The Work Environment of the School Leader in Australia: The Case for Sustained Change in Role and Practice

Abstract

The questions addressed in this essay are (1) how has the work environment of school leaders changed in the early years of the 21st century, (2) how have these changes affected the role of the school leader, (3) what is the association between an evident deterioration in the work environment and the trend to more autonomy for schools and their leaders, and (4) how can school systems be more effective in supporting school leaders? The essay is organised into three domains that emerged from a review of the literature on changes in the work environment: intensification–intimidation, autonomy–accountability and system–support. Six recommendations are derived from the evidence: principals should have greater control over their work environment, system leaders should remove many reporting requirements from schools, there should be “organised abandonment” of outdated practices, the potential benefits of AI should be realised, there should be more engagement in planning for the future, and there should be further research on processes and outcomes through randomised controlled trials of new practices. It is not so much new theories in leadership but rather new roles and new practices within different arrangements for governance, informed by ongoing research as the context changes, amid evidence of deterioration in professional wellbeing.

1. Introduction

School leaders in Australia are endeavouring to cope with far-reaching changes to their work environment in the early years of the 21st century. The main features of these changes are well documented [1] and these include a higher level of turbulence in the wider environment; abandonment of principal-focused leadership in favour of more collaborative styles; intensification of the work itself, with far more tasks to be completed in the same amount of time; shifts along the centralisation–decentralisation continuum toward decentralisation on some matters and centralisation on others; demands for a higher level of accountability, especially on indicators of quality and equity; and expectations of parents that the individual needs and interests of their children will be addressed. Concurrently, school leaders are coming to terms with advances in technology, the latest manifestation being innovation in Artificial Intelligence (AI) [2].

There are presently two over-arching issues of national concern in Australia. The first is the achievement of students. Despite many schools being world-class on any measure, overall, the performance of students in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) [3,4] and the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) [5] continues to decline. Similarly, results in the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) administered by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) have mostly declined or flatlined [6]. The second is the shortage of teachers, especially at the secondary level, occurring while surveys consistently report teacher overload and threats to wellbeing, both of particular concern to school leaders [7,8]. This essay responds, in particular, to the second, including the finding that more than 40 per cent of principals reported they had experienced violence and bullying [8,9].

2. Methodology and Theoretical Background

2.1. Methodology

The key questions addressed in this essay are (1) how has the work environment of school leaders changed in the early years of the 21st century, (2) how have these changes affected the role of the school leader, (3) what is the association between an evident deterioration in the work environment and the trend to more autonomy for schools and their leaders, and (4) how can school systems be more effective in supporting school leaders?

The author has been engaged in research on governance, policy and leadership in school education for many years, broadly in many countries but with a special focus on Australia. Particular attention was given in this work to the shift of authority and accountability in schools within system-determined frameworks [10].

As noted above, there have been recent accounts of a deterioration in the work environment of school leaders. This essay arises from a desire to examine the evidence for this phenomenon and offer recommendations on how it can be ameliorated. Including selected sources in the previous broad-based studies, the current review of related literature paid special attention to 46 items related to the aforementioned deterioration and its remedy and the context in which this is occurring. This essay thus contains a limited review, with the starting point being the findings in three broad-based national surveys. Overall, preference was given to large-scale longitudinal studies in national and international settings. While individuals are cited, priority is given to national and internationally recognised scholars and commentators.

The findings of related research by the author are included where relevant to these questions, especially those reported in [10,11,12,13,14]. While the focus is on leadership at the school level, attention is also given to leadership at the system level because aspects of the work environment of school leaders are determined to some extent at that level. Strategies to enhance that environment through the actions of system leaders were framed by the characteristics of successful school systems identified in an OECD study.

The approach in this essay is policy- and governance-orientated while keeping a focus on leadership. Historical perspectives, both past and future, are included. There is a nexus throughout of leadership, governance, policy and wellbeing.

2.2. Theoretical Background

This essay does not provide a comprehensive account of leadership theory and research. The literature on each is substantial and relevant. Gurr [15,16] provided broad-based and up-to-date international reviews.

The distinction between leadership and management is pertinent, and this is the essay’s only foray into leadership theory. The framework of John Kotter [17] is helpful in this regard. Leadership is a process for establishing direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring, and achieving change. Management is a process that calls for planning and budgeting, organising and staffing, controlling and problem solving, and producing a degree of predictability. Elements of leadership line up with elements of management, so that the counterpart of establishing direction (leadership) is planning and budgeting (management). Aligning people (leadership) matches up with organising and staffing (management), motivating and inspiring (leadership) with controlling and problem solving (management), and achieving change (leadership) with producing a degree of predictability (management). The distinction is relevant now [18] more than three decades after it was proposed by Kotter. Two observations are in order: first, that leadership and management are essential if there is to be change, and second, that leaders are to some extent engaged in management, and managers often have a leadership role. It is the balance of the two that is important.

3. Context

It may be helpful to provide a brief description of how school education is governed in Australia and compare it to that in other federations. The country has a population of about twenty-five million and is a federation of six states and two territories. It was constituted from existing colonies in 1901 as the Commonwealth of Australia, with a federal parliament and a federal government. The Constitution leaves the responsibility for schools in the hands of the states, but there are factors that explain why and how a key role for the federal government emerged. One is because Section 96 of the Constitution allows it to grant money to states under whatever terms and conditions are mutually agreed upon. States are not permitted to levy an income tax, but they receive the proceeds of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied across the country, currently set at 10 per cent. The upshot of this vertical fiscal inequity is that government (public) schools in states and territories, as well as non-government (private) schools, are dependent on the federal government for significant amounts of public funding. National School Reform Agreements (NSRAs) reflect the outcomes of negotiations between the two levels of government on how federal funds should be allocated. Reference to states is taken to include territories.

States have responsibility for their public schools, which they build, own, operate and fund. Prior to federation, schools were operated by colonial governments, local committees and churches. Public schools were brought under the arm of education departments, which also implemented legislation and regulations applying to private schools.

There are two sectors in school education. Government (public) schools are owned by the government and may not charge tuition fees. Non-government (private) schools are owned by churches or private bodies and charge fees. Across the country, about two-thirds of students attend government schools. There appears to be no counterpart internationally, with about one-third of students attending fee-paying non-government schools. This proportion rises to about half at the upper-secondary level in major cities, where some schools charge more than AUD 40,000 annually for Year 12 students.

The role of the federal government has expanded over the last half-century. The last 15 years have seen the creation of ACARA, established in federal legislation and jointly funded by the Commonwealth and states, and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), owned and funded by the Commonwealth. Ministers for education at both levels have agreed that the key recommendations of each body shall be implemented in all schools, although states may establish their own approaches, provided they are consistent with the national versions. The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), jointly funded by the Commonwealth and states, was established to undertake or review research that provides evidence to guide the work of schools.

International comparisons with two other federations are of interest. Canada is a top-performing federation in international tests, and it is frequently paired with Australia in international comparisons. The federal government has no role in school education, being barred from doing so by the country’s constitution. A national approach on matters of common interest to the provinces is achieved through projects of the Council of Education Ministers, Canada (CEMC). Provinces may levy an income tax and a value-added tax.

Aspects of governance in the United States are like Australia’s, including the roles of federal and state governments in school education. Education stands in its own right at the federal level, with a Secretary for Education in the President’s cabinet. Receiving federal funds usually depends on states meeting federally set requirements. States may also levy an income tax and a value-added tax.

4. Themes in the Review of Research

Three themes related to changes in the work environment of leaders at the school and system level were selected from the review of literature, these being the most relevant to the four questions that are addressed in this essay.

4.1. Intensification–Intimidation

The Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey of a national sample of principals has been conducted annually since 2011 with the support of principals’ associations at all levels in government and non-government settings. It is the best-known and most frequently cited longitudinal study of principals’ occupational health. Results consistently show high levels of stress and increasing levels of offensive behaviour directed at principals (threats of violence, physical violence or bullying).

4.1.1. Workload and Burnout

Responses reported here are drawn from the aforementioned surveys. There were 2248 participants in the 2020 survey [19], with 87.8 per cent being principals, deputy/assistant principals or head teachers. 2020 was a year of the pandemic and catastrophic bushfires and, while many responses reported issues specifically related to these events, the general pattern of responses was similar to 2019, before these events.

School leaders worked an average of 54.5 h per week with 22.1 per cent working more than 60 h. The top-ranked of 19 sources of stress were (1) sheer quantity of work, (2) lack of time to focus on teaching and learning, (3) mental health issues of students, and (4) expectations of employers. Among 15 sources of support, the top-ranked was a partner, and the bottom-ranked was the department/employer. Alarmingly, 83 per cent reported that they had been subjected to some form of offensive behaviour in the previous 12 months.

Participants in the survey completed the COPSOQ-11 survey on Occupational Health and Safety, responding to a well-validated instrument administered to hundreds of thousands of people in different countries and occupations. There are seven scales: (1) demands at work, (2) work organisation and job contents, (3) interpersonal relations and leadership, (4) work–individual interface, (5) values at the workplace, (6) health and wellbeing, and (7) offensive behaviour.

Responses were compared to those in the “general population”, from people in a variety of occupations in many countries who completed the survey. Overall, responses from participants in the Australian survey of school leaders compared unfavourably with responses from the general population on all items on all subscales. The following conclusion was drawn:

Historically, school leaders are at risk of burnout, working in demanding and stressful environments with multiple stakeholders, who often have conflicting priorities and demands … The position requires them to always be alert and aware of all matters that relate to their schools, communities, and the reporting requirements, at times dealing with the most stressful of situations in life … School leaders, as a group, are at risk of fatigue, mental health decline, and burnout.

(p. 7) [19]

This response from a primary (elementary) principal was typical of open-ended responses:

The job becomes more complex with every passing year and the volume of work required of a school principal continues to grow. This is clearly unsustainable … The resourcing levels in primary schools are totally unsatisfactory to deliver the sheer size of the agenda expected by our employer, and then when coupled with the increasing complexity of the job makes for a particularly concerning situation that is also unsustainable.

(p. 51) [19]

Despite the foregoing, just 6.8 per cent planned to retire in 2021. In making recommendations, the authors recognised that the combined efforts of several stakeholders are required to improve the health and wellbeing of school leaders, including governments, professional associations, communities, schools and the research community. These were described in the report along with differences in the responses of participants according to gender, sector, location of school and a range of demographics.

A more favourable environment was generally evident in the responses of leaders in non-government (Catholic and independent) schools compared to their counterparts in government schools, but the differences were not large, leading the authors to conclude that “problems and their solutions are very similar in all sectors, highlighting those differences between the sectors is more superficial than substantive (p. 8) [19].

4.1.2. Threats of Violence

The survey reported above gathered information in 2020. A subsequent survey conducted in 2022 pointed to a further deterioration of the work environment of principals: threats of violence were reported by 48.8 per cent of respondents (up 4.5 per cent over the previous survey); physical violence by 44.0 per cent (up 4.6 per cent); and gossip and slander by 49.7 per cent (up 4.3 per cent) (p. 4) [9].

The report of a review commissioned by the federal minister for education to inform the next National School Reform Agreement between the Commonwealth and states cited a submission from the Australian Secondary Principals’ Association that raised the issue of “increasing threats of violence that school leaders are exposed to”, confirming the earlier survey findings noted above. The report stated that “they would benefit from additional support to help them manage occupational violence safely and effectively”(p. 148) [8]. However, the issue of violence or threatened violence was not mentioned in the report’s formal findings or recommendations.

4.1.3. Experience of Teachers

The work environment of principals is determined to a large extent by that of their staff, and related studies are therefore pertinent. For example, surveys in the Australian Teacher Workforce Data (ATWD) project found the following with respect to the intentions of teachers as far as their future in the profession was concerned. These and related findings included the responses of principals and other school leaders:

• One-quarter of teachers reported their intention to leave the profession before they retired, with 56 per cent of these intending to leave within 10 years;
• The greatest proportion (38 per cent) intending to leave were teachers aged 30–39;
• A high fraction (87 per cent) of those intending to leave cited reasons related to their work: load is too heavy (71 per cent), levels of stress impacting on wellbeing or mental health (68 per cent), and desire to achieve a better work–life balance (61 per cent);
• Insufficient pay was cited by 29 per cent of those intending to leave; issues associated with student behaviour were cited by 26 per cent (p. 10) [7].

When responses were analysed by sector, it was concluded that data were not “suitably representative of Catholic and independent school sectors to justify examining quantitative analysis of the different kinds of non-government schools (p. 114) [7], Consequently, no sectoral analyses were reported.

The ATWD findings are consistent with those in a 2022 survey [20] of about 5500 teachers in Australia, about 16 per cent of whom were school leaders.

A large majority of teachers indicated that they were planning to, or would like to, leave the profession. Most were dissatisfied with their roles. However, a large majority reported a sense of belonging to the profession. A considerable majority of teachers reported that their workloads were unmanageable, and a quarter of teachers reported feeling unsafe in their workplace. Only one in three teachers would recommend teaching as a career.

(p. 4) [20]

A report commissioned by the New South Wales Teachers Federation [21] noted the large number of federal and state policies that have had an impact on the work of teachers. Among initiatives in play at the time were eight mandated by the federal government and twenty-one bilateral projects of both governments, all to be implemented by the end of 2023. A total of 81 initiatives were identified for 2004–2020. These data demonstrate a high degree of turbulence in the work of teachers and school leaders in New South Wales.

4.1.4. International Comparisons

Responses on the safety of school leaders are consistent with self-reports by principals in Australia, as gathered in TALIS 2018. TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey) is conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on a five-year cycle, with the fourth undertaken in 2023. Reports provide internationally comparable data on the learning environment and working conditions of teachers and principals. Information was collected from a representative sample working at the lower-secondary level in 48 countries/economies. Those at the primary level were also included for Australia. The Australian report by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) [22] included a comparison with high-performing countries in PISA 2015: Canada (Alberta) Estonia, Finland, Japan and Singapore. The following was reported in TALIS 2018:

Incidents related to school safety are a particular concern to Australian principals compared to the OECD average. Intimidation and bullying of students is a particular issue, with 37 per cent of principals reporting that this occurs at least weekly in their school. Also of concern is the relatively high incidence of intimidation or verbal abuse of teachers or staff. Twelve per cent of Australian principals reported that this happens at least weekly, compared to three per cent on average across the OECD. The incidence of cyber-bullying, measured for the first time, was also relatively high compared to the average across the OECD.

(p. xiv) [22]

4.2. Autonomy–Accountability

The deterioration in the work environment of school leaders in Australia has overlapped with the trend to decentralise more decisions to schools that found themselves with authority, responsibility and accountability in areas in which they had little engagement in the past. While the extent of this decentralisation varied from state to state, it included matters related to the curriculum, staffing, allocation of resources in the school’s budget and program evaluation. All occurred within a framework determined centrally for each state.

There has been significant decentralisation in Australia since 1973 when the Whitlam government adopted the recommendations of the Karmel Report [23] that called for the “devolution” of important decisions to schools. There were similar developments in other countries, reflecting in part societal trends on empowerment and participation in decision making that were building at the time. There was decentralisation of some functions and centralisation of others.

4.2.1. International Context

Internationally, “many schools have become more autonomous and decentralised, as well as more accountable to students, parents and the wider public for their outcomes” (p. 318) [24]. School leaders in Australia do not have the high level of autonomy that is often claimed. The OECD constructed an index of school autonomy based on lower-secondary principals’ ratings in PISA 2015 (p. 110) [24]. Australia ranked 23rd out of 68 countries/economies, lower than other federations (United States at 18th) but higher than Canada at 40th. Highly ranked were the United Kingdom (3rd), Estonia (8th) and Hong Kong (China) (12th). Singapore was lower (28th). Finland (26th) was about the same.

A finer-grained analysis revealed differences according to the function for which the school has autonomy. Australia, for example, ranked 18th on autonomy for the allocation of resources, 10th for curriculum and 13th on student assessment. It may be that there is too much autonomy in the curriculum as it may contribute to the time that school leaders and their colleagues must invest in searching for resources to support teaching.

4.2.2. Conceptual Considerations

It is helpful to examine the concepts of centralisation and decentralisation, especially since the trend to decentralisation is often referred to as “school autonomy” when, in fact, there is invariably a robust centrally determined framework within which schools must operate.

Each of centralisation and decentralisation is a process and a condition. Centralisation occurs or exists when the authority to make decisions is located at the centre of an organisation or system rather than at or toward the periphery, usually at the highest level of a hierarchy rather than in a subsidiary unit. Decentralisation occurs when the authority to make decisions shifts from the centre toward the periphery, often to a lower level in a hierarchy.

Such definitions are of ideal types, for there is complexity in practice. The authority to make some decisions is located at the centre and the authority to make others is located at the periphery or at a lower level. In Australia, the authority to set the curriculum for all schools is located in a central unit, such as ACARA, or a state counterpart, whereas the authority to make decisions about approaches to teaching that curriculum is usually made at the periphery, that is, at school or classroom levels. In education, as in most fields, there is a centralisation–decentralisation continuum for various functions, with points at which different kinds of decisions are made.

The foregoing refers to the point in a continuum at which a decision is made. There is also the mode in which that decision is made, for there is invariably a process of consultation. In school education, for example, a decision on the curriculum that should be addressed by all schools may be made in a central unit, but that decision may have taken account of views of a range of experts and other stakeholders, including representatives of subsidiary units such as schools.

It is necessary to distinguish between political and administrative when describing centralisation and decentralisation. Political centralisation exists when authority resides at the centre and cannot by law or constitutional arrangement be assigned to a lower level. Political decentralisation occurs when authority moves from the centre to a lower level, or resides at that level, and cannot be retracted or recentralised. Administrative decentralisation occurs when authority moves to a lower level, but this authority may be retracted by a decision made centrally.

What is often misnamed as school autonomy is in fact an example of administrative decentralisation of some functions, and that is the case in Australia and comparable countries including Canada, England, Finland, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United States.

4.2.3. Professional Standards

The first two decades of the 21st century saw higher levels of school autonomy being assumed by schools in Australia. The role of the school leader, especially the principal, became more complex. There was potential if not a reality that the ways these roles were exercised would vary greatly. A call for professional standards was understandable, and these were prepared by AITSL and approved by federal and state ministers for implementation across the country.

The Australian Professional Standard for Principals was initially developed in 2011 and updated in 2014 [25]. There are three Leadership Requirements (vision and values; knowledge and understanding; and personal qualities, social and interpersonal skills). Each is applied across five areas of Professional Practice (leading teaching and learning; developing self and others; leading improvement, innovation, and change; leading the management of the school; and engaging and working with the community). They are also applied in different ways according to the required Leadership Emphasis (operational, relational, strategic and systemic). The mix and match of these standards varies according to context, and AITSL developed four “profiles” for each of the five areas of Professional Practice, described as pathways to higher levels of proficiency. The profiles may be used in one or more of six ways: self-reflection—a Leadership Reflection Tool has been developed—professional growth, professional learning, selection and recruitment, talent development and succession, and performance and review.

The expectations of principals may be illustrated in two of the five standards of Professional Practice. In each instance, they describe the extent of professional autonomy at the school level. They also indicate the extensive demands on school leaders should they be expected to provide evidence that each expectation has been satisfied.

Leading improvement, innovation and change Principals work with others to produce and implement clear, evidence-based improvement plans and policies for the development of the school and its facilities. They recognise that a crucial part of the role is to lead and manage innovation and change to ensure the vision and strategic plan is put into action across the school and that its goals and intentions are realised.

Engaging and working with the community. Principals embrace inclusion and help build a culture of high expectations that takes account of the richness and diversity of the wider school community and the education systems and sectors. They develop and maintain positive partnerships with students, families and carers and all those associated with the wider school community. They create an ethos of respect taking account of the spiritual, moral, social and physical health and wellbeing of students. They promote sound lifelong learning from preschool through to adult life. They recognise the multicultural nature of Australia’s people. They foster understanding and reconciliation with Indigenous cultures. They recognise and use the rich and diverse linguistic and cultural resources in the school community. They recognise and support the needs of students, families and carers from communities facing complex challenges.

[25]

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers were also developed in 2011 [26]. They were intended to be “a public statement of what constitutes teacher quality. They define the work of teachers and make explicit the elements of high-quality, effective teaching in 21st century schools that will improve educational outcomes for students”. There are 37 standards for each of four categories of the professional journey—Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished, and Lead, with leadership expected in the last two, thus making these standards relevant to matters considered in this essay.

One criticism is that both sets of standards have reduced a complex field of professional practice to a large number of discrete elements. The use of standards may become a time-consuming tick-the-box exercise, leading to role overload and low morale, an issue explored in Section 4.1. There is no evidence that a standards-based approach in and of itself has had a directly measurable impact on performance. For example, one study “provided no evidence to suggest that the inclusion of The Standards will have a positive impact on the effectiveness of an individual teacher, where they are embedded within a tool to evaluate teacher performance, and to inform professional development”(p. 153) [27],

Efforts at the system level to monitor the use of standards have had limited success. In New South Wales, for example, teachers must be accredited “against the standards” and principals have an important role. However, the Auditor-General found in 2019 that the New South Wales Education and Standards Authority (NESA) “did not oversight principals’ decisions to ensure that minimum standards for teaching quality are consistently met” and that “The Department does not effectively monitor teaching quality across the state … The Department’s Performance and Development Framework does not adequately support principals and supervisors to effectively manage and improve teacher performance or actively improve teaching quality” (Overview) [28]. Three recommendations were made: work with stakeholders to ensure adequate training, clarify the quantity and quality of evidence and reduce duplication in the process, and implement a program of “risk-based reviews” to ensure alignment with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

4.2.4. Principals’ Views on School Autonomy

Principals’ views on a higher level of autonomy in Australia were sought in a national survey as part of the International Study on School Autonomy and Learning (ISSAL) conducted from 2014 to 2017 [11]. The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) provided a stratified random sample of public schools. More than half of respondents reported a higher level of autonomy than five years earlier. Most identified factors associated with autonomy enabled them to make decisions that helped achieve improved learning outcomes. They identified strategies that were employed to build the capacity of staff. Their school systems supported schools in a variety of ways. A majority would prefer a higher level of autonomy.

Noteworthy were responses for constraints on autonomy. Six factors were generally viewed as clearly constraining and four were perceived to be both constraining and supporting. In the first category were national/system curriculum, national/system testing, expectations/demands on principals’ time, expectations/demands on teachers’ time, national/system targets for improvement, and compliance requirements. In the second category were performance management requirements for principals, performance management requirements for teachers, system requirements for school review, and system requirements for accountability. The most constraining factor was compliance requirements. The most supportive was performance management requirements for teachers. These responses underpinned the following recommendation:

There were simply too many concerns raised or implied about these matters which are seen as a constraint on autonomy. The open-ended responses, in particular, make this clear. While school systems can offer good reasons why these exist, they should re-double their efforts to reduce the demands on principals, especially as far as compliance requirements are concerned.

(p. 44) [11]

Has the additional load associated with increased autonomy contributed to the stresses and strains reported in national surveys? A literature-based study reported a “tsunami of paperwork” associated with a trend toward school autonomy [29]. However, the issue was illuminated in longitudinal research at the Institute for Positive Psychology at Australian Catholic University, which conducted the Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey since 2011, some findings from which were reported in Section 4.1. The researchers [30] were able to draw on six years of longitudinal data from thousands of responses from principals in the aforementioned national surveys who had participated in two initiatives in “controlled” autonomy, one the Empowering Local Schools (ELS) initiative that allocated AUD 40,000–50,000 of Commonwealth funds to selected schools for local decision making between 2012 and 2014, the other the Local Schools Local Decisions (LSLD) program that gave government schools in New South Wales the opportunity from 2012 to manage resources and staffing to the extent that about 70 per cent of the state’s recurrent budget was available for local decision. Decisions in each instance were decentralised to schools, not principals.

Findings included that (1) principals of schools in both initiatives felt that they had a higher level of autonomy (“felt autonomy”), (2) there was no significant change in job demands or burnout when respondents took up a higher level, and (3) respondents in ELS schools reported a significant decline in job satisfaction when the program was discontinued. While differences were statistically significant, they were nonetheless small, so the researchers urged caution in drawing implications. However, there was no evidence in this study of a cause-and-effect relationship between an increase in autonomy and a deterioration in the work environment.

Factors associated with the deterioration, as reported in the national surveys, were not connected to the domains of decisions that were decentralised but were more associated with administrative paperwork, unrealistic demands in respect to accountability and matters related to personal wellbeing/safety (“intimidation”) (Section 4.1). This view was supported by findings from an international interview-based study of autonomy, intensification and accountability in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand that concluded that “The most important factor inflecting work intensification is not school autonomy; rather it is the form and extent of accountability expectations that a system imposes on schools and school staff” [31].

4.2.5. Association of Autonomy and Student Performance

Research for OECD in recent decades has consistently found an association between autonomy and student performance. For example, analysis of the results of PISA suggests that the most successful systems of schools secure an optimal balance of autonomy, accountability and choice. Particularly striking are two studies at the Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich based on results in PISA 2003. For student achievement,

On average, students perform better if schools have autonomy to decide on staffing and to hire their own teachers, while student achievement is lower when schools have autonomy in areas with large scope for opportunistic behaviour, such as formulating their own budget. But school autonomy in formulating the budget, in establishing teacher salaries, and in determining course content are all significantly more beneficial where external exit exams introduce accountability.

(p. 59) [32]

As far as equity is concerned,

[R]ather than harming disadvantaged students, accountability, autonomy, and choice are tides that lift all boats … there is not a single case where a policy designed to introduce accountability, autonomy, or choice benefits high-SES students to the detriment of low SES students, i.e., where the former gain but the latter suffer.

(p. 34) [33]

In more recent analyses of results in PISA 2015, in relation to the leadership of principals and achievement in science,

… students score higher in science when principals exercise greater autonomy over resources, curriculum and other policies, but especially so in countries where achievement data are tracked over time or posted publicly more extensively or when principals show higher levels of educational leadership’.

(pp. 230–231) [34]

These findings are relevant to an essay on the work environment of school leaders. Why persist with a relatively high level of school autonomy if there is no link, either causal or by association, with student performance? While the answer might be in the affirmative, there is no claim in the evidence that autonomy is a panacea, neglecting curriculum and pedagogy. Ben Jensen, CEO of Australian consultancy Learning First, expressed it this way: “… across the past 10 to 15 years the dominant narrative in education has emphasised variation, driven by policies promoting autonomy, choice and individual agency … This narrative has overwhelmed the earlier focus on a curriculum entitlement for all students” [35].

4.3. System–Support

Constraints reported by principals under conditions of autonomy and dysfunctional aspects of the work environment reported in Section 4.1 suggest that these may be open to change by those setting policy at the centre, i.e., “the system”. The responses of principals and other school leaders reported in the Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey and TALIS 2018 built the case for serious attention to and concerted action by system leaders. It is acknowledged that the intimidation they report is partly due to societal forces and the expectations of parents and students.

4.3.1. Benefits and Drawbacks of Centralisation

There is no universal approach to centralisation in school education nor is there a uniform set of benefits and drawbacks that will address issues at the school level [12]. However, the results of surveys conducted by OECD, in which respondents have been either system personnel in each country with deep knowledge of policy and practice or school principals, offer a general guide. Benefits are related to efficiency, providing a service or support for subsidiary units; securing a degree of uniformity where this is needed or desired; building commitment to a common set of values; and securing alignment and coherence among different levels of a system. Centralisation is intended to achieve a high level of equity or fairness in the allocation of resources. Progress has been made in some jurisdictions in developing funding formulae that are sensitive to differences among schools and the needs of students. Among the drawbacks, centralisation, and indeed decentralisation, has been associated with additional and burdensome loads on school-level personnel, as documented thus far, due in part to compliance requirements.

The concept of the “system” in Australia is complex, including the two levels of government, as well as schools, recently created entities such as ACARA, AITSL and AERO, and the teacher unions and professional organisations. It can be extended to initial teacher education (ITE) offered by universities, of which there have been three reviews in the last decade [36,37,38].

4.3.2. Benchmarking System Leadership in Australia

Before suggesting change that involves leaders at the system level, it is worthwhile to establish a framework for action and then provide an assessment of Australia’s educational system. Andreas Schleicher, head of education at OECD, identified seven characteristics of high-performing school systems (pp. 62–64) [24] drawing on the findings from successive iterations of PISA and TALIS, and these provide a benchmarked starting point. They are listed in the first column of

Table 1. Strategies for system leaders in Australia, adapted from p. 182 [10].

Characteristics of High-Performing School Systems (Adapted from Schleicher, [24])	Sample Strategy to Improve Australia’s System Performance	Author’s Assessment of Progress in Implementation of Sample Strategy
1. Leaders have convinced their citizens that it is worth investing in the future through education.	Every leader at every level in public and private sectors must continually and consistently send this message in all media, and act to show they mean it.	This is a long-term strategy to help build a supportive culture for schools, including support for school leaders as they go about their work. There is presently occasional support from some leaders outside the immediate school setting.
2. Parents and teachers are committed to the belief that all students can meet high standards.	Schools should set high standards for all students, choosing wisely from national and state curriculums, and communicate with parents accordingly.	National and state curriculums have been adopted but debates continue publicly and professionally as to their merit, including the extent to which high standards have been set for all students, and these standards are communicated to parents.
3. The diversity of student needs is addressed through differentiated practice, without compromising on standards.	Australia must saturate schools with scalable illustrations of how this is done: evidence-based and differentiated to suit the range of settings.	Good progress has been made by national bodies (ACARA, AITSL, AERO) and state counterparts, but reports of overload by school leaders and their colleagues suggest that time cannot always be devoted to determining which are suited to the local setting.
4. Teaching staff are carefully selected and educated.	Implementation of recommendations in Australia’s three reviews of initial teacher education	Implementation has been slow in an environment in which there are nearly forty semi-autonomous universities offering ITE. The third of these reviews calls for financial incentives to adopt recommendations. Not all jurisdictions give school leaders an opportunity to select the best graduates.
5. Ambitious goals are set, there is clarity on what students should be able to do, and teachers are empowered to determine what they need to teach. They have moved on from administrative control and accountability to professional forms of work organisation.	Related capacities must be developed where necessary to ensure that all teachers are fully empowered. Accountability is appropriate and makes sense to the school. Unnecessary paperwork should be eliminated.	Progress must be accelerated. Successive reports cited in this essay indicate that workload and paperwork are excessive in the eyes of school leaders and teachers. Intentions to address the issue have been declared in most jurisdictions but a degree of urgency in implementation is suggested by the evidence.
6. There is provision for high-quality education across the system so that all students benefit from excellent teaching. These countries attract the best principals to the toughest schools and the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms.	Significant forms of “compensation” are required to attract and reward those who take on the challenge.	Most jurisdictions have provided incentives for able school leaders and teachers to move to regional, remote and other challenging settings where there are inequities when these settings are compared to most urban counterparts. Inequities continue so further attention to this strategy is necessary.
7. There is a tendency to align policies and practices across the entire system.	Every effort should be made to align national, state and school policies, allowing for a measure of state and school autonomy, and acknowledging the difficulty in achieving this alignment in a federation of six states and two territories where constitutional responsibility resides.	Progress has been made through National School Reform Agreements, but Australia may have reached the limit of what is possible given current approaches to governance in the federation.

.

4.3.3. Sample Strategies for Australia

The second column in Table 1 provides sample strategies that call for action by system leaders. Good management of the status quo may be necessary, but it is not sufficient: leadership is an essential energiser. Each has the potential to enhance the work environment of school leaders. The author’s assessment of progress in implementing each strategy is summarised in the third column, drawing on his knowledge of policy and practice in Australian school systems.

For Item 1, the sample strategy in the second column is “Every leader at every level in public and private sectors must continually and consistently send this message in all media, and act to show they mean it”. This is one of many long-term strategies to help build a supportive culture for schools, including support for school leaders as they go about their work. There is presently occasional support from some leaders outside the immediate school setting, often in response to “bad news” when results on national and international tests are released.

There is a complementary role for the school leader who should also work to improve relationships with and build the support of the community, as illustrated in the standard for principals for engaging and working with the community (elaborated on in Section 4.2.3 above).

Good progress has been made for Item 3 (“Australia must saturate schools with scalable illustrations of how this is done: evidence-based and differentiated to suit the range of settings”). ACARA, AITSL and AERO have developed hundreds of examples. Teachers and school leaders must spend time searching for those that suit their circumstances. Perceptions of work overload raise the issue of whether school leaders have the time to search well.

Also, consider Item 5 (“Accountability is appropriate and makes sense to the school. Unnecessary paperwork must be eliminated”). Consistent with evidence cited elsewhere in this essay, leaders at the school level have expressed concern for many years; system leadership is required to determine and “abandon” what is not necessary.

In his listing of the characteristics of high-performing school systems, Schleicher stressed the importance of setting the “right” level of school autonomy, and this is important in what should be done at the system and school levels. He drew on the findings of successive iterations of PISA and TALIS to confirm earlier findings reported in Section 4.2.5 of this essay.

The data from PISA suggest that, once the state has set clear expectations for students, school autonomy in defining the details of the curriculum and assessments is positively related to the system’s overall performance. For example, school systems that provide their schools with greater discretion in student assessments, the courses offered, the course content and the textbooks used, tend to be the school systems that perform at higher levels on PISA, whatever the causal nature of that relationship.

(p. 109) [24]

Schleicher also stressed the importance of school leaders and their colleagues having the requisite skills to perform their roles well, hence the importance of adequate training.

5. Discussion

The questions that provided the focus for this essay, as specified in Section 2.1, are (1) how has the work environment of school leaders changed in the early years of the 21st century, (2) how have these changes affected the role of the school leader, (3) what is the association between an evident deterioration in the work environment and the trend to more autonomy for schools and their leaders, and (4) how can school systems be more effective in supporting school leaders?

For (1) (“how has the work environment of school leaders changed in the early years of the 21st century”), the scale of change was set out in the Introduction (Section 1) in terms that are likely to be recognised by school leaders in other countries. Details were included in other sections of this essay as national concerns shifted to the performance of students when data from PISA revealed a disappointing outcome for Australia’s students. A national curriculum with state counterparts was developed. A national testing program (NAPLAN) was introduced for students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. Professional standards for principals and teachers were approved by ministers for adoption throughout the country. Limited autonomy was granted to schools. National agencies, notably AERO, generated an increasing body of evidence and associated resources that were intended to assist schools in delivering the curriculum.

For (2) (“how have these changes affected the role of the school leader”), the work environment of school leaders changed in several ways. One aspect of the shift to a limited form of school autonomy was that leaders assumed new responsibilities that were added to the work they were already doing. This is the intensification factor. It is not surprising that well-designed national surveys contained reports of overload. Alarmingly, more than 40 per cent of principals reported that they had experienced actual violence at work. This was backed up in other reports. This is the intimidation factor. International comparisons indicate that the situation for principals in Australia is worse than in many other countries. This factor alone warrants urgent action, especially as it has been reported in national surveys for over a decade.

Any expectation that more collaborative or distributed approaches to leadership would necessarily lighten the load of principals has not been met. More staff exercised a leadership role, but this was not just a delegation of the principal’s responsibilities. For example, a leader at one level in a school or in one discipline area assumed responsibility for the work of a team of staff, requiring expertise in gathering and analysing data on student performance and setting priorities for action in lifting that performance. These expectations along with those of principals were embodied in national professional standards adopted by ministers for education for implementation throughout the country. Reaching the most appropriate balance of autonomy and accountability thus became a challenge and a priority within the school without overloading the principal and other school leaders with unnecessary paperwork if written evidence was sought that each standard was satisfied and all processes had been faithfully implemented.

For (3) (“what is the association between an evident deterioration in the work environment and the trend to more autonomy for schools and their leaders”), early evidence [30]) suggests that there is no association between an increase in autonomy in and of itself and a deterioration in the work environment of school leaders. A national survey [11] found that principals generally preferred more autonomy than existed at the time. The deterioration of the work environment summarised above that coincided in time with the implementation of a higher level of autonomy appears to result from burdensome accountability requirements and other constraints. The findings of the Horwood et al. survey [30] suggested the need for further research on the matter.

For (4) (“how can school systems be more effective in supporting school leaders”) it is important to note that the support of “the system” is appreciated by principals. However, the findings of a national survey included a number of factors that principals found constraining. At the same time, principals generally acknowledged the need for accountability [9]. A benchmarked assessment of the characteristics of a good school system suggested a number of strategies for leaders at the system level. Some called for relief of the aforementioned administrative burden on schools and their principals. Others were more concerned with improving system performance, each of which may enhance the work environment of school leaders. Good progress has been made in creating curriculum-related materials to assist teachers but an issue for apparently over-worked teachers is whether they have the time to search for those best suited to their needs. It may be that school leaders need more guidance on the matter and they and their colleagues need more training in the use of research and other evidence-based resources. The Q project at Monash University has developed frameworks and procedures to address this issue [39].

While enhanced control over the work environment should be seized by principals and other school leaders, even under current constraints, it is evident that leaders at the system level have an important role to play. However, there appears to be inertia in this respect because the issues reported at the school level have existed for several years. Further research may reveal the reasons.

Part of the problem may be that structures and power relations in Australia have not changed in significant ways since the creation of systems of public education 150 years ago. Comparisons with two other countries illustrate what is possible. In England, for example, now performing better than ever on several key indicators [3] the role of the local authority (LEA) has diminished as a higher level of school autonomy has been implemented. An increasing number of schools have become “academies”, receiving their funds directly from Westminster [40]. Many have formed themselves into multi-academy trusts (MATs) that involve between two and fifty schools, with small units that provide support as determined by member schools. Unnecessary and burdensome paperwork is not countenanced by members. School inspections through what was formerly known as Ofsted still occur and schools must assemble evidence for accountability purposes. These developments remain contentious in England, but counterparts could be trialled in Australia where MATs may be suited to urban and some regional areas but not to rural and remote settings that may require the support of a more centralised unit.

Similarly, and equally contentious, would be to grant more autonomy through the creation of charter schools. These are usually associated in professional eyes with their creation in the United States, where there are now more than 9000, still a very small fraction of all public schools. It may be better to shift our gaze to Alberta, the best-performing province in Canada and one of the best in global terms. Its 36 charter schools are autonomous public schools that must follow the Alberta curriculum but offer a specialisation that is not available in the local public system [41]. Like England’s academies and MATs, the point in the context of this essay is their autonomy and capacity to control their working conditions and those of their staff to a larger extent than at present in Australia, minimising as far as possible the intensification trap.

6. Future Directions

6.1. Recommendations

Six recommendations are offered to ameliorate the deteriorating environment of school leaders. An over-arching recommendation is the adoption of long-term strategies to create a more supportive culture for schools so that violence and threats of violence along with bullying are not experienced. It is acknowledged that some of the sample strategies for leaders at the system level (Table 1), and others, serve a larger purpose such as raising levels of student achievement. The following recommendations also contribute to this purpose but the intention in offering them is to illustrate a direct connection between the evidence cited earlier and the actions that are proposed.

1. Principals should have greater control over their work environment. The starting point for action in the years ahead should be acceptance of the case for a relatively high degree of school autonomy, reflecting the reality that each school is a unique mix of the needs, interests and demographic circumstances of its students as well as the value placed on the participation of professionals in decision making according to their stake and expertise. Evidence over many years, as reported by the OECD, has consistently shown the association of autonomy and student outcomes providing that autonomy and accountability work in tandem. Building the capacity of principals and other school leaders to exercise the former is critically important. Greater control provides principals with an opportunity to minimise what they and their colleagues describe as administrative overload. Two Australian autobiographical studies [42,43]) illustrate how principals can seize the initiative.

2. School systems should remove reporting requirements and other constraints that schools find burdensome. Leaders in schools and school systems should work together to determine what can be discarded. Sample strategies at the system level are contained in Table 1. Some require a tightly focused allocation of additional funds, such as Item 6, which calls for substantial increases in compensation to attract top-flight leaders to very challenging schools. Item 5, focusing on dysfunctional, often debilitating practices that are the bane of school leaders, must be addressed immediately. An obvious recommendation is for the school system to allocate more staff to schools to help them cope with overload and what is perceived to be unnecessary paperwork. Aside from schools often needing additional staff, a better strategy is to eliminate what is not necessary and work with schools and a wide range of stakeholders to change the culture of schools.

3. “Organised abandonment” should be adopted as new practices are added to old. Organised abandonment was advocated by management guru Peter Drucker in Leadership Challenges for the 21st Century [44]. The need for abandonment is not limited to education. It seems that intensification is a feature of work in the first quarter of the 21st century and that many leaders and managers at the school and system levels have failed the challenge set by Drucker in 1999. Most training programs tend to focus on doing as well as what is currently expected, and this is appropriate, but other programs should be devoted to abandoning what is no longer necessary. Steven Cook, principal of Australia’s School of the Year in 2021, described it this way:

If I can make a plea to government at this point: no more forms, no more statistics collecting and no more new bureaucratic processes. Sit down with educators and cull at least half the paperwork—there will be plenty of suggestions, believe me.

(p. 124) [42]

4. The potential of AI to assist in the abandonment of dysfunctional practices should be taken up at all levels. The possibilities of AI should not be overlooked, although it is still largely an unknown known when it comes to school and system leadership. Scores of thoughtful articles have been written, as summarised in a comprehensive review that concluded the following:

The power of AI could be used to reduce much of the mechanical load of teachers and even to provide some basic support for students under the direction of teachers who would be freed to work with each other, with students, parents, and others in the community to maximise support and learning for all students.

(p. 6) [2]

A survey by the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (AHISA) found that in responding schools, 24 per cent of primary teachers, 34.5 per cent of middle school teachers and 39 per cent of secondary teachers had used generative AI by mid-2023. The top five teacher-assisted tasks were concerned with lesson plans or learning designs, learning resources, ideas for curriculum unit outlines, discussion questions, and rubrics for assessing student work. This application of AI both adds and subtracts to roles and practices in a manner that can contribute to the effectiveness of school leaders and hence to improved outcomes for students.

5. More leaders should be engaged in deep thinking about the future of schools. A 2020 OECD project [45] resulted in four generic scenarios for the future of schooling. The titles of these are (1) schooling extended, (2) education outsourcing, (3) schools as learning hubs, and (4) learn-as-you-go. Leadership at all levels will change in profound ways for these and similar scenarios. Scenarios are not predictions or proposals but credible “stories” of what may emerge. At the very least, their formulation is an outcome of disciplined data-driven analysis of emerging trends and issues.

It is understandable, given the evidence cited in this essay [11], that school leaders are constrained in current contexts should they wish to engage in scenario-type planning in the local setting. There appears to be no unit anywhere at the system level that is so engaged, although it is within the remit of AITSL to work in this area. AITSL considered the future of the profession as a whole, declaring that there is “an urgent need for national focus on understanding future challenges” (p. 30) [46]. In 2010, it published a book and associated school planning resources based on findings in 18 future-focused workshops in every state and territory involving about 500 school leaders, commissioned by Teaching Australia, AITSL’s predecessor [14]. There is scope for similar work by the various institutes established around the country such as the Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership and professional associations such as the Australian Council for Educational Leaders.

6. There should be more research on the processes and impacts of these changes, constructing, where possible, randomised controlled trials or natural experiments as projects are designed and implemented. There is a need for further research such as that proposed [30] in exploring the association between higher levels of autonomy and the debilitating aspects of intensification. The need for such effort is illustrated in a three-year Australian Research Council project at Monash University under the title “Invisible Labour: Principals’ Emotional Labour in Volatile Times”.

6.2. Getting Started

While what is to be implemented is relatively clear, an important issue is how to get started, given the complexity of the education system in Australia. Recognition of role overload, for example, has been documented in a number of reports for several years, but recognition alone is insufficient. Recommendations in a national plan may not result in action at the school level. This is the case with respect to curriculum, where states set their own curriculum, providing it is consistent with the national one, and schools may then adapt the state curriculum to their own contexts. Leaders at the system level must take the initiative to reduce demands on schools and their leaders, and principals and other school leaders must do the same for themselves and their colleagues. Consistent with Recommendation 6 above, trials involving a sample of schools should be organised in some instances. In the final analysis, change is likely to occur on a school-by-school or network-by-network basis. A higher level of trust and risk than currently exists must be nurtured, so immediate impact on a large scale is unlikely.

7. Conclusions

It is concluded that the evidence presented in this essay builds a strong case for sustained change to the roles and practices of school leaders. This change does not rise to the level of transformation if transformation is considered to be a change that is significant and systematic as well as sustained; what is proposed is not a comprehensive change to the work of school leaders. However, what is proposed is not a minor change. Thus far, the issues appear intractable, defying a simple solution. While concerns such as work overload, violence and threats of violence have been documented for several years, there is an absence of strategy, especially at the system level, to improve the situation.

It is not so much new theories in leadership but rather new roles and new practices within different arrangements for governance, informed by ongoing research as the context changes, amid evidence of deterioration in professional wellbeing. Abandonment of dysfunctional practices, a reordering of priorities, new and reconfigured existing resources, or all three, are required. The Australian scene must be characterised by a spirit of rejuvenation and excitement, honouring at the school level the claim made by AITSL that “The role of the principal of a school in the 21st century is one of the most exciting and significant undertaken by any person in our society. Principals help to create the future” (p. 1) [25].