How Successful Secondary School Principals Enact Policy

Schools in many countries across the world have undergone considerable reform over the past two decades and their principals have had to learn to manage increased volumes of government educational-policy initiatives designed to raise standards of teaching, learning, and academic outcomes for all students. Although these initiatives are seen by governments as a means of building human, economic, and social capital in increasingly competitive and socially turbulent global environments, there are continuing concerns over how effectively they are being implemented by school leaders and teachers. This special issue provides new knowledge about how leaders of schools designated as “good” and “outstanding” in England, and high-performing schools Hong Kong, achieve and sustain school improvement. This includes but goes beyond the claims so often made by many ideologically driven policy-enactment studies that neoliberal policy agendas necessarily result in cultures of oppression and compliancy in all schools. On the contrary, we found that in these successful schools, leaders were values driven, building structures, cultures, and relationships that reflected their deeply held humanistic educational values. In these schools, external policy was only one of several considerations and its policies were incorporated only when they were able to be aligned with their values.

By using a longitudinal (2005–2014), mixed-methods design to investigate the interface of reform at macro (country), meso (school), and micro (classroom) levels, the research investigated how government reforms (mandatory and non-mandatory) were received and mediated by principals and senior and middle leaders in improved and effective schools serving communities of contrasting socio-economic advantage. “Success” was defined as characterising those schools that had shown sustained improvement in student academic outcomes over time (measured by pupil progress and attainment outcomes between 2003 and 2012), other key aspects of school improvement (measured by national inspection results), and reputation. In these successful schools, policies were conceptualized as “opportunities,” resources that leaders skillfully weaved into their processes of school improvement to create educationally equitable, and values-based “landscapes of success.” Thus, the project did not focus on policy analysis, finding that this was only one of the contexts that informed the ways in which principals led their schools.

The research

The issue draws upon empirical evidence from a UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and HK Research Grants Council (RGC) jointly funded bilateral project (ES/J017035/1) on how “successful” secondary schools in England and Hong Kong mediate government policies in furthering their own broad improvement agendas. The research was guided by three broad questions:

1. How do leaders in successful secondary schools across different contexts respond to government systemic reforms?

2. What key challenges and issues do they face in sustaining academic standards for all whilst forwarding their broader educational success agendas?

3. How and to what extent do school leaders at all levels in these schools maintain a strategic and operational focus on the leadership of learning and teaching whilst managing wider structural and cultural changes?

The research began with a mapping exercise of the perceived challenges of current government reforms in Hong Kong and England and a secondary analysis of two existing national surveys on senior and middle leaders’ perceptions of their principals’ contribution to change and improvement in their schools. These surveys were part of two parallel three-year research projects led by the research teams which investigated the impact of school leadership on the improvement of students’ academic and social outcomes in the wider educational reform contexts in Hong Kong and England, respectively (Day et al., 2011; Gu, Sammons, & Mehta, 2008; Walker, 2011). By merging the datasets of the two surveys and taking into account contextual differences, this secondary analysis sought to develop an evidence-based model to analyze the influence of leadership at all levels on the implementation of systemic reform on the structures, processes, and outcomes of school and classroom improvement.

These analyses formed the basis for case studies of eight improved and effective secondary schools (four from the parallel study in each country) across diversified school populations in different socioeconomic contexts. A purposive sample of four secondary schools in each country was selected using the following criteria:

1. School performance: “improved” and “effective” schools. All schools were selected from the research samples of two parallel large-scale research projects on school leadership and change. The parallel studies involved ten secondary case-study schools across different contexts in England and Hong Kong respectively. Four from each country, which had shown significant improvement or higher than average improvement in their value-added scores in English (in England)/Chinese (in Hong Kong) and mathematics over the three-year period prior to the commencement of the projects, were invited to participate in the research.

2. School contexts: The indicator of free school meal bands in England and the indicators of the medium of instruction and school sponsoring body in Hong Kong were used to select four schools which serve communities of contrasting socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage.

3. School size: ranging from small to large.

The main methodological advantage of studying these schools was that we were able to build rich, longitudinal accounts (2005–2014) of their values, strategies, and practices and thus ensure an in-depth investigation of this new research area. The case studies focused upon the ways in which reforms were mediated by principals and senior and middle leaders and teachers in order to assess the extent to which the primary intentions had been translated into practice and sustained and if not, why not. This helped us better understand the dynamics underpinning the effectiveness of the models of government reforms in England and Hong Kong and provide school-level, evidence-based analytical insights into the processes by which reforms were enacted.

How successful school principals enact policy

Over time, many researchers and publications have explored the nature of educational reforms and their impact on schools and teachers. These, though rigorous in their approaches, tend to emphasize the negative consequences of reform on, for example, teacher morale, an increasing emphasis on the academic to the disadvantage of other humanistic areas of curriculum, and continuing problems of narrowing the achievement gap experienced by students from socio-economically disadvantaged communities. These resonate with more general concerns about the ability of externally mandated reforms at system level (Ainscow, 2015; Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2016) to provide a sustained impact upon the quality of teaching and learning and achievement without the active mediation of principals and teachers in the schools themselves.

We do not disagree with these generalities. However, there is an increasing body of research knowledge which has identified improving and successful schools that have succeeded in meeting governments’ aspirations without compromising or sacrificing broader educational purposes (Day, Gu & Sammons, 2016; Day & Leithwood, 2007; Day et al., 2011; Elmore, 2004, 2011; Gu et al., 2016; Matthews, Rea, Hill, & Gu, 2014).

The research upon which the articles in this special issue is based is not primarily about policy or policy analysis, but about how successful principals lead their schools in times of intensive and pervasive policy reforms. We do not, therefore, engage with the political and sociological debates about the pedagogical challenges, professional tensions, and ethical dilemmas that education policies and reforms have produced for school leaders and teachers (e.g., Fuhrman, 1999; Mitchell, Crowson, & Shipps, 2011; Payne, 2008). Rather, we argue that the political, professional, and accountability pressures created by incoherent, disjointed, and at times contradictory external policy initiatives are part of the broad environments in which “schools and education policy subsist” (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007, p. 526) in many systems including England, and within which schools in our research managed to continue to make a difference to students’ academic performance. Put simply, policy shifts have become unavoidable political realities of education in many systems.

The articles discuss how successful secondary schools—in different countries and different socioeconomic contexts and led by principals with similar, strongly held moral purposes and principles of social justice, but with different histories and values—incorporate and use externally generated policies to support their own educational agendas, as they assert their right to apply their own educational values in practice for the improvement of teaching and learning and pupil progress and outcomes. They bring together new, practice-informed knowledge about the ways mandated models of change and reform intentions at the system level are influenced, positively and negatively, by the biographically influenced values and actions of leaders and teachers. They provide illustrations of different scenarios in which schools judged to be successful broaden and deepen their organizational, social, and intellectual capacities for the improvement of quality and standards in teaching and learning, despite rather than because of externally generated reforms.

In “How Successful Secondary School Principals in England Respond to Policy Reforms: The Influence of Biography,” Day and Gu focus on how principals’ values influence structures, cultures, relationships, and student learning experiences in “outstanding” secondary schools in England. Their article draws from case studies of two successful schools: one a community school serving a relatively socio-economically advantaged white community, and the other an inner-city school serving a mixed-race, socioeconomically disadvantaged community. Whilst the principals of both schools shared the same strong moral purposes of equity, social justice, and raising standards of student achievement, they were driven by different sets of values, based upon their own personal experiences of education. As a result, the structures, cultures, relationships, and student learning experiences were very different. Whilst the academic performances of students were similar, their experiences of learning and teaching were not. The examples confirm that social disadvantage need not necessarily result in academic disadvantage and raise issues about the effects of leaders whose values converge with those of government policies and those whose views diverge from these, and different meanings of an “outstanding” rating.

In “How Do School Principals in Hong Kong Shape Policy?” Bryant, Ko, and Walker analyze two cases of principals shaping policy in successful and improving schools in Hong Kong. The cases were chosen for their contextual variation. Although the principals selected and prioritized some different policies, they drew on a similar core set of strategies (cf. Day et al., 2016) to influence policy enactment. Ultimately, these were rooted in clearly communicated values that connected and synergized school-based and government policies. The resulting impact was that teachers perceived their schools to operate coherently and in advance of mandates rather than reacting to them.

In “Values-Driven Leadership Through Institutional Structures and Practices: How Successful Schools in England and Hong Kong ‘Absorb’ Policy,” Armstrong, Ko and Bryant focus on the means by which school principals in high-performing schools in England and Hong Kong have carefully crafted their staffing structures to provide the conditions to build capacity and enact policy in line with their core educational values. Despite the contextual differences between the two countries and also between each of the schools considered, the findings indicate commonalities in values-led leadership practices. The findings support other research which suggests that principals leading high-performing schools draw from a similar canon of strategies and approaches to their practice, but that they do so in different ways and combinations. They contribute, therefore, to the growing body of educational-leadership knowledge across contextual and cultural boundaries, adding weight to the argument for more acknowledgement and appreciation from policymakers of the part played by values held by individuals in school leadership positions in achieving the success of their schools. In doing so, the research nuances the notion of “policy enactment,” suggesting instead that successful schools are those that can effectively “absorb” policy, thus restricting the impact of reform to ensure their existing values, structures, cultures, and relationships are not compromised.

In “How Principals of Successful Schools Enact Education Policy: Perceptions and Accounts from Senior and Middle Leaders,” Gu, Sammons, and Chen explore the impact of school leadership, particularly that of the principal, on school improvement in secondary schools in England from the perspective of senior and middle leaders. The findings support the wider consensus by researchers on successful school leadership that securing consistency and coherence in values, structures, and relationships in school systems over time is reliant on principals who continually build commitment, expertise, and capacity for resilience in their staff.

In a final postscript, “Five Insights About School Leaders’ Policy Enactment,” Kenneth Leithwood reconsiders the role of government in creating reforms, in which standards are expressed primarily through narrowly defined, instrumental outcomes, in the light of the previous articles and a range of related research. He provides a focused discussion on how secondary schools judged to be successful mediate mandatory and non-mandatory government reforms by placing ethically driven educational values at the centre of their improvement agendas.

Taken together, the articles in this special issue highlight the importance of understanding the values-driven and values-laden processes of policy enactment in schools that have the capacity not only to survive but also to thrive in the face of considerable and continuing external policy demands. We show that for many successful principals in many countries where research evidence is available, policy enactment is a necessary but not primary focus of their work. It is part of, not an addition to, the purposes and processes of school improvement in successful schools that is values-driven. Strategically mediating, integrating, and embedding policies in ways that secure consistency and coherence with these values and standards is the key to their improvement, and an intellectually and emotionally challenging task. In steering their schools successfully through changing social and policy landscapes, school leaders at all levels, especially principals, need to be equipped to provide optimal conditions, structures, and cultures for learning and teaching; enable teachers to interpret, contextualize and reframe external policies in terms of agreed-upon educational purposes, and practices; and through this, sustain their moral commitment to make a difference to the learning, achievement, and life chances of all their students.

Additional information

Funding

The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support of Economic and Social Research Council and Research Grants Council (RGC) of Hong Kong for its support through the ESRC/RGC Joint Research Scheme (ES/J017035/1).