Abstract:
In Australia as elsewhere, much hope has been vested in school leadership – particularly in the context of the growing ‘autonomy’ agenda, experimentation with Independent Public Schools and reduced resourcing for mid-level regional support in some jurisdictions. However, some have warned that unrealistic expectations of school leadership can have perverse outcomes – including heightened stress and the risk of scapegoating (Tyack & Cuban 1995; Thomson 2009); shrinking applicant pools and high turnover for principal positions; and an over-emphasis on quick-fix strategies (Hargreaves & Fink 2003). Richard Elmore (2002, 2004) suggests that when school systems reward (and select for) leaders who are most effective in maintaining confidence in public schooling and school systems, the interactions between school leaders and their school systems are more likely to be strategically ‘managed’ on both sides – a dynamic which may not only delay school improvement but also the early reporting of emerging risk. So how do school systems create the conditions for authentic conversations between school leaders and those who work with them in support or supervisory roles? Kowalski and Brunner (2005) point to a lack of research on the choices that region- or district-level leaders make between their own multiple roles (particularly the trade-off between ‘support’ and ‘surveillance’), or on selection and preparation for effectiveness in these roles. Improving our understanding of these complex relationships may inform the way in which school systems work with schools and their leaders, and improve the sharing of promising practice. This paper describes themes emerging from an analysis of system text and interviews with close to 70 senior managers across Australian government school systems, ranging from those who directly oversee and support the work of school principals, through those in Executive Director and Regional Director roles; senior managers with responsibility for human resources and principal development strategies; and with those in Director-General or Secretary-level positions in several jurisdictions. Analysis of data from this fieldwork has identified significant diversity in the philosophic assumptions and structures underpinning principal support and supervision, including indicative differences in supervisory discourse in different jurisdictions; in the distribution of support; in the building of shared practice; in the differentiation of need; and in the continuum of autonomy and ‘systemness’.