Theory and Practice of Successful School leadership in

Australia

Dr Lawrie Drysdale, drysdale@unimelb.edu.au

Dr David Gurr, d.gurr@unimelb.edu.au

Melbourne Graduate School of Education

The University of Melbourne

1
Theory and Practice of Successful School leadership in

Australia

Abstract

As part of the International Successful School Leadership Project, an updated model

of successful school leadership based on Australian case studies is described. This

model attempts to capture the relationship between the characteristics of the school

leader (who they are), the interventions they initiate (what they do), and the way they

respond to the context in which they operate. The model is interrogated by exploring

three areas of our continuing research: the role of instructional leadership,

sustainability of success, and the preparation of future school leaders.

Introduction

In the last decade there has been a renewed attention on school leadership and its

impact on student performance. The often quoted statement by Leithwood, Seashore

Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom (2004) that leadership is second only to teaching in

terms of impact on student learning, is now well accepted. This emphasis has

occurred within a global context where there has been an unprecedented focus on

student outcomes, and increased school accountability, both at the school and teacher

level. For example, in August of 2010, the Los Angeles Times, for the first time in the

world, reported on system-wide student learning outcomes linked to individual

2
teachers. Some of these trends are mirrored in Australia, which in 2010 for the first

time, publicly reported on student learning outcomes for all schools

(www.myschool.edu.au). Fortunately, the educational research community has, in

some respects, anticipated this with a focus on understanding successful school

leadership through comprehensive literature reviews (e.g. Leithwood and Riehl, 2005;

Leithwood, et al., 2004; Robinson, 2007), and large-scale national (e.g. Day,

Sammons, Hopkins, Harris, Leithwood, Gu & Brown, 2010; Seashore Louis,

Leithwood, Wahlstrom & Anderson, 2010) and cross-national research projects (e.g.

the International Successful School Principalship Project - ISSPP). The International

Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) has contributed significantly to our

understanding of successful school leadership. Since 2002 this international group of

academics and practitioners, who now represent over 14 countries, has researched the

qualities, characteristics and competencies of successful school leaders in a range of

school contexts across various country settings. The authors of this paper are

Australian members of the ISSPP.

In this paper we outline an Australian model of successful school leadership that

attempts to capture the relationship between the characteristics of the leader (who they

are), the interventions they initiate (what they do), and the way they respond to the

context in which they operate. The model has been refined and modified over time,

and this paper outlines the latest changes. The model is interrogated by exploring

three areas of our research agenda: the role of instructional leadership, sustainability

of success, and the preparation of future school leaders.

3
Background of the International Successful School

Principalship Project

The ISSPP is a large and important body of research that currently contains more than

90 case studies across 14 countries and several-thousand survey responses across four

countries, and which has produced four books (Jacobsen & Ylimaki, 2011; Leithwood

& Day, 2007; Møller & Fuglestad, 2006; Moos, Johansson, & Day, 2011), three

special journal issues (Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 2005;

International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 2007; Journal of

Educational Administration, 47(6), 2009), and a further special journal issue planned

(Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2011), and more than 80 refereed journal papers.

Since 2002 the Australian research group has focused on multiple-perspective case

studies in Tasmania (six) and Victoria (nine), and large-scale surveys in both states in

2006. Subsequently the program has focused on returning to the original Victorian

case studies, where the principals are still in leadership positions, to determine the

extent to which they have been able to sustain their success.

In the first group of case studies in Victoria we selected four government schools (one

special, two primary and one secondary school), four Catholic primary schools and

one independent school. Selection was based on the reputation of the schools,

reputation of the principals, student learning outcomes, and, in the case of the

government schools, favourable school review reports that provided evidence that

these schools were successful in terms of student learning outcomes, student

4
attendance, and parent, student and staff opinion. As with the other countries in the

ISSPP, we collected data using multiple-perspectives, including individual and group

interviews with the principal, assistant principal(s), senior staff, teachers, parents,

students, and school council members; for Catholic schools the Parish Priest was also

included. The focus of the interviews was to investigate perceptions of success of the

school and the contribution of the principal to the success. In addition relevant

documents were collected such as school development plans, school prospectuses,

school review reports, annual reports, newsletters and examples of media coverage.

These sources were used to contextualise the empirical data and to enhance

trustworthiness. Three of the researchers revisited three of the schools five years after

the initial study to determine to what extent they sustained their success. Research has

been completed in two of these schools. The three schools were identified because

they were the only schools in the study where the principals remained. The return visit

followed the same methodology with the addition of observation of the work of the

school principal and aspects of the life of the school for a total of four days held at

various times over a three-week period. Further details on the methodology of the

ISSPP can be found in the chapters of Leithwood and Day (2007).

In the next section we explore our development of a model to help explain the

findings of the Australian case studies. It is based on our original case studies and

those schools that we have revisited.

An Updated Model of Successful School Leadership in

Australia

5
Models have been a central feature of mainstream management and leadership theory

and research for over fifty years, and whether simple or complex, they are constructed

to make sense of complex phenomenon. The model presented in this paper attempts to

capture the characteristics of a leader within a school context and the interventions

that they can make to influence student outcomes.

The model presented in this paper is an updated version of the Victorian model

published in 2007 (Gurr & Drysdale, 2007). The development of this model pays

tribute to contemporary (King & Newmann, 2001; Hill, 2002; Hopkins, 2001;

Mitchell & Sackney, 2001) and past leadership models (Getzels & Guba, 1957;

Getzels, Lipham & Campell, 1968; Lewin, 1935). The model is essentially a social

systems framework that depicts behaviour as a function of the leader who acts within

an institutional role.

In Figure 1, the leader (principal) interacts within the particular school context to

deliver a series of interventions aimed at improving student outcomes. The areas that

can influence student outcomes are teaching and learning (Level 1), school capacity

building (Level 2) and other influences (Level 3). Level 1 has the most impact on

outcomes followed by Level 2 and Level 3. The leader can make interventions at any

level in the model, including student outcomes.

6
Figure 1 Australian Successful School Leadership Model

Student Outcomes can vary from traditional forms of achievement such as scholastic

attainment, to more authentic kinds of outcomes (Newmann & Associates, 1996). In

this later category we include outcomes such as social competencies, community

service, personal growth and spiritual awareness. Leaders can influence these

outcomes by prioritising and emphasising those that are desired.

Within the Teaching and Learning area, the quality of instruction, the design of the

curriculum, the various forms of assessment and the ability to motivate and equip

students to manage their own learning, directly impact on student outcomes. The

leader can make various interventions in this area directly or indirectly to improve

performance (see Gurr, Drysdale & Mulford, 2007 and 2010 for a discussion of direct

and indirect instructional leadership).

7
School Capacity Building is the area in which principals and other school leaders

exert considerable influence. It is an area that can be broken into four areas: personal,

professional, organisational, and community. These can be further divided into four

elements. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

4 x 4 Approach to Capacity Building

Personal Capacity Professional Capacity

Self Professional Professional Teacher

Management Networks Infrastructure Leaders

X X
Individual Knowledge
Professional Creation & Team School –wide
Pedagogy Construction Building Pedagogy

Organisational Capacity X Community Capacity

Shared Organisational Social Capital Community

Leadership Learning Networks
& Alliances
X X
Organisational Safe Parent-School Relationship
Structures Environment Partnerships Marketing

Drysdale & Gurr 2010

Figure 2:. 4 x 4 Approach to School Capacity Building

We have called this the 4 X 4 Model of Capacity Building, (Gurr and Drysdale,

2007). In the construction industry in Australia a piece of timber 4 inches by 4 inches

represents strength and is used for scaffolding and framing building structures. We

apply this metaphor to building the capacity of the school to deliver better outcomes.

This area offers leaders significant scope for a number of interventions. The 16

elements of the capacity-building section are relevant for most school leaders

(principals, senior leadership team, and middle-level leaders) because an important

8
aspect of leadership is working with people to help them to develop relevant

capacities.

The final area that impacts on student outcomes is level 3. These other influences can

include a range of environmental factors such as demographic changes that impact on

the mix of students attending, education system policy (e.g. the introduction of the

National Curriculum), and support (budgets, expertise, etc), and the level of

community resources and facilities. Successful principals are able to work with and

influence these factors as appropriate. Gurr & Drysdale (2007) provide examples from

the initial case studies of the interventions that principals make at various levels.

Surrounding these are the school context (what the school is - its vision and mission,

school culture, the organisational structures and processes, and the people who inhabit

the school including staff, students and parents) and the qualities, characteristics and

competencies of the principal as the key leader. We include these as separate elements

to represent their importance. Principals are the key leaders in schools, and school

context as we describe it, whilst open to change, is an enduring and important element

of schools.

Having described our updated model of successful school leadership, we now

interrogate this model by exploring three areas, namely, the role of instructional

leadership, sustainability of success, and the preparation of future school leaders.

These three areas are those that have been the focus of two recent books from the

ISSPP: Jacobsen & Ylimaki (2011) and Moos, Johansson, & Day (2011).

9
Findings from Three Areas of the Australian ISSPP

Research

Leadership and Sustainability

The notion of sustainability in education remains ambiguous. As with many maturing

concepts, the application of the concept widens, in this case to a point where it seems

that it can be applied almost to anything and everything, including educational

leadership (Blankstein, Houston and Cole, 2009; Davies, 2007; Fullan, 2005;

Hargreaves and Fink, 2006). The edited collections by Blankstein, Houston and Cole

(2009) and Davies (2007) illustrate this well with more than 20 chapters by eminent

writers in educational leadership, but no consensus as to what sustainable educational

leadership means. In our conception of sustainable educational leadership we define it

as leadership that maintains school performance at a high level, or improves it over

time.

In Australia we have revisited two schools and are currently in the progress of

investigating a third, with the purpose to focus on the sustainability of school success,

and of the successful leadership of the principals (Drysdale, Goode & Gurr, 2009;

Gurr, Drysdale & Goode, 2011). We report here on Jan Shrimpton at Morang South

Primary School, and Bella Irlicht at Port Phillip Specialist School.

Jan Shrimpton

Morang South Primary School was re-visited in 2008 four years after the initial

research. It occurred just before Jan, the principal, retired. First established as a rural

10
school in 1877, the school was now situated in an urban growth corridor and upgraded

to a new site in 1996. Jan was appointed in 1999 due to the school’s poor

performance. When we visited the school in 2004 it had significantly improved on

student learning outcomes and parent and staff opinion.

The principal was credited as the main driving force, through her leadership style,

personal philosophy and values, and personal characteristics. In terms of her

leadership style she was described as a positive role model, inspirational, and

empathetic. Jan’s style was consultative and conciliatory. Her personal characteristics

included integrity, high energy, sensitivity, enthusiasm, and persistence. Her personal

philosophy was centred on developing the whole child and not just pursuing high

academic results. Most importantly, she was able to rebuild the relationship among

staff and with the parents. Her strategic interventions included introducing a Quality

Education Program at the classroom level, establishing teams across the school,

recruiting talented staff, building bridges and strong relationships with the community

and outside agencies, opening-up classrooms, and introducing a ‘values based

approach’ as opposed to a ‘rules based approach’ to make it a safer environment.

When we returned we found that the school had maintained its performance despite

internal and external changes (Goode, Drysdale and Gurr, 2009). External changes

included changes in government policy and new initiatives, demographic changes,

and the threat from new schools in the area. Internally there was a decline in

enrolments from 586 to 500, the staff profile was now much older as new teachers had

been promoted outside the school and not replaced. We found that the reasons she

was able to maintain success were for the same reasons that had brought about the

11
initial turnaround – her focussed leadership, an inclusive leadership style, personal

characteristics, values and competencies that focussed on developing and supporting

people. The 2007 School Review Report from an external school reviewer noted:

It is a good, successful school which aims to consistently provide high quality

education and continuously improve (School Review Report 2007)

The report listed successful attributes as: a strong sense of purpose and community,

high level of collegiality, strong leadership, and quality professional learning.

Bella Irlicht

The other school we retuned to was Port Phillip Specialist School and the leadership

of Bella Irlicht (Di Natale, 2005; Drysdale, 2007). The school caters for a diverse

range of physical and intellectually disabled students from ages 2 to 18. It is located in

a bayside suburb 5 kilometres from the central business district of Melbourne. In 2009

there were 62 staff comprising of teachers, therapists and aides and 150 students.

Because it was difficult to rely on test scores in a specialist setting, we used the

criteria of reputation, school achievements, our past knowledge of the school through

earlier research, recommendations, and data including staff and parent opinion.

Bella was appointed in 1988 when it was a small special development school located

in a dilapidated house with 20 students. When we investigated the school in 2002-3 it

had been relocated, reclassified as a specialist school (which permitted a greater

variety of students to attend), and renovated and refurbished into a contemporary and

outstanding education facility. It was now a much larger school of about 120 students,

with an experienced staff that was use to continuous and significant change, but which

also new that there was still more to do if this was to be a world-class special school.

12
The school was focussed on educating the children at the school (not just caring for

them as was often the case in special schools), and to so through a whole-child focus.

Noteworthy is that the school was the first fully serviced school in Australia that

included an integrated services provision and transition to work program for the

students.

The transformation was attributed largely to the principal’s leadership: her vision and

high expectations to create a world-class special school, a resilient and determined

personality, a direct and assertive leadership style, a personal philosophy that believed

all children could be educated, and range of personal and interpersonal skills that

helped her build relationships within the school and with the wider community. She

had introduced significant change though strategic interventions that helped attract

resources to underpin and build the staff, school and community capacities to improve

outcomes for specialist students.

We returned in 2008-9 and found that the school had been challenged by internal and

external changes. External changes were similar to South Morang – continuous

change in terms of government policy and initiatives, and changes in the student

demographics with students coming from a wider range of socio-economic and

cultural backgrounds. However, the most significant changes were internal. The

school had developed and introduced a new innovative curriculum based on the

Performing Arts; it had introduced a new digital reporting system that included

pictorial representation of the students’ progress; it had been totally restructured; and,

was attempting to change the culture from providing care and therapy, to one that

focussed on education. In addition, increased student enrolments from 120 to 150

13
placed pressure on accommodation, the staff profile was now much younger due to a

high turnover of staff (generally for promotion elsewhere) and required different

support structures, and staff were now made more professionally accountable through

a performance and development culture program initiated by the Education

Department.

Again Bella’s leadership was credited with improving the school. Her ability to

develop a strong and inspiring vision, and her personal qualities of passion,

persistence and determination remained at the forefront. A high sense of self-efficacy

continued to allow her to take chances and innovate. She continued to surround

herself with ‘smart people’, and she was able to select the right talent, acquire

resources, align people to the organisation’s goals, and motivate staff to participate in

more change. Unlike Jan at Morang South, some things in her leadership had

changed. She had become more collaborative and allowed others to lead. She became

a better listener, and, paradoxically, was better able to challenge people’s behaviour.

In comparing the two schools, Morang South maintained its current good level of

performance while Port Phillip improved further through an acceleration of its

improvement agenda. The principals’ attitude to change may explain the difference.

Jan had done well to maintain performance given the impact of system reforms,

demographic changes, and the nature of the changes in the school staffing profile. Jan

had developed a very good school with a child-centred approach that she believed

balanced the need to improve student outcomes at all costs, against the need to

develop the whole child, and so she had perhaps become more reactionary to external

and internal pressures, rather than proactive in initiating new developments. In

14
contrast, Bella remained proactive in initiating change for the benefit of the school,

and was better able to control internal and external challenges to ensure that the

school continued with the goal of developing a world-class specialist school.

These observations on principal leadership need further explanation, as both

principals are outstanding leaders, but there reaction to change is different. Jan

attempted to embed the changes that she had initiated over time and was somewhat

reluctant to instigate new changes, especially as some of the systems reforms (such as

an increasing emphasis on national test results) went against her philosophy of

educating the whole child. She was concerned to improve the school, but not at the

expense of compromising core educational values. In contrast, Bella’s reaction to the

system demands for change were to set her own agenda and promote even more

internal change to enhance the opportunities for students with disabilities; hence the

development of an Performing Arts-based curriculum. She did not ignore system

demands, but she was driven by a larger vision, one that was embedded within the

whole school community. In an attempt to encapsulate each of the principal’s

approaches to leadership Jan can be thought of as a ‘Restorer-Builder’ and Bella a

‘Visionary-Driver’. Jan was able to restore the school’s reputation, performance and

parent-staff relationships. She was able to build the capacity of staff and community

to engage in school improvement. Bella we labelled ‘Visionary- Driver’ because she

had the vision of a world-class specialist school, and had the determination and

persistence to drive through the necessary changes, regardless of the external demands

placed on the school.

Instructional Leadership

15
One of the points of interest for the ISSPP has been the extent to which principals

exercise instructional leadership and the manner in which this is enacted; in Australia

the concept is more commonly termed educational leadership (see Gurr, Drysdale and

Mulford, 2007, 2010 for an extended discussion of this). The two cases used in this

paper were chosen to not only illustrate the powerful but largely indirect instructional

leadership of principals (Vicki Forbes), but to also show the complexity of leading a

school with John Fleming typifying the direct instructional leader who exerts a direct

influence on student learning outcomes (Murphy, 1990).

Vicki Forbes

Vicki was appointed as a first time principal of Brentwood Secondary College in

2000. Brentwood Secondary College is a co-educational, single campus school

established in 1969 in a residential eastern suburb of Melbourne. After years of

decline in the 1990s, Vicki was credited with restoring the school’s reputation and

performance, particularly student achievement (Karvouni, 2005). Much of her success

in improving student performance was attributed to her educational leadership.

Most of Vicki’s impact on student outcomes was indirect, focussing more on work

within Level 2 of the model in Figures 1 and 2. Vicki focussed considerable energy

into attracting, retaining and developing staff, promoting shared leadership and

decision making, developing personal and professional capacity of staff through a

focus on improving teaching and learning, and building relationships. She put in

strategies to break down the classroom ‘silos’ by introducing peer observation. She

established professional learning communities, challenged staff to reflect on current

practice, promoted debate of issues in staff forums, and encouraged reading and

16
exchanging new ideas. She was particularly concerned that teachers should examine

evidenced-based data to inform decisions on pedagogy.

Relationships were the cornerstone of Vicki’s leadership. Students were encouraged

to develop a strong work ethic, the success of which is evidenced by outstanding Year

12 results that have continued to improve over time. She was able to motivate and

help set high expectations to encourage them to improve their performance. She

influenced their values and beliefs about school and motivated them to achieve which

led to improved learning outcomes. She used high expectation language, spoke and

motivated students on a group and individual basis, and had an open-door policy for

students to come into her office at anytime.

Vicki demonstrated the importance of values and beliefs in making an impact. She

had developed a learning community within the school, and believed it was possible

to integrate a focus on high academic achievement with a caring and trusting

environment. These values and beliefs were manifest in her vision for a better school,

to be the leading secondary school in the area and the school of first choice for local

families. Her moral purpose was to change the culture to one of high expectations and

academic rigour, to pursue excellence, but at the same time to care about people. She

also saw the need to create a culture where teachers saw themselves as professionals,

able to make judgements based on evidence rather than intuition as so often was the

case. Vicki said she made sure the vision was re-enforced and repeated again and

again until ‘they got it’. Vicki was seen as successfully ‘walking the talk’ and used

language, words, symbols and actions to re-enforce the vision.

17
John Fleming

John knew early in his career that he wanted to be a principal because he is passionate

and driven in his quest to make a difference to the lives of children, and being

principal gives him the most influence on what happens in a school. After 15 years as

a teacher, John became the assistant principal (1992) and then principal (1996-2006)

of Bellfield Primary School. Bellfield was a small (220 student) government school in

a high poverty suburb of Melbourne (85% of students were illegible for government

assistance). John’s work is fully described in Gurr et al. (2003), Hardy (2006), Gurr

(2007) and Fleming and Kleinhenz (2007).

John could demonstrate direct influence on the quality of instruction, curriculum and

assessment and student learning – level 1 impact. John epitomised the 'instructional

leader' concept that came to prominence in the educational literature in the eighties

(Murphy, 1990). He had exceptionally high expectations and a very positive, 'can do'

attitude. He demonstrated a strong belief that every student could learn and achieve in

all areas. He demonstrated a high level of energy, excellent pedagogical and

curriculum knowledge, and a capacity to develop and align staff. He was ever present,

regularly visiting classes to work with students and teachers, to help them improve.

To do this he had developed a sound and clearly articulated educational philosophy

centred on four pillars: teacher-directed learning; explicit instruction; using strategies

to move knowledge from short to long-term memory; establishing very good

relationships with students. He also believed that teachers should have excellent

presentation skills, and that students should be provided with regular feedback.

Displays of student work, high expectations regularly reinforced, celebration of

18
student achievement, and a positive school climate helped to set the right tone for the

school.

John also worked well at level 2 as he loved the challenge of helping people to

develop, and particularly enjoyed working with teachers to improve their practice.

John worked extensively with teachers and expected all to show commitment to the

students and to the school, and to want to improve. He realised that not all the

teachers will be extraordinary teachers, but if they were willing to support the school

direction and to work to improve their practice, then John was willing to support them

‘100 percent’. For John getting the most out of teachers was about creating a high

expectation, data-driven learning environment. As John describes, it is about creating

‘a culture in which teachers are accountable, keeping data that is fair dinkum, setting

high expectations, going in and watching teachers teach formally. There were also

organisational and community capacity elements that John emphasised, especially

building a physically and emotionally safe environment, building social capital and

developing parent-school partnership

Principal Preparation

In Australia, a four-year teaching qualification and registration are the only formal

requirements for school leaders. School leadership development in Australia has for

too long relied on an apprenticeship model in which aspiring school leaders gain the

necessary skill and experience on-the-job as they moved up the ranks to the principal

class (Su, Gamage and Miniberg, 2003). The findings of the ISSPP in Australia

confirm this, with principals describing pathways that did not include formal

requirements to gain knowledge outside of the school experience. However, what is

19
evident with these successful principals is that they were all intellectually restless and

actively sought new ideas to supplement their significant on-the-job training. The

pathways they chose varied and three examples are used to illustrate this.

Jan Shrimpton

Jan’s preparation for the principalship was based on her developing a clear personal

leadership style, having a strong motivation to do well, participation in formal and

informal professional learning programs, and the development of the ability to

establish excellent interpersonal relationships. She also built on her experiences and

developed a clear and relevant educational philosophy.

Jan liked a challenge. As a teacher, she was drawn to the schools in the most

challenging circumstances and she succeeded in taking on the toughest of assignments

in these schools. It was at this stage that she started to develop a personal educational

philosophy and set of values based on her belief in making a difference with students

of disadvantage. She believed that every child had the right to develop to their

potential and that development of the whole child was important. Jan also had a love

for learning and participated in as many formal and informal programs as possible.

While she was a regional Student Welfare consultant she participated in a six-week

intensive residential program run by the Institute of Educational Administration. She

explained how the program was life-changing and gave her the confidence to consider

being a principal.

Immediately after attending the course, Jan applied and was appointed as principal in

a school which she said was ‘out of control’. Putting together her educational

20
philosophy, learning, experience and newly acquired confidence, she took on the role

believing that if she could bring the staff together as a team it would make a

difference. Soon after taking up the role of principal she initiated a school merger and

created a new school identity. Subsequently, she was asked by the Education

Department to move to another school in challenging circumstances, Morang South

Primary School; it was her work at this school that we investigated as part of the

ISSPP. Throughout her time as principal she continued to engage in professional

learning and networking. Jan retired in 2008 only to be recalled by the Education

Department to lead yet another school in difficult circumstances.

Bella Irlicht

Bella Irlicht had been principal of this special school for students with multiple

disabilities since 1986. During her time she achieved extraordinary things for the

school and students. When she retired in 2009 she had transformed the school from a

small school in a converted home with less than 20 students into a magnificent facility

with an innovative curriculum and a world-wide reputation with 150 students. She

was recognised with numerous awards including the Order of Australia (OA), CEO of

the Year for Not For Profit Organisations, and a Fellowship of the Australian Council

for Educational Leaders.

In her time as principal Bella gained several formal qualifications including a Masters

in Education, and Graduate Diplomas in Educational Administration, Curriculum, and

Student Welfare. She travelled within Australia and overseas, and engaged in

numerous professional learning programs. She was a superb networker, sought the

21
counsel of many experts, and in her tenth year as principal engaged a coach, ahead of

a trend to coaching that is now only gaining momentum.

The qualifications supported her knowledge and skill base, but it was her drive,

determination, high expectations, and entrepreneurial spirit that were identified as the

drivers of her success. She was described as a ‘visionary doer’. It was not clear to

what extent the courses, programs, and experiences added to the personal qualities

and characteristics that distinguished her as a principal, but certainly her personal

mission to make a difference to the lives of students with disabilities was influential.

An example of how her combination of her inner drive to create a world-class school,

and her quest for new knowledge helped the school is shown in a study tour she did in

the 1990s to explore the concept of fully serviced schools. This trip was made

possible through gaining a Fulbright Scholarship, the support of the Education

Department, and her contacts with people such as Professor Caldwell at The

University of Melbourne. The result of this trip was that she returned and created a

school that now provides an extensive range of additional services such as

physiotherapy and dental treatment on-site. Her continuing success as a principal can

be attributed to her ongoing personal and professional learning – Bella epitomises the

idea of life-long learning.

Discussion

In the following we review the contribution of each of the research areas to the

development of the model in Figure 1.

22
Sustainable school success was shown to rely on the leadership style, clearly

articulated values, positive attitude, personal qualities and characteristics, and

effective relationship building of the two principals. Both leaders were key to shaping

their school’s vision, ethos, culture, structures, expectations, and processes. They

effectively managed the human resource side of the context, working with and

developing staff.

Within this context they attempted to influence and improve student outcomes

indirectly by designing and implementing strategic interventions that focused mostly

on level 2, School Capacity Building, and to a lesser extent on level 1, Teaching and

Learning. Initially both influenced student outcomes. Jan introduced and prioritised

social competences as an authentic outcome. Bella also focused on social

competencies because of the nature of the student’s disabilities, but she also attempted

to re-focus on the educational rather than medical outcomes (care and therapy).

During our first visit Bella had focused on developing the staff, and supporting the

community. When we returned the emphasis was on teaching and learning with the

development of an innovative Performing Arts-based curriculum and a new

assessment and reporting program. Jan mainly centred on level 2 by encouraging staff

development, developing teams, creating a safe environment, and restoring

community trust. Each was involved with level 3, Other Influences, by being active in

policy development, committee work and network learning.

The Australian case studies confirmed the generally accepted finding that mostly

instructional leadership is indirect, working through teachers to influence student

outcomes, although some principals can have a more direct influence. The work of

23
two principals was described to gain a sense of the subtlety of the indirect/direct

influence argument. Both principals were clearly influential (indeed, most in the

school communities believed that the success of these schools was largely due to the

efforts of the principals), yet Vicki focussed mostly on level 2, working through

others to influence teachers, student and parents to improve student outcomes, whilst

John was more directly involved with level 1, often working in classrooms, whilst still

developing teacher capacity at level 2.

In terms of principal preparation, the principals we researched, and the two we chose

to illustrate this, were intellectually restless and actively sought new ideas through

formal and informal programs to supplement their significant on-the-job training

about what works in schools, and to improve their leadership. This was important for

ensuring that their ideas were fresh and that they were leading schools at the forefront

of contemporary learning. There are several aspects to their successful leadership of

schools that are broadly relevant:

 They had a love for learning, and participated in whatever formal or informal

programs were available. Their love of learning was evident in their work at

level 2 to help develop staff.

 They had a strong career orientation and they accepted personal responsibility

for their development to create their own future. This included participating in

formal and informal professional learning, and reflection on their practice and

learning through experience.

 Strong personal motivations to create excellent schools and to be excellent

leaders drove much of what they did. To support this they established a set of

values and beliefs, suitable for the schools they led, which guided their

24
 actions. These are important aspects of the qualities of school leaders that

helps them to be successful.

 The principals fully engaged in professional networks, including regional and

state committees, to offer their expertise, and to gain from the experience both

personally and for their schools. This illustrates how principals can operate at

level 3.

In summary, we have presented an interactive and sequential model of successful

school leadership that shows that the principal exerts influence on a range of student

outcomes mainly through a focus on teaching and learning and school capacity

building. The influence on student outcomes can be direct, although it is mostly an

indirect instructional leadership approach. The influence is manifested through a

combination of personal factors (personal values, philosophy, personal qualities,

leadership preparation, leadership style and competencies) that interact within a

specific school-community context (school vision, ethos, culture, size and

circumstance) to produce sustained successful school leadership.

References

Blankstein, A. M., Houston, P. D. and Cole, R. W. (2009) Building

Sustainable Leadership Capacity , Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,

A Sage Company.

Davies, B. (2007) Developing Sustainable Leadership. London: Paul

Chapman Educational Publishing/Sage.

25
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood., Gu, Q., & Brown, E.

(2010) 10 Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. Nottingham:

National College for Leadership of Schools and Children's Services (NCLS).

Di Natale, E. (2005) What are the qualities, skills and leadership styles adopted by a

successful school principal in a successful Victorian Specialist School? Unpublished

Master of Education Thesis, The University of Melbourne.

Drysdale, L. (2007) Making a difference. In Duignan, P. & Gurr, D. (2008) Leading

Australia’s Schools. Sydney: ACEL and DEST, pp. 132-138.

Drysdale, L., Goode, H. & Gurr, D. (2009) Successful school leadership: Moving

from success to sustainability. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), pp.

697-708.

Fullan, M. (2005) Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press.

Getzels, J. W. and Guba, E. G. (1957) Social Behaviour and the Administrative

Process. School Review, 56, pp. 423-441.

Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M. and Campbell, R. F. (1968) Educational Administration

as a Social Process; Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Harper & Row,

Goode, H., Drysdale, L. & Gurr, D. (2009) From Success to Sustainability:

Case Study Comparing Two Schools, Paper presented at the

European Education Research Association , (October) Vienna,

Austria.

Gurr, D. (2007) We can be the best. In Duignan, P. & Gurr, D. (Eds.) Leading Australia’s

Schools, Sydney: ACEL and DEST, pp. 124-131.

Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2007) Models of Successful School Leadership: Victorian

Case Studies, in Ken Leithwood & Chris Day (Eds.) Successful School

Leadership in Times of Change, Toronto: Springer, pp. 39-58.

26
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Goode, H. (2011) Australian Cases of Principals Sustaining

School Success, in Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (Eds) (2011) How

School Principals Sustain Success Over Time: International Perspectives

Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer, pp. 25-38.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L. & Mulford, B. (2006) Models of successful principal

leadership, School Leadership and Management, 26(4), pp. 371-395.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L. & Mulford, B. (2007) Instructional Leadership in Three

Australian Schools, International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3),

pp. 20-29.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2010) Australian Principal Instructional

Leadership: Direct and Indirect Influences, Magis, 2(4), pp. 299-314.

Hardy, R. (2006) Successful Leaders in Successful Schools: A case study of a government

primary school principal in Victoria, Australia. Unpublished Master of Education

Thesis, the University of Melbourne.

Hargreaves, A., and Fink, D. (2006) Sustainable Leadership. Francisco CA: Jossey-

Bass San.

Hill, P. W. (2002) What all principals should know about teaching and learning, in

M.S. Tucker & J. B. Codding (Eds), The Principal Challenge San Francisco:

Jossey- Bass, pp.. 43-75

Hopkins, D. (2001) School Improvement for Real. London: Routledge Falmer.

Karvouni, A. (2005) Successful School Leadership in Victoria: A case study of the

principal of a government secondary school. Unpublished Master of Education

Thesis, The University of Melbourne.

27
King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2001) Building school capacity through

professional development; conceptual and empirical considerations. The

International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), pp. 86-94.

Fleming, J. & Kleinhenz, E. (2007) Towards a Moving School: Developing a

professional learning and performance culture. Melbourne: Australian Council

for Educational Research Press.

Lambert, L. (2009) Reconceptulaizing the Road Toward Leadership Capacity in A.

M. Blankstein, P. D. Houston, & R. W. Cole, (Eds) Building Sustainable

Leadership Capacity, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, A Sage Company, pp.

7-28.

Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (Eds.). (2007) Successful School Leadership in Times of

Change. Toronto: Springer.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005) What we know about successful school leadership.

In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on

educational leadership New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 22-47.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How

leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.

Lewin, K. (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personally. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2001) Profound Improvement: Building capacity for a

learning community. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), pp. 394-398.

Møller, J. og Fuglestad, O.L (2006) (red.): Ledelse i anerkjente skoler. Oslo:

Universitetsforlaget.

Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (Eds) (2011) How School Principals Sustain

Success Over Time: International Perspectives Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer.

28
Murphy, J. (1990) Principal Instructional Leadership. In, Advances in Educational

Administration: Changing Perspectives on the School, 1, pp. 163-200.

Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). School Restructuring and Authentic Student

Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Robinson, V. (2007) School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What

Works and Why, Monograph, 41 (Melbourne: Australian Council for

Educational Leaders).

Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L. and Anderson, S. E. (2010),

Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final report on Research

Findings, Centre for Applied and Educational Improvement, University of

Minnesota and The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of

Toronto, Wallace Foundation, New York.

Su, Z., Gamage, D. & Miniberg, E. (2003). Professional preparation and development

of school leaders in Australia and the USA. International Education Journal,

4(1), PP. 42–59.

Ylimaki, R. & Jacobson, S. (Eds) (2011) US and cross-national policies, practices

and preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership,

organizational learning, and culturally responsive practices. Netherlands:

Springer-Kluwer.

29