Volume 25 Number 1 2019 ISSN 1329-4539 Leading & Managing Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Patron: Emeritus Professor Frank Crowther AM, The University of Southern Queensland EDITORS Associate Professor Dorothy Andrews & Dr Marian Lewis Leadership Research International Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts The University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia Email: dorothy.andrews@usq.edu.au; marian.lewis@usq.edu.au EDITORIAL BOARD Dr Kadir Beycioglu Buca Faculty of Education Division of Educational Administration Ugur Mumcu Cad. 135. Sok. No. 5 35160 Buca, Izmir / Turkey Emeritus Professor Frank Crowther AM University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba 4350 Queensland Australia Dr Michael Bezzina Director, Bezzina Consulting Adjunct Professor Australian Catholic University Sydney NSW 2060 Emeritus Professor Neil Dempster Griffith Institute for Educational Research Griffith University Brisbane, Queensland, 4111 Australia Associate Professor Pam Bishop Associate Dean, Graduate Programs, & Assoc Prof, Educational Leadership Faculty of Education Western University 1137 Western Road, London Ontario, Canada N6G 1G7 Professor Pam Christie School of Education University of Cape Town Private Bag X3, Rondebosch Cape Town 7701 Republic of South Africa Associate Professor Joan Conway Leadership Research International (LRI) Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350 Australia Professor Neil Cranston School of Education University of Tasmania PMB 66 Hobart, Tasmania, 7001 Australia Associate Professor Lawrie Drysdale Senior Lecturer Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne Victoria, 3010 Australia Emeritus Professor Patrick Duignan Director, ‘Leading to Inspire’ P O Box 161 Isle of Capri Q 4217 Australia Dr Scott Eacott Director, Office of Educational Leadership School of Education University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Professor Mike Gaffney Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and Maths, University of Canberra ACT, 2601 Australia Associate Professor David Gurr Senior Lecturer Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne Victoria, 3010 Australia Associate Professor Susan Lovett School of Educational Studies & Leadership University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140 New Zealand Associate Professor David Ng Foo Seong Policy & Leadership Studies National Institute of Education (NIE) 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616 Professor Viviane Robinson Head of School of Education Faculty of Education University of Auckland, New Zealand Professor Louise Stoll Professor of Professional Learning UCL Institute of Education 20 Bedford Way, London WC1 H OAL, UK Associate Professor Lisa Ehrich School of Learning & Professional Studies, Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus Brisbane, Queensland, 4059 Australia Professor Karen Trimmer Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba Q 4350 Australia Professor Colin Evers Professor of Educational Leadership School of Education University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, 2052 Australia Professor Charles Webber Dean, Faculty of Continuing Education and Extension, Mount Royal University 4825 Mount Royal Gate S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3E 6K6, Canada ISSN 1329-4539 Leading & Managing Volume 25 Number 1 Autumn/Winter 2019 CONTENTS Editorial Marian Lewis Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland ii Editors: DOROTHY ANDREWS & MARIAN LEWIS Articles The Roles of Middle Leaders in Schools: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Research 1 JOHN DE NOBILE The Connection Between Leadership and Learning: A Middle Leader’s Experience Navigating the Waters BELINDA GASSTON-HOLMES 15 Leading a Top Down Directive From the Bottom Up: A School and University Partnership KYLIE LIPSCOMBE, SHARON TINDALL-FORD & MELINDA KIRK 29 Building a Shared Contemporary Understanding of Learning Aligned to the AITSL Teacher and Principal Standards 44 VICKI THORPE & JANEEN LAMB Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 56 CHRISTINE GRICE Intelligent Accountability Evaluation of New Zealand Primary School Principals’ Formal Appraisal Processes 72 KERRY EARL RINEHART Book Review Advocacy for Teacher Leadership: Opportunity, preparation, support, and pathways S. Lovett JOAN CONWAY 89 Leading & Managing, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2019, pp. ii-iv Editorial This issue of Leading and Managing contains articles which, taken together, address a number of key interrelated themes. Government and education systems in Australia, as elsewhere, are focused on school improvement and improved student outcomes. A number of public accountability measures are in place to ensure that schools are clearly focused on achieving these overarching goals. The performance of principals and of teachers is evaluated against detailed professional standards prescribed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) which explicitly describe the high standard of performance expected of both principals and teachers, with progressive improvements delineated, reflecting career stage. The performance of students is measured though regular National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) testing, the results of which are available for public scrutiny. While there is clear clarity of purpose on the part of government and school systems, the accountability mechanisms have the potential to create stress in schools, each of which is operating within its particular context. Within the schools, the role of the principal is multi-faceted and pressured. So much so that, in most school contexts, the leadership practices described in the AITSL principal standard realistically cannot be achieved by one person. Leadership, particularly pedagogical leadership, becomes a process that is distributed or shared. The principal may be designated the instructional leader or leader of teaching and learning but this does not mean that all action rests with the principal. Hence, another key theme explored in several of the articles is the increasing importance of middle leadership in schools. The roles which might previously have been described as middle management have evolved, as those in the ‘middle’ positions of responsibility have increasingly taken on roles that lead learning, particularly around pedagogical change. It is pertinent to note also that not all teachers who take on a pedagogical leadership role hold a formal position. There are also teacher leaders who influence such change. It is apparent from these articles, however, that designated middle leaders are increasingly pivotal to successful pedagogical change. They are strategically placed in schools, having a leadership role while still actively involved in teaching. They can combine the authority of their middle leadership position with the legitimacy and authenticity of being a practicing teacher. As can also be seen in this issue, the success of middle leaders is not guaranteed. Other factors, particularly a lack of trust, can impede change. Problems may also arise if the culture of the school is focused on hierarchical leadership in a way that constrains collegiality and reflection on practice. Taken together, these articles build an interesting and informative picture. Recognising the increasing importance of middle leadership, in the first article, De Nobile reflects that the concept is both under-theorised and under-researched. Addressing both these concerns, he presents a conceptual framework, derived from the literature, which explores the nature of middle leadership roles and potentially provides direction for future research. As evidenced by the literature, there is ambiguity in relation to understanding what middle leaders actually do. De Nobile proposes six role categories, two of which, the staff development and strategic role categories, are the most leadership focused and the most concerned with motivating others to improve or change practice. The article further identifies tasks that are salient to each of the middle leadership role categories, and suggests ways these may be useful for, primarily quantitative, ongoing research. The next article very appropriately explores the research of a school-based middle leader, a self-described leader-of-learning, whose research has focused on understanding the connection between leading and learning. From the perspective of a middle leader in the field, Gasston-Holmes presents a conceptual framework for building capacity for both quality Editorial iii teaching using the AITSL standards, and leading for learning. Viewing the school as a knowledge organisation and knowledge creating entity, she argues that middle leaders are crucial to sustained improvement in schools while, like De Nobile, acknowledging that their responsibilities are not always well defined. Unlike the broad exploration of the categories of middle leadership presented in the previous article, the focus for middle leaders here is leading an aspect of teaching and learning, through creating a focus on learning, building a culture of trust, enabling reflection, the sharing of new knowledge and professional learning. In the third article, recognising that improving teaching and learning is a central focus for both education systems and schools, Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford and Kirk turn to the potential of implementing a broad top-down systemic directive with a bottom-up approach that recognises that each school is unique in its context. The article explores one such instance, where a university and a school, in partnership, designed the implementation of a state Department of Education directive relating to the practical experience of a cohort of pre-service teachers. While not entirely successful in terms of sustainability and potential transferability, as evidenced in the article, the mix of approaches clearly had advantages. The actual needs of both the school and the university were met through the development of an innovative model of professional experience that offered significant learning for both the pre-service teachers and practicing teachers at different stages of their careers. Significantly, middle leadership played an important part in the success of this initiative with middle leaders acting as important change agents. As already indicated, as part of the increasing public accountability of schools, AITSL prescribes comprehensive standards for teachers and for principals. In this article, Thorpe and Lamb report on their research in one Brisbane school investigating whether the leadership team and the teachers shared understanding, based on contemporary research, about how their students learned. Within the AITSL standards, teachers are expected to know their students and have an understanding of how they learn. Principals are required to have sound knowledge of high quality pedagogical practice and familiarity with current research about how students learn. Thorpe and Lamb suggest that under the pressure of short-term demands there is a growing disconnect between the understanding of teachers and leadership teams. What emerged was a recognition of the need for a socially constructed shared understanding, the foundation for establishing a shared vision and deep conceptual thinking about how students learn – based on contemporary knowledge and understanding of how children learn. Further contributing to the themes of distributed pedagogical leadership, particularly middle leadership, and collective effort in the context of implementing mandated pedagogical change, Grice reports on research in two primary schools that provides insights into how pedagogical leadership practices can enable or constrain teacher professional learning. Grice recognises the pivotal role that middle leaders play, acting as the translators of curriculum and policy, fostering collegiality and building trust. The research also recognises that there can be tensions between collegiality and hierarchy in a school, and that the middle leader may actually be caught ‘in the middle’ between collegiality and compliance, to the detriment of teachers, limiting their capacity to bring about change. Grice expresses concern about the way the AITSL principal standard designates the principal as pedagogical leader of the school, accountable for student learning, stressing that pedagogical leadership is always about more than the principal and has the potential to reclaim teachers as educational leaders. The final article explores another aspect of public accountability, that of the mandated formal evaluation of primary principals in self-managing schools in New Zealand. Earl Rinehart argues that principal evaluation is necessary, and, given the importance of high quality school principals, that appraisal design matters, and itself needs to be evaluated. She does this by applying the principles for intelligent accountability (Crooks, 2007). The research project reported here explores the experiences of a number of primary school principals who iv Marian Lewis have been formally appraised and how the purpose, implementation and outcome of this process compared to being evaluated against the intelligent accountability criteria proposed by Crooks. Recognition is given to the importance of trust and the need for the appraiser to have a clear understanding of the principal’s role, their individual needs and the local context in which they are operating. The levels of understanding the appraiser brings to the appraisal potentially have a significant influence on the success of the process and the outcomes. From their different perspectives and varying focuses, these articles all contribute to increasing our understanding of the interrelatedness of the drive for school improvement, public accountability mechanisms, leadership in schools – particularly middle leadership – and leading for learning. Both individually and together, they provide food for thought and raise a number of important questions that warrant further research. Reference CROOKS, T. J. (2007, 4 October) Principles for Intelligent Accountability with Illustrations from Education. Inaugural professorial lecture (Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago). Audio and video available from: <https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/itunesu/podcasts/otago017510.html?keywords=principles+fo>. Dr Marian Lewis Leadership Research International (LRI) University of Southern Queensland Email: marian.lewis@usq.edu.au Leading & Managing, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2019, pp. 56-71 Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change CHRISTINE GRICE The University of Sydney Email: christine.grice@sydney.edu.au ABSTRACT: Leading pedagogical change requires collective effort. This article critically analyses how pedagogical leadership was distributed among teacher leaders, middle leaders and the executive in two Australian primary schools during a period of mandatory curriculum change. Drawing upon the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014), this research provides new empirical insights into how the influence and action of distributed pedagogical leadership practices can enable and constrain teacher professional learning during curriculum and pedagogical change. It explores the complex tensions between empowerment, loyalty and trust within leadership hierarchies in two contexts. The findings indicate that authentic collegiality can be fostered through professional learning and collective pedagogical leadership. The result of the symbiotic relationship between leadership and professional learning is increased trust and support for student learning. Introduction Pedagogical leadership stands at the forefront of leadership practice in policy and interest as school leaders consider their influence upon student outcomes (Conway & Andrews, 2016; Day, 2011; Hallinger, 2007; Hargreaves, 2007). The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL, 2017) defines principals as the pedagogical leaders of a school, and so this role should be claimed by the principal, in line with policy, or distributed more practically amongst middle leaders and teachers (Diamond & Spillane, 2016; Spillane, 2008). In this article, two cases of distributed pedagogical leadership in Australia, during a time of continuous curriculum reform with the implementation of the Australian Curriculum from 2014 onwards, are examined. Rapid curriculum change from mandatory syllabus reform, alongside new curriculum documentation that supports changes in pedagogical practices, such as assessment for learning, and the introduction of the teaching standards and the principal standard in 2011, has altered the leadership landscape in Australia. Distributed leadership is seen as the solution to pedagogical and curriculum change. Bush (2013) writes that distributed leadership has become a renewed 21st century phenomenon posed as the educational leadership solution to pedagogical reform. Empirical research about distributed leadership in specific contexts within Australian schools is needed in the field (Gunter, Hall & Bragg, 2013). It is agreed that teacher leadership is a form of distributing pedagogical leadership (Bond, 2015; Day, 2017; Harris, 2014), but the inherent tensions and dilemmas involved in doing this are heightened during times of curriculum reform. However, the findings of the study reported here suggest that collective pedagogical leadership supports teacher professional learning during curriculum change. Specific tensions occurred between the 21st century pedagogical vision of the principals and the development of a collective pedagogy. This research also discovered that some Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 57 pedagogical leadership practices designed to enable pedagogical change in schools may unintentionally constrain teachers in embracing reform. Scholarly debate contests whether it is possible to genuinely distribute pedagogical leadership (Grootenboer, Ronnerman & Edwards-Groves, 2017; Harris, 2014; Lakomski & Evers, 2017; Youngs, 2017). Questions that define the titled role of middle leaders (Grootenboer, 2018), their sense of empowerment (Gore, 1992) and the professional learning of middle leaders (Day & Grice, 2019), and their practices, deserve consideration in this debate. Navigating conceptualisations of distributed leadership, pedagogical leadership, pedagogy, and leadership itself from the literature will help to clarify the influence and action of distributed leadership in these two school contexts. Purpose The purpose of this article is to advocate a collective approach to pedagogical leadership. A collective approach to pedagogical leadership in a school comes from teachers and even students sharing a developing understanding of pedagogy and leadership. Specifically, this article attempts to distinguish between a collective understanding of distributed leadership and collective distribution (Spillane, 2006) as forms of pedagogical leadership. This distinction requires further scrutiny when distributed leadership practices are placed under pressure during curriculum reform to promote genuine collective pedagogical change. This research looks at the ways that distributed leadership enabled and constrained pedagogical change, and as Harris and Jones (2012) and Day (2017) emphasise, the quality of its distribution within interdependent, dynamic interactions within two school contexts, or sites. Distributed leadership is about leadership practice rather than titled roles or positions (Harris, 2014; Spillane, 2008). Distributed leadership is an alternative to the hero-style leadership of the past. Leading and following shifts between people who alternate roles during different activities. It is based on activity theory where leaders and followers connect and lead in context (Chatwani, 2018; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2007). Distributed leadership has multiple collective influences. Therefore, if people are alternating roles, models of distributed leadership, as Thorpe, Gold and Lawler (2011) demonstrate, are limited in what they can demonstrate in different contexts of practice. Each school site may have a different model. Distributed leadership research needs an emphasis on practice in context. Arts based research into leadership as collage (Roberts & Woods, 2018) has provided empirical evidence about how distributed leadership can look different in each site and how distributed leadership is interpreted in different ways by individual followers within sites. Participants design different collages to explain distributed leadership within their school site. Roberts and Woods (2018) found that no two are the same and that parts of the collage can also represent the spaces between leaders. Distributed leadership is therefore a dynamic interaction (Harris, 2014), found within the intersubjective spaces of a school culture. It is about interactions and expertise, not just actions and titles (Woods et al., 2004). Empirical research into distributed leadership is dependent upon its conceptualisation. For example, Harris (2014) outlines the varying focuses on distributed leadership and its definitional, methodological and empirical issues. Crawford (2012) and Timperley (2005) see it as a subset of shared leadership. Positional leadership may define the titled role of principal or middle leader, as the work is hierarchically distributed, but the term leadership, potentially assumes rather than explains their practice. Scholarly debate about leadership attributes and positional modes of leadership continues to position leadership within a titled individual. Adjectival forms of leadership may have the potential to limit leadership to an attribute or influence, rather than an action. Rather than considering such conceptualisations of leadership, leading is an activity distributed among participants who enact leading in their school culture 58 Christine Grice regardless of their position, authority or structure. Leading can differently be defined as practice (Wilkinson & Kemmis, 2015). This definition is critical, because leading takes the emphasis away from titled people and instead studies the practices that occur in the intersubjective spaces between people from their ‘sayings, doings and relatings’ (Kemmis et al., 2014). It is in analysing those leading practices that we are able to understand the materialeconomic, social-political and cultural-discursive arrangements within the site that determine how leading is distributed. Analysing such arrangements helps to explain why leading is dependent upon context and changes between contexts. Therefore, interpreting leading as an action between people changes how scholars and practitioners might understand distributed, collaborative, collective and relational leading within themselves and others. Leading as practice acknowledges the complex role that school culture and participants play in the collective co-construction of leading. The theory of practice architectures places leading inextricably within school culture as more than co-dependent, but actually completely connected by the ‘sayings, doings, and relatings’ of participants within the intersubjective spaces between their material-economic, cultural-discursive, and social-political interactions that determine leading practices (Kemmis et al., 2014). Their material-economic arrangements might be the practice of time given over to meetings. The cultural-discursive arrangement might be the nature of conversational practices in meetings. The social-political arrangements might be the hierarchies that determine leaders’ roles and leading practices. Leading as practice is useful for understanding pedagogical leadership because practice focuses on action, and influence. This article does not ignore the influence of titled roles in practice, but it also acknowledges the capacity of teachers to lead pedagogy, and indeed students. Lumby (2013) suggests that power relations are directly connected with titled leadership and the authority of the principal even when there is distributed practice. Alternatively, empowerment may result from genuine distribution. Power relations can be analysed through the dialogic practices of participants in context through their ‘sayings, doings and relatings’ that come from the socialpolitical arrangements in the context. In order to understand pedagogical leadership, pedagogy also requires careful definition. Some pedagogical leaders define pedagogy as the transmission of teaching and learning techniques (Bernstein, 2003). Pedagogy is interpreted by the New South Wales (NSW) syllabus for the Australian curriculum in this way. An alternate view of pedagogy is that it encompasses all curriculum, action and discourse (Alexander, 2008). Learning happens within people, but pedagogy occurs within the intersubjective spaces between the material-economic, cultural-discursive, and social-political interactions of people. The theory of practice architectures enables pedagogy to be seen in practice by analysing the ‘sayings, doings and relatings’ of children and teachers learning collectively as it is co-created within the materialeconomic, social-political and cultural-discursive arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014). For example, an inquiry pedagogy can be seen in how teachers and students interact within the social-political and cultural-discursive arrangements of the classroom. Pedagogy can be influenced and determined by timetables and classroom structures within the materialeconomic arrangements of a school site. A leader’s beliefs about pedagogy will determine the pedagogical leadership approach that they take and the practices they encourage from those with whom they distribute leadership. Pedagogical leadership is connected with teaching and learning, but its influence can also be connected with broader student outcomes. School sites define and determine pedagogy in different ways. This research discovered that the choices that participants make about leading pedagogy came from their understandings of pedagogy, self-developed, and developed within the school culture through professional learning. Their pedagogical identity is developed both individually and collectively within professional learning communities. Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 59 If teacher leadership impacts student outcomes (Day et al., 2014; Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008), then their pedagogical leadership matters. Rather than seeing leadership as being distributed to them, seeing leading as layered, as Day et al. (2014) suggest, may more closely represent the leading that is negotiated and shared within the intersubjective spaces between teachers and other pedagogical leaders in a school site. Within those negotiated layers, distributed leadership doesn’t become a delegated pedagogical practice, but pedagogical leaders collectively lead and learn within the layers of pedagogical leaders in a learning community. Distributing pedagogical leadership is far more than unburdening overworked principals (Hartley, 2010) who cannot always be in classrooms. Rather, distributed leadership is an alternative to top down structures (Diamond & Spillane, 2016). Previous research has explored how genuinely distributed leadership in communities of practice (Spillane, 2008; Wenger, 1998) shares accountability among teachers and has a positive effect upon teaching and learning outcomes (Hallinger, 2007; Lakomski & Evers, 2017). The question remains the extent to which pedagogical leadership is genuinely, or potentially falsely distributed within school cultures and how leadership culture determines such distribution. As Harris (2014) writes, even if everyone has the potential to lead, they do not always choose to. Collective pedagogical leading de-emphasises the choices, traits or attributes of a single leader or individual (Youngs, 2017) and instead focuses on the actions or practices of multiple leaders within layers, inherently constructing pedagogical leadership as distributed. In revisiting the distributed leadership literature retrospectively and prospectively, Diamond and Spillane (2016) suggest that there is a variety of interpretations and classifications of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership literature acknowledges the important role middle leaders have in fostering pedagogical change and leading teaching and learning amongst teachers, or professional learning (Fluckiger et al., 2015). Middle leaders are the translators, interpreters and brokers of curriculum and policy. On the surface, distributed leadership appears democratic, but it also determines who authorises certain people to influence school practices and school improvement goals (Youngs, 2017). Lumby (2013) emphasises the importance of asking participants who have had the leadership delegated to them, the extent of the distribution within context. There are visible tensions in middle leading caught between line management and collegiality or pedagogical compliance and control (Fluckiger et al., 2015). This research discovered these layers and tensions within two different school sites. Part of the compliance tension exists with the professional learning of new, mandated curriculum. Pedagogical leadership within professional learning communities requires distribution because flatter, less hierarchical structures enhance shared learning (Harris, 2014). The tensions between democracy and hierarchy raised by Woods and Gronn (2009) raise questions about the extent to which distributed leadership can be collective within a hierarchy. This article also shows the extent to which they can be collective within hierarchy, while highlighting some key issues. Professional learning can occur if schools embed leadership of learning in a school-wide approach to pedagogy where relationships between teachers and the principal are fostered for collective action during school improvement and reform (Conway & Andrews, 2016; Crowther & Associates, 2011). Clarke (2016) suggests that teachers connect leadership and learning when they become pedagogical learners and leaders in their classrooms collectively with colleagues, rather than in isolation, for the benefit of student outcomes. Distributed leadership remains on an imaginary continuum from genuinely shared teacher leadership through to hierarchical models of leadership where aspects of leading are distributed amongst some participants. Pedagogical leadership can emphasise collegial learning. This is dependent upon the way leadership for learning is distributed. As leadership 60 Christine Grice in schools is redesigned away from principals and towards middle management, the leadership work and learning work of teachers become redistributed towards middle leaders. Middle leaders are teachers who lead pedagogy for, and with teachers, and lead beyond the middle when they advocate for the needs of students and teachers within the collective vision of the school (Day & Grice, 2019). Middle leaders may provide teachers with greater capacity, or may limit teacher leadership. Role ambiguity may create conflict, resistance, and anxiety, negatively impacting trust between teachers and leaders (Hallinger, 2007; Netolicky, 2016). Fitzgerald, Gunter and Eaton (2006) suggest that distributed leadership has restructured schools and potentially confused teachers about who the leaders are in a school. Hierarchy may be needed in schools for multiple purposes such as clear communication and pastoral structures. However, learning is the purpose of pedagogical leadership and learning is not relevant to hierarchy learning (Grice, 2018). Harris (2010) recognises the resistance in some schools to teacher leadership with current traditional hierarchical structures. In these schools, hierarchy has the potential to limit the distribution of pedagogical leadership for professional learning. This was problematic during curriculum reform in both schools in the research. Pedagogical leadership has the capacity to reclaim teachers as educational leaders. Recent Australian leadership policy may have the potential to constrain the understanding of distributed pedagogical leadership among educators. The AITSL (2017) principal standard states that principals are the pedagogical leader of the school, accountable for student learning. This model may risk assuming that the principal is the proprietor of pedagogy and leadership even if aspects are distributed. Pedagogical leadership is always about more than the principal. This is paramount when principals also have additional administrative and bureaucratic responsibilities that inevitably prevent them from sole pedagogical leadership status given the complex challenges of schooling today (Day, 2017; Grootenboer, 2018). This article explores the extent to which pedagogical leadership was distributed amongst teacher leaders during curriculum reform in two school sites and how professional learning was led and understood. Researching Curriculum Reform and Pedagogical Change: Context and theory This empirical research draws on case studies in two Australian primary schools in NSW to provide insight into the extent to which pedagogical leadership was distributed amongst teacher leaders, middle leaders and the executive during the recent implementation of the NSW English K-10 syllabus for the Australian Curriculum. Syllabus documents in every key learning area were updated during a process of rapid curriculum change over a five-year period. Syllabus change significantly affected primary teachers who generally teach across all key learning areas, altering key aspects of their teaching. The research sought to understand how teachers and leaders in two primary schools were implementing curriculum change and the extent to which new curriculum was used as a catalyst for pedagogical change. Pedagogical leadership and teacher professional development and learning are seen to be key to shaping curricular and pedagogical reform, and the study explored the different manifestations of these in the two contexts, and their implications in both school communities. Both school sites had a clearly articulated vision for pedagogical change. Within both settings, leadership practices enabled and constrained reform. Growth in the depth of curriculum knowledge of teachers during the implementation of the curriculum was determined by the professional learning practice traditions in each school, derived from their pedagogical leadership practices and the extent to which they were distributed as part of their school professional learning culture. The research explored the complex tensions between empowerment, loyalty and trust within leadership hierarchies. Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 61 The theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) enabled the researcher to understand more about school culture and leadership. It provided a theoretical basis for understanding the day-to-day practices that created, enabled and constrained leading and pedagogical change in school learning cultures during curriculum reform. Praxis and practice refers to actions and activities that enable connectedness, materiality, subjectivity and morally informed action, acknowledging the power of social context for professional learning and leading (Kemmis & Smith, 2008). Collections of participant descriptions built an ever-shifting picture of school culture, where the practice architectures are built and rebuilt by practices. Literature focused on school learning cultures explored how pedagogical learning cultures develop communities of practice for professional learning (Eaker & Keating, 2008; Printy, 2008). The theory of practice architectures builds upon Wenger’s (1998) concept of ‘learning architectures’ within the theory of communities of practice, where collective practices enable learning within school cultures (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008). The researcher sought to deeply analyse how specific aspects of school culture connected to leading practices and teacher praxis by understanding the ‘sayings, doings and relatings’ within the intersubjective spaces of both school sites. Empirical Methods of Inquiry A sample of potential participant schools was gathered using qualitative sampling from principal leadership groups. Two primary schools in the Sydney metropolitan area formed the case study, following principal consent. Spillane and Coldren (2011) state that case studies do not always capture the practices of leadership. This case study attempts to do so, whilst also acknowledging that leadership is dependent upon time, space and place and therefore context is essential and inextricable. The schools were given the pseudonyms ‘Greenville’ and ‘Crownwood’. Voluntary consent was sought from primary school principals, deputy principals, English coordinators, curriculum coordinators and teachers in two participating schools implementing the new English syllabus, in order to obtain a sample of distributed leadership among these layers of leadership. The two primary Heads of School who consented to their school’s involvement in the research project were both new to their principal roles in the year in which the study took place. The participants interviewed are outlined in Table 1. TABLE 1: PARTICIPANTS, THEIR PSEUDONYMS AND TITLES Crownwood Greenville Head of School Head of School David Andrea Director of Learning K-6 Learning Innovator Vicki Cathy Pedagogical Coach Key Stage One English Coordinator Alison Elizabeth Pedagogical Coach Key Stage Two Deputy Head Jane Lisa Classroom Teacher Classroom Teacher Andrew Renee 62 Christine Grice Semi-structured interviews with leaders and teachers provided an understanding of distributed pedagogical leadership and school culture from each participant’s perspective. Data were coded and categorised using a grounded theory approach using a code-and-retrieve software program known as N-Vivo. The research was conducted under ethics approval prior to the gathering of data. This research used Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) notions of ‘credibility, dependability, transferability and confirmability’ to address issues of reliability and trustworthiness. Credibility attempts to show that a true picture of the detailed phenomenon is represented in the research. This was achieved by collecting the multiple perspectives of participants from all layers of leadership within both schools. Transferability means that contextual detail about the fieldwork such that the reader could decide if another environment is similar and whether the findings could potentially be applied to the other setting. This was achieved by building theory about pedagogical change. Dependability represents the possibility that if the study could be repeated, fieldwork notes from the methodology could be followed. This was achieved by keeping thorough notes and conforming to set semi-structured interview questions. Confirmability ensures that findings come from the data rather than the researcher’s presuppositions. This was achieved by analysing the data through a ‘table of invention of practices’ (Kemmis et al., 2014) that categorises participant quotations into ‘sayings, doings and relatings’ and their subsequent arrangements. The initial overarching purpose of the research was to investigate how pedagogy was adopted in schools and who leads pedagogy, the internal and external influences upon pedagogy, and how school culture and pedagogy are connected. Reflexive use of the data and the literature enabled the researcher to move toward a theory of pedagogical change, drawing together multiple perceptions about curriculum change, pedagogical leadership and distributed pedagogical practice. School Reform Philosophy and Context The implementation of mandatory curriculum created an urgent agenda for both schools. Curriculum reform was being utilised as an opportunity to demonstrate compliance for New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA) accreditation through the proper and thorough implementation of the NSW K-10 English Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum. The English coordinator at Greenville explained the contextual significance of new curriculum for English for primary teachers: ‘We’re in the crux [of change] at the moment, because the new curriculum in English has actually taken away pretty much all of what we know about how we are currently teaching English’ (Elizabeth, Greenville). Such material-economic arrangements and pressures led to teachers at Greenville reporting that pedagogical leaders were in ‘freak out mode’ with accreditation, and teachers ‘had been told’ that all documentation was to be ‘perfect’ (Renee, Class Teacher, Greenville). Pedagogical leadership practice in this context masqueraded as compliance, evident in these ‘sayings’ from participants. The Head of School, David, explained: ‘It’s about where education is going and it’s what our government is going to be asking of us’. The Director of Learning summed up the contextual shift: ‘It’s not just [our] school changing. It’s education as a whole. The Australian Curriculum has changed’ (Vicki, Crownwood). In addition, Crownwood and Greenville were both seeking to create new pedagogical leadership in their schools as they moved toward 21st century learning approaches. Crownwood’s drive for pedagogical change was driven by the NSW syllabus alongside the introduction of the Primary Years Program (PYP) as an International Baccalaureate (IB) school. According to David, pedagogical leadership was intended by the Head of School to be disseminated or distributed amongst all teachers as ‘leaders of learning’ (Hallinger, 2007) Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 63 using ‘staff inquiry group discussions and action research’ (David) that matched the inquiry philosophy of their IB school. However, teacher leadership practices were enabled and constrained by complex group dynamics based on levels of expertise, the capacity to learn inquiry action research, and pedagogical and curriculum knowledge. At Greenville, pedagogical leadership for 21st century learning was hierarchical in practice, distributed only to the Head of School and the Deputy Head. Key Findings about Pedagogical Leadership during Curriculum and Pedagogical Reform If the outcome of successful pedagogical leadership is identified by the quality of pedagogy provided by teachers and the engagement of students in learning (Davies, 2005; Hallinger, 2007), then pedagogical leadership requires careful analysis in context, particularly for the way it is distributed among teachers. This article presents four key findings about distributed pedagogical leadership practice during curriculum reform resulting in pedagogical change in these two contexts. 1. Collective ownership The way leading is designed, perceived, communicated and enacted influences the capacity for pedagogical change in a school. Pedagogical leadership is a practice or action open to all and therefore, ‘leading’ makes more sense than leadership (Wilkinson, 2017). There were instances in both schools where teachers remained focused on the titled leader and the principal as pedagogical leader in line with the AITSL leadership perspective of hierarchical design. Teachers in both schools looked toward the traditional leadership model of the principal’s ability and their authenticity, rather than themselves as teacher leaders given the capacity to lead collective reform, taking a ‘you will do it’ approach toward principals as pedagogical leaders. The Head of Greenville was described as a ‘fluffy spokesperson’ (Cathy), lacking in pedagogy. The Head of Crownwood was critiqued for his lack of up front, instructional leadership: ‘aren’t you going to lead us?’ (David), lacking in perceived authority. These sayings drew out ways that teachers’ traditional conceptions of pedagogical leadership within the material-economic arrangements constrained their trust in leaders and their capacity to enact collective, distributed leading. Changes to leadership can confuse or stunt the direction of pedagogical change leaving teachers uncertain about what pedagogical approaches to take. New principal leadership in both schools and immediate changes to middle leadership structures in both settings caused confusion and conflict amongst teachers and leaders. It took time for teachers to understand the pedagogical learning cultures and practices being built by a new vision for pedagogical leadership. As a new culture of inquiry was being fostered at Crownwood, a new middle leadership structure with titled ‘Pedagogical Coach’ roles created mistrust and the new socialpolitical conditions unintentionally undermined the work of the teacher led inquiry learning groups. At Greenville, teaching and learning was closely monitored by the school executive leaders for alignment with 21st century teaching and learning practices, creating fear and mistrust. Teachers’ conceptions of leadership also drove their expectations of pedagogical leadership from others and themselves as potential teacher leaders. Teachers at Greenville came to expect that a culture of compliance would support a hierarchical model of leadership that disempowered teachers. The Deputy Head of Greenville, Lisa, explained the leading practices: 64 Christine Grice It’s very directed from the top and not much comes up the other way, and I think that that’s a shame ... So, there are certain agendas we have to satisfy and so registration, for example, or things that have to do with compliance that require the Head to dictate what has to happen. The compliance, ‘you will do it’ mindset was reinforced by the Head of School, who explained the lack of distributed leadership practice in her school: That’s one great thing about the teachers: they just do whatever they have to do. They really are fabulous at it. (Andrea) Although the leadership team were able to see that the teachers needed professional learning about new pedagogy, professional learning practices were clearly structured around the strategic vision of the school. Such compliance to the strategic intents drove top-down pedagogical leadership. The Head of School wanted teachers to own pedagogical reform, but their inherent material-economic structures had the potential to block the autonomous collective teacher leadership that 21st century learning requires. Andrea, noted: It is great we are in a school that has a clear direction and a clear [K-12] vision. Does it fit one of the strategic intents? If it doesn’t, we don’t do it … We need fewer voices, clear accountability, expectations and a clear goal for the year and I think we’ll be successful. The enactment of the school strategic intents involved reducing voices and expecting compliance from teachers, stunting collectivity. In practice, this resulted in fewer meetings and meetings led by titled leaders. The intention and expectation at Crownwood was that teachers would embrace teacher leadership from their peers with a new Pedagogical Coach role, creating a middle leadership structure that emphasised pedagogy, rather than administration. However, teachers did not have a shared understanding of the meaning of pedagogy, creating confusion and fear about the new middle leadership role. The Head of School, David, agreed that some teachers were confused about the meaning of pedagogy. ‘People are not understanding their role, because they do not understand what pedagogy is’. Jane explained, ‘People are lost with pedagogical leadership. It’s not about pastoral or administration or discipline’. This lack of understanding and acceptance of the role impacted upon the ability of Pedagogical Coaches to influence teachers in their professional practice, action, and goal setting because they were not trusted. The perceived initial lack of ownership and potential inactivity from teachers resulted in disappointment from the middle leaders who realised that the teachers felt minimal accountability for their work. Teachers at Crownwood were also accustomed to traditional hierarchical thinking and minimal responsibility. At the end of the teacher inquiry into the English syllabus Alison agreed: ‘they own it now’ celebrating shared ownership of syllabus knowledge and taking a step closer to mutual trust in the development of pedagogical practice at Crownwood. This is an example of layers leading pedagogy collectively. Leading professional learning gave teachers distributed opportunities to lead pedagogy. However, changes to the social-political conditions through the abolition of Year Coordinators and the creation of Pedagogical Coaches in each Stage also created confusion, disempowerment and mistrust among other teachers at Crownwood who value pastoral and administrative leadership. Jane empathised: ‘I think some people feel like they have had that leadership taken away from them. Perhaps other people see that they have had the opportunity to step up a little bit as well’. It took time to build trust and alter perceptions about collective pedagogical leadership so that teachers could do it too. 2. Inquiry and collective reflective practice If leading pedagogy is about leading learning, then professional learning reflects or mirrors the pedagogical leadership patterns within a school culture. Building collective capacity through Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 65 professional learning translates into effective learning for students (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). The inquiry approach that had initially been met with such resistance at Crownwood eventually became an effective way of influencing collective pedagogical change. This transition toward collective teacher leadership surprised both teachers and leaders. At Crownwood, Sagor’s (2005) action research approach became the approach they used for implementing curriculum and pedagogical change. The Head of School at Crownwood sought to develop a professional learning culture of inquiry amongst teachers, that mirrored classroom practice, so that they could directly experience the inquiry learning practices of their students, have reflection time and thereby aim to model an inquiry learning culture in their classrooms. The intention was for teachers to implement new curriculum while focusing and connecting particular aspects of their professional learning with inquiry pedagogy based on the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (PYP) employed at the school. I observed how the new curriculum created tensions between teachers during staff inquiry group meetings as they grappled with curriculum change in a context of pedagogical and cultural change. One teacher leader, Jane, shared that there was initial ‘resistance’ to the idea of staff inquiry groups because ‘people just needed a break’ from curriculum change work. When inquiry commenced, another teacher leader, Alison, explained that teachers felt ‘the thought of the extra work was not appealing to them’, particularly when ‘not one person in the group’ had done the meeting preparation work. Alison sent an email to the group stating: ‘we’re happy to guide you but the ownership is yours’ and when people started to ‘engage in some research it set the ball rolling’. Pedagogical change was collective in unexpected ways at Crownwood where professional learning was centred around teacher leadership and teachers were given professional learning time. Therefore, shifting the material-economic conditions by distributing pedagogical leadership among teachers is an action that requires both ownership and time. It was the distributed responsibility of the K-12 Director of Teaching and Learning and the English Coordinator as a middle leader to present the professional learning of the NSW English K-10 syllabus during staff meetings. The Deputy Head explained the social political conditions in the school: there was ‘no formal opportunity to share good practice. Staff meetings and professional learning is all about: “I’ve got the knowledge, and this is how you are going to do it’”. Learning was constrained. At Greenville, teachers felt a lack of confidence in their own new curriculum knowledge and a fear about whether they would be able to apply the new curriculum: ‘I’m flying blind’ (Cathy, Class Teacher, Greenville). ‘I don’t know if we’ve really explored the English curriculum’ (Lisa, Deputy Head, Greenville). Teachers needed the opportunity to be more actively involved in their own professional learning of the syllabus, even in limited time. Specific K-12 professional learning sessions on 21st century pedagogical change were kept separate from staff meetings on the mandatory English curriculum, led by the English coordinator. Professional learning was split between curriculum and pedagogy at Greenville and there was minimal incentive amongst teachers to implement both concurrently so that pedagogy did not influence curriculum. The Head of School, Andrea, wanted to alter the social-political conditions of staff meetings. She recognised that staff meetings needed to focus less on organisational matters and more on pedagogy: ‘We should be more visionary, not just the day to day business. We’re leaders of learning’. There was a mismatch between the intention of collective pedagogical leadership and actual professional learning approaches in action, disrupting influence. Professional learning for pedagogical change was less collective at Greenville, but this did not prevent genuine teacher leaders learning about curriculum or pedagogy for themselves in their own time, and owning the social-political conditions for themselves by influencing others outside of meeting times, despite the constraining forces of hierarchical leadership that was falsely distributed to middle leaders. Teachers actioned collective change by themselves 66 Christine Grice by creating their own pedagogical subcultures for teachers in order to develop the praxis they felt unable to attain in staff meetings. One class teacher, Cathy, supported teachers to create ‘learning journals’ and ‘feedback models for assessment for learning practices’. It is inspiring that some teachers, as leaders of learning, will create their own opportunities for collective professional learning and pedagogical change outside of the formal structures that school leaders provide that may be constraining their learning. Teacher pedagogical leadership had been previously constrained at both schools. The key change at Crownwood was the Head of School recognising teacher expertise: ‘We’ve got experts within our community here’ (David). This was not the case at Greenville. At Greenville, leaders ‘hoped’ teachers would ‘own’ (Vicki) curriculum and pedagogy and wanted to empower them, but they struggled to understand how hierarchical leadership, topdown cultures, the calling in of external experts, and new pedagogy with inadequate training competed with teacher ownership. Both schools needed to develop teacher self-empowerment through autonomous participation, action, reflection and praxis, personalised and collective learning, with learning and influence at the centre of purpose. Collective change through distributed leadership was yet to be fully realised. 3. Hierarchy, ownership and blame Distributed pedagogical leadership struggles to work alongside hierarchy, particularly when teachers are rapidly learning a new skill they need to act, rather than be influenced. Participants recognised the limitations for collective pedagogical reform within their leadership structures and within the constraints of time. When a principal led the pedagogy at Crownwood and attempted to distribute it among others, it caused unintended problems for distributed middle leaders as they sought to serve and please the principal, and looked to support teachers, and deliver the pedagogical vision of the principal. The social-political conditions of leadership were so steeped in tradition at Crownwood that distributed leadership was initially rejected by the teachers as they waited for someone to tell them what to do. The Head of School at Crownwood admitted that because there had been inadequate time in a staff meeting for discussion and questions, about the pedagogical coach role, mistrust had developed amongst teachers. However, the leaders seemed unable to see how hierarchy was constraining the collective pedagogical leadership from teachers as felt ‘uncomfortable’ trusting the coaches and ‘feared loss of control’ (Alison) of their pedagogy. In contrast, the staff inquiry groups at Crownwood, led by teachers, supported equality. Teachers were surprised by the suggestion that the senior leadership team at Crownwood would ‘be participants and supporters’ (David) rather than leaders. This opened leadership and followership to all participants, including the leaders themselves (Lakomski & Evers, 2017) altering the cultural-discursive arrangements and fostering collective pedagogical leadership. Teachers at Greenville saw how hierarchical leadership was limiting their capacity for collective pedagogical change. They didn’t want to be told what to do. At Greenville, middle management owned ‘the whole thing’ (Lisa) without teacher leadership. And yet, the English Coordinator wanted influence with teachers: ‘I don’t want to be pushing my agenda or thoughts: it needs to be collective’ (Elizabeth). When middle leading is genuinely distributed, they position themselves among equals with teachers. In contrast, the Head of School at Greenville made a decision to reduce the distribution of pedagogical leadership in the school. Andrea decided that most effective way she could improve communication and accountability was to diminish the influence of distributive leadership: I am flattening the structure out … I am reducing the positions of added responsibility. I really need a small team of key drivers who will help me drive change within the Junior School and at the moment I have too many. Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 67 Subject Coordinators would no longer hold positions of responsibility in the primary school, except in numeracy and literacy, reducing the influence of the middle leadership team. This model was in direct conflict with the Deputy Head, Lisa’s, vision for distributed pedagogical leadership. She recognised that an ‘ideal’ middle leadership structure was not occurring at Greenville. Under pressure, the leader defaulted to known hierarchical leadership structures. Hierarchy was replicated by teachers and middle leaders at Greenville. Pedagogical distributed leadership is most tested during extensive curriculum reform. For teachers at Greenville, delegation and distribution of responsibilities was an accepted part of the pedagogical leadership structure, and a limitation of a large school. However, it was not necessarily collective. Cathy explained: You know it has got to be distributed, especially when you’re relying on 20 class teachers to be delivering [the new curriculum] … A lot of delegation goes on. And I think that occurs because of that not knowing what the answer is. I’ll pass it off to somebody else. The Head of School at Greenville appropriately delegated the leadership of the implementation of the NSW English syllabus to the English Coordinator. The English Coordinator described the positive distributed leadership experience she had with Andrea: Once [the Head of School] realised that she has staff members in her leadership team that can actually deliver for her, once she has talked it through and stepped it out and she is still in the driving seat that way. Elizabeth had autonomy once trust was formed with the Head of School. She subsequently created her own hierarchy in the implementation team identifying some team members at a ‘lower level’, suggesting an acceptance of hierarchy within the social-political arrangements at Greenville and a lack of collective pedagogical leadership, influence and action. Distributed pedagogical leadership at Crownwood was still hierarchical, even though teacher leadership was encouraged through professional learning. The Head of School at Crownwood saw distributed leadership practices as integral to the collective pedagogical leadership of the executive: ‘There have got to be some people steering the agenda a little bit. And I feel that’s my role, but I don’t see it just solely me. I do see it as the school executive’. Pedagogical leadership was distributed amongst the Director of Learning and the middle leaders, or Pedagogical Coaches. Vicki explained how they saw themselves as role models of collectivity: ‘I hope that the way that we deal with each other as an executive helps with the pedagogy of the rest of the school’. Vicki described her role as a side-by-side teacher of teachers where pedagogical change is driven by the needs of children and the individual needs of teachers. However, the cultural-discursive arrangements were still hierarchical: ‘The teachers are like our “students” and we want to show them collaboration between us and we’re all learners’. Vicki saw the opportunity for teacher leadership and learning as similar to student learning and ownership; dynamic and involved: ‘Those who want to improve will have those conversations’. However, the extent to which teachers at Crownwood felt like ‘students’ or ‘side-by-side’ colleagues may have impacted upon their reactions to pedagogical change. The initial rejection of teacher leadership gained gradual support as teachers gained greater autonomy through action research and inquiry. Action research resulted in a school culture of influence through informal pedagogical dialogue growing at Crownwood as evidence of increased collective pedagogical leadership. Jane, a class teacher, explained: ‘[What] struck me the most is how much [pedagogical] dialogue went on’ between teachers in comparison to her former school. These examples demonstrate how collective pedagogical leadership is mutually earned and established between teachers and titled leaders through influence and action. 68 Christine Grice 4. Distributed pedagogical reform involves trust and shared purpose Leading genuine pedagogical change takes collective effort. Practice architectures that embody collaborative practice and collective group inquiry, where teachers become autonomous pedagogical leaders with authentic collegiality and trust, may influence pedagogical change. The actions of hierarchy didn’t foster pedagogical reform in either school. Pedagogical change requires genuinely distributed leadership that comes from the building of trust amongst participants, reducing hierarchies and prioritising learning. The process of staff professional learning connecting inquiry pedagogy with the curriculum enabled gradual and sustainable pedagogical change at Crownwood. Similarly, at Greenville, pedagogical change occurred through teacher leadership. Pedagogical trust was needed for sustainable change. Collaborative and collective learning is a lived pedagogy of sharing and empathy, where modelling and emulating practice has a powerful connection with improving student outcomes, which occur in practice individually and collectively. Recognising vulnerabilities was an essential element of relational leadership for pedagogical change and distributed pedagogical leadership brought out hidden talents within teachers. Collaborative inquiry needs trust to create pedagogical change. When the teachers at Crownwood participated in collaborative inquiry for professional learning, they were suspicious, and acceptance was slow. Building collective trust during pedagogical change enabled relational and genuinely distributed leadership during pedagogical change. Learning focused improvement for pedagogical change occurs through a deep understanding of the individual and collective learning needs of children and teachers. Such knowledge is enabled by inquiry and personalised learning opportunities about pedagogy. This may include learning choice and voluntary elements in professional learning practice. Trust is needed for distributed leadership to influence the accountability of teachers. Participants in both schools reported negativity, resistance to change, fear, inconsistent approaches, lack of feedback and lack of ownership. Teachers need to be accountable for what they do, as autonomous, collaborative and self-developing professionals. Conclusion Examining the leadership practices at Crownwood and Greenville provided a way of interpreting the extent to which pedagogical leadership was collective. Findings indicated that unless distributed leadership fosters teacher leadership, empowerment that comes from teacher identity, teacher leadership, and pedagogy may not be maximised for the benefit of student outcomes. Genuinely distributive leadership is interactive, co-experienced and collective. Pedagogical leaders work collectively with shared purpose to build an organisational learning culture (Fullan, 1993). Leaders and teachers need to build pedagogical practice together. Pedagogical reform was enabled during curriculum change when teachers led the implementation of the English curriculum at Crownwood using inquiry practice as the mode of professional learning, building learning communities with trust and autonomy, grounded in praxis (DuFour & Fullan 2013; Harris, 2014; Mockler, 2013). Pedagogical change was constrained at Greenville by hierarchical approaches to professional learning that led to ‘siloed’ communities and subcultures increasing mistrust (Diamond & Spillane, 2016; Fink & McCulla, 2016; Roby, 2011). The research highlights the importance of communication and social interactions between layers of leaders. Leaders play a critical role in building distributed pedagogical leadership and autonomy, fostering collegiality and collaboration and cultivating trust through their social interactions and communication practices. Teachers need support with pedagogical change during curriculum reform in their work as the agents and enactors of curriculum, building their professional capacity and autonomy Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 69 (Bruner, 2006; Duignan, 2012; Kemmis et al., 2014; Printy, 2008). Furthermore, understanding pedagogical change may highlight the limitations of hierarchical and administrative leadership practices that may have the potential to constrain professional learning communities and endanger trust. The capacity to create a dynamic learning organisation comes from understanding the practices that enable and constrain teacher professional learning. Professional learning during curriculum reform needs to be deeply contextual and inquiry-based in order for teachers to see the relevance and commit to learning new pedagogies. School leaders that reflect upon the interplay of practice, inquiry and pedagogical leadership in their own school contexts use a critical and collective mindset. Pedagogy is about collective learning. Therefore, pedagogical leading needs to enable autonomy, authenticity, collegiality, and trust. The complex tensions between power and empowerment, and loyalty and trust within the two schools meant that distributed middle leadership in these schools had the capacity to significantly constrain pedagogical change, despite positive intentions to lead pedagogical change. Without pedagogical leaders that think purposefully about pedagogy, pedagogical change may be inhibited. Some teachers exercising exemplary pedagogical practice may not be seen as leaders due to constraints of visibility, distribution and opportunity in their context. Middle leaders that influenced teacher leadership made a sustainable difference to pedagogy and learning. Collective pedagogical leadership occurs through collaborative inquiry and dialogue, building autonomy and trust in learning cultures, bringing positive learning outcomes for teachers and students. References AITSL. (2017) Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles, 2nd edn [ebook] (Melbourne: AITSL), pp. 1-32. Retrieved 15th April 2019, from: < https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/australian-professional-standard-for-principals-and-the-leadershipprofiles>. ALEXANDER, R. (2008) Essays on Pedagogy (Oxon, UK: Routledge). BERNSTEIN, B. (2003) The Structuring of Pedagogical Discourse, Volume iv (London, UK: Routledge). BOND, N. (2015) Teacher leaders as professional developers, in N. BOND & A. HARGREAVES (Eds), The Power of Teacher Leaders: Their roles, influence and impact (New York, NY: Routledge Kappa Delta Pi), pp. 57-69. BRUNER, J. S. (2006) The functions of teaching, in In Search of Pedagogy, Volume 1: The Selected Works of Jerome S. Bruner (New York, NY: Routledge), pp. 31-39. BUSH, T. (2013) Distributed leadership: The model of choice in the 21st century, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), pp. 543-544. CHATWANI, N. (2018) Distributed Leadership: The dynamics of balancing leadership with followership (Vienna: Palgrave, Springer International). CLARKE, S. (2016) We think therefore we are: Teachers connecting leadership and learning, Leading and Managing, 22(2), pp. 47-58. CONWAY, J. M. & ANDREWS, D. (2016) A school-wide approach to pedagogical enhancement: An Australian perspective, Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), pp. 115-139. CRAWFORD, M. (2012) Solo and distributed leadership: Definitions and dilemmas, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 40(5), pp. 610-620. CROWTHER, F. & ASSOCIATES. (2011) From School Improvement to Sustained Capacity: The parallel leadership pathway (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin). DAVIES, B. (2005) The Essentials of School Leadership (London, UK: Sage). DAY, C. (2011) Building and sustaining successful principalship in an English school, in L. MOOS, O. JOHANNSON & C. DAY (Eds), How School Principals Sustain Success Over Time: International perspectives (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer), pp. 57-69. DAY, C. (2017) Teachers’ Worlds and Work: Understanding complexity, building quality (London, UK: Routledge). DAY, C. & GRICE, C. (2019) Investigating the Influence and Impact of Leading from the Middle: A school-based strategy for middle leaders in schools (Sydney, Australia: The University of Sydney). DAY, C., LEITHWOOD, K., SAMMONS, P., HARRIS, A. & HOPKINS, D. (2014) Leadership and Student Outcomes (London, UK, DCSF Final Report). 70 Christine Grice DIAMOND, J. B. & SPILLANE, J. P. (2016) School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective, Management in Education, 30(4), pp. 147-154. DU FOUR, R. & FULLAN, M. (2013) Cultures Built to Last: Systematic professional learning communities at work (Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press). DUIGNAN, P. (2012) Educational Leadership: Together creating ethical learning environments, 2nd edn (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). EAKER, R. K. & KEATING, J. (2008) A shift in school culture, Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), pp. 14-17. FINK, D. & MCCULLA, N. (2016) Trust and verify, in D. FINK (Ed.), Trust and Verify: The real keys to school improvement. An international examination of trust and distrust in seven countries (London, UK: UCL, IOE Press: Univeristy College London), chapter 2. FITZGERALD, T., GUNTER, H. & EATON, J. (2006) The missing link? Middle leadership in schools in England and New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 23(1), pp. 29-43. FLUCKIGER, B., LOVETT, S., DEMPSTER, N. & BROWN, S. (2015) Middle leaders: Career pathways and professional learning needs, Leading and Managing, 21(2), pp. 60-74. FULLAN, M. (1993) Change Forces: Probing the depths of educational reform (London, UK: Falmer Press). GORE, J. (1992) What can we do for you? What can ‘we’ do for ‘you?’ Struggling over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy, in C. LUKE & J. GORE (Eds), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy (New York, NY: Routledge), pp. 54-73. GRICE, C. (2018) Leading pedagogical reform, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(4), pp. 1-16. GROOTENBOER, P. (2018) The Practices of School Middle Leadership (Singapore: Springer) GROOTENBOER, P., RONNERMAN, K. & EDWARDS-GROVES, C. (2017) Leading from the middle: A praxisoriented practice, in P. GROOTENBOER, C. EDWARDS-GROVES & S. CHOY (Eds), Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education (Singapore: Springer), pp. 243-264. GUBA, E. G. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage). GUNTER, H., HALL, D. & BRAGG, J. (2013) Distributed leadership: A study in knowledge production, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), pp. 555-580. HALLINGER, P. (2007) Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect, ACEL Monograph Series, 40(7), pp. 2-6. HARGREAVES, A. (2007) Sustainable professional learning communities, in L. STOLL & K. SEASHORE LOUIS (Eds), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (New York, NY: Open University Press), pp. 181-196. HARGREAVES, A. & FINK, D. (2006) Sustainable Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass). HARRIS, A. (2010) Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23(3), pp. 313-324. HARRIS, A. (2014) Distributed Leadership Matters: Perspectives, practicalities and potential (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Sage). HARRIS, A. & JONES, M. (2012) Connecting Professional Learning: Leading effective collaborative enquiry across teaching school alliances (London, UK: National College for School Leadership). HARTLEY, D. (2010) Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership ‘stretch’? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), pp. 271-285. KEMMIS, S. & GROOTENBOER, P. (2008) Situating praxis in practice, in S. KEMMIS & T. J. SMITH (Eds), Enabling Praxis: Challenges for education (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishing), pp. 37-62. KEMMIS, S. & SMITH, T. J. (2008) Conclusions and challenges enabling praxis, in S. KEMMIS & T. J. SMITH (Eds), Enabling Praxis: Challenges for education (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense), pp. 263-286. KEMMIS, S., WILKINSON, J., EDWARDS-GROVES, C., HARDY, I., GROOTENBOER, P. & BRISTOL, L. (2014) Changing Practices, Changing Education (Wagga Wagga, Australia: Springer). LAKOMSKI, G. & EVERS, C. (2017) Challenging leadership: The issues, in G. LAKOMSKI, S. EACOTT & C. EVERS (Eds), Questioning Leadership: New directions for educational organisations (New York, NY: Routledge), pp. 3-16. LUMBY, J. (2013) Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power, Education Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), pp. 581-597. MOCKLER, N. (2013) Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit, professionalism and identity, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10), pp. 35-47. NETOLICKY, D. M. (2016) Rethinking professional learning for teachers and school leaders, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(4), pp. 270-285. PRINTY, S. (2008) Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective, Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 187-226. ROBERTS, A. & WOODS, P. (2018) Theorising the value of collage in exploring educational leadership, British Educational Research Journal, 44(4), pp. 626-642. Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change 71 ROBINSON, V. M. J., LLOYD, C. A. & ROWE, K. J. (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types, Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), pp. 635-674. ROBY, D. E. (2011) Teacher leaders impacting school culture, Education, 131(4), pp. 782-790. SAGOR, R. (2005) The Action Research Guidebook: A four-step process for educators and school teams (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press). SPILLANE, J. P. (2006) Distributed Leadership (San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass). SPILLANE, J. P. (2008) Distributed leadership, The Education Forum, 69(2), pp. 143-150. SPILLANE, J. P. & COLDREN, A. F. (2011). Diagnosis and Design for School Improvement: Using a distributed perspective to lead and manage change (New York, NY: Teachers College Press). SPILLANE, J. P., HALVERSON, R. & DIAMOND, J. M. (2007) Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), pp. 3-34. THORPE, R., GOLD, J. & LAWLER, J. (2011) Locating distributed leadership, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), pp. 239-250. TIMPERLEY, H. (2005) Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), pp. 395-420. WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univeristy Press). WILKINSON, J. (2017) Reclaiming education in educational leadership, in P. GROOTENBOER, C. EDWARDSGROVES & S. CHOY (Eds), Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education (Singapore: Springer), pp. 231-241. WILKINSON, J. & KEMMIS, S. (2015) Practice theory: Viewing leadership as leading, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(4), pp. 342-358. WOODS, P. A., BENNETT, N., HARVEY, J. A. & WISE, C. (2004). Variables and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review, Education Management Administration and Leadership, 32(4), pp. 439-457. WOODS, P. A. & GRONN, P. (2009) Nurturing democracy: The contribution of distributed leadership to a democratic organisational landscape, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(4), pp. 430-451. YOUNGS, H. (2017) A critical exploration of collaborative and distributed leadership in higher education: Developing an alternative ontology through leadership-as-practice, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), pp. 40-154. ISSN 1329-4539 Leading & Managing Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Notice for Contributors The use of two active, present participles in the journal title appears, perhaps, slightly unorthodox, but the choice is deliberate. Leading & Managing (L&M), for us, assumes that while leading and managing are qualitatively different activities, in reality they complement one another, and are vital to the effective performance of complex organisations and groups. We think managing is best thought of as tied to the performance of specific roles and organisational responsibilities. While this may also be true of leading, it is invariably not the case. Instead of providing just one more scholarly vehicle for concentrating on leadership and management as conventionally understood and statically defined functions we believe L&M highlights two key organisational processes: the acts of leading and managing. Specifically, we have aimed L&M at personnel working at all organisational levels and in all sectors and systems, principally, but not exclusively, in the sphere of education, with that word understood in its widest sense. We have set two goals for L&M: (1) to advance understanding of what it means to lead and to manage, the experiences of organisational personnel while engaged in leading and managing and the experiences and reflections of those who find themselves being led and managed; and (2) to improve the practice of leading and managing through empirical research and theoretical analysis. In the belief that no one particular school of thought ever has a monopoly on wisdom or truth, we want L&M to be eclectic in its scope and tolerant of diverse standpoints. Accordingly, we welcome manuscript contributions from a plurality of perspectives. These may report empirical research, best practice and pedagogy, propose intervention and consultancy strategies, or comprise discussions of theory and methodology. We ask contributors to bear in mind the following broad indicators of quality writing when preparing manuscripts for submission. Above all, we seek significant contributions to L&M which advance understanding of leading and managing. We ask that authors should demonstrate their familiarity with current developments in the field and strive to bring to bear distinctive and new perspectives on their chosen topics. We expect arguments to be tightly structured, clearly presented and written in prose that is accessible to a diverse readership. Leading & Managing is the official journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders. It is published twice each year by the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, National Office, PO Box 876, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012, Australia. © Copyright, Australian Council for Educational Leaders. This issue published 2019. All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Leading & Managing Subscription Form For Non-ACEL Members TO: ACEL National Office P.O. Box 876 Strawberry Hills, N.S.W. 2012 Australia FAX: 1800 680 561 EMAIL: publications@acel.org.au Please begin my subscription to Leading & Managing, in one of the following categories commencing with the next issue:WITHIN AUSTRALIA Cost includes GST. Online/Electronic:  $78.00: two issues. Print Copies (AUSTRALIA)  $85.00, includes postage: two issues. Print Copies (OVERSEAS)  $98.00, includes postage: two issues. To be pre-paid in Australian dollars; cheques must be drawn on an Australian bank. PAYMENT Payment detail  Master Card:  VISA  Cheque (made payable to ACEL) ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ Expiry Date (MM/YY) ฀฀ / ฀฀ CCV ฀฀฀ Card Number Name on Card Signature: Name: Address: City: State: Phone: Email: (Photocopy of Subscription Form accepted) ABN 75 132 672 416 Postcode: ISSN 1329-4539 Leading & Managing Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Preparation of Manuscripts Leading & Managing is a scholarly, refereed journal and observes the normal processes of blind review. All manuscripts should be sent to the editors, Associate Professor Dorothy Andrews & Dr Marian Lewis, Leadership Research International, Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia. To facilitate the review process an electronic version is to be sent as an email attachment to dorothy.andrews@usq.edu.au or marian.lewis@usq.edu.au in a Word.doc format. Contributors should note that articles accepted for publication in L&M become the copyright of the Journal. Manuscripts should be between 5,000 and 7,000 words in length. They must be typed, double-spaced and with ample margins, on A4 paper, on one side only and with all pages numbered. The front page should bear the manuscript title, the author’s name and institutional affiliation. The second page should carry the title and an abstract of 100−150 words. Avoid the excessive use of dot points. Spelling will be checked to conform to the most common usage found in The Macquarie Dictionary (4th Edition, 2005). For style, the Style manual (Commonwealth of Australia, 6th Edition, 2002) will be used as the reference document. Headings should appear in lower case and bold type and should be centred. Sub-headings should be in lower case, underlined and be left justified. The first sentence of the initial paragraph under headings and sub-headings should be left justified; thereafter indent the first sentence of succeeding paragraphs. Notes appear at the end of the article, but authors are urged to avoid excessive footnoting. Illustrations, tables and figures should be numbered and included in their preferred position included within the text. References should be indicated in the typescript by giving the author’s surname, year of publication and page numbers, e.g. (Smith, 1995, pp. 1-2). Several articles by the same author and published in the same year should appear as Smith 1993a, 1993b, 1993c etc. All references cited should be listed in alphabetical order, by year and with page numbers, on a separate page headed References at the end of the article, in the following form: Referencing your own work – to ensure that anonymity is preserved, the author should replace in both the text and reference his/her name and replace it with ‘author’ or ‘author(s)’. For articles: YAMMARINO, F.J., SPANGLER, W.D. & BASS, B.M. (1993) Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 81-102. For books: BASS, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press). For chapters: TRICE, H.M. & BEYER, J.M. (1986) Charisma and its routinisation in two social movement groups, in B.M. STAW & L.L. CUMMINGS (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 8 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press), pp. 113-164. ACEL Leading & Managing Volume 25 Number 1 Autumn • Winter 2019 Editorial Marian Lewis Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts University of Southern Queensland Editors: DOROTHY ANDREWS & MARIAN LEWIS Articles The Roles of Middle Leaders in Schools: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Research JOHN DE NOBILE The Connection Between Leadership and Learning: A Middle Leader’s Experience Navigating the Waters BELINDA GASSTON-HOLMES Leading a Top Down Directive From the Bottom Up: A School and University Partnership KYLIE LIPSCOMBE, SHARON TINDALL-FORD & MELINDA KIRK Building a Shared Contemporary Understanding of Learning Aligned to the AITSL Teacher and Principal Standards VICKI THORPE & JANEEN LAMB Distributed Pedagogical Leadership for the Implementation of Mandated Curriculum Change CHRISTINE GRICE Intelligent Accountability Evaluation of New Zealand Primary School Principals’ Formal Appraisal Processes KERRY EARL RINEHART Book Review Advocacy for Teacher Leadership: Opportunity, preparation, support, and pathways S. Lovett JOAN CONWAY