Report Commonwealth Innovation

School Innovation: Pathway to the knowledge society
School Innovation:
Pathway to the knowledge society
Professor Peter Cuttance and the Innovation and Best Practice Project Consortium
Professor Peter Cuttance

Centre for Applied Educational Research
ISBN 187703201 8 University of Melbourne
DETYA No. 6703.DRED01A
Printed by J.S. McMillan Printing Group 02 6230 6200
WhizzbangArt No WJSM 0075
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page i
SCHOOL INNOVATION:
PATHWAY TO THE
KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY
Peter Cuttance and the Innovation and Best Practice Project Consortium
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page ii
(c) Commonwealth of Australia 2001
School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society
ISBN 187703201 8
DETYA No. 6703.DRED01A
A copy of this report is located at http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/index.htm
This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered
form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use and use within your
organisation. All other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and
rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 1920,
Canberra ACT 2601 or by e-mail Cwealthcopyright@dofa.gov.au.
This project was supported by funding from the Commonwealth Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs under the Quality Outcomes Programme.
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of
the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page iii
CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Chapter 1: Innovation and Best Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Peter Cuttance and Shirley A. Stokes
Chapter 2: Early Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Peter W. Hill and Graeme Jane
Chapter 3: Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Glynis Jones
Chapter 4: Information and Communication Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Peter Cuttance
Chapter 5: The Middle-Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Peter W. Hill, Anthony D. Mackay, V. Jean Russell and Vic Zbar
Chapter 6: Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Frank Crowther, Leonne Hann and John McMaster
Chapter 7: Instructional Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Max Angus, Rod Chadbourne and Harriet Olney
Chapter 8: Managing Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163

Chapter 9: Lessons for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

Chapter 10: Lessons for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

Peter Cuttance
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267
iii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page iv
iv
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page v
PREFACE
The Innovation and Best Practice Project (IBPP) is one of the first large scale
research and development projects that has specifically focused on innovation in
schools, and one of the largest educational research projects ever undertaken in
Australia. Each of the 107 participating schools developed and implemented a
significant innovation aimed at improving learning outcomes for students. Each
school researched and provided a report on its innovation, with a specific focus
on its success in improving student learning outcomes.
The main output from the project was the benefits that students and teachers
gained from their experience in the innovations in each of the schools. The
majority of the innovations were able to demonstrate that they had been
successful in improving learning outcomes for students hence the ultimate
benefits from the project were the learning gains made by students, who
participated in the innovations. Teachers and principals gained significant benefits
from the professional learning they gained in the various roles they played in the
innovations and in the conduct of the school-based research.
This volume provides an analysis and synthesis of the innovations and the
findings of the 107 research reports produced by the participating schools over a
two-year period. It is the product of the work of hundreds of teachers, principals
and other staff in schools, plus more than 100 researchers across the country.
The list of participating schools is provided in Appendix 1. For privacy reasons,
pseudonyms have been used for all schools referred to or quoted in the various
chapters of this report.
Each of the schools engaged researchers and consultants to assist directly in

researching and developing their innovation. Many of the researchers learnt new
ways of working from undertaking specific tasks rather than directing the
research in pursuit of their own research interests. Because the project was
undertaken through a ‘devolved network’ in which schools researched and
developed their innovations and provided the research consortium with a report
as the deliverable product, many of the consultants and researchers engaged by
schools are not known to the research consortium. Their contributions, however,
are acknowledged as an important contribution to the project.
The project would not have been possible without the foresight of the
Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA)
who called tenders for the research to be undertaken and provided funding for
v
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page vi
the research and development of the innovations in the schools that were
selected to participate in the project.
The IBPP Consortium consisted of four teams led by Professor Max Angus (Edith
Cowan University), Professor Peter Hill (University of Melbourne), Professor Peter
Cuttance (Chair) (University of Sydney), and Professor Frank Crowther
(University of Southern Queensland).
Dorothy Bramston, Graeme Jane, Glynis Jones, Anthony Mackay, and Harriet
Olney were responsible for managing the interface between the research
consortium and the participating schools across the nation. Their role was
invaluable in keeping the research consortium in touch with such a large number
of schools and assisting schools by acting as the conduit between them and the
research consortium. They were also, for schools, a primary source of support
and advice about the project.
Shirley Stokes managed the project nationally, and was responsible for keeping it
on schedule and liaising between the research team, project managers and the
schools. Her role was the critical factor in ensuring the diverse range of
innovations undertaken by the schools were informed by a rigorous development
and evaluation framework through an effective communications structure and
the workshops attended by schools to support the development and evaluation
of their innovations. She was responsible for managing the website for the
project, managing the receipt of the research reports from the participating
schools and establishing and indexing the database containing all the research
reports. She also played a significant role in planning and a major editorial role in
finalising this volume.
This volume was written by the members of the IBPP Consortium, for some
chapters in conjunction with University colleagues. Peter Cuttance was
responsible for integrating, coordinating and developing the volume into a single
coherent research volume based on original contributions from the members of
the Consortium. Although they agree with the key points and the overall
conclusions, not all members of the Consortium necessarily agree with all of the
points expressed in various parts of the volume. Each chapter is based on drafts
prepared by subgroups of researchers following discussions by all members of the
Consortium. Although editorial changes have been made in the interests of
coherence and a commonality of style, the attribution for authorship is as
indicated at the commencement of each chapter.
The Executive Summary was authored by Shirley Stokes and Peter Cuttance. The
first chapter, authored by Peter Cuttance and Shirley Stokes, provides an
vi
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page vii
overview of the project and a brief survey of the relevant research literature.
Chapter 2 on innovations in the teaching of early literacy was authored by Peter
W. Hill and Graeme Jane. Chapter 3 on innovations in mathematics was authored
by Glynis Jones. Chapter 4 on innovations in the integration of information and
communications technologies in school learning environments was authored by
Peter Cuttance. Chapter 5 on innovations in teaching and learning in the middle-
years was authored by Peter W. Hill, Anthony D. Mackay, V. Jean Russell and Vic
Zbar. Chapter 6 on the role of leadership in school innovation was authored by
Frank Crowther, Leonne Hann and John McMaster. Chapter 7 on the flexible use
of resources and of organisational structures in instructional environments was
authored by Max Angus, Rod Chadbourne, and Harriet Olney. Chapter 8, also
authored by Max Angus, Rod Chadbourne, and Harriet Olney, analyses the
issues faced by the schools in managing their innovations. Chapter 9, authored
by Peter Cuttance and Shirley Stokes, and Chapter 10, authored by Peter
Cuttance, draw the volume together by considering the lessons to be learnt for
teaching and learning practice in schools, and for policy in supporting school-
based innovation in the future.
A reference group was established to inform the research and coordinate the
participation of school systems across the nation. The reference group comprised:
Lois Sparkes and Paul Byrne (Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs); Phil Billington (National Catholic Education Commission); Barbara Stone
(National Council of Independent Schools Associations); Peter Allen, Gerry
Cullen, and Trevor Wootten (Conference of Education Systems Chief Executive
Officers); Peter Cuttance (Project Director & Chair); and Shirley Stokes (National
Project Manager and Executive Officer).
The Consortium acknowledges the work of Hedley Beare, Keryn McGuinness,

Patricia Morgan, Grant Prowse, Robin Prowse, Christine Rakvin, Therese Sullivan,
Patricia Spring and Jean Thompson who supported the project through various
means such as data coding, administrative support or manuscript review.
The research was undertaken in schools across all systems and sectors in Australia
and the IBPP Consortium acknowledges the agreement and support of school
systems that authorised the research to take place in their schools.
Peter Cuttance
Max Angus
Frank Crowther
Peter Hill
May 2001
vii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page viii
viii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page ix
CONTRIBUTORS
Professor Max Angus Professor Peter Hill
Department of Education Formerly Director
Edith Cowan University Centre for Applied Educational
Churchlands 6018 Australia Research & Professor of Education
University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr Rod Chadbourne Currently, Director of Research &
Associate Professor Development
Department of Education National Center on Education and
Edith Cowan University the Economy
Churchlands 6018 Australia Washington DC 20009 USA.
Professor Frank Crowther Glynis Jones

Director, Leadership Research Institute Education Consultant
Faculty of Education Panaflex Pty Ltd
University of Southern Queensland Middle Cove 2068 Australia
Toowoomba 4350 Australia
Graeme Jane
Professor Peter Cuttance Senior Fellow
Formerly Professor of Education Centre for Applied Educational
University of Sydney Research
Currently, Director Faculty of Education
Centre for Applied Educational University of Melbourne 3052 Australia
Research
Faculty of Education Anthony Mackay
University of Melbourne 3052 Australia Senior Fellow
Centre for Applied Educational
Leonne Hann Research
Researcher Faculty of Education
Leadership Research Institute University of Melbourne 3052 Australia
University of Southern Queensland
Toowoomba 4350 Australia
ix
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page x
John McMaster Shirley Stokes

Lecturer, Faculty of Education Education Consultant
Researcher, Leadership Research Shirley A Stokes Education Consultancy
Institute Hurlstone Park 2193 Australia
University of Southern Queensland
Toowoomba 4350 Australia Vic Zbar
Consultant
Harriet Olney Centre for Applied Educational
Senior Research Assistant Research
Department of Education Faculty of Education
Edith Cowan University University of Melbourne 3052 Australia
Churchlands 6018 Australia
Dr Jean Russell
Principal Fellow and Associate
Professor
Centre for Applied Educational
Research
Faculty of Education
University of Melbourne 3052 Australia
x
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xi
ABBREVIATIONS
DETYA Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs
(Commonwealth Government)
ELRP Early Literacy Research Project (Victorian project)
IBPP Innovation and Best Practice Project
(The DETYA funded project that provided the research data for this
report)
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
TAFE Technical and Further Education
TIMSS Third International Mathematics and Science Study
xi
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xii
xii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICE
The Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs funded the Innovation and
Best Practice Project (IBPP) undertaken by a consortium of The University of Melbourne, Edith Cowan
University, The University of Southern Queensland and The University of Sydney.
The project was undertaken within a context of the findings of contemporary research into effective
teaching and learning as well as school effectiveness and improvement. A review of the literature on
the impact of schools shows that the differences in the impact of teachers on learning outcomes for
students are significantly greater than the impact of the differences between schools.
Research on learning shows that the key influences on learning include: school organisational features,
home education contexts, school demographics and climate, design and delivery of curriculum and
instruction, and teaching practices. Student influences on learning include their perceptions and
expectations, attitudes, understandings and beliefs, and cognitive and meta-cognitive skills.
As we advance towards a knowledge society, constructivist methodologies of learning are likely to

become more important. These focus on deep understanding of knowledge rather than on
reproduction and recall and require the development of meta-cognitive skills to ‘work’ successfully
with knowledge.
xiii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xiv
The most influential teaching practices on learning outcomes include classroom

management strategies, practices that support the development of meta-
cognitive skills, and student-teacher social interactions. Actions close to the
learning process have highest impact, but their efficacy may also be dependent
on certain factors that are more distant from the learning process, such as the
design of the curriculum and school and classroom organisation.
Classrooms with different emphases on how tightly learning is structured are

likely to have differential influences on the learning outcomes of students. Older
students, those of higher ability and those with a sound grasp of the substantive
domain of their study can benefit from environments that are relatively
unstructured. However, younger students and those less able and with a weaker
grasp on the substantive domain of the field of study can benefit from learning
environments that are more highly structured.
The Innovation and Best Practice Project (IBPP) invited 107 schools to evaluate
the impact of their innovations on the learning outcomes for their students.
Schools were asked to research and assess the magnitude of the impact of the
innovation on learning outcomes and the differential impact of their innovation
for different groups of students.
A wide cross-section of schools participated in the project. Two-thirds were from

government school systems; one-fifth described themselves as serving
communities with significant levels of social and economic disadvantage, more
than one-sixth indicated that their innovation was in response to a perceived
crisis or threat to their viability.
This report provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings from the 107
schools that participated in the project in terms of the process and impact of the
innovations that they undertook. The report focuses on the groups of schools
that focused on innovations in literacy in the early years of schooling,
mathematics, information and communications technologies and the middle-
years of schooling. In addition, it analyses the role of leadership in the
innovations, the flexible use of resources and the process of managing innovation
in schools. The concluding chapters draw out the implications of the findings of
the research for practice in schools and for the development of policy to support
innovation in schools.
xiv
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xv
EARLY LITERACY
Sixteen primary schools within the IBPP focused their innovations on
improvements through innovative approaches to literacy learning.
The strongest evidence of successful literacy improvement was in improved

results from assessments that schools used to compare the achievement of their
students with those in other schools or with earlier cohorts of students in the
same school.
The schools that provided the strongest evidence of improvements attributed to

their innovations all focused on literacy in the early years of schooling. These
innovations exhibited the following features:
• a coherent, whole-school programme to achieve literacy success;
• the development among staff of a set of shared beliefs and understandings

and, in particular, high expectations for all students;
• the articulation of explicit standards and associated targets and the use of data
to inform teaching and learning and to drive improvement;
• a team approach to professional learning that encouraged ongoing, site-based

professional development, mentoring and coaching for teams of teachers;
• a willingness and capacity to make significant changes to school and class

organisational arrangements;
• the provision of intervention programmes and special assistance to students

who were not progressing at the same pace or reach the same standards as
their peers;
• effective leadership by the principal, senior administrative staff and project

coordinator; and
• proactive and systematic links with the home, the previous school, other
service providers and the wider community.
There are four main conclusions from the projects undertaken by the IBPP early
literacy schools. First, significant improvements in student learning outcomes are
achievable through particular approaches to innovation and the implementation
of best practice. Second, the use of data on student learning to inform teaching
and learning and to drive improvement initiatives is important. Third, schools
need to internalise powerful approaches to professional learning and staff
xv
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xvi
development to bring about change. Finally, informed and committed

instructional leadership on the part of the principal, senior staff, and teachers is
required for successful innovation and implementation of best practice.
MATHEMATICS
Nine IBPP schools focused their innovation on mathematics. All had as their
major priority the expectation that students would experience success and gain
confidence in their ability to study mathematics successfully.
Few of the mathematics projects presented approaches that sought to

comprehensively reshape teaching and learning to the extent evident in other
IBPP projects. The innovations varied from non-graded, mixed-ability
mathematics classes to voluntary after school tutorials, to the use of technology
to provide more realistic contexts for problem solving.
The mathematics innovations tended to be the result of the work of only one or
two individuals within a subsection of the school and were rarely part of a
whole-school approach to improvement involving other faculties or parts of the
school.
Most of the schools found that significant progress was made in the performance
of their students in mathematics over the period of the project. Students in these
schools reported that they liked their mathematics classes to engage and
motivate them, to allow them more time to absorb new concepts and to enable
them to experience success in learning mathematics.
The teacher practices that were most effective in developing student capacity,
confidence and engagement in mathematics were:
• a willingness to explore and consider alternative teaching practices and

organisational structures;
• the provision of appropriate time for learning to take place;
• a recognition that students learn at different rates;
• the use of clear explanations;
• the introduction of new knowledge in manageable amounts;
• a willingness to respond to students’ preferred ways of learning; and
• targeted individual assistance.
xvi
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xvii
Testing of students was used more for grading and ranking purposes than to
support teaching and learning, even at the primary school level. Most of the
schools did not routinely analyse student outcome data or assess the impact of
classroom practice on learning prior to their participation in the IBPP.
Participation in the project heightened teacher awareness of accountability for

improved student learning outcomes and assisted in clarifying teacher
expectations of their students and themselves.
The project indicated that mathematics teaching would benefit from a

coordinated initiative along the lines of recent successful literacy innovations.
Such initiatives would need to support teachers to become better informed about
the teaching practices most likely to lead to improved learning outcomes of
students, provide access to appropriate professional development, provide
enhanced access to technology and use data to drive improvement.
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES (ICT)
The 20 ICT schools in the IBPP sought to break the traditional teaching and
learning mould and provide opportunities for young people to learn appropriate
ICT-based skills and knowledge.
Most of the schools had implemented strategies to integrate ICT into their
everyday learning environments. They focused their innovations on using
computers and associated hardware (mostly scanners, printers, and video
cameras), standard educational and business software and the internet to
enhance the learning environment for students.
Schools used ICT to enhance teaching and learning in one of two ways:
• using technologies such as word processors to support the development of

skills e.g., literacy skills through writing and revising text - uses often referred
to as ‘learning with technology’; and
• using ICT to support constructivist approaches to learning - uses central to

approaches referred to as ‘learning through technology’.
Many of the schools had restructured the physical environment to cater for the
introduction of ICT. This was achieved most commonly by providing individual
classrooms with direct access to computers as part of the normal classroom
learning environment. A quarter of the schools had developed an extended
xvii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xviii
learning environment that went beyond the school to virtual classrooms. These
were available for both in-school and out-of-school learning.
The innovations often meant a considerable increase in workload for teachers

during the development and implementation phase and a cultural shift in teacher
attitudes before the innovation could be implemented.
The ICT innovations impacted on teachers in a number of ways:
• teacher beliefs and attitudes about learning and teaching styles and practices
changed from traditional ‘chalk and talk’ to student-focused learning;
• teachers were able to demonstrate concepts more efficiently and effectively

using ICT resources such as CD digital texts, the internet and specialist
software; and
• teachers experienced enhanced professional satisfaction from increased levels

of student learning and more effective classroom management associated with
learning through technology.
The range of outcomes that ICT schools considered important were, in general,
much broader than those specified in current curriculum frameworks and
systemic testing and assessment programmes. Cognitive and non-cognitive
outcomes achieved for students were:
• enhanced social competencies through cooperative and collaborative learning;
• enhanced time management skills;
• acceptance of responsibility for their learning;
• mastery of curriculum-based learning outcomes;
• improved Year 12 examination results;
• improvements in learning against pre-specified outcomes criteria;
• increased use of, and enhanced capacity to use, meta-cognitive and higher-
order problem solving skills;
• improvement in ICT skills;
• improved results in standardised state-wide literacy and numeracy tests; and
• reduced level of ‘unsatisfactory’ progress.
Schools had to deal with a range of challenges in the implementation of their ICT
xviii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xix
innovations. The most common were hardware/system reliability; winning over

staff who were wary of change; overcoming the pressures on time and the
crowded curriculum; providing adequate and appropriate professional
development; and recruiting qualified staff.
The innovations showed that ICT itself can act as a catalyst to learning, can be
effectively utilised to improve learning outcomes in both the cognitive and non-
cognitive domains, and can be integrated into learning environments to support
significant enhancements in student engagement, enjoyment and motivation to learn.
THE MIDDLE-YEARS
Thirty-three schools nominated the middle-years as the focus of their innovation.
Among these schools there was a high level of engagement in fundamental
issues concerning the nature of educational provision. While the changes schools
had succeeded in implementing were often provisional, there was clear evidence
that deep thinking had motivated the changes and that the groundwork was
being prepared for more substantial reform.
The schools were clear about the changes they wanted to bring about in their
students. The most frequently cited were:
• arresting the decline in students’ level of engagement in learning and

enjoyment of schooling;
• promoting students’ sense of identity, belonging and self-esteem; and
• developing students’ capacity and confidence to function as autonomous

learners in the emerging knowledge society.
The middle-years innovations were characterised by teachers working together in

teams; an emphasis on clear goals for students; targeting teaching to the needs
of individual students; and greater participation by students in the design,
development and delivery of learning programmes.
The innovations ranged from alternative models of school and class organisation
—including the creation of middle-schools within schools; the development of
competencies to facilitate life-long learning; primary to secondary transition
programmes; and curriculum redevelopment. A small number of schools focused
on developing alternative programmes for groups of students who had already
disengaged from school-based learning or who had particular learning needs.
The innovations frequently required teachers to teach in different ways, such as a
xix
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xx
small team of teachers being responsible for teaching a relatively small number of
students for a significant proportion of the week, and in some cases for more
than one academic year. This also involved teaching across traditional subject
boundaries. There was also evidence of a move towards teaching in larger blocks
of time to reduce interruptions and allow opportunities for more in-depth
learning and the use of cooperative learning techniques.
Most schools indicated that there had been improvements across a range of key
outcomes, but particularly in increased student engagement in learning; changes
in teacher beliefs, understandings, knowledge and expertise; changes in the way
teachers taught in the classroom; and changes in student attitudes towards
school.
The middle-school projects provided a foundation for change in schools across

Australia that could constitute the first steps in a more lasting reform. Staff in
schools acknowledged the low levels of engagement among many students
during the middle-years and agreed that significant changes are justified in order
to improve outcomes for students.
In most of the schools there was the perception of empowerment and openness
to the more flexible strategies that can be implemented following enhanced
levels of school self-management in many systems. Recent initiatives and
research are providing school staff with access to a more complete picture of
alternative models of educational provision in the middle-years.
LEADERSHIP
Educational leadership was central to the success of the innovations in IBPP
schools. School-based leadership is a function of both the principalship and key
change agents both within and external to the school. Successful innovations
represented the response of schools to an identified educational need and were
supported by a clearly articulated school vision.
Three distinctive dimensions of school-based leadership are evident in successful

school innovation: focused action; culture-building; and organisation-wide
processes of learning.
Three forms of focused action fundamental to the exercise of leadership were

evident in effective IBPP schools. School leaders responded strategically to crises
(perceived or real), they pursued intrinsically motivating challenges and they
facilitated and encouraged the innovative ideas of others. There was clear
xx
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxi
recognition of the importance of both individual and group leadership. Where

educational innovation is successful, the leadership that underpins it is likely to be
characterised in part by shared leadership among teachers and school managers.
The culture-building dimension of leadership was evident when school leaders

sought to rebuild or enhance the culture and values in many of the IBPP schools.
Religious beliefs and values underpinned innovations in Catholic and other
church-based schools and Government schools often expressed an explicit
commitment to the values underpinning public education.
Where the innovation was used to enrich school identity the innovation itself also
acquired enhanced meaning. The result was a shared vision of ‘making a
difference’ that pervaded discussions and the approaches to curriculum,
technology, and uses of time and space. Culture building was a powerful force in
aligning school vision, participants’ values and innovative processes. In IBPP
schools it represented an important leadership dimension of successful school
innovation and reform.
Leadership as organisation-wide processes of learning is a recent and increasingly

important development. The IBPP research revealed two forms of organisation-
wide learning that may well be regarded as manifesting leadership. The first form
focuses on generating alignment between significant school organisational
elements. The second form focuses on the development of a school-wide
approach to pedagogy.
Principal-leaders and teacher-leaders are both important in successful school

reform. Principal-leaders play a key role in meta-strategic leadership while
teacher-leaders have primary roles in more direct matters of teaching and
learning. Successful innovation requires effective articulation of the roles of those
exercising leadership as much as the leadership capacities and capabilities of the
individuals involved.
INSTRUCTIONAL FLEXIBILITY
A third of the IBPP school research reports made no reference to flexibility as a factor
in their success, although most schools used flexible arrangements of some kind.
Schools introduced four kinds of instructional flexibility through their innovations:
• off-site learning;
• flexible student grouping;
xxi
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxii
• flexible use of staff; and
• school consortia.
Approximately 10 per cent of the innovations involved the use of facilities away
from school premises. The reasons for doing so were varied. They included
acquiring additional space, using commercial premises and using students’ homes
for learning. For example, one school delivered a specific programme off-site in
order to make a symbolic statement about differences. The students were no
longer in a familiar form of student-teacher relationship and the instructor was a
dramatist, rather than a teacher.
Two schools made use of commercial properties, but for very different reasons—
one to develop ‘city savvy’ in Year 9 students and the other to develop ‘at-risk’
students in an environment free of the ‘baggage’ these students associated with
schooling. Another school allowed students a choice of delivery mode for two of
its courses, including an on-line virtual format that students could undertake at
home.
Changes to the manner in which students are grouped were a central feature of
some innovations. For example, 22 per cent of schools introduced multi-aged
grouping and eight per cent created a new subgroup consisting of students with
special needs. Thirteen per cent indicated that students were grouped according
to ability while 20 per cent referred to the use of mixed-ability groups.
The most significant form of student grouping, in terms of flexibility, however,

involved grouping students differently for different purposes in a two-tiered
organisational structure. Twelve per cent of schools reported introducing some
version of this structure to facilitate learning.
• In the first tier of a two-tier structure, students are grouped into classes of up
to 30 students. An association between a teacher and a class remains intact
for at least a school year and facilitates many aspects of school organisation.
• The first tier students are clustered into smaller groups for particular
instructional purposes. Often students with similar needs will be drawn from
across a number of classes. This second tier of student grouping enables fluid
readjustments as circumstances change. By monitoring student progress and
then clustering the students that have the most similar instructional needs,
teachers can match their inputs to student needs.
xxii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxiii
Staff flexibility commonly involved secondary teachers in the middle-years of

schooling teaching one or more subjects outside their area of specialisation.
These innovations were introduced to strengthen the social and pastoral ties
between teachers and their students. One school introduced subject specialist
teachers into the upper primary years in order to prepare students for this ‘fact’
of secondary school life, other schools introduced multi-subject teams with
shared responsibility for several lower secondary classes. These teachers shared
information about their students in an effort to introduce greater cohesion into
the provision for junior secondary students.
Nearly half of all schools reported that associations with organisations outside the
school facilitated their innovation. These associations were with universities, other
schools, TAFE, business and local community organisations, to name just a few.
Of the associations among education providers, the most common form was
when a school established links with similar schools. For example, four primary
schools recognising that resources could be pooled to provide something more
substantial extended school provision through the establishment of an alternative
campus for ‘at-risk’ students. Another group of schools collaborated to access
external professional development consultants on an ongoing basis. Some
secondary schools established transition programmes with their contributing
primary schools. If the links were sufficiently strong and ongoing the relationships
were consolidated as a consortium.
The evidence about instructional flexibility shows that many schools were
challenged to organise schools and classrooms in ways that enabled them to
respond more effectively to the wide range of differing needs among their
students. Notwithstanding considerable difficulties, schools experimented with
flexible groupings, staff deployment practices, locations and structures in ways
that challenged the tyranny of the conventional timetable, organisational
structures and staffing practices and constraints.
MANAGING INNOVATIONS
The process of innovation in schools was focused on four issues: the impact of
systemic practices and policies in school innovations on management flexibility;
response to market pressures; the pattern of change over time; and the use of
evaluation as a tool to help manage innovations.
Schools generally had substantial autonomy to initiate and implement reforms.

Every school faced some obstacles, but the majority of schools either operated
xxiii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxiv
within or worked around constraints. Up to a third of schools reported a constraint

they were unable to resolve, which were bureaucratic, cultural or ideological.
Bureaucratic obstacles were the most common and difficult to resolve and were
chiefly related to restrictions on the recruitment, selection and appointment of staff
and lack of flexibility to deploy funding in ways that supported the improvement of
learning. The staffing and funding flexibility issues were intertwined, because
funding for staff constitutes the major share of school funds.
Cultural constraints usually related to the impact of changes on established

practice or a lack of experience relevant to proposed changes. Ideological
constraints, although less commonly reported, tended to have significant
consequences. They occurred when staff viewpoints on educational responses to
the innovation became polarised. Both cultural and ideological differences
generated teacher resistance, which in most cases was successfully overcome.
The IBPP found educational needs and expectations were the primary motivators
for schools to innovate. However, market pressures provided part of the rationale
for innovation in 40 per cent of the schools. These schools indicated that their
innovation was in part a response to the effects of market pressures on their
school.
Factors such as declining enrolments or increased competition were clearly

articulated as reasons for undertaking changes in a number of cases. These
schools faced declining enrolments due to shifting demographics, new schools
opening in their area or internal issues within the school. The innovations were
designed to reposition the school in the eyes of its students and community.
The strategies that these schools implemented included flexible timetables; new
tutorial style lessons; the increased choice of subjects to meet the needs of
students; integration of information technology to update the school’s educational
provision and image; and the introduction of new approaches to teaching and
learning with consequent pressure on teachers to update their practices.
Four patterns of change were evident in IBPP schools:
• The most common pattern of change involved schools developing an

innovation and then making further changes over a period of time as they
fine-tuned it in response to feedback about its effectiveness.
• Some schools introduced an innovation, but had not refined it any further during
the period of the project although many indicated they are likely to do so.
xxiv
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxv
• A small number of schools made a change, reviewed it and then reverted to

the situation that existed prior to the innovation. Two had rejected their
innovations and the other two could be described as having given up.
• A small number of schools did not make the changes they planned. The
evidence suggested that their failure to take action was significantly influenced
by underlying inflexibilities.
All project schools provided some information about their innovations in a format
that could usefully be described as ‘research data’. Some fixed their investigations
squarely on their students’ academic performance. Others also surveyed attitudes
of teachers, parents and students or completed narratives of their implementation
experiences.
IBPP schools received funding of $8,000–$15,000 to assist with their research

and evaluation. The funds were sufficient to act as a catalyst for schools to
engage in intensive innovation and evaluation of their projects. Almost all schools
completed innovations but some, however, were still to integrate the findings of
their evaluation into the decision-making and management of the school. It is
clear that many schools have under-developed research and evaluation
competencies. Many schools in the IBPP required considerable external assistance
to evaluate their innovations.
LESSONS FOR PRACTICE

The innovations undertaken by IBPP schools were new developments in the local
context of the school in which they were implemented. It was not necessary that
the innovations were at the leading edge of national and international practice,
but, some are arguably at the leading edge of developments anywhere in the
world. A notable feature of the innovations was their high rate of success in
improving learning outcomes for students.
The following are the key findings about effective practice across the IBPP
schools.
• Effective innovations were rooted in whole-school understandings and beliefs.

This required schools to develop a shared understanding and set of beliefs
about best practice for their student population and a preparedness to test
strategies against alternative options. IBPP schools believed that students could
master the basic skills and be successful learners.
xxv
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxvi
• Distributed leadership is essential to developing awareness of emerging

challenges and successful innovation. In most of the IBPP schools, the principal
was a key supporter of the innovation and in many instances also the catalyst.
However, teachers were the driving forces of instructional leadership. They
brought the innovations into existence and fine-tuned them against data
about their impact on student learning.
• Innovative schools were prepared to set standards and targets for their
improvement and to modify these in light of experience. Many schools found
that they had to invent their own strategies for measuring their success. This
was due in part to the fact that the outcomes that many schools were aiming
to improve were not measured or assessed by current measures of student
learning.
• IBPP schools were prepared to take a hard look at their performance and
subject their innovations to rigorous scrutiny. Participation in the IBPP required
each school to evaluate the impact of its innovation on student learning
outcomes. In a large majority of cases schools had not undertaken a rigorous
evaluation of their performance data prior to their participation in the project.
• Teaching and learning was the principal focus of the innovation in each school.
Many of the findings about teaching and learning practices are supported by
the research literature. These findings support a model of cognitive
development that focuses on the acquisition of basic cognitive skills in the
early-years, the development of meta-cognitive skills and knowledge in the
middle-years and cognitive maturity and self-directed learning in the senior
years of schooling.
• The models of teaching that schools incorporated into their innovations were
based on the integration of whole-class or large-group explicit teaching; small-
group cooperative learning and teaching; and one-to-one tutoring. The one-
to-one tutoring was employed to ensure that all students achieved at the level
of mastery required for them to proceed to the next phase of their learning.
Teachers used small-group learning to address the learning needs of particular
sub-groups of students and to gain the benefits of cooperative learning and
peer tutoring where appropriate.
• Probably the most important outcome of the IBPP project was its lessons for
teacher learning. The most powerful innovations incorporated teams of
teachers learning by ‘working’ with new knowledge and, in the process,
xxvi
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxvii
enhancing their understanding of the learning needs and capacities of their

students. In these ‘learning teams’, teachers played a variety of roles. Models
of professional development based on the dissemination of information are
inadequate for supporting teachers in their role in the emerging knowledge
society. Professional learning requires active engagement and work on the
knowledge being developed by teachers.
• The IBPP schools sought to enhance the learning network. This includes the
parent community. In particular, schools focused on expanding the knowledge
base and information about student learning to the student’s home.
Innovations in the middle-years and senior-years expanded the learning
network to include local businesses and community organisations.
• The IBPP demonstrated some significant gaps in the capacity of schools to

undertake innovation and evaluation without external support. Two main ones
concerned the sourcing of relevant knowledge to support and develop their
innovations, and skills and knowledge about how to collect and analyse data
to evaluate the impact of the evaluations.
The outcomes that schools sought to improve through their innovations were
broader than the standard set of curriculum outcomes currently assessed and
reported by most schools. In addition to the standard outcomes associated with
the knowledge that is the focus of formal curricula, IBPP schools sought to assess
complex thinking skills, and the affective and social competencies of students.
Schools focused innovations on this set of skills and competencies because they
were responding to the capacities that students need to acquire for their futures
as citizens in the knowledge society, and as ‘knowledge-workers’ of the future.
These findings suggest that the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First
Century (The National Goals for Schooling [1999]), endorsed by the Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, will need further
revision to reflect complex thinking skills, including second-order meta-cognitive
skills and knowledge and the capacity for self-regulation of learning.
LESSONS FOR POLICY

The IBPP was designed to support school innovation by exerting constructive
pressure for schools to demonstrate their effectiveness in improving learning
outcomes for students. Both constructive pressure and support are necessary
components in the improvement of schools.
xxvii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxviii
Pressure was applied internally in schools though the professional expectations

and knowledge of teachers and their commitment to achieve the best for their
students. External pressure came through specific developments in the
educational environment of schooling such as increased devolution, increased
accountability for student learning outcomes, and market forces. Government
policies and programmes focused on improving literacy, education in the middle-
years of schooling and information and communication technologies also exerted
pressure on schools.
Government policies and programmes can both exert pressure and provide
support. Schools were supported in their innovations by a range of government
policies and programmes that created a climate conducive to innovation. The
devolution of management and decision-making and the active promotion of
initiatives in literacy, ICT and the middle-years of schooling were reflected in the
IBPP innovations.
Self-managing schools have the flexibility to select and appoint staff to meet
their specific programme needs and to manage resources in ways most
appropriate to the teaching and learning goals each school. IBPP schools used
the flexibility they had within a disciplined and strategic framework to improve
student learning. They did not so much see themselves as restructuring time,
space, roles and relationships, as changing their practices and organisational
arrangements to achieve specific educational outcomes for students.
The drive to improve outcomes for students has emphasised the need for schools
to develop their capacity to utilise data and evidence to drive improvement.
Because schools have to make decisions about how best to use their resources,
they are finding it necessary to develop the capacity to make well-informed
decisions that are vital to their ‘competitiveness’. The increasing focus on
performance accountability will require that schools develop the capacity to
demonstrate their outcomes in a way that is open to public scrutiny and meets
external standards.
Data-based approaches to the evaluation of school performance need to be

considerably enhanced and their scope widened if they are to be useful in
addressing the needs of individual schools. In many cases, schools found that
there was a paucity of assessment instruments and rubrics and strategies
available for gathering relevant evidence and information about the impact of
their innovations.
xxviii
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxix
The innovations that the IBPP schools implemented are no more than the tip of
the iceberg of innovations in schools across the nation. A policy framework is
crucial to support schools to develop and implement innovations, evaluate their
impact on student learning outcomes and disseminate this knowledge so that it is
accessible to other schools. Such a framework would enhance the capacity of
schools to meet the demands that will be placed on them as we move towards a
society and economy that makes better use of our intellectual capital.
The evidence from this research supports a continuation of devolution reforms to

provide schools with the opportunities to address the challenges that lie ahead.
Schools need to be supported by policy that is proactive in establishing an
environment that maximises support for innovation as the vehicle for them to
fulfil their crucial role in meeting the challenges of the knowledge-society and
knowledge-economy.
The 107 schools that participated in the IBPP show that, given appropriate
conditions, schools can produce the innovative responses that are capable of
responding to the challenges ahead. The IBPP was successful in supporting
innovation in the participating schools, and in providing new knowledge about
the nature of school-based innovation and the factors that support and constrain
innovation. It was also able to document a range of strategies and models that,
through innovation, schools had demonstrated work better than standard
practices. The broader policy agenda now needs to focus on how the future of
schools in Australia can be supported and informed by encouraging innovation.
xxix
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page xxx
xxx
0075 WJSM Innovation final 6/20/01 11:56 AM Page 1
INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICE

Chapter 1
Governments need to complement their urge to reform...with policies for innovation. For
innovation is mostly ‘bottom-up’ and small-scale, it is what the imaginative and responsive
school does when it encounters problems and challenges or when it thinks out a different
and potentially better way of doing something that has become staled by custom or tradition
(Hargreaves, 1999: 54).
INTRODUCTION
The pathway to the knowledge society will be mostly through territory that is already known. Some
of it, however, will be viewed for the first time on the horizon as we proceed. There is no other way
forward. We cannot miraculously leap from the present to an as yet unknown future. For schools, the
pathway has to be through the innovations that they make to enhance student learning and
understanding. Such innovations will need to incorporate advanced research and practical knowledge
into new and better understandings of best practice.
Schools are deeply rooted at the core of the emerging knowledge society. They have always been one
of society’s primary users of current knowledge. They are the creators of the new knowledge
embedded in the learning of their students. Schooling is the engine of the future knowledge society—
1
displacing the farm, the mine and the services sector as the primary infrastructure
for building future generations.
The changing social and economic demands of schooling have been incorporated
in a recent revision of the National Goals for Schooling for the Twenty-First
Century (The National Goals for Schooling [1999]), endorsed by the Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. These National
Goals for Schooling are an attempt to address the learning outcomes that
students will require to be effective participants in the emerging ‘knowledge
nation’. Education is recognised as the engine of the knowledge economy
(Commonwealth Ministerial Council for the Information Economy, 1998).
The National Goals for Schooling (1999) now reflect the intention that schooling
should provide the opportunity for students to fully develop their talents and
capacities; gain a range of specific cognitive skills and knowledge; develop
specific affective outcomes, such as self-confidence and high self-esteem;
develop the capacity to exercise judgement; gain the knowledge and
understandings required for citizenship; develop appropriate employment related
skills and understandings; be confident, creative and productive users of new
technologies; develop an understanding of the natural environment; and develop
the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Specific curriculum goals include the attainment of high standards of knowledge
and skills in a comprehensive and balanced curriculum; attainment of skills in
numeracy and literacy; access to vocational learning programmes; and access to
programmes and activities that foster and develop enterprise skills.
The development of policies and programmes to enhance the experience of

schooling for young people has increasingly moved towards a three-stage model
of schooling. Phase 1, covering approximately Years K–4, is focused on building
the essential skills that young students need to acquire before they can become
independent learners. Phase 2, approximately Years 5–9, is the period in which
schools seek to develop students as autonomous learners. Phase 3, Years 10–12,
is the stage in which learners are expected to have established themselves as self-
directed learners who are purposefully enhancing their understanding of fields of
knowledge that they choose to study to support their social, intellectual and
vocational development.
This report is an account of the innovative state of schooling in Australia. It

draws its evidence and inspiration from research into the work of 107 of the
thousands of schools throughout the nation that are deeply involved in creating
2
innovative solutions to the challenges and problems that emerge as the external
world about them transforms from the post-industrial society into the knowledge
society. The 107 schools were participants in the Innovation and Best Practice
Project (IBPP), a project funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
The innovations of schools represent the practical action taken to resolve

identified educational problems and the development of strategies to address
future directions. Many of these directions reach back into educational, social and
political debates and conflicts that have slowly moved towards resolution over
recent decades. The innovations also mine the seams of research findings in
public policy and education over the last two decades.
This chapter sketches the political and educational context in which the
innovations took place, outlines the distinguishing features of the IBPP, and
describes what has been achieved.
CONTEXT OF INNOVATION
Regulatory and policy context
In recent years there has been a shift in the relationship between policy,
regulation and management in most Australian government school systems. This
has been manifested in higher levels of devolution of authority to schools and
seen the emergence of self-managing government schools and increased levels of
transparency in regulatory systems. The latter has resulted in more explicit
definitions of curriculum expectations. It has also resulted in systems of
accountability for student learning outcomes, including measurement of
performance against national goals for schooling. At the same time, there has
been a slow but perceptible shift in both government and non-government
sectors towards greater transparency in the relationship between funding and the
performance of schools.
For the last half century Australia has had one of the highest proportions of
students being schooled outside systems directly managed by government. In
2001, almost a third of students undertake their education in what are referred
to as non-government schools. The Commonwealth Government provides a
substantial proportion of the funding for such schools. The availability of funding
to establish schools outside the government sector has been accompanied by a
heightened awareness of the way in which schools exist within a market, in the
sense that they present alternative options for students and parents.
3
Increased devolution of management functions and budgetary authority to

schools and more active choice by students and parents among schools and
school programmes has increased the awareness in schools of the need to
maintain standards and the quality of education. Because the innovations that
schools develop are their responses to perceived challenges, innovation is a
response to the context of schooling as we know it today—one, nevertheless,
framed by the perceived challenges of tomorrow.
There has been wide-ranging debate over the last few decades about ways of
enhancing the effectiveness and productivity of schooling. In fact, a whole field
of research, known as ‘school effectiveness and school improvement’, has sprung
up since the early 1970s. A key element of the debate has addressed the issue of
how best to organise schooling, particularly in government systems. Proposed
solutions have sought to move schools to increased levels of self-management
that provide them with greater flexibility to respond to local needs and to
develop the best approach to their work of educating students.
The view of innovation as a solution to manifest problems that occur in school

systems has been a recurring theme in Australian education over the last 30 years
or so. When enjoined with the focus on ‘restructuring’ that emerged over the last
decade, the focus on innovation explicitly recognised the limits and constraints
imposed by systemic regulations and practices.
In schooling, the primary resource is the people who bring their potential and
capacities to the tasks of teaching and learning. Traditionally, schools have
operated within tight procedural and regulatory constraints imposed by external
regulatory systems. Such systems deal with entry to the profession, the
curriculum, and control over resources, etc. There has, typically, been less
external control over resources for non-government schools than for government
schools. Hence, non-government schools have always had a degree of flexibility
that government schools have not enjoyed. Non-government schools are not
subject to the same multi-faceted directions from government authorities on how
they can use their resources, although they can be subject to constraints of
various degrees imposed by church and other governing authorities.
Policies, regulations and programmes of support developed for schools can be

viewed within the context of change management strategies that are required to
improve schooling to achieve The National Goals for Schooling (1999). Fullan
(1993) has argued that an appropriate combination of pressure and support is
required for this purpose. A ‘top down’ approach of applying pressure without
4
support can simply generate alienation and withdrawal, with superficial change
occurring at best. On the other hand, support without pressure can lead to
attempts at change that fail to tackle difficult core improvement issues. By using
the opportunity of external change as a stimulus, and by taking advantage of
external support and the evidence of good practice and research, schools can
scrutinise and adapt external programmes to enhance the learning outcomes of
their students (Hopkins et al., 1997). “What is required is a ...two-way
relationship of pressure, support and continuous negotiation. It amounts to
simultaneous top-down bottom-up influence.” (Fullan, 1993; 38)
The challenge to continuing school improvement, however, lies not simply in

individual initiatives. Cuban (1988) categorised efforts to improve schooling as
first-order or second-order change. First-order change seeks to improve the
effectiveness of schools “without disturbing the basic organisational features,
without altering the way that students and adults perform their roles” (p.341).
Second-order change aims to alter the fundamental relationships of a school,
creating new goals, re-organising structures and creating new cultures. In picking
up this theme, Fullan (1991) argues that we need to address more second-order
changes if we are to improve education. These changes need to affect the
practices, culture and structure of schools by restructuring roles and re-organising
responsibilities, including those of students and parents.
Innovations are the ‘bottom-up’ efforts of schools to put in place educational

practices based on their understandings of best practice as evident in other
schools or the research literature. Many innovations are multi-faceted and
complex and aim to change fundamental practices and professional orientations
in the school. This does not mean that ‘innovations’ necessarily represent new
ways of teaching or learning. They are better viewed as the process by which
individual schools address the challenge of how they can create the best learning
environments and strategies for their students.
A number of regulatory and policy developments over the last two decades can
be viewed as increasing the pressure for schools to make second-order changes.
Developments such as new curriculum frameworks, performance management
strategies, benchmarking and accountability and school review programmes exert
external pressure on schools to improve learning outcomes for students. In
addition, there is evidence of substantial internal pressure generated within
schools from the professional understandings of teachers and through their
professional role of maximising the educational development of their students.
5
The educational research context
Schools make a difference
There is a substantial body of international research that provides clear guidance

as to the sources and key factors within and between schools that influence their
impact on student learning. The research evidence indicates that 8-19 per cent of
the variation in student learning outcomes lies between schools with a further
amount of up to 55 per cent of the variation in individual learning outcomes
attributable to differences between-classrooms within schools in Western
education systems.1 Up to 60 per cent of the variation in student learning
outcomes lies either between-schools or between-classrooms. The remaining 40
per cent is due to the characteristics of individual students that influence learning
outcomes (socio-economic background, ethnic and language background, family
support for education, gender, etc.) or to random influences in school systems
(Cuttance, 2001).
There is also evidence from the UK that the impact of differences in primary
school effectiveness endure through the student’s secondary school years.
Students who attended more effective primary schools gained a boost to their
achievement, one that was still evident in their examination results five years
later at Year 10. This is independent of the effectiveness of the secondary school
they attended (Sammons et al., 1995). Further, individual schools can be
differentially effective in different areas of learning, even within the cognitive
domain (Cuttance, 1998).
Parents view schools as having a broad role in supporting them to ensure the
intellectual, affective, social, and physical development of their students
(Cuttance & Stokes, 2000). The mission statements and aims of most schools
usually reflect these broad aims.
School improvement and development
The following are the major dimensions of a general design for school
improvement as described by Hill & Crévola (1997) and further elaborated on
the basis of recent Australian research (Cuttance & Stokes, 2000; Hill & Russell,
1999):
1 The evidence suggests that the variation in student learning outcomes that lies between schools in Asian
school systems is considerably less than in Western systems, as low as 2 per cent, reflecting the greater
uniformity of schools and teaching practices in Asian systems (Teddlie & Reynolds, 1999).
6
• all improvement is set within a framework of teacher beliefs and

understandings about their professional efficacy and the capacity of every
student to learn, given the right support and learning environment;
• the school’s leadership team creates a focus on effective teaching and learning
through instructional leadership and coordination of school change and
improvement efforts;
• clear standards that are benchmarked to external frameworks are set for what
students are expected to learn and individual learning targets are established
and used to monitor and report on the progress of each student;
• regular, frequent and systematic monitoring and assessment of the progress of

all students is undertaken for the purposes of evaluating student progress,
evaluating the effectiveness of teaching strategies and reporting to parents;
• teaching strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective are employed

to create a learning environment that challenges and supports individual
students to develop their understanding and enhance their cognitive and
meta-cognitive capacities;
• the learning environment is designed to maximise the opportunity for students

to engage in learning through flexible and appropriate school and class
organisation;
• emphasis is given to ensuring that all teachers engage in professional learning

through access to appropriate knowledge and that they have the opportunity
to apply and develop that knowledge for the improvement of student
learning;
• all students who experience difficulty in mastering learning in normal

classroom contexts are identified and special assistance is provided through
appropriate intervention strategies that aim to support their learning at a level
that allows them to participate fully in classroom learning; and
• the school provides parents with advice about effective ways to support their
child’s learning through interactive and coordinated relationships between the
home, school and community.
Effective school improvement can be enhanced by access to externally developed

programmes of support to schools, specifically those that meet the following
criteria (Kentucky Department of Education, 1997).
7
• The programme makes stringent demands on schools in terms of adopting and

implementing the programme. The programme typically offers schools the
highest level of service quality and has the strongest impact on improving
student results.
• The programme sets demanding targets for student outcomes, which are
based on a strong curriculum and accompanied by high quality professional
development and technical support.
• The programme provides services that are highly developed and coordinated
in the areas of instruction, methodology, assessment, on-site technical
assistance and quality control.
• The programme places a strong emphasis on valuing the core content and
pedagogical knowledge of teachers and enriches this as a focus of its service.
That is, the programme is highly responsive to the specific professional
learning needs of participating teachers.
• The programme places a strong emphasis on assessing the effectiveness of its

implementation by requiring teachers to evaluate student learning as feedback
about the effectiveness of teaching practice.
Effective learning
The literatures on learning and teaching have not always been able to be linked.
Frameworks for researching the impact of schools have typically included
constructs such as governance and school organisation; home educational
contexts; school demographics and climate; design and delivery of curriculum
and instruction; and teaching practices (e.g., Scheerens, 1997; Wang et al.,
1993).
Behaviourist models of learning characterised much of the research from the

1950s to the 1970s. These emphasised quality of instruction through the cues
impinging on the learner, the learner’s act of engagement in the process, and
reinforcement or rewards that encourage continuing effort over time (Walberg,
1990).
More recent research has moved beyond a behaviourist view of learning to

incorporate information processing approaches that view students as active
interpreters and mediators of teacher behaviours (Wittrock, 1986). A key strand
of this work has sought to explicate the mental structures and processes
underlying simple and complex performance. Beyond this, constructivist
8
approaches to learning focus on the way in which the social and cultural
environments shape learning and understanding. Student perceptions,
expectations, attitudinal processes, understandings, beliefs, learning strategies
and meta-cognitive processes mediate achievement. A link is thus provided
between the affective and cognitive dimensions of student thought processes
(Wittrock, 1986).
Cognitive strategies that are deployed in the process of learning also influence
students’ motivation to learn and subsequent learning outcomes (Weinstein &
Mayer, 1986). Monitoring by an individual of their own knowledge and cognitive
processes draws on both meta-cognitive and affective components of thought
processes (Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Flavel et al., 1981).
Other factors also present in the immediate learning environment, such as

student and teacher social interactions; social, behavioural, motivational and
affective behaviours of students; student and teacher academic interactions; and
the quality of instruction, also have a strong impact on student learning (Wang et
al., 1993).
Some of the most powerful factors that have been found to influence learning
are associated with aspects of meta-cognitive and cognitive aspects of students’
learning capacities. Cognitive strategies such as elaboration (e.g., summarising,
paraphrasing) and organising (making outlines, drawing up tables or charts)
engage the student in the understanding of content at a deeper level of
processing (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1994). In addition to such
cognitive strategies, meta-cognitive strategies have been shown to be important
for effective learning. These meta-cognitive strategies include setting goals and
monitoring progress, choosing among alternative problem solving strategies,
comprehension monitoring, strategies to facilitate generalisation of concepts, and
strategies for managing and regulating effort, (Corno, 1993; Keating, 1990;
Segal et al., 1985; Wang & Pallincsar, 1989; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
This extended framework for understanding learning is particularly salient as a

basis for understanding contemporary issues, such as the schooling of
adolescents. The middle-years of schooling is a period when students have to
choose between spending time and effort on school subjects and giving attention
to other activities. Hence, well-developed motivation, self-regulation and meta-
cognitive capacities are required to engage successfully in schooling during this
period (Pintrich & Garcia, 1994). Student perceptions influence self-regulation of
behaviour and mediate their behaviours and outcomes.
9
A constructivist methodology of learning is likely to become more relevant as the

process of learning is recognised as one of ‘working’ with knowledge in order to
understand it. Students will need to become meta-cognitively aware of the
second-order skills that they require for the effective manipulation of knowledge.
These patterns and models of understanding need to be understood in terms of
the development of cognitive capacity and the effectiveness of qualitatively
different approaches to teaching and learning at different stages in the
development of the child’s cognitive repertoire (Pellegrino et al., 1999).
Constructivist approaches to learning broadly have one of two foci. They focus
either on a cognitive view of the construction of knowledge (cognitive
constructivism) or a socially situated view of the development of understanding
and learning (social constructivism). Cognitive constructivism has its roots in
Piaget’s later work (Piaget, 1987) and social constructivism draws much of its
heritage from the work of Vygotsky (1978; 1986).
A significant, although controversial element of Vygotsky’s seminal writings was

his development of the construct of the ‘zone of proximal development’—
extending from what learners can do independently, to the maximum that they
can do with the help of the teacher and other features of the learning
environment. Further development of this theory has incorporated the concept of
‘scaffolding’ in the knowledge construction process. A key role of the teacher is
to assist the student by providing scaffolding to act as a bridge from the
student’s current knowledge to new knowledge through a process of social-
construction of embedded understanding, after which the scaffolding becomes
unnecessary.
Kuhn (1999) represents cognitive constructivism through a developmental model

of critical thinking. Her seminal work provides a basis for understanding the
development of cognitive capacities from early childhood to adulthood. The most
important competencies relevant to critical thinking are meta-cognitive, rather
than cognitive competencies. The first-order cognitive skills that enable one to
know about the world are different from meta-cognitive skills, which are second-
order meta-knowing skills that address the issue of knowing about one’s own
knowing. The process of cognitive and meta-cognitive development is viewed
within the context of the maturation of a person’s thinking capacities from birth
to adulthood.
In the early years of childhood, children’s understanding of the universe of

assertions that people make is that they are isomorphic with external reality.
10
Young children generally do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that
there could be more than one understanding of a particular event or object. As
children move towards their teenage years, they develop the cognitive capacity
to understand that assertions are themselves ‘belief states’ and, as such, may
differ among people. Part of the capacity acquired in this stage of development is
that of learning to evaluate an assertion in the light of evidence—‘What do I
know?’ and ‘How do it know it?’ (Kuhn, 1999).
In the emerging context of learning in schools, students will have access to

substantially increased amounts of information and other resources through the
use of information and communication technologies. Hence, the acquisition of
high-level evaluative meta-knowing skills and knowledge will become more
critical in the learning process. Relatively more of students’ time and effort will be
applied to processes involving the meta-cognitive manipulation of knowledge (in
Kuhn’s terms, second-order processes) than to first-order processes of
accumulating, storing and retrieving knowledge.
Effective teaching practice
Teacher practices are one of the primary elements of teaching, but there are also
other components of classrooms that contribute to education and its
effectiveness. These other features include curricula, classroom structures—such
as groups, classroom management and educational goals. Educational goals are
incorporated into the teaching and learning environment through curriculum and
the instructional design of classroom activities.
A number of different frameworks have been employed in analysing the

significant corpus of literature on the effectiveness of teaching environments.
Wang et al. (1993), for example, used the classification of curriculum and
instruction, curriculum design, and programme demographics as their framework
for analysing the knowledge base of teaching. Within these categories they
further classified classroom practices into classroom implementation support,
classroom instructional strategies, quantity of instruction, classroom assessment,
classroom management, teacher and student social interaction, student and
teacher academic interaction, and classroom climate. They used this framework
to synthesise and analyse almost two hundred studies of K–12 classroom learning
in which the dependent variable was student learning outcomes.
The practices with strongest impact on student learning were classroom

management, practices focused on the development of meta-cognitive and
11
cognitive capacities, and student and teacher social interactions. The fact,
however, that other factors such as design and delivery of curriculum and
instruction, classroom climate, and school and classroom organisation had lesser
direct effects on learning, does not mean that they are unimportant. The earlier
set of factors that were found to have the strongest effects cannot be
implemented in an environment that does not also have many of the factors that
had a lesser direct impact on learning.
In general, ‘proximal’ processes—those that are closest to students’ educational

experiences of learning—were found to have greater influence on student
learning than those that are further removed from the process of learning. For
example, simply developing new systemic policies or implementing new
educational programmes does not necessarily improve student learning. This is
because such programmes are dependent for their impact on a range of other
factors that are more proximal to the learning process, such as how well the
intent of the programme is implemented at the level of the classroom.
Many teaching strategies that have been researched in the behaviourist tradition
can also be interpreted as prime facie evidence in a constructivist framework
also. For example, cues have been shown in a wide range of studies to have a
substantial impact on student learning (Wang et al., 1993). Cues take many
forms. These may include:
• brief overviews that abstractly relate new concepts or terms to previous

learning to act as a scaffold between old and new learning;
• adjunct questions, which can be interpreted as a strategy for steering students

into their zone of proximal development;
• the setting of objectives, guidelines, methods and standards to support

student’s self-regulation of their learning;
• the development of learning hierarchies by ordering facts, skills and ideas that
logically or psychologically proceed others to enhance the development of
second-order classification and problem solving capacities; and
• the use of ongoing assessment to benchmark student learning prior to

undertaking new learning in order to support the development of student’s
self-regulation of their learning (Walberg, 1990).
Strategies to provide corrective feedback to students have also been shown to

have a significant influence on student learning. Reinforcement can be immediate
12
and direct in the classroom and includes acknowledgment of correctness and

social approval. However, in many classrooms the main form of reinforcement is
through marks, grades and awards, which assume that students regulate their
learning in terms of intangible, long-term goals such as pleasing parents, further
education and adult success. The main impact of reinforcement has been found
to be in providing information rather than incentives (Walberg, 1990).
Student-centred teaching strategies, such as giving students a voice in choosing

what to learn and involving them in planning and assessment processes, have
been designed to improve cooperation, critical thinking, constructive attitudes
and self-directed learning. Such strategies have been shown to have an impact
on non-cognitive outcomes, such as student attitudes, creativity and self-
concept, but at some cost to cognitive outcomes as assessed by achievement
measures (Giaconia & Hedges, 1982).
Although no longer widely implemented in their original form, two models of

teaching that have been shown to have substantial impact on student learning
are Mastery Learning (Bloom, 1976) and Direct Instruction (Rosenshine, 1972,
1987).
The essential characteristics of mastery learning are a set of course objectives that
students are expected to master at a high level; teaching units that address a
specific and small number of objectives at any one time; teaching for mastery
and assessing students at the end of the unit; and assessment of each student’s
mastery of the course as a whole on the basis of what the student has and has
not achieved, rather than on how well the student has achieved relative to
classmates. The model uses additional tutorial-based support for students who do
not reach the target level of mastery when the unit is first taught. This adds
substantially to the resourcing requirements of the method. The effectiveness of
the model has been shown to be associated with the additional resources that
are allocated to ensure individual students achieve at the mastery level (Kulik &
Kulik, 1991) and the high level of congruence among the instructional
components of the model (Guskey & Gates, 1986).
Recent models of literacy teaching that have been shown to be effective (Hill &
Crévola, 1997) include key elements of mastery learning—in particular, high
expectations for all students; a strongly sequential progression in skill acquisition;
ongoing assessment and monitoring of the progress of individual students against
a set of external standards; and additional support for students not achieving
mastery at a high level in the context of normal classroom instruction.
13
Direct Instruction (Rosenshine, 1987) is based on a model that brings together

the essential findings from process-product studies of classroom practice and its
impact on learning outcomes. The key elements of the direct instruction model
include:
• the daily review and checking of homework;
• teacher presentation of the material and illustration of concepts, etc. through

the use of concrete examples and models;
• guided practice—that is, initial student practice takes place with teacher
guidance and is continued with guidance until students gain the level of
mastery that is required;
• the use of correctives and feedback to indicate to students when they have
demonstrated that they have learnt something, and to assist them to achieve
the correct answers;
• independent practice to consolidate student learning; and
• weekly and monthly reviews to assess whether students have learnt the
material and concepts, followed by re-teaching of material that has been
missed or for which there is evidence that students have not learnt the
concepts or material.
Direct instruction has been found to be most successful with well-structured

subject areas, such as Mathematics, which can be divided into small units that
focus on specific knowledge and skills. It has also been shown to be particularly
successful for disadvantaged students. More recent elaborations of the direct
instruction model have sought to incorporate aspects of higher-order cognitive
processes, such as learning strategies, problem solving and meta-cognitive
behaviour. Such strategies can be incorporated through ‘modelling’ and
‘scaffolding’.
One of the significant findings from other research is that highly structured
teaching is more effective for less able students and that relatively unstructured
teaching can be of benefit for more able students. Further, unstructured teaching
is of most benefit to students after they have gained a good grasp of the skills
required and an understanding of the structures they require to understand the
substantive material that they are studying. This suggests that student-directed
strategies may have a more prominent role to play in teaching students with
more highly developed cognitive and meta-cognitive capacities, whereas explicit
14
teaching may have a more prominent role in teaching students with less well-
developed cognitive and meta-cognitive capacities. In an ideal context teaching
adapts the degree of structure used according to the level of understanding and
the state of cognitive and meta-cognitive development of the individual student.
Typical teaching strategies generally fit between the extremes of high- and low-
structure, although there is evidence of an imbalance in some classrooms towards
an emphasis on the low-structure end of the spectrum (Pelligreno et al., 1999).
The model of direct instruction is evident in some classrooms in teaching practice
that is referred to as ‘explicit teaching’, which provides an appropriate higher
level of structure for part of the time.
Other key areas of practice and organisation that have been shown to have a
significant relationship to student learning outcomes include student grouping,
adaptive instruction, social environment, and computer-assisted instruction.
The extent to which grouping is used depends on the curriculum and the degree
to which teachers can adapt instruction to individual needs. The grouping of
students is designed to deal with differences in the way students learn and the
rate at which they learn. The effectiveness of grouping strategies is dependent on
the availability of appropriately graded instructional materials and of establishing
differentiated groups within the spatial constraints of the classroom (Janssens,
1986).
Grouping can take place between schools, within schools and within classrooms.
Grouping between schools is exemplified by programmes that cater for students
with particular educational needs and interests, such as specific vocational
interests. Grouping between classes in schools is most often referred to as
‘setting’ or ‘streaming’. Ability and mixed-ability grouping within classes is
common in the primary years, but less common within the secondary years,
although some theme-based learning and project-based learning in the
secondary years can be viewed as a type of grouping. Whole-class mixed-ability
instruction requires teachers to focus more on the average student or slightly
below the average level of the class, which may disadvantage students who learn
at significantly slower or faster rates. Hence, the use of within-class grouping is
critical to meeting the needs of all groups of students.
Meta-analyses of the large number of studies of grouping indicate that there are
substantial effects associated with this practice. Ability grouping has its strongest
impact on attitudes and high ability students. Both multi-age grouping in reading
and within-class grouping have been shown to have a moderate influence on
15
learning. A strong effect has been found for ‘tutoring’. The strongest overall
effect, however, has been shown to be associated with ‘acceleration’ groups,
particularly in the primary years. They also have a strong impact in the junior
secondary school years, but only a moderate impact in the senior secondary
school years (Walberg, 1990).
Adaptive instruction geared to the learning characteristics and needs of individual

students has been shown to be more effective than whole-class instruction for
both cognitive and affective outcomes. Adaptive instruction improves student
learning, particularly when it includes instruction based on the learning
characteristics and needs of individual students, when students work at their own
pace, receive periodic reports of their mastery, plan and evaluate their own
learning, and when alternative materials and activities are provided (Creemers,
1994).
The social environment of schooling has been shown to be of crucial importance,

particularly in association with the use of cooperative learning strategies.
Cooperative learning delegates some control of pacing and methods of learning
to groups of students who work together. The synthesis of a large number of
research studies has shown the impact of cooperative learning is strong
(Walberg, 1990). The success of the strategy has been attributed to a number of
factors including: relief from the exclusive teacher-to-student interaction of
whole-group teaching; the time freed up for interactions with and among
students; opportunities for targeted cues, encouragement, correctives,
reinforcement and tutoring to encourage students to think about the subject
matter; and the productive use of time.
Finally, the use of computers in learning processes has been shown to have a
positive impact on learning outcomes for students. Most of the research,
however, has been undertaken in the limited context of using computers to teach
information technology skills and knowledge, and in using computers in
programmed-instruction contexts. The strongest impact of computers on student
learning in these contexts has been when they have been used for students with
special physical learning needs (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Walberg, 1990).
16
THE INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICE

PROJECT
Project description
One hundred and seven IBPP schools across Australia joined with a consortium of
university researchers to evaluate the impact of the innovations they were
undertaking to improve the learning outcomes of their students. The 107
schools2 were selected from approximately 300 schools that submitted proposals
to join the research. The schools selected for the project were provided with
funding3 to enhance the development of their innovation and to undertake
research to evaluate its impact on student learning.
Each participating school produced a research report that described its

innovation, evaluated its impact and assessed how successful the school had
been in improving student learning outcomes. The project sought to understand
how schools respond to both internal and external sources of pressure and
support to improve learning and the nature of the evidence they can provide
about the improvement of learning outcomes. The innovations selected for the
project focused on significant groups of students across classrooms within each
individual school. The research also sought to understand the role of
organisational structures and flexible use of staff and resources in achieving
improvements in student learning.
Schools also completed a common survey about their experience in undertaking

their innovation. The survey required respondents to assess the innovation in
their school. The survey inquired about the rationale for the innovation, the
factors affecting the adoption of the innovation, flexible use of resources, the
impact of the innovation, characteristics of the innovation and staff reflections of
the innovation and the way in which it was implemented. One section of the
survey asked participants to nominate factors that hindered or facilitated the
implementation of the school’s innovation.
The innovations focused on challenges and problems that had been identified by
schools—with most addressing fundamental aspects of student learning. Many of
the innovations addressed issues that have emerged in public and educational
2 The 107 schools are listed in Appendix 1. Where reference is made to individual schools in the chapters
of this report, pseudonyms are used.
3 Funding was based on school size and location and varied from $8,000–$15,000.
17
policy in a number of different contexts. These issues were manifested in poor

literacy skills, lack of engagement in learning, and disaffection with schooling.
The innovations sought to augment instructional methods that have traditionally

been teacher-centred with student-centred learning strategies. These were mostly
based on a contemporary understanding of learning as a process by which
students construct the framework in which they understand their world. Such
approaches to learning presume an active and contextualised process that
focuses on students constructing an understanding of their immediate world.
The innovations are the response of schools to a broader debate about the
function and role of education. School staff have been a significant participating
group in the public discourse. The innovations are their response as teachers and
as the group that has the ultimate capacity to act directly in relation to identified
problems and directions for improvement.
The evaluation expectations of the project demanded more than a report about
the innovations. The project explicitly enunciated high expectations and used
organisational processes to generate constructive pressure and support for the
participating schools to provide sound evidence and undertake a thorough
analysis of the impact of their innovations on student learning.
Schools were challenged by the evaluation expectations of the project. A

significant proportion of the schools had some, but certainly not all, of the
competencies and capacities they needed in assessing whether their innovation
had been successful. The project report guidelines asked schools specifically to:
• describe and analyse the data and evidence collected;
• analyse the intersections and linkages between different aspects of the data or
evidence;
• quantify the size of the impact—for different student groups, different areas of
learning, and the level of improvement in learning outcomes;
• describe the range of relevant outcomes—e.g., learning achievement,

attendance, participation, behaviour, attitudes;
• describe changes in classroom practice as a result of the innovation;
• assess the impact attributable to the innovation; and
• discuss whether, or to what extent, the impact could be attributed to other

programmes and innovations also taking place in the school.
18
Although schools found these expectations challenging, they tackled them with
energy and keenness. Most were successful in this endeavour. The schools
themselves wanted to know how successful their innovations were and valued
the strong focus on the quality of the process. This gave them assurance that
they would be able to learn whether their investment in the innovation was in
fact achieving the outcomes they wanted for their students.
In addition to assessing the impact of the innovation on student outcomes,

schools reflected on the processes of change. Through this, they developed
understandings about the nature of their innovation, the school culture and
conditions that facilitated the implementation of their innovation, what was
required for the innovations to be sustainable over time, the process of
innovation, and the nature of the specific innovation unique to each school.
Successful innovations cannot be transplanted or ‘dropped’ on schools; they do
not start from the outside in but develop from the inside out.
Schools grappled with many issues in developing and implementing their

innovations. The project provided assistance to them in clarifying the outcomes
they were trying to achieve for their students and in developing an evaluation
process to determine whether their innovation was working, and in what way
and to what extent. Through this process, schools learned more about
themselves as organisations, about their students and the students’ needs, about
what does and does not work, and most importantly, through a focus on
meeting student needs, they gained a deeper understanding of the nature of
teaching and learning.
Schools were encouraged to design research frameworks that would allow them
to provide information about the effectiveness of their innovations relative to
other alternatives. A wide range of designs was used by schools, including
experimental control groups; quasi-control groups; pre and post measurement
designs; random and purposive sampling of students, teachers and parents; and
needs analyses. The data collection and analysis strategies that schools employed
were comprehensive. They drew from surveys, interviews, focus groups,
observation schedules, computer system logs, achievement tests and public
examination results, teacher/student journals, computer maintenance records,
standardised assessment inventories, evaluations of student work,
student/teacher self-evaluations, document analysis, and needs analysis. Schools
made attempts to triangulate the different forms of data they had collected and
used case studies, structured vignettes, written testimonials, etc, to provide depth
to their analyses.
19
Most schools contracted a researcher to assist them with particular aspects of

their project. A significant feature of the schools’ relationship with the researchers
they engaged was its contractual nature and the strong focus on the school
retaining ownership of the innovation and research. The university research
consortium responsible for the project conducted a number of workshops to
assist schools to focus their research and to access the consultancy support that
they required.
A significant influence on the process of analysis and emergent understandings

was the fact that schools and not the researchers were expected to take control
of the evaluation. The schools controlled the funds, they selected their consultant
researcher—in consultation with project directors—and they monitored the
quality of the research support provided. There was no point in a traditional
research methodology in which researchers retain control when devolved self-
management was itself at the core of the process of innovation. With this
transfer of power, schools were able to ensure that the research was meeting
their needs for information about the innovation, that it was telling them what
they wanted to know for their school and their students.
This was a new research experience for many of the schools. They were more
familiar with researchers having the evaluation skills, ‘doing’ the research on
them, and providing a report back to the school. This time, the researchers
worked for schools by providing expertise for the development of high quality
evaluation strategies—in the process, transferring skills in evaluation design, data
collection and analysis and report writing to the schools. As one principal
commented, “this was a school-driven R&D project that had access to the
necessary infrastructure of professional research support”.
The project gave schools full control over how they used their allocated funds. In
addition to direct input to the innovation, some of the funds were used by
schools to release teachers to meet and engage in professional discussions about
their innovation.
A limitation of the project design was the constrained time available to

demonstrate improvement in student outcomes. In the time available, some
schools were not able to provide evidence of improvement although they were
able to demonstrate intermediary outcomes, such as changes in teaching practice
and student engagement. Unexpectedly, however, the expectation that schools
would report in a limited timeframe provided positive pressure by encouraging
schools to focus on action from the start. This pressure ensured the innovations
20
were focused and that momentum was maintained. The constructive pressure
that accompanied participation in the project was demanding. Schools, however,
achieved more under pressure than they might otherwise have done.
The support provided through the project infrastructure assisted schools to meet
expectations. In addition to their access to the expertise of consultant
researchers, schools attended three workshops over the duration of the project,
and could seek advice and support from a project manager allocated to them.
The workshops provided opportunities for school representatives to share and
interact with other schools in the project. The schools met at various stages
throughout the project and shared their understandings about pedagogy—about
understandings grounded in the reality of each individual school and its students.
Teachers built on their already extensive professional knowledge and
understanding to develop an environment of professional enrichment that
maintained enthusiasm and motivation and provided opportunities to learn from
each other.
A project website was established to foster networking, answer questions and

provide resources or links to relevant resources. However, it was not widely used
by schools once they had established their ‘live’ networks with other participating
schools. Although all but a handful of schools had access to the website via the
internet, the communications connections were often fragile and access was not
always located in the participating teachers’ work areas. Schools preferred to
consult directly with other schools or go directly to the research literature or their
consultant researcher when they required new information and knowledge to
support their innovation.
The findings reported in this report are an analysis and synthesis of the findings
across the school research reports, the completed surveys, and follow-up visits
made to selected case study schools. Appendix 2 provides further details of the
methodology that has been employed in the research for specific chapters.
The Schools
Schools were invited to submit proposals to be considered for the project.

Approximately one-third of the schools submitting proposals were selected to
join the project. The selection of schools was stratified by the proportions of
students in the government, Catholic and independent sectors nationally. The
final group of participating schools included 67 from government sectors, 16
from Catholic systemic systems, and 24 independent schools. The proportions of
21
schools in the various states and territories also guided the selection process.
One-fifth of the schools selected described themselves as serving communities
with a significant level of social and economic disadvantage. Approximately one-
sixth of the schools indicated that their innovation was a direct response to a
crisis or perceived threat to their viability.
Sixty-four per cent of the participating schools were located in capital cities. The
year levels/grades that were the most frequently targeted by the innovations
were: Year 7 (41 per cent), Year 8 (38 per cent), Year 9 (29 per cent), Year 6 (27
per cent) and Year 5 (26 per cent). The year levels least frequently targeted were
Year 12 (10 per cent) and Year 11 (14 per cent)4.
In 82 per cent of the participating schools the innovation aimed to improve

learning outcomes across the board. However, as part of their whole-school
approach many of the innovations differentiated their strategies for specific
groups of students requiring additional support. These focused on improving
outcomes for low achieving students (21 per cent schools), ‘at risk’ students (19
per cent), students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds (14 per cent), girls
(13 per cent), boys (9 per cent), and high achieving or gifted and talented
students (11 per cent).
The learning outcomes that were the focus of the innovations included:
• engagement in and attitude to learning (78 per cent),
• core or foundational learning (60 per cent),
• ability to work collaboratively as a member of a team (48 per cent),
• self-esteem and identity (44 per cent),
• higher-order cognitive learning (32 per cent),
• social behaviour, discipline (29 per cent),
• participation in particular areas of the curriculum (25 per cent),
• subject-based knowledge (18 per cent),
• specific learning difficulties (17 per cent).
4 This data is from the school survey. Schools frequently targeted more than one year/grade level and
improvement focus. Hence the percentages cited do not add up to 100 per cent.
22
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
In writing this report, we have set out to provide a living account of the
innovations in the substantive areas of literacy in the early years, mathematics,
information and communication technologies, and the middle-years of schooling.
These chapters are based on the schools that made one or more of these areas
the focus of their innovation. There were innovations in other substantive areas,
but insufficient numbers of them to be able to provide corroborated evidence
about what worked across a number of schools. Some substantive curriculum
areas were not represented in the project because they were absent or weak
among the proposals from the schools that made application to join the project.
It is notable that innovations in the curriculum areas of the arts, science and
vocational education, in particular, do not appear to be the focus of high levels of
innovation in schools. Or perhaps, schools do not consider such areas as
important as those represented in the project.
In addition to the above substantive areas, the research findings focus on a range
of school leadership and school organisational issues that were evident as critical
success factors in the innovations. Leadership, instructional flexibility and issues in
the management of innovation are the subject of later chapters. The lessons for
practice and for policy are discussed as a conclusion to the report. The main
features of each of the chapters are briefly outlined below.
Innovations focused on literacy in the early years
The high profile of professional and policy interest in literacy over the past two
decades has culminated in the development of specific targets for the
improvement of literacy in the early years of schooling. The literacy innovations
were among the more rigorous and well constructed of all the innovations in the
IBPP. They were more likely to draw on sound research evidence and well-
developed professional practice in developing innovations that directly targeted
student learning needs. They provide strong evidence of the power of using
student achievement data as feedback to the teaching and learning process.
Schools developed strategies to ensure that they closely tracked student progress
and used this information to target their efforts to ensure all students were able
to achieve at an appropriate standard. The projects had a very strong emphasis
on teacher learning, often in a team-learning context and they provided parents
23
with relevant information and advice so that they could in turn enhance their
child’s learning. These early literacy schools were well placed to demonstrate the
impact of their innovations on the improvement of student learning outcomes.
Innovations focused on mathematics
A significant feature of the innovations that focused on the improvement of

learning in mathematics was that they were much more likely than the literacy
innovations to be confined to single classrooms rather than being the basis of a
programme that was implemented across all classrooms at a particular stage of
schooling. In a number of cases, the mathematics innovations and mathematics
departments had decided to opt-out of other innovation and support processes
in the school. Another significant difference compared to the literacy innovations
was the very limited use of student assessment information to feedback into the
teaching and learning process in the mathematics innovations. The innovations
focused on improving affective aspects of learning in mathematics, that is, on the
encouragement and development of positive attitudes and motivation in the
learning of mathematics. Teacher professional learning was a strong focus of
these innovations, but because they lacked the whole-school focus of the literacy
innovations, they were not able to exploit the advantages of team-based learning
and problem solving among teachers. Constraints imposed by the current
curriculum frameworks in mathematics were a common area of concern to the
teachers involved in the innovations.
Innovations focused on the integration of information and communication

technologies
The schools that engaged in integrating information and communication

technologies into school learning environments were mostly involved in either
enhancing learning with ICT or through ICT. In the main, schools sought to
address learning about ICT, believing that students would gain sufficient
exposure to the technology to learn all they needed to know about it. The
innovations were fairly evenly split between laptop programmes, on-line and
internet-based learning initiatives, and the integration of classroom-based
desktop computers and peripherals in learning environments. The schools
demonstrated the impact of ICT on cognitive curriculum outcomes, meta-
cognitive outcomes, affective outcomes and the development of social
competencies. In many cases, the ICT innovations were also an integral part of a
much broader framework to reform school organisation and learning
24
environments to better meet the needs of individual students. A significant

element of the use of ICT was its capacity to provide almost instantaneous
feedback to the learner and to teachers about whether their practice was
achieving its aims. Perhaps the most significant impediments to success in the
ICT innovations were the problems schools experienced with the technical
reliability of hardware and software, and the lack of bandwidth for connectivity
to the internet in most schools.
Innovations focused on the middle-years of schooling
The innovations in the middle-years of schooling focused primarily on the re-

engagement of students in their learning. They sought also to develop the skills
and knowledge that students require to become self-directed, autonomous
learners. The middle-years innovations were predominantly whole-school efforts
to improve learning for students and, as with the literacy innovations,
emphasised teachers working and learning together in teams. Many of the
schools had moved away from the prescribed curriculum to a more generic
curriculum that they referred to as a ‘thinking skills’ curriculum. This focused on
self-regulatory skills and knowledge, such as developing the capacity to manage
one’s work and working in teams, and the development of the second-order
meta-cognitive skills required for ‘working’ with knowledge. Most schools were
able to demonstrate that students were achieving improved learning outcomes
that were either the precursors to improved cognitive skills measured by current
assessment programmes or improved affective outcomes for students. The
research indicated that there were reasons to believe that many of the middle-
years innovations would be sustained over the longer term.
Leadership and innovation
One of the dominant features of successful innovation across all domains was
that of leadership. Individuals at the various levels of the school played critical
leadership roles. The strategic leadership of principals was essential in almost
every successful innovation. In many cases, principals were also the initiators and
the driving force behind the innovation. Teachers also played critical leadership
roles, particularly in terms of the instructional leadership required to establish and
to develop the effectiveness of innovations. The driving professional passion of
teachers was evident in many of the innovations. The research demonstrated that
schools needed to have access to a critical level of high quality instructional
leadership by teachers if they are to be successful in developing and
25
implementing innovations that lead to substantial improvements for students.

Successful schools had developed or gained access to leadership that focused on
action, culture-building and organisation-wide learning.
Instructional flexibility and innovation
Four types of instructional flexibility were the focus of specific innovations in the
IBPP. Flexibility was gained through the use of sites outside of and different to
schools, the use of student grouping for instructional purposes, flexible use of
staff, and collaboration among schools through consortia that had been
established for specific purposes. In many cases the strategies for enhancing the
flexible use of resources, interpreted in the broadest sense, may not be viewed as
particularly unconventional from a viewpoint outside of schooling, but they had
to overcome significant challenges from established cultures and organisational
constraints both inside and outside of schooling. In some cases there was a sense
that schools had to go about their innovations quietly, so as not to raise the
awareness of significant external bodies. In other cases, the innovating schools
sought and were granted permission to step outside the formal or informal
regulatory environment of their systems. The innovations show that if schools are
prepared to formally or informally push the limits of the constraints that bind
them, they can develop new ways of providing opportunities to meet the needs
of students.
Managing innovation
Few schools indicated their innovations were the offspring of systemic

programmes or influences. A strong finding of the research across schools was
the significant association between the level and extent of innovation and the
degree of self-management in school systems. In most cases, the schools were
implementing innovations that made use of their capacity to direct their
resources to the areas of greatest perceived need for improvement. Government
schools indicated that self-management was a more essential element of their
innovation than was the case in independent schools, mainly because the latter
were simply not subject to the degree of constraint that the former faced. There
was evidence in more than one-sixth of schools that their innovation was
initiated primarily as a response to a perceived crisis or external threat to their
viability. This response can be viewed, in part, as the product of market pressures
on schools. A critical feature of many of the innovations was the school’s access
to the essential capacity to analyse data on its performance and research the
26
effects of its innovative strategies. The IBPP highlighted the significant deficit of
data analysis skills in schools across the nation and that few schools had access to
the necessary analytical capacity either from within their own professional
expertise or, in many cases, from external sources.
Lessons for practice
The innovations that the IBPP schools were engaged in show the substantial
improvements that schools can make to student learning. The schools had
identified aspects of their work and performance that needed substantial
enhancement if it was to provide students with the opportunities to achieve their
potential. The innovations focused on creating learning environments that could
meet the learning needs of individual students, which, in most cases, involved a
more student-centred approach.
They also the focused on:
• harnessing ICT to enhance the learning environment;
• ensuring all students mastered the basic skills in the early years, so that they
were equipped with the necessary skills to develop into self-directed learners;
• flexible and integrated use of grouping practices to support students not

mastering their learning at the appropriate level through whole-class
instruction;
• the development of a generic ‘thinking skills’ curriculum for the middle-years;

developing the critical role of leadership across all levels of the school, from
the classroom to the principal; and, most fundamentally,
• ensuring that all actions were directed towards the improvement of student
learning outcomes, by enhancing teacher skills in using data as feedback to
the teaching process and for evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and
innovations.
Lessons for policy
The IBPP school innovations were, in many cases, a response to externally and
internally generated pressures to change current practices and arrangements to
better meet the needs of students. The external pressures were influenced both
by market forces and the professional and policy debate that has taken place,
sometimes over decades. The internal pressures for improvement came from the
27
professional commitment and beliefs of teachers that they could better meet the
needs of their students. In many cases, schools were unable to find external
programmes to support their innovation, a gap that was filled in part by the
structure and support provided by the IBPP. Non-government schools and
schools in government systems that had devolved the management of most of
their resources were at a particular advantage, because they had a greater
capacity to target resources in ways that supported their innovations. One of the
most significant aspects of flexibility in this context was the capacity of schools to
manage the recruitment, appointment and allocation of staff in ways that
supported their innovation. The schools had little problem with the idea that
evidence about the outcomes they were trying to achieve should be rigorously
evaluated, although the specification of the outcomes, gathering of appropriate
evidence about them and the analysis of that evidence proved to be a major
challenge for many of them.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
The chapters that follow provide strong evidence that our schools can respond to
the challenges they face as we move towards a knowledge-based society.
Innovation, itself, will be an essential element of the process in this transition
period. The external policy, professional and market pressures and internal
professional pressures on schools provide a framework that can be harnessed to
support the process of innovation.
Although the IBPP schools had access to most of the essential skills and
knowledge among their staff, the success of innovation in schools is significantly
dependent also on the access schools have to external expertise, research
knowledge and programmes that they can draw on for support. The IBPP schools
were not always able to locate and access all the external resources they
required. The structure of the project itself was a significant support to the
teachers and principals involved in driving the innovations in their schools.
The project provides strong evidence of the need to rethink professional

development for teachers. Professional learning can only be achieved by teachers
‘working’ with the knowledge that they are incorporating into their innovations.
Teacher-based research and evaluation of their practice is a necessary component
of successful school innovation.
28
The lessons for policy that arise from the IBPP include:
• the need for a more penetrating focus on teacher learning and the evaluation
of its impact on student learning;
• recognition of the advantages of providing schools with greater local control

over their resources; and
• recognition that government and the profession have a role in creating an

external framework of constructive pressure and support to act as a catalyst
for innovation.
Few of the IBPP schools were influenced by systemic programmes and policies to
embark on their innovation, which suggests that the primary role of systems in
innovation may be in the development of an infrastructure that supports schools
to access the external resources of expertise, programmes, and knowledge that
they require for innovation.
29
30
EARLY LITERACY
Chapter 2
Peter W. Hill and Graeme Jane
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an account of innovation and change in 16 primary schools that had nominated
literacy as their focus area. The attainment of high standards in early literacy has become a national
priority for school systems in recent years. It has also been a major preoccupation of primary schools,
leading to some of the most convincing evidence yet seen in the Australian context that innovation
and change can lead to significant and measurable improvements in student learning outcomes.
NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Literacy as a national priority
There has never been a time when, across the nation, educational policy makers and schools have
been more focused on early literacy. There is an acute awareness that higher standards of literacy are
needed in the emerging knowledge society. Reading and writing are even more important than in the
past and the need for people to have highly developed reading and writing abilities is growing, not
diminishing.
31
The schools described in this chapter have brought about substantial

improvements in outcomes through innovative approaches to teaching and
learning. Their stories are of vital importance to schools. They reveal the different
ways of thinking of these schools, how they have gone about implementing
change and, most importantly, the evidence that that they have been able to
generate to demonstrate improvements in student literacy.
Changing views of literacy
Literacy has always been, and probably always will be, the primary function of
schooling, particularly in the early years. For this reason, national reports on
education have consistently drawn attention to the importance of ensuring high
literacy standards in schools. Nonetheless, there has been a considerable shift in
thinking over the past decade or so and in particular over the nineties regarding
the best ways of ensuring high standards.
Within the Australian context, one of the first reports to signal a change in
thinking about literacy was that of the Quality of Education Review Committee
(QERC) (Karmel, 1985). The main thrust of this report was to suggest that
schools and school systems needed to change their focus from an emphasis on
educational inputs to an emphasis on outcomes. The QERC report also gave
prominence to primary education and in particular to ensuring all students met
minimum standards at an early age in literacy and numeracy.
In 1991, the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (Department of

Employment, Education and Training, 1991) echoed the call for greater
proficiency in English and effective literacy for all Australians, although from the
funds allocated to the policy, only a small proportion was directed to early
literacy (de Lemos & Harvey-Beavis, 1995).
A powerful statement regarding the importance of literacy and the magnitude of

the challenge confronting schools was made in The Literacy Challenge, (House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training,
1993). This focused on strategies for early intervention in literacy.
...all students have the right to be literate when they leave school,
regardless of their economic or social backgrounds... It is unacceptable
that ten to twenty per cent of children finish primary school with literacy
problems...It is crucial that children at risk of developing literacy
problems are identified during the early years of schooling and that
appropriate strategies are implemented (p. v).
32
To obtain a better picture of literacy standards, the Australian Council for

Educational Research was contracted, in 1996, to undertake a national survey of
the literacy attainments of students in Years 3 and 5. The first report (Masters &
Forster, 1997a) documented the wide range of literacy achievement among
Australian children and provided evidence for the existence of a ‘learning gap’ of
at least five years of schooling between the top and bottom ten per cent of
students at Years 3 and 5. The second report (Masters & Forster, 1997b)
presented evidence suggesting that about 30 per cent of students completing the
national survey failed to reach the minimum standards set by the reading and
writing benchmarks used in the study.
In the wake of these reports both the Commonwealth and State/Territory

governments were active in the development of national and system-wide
policies and plans for improving early literacy. In March 1997 Commonwealth
and State/Territory Ministers agreed to develop national educational
‘benchmarks’ as standards and endorsed a new national goal that “every child
commencing school from 1998 will achieve a minimum acceptable literacy and
numeracy standard within four years”.
This goal was later incorporated into a broader statement known as the Adelaide
Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (The
National Goals for Schooling [1999]) endorsed by the Ministerial Council on
Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. An important outcome of the
agreement was an acceptance that all States and Territories would assess students’
levels of literacy and numeracy against agreed benchmarks or standards, and
publicly report on the outcomes of this assessment.
In 1998, the Commonwealth published Literacy for all: The challenge for
Australian schools (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, 1998). It outlined a National Plan, which focused on the early years of
schooling, and comprised elements concerning early intervention, benchmarks,
monitoring and assessment, and professional development.
Support for early literacy in many school systems has taken the form of
comprehensive support programmes for use by schools, such as Cornerstones
(South Australia), First Steps (Western Australia), Flying Start (Tasmania), Getting
the Foundations Right (New South Wales), Early Years Literacy Program
(Victoria) and Year 2 Diagnostic Net (Queensland). These programmes employ a
range of strategies and complement international programmes such as Reading
Recovery (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs,
33
1998).
Systems have also initiated substantial research and development programmes to

underpin the provision of the support they provide. (See for example, Crévola &
Hill, 1998a; 1998b; Ainley & Fleming, 2000). The research commissioned by
systems is increasingly being directed towards the identification of factors
associated with the relative effectiveness of different programmes and
interventions, as measured by the literacy progress of students, in the context of
large-scale implementation across many schools. In this respect, these studies
share many of the features of the projects undertaken by schools in the IBPP,
which are described below.
THE IBPP LITERACY RESEARCH PROJECT

Of the 107 schools, 23 nominated English or Literacy as their key focus. Sixteen
of these were primary schools. Among these 16 schools, four had a programme
that was operating across all of the primary years of schooling. The remaining 12
had an early years focus. This chapter briefly describes the programmes in the 16
primary schools but focuses predominantly on the experiences of eight case
study schools.
FINDINGS
The Programmes in the 16 primary schools
Perhaps the most significant feature of the 16 schools was the extent to which
they had implemented coherent, whole-school programmes or designs and
‘branded’ approaches to literacy. This was a characteristic of 13 of the 16
schools. They included the four Victorian schools that had each implemented the
Victorian government’s Early Years Literacy Program based on research
undertaken through the Early Literacy Research Project (ELRP) (Crévola & Hill,
1998a, 1998b; Hill & Crévola, 1999), a Queensland school that had implemented
THRASS (Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills (Davies and Ritchie,
1996), another Queensland school that had developed a whole-school design
based on the Total Systems Model of Mamary (1996), and a New South Wales
school that had implemented aspects of both First Steps (Education Department
of Western Australia, 1996) and SWELL (Center, Freeman & Robertson, 1996).
In addition, schools had developed their own whole-school designs borrowing

from a range of sources. Reading Recovery (Clay, 1993b) had been implemented
as a key element of programmes in seven of the 16 schools as a one-to-one
34
accelerative programme for the lowest achieving students in their second year of
schooling. In three of the schools, the key feature of the innovation had been the
introduction of multi-age classes; while in another three schools there had been a
specific focus on direct teaching of phonics. In most of the 16 schools, a range of
methods of teaching were being employed within a predominantly ‘whole
language’ framework.
The follow-up case studies
Eight schools were selected for more intensive follow-up research. These schools
were selected on the basis of evidence of improved learning and a whole school
approach. Of the eight that had adopted a whole-school approach, four had
used a design developed as part of the ELRP referred to above. As a framework
for describing and comparing these eight schools, we make use of a design
template developed by Hill and Crévola (1997). The Hill and Crévola design
template identifies nine design elements as summarised diagrammatically in
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1.Design template for a whole school approach to improving student
Leadership and
Home, school coordination Standards
and community
and targets
partnerships
Intervention Beliefs and Monitoring and

and special understandings Assessment
assistance
School Classroom
and class teaching
organisation Professional strategies
learning teams
learning outcomes (Hill & Crévola, 1997)
35
Beliefs and understandings
In each of the eight schools, the development among staff of a set of shared
beliefs and understandings about teaching and learning was seen as an important
precondition for successful implementation of the school’s innovation and
ultimately for improved student literacy outcomes. In particular, teachers referred
to the importance of having high expectations of all students and of not allowing
their knowledge of students’ home backgrounds to cause them to lower these
expectations.
Before the programme began, teachers in Mount Ernest Primary School did not
share and could not articulate common beliefs. The school used the Frameworks
programme and the notion of multi-age grouping practices as a starting point to
develop common beliefs. This led to a focus on building common beliefs and
understandings among teachers. An extended debate about multi-age grouping
practices helped to establish a focus on student individual needs and quality
literature resources.
In Hampshire, East Park and Baden West Primary Schools, which all served
educationally disadvantaged communities, considerable work was needed in the
first year of the project to expose and confront a “Yes, but...” culture that
tolerated low expectations of students. This culture was gradually replaced by an
acceptance of the notion that, with time and support, almost all students are
capable of achieving high standards. Much time was spent working through the
implications of such a belief for the way in which the school operated and for
teaching practices in classrooms.
In McFarlane Primary School, the success of the programme initially hinged on

changing the beliefs of teachers from regarding the kindergarten year as being
another year of pre-school to one in which students learnt how to read. As a
result of the school’s programme, a common belief was generated in the capacity
of all students to be reading by the end of their first year of schooling.
In Cloudy View Primary School, which had adopted an outcomes-focused

approach, teachers reported that in 1994, teachers and students shared low
expectations of student academic progress. Since implementing the innovation,
both the teachers’ and the students’ expectations had increased dramatically.
They expressed concern that frequent changeovers of staff had jeopardised the
sustainability of the programme because new teachers had to be inducted into
the beliefs and understandings of the school.
36
Leadership and coordination
Whole-school approaches depend substantially on the leadership provided by the

principal and other members of the senior leadership team of the school, since
only they are in the position to make sure that each of the elements is attended
to and brought into alignment. Project coordinators who had day-to-day
responsibility for managing the implementation of the innovation also exercised a
great deal of leadership.
The principal of Green Beach Primary School expressed the view there were three
critical features of successful leadership: accepting responsibility for student
learning; not implementing change too quickly; and articulating a vision for the
school that took into account all stakeholders and promoted the school as a
community. The principal expressed a strong view that the pace of change in
education was often too fast and that stress levels of teachers needed to be
managed. The leader’s role in this context was to seek ways to encourage
improvement and to manage the change process to ensure successful
implementation.
Staff in Hampshire Primary School emphasised the importance of having strong

leaders to coordinate the implementation and monitoring of all the key elements
of the project. The appointment of a project coordinator with expertise in literacy
and who had the respect of the staff was seen as a crucial success factor. The
coordinator worked in the early years classrooms, with the staff and with the
whole school community. The coordinator was able to make links between all
components of the initiative.
In Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and Weddin View Primary Schools, project
coordinators were appointed with substantial time release to act as coaches,
mentors and lead learners within the early years team. This was a new role, both
for the coordinators themselves and for the teachers with whom they worked. In
Mount Ernest Primary School, the teaching staff were divided into professional
teams, each with a designated team leader. The team leaders and the principal
formed the leadership team for the school. The school was organised to enable
teams of teachers to be released from classroom teaching to facilitate team
planning and communication.
While leadership is expected of persons in formal positions of authority,

leadership is a quality that can be widely distributed. In East Park Primary School,
the principal was considered a ‘key player’ although leadership was seen to
37
operate at all levels. Great importance was attached to the role of the
coordinator whose task it was to knit the early years teachers into a cohesive
professional learning team. Teachers, also, were encouraged to take responsibility
for aspects of the programme, by providing advice and assistance as team
members and interacting with the community. In Cloudy View Primary School,
the school had a flat management structure to ensure that teachers were
empowered and felt a sense of ownership of the programme.
Acceptance by the staff of the role exercised by a teacher ‘leader’ does not
always occur automatically. In McFarlane Primary School, the success of the
programme was seen to have depended to a considerable extent on the support
of the leadership team, a valuing of what the staff were doing and on ensuring
that the programme was not imposed on staff, but allowed to evolve. In this
school it had taken some time for the newly created ‘literacy coordinator’
position to be accepted as authoritative.
Standards and targets
While high expectations were a feature of all of the eight follow-up schools, in
six of these schools high expectations were reflected in explicit standards and
associated targets.
In the case of Cloudy View Primary School, all student instructional reading
material in the school had been levelled in gradations of difficulty and standards
had been set, with three levels of assessment identified, namely ‘Approaching
Requirement’, ‘Meeting Requirement’, or ‘Exceeding Requirement’.
In Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and Weddin View Primary Schools, use had
been made of standards and targets developed as part of ELRP. In the ELRP,
standards were defined in terms of the text levels obtained by taking ‘running
records’ of students’ reading ability using a set of 28 unseen graded texts. Two
standards were identified, namely a ‘minimum standard’ and a ‘target standard’.
This was to ensure that the targets embodied a challenge for all schools and for
all students and did not focus solely on the bottom end of the performance
continuum. In McFarlane Primary School, there was an awareness of the ELRP
standards and targets, but the school had developed its own and had set the
target of ensuring that all students achieved the standards.
In each of the six schools that had specific standards and targets, staff
commented on the importance of clear expectations and a goal to aim for that
was challenging, but achievable.
38
It was critical to the implementation of the project to establish

‘benchmarks’ as early as possible and the initial professional
development sessions were designed to skill teachers and coordinators in
the area (East Park Primary School).
Monitoring and assessment
Monitoring and assessment are important in establishing starting points for

teaching, in ensuring that teaching is at all times closely focused on student
learning needs and to ascertain whether targets have been met.
In Green Beach Primary School, assessment and monitoring had been mostly ad
hoc and qualitative. As a result of their involvement in the IBPP, the school has
made use of the New South Wales Basic Skills Test information as a standardised
monitoring and reporting tool. Mount Ernest Primary School also made use of
Basic Skills Test information in reporting the outcomes of their innovation.
Cloudy View Primary School had an internal monitoring framework related to

school-based benchmarks in reading and spelling. Since 1993, teachers had
collected baseline data on reading levels. The leadership team commented that a
major part of their role was monitoring individual student progress. Teachers
monitored reading, spelling and number facts for each student every week. The
leadership team monitored reading, spelling and number facts for students across
all classes every term. Teachers encouraged students to keep a portfolio of work
including examples of writing. Students were involved in self-evaluation, and
student led conferences at parent-teacher meetings, as part of a deliberate
strategy to encourage them to take responsibility for their own learning.
In Hampshire, East Park and Baden West Primary Schools there were systematic
programmes of beginning- and end-of-year assessment of students in place,
using a series of teacher observations, including the six measures comprising An
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 1993a) and The Record
of Oral Language: Biks and Gutches (Clay, Gill, Glynn, McNaughton & Salmon,
1983). These measures were selected for the diagnostic information they
provided, their capacity to reveal students’ strengths and weaknesses and to
suggest foci for classroom teaching. In these schools, use was also made of the
Burt Word Reading Test (Gilmore, Croft & Reid, 1981), the Woodcock Language
Proficiency Battery (Woodcock, 1987), Spelling in Context (Peters & Smith,
1993) and the South Australia Spelling Test. In Weddin View Primary School,
where the focus was on students in Years 3 and 4, use was made of running
39
records from the Observation Survey, the Burt Word Reading Test, Spelling in
Context and the Tests of Reading Comprehension (TORCH) (Mossenson, Hill &
Masters, 1987). In addition, a writing sample was collected and assessed against
the levels of the Curriculum and Standards Framework: English published by the
Victorian Board of Studies (1995).
Teachers in these schools commented on the amount of time and effort devoted
to monitoring and assessment, but were also quick to point out the benefits.
I know exactly what each one of my students can and can’t do. I feel I
can pinpoint exactly where they are at (teacher, Baden West Primary
School).
I don’t know how I could have been an effective teacher without

knowing what I now know about the level of each child...Because I
regularly take running records I’m much more aware of where everyone
is. You feel pretty bad if you give a child something to do that you know
is too easy or too hard for them (teacher, Weddin View Primary School).
In East Park Primary School, all teachers discussed the intensive and time-
consuming monitoring system associated with the programme. The following
comments were typical:
Looking back it was a big ask, but in hindsight this ongoing monitoring
meant that you had a whole picture of a child’s needs.
You learnt about the child as well as their needs.
Teachers noted that when they became more experienced, the time involved in
closely monitoring students abated.
In conclusion, across the eight schools there was evidence of a belief in the
importance of monitoring and assessment to inform teaching and learning.
Classroom teaching programme
Effective teaching of literacy is structured and focused on the learning needs of

each student in the class. It calls for well-developed understandings of how
students learn and of how students become literate. It requires teachers who are
able to cater for the range of abilities in the class in both whole-class and small
group settings and who can make use of a wide range of classroom practices and
strategies in response to the needs of individual students.
40
In Green Beach Primary School, where the focus was on the use of drama to
enhance literacy, classroom teaching strategies were at the heart of the school’s
innovation. Because there was a strong belief within the school that a clear
relationship could be demonstrated between ‘enactment’ or ‘taking on roles’
(which is the essence of drama) and improved literacy skills, the school had
adopted a mentoring approach to assisting all teachers to use drama strategies in
the classroom.
In Mount Ernest Primary School, teachers employed a wide variety of teaching

strategies within their multi-age classrooms that facilitated individualised learning.
These included cooperative learning; goal setting; the ‘six thinking hats’
programme; ‘have-a-go’ spelling, reading and writing; negotiated curriculum;
individual contracts and open-ended activities.
In Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and Weddin View Primary Schools and to a
lesser extent Cloudy View Primary School, the same classroom teaching strategies
were evident, as these were all schools that had been participants in the ELRP or,
in the case of Cloudy View and Weddin View Primary Schools, had modelled
their practices on the ELRP. Teachers used combinations of the strategies that
included oral language; reading to students; shared reading and writing;
independent reading and writing; language experience; and modelled writing.
In these schools, the classroom literacy programme consisted typically of a

reading and a writing workshop conducted within a two-hour teaching block.
Each session began and ended with a teacher-directed ‘whole class’ focus. The
main part of each workshop consisted of activities that had a ‘small-group’ focus.
This allowed for explicit teaching of instructional groups while the remainder of
the class were engaged in self-regulated activities in learning centres. Trained
volunteers were used, where possible, to assist the students to remain on task
and to free the teacher for small group instruction. In this way, the expertise of
the teacher was applied at the point of greatest need.
The structure of the two-hour literacy block was as follows.
• Whole class: shared reading (books, charts, poems and songs), modelled
writing or shared writing to provide an initial teaching focus and allow specific
teaching.
• Small group: for reading, explicit teaching of small groups of students using
the strategies of reading to students, language experience and guided reading.
Learning centres operated for the remainder of the class. For writing, the
41
teaching strategies of language experience, interactive writing and guided

writing took place while the remainder of the class were engaged in
independent writing and other grammar and spelling activities.
• Whole class: students articulated what they had learnt and the teacher
encouraged the development of the students’ oral language.
The adoption of this whole-small-whole structure represented a considerable

change for most of these schools.
Some teachers were hesitant about letting three groups of students work
on their own while they concentrated on just 6-8 students during, say, a
guided reading activity. These teachers admitted that they were initially
sceptical that their children were capable of being self-directed learners.
However, no one [now] considers it to be an issue (Hampshire Primary
School).
Learning centres were the subject of debate within the team as they
‘flew in the face’ of accepted practice. Teachers had to ‘let go’ of what
they believed was correct (East Park Primary School).
In adopting these changes, it was important that teachers constantly revisited

their beliefs and understandings. At East Park Primary School teachers agreed
that without strategies that fostered cooperative, independent and self-directed
students the literacy programme was seriously compromised. The changes to
teaching practices that they implemented were consistent with this belief.
Professional learning teams
In order to impact on teachers’ beliefs and understandings and to establish a

process for institutionalising a whole-school approach to early literacy, an
effective approach to ongoing professional development that impacts broadly on
staff within the school is essential. In all eight of the focus schools, a team
approach to professional learning was in place and was a key, if not the most
important, mechanism for bringing about change.
In Green Beach Primary School, a mentoring programme had been established

that involved a university academic working one day per week for a semester
with a small group of teachers in their classrooms. In addition, teachers were
given some time release to work on planning and evaluation.
In Hampshire, East Park and Baden West Primary Schools the professional
learning team was central to the change process inherent in the ELRP. This team
42
was the vehicle by which to facilitate the significant change in behaviour and
growth in beliefs and understandings that would eventually result in embedded
change to practice. Teachers attended four full days each year of off-site
university-based professional development. The main purpose of these sessions
was to provide the impetus for further thought and discussion. These were
complemented by on-site professional development that took place daily within
the context of the school. A team coordinator was appointed at each school with
a significant time allocation to the role. The coordinator acted as a mentor and
lead-learner and organised visits to teams in other schools, demonstration
teaching, and classroom observations.
The team was the main vehicle for growing professionally. Team members took
joint responsibility for all students supervised by all team members and also
assumed responsibility for each other’s professional growth. This represented a
significant challenge to pre-existing concepts of professional development.
Teachers were asked to extend their understanding of professional development
to include sharing ideas, planning and teaching together, creating opportunities
to learn from each other and problem solving together using the professional
learning team as the central vehicle. It called for a bond of trust to be developed
between the teachers and the coordinator as they worked together as a learning
team. Classrooms were opened for collegiate sharing and modelling and teachers
were encouraged to become ‘risk takers’ as the climate of trust strengthened.
Additional professional development sessions were provided for coordinators to

assist them develop a deeper understanding of literacy teaching and learning and
explore issues related to their coaching and mentoring roles and to issues
associated with implementation of the innovation. The coordinators established a
process for updating their teams through written summaries that were then
addressed at team meetings.
In McFarlane Primary School, the leader of the professional learning group

worked initially with ten early primary school teachers. Being new to the school,
there was some initial resistance to her role. This dissipated over time, however,
and the professional learning team became extremely important to the change
management process as members of the team took ownership of the ideas and
the programme.
In Cloudy View Primary School, teachers were divided into three professional
learning teams: early years, middle school and upper school. Although there was
no release time for teams, a strong professional development programme for
43
teachers was nevertheless established. This focused on meeting student individual

needs and improving learning outcomes. It was the experience of the school that
teachers can do a lot more if shown how. Performance appraisal for teachers
involved self-evaluation against a standard set by the school and verification by
others (leaders, parents, other teachers and students).
In Mount Ernest Primary School, ongoing professional development was a strong

tradition of the school. The leadership team encouraged lots of professional
reading for all teachers who were grouped into one of four professional teams.
The school encouraged a serious focus on professional development in literacy
(at the expense of other priorities). Teachers devoted their own time (2.5 hours
for eight weeks in the first year of the reform) and paid $80 towards course costs
for the initial professional development programme. The school organised and
ran its own professional development activities rather than have teachers leave
the school to undertake external courses.
School and class organisation
For classroom teaching to be effective schools need to carefully consider key

aspects of school operation and classroom organisation. Each of the eight case
study schools had implemented significant changes to school and class
organisation arrangements.
In Green Beach Primary School small groups were used in all classrooms.
Students were accustomed to forming activity groups and moving into different
groups for different activities. The school day was divided into three blocks of
which the first was generally devoted to literacy, although this varied from
teacher to teacher.
Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and Weddin View Primary Schools instituted a
daily, uninterrupted, two-hour block specifically devoted to the teaching of
literacy. Attention had been given at the school level to policies for minimising
interruptions to this two-hour block, such as avoiding withdrawing students from
class, or organising assemblies, visits, public address announcements, and so on.
Specialist programmes in the junior school had been timetabled so that they took
place outside the literacy block. In most cases, these schools had taken the
decision to cap class sizes in the first two years of schooling, which sometimes
meant larger classes in the more senior grades.
The changes in class organisation in Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and
Weddin View Primary Schools, described earlier, involved the establishment of a
44
whole-small-whole structure, the forming of instructional groups and the

establishment of learning centres.
McFarlane Primary School had made changes similar to those just described.
Small-group organisation had been adopted in Years K-2 and by teachers of
Years 5 and 6, however teachers of Years 3 and 4 had been less enthusiastic
about small group structures. The school had implemented a 2-hour literacy
block for all K-2 classes.
Cloudy View Primary School structured three blocks of learning during the day,
with the first block being of two hours duration. At the class level, the main
change was the introduction of multi-age classes in which use was made of a
revolving small group organisation. Groups were created on the basis of outcome
levels rather than age levels.
Multi-age classes were also a feature of Mount Ernest Primary School. The
leadership team argued that the multi-age groupings were the catalyst to
changing teaching and learning practices in the classroom. This had led to a
series of organisational strategies in each classroom including revolving small
groups.
Intervention and special assistance
Even with the best teaching, experience indicates that many students will need
extra time and support if they are to reach minimum standards. This implies the
provision of intervention programmes and special assistance to those students
who begin to fall behind their peers and who are having difficulty in maintaining
an adequate pace of learning.
Significantly, seven of the eight case study schools (all except Cloudy View
Primary School) had implemented Reading Recovery as a one-to-one
intervention programme for their most ‘at risk’ Year 1 students. Research
indicates that for those students who are most at risk, one-to-one intervention is
most likely to be effective (Wasik & Slavin, 1993) and in these schools, the
benefits of the programme were clearly perceived to justify its high cost.
Green Beach Primary School had a withdrawal programme for students requiring
additional support in literacy. Teams of parents worked five days a week for six
weeks assisting individual students. The school had a Learning Difficulties teacher
who worked two days a week with Year 2-6 students and a Reading Recovery
teacher who worked with Year 1 students. The Reading Recovery programme
45
had run for six years with the same teacher and was a well-established
programme. The school is in the process of training a new Reading Recovery
teacher.
In Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and Weddin View Primary Schools Reading
Recovery had been implemented as a mandatory element of ELRP to provide an
accelerative programme for the lowest-achieving students in the second year of
schooling. Unfortunately, resource constraints had meant that in previous years
none of the schools had been able to provide a full coverage programme to all
students deemed as requiring access to Reading Recovery. However, substantial
additional systemic funds had recently been provided specifically to support
Reading Recovery. For students in their third year of schooling who were
continuing to experience difficulties, these schools had implemented individual
learning improvement plans which set out short term goals to be achieved within
a six to eight week period. A support group including the classroom teacher, the
literacy coordinator, and the parents worked together towards meeting the
specific goals.
McFarlane Primary School utilised Reading Recovery for students requiring

special assistance. It found that as the effectiveness of their teaching improved in
the students’ first year of schooling and as the targets for students literacy skills
were met, the number of students deemed to require access to the Reading
Recovery programme decreased. The school’s success in reducing demand for
Reading Recovery had not led to a financial saving for the school. As the number
of students needing Reading Recovery has decreased the State Education
Department has decreased funding for Reading Recovery.
Cloudy View Primary School teachers assessed the reading level of every Year 1
student and identified those students needing extra support. The school did not
have a Reading Recovery teacher, due to the lack of resources. However, it had
deployed one specialist teacher and one teacher aide, for approximately every
four classes, to work with students requiring extra assistance. These staff made
some use of Reading Recovery strategies. The principal personally listened to
every student read once a year. The principal and deputy provided help and
support to teachers on a daily basis with strategies to meet individual student
needs.
Mount Ernest Primary School had a learning support/learning difficulties

programme. Teachers nominated students who required assistance in reading or
writing. A team of five staff members worked four days a week to provide 30
46
minutes support each week to nominated students. In addition, the school ran a
Reading Recovery programme. The school had three Reading Recovery trained
teachers and another teacher was undertaking Reading Recovery training. The
Reading Recovery programme was deemed to be effective, but the school felt
that more resources were needed to follow up students after they left the
Reading Recovery programme.
Home, school and community partnerships
There is a substantial amount of evidence to indicate that an effective school is

one that is proactive and systematic about linking with the home, the previous
school, other service providers and the wider community (Cairney et al., 1995;
Epstein, 1991). The eight case study schools had programmes in place to
establish these links.
Green Beach Primary School had a policy requiring all students to take work
home each day. Parents were asked to check the work. Parents were also active
in most classrooms and some training had been provided for parents. The school
had forged links with a local club to develop an alliance for providing community
programmes and fund raising.
At Hampshire, East Park, Baden West and Weddin View Primary Schools, a home
school partnership was strongly valued and encouraged. Teachers and parents
worked together to develop a shared view of literacy learning. Three of the schools
had a ‘parent participation plan’ that identified strategies for improving
communication between the home and the school and provided opportunities for
parents to participate in educational programmes. The classroom helpers programme
provided training for parents to take an active role in assisting in the classroom, thus
freeing the teacher to focus on the instruction of small groups of students. While
key elements of a plan were in place in these schools, there was agreement that
much more remained to be done to establish good links with the home.
McFarlane Primary School had clear views regarding the role of parents in
teaching students to read. The school had started a guided reading programme
for parents to try and ensure that what parents did aligned with what happened
at the school. Students selected texts every morning to take home to read with
their parents. They chose from texts that were two levels below those used at
school so that they would not experience difficulties in reading at home, but
could focus on practising learned behaviours and on improving fluency. There
was also some parent participation in the classroom.
47
In Cloudy View Primary School, parents were involved in programme

management committees at the school and also in assisting in classes. Two
hundred and thirty parents (from 500 families) worked in classes on a regular
basis. The school was welcoming of parents being at the school and had
developed ‘info packs’ for them on spelling and early reading. There was a
homework policy that promoted reading at home every night.
Mount Ernest Primary School had a home reading programme for K-4 students
based on the use of levelled texts. All students were expected to maintain a
communication diary that the teacher initialled each day and which the student
took home. Parental involvement in classrooms was limited with the greatest
involvement being in K-2 classes.
Evidence of success
The eight case study schools were selected for follow-up because, in each case,
they were able to provide evidence of significant positive outcomes attributable
to the innovation. Generally this took the form of assessments of student
learning which the school had used to compare the achievement of its students
with those in other schools or with earlier cohorts of students in the same school.
For example, Green Beach Primary School was able to use Basic Skills Test data to
demonstrate that the proportion of students attaining Skills Band 1 had increased
each year by 5.5 to 8.0 per cent and that there had been dramatic improvements
at Basic Skills Levels 3 and 4. Because the items comprising the Basic Skills Test
change each year, the school had focused on data for common items, or items
that were very similar to items contained in earlier versions of the test.
Quantitative evidence of improved literacy outcomes was also supported by
qualitative evidence gained from interviews with teachers and students.
Hampshire, East Park, and Baden West Primary Schools had participated in the
ELRP for which there was substantial evidence of the achievements of schools. In
the first year of implementation, effect sizes in excess of 0.6 of a standard
deviation had been achieved by students in the first two years of school. Schools
were able to provide evidence of the value they had added relative to other trial
schools and a group of control or reference schools, after adjusting statistically
for prior achievement and various student background characteristics (language
spoken at home, socio-economic status, employment status, transience, family
structure, gender).
48
Of 50 schools, Hampshire Primary School ranked 13th, East Park Primary School
5th and Baden West Primary School 3rd in terms of the value they had added,
indicating that within the ELRP, these schools had been among the most
successful in improving literacy outcomes for their students. In Hampshire and
East Park Primary Schools, little improvement occurred among their students in
the first year of school. The greatest gains took place for these students in their
second and third years of schooling, when their rates of progress exceeded that
of students in the reference schools. In Baden West Primary School students
made greater progress earlier and rates of progress were maintained across the
three years of the project.
McFarlane Primary School presented evidence to indicate that in 1994 the school
was in the bottom 20 per cent of schools in its region in terms of student
achievement in literacy, but had since moved into the top 20 per cent. The
school’s research report indicated that in 1998, 84 per cent of Kindergarten
students had attained Reading Level 5 by the end of the year. The average
reading levels of the 22 lowest achieving Year 1 students had improved from 12
in 1996 to 15 in 1998. Furthermore, the number of Year 1 students requiring
Reading Recovery had dropped from 33 students in 1992 to nine students in
1999. The school also had qualitative data in the form of teacher and student
perceptions that provided evidence of improvement in a range of student
outcomes.
Cloudy View Primary School provided extensive quantitative data to show

improvements in the proportion of students reaching ‘benchmark’ levels in
reading, reductions in the number of students requiring additional support, and
improvements in Year 6 test performance. Comparisons were provided with data
from similar schools. The school had obtained information on student behaviour
and community perceptions of the school that also indicated significant
improvements over time.
The results of Weddin View Primary School on the Burt Word Test indicated that
students at the school were operating at a level approximately two years ahead
of their chronological age in terms of word recognition. Results on the Tests of
Reading Comprehension (TORCH) also indicated students at the school were
performing well above the grade norm in terms of reading comprehension.
In all eight schools, the tangible evidence of improvement was a source of

considerable satisfaction to the staff involved. It motivated them to persist in
ensuring full implementation of the innovation. Furthermore, the improvements
49
in learning outcomes were often associated with improvements in student

attitudes and behaviour, as illustrated by the following comments of teachers:
My students are really improving more than I can ever remember before.
What’s more, behaviour in my class has become a non-issue (teacher,
Hampshire Primary School).
...they can read! For the first time ever I have a group of Grade 3s who,
from the first day of the school year, can all read (teacher, Baden West
Primary School).
The experiences of the IBPP literacy case study schools reflect the considerable
efforts being made in Australian schools at the current time to improve student
literacy outcomes, particularly in the early years of schooling. Literacy is a
national priority not only as a matter of policy, but also in terms of the efforts
and energies of staff in schools. There is a national consensus on a set of targets
that call for the attainment, within the first four years of the primary school, of
high standards of literacy for all children. The IBPP literacy schools exemplify the
attempts of schools to innovate and to implement best practice with the ultimate
goal of ensuring that these ambitious targets can be realised.
This study of the IBPP literacy schools found that quantum improvements in
student learning outcomes are achievable through particular approaches to
innovation and the implementation of best practice. The particular approaches
that would appear to hold promise are those that focus on:
• the implementation of a whole-school design approach to literacy;
• the use of data to inform teaching and learning and to drive improvement;
• ongoing, site-based professional development, mentoring and coaching for

teams of teachers, with time to reflect on beliefs and practices, and
opportunities to build up professional competence; and
• informed and committed instructional leadership on the part of the principal,

senior staff, project coordinator and other key staff.
Within the field of education, more is known about how young children of
school age become literate and about successful approaches to the teaching of
literacy than is known about any other aspect of education. In terms of applying
50
this knowledge base in the context of seeking improvements in student learning

outcomes, the opportunity for successful innovation lies mainly in attending to
each of the processes within the school that impinge on those outcomes, ie a
whole-school design approach. The most effective of the IBPP early literacy
schools had re-designed key aspects of their operations and made sure that each
of the elements was working effectively and in alignment with the others and
was consistent with an underlying philosophy or set of beliefs. The programmes
in these schools were highly coherent and well documented, which meant that
they were amenable to being compared, critiqued and most importantly,
replicated in other schools. There was extensive use of ‘branded’ programmes
and designs including some that are known nationally and internationally (e.g.,
First Steps and Reading Recovery).
A second conclusion that can be drawn from the IBPP early literacy schools is the
importance of using quality data to inform teaching and learning and to drive
improvement initiatives. Extensive use was being made by teachers of formal
assessment procedures to establish starting points for teaching, to monitor
student progress and to ascertain whether targets were being reached. While
these procedures included the use of results on group administered standardised
tests, extensive use was also being made of structured observations of students’
literacy behaviours undertaken in one-on-one settings and requiring detailed
analysis in order to realise their full diagnostic potential.
A third conclusion arising from this study is a confirmation of the importance of

internalising what is known about the role of powerful approaches to
professional learning in bringing about change in schools (Hargreaves & Fullan,
1991). Across the 16 literacy primary schools and particularly in the eight case
study schools, there was awareness that quality professional development was
essential. The professional development in IBPP schools:
• was purposeful and in support of specific and important outcomes;
• involved the whole staff or a significant proportion of the staff;
• allowed time for teachers to reflect upon their practice and share their
experiences;
• was theoretically-based yet emphasised practically-situated learning;
• mixed both outside, expert input and daily opportunities for participants to
work through issues and engage in learning activities;
51
• valued the knowledge and experiential base of teachers and encouraged them
to help shape key components of the professional development programme;
and
• provided opportunities to observe good practice and to be involved in

coaching and mentoring processes.
A fourth conclusion arising from this study is the importance of informed and
committed instructional leadership on the part of the principal, senior staff,
project coordinator and other key staff in bringing about successful innovation
and implementation of best practice. Bringing about enduring, whole-school
change calls for a broad range of leadership qualities that need to be exercised
by several staff. Further it focuses on both detailed specific knowledge, such as
an understanding of literacy, and very general capacities such as emotional
intelligence and interpersonal skills.
The researchers formed the view that the programmes in many of the IBPP
literacy schools were of a standard comparable with the best in the world. This
was something of a subjective judgement based on direct observation and on
familiarity with schools in other countries, particularly in Canada, New Zealand,
the UK and the USA. It was also based on an assessment of the quality of the
research reports produced by the literacy project schools and the extent to which
many exhibited a deep awareness of the international literature on literacy and
on innovation and change. These judgements suggest that within Australia there
is a capacity to generate best practice with respect to the teaching of early
literacy. This is something worthy of celebration and also of being fostered.
52
MATHEMATICS
Chapter 3
Glynis Jones
INTRODUCTION
A number of critical themes are emerging about the types of teaching practice that impact positively
on student achievement, confidence and engagement in mathematics. They focus teaching on the
learner and encourage teachers to introduce content in ways that facilitate enhanced cognition.
The nine mathematics projects in IBPP all had as their major priority the expectation that students
would experience success and confidence in the study of mathematics. The quality of the learning
environment emerged as a key factor for both teachers and students. The experiences of the IBPP
mathematics schools indicate that confidence and belief in students’ ability to perform well in
mathematics is a critical factor in student success.
The teacher practices that focused on the development of student capacity and confidence in
mathematics varied from school to school but included one or more of a number of strategies. They
included: changed organisational structures in the grouping of students; the provision of appropriate
time for the learning to take place; the provision of clear explanations; the introduction of new
knowledge in manageable amounts; the provision of targeted individual assistance; and, the analysis
of student learning outcomes to improve teaching practice. The research findings also highlighted the
importance of appropriate teacher professional development.
53
THE RESEARCH CONTEXT

Student achievement in mathematics
A strong indicator of young people’s future academic success is their performance

in both literacy and mathematics. Post secondary education destinations, including
entry into the work force and tertiary entrance, are significantly determined by
levels of achievement in both literacy and mathematics (Marks, 1997).
Currently, just over 70 per cent of young Australians complete secondary

schooling (to the end of Year 12) but there remain substantial differences in
completion rates of young people based on their mathematics and literacy skills.
The school completion rate of males who were very low achievers in
mathematics in the Marks study was less than 50 per cent. Success in
mathematics in the junior secondary years is a critical indicator of students’ future
prospects in relation to university entrance, getting a first job and still being
employed at the age of 20 (Marks, 1997).
In the Third International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) study Japanese

students outperformed those in countries such as the USA and Australia (Lokan
et al., 1996; 1997). Despite stereotyping in the West that teaching in Japan
focuses on rote learning, Stigler and Hiebert (1999) found very deliberate use of
complex problems and exploration of different approaches by students in
Japanese classrooms. By way of comparison, Stigler and Hiebert observed that in
the USA, mathematics classes were more likely to proceed by teaching a
procedure, giving an example of how it is applied, and then setting exercises for
students to practice the method. They argue that a long-range commitment to
changes in teaching mathematics is needed to improve mathematics outcomes
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
The affective domain
Current efforts in reforming the mathematics curriculum and instruction have

highlighted the relationship between the cognitive and the affective components
of mathematics learning. For both boys and girls, the junior secondary school
years are a crucial period during which students develop understandings about
their attitudes towards mathematics and how these shape students’ later
achievement in mathematics (Ma & Kishor, 1997).
The literature identifies confidence as one of the most important internal

influences on gender differences in participation in mathematics (Mamary, 1997).
54
Confidence directly affects perceived level of difficulty of the subject and student
self-concept, which in turn shapes the perceived likelihood of success. Eccles
(1983) found that girls’ perceived ability correlated more highly with intention to
enrol in further mathematics than an objective measure of ability. This highlights
the need to create learning environments that nurture student confidence and
build a positive self-concept of mathematical ability.
Enhancing mathematical understanding
Mathematics remains a mystery for many students throughout their school

careers (Teese, 1996). The experience of students indicates that those who study
less difficult courses encounter the most significant pedagogical barriers. Teese
(1996) found that about one per cent of students studying the highest level of
mathematics considered that the material was too abstract compared to nearly
one in five of those who dropped maths during their schooling. One in four
students who dropped out of mathematics reported that they had poor
understanding of the purpose of classroom work.
Only 9 per cent of students undertaking the most difficult courses reported that
teachers covered the material too fast, compared to 23 per cent of those
studying courses of less difficulty, and 26 percent of those who had dropped out
of mathematics. Boredom increased dramatically among those undertaking less
difficult courses as did their conclusion that some students will never be good at
mathematics. Teese (1996) concluded that cognitive skills could not grow in a
context described by lack of meaning, continual coping difficulties, and poor
interactions.
In considering the levels of understanding expected of students, it is important to

assess the factors that support or inhibit high level mathematical thinking and
reasoning. In their extended case study of four middle-years classrooms,
Henningsen and Stein (1997) identified five primary factors and two secondary
factors that had a major influence on maintaining student engagement in
mathematics. The primary factors were: (with percentages of tasks for which
each factor was judged to be an influence) task building on student’s prior
knowledge (82 per cent); scaffolding (73 per cent); allowing appropriate amount
of time (77 per cent); modelling of higher-level performance (73 per cent); and
sustained pressure for explanation and meaning (77 per cent). The secondary
factors were student self-monitoring (36 per cent) and the fact that the teacher
draws conceptual connections (14 per cent).
55
Effective teachers
Teachers’ actions and instructional decisions are driven substantially by their

beliefs (Buchmann, 1987). A significant issue for schools is how to influence
teacher beliefs in order to move teaching practices in desired directions (Stigler &
Hiebert, 1999). Clarke (1997) and Maloney (1998) highlight the importance of
teachers using assessment to inform instructional decisions. Increasingly also,
professional development is being acknowledged as a key component of any
change in classroom practice (Andresen et al., 1995).
Recent research reconceptualises staff development as experience-based learning

(Andresen et al., 1995), the facilitation of change in the workplace (Schaafsma,
1995) and the transfer of learning (Caffarella, 1994). Teachers are encouraged to
work in professional learning teams (Johnson & Scull, 1998) and to keep
professional portfolios that could contribute to the credentialling process for
advanced degrees (Retallick & Groundwater-Smith, 1996). The aim of these
developments is to place the teacher at the centre of the change process (Sharpe
et al., 1997). Thus, the elements of collaborative practice such as shared
leadership, mutual accountability, collective work products and collaborative
problem-solving are necessary elements for effective workplace change.
Collegiality - through teachers engaging in continuous, concrete and precise

dialogue about ongoing teaching activities - teachers observing one another in
practice and providing feedback; teachers planning, designing, studying and
evaluating curriculum; and teachers sharing with one another what each knows
about teaching and learning are hallmarks of effective teacher development
programmes (Sharp et al., 1997). In brief, what is required is a focus on the
continual adjustment and improvement of teaching processes. An increasingly
important part of this process is the analysis of student learning data to provide a
powerful context for professional dialogue and reflective practice. This has the
capacity to influence teachers’ own classroom practice as they become more
skilled in determining, for themselves, what effective teaching and learning in
mathematics actually is.
PROJECT FINDINGS
The change process
The 9 mathematics projects in the IBPP were diverse in nature, in expectation

and in their execution. The schools in which the projects occurred generally had a
‘can do’ attitude and a climate conducive to change. Schools reported that
56
members of staff were willing to explore and consider alternative teaching

practices, organisation and procedures.
Schools explored differing organisational structures, the introduction of

technology, multi-age groupings of students, changed pedagogy and changed
approaches to the monitoring of student performance. Some were concerned
about the factors that influenced the choices students made when selecting their
mathematics courses, particularly in the senior years. In spite of the evident
diversity, however, there was evidence of a strong focus on improving student
outcomes in mathematics and on enhancing student engagement in mathematics
learning across all the projects.
Five key elements were identified in the IBPP mathematics schools as influencing
the nature of the innovative practice and the intent and eventual directions of
the projects themselves:
• external influences;
• leadership;
• commitment to improved student achievement;
• professional support for teachers; and
• parental support.
External influences
Several of the project schools reported that external factors that focused on
student performance in mathematics had influenced their decision to make
mathematics a priority. These factors derived from external research, systemic
testing, school audits and informal community feedback. The research literature
helped influence internal decision-making about how mathematics might best be
taught. Accountability expectations of local communities and education
systems/sectors emphasised the need to respond appropriately to the results of
systemic testing and review processes.
The mathematics data and analysis from our triennial review indicated a
need to further develop mathematics. This review examined the school-
generated data from teacher...[and external] assessments. Both of these
show that we have a need to improve student achievement in
mathematics (Holland Heights Primary School).
57
Secondary schools, in particular, seemed to be aware of externally driven market

forces and the importance of market share in times of increased competition for
student enrolments. The perceived pressure from this led one school to position
itself by focusing its marketing on the mathematics faculty and its specialist
mathematics tutorial series.
Leadership
The nature of the leadership, whether at the school level or in a particular section
of the school, was critical to the success of the innovations. Often the catalyst for
change was the classroom teacher, or teachers, who were given the support of
the leadership of the school to pursue their ideas.
Critical to the success of the innovation is a self-nominated coordinator

who has a belief that it is worthwhile and is prepared to be enthusiastic,
positive, flexible and willing to devote much extra, unpaid time and
energy in order to ensure a successful outcome (West Town
Secondary School).
The impact of key personnel such as the principal was evident in responses to the
project survey. The leadership provided by the principal and senior staff had a
rating of 4.85 out of a maximum score of 5.0 in terms of the key factors that
contributed to the motivation and rationale for the innovation. This leadership
style was described as:
The leadership of the school has valued and encouraged exploration and
experimentation with our practices, organisation and procedures. This
has developed opportunities for staff to regularly confront and work with
change (Holland Heights Primary School).
Improved student performance
The IBPP mathematics projects generally were characterised by a commitment

and drive to improve, specifically to improve student performance and have
students experience greater success and enjoyment in learning mathematics.
We may be socio-economically disadvantaged but our kids can do

anything that kids anywhere can do (teacher, West Town
Secondary School).
The improvement motive and direction itself was, in most instances, a part of the
schools’ vision and philosophy. For example, the ethos of one school was to
promote excellence in girls’ education and this translated in their project to
58
encouragement for girls to study mathematics, which was viewed by many of

the students as a non-traditional subject for girls.
Professional support of teachers
Professional development was a key aspect of all of the mathematics projects and
included staff meetings that had pedagogy as a focus, visits to other venues to
observe and discuss practices and consideration of materials including software.
The schools’ leadership played a pivotal role in providing support for teacher
professional development.
This was especially evident in situations where teachers felt the need for
assistance in developing appropriate strategies for particular students.
The maintenance of the mixed-ability model required a high level or

commitment from both the teaching staff and the principal. The different
demands on teachers in dealing with the wide range of abilities can lead
to a sense of frustration, which often inspires the call for streaming
(Bishop Ringwood College).
Parental support
Communication with parents, either to inform them or receive comments from

them, was a critical element of most of the projects especially where there were
organisational changes that involved changes to the ways in which students were
being grouped.
The school agreed to provide parents with ongoing information and

opportunities to discuss the changes. The school also promised that it
would do a review of the new structure (Mary Magdalen School).
Hindering factors
Progress was not always achieved easily. Student outcomes are subject to
influence from a wide range of factors, both internal and external, which can
impact both positively and adversely on the degree and speed with which
improvements can be achieved. Schools identified a number of difficulties that
emerged during the implementation of their particular mathematics initiatives.
Most of the schools either overcame the difficulties or moved on in spite of
inhibitors. Inhibiting factors presented a challenge to project leaders but in almost
all instances were overcome by the strength and positiveness of the advocates
for change and innovation.
59
The most common inhibitor was lack of commitment from some staff or sections
of the school. This arose variously from staff resistance to change, inadequate
staff understanding of the innovation and isolation of the innovation to a small
section of the school, or to an individual. The latter inhibited whole school
ownership and support for the innovation.
Innovations were sometimes adversely affected by staff turnover, especially

where staff with a significant role in the innovation left or where new staff were
not appropriately briefed on the innovation. When a principal who had been a
strong advocate of the programme left a project school, the staff felt that they
had to prove themselves all over again. Staff reported that they often had to
spend time defending and or promoting their cause rather than reviewing and
fine-tuning the innovation. Friction also arose when changes to staff working
conditions were not handled appropriately or sensitively.
Accessing appropriate materials and resources to support changes in mathematics

teaching was another issue for many of the project schools. For example, one
school reported that access to appropriate diagnostic materials to use in
mathematics programmes was unsatisfactory. There was also evidence that
problems with technology hindered the implementation of some of the
innovations. For some schools the lack of flexibility or ongoing funding to
resource the innovation was a major problem.
The teaching and learning environment
The study of mathematics innovations in IBPP schools identified a number of key

themes and practices concerning teaching and learning. These relate to
educational beliefs; organisational structures; the setting of goals; teacher
practices; classroom pedagogy; the use of time; assessment and reporting and
the use of technology.
Educational beliefs
Many schools structured their learning environments to reflect their beliefs about
teaching and learning. Bishop Ringwood College believed mixed-ability structures
would be more effective in developing student confidence in their ability to
achieve in mathematics. It addressed this through a commitment to non-graded,
mixed-ability mathematics classes for students in Years 8-10. West Town
Secondary School introduced voluntary after school hours tutorials. Lawson
College introduced access to technology to provide more realistic contexts for the
mathematics problems being tackled.
60
A strongly declared school philosophy on issues such as student grouping,

classroom organisation and assessment and reporting can firmly establish what is
valued and what is considered non-negotiable in the minds of the school
community. Bishop Ringwood College emphasised its core philosophy of mixed-
ability classes and descriptive reporting. Even though this policy of mixed-ability
classes had been in place for over 15 years and could be described as an
embedded practice, there were still divergent views on the staff with some 50
per cent of them still favouring streamed classes. This was in spite of the
availability of data which clearly showed that their able mathematics students
were achieving highly in the senior school courses, and more importantly, that
this non-selective school had a significantly larger proportion of its senior
students taking the more rigorous senior mathematics courses than other
comparable schools where students were streamed on the basis of their
performance in mathematics.
Organisational structure
Grouping of students within mathematics was a recurring theme for most of the
project schools. Changed organisational structures in the grouping of students for
mathematics was seen by many of the project schools as a strategic factor in
improving student outcomes. Even within the context of primary classes,
grouping according to achievement appeared to be the norm. Often this was
undertaken in an attempt to maximise the use of limited resources, reduce group
size and to allow students to access different teaching personnel. Table 3.1 shows
that innovations focusing on mathematics were more likely than those of other
innovations in the IBPP to focus on changes to the organisation of classes.
The rationale for the focus of innovation on changes to grouping arrangements

was to more effectively meet student needs. The adoption by some schools of a
multi-age approach, especially in the primary sector, aimed to impact on a range
of learning outcomes.
The students were quite practised at working in mixed-ability groups and

using concrete materials for mathematics. This was well-established
classroom culture. The new areas for students were being given lists of
learning outcomes that described their expected learning for the next few
weeks, and being required to monitor their own learning through regular
journal writing and reviews of their performance against the learning
outcomes. These aspects required students to become familiar with a
good deal of the language of mathematics (Dunlop Primary School).
61
Table 3.1: Organisational structures5

The innovation focused on: Mathematics All projects
Forming new groups with students drawn from several

classes at year-level. 2.99 2.70
Forming new groups with students drawn across

several year levels. 2.77 2.24
Varying the size of the learning groups. 3.88 3.10
In many of the IBPP projects mathematics was quarantined from the innovation.
This occurred when mathematics teachers chose not to participate in team
structures that were the focus of innovations and protected streamed
mathematics classes in contrast to the focus of school’s innovation on the
introduction of mixed-ability classes. In one case, a school had reorganised its
whole junior secondary curriculum into semester courses but had allowed the
mathematics faculty to stay outside the model.
Goal setting
Schools sought to enhance mathematical performance by also improving the self-

image that students had of themselves as mathematicians.
We need to create learning environments which nurture students’

confidence and build a positive self-concept of ability (Bishop
Ringwood College).
We should be able to get students talking about maths the way they talk
about sports and Rock Eisteddfods (West Town Secondary School).
The project survey revealed that IBPP mathematics schools also gave a high
priority to clear goals for students as well as time and additional support for
students in need (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Significant factors that characterised the mathematics innovations
Mathematics All projects
The innovation places an emphasis on clear goals

for students. 4.49 4.46
The innovation provides more time and more effective

support to students at risk of not making satisfactory
progress in their learning. 4.46 3.97
5 Statistics in tables are the average score on the survey scale with a range of 1–5. 3–4 staff in each IBPP
school completed the survey. Low scores indicate disagreement with the survey statement and high
scores indicate agreement.
62
Teacher practices
Student perspectives on teacher behaviours in the mathematics classrooms were

clearly articulated by students in focus group meetings. Students were able to
describe the teacher qualities that supported their mathematics learning. These
can loosely be grouped under the headings of ‘teacher knowledge’, ‘lesson
content’, ‘delivery style’, and ‘classroom assistance’.
The supportive behaviours reported by students as being conducive to achieving

improved learning outcomes in mathematics have a close affinity with the factors
found to influence student engagement in mathematics. Students in the IBPP
mathematics innovations reported that the provision of an appropriate amount of
time to learn, clear explanations and meanings and lesson content delivered in
manageable amounts were important teacher behaviours that supported
students’ mathematics learning. Students also clearly valued the teachers who
were able to provide appropriate individual assistance when necessary.
Classroom pedagogy
The national curriculum statements or state curriculum prescribes what is taught

in most schools documents. However, the ways in which mathematics is taught is
very much the responsibility of individual teachers. Mathematics teachers in the
project schools sought to change their practices to achieve better learning
outcomes for their students.
An authentic pedagogy within the classroom, which promotes higher

order thinking, substantive conversation, deeper mathematical
knowledge that connects classroom knowledge to the world around us,
is crucial to the successful implementation of this syllabus (West Town
Secondary School).
Many teachers referred to improved student learning as being a direct

result of improved teaching which has come out of: improved clear
planning assessment and reporting procedures, and the use of
technology across the curriculum. (Logan Plains School).
Differences in mathematical tasks and the preferred learning styles of individuals

demand variety in lesson content and classroom organisation. Teachers within the
project schools attempted to address the individual needs of students and
provided learning contexts within which students could achieve success.
63
The school chose to focus on investigating teaching practices that would

explicitly value and assist in developing the learning of each and every
student...This decision was based on strong evidence in the literature
that the ‘secret’ of the best programmes for all students points to the
teaching or, more specifically, to the teacher (Logan Plains School).
One example of how pedagogy and the structure of mathematics classes can
impact on student outcomes was provided by West Town Secondary School
which offered voluntary after-hours tutorials in mathematics for its Year 8
students. The programme was intended for those students who believed that
they were having difficulties in mathematics. The tutorials called for them to
revisit core elements of their Year 8 course with the opportunity to re-sit their
examinations at the end of a series of three 90-minute tutorials. The results of
this intervention were encouraging, and in some cases, outstanding. Over 85 per
cent students who attended the tutorials reported that their confidence in
mathematics had improved.
Students appeared to enjoy the practice of interspersing small group

work with whole-group activities tied in with rewards. Competitions
seemed to provide short-term goals and inspired the students to work
through the booklet in their tutorial groups to acquire the necessary
knowledge and understanding of the mathematical concepts and
procedures (West Town Secondary School).
The tutorials utilised important aspects of group dynamics and involved small-
group and large-group learning activities. The key goals of the after-school
tutorials series were both cognitive and social. They were to:
• extend the contact time available by 1.5 hours per week during the
programme;
• show students the link between success and time-on-task;
• help students learn how to learn;
• provide a catalyst for the substantive conversation that fosters higher-order

thinking;
• provide a voluntary learning opportunity that is appealing;
• strengthen the social aspect of mathematics;
• utilise student friendship groups;
64
• ensure that students experienced schools in which doing maths was socially
acceptable and normal; and
• capitalise on the proximity of a university by employing young pre-service

engineering students and pre-service teachers as tutors and role models.
Incentives in the form of competitions and awards were received well by students
in the tutorials. Students who improved their performance by more than 35 per
cent were rewarded with substantial prizes, such as a Walkman. An integral part
of the after-hours tutorial programme was goal setting, competition and
chocolate bar rewards. The use of games and short-term rewards helped
students maintain momentum and remain on task.
Time
Time to complete tasks was a major issue raised by many students during the
focus sessions held in the IBPP schools. In secondary schools the time available
for a lesson varied from 35 to 70 minutes. The time allocations were too short
for some students and their teachers and too long for others. Several schools
were clearly in the process of exploring how time might be best allocated.
We have experimented with the length of learning segments in the day

and the block use of specialist programmes to release home-room
teachers for shared planning (Holland Heights Primary School).
The time being spent on mathematics in classroom programmes and

student attentiveness have increased. Teachers believe that student
progress has also increased and that the new approach is successful
(West Town Secondary School).
Having enough quality contact time to achieve improved learning outcomes in

mathematics is an issue for some students.
A survey of senior students and their teachers revealed that a number of

students did not spend sufficient time on homework. The difficulty of
the mathematics and the availability of help were found to be significant
causal factors (West Town Secondary School).
Almost two-thirds of the students who had attended the voluntary after school
tutorials, described earlier in the chapter, reported that they spent more time on
mathematics as a consequence. However, one-third claimed to have spent less
time. The school found that these students did in fact spend less time on
65
mathematics, because they were working more effectively in mathematics and

with greater understanding as a result of having attended the tutorial series.
Assessment and reporting
Assessment and reporting systems varied greatly across schools, both in the
nature of the information reported and the way in which that information could
be used to inform future teaching and learning. Schools that participated in
systemic mathematics testing programmes had better skills in using student
outcome data to inform classroom practice and engage in professional dialogue.
However, there was less evidence of the use of learning outcomes data in
secondary schools than in primary schools.
Working as a team, staff developed shared positions on assessment and

adopted and developed progressive achievement tests which help to
inform the progress of each student. Testing was viewed as supporting
teacher assessment rather than driving it and discussion was encouraged
on how students’ performance was being viewed (Dunlop
Primary School).
The programme also details the content, outcomes expected at each

level and the appropriate assessment strategies to be used and records to
be kept. There is an increased emphasis on data collection for
assessment and programme decision purposes (Mt Ritchy
Primary School).
Tests and quizzes were the most common form of assessment in secondary
schools. There was little use made of other student assessment methodologies
such as interviews with students, group discussions, and investigations or written
projects.
In terms of time constraints, I don’t really know that assignments as

such belong in maths...Directed investigations are interesting though
because they lead you to discover new things (student, Bishop
Ringwood College).
Interest in the language of mathematics encouraged one school to implement

journal writing in mathematics, which required students, at the end of each
mathematics session, to write an entry describing their work during the lesson.
Towards the end of a complete unit, the students were asked to assess their
understanding of the mathematics covered. The keeping of this journal, in which
66
they recorded their personal reflections of what they had been learning, showed
a remarkable degree of sophistication. Nearly 60 per cent of the students were
able to identify mathematical concepts or procedures in their journals. Such
journal entries provided diagnostic information that teachers could access in
assessing the understandings and progress made by students.
Since we have been learning fractions I have learnt a lot of new things.
Now I know how to add fractions together such as 4/10 plus 2/5. It
equals 4/5. What you have to do is keep doubling the denominator and
numerator until the denominators on each fraction is the same. Then
you add the numerators together and then that is the answer. I also
learnt how to change fractions into decimals and percentages (student,
Dunlop Primary School).
Student portfolios were used to encourage ownership of the learning process by

students and to report to parents in some primary schools.
Portfolios were introduced to report student progress on the outcomes,

at each stage of learning. Also included in the portfolios are samples of
student work and student self-assessment. Portfolios are sent home
twice yearly and parents are invited to provide a written comment on
their child’s progress (Mary Magdalen Primary School).
Children’s portfolios contained much information related to their

development and were an ongoing record of student achievement and a
source for reporting to parents (Mary Magdalen Primary School).
Technology and Mathematics
Schools reported increased use of technology at both the primary and secondary
levels. This resulted in some critical reflection of the role of technology in
teaching mathematics.
The emphasis with new mathematics curricula is for learners to be able

to check and interpret numerical results, tables and graphs, to be able to
think procedurally, and above all else to be confident and creative
problem solvers. One of the most significant developments during the
1990’s for the teaching and learning of mathematics has been the
advance of...new technology (Lawson College).
The role of technology within the mathematics classrooms varied, depending on

the resource level of the school and the skill and experience of staff. The current
67
focus on understanding and connections within mathematics requires the use of

computer and calculator technologies, discussion and group work. The
mathematical understandings being explored are those of problem solving within
authentic contexts.
Lawson College explored the impact of graphics calculators on learning outcomes

of a group of senior secondary school students. The introduction of graphics
calculators resulted in a shift in focus from a routine algorithmic level of thinking
to one requiring higher-order thinking.
The use of the technology seemed to open up a greater array of

mathematical situations to investigation much earlier in a person’s study
of mathematics. More importantly, this technology seems to be giving
students a means of obtaining more definitive feedback [than previously
possible] to a greater range of mathematical problems (Lawson College).
The students themselves indicated they were comfortable with the technology,
especially when they were asked to apply their mathematical understanding to
authentic situations. For many students, the graphics calculator reduced the time
and effort required to perform complex mathematical tasks. Their use in
classrooms seems likely to increase. Teachers who used them appreciated their
value in supporting students to understand processes as well as in providing
motivation as an investigative tool for students to explore concepts.
Outcomes
Most of the project schools were firmly of the view that significant progress had
been made in the level of performance of their students in mathematics over the
period of the project.
There is a clear trend, as measured by student outcomes, towards better

achievement for all levels of pupils in the tested group. Although this is
preliminary data, it does indicate the immediate effects that changes to
the mathematics programme have had on pupil outcomes were positive
(Holland Heights Primary School).
There is clear evidence that student achievement is improving. This has

happened in the short term and it can be reasonably anticipated that
further improvement will follow as the work continues (West Town
Secondary School).
68
Demonstrating to students the relevance of mathematics is a particular challenge

but one that one school found worth exploring by emphasising the relevance of
mathematics and its role in a number of potential study and work destinations.
Past students of the college are invited to discuss their chosen field of
study or work and indicate how their school mathematics has been of
value to them in this field. Participants range from those engaged in
specifically mathematics-related careers, such as engineering, to fields as
diverse as ethnomusicology or biomedical science. It is important that
students do not see the study of mathematics solely as a route to
engineering, but appreciate the contributions it makes to many other
fields (Bishop Ringwood College).
Parents, older siblings and the views of teachers all contribute to the way in
which students view their performance in mathematics, and therefore the courses
that they ultimately select. The influence of teachers cannot be underestimated.
When I was making the decision for year eleven, I actually had two units
down for business maths, but then my teacher suggested I should do
three unit maths. She said she couldn’t really understand why I wouldn’t
do three units because I had the ability and I should give it a go, and so I
thought, yes, why not? Which is probably a good decision, because I
mean I’m not upset that I chose three unit maths (Year 11 student,
Bishop Ringwood College).
One of the 9 schools reported that student outcomes were lower in the group
that experienced the innovation being implemented. Although clearly not the
outcomes this school expected, the project provided the basis for the school to
either discontinue or to substantially modify the innovation.
Overall, schools reported in the survey that there had been an impact on student
engagement and improvement in student achievement as a result of their
projects (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3: Highest rated outcomes of mathematics projects
Mathematics All projects
The level of engagement in learning of targeted

students has improved. 4.17 4.23
The level of achievement in learning of targeted

students has improved. 4.08 4.07
69
However, in some cases, teachers reported that state syllabus documents had
been counterproductive to the development of student engagement, enhanced
self-image and achievement in mathematics.
Problem solving skills in the Sound Achieving (SA)[band] students were

traditionally weak. There had been some particularly contentious
argument about this ...generally, with many believing that the SA band
of students should not be continuously subjected to problem solving
experiences that hold for them little chance of success. Schools,
however, have no option since this particular syllabus is very explicit
(West Town Secondary School).
Few of the mathematics projects presented approaches that sought to
comprehensively reshape teaching and learning to the extent evident in the
literacy, the middle-years and technology projects. Collectively the IBPP
mathematics projects provide useful insights into the factors that contribute to
effective teaching of mathematics. These focused mainly on students’ views of
mathematics as a subject and aspects of classroom practice.
It is worth considering the mathematics domain in relation to what has occurred

within the literacy domain over the last decade. Within the literacy curriculum
area, concerted attempts have been made successfully at a system level for the
adoption of whole school approaches to literacy development in both primary
and secondary schools. In contrast, the IBPP mathematics innovations tended to
be the result of the work of one or two individuals within a subsection of the
school. The innovations in mathematics were rarely part of a whole school
initiative involving other faculties or parts of the school.
Students in the IBPP mathematics schools believe that the way they are being
taught mathematics has to change. They want their mathematics classes to meet
their need to engage in mathematical learning, to have more time to absorb new
concepts and to experience success in learning mathematics.
Testing of students in terms of their mathematical learning is evident in most

schools, but it is used more for grading and ranking than for pedagogical
purposes, even at the primary level. There is a need to make much better use of
this information for reflecting on practice and analysing ways to improve student
performance.
70
Most of the schools did not routinely analyse student outcome data or assess the
impact of classroom practice on learning prior to their participation in the IBPP.
Participation in the project heightened teacher-awareness of accountability for
improved student learning outcomes and assisted in clarifying teacher
expectations of their students and of themselves.
In striving for success in mathematics the engagement of students requires

further attention. The affective domain is increasingly being acknowledged as a
key element of students’ success in mathematics. Confidence remains a key
factor for most students in terms of how they view themselves as being able ‘to
do’ mathematics. This raises questions about how mathematics is being taught
and the skill, knowledge and understandings of the teachers teaching it. The
challenge is to encourage classroom practitioners to more overtly consider the
affective domain within their classroom practice.
Mathematics teaching would benefit from a coordinated initiative that

encourages teachers to become better informed of the pedagogy required to
improve the learning outcomes of students in mathematics, provides access to
appropriate professional development and provides enhanced access to
technology.
71
72
INFORMATION AND
Chapter 4
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Peter Cuttance
INTRODUCTION
Computers and communication technologies are rapidly becoming a ubiquitous part of school learning
environments. The National Goals for Schooling for the Twenty-First Century (The National Goals for
Schooling [1999]) state that when students leave school, they should be confident, creative users of
information and communication technologies (ICT).
School classrooms are adapting to the need for young people to develop the skills and knowledge to
provide multiple representations of information, to collaborate, and to communicate with others
through ICT. The integration of ICT into all major social institutions and organisations means that the
necessity to equip young people with the capacity to understand and utilise the potential of such
environments is no longer an option, but is now an imperative. The schools in the IBPP sought to
break the mould of teaching and learning and to overcome the barriers to changing school learning
environments. They also sought to provide the opportunity for young people to learn appropriate ICT-
based skills and knowledge.
73
This chapter synthesises and analyses the experience of the 20 schools in the
IBPP that sought to improve learning outcomes for students through the
development of innovative strategies in the use of ICT.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

Over the past two decades, research on the impact of ICT on student learning
outcomes has not produced unequivocal evidence that the use of ICT in school
learning environments improves learning outcomes for students. Nevertheless, a
significant number of studies have indicated that it is possible to make effective
use of ICT in schools in ways that can improve student learning outcomes
(Hativa & Becker, 1994). A review undertaken in 1994 of over 100 research
reports (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1994) and another in 1996 of almost 200 research
reports (Software Publishers Association, 1996) concluded that there is evidence
to substantiate the potential of ICT to enhance learning environments.
• Educational technology can have a significant positive impact on learning in

most subject areas, and for students with special learning needs (Sivin-Kachala
& Bialo, 1994).
• There is evidence that the use of ICT impacts more significantly on higher-
order thinking than on lower-order cognitive processing and rote learning
(Educational Testing Service, 1989).
• Educational technology impacts on other aspects of student learning beyond

cognitive curriculum outcomes, such as student attitudes, self-esteem and the
development of social competencies. The use of computers in classrooms
increases student motivation, increases enjoyment of learning, and increases
student control over their learning and access to information (Rowe, 1993;
Joiner, 1996; Wellburn, 1996; Tierney, 1996).
• The impact of ICT is dependent upon the specific student population in which
it is used, the instructional design of the learning environment, the teacher’s
role, the way in which students are grouped for learning, and the access
students have to ICT (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1994).
The introduction of ICT into school learning environments can be viewed as

having first and second order effects. First order effects refer to outcomes such as
those above that are evidenced through improved learning and stronger student
motivation. Second order effects arise because the introduction of ICT creates
new contexts and environments for practice. It opens up the potential to change
74
work roles, patterns, procedures and organisational groupings compared to those

normally adopted in classrooms. Hence, the introduction of ICT can create the
potential to redesign learning environments (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). New
technologies change the “social practices within which they are used, with the
result of changing the way people talk and think about them” (Lankshear et al.,
1997:48). Learning in the traditional sense is based on the notion of nested
boundaries, with the “fixed enclosures of the book, the classroom, and larger
curriculum structures” (ibid). ICT also has the potential to have a significant
impact on the non-school learning environment for young people.
Contemporary attempts to maximise the potential of ICT in classrooms broadly

seek to move away from conventional didactic instructional approaches, in which
teachers do most of the talking and students listen and complete short exercises
in well defined subject areas, to classrooms that provide complex challenges
through the integration of authentic learning tasks and cooperative learning. This
shift in emphasis is in line with the view that students need to be equipped for a
world in which they can access and interrogate knowledge as a basic skill in a
social, educational and economic environment that is subject to rapidly changing
structures and circumstances (Dennison, 1999; Lee, 1999).
Contemporary learning theories that reflect a social-constructivist view of student

learning (Vygotsky, 1986) and learning practices that develop students’ capacity
to self-regulate their own learning provide the intellectual infrastructure for
teaching and learning in many emerging ICT-integrated classrooms (Clements &
Battista, 1990; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1997).
ICT is also becoming a significant feature of environments outside of schools.

Almost half of all households now have access to a computer (Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 1999). Students are regularly using a range of electronic and other
non-print media in their homes as a matter of course (Sachs et al., 1990;
Downes, 1995). National survey results based on student self-reports of their ICT
skills and knowledge suggest that two-thirds of students believe that they
acquire most of their basic ICT related skills outside of their schooling (Meredyth
et al., 1999).
The experience of schools that have sought to integrate ICT into their learning
environments over the last decade clearly indicates the need for other
concomitant changes. Not only do teachers’ instructional beliefs and practices
have to change, but also the curriculum and outcomes expected of students
need to be adapted to the changing framework of learning (Fisher et al., 1996).
75
INNOVATIONS AND MOTIVATIONS

Of the twenty schools in the IBPP that sought to enhance learning outcomes
through the innovative use of ICT, four focused on the early years of schooling,
eight on the middle-years of schooling and the remainder on the senior years.
However, in many schools the innovation was developed in a way that provided
a basis for its adoption across the whole school and for all subgroups of students.
...the introduction of the whole-school approach to the use of these

technologies and resources has fundamentally changed the school
environment. What counts as effective learning, as out-of-class learning,
and relationships between learning and class time activities has altered.
These changes are not just evident in alterations to the timetable and to
some classroom practices, but represent significant shifts in teachers’
perceptions of the new skills and collaborative activities required to cope
with, and utilise the capacities of, the technologies. In this sense, the
technologies and their capacities have necessitated changes to teachers’
conceptions of their expertise, to teaching methods and practices, and to
what might count as evidence of effective student learning. ...Technology
[has] improved tools for particular skill development or conceptual
development within subject areas of the [Year 12 examination], while
other technology uses have produced marked changes in teacher beliefs
and practices (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
The innovations in five of the schools were based on laptop programmes. All
students in these programmes in non-government schools had their own laptops.
The one exception was a government school where the students used a class-set
of laptops. The research evaluations for the laptop innovations did not produce
evidence of their impact that was as strong as that for the innovations based on
the integration of desktop computers. No conclusions can be drawn about the
potential impact of the laptop programmes because two of the laptop
programmes were still at an early stage of implementation, two of the research
reports did not include data on student outcomes and one innovation performed
less well than normal classroom teaching.
A small number of the innovations were at the stage of moving beyond the
traditional curriculum structures and teaching practices. Many of the innovations
espoused an aim to move beyond the traditional classroom teaching and learning
environment to one that is based more on constructivist learning principles. Most
provided some evidence that the innovations were impacting on learning and
76
learning outcomes beyond the standard cognitive curriculum outcomes that are
the norm in most schools.
There was wide variation in the way in which schools went about the
introduction of ICT into their learning environments. They each had quite specific
objectives in mind, and often had quite different underlying philosophies about
the potential role of ICT in school learning environments. Most of the schools
had implemented strategies to integrate ICT into their everyday learning
environments. They focused their innovations on using computers and associated
hardware (mostly scanners, printers, and video cameras) and standard
educational and business software to enhance the learning environment for
students. This mainly took the form of ensuring that students had access to
computers in the classroom for planning, drafting and producing products from
their learning in the format of text based documents and multi-media
presentations. Some of the classrooms were utilising the internet as a source of
teaching and learning resources, but the quality of access to the internet in most
schools significantly curtailed its use. One of the schools was engaged in the
development of on-line programmes for its students to study from home or other
sites in the school and another was producing multi-media learning resources for
its classroom-based programmes.
Schools were responding to perceived pressure from one of four sources:
• a need for improvement in particular aspects of the school’s work as identified

by teachers;
• improvement of the achievement for specific subgroups of students;
• external pressures from parent choice and market-related forces; and
• participation in an initiative or the continuation of collaborative arrangements

with other schools.
In many cases, staff had identified that if they were to provide students with the
skills that they need to perform in the world of tomorrow they needed to change
from traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Their conception of the
student learning outcomes required in this emerging environment were broader
than the contemporary curriculum, including skills and competencies such as:
time management, creative thinking, team-work skills, technological competence
and literacy, decision making and the development of a capacity to manage
learning independently. A recognition of the need for change led teachers to
77
consider a shift to a more student-centred, integrated and interactive style of

teaching and learning. They considered the possibility of providing alternative
learning environments to those offered by traditional day classes in schools. They
also factored in the potential productivity gains from the effective use of ICT that
was evident in organisations outside of schooling.
[We were] at a point where we needed to revisit and review the

practices that we have embedded over the last four years and to test,
challenge and validate, or change existing approaches to teaching and
learning, and student welfare (Caledonia Primary School).
We also imposed pressure upon ourselves by attempting to predict

where we wanted our IT programme to be in five years time...we
predicted that the Internet would be a significant factor in
communication and information access in the near future (St Anne’s
Primary School).
Schools were keenly aware of external pressures associated with accountability

and market-related aspects of the changing school environment. Many saw the
need to enhance their capacity to meet the changing needs of their client
populations, particularly in the climate of increasing parental choice evident in
Australia.
...there was increasing competition from well-equipped, low fee

independent schools which had opened in the local feeder area...Many
of the families who could afford to pay the school fees were not
traditional supporters of independent education and had different
expectations of customer service and the product they were buying
(St Cecilia’s Anglican Girls School).
Case study schools
Although the analysis presented in this chapter draws on the full range of
evidence available from the 20 ICT-based innovations, six schools are described
in greater detail as representing the range of innovations and the impact that
they had on teaching and learning.
St Anne’s Primary School
St Anne’s Primary school is a Catholic school serving a community with

significant pockets of social and economic disadvantage. The school sought to
78
ensure that students developed the skills and knowledge to effectively use ICT to
support learning. Initially, the school introduced a commercially developed multi-
level theme-based curriculum as a means for achieving this purpose. By the time
the innovation had been implemented and in place for a year or so, the school
felt that it had outgrown many of the opportunities offered by the curriculum
component and was focusing on integrating computers across the curriculum in
Years 3-6.
The school had created a purpose-built learning environment in which four

classes of students had continuous access in a common area to one computer for
every five students. Students did much of their work in small groups, and
accessed the computers for specific tasks when they felt that there was benefit in
doing so. The principal and deputy principal had each taken a small teaching load
to free teachers to develop their knowledge and skills in the effective integration
of ICT in classroom learning. The research findings indicated that students had
acquired considerable ICT-based skills and had learnt how to use ICT to support
their learning by the time they left primary school. The school believed that:
...the introduction of the technology would facilitate improved

collaborative and cooperative learning, that the computers would assist
teachers to plan and teach together in teams. Any pressure from outside
the school was ‘big picture’ influence from our interest in phenomena
such as mega-trends rather than ‘small picture’ issues emanating as
direct pressure from local groups. To some extent, this pressure was self-
imposed as we actively sought information about current best practice in
the area of communication and information technology (St Anne’s
Primary School).
Summer Park Primary School
Summer Park is a government school that had achieved its plan to have one
computer for every four students in the school. The student population is from
disadvantaged families and 10 per cent are from non-English speaking
backgrounds.
The school had invested a very high level of effort in radically changing its
approach to teaching and learning over a five-year period. Classrooms had been
reorganised to provide students with a high level of access to computers. The
school’s pedagogy had been changed in line with a constructivist view of
learning, and the school had received recognition from external sources for the
79
high level of achievement of its students. The school has made considerable use
of the flexibility that it has gained from being able to allocate its funds according
to need and to select teachers that complement the school’s vision for learning.
The school’s research provided strong evidence of changed student learning

patterns, with students being more collaborative, resourceful, independent and
taking more risks in their learning. They also developed increased ability to
explain what they are doing and why.
The overriding number one priority when selecting staff has been to
select teachers who have been able to work successfully within a team.
As the innovation has been introduced, this prerequisite has continued
to be a priority. The school is confident it can support teachers to acquire
technology skills...[but]... it is much harder to train staff to be more team
oriented if that has not been a previous practice (Summer Park
Primary School).
The school is very interested in determining the way classrooms change

in a technology rich environment as compared to a ‘normal’ more
traditional classroom environment...[The] time children are on task, the
range of tasks that children are required to undertake, the amount of
time that the teacher spends in directly teaching the whole grade
compared to the amount of time spent working with groups of children,
the amount of time children are using computers in a day, the subject
areas in which children are using technology, equity of usage between
boys and girls, equity of usage by children at various levels of
development (Summer Park Primary School).
Caledonia Primary School
Caledonia Primary School is located in an outer suburb of a large city in a

community with a high proportion of economically and socially disadvantaged
families. A large proportion of its students are from families where a language
other than English is spoken at home. The school has computers available in
most classrooms and has a strategic focus on improving learning outcomes
through the integration of ICT in classroom learning.
The major focus of the innovation was to enhance the capacity of teachers to
use the internet as a teaching resource. A programme of structured professional
development was implemented. Students in the innovation achieved higher
outcomes on a number of affective measures and gained higher learning
80
outcomes than a matched control group. The teachers in the innovation group
experienced significant levels of frustration and difficulty in accessing the internet
and locating appropriate teaching resources. Their ratings of the usefulness of the
internet were lower at the end of period in which the innovation was
implemented than before they commenced the project.
Staff began to question: what new capabilities the Internet and its
related technologies may impart to teachers and students; how these
capabilities might impact on teachers’ work and the physical and
interpersonal nature of the classroom; the types of changes in
educational practice that must occur to take full advantage of these new
models of teaching/learning (e.g., shifts in professional development, in
the practices and culture of the school and actions that will optimise the
transition to more effective, technology-based educational practice); the
hidden consequences and side-effects that may occur through the use of
these emerging information technologies including the challenges to
equity, privacy, community participation and the steps we will need to
take to minimise potentially negative outcomes (Caledonia
Primary School).
Lyons Secondary School
Lyons Secondary School can be described as a typical government suburban

secondary school. Most of its computers were arranged in laboratories and
monopolised by the Information Technology curriculum. The school sought to
make better use of its computers and to provide access to students across year
levels. Year 10 students were offered the opportunity to undertake the
Information Technology course in one of three modes: through the normal
means of using the computer laboratory, as an after-school course, or as an on-
line course which they could study from home during the day.
The research findings indicated that students who elected to study in the on-line
environment achieved at higher levels in terms of curriculum outcomes in Year
10, improved their capacity to manage their time, developed better relationships
with their teachers, worked more cooperatively with other students, and had
higher levels of motivation to learn.
Staff were interested in trying alternative approaches to traditional day

classes based on the emerging information technologies and the variety
of literature on concerns about the traditional schooling paradigm. The
81
school had recently upgraded computer facilities. The Computers and

Information teacher and the World Studies teacher were keen to use the
new technology to its best potential. It seemed that negotiated, self-
paced, cyber curricula were worthy of investigation.
The recent upgrading of computer facilities created additional demands

from most other learning areas. The technology learning area had a
monopoly on the facilities with subjects such as Computers and
Information, Design Graphics and Information Processing. To ease the
burden on facilities the [school initiated] evening and virtual classes [to]
create space on the day timetable and enable other learning areas access
to the computing facilities.
Various subject areas were experiencing change as a result of the growth

of information technology. Course criteria included access to information
technology as a requirement. This added to the demand on facilities.
Students who undertake an evening or virtual class have a ‘free line’ in

their timetable. It was envisaged that this time could be used as an
opportunity to provide extension programmes for these students (Lyons
Secondary School).
Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School
Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School is a large senior secondary school in a rural
city. Its client population represents the full range of the socio-economic context
of its community, which includes families from disadvantaged through to middle
socio-economic backgrounds. Almost half of its students come from families who
qualify for welfare support. The school made a decision several years earlier to
push the possibilities of technology to the limit. It has given strong emphasis in
its strategic planning and budgeting to the development of a high quality ICT
environment and has 2-6 computers accessible from each classroom and others
available in larger purpose-designed student work areas. The school’s ICT
facilities are open to students from 8am to 6pm. The school has developed an
Intranet that can be used by students and parents to access curriculum materials
and other resources from home. The school has also undertaken substantial
restructuring of its management, organisation and teaching and learning
environments. The timetable was restructured to provide longer blocks of
learning time and a scheduled and targetted programme of professional
development for all staff.
82
The school has achieved substantial gains in the levels of achievement of its Year
12 students as a result of its broad-based reforms to the learning environment.
The innovation was premised on the assumption that if the [school] was
to be relevant to...broad changes in the nature of post-school work and
emerging communication systems, then a general restructuring of the
school from classroom to front office was needed to create an
appropriate learning environment and learning methods. The
introduction of new communication and information technologies was
seen as essential in enabling the school to meet the new learning needs
of students and also to manage the school change process.
Extended access beyond class time to information and communication

technologies for staff and students was also perceived to be an effective
way to enhance the [school’s] learning environment. This increased access
was seen as a necessary condition to more effective use of the technologies.
An increased focus on school self-management by the current State

government has created some conditions favourable to a major
redirection of the [school] budget. The [school] has also received funding
through the provision of professional development programmes that
have influenced the College’s ethos and sense of its role in the broader
state education system (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
St Cecilia’s Anglican Girls School
St Cecilia’s is a non-government girls school catering for approximately 1000 day

and boarding students and is located in an urban area adjacent to a major city.
The school receives most of its income from tuition fees and is acutely aware of
the need to maintain the quality of the education it provides. The school had
developed a substantial ICT infrastructure for both teachers and students to use
and was integrating the use of ICT into teaching and learning across the
curriculum. Students were generally comfortable in using computers and the
school sought to develop and evaluate the impact of multi-media, the internet
and computer assisted learning in courses for students in Years 8-10.
The findings of the research indicate that students learnt at least as well in the
ICT-integrated classrooms as others while at the same time increasing their use of
higher-order thinking. The ICT-integrated classrooms also had higher levels of
student participation in learning, were more adaptable to student needs and led
to more in-depth investigations by students than classrooms that did not use ICT.
83
It was thought that technology might also produce savings by making

teaching more efficient, allowing reductions in staffing, and providing
opportunities for flexibility in location and hours of study. In terms of
teaching and learning, a final consideration was that computers seemed
to motivate and interest students and it was of interest to look for ways
of harnessing this to improve learning outcomes.
[The] significant feature for this study was the introduction of

information technology as a tool for teaching and learning across the
curriculum. It has been at once a lever for introducing change, a
mechanism for curriculum development and innovation in teaching and
learning, and a feature the school can promote in marketing to the niche
market of its clientele (St Cecilia’s Anglican Girls School).
BEYOND INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE

ENHANCEMENT OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
Some of the innovations focused on using technology to displace activities that
were carried out in other ways in current learning environments. An example is
the use of word processors to support the development of literacy skills through
writing and revising text. Functional uses of ICT of this kind are often referred to
‘learning with technology’. The more advanced schools were seeking to use ICT
as part of the process of a transforming pedagogy to support constructivist
approaches to learning. This type of approach is often referred to as ‘learning
through technology’.
Schools recognised the potential that ICT provides to meet the learning needs of
individual students, to develop new configurations of collaborative learning
teams, and to access information and communicate in a virtual environment.
Such an environment opens up new opportunities for the communication, display
and storage of information and knowledge that reaches far beyond the linear
and text-based representation of knowledge and information in print format.
Restructuring learning
Many of the schools that were reframing their learning environments around a
constructivist theory of learning sought to support the development of cognitive
tools, commonly referred to as ‘higher-order thinking skills’. The combination of
a focus on meta-cognitive processes, higher-order thinking skills and
84
cooperative/collaborative learning is referred to by some schools as the emerging

‘thinking skills’ curriculum Schools in the IBPP sought to use this framework to
address the individual learning needs of students through a more student-centred
approach to teaching and learning.
[The] aim is to train students...to use their technological tools to explore,

to take risks, to gather and manipulate data, to think critically and apply
knowledge in new and creative ways (Middle Road College).
Schools sought to enhance the level of student engagement in their learning by

focusing on the needs of individual students, rather than establishing a learning
environment that is focused principally on the curriculum.
The breadth of impact that schools sought to make through ICT-integrated

learning environments is evident from the objectives that Moreton Primary
School had for the learning environment that it was creating. Students would:
• develop proficiency in making decisions about how, when and why they can
use technology to amplify, extend and transform their learning;
• learn how to learn and how to think, rather than simply how to retrieve and
replicate information;
• develop skills as critical and strategic thinkers and problem solvers;
• negotiate and design significant aspects of their learning programme;
• use ICT to enhance and expand communication skills;
• use opportunities for social interaction to inform, refine and motivate learning;
• interrogate and critically reflect on the appropriate uses of learning

technologies;
• maintain an active engagement with tasks;
• choose an appropriate learning style; and
• develop the capacity to reflect on their learning.
Many of the schools had restructured the physical learning environment to cater
for the introduction of ICT. This generally focused on providing individual
classrooms with direct access to computers as part of the normal classroom
learning environment. A quarter of the schools had developed an extended
85
learning environment that went beyond the school. These extensions to the
learning environment took the form of virtual classrooms that were available for
both in-school and out-of-school learning. Schools sought to provide access to
the ICT environments beyond the normal school day. Lyons Secondary School
developed parallel delivery modes for one of its courses: in-school time classes,
evening classes, and on-line access for learning from home. Students who
studied the course through the on-line option were given ‘time release’ to work
from home during the day. The on-line course was supplemented with regular
contact with a supervisor via email, tutorials, and one-to-one support.
Schools indicated that their focus on ICT-based innovations was part of a

strategy for targeting high expectations and excellence in the establishment of a
strong track record of student achievement. In general, the ICT-based
innovations were motivated to a great extent by a desire to build on and further
improve existing practices or programmes in other areas.
A general observation from the teachers, and in particular from the

middle grade teachers, was that they [developed] much higher
expectations about the quality of students’ stories and project reports
when they used the computing resources as part of their investigations
and publishing (Lyons Secondary School).
Students are now expected to: be more independent and more

interested; [have] higher standards and outcomes from year to year;
[take] more risks; be more collaborative and to learn from other children,
not just to learn from the teacher; learn things that the teacher doesn’t
know; learn in diverse ways; verbalise, think through and remember
things a lot better; and manage their files on a local area network from
their first year at school (Summer Park Primary School).
Because of the need to allocate significant funds to ICT-based innovations,

schools sought to keep their communities fully informed about their nature and
the expected outcomes for students. Parents viewed such programmes as adding
to the prestige of the school. They showed the schools to be innovative and
progressive and responsive to the needs of students in the modern world. There
were cases, however, of resistance from parent communities.
Parents were active in questioning the priority for the innovation in some schools:
[They sought assurances about the] impact on other areas of fundraising

e.g., P&F Fundraising, Parish Planned Giving, the balance between IT
86
and other areas of the curriculum, the impact on families with more than
one child or families with reduced income, [and whether] there is a need
for Junior Primary students to access IT (St Anne’s Primary School).
Schools implemented strategies to achieve strong staff and community ownership

of the innovation. In many, the principal developed the vision and took
responsibility for creating the necessary enthusiasm and motivation to implement
the innovation with the support of the various stakeholder groups.
A...major implication arising from this study is the central importance of

effective leadership and coherent management of the introduction of
new technologies for learning (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
If we did not have an effective School Board with vision, high level
decision-making skills, financial skills and a team ethic, the project
would have been at risk. Our school was one of the first undertaking this
reform, thus parents at the school had no other experience to relate to in
assessing the merit of our proposal (St Anne’s Primary School).
The innovations often meant a considerable increase in workloads for teachers

during the development and implementation phase. Further, a number of the
school research reports indicated that it was necessary to develop strategies to
address a cultural shift in teacher attitudes before the innovation could be
implemented.
...we were willing to share problems and ways individuals dealt with or
overcame the problems to achieve successful implementation. This was
part of our need for it to be a whole school approach [and] to recognise
the differences of individuals and value them (St Anne’s Primary School).
Every staff member assists others, seeks help from others. Especially
more experienced teachers seeking the assistance of less experienced
teachers in this area (teacher, St Anne’s Primary School).
Impact on teaching
The innovations provided teachers with the opportunity to develop their teaching
practices in a way that provided them with almost immediate feedback, without any
detrimental impact on student learning outcomes. The organisation and arrangement
of classrooms changed as a result of the innovations. The schools provided evidence
of changed teacher beliefs and attitudes about learning and changed teaching
styles—from traditional ‘chalk and talk’ to student-centred learning.
87
[The] movement of [students to] virtual [classes] from the day timetable
for computing subjects...opened up the timetable, allowing greater
access for the rest of the school (Lyons Secondary School).
The schools also provided evidence of a gradual shift by teachers towards a more
constructivist model of learning.
[Student work samples are] indicative of a...paradigm shift, and point to

a move by staff towards a more constructivist approach to instructional
design; where students are challenged to design and solve meaningful
problems by utilising a range of tools, resources and strategies (Middle
Road College).
The Internet has challenged teachers and students to consider a new way
of learning that relies on collaborative problem solving, requires a team
effort in the classroom and shifts the learning responsibility from teacher
to student (Caledonia Primary School).
Other areas of teaching were influenced by easier access to resources—through

CD digital texts, the internet and specialist software—that allowed teachers to
demonstrate concepts more efficiently and effectively than by other means,
music composition to explore a wider range of music related activities, and data
logging devices for collecting information from laboratory experiments and
investigations.
Despite the difficulties teachers experienced while preparing for classes

using the Internet, they reported that they were now incorporating the
Internet into more of their lessons or were developing skills in using the
Internet to incorporate into their lessons at a later time. Teachers of
older students were particularly motivated to use the Internet as a
teaching resource (Caledonia Primary School).
Teachers in a number of the innovations reported that once they had become
familiar with the new learning environments, the increased levels of student
learning and the management of the classroom for effective learning through
technology was more satisfying for them professionally. For example, they were
better able to match learners to tasks and texts in order to cater for individual
student differences. They believed that they were able to do this much more
effectively in the ICT-based learning environments than had been the case
previously in their classrooms.
88
Analysis of the things that the teachers began to do differently reveals

that in some cases classroom practices changed dramatically. Examples
that were offered [were] highlighted [by the following]: group work was
used much more frequently; children worked on a variety of tasks that
called for record keeping in the form of contract sheets and daily activity
check lists; students were given greater autonomy over the way they
made presentations in Kid Pix or Hyperstudio; teacher confidence grew
with experience of using Quicktake and video cameras, and scanning
images; and this opened up possibilities for the students; and teachers
found they had new challenges with people visiting the classroom, [the]
involvement of parents and informing the school community (Summer
Park Primary School).
Impact on student learning
The model of curriculum being developed by many of the schools does not fit
easily with the traditional curriculum and assessment regime that is common in
most school systems.
There were also perceived inconsistencies between the constructivist

framework of the innovation and [its] pedagogical underpinnings and
the maths curriculum (Summer Park Primary School).
[There were] concerns by some staff that the effective use of

technologies is hampered by the current prescriptions about learning
outcomes for particular subjects in the [Year 12 examinations]. For
example, the Board of Studies for English...ruled in 1998 that only
‘printable’ texts would be assessed, thus ruling out the use of hypertext
as assessable student work (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
Although most schools did not seek directly to focus on ICT skills and knowledge
per se they found that students did gain significantly in these areas.
...students have made significant inroads into the processes of

information skills (Airport Avenue Primary School).
The innovation had a significant impact on the achievement of

information processing outcomes (Airport Avenue Primary School).
...students produced their first Web page...They do their own research,

compile [HTML links], pass comment, make suggestions, then proudly
89
post their work for all to see. They view HTML source codes and alter
them for their own purposes, making errors and criticising each
other...constantly looking for new [ways] to use these creative tools to
present more traditional assignments (Middle Road College).
The schools produced evidence that their innovations in many cases supported
the enhancement of higher order thinking skills.
...the group were accessing more sophisticated problems with the help of
the technology (Lawson College).
The results provide evidence to support the view that the computer-
aided instruction in Year 10 German was effective in pressing students
into higher-order thinking, in achieving high levels of investigation,
participation and personalisation (St Cecilia’s Anglican Girls School).
Students are better problem-solvers and seek advice from those they
judge to be more capable. In addition, the definition of ‘capability’ has
been broadened within the students’ and teachers’ thinking. Some of the
less literate students have [become] acknowledged software experts in
the classroom and their own thinking has expanded (Jupiter Avenue
Primary School).
The range of outcomes the schools considered important were, in general, much
broader than those specified in current curriculum frameworks and systemic
testing and assessment programmes. The schools addressed a wide range of
aspects of learning and learning outcomes for students. A dominant feature of
the ICT innovations was evidence that students had enhanced their social
competencies through cooperative and collaborative modes of learning. Students
acknowledged the work of others more readily, worked in groups, collaborated
on particular learning tasks, and gained greater enjoyment from working in the
contexts produced by these innovations.
[Students] opt for more participative sharing by almost literally hand-in-

hand co-operation. This form of decision-making requires high levels of
co-operative [behaviour] because both partners are actively engaged
(St Brigid’s Primary School).
There is also evidence from these innovations that in ICT-integrated classroom

environments students have increased opportunities and enhanced capacity to
self-regulate their learning.
90
[The] much higher interest level among students has broadened their
knowledge and deepened their knowledge for learning (Jupiter Avenue
Primary School).
[The innovation] enabled students to become strategic in their learning

(St Brigid’s Primary School).
Sometimes I used to do things long ways, but now I have learnt to

shorten things up...You can do some work, save it on your ‘S’ drive and
keep coming back to it later-and restart where you finished (St Brigid’s
Primary School).
Many innovations resulted in students having enhanced time management skills

and greater responsibility for their own learning.
This programme has given students the ability to develop time

management skills. Students who undertake an evening or virtual class
are allocated a ‘study line’ of four 50 minute periods per student (Lyons
Secondary School).
There was evidence that by taking more responsibility for their learning,
students developed better communication skills with their teachers,
partly because they felt they were treated more like adult learners (Lyons
Secondary School).
I can be easily distracted and look as if I am working but I am not

getting it done. I have learnt the hard way - if you don’t do the work,
you have to make it up in your own time (student, Lyons
Secondary School).
I have good communications with the teacher, he is not so tied up with

other students and busy all the time so he can give me more help
(student, Lyons Secondary School).
There was significant evidence that these innovations provided more effectively
for the individual learning needs of students. Students adapted to the use of self-
paced and open-ended learning and had higher motivation and engagement in
their learning. They also appreciated having more control over their work.
Our results indicate that moving toward a more student-centred learning

environment produced...opportunities for more engaged learning
(Belltown Primary School).
91
...effective use of computers provided opportunities for learning to be

individualised, student-centred, self-paced, and open-ended (St Cecilia’s
Anglican Girls School).
...the technology allows students to work productively at their own pace

in a responsive context... The opportunity to individualise learning in a
responsive environment has certainly strengthened the quality of the
outcomes for students (St Xaviers Secondary College).
What is interesting here is that kids seem to stream themselves according

to [their] preferred learning style...Given the chance, there are many
students [at Year 10] who prefer to learn on an individual basis without
the constant supervision of a teacher and without the confines of a
classroom (Lyons Secondary School).
The following excerpts from the Summer Park Primary School research report
show that many of the above impacts on learning can occur simultaneously and
lead to second-order changes in the learning environment.
Students are much more collaborative and acknowledge each other’s

work to a far greater extent. This was true across all year levels, and
equally stressed by teachers working with very young students.
Students are more resourceful, independent and better risk takers. They
come up with their own ideas and decide where they want to go to do
their research.
Students are better problem solvers and seek advice from those they
judge to be more capable. In addition, the definition of capability has
been broadened within the students and the teachers thinking. Some of
the less literate students have become acknowledged software experts in
the classroom and their own thinking has expanded....Poor readers are
motivated to read what is on the computer.
The students are judged to be more confident than those taught in

previous years.
The students’ time management skills are much better than in the past
because of the way the class works. Activities for a weekly programme
are set out and students opt to do some things at home if they spend
more time on other activities in class. Connected with this was the
perception that students showed more initiative in doing things at home
92
without any suggestion or expectation from the teacher. The quotas set
by the teacher for a range of tasks are often exceeded. This means that
there is now less demarcation between school and out-of-school
learning.
Much higher interest level amongst the students has broadened their
knowledge and deepened their enthusiasm for learning. They are also
much more persistent in the time they will devote to a particular task.
Students are better at self and peer evaluation.
Students have acquired more lifelong learning skills.
Students have a greater ability to verbalise what they are doing and
why...Students are able to concentrate and not be disturbed or distracted
by people entering the room.
Improvement in student learning outcomes
The schools that had developed ICT-based innovations were able to demonstrate
improvements in learning outcomes for students in both the cognitive and non-
cognitive domains. Thirty-five per cent of the schools were able to provide strong
evidence that their ICT innovations had a direct impact on the improvement of
learning outcomes, and a further 40 per cent demonstrated improvement in
student learning outcomes that were associated with the innovation and other
associated changes that the school had made. There was strong evidence that
the ICT innovations had led to student improvements in the following areas:
Mastery of curriculum-based learning outcomes
There is also strong agreement between staff and students about the
enhanced learning outcomes of students’ use of software programmes
that are designed to create products or perform analyses or calculations
that exactly match the specified learning goals in some [Year 12]
subjects...the purpose-built design elements in Illustrator (Graphic
Design) Ashlar Vellum Software (Technology Design and Development)
computer-aided composition of multi-instrumental arrangements (Music
Performance) and Graphics Calculators (Mathematics) are perceived by
both teachers and students as providing significant learning advantages
over past methods or resources (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
93
...71 per cent of day class students achieved awards on the less
demanding course...73 per cent of virtual class students achieved awards
on the more demanding syllabus. The evening students are in between
these 2 extremes with 52 per cent achieving awards on the less
demanding course and 48 per cent achieving awards on the more
demanding syllabus...The results indicate that it is possible to teach in
cyber space without adversely affecting outcomes (Lyons
Secondary School).
Improvement in Year 12 examination achievements of students
The most significant quantitative evidence of change in the [school] is

the improved levels of student performance across most subjects in the
[Year 12 examination] over the last three years...when compared with
State average scores, results of schools with similar socio-economic
profiles, and with State averages on [Year 12] testing...[There was an]
increased percentage of students achieving scores of A+ and A (Potter’s
Gold Senior Secondary School).
Improvements in learning against pre-specified outcomes criteria
Innovation classes demonstrated significantly greater

improvement in teacher-rated mastery than the control classes
(Caledonia Primary School).
Increased use of higher-order and problem solving skills
...computer-aided instruction in Year 10 German was effective in

pressing students into higher order thinking, and achieving high levels of
investigation, participation and personalisation (St Cecilia’s Anglican Girls
School).
Improvement in student performance in ICT skills
...improved performance of students in a National Schools Computer

Studies Competition over three years [the proportion of students scoring
in the top 20 per cent increased from 22 per cent to 52 per cent] (Jupiter
Avenue Primary School).
Many of the ICT-based innovations focused on improvement of cognitive

learning outcomes only indirectly, preferring in the first instance to focus on the
improvement of non-cognitive aspects of learning outcomes. There was
94
widespread evidence that student engagement and motivation could be

substantially enhanced by the effective integration of ICT in both primary and
secondary school learning environments.
...90 per cent of students enjoyed using technology...their level of

interest and motivation remained high throughout the project (Airport
Avenue Primary School).
...students not previously engaged are giving up their lunchtimes to work

on the Web pages (Eastbourne Secondary School).
...children are motivated to learn and are ‘switched-on’ using multi-

media and technology. They are empowered to try new skills and use the
skills to help their learning (St Anne’s Primary School).
The ICT innovations noted that the capacity of students to become more self-
regulating was evident in their management of time.
65 per cent of students felt that participation in virtual or evening classes

had improved their time management skills. But it’s not been easy. [60
per cent] agreed that ‘Managing time efficiently’ was harder than I
expected.
Parents also strongly indicated (84 per cent in favour) that their child
appreciates the flexibility and responsibility which comes from studying
in these [virtual] classes (Lyons Secondary School).
PROBLEMS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
The schools had to overcome a range of technical and skills related problems in
the implementation of their innovations. The most common technical problem
schools had to address was that of hardware/system reliability. Most of the
schools had high levels of technology resources that required significant technical
and maintenance support to maintain them in reliable working order. Software
problems relating to the need for continual upgrading of application packages
and operating systems were also a major hurdle for many schools.
Equipment problems are a potential source of frustration and some

teachers felt that extra technical support would have positive outcomes
for the programmes (Summer Park Primary School).
95
The effects of equipment failure are self-evident: general breakdowns

with computers, mice not working, children changing files, computers
not functioning (St Anne’s Primary School).
The schools with laptop programmes found it necessary to develop specific

structures to support the maintenance of this equipment. Given the nature of
these innovations, it is perhaps not surprising that we should see the emergence
of ‘laptop under repair’ as a significant excuse used by students for not being
prepared for their lessons. The maintenance schedules and structures for the
repair of computers had to provide contingency planning to cater for students
when their laptop was not in working order. Laptop maintenance programmes
had to develop strategies to deal with a range of operational problems in
addition to hardware problems experienced with the laptops themselves. For
example, there were problems with batteries running low, machines crashing,
machines requiring upgrade, ineffective network connectivity, and insufficient
memory to operate the software and learning environment developed. Teachers,
generally, did not have the skills and knowledge to assist students with these
problems when they occurred in the classroom.
Another area in which schools needed to develop strategies to address problems

was in relation to the internet. Schools needed to allow for the fact that not all
students could connect to the internet at the same time. This had to be factored
in when planning lessons. The lack of bandwidth for internet communications
limited activities in many schools.
Perhaps the major challenge faced by the schools was that inherent in all
innovation and change processes—mustering support and commitment from a
critical mass of staff to give credence to the innovation. In many cases this
involved winning over staff who were wary of continual change in schools and
who were not receptive to the idea that integration of ICT could assist in
providing enhanced learning opportunities for students.
Changes in teacher behaviour were also revealed in terms of how

individual teachers were required to engage in more extensive planning
within their teaching team structures (Summer Park Primary School).
My personal feeling of inadequacy in the area of computing was an area

that I personally had to work to overcome (teacher, St Anne’s
Primary School).
96
I now think that teachers should be forced to move outside their comfort
zone. But I do not think they have to know how to do everything at the
same time. It has to be gradual (teacher, Summer Park Primary School).
Although there was some resistance, their concerns were totally

understandable. We were asking them to “dive in the deep end” and
take on a programme for which there was little precedent (St Anne’s
Primary School).
Assumptions were made initially in terms of where teachers were in

relation to levels of skill and confidence in using the Internet and the
Worldwide web...The introduction of new practices can be stressful and
frustration arises as a result...frustration [was] also felt by some teachers
who found it difficult to measure or to see immediate improved student
performance that could be unambiguously linked to the introduction of
Internet and computer-based technologies (Caledonia Primary School).
The pressures on time and the crowded curriculum were also noted by schools as
significant sources of stress in the implementation of their innovations.
...the major constraints as those related to availability and use of time

for particular activities that were deemed to be of value to the students’
learning (Summer Park Primary School).
The huge amount of time it was taking me to get ready for my lessons...
(teacher, St Anne’s Primary School).
Another significant challenge in restructuring learning environments for the

effective integration of ICT was the sourcing of professional development and
recruitment of staff to take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the
environment.
[There is a] need for systematic and sustained professional development

of teachers so that they are skilled from the outset in the effective use of
these technologies, and can therefore make informed judgements about
which applications are best suited to the achievement of particular
learning goals (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
As teachers, we have learned the importance of being open to new ideas

and approaches, and that we need to be aware of individual learning
styles and what motivates today’s students. We have also learned the
97
importance of keeping up with [changes in] technology (Airport Avenue

Primary School).
[On] the whole, teachers are not aware of the potential of on-line
learning environments to support rich and valuable learning experiences
(Jericho College).
There was a need for a continual updating of teacher skills as the environment
developed and new opportunities emerged. One of the problems schools needed
to address in this context was the fact that the development of strategic teaching
skills to integrate ICT often did not keep pace with the development of the ICT
technical skills of teachers.
This problem was exacerbated in many cases by the focus of systemic training
and development initiatives on technical skills, with little or no provision of
programmes to support professional development in the integration of
technology into the practice of teaching and learning. This reflects the limited
nature of current system perspectives about the nature of teaching and learning
with technology, but, more importantly, it indicates a lack of vision about what
can be achieved by learning through technology.
Systemic professional development is based on technical skills

acquisition, not strategic teaching skills (Belltown Primary School).
[There were] not many opportunities for systemic professional

development in considering creative and sustained cross-curriculum and
pedagogical reforms with IT (Rover Hill Girls College).
Systemic skill development programmes were rarely set within an articulated

theoretical framework of teaching and learning in technology-rich environments.
Schools in the non-government sector reported that it was difficult to access high
quality professional development appropriate to their context.
The schools in the IBPP that focused on ICT-based innovations were mostly in
the early phases of exploring the potential role of ICT in school learning
environments. They were of the view that schools in the future will have access
to substantially enhanced ICT environments and they sought to learn about ways
in which the potential of these environments could be harnessed for the
improvement of student learning.
98
The ICT-based innovations faced similar challenges, particularly in terms of

changing the culture of teaching and learning in schools, as many of the other
significant innovations in the IBPP. The schools that developed ICT-based
innovations found the discipline of researching and measuring the impact of their
innovations to be a significant challenge, as did many of the schools that
developed innovations in other areas in the IBPP.
In many cases, schools that implemented ICT-based innovations also

implemented substantial other changes to the organisation and working
environment of the school. Thus, the impact of the ICT component of their
innovation was confounded with the impact of the other changes that they had
made.
The leading-edge ICT innovations that had reached a degree of maturity had
moved beyond a focus on the ICT to a primary focus on learning environments
and student learning. Contemporary theories of learning informed the use of ICT
in these emerging environments, particularly those that recognised the need for
simultaneous pressure and support to challenge what students know and to
move beyond what they currently know to ‘new’ knowledge.
The IBPP ICT schools exposed a significant gap in the provision of professional
development for teachers, especially in integrating ICT into learning. Although
there were ample opportunities for teachers to gain access to training and
development in the functional use of ICT, there was a paucity of opportunities in
professional development programmes to develop an understanding how ICT can
be effectively integrated to support student learning. The task that teachers faced
was not one simply of integrating computers into teaching and learning in a
technical sense. It was the acquisition of a deeper understanding of processes of
cognitive learning and affective and social development, beyond that which is
common in many schools.
These innovations showed that ICT itself can act as a catalyst to learning. This
can be either through the simple process of providing enriched access to learning
resources or through the much more complex interplay between students’
cognitive functioning and the capacities embodied in ICT.
Schools demonstrated that ICT can be effectively utilised to improve learning

outcomes in both the cognitive and non-cognitive domains. The impact of ICT
was far broader than simply improvement of curriculum outcomes. Schools found
that they were able to integrate ICT into their learning environments to support
99
significant enhancements in student engagement, enjoyment and motivation to

learn. Many schools were successful in integrating ICT into their learning
environments to provide more authentic and adaptable contexts to better meet
the learning needs of individual students in the middle-years.
When implemented as part of a more wide-ranging reform of school

organisation, management and teaching practice, the second-order effects of ICT
provided opportunities for students to learn in more constructivist and flexible
ways. Students gained substantial additional learning outcomes. These included
the capacity to regulate and manage their learning and the skills and capacities
for collaborative and cooperative learning to achieve team-based outcomes that
were beyond those achievable by students working individually.
Schools provided evidence that cognitive curriculum outcomes, as reflected in

standard assessments at the end of Year 12 and earlier stages of schooling, can
also be improved through the use of ICT. This was particularly evident when ICT
was used to generate learning that addressed higher-order skills, self-regulation
and used software and hardware that was aligned with the curriculum and
outcomes to be achieved.
The IBPP supported schools to undertake rigorously researched evaluations of the

impact of their innovations. These evaluations demonstrated that ICT can be
integrated into school learning environments to enhance the quality of teaching
and learning and to achieve improved learning outcomes for students.
100
THE MIDDLE-YEARS
Chapter 5
Peter W. Hill, Anthony D. Mackay, V. Jean Russell and Vic Zbar
INTRODUCTION
Until recently, the middle-years of schooling6 have not been a high priority of education systems. The
attention of policy makers has tended to focus on the early years (particularly literacy and numeracy)
and the senior years (particularly the reform of post-compulsory assessment and certification
arrangements). However, from the responses of schools that participated in the IBPP, it is clear that
the middle-years represent a major preoccupation of schools across the nation. Approximately one
third of schools participating in the IBPP (more than thirty schools) nominated the middle-years as the
focus area of their innovation.
Research within these schools suggested a remarkably high level of engagement in fundamental issues
concerning the nature of educational provision for this stage of schooling. While the changes schools
had succeeded in implementing were often preliminary, tentative and partial, there was clear evidence
that the thinking that had motivated the changes ran deep and that the groundwork was being
prepared for much more substantial reform. Indeed, when all the disparate pieces were fitted
6 The middle-years refers to Years 5–9, however the innovations referred to in this chapter generally relate to innovations in the early
years of secondary schooling.
101
together, what emerged was the outline of a paradigm shift in thinking about the
nature of schooling in the middle-years and beyond.
What had motivated such rethinking and innovation? The answer in most cases
related to a desire to address a lack of engagement in learning among students,
to improve attitudes to schooling and to ensure that all students experience
success and enjoyment in learning. In most cases, it was the initiative and
enthusiasm of a staff member or the school principal that instigated the school’s
innovation. System-wide initiatives or an invitation to participate in a project
were rarely cited, which indicates the extent to which the interest these schools
had generated in thinking about the middle-years was a grassroots movement.
The schools were clear about the changes they wanted to bring about in their
students. Among the most frequently cited were:
• arresting the decline in students’ levels of engagement in their learning and in

their liking of schooling;
• promoting students’ sense of identity, belonging and esteem; and
• developing students’ capacity and confidence to function as autonomous

learners in the new knowledge society.
These are neither small nor easy challenges. They raise uncomfortable questions
about the kind of society we live in, the kinds of communities schools are able to
create, and the way in which people in school communities relate to one another.
They also call for a reassessment of practices and arrangements that are deep-
seated and fundamental to the way in which schooling has been constructed
over many decades.
In the majority of schools, the focus was on improving engagement in and

attitudes to learning. In these schools there was a belief that a significant turn-
around in affective outcomes was a precondition to improving student learning
outcomes. On the other hand, some of the schools were also seeking to have a
direct impact on student learning outcomes. Of particular note was a group of
schools that were seeking, through intensive professional development of their
staff, to transform teaching in accordance with a socially constructivist view of
learning that took into account the specific characteristics and needs of young
adolescents in the modern information age.
In many of the schools, a mix of both optimism and pessimism was encountered.
While enthusiastic about the prospects for improvement, staff were conscious of
102
the magnitude of the challenges involved in bringing about lasting changes to

long-standing and often fiercely protected practices and arrangements. Many
were conscious that they were stepping out on a limb and that being pioneers
called for courage and fortitude. There was also an awareness of the fragility of
the changes that had been achieved and of the great difficulties in sustaining
these changes.
Almost all were conscious that they were taking the first steps in a difficult
journey and that they had a long way to go before they could say with
confidence that they had arrived at the place where they wanted to be.
Participating in the IBPP was an important part of this journey because in almost
every case it reaffirmed in schools a conviction of the need for change, gave
them space and resources to reflect on what they were trying to accomplish and
provided a clearer picture of the next few steps along the way.
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In most schools in the study there was an awareness of a substantial knowledge
base relating to various aspects of educational provision for students in the
middle-years. In this section we briefly review this literature.
A number of studies have highlighted problems in educational provision for

young adolescents. The problems include a decline in student enjoyment of
school during the middle-years and the associated lessening of their engagement
in learning (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Hargreaves, Earl & Ryan, 1996; Hill,
Holmes-Smith & Rowe, 1993; Hill & Rowe, 1996, 1998; Rowe, Hill & Holmes-
Smith, 1994; 1995). Early school leaving or ‘dropping out’ was identified as one
of the most serious and extreme consequences of these negative attitudes. The
costs of ‘dropping out’ are not trivial. The direct monetary and social costs to
individuals, governments and the wider society of early school leaving in
Australia have been estimated by King (1999) to be $2.6 billion a year.
Other symptoms of underlying problems include truancy; habitual lateness;

dislike of teachers; anger and resentment towards school; disruptive behaviour in
class; delinquent behaviour; suspension and expulsion; passivity and withdrawal;
failure to complete work or do homework; low self-esteem; social isolation; peer
conflict and gang behaviour; substance abuse; unsafe sexual practices; and self-
injury (Batten & Russell, 1995; Bradley & Stock, 1993; Brooks et al., 1997;
Withers & Russell, 1998). The word ‘alienation’ is frequently used to encapsulate
the overall experience of students who demonstrate their disengagement by
103
switching off and simply failing to learn. In an Australian context, recurring words
which convey the meaning of the experience of alienation are ‘estrangement’,
‘detachment’, ‘fragmentation’, ‘isolation’, ‘powerlessness’, ‘meaninglessness’,
‘normlessness’ and ‘disconnectedness’ (Australian Curriculum Studies Association,
1996).
There is an enormous literature on the characteristics of early adolescence

(Hargreaves & Earl, 1990). There has been a concerted attempt, particularly in
the last decade, to develop forms of schooling that are responsive to the
characteristics and needs of young adolescents and which sustain their
involvement, engagement and participation in learning. If schools are to achieve
and sustain the engagement of young adolescents in learning, it is essential that
they provide approaches, opportunities and experiences that enable young
people to accomplish the developmental tasks they face within their own social
context (Barratt, 1998; Braggett, 1997; Cumming, 1998; Eyers, et al., 1992;
Hargreaves et al., 1996).
The challenge of establishing new forms of schooling attuned to adolescents’

needs and characteristics is increased by the very fact that this phase of schooling
overlaps the traditional boundaries of both primary and secondary schools.
Students who are already experiencing the demanding transitions of adolescence
itself are thus required to deal simultaneously with the discontinuities and
anxieties of moving from a primary school culture and adapting to a different
secondary school culture (Braggett, 1997; Eyers et al., 1992; Hargreaves et al.,
1996; Stringer, 1997; 1998).
Hargreaves, Earl and Ryan (1996) noted that the primary school culture is
conventionally based on the principles of care and control whereas the traditional
secondary school culture is characterised by an academic orientation, student
polarisation and fragmented individualism. Although structural solutions aimed at
bridging these two cultures have at times been sought (and are common in the
USA) through the establishment of separate middle schools or middle-years
sections of K-12 schools, structural solutions are not seen as either a necessary or
a sufficient response (Eyers, et al., 1992).
Recommendations to improve the education of young adolescents in the USA

have included creating small communities for learning; teaching a core academic
programme; ensuring success for all students; staffing middle grade schools with
teachers who are expert at teaching young adolescents; and re-engaging families
in the education of young adolescents (Carnegie Corporation, 1989). Many
104
different strategies and practices have been put forward as the means of
achieving middle school reform (Australian Curriculum Studies Association 1996;
Barber, 1999; Beane, 1993; Braggett, 1997; Brennan & Sachs, 1998; Cormack, et
al., 1998; Cumming, 1993; 1998a; Eyers et al., 1992; Forte & Schurr, 1997;
Hargreaves et al., 1996; Kruse, 1995; Schools Council, 1993). The proposals vary
from descriptions of single, specific strategies, such as classroom collaboration
and negotiation (Campbell, 1997; Illman, 1997) and the team/small-group
approach (Roberts, 1997) to comprehensive and global ones, such as the full-
service school (Dryfoos, 1994; Wehlage & Stone, 1996; Withers & Russell, 1998).
Within the Australian context, the press for reform of the middle-years of
schooling has grown rapidly in recent years from an interest among a small
number of innovative schools, to a widespread grassroots movement supported
by both formal and informal networks of committed schools, to a priority issue
for all schools and school systems.
IBPP MIDDLE-YEARS INNOVATIONS

This section examines the experiences of the 33 schools in the IBPP that had
identified the middle-years of schooling as their focus area. It seeks to answer the
following:
• What kinds of programmes were implemented by the ‘middle-years’ schools

and what were their motivations?
• What strategies did schools employ to bring about change, how successful
were they and what factors influenced successful change?
The nature of the innovations
Responses to the project survey indicated that the most common characteristics
of the middle school innovations were teachers working together as a team; the
provision of opportunities for students with different learning styles; an emphasis
on clear goals for students; and, targeting of teaching to the needs of individual
students. The least common characteristic indicated in the survey was an increase
in parental involvement.
The research reports of the schools indicated a wide range of initiatives. They
ranged from having a specific focus, such as the introduction of laptop
computers into the first two years of secondary schooling, to broad-ranging
reforms involving almost all aspects of the school. Complex reforms included
105
school reorganisation that had led in some cases to the creation of a stand-alone
purpose-built middle school with its own distinctive philosophy, pedagogy,
curriculum and school organisation. Table 5.1 summarises the most common
innovations.
Alternative model of provision
From Table 5.1 it is evident that the most common response to the challenges of
the middle-years has been to implement a model of provision that reflects a
position between the traditional model of the primary school, in which a class of
students is taught for most of the time by one teacher, and the traditional model
of the secondary school, in which students are taught by a number of subject
specialists.
In more than a third of the schools, the focus was on establishing a small team of
two to four teachers who were responsible for teaching a relatively small number
of students for a significant proportion of the week, and in some cases for more
than one academic year. This involved teaching across traditional subject
boundaries, which usually implied arrangements such as mathematics specialists
also teaching science, and so on. In many schools, these structural arrangements
had also been accompanied by extensive re-thinking of the curriculum to make it
less subject-oriented and more focused around projects, problems and themes
that were multidisciplinary in nature. Another significant associated change was a
move towards teaching in larger blocks of time (typically 1 to 2 hours) to reduce
interruptions and allow opportunities for more in-depth learning.
In some cases this approach was limited to only some subjects at one or more
year levels. King Valley Secondary School, for example, established a team to
provide Year 8 students with an integrated programme covering English, Maths,
Science and SOSE as part of a broader school approach to motivate and engage
students. This broader approach involved pastoral group teachers following
students through their schooling and the division of the junior school into teams
of 60 students (3 pastoral groups).
[This overall approach] not only indicated clearly to the school

community the emphasis and priority placed on middle schooling, but it
also allowed for curriculum innovation and implementation which was
not immediately governed by senior school issues, for example,
timetabling and subject disciplines (King Valley Secondary School).
106
Table 5.1. Nature of ‘middle-school’ innovations in IBPP schools (N=33).

Nature of the innovation Percentage
of schools
Alternative models of school and class organisation in which small teams 36

of say 2-4 teachers take responsibility for teaching most of the curriculum
to 3-5 classes of students, teaching across more than one subject area,
making use of multidisciplinary and thematic approaches to curriculum,
and utilising larger blocks of time (1-2 hours).
An emphasis on higher-order thinking skills and those generic skills 36

or competencies most likely to facilitate life-long learning in the new
knowledge society.
The creation of special middle schools within larger schools or 15

stand-alone middle schools with dedicated, purpose-built spaces.
Implementation of programmes to facilitate the transition of students 12

from primary school to secondary school.
A redesigned curriculum for Year 9 students, often involving 12

community-based learning, project work and special activities.
Student participation in decision-making and a negotiated curriculum. 12
Cooperative learning, peer tutoring, students working in small 9

teams or table groups.
Similarly, Holy Spirit Catholic College adopted a team approach to ensure “...a
greater sense of security and attention to individual student needs ... (by
enabling) teachers to become more familiar with student needs and individual
learning styles.” This was seen as especially important at Year 7 when students
have made the transition to secondary school and require an “area of comfort”
that enables them to develop a sense of belonging in their new school.
Some schools adopted a more expansive view of teams. At Wattle Flat Secondary
School:
• teachers were attached, as far as practicable, solely to the learning team;
• the learning teams were as far as possible autonomous, with the teachers
taking responsibility for the curriculum, affective development and pastoral
care with the addition of specialist support as required; and
• the timetable was, as far as possible, independent of the senior school, and
allowed for independence of teams and large blocks of time (3 x 105
minutes).
In much the same way, Farmers Mountain Secondary School made each of its
four year-level teams responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, professional
107
development, the budget, behaviour management, and other student matters. As

a result they found “...an improvement in relationships between the teacher and
the student/parent (that) will affect both the child’s desire to learn and their
opportunity to learn.” The school also found that the adoption of this approach
“influenced student perceptions of school, their desire to attend and, therefore,
indirectly, educational outcomes.”
Emphasis on generic skills
An equally common response among the 33 schools was a move away from an
emphasis on specific content knowledge to an emphasis on generic skills
underpinning learning across the curriculum and on those competencies that
underpin life-long learning in the knowledge society. This included an emphasis
on traditional skills, such as literacy, communications skills, numeracy, problem-
solving ability and the capacity to work individually and as a member of a team.
But it also included an emphasis on a range of skills associated with the use of
information and communications technologies and others for which schools often
used the shorthand label ‘thinking skills’ or ‘higher-order thinking’.
Honeycreek Secondary School was typical of the schools that sought a more
engaging and appropriate curriculum and assessment system. It sought to build a
‘community of learners’ by providing a student programme that combines
academic preparation, personal connection and lifelong learning in an integrated
and holistic curriculum. Students are taught by fewer teachers to enhance
student-teacher relationships and ease the pressure on teacher workloads.
A number of schools, such as King Valley Secondary School focused on the sort
of approach advocated by Beane (1991; 1993) that involves a middle school
curriculum that integrates the concerns of early adolescents with global issues
that often mirror their own questions. This influenced both the curriculum and
teaching practice throughout the entire school.
Through such learning students develop skills in communication,

problem solving, research, critical thinking, creativity and social action.
By their participation in curriculum negotiation, group work and peer
coaching, they come to understand complex social concepts, such as
democracy, cultural diversity, equality of opportunity and social justice.
[The key to student engagement in this school was] to listen to the
students and to invite them to shape the direction of their learning (King
Valley Secondary School).
108
In a similar vein, Ferndale College, a semi-rural independent school, developed a

programme which offered students “a rich range of opportunities to develop and
demonstrate enterprise, responsibility, initiative and cooperation...It provides both
on-site and off-site learning challenges designed specifically to engage
adolescents at Year 9.” The programme was designed “to directly encourage
students to reflect on their own individuality, their roles in groups and their
capacity for leadership.”
Wave Secondary College had implemented a thinking skills programme.
[The programme was designed to] facilitate the development of students

as autonomous learners by supporting teachers to integrate the explicit
teaching of the skills of thinking into their classroom programmes and by
assisting students to acquire the pre-requisite attributes, skills and
strategies of an autonomous learner.
The programme involved twenty 50-minute periods at Years 7 and 9 supported

by a ten-hour professional development programme for teachers. The
programme was strongly supported in the school and the approach adopted
involved withdrawal of each class from their normal programme for 20 periods in
a semester. “This generated problems as not all staff were happy to lose classes.”
The advantages outweighed the disadvantages, however, and the school now
intends to embed the programme into all aspects of the curriculum.
Sacred Mission School, a Catholic girls’ school, provided its staff with extensive
professional development and mentoring. The professional development covered
the theory of multiple intelligences and its implications; thinking skills and the
strategies to develop them; technologies and how to use them effectively in the
classroom; and the profiling of students to know more about individual
differences and how to respond to them. As a result, teachers become more
aware of the need to provide activities that were interesting and challenging, get
students actively involved and engaged, ensure that learning had an element of
fun, and take account of the things students already knew, and build on this.
This in turn led to more student-centred approaches that incorporated a wider
repertoire of teaching techniques.
Pinnacle Secondary School, a regional technical school, developed an integrated

curriculum for Year 8 with a specific focus on literacy and learning through
technology. The processes used with the classes included the development of
web pages, hyperstudio, spreadsheets, graphing, slide shows; working with text
109
types, critical literacy, reading orientation strategies; and problem solving, group
work, goal setting, self and peer evaluation.
Two schools had introduced laptop programmes into the middle-years. As part of
developing a middle school structure, Wuthering College introduced a personal
laptop computer programme to “improve both students’ construction of
knowledge and the learning environment itself”. To assist them to help students
achieve this goal, teachers were provided with professional development on
learning theories and their implications for pedagogy and on how to integrate
technology into the classroom learning environment.
Creation of middle schools
Five of the schools created ‘middle schools’ with their own distinctive philosophy,
curriculum and mode of operation. These ranged from school reorganisation that
led to the creation of stand-alone purpose-built middle schools to the creation of
sub-schools within larger schools. In each of these cases, significant changes had
been brought about in the beliefs and understandings of the staff and the wider
school community as a precursor to the structural and organisational changes.
One outer-suburban school, Dunbar Secondary School, which has a long history
of teaching teams, allocated homerooms to its groups “so that the students were
in the same room for the majority of lessons...[and had] some ownership of a
space”. The movement of students during the day was also reduced. This
decision was mirrored in Carberry Park Secondary School.
It is not just the teaming of teachers, but the establishment of a specific,

consistent space for teachers and students to work together that results
in the changes to teaching and learning that in the end improve student
outcomes (Carberry Park Secondary School).
Transition programmes
A group of four schools had introduced programmes to facilitate the transition

from primary to secondary school. King Valley Secondary School, for instance,
collaborated with its local primary schools to examine and document “the key
principles and practices of learning and teaching common to the core curriculum,
literacy and information technology, across the middle-years of school, namely
Years 6–9.”
At Stuarthill Secondary School, closer contact with feeder primary schools

involved a series of technology days for students in the last year of primary
110
school. This involved hands-on experience of some of the facilities of the

secondary school. Once students had chosen the school, a survey was used to
collect information on each student, who also was visited by a secondary teacher,
often accompanied by a Year 7 student. The teacher also met with Year 6
teachers and a comprehensive picture was built up of each student’s welfare and
academic progress to aid in the formation of classes in Year 7, followed by the
development of individualised learning plans. When students arrived they were
‘buddied’ with Year 11 students to ease their introduction to the new school.
Buena Vista College, a large K-12 school, had implemented a transition

programme following research that found that many middle school students felt
excluded from decision making in the school. In response the school introduced a
Student Forum programme for all Years 6-9 students aimed at extending student
involvement “beyond that of the traditional Student Representative Council.”
The programme gave middle school students the chance to choose their own
level of involvement in either mandated class meetings or committees established
to meet the needs identified by students through class meetings. A core team
then considers and acts on proposals from the other two levels.
Alternative programme for Year 9 students
Another group of four schools had developed an alternative educational

experience for students in Year 9, often seen as the most difficult in terms of
student behaviour and engagement in learning.
A coeducational private school, Blackett College, set out to increase “the interest,
relevance, engagement, involvement and satisfaction of the middle school
journey (Year 8-10)” by developing a specific curriculum initiative in which
students investigated the lifestyle and culture of the city centre, while gaining an
awareness of its physical environment and human impact. The project had a full-
time coordinator and allowed for 13 contact days based at a city site established
in a room leased from a partner university. The project aimed, amongst other
things, to assist students to achieve greater independence, gain enhanced
knowledge of themselves, increase their understanding of group dynamics,
productively use new and dynamic multimedia software, be accountable for their
own behaviour, engage in a range of self-directed tasks, and develop self-
confidence in an unfamiliar environment.
An independent outer-suburban school, Moreton College, challenged its teachers

to provide Year 9 students with a curriculum that sought to integrate learning
111
experiences and place students at the centre of learning. To achieve this, Year 9
students were located in a purpose-built centre staffed by a small team of
teachers who taught Year 9 students exclusively. The day was structured into 2 x
40 minute blocks in the morning for core units, and 2 x 145 minute blocks on
either side of lunch for integrated studies. The last 15 minutes of the day were
reserved for documenting personal reflections and programme review. In effect,
the school was seeking to establish a teaching and learning environment that
responded to students’ psychological needs (e.g., their sense of belonging and of
feeling valued) and their learning needs (e.g., providing them with appropriate
challenges and supporting them to become independent learners).
Negotiated curriculum
Four schools had implemented changes to provide students with a greater say in
what and how they learnt and encouraged them to become involved in
negotiating aspects of the curriculum. This was seen as a means of promoting
student engagement in the learning process. The rationale for such an approach
was elaborated in a report from Valentina Senior Secondary School that noted
that student involvement in decision-making:
...changes the way in which learning in the classroom takes place.

Instead of students being fed the content of the learning programme, in
a teacher-directed manner, the students are involved in negotiating and
developing, with the teacher and fellow students, classroom agreements.
These outline the way in which students will agree to contribute to
positive learning outcomes in a supportive environment (Valentina Senior
Secondary School).
Cooperative learning
Three schools focused on harnessing the power of the peer group in positive
ways, either through an emphasis on cooperative learning, on peer
tutoring/mentoring, or on the use of small table groups within the classroom.
Worcester School, a government K–12 school, for instance, adopted the Team
Small Group (TSG) model where “students spend a significant time with other
students, getting to know them better, and are thus more able to feel confident
and take risks with new learning leading to rises in student learning”.
A similar approach was implemented in rural Rocksborough Secondary School

which had table groups of four students that were consistent across the
curriculum, and helped students to develop their cooperative skills, whilst
112
supporting each other in their learning and strengthening their sense of

engagement, belonging and self-esteem.
Implementing middle schooling innovations
The reports of the 33 schools provided a rich source of information about

strategies adopted by schools and factors affecting the implementation of the
innovation. Two themes in particular stand out as significant. The first relates to
the crucial significance of changes in beliefs and understandings of staff in
schools as a precondition for changes in policies and practices. The second relates
to leadership.
As noted by one of the schools in referring to the initiation and implementation

of the middle school reforms:
This period of investigation, collaboration, reflection and learning,

culminated in the first attempt to write a statement of shared beliefs and
values about learning...These statements of purpose and the school
community’s shared commitment to them, became the essence for all
further developments and facilitated the implementation of the teaching
teams (Marrangaville Secondary School).
In a sense, all schools involved in the IBPP developed their approach on a

particular set of beliefs and understandings about good education for the middle-
years and the best ways to improve. In most cases, however, these underpinning
beliefs and understandings were implicit to the project, rather than up front and
overt. But some participating schools adopted a more explicit approach.
Pannaminga School built its whole approach on a set of guiding principles that
embraced excellence, cooperation and team work, the learning organisation,
shared responsibility, purposeful work and goal setting, shared accountability and
collaborative decision making. The underlying concept was that “together we are
a more productive society”.
To underpin its process of “reculturing and restructuring”, Marrangaville

Secondary School, an inner-city school, developed and published a shared
philosophy about student learning. It identified a set of five crucial learning
habits which reflected “the life long learning skills that students would require” -
being well-prepared and organised, showing initiative and responsibility for own
learning, working independently, working cooperatively in group situations, and
113
reflecting on and evaluating own learning. It was the belief of the school
community that the development of these skills would result in improved student
learning outcomes. The beliefs were put into practice in the form of a more
democratic decision making structure for staff, restructuring of the school day,
the introduction of a teams model as the form of organisation for students in the
junior school, and the introduction of profile reporting.
Of course beliefs and understandings are often contested, and are not always
shared. Honeycreek Secondary School premised its project on the view that
“...developing a common language for thinking and talking about student
learning is essential, and this can only be achieved by dialogue and professional
development.” It is also why Halfway Hill Secondary School sought to specify
exactly what it meant when it referred to student engagement as a core focus of
its project activities. The school concluded that engagement is characterised by
“students being absorbed in what they are doing, involvement, enjoyment, and
participation” and, for several of the teachers, it also was crucial to good student
management. On the basis of this the school designed its administrative
structure, curriculum organisation and decision making processes to contribute to
students feeling “less alienated and more engaged with the school and what
they learn”.
A vital component of changing beliefs and understandings, noted in almost all

reports, was professional development for teachers, and in particular professional
development for groups of teachers or even the whole staff of a school. Many
schools commented on the importance of school-based professional development
programmes. They endorsed those that involved an external facilitator, were
ongoing over time, allowed time for reflection and opportunities to try out new
approaches, and that focused on questioning current practices and beliefs.
In a large number of schools, the creation of teams was seen as a critical element
in bringing about common or shared beliefs and understandings.
Teams provide the structure and drive to implement change and

effectiveness in teachers. Teams provide a basis for role definition and
co-operation, peer support and a platform for professional and personal
development (Balla Creek Secondary School).
The more self contained the team is, the greater the flexibility that the
staff have to alter class arrangements and programme organisation. As
new ideas emerge from the team, they are able to respond in ways that
they determine are most appropriate (Moreton College).
114
Of course, it ought not be assumed that the mere establishment of teams will
automatically lead to success. The development of teams requires work.
Nonetheless, it was generally the case in IBPP schools that the team approach
maintained and developed the school community’s focus on student learning.
The use of teams supported what Marrangaville Secondary School described as:
• flexible approaches to teaching (e.g., team teaching, theme days, integrated

curriculum, lesson swapping, class meetings);
• ongoing dialogue and reflection on student learning and pedagogy;
• increased understanding of students and their learning needs;
• a collaborative and proactive approach to student welfare;
• improvement in data collection and reflection across faculties; and
• more effective relationships between teachers, students and parents through

team newsletters, phone calls, informal afternoon teas, parent information
evenings and parent and student comments on assessment cover sheets.
The school still had to deal with differences between staff who were in teams
and those who were not, and the inevitable tension between an old and new
approach. This led it to maintain and extend its focus on teams with a view to
expanding them over time and gradually changing the culture and, hence,
behaviours in the school.
It was the Principal’s belief that teachers learn from one another and a
good leader’s responsibility is to establish situations where genuine
collaboration can take place (Marrangaville Secondary School).
Leadership
The research reports from the 33 schools strongly reinforced the survey results
that indicated that leadership is critical to the success of reform in the middle-
years. A measure of the importance of leadership can be seen in the following
extract from the report of Wave Secondary College:
The most important element in the successful implementation of the

Thinking Skills Programme was the unequivocal endorsement of the
programme received from management and the College Council... This
endorsement established clearly for all staff that the [innovation] was a
high priority of the College and that it would receive the necessary
support (both the financial and human resources) to ensure its success.
115
Similarly, at King Valley Secondary School the principal’s commitment to middle

schooling meant that the teaching staff “were required to renew and/or acquire
skills and strategies relevant to junior secondary students”. This demanded “a
flexible approach on the part of the staff who were supported with professional
development.”
The experience of the middle-years project at this school demonstrates:
...the essential role in school change and innovation played by a shared

vision of educational goals and learning outcomes...[and] the principal’s
commitment to the vision and process of change is critical in supporting
the staff involved in the innovation, as well as in sustaining the
awareness raising and training and development required at many levels
within the school (King Valley Secondary School).
By the same token, many schools acknowledged that leadership needs to be

shared so that ownership and involvement are maximised. As Marrangaville
Secondary School pointed out:
...the role of the principal as primary vision-maker and powerful

advocate for change was highlighted ...[but] the role of the principal in
sharing power and devolving leadership roles to others cannot be under-
estimated.
The principal commented: “I believe that most people will rise to the occasion
when you disperse leadership ...when you give them responsibility and give them
acknowledgment.” The school’s report notes that this principal’s willingness to
share power encouraged “a culture of ownership and involvement where
innovations...could be more effectively implemented”. Dispersed leadership
ensured that the skills, experience, enthusiasm and expertise of staff were
directed towards a common purpose and made the implementation of the
innovation the responsibility of all teachers.
EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS
On balance, the survey indicated that teachers believed that the achievement
levels of targeted students had improved. Most schools believed that there had
been improvements across a range of key outcomes. The highest ratings in the
survey of areas of improvement were for student engagement in learning;
teacher beliefs, understandings, knowledge and expertise; changes in the way
teachers taught in the classroom and student attitudes towards school.
116
Schools reported that:
• their innovation would become institutionalised as part of the school’s ongoing

policies and practices;
• their innovation had helped staff to grow professionally;
• the early signs regarding the success of this school’s data were promising; and
• the innovation was a good model for other schools to follow.
An independent consultant rated 19 per cent of the middle schooling projects as

having provided evidence in their reports of success that could be attributed to
their innovations; 44 per cent as having success associated with their innovations,
and 34 per cent as having achieved intermediary or enabling outcomes but little
demonstrated impact yet on student learning.
Given that for many of the middle-years schools involved in the IBPP, the
changes they were implementing were still new and/or in an initial pilot phase,
the relatively high proportion of schools with evidence of success is impressive.
At the same time, it is important to note that almost all the evidence related to
non-cognitive outcomes, particularly student and teacher attitudes. While there
are good reasons to believe that such outcomes are important precursors to the
improvement of learning outcomes, most of the middle-years schools had yet to
generate convincing evidence of improved learning in terms of curriculum
outcomes.
THE FUTURE PERSPECTIVE

The changes reported by the middle-years schools were in their context quite
innovative. At the same time, there were few changes that were genuinely new
in that examples can readily be cited of other schools that put in place similar
changes over the last decade or so. The exceptions tended to be related to the
use of new information technologies to support teaching and learning, and some
new strategies that draw on recent work in the fields of cognitive science, meta-
cognition, learning styles, multiple intelligences, and so on.
There are long-established precedents for a greater use of small teams of

teachers working for longer periods of time with students; project-based, multi-
disciplinary learning; a focus on generic skills; primary-to-secondary transition
programmes; cooperative learning, and; student involvement in decision-making.
However, schools that have implemented such practices in the past have
117
experienced difficulty in sustaining the changes. The momentum of traditional

patterns of working in schools has been irresistible and old ways have quickly
reasserted themselves.
This raises the question as to whether a similar fate is likely to befall the changes
implemented in the IBPP middle-years schools. There are at least three reasons
for thinking that, this time, the changes that schools across Australia are
implementing could constitute the first steps in a more lasting reform of
schooling for the middle-years.
Firstly, there is a much broader awareness of and consensus within the teaching
profession that current practices and arrangements can be major contributors to
the evident signs of lack of engagement of students during the middle-years.
This greater awareness of the problematic nature of current arrangements in the
middle-years means that staff in schools are more likely to agree that significant
changes are justified in order to improve outcomes for their students.
Secondly, in most of the IBPP schools there was the perception of empowerment
and of flexibility to implement significant change to arrangements in the middle-
years. In the past, particularly among systemic schools, reform of the middle-
years has often faltered due to rigidities imposed by school systems. However,
devolution of decision-making has proceeded in many systems to the point at
which schools can be described as ‘self-managing’ (Caldwell & Spinks, 1998).
The inflexibilities that most concerned project schools were not so much the
systemic, structural and resource constraints, but inflexibilities in people’s beliefs
and understandings with respect to new approaches to teaching and learning
and their willingness to try out new ideas.
Thirdly, staff in schools now have access to a more complete picture of a better
and alternative model of educational provision in the middle-years. The new
vision is solidly grounded in modern conceptions of how young people learn, and
one that is intimately connected to the demands of the new knowledge society.
It is as though the various pieces in the jigsaw of reform, all of which have
existed for some time, are gradually coming together in people’s heads to form a
coherent vision of how things could and indeed should operate in the future. In
other words, it is possible that something of the nature of a paradigm shift in
thinking is finally beginning to occur.
Hill and Russell (1999) identified a set of strategic intentions for reform of the
middle-years in an attempt to capture the essence of this ‘big picture’ thinking
118
about this phase of schooling. The strategic intentions for middle school reform
are described synoptically below.
Securing the curriculum essentials
Attention needs to be given to articulating aims of education specific to the

middle-years of schooling that better reflect an explicit set of core values;
developmental characteristics of young adolescents; and changing educational
needs of students in the light of broader changes in society and the economy.
The content of the curriculum needs to be reduced and there needs to be a re-
focusing on foundational knowledge, with greater opportunity for sustained, in-
depth learning.
Managing the transitions
While reform should affect both primary and secondary schools, the greatest
changes are required in secondary schools, as they seek to place increased
emphasis on a learner-centred, as opposed to curriculum-centred, approach to
education. There needs to be increased attention to coordinating the transition of
students from the early years to the middle-years, from the middle-years to the
later years, and from the primary to secondary years.
Creating a new model of provision
A convergence in structures and approaches to teaching and learning are needed

at the transition from primary schooling to the first years of secondary schooling.
The core curriculum for most students in the middle-years should be taught by
small teams of teachers that share responsibility for the care and education of
around 70-80 students, whom they will teach for at least two consecutive years.
Changes need to be made to ensure larger, uninterrupted blocks of time for
learning and close relations between students and teams of teachers.
Transforming teaching and learning
Priority needs to be given to substantial and sustained investment in transforming

teaching and learning. This investment should aim to produce autonomous
learners who perceive schooling to be worthwhile, challenging and enjoyable.
The use of new information technologies to provide continuous access to new
and powerful ways of learning and sources of knowledge need to be given
sustained emphasis.
119
Creating outward-looking learning communities
A renewed emphasis on creating close links between the home and the school
and on reaching out to all families to secure their support for and involvement in
their children’s learning is required. Schools need to establish close links with
outside organisations and individuals that can support the work of the school and
provide role models for students. The increasing use of off-campus learning and
the use of learning resources in the wider community need to be taken into
account in developing out-of-school networks to support learning.
Tooling up for reform
Pre- and in-service education and training, and support structures for schools
should increasingly be organised to reflect the distinctive nature of schooling in
the early, middle and later years and focus on the need for continuity and
smooth transitions between stages of schooling.
All teachers in the middle-years need an in-depth knowledge of at least two

specialist areas; be trained in strategies for integrating specialist knowledge
through topic-, issues- problem- or vocationally-based approaches to learning;
and be qualified to promote high standards of literacy, numeracy and other core
knowledge, including the use of new information technologies.
Resources should be directed towards developing, evaluating and implementing

comprehensive and integrated design approaches to improving educational
provision in the middle-years of schooling.
In order to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to the middle-years, it is
likely that schools will need in the future to move beyond a project-based, piece-
meal approach to reform, to a whole-school design approach to change. In the
USA, schools and school systems have had several years’ experience in the
development and implementation of designs appropriate to the middle-years.
This is beginning to happen in the Australian context where research and
development aimed at generating whole-school designs are now underway.
Among IBPP schools there was a distinct awareness of the scope of the reform
agenda and a recognition of the need to attend in a systematic fashion to all
elements in the school that contribute to the desired outcomes.
Nevertheless, for the strategic intentions to be realised fully across a majority of
120
schools, it will be necessary for school systems to become active promoters of

change rather than simply being passive acceptors of slow change. It is not clear
that there is a sufficient critical mass of will, support and evidence to move from
what has, thus far, been largely a grassroots movement for change and
improvement to a system-wide agenda for reform.
The experience of the IBPP and the work of Hill and Russell (1999) suggest that
across Australia there are signs of the dawning of a new phase of development in
which a large number of schools and school systems will seek to implement
design-based reform of the middle-years. In this new phase, as it is apparent that
there is no ‘one best way’ to pursue reform and because some schools are more
ready for reform than others, schools need to be given options about which
model they will adopt and the time-scale over which they will implement
reforms.
In documenting innovation and best practice, the hope is always that it will
inspire others and lead to a more widespread adoption of change. The IBPP
‘middle-years’ schools demonstrated that significant improvements in the
preconditions of student learning outcomes are achievable and that the problems
evident in schools that operate in traditional ways are amenable to solutions.
Furthermore, these solutions build on a solid research base and a deep
understanding of the nature of adolescence and of how young people learn. The
experiences of the IBPP schools should promote further reflection aimed at
articulating a coherent and comprehensive vision of a better model of
educational provision for young adolescents in the middle-years. The picture
emerging from the IBPP schools reflects an optimistic view of schooling and of
the capacity of educators in leadership positions to bring about reform and to
bring about a paradigm shift in thinking and practice.
121
122
LEADERSHIP
Chapter 6
Frank Crowther, Leonne Hann and John McMaster
INTRODUCTION
The research that provided the basis for this chapter is set in the context of one of the most
perplexing dilemmas in contemporary education. On the one hand, school systems worldwide are
progressing towards forms of site-based management at a pace that suggests that the point of no
return has long been reached and passed (Caldwell, 1998). On the other hand, as Bauer et al. (1998)
have illustrated recently, studies of site-based management seldom show explicit connections between
devolved responsibility and improved student achievement. In those instances where successful school
innovation has been authoritatively researched (e.g., Newmann & Associates, 1996; Newmann et al.,
1997) the analysis of leadership processes has not for the most part been accorded comprehensive
emphasis. In general, it would appear that the nature of educational leadership that underpins
successful school innovation remains both problematic and vague.
In this chapter, an attempt is made to address some of the gaps in educational thinking that are
explicit in this complex dilemma. The research conclusions that are reported are regarded as
compelling in that the starting point for inquiry was a series of case studies where authoritative
123
documentation existed of enhanced student achievement as the outcome of a

deliberate school-based innovation. Through comprehensive processes of
backward-mapping, the leadership dynamics underpinning the innovations were
able to be uncovered and conceptualised.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The importance of holistic approaches to school reform.
Current approaches to effective school innovation and reform can be viewed as

the outcome of several decades of concerted educational research. Some critics
(e.g., Hargreaves 1994; Goodlad cited in Goldberg, 2000), assert that there has
been little substantive reform at all, with schools today looking much as they did
a century ago. “The context of teachers’ work and students’ learning is changing
rapidly, but the basic structures and cultures of teachers’ work are painfully slow
to respond to these changes” (Hargreaves, 1994: 40).
Current understandings of school effectiveness have their roots in the American

research that culminated in the 1966 Coleman Report (c.f. Uline et al.,
1998:463). Coleman asserted that the impact of schools on student achievement
is much less than that of student background. For the next decade this argument
held sway and only in the late 1970s did a substantial body of evidence emerge
to suggest that “schools do, in fact, make a difference” (Stringfield & Herman,
1996 in Uline et al., 1998:463).
The 1980s research emphasised an increasingly wide range of educational,

cultural and social variables that appeared to impact on student achievement.
These variables were generally in the form of organisational factors such as
school goals, instructional leadership, shared governance and parental
involvement (Uline et al., 1998).
In the 1990s the focus of research into effective school innovation and reform
has tended to focus more on within-school factors. Newmann and Wehlage,
(1995) and King and Newmann (1999; 2000) paid particular attention to the
concepts of professional community and, more recently, organisational capacity.
Within-school variance in student achievement may be four times greater than
between-school variation (Cuttance, 1998a). Findings from Australian research
point to the interdependence of factors such as curriculum focus, school vision,
professional development, resources and community benefits in contributing to
perceived improvements in school outcomes (Caldwell, 1998). Hill and Crévola’s
124
‘general model of school improvement’ (1997) links literacy enhancement to the

development and integration of a series of identifiable school elements that
facilitate an agreed vision for teaching and learning. Australian and international
studies indicate that the “academic superiority of Catholic schools” is
substantially attributable to the capability of Catholic schools generally to engage
in collaborative development around a sense of common purpose (Gannicott,
1998:5).
Newmann and Wehlage (1995) conceptualised successful school innovation in

terms of four ‘Circles of Support’ with student learning at the centre.
• Student learning that has as its goal high quality intellectual work.
• Authentic pedagogy in which teachers teach according to a collaborative

vision of quality learning.
• School organisational capacity that is developed and enhanced through

collaborative professional community.
• External support in the form of critical financial, technical and political support
that enhances organisational capacity by strategically setting standards for
high quality learning and providing sustained, school-wide staff development
and increased school autonomy through deregulation.
Building on this research, King and Newmann (1999; 2000) argued that in order
to enhance teaching and learning, professional development should contribute to
the following three aspects of school capacity:
• improving the knowledge, skills and dispositions of individual staff members;
• organised, collective enterprise arising from a strong, school-wide professional

community; and
• focused, coherent and sustained staff and student learning.
A Research-Based Framework for Enhancing School Outcomes (Leadership

Research Institute, 1999) developed at the University of Southern Queensland,
also takes an holistic approach to school reform. The five contributory elements
of this framework are:
• Strategic foundations: comprised of (a) a vision that focuses on students’ well-

being, and (b) a strategic capability to transpose the vision into school-wide
conceptualisations of pedagogy.
125
• Cohesive professional community: the development of pedagogical practices

appropriate to the school vision through processes of collegial learning and
distributed leadership.
• Design of school infrastructures: the structuring of curricula, time, spaces and

technologies to support the school vision and agreed conceptualisations of
pedagogy.
• School-wide pedagogy: an agreed approach to teaching and learning, which is

based in authoritative theory, recognises community values and emphasises
teachers’ successful practices.
• Professional supports: the availability of authoritative internal and external

advice and support.
Approaches to school-based leadership
Until the 1990s, educational leadership theory had for the most part focused on
organisational activity associated with positional authority. This focus can be said
to have narrowed the application of leadership analyses to a concentration on
individuals and their leadership styles. The major paradigms of leadership that
dominated during this period can be summed up as transformational, strategic
and educative.
Transformational leadership emphasises the significance of the person, and

personal traits, in bringing about social and cultural change (Kets de Vries, 1995;
Avolio & Bass, 1988). Some authorities have claimed recently that
transformational leadership approaches overstate the importance of the individual
in organisational change (Fullan, 1992; Gronn, 1995; Lakomski, 1999).
Nevertheless, transformational leadership has had a major influence in
educational development (see, for example, Leithwood, 1994) and tends to
occupy a prominent place in the policy manuals of education systems (Crowther,
1997). Day, Harris and Hadfield (1999) have recently argued that ‘post-
transformational’ models of principalship are most suited to the needs of
contemporary schools.
Strategic leadership, as the term implies, emphasises rationality in the leader’s

role. Hambrick (1989) has suggested that it involves aligning the organisation
with anticipated external forces—technological developments, market trends,
regulatory constraints, competitors’ actions and so on. Caldwell (1992) has
advocated a leadership function that is dominantly strategic as the most
126
appropriate approach for principals in self-managing schools. In the development

of school-based management as an international force during the past decade,
the strategic leadership role of the principal has been construed as the central
leadership approach. Caldwell has more recently expanded this to argue that
effective leadership involves “an unrelenting focus on student outcomes”
through an integration of cultural, strategic, educational and reflective
dimensions (1998).
Educative leadership is often viewed as linked to social reconstructionist

philosophy (Bates, 1992; Foster, 1989). Smyth (1989) has contended that the
notion of ‘educative leadership’ is a misnomer, highlighting the issue of whether
the traditional tendency to equate leadership and positional authority is
appropriate in emerging post-industrial education contexts. The concept of
‘servant leadership’ (Greenleaf, 1977) that has gained prominence in Catholic
education over the past two decades may be regarded as a variant of educative
leadership that is particularly suited to school workplaces.
During the past decade, research and scholarship in relation to educational

leadership has developed in at least three directions. First, the association of
leadership with positional authority has been increasingly rejected. As
Katzenmeyer and Moller point out, “When teachers see themselves as leaders,
they discover the potential to influence student learning through their own
actions” (1996:3). Muncey and McQuillan (1996) have linked teacher leadership
to successful American school reform and, in Australia, Crowther and Olsen
(1996) have developed a Framework for Teacher Leadership that attempts to
conceptualise leadership in relation to enhanced student learning.
A second development has been recognition of the importance of culture as a

leadership force. Schein (1992) links leadership with cultural creation and this has
been extended into change management processes. Hargreaves argued that
“Culture carries the community’s historically generated and collectively shared
solutions to its new and inexperienced membership. It forms a framework for
occupational learning” (1994:165). The integration of leadership and culture
building is particularly prominent in Catholic education, where, for example, faith
is seen as inseparable from life (Abbott, 1966) and the Catholic school is seen as
increasingly responsible for transmitting the Christian message (Flynn, 1978;
Congregation of Catholic Education, 1998). In this paradigm, the Catholic school
is seen by some as representing a ‘spirit of leadership’ in and of itself (Sultmann
& McLaughlin, 2000).
127
A third development of the past decade has been the characterisation of

leadership as an organisational quality. Ogawa and Bossert (1995) draw on
contemporary organisational theories, such as those of Argyris and Schon (1979)
and Senge (1992) to argue that leadership “is something that flows throughout
an organisation. [It]...shapes the systems that produce patterns of interaction and
the meanings that other participants attach to organisational events” (p. 225).
Viewed this way, leadership is seen as a process rather than as a person or group
(Kezar, 1998). School reform and innovation is regarded as a ‘natural process’
that takes place in response to impulses from both within and outside the
organisation (Spry, 2000). School processes for innovation, viewed this way,
potentially constitute a basis for ‘revitalised democracy’ in schools (Giroux, 1989).
Similar notions that are articulated in recent literature and that tend to construe
leadership as encompassing processes as well as human attributes and behaviours
include “multiple-role leadership” (Limerick et al., 1998), “distributed leadership”
(Handy, 1996), “leadership of the many” (Lakomski, 1995),”collective
intelligence” (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997),”community of leaders” (Senge, 1997),
“reciprocal influence” (Sergiovanni, 1998) and “co-leadership” (Heenan and
Bennis, 1999).
Taken together, these recent developments greatly enrich understanding of

school effectiveness but they have not been explored systematically in
conjunction with processes of successful school innovation. It would appear that
what Hallinger and Heck (1996) have described as the ‘black box’ view of school
leadership continues for the most part to pervade leadership research. That is,
“the process by which administrators achieve an impact is hidden in a so-called
black box. A relationship is empirically tested, but the findings reveal little about
how leadership operates” (p.18). This study seeks to uncover some of the
dimensions and dynamics of the black box.
CASE STUDY SCHOOLS

Nine schools in three States (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria) were
selected through the application of four criteria:
• recommended by the State IBPP coordinator as an outstanding case study of

innovative practices in literacy and/or numeracy;
• evidence in the school’s final IBPP report of disciplined implementation and

evaluation strategies during the IBPP process;
128
• evidence in the school’s final IBPP report of an authoritative research design

and methodology;
• measured gains in literacy and/or numeracy as a presumed effect of the IBPP

initiative.
In total, twenty-five schools were nominated by the three State coordinators as

outstanding examples of innovative practices in literacy/numeracy. Nine were
selected for investigation following application of Criteria 2, 3 and 4. Table 6.1
provides a brief description of the schools.
Table 6.1: A descriptive summary of the research sample

School and location System/Sector Description
West Town Secondary School Government Secondary school with more than
1500 students Years 8–12 and a
teaching staff of 80.
Sunbeach Primary School Government 500 students in Years 1–10 and 25

staff.
Sacred Mission School Independent 540 female students in Years 8–12.

Two thirds are day students and the
balance boarders with 30 academic
staff.
Worthwood Secondary School Government Secondary school with 1700

students in Years 7–12. 150 staff,
97 of whom are teaching staff.
Christafam Secondary School Independent Co-educational secondary school,

with 525 students in Years 7–12
and 45 teaching staff.
Holy Spirit Catholic College Catholic Secondary school with 1230

students in Years 7–12.
Mt Ritchy Primary School Government Primary school with 320 students,

14 full-time staff and 4 part-time
staff. Half of the teaching staff are
beginning teachers.
Wave Secondary College Government Co-educational secondary college

with 1760 students in Years 7–12
and 125 teaching staff and 30 non-
teaching staff.
Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School Government Secondary college with 1750
students in Years 11–12. 108
teaching staff and 42 support staff.
129
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SUCCESS OF

THE INNOVATIONS
Holistic approaches
The first finding confirms research undertaken by a number of recent researchers

(Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Hill & Crévola, 1997; Caldwell, 1998) that school
innovation that contributes to enhanced school outcomes is likely to be holistic in
nature, encompassing elements such as shared beliefs, clear vision, effective
processes of professional learning, external support systems, restructured work
environment (including variables such as time, space and technologies), and an
emphasis on pedagogical principles. Further evidence is provided in Appendix 3.
There were significant instances in case study schools where particular elements
were not well developed. At West Town Secondary School cross-curriculum
support for the innovation was absent and at Worthwood Secondary School
systemic support was not particularly evident. In such cases the challenges
associated with sustaining the innovation appeared to be much greater than at
Holy Spirit Catholic College, Wave Secondary College and Mt Ritchy Primary
School where all elements were relatively well entrenched in the processes and
culture of the school.
High degree of alignment
The second finding is that where school-based innovation contributes to enhanced

school outcomes, the innovation is characterised by a high degree of alignment
between contributory elements such as those outlined earlier (e.g. Newmann and
Wehlage’s Circles of Support). The concept of ‘school capacity’ (King &
Newmann, 1999) is relevant here. At each of West Town Secondary School,
Christafam Secondary School, Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School, Sacred
Mission School and Sunbeach Primary School, where documented empirical
evidence was provided of enhanced school outcomes associated with
implementation of the IBPP, the innovation was perceived to have enhanced the
distinctive identity of the school. As a further instance, Wave Secondary College
staff described how the approach to teaching that had evolved over a period of
five years with the development of the innovation was, in their view, unique
internationally. The work of staff at Wave Secondary College to generate a
distinctive conceptualisation of pedagogy seemed to be consistent with the
definition of school capacity conceptualised by King and Newmann (1999; 2000).
130
Leadership processes and concepts associated with successful innovation
The IBPP survey data make clear that educational leadership was perceived
within IBPP schools as fundamental to successful educational innovation. The
survey data also suggest that school-based leadership is a function of both the
principalship and key change agents within the school and external to it. The
data indicate that successful school-based innovation tends to occur in response
to a definitive educational need and as part of a clearly articulated vision on the
part of a leader or leaders.
The findings that emerge from the nine case studies of documented successful
school reform lead to the conclusion that three distinctive dimensions of school-
based leadership are evident in successful school innovation.
• Leadership as focused action;
• Leadership as culture-building;
• Leadership as organisation-wide processes of learning.
Leadership as focused action
Analysis of the case study research data confirms the role of motivation and
responsive action in the exercise of leadership (Kets de Vries, 1995). Three forms
of action were particularly prominent in the case study situations that were
investigated.
• Strategic response to a crisis (perceived or real).
• Pursuit of an intrinsically-motivated challenge.
• Facilitation and encouragement of the innovative ideas of others.
These are illustrated by the following comments from focus group meetings and
individual interviews.
Wave [Secondary College] came about as a result of an amalgamation of

three schools in 1995. We started out in a state of trauma and what we
have achieved reflects the strategic vision of a couple of people in the
initial period to succeed against the odds. (Responding strategically to
a crisis)
In a Christ-centred community [Christafam Secondary School] if you feel

you are called by God, and can convince the principal and your
131
colleagues that you have been, then implementing the change happens
fairly naturally. (Pursuing an intrinsic challenge)
The vision for Worthwood as a [specific focus secondary school] came

from the principal...He has led a revolution to carve out a piece of
history. (Pursuing an intrinsic challenge)
Our motto here [at Mt Ritchy Primary School] is “to go hard for the
kids”. We are proud to be a [government] school and a different school.
The principal’s vision and energy were fundamental. She has got
everyone on side and now it’s the whole community. (Facilitating and
encouraging the innovative ideas of others).
Strategic response to a crisis
Four of the nine innovations that were explored in detail arose out of a situation
of crisis and extreme trauma. In the cases of Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary
School and Wave Secondary College, the ‘crisis’ was externally generated and
occurred in the context of sweeping systemic and political change. In the case of
Mt Ritchy and Holy Spirit Catholic, it reflected serious internal dissension and a
breakdown in school-community relations. In each instance about five years, on
average, had transpired since the point of initiation of the innovation. In the
remaining five cases, action played a critical role, but not because the school was
perceived to have fallen into a situation of crisis or trauma.
Intrinsic motivation
The intrinsic motivation of an individual was critical in the initiation and sustained
development of all of the innovations that were examined. In five instances
(Worthwood Secondary School, Mt.Ritchy Primary School, Wave Secondary
College, Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School, and Holy Spirit Catholic College)
the key initiating figure was the principal (in consort with the Deputy in the case
of Wave Secondary College). In Christafam Secondary School and Sunbeach
Primary School the key figure initiating the innovation was a practising teacher.
At Sunbeach Primary School a teacher had perceived a school literacy need,
identified a curriculum response to this need, lobbied the school administration,
colleagues and community, developed an implementation plan and managed the
professional learning of the school staff. At Sacred Mission School and West
Town Secondary School, a Deputy Principal and a Head of Department
respectively, were most prominent in initiating the innovation and enabling it to
reach the point where it impacted on student achievement.
132
The principal at Worthwood Secondary School, had conceived the idea,

developed it in the face of significant external (bureaucratic and industrial)
constraints, and encouraged its growth to the point where it had become
nationally and internationally renowned and where the school had to all intents
and purposes become an independent school within the Government system.
The Worthwood Secondary School case study serves to highlight a phenomenon
that was equally observable at Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School, Wave
Secondary College, Holy Spirit Catholic School, and Mt Ritchy Primary School—
as the innovation gathered momentum the responsibility for its successful
implementation broadened.
Facilitative support
All nine innovations were characterised by forms of facilitative support that

represent a departure from traditional mindsets about the exercise of power and
authority in educational organisations. Greenleaf’s notion (1977) of ‘people
building’ rather than ‘people using’ was an apparent feature of these schools. In
no instance was it suggested by case study participants that values of
dominance, self-interest or control were significant characteristics of the
innovation in their schools. To the contrary, values of trust, celebration of others’
achievements and personal integrity were frequently spoken about.
In several cases (e.g., West Town and Christafam Secondary Schools and
Sunbeach Primary School) ‘administrator facilitation’ amounted to direct
intervention in order to remove obstacles and to provide resource support for
teacher-initiated activities. At Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School, Wave
Secondary College, Mt.Ritchy Primary School, Worthwood Secondary School and
Holy Spirit Catholic College it involved coordination of school processes in order
to heighten the integration of the innovation in the overall operations of the
school. At Worthwood Secondary School in particular, but also at Christafam
Secondary School and Sacred Mission School, the facilitative role of the principal
involved negotiation with external political agencies and lobbying of government
officials and School Boards.
Finally, in all nine cases to some degree, strong teacher support systems were in
evidence. In the cases of Worthwood Secondary School, Sunbeach Primary
School and Sacred Mission School in particular, the innovative idea had
originated with a teacher, and collegial facilitation was a major reason for the
idea gaining momentum and credibility. The notion of teachers as leaders was
concluded to be fundamental to the successes of the innovations in these
133
schools, with ‘teacher leadership’ seemingly comprised of professional qualities

(e.g., vision, assertiveness, networking skills) and teacher-coordinated processes
of professional learning and development.
In summary, what emerges from this analysis is clear recognition of the

importance of both individualism and mutualistic relationships in successful and
sustained school innovation. All nine innovations reflected leadership on the part
of key administrators and teachers at the same time as they manifested
successful collaborative processes that involved those individuals and their
colleagues. Where educational innovation is successful, the leadership that
underpins it is likely to be characterised in part by ‘parallel’ leadership functions
on the part of teachers and members of the school leadership team.
Leadership as culture-building
The educational literature has for several decades recognised the importance of
cultural processes in influencing and shaping schooling. In Catholic education, for
example, the transposition of a spiritual ethos into the operations of Catholic
schools has been regarded as fundamental to the mission of the church and has
been linked to the academic success of schools in Catholic systems (Gannicott,
1998).
The culture building leadership dynamic is implicit in recent developments in

Catholic education (Congregation of Catholic Education, 1998; Sultmann &
McLaughlin, 2000). Culture-building should be viewed across different ‘levels’ of
school life (Schein, 1992). The Sacred Mission School case study illustrates this:
The chapel represents the core of our school; our inspiration to do the
best we can for our girls starts in this beautiful and serene place.
(Schein’s artifactual level of culture)
Our strategic plan comes about because of our work with the Sacred
Heart Order. The values of the Order shape our mission and our goals.
(Schein’s values level of culture)
I would not want to work anywhere else... the ethos of the Order seems
to me to fit the needs of young Australians today. (Schein’s assumptions
level of culture)
Culture-building as a force in successful school innovation can be viewed from

both intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. Of particular note is the apparent
134
influence of extrinsic cultural forces in IBPP government schools. While the

pervasive influence of spiritual values on innovation processes was predictably
evident at sectarian schools such as Sacred Heart School and Christafam
Secondary School, the influence of extrinsic cultural forces were also very evident
in some government schools.
Extrinsic forces
In Wave Secondary College, Mt. Ritchy Primary School and Potter’s Gold Senior
Secondary School explicit commitments to values underpinning public education
helped shape the innovation in question. This is reflected in the following
excerpts from interviews with school staff:
We’re proud to be a [Government] school...Children from every walk of

life are welcome here and that gives us our special purpose. It shows in
our programmes. The Vietnamese community struck special
commemorative medals for us last year (Mt Ritchy Primary School).
We are creating our own identity within a tradition that builds on

Potter’s Gold’s unique place in Australian history. We’re on a mission
and we know it (Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School).
It’s exciting to be in a school that is leading all others into the new
millennium. The way students here go about their learning reflects
they know they are at the cutting edge internationally
(Wave Secondary College).
While these statements may not reflect the same focused conviction that one
finds at sectarian schools like Sacred Mission, where the Sacred Heart Order
Mother Superior lives in residence and the Order coordinates long-range and
annual strategic planing activities, they nevertheless demonstrate that when
innovation is approached as a means of enriching school identity the innovation
itself acquires enhanced meaning. The alignment of the innovation with extrinsic
cultural forces was a factor in the success of the innovations.
Intrinsic forces
An intrinsic culture-building dimension was equally significant in conceptualising

leadership in some of the IBPP schools, particularly those located in government
systems. This sometimes took the form of an ‘against the odds’ mindset.
The [Department of Education] and the [teacher union] would both like
to see us closed. One thing that binds us together and gives us strength
135
to do more and do it better is that we’re constantly at risk to protect

what we have created and make it stronger (Worthwood
Secondary School).
At other schools the influence of intrinsically-generated cultural forces on the

respective innovations was not so dramatic, but was powerful nevertheless.
People used to drive around the cattleyards to avoid going past our
school. We have changed that. Now kids come here from everywhere to
feel a sense of belonging (principal, West Town Secondary School).
I thought, “Damn it, it’s time State schools got a fair go, so I decided to
give it [the innovation] everything I could.” (teacher, Sunbeach
Primary School).
The result at these schools was a shared vision of ‘making a difference’ that
pervaded dialogue, artefacts and school infrastructures such as curriculum,
technology, and uses of time and space. In some of these cases, teachers
indicated that if a key person were to move, the momentum generated by
intrinsic forces would be lost, but in several other cases the collective ownership
and responsibility had reached the point where the values underlying the
innovation are wholly self-sustaining.
In summary, culture-building, in its extrinsic and intrinsic forms, constitutes a

powerful force in aligning school vision, participants’ values and innovative
processes. As such, it represents an important leadership dimension of successful
school innovation and reform.
Leadership as organisation-wide process of learning
A recent and increasingly important development in the educational leadership

literature is that leadership is a process rather than a quality of a person or a
group (Kezar, 1998). Thus, in Catholic education systems, organisation-wide
developmental processes that link teachers’ work to spiritual renewal have been
described as a ‘natural’ way of enhancing both Catholic education and
community life (Spry, 2000). In public education, in a somewhat similar vein,
processes of ‘collective vision-building’ have been put forward as a more suitable
leadership framework for a mature teaching profession in a post-modern world
than historical conceptions of leadership with their emphasis on individual-
directed visioning (Hargreaves, 1994).
136
Two forms of organisation-wide learning may well be regarded as manifesting

leadership processes in this vein. The first form focuses on professional learning
which has the effect of generating alignment between significant school
‘elements’. The second form focuses on development of a school-wide approach
to pedagogy based on the successful practices of individual teachers and teams
of teachers.
Alignment of school elements
The first form of professional learning evident in IBPP schools consists of

processes that engender alignment between organisational elements, is evident in
the following quotes from case study interviews:
We have a common purpose and everything revolves around that. This

allows teachers here to create, initiate, motivate and organise as much as
I do. Otherwise we would have either inertia or permanent chaos
(Worthwood Secondary School).
Here, the opportunity now exists for us all to lead. Not everyone wants
to, but anyone who wants to take a leadership role is encouraged to do
so. The result is that everything is transparent. We all know what we are
all doing. The school runs itself these days (teacher, Holy Spirit
Catholic College).
We have to be careful, with mostly inexperienced teachers in a very

challenging community. We have agreed that everything we do in
classrooms, the playground or the community reflects our vision. For
people who can’t speak English (90 per cent of the community) this
makes us predictable. The effects are phenomenal as you can see. The
school is a haven of peace in the community (principal, Mt. Ritchy
Primary School).
This maths innovation fitted with the school’s vision to do something

special for disadvantaged kids. So we did everything to make sure that
the teachers could all teach to it. We tore down walls and extended the
school day (principal, West Town Secondary School).
In six schools, the processes of professional learning involved the transposition of

the school’s emerging strategic direction into pedagogical revitalisation processes
through systematic professional development opportunities for both teachers and
members of the school leadership team. In the other three instances, significant
137
professional learning processes were initiated but did not extend to incorporate
the whole school. For example, at West Town Secondary School professional
development activities were used to achieve a close integration between the
strategic direction of the school and the mathematics innovation but other
learning areas were not incorporated in this process. It may be significant that
towards the completion of the IBPP at West Town Secondary School the principal
was transferred and the innovation, in spite of its documented success, was
temporarily abandoned.)
Creation of school-wide pedagogy
A second finding of significance to emerge pertains to the focus of professional

learning on the generation of a shared understanding of, and approach to,
pedagogy:
There are now a dozen or more innovations here that complement each
other and the kind of technology school we have decided we want to
become. People keep thinking of projects that will refine and enrich our
approach. Each day we get more distinctive (Potter’s Gold Senior
Secondary School).
I could not say that it (the innovation) has been difficult. Once my
colleagues were convinced that we were working with a message from
God it all unfolded. Our way of teaching was simply fitted into the
programme and vice versa (Christafam Secondary School).
We are beyond social justice here now. We recognise the individuality of

every student in everything that we do. We have created our own theory
of adolescent learning (Wave Secondary College).
Statements such as these capture the relationship between the school’s strategic
direction and its pedagogical practices in all IBPP case study schools. In at least
five of the case studies, highly specialised school-wide pedagogical approaches
had been conceptualised. Wave Secondary College’s individualised learning
processes, Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School’s technology-based teaching,
Worthwood Secondary School’s sports ethos in all aspects of teaching-learning
and Sacred Mission School’s Sacre Coeur spirit are examples of the highly
distinctive approaches to pedagogy that characterised the innovations.
In summary, the IBPP study suggests two specific forms that leadership construed
as organisation-wide processes might assume. The first is professional learning as
138
a means of generating alignment between significant school ‘elements’ and the

second is the development of a school-wide approach to pedagogy. Both forms
have the potential to enhance the integrity of teachers’ work as professionals.
Paradoxically, both reject the traditional mindset that equates leadership solely
with individuals and groups.
Opportunities to explore the dynamics of relationships between educational
leadership and school achievement are rare. As Hallinger and Heck (1996) have
indicated, leadership research has for the most part fallen victim to a ‘black box’
mindset. Emphasis has been placed on empirical testing of presumed relationships
between administrator behaviour and school effects, revealing little, if anything,
about how leadership actually works in the reform process.
The opportunity provided by the IBPP to investigate leadership in successful

school reform is potentially of considerable value to the education community.
What emerges is a complex picture in which leadership, school development
processes and school outcomes are inter-related. Four key conclusions are
proposed from this study of leadership in successful IBPP schools.
First, the implementation of school-based innovations should be approached

holistically. Where the rationale for the innovation is aligned philosophically with
the school’s vision, where a relevant school-wide approach to pedagogy has been
generated, where school infrastructure—encompassing time, space, curricula and
technologies—have been modified to facilitate implementation, and where the
professional community has a shared understanding of, and commitment to, the
essential features of the innovation in question, a strong basis exists for
successful implementation.
Second, holistic innovation is conducive to the generation of enhanced school

identity. All nine case study schools claimed that the integration of their
innovations with important school elements—vision, pedagogy, infrastructures,
community agencies, and so on—served to enhance the distinctiveness of the
school’s culture and, to some extent, to provide them with what they regarded as
a competitive edge. School organisational capacity, as defined by King and
Newmann (1999; 2000) captures the intent of this observation.
Third, where enhanced school outcomes were demonstrated leadership was

found to involve both people and processes. The ‘people’ aspect is essential for
such functions as conceptual clarification, strategic development and
139
organisational alignment. (Four of the nine successes studied emerged out of a

state of organisational crisis). The ‘processual’ aspect of school leadership is
equally complex. It can be conceptualised as organisation-wide processes of
professional learning, culture-building and the generation of a shared approach
to pedagogy.
Fourth, principal-leaders and teacher-leaders are equally important in successful

school reform. Principal-leaders tend to assume leadership functions that can be
described as metastrategic (Limerick et al., 1998) while teacher-leaders tend to
assume leadership functions that focus on pedagogy. However, the key to
successful innovation lies in the mutualistic relationship between those exercising
leadership. The concept of ‘parallel leadership’ is proposed as an approach to
school leadership that reflects the maturity of the modern teaching profession
and the challenges of school reform processes.
Parallel leadership has three distinct characteristics: mutualism; sense of shared

purpose; and allowance for individual expression. The nine IBPP case studies
make clear the importance and specific meaning of these three defining
characteristics.
Mutualism, in the form of mutual trust and respect between principal-leaders and
teacher-leaders, manifested most obviously in acceptance by each party of the
responsibilities that went with the role of the other.
A sense of shared purpose is also a noticeable aspect of all of IBPP case studies
where parallel leadership was observed to be flourishing. This commonality
appeared to have its origins in a shared commitment to values, such as the
integrity of teaching or the need for social justice. The net effect of the shared
purpose that we observed in all of the case studies was an alignment between
the school’s espoused vision and teachers’ preferred approaches to teaching. This
alignment appeared to ease the way for structural and curriculum change. A
sense of shared purpose did not, however, mean a compromising of values.
The third characteristic discerned in the case studies may appear at first glance to
fly in the face of much recent thinking about school reform. The relationships
between teacher-leaders and principal-leaders observed in the case study schools
allowed for, even encouraged, a degree of individual expression (and action).
This phenomenon may be inconsistent with recent emphases on teamwork,
collegiality and collaboration in educational workplaces. But each of the leaders,
or cohorts of leaders, manifested strong convictions about individual values as
well as a capacity to accommodate the values of others.
140
Our definition of parallel leadership incorporates the three qualities just described
as follows:
Parallel leadership engages teacher leaders and administrator leaders in

collaborative action, while at the same time encouraging the fulfillment
of their individual capabilities, aspirations and responsibilities. It leads to
strengthened alignment between the school’s vision and the school’s
teaching and learning practices. It facilitates the development of a
professional learning community, culture building and school wide
approaches to teaching and learning. It makes possible the enhancement
of school identity, teachers’ professional esteem, community support and
students’ achievements.
The diagrammatic representation that is contained in Figure 6.1 illustrates the

insights that have emerged from the IBPP thematic leadership study.
Figure 6.1:Inside the black box: School-based leadership and enhanced school
innovation.
l-wide learn
choo ing
S
lture building
Pedagogical development
(Teachers as leaders)
Cu
Shared
Stimulus approach to Enhanced school
IDEAS capacity
pedagogy
Strategic development
(The Principal as leader)
School leadership development should be approached as multidimensional,

encompassing the processes of school-wide learning, culture-building and
creation of school-wide pedagogy, and focusing on the mutualistic relationships
of principal-leaders and teacher-leaders in these processes. The educational
leadership literature, including policy manuals of most education systems and
leadership development centres, for the most part continues to manifest an
obsession with positional authority that has dogged educational analysis for the
past half century. The outcomes of the research on leadership in IBPP suggest
that serious overhaul is overdue.
141
142
INSTRUCTIONAL FLEXIBILITY
Chapter 7
INTRODUCTION
The term ‘flexibility’ can be used in several different ways. Flexibility is sometimes considered to be a
trait of individuals. It might be stated, for example, that a person is flexible. This could mean that the
person is thought to be pliant or unprincipled, suggesting weakness of character. Or it could mean
that the person is seen as pragmatic, able to operate effectively in complex and rapidly changing
situations. In which case, being flexible is a positive trait. At other times flexibility refers to a property
of actions that people perform. ‘The person acted flexibly’ illustrates this meaning. The accent in this
case is on the nature of the action rather than the person’s character.
Flexibility can also be regarded as a property of things, for example a system or set of procedures. In
this sense, flexibility is inherent in the system or the procedures that comprise the system. For
example, a particular way of scheduling time may be thought to be more or less flexible than another.
Used in this way, it is possible to refer to flexibilities and inflexibilities. They are qualities of the system
rather than people or the actions that they take. This is the use of the term in the present study.
143
In each of these uses, the term flexibility implies a capacity or potentiality.

Flexibility, itself, therefore, cannot be observed. Flexibility is like oxygen - it is
something that is needed all the time yet people rarely pay attention to it. Like
oxygen, flexibility becomes an issue by virtue of its absence. This is the main
reason why flexibility is often regarded as a positive quality yet is seldom made
the precise focus of individual research studies. Researchers are more likely to
consider manifestations of flexibility or circumstances in which flexibility is
evident, absent or desired. This point is borne out in the school reports of the
IBPP. Nearly a third of the reports made no reference to flexibility at all, even
though most schools used flexible arrangements of some kind.
FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATION

To vary any established practice requires a measure of flexibility. However, once
the innovation has been ‘installed’ there may be no need for flexibilities. The
authors of an innovative set of practices may be so confident about the efficacy
of their innovation that they demand perfect compliance with the specified rules
about how the innovation is to operate. For example, unless surgeons follow
exactly the steps laid out for a new medical procedure they may put the patient’s
life at risk. Are the surgeons who use this procedure with absolute fidelity to the
rules being innovative or did the innovative quality of the procedure disappear
once it had been performed successfully? Some of the innovations adopted by
the IBPP schools were of this type - staff members introduced into their school
new ways of teaching and learning that had been devised elsewhere. The
flexibilities that were required to make the innovation work related to the
capacity of the school to vary its standard operating procedures rather than for
the staff who were employing the new teaching and learning approaches to
continue to modify the innovative practices that they had initially adopted.
THE CASE STUDIES

The findings in this chapter are based on visits to 26 schools in six states and one
territory. Four case study schools were selected as being highly flexible on the
basis of information provided in school research reports.
This section illustrates four kinds of flexibility introduced by schools through

innovation. Rather than being typical of the 107 innovations, these types of
flexibility have been selected because they demonstrate changes that schools
made to enhance instructional flexibility. Each type is illustrated by a case study.
The four types of flexibility discussed are:
144
• off-site learning;
• flexible student grouping;
• flexible use of staff; and
• school consortia.
The purpose of the case studies is to give a deeper sense of the nature of
changes schools made and the consequences of such changes once put into
practice. Because schools are very complex institutions with interlocking
structures, it is difficult to represent all the issues even in case studies. An attempt
has been made to represent some important points about flexibility without
going into too much detail. Hopefully, this shorthand will not detract from the
authentic work undertaken in all the contexts represented.
The case of off-site learning
Ten of the 107 schools in the IBPP reported that their innovations involved the
use of facilities away from school premises. The sites included acquiring
additional space, using commercial properties and using students’ homes for
learning.
Acquiring space
The first use involved St Henry’s College, a Catholic boys’ secondary school
located near the centre of a large capital city. This school sought to make a
symbolic statement to the boys that a programme, delivered off site to develop
their sense of social responsibility, would be different from the other ‘subjects’
taught in the school. “Some of the students [in the programme] are considered
“at risk”. Others are boys who it is felt are not catered for adequately in the
normal curriculum of the College”.
Two aspects of the shift to the off-site venue warrant mention. The boys were no
longer in a familiar form of student-teacher relationship. The instructor, a
dramatist, was not a teacher and the programme was not concerned with the
acquisition of knowledge, at least not in the usual sense. Also, the programme
lasted for a whole day each week. The off-site venue required the boys to be
absent from school for one out of six days in the timetable cycle. And the
absence from school required the students involved to take compensatory action
to ensure that they maintained the academic requirements for the course. In its
145
second year, after it had established its legitimacy, the programme returned to
campus. This move did not discount the value of the initial separation.
The use of commercial properties
Two schools made use of commercial properties, but for very different reasons.
Although in both cases the schools gained ready access to shops and businesses,
neither of them had ‘shop fronts’ as such.
Blackett College developed ‘city savvy’ in Year 9 students using a central business
district base provided through a university. A major aspect of this programme
was the responsibility placed on students for their conduct when they were
outside the direct supervision of school staff.
The second example, the North Spring Consortium of Schools, is described as a

case study in the section on school consortia.
Home-based study: a case study
Lyons is a government secondary school, for Year 7-10 students in a capital city.
Although 40 per cent of students receive government assistance for schooling,
almost all students (97 per cent) continue study by enrolling in a senior
secondary course after graduating.
Two courses, Computers and Information and World Studies, allow students a
choice of three delivery modes. These are:
• a block-scheduled evening class;
• an on-line virtual format; and
• the original courses programmed within the school-day timetable.
The school wrote to its system authorities and obtained approval for the
alternative delivery.
The choice of delivery modes is not entirely that of students. Students must have
formally documented parental support, a requirement that is not a barrier for
most students. Students are encouraged to choose an instructional mode on the
basis of its compatibility with their learning style, other subjects that they have
chosen and lifestyle preferences.
Lyons Secondary School is structured along traditional secondary school lines.

The school week is divided up into a standard 35 period timetable. The only
variation to this pattern occurs with the two courses, Computers and Information
146
and World Studies for which new delivery modes were introduced in 1997.
The introduction of the new delivery modes came about as a solution to the
problem of greater demand for computer use than could be satisfied with the
hardware available in the school. The evening and virtual courses were
introduced as a means of freeing computer laboratories, particularly those with
the newer, better computers, for use during the periods of peak demand, that is,
during the school day. The school has since purchased more computers and is
better placed to meet demand but there is no intention of reverting to the
traditional delivery mode.
Reviewing the innovation in a formal sense was fairly straightforward for the
school. As the innovation consists of two courses that are also taught through
conventional methods, the participation and academic results could be readily
compared. Because there was a degree of risk-taking involved in the changes,
this formal comparison was an important means of legitimising the deviation
from tradition.
The students were very positive about the changes. They liked being able to
choose and then feel responsible for making that choice work. Many had better
computing equipment at home than the school could provide so it made sense to
work there. From a student perspective, the challenge was to see if they could
manage their time such that they could fit more activities into their busy lives.
Some chose to select an extra subject during the school-day timetable or commit
to sporting teams after school. Others liked being able to complete their
homework in free periods during the school day or just being able to have more
control over their time. It was a lesson in flexibility for the students themselves.
The implications for students went deeper than just convenience, as the
following comments from two individuals indicate.
You learn a lot about yourself, about your own personal drive and how
you can work at developing that.
It’s good practice for next year [at senior college]. We learn that it’s a lot
easier to do something just gradually over four weeks instead of rushing
to get it done in one or two at the end.
The new delivery methods assisted students to develop a consciousness of how they
were maturing and how they could most productively exercise their responsibilities
as learners. The staff provided similarly positive accounts of new course formats.
147
The principal said that the success of the innovation meant that similar choices
could easily be provided in other courses. Interestingly, however, this is yet to
occur. He explained:
The money is not the point, even the structure is not the point. It’s the
beliefs that people will depend on when they see a kid in the corridor
and ask, ‘What are you doing? They need to be aware that there is a
good chance that the kid is in the corridor because he worked back until
6pm so that he could find time during the school day to help the music
teacher with some of the younger students.
Taking account of such practicalities was all part of institutionalising the changes.
The principal explained the dilemma they face.
Calling a thing an innovation can be a death wish. The name ‘lighthouse

school’ is an apt metaphor. A lighthouse is there to warn people not to
come near the rocks. Lighthouse projects need to be de-sensationalised
as soon as possible so that people feel safe about proceeding with them.
This caution may explain some of the success of practices that might easily
frighten others.
The case of flexible student grouping
Changes to the manner in which students are grouped were a central feature of
some innovations. For example, 22 per cent of schools introduced multi-aged
grouping and eight per cent created a new subgroup consisting of students with
special needs. Thirteen per cent of reports indicated that students were grouped
into streams while twenty per cent referred to the use of mixed groups. Two
thirds of school research reports remained silent on the issue of ability-streamed
versus mixed groups.
The most significant form of student grouping in terms of flexibility, however,

involved grouping students differently for different purposes in a two-tiered
organisational structure. Twelve per cent of schools reported introducing some
version of this structure to facilitate learning.
Two-tiers of student grouping
In the first tier of a two-tier structure, students are grouped into classes of up to
30 students. Such classes are a common feature of many schools. An association
between a teacher and a class remains intact for at least a school year and
148
facilitates many aspects of school organisation. Classrooms are generally built to

hold up to 30 students, and grouping students on this basis is an economical use
of teacher resources and most teachers are experienced in managing groups of
this size. A fixed group over an extended period of time also provides students
with a constant adult figure as a social and emotional reference point.
The problem with class groups of this kind is that teachers are confronted with a
large number of students with diverse instructional needs, hence, the need to
build an additional component onto this basic structure.
Students are clustered into smaller groups for particular instructional purposes.
Often students with similar needs will be drawn from across a number of classes.
This second tier of student grouping enables fluid readjustments as circumstances
change. By monitoring student progress and then clustering the students that
have the most similar instructional needs, teachers can more effectively match
their inputs with student needs.
Any teacher can create groups within a class, and many do. Using two levels of
student grouping across several classes provides broader opportunities than those
available to an individual teacher with a single class group. Complementary
organisational features such as concurrent scheduling of teachers of similar class
groups and the allocation of support staff enable teachers to collaborate to
develop their knowledge of students and capacity to respond to their needs.
Flexible groupings in literacy schools
The use of two-tiered student groups was a strategy evident in many of the
primary schools developing literacy innovations. Four schools reported
participating in the Early Literacy Research Project (ELRP) developed and
implemented by Crévola and Hill in association with the Victorian Department of
Education (Crévola & Hill, 1998b). Other schools had experience of this
programme and were attempting to apply its principles in other areas of
instruction; for example, mathematics and teaching literacy to older students.
Another school innovation demonstrated features parallel to the ELRP but had
developed them independently.
The difficulties experienced by Watson Primary School in another state illustrate

the limitations of using two-tiered instructional grouping in isolation from other
aspects of Crévola and Hill’s model. This government primary school is situated in
a low socio-economic area. Although it is allocated additional funds in
recognition of this, these are not included in the school’s per capita grant but are
149
provided at different levels and for different purposes each year. Therefore,
resources are precarious.
Also, in this school, the small groups were made possible by increasing the
number of ‘teachers’. The literacy coordinator, administrators, support teachers,
non-teaching support staff and parents are all used. This places the small groups
in jeopardy because when staff members are absent there is no one left to fill any
gaps. The small groups are not used on a daily basis.
Flexible instructional grouping: a case study
East Park Primary School applied the principles of the ELRP with finesse. The
school had a literacy focus for some years beforehand but was not satisfied with
the results until participating in the ELRP.
An important feature of East Park Primary School’s innovation is the perseverance

required. It is not until the student’s third year of instruction, that is, when they
are in Year 2, that their attainments reach the point where the improvement is
sufficiently pronounced for staff to recognise their intervention is clearly working.
Two-tiered student grouping is just one enabling structure evident in the school.
A prominent feature of the school’s approach to literacy is the consistency shown

among teachers. As the assistant principal said:
At the end of the day, we had everybody facing in the same direction.
The commonalities among the teachers, however, do not reflect a rigid or static
view of teaching.
We had to change as a part of the [ELRP] Project and that change has
been continuous. The Project is now over but we are going to continue
changing because of the processes we have put in place. We are going to
be driving ourselves on the basis of looking at the assessment of the
students and reflecting on our classroom practice.
The combination of flexibility and instructional capacity is a powerful one that is

most evident at the classroom level. However, such designs do not operate in a
vacuum. East Park Primary School has participated in the state system’s
devolution programme, Schools of the Future, for six years. As a result it is about
to undergo its second school review. The link between the review and the
innovation is a direct one. The first review drew attention to the low literacy
levels of the students.
150
It is since Schools of the Future that we have learnt to look seriously at

data, to use it and, or course, to question its validity.
The review process was one factor that enabled the innovation. The school also
benefits from a differential school resourcing policy that determines the level of
per capita grants on the basis of the socio-economic status of the students. As a
school with a high proportion of students from a non-English speaking
background, the school is allocated additional ‘special needs’ resources. Special
needs funding is not subject to the vagaries of educational fashions, hence, there
is a capacity to make commitments that span several years.
As the early literacy programme is a high priority, other teachers are scheduled to
support class teachers during the two-hour block of time allocated to literacy.
However, rather than allocating all the adults available in the school to small
groups, students are taught to work independently while the available teachers
each instruct a small group. The groups are then rotated. This approach
strengthens the students’ independent work skills. Students are also required to
develop the organisational skills necessary to rotate between groups that engage
them in quite different, albeit mutually supporting, activities.
The two-tiered student grouping structure is just one cog in the innovation
wheel. It is a means through which teachers can focus their instruction on
detailed knowledge of the student’s learning levels and needs. It would not make
sense without teachers being conversant with the relationship between their
actions and their students’ progress.
This school’s experience demonstrates the manner in which structures at all levels
—system, school and classroom—can be aligned to maximise the capacity of
teachers to respond flexibly to changing student needs.
The case of flexible staffing
Subject specialisation can impose a major constraint on the organisation of

secondary schools. Generally, teachers are recruited on the basis of subject
expertise in a small number of areas. The availability of teachers to teach certain
subjects is likely to be one of the parameters within which timetabling decisions
are made. The need for teachers to work in the subject area in which they are
trained and specialised can be so strong that changes to a school’s programme
may be linked to turnover of staff.
151
Fifteen IBPP schools adopted structures requiring teachers to teach outside their
area of subject specialisation. These innovations generally occurred within the
context of middle schooling approaches introduced to strengthen the social and
emotional ties between teachers and their students. Generally, these schools
adopted a gradualist approach to change, commencing an innovation in Year 7
and building it up over a number of years.
One of the reasons that teaching outside areas of subject specialisation attracted
interest was that several schools indicated that they had considered this option
and it had been rejected by the staff. Also, there was evidence that some middle-
schooling strategies were developed in order to avoid a requirement for teachers
to teach outside their preferred subject. An example of this is Brostherne College
that introduced subject specialist teachers into the upper primary years in order
to prepare students for this ‘fact’ of secondary school life. Other schools
introduced multi-subject teams with shared responsibility for several lower
secondary classes. These teachers would meet to discuss their students in an
effort to introduce cohesion into the provision for young secondary students.
Teaching outside an area of specialisation: a case study
While teaching in areas of subject specialisation was the norm, the introduction
of teaching outside these became a source of opportunity for teachers at Holy
Spirit Catholic College. They did not see the change as an obstacle.
The impetus for the innovation was teachers’ experiences of 240 energetic 12
year olds commencing secondary school at the beginning of Year 7. At this point,
it was possible for students to have contact with 15 different teachers in a year.
The initial structure, introduced in 1996, enabled the Year 7 cohort to be divided
into classes of 30 and assigned three teachers who taught two subjects each.
This meant that all students had three teachers who would get to know their
pastoral and learning needs extremely well. Concern about the pastoral care of
students, a core function in Catholic schools, was the starting point for this
change process.
A process of trial and reflection led the concept to be refined further so that
students’ instructional needs could be considered in conjunction with their
pastoral needs. A more complex organisational structure was developed during
this process. Year 7 classes were assigned two core teachers who taught three
subjects each and who made it clear to the students from the beginning that
they had primary responsibility for the class. The teachers were given time to
152
meet each other as a part of their allocated teaching loads. As might be

expected, these teachers formed strong attachments to their Year 7 classes and
many requested that they continue with the same group of students when they
entered Year 8. In fact, the bonds formed between teacher and class have
provided further impetus for organisational change; when the first Year 7 classes
graduated, planning to extend the innovation into Year 8 commenced.
In 1998, the innovation was extended to include Year 8 classes. The initial model
(3 teachers x 2 subjects) was dovetailed with the Year 7 model after several
versions had been tested (2 teachers x 3 subjects). The pattern is illustrated in
Figure 7.1 below. The adoption of this arrangement had an impact on most
aspects of timetabling in the school.
Teachers are not asked or even encouraged to specialise in teaching middle

schooling. Rather, they balance their multi-subject teaching of Year 7 and 8
students with senior secondary teaching in their specialist area. This provides an
element of flexibility. When a teacher wants to teach the same three subjects to
Year 7 students in consecutive years to consolidate her skills, the timetable can
accommodate this without interfering with the commitment to teach the same
group for two subjects as Year 8s.
Providing teachers with opportunities to develop their teaching skills is an

important aspect of the school ethos. Without these opportunities, it is unlikely
that so many teachers would be confident enough to teach outside their
preferred subject area.
A very practical form of support is provided through the timetable. Each novice
works with a subject-specialist teaching the same subject to the same year level
at the same time in the classroom next door. This provides mentors to teachers as
they extend their knowledge and skills outside familiar teaching areas.
The design of the staffroom provides another practical form of support. Like
most staff rooms, it consists of a large area for informal gatherings. The
difference is that two large offices that accommodate all the teaching staff
surround this area. Teachers working at their desks or having a cup of tea in the
informal area are all highly accessible to each other. Journeys along covered
walkways in search of colleagues working in satellite offices are no longer
necessary.
153
Figure 7.1:Arrangements for Year 7 and 8 classes at Holy Spirit Catholic College
showing continuing teachers
Year 7 Class (1998)
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
(3 subjects) (3 subjects)
Year 8 Class (1999)
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 New teacher

(2 subjects) (2 subjects) introduced
(2 subjects)
The Holy Spirit school community has made a conscious decision to orient itself
towards professional development. Although external consultants and
programmes have been important sources of professional support, there is also
an expectation that all staff members will provide training for their colleagues.
This is a regular, programmed part of the school’s routine.
An example of how this works came up in the discussion about the changes to
the timetable. The staff member responsible for the timetable provided a series of
training sessions to those interested in how to timetable. Understandably, once
this expertise was shared, some members of the training group began expressing
their own views about the timetable. This led to the formation of another group
from among those who had been trained. It was agreed that this group should
then explore some options in more depth with a view to planning for
improvements.
Much of the evaluation of the innovation at Holy Spirit is tied to teachers’

organisational experiences. The initial interest in strengthening pastoral care was
driven by teachers’ observations of a sea of Year 7 students floundering for two
terms until they all got to know each other. The capacity of the school staff to
articulate and share such observations gave them a degree of formality and
status. The initial model (3 teachers x 2 subjects) was then adapted and
compared with an alternative version. The result of these comparisons was to
154
settle quite definitely on the first model. The alternative version, however, proved
to be the preferred model for Year 8 students.
A significant focus on student performance is unavoidable in secondary schools.

Not only are secondary schools driven by external measures of academic
performance, these measures are also widely published and the schools
identified. Holy Spirit teachers expressed concerns about allowing even more
emphasis on a results-driven curriculum. Unlike East Park Primary School,
discussed earlier, where measures used to monitor students’ progress drove the
teachers’ instructional programme, Holy Spirit Secondary School teachers chose
not to be driven by attainment benchmarks. They were also concerned that
invalid measurement tools could orient the programme in the wrong direction.
Instead, instruction was guided by outcomes stated in the NSW syllabii, the
requirements of which were satisfied by the school’s implementation of its
integrated curriculum.
The case of school consortia
Forming associations to gain support
Nearly half of all schools in the IBPP reported that associations with organisations
outside the school facilitated their innovation. As shown in Table 7.1,
approximately a quarter acknowledged their association with school system
authorities to be a key source of support.
Table 7.1: Percentage of schools reporting that a relationship with another
organisation played a part in their innovation (N=107).
Organisation Percentage
School system 22
University 16
National Schools Network 14
Similar schools 11
Contributing primary schools 6
Public sector service provider 6
Business 6
Local community 6
TAFE 5
155
Of the associations among education providers, the most common form was
when a school established links with similar schools. Seventeen per cent of
schools indicated some form of association with other schools. Seven per cent of
the IBPP schools developed stable links with similar schools, for example, one
group of schools decided to collaborate to gain access to external professional
development consultants on an ongoing basis. One form of association, based on
shared interests, involved some secondary schools establishing transition
programmes with their contributing primary schools. In some cases, links were
more transitory, as in the case of three per cent of schools that reported visiting
other schools as a reference point for their own practice.
Three schools had sufficiently strong and ongoing relationships with other
schools for them to be usefully described as members of a consortium of schools.
These schools recognised the advantages of choosing their associates and
developing strong ties. The case study example reported below was chosen
because the consequences of the association are so extensive. Also, as a free
association, any group of schools could introduce such a structure should they
see an advantage in doing so.
A consortium of schools: a case study
Four IBPP primary schools in a regional population centre founded a consortium

based on the recognition of shared interests. This consortium began as a result of
an informal conversation among three of the four principals. At a practical level,
they recognised that fragments of resources in each school could be pooled to
provide something more substantial. They also saw opportunities to develop in
other ways if they could step outside the walls of professional isolation that
surrounded the individual primary schools.
As was the case with many innovations, the consortium members started with an
idea, then found it didn’t offer the advantages they had expected. They began
by creating two additional Head of Department positions. Then they quickly
recognised that they had selected a bureaucratic solution, so changed tack.
The next step devolved management to the teachers in the four schools. This led
to the creation of greater professional development and support capacity across
the schools. Some of the services provided by the consortium are very practical;
for example, assisting teachers to use computers. Others are more strategic; for
example, employing a professional development consultant on a three-year
contract. There is also an entrepreneurial element to the Consortium’s activities. It
156
has successfully bid for grants from ‘external’ bodies such commonwealth and
state government departments and its own school system.
By pooling the collective wisdom of staff across four schools as well as fragments
of resources, the consortium members developed a degree of professional
confidence that many educators find illusory. One outcome of this confidence
was the decision to go out on a limb to extend school provision through the
establishment of the Alternative Campus.
As the executive officer of the consortium said:
It is good that we charged into this because we didn’t see the blockers
until afterwards. We see that as a strength.
Non-recurrent grants have provided funding to get things going. Per capita
grants provide some resources. The campus is legally a programme of one of the
consortium primary schools. The students are enrolled in this school and the
alternative campus’ account is administered through one of the schools.
The consortium has increased one group’s capacity to alter the structures in
which schooling is provided, but it needs support to institutionalise these
changes. Currently, there is not sufficient alignment between the school system
in which the innovation sits and the innovation itself. Ongoing concerns - such as
questions about duty of care - arise from the fact that, to date, the campus does
not fit into an appropriate administrative category and for the time being has
been defined by the system authorities as a ‘classroom’ of a traditional primary
school. In fairness to the school system, it is likely that this results from
insufficient resources to enable the extension of its service provision without an
additional procuration from Treasury.
157
BRINGING THE THREADS TOGETHER

Differential provision
Most of the schools in the IBPP reported that an important feature of their
innovation was the way it helped target teaching to the needs of individual
students. This is not altogether surprising since the development of teaching and
learning environments that match the needs of individual students has been a
long-standing objective of educators. A much smaller proportion of respondents
reported that their innovations were targeting students at risk of not making
satisfactory progress.
Though there is general awareness that substantial individual differences exist

within a typical class of students, the magnitude of the differences is not always
appreciated. For example, the reading skills of 10 per cent of Year 9 students are
likely to be no better than the reading skills of an average Year 3 student (Hill,
1994). Teaching to the average ability level will ensure that struggling students
fall further behind. These students require a disproportionate amount of teacher
time and school resources. However, organising schools and classrooms in such a
way that teachers are able to respond effectively to the wide range of differences
continues to challenge the education profession.
School administration involves compromise. Usually, there seem to be too few

resources and too little time to organise schools in ways that sufficiently
individualise instruction. Also, it is easier to standardise provision rather than to
vary it since standardisation can be used to avoid arguments over whether
teachers and students are being treated fairly. Notwithstanding these difficulties,
many of the innovations in IBPP experimented with flexible grouping practices in
ways that challenged the tyranny of the conventional timetable.
Successfully matching instructional programmes to particular students’ needs can

significantly improve the performance of large groups of students. Ultimately, this
leads to demand for additional resources to be directed to enable failing students
to reach benchmarks. The differential allocation of resources has implications at
every level of schooling. Teachers can develop diagnostic and instructional
expertise. Schools can release resources from a non-priority area to enable more
intensive or strategic instruction when appropriate. Ultimately, however, schools
must have control of their budgets, particularly the largest element that is teacher
salaries, to be in a position to redirect them. Critical to the capacity of schools to
158
redirect resources to support innovative practices and organisational

arrangements is control over the recruitment, selection, and appointment of staff.
Alignment
Sociologists have observed that a feature of educational organisations is that

administrative components are weakly connected, or to use Weick’s (1976) term,
‘loosely coupled’. The component parts—schools, district offices, central and
other specialised agencies—are inclined to function autonomously. Organisational
charts, showing the relationships among the various components in a school
system, tend to indicate a much higher level of coherence and coordination than
is actually the case. The relatively weak connections, produced in part by
inconsistencies among policies and regulations, have been recognised in the
literature as a major obstacle to systemic reform, that is innovation that is
designed to change the way the whole system operates (Fuhrman, 1994).
This study suggests that loose coupling can also restrict locally targeted
innovation because inflexibility at various organisational levels impinges on
classroom practices. However, the study also shows that it is possible to repair
the disconnections. Some schools were able to effect an alignment in regard to
their project at all relevant levels of schooling—classroom, school and system.
From the point of view of those working in a school, they were able to formulate
their projects in such a way that ‘the system’ worked for them rather than
against them. This was more the case in schools that documented ongoing, data-
driven changes.
Effecting alignment was achieved in different ways. Usually, it involved project

leaders and school principals negotiating with various parties to ensure that the
resources required to conduct the innovation were committed, that the approval
of key interest groups and decision-making bodies was negotiated and acquired,
and that within the school there was a sufficient constituency of support to
enable the innovation to proceed. Interestingly, the politics of the innovations
was not widely canvassed in the school research reports. However, it would be a
mistake to underestimate the importance of this aspect and assume that the
innovations were implemented without resistance from parties with vested
interests in maintaining the status quo.
Schools that focused their innovations at the teacher-student (or classroom) level
without concern about the impact of events at other levels were inclined to step
159
back from initial advances. Without commensurate adjustments at the school

level, the burden of sustaining changes rested on a small number of individuals.
While only a few schools made some reference to the role of their system in their
innovation, there was evidence of a consistency of approach or an alignment at
all levels, including the central level, in the schools that made the most significant
changes.
The problem of a lack of alignment is a feature of large education systems. Fullan

(1998) concluded that the ‘system’ is intrinsically non-linear and endemically
fragmented and incoherent. This, he argued, is the very nature of dynamically
complex societies. The consequence is that members require the capacity to learn
despite the system. In some cases in the IBPP, association with other agencies
such as other schools and universities provided the support required to assist with
capacity building in the absence of system alignment. Even so, schools found it
difficult to obtain a level of support from such associations commensurate with
that available from an aligned system.
The examination of the flexibility associated with the IBPP innovations has raised
a number of important issues. Perhaps the single issue that draws together most
threads that run through this chapter is the issue of flexibility and best practice.
Basically, there are two major positions on flexibility. The first has its roots in the
innovation and devolution thinking of the 70s. Flexibility is seen as a positive
quality of management systems required to support devolved school systems.
Self-management enables schools to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Because it is not possible to specify in advance the nature of the local adaptations
(innovation), schools need general flexibilities. Their diverse circumstances will
lead to a diverse range of innovations. From this perspective, the 107 innovations
in the IBBP can be viewed as the product of devolution.
This chapter has illustrated four significant areas of flexibility that impacted on
the teaching and learning environment. These innovations indicate that schools
can and should think ‘outside the box’ in developing creative ways of meeting
the needs of their students. The innovations made use of external resources by
going off-site, developing virtual learning environments, and combining with
other schools and harvesting the expertise of external providers to enhance the
resources they had. They managed to use what resources they had as a lever to
enhance their productivity. Critical to the continuity and sustainability of the
160
innovations was schools’ capacity to control their resources. Without local

control, the innovations were at risk of losing their funding from precarious
changes in educational preferences and the balance of power among factions in
school system bureaucracies.
There is another position on flexibility. Increased flexibility brings with it the

possibility of greater variation in quality. It is not so much general flexibilities that
are required as the specific flexibilities associated with those practices shown to
produce better learning outcomes. The unqualified promotion of flexibility
confuses the ‘signal’ of validated research with the ‘noise’ of popular professional
opinion.
161
162
MANAGING INNOVATION
Chapter 8
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter four issues associated with the management of innovation are examined. The first is
the degree of autonomy and management flexibility that schools have to innovate; the second is the
extent to which innovations are a response to market pressures; the third is the process of innovation,
and the last is the extent to which research and evaluation data played a part in the design or
implementation of school innovations.
SCHOOL AUTONOMY AND INNOVATION

In sociological terms, the capacity of an actor to act is referred to as ‘agency’ and the enabling and
limiting conditions that shape the actions are referred to as ‘structures’. Thus, autonomy and flexibility
can be conceptualised in terms of the relationship between agency and structure.
According to Giddens (1984), social structures consist of rules and the capacity of individuals to apply
those rules. Some rules are codified in regulations and policies and carry formal sanctions; others are
informal and tacit and deviations are unofficially sanctioned. The capacity of individuals to apply or
reformulate rules depends to a large extent upon their power in the organisation.
163
Rules may permit agency in several different ways. General rules or principles
usually provide more scope for discretion than narrow specifications of
acceptable practice. Rules about how to interpret and use rules (meta-rules) can
also enhance autonomy. However, autonomy also requires the capacity to act on
the rule so that unless there is a matching of rule and resource (power) changing
official rules will not lead to a change in practice.
IBPP schools were asked to rate the extent to which increased autonomy to
make decisions facilitated or hindered the implementation of the innovation. The
overall average rating was 4.10 out a possible rating of 5.00. There were
differences between government and non-government sectors in regard to the
importance attached to autonomy, as shown in Table 8.1 below.
The higher rating by government school respondents may be due to a greater

awareness of autonomy as an issue in the government sector rather than any
difference in the actual capacity of schools to act independently of funding
agencies.
Table 8.1: The importance of increased autonomy to make decisions for schools
in the government and non-government sectors. (N=100)
Sector Mean Std Dev Cases
Government 4.21 0.58 61
Catholic 3.92 0.76 18
Independent 3.91 0.73 21
Generally, the innovations in the IBPP were conducted independently of system

authorities. In three-quarters of the final reports there was no evidence that
system authorities played a role in the innovation. Of the reports that made
reference to a systemic role in the innovation, there were equal proportions of
government and Catholic schools though a much smaller proportion of
independent schools. One item in the survey asked respondents to indicate the
extent to which acquiring special approval from system authorities was a special
feature of the school’s innovation. Only 5 per cent rated this a strong feature—
three government schools and two Catholic schools. Twenty-two per cent of
schools made some reference to government policy in their final reports and 17
per cent made reference to bureaucratic obstacles.
Some structures enabled schools to develop distinctive responses to their

environment while remaining part of the larger system. Other structures inhibited
such variability. Control over the allocation of resources was a key flexibility. In
164
centralised school systems, where there is tight central control of resources and
where uniformity of provision of education services is a primary factor in
controlling schools themselves, schools have little flexibility.
In the survey, schools were asked to indicate the extent to which flexibility in the
school’s capacity to deploy available resources to new priorities hindered or
facilitated the implementation of the school’s innovation. Eighty-five per cent
rated it 4 or higher on a 5-point scale. The responses were consistent across
school systems and across school sectors, as shown in Table 8.2 below.
Table 8.2: Ratings by sectors of the importance of flexibility for the school’s
capacity to deploy resources to new priorities (N=100).
Catholic 4.41 0.52 18
These results correspond closely with the responses to another item in the survey.
Slightly more than half the schools indicated that being able to reallocate school
funds was a feature of their innovation. The results were consistent across
sectors.
The staff members of a school are its key resource. Procedures relating to staff
appointments, transfers and replacements can limit flexibility and impede
innovation. Several items in the survey addressed staffing issues. Twenty-six per
cent of respondents indicated that changes in staffing hindered the
implementation. In this regard there were notable differences between sectors.
Catholic schools were less likely than government schools to report that changes
in staffing hindered the innovation. The mean ratings are shown in Table 8.3
below. A mean rating of less than 3.0 indicates changes in staffing had a
negative influence on the innovation.
Table 8.3: Ratings by sectors of the extent to which changes in staffing limited
the innovation (N=100).
Catholic 3.27 1.03 18
165
Often, innovations are highly dependent on a small core of staff members,

sometimes an individual staff member. These members may be noted for
qualities such as commitment, expertise and leadership. Schools were asked
about their capacity to retain key staff. Half of them reported this to be a strong
feature of their projects. This was generally the case across sectors though, as
shown in Table 8.4 below, it was a stronger feature of innovations in Catholic
schools.
Table 8.4: Ratings by sectors of the extent to which engaging/retaining specially
qualified staff to work on the innovation was a feature of the
innovation (N=100).
Catholic 3.99 0.80 18
Independent 3.41 1012 21
A lack of resources was a major factor impeding change in 10 per cent of

schools. This applied more in the government and Catholic sectors than in the
independent school sector.
Though schools appeared to have substantial autonomy to initiate and

implement reforms, every school faced some obstacles. That is the nature of
innovation. In a number of cases, schools reported a constraint they were unable
to resolve. These were categorised under three headings: bureaucratic, cultural
and ideological (Table 8.5).
Table 8.5: Number of schools reporting an enduring constraint by school sector
(N=36).
Sector Bureaucratic Cultural Ideological
Government 16 9 7
Catholic 1 0 0
Independent 1 2 0
Only those bureaucratic constraints that impeded the innovation were recorded.
Some schools sought and were given permission or endorsement from a system
or community council. Even though they could not ignore external authorities,
these schools were not constrained by them.
Most examples of obstacles were in the area of staffing. Schools identified

systemic requirements such as accepting teachers on forced transfers, not being
able to employ a primary trained teacher in a secondary school, and other kinds
166
of system requirements that made it difficult to build a team of like-minded

supporters for an innovation, as major impediments. Some were concerned about
funding arrangements: for instance, a census held before most commencing
students had enrolled, costs for TAFE being higher for non-government school
students and inadequate recognition of the additional costs associated with
students with special needs. Some constraints were included in the bureaucratic
category but were more a result of organisational dilemmas than the use of
central powers. An example of this was the school that extended the length of its
day and found that bus timetables could not be changed because the service was
provided to all schools in the town.
Schools often reported cultural issues as matters of concern. These, however,

were usually dealt with during the implementation of an innovation. Generally,
these concerns related to the implications of changes to established practice, or
lack of experience relevant to proposed changes. For example, a government
secondary school reported that its relatively weak ethos of pastoral care was
undermining its students’ academic performance so the school set about
developing its own distinctive way of caring for students. Because the school
succeeded, it was not identified as a constraint. An example of a cultural
constraint that was not overcome occurred in a school that introduced middle-
schooling strategies to socialise the younger students. Critics of the innovation,
mainly senior teachers, withdrew from the process of change. The innovators felt
debilitated by the lack of support and, as a consequence, found it difficult to
sustain the energy required.
Ideological constraints, although less commonly reported, tended to have more

serious consequences. They occurred when staff viewpoints became polarised.
For example, one school introduced a vertical timetable that required students to
progress in a lock-step manner. A proportion of the staff did not support the
innovation at the beginning. Differences became exacerbated over time and staff
opinion about the innovation became polarised on faculty lines. Several schools
used their project research reports to confront divisions among staff members
and sort out problems arising from conflicting belief systems.
Ideological differences have a huge potential to be disruptive since innovations

depend for their success on teamwork. The innovations in the IBPP depended on
the enthusiasm and initiative of staff members. However, it would be a mistake
to paint too rosy a picture. Ten per cent of schools indicated that substantial
resistance had to be overcome to get the innovation under way. This difficulty
167
was shared equally by schools in the government and non-government sectors.

Seventy-eight per cent of schools indicated that some key members of staff
made it difficult to proceed with their school’s innovation. The incidence
appeared to be almost identical across government and non-government sectors.
It is evident in Table 8.5 that the principal source of constraint among the 36
incidences of ‘constraint’ was ‘bureaucratic’ (in 50 per cent of instances). Schools
from the government sector reported a disproportionately higher number of
constraints in that category.
The largest source of constraint pertained to staffing policies and procedures (Table
8.6). This is consistent with the finding reported earlier where 26 per cent of
respondents to the survey reported that changes in staffing hindered the
innovation. The staffing function in most government school systems is still highly
centralised which perpetuates tensions between systemic and local staffing needs.
Table 8.6: Type of bureaucratic constraint (N=18).
Nature of constraint Number of schools
System staffing policies 7
Funding formula 3
Lack of system support 3
Curriculum framework 2
Services across schools 2
Regulation 1
Total 18
INNOVATION AS A RESPONSE TO MARKET

PRESSURES
Although there is much current debate about the possibilities of school choice
and school competition driving school innovation, the legitimation of market
principles in education administration is contingent on demonstrating a link
between market conditions and innovation.
Proponents of school markets argue that competition will lead schools to adopt
new approaches to teaching and school organisation to attract discerning parents
and their children. Under conditions where government tuition subsidies follow
students, fully enrolled schools will prosper and under-enrolled schools will be
obliged to question and address the quality of their programme.
168
The market paradigm has been attacked for various reasons—moral, social and
educational—reasons that fall outside the scope of this paper. One
straightforward basis for supporting or opposing school markets is whether, in
practice, they deliver what they are supposed to deliver: innovation.
In Australia, choice and competition have historically been exercised through the
maintenance by governments of dual systems of public and private schools.
About 70 per cent of Australian students attend public schools and the remainder
attend private schools subsidised by federal and state governments. There was a
quantum injection of funding in 1973 and the market share of the private school
sector has been increasing gradually since 1979. Enrolments in the private school
sector have grown from 21 to 30 per cent of the total student enrolments over
the two last decades. That growth is projected to continue.
The main growth area has been among low-fee denominational schools. At the
same time, within a context of competitive pressure from the private sector,
public education officials have enabled limited competition for students among
schools in their sector, particularly at the secondary school level. Competition
among schools, in public and private sectors, and between sectors, is being
stimulated by recent federal government policies which have increased funding
to government and non-government schools and in certain circumstances made
the establishment of new private schools more viable.
While these developments offer greater parental choice they have not necessarily
occurred with the primary purpose of fostering innovation. Nor do proponents of
market conditions contend that Australian schools have been slow or unwilling to
innovate. Nevertheless, when pushed to justify the introduction of markets in
education, political leaders claim the need for greater choice in schooling and for
the innovation that it will produce.
The IBPP survey results suggest that market considerations were a factor
influencing the innovations. Twenty per cent of schools, when asked to rate the
extent that the school’s innovation was motivated by ‘a decision to position the
school to make it more attractive to clients’ on a scale of 1 to 5, rated this item
as 4.0 or higher. The mean was 3.04. However, the survey results suggest the
market was not the major motivator, 5th out of 11 items surveyed, but nor was
it unimportant.
169
In the school research reports, the most common reasons for a particular
innovation were educational. As the innovations varied among schools, so did
the nature of the reasons given. Sixty-two per cent of school research reports
gave reasons for embarking on their chosen innovations that were confined to
educational theory, practice or beliefs (Table 8.7).
Table 8.7: Motivations for introducing innovations stated in IBPP school research
reports (N=107).
Stated motivation Number of schools
Solely educational rationale 66
Some reference to school’s market position 28
Innovation directly influenced by market 13
Total 107
Thirty-eight per cent of schools made some form of reference in their school
research report to their competitors or the effects of competitive forces on their
school. Generally, these references accompanied explanations based on
educational motivations. In some cases, factors such as declining enrolments or
increased competition were clearly articulated as reasons for undertaking
changes. In other cases, related events such as increased enrolments or an
enhanced market profile were seen as outcomes of the innovation.
Public and private schools were represented in these categories at a level

consistent with their representation in the IBPP. Schools from all states were
represented. Anecdotal evidence based on discussions with staff members in
schools during the project suggests that the significance of market factors may be
under reported. This is based on issues discussed during visits to schools that
were not reflected in the written reports.
In the cases where market factors were described in school research reports, they
were closely tied to significant events relevant to the history of an innovation.
For example, a school with declining enrolments introduces an innovation and
then the enrolment trend is reversed. Such a sequence of events relates directly
to the narrative that explicates the change process. The increased enrolments
suggest client confidence in the innovation and provide evidence that the
innovation had an impact.
Only a few schools provided detailed information about the impact of market
pressure and its relationship to their innovation. The dilemma created by
declining enrolments, shifting demographics or new schools opening in their area
170
was explained sufficiently to show the strength and nature of the pressure they
were exposed to. Following an account of their innovation, its implementation
and evaluation, they then provided data about changes to their enrolments.
Three case studies have been selected to illustrate the variations in school
accounts of connections between market forces and innovations. A school from
each of the government, Catholic and independent sectors has been selected. It
is not suggested these schools represent their sectors. Rather, they have been
selected because they have documented a direct relationship between market
pressures and their innovations. The case study schools operate in three different
states.
Case study 1: Nativity Senior Secondary School
The most direct link possible between concerns about market forces and a
decision to innovate is when a school cannot expect to continue indefinitely
unless it takes account of its poor standing and makes changes accordingly.
Declaring that the situation is dire is often a powerful point of departure from the
past.
This first case study outlines the experiences reported by Nativity (Catholic)
Senior Secondary School that after a period of significant change found itself
with declining student enrolments and increasingly negative community
perceptions of the school.
Events precipitated ‘a climate of near despair’ and eventually led to ‘an impetus
for change’. Innovation became the solution to the crisis the school faced. It did
not represent a compromise as much as a fundamental shift in the school’s
direction as an organisation. In summarising the innovation it is difficult to do
justice to all its implications.
It began with a timetable mechanism that introduced a number of flexibilities for

Year 11 staff and students without increasing teacher workloads. The
combination of the flexible timetable, the new tutorial style sessions and the
element of student choice reoriented the school’s whole programme. A new
understanding developed about the balance of responsibility for learning
between the staff and the students.
The qualities of the staff as a group were seen as a factor in the way the changes
were played out. A ‘keen collective memory of attempts to impose unwanted
change’ caused staff to focus on changes that the teachers believed would
171
benefit the school. A key element of the staff culture of the school is an often-
expressed belief that the needs of students should be the prime consideration in
all planning and decision making.
Although the innovation was only a little over one year old at the time the
school’s research report was written, the feedback from staff and students
provided as a result of the evaluation process, enabled it to form a basis for
subsequent changes. For example, the innovation was extended into Year 12 the
year after it had been introduced to Year 11. A significant outcome reported was
the sense of hope the innovation engendered. Staff learnt that it was worthwhile
to invest their energy.
A significant number of staff were convinced that the senior school setting was
an ideal one for challenging long-accepted ‘givens’ about how school education
should be structured and delivered. Information about enrolments and the
school’s finances following the changes was not provided in the school research
report except that it was reported that the system authorities were supportive of
the school’s new direction.
Case study 2: Welcome Hill Senior Secondary School
While there may be many reasons for making a break with an unsatisfactory
past, this may introduce as many risks as opportunities. In reality, successful
innovation is both fragile and demanding. While honesty may be refreshing,
community support, often an important part of the change process, is linked to
consumer confidence. Without consumer confidence, innovation is likely to be
self-defeating. To illustrate the dilemma, the case of a school that consciously
determined to link its innovation to improving its public relations is described.
Welcome Hill Senior Secondary School had once been the only government
senior secondary school outside its state’s capital. During its most glorious era,
two hostels, one each for boys and girls, had been attached providing enrolment
pressure on the senior years at a time when an academic curriculum was all that
was offered to this age group.
None of the circumstances that created this situation exist any more. Senior
secondary schools have been established in all regional centres, improved roads
mean that students living around regional centres can more easily travel on buses
to school and rural communities have suffered significant economic decline over
the last thirty years. This means that a school established to play a significant role
in the state’s development is now one of many local secondary schools. While
172
the school’s community had changed, many of its structures and staff
expectations were relics from a former era.
The situation deteriorated before any action was taken. The school found itself
facing a predicament characterised by:
... declining enrolments, racial tension and a community with little

respect for teachers. The school aimed to address these negative
characteristics by first tackling the school’s profile in the community.
The strategy was to introduce information technology and represent this as a

sign that the school was ‘ahead of the pack’. The initiative was presented to the
local community as being ‘big budget’ even though, in reality, the funds were
found by reallocating the school’s existing resources. Then, the innovation was
given as much public profile as possible.
Directing energy towards changing perceptions is often associated with obviating

any need for actual change. In this case, however, evidence suggests that this
was not the intention. Having outlined the history, the school research report
focuses exclusively on the pedagogical aspects of the innovation without further
reference to the root problem that it was designed to address. The evidence of
change is presented in terms of classroom practices and attitudes to learning. The
school passed through an initial phase in which the emphasis was on the
representational aspects of the innovation. By the time of its evaluation, its focus
had been redirected towards aspects relevant to the reorientation of the teachers
towards their new clientele.
As the principal said about the rationale for the innovation:
The students and their needs have changed; the same could not be said
of the teachers, however.
The technology innovation was not just a strategy for persuading the local
community that the school intended to move forward with the times. It was also
a mechanism for placing an experienced and entrenched group of teachers under
pressure to review their classroom strategies. This requires a longer time frame
and ongoing development.
Although the school research report did not indicate whether changes in
enrolments had been associated with the innovation, an internet search of its
state system web-site indicated that the downward trend had been reversed a
year after the innovation commenced.
173
Case study 3: St Cecilia’s Anglican Girls School
An independent girls’ school recognised waning demand from its traditional client
group. The economic decline in rural communities meant that former students
could no longer afford to send their daughters to a high-fee school in the city.
Also, government funding policies had enabled well-equipped, low-fee
independent schools to open in the same locality. The established girls’ school
could not attract sufficient government funding to reduce its fees to match its
competitors. Its context had changed considerably. Families who could now
afford high fees had very different expectations of customer service and the
educational ‘product’ they were buying.
It was recognised that new standards of responsiveness had to be met. As a

result, a decision was made to restructure the school’s facilities, resources and
management. As a part of these broad changes, information technology was
introduced as a tool for teaching and learning across the curriculum.
The introduction of information technology was intended to perform a dual

function. It provided a declaration that the school had made a break from its
past. This was an important signal to potential clients who may not have
previously considered enrolling their daughters. The innovation provided:
... a feature the school can promote to the niche market of its clientele.
Its second function was to provide an impetus for more general changes. As
stated in the school research report, it enabled:
... a mechanism for curriculum development and innovation in teaching

and learning.
The second motivation required the staff and students to review their practices
and develop new learning strategies. From this point onwards the school focused
on the learning strategies students’ demonstrated in learning supported by
technology. They were particularly interested in students’ learning styles and
concluded that their innovation had supported the development of higher-order
thinking skills among students.
Over a period of ten years, enrolments increased by 400 girls, that is, an increase
of 60 per cent from the lowest enrolment levels.
174
Interpreting the evidence from the case study schools
The three case study schools were selected because they were open about their
interpretations of the impact that changes in society had had on their viability as
institutions. They were not particularly unique or different from the other schools
in the project in relation to the scale of their innovation or the way they
implemented it.
All three schools were forthright in declaring that they faced problems, that these
problems were severe and that the viability of the school was threatened. They
did not seek to obfuscate the financial crises associated with declining student
enrolments or to shirk responsibility for turning the tide. This willingness to be
frank about bad news and juxtapose it against their achievements made their
research reports among the more interesting to read.
In these three schools, the decision to innovate was important symbolically,

particularly at the early stages of implementation. The need to communicate this
decision throughout the school community and to prospective students and their
families was recognised. The innovations were put forward as symbols of hope
for changes possible in the future. To some extent they were also an
acknowledgment that practices established in earlier contexts were no longer
adequate and were under review.
While there were instances in the IBPP of new schools seeking to introduce
innovations from the time of their commencement, these three schools had all
been established for some time. They had histories that embedded them in old
pedagogies. They were not necessarily at odds with the past, though. Each gave
an account of particular circumstances that they had been through. There was an
acknowledgment and valuing of the past. The school’s history was presented as a
part of its story. The ultimate goal of these three innovating schools was to
change their instructional pedagogies. Each school took a series of steps that
were intended to revitalise relationships between teachers and students. The
innovations were strategies to develop their students’ sense of responsibility for
learning and teachers’ willingness to come to terms with the need for more
varied forms of instruction. Although enrolments increased in at least two of the
three schools, the schools’ evaluations all focused on student performance and
staff and student satisfaction with instruction.
175
THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION

Innovations can be conceptualised in various ways. One way is to view them as a
trial of a particular practice. If the trial ‘succeeds’ then the innovation should be
adopted. If it fails then the school should revert to the status quo. This approach
was clearly in evidence in seven per cent of schools and was an incidental aspect
of the design of several others.
Another way is to view the innovation as the adoption of a set of specific new
practices that have been shown to work elsewhere. The adoption may require
fine-tuning but once the practices have been installed the innovation is deemed
to have been a success. The next challenge is to institutionalise the practices. This
can be a double-edged sword since once the innovation is institutionalised it can
itself become an obstacle to further innovation. There is an apparent paradox
here: flexible structures can be used to create rigidities.
A third approach is to see innovation as an incremental process characterised by

continuing adaptation and adjustment as circumstances change. Hence, in
describing the flexibilities employed in the IBPP innovations, it is important to
note the extent to which the innovation constitutes a shift from one fixed pattern
of operating to another fixed pattern, or constitutes the development of a
propensity to further develop the initial idea behind the innovation.
Table 8.8: Definitions of change sequences
Symbols Descriptor School states represented
A Trigger or reference point in time An ‘initial’ point in time as described

in a school research report. In a few
cases this was ten years ago although
less than five years was more
common.
B Innovation initiated A first step taken to innovate. This

change may have occurred before
there was a capacity to predict its full
consequences.
C Further development of the innovation. A subsequent change was often

required. This action was generally
better informed than the first step and
often led to further changes.
A1 Innovation discarded Some schools discarded their

innovation. It is unlikely that a total
reversion is possible so A1 is
differentiated from A.
176
The classification of change sequences in the IBPP schools (Table 8.8) is based
entirely on information provided in the school research reports. A clear statement
describing a stage or transition was required for it to be considered as evident.
Changes described in a school research report as being ‘a matter for discussion’
were not coded. As a result, some schools engaged in ongoing change may not
have been identified. The reality may be that schools are more adaptive than
their documentation suggests. Table 8.9 classifies schools according to the
change sequences they adopted.
Table 8.9: Classification of innovations according to change sequences (N= 100).
Type Sequences Number of Schools Percentage
Ongoing A➨B➨C 69 64
Single A➨B 31 29
Reversion A➨B ➨A1 4 4
Static A 3 3
An ongoing pattern of change (A➨B➨C) involved schools following an

innovation with further adjustments as they became more sensitive to factors
that influenced outcomes. Although not identified separately, many schools made
more than two sets of readjustments.
Schools included in the single change category (A➨B) made a set of changes that
were not subjected to a full cycle of review and adjustment. This was often
because the changes had been made only a short period before the school
research report was written. While it would be expected that many of these
would continue to make adjustments over time and in fact stated intentions of
doing so, they had not done so at the time of submitting their school research
reports.
The schools in the reversion category (A➨B➨A1) were in some regards engaged
in ongoing change. They made a change, reviewed it and then determined to
change tack. A point of differentiation is worth making, however. The ongoing
change group indicated a preference to move forward while the reversion group
expressed a preference to move back to the situation that existed prior to the
innovation. Two of the schools in the reversion group actively rejected their
innovations after evaluations; the other two would better be described as having
given up.
177
Schools in the static group (A) did not make changes. The three schools in this
category, all non-government, analysed their current practice and how it might
be improved but had not, at the time of submitting their school research reports,
actually implemented any changes. All three schools were concerned that change
not be allowed to impact negatively on teachers. Given the significance of
context in defining what can be considered to be ‘new’ the activities of these
schools were legitimate in terms of the overall parameters of the IBPP. However,
their failure to take action is significant and suggests the existence of underlying
inflexibilities.
As might be expected, ongoing adaptation was the most common scenario. This
is a positive result in so far as A➨B➨C is indicative of a school culture that
favours the questioning of performance and a willingness to review and change
practice in the light of performance data. The literature on innovation tends to be
encouraging of such a continuous approach to improvement. However, the
categorisations in Table 8.9 have been made primarily for descriptive purposes
and valuations using the four types of change sequences should be made
carefully. Schools that reverted to their pre-innovation practices should not be
judged harshly. There is no point in evaluation if all innovation is by definition
successful.
EVIDENCE-BASED INNOVATION
At various times over the past few decades the professional education
community has recognised the need to equip its members with the capacity to
evaluate their own practice. Self-regulation and self-evaluation are hallmarks of a
profession. During the 70s and 80s high hopes were held for action research
(e.g., Carr & Kemmis, 1986) and the programme that emerged from it, known as
‘teachers as researchers’, was supported by federal funding over a number of
years. Around this time, school evaluation became the catch cry and schools
undertook self-evaluations following models popularised by academics from
overseas (e.g., Madaus et al., 1983). More recently, self-evaluation has been
incorporated into more formal school review processes (e.g., Cuttance, 1995;
1998b). Faculties of education continue to teach introductory research methods
courses to undergraduates and higher level research methods courses to
postgraduates, most of whom are in teaching or administrative positions in
schools. Traces of these research and evaluation approaches are evident in the
work of IBPP schools.
178
All schools provided ‘research data’ about their innovations in their reports. The
features of this information varied, as did the purposes for gathering it. Schools
chose to focus on aspects of interest to their own communities. Some fixed their
investigations squarely on their students’ academic performance. Others
surveyed attitudes of teachers, parents and students or completed narratives of
their implementation experiences. Data gathered in a particular school were often
(but not necessarily) compared with state or other norms if these existed.
Differences in the data gathered by schools in different states and systems were
evident.
Schools in the IBPP received funding to assist with research and evaluation. Some
employed consultants who advised on the data requirements and in some cases
took responsibility for the collection of data. IBPP workshops, some of which
were attended by consultants, canvassed approaches that might be used to
evaluate projects and the kind of instrumentation that might be used. However,
as has been pointed out, the IBPP was initiated after most school innovations had
begun and, in some cases, had been fully implemented. Though all the IBPP
schools completed evaluations of their innovations, only a proportion appeared
to have integrated the outcomes of them into the decision-making processes
associated with the management of their project. As Table 8.10 below shows,
nearly 40 per cent of schools appeared to have partitioned the research and
evaluation activity from the innovation process.
Table 8.10: Extent of use of data in the innovation process (N=107).
Role of data Number of schools Percentage
Evidence that data was used to shape change 66 62
No evidence that data was used in decision making 41 38
For many of these schools, the research process was unfamiliar and so was itself
an innovation. Table 8.11 shows that reliance on data to inform decision-making
was much higher in schools where the innovation was part of a continuous
approach to change and improvement.
Table 8.11: Extent of data use by type of innovation process (N=107)
Sequences Evidence of data use No evidence of data use Total number
of schools
A➨B➨C 51 18 69
Other types 15 23 38
179
It would be a mistake to conclude that the majority of schools were competent

researchers of their innovative practices. At the IBPP workshops, schools reported
that setting aside the question of research skills, they simply did not have time to
engage in the kind of research that would impress academics - they were too
busy managing the innovation and carrying out their more routine duties. They
were grateful for the research support provided by the IBPP, recognised the
benefits that came from more formal evaluation processes, but were not
necessarily in a position to institutionalise these processes.
There is a second point to be made about Tables 8.10 and 8.11. They do not
reveal the type of data used nor the use to which it was put. Many school
representatives at the IBPP workshops indicted a reluctance to construe their
innovations in terms they perceived to be instrumental ‘input-output’ terms.
Though nearly all expected their innovations to improve student learning, many
resisted explicitly stating what outcomes would be improved and how and why
this would occur. The research paradigm favoured by quantitative researchers,
with its logic of measurement and comparative evaluation, did not comfortably
fit the dynamic and often ‘untidy’ process of school life.
The lack of capacity to evaluate innovation has not discouraged system

authorities from promoting school innovation and change. The devolution
programmes of state education departments are intended to provide schools with
the flexibility required to launch their own innovative responses to local
problems. Federal government programmes continue to allocate funds directly to
schools to support locally devised school improvement initiatives with similar
broad objectives as the innovation programmes of the last two decades. A critical
difference, however, is that schools and school systems are now expected to
demonstrate changes they effect and show how the funds they spend contribute
directly to improved learning outcomes. It is clear that schools that developed the
capacity for continuing innovation and improvement used data as an essential
component of their development. However, there is a substantial need in most
schools for external assistance to access and build the capacity to do this.
Innovation and systemic constraints
The IBPP schools made reference in their reports to obstacles arising from
membership of government or non-government school systems in relation to
180
constraints attributable to central policies and regulations. The level of autonomy

available to schools locally, however, was an important mediating factor.
Almost one-fifth of the schools reported bureaucratic constraints that impeded

their innovations, most often related to staffing. Other schools might just have
been content to limit their innovations to what was within national and state
regulatory frameworks.
Only a small proportion of the innovations can be represented as attempts to

break the mould of traditional schooling. Most were substantial attempts to
improve schooling within the overarching structures that are presently in place.
This raises the question whether these structures are sufficiently flexible and
robust to form a platform for fundamentally new kinds of schooling. The schools
that sought to develop innovations that were ‘outside the box’ encountered
significant bureaucratic constraints.
The role of market pressures
The survey results, school research reports and case studies all provide evidence
that some of the innovations clearly were responses by schools to a need to
better position themselves in the marketplace. Further, their innovations focused
on complex and deep-seated changes in school practice, rather than the
superficial public relations exercises that some critics fear are the consequence of
market pressures.
However, market pressures alone are not the primary drivers of innovation.
Schools were sites of innovation well before the incursion of market thinking into
education policy making. Nevertheless, market pressures can provide a pressure
to innovate.
Only schools that proclaimed their innovations to be successful were examined.

There may well be schools that under intense market pressure found it too hard
to launch innovations or, where they did, were unable to bring them to a
successful conclusion.
Clearly, the ways in which market exchanges are regulated will mediate the
effects of choice and competition on school innovation. Further, as Angus (1998)
has shown, schools operate in highly regulated environments; market rules
constitute only a small proportion of rules that make up the totality of rules in
the regulatory framework for schools. Infused within the formal regulatory
framework are some of the most powerful forms of regulation—tacit
181
understandings among the actors about what is desirable and achievable. What
appears to be the result of market regulation may also be linked to complex
interactions of rules of various kinds.
Proponents of market conditions in school education, such as Chubb and Moe

(1990), argue that the success or failure of markets is a matter of design. If this is
true, and if innovation is highly valued by policy makers, then more attention
needs to be focused on regulatory design. We know that markets can prompt
innovation but we do not know yet which regulatory conditions enhance and
support market responses.
The process of innovation
It was evident from the research reports of most schools that innovating is more
complex than implementing a planned change. Schools instead got an innovation
off the ground and then finetuned, modified and refocused it during the
implementation phase in response to feedback. It was a matter in some cases of
accommodating the innovation to the circumstances, and in others of biting off
so much, and then some more because schools can manage only so much
change at once. It was likely from the evidence available that data played a role
in determining the nature of changes made subsequent to the initial
implementation of an innovation.
Innovation and evaluation
If flexibility is an enhancement of the power to act, then it is teachers and

students who most need it. Such power is of little use, however, unless teachers
are able to ascertain which actions can reasonably be expected to improve
student learning. This has been a weak link in the school improvement chain.
Good ideas about how best to manage teaching and learning have not been
matched with the means of determining whether the good idea works in
practice. Innovation has been too much a ‘hit or miss’ affair.
This observation should not be taken to mean that the IBPP schools were
disinterested in demonstrating that their innovations improved student learning,
either directly or indirectly. The facts were quite to the contrary. Most found the
research and evaluation processes to be worthwhile. Nor should the schools be
criticised for not having initiated such evaluations of their own volition and with
their own resources. The culture of schooling does not support this kind of
research and the expertise is not usually available among staff to conduct it.
182
Schools tend to use less rigorous methods than would normally satisfy
professional research standards to conclude whether an innovation works or does
not. Slightly more than 70 per cent of schools reported that it was their
perception that the achievement levels of targeted students had improved as a
result of their innovation. Without external support, provided on this occasion
through the IBPP, many would have been hard pressed to demonstrate that this
was the case.
This is a matter that should be noted by system authorities. It is incumbent on

them, especially those promoting devolution (the adoption of flexible systems of
school management) to ensure that schools have the means of evaluating
change. Most IBPP school teams found the experience of evaluation demanding,
having had little prior experience or training. Evaluation is something that has
been done to them rather than by them. In some cases in the IBPP, however,
evaluation had been built into the design of the projects and such schools tended
to exhibit a stronger sense of control over the whole innovation process. With
respect to flexibility, they exercised informed discretion.
The onus on system authorities to act has been heightened by the increasing
demands on schools to account publicly for their performance, particularly in terms
of evidence relating to student learning outcomes. Members of the profession who
fear that such information is liable to be misused have resisted this pressure. The
question of what outcomes evidence should appropriately be placed in the public
arena is yet to be resolved. This issue should not be confused with the community
expectation that schools, in adopting one programme rather than another, are
doing so in the light of evidence that could withstand external scrutiny.
Schools need to be provided with access to expertise and resources. There needs
to be an emphasis on research and evaluation skills in pre-service training and in
professional development programmes. The research community itself needs to
be clearer about which evaluation and research strategies support school
innovation. The models that academic researchers use in their academic work are
seldom practicable in school situations. On the other hand, watered down
versions are unlikely to produce evidence of a quality that make the endeavour
worthwhile. Some researchers in the past, recognising this impasse, have
recommended evaluation models that do not require outcome data; they
emphasise discussion and reflection based on shared impressions. In the busy
world of schools this is an attractive option but not one suited to the outcome-
oriented world of today.
183
A more direct approach is to involve universities more actively in the school

research and evaluation process. The IBPP provided schools with the capacity to
employ external consultants and many did so. The IBPP innovations are the tip of
an iceberg of innovation.
A third approach might be for schools to collaborate on a common innovation

and work in partnership with universities and other external consultants. The
evaluation requirements could be built into the design of the innovation and in
this way impose a much lesser cost and burden of work than if they were added
at the end of the implementation phase of the innovation. The early literacy
innovation at East Park Primary School was of this kind.
184
LESSONS FOR PRACTICE

Chapter 9
Innovation...is what the imaginative and responsive school does when it encounters problems
and challenges or when it thinks out a different and potentially better way of doing
something (Hargreaves, 1999:54).
THE CONTEXT OF INNOVATION

The emerging demands of the knowledge economy suggest that students will require a substantially
enhanced set of skills and knowledge than that which schools have taught over recent decades.
Widespread access to knowledge via information and communications technologies will place much
greater demands on the higher-order cognitive and meta-cognitive capacities of individuals. There is a
need to move beyond strategies that place greatest emphasis on providing students with content and
propositional knowledge to an approach that places greater priority on integrating and understanding
new knowledge.
Many of the IBPP innovations are considered high quality and some of the literacy and ICT-focused
innovations in particular are at the leading edge of developments anywhere in the world. These
demonstrate the capacity of Australian schools to generate innovative responses to challenges as they
emerge. The IBPP programme provided a research framework for schools to evaluate whether their
innovations substantially improved student learning outcomes.
185
This chapter synthesises the key findings that relate directly to successful
innovation in schools. The following chapter deals with issues that relate to policy
and external frameworks to support schools.
THE NATURE OF THE INNOVATIONS

The innovations undertaken by IBPP schools represent practical action taken to
resolve identified educational problems and the strategies implemented to
address future directions. It was not necessary that the innovations were at the
leading edge of national or international practice, but that they were new
developments in the local context of the school in which they were implemented.
Most innovations explicitly sought to incorporate understandings of best practice

and research knowledge into the strategies that were developed. They also built
on past practices and on established school traditions and culture. In many cases,
the innovations required schools to reassess practices and the arrangements for
particular phases of schooling or groups of students. In responding to their
challenges, many schools had to rethink many deep-seated and fundamental
practices and structures that had been taken for granted. Such innovations
tackled second-order change that took them beyond the first-order change
characterised as continuous improvement (Cuban, 1988).
Most of the innovations developed by schools focused on teaching and learning

practices, curriculum, school organisation and resourcing strategies. In both
primary and secondary schools, innovations were most commonly aimed at
increasing the engagement of students in their own learning. These often
involved structural and organisational reorganisation as well as pedagogical
change.
There was movement towards student-centred learning in secondary schools,

often following the analysis of data on student learning and behaviour in the
lower secondary grades. Many primary schools adopted tightly structured
programmes (in many cases, associated with structural change, such as the
introduction of multi-age classes) and specific curriculum learning goals such as
improved literacy and numeracy achievement. Overall, schools’ conceptions of
‘pedagogical innovation’ ranged from highly sophisticated forms of instructional
practice—involving teachers and students in new forms of interaction, cognition
and behaviour—to relatively straightforward activities.
Literacy projects focused on the implementation of research-based designs, while

the ICT-based innovations were driven by a desire to establish new types of
186
learning environments. There was significant variation in the extent to which

schools sought to harness the potential of ICT in their innovations. The most
ambitious ICT-based innovations sought to develop a more student-centred focus
to learning and to refocus the curriculum to this end. Some also sought to use
ICT to create new forms of learning environments by using communications
strategies to support learning at home and providing access to virtual learning
environments.
The most common form of structural or organisational change focused on

regrouping students into multi-age and vertical groups. Strategies to create
longer blocks of time and reduce the number of teachers that individual students
engaged with were common in innovations in the middle-years.
Many of the innovations addressed issues that have emerged from recognition of
the need to improve literacy achievement levels or from identified lack of
engagement in learning and disaffection with schooling. The innovations sought
to develop new teaching and learning practices focused on augmenting teacher-
centred instructional methods with student-centred learning strategies. The
development of strategies to adapt learning environments to the needs of
individual students posed a significant challenge in many innovations. It required
teachers to move away from the standardised provision of traditional school
environments. A contemporary understanding of learning as a process that
focuses on student’s construction of understanding of their immediate world was
the underlying theoretical foundation for many of the innovations.
Schools evidenced a broad view of student learning outcomes that addressed

both specific curriculum learning outcomes and overarching aspects of students’
educational development. Cognitive outcomes included the development of
higher-order cognitive skills, curriculum knowledge in specific areas, and basic
skills in literacy and numeracy. The focus on affective development and social
competencies covered areas such as engagement in and attitude to learning, self-
esteem and self-worth, social behaviour and discipline, and the development of a
capacity to work collaboratively as a member of a team. Schools that focused on
the improvement of outcomes in the middle-years restructured the curriculum
towards a more generic ‘thinking skills’ curriculum that drew on current
curriculum frameworks for specific content as required. There was a real sense
that these schools were moving beyond the basic curriculum to the extended
development of students.
187
SCHOOLS’ CAPACITY TO INNOVATE

The processes in most schools reflected factors that have been found to be
important in the educational change management literature. The capacity of
schools to manage change was evident in these innovations.
Few of the schools made reference to materials and resources as critical factors in
their innovations. It was as if the commitment to the innovation and to the
flexible use of resources was sufficient to meet the resource needs of most of the
innovations. Given these prerequisites, schools were adept at managing their
resources strategically to achieve improved outcomes for students. Innovations
that were focused on classrooms tended to be designed to maximise the use of
resources that were already available in the school or established as a high
priority in school budgets.
There was clear evidence that many of the innovations had been embedded in
the ongoing operations of schools. Some were clearly at the vanguard of more
substantial reforms that were part of a significant paradigm shift in thinking
about the way the school would operate in the future. The school staff involved
in the innovations were consciously aware of the value of the reforms. The
commitment of the school to the innovation was signalled by the allocation of
appropriate resources. Schools were cognisant of the fact that they had tapped
into deep currents in educational reform, and felt swept along by the tide of
demand for lasting reform.
The whole-school nature of most of the innovations presupposed that schools

would develop a shared understanding of the need for and the nature of the
change in advance of its implementation. Most, however, encountered some
resistance, principally from staff or parents. Their response to resistance was
critical to the success of the innovation. Information, communication and
opportunities to discuss the change were essential in building support for the
innovation within the school and its community.
Access to knowledge in one form or another was a significant aspect of the

process involved in all of the innovations. This took three forms: the harvesting
of knowledge from the research literature and from successful professional
experience; the construction of knowledge about the school, by analysing and
developing strategies to better understand the issues that were to be tackled in
the innovation; and the enhancement of the knowledge base among school staff,
in the form of professional learning. These three aspects of knowledge were
188
critical for self-managing schools in particular, because such schools had to

determine for themselves the best way to maintain and enhance their
performance.
Although the schools made substantial use of research and best practice
information, there was evidence throughout the project that in many cases they
found it difficult to locate and access appropriate sources of information. The
schools often sought to fill this gap by accessing the professional experience and
expertise of other schools. Schools that developed innovations incorporating
well-developed designs, such as in the literacy area, generally gained access to
the research and best practice sources on which they were based.
Hill and Crévola (1997) provide a framework of beliefs and understandings;

school organisation; and practice for understanding whole-school improvement.
This framework is employed below to bring together the key findings about
effective practice across the IBPP schools.
The schools focusing on literacy and mathematics innovations provided

contrasting cases that demonstrate the value of a whole-school focus in the
development of a coherent set of beliefs and understandings. The literacy schools
placed a strong emphasis on gaining school-wide agreement and congruence
among all teachers about the model of literacy teaching that they were
implementing. On the other hand, the schools focusing on mathematics
innovations generally placed less emphasis on the development of congruency of
understanding about the teaching and learning of mathematics. Further, in a
number of schools, the teachers in the mathematics programme had exempted
themselves from the whole-school nature of other innovations that were being
implemented.
The success of the literacy innovations, and of other innovations that emphasised
a whole-school focus, indicates that schools should emphasise the need for all
significant innovations to have congruence of beliefs and understandings about
learning across the whole school to underpin them.
Well-articulated philosophical and educational foundations were at the core of

strategies to align beliefs and understandings across the school. Schools focused
on aligning their vision, pedagogy, infrastructure and relationships with external
agencies, to enhance the culture and profile of the school in its community.
189
Typically, the leadership team took the lead role in this process of developing an
agreed approach to teaching and learning, the use of space and time in the
school, and the establishment of a culture of innovation and improvement.
Schools developed a positive attitude towards change that enabled them to

recognise that they could respond to student needs by doing things a different
way. Most considered that this approach was a defining feature not only of their
innovation, but also of the way they operate generally. Sometimes an individual
new to the school acted as a catalyst because they could see the importance of
change and had experienced similar innovations in other settings. In other
instances, groups within the school decided that the traditional approaches to
dealing with a problem had not worked, and that something different was
needed and should be attempted.
The innovations highlighted the changed beliefs and understandings that are
needed for teaching in the learning environments now emerging in schools.
Much of this derived from an understanding of contemporary theories of
learning that focus on the role of teachers in developing learning environments
to maximise the challenge to each individual student. The role of learning
becomes more demanding as teachers relinquish much of their traditional
information transmission function and shift their focus to supporting the next
phase of learning for each student. Given the mixed ability context of most
classrooms, this requires teachers to develop the understandings and capacities to
simultaneously cater for the specific learning needs of all students.
Leadership and coordination
Sustainable innovations that have a significant impact require the exercise of

high-level leadership and management coordination. Innovations that focus only
on an individual classroom are easier to implement than whole-school change.
However, they are less likely to be sustained, because they do not become
embedded into the culture, structures and deep practices of the school.
The role of leadership becomes evident immediately an innovation requires the

coordinated action and support of more than a single teacher. The complexity of
the innovations had a significant impact on the exercise of leadership. More
complex whole-school innovations required high-level support from the school
principal and coordinated action, particularly in cases where the innovation
impacted on areas of the school that were not directly involved.
190
The schools found that successful innovation was a challenging but satisfying
endeavour. In many cases, the specific innovation was part of a more ambitious
process of change to the organisational and learning environment of the school.
Many of the innovations were more complex than routine approaches to
improvement, as they focused on researching and assessing their impact, followed
by modification of strategies to achieve the intended outcomes. The literacy
innovations, in particular, represented a change in orientation from a piece-meal
approach to improvement to a whole-school design approach to change.
A distributed model of leadership was evident in most innovations. Principals

took either a high profile hands-on leadership role or alternatively established the
parameters and structures that the innovation required and then delegated the
day-to-day leadership of the innovation to a team of teachers. The leadership
roles of teachers and principals generally resided in different aspects of the
innovations. In particular, teachers often had the most active instructional
leadership role and frequently exercised leadership in managing innovations while
the principal played a strategic role that focused on the points of intersection
between the innovation and other programmes and activities in the school.
A key component of coordination in the innovations involved the flexible

deployment of resources. Schools that had the capacity to target resources in
ways that explicitly enhanced their innovations were able to support the
professional passion and instructional leadership of teachers. Schools used their
flexibility in the deployment of resources to develop alternative learning
environments off-site, either as an alternative facility or through the development
of on-line courses that students could study from home. They deployed resources
flexibly within schools, principally by coordinating programmes in the middle-
years among fewer teaching staff to enhance the quality of student-teacher
interaction.
Standards and targets
Innovations that were based on the implementation of well-established models

and designs set clear targets and standards for the learning outcomes that they
sought to achieve. Innovations that were unable to draw on models that were as
well grounded in the research and professional literature generally were weaker
in establishing clear standards and targets. This was due to uncertainty about the
nature of the outcomes that they believed could be achieved and the lack of
relevant benchmarks that they could call upon to guide them.
191
The innovations in the area of literacy were the most highly developed and
‘hard-nosed’ in their capacity to focus on the improvement of learning outcomes
for students. In line with the best programmes that have been able to
demonstrate their effectiveness in the improvement of learning, the innovations
explicitly highlight the improvement of specific student learning outcomes as
their primary objective and set demanding targets for students (Kentucky
Department of Education, 1997).
In some schools, the middle-years and ICT-based innovations sought to

demonstrate an impact on the precursors of cognitive outcomes, such as the
improvement of student engagement and motivation, rather than specify targets
for cognitive outcomes. The inability of some innovations to specify targets and
standards had the impact of robbing them of some of the collateral benefits that
can be gained by having high expectations for learning. In other schools, ICT
innovations were able to demonstrate substantial improvements in curriculum
learning outcomes at Year 12. They also demonstrated meta-cognitive and self-
regulatory outcomes particularly where the innovation was part of a broader set
of reforms. Alignment between the learning outcomes and specific software was
evident in some innovations particularly where the ICT innovation had focused
on Years 11–12 outcomes.
There was a paucity of appropriate methodologies and instruments available to

schools for measuring the outcomes of some of the innovations. The standard
range of learning assessments used in schools often did not correspond to the
areas of learning that were the foci of the innovations.
Schools indicated that they considered the main outcomes from their innovations
were improved student outcomes; and growth in teachers’ expertise,
understandings and knowledge. The project required schools to provide evidence
of the outcomes of their innovation and how they might measure the
improvement. This requirement to measure outcomes and formally evaluate the
impact of them distinguished the project from previous school improvement
initiatives.
The schools were able to demonstrate in most cases that their innovations had
improved learning outcomes for students. Almost one-third of the participating
schools provided evidence of significant improvement for students that could be
attributable to the innovation, and a further 40 per cent provided evidence of
improvement in outcomes that was associated with the innovation. Another
quarter of the schools provided evidence that the innovation had an impact on
192
intermediate outcomes for students, such as improvement in student motivation,

but were unable during the period of the project to show that this translated into
improved curriculum learning outcomes.
Monitoring and assessment
The learning outcomes targeted by many of the innovations reached beyond the
range of behaviouristic curriculum outcomes normally assessed in schools to
include complex cognitive skills, self-regulation learning skills, attitudes to
learning, confidence and self-esteem, and social competencies (cf. Corno, 1993;
Wang & Pallincsar, 1989; Wittrock, 1986).
Enhancement of teacher learning and knowledge about literacy and children’s

learning was the main mechanism through which literacy programmes sought to
improve student learning outcomes. Models of literacy improvement
implemented by schools generally included ready access to articulated and
detailed strategies for assessing student literacy skills. Assessment data from these
strategies was used explicitly to diagnose the learning of individual students.
The schools developed an enhanced regard for the usefulness and role of
monitoring and assessment of student learning outcomes. The strongest
innovations developed strategies that employed the outcomes of assessment as
feedback about the effectiveness of teaching, a critical feature of the most
effective programmes of learning (cf. Bloom, 1976; Kentucky Department of
Education, 1997). They also established processes to track the learning of each
student, and made use of this information to target the level of challenge for
each student and report on the learning outcomes they had achieved to date.
Schools often found that there was considerably more information available in
the achievement data they receive from systemic assessments of their students
than they had previously thought.
Many innovations targeted areas or years of schooling for which systemic

assessment data proved to be insensitive or inappropriate in assessing its impact.
Many schools experienced difficulty in obtaining measures that gave reliable
feedback about the impact of their innovation on the learning outcomes they
were seeking to influence. The middle-years and ICT-based innovations, in
particular, found it difficult to locate or develop appropriate measures against
which to monitor and assess student progress. Nevertheless, with external
support, they developed strategies that were able to demonstrate significant
improvement in the conditions likely to lead to enhanced learning outcomes.
193
In many cases, the evaluations of the innovations included qualitative data from
student and teacher interviews. Whilst this provided appropriate evidence about
the impact of their innovation, such methodologies are not convenient for
providing ongoing information about student learning progress and further
development work is required to support schools to assess student outcomes.
There was evidence that the rigorous monitoring and assessment regimes built
into many of the literacy programmes were demanding of teacher time, but
teachers supported their use for diagnosing the developmental needs of each
student. The assessment processes provide high quality quantitative data and
qualitative observational data on students’ literacy behaviours. Teachers found
that, with experience, the monitoring and assessment process became less
demanding of their time. High-level expertise in assessment and literacy
knowledge was required in order to use this information as feedback to the
teaching and learning process.
The research reports from schools indicated that the mathematics innovations
regularly assessed students. However, the information generated from the
assessments was rarely used to reflect on practice, provide feedback on the
effectiveness of teaching, track the learning progress of individual students or
adapt teaching to the needs and stage of learning of individual students.
Teaching and learning
Teaching and learning was the major focus of most of the innovations. Unlike
earlier initiatives focused on ‘restructuring’ the organisation of teaching and
learning in schools, the schools focused their attention on student learning first,
and made organisational changes as required to address learning.
The underlying theoretical model of learning that underpinned many of the

innovations was one that drew on a constructivist and self-regulated view to
learning. The affective domain was often incorporated as an essential element of
learning outcomes as it was regarded as a significant precursor of other learning
outcomes. For example, there was a strong view in the mathematics innovations
that it is essential that students develop confidence in their ability to do
mathematics.
The innovations identified the most effective classroom environments as those

that provided an integrated role for specific intervention in small group or one-
to-one learning contexts in addition to whole-class explicit teaching. Students
194
who needed additional support and additional time to learn were the focus of
such intervention and special assistance strategies (cf. Bloom, 1976; Kulik &
Kulik, 1991).
Instructional innovations aimed to better meet student learning needs. Teachers

sought to gain a deeper understanding of the development needs of each
individual student and to adapt strategies to meet these needs, a strategy
strongly supported in the research literature (cf. Creemers, 1994). In the literacy
innovations, this involved the development of an articulated set of whole-class,
small-group, and one-to-one teaching and learning strategies. Innovations in the
middle-years tended to focus instructional development on small group and
individual learning strategies through the use of approaches such as problem-
based learning. The ICT-based innovations placed most focus on the
development of individualised learning strategies, although there was also some
development of group learning strategies through approaches such as learning
teams.
A number of metaphors have been developed to describe the multifaceted role

of the teacher in this context. These various roles are not exclusive of one
another; rather, they are a suite of roles to be enacted by the teacher. These roles
include the theatrical director who directs and orchestrates learners’ thinking; the
tour guide who guides and chaperones learners; the scaffolder who provides the
structures and supports; the provocateur who challenges and struggles with the
learner; the negotiator who acts as broker between learner and curriculum; the
committee chair who reconciles, organises and manages goals and agendas and
the modeller who shapes and moulds learners’ knowledge (Watts & Jofili, 1998).
The whole-school initiatives in literacy, focused mainly in the early-years, were

able to draw on a well-developed research literature and proven instructional
models, but middle-years initiatives generally had to assemble their improvement
strategies from a range of diverse sources. The models of literacy teaching and
learning provided teachers with a detailed understanding of the development of
literacy skills in the early-years and a highly structured programme (cf. Pelligreno
et al., 1999) that aims to ensure all students master literacy skills at a level
necessary for them to progress to their next stage of schooling (cf. Bloom, 1976);
Rosenshine, 1987). The literacy innovations adapted research-based models of
literacy learning, such as Reading Recovery and First Steps, to school contexts
and the specific needs of students (cf. Crévola & Hill, 1998b).
195
The innovations in the middle-years introduced strategies that transformed

learning environments. These transformed environments were designed to
support learning as students matured cognitively (cf. Kuhn, 1999), provide
learning opportunities and hold high expectations for students. Unlike the literacy
innovations, the initiatives were not able to draw on a well-elaborated model of
teaching or learning, but had access to a substantial literature from national and
international research and inquiries into the issues that students face in learning
at that stage of their development. Hence, in contrast to the literacy innovations,
those in the middle-years provided a greater challenge to teachers to translate
their understandings into practice and evaluate their efficacy.
One of the significant outcomes from the middle-years innovations is the

emergent focus on a ‘thinking skills’ curriculum that is designed to provide
students with a better opportunity to develop effective strategies for the self-
regulation of their learning. Further, this emerging curriculum seeks to equip
students with a broad set of skills and knowledge about problem solving and
other meta-cognitive strategies. The research literature on the transfer of skills
and knowledge indicates that the most successful approach to the teaching of
thinking skills is to ensure that they are learnt in the context of the propositional
knowledge to which they will be applied (Hattie et al., 1996).
Many schools were successful in integrating ICT into their learning environments
to provide more authentic and adaptable contexts that better meet the learning
needs of individual students in the middle-years. Schools found that they were
able to integrate ICT into their learning environments to support significant
enhancements in student enjoyment and motivation to learn (cf. Kulik & Kulik,
1991). The challenge addressed by many of the schools was how to move
beyond the instrumental use of ICT to enhance standard curriculum knowledge
to achieve outcomes associated with higher-order cognitive development,
affective development, and the enhancement of social competencies.
The innovations in these schools focused on opportunities for students to learn in

more constructivist and flexible ways. Such approaches enabled students to
develop their meta-cognitive and self-regulatory skills and the skills and capacities
for collaborative and cooperative learning. These they can use to achieve team-
based outcomes, thereby enhancing their capacity to engage in learning.
In line with a social-constructivist approach to learning, many of the innovations

developed strategies that sought to present students with a constant challenge to
move beyond what they know at any time, to develop new knowledge and
196
understandings. Other ICT innovations focused on the implementation of well-

established models of ICT use, such as programmes in which every student has
their own laptop. Innovations with a more local focus generally sought to explore
the use of ICT in a specialist area of learning.
The mathematics innovations did not generally seek to comprehensively reshape

teaching and learning to the extent found in the literacy and middle-years
innovations. They sought to address the issues of making mathematics more
meaningful for students through the development of strategies to make learning
more authentic. They also sought to develop strategies for students to learn at a
pace they could manage and to experience success in learning mathematics.
Much of the emphasis was on enhancing the disposition and attitude of students
to mathematics as a means to gaining improved student engagement.
School and class organisation
Many of the innovations changed classroom practices by restructuring the

instructional framework to integrate whole-class, small group, and one-to-one
learning. This was particularly evident in the literacy innovations, but also had
some profile in the middle-years and ICT innovations, albeit in a somewhat
different format. The structure of grouping in the early-years of primary
schooling is considerably more advanced than the use of grouping to stream or
set students that is used by some schools in the early years of secondary
schooling. The aim of the integrated multi-tiered grouping design is to ensure
that students who do not gain mastery of the skills required in whole-class
instruction have the opportunity to develop their skills in small-group work, and
if required, in additional one-to-one instruction (cf. Crévola and Hill, 1998b;
Janssens, 1986). To provide the resources required for this model of learning,
schools scheduled longer blocks of time for literacy sessions, minimised any
interruptions during this time, and deployed all available staff in the literacy
programme during this period of the day.
The restructuring of grouping in the middle-years and ICT innovations focused

on increased use of project-based learning and cooperative team learning, and
individualisation through the strategic use of ICT. A range of other innovations
also introduced new organisational groupings of students, mostly in the form of
multi-age classes. Innovations across both primary and secondary years made use
of temporary grouping for specific purposes, such as adapting teaching to the
needs of students considered to be ‘at risk’.
197
The middle-years innovations also focused on restructuring the organisation of

the curriculum and introducing vertical-grouping across grades. Curriculum
restructuring involved the development of cross-curricular approaches to teaching
and reducing the number of teachers that each student had contact with by
having each teacher teach in two or more curriculum areas. Another aspect of
the organisation of schools common to the literacy and middle-years’ innovations
was the restructuring of time. In particular, a number of the literacy innovations
introduced fixed two-hour segments each day for teaching literacy. These
segments were quarantined from interruptions and given over entirely to the
teaching of literacy. To achieve this, schools needed to develop more flexible
practices in the use of staff so that all students could be engaged in literacy
lessons at the same time and also develop and resource strategies to support
small-group and one-to-one learning. These particular innovations occurred
mainly in schools that had the capacity to redirect their resources to meet specific
objectives.
Professional learning
Research indicates that programmes that have demonstrated a clear impact on

the improvement of learning outcomes emphasised professional learning—by
valuing the pedagogical knowledge that teachers have acquired previously—and
were highly responsive to the professional learning needs of individual teachers
(Kentucky Department of Education, 1997).
Teacher learning was a dominant strategy used by IBPP schools to achieve their
goals. The role of teacher learning in the innovations substantially extended pre-
existing conceptions of professional development. Many schools viewed teacher
learning as the primary vehicle for enhancing school capacity to develop and
implement their innovation.
Fundamental to the emerging model of professional learning are three features:

learning together in teaching teams; learning through ‘working’ with knowledge
to develop an understanding of its practical application in the classroom; and
evaluation of the efficacy of teaching strategies developed through professional
learning.
Schools allocated significant time for teams of teachers to be actively involved in

the following:
• gathering information about knowledge and practice elsewhere, either from

the literature or from the professional experiences of other schools;
198
• participating in focused discussions and reflection within schools;
• engaging in experimental development activities and trial strategies;
• developing strategies to use feedback from student learning to monitor the

effectiveness of teaching; and
• developing mentoring and peer observation strategies to support teacher

learning.
Strategies focused on developing understandings of contemporary theories of

student learning and teaching practices that had been found to be effective
elsewhere. Schools continuously revisited the underlying rationale and
development of practices as their innovations developed. Many of the
professional learning strategies involved teachers in much closer relationships
with researchers and specialist consultants than has been the normal case with
traditional professional development programmes.
A wide range of contexts and activities were designed to support teacher

learning. Strategies for teacher learning were embedded as a core element in the
implementation of the innovations themselves. The multi-faceted and flexible
nature of the teacher professional learning programmes meant that it was
possible to explicitly value the experience and knowledge base of individual
teachers and to focus further learning on the development of new skills and
knowledge to meet specific needs. In most innovations, the learning needs of
teachers changed and evolved as the innovation was implemented. Schools made
use of both expert outside and internal input in providing teachers with
opportunities to work through issues and engage in new learning both in and out
of the classroom.
The distributed form of leadership that was evident in many of the schools also
supported teacher learning by giving teachers leading roles in the instructional
development of the innovations. Although teachers took responsibility for their
own individual learning, the learning processes used were commonly group
processes in which expert input, team reflection, argument, debate and the
generation of ideas were able to influence both the group and the individual.
Many schools appointed teachers with a specific role to coordinate the
development and implementation of the innovation. These teachers took on the
explicit role of ‘lead-learners’ responsible for establishing structures and processes
that supported mentoring, professional sharing and channelling of relevant
professional literature to teachers involved in implementing the innovation. This
199
extended role of professional learning was strongest in the literacy innovations.

However, there were significant elements of it in many of the whole-school
innovations.
The teacher learning contexts and processes developed by schools provided more
than the opportunity for teachers to gain knowledge and skills. It also supported
the development of common understandings across the school and played an
important role in motivating staff and maintaining energy and enthusiasm for the
innovation. Professional learning was the main focus of strategies for addressing
resistance from staff, often those not directly involved, to the innovations.
Home, school and community partnerships
Schools built on the research base that indicates a strong role for parents in
supporting effective student learning. Recent research has indicated that parents
would seek improved opportunities for schools to provide them with specific
educational advice about how they can support the learning of their individual
children (Cuttance & Stokes, 2000).
Developing positive relationships with parent communities was a key aspect of

school culture building. The support of parents was crucial to the success of the
innovations. A few schools underestimated the potential for the parent
community to thwart or impede the innovation.
Strategies that schools developed to include parents included: communicating

with parents about how to monitor the progress of each child; training parents in
strategies to support teachers in the classroom; providing parents with an
enhanced understanding of the nature of the learning that schools were seeking
to achieve; and, enhancing home learning environments to support the overall
learning programme of students. A number of schools with innovations in the
middle-years and with ICT-based innovations also established linkages with
community organisations and local businesses to support students’ overall
programmes of learning.
The success of the IBPP innovations was in most cases highly dependent on the
extent to which they were whole-school ‘root and branch’ approaches to
improvement. Innovations that had tackled issues of second-order change in
schools generally had a significant impact. Innovations that had a much more
limited focus, either because they did not have a whole-school focus or sought to
200
make an incremental improvement were often successful also, but had much
more limited impact on student learning outcomes. The challenges faced by
schools as they adjust to their emerging role in a knowledge society will require
them to make substantial changes to the way they operate and to the outcomes
that they achieve for their students.
The IBPP has shown that a wide range of schools across the nation are capable
of responding effectively to this challenge. Given appropriate conditions, they
can be highly successful in achieving the types of learning outcomes that
students will need to master as they mature cognitively, socially and physically in
becoming citizens in a knowledge-society. A significant subsection of the schools
were responding to a perceived crisis or threat to their viability. In many cases,
they were made aware of their position by market signals, such as declining
enrolments.
The innovations that IBPP schools had developed were their response to the
immediate and the fundamental challenges that they faced as schools. In contrast
to a decade earlier, these schools focused on teaching and learning first, with
structural reforms being brought into play as required. The largest focus of
innovation was in the area of schooling for students in Years 5–9, the so-called
middle-years of schooling. It is of significance that at the time, this was not a
major focus of systemic policy and improvement efforts across the nation.
Literacy was the next most frequent area of innovation, with the predominant
focus in the early-years of schooling, although some secondary school
innovations also focused on this area. The integration of ICT into school learning
environments was the next most frequent focus of innovation. The schools in
these three major focus areas, comprising over 85 per cent of the schools in the
project, were in the vanguard of developments. Most were clearly ahead of
systemic thinking in these areas.
The model of design-based improvement that was developed by Hill and Crévola
(1997) for their successful approach to the teaching of literacy in the early-years
of schooling also provides a useful framework for understanding key elements of
successful innovation in other stages of schooling. The wide range of innovations
that were the focus of the research provides support for the core elements of this
design model. Further, many of the features in the innovations of teaching,
learning, leadership and organisation of schooling are strongly supported by the
knowledge base in the educational research literature. While the design model
provides a framework for considering the elements of successful innovation, it
201
does not capture the dynamics of innovation, which needs to be the focus of
further study.
The IBPP research indicates that the following elements are key factors in the
development of the capacity of schools to generate innovative responses to the
major challenges they face.
• The development of a whole-school understanding of the essential nature of

the issue and understandings of what is required to address it. At root, this
requires schools to develop a shared understanding and set of beliefs about
best practice for their student population and the preparedness to test
strategies against alternative options. The most significant belief that was
crucial to successfully recognising and accepting challenges in the IBPP schools
was the shared belief that students could master the basic skills and establish
successful careers as learners.
• Distributed leadership is essential to developing awareness of emerging

challenges and successful innovation. In most of the IBPP schools, the principal
was a key supporter of the innovation and in many instances also the catalyst.
However, teachers in their various roles were the driving forces of instructional
leadership that brought the innovations into existence and fine-tuned them
against data on their impact on student learning. Professional passion and
commitment were powerful driving forces in the innovations.
• Innovative schools were prepared to set standards and targets for their
improvement and to modify these in light of experience. Schools often
surprised themselves by the significant extent of their achievements. Many
schools found that they had to invent their own strategies for measuring their
success because systemic measures proved to be unsuitable or non-existent in
the majority of cases. This was due in part to the fact that the student
outcomes that many schools were aiming to improve were not measured or
assessed by current measures of student learning.
• With the assistance of the research project, the schools were prepared to take
a hard look at their performance and subject their innovations to rigorous
scrutiny. The research report that each school agreed to produce as part of its
participation in the project was required to evaluate the impact of its
innovation on student learning outcomes. In a large majority of cases, schools
had not undertaken a rigorous evaluation of their performance data prior to
their participation in the project. The assistance provided to the schools
202
through the project was crucial to their capability to undertake such an

analysis of their learning outcomes data.
• Teaching and learning was the principal focus of the innovation in each school.
Although schools did not always have access to or the capacity to interpret
relevant research literature, many of the findings of the critical teaching and
learning practices are strongly supported in the research literature. There was
strong evidence that a highly structured integrated design to the teaching of
literacy in the early-years was particularly successful, with more student-
focused teaching strategies becoming more relevant as students approach
cognitive maturity in their secondary school years. This supports a model of
cognitive development that focuses on the acquisition of basic cognitive skills
in the early-years, the development of meta-cognitive skills and knowledge in
the middle-years, and the achievement of cognitive maturity as a self-directed
learner in the senior years of schooling.
• The models of teaching that schools successfully incorporated into their

innovations with success were based on the integration of whole-class, or
large-group, explicit teaching, small-group cooperative learning and teaching,
and one-to-one tutoring. The one-to-one tutoring was employed to ensure
that all students achieved at the level of mastery required for them to proceed
to the next phase of their learning. Teachers used small-group learning to
address the learning needs of particular sub-groups of students and to gain
the benefits of cooperative learning and peer tutoring where it was
appropriate.
• Probably the most important outcome of the IBPP project was its lessons for
teacher learning. In the most powerful innovations, teachers learnt in teams to
apply new knowledge and in doing so enhanced their understanding of the
learning needs and capacities of their students. In these ‘learning teams’,
teachers played a variety of roles as ‘knowledge-workers’. The fundamental
role of a teacher is to provide the environment that will assist students to
move from their current knowledge state to an enhanced knowledge state
through the process of learning. Understandings of professional development
that are dominated by models for the dissemination of information are
inadequate for supporting teachers in their role in the emerging knowledge
society. Professional learning requires active engagement and work on the
knowledge being developed by teachers if they are to achieve a state that can
be described as understanding.
203
• The IBPP schools sought to enhance the learning network that includes their
parent community. In particular, they focused on expanding the knowledge
base and information about student learning to the student’s home. Many
sought to utilise ICT in developing their capacity to enhance the learning
environment available in the student’s home. Others took significant steps to
train and engage parents in the educational programmes of their children.
Innovations in the middle-years and senior-years expanded the learning
network to include local businesses and community organisations.
A notable feature of the innovations was their high rate of success in improving
learning outcomes for students. Much of the improvement in learning would not
have been detected by the standard range of assessment and testing
programmes that are in systemic use in Australia. Such programmes are too
narrowly focused and confined to too few time points across the stages of
schooling to be of universal use to schools in evaluating the effectiveness of their
innovations and improvement programmes. Schools had to develop or adapt
assessment strategies to evaluate the impact of their innovations on student
learning.
The IBPP demonstrated some significant gaps in the capacity of schools to

undertake innovation and evaluation without external support. The two main
areas were in relation to the sourcing of relevant knowledge to support and
develop their innovations and the skills and knowledge about how they could
collect and analyse data to evaluate the impact of the evaluations. Most of the
schools did not routinely analyse student outcome data or assess the impact of
classroom practice on learning prior to their participation in the IBPP. Participation
in the project heightened teacher awareness of accountability for improved
student learning outcomes and assisted in clarifying teacher expectations of their
students and of themselves. The IBPP supported schools to undertake rigorously
researched evaluations of the impact of their innovations. These evaluations
demonstrated that ICT can be integrated into school learning environments to
enhance the quality of teaching and learning and to achieve improved learning
outcomes for students.
The outcomes that schools sought to improve through their innovations were
broader than the standard set of curriculum outcomes currently assessed and
reported by most schools. In addition to the standard outcomes associated with
the propositional knowledge that is the focus of the formal curriculum, the IBPP
schools sought to assess complex thinking skills, affective development of
204
students and social competencies, such as the ability to work collaboratively in

teams. This set of skills and knowledge was the focus of the innovations because
schools were responding to their understanding of the capacities that students
need to acquire for their future as citizens in the knowledge society, and as
‘knowledge-workers’ of the future. The National Goals for Schooling for the
Twenty-First Century (The National Goals for Schooling [1999]) will need further
revision to reflect complex thinking skills, including second-order meta-cognitive
skills and knowledge and the capacity for self-regulation of learning. Knowledge-
workers are, by definition, continuously immersed in learning since the process of
learning is itself the enhancement and extension of understanding.
205
206
LESSONS FOR POLICY

Chapter 10
Peter Cuttance
INTRODUCTION
If schooling is to be the engine of the emerging knowledge-society and economy then, innovation has
to be a central plank of schooling. The fundamental raw material of schooling is itself knowledge
produced in the past, and the activity of schooling is the production of new knowledge in the form of
the development of students’ understandings and skills.
Education is recognised by OECD member states as a fundamental key to wealth creation

and competitiveness in the current global information economy (OECD, 1999).
The implementation and outcomes of the IBPP have substantially extended our understanding of
successful school innovation. We know from school effectiveness research that schools can make a
difference in student outcomes and that this has stimulated an interest in how school change could
lead to an improvement in outcomes for students (Hopkins et al., 1979; Teddlie & Reynolds, 1999).
The single most important finding of research on variation in the effectiveness of schools is that, on
average, the differences to effectiveness between classrooms and programmes within individual
schools are much greater than the differences in effectiveness between most schools. Hence,
strategies aimed at improving schools by reducing the variation in effectiveness within individual
207
schools have much greater scope for improving the effectiveness and
performance of schools than strategies that seek to address the variation
between schools. The IBPP innovations sit firmly within a school improvement
tradition concerned with both the processes of change and the outcomes of
improvement efforts.
The IBPP was designed to support school innovation by exerting constructive

pressure for schools to demonstrate their effectiveness in improving learning
outcomes for students. Pressure took the form of high expectations and a finite
time frame for evaluation. Support was provided through funding and other
direct support for the innovations and advice about rigorous evaluation that
could stand up to external scrutiny.
Among the IBPP schools there was a high level of awareness of the scope of the
recent educational reform agenda. A number of the schools can be described as
being at the formative end of the spectrum in influencing the reform agenda,
particularly where it has focused in more recent times on learning outcomes, as
opposed to structural issues. The leading-edge innovations in the IBPP focused
on issues of learning and learning outcomes, supported by an interactive
relationship with the research community. The schools were users of research
knowledge and integrated research-based designs for improving learning. These
schools were also strong contributors to the production and dissemination of new
knowledge about effective practice in schools.
As noted earlier in this report, only a small number of the innovations sought to
break the mould of current arrangements for schooling. Most aspired to improve
school performance by incorporating understandings of best practice and
research knowledge into their current structures and processes. Although this
required schools to rethink well-established practices, it suggests that significant
breakthroughs are unlikely given current constraints on the operation of schools.
The schools that did seek to develop innovations that were ‘outside the box’
often encountered bureaucratic constraints.
The development of strategies to adapt learning environments to the needs of

individual students posed a significant challenge to schools, as it required
teachers to move away from the standardised provision of traditional school
environments. Other significant challenges for many schools were instituting
pedagogical practices that engaged students more intensely in their learning; and
changing the conventional timetable, which in some cases constrained teachers
to relatively short periods with students.
208
Many of the schools were of the view that the rapidly developing capacity of
communication systems to allow access to almost unlimited amounts of
information at low cost will shift the focus of human understanding to higher-
level analysis, with a focus on the interpretation of complex information. Schools
were seeking to provide their students with the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks plus the analytical tools that are likely to be required in this emerging
world. Many of the innovations also sought to significantly transform the way
they address issues of teaching and learning by recognising that “what was a
discrete architectural space, a classroom, is altered spatially and temporally by the
use of new information technologies” (Bigum & Green, 1993: 12).
As indicated in the previous chapter, some of the innovations were judged as

being at the leading edge of developments internationally. This was most evident
of the literacy and the ICT-based innovations. However, in most schools, the
innovations did not have to be at the leading edge to make a significant
improvement in student learning outcomes. The schools in the IBPP were not
selected because they were the highest performing or most innovative schools in
the nation. Rather, they were selected because they evidenced a potential to
innovate and to evaluate the impact of their innovation on the improvement of
learning outcomes for students.
The IBPP indicates that schools across a broad spectrum have the capacity to
tackle innovations that lead to improvement in learning outcomes for students.
The schools represented a wide cross-section from both government and non-
government sectors across: the stages of schooling, rural and urban locations,
levels of community disadvantage, religious/secular orientation, and sources of
government funding ie federal or state. The findings indicate that a wide range
of schools have the capacity for successful innovation, given appropriate
conditions.
PRESSURES AND CONSTRAINTS ON

INNOVATION IN SCHOOLS
Pressures for schools to innovate
The impact of both constructive pressure and support as necessary components

in the improvement of schools (Fullan, 1993) was evident across the IBPP
schools. The research identified a number of forces both external and internal to
them that influenced their propensity to engage in and sustain innovative
209
development projects. The external pressures included significant changes in the

broader social and economic environment and specific developments in the
educational environment of schooling (Boston, 1997; Holden, 2001). The IBPP
schools were aware of these pressures through resulting developments in
educational policy, market forces and professional discourse about school
innovation. In addition, professional pressures within the IBPP schools were a
significant factor in their innovations.
External pressure from the increasing relevance and use of ICT in the broader
social and economic environment was a clear factor in many of the ICT-based
innovations. Schools sought to take advantage of the first major opportunity that
was available for the widespread integration of ICT into learning environments.
Likewise, the enhanced public discussion of literacy standards over the last
decade was a significant factor in many of the innovations. All states and
territories now participate in national benchmarking of student literacy outcomes
and information about the literacy standards of students in the primary years is
now available to the public. Research developments in the teaching of literacy
have shown that particular strategies can have a significant impact on improving
outcomes for students, thus putting pressure on schools to adopt such strategies.
A number of national and state-based projects over the last decade have sought to
address the recognised problems of student engagement and learning in the
middle-years. About one-third of the IBPP innovations sought to address problems
of student learning and disengagement in the middle-years of schooling.
Over the last two decades, there has been a shift in the focus of governments to
emphasise policy and regulation of schools, and a reduction in the direct role of
government in the management of schools. This has been brought about by
higher levels of devolution of authority to schools, resulting in the emergence of
self-managing government schools and the growth in the provision of services to
schools from outside of government; and enhanced regulatory systems of
accountability for student learning outcomes (Angus, 1998; Caldwell, 1998,
2001; Caldwell & Hayward, 1998).
Although these external policy developments were critical to the innovations in

many schools, powerful professional internal pressures for improvement were
equally critical. In most cases, the external and internal pressures were jointly
responsible for the innovations. The external pressures created the environment
and signals for innovation and internal pressures, derived mainly from the
210
substantial insights and professional experience of teachers, led schools to seek

better ways of meeting the needs of their students.
One-sixth of the schools indicated that their innovation was driven by ‘market’
signals that indicated a potential crisis or threat to their future or a perceived
need to position themselves better in the marketplace. Such schools saw
innovation as a major strategy for securing their future. The innovations in these
schools mostly focused on complex and deep-seated changes in school practice,
rather than superficial public relations exercises that could otherwise be the
response to market pressures manifest through processes such as more active
parent choice among schools (Cuttance & Stokes, 2000). In the non-government
sector, a decline in the school’s market position can crystallise relatively quickly
into a fundamental question of economic survival for a school. With more active
parent choice operating across all sectors, the pressures of declining demand for
the services of individual schools can also have similar effects in the government
sector, although this may be played out in a delayed timeframe.
The pressures on schools to develop innovations and improvement strategies are

complex. Some pressures reinforce one another while others combine to provide
mixed signals to schools. Increasingly, schools are operating in an environment
that is subject to pressures from four sources: public and professional discourse,
the framework of educational policy, the regulatory environment, and market
forces. The IBPP research focused on schools that were generally successful in
their innovative responses to such pressures. The relevance of the findings from
the IBPP schools is limited for other schools that, for a range of reasons, are
unable to respond effectively to such pressures for improvement.
Constraints on school innovation
The formal regulatory frameworks for schooling are those that regulate
personnel, financial management, curriculum, and assessment. Regulatory
frameworks consist of both formal regulations and informal and tacit
understandings (Angus, 1998). The activities of schools are kept in line by formal
and informal sanctions related to such regulatory frameworks.
The increased focus of accountability on learning outcomes for students has been
paralleled by a move away from strong regulation of the educational inputs to
schooling. There has been a simultaneous tightening of regulatory frameworks in
relation to accountability for learning outcomes (performance accountability) and
211
a weakening of regulations circumscribing inputs, processes and the practice of

schooling (administrative accountability).
The impact of this shift in accountability was evident in the focus of the IBPP
innovations. Schools felt able to innovate outside of the formal regulatory
structures without fear of any reprisals where the direct accountability
mechanisms were weaker. This was particularly the case with schools that moved
outside the formal specification of the curriculum to develop an alternative focus
for learning. For example, schools were able to innovate by developing a
curriculum that emphasised the development of students’ capacity and skills in
cognitive analysis and meta-cognitive knowledge and self-regulation of learning
(which many schools refer to as ‘thinking skills’). Such curricula also aimed to
enhance students’ abilities to communicate ideas and information, to plan and
organise activities and to collaborate with others. Such developments were
feasible because there is weak regulatory monitoring of the implementation of
systemic curriculum frameworks. By contrast, there was little evidence of
innovation in the final two years of schooling, other than in the integration of
ICT. The Year 11–12 curriculum and public examination structures directly and
formally regulate both the curriculum and learning outcomes of schools.
Almost one-fifth of the schools had to overcome bureaucratic constraints to their

innovations. Some maintained a low profile for their innovation so as not to
induce the imposition of constrains from external agencies. A small number of
schools sought, and were granted, relief from formal regulatory constraints.
There was evidence of innovation in the deployment of resources where school
systems had substantially enhanced the degree of self-management that schools
could exercise and shifted their focus from administrative accountability to
performance accountability.
Markets constitute a part, albeit a relatively small part, of the rules and
regulatory framework for schools (Angus, 1998). The appropriate role for the
market in schooling is dependent on matters of regulatory and policy design.
Hence, there is a need to consider the impact of policy and regulatory
frameworks on the capacity of schools to respond to market signals.
212
POLICIES FOR SUPPORTING SCHOOL

INNOVATION
Policy support for innovation
The Common and Agreed Goals for Schooling in Australia (The National Goals
for Schooling [1989]) a decade ago provided a framework for the development
of many of the key policies that have been the focus of recent policies and
reforms. The National Goals for Schooling (1989) focus significantly on education
as it relates to literacy and numeracy skills and knowledge, and social
competencies. Although they have recently been revised, they will need to be
extended to address the new educational capacities that will be required by the
young people who become the ‘knowledge-workers’ of tomorrow. The challenge
of the next two decades is encapsulated in the National Goals for Schooling in
the Twenty-First Century (The National Goals for Schooling [1999]) as the
development of skills and knowledge for lifelong learning (MCEETYA, 1999).
However, the specific skills and knowledge required by ‘knowledge-workers’ of
the future are largely left unspecified.
An important feature of the IBPP was the emergence of a ‘thinking skills’

curriculum in the middle-years. In these cases, schools were clearly moving
beyond the established curriculum to explore more appropriate ways to provide
learning opportunities for young people who were in the final stages of acquiring
the capacities to be self-regulating learners. In essence, these IBPP schools were
responding to the needs of their students by seeking to address the “gap
between ‘official’ school knowledge and...real-world knowledge” (Hargreaves,
1999: 20). The challenge for policy is to address the issue of how the curriculum
can:
...create a sense of community and common values in a context where

knowledge cannot be restricted in any way and where individual control
[of access to knowledge] is much more powerful than that which might
be exerted by an external agency (Hargreaves, 1999: 20).
As indicated earlier, the major focus of change in policy in Australian schooling

over the last decade in the government sector has been in policies that have
simultaneously led to the emergence of self-managing schools and enhanced
forms of performance accountability. This is consonant with the shift in the role
of governments to a greater focus on policy and regulation accompanied by
devolution of management and decision making to schools (Boston, 1997;
213
Osborn & Gaebler, 1992). There is significant variation across the nation in the
extent of devolution to schools, but all government education systems have
moved in that direction and the Commonwealth Government has enhanced this
aspect of the funding and accountability regime for non-government schools.
The fact that significant devolution has taken place in some states and a quarter
of the schools were tackling issues of literacy suggests that the focus of policy
over the last five years has at least created a climate conducive to innovation. A
quarter of the schools referred to systemic policies and programmes of support as
contributors to their innovation and up to half of the innovations were in the
areas of literacy and ICT, two of the foci of recent policy and programmes of
support for schools. The largest proportion of the innovations sought to tackle
issues that schools face in the middle-years. This is an area that has been subject
to a number of inquiries in Australia and significant research and development
outside of Australia, but which has not been a major subject of policy until very
recently, and then only in one or two systems.
The ICT-based innovations, which were the focus of one-fifth of the schools,
indicated a link between specific funding policies and innovation. In this case,
significant infrastructure development has been undertaken in government
systems and funding has been allocated to government schools, but the
innovations themselves were almost entirely school-initiated in both government
and non-government schools. As a major systemic initiative, the Navigator
School programme in Victoria was an exception in this context, and it was clear
from the scope of the innovations in the Navigator Schools participating in the
IBPP that they were at the leading-edge in Australia and internationally.
The contrast between the environment for innovations in literacy and ICT on the
one hand and in mathematics and science on the other was most stark. In both
the latter cases, there were few innovations and those that did exist were
generally of much reduced scope and, consequently, had less impact on student
outcomes than the literacy and ICT innovations which were supported by strong
policies and high priority programme support.
Self-management and the flexible use of resources
There has been a wide-ranging debate about ways of enhancing the systemic
effectiveness and productivity of schooling. Central to this debate have been two
dimensions of the organisation of schooling, particularly in government systems.
The two central and interlinked dimensions are those of self-management of
214
schools, and flexibility for schools to undertake their fundamental business of

teaching and learning. Both dimensions relate to the way in which resources are
allocated and used in school systems, of which the key resource is teachers,
subject to the constraints imposed by regulatory frameworks.
The arguments for greater levels of self-management being devolved to the

school-level have centred on the capacity of such an approach to enable other
forms of flexibility. For example, schools in some systems, and non-systemic
schools, have a high level of flexibility in selecting and appointing staff to meet
their specific programme needs, whereas those in other systems are still largely
subject to central allocation of staff to schools. The impact of the latter is that it
constrains the capacity of schools to align the experience and skills of individual
teachers to the programme needs of individual schools. Non-government
schools, in general, tend not to be subject to central direction over their budgets,
and hence have a greater degree of flexibility in the way they manage the
pursuit of their teaching and learning goals.
In centralised systems, the relevant concept is rather one of ‘limits’ in which

action and practice are closely bounded by rules and regulations. The amount of
flexibility that schools can exercise is a direct function of the breadth of actions
that are allowed by regulation and the extent to which certain regulations
prescribe the specific actions and rules that must be followed. In practice, there is
weak enforcement of many regulations in the school system, which means that
the flexibility is greater than that formally sanctioned by regulation.
The simultaneous emergence of stronger performance accountability and weaker

administrative accountability has influenced the exercise of flexibility. Flexibility in
the allocation and utilisation of resources does not become relevant until innovation
and improvement become key drivers of schooling. Flexibility was used by IBPP
schools within a disciplined and strategic framework for school improvement and as
future-orientated responses to their perceived challenges. The IBPP schools did not
so much see themselves as restructuring time, space, roles and relationships, as
changing their practices and organisational arrangements to achieve specific
educational outcomes for students. The innovations were much more student-
focused and instructionally-driven then the restructuring efforts of the early 1990’s
and the teacher-focused innovations of the 1970’s.
The emerging need for schools to develop the capacity to utilise data and
evidence to drive improvement is a consequence of increased levels of self-
management. Because schools now have to make decisions about how best to
215
use their resources, rather than have those decisions made elsewhere for them,
they are finding it necessary to develop the capacity to make well-informed
decisions that are vital to the maintenance of their ‘competitiveness’ in the
market for students.
The emergence of greater flexibility in the use of resources for government

schools is likely to increase the degree of diversity across the school system. Non-
government schools already have greater flexibility in the deployment of their
resources, particularly in the recruitment, selection and appointment of their staff.
Diversity...entails the acceptance of innovation at school level but central

control is weaker. Monolithic systems are more easily controlled, but
innovative urges at school level are more frequently stifled (Hargreaves,
1999: 52).
Supporting school innovation
Findings of research in the USA indicate the programmes that are most successful
in supporting school improvement are those that make stringent demands to
adopt the programme in full and set demanding targets for student learning
outcomes, backed up by high quality professional development (Kentucky
Department of Education, 1997). Such programmes are rigorous and backed by
strong research. The only significant set of programmes that were evident among
IBPP schools that met these criteria were some of the early-years literacy
programmes.
Schools that had built an evaluation design into their innovations felt that they
were in greater control of their innovation. In general, the prior experience of
most of the schools was that evaluation was something that had been done to
them, either by an external researcher using the school as a research site, or by
system authorities for accountability purposes. The increasing focus on
performance accountability will require that schools develop the capacity to
demonstrate their outcomes in a way that is open to public scrutiny and meets
external standards.
The strong learning outcomes focus of performance accountability systems

means that the evaluation capacities of schools have to extend beyond discussion
and reflection on their innovations. Professional reflection and discussion is an
essential component of any innovation process, but it is insufficient to provide
evidence of success that is compelling to others. Data-free approaches to
assessing the impact of innovations do not satisfy either accountability
216
requirements or public scrutiny.
Most of the IBPP schools had not previously planned to undertake an evaluation
of their innovation. They were implementing their innovations based on their
understanding of best practice gleaned from the practice of others and from
research-based literature. Schools accepted the desirability of producing hard
evidence based on a rigorous evaluation process, but the requirement that
schools provide evidence of the success of their innovations clearly showed up
areas of underdevelopment in the capacity of schools.
Relatively few schools used systemic assessment data in evaluating their

innovations. The main reason for its lack of use derived from the fact that it
focuses on a specific range of outcomes at particular year levels, and hence, did
not provide the data needed for many of the evaluations. For example, many
schools sought to enhance students’ social competencies and higher-order
thinking skills, neither of which was covered by data available from current
assessment schemes in use in schools.
More than 70 per cent of the schools reported that they believed that their
innovation had improved learning outcomes for students, but without the
external support provided by the IBPP, they would not have been able to provide
evidence to support their claims. In a small number of cases, the rigorous
evaluations schools were able to undertake through their participation in the IBPP
indicated that the innovation was less effective than the school believed. This led
to the abandonment of the innovation in a small number of cases and to
substantial redesign of the innovation in others.
The IBPP schools were little different from the majority of their peers in not
having the capacity to undertake a sound evaluation of the impact of their
innovation for school improvement. In many cases, schools required external
support to move beyond first base in defining how relevant learning outcomes
could be adequately measured and the data they need to collect and analyse.
Very few schools were aware that their evaluation designs would require the
designation of a relevant contrast or comparison as a benchmark to judge
whether the innovation was successful. Pre-service teacher training rarely
provides any focus on such matters and school systems and other support
structures provide few opportunities for schools to access the required skills and
knowledge. Systemic programmes that support school improvement planning
and review potentially provide some of the skills and knowledge required,
however, such programmes rarely provide the support required to link specific
217
innovations and resource allocations to the improvement of student learning.
Many of the methodologies that are employed by academic researchers in

working with schools are not sufficiently flexible and practicable for everyday use
in schools. This does not mean, however, that the methodologies that schools
use should be anything less than rigorous. Schools have the luxury of being able
to make on-going observations to ‘replicate’ their evaluations through well-
designed monitoring processes that are normally not practicable in research work,
given the timeframes and resources available. Hence, schools can check whether
the initial findings of their evaluations are upheld by a series of later assessments
as their innovation matures. The evaluation methodologies that schools utilise
must be sufficiently rigorous to detect whether student learning outcomes are
improving, which may take some time, and to provide evidence that the school
can use to fine-tune and develop the innovation further in light of experience.
The main repository of skills and knowledge of the evaluation methodologies

that schools can access are universities and further education institutions. Schools
in the IBPP relied substantially on external consultancy support to guide them in
their analysis and interpretation of information about the effectiveness of their
innovations in achieving their aims. Schools required access to external expertise
also in clarifying the goals for their innovations, formulating research and
evaluation questions and designing an appropriate methodology for assessing the
impact of their evaluations. These areas of expertise remain substantially
underdeveloped in the programmes of support and general consultancy available
to schools. Data-based approaches to the evaluation of school performance need
to be considerably enhanced and their scope widened if they are to be useful in
addressing the needs of individual schools.
In many cases, schools found that there was a paucity of assessment instruments
and rubrics and strategies available for gathering relevant evidence and
information about the impact of their innovations. In most cases, such
information that did exist was in the research literature, and often it was not
suitable for use in the operational contexts of schools.
The literacy innovations in the IBPP provide the basis of a model in which a
number of schools could collaborate with an appropriate external provider to
evaluate the impact of their innovations. The literacy innovations were based on
a small number of models for literacy learning and would lend themselves to a
common evaluation framework. In contrast, the schools implementing
innovations in the middle-years and the ICT-based innovations had less
218
commonality across schools. What they had in common was an underlying set of
learning outcomes in terms of affective development, social competencies and
meta-cognitive skills and knowledge that could have been the focus of
collaborative evaluation between the schools and an appropriate external
provider.
The innovations that the IBPP schools implemented are no more than the tip of
the iceberg of innovations in schools across the nation. The fact that a very high
proportion of the IBPP schools were able to demonstrate that their innovations
had led to an improvement in student learning outcomes, or in the pre-cursors to
learning outcomes, is strong evidence that school-based innovation can be a
significant source of change in the process of moving towards the development
of a school system that can produce the skills and knowledge required by
knowledge-workers. A policy framework that supports schools to develop and
implement innovations, evaluate their impact on student learning outcomes and
disseminate this knowledge so that it is accessible to other schools will be crucial
to the capacity of schools to meet the demands that will be placed on them as
we move towards a society and economy that makes better use of our
intellectual capital. Leading-edge schools have a critical role to play in this
process. Policies and programmes to support the role of innovation and the
dissemination of best practice knowledge will become a key element of the
infrastructure required by schools.
The support of school innovation also requires opportunities to access knowledge

and skills about best practice and how to implement it in the context of
individual schools. School systems seek to provide such support through
programmes of professional development. Professional development programmes
should be designed in a way that directly supports professional learning. The
most significant component of any learning is the opportunity to ‘work’ with
knowledge to realise new understandings. Many programmes of professional
development are designed principally to disseminate information. This, however,
is no more than the preliminary to a process of professional learning. In general,
the IBPP early literacy innovations developed highly effective models of
professional learning. They developed an integrated support structure that
incorporated:
• access to knowledge and skills;
• team-based learning environments;
219
• structures to support professional interaction;
• strategies for scaffolding the development of new understandings by

integrating new learning with old to enhance practice; and
• strategies to assess the effectiveness of new practices developed as a result of

these integrated learning and development processes.
Few professional development programmes provided for schools move past first
base when judged against this model of professional learning.
There was significant variability in the quality and scope of professional learning
opportunities available in different areas of innovation. For example, the early
years literacy innovations that drew on a well-developed model of literacy
development in the early-years were able to access strong programmes of
teacher learning. However, schools undertaking ICT-based innovations indicated
that although there were ample opportunities for teachers to gain simple
functional skills in the use of ICT, there was very little available to assist them in
developing their knowledge base about the integration of ICT into classroom
learning environments.
The teacher learning contexts and processes developed by the schools provided
more than the opportunity for teachers to gain knowledge and skills. It also
supported the development of common understandings across the school and
played an important role in motivating staff and maintaining energy and
enthusiasm for the innovation. The context for this was well planned and
supported opportunities for collegial and collaborative engagement in discourse
about the innovation.
Schools in the government sector often have access to forums for sharing
information, but their participation in the IBPP provided additional support in the
form of opportunities to share with peers who were also focusing on innovation.
Schools in the non-government sector, on the other hand, often have more
restricted opportunities to share their experiences and innovations because of the
constraining impact of sharing information with ‘competitors’ in a specific sector
of the market.
Feedback from a series of focus-group sessions towards the end of the project
indicated that the level of funding provided to schools was sufficient to act as a
catalyst to the development, implementation and evaluation of their innovations.
This was in contrast to the impact of considerably smaller sums of funding
220
provided to schools in initiatives such as the National Schools Project of a few

years earlier. The overview evaluation of the National Schools Project indicated
that schools had been unable to demonstrate significant impacts on student
learning outcomes from their improvement projects. A key difference between
the IBPP and the National Schools’ Project was the capacity of schools to
purchase targeted additional skills and knowledge from consultants.
The innovations in the IBPP schools arose from their response to a combination
of both external and internal pressures. Schools were responding to emerging
issues for schooling in general, issues that were major topics of professional
debate, changes in policy and regulatory frameworks, and market forces.
A small number of the schools considered that their options were running out
and that they were approaching a crisis of existence. The innovations of these
schools are important because they evidence strategies for school renewal where
current performance is less than what is required.
The policy and systemic programme infrastructure needs to be designed to

support innovation if the strategic intentions of school systems are be realised
more successfully. Innovation in schools requires a policy and regulatory
environment that actively encourages school-based initiatives. Policy and
regulatory frameworks can support school innovation by enhancing the capacity
of schools to allocate their resources to priority areas for improvement and
reduce impediments for schools to tackle priority areas for their improvement.
It is important that policy and regulatory systems maintain a constructive level of

pressure through programmes that require schools to demonstrate that their
innovations are achieving improved outcomes for students. They should also
target strategies that provide access to the skills required by schools to develop
their innovations. Policy and regulatory frameworks need to be designed to allow
schools to best respond to community needs, within a framework for schooling
that is itself designed to meet projected national needs and circumstances.
Although external forces were significant drivers of innovation, the findings from
the IBPP schools are not proof that all schools can respond to such pressures.
Policies designed to support effective school improvement as a response to
external pressures need to consider how schools that lack the internal capacity to
innovate can be enabled to improve, without reducing the capacity of other
schools to respond to external demands and pressures.
221
Self-management should be designed to provide schools with the capacity to

adapt better to local needs and circumstances. Given that flexibility is the power
to act, the greatest flexibility is required where action can most directly be taken
to effect improvement in learning outcomes for students, that is, at the level of
the classroom. The capacity of schools to develop and implement strategies that
incorporate best practice and knowledge at this level needs to be a key objective
of educational policy. However, the provision of flexibility at the classroom level
needs to be aligned with school-level strategies for whole-school development
and improvement if it is to be sustainable and have an impact for all students.
A key aim of the IBPP was to provide evidence about the effectiveness of the
innovations in each school. Only some of the ideas and models that were the
source of input to the design of innovations had sound evidence to support them
in professional experience or the research literature. In a number of cases, the
IBPP was to be the proving ground for particular ideas. The innovations required
significant professional energy and many schools planned that the innovation
would be scaled-up over time.
As a consequence of their participation in the IBPP, a small number of schools

either substantially changed their innovation or abandoned it because it was
found to be less effective than the alternative programmes that were being used
as a benchmark in the evaluation of the innovation. Without the formal
evaluation, these schools may well have proceeded to scale-up a programme that
would have led to a decline in the school’s effectiveness.
This issue is particularly important in cases where schools are basing their
innovations on popularised ideas and new knowledge that has an, as yet,
unproven link to the improvement of learning outcomes for students. Many of
the IBPP innovation strategies were based on approaches to teaching and
learning that drew on recent understandings about multiple intelligences,
learning styles and the cognitive functioning of the brain. These developments
are of potential importance, but care needs to be taken to ensure that the
innovations that are developed do in fact lead to improvements in learning for
students. The way forward through innovation requires that a degree of rigour
be maintained at all times in developing the practice of teaching and learning
and using feedback from student learning outcomes to make judgements about
the impact of innovations on the improvement of student learning outcomes.
By their nature, school-based innovations require access to a support structure

that can respond flexibly to the specific needs of individual school innovations.
222
Although there are many external providers who work with schools in a
professional development capacity, only a small proportion of these have the
skills and knowledge required to support schools in assessing the impact and
effectiveness of their innovations. The experience of the IBPP schools indicated
that very few schools had the internal capacity to undertake all aspects of the
development and evaluation of their innovations. Most sought to access external
expertise to support specific aspects of their innovation.
Even in school systems that have implemented a significant level of devolution,

the support programmes for schools do not, in general, provide the framework
for enhancing the analytical and research capacities of schools, and in ‘growing’
the external infrastructure that schools can access to meet their needs. In the
past, universities have played a significant role as external providers of support by
providing access to skills through their post-graduate programmes. However, the
significantly reduced focus on the types of skills that schools need, the much
lower participation rate of teachers in post-graduate study, and the lack of
congruence between post-graduate research methods courses—aimed at
students planning post-graduate research careers—and the needs of schools have
meant that provision by universities in this area has almost disappeared in recent
years.
Finally, teacher learning and effective leadership at all levels within schools are
crucial in the development of the capacity to meet the demands of the emerging
knowledge society and economy. Effective environments for teacher learning will
require considerable development beyond the training oriented environments
that often pass for professional development opportunities. Professional learning
requires that teachers actively engage in working with the new knowledge to
reach new understandings by building on the extant knowledge that they have
already acquired.
The educational leadership literature, including policy manuals of most education

systems and leadership development centres, focus on positional authority, with
little attention to the elements of leadership that are required at all levels within
schools, from the classroom through to the principal. It is essential that leadership
skills be built into the professional learning programmes for all school staff
engaged in school-based innovations.
Policy needs to be proactive in establishing an environment that maximises

support for innovation as the vehicle for developing the capacity for schools to
fulfil their crucial role in meeting the challenges of the knowledge-society and
223
knowledge-economy. First, there needs to be clarity of the nature of the system

of schooling that is required:
We will be thinking in terms of individual schools, not systems of

schools. That is indeed the rub, for to keep putting schooling into the
straightjacket of what we have come to regard as schools is inhibiting, it
approaches planning from the wrong end of the spectrum, and it closes
the mind to the most exciting of prospects for the twenty-first
century...[we need to transform schools] away from a tightly meshed
control-oriented institution and into a professionally liberated network
bounded by the mission of serving a population of learners...
(Beare, 2001:94).
The devolution that has been the focus of much educational reform over the past
decade has proceeded much further in some systems than in others. The
evidence from this research supports a continuation of these reforms to provide
schools with the opportunities to address the further challenges that lie ahead:
...[the new model of schooling will be an] enterprise with increased legal
and professional responsibilities in the form of a global budget, wide
discretion over funding, the responsibility to select its own staff as well
as to fill its promotion positions from the Principal down, the
management and upkeep of its physical plant...Individual schools [will]
have the power to go into the marketplace and buy any specialist
services which are required to supplement the work of their own
teachers and staff...Schools may share their expertise, pool their
resources, contract-in services, or contribute to the cost of a specialist
consultancy. They may set up their own school support centres to take
on the role of broker for a set of schools, owned and managed by a
cluster of schools (Beare, 2001:178).
The challenge of educational policy can be put no more starkly than the way it
was presented in a speech three years ago to the Australian College of Education
by one of the nation’s longest-serving Directors-General of Education:
...Public education systems behave as if they are monopolies serving the

interests of the producers - that is the institutionalised ‘stake-holders’,
including state departments of education, teacher unions and various
interest groups—rather than the...students and parents for whom the
schools exist.
224
We must put function before form, strategy before structure: we must set
aside the existing industrial agenda in favour of one driven strictly by
educational priorities; we must ensure that the provision of education for
the next generation is not limited by the structure of schooling we have
inherited from the past; and we must shed the debilitating defensiveness
with which we often respond to proposals for change.
If we fail to create our own future we will have one thrust upon us
(Boston, 1997:2-4).
Much remains to be achieved before educational policy in Australia provides a

context for innovation that allows schools to respond effectively to the
challenges of the emerging knowledge-society and knowledge-economy. The
formal and informal constraints and inflexibilities imposed by the ‘rules and
regulatory frameworks’ of schooling (Angus, 1998) are clearly one area that
policy needs to address.
The urge to transform schools through top-down reforms is a strategy that is

difficult to resist for educational bureaucracies. Such bureaucracies do not have
strong standing in the eyes of educational professionals when it comes to the
core business of schooling, effective teaching and learning. The standing of
educational bureaucracies derives mainly from their authority to manage the
resources allocated for schooling and their power to shape the organisation of
schooling. The knowledge base of teaching and learning resides principally in
schools, and it is critical that this resource be harnessed to the task of shaping the
future of schooling. This is a task of educational leadership, rather than one of
educational management.
The 107 schools that participated in the IBPP show that given appropriate
conditions, the professionalism and energy of teachers and other staff in schools
can produce the innovative responses that are capable of responding to the
challenges ahead. The IBPP was successful in supporting innovation in the
participating schools, and in providing new knowledge about the nature of
school-based innovation and the factors that support and constrain innovation. It
also documented a range of strategies and models that work better than
standard practices. The broader policy agenda now needs to focus on how the
future of schools in Australia can be supported and informed by encouraging
innovation.
225
Governments need to complement their urge to reform—and their

inclination, when reform does not work, simply to reform some more—
with policies for innovation. For innovation is mostly ‘bottom-up’ and
small-scale, it is what the imaginative and responsive school does when it
encounters problems and challenges or when it thinks out a better way of
doing something...What is happening in the more peripheral areas of the
education service may be a better indicator of what is to survive in
tomorrow’s mainstream school...The prudent course is to let the schools
themselves search for this much-needed knowledge and test out, through
innovation, what works in new conditions (Hargreaves, 1999: 54).
If true innovation, for example in teaching practices, derives from the

bottom up, government control is more likely to get in the way of
genuine school improvement rather than promote it. [Kennedy, 1999]
formulated the maxim that governments should therefore move from
control to leadership. This does not imply complete autonomy for
schools, and governments have a legitimate interest in pursuing
fundamental equity issues, to ensure that all children have access to a
demanding set of knowledge and skills (Hirsch, 1999:99).
The IBPP strongly supports the conclusions of a recent OECD study of school
innovation across twenty-five countries (Hirsch, 1999). It concluded that policies
for the effective integration of reform and innovation should include:
• recognition that some areas of action may be constrained by external

priorities;
• effective integration of the old and the new to ensure the changes are
sustainable;
• an emphasis on innovations that can be evaluated and proven to be more

effective than standard practices; and
• distributed leadership within schools that is effective at mediating the top-

down nature of reforms and regulations with the bottom-up nature of
innovation driven by the professional learning of teachers and commitment of
teachers, students and parents.
By focusing the attention of educational policy on innovation and the

professional knowledge-creation function of schools, the future will be
226
dominated less by a sense of crisis or failure than it is when policy is focused on

top-down reform. There is much to celebrate and learn from schools across the
nation, much more than there is in any other part of the education system.
227
228
REFERENCES
Abbott, W. (1966). The Documents of Vatican 11. New York: America Press.
Ainley, J. and Fleming, M. (2000). Learning to read in the early primary years. East Melbourne:
Catholic Education Commission of Victoria.
Anderman, E. M. and Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of
Educational Research, 64 (2), 287–309.
Andresen, L., Boud, D. and Cohen, R. (1995). Experience-based learning. In G. Foley Understanding
adult education and training. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Angus, M. (1998). The rules of school reform. London: Falmer.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1979). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading:
Addison Wesley.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999). Household use of information technology. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Australian Curriculum Studies Association (1996). From alienation to engagement: Opportunities for
reform in the middle years of schooling. Canberra: National Advisory Committee for the Student
Alienation During the Middle Years of Schooling Project.
229
Avolio, B. and Bass, B. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and

beyond. In J.G. Hunt, B. Baliga, H. Dachler. and C. Schriesheim (eds), Emerging
leadership Vistas. Mass: Lexington Books.
Barber, M. (1999). Taking the tide at the flood: transforming the middle years of
schooling. In Redesigning the Middle Years: Report of the National Middle Years
of Schooling Conference, Melbourne: Education Victoria.
Barratt, R. (1998). Shaping middle schooling in Australia: A report of the National

Middle Schooling Project. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Bates, R. (1992). Leadership and school culture. Paper presented at the

University of Seville. Geelong: Deakin University.
Batten, M. and Russell, J. (1995). Students at risk: A review of Australian

literature 1980–1994. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Bauer, S., Bogotch, I. and Park, H. (1998) Modeling site–based decision–making:

The relationship between inputs, site council practices, and outcomes. Paper
presented to the AERA. San Diego.
Beane, J. (1991). The middle school: The natural home of the integrated
curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49 (2), 9–13.
Beane, J. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality.

Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association.
Beare, H. (2001). Creating the future school. London: Routledge Falmer.
Bigum, C. and Green B. (1993). Changing classrooms: computing and curriculum

— critical perspectives and cautionary notes. Australian Educational Computing, 8.
Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Board of Studies (1995). Curriculum and Standards Framework: English.

Melbourne: Board of Studies.
Boston, K. (1997). Acceptance speech for the conferral of the 1997 medal of the
Australian College of Education. Cairns, September 28.
Bradley, G. and Stock, J. (1993). Student-at-risk: Identification and intervention.

A case study. Set, 1.
230
Braggett, E. (1997). The middle years of schooling: An Australian perspective.

Cheltenham, Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Brennan, M. and Sachs, J. (1998). Integrated curriculum. In J. Cumming (ed),

Extending reform in the middle years of schooling: Challenges and responses
(pp.18–24). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Brooks, M., Milne, C., Paterson, K., Johansson, K. and Hart, K. (1997). Under-
age school leaving: A report examining approaches to assisting young people at
risk of leaving school before the legal school leaving age. A report to the
National Youth Affairs Research Scheme. Hobart: National Clearinghouse for
Youth Studies.
Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: the lights that teachers live by.
Oxford Review of Education. 13, 151–164.
Caffarella, R. (1994). Planning programs for adult learners: a practical guide for
educators, trainers and staff developers. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Cairney, T., Ruge, J., Buchanan, J., Lowe, K. and Munsie, L. (1995). Developing
partnerships: the home, school and community interface. Canberra: Department
of Employment, Education and Training.
Caldwell, B. (1992). The principal as leader of the self–managing school in

Australia. Journal Educational Administration, 20 (3), 6–19.
Caldwell, B. (1998). Self–managing schools and improved learning outcomes.

Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Caldwell, B. (2001). A theory of learning in the self–managing school. Invited

address to the First National Conference in Israel on School–Based Management.
Ministry of Education, Kfar Maccabiah, April 2–3.
Caldwell, B. and Hayward, D. (1998). The future of schools: lessons from the
reform of public education. London: Falmer Press.
Caldwell, B. and Spinks, J. (1998). Beyond the self-managing school. London:

Falmer Press.
Campbell, P. (1997). Making classrooms collaborative. EQ Australia, No.1, 41–42.
Carnegie Corporation (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the
21st Century. New York: Council on Adolescent Development of the Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
231
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and

action research. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Center, Y., Freeman, L. and Robertson, G. (1996). Examining the effects of two
alternative early literacy programs: Reading recovery and Schoolwide Early
Language and Literacy (SWELL). Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the
Educational Research Association of Singapore and the Australian Association for
Research in Education.
Chubb, L. and Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools.

Washington, DC: The Brooking Institute.
Clarke, D. (1997). The changing role of the mathematics teacher. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education. 528 (3), 278–308.
Clay, M., Gill, M., Glynn, T., McNaughton, T. and Salmon, K. (1983). Record of
oral language and biks and gutches. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann
Publishers.
Clay, M. (1993a). An observation survey of early literacy achievement.

Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Education.
Clay, M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training.

Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Education.
Clements, D.H. and Battista, M.J. (1990). Constructivist learning and teaching.
Arithmetic Teacher, 38, 34–35.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F.
and York, R. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington:
Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Congregation for Catholic Education (1998). The Catholic school on the

threshold of the third millennium. Homebush: St. Paul Publications.
Cormack, P., Johnson, B., Peters, J. and Williams, D. (1998). Authentic

assessment. In J. Cumming (ed), Extending reform in the middle years of
schooling: Challenges and responses. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies
Association, (pp. 25–31).
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: modern concepts of volition and

educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 4–22.
Creemers, B. (1994) The Effective Classroom. London: Cassell.
232
Crévola, C. and Hill, P. (1998a). CLASS Children’s literacy success strategy: An

overview. Melbourne: Catholic Education Office.
Crévola, C. and Hill, P. (1998b). Evaluation of a whole-school approach to

prevention and intervention in early literacy. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 3, 133–157.
Crowther, F. (1997). Unsung heroes: The leaders in our classrooms. Journal of

Educational Administration, 35 (1), 1–11.
Crowther, F. and Olsen, P. (1996). Teachers as leaders: An exploration of success

stories in socio-ecnomic disadvantaged communities. Brisbane, Qld: Department
of Education.
Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 70,
341–344.
Cumming, J. (1993). Middle schooling for the twenty-first century (Seminar

Series No. 28). Melbourne: Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers
of Victoria.
Cumming, J. (ed), (1998). Extending reform in the middle years of schooling:

Challenges and responses. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Cuttance, P. (1995). Quality assurance and quality management in education

systems. In C. Evers and J. Chapman (eds), Educational administration: An
Australian perspective. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Cuttance, P. (1998a). Flexible Schools Project, Research Proposal. Sydney:

University of Sydney. (Unpublished paper)
Cuttance, P. (1998b). Quality assurance reviews as a catalyst for school

improvement in Australia. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D.
Hopkins (eds), International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp.1135–1162
Cuttance, P. (2001). The impact of teaching on student learning. In Australian

College of Education Yearbook 2000. Canberra: Australian College of Education.
Cuttance. P. and Stokes, S. (2000). Reporting on student and school

achievement. Canberra : Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Davies, A. and Ritchie, D. (1996). THRASS - Teaching handwriting, reading and

spelling skills: Special needs pack. London: Collins.
233
Day, C., Harris, A. and Hadfield, M. (1999). Challenging the orthodoxy of

effective school leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA,
Montreal, April 19–23.
de Lemos, M. and Harvey-Beavis, A. (1995). The development and assessment

of literacy: Background papers for the National School Literacy Survey.
Melbourne: ACER (unpublished paper).
Dennison, W. (1999). Education 2000: Trends, influences and constraints to the

turn of the century. Educational Management and Administration, 16, 33–42.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) (1991). Australia’s

language: The Australian language and literacy policy. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA)

(1998). Literacy for all: The challenge for Australian schools. Australian
Schooling Monograph Series No. 1/1998. Canberra: Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Downes, T. (1995). Children and electronic media: The home-school connection.

In J. Tinsley and T. van Weert (eds), World Conference on Computers in
Education. VI:WCCE 95 Liberating the learner – Proceedings of the Sixth IFIP
World Conference in Education. London: Chapman and Hall, (pp. 543–552).
Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services

for children, youth and families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviours. In J. Spence

(ed), Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco: Freeman.
Education Department of Western Australia (1996). First Steps. Australia:

Addison Wesley Longman.
Educational Testing Service. (1989). A World of Differences: An International

Assessment of Mathematics and Science. Report of the International Assessment
of Educational Progress. ETS: Princeton, NJ.
Epstein, J. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teacher practices of parent

involvement. In S. Silvern (ed), Advances in reading/ language research, Volume
5: Literacy through family, community and school interaction (pp. 261–276).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
234
Eyers, V., Cormack, P. and Barratt, R. (1992). The education of young

adolescents in South Australian government schools: Report of the Junior
Secondary Review. Adelaide: Education Department of South Australia.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. and Yocam, K. (1996). Education and technology. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Flavell, J. and Wellman, H. (1977). Metamemory. In R. Kail and J. Hagen (eds)

Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum (pp.3–33)
Flavell, J., Green, F. and August, D. (1981). The development of comprehension

monitoring and knowledge about communication. Society for Research in Child
Development Monographs, 60 (Serial No. 243)
Flynn, M. (1978). Catholic schools and the communication of faith. Homebush:

St. Paul Publications.
Forte, I. and Schurr, S. (1997). The middle years of schooling: A handbook for
success. Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Foster, W. (1989). Towards a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth, (ed),

Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership. London: Falmer Press.
Fuhrman, S. (1994). The politics of coherence. In S. Fuhrman (ed), Designing

coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Fullan, M. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 19–22.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.

Falmer Press: London.
Fullan, M. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of

learning. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds),
International handbook on educational change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gannicott, K. (1998). School autonomy and academic performance. Canberra:

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Giaconia, R. and Hedges, L. (1982). Identifying features of effective open

education. Review of Educational Research, 52, 579–602.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California

Press.
235
Gilmore, A., Croft, C. and Reid, N. (1981). Burt word reading test. New Zealand
Revision. Teachers Manual. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
Giroux, H. (1989). Schooling for democracy. Critical pedagogy in the modern

age. London: Routledge.
Glatter, R., Woods, P. and Bagley, C. (1997). Choice and diversity in schooling.
London: Routledge.
Goldberg, M. (2000). An Interview with John Goodlad. Phi Delta Kappan,

(September), 82–85.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Gronn, P. (1995). Greatness Revisited: The current obsession with

transformational leadership. Leading and Managing, 1(1), 14–27.
Guskey, T. and Gates, S. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery

learning in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 73–80.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school

effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980–1995 Education
Administration Quarterly, 32 (1), 5–45.
Hambrick, D. (1989). Guest Editor's introduction: Putting top managers back

in the strategy process. Journal of Strategic Management, (Special Issue),
Summer, 5–15.
Handy, C. (1996). The new language of organising and its implications for
leaders. In F. Hesselbein, Goldsmith, M. and Beckhard, R. The leader of the
future. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. and Earl, L. (1990). Rights of passage: A review of selected

research about schooling in the transition years. Toronto: Ministry of Education,
Ontario.
Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (1991). Understanding teacher development.

London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L. and Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: Reinventing
education for early adolescents. London: Falmer Press.
236
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins. D. (eds). (1998).

International handbook on educational change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hargreaves, D. (1997). In defence of research for evidence-based teaching: A

rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. British Educational Research Journal, 23 (4),
405–419.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). Schools and the future: The key role of innovation. In
Innovating Schools. OECD: Paris. pp.45–56.
Hativa, N. and Becker, H. J. (1994). Computer–based integrated learning

systems: Research and theory. International Journal of Educational Research,
21, 1–19.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J. and Purdui, N (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on
student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.
Heenan, D. and Bennis, W. (1999). Co-Leaders: The power of great partnerships.

New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Heifetz, R. and Laurie, D. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business

Review, Jan–Feb., 124–134.
Henningsen, M. and Stein, M. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition:

classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking
and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 28 (1) 524–549.
Hill, P. (1994). Putting the national profiles to use. Unicorn, 20 (2), 36–42.
Hill, P. (1997). Towards high standards for all students: Victorian research and
experience. IARTV Seminar Series, No. 61, February, 1997.
Hill, P. and Crévola, C. (1999). Key features of a whole-school, design approach

to literacy teaching in schools. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4 (3)
5–11.
Hill, P. and Rowe, K. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness

research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7 (1), 1–34.
Hill, P. and Rowe, K. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of educational

effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (3), 310–333.
237
Hill, P. and Russell, V. (1999). Systemic, whole–school reform of the middle–years

of schooling. In R. J. Bosker, B. P. M. Creemers and S. Stringfield (eds), Enhancing
educational excellence, equity and efficiency: Evidence from evaluations of
systems and schools in change. Dortrecht: Klewer Academic Publishers.
pp. 167–196.
Hill, P., Holmes-Smith, P. and Rowe, K. (1993). School and teacher effectiveness
in Victoria: Key findings from Phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project.
Melbourne: Centre for Applied Educational Research, The University of
Melbourne (ERIC Clearing House, Document No. ED 367067).
Hirsch, D. (1999). Rapporteur’s conclusions. In Innovating schools. OECD: Paris.

pp.19–29.
Holden, S. (2001). Supply and demand: competition and the new school market.
Educare News, 111.
Hopkins, D., Harris, A. and Jackson, D. (1999). Understanding the school’s

capacity for development: Growth states and strategies. School Leadership and
Management, 12, 401–411.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and

Training (1993). The literacy challenge: A report on strategies for early
intervention for literacy and learning for Australian children. Canberra:
Australian Government Printing Service.
Illman, M. (1997). Year 9 negotiators. EQ Australia, No.1, 43.
Janssens, F. (1986). Evaluation practices of teachers. Arnhem: CITO.
Jofili, Z. and Watts, D. (1996). Changing teachers’ thinking through critical

constructivism and critical action research. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 1, 213–227
Johnson, N.J. and Scull, J. (1998). The power of learning team: Exemplary
teaching, quality learning. Melbourne: Department of Education.
Joiner, K. (1996). Evaluating the impact of educational computing on the

classroom environment: A literature review.
http://www.spirit.net.au/ACEC96/papers/joiner.htm
Karmel, P. (Chairman) (1985). Quality of education in Australia. Canberra:

Australian Government Publishing Service.
238
Katzenmeyer, M. and Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant:

Leadership development for teachers. California: Corwin Press.
Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. Feldman and G. Elliot (eds) At the

threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
pp. 54–89.
Kennedy, K. (1999). Constructing the school curriculum for the global society. In
Innovating Schools. OECD: Paris. pp.19–29.
Kentucky Department of Education (1997). Results–based practices showcase

1997–98. Frankfort, Kentucky: Kentucky Department of Education.
Kets de Vries, M. (1995). The leadership mystique, Leading and Managing, 1 (3),
193–210.
Kezar, A. (1998). Trying transformations: Implementing team-oriented forms of

leadership. In Frost, S., (ed), Using teams in higher education: Cultural
foundations for productive change San Francisco: Jossey Bass, (pp. 57–72).
King, A. (1999). The costs to Australia of early school leaving. Sydney: National
Centre for Social and Economic Modelling and Dusseldorp Skills Forum.
King, B. and Newmann, F. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals?
Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576-580.
King, B. and Newmann, F. (1999). School capacity as a goal for professional

development: Mapping the terrain in low income schools. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of AERA, Montreal.
Kruse, D. (1995). 1995 Annual report of the Victorian Years 5–8 Project.
Melbourne: Northcote Network of Schools.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational

Research, 28, 16–26.
Kulik, C. and J. Kulik (1991). Effectiveness of computer–based instruction: an

updated analysis. Computers in Human Behaviour, 7, 75–94.
Kulik, J. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer–based instruction.

In E. L. Baker and H. F. O’Neil Jr (eds) Technology assessment in education and
training. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lakomski, G. (1999). Leadership: Can we manage without it? Inaugural

Professorial Lecture, University of Melbourne.
239
Lankshear, C., Bigum, C., Durrant, C., Green, B., Honan, E., Morgan, W., Murray,
J., Snyder, I. and Wild, M. (1997). Digital rhetorics: literacies and technologies in
education: current practices and future directions. Vols 1–3. Canberra:
Leadership Research Institute. (1999). The IDEAS Project. Guidelines for

exploration and trial in Queensland State schools. Swampwood: University of
Southern Queensland.
Lee, M. (1999). Into the information age: A new education system? The
Practising Administrator, 21, 28–29.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational

Administration Quarterly, (30) 490–518.
Limerick, D., Cunnington, B. and Crowther, F. (1998). Managing the new

organisation. collaboration and sustainability in the postcorporate world.
Sydney: Business and Professional Publishing.
Lokan, J., Ford, P. and Greenwood, L. (1996). Maths and Science on the line:
Australian junior secondary students’ performance in the Third International
Mathematics and Science study. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational
Research Press.
Lokan, J., Ford, P. and Greenwood, L. (1997). Maths and Science on the line:
Australian middle primary students’ performance in the Third International
Mathematics and Science study. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational
Research Press.
Ma, X. and Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward
mathematics and achievement in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education. 28 (1), 26–47.
Madaus, G., Scriven, M. and Stufflebeam, D. (eds). (1983). Evaluation models:

Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-
Nijhoff.
Malen, B., Ogawa, R. and Kranz, J. (1990). Unfulfilled promises: Evidence says
site–based management hindered by many factors, The School Administrator, 47
(2) 30–59.
Maloney, W. (1998). Fin de Siecle Mathematics. Independent Education 28 (2),

14–15.
240
Mamary, A. (1996). A professional best knowledge development process for

comprehensive school improvement. Journal of Quality Learning, 3, 35–40.
Mamary, A. (1997). Visioning with Al Mamary. Paper presented at Toowoomba:

Conference for Educators, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba.
Marks, G. (1997). Reading, comprehension and mathematics among junior

secondary school students in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Masters, G.N. and Forster, M. (1997a). Literacy standards in Australia. Canberra:

Masters, G.N. and Forster, M. (1997b). Mapping literacy achievement: Results of

the 1996 National School English Literacy Survey. Canberra: Department of
Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Meredyth, D., Russell, N., Blackwood, L., Thomas, J. and Wise. P. (1999) Real
time: Computers, change and schooling. Canberra: Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

(MCEETYA) (1999). Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the
Twenty-First Century. Melbourne: MCEETYA.
Mossenson, L., Hill, P. and Masters, G. (1987). TORCH Tests of reading

comprehension manual. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Muncey, D. and McQuillan, P. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and

classrooms. An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Newmann, F. and Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring

schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, F. and Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report

to the Public and Educators. Centre on Organisation and Restructuring of
Schools, University of Wisconson–Madison.
Newmann, F., King, B. and Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school

performance; implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 67 (1) 41–74.
OECD (1999). Innovating schools. OECD Paris.
241
Ogawa, R. and Bossert, S. (1995). Leadership as an organisational quality,

Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224–243.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Addison–Wesley:

Reading, Massachusetts.
Padilla, R., Trevino, J., Gonzalez, K. and Trevino, J. (1996). The unfolding matrix:
A dialogical technique for qualitative data acquisition and analysis.
Demonstration presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA, New York City, April
8-12.
Pellegrino, J., Baxter, G. and Glasser, R. (1999). Summary Notes on: Addressing
the "Two disciplines" problem: linking theories of cognition and learning with
assessment and instructional practice. Review of Research and Education, 24,
307–353.
Peters, M. and Smith, B. (1993). Spelling in context. Windsor, Berks.: NFER-

Nelson. Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (8), 576–580.
Piaget, J. (1987). Possibility and Necessity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.
Pintrich, P. and De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of the classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. and Garcia, T. (1994). Self-regulated learning in college students:

Knowledge, strategies, and motivation. In P.R. Pintrich, D.R. Brown and C.E.
Weinstein (eds.) Student motivations, cognition, and learning. Essays in honor of
Wilbert J. Mckeachie. Hilldale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 113–133.
Pintrich, P., Rosen. and De Groot, E. (1994). Classroom and individual differences
in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning, Journal of Early
Adolescence, 14, 139–161.
Retallick, J and Groundwater–Smith, S (1996). The advancement of teacher

workplace learning. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training
and Youth Affairs.
Roberts, J. (1997). To the 3Rs, add the 3Ds. EQ Australia, No.1, 23–25.
Roberts, J. (1998). Student questions leading to middle school reform.

Curriculum Perspectives, 18 (1), 71–75.
242
Rosenshine, B. (1972). Teaching behaviors and student’s achievement. London:

National Foundation for Educational Research.
Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher

Education 38, 34–36.
Rowe, A. (1993). Learning with personal computers: Issues, observations and

perspectives. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
Rowe, K., Hill, P. and Holmes-Smith, P. (1994). The Victorian Quality Schools
Project: A report on the first stage of a longitudinal study of school and teacher
effectiveness. Symposium paper presented at the 7th International Congress for
School Effectiveness and Improvement, The World Congress Centre, Melbourne.
Rowe, K., Hill, P. and Holmes-Smith, P. (1995). Methodological issues in

educational performance and school effectiveness research: A discussion with
worked examples. Australian Journal of Education, 39, 217–248.
Sachs, J., Smith, R. and Chant, D. (1990). Bombarding the senses: Adolescents’
use of information technology in Australia and Scotland. Metro Media and
Education Magazine, 81, 2–6.
Sammons, P., Cuttance, P., Nuttall, D. and Thomas, S. (1995). Continuity of

school effects: A longitudinal analysis of primary and secondary school effects on
GCSE performance. Journal of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6,
285–307.
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1997). Computer support for

knowledge–building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3,
265–283.
Schaafsma, H. (1995). Understanding and facilitating change in the workplace. In

G. Foley, Understanding adult education and training. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Scheerens, J. (1997). The Foundations of educational effectiveness.

Oxford: Pergamon.
Schein, E. (1992). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco:

Jossey–Bass.
Schools Council (1993). In the middle: Schooling for young adolescents (Project
Paper No. 7). Canberra: Schools Council, National Board of Employment,
Education and Training.
243
Segal, J., Chipman, S. and Glaser, B. (1985). Thinking and learning skills. Vol 1.
Relating instruction to basic research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Senge, P. (1992). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1997). Communities of leaders and learners. Harvard Business Review,

Sept–Oct., 30–31.
Sergiovanni, T. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school

effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and
Practice, 1(1), 37–46.
Sharpe, T., Lounsbery, M. and Templin, T. (1997). Cooperation, collegiality and

collaboration: reinforcing the scholar-practitioner model. Quest 49, 214–228.
Sivin-Kachala, J. and Bialo, E. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology

in schools, 1990–1994. Washington D.C.: Software Publishers Association.
Slavin, R., Madden, N., Dolan, L., Wasik, B., Ross, S., Smith, L. and Dianda, M.
(1996). Success for all: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 1.
Smyth, J. (ed), (1989). Critical perspectives on educational leadership. London:

Falmer Press.
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the

networked organisation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spry, G. (2000). Exploring the purpose of Catholic education through school

renewal in McLaughlin, D. (ed), The Catholic school: Paradoxes and challenges.
Strathfield: St Pauls.
Stigler J. and Hiebert J. (1999). Understanding and improving classroom

mathematics instruction. In Australian Council for Educational Research
Raising Australian standards in mathematics and science: Insights from
TIMSS. Melbourne.
Stringer, W. (1997). Better connections. EQ Australia, No.1, 21–23.
Stringer, W. (1998). Middle schooling in a P-12 context. IARTV Seminar Series

No.79, December.
244
Sultmann, W. and McLaughlin, D (2000). The spirit of leadership: Its authentic

expression in Catholic education settings. Johannesberg: Catholic Institute of
Education.
Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (1999) The international handbook of school

effectiveness research. London: Routledge Falmer.
Teese, R. (1996). Benefits and beneficiaries of school, today and tomorrow.

Unpublished paper.
Tierney, R. J. (1996). Redefining computer appropriation: a five–year study of

ACOT students. In C. Fisher, D. Dwyer and K. Yocam (eds.), Education and
technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Apple
Press–Jossey-Bass.
Uline, C., Miller, D. and Tschannen–Moran, M. (1998). School effectiveness: The

Underlying dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (4), 462–483.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Walberg H. J. (1990). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the

knowledge base. In H. C. Waxman and H. J. Walberg, Effective teaching: Current
research. California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation: Berkeley, pp.33–79.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D. and Walberg, H. J. (1993). Towards a knowledge

base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294.
Wang, M.C. and Pallincsar, A. S. (1989). Teaching students to assume an active

role in their learning. In M. C. Reynolds (ed), Knowledge base for the beginning
teacher. Oxford, England: Pergamon. pp. 71–84.
Wasik, B. and Slavin, R. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one
tutoring: a review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.
Watts, M. and Jofili, Z. (1998). Towards critical constructivist teaching.

International Journal of Science Education, 20, 173–185.
Wehlage, G. and Stone, C. (1996). School-based student and family services:

Community and bureaucracy. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1
(4), 299–317.
245
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Weinstein, C. and Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.

Wittrock (ed), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed). NY: Macmillan. pp.
315–327.
Wellburn, E. (1996). The status of technology in the education system: A

literature review. http://www.etc.bc.ca/lists/nuggets/EdTech_report.html
Withers, G. and Russell, V. (1998). Educating for resilience: Prevention and

intervention strategies for young people at risk. Report prepared for the Catholic
Education Office, Archdiocese of Melbourne, MacKillop Family Services, and the
Department of Human Services of the Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Wittrock, M. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock (ed),

Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan. pp. 214–229.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests — revised. Circle

Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
246
APPENDICES
1. IBPP schools
2. Research methodology
3. Key Features of ‘Leadership’ case study schools
247
248
APPENDIX 1: IBPP SCHOOLS

Australian Capital Territory
Campbell High School Campbell
Florey Primary School Latham
Lanyon High School Conder
Stromlo High School Waramanga
New South Wales

Albion Park Public School Albion Park
Ashfield Boys High School Ashfield
Bethlehem College Ashfield
Burwood Girls High School Croydon
Cabramatta Public School Cabramatta
Corowa High School Corowa
Curl Curl North Primary School Curl Curl North
Emmaus Catholic College Erskine Park
Holsworthy High School Holsworthy
James Cook Boys Technology High School Kogarah
Kanahooka High School Dapto
Keira Technology High School Fairy Meadow
Kotara High School Adamstown Heights
Kurri Kurri High School Kurri Kurri
Merimbula Public School Merimbula
MLC School Burwood
Mount Pritchard East Public School Mt Pritchard
Noumea Public School Shalvey
Nowra Public School Nowra
Peel Technology High School Tamworth
SCEGGS Darlinghurst Darlinghurst
249
Shoalhaven High School Nowra

St Catherine’s School Waverly
St Joseph’s Primary School Tweed Heads
St Martha’s School Strathfield
Stella Maris College Ltd. Manly
Terrigal Primary School Terrigal
The Illawarra Grammar School Figtree
Westfields Sports High School Fairfield West
Christian Community High School Regents Park
Central Coast Grammar School Erina Heights
Trinity Senior High School Wagga Wagga
The Northern Territory

Anzac Hill High School Alice Springs
Centralian College Alice Springs
Queensland
A.B. Paterson College Arundel
Cairns Consortium of Schools Manunda
Cannon Hill Anglican College Tingalpa DC
Chinchilla State High School Chinchilla
Forest Lake College Forest lake
Harristown State High School Toowoomba
Ipswich Girls Grammar School Ipswich
John Paul College Primary School Daisy Hill
Pomona State School Pomona
St Catherines Primary School Wishart
Stuartholme School Toowong
Sunshine Beach State School Sunshine Beach
The Willows State School Thuringowa Central
Whitfield State School Cairns
250
Woree State High School Cairns

Yarrabah State High School Yarrabah
St Hilda’s Southport
South Australia
Morphett Vale High School Morphett Vale
Para Vista CPC-7 Schools Para Vista
Paralowie R-12 School Paralowie
Rostrevor College Woodforde
School of the Nativity Aberfoyle Park
Scott Creek Primary School Stirling
St Aloysius College Adelaide
St George College Mile End
Stradbroke Primary School Rostrevor
Tasmania
Brooks High School Mowbray Heights
Claremont Primary School Claremont
Clarence High School Bellerive
The Hutchins School Sandy Bay
Victoria
Apollo Parkways Primary School Greensborough
Benalla Primary School Benalla
Bendigo Senior Secondary College Bendigo
Buckley Park Secondary College Essendon
Canadian Lead Primary School Ballarat
Christian Brothers College East St Kilda
Coatsville Primary School East Bentleigh
Dallas North Primary School Dallas
Dandenong South Primary School Dandenong
Daylesford Primary School Daylesford
251
Deer Park Secondary College Deer Park

Derrinallum College Derrinallum
Eumemmerring Secondary College Fountain Gate
(Fountain Gate Campus)
Frankston High School Frankston
Glen Waverley Secondary College Glen Waverley
Hamilton North Primary School Hamilton
Maryborough Regional College Maryborough
Mt Eliza Secondary College Mt Eliza
Mount St Joseph Girl’s College Altona West
Overnewton Anglican Secondary College Taylors Lakes
Parkdale Secondary College Mordialloc East
St Augustine’s Catholic Primary School Frankston
St Michael’s Grammar School St Kilda
Woodleigh College Baxter
The Grange P-12 College Werribee
Weeden Heights Primary School Vermont South
Wesley College Glen Waverley
Westall Secondary College Clayton
Western Australia
All Saints College Willetton
Belmont Senior High School Belmont
Dale Christian School Armadale
Geraldton Secondary College Geraldton
Merredin Senior High School Merredin
Northam Senior High School Northam
Penrhos College Como
St John’s School Scarborough
Ursula Frayne Catholic College Victoria Park
Wesley College South Perth
Whitford Catholic Primary School Craigie
252
APPENDIX 2: RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
The data on which this research is derived comprises:
• the 107 school research reports;
• a survey completed by 3-4 staff in each project school; and
• follow-up visits to selected ‘case study’ schools.
The authors of individual chapters derived their findings from either the complete
data set of school research reports or from the subset of research reports, survey
responses and case study schools relevant to a specific chapter focus.
The approach taken to research for individual chapters, is described below.
CHAPTER 2: EARLY LITERACY

This chapter examined the experiences of those schools in the IBPP that
identified early literacy as their focus. Of the 107 schools, 23 nominated English
or literacy as their focus, 16 of which were primary schools. Among these 16
schools, four had a programme that was operating across all of the primary years
of schooling. The remaining 12 had an early years focus. This chapter seeks to
answer the following questions:
• What kinds of programmes have the ‘literacy’ schools implemented?
• What has been the motivation behind these programmes?
• What strategies have these schools employed to bring about change, and
what factors have influenced successful change?
• What is the nature/quality of the evidence of success in these schools?
The evidence drawn upon to answer these questions comes from three sources,
namely:
• the project reports of the 16 schools;
• responses of key staff in each of the 16 schools to a survey that was

completed by all schools participating in the IBPP; and
253
• follow-up in-depth interviews undertaken in eight of the 16 early literacy

schools judged to have achieved significantly improved outcomes.
CHAPTER 3: MATHEMATICS
The initial data source for this chapter was the research reports for the 9 schools
that had mathematics as the major focus of their innovations. An additional 5
schools included mathematics within a broader project focus and their research
reports provided contextual information. The survey data responses of the
mathematics schools were also used for this chapter.
Additional data were collected from visits to six case study schools, three primary
and three secondary schools. Interviews were conducted with key project
personnel in these schools and meetings were held with groups of students.
The chapter analysed and synthesised the 9 research reports, elaborated and
extended by evidence gained from the visits and survey undertaken across all
IBPP schools. Analysis was also made of pertinent references to mathematics in
the school research reports of projects where mathematics was not the primary
focus of the innovation.
CHAPTER 4: INFORMATION AND

COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
The findings of the chapter were based on analyses of the research reports of the
20 schools that focused their innovations on ICT. The analysis of the school
research reports focused on:
• descriptions of the aims of the projects and the strategies employed in their
implementation;
• evidence of change to school practice and the sequences of change;
• attributions of obstacles to change; and
• evidence about the impact of the innovations on teaching and learning.
The data collection and analysis strategies that schools employed were also
comprehensive, drawing from: surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation
schedules, computer system logs, achievement tests and public examination
results, teacher/student journals, computer maintenance records, standardised
assessment inventories, evaluations of student work, student/teacher self-
evaluations, document analysis, and needs analysis. Schools made attempts to
254
triangulate the different forms of data they had collected and used case studies,
structured vignettes, written testimonials, etc, to provide depth to their analyses.
In addition to completing a school research report, all schools responded to a

survey completed by 3-4 staff members involved in the IBPP. Although
anonymous, these responses were identified by a school code.
This report reflects the structure of the reports from the individual schools. It is
principally a meta-analysis and synthesis of the 20 school research reports from
the technology-based innovations, elaborated and extended by evidence gained
from visits to a sample of schools and the survey undertaken across all IBPP
schools.
CHAPTER 5: MIDDLE-YEARS
Of the 107 IBPP schools, 33 nominated engagement of students in the middle-
years as their key focus. This chapter focuses on the programmes in these 33
schools and seeks to answer the following questions:
• What kinds of programmes have the middle-years schools implemented?
• What has been the motivation behind these programmes?
• What strategies have these schools employed to bring about change and what
factors have influenced successful change?
• What is the nature and quality of the evidence of success in these schools?
The evidence drawn upon to answer these questions comes from three main
sources, namely the project reports of the 33 schools and the responses of key
staff in each of the schools to a survey that was completed by all schools
participating in the IBPP. In addition, visits to all schools took place. Further
follow-up visits were made to a sample of schools judged to have achieved
significantly improved outcomes. Interviews were carried out with relevant staff
in those schools.
CHAPTER 6: LEADERSHIP
The research for this chapter incorporated a range of empirical and qualitative
research procedures. Following analysis of the results of a comprehensive survey
of IBPP participants to ascertain factors associated with the implementation of
school-based initiatives, on-site focus group discussions were conducted with a
range of participants in nine case study schools. The data collection and analysis
255
process involved pairs of external researchers working with school representatives

in validating data, forming concepts and generating theories.
Selection of case study schools
Schools were selected on the basis of documented improvement in student

achievement in the IBPP. Five schools in the sample can be regarded as having
provided substantive evidence of improved student achievement (Sunbeach
Primary School, Sacred Mission School, West Town Secondary School, Christafam
Secondary School, Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School) and four as having
provided authoritative perceptual evidence (Worthwood Secondary School, Mt
Ritchy Primary School, Holy Spirit Catholic College, Wave Secondary School).
Case study schools were also selected to ensure representation from different
States (Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria) and a balance of
State/Catholic/Independent systems, secondary and primary levels and
urban/rural locations.
Data collection and analysis procedures
Focus group discussions took place in each case study school and followed a
four-phase questioning strategy based on Padilla’s ‘unfolding matrix’ (1996). The
central questions for the four phases were:
• What is the nature of the documented improvement in student achievement?
• What factors are perceived to be important in having facilitated the

improvement in question?
• What roles did key actors play in the operationalisation of these factors?
• What leadership processes and concepts appear to underpin the processes and
actions that have been identified?
Representative school groups (usually about six individuals, comprising the

Project coordinator, principal and teachers involved in the innovation) responded
to the first three questions through a range of individual reflection and interactive
analysis. The fourth question was addressed differently. That is, the external
researchers presented a series of propositions that they considered to capture the
leadership implications of the dialogue that they had heard. The school cohorts
then critiqued these propositions and developed from them a statement that they
believed reflected the forms of leadership that underpinned their innovation.
256
Data analysis procedures varied in each State. In Queensland, a workshop for

participants from the three schools was conducted over a weekend retreat; in
New South Wales, the research team conducted an extended workshop with the
State IBPP coordinator (who had participated in the visits to schools in that State)
to synthesise the outcomes of the four school visits; and in Victoria, the three-
person research team convened a one-day workshop to synthesise their
individual school research reports. At the completion of this process, the research
team met for two days to draw major conclusions. This process enabled
generalisations to be identified for each case study, as well as across the research
sample. A copy of the full draft chapter was circulated to the nine case study
schools for validation.
Limitations of the Research Methodology.
The research into leadership in IBPP schools is characterised by a number of

limitations.
First, while every effort was made to select schools that provided documented
evidence of enhanced student achievement as a result of a school-based
innovation, the consistency of the evidence provided varies across the sample.
Most importantly, in five of the case studies the evidence that was provided was
in the form of validated pre-post empirical data relating to student outcomes, but
in the remaining four cases it was based largely in perceptions.
Second, the nine case studies that provided the basis for the research were self-
identified innovative schools and in that sense must be viewed as atypical.
Third, with particular reference to the factors that contributed to the success of
innovations in the case study schools, the data that were obtained relating to
elements of the Research-based Framework for Enhancing School Outcomes
(Leadership Research Institute, 1999) were broad in nature. While it is believed
that these data were sufficiently comprehensive to enable confident assertions to
be made about the importance of holistic approaches to school reform, they
were not sufficiently detailed to enable essential features of the elements in
question to be fully uncovered. Thus, for example, the dynamics of processes of
school-wide pedagogy are not considered in detail in this study.
Fourth, the concept of ‘school-wide pedagogy’ features strongly in the

conclusions drawn from this research. While some aspects of pedagogy in all nine
schools were indeed characterised by school-wide approaches to teaching and
257
learning (for example whole-school literacy) most of the reforms did not involve
all teachers or all pedagogical areas. Thus, the full complexity of the concept of
school-wide may not be addressed in this study.
CHAPTER 7: INSTRUCTIONAL FLEXIBILITY

The research for this chapter is based on visits to 26 schools in six states and one
territory. Four case study schools were selected as being highly flexible on the
basis of information provided in school research reports. Visits to these four
schools provided a basis for validating the full database of the 26 school research
reports. Staff members actively involved in the innovation were shown a data
summary sheet relating to their school and asked to comment on the
appropriateness of the categories and the accuracy of the data recorded. In all
four cases, more detailed information was provided in taped interviews that were
transcribed. Excerpts from these interviews are included in this report.
CHAPTER 8: MANAGING INNOVATION

The principal data source is the full set of reports submitted by the 107 schools
participating in the IBPP. All 107 school research reports provide accounts of
effort directed at improvement. One strength of such a data source is that each
school has chosen the events and actions considered by participants to be most
significant. All schools had been provided with information from the IBPP team
to indicate that autonomy was a matter of particular interest. However, the data
about autonomy (and the flexibility that it allowed) was embedded in the reports
in several layers of information about intentions, actions and evaluations
regarding the innovations.
The basic questions that informed a content analysis of the school research
reports focused on:
• evidence of change to school practice and the sequences of change;
• evidence that a school had used data in its decision making about change;
• evidence about the role of market pressure and competition on school

innovation; and
• attributions of obstacles to change.
Once available, the full set of reports was read and a coding schedule was
devised to assist with the quantification of information relevant to these
questions. Relevant data in the reports were then coded and the results entered
258
onto an electronic database. The project survey provided a valuable data source.
The responses to relevant items were matched to the coding of the school
research reports.
Visits to collect additional data were made to 26 schools in six states and one
territory. Because of the significance of state contexts it was considered necessary
to validate analyses found in school research reports in as many contexts as
possible.
259
260
APPENDIX 3: KEY FEATURES

OF ‘LEADERSHIP’
CASE STUDY
SCHOOLS
Elements West Town Secondary School
Outcomes Improved basic numeracy and applied mathematics skills in Year 8.
Improved parent and student attitudes towards the school.
Enhanced school image in the community.
Strategic Foundations Initiated by Head of Department (HoD) (Mathematics) to improve student
achievement and nurture love of maths. Principal supported on
basis of consistency with school vision.
Cohesive Community Strong alignment between Principal, HoD and Teacher/Coordinator.
Powerful parent and student support. Industrial issues caused some
teachers concern.
Infrastructural Design Movable partitions replaced fixed walls. School day extended. Supportive
maths curriculum developed for underachieving, disadvantaged students.
School-wide Pedagogy Emphasis on real life maths applications. Specialist community
resource persons brought into the school. Enhanced student engagement
through small group activities. On the spot access to teacher
consultations.
Professional Support Large budget for professional development. Special programme
funding accessed. Principal and senior management supported initiative.
Synthesis Distinguished by initiative of HoD, principal and teacher. Challenging
industrially. Vision based on HoD’s and teachers’ love of mathematics.
Initiative implemented through radical modifications to time, space and
teaching strategies. Abandoned after changes in administration and
timetabling limitations.
261
Elements Sunbeach Primary School

Outcomes Improved literacy skills, particularly in Years 1 and 4 (Tested at Years
1,4,7). Improved student attitudes, particularly in Year 4.
School-wide adoption of the literacy programme substantiated by Year 4
success. Improved public image of education.
Strategic Foundations Initiated by inspired Learning Support Teacher from highly effective
professional development experience. Strong Principal and District Director
facilitation throughout. School vision modified in response to success of
innovation.
Cohesive Community School-wide workshops implemented by two teachers with principal’s
encouragement. Strong parent support and involvement.
Infrastructural Design Staged trialing used to implement and test effects. Flexible school
mechanisms facilitated implementation.
School-wide Pedagogy Focus on metacognitive approach to literacy. Explicit phoneme/grapheme
instruction emphasised.
Professional Support Teacher-initiated special funding. School-based funding of professional
development. Links established with other schools in cluster for
professional development.
Synthesis Derived from energy and conviction of a teacher. Consistency with school
vision and support of principal important factors. Programme not so
consistently successful in other local schools, pointing to importance of
idiosyncratic factors at Sunbeach.
Elements Sacred Mission School

Outcomes Enhanced higher level thinking skills in Year 11 English and Economics.
Enhanced teacher response to individual student capabilities and learning
styles.
Strengthened parent support for the school.
Strategic Foundations Initiated by Principal in response to Sacred Heart Order’s vision of
academic excellence for Catholic girls. Roles of specialist teacher and
deputy principal clearly delineated. School Council ultimately accountable
for success or failure.
Cohesive Community Close links with other Australasian Sacred Heart schools for all aspects of
educational development. All staff expected to teach to vision of Order.
Teacher teams retain jurisdiction over pedagogy.
Infrastructural Design A new cross-curriculum service resulted from the innovation. Resources
made available as required.
School-wide Pedagogy Comprehensive school ‘theory’ developed around ‘Profiling’ concept.
Tailoring of teaching to individual learning styles of students through
profiling system.
Professional Support Specific appointments made to lead the innovation. Deputy Principal
designated as person responsible for innovation. Expert external advice
solicited and used in systematic trialling of innovation.
Synthesis Pervasive Sacred Heart ethos provides the basic direction and impetus for
school development but effective role-based actions by teacher-specialist
and administrators also essential.
262
Elements Worthwood Secondary School

Outcomes Improved HSC results.
Improved student literacy across the school.
Recognition as a Project of National Significance (1996).
Strategic Foundations Principal the conceiver of the innovation and key strategist throughout.
Distinctive vision for excellence based in sports philosophy.
Cohesive Community Remains substantially a community school as well as centre for excellence.
Links to national and international agencies (AIS & UNSW). Significant
external alliances with commercial and professional agencies. Hostility to
the innovation from education system and teacher union.
Infrastructural Design School appoints staff. Highly flexible timetable. Linked to educational
institutions across Sydney and nationally.
School-wide Pedagogy Recognised specialists in all learning areas. Sophisticated diagnostic and
remedial programmes. Sport the motivating vehicle. Comprehensive
enrichment programmes. ‘Success breeds success’ philosophy.
Organisational Support National and international professional development. On-going expert-
driven programme development. Teacher teams the locus of continuous
refinement.
Synthesis Success has derived from dynamic and strategic leadership, unique
philosophy, ‘against the odds’ mentality, school autonomy, available
resources and expert driven pedagogy.
Elements Christafam Secondary School

Outcomes Improved student achievement in Higher School Certificate (HSC)
subjects.
Increased vocational education placements in community programmes.
Enhanced involvement of the business community in the school.
Strategic Foundations Innovation initiated by a teacher on basis of consistency with spiritual
values. Evangelical faith embedded in school ethos. Principal accountable
for faith teaching.
Cohesive Community School/church connection very strong. 30 per cent families get rebated
fees. Overwhelming parent support for the innovation and the school.
Infrastructural Design Highly flexible school day. Major use of community facilities. Cross-
curriculum teaching. Clear partnerships with Christian workplaces.
School-wide Pedagogy ‘Christ Centred’ vision implies functioning effectively in the real world.
Pedagogy is embedded in the Bible.
Organisational Support School planning retreats generate faith renewal as well as planning.
Principal provides professional development support for approved projects.
Synthesis Fundamentalist Christian philosophy of the school provides visionary
direction and impetus for selected innovations. Ready resources for
approved innovations. Prominent teacher leadership role.
263
Elements Mt Ritchy Primary School

Outcomes Improvements in mathematics outcomes in Years 3 and 5. (Particularly
significant for boys.)
Improved student attitudes towards maths.
Improved school-parent relationships.
Strategic Foundations Principal initiated the innovation and continued as strategic and facilitative
leader. Clear vision specific to complex community needs.
Cohesive Community Teacher teams very active in curriculum development. Empathy for
environment that students come from. School a haven of tranquillity in a
melting pot community. School provides continuous community
counselling. Staff awarded medals of appreciation by local ethnic
community.
Infrastructural Design Flexible timetabling used to emphasise teaching of basics and cultural
enrichment experiences.
School-wide Pedagogy ‘Explicit teaching’ a concrete feature of innovation, with behavioural goals
and assessment prominent. Teaching and learning activities reflect
individual student needs.
Organisational Support Significant systemic support and ‘special needs’ funding.
Synthesis Strong strategic vision of principal and link to community-building are key
factors. Dynamic school development and interactive problem-solving also
prominent. Education system support noticeable.
Elements Holy Spirit Catholic College

Outcomes Heightened levels of student satisfaction with entry into Secondary
School.
Improved student attitudes towards Holy Spirit Catholic’ teaching and
learning approaches.
Perceived improvements in all Key Learning Areas by teachers, students
and parents.
Heightened sense of teacher efficacy.
Strategic Foundations Sisters of Mercy tradition important but not obtrusive. Principal both
strategic and visionary. Transparent democratic decision making processes.
Multiple innovations in place led by individual teachers.
Cohesive Community Structured reflection time for teachers used to stimulate serious
professional dialogue and build trust. Teachers increasingly manage
professional learning and development. Strong community support (67
per cent NESB).
Infrastructural Design Specially designed Year 7 programme requiring flexible timetabling,
reconstructed space and innovative technology.
School-wide Pedagogy Philosophy synthesised from multiple learning theories, increasingly led by
teachers. Strong pastoral care a feature of pedagogy. Integrated
curriculum and teaching.
Organisational Support Concrete support from diocese.
Synthesis Initiated by principal but increasingly owned by teachers. Strong
teacher leadership has evolved.
264
Elements Wave Secondary College

Outcomes Perceived enhancement in autonomous learning capabilities by Years 7
and 9 students.
Improved student attitudes towards school.
Improved community image of the school.
Strategic Foundations Amalgamation of three campuses in 1995. Principal and senior
administration led changes with high profile external change agents. Head
of Curriculum key change management figure for innovation under study.
College Council central to progress. School appoints all staff and manages
global budget.
Cohesive Community Amalgamation of campuses and Government cutbacks proved very
traumatic but a strong sense of identity has been created out of “We can
do anything” attitude. Some teacher hostility remains.
Infrastructural Design Strategic alliances developed with industry and universities. Technology
was the initial focus to promote change in teaching and learning.
School-wide Pedagogy A distinctive ‘Wave way of learning’ is now developing out of concern for
student individuality. Technological focus of pedagogy has been largely
supplanted by individualised pedagogical focus.
Organisational Support School of the Future and Navigator School status provided important
opportunities and funding. School Council used to encourage and
promote change. National and international professional development
opportunities.
Synthesis Emerged out of a crisis, evolving from a technology-driven innovation to a
student-centred innovation. Exemplifies successful change in meta-
strategic tradition.
Elements Potter’s Gold Senior Secondary School

Outcomes Improved Victorian Certificate of Education results in most subjects.
Staff perception of learning enhancement in all learning areas.
Increased professional standing of teachers in the community.
Enhanced viability of the school in a competitive community.
Strategic Foundations Initiated by trailblazing Principal with supportive Council. Participatory
decision processes used to enrol teachers. School appoints all staff and
manages global budget.
Cohesive Community School a central focus of pride in community. School has initiated a range
of participatory decision-making processes. Some continuing teacher
resistance.
Infrastructural Design Total revamp of use of time and space. Technology basis of all pedagogy
and administration.
School-wide Pedagogy Technology driven teaching and learning. An example of international Best
Practice.
Organisational Support National and international networks developed. School of the Future and
Navigator School status provided important opportunities and funding.
Synthesis Explicit focus on technology as a vehicle for improved learning, initially
driven by the Principal but increasingly taken over by the teachers in a
highly supportive system and community. Exemplifies successful change in
meta-strategic tradition.
265
266
INDEX
Beliefs and understandings, 7, 36, 42, 56, 60–61, 113–115, 137–139
Change, in schools, 4–5, 13, 19, 37, 42, 51, 56, 92, 103, 167–168, 188–190,
200–201
constraints, 26, 95–98, 166–168, 211–213
management of, 42, 51–52, 56–60, 95–98, 113–116, 126–128, 131,
144–145, 159–160, 163–168, 176–178, 188–200, 202–203
pressure & support, 4–5, 27–28, 78, 168–171, 210–211, 216–220
processes, 19, 87, 139–141, 176–178, 182
Curriculum, 3, 89
goals, 85, 108–110, 119, 187, 204–205
student role in, 112
thinking skills, 25, 27, 187, 196, 213
Education systems, 3, 4, 26–28, 33–34, 159–160, 163–167, 180–181, 183,
214–225
regulatory frameworks, 3–5, 29, 118, 211–214, 221, 223
Evidence-based research, (see also Research & evaluation, school capacity for,
and Innovation, impact of) 18–20, 23, 28, 35, 80, 88, 93–95, 116–117,
118–120, 178–180, 183, 192, 216–219
Flexibility, 26, 143–161
instructional, 26–27, 81–82, 111–112, 145–151
management, 26, 118, 163–167, 180, 214–216, 223
resources, 4, 17, 26, 28, 158–159, 164–165, 191, 198, 212, 214–216
staffing, 17, 28, 151–155, 158–159, 165–166
Grouping, 15–16, 27, 40–42, 45–47, 60–61, 148–151, 194–195, 203
Information and communication technologies, 24–25, 67–68, 73–100, 109–110,
173–174, 192–193, 196–198, 200, 209–210, 214, 219–220
Innovation,
hindering factors, 59–60, 95–98, 211–213
impact of, 48–50, 54, 68–70, 80, 83–84, 89–95, 116–117, 204
nature of, 34–36, 53, 57, 76–84, 105–113, 145–157, 186–187
whole school approaches, 35, 37, 50, 130, 195, 200–202
Intervention programs, 7, 45–47
Knowledge society, 1, 3, 31, 102, 107, 118, 185, 203, 205, 207, 223
Market pressures, 26–27, 58, 78, 168–175, 181–182, 211
choice of school, 4, 77–78, 168–169, 181, 211
267
Leadership, 7, 25–26, 37–38, 58, 115–116, 123–141, 190–191, 199, 202, 223
Learning, 2, 8, 13–15, 187
cognitive development, 8–10, 24, 55
constructivist approaches, 7–11, 75, 77, 80, 88, 194, 196
cooperative, 16, 112
off-site, 81–82, 145–148
organisation of, 44–45, 61–62, 64, 79, 81–83, 86, 88, 111–112, 187,
197–198, 208
self-directed, 25, 90–93
student-centred, 13, 18, 27, 78, 186
team-based, 106–108, 114–115
Links,
home, (see Parents)
other organisations, 184, 200, 204
schools, other, 155–157
Literacy, 13, 23–24, 31–52, 186–187, 189, 196, 203, 209–210, 214–216,
218–219
Mathematics, 14, 24, 53–71, 189, 197

Middle-Years, 25, 101–121, 192–193, 196, 198, 200, 203
curriculum, 25, 108–110, 119
transition programs, 110–111, 119
Monitoring & assessment, 7, 39–40, 66–67, 193–194
National Goals for Schooling, 1, 2, 4, 33, 73, 205, 213
Parents, 7, 47–48, 59, 75, 86–87, 200, 204
Research and evaluation,
external assistance, for schools 19, 183, 218, 221
school capacity for 19–20, 26–28, 178–180, 182–184, 202, 204, 217–218
School,
accountability, 3, 5, 7, 71, 78, 204, 211–212, 217
effectiveness & improvement, 4, 6–8, 124–126
self-management, 3–4, 20, 26, 118, 127, 160, 180, 210, 212, 214–216, 222
Standards & targets, 7, 38–39, 191–193, 202, 216
Student,
engagement, 85, 102, 112, 210, 218,
identity, 102
268
Teacher,
learning & professional development, 7, 42–44, 59, 81, 97–98, 109, 198–200,
203, 216, 219–220, 223
learning teams, 42–44, 56, 133-134, 137–138
workload, 40, 87, 194
Teaching practices,
cultural shift, 77–78, 84–88, 118, 171–174
effective practice, 11–16, 40–42, 63, 67, 158–159
expectations, of students, 36, 86, 62–63
grouping, (see Grouping)
monitoring & assessment (see Monitoring and assessment)
standards & targets (see Standards & targets)
269

Report Commonwealth Innovation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Report Commonwealth Innovation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

School Innovation: Pathway to the knowledge society

Professor Peter Cuttance

(c) Commonwealth of Australia 2001

School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society

DETYA No. 6703.DRED01A

A copy of this report is located at http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/index.htm

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii

Chapter 1: Innovation and Best Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter 2: Early Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Chapter 3: Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Chapter 4: Information and Communication Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Chapter 5: The Middle-Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Chapter 6: Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Chapter 7: Instructional Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Chapter 8: Managing Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163

Chapter 9: Lessons for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

Chapter 10: Lessons for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

Each of the schools engaged researchers and consultants to assist directly in

The Consortium acknowledges the work of Hedley Beare, Keryn McGuinness,

Professor Frank Crowther Glynis Jones

John McMaster Shirley Stokes

ELRP Early Literacy Research Project (Victorian project)

IBPP Innovation and Best Practice Project

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

TAFE Technical and Further Education

TIMSS Third International Mathematics and Science Study

As we advance towards a knowledge society, constructivist methodologies of learning are likely to

The most influential teaching practices on learning outcomes include classroom

Classrooms with different emphases on how tightly learning is structured are

A wide cross-section of schools participated in the project. Two-thirds were from

The strongest evidence of successful literacy improvement was in improved

The schools that provided the strongest evidence of improvements attributed to

• a coherent, whole-school programme to achieve literacy success;

• the development among staff of a set of shared beliefs and understandings

• a team approach to professional learning that encouraged ongoing, site-based

• a willingness and capacity to make significant changes to school and class

• the provision of intervention programmes and special assistance to students

• effective leadership by the principal, senior administrative staff and project

development to bring about change. Finally, informed and committed

Few of the mathematics projects presented approaches that sought to

• a willingness to explore and consider alternative teaching practices and

• the provision of appropriate time for learning to take place;

• a recognition that students learn at different rates;

• the use of clear explanations;

• the introduction of new knowledge in manageable amounts;

• a willingness to respond to students’ preferred ways of learning; and

• targeted individual assistance.

Participation in the project heightened teacher awareness of accountability for

The project indicated that mathematics teaching would benefit from a

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

• using technologies such as word processors to support the development of

• using ICT to support constructivist approaches to learning - uses central to

The innovations often meant a considerable increase in workload for teachers

The ICT innovations impacted on teachers in a number of ways:

• teachers were able to demonstrate concepts more efficiently and effectively

• teachers experienced enhanced professional satisfaction from increased levels

• enhanced social competencies through cooperative and collaborative learning;

• enhanced time management skills;

• acceptance of responsibility for their learning;

• mastery of curriculum-based learning outcomes;

• improved Year 12 examination results;