Browser does not support script.
Receive regular email updates and personalise your pages. Register now!
Mr Dennis Sleigh Sts Peter and Paul Primary Schools Canberra, Australia
The problem of getting teachers to apply for promotion is an issue that has dogged schools, systems and now whole nations. I have watched as my colleagues advertised for an Assistant Principal in highly desirable schools and attracted only one or two applicants. I have seen schools where the list of applicants for promotions positions was thirty-plus ten years ago: today it is just three or four.
In recent years, the problem has faced us again and again and, while several surveys canvassed reasons for these problems, the situation didn ' t seem to be getting any better. As I discussed this situation with senior colleagues at school, we realised that, unless something was done soon, we would see the short-term collapse of innovations we had struggled to implement for our pupils. If we couldn ' t attract the right people to our school, our curriculum offerings would soon sink back into mediocrity.
We looked at the research, which identified a range of issues that turned people away from applying for promotion, and we quickly realised many of these factors were beyond our control. For example, we couldn ' t do much about the reported increase in accountability, the burgeoning complexity of legal demands on school leaders, or the fact that promotion often meant changed relationships with peers.
However, we did believe we could do something about certain factors. We thought, for example, we could overcome the perception that being in leadership positions meant that ' you were on your own ' in an unfriendly environment; or the sense that ordinary teachers were not equipped to take on such roles or that ' women need not apply ' .
We agreed that if we handled the issue differently, we could encourage teachers to realise that, not only are they leaders in their classroom, but they have the ability to be leaders in their school, and beyond. We set out to change their mindset about school leadership.
With this in mind, we have, over time, implemented three school-based initiatives that have addressed, if not yet reversed, the current trends. We have widened the base of our management team and introduced new positions of leadership to encourage those who wanted to sample seniority. In addition, we fostered dialogue about leadership at every level in the school community.
Debate had surfaced in recent years about the terms ' executive ' and ' leadership team ' . Some people whose views I respected spoke against the idea of a leadership team because, they pointed out, every teacher was inherently a leader and to set up leadership teams that did not include everyone on the staff would demean those left out. However, I also found the term ' executive ' limiting because it had an odour of people sitting around doing a lot of talking, failing to offer the image I was after.
An additional problem was that too many teachers had a negative idea about ' the Exec ' . There was an image problem that needed to be addressed. We set out to do this by offering every teacher - and here we were respecting the idea that anyone who is in direct charge of up to thirty children all day is a leader in their own right - a place on the newly expanded leadership team.
Our offer was simple: if anyone wants to be part of the decision-making group that helps keep the school operating, they can come to a weekly meeting where most of the decisions are made. We asked only three things:
This suggestion was, of course, an invitation to busy teachers do even more work than they were already doing. In addition, there were no tangible benefits (apart from another item on their Curriculum Vitae). However, even if we got no takers, we were at least showing people that we were not afraid of them actually hearing what happened at executive meetings.
I was delighted at the take-up rate for this idea and, more to the point, I was thrilled by what turned out to be the long-term commitment involved. Certainly, there was movement in and out of the leadership team, but normally the departures were due to other pressures, such as taking on extra study.
The allocation of paid positions of promotion is subject to union agreements, and the accompanying conditions (especially regarding release time from some teaching duties) are also spelt out in industrial awards. This is probably fair enough, in that it prevents unscrupulous principals from reducing the perks that are supposed to go with the extra responsibilities. However, like most industrial agreements, these documents can become straight jackets that restrict, rather than support the people for whom they were intended.
If we were going to introduce new positions, without breaking the spirit of the agreements, we had to be careful. We also had to work out how to finance any such initiatives. As it turned out, neither issue presented much of a problem, given the positive attitude of all parties.
We (my assistant principal and I) obtained notional clearance from our employers, promising that what we did would be a trial program that would not be seen as a precedent-establishing action. We also agreed that this new plan would in no way undermine the industrial implications of current promotion agreements. We then approached our School Board (which was already well aware of the crisis involved in finding suitable executive staff) and we asked them for some money. Finally, we let all staff know that we were planning an initiative that we believed might be of interest to them and that would provide them with some opportunities that were not otherwise available.
Our idea was to introduce four ' Special Co-ordinator ' positions for one year, as a process to help interested staff get some taste of what was involved in school leadership. (It should be noted that, in our system, there are three levels of promotion at the school level: principal, assistant principal and co-ordinator - the third of these also includes the special role of Religious Education Co-ordinator.) Anyone on the teaching staff could apply for these new positions, and the successful applicants would be given a one-day release from teaching each fortnight. In return, the successful applicant would be in charge of a particular function for the year, and would be expected to devote this release day to that task. The four tasks were:
Applications were by ' expression of interest ' , rather than by a detailed process. That meant interested people would not have to devote the time needed to preparing a full application at a time when they were trying to complete their end-of-year tasks. (We wanted the positions to be decided before the new year commenced because we had to hire someone to take applicants ' classes on release days - that was where the Board ' s money was going to be spent.) As it turned out, we had the same number of applicants as we had positions, so this made life easier for all of us!
We reminded applicants that they would be very welcome to sit on the Leadership Team, which by this time was well established. However, we did not set this as a prerequisite for appointment because we knew that some people might be able to do a very successful job as Special Co-ordinator but would be unable to devote the extra ninety minutes a week to another meeting. As it turned out, most of the new appointments were happy to become (or to stay) involved in the team.
The trial period of one year for this program is about to end and it will not be repeated. This is not because the idea failed - we would judge it to have been very successful, based on the output produced and the confidence garnered - but because we don ' t feel that we can repeat the plan without endangering current industrial practices. We have a new plan for next year, explained later in this paper.
The third action we have taken has been a mixture of good luck and good management. We felt that if we could get people talking more about leadership, it might remove some of the fears that currently prevent people from applying for substantive promotions. We wanted the discussion to take place in the staff room, but we also wanted our wider school community - particularly the School Board but also the whole parent community - to become aware of the issues.
The decision to continue running the Leadership Team, and then the subsequent initiative regarding Special Co-ordinators, meant that the staff, especially the teachers, were going to be talking about the whole question of leadership. This certainly happened and seems to be continuing. Not everyone is convinced that they should be involved. Some people say: ' I became a teacher to teach, not to go to more meetings! ' and they are entitled to that view. However, even these reluctant ones seem to have looked closely at the opportunities offered. Some who were previously opposed to any such idea have embraced it, at least at the Special Co-ordinator level.
However, the discussion has also gone on outside the staff room. The Board members were very taken with the possibility of enlarging the leadership pool, because they are very committed to maintaining the current educational initiatives that they have actively supported, and they see the advantage to the school of having a wider base to draw on when senior staff move on.
The parent body, in general, has also been involved to some extent, largely because of an initiative called ' The Principal Reflects ' . This takes the form of a special one-page article that appears at least two or three times a month in the school newsletter. I have made sure that a few of these articles have been devoted to questions of leadership, and to alerting parents to the significant leadership role that all teachers play in our school. Feedback on these articles suggests that at least some parents are thinking about the leadership crisis we are facing.
We know that it is not enough to expand the idea of school leadership, or even to increase the opportunities for people to ' taste and see ' . We also realise that generating discussion - no matter how useful this is - will not solve our problems. However, we are committed to the idea that educational leadership is a dynamic field and the best way to improve current practices is to keep looking at options for growth.
Next year, we will ask the Board, instead of funding release time for Special Co-ordinators, to make a significant increase in professional development funding. Our goal is to allow all staff, including those too nervous to take on a major challenge, to engage in special programs where they can be exposed to some of the ideas that must underpin future leadership moves. We hope that if teachers are able to share in such issues - by attending conferences or seminars, for example - they might be more open to future initiatives.
This is only a small move towards changing the current situation. However, if a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, the employment of a thousand principals starts with a single initiative. We hope this is such an initiative.
Mr Dennis Sleigh is Principal of Sts Peter and Paul Primary School, in Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). He was recently awarded the status of Fellow of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
Buy publications by the author
Contribute a discussion paper to this year's online conferences on the transformation of education