A global issue and local response: the role of experienced classroom teachers in creating collaborative school cultures.

The Australian Institute of Education

Murdoch University,

South Street Murdoch, WA 6150

Tel: 08 9360 2123

Fax: 08 9360 6296

Abstract

The major thrust for school improvement has in recent years focussed on the development of teachers and the creation of collaborative cultures as a means of improving the quality of student outcomes. Within Western Australia the recognition of highly accomplished teachers was based not only on their classroom expertise but also on the teacher developing a role beyond the classroom. The type of leadership model envisioned was one in which teachers work collaboratively with their colleagues on professional activities such as curriculum development, professional development and school-based research in an endeavour to enhance the school's capacity to respond to student learning needs. A questionnaire survey of teachers selected to undertake this role was conducted one year after their appointment. The research has focussed on the processes of role negotiation, the activities agreed upon and any perceived outcomes of this negotiated role for the improvement of student outcomes.

Preliminary indications are that promotion on this basis has resulted in some teachers undertaking a range of activities broadly in line with the leadership model envisaged. In other cases, constraints operated to limit teachers in their capacity to develop a suitable role and reduced their sense of efficacy. Factors such as the prevailing culture, leadership and organisation of the school contributed to the ‘success’ or otherwise of the role negotiation and implementation. These results are discussed with reference to the current thrust to create learning communities that are premised on successful collaboration.

Introduction

There is a continuing agenda for educational reform ( in Western education systems. Conley suggests that the reform agenda for school restructuring is discussed along 12 dimensions within the current literature. These include - learning standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment, learning environment, technology, school-community relationships, teaching and learning time, governance, teacher and principal leadership, personnel structures, and contractual relationships.

Key directions for enabling such reforms have also been identified. These directions include the restructuring of schools as learning communities ( the improvement of teaching quality (, enhancing teacher professionalism ( and redefining the work of educators (. These strategies suggest that restructuring the work of educators, improving quality and enhancing professionalism enable the formation of learning communities. For example, Hough et al (1997) see teacher teams as a critical part of the development of learning communities. They draw on the work of on the learning organisation in this regard.

Projects such as the National Schools Network and the Innovative Links between Schools and Universities project have also emphasised collaborative, team and partnership approaches to school reform and restructuring. argues that such projects have provided teachers with the opportunity to collectively be active in reclaiming the agenda of what counts as teacher professionalism. In this way there is the opportunity to increase the involvement of the classroom teacher in determining the agenda for improving teacher quality and professionalism, working collaboratively in partnerships to create learning communities. As a result there is an evolution, some might suggest a revolution, in the work practices of educators today.

However, these policy directions and expectations for changing work practices do not always align with the existing culture and climate of schools nor do professionals necessary take an active role in determining the educational policy that drives such developments. (1996) discuss the problem of professionalism and standard setting for teaching in the everyday contexts of schooling. They found that teachers' professionalism is highly variable and contingent upon the strength and character of the local teacher community. They argue that the ‘privacy norms characteristic of the profession undermine the capacity for teacher learning and sustained professional commitment’. However, the conditions for shared professional standards to emerge and be enforced are apparent where teacher communities promote collegial discourse and collaboration. Proudfoot (1998) examines the role of teachers in the processes of educational policy change and found that teachers tend to cast themselves, and are cast by others, in a dependency situation as regards policy interpretation and implementation. This suggests that particular conditions are needed to enable the implementation of strategies to support the establishment of learning communities.

A key factor identified as contributing significantly to the success of any change initiative is the quality of the leadership within that organisation. Our understanding of what counts as good leadership has changed dramatically over the last thirty years. traces a number of shifts in thinking about leadership from the cognitive-rational to multiple intelligence-spiritual; inherent leadership traits to follower attributions; dominance to mutual responsiveness and dependency; transactional to transformational and positional-individual to situational-team. However, such new perspectives on leadership do not necessarily exist within schools.

Recent research by to find the primary motivators for reforming schools as professional learning communities for teacher collaboration suggests that principals were seen as ‘important for motivation, but they were not always the strongest advocates for innovation’ (237). There is also ambivalence about the role of the deputy principal. Teachers saw ‘informal collaboration to be more effective in leadership provision for change than the more formal structures of planned collaboration’ (. Maybe new ways of constructing leadership in practice within schools are needed.

These shifts in thinking about leadership suggest that our acceptance of traditional hierarchical structures within schools needs to be challenged if we are going to realise collaborative learning communities. At present individual-positional leadership is the dominant paradigm supported by promotion ladders linked to tasks, duties and the size of the school rather than rewards for professional expertise that would support situational-team leadership characterised by mutual responsiveness and dependency. We need to move towards constructing leadership in terms of the knowledge, skills and values that are brought to bear within a particular organisational, political and cultural context to realise the vision and purpose of the learning community. The Teacher Career Path was originally conceptualised in this way. A brief discussion of this initiative follows as an understanding of this context is important to further discussion of the research into the work of the Level 3 Classroom teachers.

Research Context: Teacher Career Path Project and Level 3 Classroom Teachers

The Teacher Career Path project was a trial project designed to develop and implement a career progression model for classroom teachers employed by the Education Department of Western Australia. There were three levels originally envisaged in the career path: beginning teacher (Level 1), competent teacher (Level 2) and highly accomplished teacher (Level 3). This career path was a major outcome of the 1996 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement negotiated between the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia (SSTUWA) and the Education Department of Western Australia (EDWA). The project involved the development of competencies for three ‘levels’ of teachers resulting in the creation of a new promotional position called ‘Level 3 Classroom Teacher’. This position was created for the purposes described in the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (1996) as being to

1. support the retention of competent, experienced teachers in duties directly related to teaching and learning;
2. give status and recognition to the commitment of teachers to the development of their colleagues and school communities, as well as their own ongoing professional development;
3. expand career paths for teachers who do not want or who do not wish or are not able to move into the administrative role; and
4. use these teachers’ skills to maximise the outcomes of students.

The purposes outlined for the development of the Teacher Career Path and the introduction of a promotional category for classroom teachers were stated in the Teacher Career Structure Tender Specifications as follows:

This aim clearly emphasises the part played by this ‘new’ promotional position in working with other teachers and the community. The Teacher Career Path Project was premised on the view that suggests that quality teachers working collaboratively on school-based projects are crucial to the improvement of education and student learning outcomes (.

The Teacher Career Path project was contracted out through competitive tender, funded by the Education Department of Western Australia and overseen by a Reference Group comprising representatives of the employer and the union. The tender brief framed the processes for selection of Level 3 Teachers, as it specified the development of a competency framework and the use of portfolios and performance-based assessment exercises to assess these competencies . Level 3 Classroom Teachers should, therefore, be able to:

This definition was used as the basis for the initial conceptualisation of the role of the Level 3 Classroom Teacher. In order to develop these ideas into a competency framework research relating to professional expertise ( together with other competency frameworks developed from teachers writing and talking about their professional practices ( were consulted. As a result of this review the following competencies for Level 3 Classroom teachers were identified.

Level 3 Classroom teachers:

1. Utilise innovative and/or exemplary teaching strategies and techniques in order to more effectively meet the learning needs of individual students, groups and/or classes of students.
2. Employ consistent exemplary practice in developing and implementing student assessment and reporting processes.
3. Engage in a variety of self-development activities, including a consistent high level of critical reflection on one’s own teaching practice and teacher leadership, to sustain a high level of ongoing professional growth.
4. Enhance other teachers’ professional knowledge and skills through employing effective development strategies.
5. Provide high level leadership in the school community through assuming a key role in school development processes including curriculum planning and management and school policy formulation

Each competency was further elaborated with indicators of attainment and potential sources of evidence. This Framework provided the basis for the selection processes used for the appointment of teachers to this new promotional position. 221 teachers were initially appointed as Level 3 Classroom Teachers, attracting a substantial pay increase and the opportunity to be recognised for their ‘leadership’ and excellence in their classroom teaching practice.

The role of the Level 3 Classroom Teacher emphasises both exemplary classroom practices and a leadership role beyond the classroom. It was envisaged that they would work collaboratively on activities such as curriculum development, professional development and school-based research in an endeavour to enhance the school's capacity to respond to student learning needs. As noted by Martin (1998, 4-5)

At the start of 1998 these teachers undertook to negotiate their role and the use of the 0.1 time allocation available for each Level 3 Classroom teacher within a school. It is these processes that are the subject of the research reported in this paper.

Research Aim and Design

The main aim of this research was to describe the work undertaken by the highly accomplished classroom teachers promoted to the Level 3 Classroom Teacher position during the first year of their appointment. The study also aimed to describe role negotiation processes and identify the factors enabling and constraining negotiation and implementation of the Level 3 Classroom teacher’s role. All Level 3 Classroom Teachers involved in role negotiation processes were surveyed using a semi-structured questionnaire. A total of 219 questionnaires were sent to Level 3 Classroom Teachers in May/June 1999. Two were returned, as the teachers were not available. 78 Level 3 Classroom Teachers had responded by mid-July (36% response rate).

The profile of the teachers responding suggests that the sample population is comparable the whole population of Level 3 Classroom teachers with respect to gender and location. The proportions of appointments for males and females were respectively 26% and 74% which compares well to the proportions of 27% and 73% in the sample represented in this survey. The appointment of teachers in country and metropolitan locations were 32% and 68% respectively as compared to 24% and 66% responding to the survey (10% did not indicate the District location).

Research Data and Analysis

Negotiating the role

The first part of the role negotiation process was the meeting(s) between the teacher and the principal, another nominated person or an appropriate line manager. All but four Level 3 Classroom teachers indicated that there had been an initial meeting. For those teachers who did not have a meeting the data showed that in one case the teacher indicated continuing in an already establish set of activities, another that no role was decided and no comment was given in the third. The fourth teacher describes some confusion about the ownership of the Level 3 being with the school or with the teacher that resulted in no real benefits arising from assuming the role.

The role negotiation meetings were more likely to take place immediately the teacher was appointed as a Level 3 Classroom Teacher, although 37% of teachers reported that the role negotiation did not occur until the end of Term 1 or even later in Term 2. Further meetings occurred for about half the respondents. However, the frequency of these meetings varied. 21% met two or three times a year, 13% once a term, 9% met as needed, informally or regularly over the year and 5% met on a weekly basis. 42% reported that there was an initial meeting to discuss the role on appointment as a Level 3 Classroom teacher and thereafter no further discussions occurred. In one case the teacher was excluded from the initial discussions of the role which were conducted between Principal and Deputy Principals.

Level 3 Classroom teachers described the negotiation processes in terms of the relative input of the teacher, principal, deputy principal, other Level 3 Classroom teachers, head of department and the staff to the decision making processes. They also indicated the degree of consensus and collaboration, whether they, the principal or nominee or the whole staff group initiated, directed or confirmed the decisions regarding the negotiated role. There were also references made to the meeting of school needs and/or the development of the teachers’ individual interests and strengths in the role negotiation processes.

49% of all Level 3 Classroom teachers reported that the role negotiation process involved discussions between the teacher and the principal or nominee or the whole staff group where all parties agreed on the role to be carried out by the Level 3 Classroom teacher. For example,

28% of the Level 3 Classroom teachers said they largely determined the nature of the role they would take, having this accepted by the principal, deputy or the whole staff group. For example,

17% indicated that the principal, deputy or head of department determined the role they would undertake.

4% reported significant difficulties in the role negotiation processes. For example, one teacher reported ‘a poor understanding of the role’ with allocation of administrative tasks rather than a leadership role. 6% gave no response.

The majority of the Level 3 Classroom teachers (66%) reported that they found the negotiation process easy or very easy. Whilst only 13% found the process adequate, 13% found it difficult or very difficult and 8% gave no response. This would suggest that the role negotiation processes were for the most part acceptable to the Level 3 Classroom teachers.

Factors Impacting on Role Negotiation Processes

The role negotiation processes were facilitated by a number of factors. Most important was the relationship between the principal and the Level 3 Classroom teacher. Where the teacher felt there was good rapport, professional regard and recognition of the contribution made by the teacher then this greatly facilitated the role negotiation processes.

The degree of understanding by the Level 3 Classroom teachers of the proposed role through the role negotiation booklet also contributed to the success of the process for some teachers. A few teachers said that their previous experience acting in promotional positions enabled them to develop appropriate skills. Others made reference to their previous experiences carrying out the work detailed in the role, knowledge of the school, development plan and priorities contributed to the ease of the role negotiation processes. This knowledge usually increased confidence in role negotiation as indicated in the following example.

The culture of the school was also a significant factor in the development of the role negotiation processes as indicated in the following comment

Factors that affected the role negotiation processes in a negative way focussed largely on the lack of understanding of the role displayed by members of the administration and other staff (18%). A number of the teachers also indicated that there wasn’t sufficient time to actually work out the role together (12%).

Some teachers indicated that they were apprehensive, lacked direction or guidance, or had no say in the role negotiation and this provided a negative context for the role negotiation (9%). In two cases teachers stated that the principal did not believe that they deserved the role over other teachers in the school who had applied and this made the negotiation difficult. One teacher identified her gender as a significant issue for the principal. 57% of the teachers did not identify any factors that impeded the negotiation of the role.

Principles of role negotiation

The following five principles were central to the role negotiation processes (.

Principle 1 The leadership role should mirror the broad statement for the role of the Level 3 Classroom Teacher.

Principle 2 The leadership role should enable the Level 3 Classroom Teacher to apply the appropriate competencies.

Principle 3 The leadership role should reflect the Level 3 Classroom Teacher’s professional interests and expertise.

Principle 4 The leadership role should be significant and have visibility beyond the teacher’s own classroom context.

Principle 5 The leadership role should not be so demanding and time-consuming that it interferes with the Level 3 Classroom Teacher’s primary identity and responsibility for classroom teaching.

76% of all teachers responding indicated that all the principles had been upheld. One of the remaining teachers reported that the principles were not known. Principle 5 relating to time, was the most common principle not upheld, with fourteen Level 3 Classroom teachers indicating this was the case. Four teachers cited Principle 4, two teachers Principle 3, one teacher Principle 2 and two teachers Principle 1. Comments made as to why these principles was not upheld included the following. For example,

Twenty Level 3 Classroom teachers still commented on the difficulty of applying Principle 5 even though they believed that the principle was upheld. For example,

These comments raise some concern about the time needed to undertake the roles negotiated.

Summary discussion of role negotiation processes

The majority of teachers found the role negotiation processes a positive experience. Level 3 Classroom teachers included such factors as the quality of leadership, support of peers, school culture, understanding of the role of the Level 3 Classroom teacher and their own professional expertise as significant in assisting the role negotiation processes. The provision of the role negotiation booklet also helped teachers in the process.

Factors that impeded these processes included lack of understanding of the role, time, personal apprehension, lack of opportunity to contribute to the process, being seen by principal as not deserving the role by virtue of lack of ability or because of being a woman.

On balance the processes engaged in as described by teachers were positive experiences resulting in clear statements of what was expected of the Level 3 Classroom teachers during 1998. However, there are indications that whilst in the majority of cases the principles for role negotiation were applied that the issue of time and its use for the Level 3 Classroom teacher role still needs to be further explored. In the following section the types of roles negotiated are described and the implications of such roles for Level 3 Classroom teachers are further explored.

Implementation Phase

Level 3 Classroom Teacher Roles

Level 3 Classroom teachers contribute in a variety of ways through their negotiated roles. Table 1 provides a summary profile of roles undertaken by Level 3 Classroom teachers.

Table 1 Activities within negotiated roles

Some examples of how teachers described the work undertaken in their negotiated roles as Level 3 Classroom Teacher follow:

There is also evidence that some of the Level 3 Classroom teachers are undertaking a role which is less related to the areas of teaching, learning, curriculum and assessment than might be expected. Some roles appear to have more in common with traditional leadership roles within schools performed by staff promoted to administrative positions. For example, one role described involved policy development, data collection, data analysis and work on the Managing Information System. 2% indicated that they moved to a new administrative position and were unable to undertake their negotiated role. At this stage this is not a major cause concern since few Level 3 Classroom teachers are undertaking a role which does not have its primary focus on supporting classroom teaching and learning, even though a few are moving towards a more administrative role.

14% of the Level 3 Classroom teachers indicated that the negotiated role was modified or evolved over time usually due to changes in the context or priorities of the school. In some cases changes resulted from a better understanding of an appropriate role gained through the implementation of the negotiated role. 5% showed no response or could not be interpreted. The remaining teachers (49%) said that they undertook their negotiated roles as planned.

It appeared that even when the role was implemented as planned that the amount of time and commitment that might be required to undertake these roles could vary significantly. There is an issue of equity, therefore, for Level 3 Classroom teachers. Undertaking a role that inevitably results in a greater intensification of their work may disadvantage individuals. Even though this may be within the agreed negotiated role other teachers may not have agreed to a role that makes equivalent demands. This concern is further evidenced by the data that 26% Level 3 Classroom teachers reported that they did more than was planned whilst only 5% indicated that they did less than was originally intended. Given that over a quarter of the Level 3 Classroom teachers indicated that they did more than was originally agreed this must result in the intensification of their work.

Factors Impacting On Implementation Of The Negotiated Roles.

Enabling Factors in the Implementation of the Negotiated Role.

Level 3 Classroom teachers identified a number of factors that contributed to the successful implementation of their role. 64% of all teachers commented that the support of one of more of the following: principal, deputies, administrative team or district office contributed to the successful implementation of the role. Many teachers also noted the importance of the support and collaboration of staff, students and/or parents to the successful implementation of the role (48%). Teachers also commented that their personal commitment, previous standing in the school community and professional expertise also contributed to their success in implementing the role (31%). Time available for (12%) and the freedom to determine their role (10%) were also identified as enhancing factors. The clarity with which the role was defined, the principles, information provided by the Department and the quality of the documentation also contribute to successful implementation (10%). (See Table 2)

Table 2: Factors contributing to the successful implementation of the negotiated role.

These findings would suggest that the role of the Principal and the relationship of the Level 3 Classroom teachers to other staff are very significant factors in the successful implementation of the negotiated role.

Constraining Factors in Implementation of the Negotiated Roles

19% of the teachers responding did not identify any constraining factors. Of those who did the single most important constraining factor identified by 39% of the teachers was the lack of time available to undertake the role. For example,

Lack of support from administration was also identified by 14% of the Level 3 Classroom teachers responding. Examples ranged from a laissez-faire approach to an instance of active opposition.

Similarly lack of support, understanding and/or the professional jealousy of peers were noted by 13% of the teachers. This did not necessarily continue throughout the year as in the following examples.

There was some concern expressed by a small percentage of teachers (8%) about constraints created by inflexibilities or lack of acceptance within the system or in the interpretation of guidelines.

For a small number of teachers (5%) there were still uncertainties about the role and how this would be implemented within the school.

Other factors mentioned by one or two teachers related to the specific demands of the negotiated role such as finding access to the appropriate professional knowledge, implementing an action research project or gaining support from parents. Two teachers found working in isolation constrained them and wanted more opportunity to network with other Level 3 Classroom teachers.

Table 3 Factors constraining successful implementation of the negotiated role.

Summary discussion of role implementation processes

This analysis of the roles negotiated by Level 3 Classroom teachers suggests some areas of concern in relation to the stated principles of the role negotiation process. Some roles as described appear to involve activities more closely aligned with the work of ‘traditional’ leadership and administrative positions rather than teaching and learning.

There are significant differences in the complexity of the roles and the time that might be expected to undertake the outlined activities. These differences in negotiated roles can lead to inequities for Level 3 Classroom teachers. Similarly when the role negotiated develops so that over a quarter of the teachers report that they do more than was negotiated there must be concern for the balance of activities undertaken by the Level 3 Classroom teacher.

One consequence of this may be that Level 3 Classroom teacher compromise on the commitment they make to the primary focus of the Level 3 Classroom teacher role – that of teaching and learning in the classroom. Some teachers are inevitably in conflict when confronted with the decision to prioritise either their extended role or their classroom teaching, or to do both at the expense of family and personal wellbeing. The commitment of these exemplary classroom practitioners is not in question, however, work intensification noted by some teachers is a cause for concern.

Overall there were fewer cases of the Level 3 Classroom teachers identifying factors that constrained the implementation of their role compared to those who identified factors that enabled their roles. The Level 3 Classroom teachers reported considerable support for the implementation of their negotiated roles. They recognised particularly the part played by the principal and administrative team and their colleagues in their ability to successfully implement the negotiated role.

However, there were still a significant number who identified the amount of time available for the role as too little. For others there were some difficulties in organising the time effectively, particularly with regard to relief, to ensure the successful implementation of the negotiated role.

Whilst the majority of Level 3 Classroom teachers reported that they had the support of the principal and their peers there is still a significant number who do not appear to be working within a collegial community. For these teachers the opportunities to continue to develop and share their professional expertise for the benefit of students, their colleagues and the community must be limited. This is an important area to address since the expertise of these teachers is not being used to the best advantage. The final section that follows addresses the outcomes of the work undertaken by the Level 3 Classroom Teachers during 1998 from their perspective.

Role Implementation: Outcomes

Level 3 Classroom Teachers were asked about their perceptions of the most valuable outcomes for education and students arising from their appointment. Respondents focussed on the allocation of time for and the recognition of the extended leadership role of the classroom teacher that contributed to improved outcomes relating to students, curriculum, schools, parents and teachers. Only three of the respondents did not view the outcomes of the negotiated role favourably. One made no comment.

Outcomes

The outcomes identified by the Level 3 Classroom Teachers are detailed in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Role Implementation Outcomes

The most significant outcome identified by the respondents related to the support and development of other teachers achieved through networking and sharing expertise both within the school and in other contexts. This was noted by 59% of the Level 3 Classroom teachers.

42% of the Level 3 Classroom teachers who responded to the survey identified a valuable educational outcome as having the time to plan and implement specific programmes. Examples included the introduction of specific projects such as the identification of students at educational risk.

Another significant area identified by 28% of the respondents related to ‘adding value’ to the role of the classroom teacher through the recognition and acknowledgement of the quality of their work. This was seen to have improved the professional expertise, morale, self esteem and confidence of teachers.

24% of respondents explicitly identified the improvement of student learning and opportunities as a valuable outcome of their appointment. Such improvements were described in a number of ways: for example, achieving more equitable outcomes for all students.

Other outcomes have included the development of student-centred approaches, student independence and student enjoyment in their work.

21% of Level 3 Classroom teachers also stated there was an improvement of the quality of their own teaching.

Other valuable outcomes described by Level 3 Classroom teachers related to implementation of the Curriculum Framework and the use of student outcome statements. Examples of such outcomes were noted by 19% of the respondents and included a higher profile for curriculum change, general curriculum improvement initiatives and specific curriculum change initiatives. For example,

A few teachers commented on the impact of their role on parents and relationships with the community (9%) particularly where their work had involved contact with parents.

6% of Level 3 Classroom teachers also see their role as acting as an advocate, link or bridge for the classroom teacher with school administration.

Other educational outcomes identified by teachers included taking a greater leadership role and involvement in school decision-making (6%); for example,

For some teachers one outcome was the opportunity to conduct of research. Where a negative response was made this involved either the conditions of appointment of Level 3 Classroom teachers such as the uncertainty of the position, confusion surrounding appointment and the inadequate amount of time available.

Summary discussion of Negotiated role outcomes

The most common response to the question of outcomes of the Level 3 Classroom teacher appointments was in relation to the opportunities to work with colleagues and share professional expertise. The other significant set of responses identified outcomes from specific projects, often for students at educational risk that became possible with their appointment and with the allocation of time to undertake such projects. Level 3 Classroom teachers also valued the recognition and acknowledgement that they received as an indication of the importance of the work of classroom teachers in contributing to core business of the school – teaching and learning. They also identified improved student outcomes arising from their appointments, together with the opportunities for personal professional development working as a Level 3 Classroom teacher.

Other outcomes tended to be less commonly noted such as work on the curriculum frameworks, with parents and communities, as a link between the classroom teacher and administration, leadership and research. Negative and nil responses were not significant. Such outcomes are consistent with the Level 3 Classroom teachers’ role and associated competencies. These explicitly recognise the role of the classroom teacher in school, curriculum and teacher development.

Summary of Data Analysis

The respondents represent the gender and location of the population of Level 3 Classroom teachers well. On balance the role negotiation processes engaged in by Level 3 Classroom teachers were positive experiences resulting in clear statements of what was expected of them during 1998. In the majority of cases the principles for role negotiation were applied. However, the issue of time and its use for the Level 3 Classroom teacher role arose in this context as a significant number of respondents indicated that Principle 5 was either not upheld or where upheld was still seen as a cause for concern.

An analysis of the roles negotiated by Level 3 Classroom teachers suggests a number of issues particularly in relation to the principles of the role negotiation. Some roles as described appear to involve activities more closely aligned with the work of ‘traditional’ leadership and administrative positions rather than teaching and learning. There are also significant differences in the complexity of the roles and the time that might be expected to undertake the outlined activities. Similarly a quarter of the teachers spent more time than anticipated on the negotiated role.

Overall there were fewer cases of the Level 3 Classroom teachers identifying factors that constrained the implementation of their role compared to those who identified factors that enabled their roles. They acknowledged the part played by the principal and administrative team and their colleagues in their ability to successfully implement the negotiated role. However, the time issue was mentioned by a significant number of the Level 3 Classroom teachers as a constraining factor. Whilst the majority of Level 3 Classroom teachers reported that they had the support of the principal and their peers there was still a significant number who did not appear to be working within a collegial community. For these teachers the opportunities to continue to develop and share their professional expertise for the benefit of students, their colleagues and the community must be limited.

The opportunity to work with colleagues and share professional expertise was the most valuable educational outcome identified by Level 3 Classroom teachers. The time to engage in specific projects and recognition of the importance of the work of classroom teachers in contributing to core business of the school – teaching and learning were also important outcomes. They also identified improved student outcomes arising from their appointments, together with the opportunities for personal professional development working as a Level 3 Classroom teacher. Such outcomes are consistent with practices that support schools developing as learning communities, where the professional expertise of the classroom teacher is valued within that community.

Realizing the ‘new leadership’ in schools

How far then has the appointment of Level 3 Classroom Teachers gone towards realising the ‘new’ leadership in schools? Are all outcomes desirable? Should this be the direction we move towards? The experience gained from the research and development stages in this project suggests that there are a number of issues arising from the implementation of the Teacher Career Path project.

The first is the potential for significant change to occur in the way leadership is understood and practised within schools. The dominant model for promotion in most educational systems is for teachers to be promoted out of the classroom to undertake roles with a higher component of administrative and management tasks, rather than the leadership role embodied within the Level 3 Classroom Teacher position. The Level 3 Classroom Teacher may have a ‘leadership’ role in relation to learning, assessment, curriculum, collegial, community or policy development but they are not expected to carry out the more traditional management or administrative responsibilities. The formulation of the role of the Level 3 Classroom is clearly based on a particular vision for how schooling should happen in the future - the formation of learning communities where every member of that community has the opportunity to exercise leadership. This is in line with the principles articulated by the Education Department of Western Australia that

• schooling should be underpinned by the support of active student learning,
• recognition of and catering for individual differences,
• a focus on lifelong learning, both for students, teachers and those occupying other roles within the system,
• equal opportunities, and
• collaborative working in support of the development of individual excellence.

Such developments present challenges and opportunities for both educational administrators and classroom teachers in developing their leadership roles in practice. However, it would seem that the stated intentions of the Teacher Career Path and the expectations of how the work of Level 3 Classroom Teachers would be developed within schools have largely been realised. In particular, the development of team-based collaborative practices has been identified as a major outcome by the majority of teachers as well as significant involvement in the development of classroom practices both of themselves and their colleagues.

What then were the significant features of the Teacher Career Path that helped realised these outcomes? First, the Level 3 selection processes recognised and rewarded the teacher for their professional expertise. The selection process entailed a re-conceptualisation of the way in which we value and reward the work of teachers. The selection was undertaken by peers and was based on evidence of achievement of the ‘competencies’ describing professional expertise. We could perhaps consider rewarding professional learning resulting in the development of teaching and leading within the community – finding ways to enable the certification of teachers and/or administrators beyond initial teacher education. We could recognise their expertise as teachers and/or leaders. This would mean a profound shift in the way we value teachers and leaders within our schools. We would no longer reward hierarchical positions but link rewards to career paths based on demonstrable professional expertise applied in particular work contexts. This would encourage the flattening of organisational hierarchies and lead to more team-based development and collaborative approaches as evidenced by the outcomes of the Level 3 Classroom Teachers even after their first year of appointment.

Second, a significant feature of Level 3 Classroom Teachers is that their positions rest with them not the school. These teachers remain within their existing context with all the advantages of their understanding of the ‘professional knowledge context’ being used to work on their negotiated roles . Promotion was not dependent in moving to a new location, which often results in de-skilling a person whose expertise is so strongly context dependent (Jasman, 1998). In this way the teachers were often able to continue their work further developing projects or increasing the range of their activities. This advantage is further supported by examples of a few teachers who had chosen to transfer to another school and found the role more difficult to negotiate and/or complete.

Third this ‘new’ form of selection and articulation of leadership had particular equity outcomes we hoped might be realised but given previous experience of promotion outcomes could not be guaranteed. The practice of linking promotion positions to particular schools restricts the opportunities of particular groups of teachers to apply. Women, in particular, have not been well represented within current promotional positions. The equity outcomes of the Level 3 Classroom Teacher selection process were such that proportions of teachers applying and appointed were equivalent to the proportions of these groups within the population of teachers employed by the Education Department within the State. Thus 74% of the appointments made to Level 3 Classroom teachers were women, slightly above the percentage applying and within the State teaching population. This high proportion of female Level 3 Classroom Teachers may have contributed to outcomes emphasising collaboration given that it has been suggested that women prefer more co-operative ways of working.

Not all outcomes were positive. Work intensification was evident for many teachers and the impact of the ‘leadership’ role on the time these teachers spent on their core activities of teaching and learning in the ‘classroom’ are causes for concern. Again teachers appear to be caught in the dilemma identified by where

It seems unlikely that this intensification will be addressed effectively until there is a greater recognition of the professional expertise developed through a teacher’s life. We need to recognise the complexity of the working context and the level of decision-making that is required to effectively work towards the improvement of student outcomes. This means we have to provide the appropriate financial rewards and more importantly the time to realise the vision of schools as learning communities. It can be done, but not without cost!

Bibliography