IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

How do Principals of High Performing Schools Achieve
Sustained Improvement Results?
Lewes Peddell
Southern Cross University
Australia
David Lynch
Southern Cross University
Australia
Richard Waters
Southern Cross University
Australia
Wendy Boyd
Southern Cross University
Australia
Royce Willis
Southern Cross University
Australia

133

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Abstract
Education systems across the globe have enacted national testing regimes to monitor and report
student achievement progress as an outcome of teaching performance. This paper reports on
an investigation of strategies that Principals of high achieving schools use to achieve school
results, based on NAPLAN reports (the National Assessment Program in Australia) andinterpreted via the Alignment, Capability and Engagement (ACE) model of organisational
readiness. Our findings identified specific Principal behaviours, actions and attitudes asnecessary for effective school-wide improvement programs, as well as the existence ofcommonly shared strategies and approaches that help to explain why these particular Principals
have been successful in their pursuit of school improvement. These include a shared vision forimprovement, use of data-driven decision making, and building positive, “transparent”
relationships to encourage teacher buy-in. Importantly, these findings identified“organisational readiness”, a foundational principle of the ACE model, as a fundamental
requisite to effective school improvement.
Keywords: ACE Model, organisational readiness, principal leadership, school achievement,
school leadership134

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Introduction
Education systems across the globe place a premium on the teaching performance of theirschools and have enacted various national testing regimes to monitor and report on student
achievement progress as an outcome of this performance (Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2013; 2010a; 2010b; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2011).
In Australia this regime is known as the National Assessment Program – Literacy and
Numeracy (NAPLAN) (National Assessment Program [NAP], 2019), and school Principals are
required to respond to reported NAPLAN outcomes by enacting improvement programs(Buckingham, 2013). This paper reports on the behaviours of 16 Principals who madesignificant and sustained improvement in the NAPLAN results of their school when compared
to “similar schools” during the reporting period 2016 to 2018. The findings make an essential
contribution to our understanding of effective school improvement because the paper
documents a range of behaviours taken by these Principals to achieve such outcomes and aligns
them to a transformational model of leadership. We begin by providing an outline of NAPLAN.
Literature Review
NAPLANThe National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAP, 2019) is an annual testing
regime created by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).
NAPLAN is a set of standardised tests that evaluate competency in reading, writing, language
conventions and numeracy. These tests have been administered annually since 2008, to Years
3, 5, 7 and 9 throughout Australia. Following administration, schools receive a NAPLAN
achievement profile for each student as well as overall cohort data. An essential function ofthese results is to provide comparative NAPLAN data for the achievement levels of eachschool. Schools can also compare achievement levels to the National average and to “similarschools”, based on like scores from the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage(ICSEA), which was developed to enable fair and meaningful comparisons to be made on thebasis of the performance of students in literacy and numeracy as reported by the NAPLAN(ACARA, 2013). The ICSEA employs a multi-level regression model to reflect the combined
influence of the student and school’s cohort Socio-Educational Advantage (SEA) components
on NAPLAN performance, based on the following formula:
ICSEA (student = SEA [student] + student Indigenous status + SEA [school
cohort] + percent Indigenous enrolment + remoteness) (ACARA, 2013).
NAPLAN results can also serve as a proxy to compare teaching performance across schools(ACARA, 2018), and the use of NAPLAN results in this way is essential for the current
investigation because there is significant research that links positive teaching performance toeffective school leadership (e.g., Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hattie, 2009, 2012; Lachat &Smith, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2008; Marzano et al., 2005; Shen & Cooley, 2008). From thisperspective, we will now explore the impact of school leadership on student achievement,
mediated through its impact on teacher performance.
Impact of School Leadership
There has been an enduring focus within education on identifying what school leaders can do
to improve student achievement (Hattie, 2009; 2012; Lakomski & Evers, 2016). In a metaanalysis of over 5,000 studies measuring the behaviours of school leaders, Marzano et al.
(2005) found 69 studies from the previous 35 years that had examined “the quantitative135

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

relationship between building school leadership and the academic achievement of students” (p.
6). They found that “Principals can have a profound effect on the achievement of students intheir schools”, and while not able to produce “any straightforward explanations” (p. 38), they
defined 21 leadership responsibilities “important to effective leadership in schools” (p. 64).
More specifically, in a meta-analysis of research on school leadership and student outcomes,
Robinson et al., (2009) found five leadership dimensions that impacted on student outcomes asfollows (effect size): establishing goals and expectations (0.42); resourcing strategically (0.31);
planning to coordinate and evaluate teaching and the curriculum (0.42); promoting andparticipating in teacher learning and development (0.84), and; ensuring an orderly andsupporting environment (0.27) (p. 656).
Reflecting on an extensive review of the literature concerning effective school leadership,
Leithwood et al. (2008) made a similar claim that: “leadership is second only to classroom
teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (p. 28); “almost all successful leaders draw on thesame repertoire of basic leadership practices” (p. 29), and; “school leaders improve teaching
and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation,commitment and working conditions” (p. 32). Furthermore, Leithwood et al. (2008) stated,“there is not a single documented case of a school successfully turning around its pupil
achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership” (p. 29).
The overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from these prior studies is that school leaders havea clear impact on student outcomes. However, of interest to the current investigation is that thefocus for these prior studies has been on highlighting general dimensions, factors,
responsibilities or strategies by which school leaders have been able to influence student
outcomes overall in relation to school improvement. In contrast to these approaches, our study
has sought to determine the specific behaviours, attitudes and actions of Principals in relation
to school improvement, with a particular focus on leading teachers to prepare for the change
agenda relating to school improvement, and from the perspective of transformational
leadership, to which we now turn.
Transformational Leadership: The ACE Model
The current study seeks to uniquely contribute to this area of research by using the Alignment,
Capability and Engagement (ACE) Model of transformational leadership (Schiemann, 2006)
to interpret the responses of 16 Principals as they reported on how they led successful school
improvement programs. The ACE model represents a transformational model of leadership that
focuses on how leaders optimise effective change via three dimensions:•••

Alignment: the degree to which leaders align staff to the vision, mission and goals of achange program
Capabilities: the degree to which leaders ensure that staff have access to the relevant
resources, skill sets, and professional learning required to enact the change program
Engagement: the degree to which leaders can inspire and motivate staff to engage inthe change program.

This model is transformational in that it “emphasises leaders” developing a compelling vision,
providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation to staff, and engaging them in
the achievement of shared goals” (Sun & Leithwood, 2015, p. 500). Importantly, this model
can provide a framework to contextualise research in educational leadership through the lensof Alignment, Capabilities and Engagement, which can be linked to prior research in the areaof leadership impact as follows:

136

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

•

•

•

•
•

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Leithwood (2013) found aligning teachers by “direction setting practices” and building
their capabilities by “developing people, redesigning the organisation and managing
the instructional program” (p. 636) were useful strategies employed by successful
leaders.
Specific to transformational leadership, Hattie et al. (2014) found that teachers
preferred transformational leaders who developed engagement through high levels ofinterpersonal skills such as trust and aligned their staff by placing a premium on student
achievement.
Behaviours which impacted most on student learning were those resulting in what
Marzano et al. (2005) referred to as “second-order change” (p. 113). These includedaligning through ideals and beliefs, capability building by intellectual stimulation, andengaging staff by way of affirmation.
The Principal’s role is to ensure teachers are aligned and engaged by bureaucratic
structures that promote teacher autonomy through “open and innovative-stimulating(vision-building, intellectual stimulation) actions” (Buske, 2018, p. 274).
Notably in the research of Robinson et al. (2009), the dimension with the mostsubstantial effect, “promoting and participating in teacher learning and development,”
involves school leaders participating in and with teacher learning and development,
which is considered an essential aspect of Schiemann’s (2014) conceptualisation oforganisational readiness. This notion sits at the heart of the ACE model and proposesthat school leaders who are able to transform and direct Alignment, Capabilities andEngagement in support of the change agenda surrounding a school improvement
initiative, are better able to enact positive improvement outcomes.

Our use of the ACE model is part of ongoing research on the part of the authors, in terms ofinvestigating ways to frame specific practices and strategies employed by Principals to promotereadiness in their schools (Yeigh & Lynch, 2019; Lynch et al., 2019). In this respect, ourapplication of the ACE model is echoed by Macklin and Zbar (2017), who argue that school
improvement, and therefore student learning outcomes, “stands or falls on school leadershipand what it does” (p. xx). At a conceptual level, the ACE model can be viewed as arepresentation of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), which suggests an explicit
relationship exists between attitudes, intentions and behavioural engagement (e.g., Ajzen,
1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Lamorte, 2018).
The current study seeks to build on this research by using the ACE model’s notion oforganisational readiness to explain why specific leadership attributes and behaviours are
effective in the pursuit of improved student achievement outcomes. The primary focus of thisreport, therefore, is to investigate how the attitudes, intentions and behaviours of successful
school Principals act to implicitly operationalise organisational readiness as a fundamental
factor in preparing for successful school improvement. Working from this position andaccepting that school leadership has a significant indirect impact on student achievement, thequestion of primary interest for this particular report is as follows. To what degree do specificleadership behaviours of successful improvement-leading Principals correspond to the notionof organisational readiness as a means of effecting consistent transformative change ineducation settings?
Methods
The research team, after receiving ethics approval from the university, accessed national
NAPLAN school achievement data for the reporting period 2016-2018 under licence from137

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

ACARA. We then undertook a review process that identified 20 schools that were among themost improved in terms of overall NAPLAN results that moved from being equal to, or below
the results of “similar schools” in 2016, to be higher than the results of “similar schools” in
2018. Figure 1 provides an indicative example of a school with high-NAPLAN-gains inWriting for a cohort from Year 3 (2016), and Year 5 (2018).

Figure 1: Example graph showing a “high” student gain outcome for NAPLAN
From these 20 highest ranked schools, 16 Principals from 14 schools (one school had multiple
Principals during the relevant NAPLAN reporting period) accepted an invitation to participate
in the study and took part in semi-structured interviews that yielded five questions of interestfor this report. These interviews took between 60 to 90 minutes and were audio-recorded, with
the interviewer also taking detailed notes. It is important to note that no reference, mention,
wording or allusion was made to the ACE model, nor the notion of organisational readiness,
the work of Schiemann (2006, 2014), or the idea of transformational leadership at any timeprior to or during these interviews or the course of this investigation. This was necessary inorder to ensure against biasing the responses of these Principals in any way, shape or form
during the investigation. Our aim in this respect was to allow the Principals to speak forthemselves, using their own words and articulating their own concepts and principles. Thematic
analysis was then used to inductively identify meaningful patterns from the audio-recordings
and interview notes; and were followed by group discussions using comparative analysis
techniques (Creswell, 2002; Moss, 2001) to inform this paper.
Findings
Demographics
Of the 14 schools, seven were primary schools and seven were combined primary andsecondary schools, eight were state sector schools, and six non-state sector schools and thelocations of these schools were 4 from major cities, 4 from inner regional, 4 from outerregional, and 2 from remote areas. Overall, these schools represented all Australian states andterritory education jurisdictions. The schools were all co-educational, with student populations
ranging from 152 to 1141 students, and with an average of 476 students. The rounded full-time
equivalent teacher to student ratios ranged from 1:90 to 1:20, with an average of 1:15. The
ICSEA scores of these schools ranged from 981 to 1038, that is, within a single standard
deviation of the national median ICSEA value of 1000, allowing for meaningful comparisons
to be made between the schools. In terms of age, one Principal was aged 30-39 years, six wereaged 40-49, eight were aged 50-59 and one was aged 60-69. With respect to gender, nine
identified as male and seven identified as female. Fifteen Principals had at least one prior138

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Principalship and at least ten years of experience as a Principal. The Principals had a mix ofundergraduate and postgraduate qualifications, with the majority having completed a Master’s
degree.
Following are the findings presented within each of the questions that served to frame the semistructured interviews. The relationship between the findings and the ACE model will besummarised in the discussion section.
Question 1: Describe your overall approach to leading your school.
Principals’ responses were markedly similar in stating that building positive relationships withteachers was a central focus of their school improvement agenda. Principals emphasised
engaging teachers through various modes of collaboration, including staff meetings to air
grievances, and to discuss and decide strategic and operational issues. Principals also built thecapacity of teaching teams via specific coaching and mentoring arrangements. The use of
student performance data to make decisions was also a key point made by each Principal.
These Principals expressed the importance of teachers being active participants in a continuous
teaching improvement agenda. A clear theme was that the Principals were relentlessly focusedon teaching improvement and used the development of a shared and agreed vision to align staff
with this. These responses resonate with findings from Hallinger and Heck (2011) thatsuccessful school improvements are an outcome of the collective efforts of leaders andteachers, shaped by collaboration and activated by the embracing of mutual influence.
Presented in Table 1 are quotes that typify how Principals led their schools.
Table 1: Quotes from Principals regarding how they led their schools
Participant
1

8
12
16

QuotesMy role is to empower others … you know inspiring them, building theircapacity as teachers. I want them to meet the outcomes that we agree weare seeking; data becomes our reference. But at the end of the day, if they
don’t do their part, you know to improve, then I do work to performance
manage them.
We have a shared and agreed vision in our school and use data to see how
we’re going.
It’s not all about me. Relationships are fundamental. I step in and out asrequired. I play the key role, I make sure we stay focused, but as I say, I
strive to build capacity in others to also lead.
Building relationships (with teachers) is hugely important because then you
build trust and rapport, and people are then willing to go with you on achange journey.

Presented in Table 2 are two main themes that emerged from how Principals’ responses to how
they led their schools. As is the case for this table and similar tables to follow, the ACE mapping
is to demonstrate linkage to this model of transformation leadership (Schiemann, 2006).

139

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 2: Main themes regarding how Principals led their schools
Theme
1

2

Description
Enacting a clear and agreed vision with teachers• A vision focused on improvement metrics• Using data to make informed decisions• Clear intents
Empowering staff through collaboration and capacity building• A focus on building capacity via targeted professional
learning• Supporting people to improve• Teaming; working together to solve problems and create
capacity• Involving teachers in decision making• Providing opportunities to improve, e.g. coaching,mentoring arrangements.

ACE
A
C
A
C
C
C
E
C

Note. ACE refers to Alignment, Capability and Engagements, see Schiemann (2006).
Furthermore, regarding Theme 2, “empower” came to mean ensuring teachers had the requisiteknowledge, skills and confidence to undertake the task ahead, and opportunities to be actively
involved. “Collaboration” meant providing opportunities to work with other teachers, and“capacity building” referred to making structural changes, that is, resource allocations,designed to enable teachers to do what was required.
Question 2: What are the fundamental principles which inform your work as a schoolleader?
A common theme was the Principal being “visible” in their school. Participants clarified
visibility as being involved in teaching and learning functions and being viewed as the “leadteacher” rather than solely as the “lead administrator”. They claimed that leading teaching andlearning in their schools was imperative, with the operational management of their school a
distant second and often delegated to others. All participants also indicated they undertook
formal and informal coaching and mentoring arrangements with teachers and contributed to all
critical teaching decisions. They used every occasion to share how the school’s vision andassociated plans were unfolding, and let teachers know that their efforts and expertise werevalued, encouraging a culture where teachers sought assistance to meet their challenges.
Presented in Table 3 are quotes from Principals that typify the fundamental principles of theirwork as a school leader.

140

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 3: Quotes that typify the fundamental principles of the work of a school leader
Participant
Response2
Empowering. [This is] the overarching principle of my leadership approach. I
suppose it is like the coaching philosophy in the sporting view. My role isto get the best out of people so they can be the best they can. I lead by beingaround.
3
Building solid relationships. It’s about trust and about me being visible. I am, I
guess you could say, the lead teacher, not just the problem-solving manager
who sits in his office and I let them know its teaching and learning that’s
important here.
Presented in Table 4 are the five main principles that came to represent the fundamentals of thework of a school leader.
Table 4: Fundamental principles of the work of a school leader
Principle
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Being visible in the core businessA relentless focus on teaching and learning
The importance of building and maintaining positive working
relationships
Having and espousing high expectations
Working towards establishing shared values and agreed outcomes

ACE
A
E
E
A
E

Note. ACE refers to Alignment, Capability and Engagements, see Schiemann (2006).
These responses agree with Seashore Louis et al., (2010), in that the two most important ways
to impact student learning are to do so directly through instructional leadership and indirectly
by supporting teachers in professional communities. Being visible in this way, establishingshared values and vision, and building positive working relationships are all also inherent
characteristics of organisational readiness, in that they all contribute to positive preparation forschool improvement at the social level of Alignment and Engagement.
Question 3: Your school has shown significant improvement in NAPLAN results during
the reporting period 2016 to 2018. What do you attribute this to?
In their responses to this question, the Principals often described themselves as being the
conductor of an orchestra or the coach of a sporting team. More broadly, they indicated they
worked to focus, enable and motivate their teachers to embrace continual improvement. Of
interest was that it became evident that their approach had been explained many times before,that it was alive in their current thinking and that they had developed a personal model toexplain their plans. This was often referred to as stemming from the work of researchers, mostnotably Hattie’s Visible Learning (Hattie, 2009; 2012).
While referencing research appeared to afford a certain sense of confidence in their approach,the Principals also cited improvements in student performance data as central reference points
for their plan, as well as being vital indicators of their success. We interpret this to mean thatthese Principals felt confident in knowing how to undertake the whole of a school improvement

141

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

program. They espoused a clear sense of what needed to be done to improve their school andregularly revisited their plans in consultation with teachers and other stakeholders.
These responses revealed a core theme concerning school improvement, where a focus wasplaced sequentially on what Hirsh et al. (2014) have referred to as a Cycle of Improvement.
This cycle involved: a) reviewing data, b) enrolling teachers to a change agenda, c) working tobuild the required capacities, both organisationally and capability wise, d) enacting a common
school-wide approach to the problem area and e) reviewing progress with data. In accordancewith this, the Principals also revealed that their ultimate intent was to enact teaching change byimproving what teachers did in their classrooms. Presented in Table 5 are quotes that typify
what Principals attributed to significant improvements in NAPLAN results.
Table 5: What Principals attributed to significant improvements in NAPLAN results
Participant
Response5
I had a range of professional experience; you know I started at the bottom andworked my way up. These gave me a sense of everything, what I had to do,
and I guess I could perfect the technical things, but it was working witheffective leaders that helped me. They gave me guidance on what to do andwhy. They showed me what was effective and what I should be learning andlet me know in no uncertain terms when I messed up.
10
Watching how successful people work, you know working in a coaching typesituation.
Presented in Table 6 are three strategies Principals attributed to improvements in NAPLAN
results.
Table 6: Strategies Principals attributed to improving NAPLAN results
Strategy123

Description
Use data-informed practices
Build teacher capacities based on evidence
Relentlessly focus on the core purpose of improving student
learning

ACE
C, E
C
E

Note. ACE refers to Alignment, Capability and Engagements, see Schiemann (2006).
The Principals’ main attribution for NAPLAN success was that they sought to generate
certainty through their intentional use of data as evidence. Generative questions such as “whatis the data telling us” were used to focus teachers on analysing their teaching practice andensuring that their practices were focused on successful student outcomes. This accords with
the ACE component relating to Capabilities, in that it ensures that staff have access to therelevant resources and skillsets needed to prepare for and then engage with the school
improvement change agenda.
Question 4: What are the required conditions for you to successfully enact a teaching
improvement program?
While Question 3 sought to elicit the perceived causes of their success, Question 4, asked
Principals to reflect on their school improvement journey, to reveal how they prepared teachers
for change. Once again, positive relationships, as well as an imperative to have all teachers“on-board”, were pre-requisites to school improvement. Principals spoke at length about how

142

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

they used conversations around data to encourage teachers to embark on a program of school
improvement, that is, using “like school metrics” as a comparison tool to establish an agreed
need for change, through to conversations about individual students and the teacher’s
personalised learning needs.
Concerning personalised learning, the Principals identified targeted professional learning asnecessary to ensure teachers had the requisite skills to undertake the improvement program.
“Targeted” was explained as meaning customising learning experiences to meet the range ofteachers’ learning needs. From this perspective, the main theme around perceived successful
conditions appeared to be for Principals to demystify school data, present it as a positive toolfor improvement, and then use it as a reference point for targeted teacher learning. Presented
in Table 7 are quotes that typify the conditions Principal’s required to enact a successful
teaching improvement program.
Table 7: Quotes regarding conditions required for successful teaching improvement programs
Participant
Response
13
Building relationships. It’s about trust and working together. I certainly set highexpectations, but I’m in there with them. Teaching is hard work, so we allroll up our sleeves, and I’m in it too.
2
Review data and convey this to teachers. Give them a sense of how we’regoing.
Presented in Table 8 are the three main conditions required to generate teaching improvement.
Table 8: Required conditions to generate teaching improvement
Required Condition
Description
1
Build positive relationships
2
Share understanding of how to collect and use data
3
Have a strong focus on building school-wide willingness
to collaborate on a solution.

ACE
A, E
C
A, E

Note. ACE refers to Alignment, Capability and Engagements, see Schiemann (2006).
Question 5: How do you prepare your teachers for whole school teaching improvement?
Principals positioned teachers for whole school improvement by structuring a combination of
information sharing sessions and professional learning (PL) opportunities, aimed at providing
teachers with requisite skills and understandings. This was articulated as “positioning teachers
for success” and was supported by establishing a clear understanding of the improvement
agenda, building positive relationships and negotiating agreed improvement strategies. Thesefindings are similar to Thoonen et al., (2012), who found successful school leaders were those
who initiated vision-building processes, were empathetic to the emotional needs of teachersand stimulated these teachers to pursue school improvement-aligned professional learning
activities. In this sense, positioning was a strategic step through which the teachers came totrust each other and the Principal, and where information transparency was valued. Presented
in Table 9 is a quote typical of how principals went about preparing teachers for whole school
teaching improvement.

143

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 9: A quote typifying how Principals prepared teachers for teaching improvement
Participant
Response2
The first step is to review the data. Understand our current performance. Work
with teachers to diagnose; you know why this is with teachers. Then, guest
presenters and using them as motivators, to share views on things. I follow
this up with looking at research to deal with such areas. Connecting
approaches to the school context. Creating structures is a key consideration,
but it's not first up. This is to ensure the capacity to do what’s required. Thenit’s into teams. Getting teachers together really helped out here. Of course,
as we progress I had to bring in required teaching capacities as you start tosee what is missing, you know what talent I suppose is required.
The findings from participants responses to Question 5 build on their responses to Question 4,
in that, preparing teachers for change requires certain conditions to also be positioned.
Continuing with this realisation, we then found that the responses to Question 5 provided a way
to operationalise the conditions established through the analysis of Question 4. Therefore,
presented in Table 10 are strategies Principals used to prepare teachers for whole school
teaching improvement, and these are grouped by “required conditions” of Question 4.
Table 10: Strategies used to prepare teachers for whole school teaching improvement.
Required
Condition a1

2

3

Description
Build positive relationships• Transparency, share the whole story, share all data
• Encourage conversations and talk about how it impacts
each other• Personalise the message for change• Focus on wellbeing as we change, focus on pastoral care
• Enable teachers to create teams and collaborate on ideas
and solutions• Be involved with teachers, challenge them to think
differently
Share understanding of the data and the message conveyed• Having good data sets from various sources• Explaining what the data is telling us• Helping teachers to understand the data
• Using data to create a sense of urgency for change
Have a strong focus on building school-wide willingness tocollaborate on a solution• A clear vision of what is focused on and why• Enable teachers to collaborate and seek evidence-based
solutions• Use data to monitor outcomes• Solution-orientated teams• Commitment to the task as Principal

ACE
A
C, E
A
A, E
E
C, E
A
C
C
A, E

A
E
A
E
A

Note. ACE refers to Alignment, Capability and Engagements, see Schiemann (2006).
a“Required conditions” are from Table 8.

144

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Discussion
We know from prior research that Principals have a pivotal role to play in assisting teachers to
improve their performance, particularly in terms of increasing student learning outcomes. The
specific attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of Principals and teachers have been explored to someextent by previous research investigating school leadership. However, this research has
generally sought to understand the roles and functions of school leaders within frames ofreference that are more generalised and categorical. In contrast, the current study employed aninterview protocol to elicit information from Principals with a proven track record of successful
school improvement, concerning their specific leadership behaviours, actions and attitudes
aimed at leading for school improvement, and with a distinct focus on how they lead teacher
preparation for school improvement.
As was signalled at the outset of this article, we now reflect on these findings through the lensof the ACE model of transformational leadership, in particular, how the Principals embedded
the concept of readiness for change. In this sense, a key point of inquiry for the current
investigation was to investigate the degree to which the actual strategies of Principals compare
to the ACE model of school readiness, as a particular approach to preparing for improvementchange.
The analysis of responses gained through our investigation has shown that the Principals shared
many behavioural and attitudinal characteristics in their approaches to change-focusedleadership. Common themes included the need to develop an agreed vision, empowering staff
through collaboration and customised professional learning, leading by example, using data toboth motivate and guide change, and building positive, “transparent” relationships to encourageteacher buy-in.
In this regard, all the Principals espoused the importance of Alignment and Capability building
through clear, agreed on school vision for improvement, based on teacher empowerment
through the use of collaboration which provides opportunities to learn new skills. This wasevidenced through Principals’ focus on the fundamental precepts for changing being notionsof systematic coaching and mentoring, and the need for a clear plan that directed continual
school improvement. As an example, Principals sought to mentor teachers into relevant
skillsets around data, engaging teachers in “similar school” data comparisons and using thisdata to focus teachers’ professional learning.
Principals also manifested ACE components of Capability and Engagement by identifying
positive relationships as the typical basis for achieving staff willingness to collaborate andenact improvement solutions, galvanising teaching staff to their improvement agenda first, andthen using collaborative processes, systematic coaching and mentoring to support theseteachers in delivering school improvement.
Furthermore, associated with the ACE components of Alignment and Engagement, thePrincipals directed teacher activity and structured support mechanisms for their engagement
through precise planning and systematic mentoring. The use of data-driven analysis as the basis
for monitoring and evaluating school improvement was another common element of successamongst these Principals. The vehicle for this was the Principals’ use of direct conversational
engagement, and we note that this approach – using data to both engage and motivate teachers– can also be seen as an overall theme for the ACE model.

145

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Conclusion
This report found specific behaviours, actions and attitudes that Principals reported asnecessary to engage in school-wide improvement programs. We examined these behaviours,
actions and attitudes through the lens of the ACE Model, which focuses on how leaders readytheir organisations for change. This focus was necessary as the specific behaviours, actions andattitudes required to ready a school for improvement change have not been a significant subjectof preceding research, which has largely focused on what school leaders do during a school
improvement initiative.
In this respect, a distinctive contribution of the current investigation has been its comparative
analysis of specific leadership behaviours and attitudes in relation to the ACE model notion oforganisational readiness, also informing us of what school leaders do to prepare for school
improvement and linking these behaviours to how they then continue the improvement overtime. This analysis has highlighted the existence of many commonly shared strategies andapproaches that help to explain why organisational readiness is important to the pursuit ofschool improvement. We wish to share this information more broadly, in order to help delineate
what may be involved in the preparation phase of a successful school improvement initiative.
Implications of the Research
A valuable subsequent study would be to interview Principals of established low-performing
schools to investigate if there are different types of activities undertaken by these school leadersin relation to improvement change and the ACE model. As supported by May et al., (2012),
there may be differences between the two sets of Principals explained by context-driven
priorities, that is, Principals needing to be more hands-on and reactive in lower-performing
schools, and more strategic and proactive in higher-performing schools. Examining the otherside of the coin in this way could, therefore, help to clarify the distinctiveness of these current
findings.

146

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2018). National
report on schooling in Australia. https://bit.ly/2INnBUIAustralian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2013). Guide tounderstanding 2012 index of community socio-educational advantage. ACARA
Copyright Administration. https://bit.ly/35FHZQB
Buckingham, J. (2013). Education policy trends in Australia. Independence, 38(2), 6–7.
Buske, R. (2018). The principal as a key actor in promoting teachers’ innovativeness –analyzing the innovativeness of teaching staff with variance-based partial least squaremodeling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(2), 262–284.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1427606
Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitativeand qualitative research. Pearson Education.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement:
classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes andlearning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.536322
Hanushek, E. A. & Woessmann, L. (2011). The economics of international differences in
educational achievement. In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann, (Eds.),
Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 89–200). Elsevier.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: transforming teaching in every
school. Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating toachievement. Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximising impact on learning, Routledge.
Hirsh, S., Psencik, K. & Brown, F., (2014). Becoming a learning system. Learning Forward.
Lachat, M. & Smith. S. (2005), Practices that support data use in urban high-schools. Journalof Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333–349.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1003_7
Lakomski, G. & Evers, C. (2016). Challenging leadership: The issues. In G. Lakomski, S.
Eacott, & C. Evers (Eds.), Questioning leadership: New directions for educationalorganisations (pp.3–16). Routledge.
Lamorte, W. W. (2018). Behavioral change models: The theory of planned behaviour.
Retrieved 07/10/2019, from: http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPHModules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories3.html
Leithwood, K. (2013). Leadership and student learning: What works and how. In C. Wise, P.
Bradshaw, & M. Cartwright, (2013). Leading professional practice in education(pp.25–37). Sage Publications Ltd.

147

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership, School Leadership & Management, 28(1) 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Lynch, D., Smith, R., Yeigh, T., & Provost, S. (2019). A study into “organisational
readiness” and its impacts on school improvement. International Journal of
Educational Management, 33(2), 393-408.
https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJEM-07-2017-0181
Macklin, P. & Zbar, V. (2017). Driving school improvement: A practical guide. ACER Press.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. ASCD.
May, H., Huff, J., & Goldring, E. (2012). A longitudinal study of principals' activities andstudent performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 417–439.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678866
Moss, G. (2001) Bernstein's languages of description: Some generative
principles. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(1), 17–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570120714
Moir, S., Hattie, J., & Jansen, C. (2014). Teachers’ perspectives of effective leadership inschools. Australian Educational Leader, 36(4), 36–40. https://bit.ly/36M77EB
National Assessment Program (NAP). (2019). National assessment program.
https://www.nap.edu.au/naplan
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010a). The high costsof low educational performance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment Publishing. https://bit.ly/38Wj8di
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010b). Strong
performers and successful reformers in education: lessons from PISA for the UnitedStates. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing.
https://bit.ly/3feca4w
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013). Industrial
policies in a changing world. Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment Publishing.
Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes:
Identifying what works and why: Best evidence synthesis. https://bit.ly/32YiQyT
Schiemann, W. A. (2006). People equity: A new paradigm for measuring and managing
human capital. People and Strategy, 29(1), 34.
Schiemann, W.A. (2014). From talent management to talent optimization. Journal of World
Business, 49(2), 281–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.012
Seashore Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student
achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
Shen, J. & Cooley, V. (2008), Critical issues in using data for decision-making, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(3), 319–329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701721839
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2015). Direction-setting school leadership practices: a metaanalytical review of evidence about their influence. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 26(4), 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1005106

148

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2012). Building schoolwide capacity for improvement: the role of leadership, school organizational
conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4),441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678867
Yeigh, T., Lynch, D., Turner, D., Provost, S., Smith, R., & Willis, R. (2019). Schoolleadership and school improvement: An examination of school readiness factors.
School Leadership and Management, 39(5), 434-456.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1505718
Corresponding Author: Lewes Peddell
Contact email: lewes.peddell@scu.edu.au149