Search results

This paper aims to serve as an introduction to and overview of this special issue of the Journal of Educational Administration entitled “Building organisational capacity in school education”. The co‐editors have solicited contributions from authors in Wales, Australia, Canada, the USA, England, Hong Kong and New Zealand.

The paper reviews past and contemporary approaches to the issue of capacity building in education and in particular, sustainable capacity building. As well as reviewing key researchers and writers in this field, including their own work, the authors foreshadow and synthesise the other seven papers that make up this special issue.

The paper contends that building capacity in schools and schooling, while no means easy, can be both understood and accomplished. However, caution needs to be exercised because hard‐fought gains in capacity building and sustainability can be quickly eroded under the influence of poor leadership or extraneous changes.

The paper serves as a framework both for the seven papers that follow and more generally for understanding and conceptualising sustainable school capacity building.

The paper performs the function of framing current debates and pressures around sustainable school capacity‐building in an international theoretical and practical context.

Interest in teacher “stress” and its relationship to teacher well‐being has a long and distinguished history. However, there has been criticism of this research endeavour for its conceptual narrowness and lack of psychometric rigour. An international project investigating teacher and school executive career satisfaction, motivation and mental health is initiated. This project sought to develop a model of teachers’ occupational well‐being that was wider than a focus on “stress”, and, as noted, included occupational motivation and satisfaction. This paper reports on a sub‐aspect of that research, the development of scales to measure teacher and school executive satisfaction with the work of teaching and its context carried out in Australia, England, New Zealand and the USA. Separate teams recruited participants in each of the four countries, giving a final sample of 3,000 teachers and school executive. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Australian data resulted in a ten factor model, which was validated on the English and New Zealand data. Analyses of the US data resulted in a 16 factor model. As well as revealing relative satisfaction with various facets of the teaching role, these scales also prove useful in explaining how teachers and school executive view the construction of their respective educational and social contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of the secondary Head of Department (HoD) in leading teams producing exceptional education outcomes in Years 7‐10 in New South Wales (NSW, Australia) government schools.

Sites where exceptional educational outcomes were believed to be occurring were selected using a variety of data including performance in standardised tests, public examinations, various value added measures and nominations from various stakeholders. Sites were of two types: subject departments responsible for teaching certain subjects and teams responsible for cross‐school programmes in Years 7‐10. Sites were selected to be broadly representative. Some schools had more than one site, e.g. Mathematics and Student Welfare. A total of 50 sites across NSW from 38 secondary schools were studied.

With both subject departments and teams responsible for cross‐school programmes, leadership was found to be a key factor in the achievement of exceptional educational outcomes. Analysis of data revealed certain qualities, attributes and practices of the HoD of these schools, which are explored, central to which is a focus on students and their learning.

HoDs were those of secondary schools from one state educational system.

Despite the pressures of the secondary HoD role, the HoDs studied had been able to lead and facilitate teams that were thriving when others struggle to perform. Whilst innate, personal qualities are important, much of what these HoDs possessed and demonstrated had been learned from others.

Detailed case studies have provided an examination of HoD leadership effectiveness in a wide range of contexts, with much commonality revealed. Thus, the study can inform future professional learning for secondary HoDs and possibly other middle managers in education. It may also have value for HoD selection.

Aims to explore the role of Principals in producing outstanding education outcomes in Years 7 to 10 in New South Wales (Australia) government schools.

Sites where “outstanding” educational outcomes were believed to be occurring were selected using a variety of data including performance in standardised tests, public examinations, various value added measures and nominations from various stakeholders. Sites were of two types: subject departments responsible for teaching certain subjects and teams responsible for cross‐school programs in Years 7 to 10. Sites were selected to be broadly representative. Some schools had more than one site, e.g. Mathematics and Student Welfare. A total of 50 sites across NSW from 38 secondary schools were studied.

With both subject departments and teams responsible for cross‐school programs, leadership was found to be a key factor in the achievement of outstanding educational outcomes. Often, this leadership was exercised by the Principal, but additional key personnel included Head Teachers (heads of faculties/departments), Deputy Principals, and teachers playing leading roles in faculties and programs. Analysis of data revealed certain attributes and practices of the Principals of these schools, which are explored, central to which is a focus on students and their learning.

Principals were those of secondary schools from one educational system. Other papers will explore the role of leaders such as Heads of Department, Deputy Principals and teacher leaders.

This article has implications for principal selection, training, appraisal and professional development.

Detailed case studies have provided an examination of leadership effectiveness in a wide range of contexts, which much commonality confirmed.

Reformers, policymakers, and researchers have given considerable attention to organizational capacity in schools, especially in those schools that perpetuate or exacerbate achievement gaps among diverse student groups and reproduce social inequalities. There is an emerging consensus about key dimensions of school capacity and how they can help promote both equity and excellence in student learning. However, it is still not very clear how capacity building itself can be enhanced. This paper aims to address these issues.

This paper addresses this critical disjuncture in the school reform literature through two main purposes: summarizing the key dimensions of school organizational capacity, and synthesizing the recent conceptual and empirical work on the important mechanisms of policies and programs to influence and support a school's organizational development. The authors' recent research and practice related to one such intervention, leadership coaching for school improvement, are critically discussed. The paper explores a hybrid approach to building capacity in schools where elements of both the bureaucracy and the learning community are present.

Different schools clearly need different kinds of support for teacher development and building their capacity. Policies need to be flexible enough to fit particular school contexts, and to allow for organizations to change in ways that support teacher development for improved practices that impact student learning. The work in the middle involves some sort of fluid hybrid of administrative control (instructional improvement must be the focus) and active, broad participation (in a learning community that advances the changes in instructional practices).

This paper addresses the lack of clear knowledge on how capacity building itself can be enhanced, by summarizing the key dimensions of school organizational capacity, and synthesizing the recent conceptual and empirical work on the important mechanisms of policies and programs to influence and support a school's organizational development. The paper provides an overview of the dimensions of school organizational capacity, discusses barriers to building capacity in schools, and argues for hybrid models that combine elements of both learning communities and bureaucracies.

The paper aims to describe the application of theoretical principles derived from a study of self‐organisation and complex systems theory and their application to school‐based capacity building to support planned change.

The paper employs a case example in a Hong Kong School to illustrate the application of the principles and discuss their potential to sustain the effect of capacity building in schools.. The descriptive case study is used to illustrate six theoretical propositions of self‐organization. The case is then unpacked using each of the propositions to illustrate the application of the theory to capacity building in a secondary school setting.

The case illustrates the way each of the principles are reflected in a design process undertaken by the school's principal and its leadership team to create a self‐organizing approach to capacity building.

The value of this paper is threefold. First it shows the way in which capacity building can be theorized for practical benefit in school settings. Second, the theoretical approach described in the case study addresses the longstanding and largely unresolved issue of the sustainability of capacity building efforts in school settings. The case analysis links theory to practical strategy that can be used by school leaders to design their own capacity building efforts that disperse control to the community, are sustainable, and self‐organizing within the school.

A recent development in England is the emergence, under various names, of groups of schools working together in a variety of collaborative ways. Such diversification enjoys broad political support. In this paper, the author aims to argue that the trend is potentially a radical transformation of the school system as a whole. The concepts of coupling and capital are drawn on to show how these changes enhance capacity building at the level of the individual institution and, more importantly, at the system levels, both local and national.

The paper uses different conceptual schemes to throw light on the emerging phenomenon of partnerships between clusters of schools.

As this is not an empirical research paper there are no findings as such.

The paper is concerned with new policy directions, some of which are consonant with developments already taking place in England's education system. The analysis is intended broadly to support these changes but also to improve their design and implementation.

The conceptual analysis is original and has implications both for a theoretical analysis of inter‐school partnerships and for the practical issues of how such partnerships might evolve.

The purpose of this paper is to review strategies to build capacity for school improvement in Australia. The focus is on public schools and strategies adopted for the system as a whole.

This paper traces developments from a national perspective and makes a case for the key contemporary policy shift that has provided the platform for a new era of educational reform. Two contrasting case studies are described in order to demonstrate the pathways embarked on by a large jurisdiction, namely the State of Victoria, which has led the nation in terms of devolved decision‐making for public schools, and second, a much smaller jurisdiction, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which is introducing a range of reforms to give public schools much greater autonomy in order to achieve improved performance. The paper concludes with a “futures” view of how strategies may continue to evolve. Shifting the language from “improvement” to “transformation” is canvassed.

It is concluded that a key to success has been to align strategies among different levels of the school system: central, regional/district, school and classroom. The possibilities for moving beyond improvement to transformation are canvassed.

The value of the paper lies in its up‐to‐date account of system‐wide efforts to improve schools and a summary of evidence on their impact. The paper is of particular interest to school and school system leaders as well as those engaged in the study of educational policy and educational leadership.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate two recent examples of the New Zealand Ministry of Education's approach to reducing the persistent disparities in achievement between students of different social and ethnic groups. The first example is cluster‐based school improvement, and the second is the development of national standards for literacy and numeracy across the primary sector.

The evaluative framework used was derived from recent international analyses of the characteristics of school systems, which are either high performers or successful reformers on recent international surveys. Policy documents and evaluation reports provided the evidence on which the evaluation of the two New Zealand (NZ) examples is based.

The six criteria associated with high system performance and/or reform success were: system‐wide commitment to educational improvement; ambitious universal standards; developing capacity at the point of delivery; professional forms of accountability; strategic resourcing; and institutionalizing the improvement of practice. The present analysis of the NZ reform examples suggests that while there is a broad commitment to more equitable outcomes, a new resolve to introduce and report against national standards, and a high level of espousal of professional accountability, there are significant contradictions between school self‐management and the work that needs to be done to reduce achievement disparities.

This paper's evaluation of these two examples raises important policy questions about the assumptions that are made in the NZ self‐managing system about teacher and leader capability and about where responsibility for school improvement lies.

The purpose of this paper is to outline how collective capacity building is supporting system‐wide reform in one country. It seeks to outline the way in which professional learning communities within, between and across schools are creating an infrastructure for improving professional practice and raising standards.

The paper is both descriptive and analytical. It draws on the international literature pertaining to system‐wide reform and the empirical evidence concerning professional learning.

The paper highlights some of the challenges in building the collective capacity for change throughout an entire system and reflects on progress to date. The paper concludes by arguing that despite the compelling case for collective capacity building, the real test is to make it happen.

The professional learning communities (PLC) programme in Wales is gathering evidence about impact but as the programme is just completing its first year of implementation these findings are not yet available.

This paper adds to prior analyses and discussion of collective capacity building by providing a system‐wide perspective.