effective teachers put great emphasis on the student-teacher relationship

(Gay, 1995), it seems the most effective leaders build organisational commitment by

moving towards a relationship built on caring, where trust, respect, honesty, open

communication and regard for others is evident.

Blasé (1993) found that the strategies and goals employed by effective school leaders

were consistent with the professional norms and values of teachers. The most common

strategies were control oriented and included modelling (optimism, consideration and

honesty), use of rewards, praise, visibility, support and communication of expectations.

From this New Zealand study, recognition and praise were identified as leadership

actions that improved commitment, while modelling was an important perceived quality

of ‘effective’ leaders, with ‘Role Model / Modelling / Leading by example’ consistently

identified as one of the top five coded responses from teachers in the interviews:

“Role modelling. If I'm seeing other people doing a really, really

good job, it makes me want to do a good job as well”.

“They have got to be open, and trustworthy, and lead by

example.”

“[Leadership is] someone that leads by good example. A suitable

role model, and acts appropriately and does the right things based

on holistic judgement”.

Leaders who provide supportive feedback and are willing to collaborate on ideas are

likely to have committed teachers in their schools (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Reyes &

Pounder, 1993; Weiss, 1999). Certainly, from this New Zealand study, the school where

teachers consistently identified very effective leaders at various levels throughout the

school, was the school where the principal was not only open to feedback but actively

sought and gave feedback.

4.6.2 Transformational versus Instructional/Pedagogical leadership

Transformational Leadership focuses on the relationships between adults, whereas

Instructional or Pedagogical Leadership focuses on teaching and learning.

Transformational leaders work with and through others to achieve goals rather than

exercising control over others. When the secondary teachers did refer to pedagogical

leadership in their interviews it was often a negative comment about control or ‘micro-

managing’:


59

“He lets people do their own job and he doesn't micro-manage and

he doesn't come and nitpick and see what you're doing or how

you're doing it”.

While it has been mentioned that male teachers wanted courageous leaders who were

willing to have the difficult discussions and make decisions, and mathematics teachers

valued leaders who could make decisions and keep them accountable, for the most part,

secondary teachers in this sample really wanted autonomy – they wanted leaders to trust

them to get on with their job.

“Quite often I feel our leader doesn't give me a chance to do my

job”.

“I found that was effective leadership because I had an HOD who

gave us lots of scope, lots of opportunities, and the ability to choose

our own directions”.

When coding the teachers’ responses in the interviews, these codes were combined into

larger categories. The largest categories were called ‘Relational’, ‘Trust’ and ‘Respect’

with 113, 105 and 79 responses respectively (Table 12). These secondary teachers

valued leaders with a transformational style that focussed on trust, respect and relational

qualities.

Table 12: Number of comments relating to Transformational Leadership (Relational,

Trust, & Respect)

Relational (Total = 113) No.

Trust (Total = 105) No. Supportive 25

Trust 44

Listens well 13

Approachable 11 Positive relationships 12

Honesty 10

Guidance 11

Integrity 10 Open door 8

Reasonable expectations 7

Get to know staff on a personal level

5

Fair allocation of resources 5

Personable 5

Transparency 4 Connected 4

Fair and consistent 2

Open to other people's ideas 4

Rapport 2 Understanding 4

Relational Trust 2

Compassionate 2

Responsible 2 Getting everyone on board 2

Consistency 1

Loyal followers 2

Dependable 1 People focussed 2

Genuine 1


60

Accepting 1

Goodwill 1 Aware of strengths and weaknesses in team

1

Impartial 1

Build relationship 1

No blame environment 1 Check to make sure on same page

1

Respect (Total = 79) No.

Discern staff needs 1

Respect 39 Everyone on board 1

Role Model / Lead by example 26

Get faculties working together 1

Caring 3 Know staff's strengths and weaknesses

1

Value teachers' opinions / ideas 3

Knows their limits 1

Honest dialogue 2 Networked 1

Ideas are acknowledged 1

On the same page 1

Mentor 1 People first 1

Regard 1

Promote goodwill 1

Reliable 1 United team 1

Show regard for others 1

Walk the talk 1

Pedagogical Leadership with its focus on teaching and learning, incorporated codes

such as ‘focus on educational outcomes’ and ‘classroom focussed change’, but drew

only 21 responses in total from the 18 teachers interviewed (Table 13).

Table 13: Number of comments relating to Pedagogical Leadership

Attributes No. Focus on educational outcomes 5 Promotes professional development 3 Classroom focussed change 2 Effective educational leadership 2 Strategies to meet students’ needs 2 Makes a difference in the classroom 1 Pedagogical - helping us to get better 1 Targeted professional development 1 Encourage learning 1 Evaluate 1 Engagement 1 Monitoring 1

Mulford, Silns and Leithwood (2004) offered a clue as to what is going on here, in that

they found that organisational learning involves a sequential development where a

trusting and collaborative environment must first be established, then a shared and

monitored mission, and then taking initiative and risks within the context of supportive,


61

ongoing, relevant professional development. It would then be reasonable to suggest that

there is a sequential development from Transformational Leadership to Instructional

Leadership. “One needs to first get the personal/interpersonal, distributed, collective

teacher efficacy or trusting and collaborative climate ‘right’ … then it can be used to

focus on the educational/ instructional, including having a shared and monitored

mission” (Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood, 2004, p. 15). It is also worth noting that the

most negative comments about pedagogical leadership were made in the context of the

school environment where trust and respect had not been well established.

While it could argue that transformational leadership (with its emphasis on

relationships), and pedagogical leadership (which has a specifically educational

purpose) are both needed and are indeed complementary, until trust and respect are

established, a collaborative environment where teachers feel safe to take risks and be

innovative with their pedagogy may not be able to be established. There may be no

further development, as trust and respect are the foundation for functional relationships

and all learning is socially situated in that it involves interaction between people. The

right conditions for developing trust occur in team environments, as they provide

opportunities for collaboration and shared decision-making, especially when there is a

common focus on improving teaching and learning. The school that teachers identified

that had a number of very effective leaders at different levels within the school also had

very intentional school-based professional development based around teams and had

superior levels of achievement in NCEA external examinations. It seems this school

was further along the path of school improvement than the other two schools as trust

and respect had been intentionally developed through team environments.

4.6.3 Organisational Learning and Trust differences

It was suspected that ‘trust’ would be a key issue, so during the interviews, teachers

were given questionnaires to complete on Organisational Learning and Trust. The

Organisational Learning questionnaire was based on the LOLSO (Leadership for

Organisational Learning and improved Student Outcomes) questionnaire used in the

LOLSO research project in secondary schools in Australia. The trust questionnaire used

with teachers was Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) relational trust questionnaire.

Leadership contributes to organisational learning, which in turn influences teaching and

learning. Mulford and Silins (2003) found that the school leaders needed to have the

interpersonal skills of the transformational leader, staff needed to be actively and


62

collectively participating in the school, and feel that their contributions were valued.

This supports our findings in secondary schools in New Zealand on leadership actions

that improve teachers’ commitment to the school.

In their study in Australian secondary schools, Mulford and Silins (2003) found schools

where the teachers reported higher levels of organisational learning were more

successful in creating classroom conditions that students experienced positively. This

also proved to be true in this study, with the schools where teachers reported low levels

of organisational learning being less successful in creating classroom conditions that

students experienced positively, and the schools where teachers reported higher levels

of organisational learning being more successful in creating classroom conditions that

students experienced positively (Table 14).

Table 14: Means for the Organisational Learning scales

School Trusting and Collaborative Environment

Shared and Monitored Mission

Risk Taking / Initiatives

Ongoing, Relevant Professional Development

Relational Trust

Student Perceptions

A 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 3.8 3.8 B 3.5 3.1 3.3 2.9 4.3 3.9 C 3.4 3.3 2.9 3.0 4.1 4.1

Note: Organisational Learning on 4 point scale Relational Trust and Student Perceptions on 5 point scale Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2000) found that “collective teacher efficacy is a significant

predictor of student achievement … [and] is greater in magnitude than any one of the

demographic controls [including Socio Economic Status]” (p. 500). The same pattern

was found linking relational trust and positive perceptions of teaching ability by

students. The schools where the teachers reported high levels of relational trust with

their colleagues were more successful in creating classroom conditions that students

experienced positively, whereas the school that had lower scores from teachers for

relational trust was less successful in creating classroom conditions that students

experienced positively. There was a positive relationship between higher organisational

learning scores, higher relational trust scores and greater success in creating classroom

conditions that students experienced positively.

4.7 Student Perceptions of Teachers and HOFs

A child’s learning largely depends on the talent and skills of the person leading his or

her classroom. The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project found that the


63

difference in learning associated with being assigned a top quartile teacher rather than a

bottom quartile teacher was more than seven months — roughly two-thirds of a school

year. They also found that teachers with the highest value-added scores on state tests

also help students understand mathematical concepts or demonstrate reading

comprehension through writing. Surely it is then worth investigating the factors that

account for these differences.

From the first study it was suspected that there was a difference between student

perceptions of teachers’ success in creating positive classroom conditions depending on

whether the class was a junior secondary class (Y9 and Y10) where subjects were

compulsory, or a senior class (Y11 to Y13) where most subjects were optional. To

investigate this, the student tripod questionnaire used by teachers in the Measures of

Effective Teaching (MET) project in the USA was employed to get students’

perspectives of teacher quality (see Table 2). Each teacher had to administer this survey

to one junior class (Y9 and Y10) and one senior class (Y11 to Y13) and the analysis

was completed by the researchers.

There are 711 responses from students (School A = 249, School B = 221, and School C

= 241), responding to 18 teachers. The responses related to English teachers (243, 34%),

then Mathematics (229, 32%), Science (122, 17%), and Social Sciences (117, 16%).

The students came from Y9 (221, 31%), Y10 (176, 25%), Y11 (34, 5%), Y12 (151,

21%), and Y13 (110, 15%).

It was found that across all seven dimensions, the mean responses from students were

higher in the NCEA level (Y11 to Y13) classes than the junior classes (Y9 and Y10;

Figure 3). Students reported more overall positive classroom experiences during the

NCEA years (Y11 to Y13).


64

Figure 3: Mean responses to the 7 Dimensions from the Student Perceptions of

teachers by lower and upper secondary schools students

Using a multivariate analysis of variance there were statistically significant differences

across the 18 teachers, across the years (non-NCEA = Year 9-10, NCEA = Year 11-13).

The students rated the teachers higher on multiple and clear explanations (Clarify),

checking understanding (Consolidate), and respecting student ideas (Confer. The

students rated the teachers lower on not wasting time, teacher respect (both Control),

learning a lot (Challenge), and interest (Captivating). The scores for ‘Control’ were

particularly low and low scores in ‘Control’ and ‘Captivating’ often went together, and

when given feedback on this, teachers were encouraged to consider how these two are

linked.

In a large-scale study of the links between leadership, organisational learning, and

student outcomes in Australian high schools (Mulford & Silins, 2003), student

outcomes turned out to be the best school predictor of student engagement. In this study

it was found that the student perspectives of a teacher’s strengths and weaknesses in one

teacher’s class were a strong predictor of the teacher’s strengths and weaknesses with

another class, and student perceptions were more consistent in relation to predicting

teacher’s weaknesses (16 of the 18 teachers) than their strengths (13 of the 18 teachers).

From the emerging findings of the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project in

USA schools, they also discovered that when a teacher teaches multiple classes, student

perceptions of his or her practice are remarkably consistent across different groups of

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

Yr 9-10

Yr 11-13


65

students. In other words, when students report positive classroom experiences, those

classrooms tend to achieve greater learning gains, and other classrooms taught by the

same teacher appear to do so as well. Teachers seem to be consistent in how students

see them across classes.

Based on the feedback from students in the current study, the strengths of teachers with

junior classes (Y9 and Y10) and senior classes (Y11 to Y13) were generally in the

‘Clarifying’ and ‘Consolidating’ dimensions, with this being true for 15 of the 18

teachers with Junior classes and 12 of the 18 teachers with Senior classes. ‘Clarifying’

concerns teacher behaviours that promote understanding and was described by the

statements “my teacher has several good ways to explain each topic that we cover in

class” and “my teacher explains difficult things clearly”. ‘Consolidating’ concerns how

teachers help students to improve their understanding and was described by the

statements “my teacher checks to make sure we understand when s/he is teaching us”

and “the comments I get on my work in this class help me understand how to improve”.

Table 15: Teachers' strengths

Teachers’ Strengths

Cla

rify

5 My teacher has several good ways to explain each topic that we

cover in this class

6 My teacher explains difficult things clearly

Con

solid

ate 13

My teacher checks to make sure we understand when s/he is

teaching us

14 The comments that I get on my work in this class help me

understand how to improve

Teachers’ weakness with junior classes (Y9 and Y10) was ‘Control’, with this being the

case for 15 of the 18 teachers. With senior classes (Y11 to Y13) the weakness was a

combination of ‘Control’ and/or ‘Captivating’ for 14 of the 18 teachers. ‘Control’ was

about classroom management and was described by the statements “students in this

class treat the teacher with respect” and “our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time”.

‘Captivating’ was about teacher behaviours that make instruction stimulating, instead of

boring, and was described by “my teacher makes lessons interesting” and “I like the

way we learn in this class”.


66

Table 16: Teachers' weaknesses

Teachers’ Weaknesses C

ontr

ol 3 Students in this class treat the teacher with respect

4 Our class stays busy and doesn't waste time

Cap

tiva

te

9 My teacher makes lessons interesting

10 I like the ways we learn in this class

One of the advantages of the student surveys is that the information received by the

teachers from students is more specific and actionable than value-added scores or test

results alone. When students made comments about specific things the teacher could do

to improve, the extra qualitative feedback was particularly useful feedback for the

teacher and also served to reinforce trends in the data from the surveys. For example,

the feedback from students was often very constructive:

"Learn the way students learn and use this to help them".

“Our class has some rude members… be extremely firm on them,

they don't only waste your time, they waste mine too".

"I think our teacher tries to relate to us, but the students don't feel

like she cares about them".

"Make sure we understand what we are being taught".

Ferguson (2010) led the development of the tripod student perceptions assessment tool

for the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project and discovered some interesting

patterns in the data for a large sample of secondary school classrooms in USA that are

participating in the MET project. For English teachers, the quality that most strongly

distinguishes classes from one another appears to be ‘Captivation’, the second most

distinguishing dimension is ‘Challenge’, and the only additional distinguishing

dimension for English teachers is ‘Confer’. The findings from our New Zealand study

were quite different, with English teachers identified by strengths in ‘Consolidating’

and ‘Clarifying’, with weaknesses in ‘Control’ and ‘Captivating’. The English teachers

that did have strengths in the ‘Confer’ dimension were our HOFs and emerging leaders,

so English teachers with leadership potential were distinguished from other English

teachers by their tendency to confer with students, for example, by inviting them to

share ideas.


67

Ferguson (2010) also reported that the quality of teaching in mathematics classrooms

can be strongly distinguished from one another by the ‘Care’ and ‘Captivate’

dimensions. ‘Caring’ may be more important for Mathematics than for English, because

caring teachers are more effective at reducing mathematical anxiety. Apparently, the

capacity to clarify difficult mathematical concepts supports the communication of

caring and the ability to make lessons captivating. A frustrated teacher may

communicate less care; and mathematics that is confusing is unlikely to be captivating.

Interestingly enough, from this New Zealand study, all but one of the six mathematics

teachers in our sample had ‘Care’ and/or ‘Captivate’ identified as areas of weakness by

their students. The one teacher who had ‘Care’ as a strength, did so for both his/her

junior class and senior class and was identified as one of the top three teachers in this

sample in terms of students’ perceptions of their ability to create positive classroom

conditions. It seems this ‘Care’ dimension (or ‘Care’ combined with ‘Captivate’) may

be the way to distinguish between effective and ineffective mathematics teachers, as the

other mathematics teachers all had identified weaknesses in these areas and 4 of these 6

mathematics teachers were ranked in the lower half of the teachers in this sample in

terms of students’ perceptions of their ability to create positive classroom conditions.

It could be that the ‘Care’ dimension is the most effective way to distinguish effective

teachers, regardless of their curriculum area, as 2 of the top 3 teachers according to

students’ perceptions of their ability to create positive classroom conditions, were

teachers that had ‘Care’ as one of their strengths with both their junior and senior

classes. At the other end of the scale it seems teachers who received the most negative

responses in terms of students’ perceptions of their ability to create positive classroom

conditions, were teachers who had particularly low scores (mean scores less than 3.0)

for ‘Control’. The most effective teachers were particularly strong in the ‘Care’

dimension, while the least effective teachers were particularly weak in the ‘Control’

dimension.

Most (5 of 6) of the Heads of Faculty received the more negative perceptions by

students. When the teachers in this sample were ordered in relation to students’

perspectives of their ability to create positive classroom conditions, the last four

positions were all Heads of Faculty (HOFs) and there was only one HOF in the top half

of the ordered list. When these scores were combined with comments from the students,

the student voice tells us that students perceive that their HOFs are not able to

effectively manage their leadership responsibilities without this having a detrimental


68

impact on the quality of their teaching. Students report that HOFs are often late to class,

and the class often has relievers, so lacks the consistency of quality teaching they desire.

HOFs are under pressure and are not as prepared as they could be for their own classes -

they invest their time in helping others at the cost of preparing for lessons and

delivering consistent quality teaching. In one class, four students commented they were

concerned the teacher had taken on too many school responsibilities and as a result their

learning suffered, with too many relievers. They simply wanted their teacher in class

more often.

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Future Research and Conclusions

69

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Future Research and Conclusions 5.1 Importance of this study

There is a growing body of educational leadership literature on distributed,

transformational and pedagogical leadership, sustaining school improvement and

building leadership capacity in schools. While there have been a number of case studies

of teacher leadership in the USA and UK context, there is a need for contemporary

contextual study of teachers as leaders in New Zealand schools, as leadership is very

contextual and socially situated.

Muijs and Harris (2007) research on teacher leadership in the context of three case

studies from three very different schools in the UK, showed that there were similarities

in the context of this study, as teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership were

researched in three different secondary schools in Canterbury, New Zealand. Muijs and

Harris stated that while the quality of teaching has a strong influence on the motivation

and achievement of pupils, the quality of leadership has an indirect impact on pupil

achievement, as the quality of leadership determines the motivation of teachers and the

quality of classroom teaching. We know that with good leadership, the school

community benefits from better decision making, improved teaching practice, and

improved educational outcomes for students (Barth, 2007; Thornton, 2010).

This study is relevant as there have been contemporary contextual studies of teacher

leadership in the USA and the UK, and fewer in the New Zealand context – and

particularly in secondary schools. Robinson et al. (2009) stated that there has been very

little research into the roles of middle leaders such as heads of department in secondary

schools. This research addresses some of these gaps in the research by focussing on

secondary school settings and including a focus on the role of Heads of Faculties in

secondary schools as middle leaders. This study is also relevant as the NZ Ministry of

Education have identified development of leadership capacity as a priority and recently

made significant investments in developing leadership capacity through developing the

Aspiring Principals Program, the First Time Principals Program, and publishing the

‘Kiwi Leadership for Principals’. The Ministry of Education (2008) have formally

commented on the need to develop teacher leadership by saying that the principal is in a

critical position to lead change but cannot do it alone, so “empowering others


70

throughout the school to develop and exercise leadership roles and to share in the

leadership of change is both desirable and achievable” (p. 16).

Data were collected through interviews and observations in three different school

settings. The findings of the research will be shared with the participants and their

school communities, so the benefits will extend beyond the immediate school

community. It is expected that this contemporary contextual study of teachers’

perceptions of effective leadership in New Zealand schools will contribute greatly to

New Zealand research in this field, helping educational leaders in New Zealand schools

to understand how they can build leadership capacity in schools and sustain school

improvement.

To develop leadership capacity there is a need to understand what the effective

leadership qualities are and a need to gain quality descriptive information to understand

the perspectives of those being lead, in this case the teachers. Teachers can give us their

insights into the factors that encourage the development of leadership capacity and the

factors that act as barriers to the development of leadership capacity.

5.2 Key Findings

The overall picture from the teacher interviews is that when teachers are asked about

‘effective’ leadership the top five coded responses with the highest frequency are

consistently these: ‘Trust’; ‘Respect’; ‘Effective Communication’; ‘Leading by

Example’; and being ‘Supportive’. Overall, secondary teachers perceive effective

leaders to be people they can ‘trust’, who ‘respect’ others and are respected in return.

Effective leaders are good communicators who lead by example, are supportive, have

vision and both seek and give feedback in order to improve. Relational qualities are

important to secondary teachers. They listen well, are approachable and build and

sustain positive relationships. These leaders are people of integrity who are honest and

well organised. They build commitment by acknowledging teachers contributions,

support teachers who show initiative and utilise teams to provide professional

development and provide leadership opportunities to build leadership capacity.

Male teachers and female teachers agree on the top characteristics (trust, respect,

effective communication and leading by example), but beyond that it is more about

‘courageous’ leaders who have a ‘presence’ and ‘allocate resources fairly’ for male

teachers, while for female teachers it continues to be relational factors such as being

‘approachable’ and building and maintaining ‘positive relationships’ that are important.


71

While both the group of ‘experienced teachers with more than ten years experience’ and

the group of teachers with ‘ten years experience or less’ agreed on ‘trust’ and ‘respect’

as characteristics of an ‘effective’ leader, the less experienced teachers valued

‘supportive’ leaders, while the experienced teachers placed more value on the way the

leaders worked with them: listening well; encouraging innovation; and working

collaboratively through teams.

Classroom teachers and Heads of Faculty agreed that they wanted a leader they could

‘trust’ and ‘respect’, who ‘communicated effectively’ and ‘lead by example’. Beyond

that, the classroom teachers identified relational factors like being ‘supportive’ and

‘approachable’, while the Heads of Faculty as leaders themselves, placed more value on

the way they as leaders worked – consulting, making decisions, working

collaboratively. This finding was similar to the difference between less experienced and

experienced teachers and this should be no surprise, as Heads of Faculty tend to be

more experienced teachers.

While ‘trust’ and ‘respect’ were important to both mathematics teachers and other

teachers, the mathematics teachers identified the ‘leading by example’ characteristic as

important, while the non-mathematics teachers identified ‘effective communication’ to

be very important. The mathematics teachers put greater focus on dispositional qualities

(honesty and integrity), the ability to make decisions (consults and makes decisions),

and accountability, while the other teachers identified leaders with relational skills

(builds and maintains positive relationships, open to new ideas with their open door

policy, listens well, gives guidance) and leaders with ‘vision’ who were ‘organised’,

sought and gave ‘feedback’ and had a ‘presence’.

Science teachers were found to value ‘effective communication’, leaders who ‘listen

well’, ‘provide leadership opportunities’, have ‘vision’ and provide ‘clarity’. Science

teachers do not prioritise ‘supportive’ and ‘approachable’, as their non-science

colleagues do, but they do value leaders with ‘vision’ who provide ‘clarity’.

5.3 Major Themes

5.3.1 Leadership Actions and Organisational Commitment

Schools can improve teachers’ organisational commitment by being aware how their

behaviour as leaders affects teachers’ organisational commitment. In this study the

commitment of teachers was improved when school leaders gave acknowledgement /

recognition to teachers for their efforts and showed that they listened to, valued and


72

understood the contributions from teachers. Leaders reduced the organisational

commitment of teachers by not valuing their ideas or dismissing their ideas.

“A good way for a leader to destroy your sense of satisfaction is to

devalue what you do, and to focus too much on criticism and not

enough on praise. People need to be affirmed, they need to be told

(even if it's obvious) that they’re doing a good job”.

Leadership contributes to organisational learning, which in turn influences teaching and

learning. School leaders needed to have the interpersonal skills of the transformational

leader, staff needed to be actively and collectively participating in the school, and feel

that their contributions were valued (Mulford and Silins, 2003).

Just as effective teachers put great emphasis on the student-teacher relationship (Gay,

1995), effective leaders need to put great emphasis on utilising transformational

leadership to build organisational commitment by moving towards a relationship built

on caring, where trust, respect, honesty, open communication and regard for others is

evident. From this study in New Zealand secondary schools it was found that teachers’

wanted a leader that had the interpersonal skills of a transformational leader and their

commitment to the school was improved if they felt valued and understood by their

leaders.

“They value the opinion that I have, and so that creates good

satisfaction for me”.

Leaders who provide supportive feedback and are willing to collaborate on ideas are

likely to have committed teachers in their schools (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Reyes &

Pounder, 1993; Weiss, 1999). In this study, the school where teachers consistently

identified very effective leaders at various levels throughout the school, was the school

where the principal was not only open to feedback but actively sought and gave

feedback.

5.3.2 Transformational versus Instructional/Pedagogical Leadership

Transformational Leadership focuses on the relationships between adults, whereas

Instructional or Pedagogical Leadership focuses on teaching and learning. Secondary

teachers valued leaders who trusted them to get on with the job. Overall, they preferred

Transformational Leadership and if they referred to Instructional Leadership they

referred to it in a negative sense as ‘controlling’ or ‘micro-managing’.


73

From the coded teacher interview transcripts, categories were developed, and the

categories with the highest number of responses from teachers were all transformational

with a focus on relationships – ‘relational’, ‘trust’ and ‘respect’. It may be that there is a

sequential development from transformational leadership to instructional leadership,

where trust and respect must be established before schools can have collaborative

environments where teachers feel safe to take risks and be innovative with their

pedagogy. This should be a focus of further study.

Trust is often best developed in team environments, as then there is opportunity for

collaboration and shared decision-making, especially when there is a common focus on

improving teaching and learning. The school in this study that teachers identified as

having a number of very effective leaders at different levels within the school also had

very intentional school-based professional development based around teams and had

superior levels of achievement in NCEA external examinations. It seems this school

was further along the path of school improvement than the other two schools as Trust

and Respect had been intentionally developed through team environments.

5.3.3 Organisational Learning and Trust differences

In this study it was found that where organisational learning scores were low, teachers

were less successful in creating classroom conditions that students experienced

positively. Where organisational learning scores were high, teachers were more

successful in creating classroom conditions that students experienced positively. This

was the same as Mulford and Silins (2003) findings when they conducted the

Leadership for Organisational Learning and improved Student Outcomes (LOLSO)

project in Australian secondary schools. In this New Zealand study, relational trust was

found to be positively correlated with higher organisational learning scores and

improved success by teachers in creating classroom conditions that students

experienced positively. This confirms West-Burnham’s (2004) finding that

organisations that were high on trust tended to out-perform those that were not, as “trust

is the basis of personal and organisational effectiveness” (p. 3). There was a positive

relationship between higher organisational learning scores, higher relational trust scores

and greater success in creating classroom conditions that students experienced

positively.


74

5.3.4 Student Perceptions of Teachers and Heads of Faculty


her classroom. The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project found that the

difference in learning associated with being assigned a top quartile teacher rather than a

bottom quartile teacher was more than seven months — roughly two-thirds of a school

year! From this current New Zealand study in secondary schools, it was found that the

most effective teachers overall were particularly strong in the ‘Care’ dimension, while

the least effective teachers were particularly weak in the ‘Control’ dimension.

It was suspected that there was a difference between student perceptions of teachers’

success in creating positive classroom conditions depending on whether the class was a

junior secondary class (Y9 and Y10) where subjects were compulsory, or a senior class

(Y11 to Y13) where most subjects were optional. In this study, students reported more

overall positive classroom experiences during the NCEA years (Y11 to Y13) than the

junior secondary years (Y9 and Y10).

The Seven C’s constructed from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) student

survey data proved to be highly reliable, as the estimate of reliability for the 14 items

was 0.91. From this study, students in these secondary classes in New Zealand schools

did feel that their contributions were valued, as the statement “my teacher respects my

ideas and suggestions” in the student survey, received the highest mean response of all

statements, with an overall mean score of 4.20 on a five point Likert scale. Mulford and

Silins (2003) found that it was important that students, like their teachers, are actively

participating in the school and feel that their contributions are valued. Students rated

their teachers higher on respecting student ideas (Confer), checking understanding

(Consolidate), multiple and clear explanations (Clarify) and improvement feedback

(Consolidate). The students rated the teachers lower on not wasting time, teacher respect

(both Control), learning a lot (Challenge), and interest (Captivating).

In this study it was found that the student perspectives of a teacher’s strengths and

weaknesses in one teacher’s class were a strong predictor of the teacher’s strengths and

weaknesses with another class, and student perceptions were more consistent in relation

to predicting teacher’s weaknesses (16 of the 18 teachers) than their strengths (13 of the

18 teachers). From the emerging findings of the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET)

project in USA schools, they also discovered that when students report positive


75

classroom experiences, those classrooms tend to achieve greater learning gains, and

other classrooms taught by the same teacher appear to do so as well.

Based on the feedback from students’, teachers’ strengths with junior classes (Y9 and

Y10) and senior classes (Y11 to Y13) were generally in the ‘Clarifying’ and

‘Consolidating’ dimensions. Teachers’ weakness with junior classes (Y9 and Y10) was

in the ‘Control’ dimension and with senior classes (Y11 to Y13) the weakness was a

combination of ‘Control’ and/or ‘Captivating’. The scores for ‘Control’ were

particularly low and this was especially true for the teachers with the lowest five scores.

Low scores in ‘Control’ and ‘Captivating’ often went together.

The quality of teaching in mathematics classrooms can be strongly distinguished from

one another by the ‘Care’ and ‘Captivate’ dimensions, and Ferguson (2010) said this

may be because caring teachers are more effective at reducing mathematical anxiety. It

seems this ‘Care’ dimension (or ‘Care’ combined with ‘Captivate’) may be the way to

distinguish between effective and ineffective mathematics teachers, as the only

mathematics teacher in this sample who had ‘Care’ as a strength, did so for both junior

and senior classes and was identified as one of the top three teachers in this sample in

terms of students’ perceptions of their ability to create positive classroom conditions.

Meanwhile, the other mathematics teachers all had identified weaknesses in these areas

and four of these six teachers were ranked in the lower half of the teachers in this

sample in terms of students’ perceptions of their ability to create positive classroom

conditions.

Most (5 of 6) of the Heads of Faculty received the more negative perceptions by

students. While the HOFs may be doing a great job as team leaders, the student voice

tells us that students perceive that their HOFs are not able to effectively manage their

leadership responsibilities without this having a detrimental impact on the quality of

their teaching.

5.3.5 School Differences

There were three Canterbury schools involved in this research study; and of course this

low number is a limitation of this study. From the teachers’ coded interview transcripts

there was a great deal of agreement between these schools on what an ‘effective’ leader

is, with ‘Respect’, ‘Trust’ and ‘Effective Communication’ as the top three responses

from each school.


76

Beyond the top three responses, there were differences between schools, and this was

largely due to the contextual experiences of leadership. For example, School A

experienced issues of lack of trust between teachers, so teachers at School A were

largely looking for relational aspects in an ‘effective’ leader, so beyond the top three

responses they identified leaders that were ‘supportive’, ‘approachable’ and ‘honest’. In

contrast, teachers in School C were seeking a combination of the qualities they could

already see in their leaders and the qualities they would like to see in their leaders as

they identified 'effective' leaders who ‘lead by example’, ‘support initiatives’, have a

‘presence’, are ‘supportive’ and ‘consultative’.

When comparisons were made between schools by looking at achievement in National

Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) external assessments in comparative

faculties (for example, English v English), it was found that academic performance was

stronger in School B than School A, and academic performance in School C was also

stronger that academic performance in School A. The issues with trust between teachers

and the less collegial faculty meetings observed in School A, were indicative of a group

of professionals that were not working together effectively to optimise student

achievement, and this bears out in the comparative NCEA analysis.

There was a significant improvement in pass rates and endorsement rates from 2010 to

2011 in all faculties, though this increase was more notable in the English, Science and

Social Science faculties than it was in the Mathematics faculties. For example, in one

faculty the Level One endorsement rate (percentage of merit and excellence passes)

increased from 44% to 68.3%, and in another faculty the Level Three endorsement rate

increased from 22% to 48.4%. This is what some are calling the ‘earthquake effect’.

Given the disruption to class time with school closures due to earthquakes and

aftershocks and the stress that many students were under having to travel significant

distances to share school sites and facilities following the damage of school buildings

from the earthquakes, the Christchurch students were not expected to achieve well in the

NCEA external examinations in 2011, but against all odds the Christchurch students

outperformed student NCEA external results in all other regions in New Zealand. It

could very well be that the teachers were more ‘caring’ and more in tune with the needs

of students following these earthquake events. While most teachers were more caring

and gained significant improvements in NCEA achievement in external examinations,

the Mathematics faculties did not make the same significant gains as most of these

teachers did not have strengths in the ‘caring’ dimension.


77

5.3.6 Faculty Meetings

In most cases, the way these faculty meetings were run reflected the leadership style of

the HoF. In half of the observed meetings, the HoF lead the meeting from the front of

their classroom, the teachers were seated and largely passive. There was a very low rate

of contribution from teachers when meetings were run this way, and the opportunity for

true collaboration and ownership of decisions made was missed. In most cases these

were Mathematics faculty meetings. Beyond these areas of agreement (trust, respect,

communicates effectively, leads by example, supportive), the analysis of teachers’

interview responses showed us that the teachers observed in the less collegial meetings

were seeking a leader who is honest, approachable, has integrity and works

collaboratively. From their meetings they would not be getting the collaboration they

were seeking and their HoF may have appeared to be not very approachable as their

HOF was dominating discussion.

The other half of the meetings that were observed were much more collaborative and

collegial. Teachers sat together in a group with the HoF, a clear agenda was provided,

food was available, nearly all teachers contributed to discussions and they did so in a

very collegial way. Rather than a meeting dominate by just discussion, teachers were

involved in activities within the meeting that they could then take back to the classroom.

These meetings had a much more inviting atmosphere and at times there was quite a

busy ‘buzz’ with all teachers involved in an activity. Teachers were given leadership

opportunities by the HOF within the meeting. Again, these meetings were a reflection of

the leadership of these HOFs, but in this case the leadership was collaborative,

respectful, organised, worked with and through teams, and provided leadership

opportunities.

5.4 Future Research

In their ‘best evidence synthesis’ on school leadership and student outcomes, Robinson,

Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) acknowledged there had been little in the way of research

focussing on the quality of leadership in middle leaders and there is little New Zealand

research that directly links school leadership with student outcomes. The best evidence

synthesis on leadership also drew on research findings from a disproportionate number

of primary schools in reaching their conclusions, with only 4 of the 27 individual

studies of the impact of leadership on student outcomes occurring in secondary school

settings. This study focussed on middle leaders in secondary settings as this was an area


78

of research where little had been done in New Zealand. There is room for much more

research to be done to understand leadership in secondary settings in New Zealand

schools and the leadership of middle leaders in particular.

The school settings chosen for this study were not culturally diverse and they were all

higher socio-economic schools. It may be that teachers’ perspectives of leadership may

be very different in secondary schools that are culturally diverse and/or secondary

schools based in communities that have a lower socio-economic status.

This qualitative study provides rich descriptive data in context, but the sample was

small with only 18 teachers from 3 schools in one city participating. To test the findings

from this study to see if they can be generalised, a quantitative study with a larger

representative sample across secondary schools in New Zealand would need to be

employed.

5.5 Conclusion

From this study, effective teachers were distinguished by strengths in the ‘Care’

dimension, while according to teachers’ perspectives, the effective leaders were also

strong in the interpersonal skills as transformational leaders. These leaders were

identified by trust, respect, effective communication, leading by example and being

supportive. This notion of ‘Care’ also is likely to account for the unexpected significant

improvement by Canterbury students in NCEA external examinations at the end of 2011

following a year of learning interrupted by earthquakes and dislocated schools. The

teachers were more ‘caring’ and more in tune with the needs of students following these

earthquake events and this ‘Care’ resulted in significant gains in pass rates and

endorsement rates.

For leaders in New Zealand schools to be ‘effective’, it would be helpful if they had an

understanding of the different leadership needs of different groups (males, females,

HoF, classroom teachers, mathematics teachers, science teachers) and were then able to

respond appropriately in these different contexts. For example, male and female

teachers both want a leader who is trustworthy, respectful, communicates effectively,

and leads by example. Beyond this they differ, as effective communication is most

important for male teachers and they also want a leader to have a presence, be

courageous, be a decision-maker and allocate resources fairly, while trust is most

important for female teachers and they continue to prefer relational factors in a leader


79

such as being supportive, approachable, and building and maintaining positive

relationships.

School leaders can foster teachers’ organisational commitment by being more aware of

how their behaviour affects teachers’ organisational commitment. Teachers want

acknowledgement/recognition for their efforts and they want to know that their leaders

listened to, value and understand their contributions.


her classroom, and from this study it seems that the most effective teachers were

particularly strong in the ‘Care’ dimension, while the least effective teachers were

particularly weak in the ‘Control’ dimension. There should be implications for what

educational leaders want to see in their classrooms and what areas they would seek to

invest resources into developing through professional development.

There was a positive relationship between higher organisational learning scores, higher

relational trust scores and greater success in creating classroom conditions that students

experienced positively. Effective leaders appear to seek to create the conditions that

improve student outcomes, and a school environment characterised by high relational

trust and high organisational learning scores is more likely to be a successful school that

has greater success in creating classroom conditions that students experience positively.

The Heads of Faculty in this study had generally received little or no training in being a

team leader, even though they were middle leaders. One of the statements from the

organisational learning questionnaire for teachers was “groups of teachers receive

training in how to work and learn in teams”, and from this 83% (15 of 18) of teachers

replied ‘rarely’ or ‘sometimes’. Furthermore, half of the observed team meetings were

not productive in terms of teacher participation, and these were largely a reflection of

the ineffective leadership style of the Head of Faculty. Feedback from students also

placed Heads of Faculty in the last four positions when teachers were rated on their

ability to create positive classroom conditions, and the student comments indicated that

students perceived that their Heads of Faculty are not able to effectively manage their

leadership responsibilities without this having a detrimental impact on the quality of

their teaching. The Heads of Faculties in secondary schools need support and training to

be able to effectively manage the demands of their role while still providing quality

teaching. These middle leaders also need to receive training on how to lead teams by

working with and through others to develop a collaborative culture.


80

To develop leadership capacity we need to understand what the effective leadership

qualities are, and it seems relational qualities are important to secondary teachers.

Secondary teachers recognise that ‘effective’ leaders are trustworthy, build relational

trust, show regard for others and earn respect. These effective leaders will be effective

communicators who lead by example, and are supportive. To evaluate ‘effective’

leaders in New Zealand schools we would be looking for these five qualities, but we

would also be looking for leaders who can sequentially develop from the

transformational to the instructional. Once trust and respect are established, schools can

begin to develop collaborative environments where teachers feel safe to take risks and

be innovative with their pedagogy, starting with intentionally developing leadership

capacity through team environments with a common focus on improving teaching and

learning. It seems somewhat ironic that there is much current literature advocating for a

move to more instructional leadership while teachers may indeed prefer more

transformational leadership. This is an issue that deserves more attention.

References

81

References Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2003). Vision, relationships and teacher motivation: A

case study, Journal of Educational Administration, 41 (1), 55-73.

Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher

relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (3), 406-434.

Barth, R.S. (2007). The teacher leader. In R.H. Ackerman & S.V. Mackenzie (eds.).

Uncovering teacher leadership: essays and voices from the field. Thousand Oaks,

Ca.:Corwin.

Beattie, B. (2002). Emotional epistemologies and educational leadership: a conceptual

framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational

research foundation. (New Orleans, LA, April 1-5, 2002)

Blasé, J. (1995). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its

effects on teachers’ senses of empowerment, paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, San Francisco, April.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an

introduction to theories (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 (5), 662-683.

Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. Los Angeles:

Sage.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: a core resource for

improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2003). Trust in schools: a core resource for school

reform. Educational Leadership, 60 (6), 40-44.

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education. London: Leadership

Foundation for Higher Education.

Busher, H., & Harris, A. (1999). Leadership of school subject areas: tensions and

dimensions of managing in the middle, School Leadership & Management, 19 (3),

305-317.

References

82

Cammock, P. (2001). The dance for leadership: the call for soul in 21st century

leadership. Auckland: Pearson Education, Prentice Hall.

Davidson, C., & Tolich, M. (1999). Competing traditions. In Social science research in

New Zealand: many paths to understanding. Auckland: Pearson Education. 23-38.

Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K. A., & Hopkins, D. (2011). Successful school

leadership: linking with learning and achievement. Maidenhead, Berkshire:

McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

Dempster, N., Lovett, S., & Flückiger, B. (2011). Strategies to develop school

leadership: a select literature review. Research review commissioned by the

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL).

Duignan, P. (2004). Forming capable leaders: from competencies to capabilities. New

Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 19 (2), 5-13.

Duignan, P. (2006). Educational leadership. Key challenges and ethical tensions.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elbot, C.F., & Fulton, D. (2008). Building an intentional school culture. Excellence in

academics and character. Thousand Oaks, Ca.:

Emira, M. (2010). Leading to decide or deciding to lead? Understanding the relationship

between teacher leadership and decision making. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 38 (5), 591–612.

Erb, W. (2009). Learning in the lead. Education Gazette. 06/04/2009

Fancy, H. (2004). Educational reform: reflections on New Zealand experience. Speech

at the Education for Change Symposium, 31 May, Melbourne, Australia.

Ferguson, R.F. (2010). Student perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Discussion brief.

National center for teacher effectiveness and the achievement gap initiative, Harvard

University. Retrieved 23/02/2012 from: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/ncte/news/

Frost, D. (2006, November) 'Action research, school improvement and teacher

leadership', paper presented at the 30th Anniversary Conference of The

Collaborative Action Research Network. University of Nottingham.

Fullan, M.G. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge Falmer.

Fullan, M.G. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York and London:

Teachers College Press.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/ncte/news/

References

83

Gay, G. (1995). Modelling and mentoring in urban teacher preparation. Education and

Urban Society, 28 (1), 103-118.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning,

measure, and impact on student achievement, American Educational Research

Journal, 37 (2), 479–507.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Sustainable leadership. In B. Davies, (Ed.). The essentials of

school leadership, 173-189. London: Paul Chapman.

Harris, A. (2002, April). Building the capacity for school improvement. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New

Orleans, LA.

Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: what’s in it for schools? London: Routledge

Falmer.

Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or

misleading? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32 (1), 11-24.

Harris, A. (2006). Opening the “black box” of leadership practice: taking a distributed

leadership perspective. Leadership and Management, ISEA, 34 (2), 37-45.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2001). Teacher leadership: a review of research. London:

General Teaching Council.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2003). Teacher leadership - improvement through

empowerment? An overview of the literature. General Teaching Council for

England. Retrieved from:

http://www.gtce.org.uk/shared/contentlibs/126795/93128/120213/Teacher_Leadershi

p_litreview.pdf

Hattie, J. (2009, September). Visible learning. [PowerPoint slides] Presentation to the

Treasury. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from:

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-

hattie.pdf

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: maximising impact on learning. London;

New York: Routledge.

http://www.gtce.org.uk/shared/contentlibs/126795/93128/120213/Teacher_Leadership_litreview.pdf

http://www.gtce.org.uk/shared/contentlibs/126795/93128/120213/Teacher_Leadership_litreview.pdf

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-hattie.pdf

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-hattie.pdf

References

84

Hopkins, D., & Jackson, D. (2003). Building the capacity for leading and learning. In A.

Harris, C. May, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman, Effective

leadership for school improvement, 84-104. London: Routledge Falmer.

Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research:

a prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19 (4), 2-9.

Hsieh, C., & Shen, J. (1998). Teachers’, principals’ and superintendents’ conceptions of

leadership. Journal of School Leadership and Management 18 (1): 107–121.

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: combining high-

quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. MET project

research paper. Seattle, Washington: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved

19/03/2012 from: http://www.metproject.org/reports.php

Kurtz, S. (2009). Teacher leadership. Leadership, 39 (1), 12-38.

Larkin, M. (2011). How can I analyse my data? Retrieved from:

http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/michael/qual_analysis.htm

Learning about teaching: initial findings from the measures of effective teaching

project. (2010). MET project research paper. Seattle, Washington: Bill & Melinda

Gates Foundation. Retrieved 19/03/2012 from:

http://www.metproject.org/reports.php

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing

times. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on

organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of

Educational Administration, 38 (2), 112-129.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: a user’s guide. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

MacBeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice. School Leadership

and Management, 25 (4), 349-366.

Mathieu, I., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,

correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,

108, 171–194.


http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/michael/qual_analysis.htm


References

85

Ministry of Education (2008). Kiwi leadership for principals: principals as educational

leaders. Wellington, N.Z.: Professional Leadership: Schooling Group.

Moore, R. (2001). Philosophies of leadership and management and its influence on

change. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (in)action. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 35 (1), 111-134.

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: teacher leadership in

the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 961-972.

Mulford, W., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved

student outcomes—what do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (2), 175-

195.

Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership for

organisational learning and improved student outcomes. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic. 1-21, 169-177.

Mutch, C. (2005). Doing educational research. A practitioner’s guide to getting started.

Wellington: NZCER.

National School for School Leadership. (2007). What we know about school leadership.

Retrieved from: http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17480

Ngcobo, T., & Tikly, L. P. (2010). Key dimensions of effective leadership for change: a

focus on township and rural schools in South Africa. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 38 (2), 202–228.

Oduro, G.K.T. (2006). Distributed leadership is schools. Education Journal, 80, 3-25.

Özel, A., Bayındır, N., Özel, E., Ungan, S., Terzi, I., & Bozkurt, N. (2007). Teacher’s

opinions about educational leaderships of school managers and leader manager

paradigms. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2 (4), 92 –

97.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).

Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and

empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26

(3), 513–563.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/

http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17480

References

86

Reyes, P., & Pounder, D. G. (1993). Organizational orientation in public and private

elementary schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 87, 86–93.

Richards, J. (2007). How effective principals encourage their teachers. Principal,

Jan/Feb, 49-50.

Robinson, V. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational

outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46 (2), 241-256.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student

outcomes: identifying what works and why: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES].

Wellington, N.Z. : Ministry of Education.

Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2001). Leaders and values: a cross cultural study,

Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, 22 (5), 243-248.

Southworth, G. (2002). What is important in educational administration: learning-

centred school leadership. New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 17, 5-

19.

Southworth, G. (2004). Primary school leadership in context: leading small, medium

and large sized schools. London: Falmer.

Stake, R. E. (2003). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Strategies of

qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134-164). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Maidenhead, UK: Open University

Press.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rd

ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Thornton, H. (2010). Excellent teachers leading the way: how to cultivate teacher

leadership. Middle School Journal, 41 (4), 36-43.

Tolich, M., & Davidson, C. (1999). Starting fieldwork: an introduction to qualitative

research in New Zealand. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. pp. 69-87.

Ward, L. (2007). Review of specialist classroom teachers’ pilot: report prepared for

Ministry of Education. Auckland: Cognition Consulting.

References

87

Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale,

career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching &

Teacher Education, 15, 861–879.

West-Burnham, J. (2004). Building leadership capacity: helping leaders learn. National

College for School Leadership. England: NCSL.

Williams, H. (2009). Leadership capacity - a key to sustaining lasting improvement.

Education, 130 (1), 30-41.

Youngs, H. (2008). Should I stand back, or should I lead? Developing intentional

communal cultures of emergent and distributed forms of leadership in educational

settings. NZEALs International Educational Leadership Conference. Auckland.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publishing.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effects of transformational leadership

on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong, Journal of Educational

Administration, 40 (4), 368-389.

Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s:Moir, Stephen John

Title:Teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership in schools

Date:2013

Citation:Moir, S. J. (2013). Teachers’ perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership in schools. MastersResearch thesis, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.

Persistent Link:http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38058

Terms and Conditions:Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by thecopyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner.Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their ownpersonal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission fromthe copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38058

Documents

Teachers' perspectives of 'effective' leadership in schools