Introduction. The International Successful School Principalship Project revisited

Citation

Johansson, O. and Moos, L. (2009), "Introduction. The International Successful School Principalship Project revisited", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2009.07447faa.001

Introduction. The International Successful School Principalship Project revisited

Introduction. The International Successful School Principalship Project revisited

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of Educational Administration, Volume 47, Issue 6

The International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) started in 2001 with teams of researchers from several countries, including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, the United States, and Australia, developing case studies that examined the practices of successful school leaders in their respective countries. In a special issue of the Journal of Educational Administration (2005), the Editors Stephen L. Jacobson, Christopher W. Day and Kenneth Leithwood wrote that the motivation for the project could be found in the professional histories, interests and experience of its participants. All were experienced researchers who had published widely in the arena of school leadership within their own countries as well as internationally (Jacobson et al., 2005b).

All had been convinced by 2005 (and still are) that excellent and high quality leadership made a difference and can initiate processes and effects that create successful schools. At that time the researchers were also very interested to see if success and strategies for success in one country were the same as in any other. In this first phase of the ISSPP the researchers produced over 65 case studies. Their analyses of the case studies had four guiding research questions:

The first visit to the schools

It was found that there are national differences that do increase sensitivity for successful leadership practice. We therefore include below selected quotes from the authors’ summaries written five years ago noting some interesting differences in the way they described successful school leadership.

The Australian study by Gurr et al. (2005) revealed a common and consistent set of personal traits and behaviours among successful principals. The importance of their values and beliefs and their contributions to the areas of capacity building and teaching and learning were noted

In Denmark (Moos et al., 2005) the students in both schools studied stressed that their principals were “listening to them” and that they were thriving (p. 570). The teachers also emphasized this characteristic as an important principalship trait.

Also found were robust signs of participatory democratic communities, i.e. the open flow of ideas, critical reflection and analysis, concern for the welfare of others and the “common good” as well as the concern for the dignity and rights of individuals and minorities. In many ways the research group from Denmark saw schools that were striving to be good communities for the broad and comprehensive development of students’ cognitive, personal and social competencies.

The schools and their leaders had different interpretations of how to lead in a democratic way, but they could all be said to encourage teachers’ involvement in decision making. Teachers on their part encouraged students to involve themselves in decision making at the classroom level. Leaders were all child-centred and committed towards improving teaching and learning. They all trusted teachers’ motives and they were able to listen and to communicate openly.

One aspect of democratic or shared leadership in these schools was making sure that the people who were to make decisions did so in a competent way. The principals and the leadership teams showed great trust in teachers’ teaching competences; principals showed trust in the competence and commitment of deputies and department leaders.

In England Day (2005) provided empirical evidence that, despite the pressures and consequent tensions, successful head-teachers (principals), like successful teachers, were resilient and had found “room to manoeuvre” (p. 581). None of them believed themselves to be compliant. They were all concerned with values and achievement in leading in ways which build a sense of identity, community and achievement for all stakeholders. They also managed with integrity the emotions, tensions and dilemmas that are part of everyday life of teaching and learning in reform responsive schools of the twenty-first century.

In Norway the learning-centred approach was the focal point of the schools’ philosophy, as well as its practice (Møller et al., 2005). Three aspects of this approach were:

1. 1.

   concern for the individual student’s learning process;

2. 2.

   development of conducive learning environments and teacher-student relations; and

3. 3.

   guidance by the curriculum visions and goals.

Leadership in their schools was almost entirely characterized by collaboration and team efforts. During fieldwork the research group learned that leadership had an organizational quality in these schools and was, indeed, a distributed practice. The distribution of leadership meant more than acknowledging the division of labour – its practice encompassed the work of various leaders as well as teachers and students. The leadership team captured institutionalized structures of collaboration as well as intuitive working relations and spontaneous collaboration on specific tasks. Teachers were also organized in teams, and teacher collaboration was a distinctive feature of these schools. Teachers were expected to take significant responsibilities and decisions in their everyday work.

The researchers concluded that what is deemed successful leadership should not be divorced from deeper philosophical and political questions because education is essentially a moral enterprise. Success seems to be a much more fluid leadership constellation embedded in a particular socio-historic, political momentum than it is a quality easily structured, categorized, and taught. Success always requires that we ask the following question: success in or for what? Success for whom? Who benefits? And, finally, success under what conditions?

In Sweden all three principals worked hard to convince teachers, students and parents to develop a two-fold emphasis on academic knowledge and social goals in accordance with the way a successful school is defined in Swedish law and policy (Höög et al., 2005). These principals adjusted to the culture of the school district and worked in accordance with the ideology and culture of the district. In each of the case schools this meant expanding the school’s mission to include a focus on the development of social values among the students.

For all Swedish principals the work to build teacher teams in the schools was central and, likewise, the encouragement for teachers to think of their teams as the primary structures for decision-making in their schools. In this way the organisation of teachers’ work became a model of collaboration for students and also gave an interdisciplinary touch to teaching.

Researchers conducting the USA study (Jacobson et al., 2005a) noticed that successful principals were leaders who managed to set and maintain a sense of purpose and direction for their schools and generally exerted a positive influence on people’s willingness to follow their lead, even in the face of challenging conditions. The principals established safe, nurturing environments for children and adults, set high expectations for student performance, and held everyone – students, faculty, parents and themselves – accountable for meeting those expectations.

Revisiting the schools five years later

As this project evolved, the research teams decided that the issue of sustainable success required further examination. At this point, five years after their first visits to the school sites, the teams from Australia, Denmark, England, Norway, Sweden and the USA re-visited some of their initial schools in order to determine what had happened during the intervening years. They used a research protocol only slightly modified from that of the earlier study, and the same conceptual framework derived from three core leadership practices: setting directions, developing people, and redesigning the organization.

The resultant interviews with principals, staff and students, included a core of questions:

1. 1.

   Years since the latest interview and/or observation with this principal?

2. 2.

   Have there been changes in the school’s context (in acts or regulations, curriculum, accountability system), in local governance (finances, accountability), in school district (parent involvement, parent SES, ethnicity)? What are the effects of those changes on the school and the principal’s leadership?

3. 3.

   Have there been structural changes in the school since then (in leadership, in staff, in collaboration patterns, teacher teams, in planning procedures, in teaching methods)? If changes have been made, why?

4. 4.

   Have there been changes in school culture (vision and values)? Why?

5. 5.

   What developments can be seen on student outcomes? What are the reasons for those changes/developments?

6. 6.

   How does the principal describe the relations between him/her and leadership colleagues and teachers as well as students and parents? Have those relations changed?

7. 7.

   What means of influence and what style is the principal using in his/her leadership? Have these measures changed over time and if so why?

Reported in the following articles are the findings of six “follow-up” studies – Australia, Denmark, England, Norway, Sweden and the United States. There are, understandably, variations in findings yet common to most are the determination and on-going effort by principals to sustain their successes. Organizational learning and professional growth of principals emerge as key features in this process.

Abbreviations: RQ1.; What practices are used by successful principals and do these practices vary across countries?; RQ2.; What gives rise to successful principal leadership?; RQ3.; Under what conditions are the effects of such practices heightened or diminished?; RQ4.; What variables effectively “link” principals’ influence to student learning?

Olof Johansson, Lejf Moos