Principals have prime responsibility for ensuring governance obligations are met, along with managing concomitant tensions between differing obligations, or, following Lingard and Christie (2003), fields. The insertion of IB programmes into this already challenging and, at times, paradoxical set of contexts creates further complexity for principals. Examination of the impact governance has on the work of principals is barely evident within the limited corpus of research on the IB in Australia. This absence is striking given that effective school governance is critical to the work of the principal (Austen, Swepson, & Marchant, 2011; Gray, Campbell-Evans, & Leggett, 2013; Hawkes, Loader, & Jackson, 2005; McCormick, Barnett, Alavi, & Newcombe, 2006; Walkley, 2016). Examining how principals lead IB schools must therefore include examination of governance in Australian schools more broadly.
Governance is defined in a wide sense as:
structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability,
transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-based participation…[It is] is about the culture and institutional environment in which citizens and stakeholders interact among themselves (UNESCO, 2017).
Table 2.2. Australian schooling structures.
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2019); IBO (2014d, 2014e, 2016b). Pre-primary Primary Secondary Senior
Secondary
Starting age* Australian Capital
Territory, New South Wales
Kindergarten 6 4 2 6
Queensland Preparatory 6 4 2 6.5
Tasmania Preparatory 6 4 2 5
Victoria Preparatory 6 4 2 6
Western Australia Pre-primary 6 4 2 5.5
Northern Territory Transition 6 3 3 6
South Australia Reception 7 3 2 6
IB Programmes PYP PYP/MYP** MYP DP/CP
Note. * Age by which students must have commenced compulsory schooling.
** Implementation of the PYP may be across Pre-primary to Year 5 or 6; MYP may be across Year 6-10 or Year 7-10.
Fundamental to these structures and processes is responsibility for strategic vision and direction, demarcating responsibilities of governors and management, approving budgets, monitoring performance of the management, and ensuring ongoing viability of the
organisation (ASX Corporate Governance Council, 2014; Carver, 2006; Carver & Carver, 2006; Chait, Ryan, & Taylor, 2005; Fishel, 2008). Australian school governing councils7 similarly have these responsibilities. In Western Australia, for example, non-government governing councils are responsible for “development and implementation of an effective strategic direction for the school” (WA Department of Education Services, 2017, p. 47) as well as requiring “the day-to-day management of the school to be the responsibility of the principal and clearly separated from the governance role of the governing body” (WA Department of Education Services, 2017, p. 46). In New South Wales:
the proprietor is the legal entity that owns the school [and who] is primarily concerned with the governance of the school, including such matters as long- term financial planning, administrative policies and accountability…[while] the principal is responsible for the management, day-to-day functioning and routine operations of the school. (NESA, 2017, p. 21).
These responsibilities are equally the case for government school governing councils, subject to the overall responsibility for educational strategy and policy which rests with the
respective Ministers and departments of education. Only four Australian jurisdictions
(Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, South Australia, and Victoria) currently permit the IB in government schools (Table 2.1), yet all explicitly state that school governing councils are responsible for:
implementation of the strategic priorities and monitoring of the process [and] to approve the school’s budget and monitor financial statements (ACT Government Education Directorate, 2016, p. 48);
establishing the broad direction and vision of the school within the school's community…participating in the development and monitoring of the school strategic plan…[and] approving the annual budget and monitoring expenditure (Victoria Department of Education and Training, 2017, p. 7);
[setting] general directions for the site [and to] monitor and report on achievements (South Australia Department for Education and Child Development, 2011);
[monitoring] the school's strategic direction; [and] approve school plans and policies of a strategic nature, or other documents affecting strategic matters including the annual estimate of revenue and expenditure for the school; [and] monitor the implementation of the plans, policies and other documents
mentioned above; and advise the school's principal about strategic matters (Queensland Department of Education, 2017).
To date, no research on the IB in Australia has explicitly considered in what ways these governance contexts impact the leadership of the principal. Some opaque reference is found
in early publications by Bagnall (1997, 2005), although it is simplistic in its analysis, as well as reflects historical and policy contexts which have changed markedly since.
Bagnall (1997) identified differences between non-government and government school decision making processes regarding curriculum implementation, differences across states regarding comparability or complementarity of the DP with the local credential, and structural challenges in supporting second language learning requirements as three significant challenges for Australian schools implementing the IB. Of the 12 IB schools offering the DP in 1991, ten were non-government schools. He suggested a non-government school principal enjoyed considerable autonomy such that “providing he or she acts with the approval of the school [governing council], changes such as the implementation of a new syllabus are relatively straight forward” (Bagnall, 1997, p. 134). By contrast, the experience of a school principal seeking to introduce the DP to a Victorian government high school was more complicated. Initial registration of Mount Waverly Secondary College was undertaken with the IB in 1993, and despite the state department supporting the move, the teachers’ union vehemently opposed it through a hostile media campaign and the principal ultimately did not proceed with implementation (Bagnall, 1994).
The conclusion about the autonomy of the non-government school principal appears overly simplistic, yet the comparison indicates a stark difference between the two contexts. The non-government school principal appears to have much more freedom to alter the operations of the school via introduction of the IB, while the government school principal is characterised, again perhaps overly simplistically, as beholden to union militancy and adverse publicity. Neither the perceived expansive autonomy of a non-government school principal, nor the imagined constrained impotence of a government school principal fairly reflect the complexity of school leadership. Consideration of the then Victorian government’s policy shift towards devolutionary decision-making across public schools (Caldwell & Hayward,
1998; Caldwell & Spinks, 1988) is similarly absent in the analysis. Bagnall’s (2005) follow- up analysis also found that financial costs of implementation could be much more extensive than principals and school governing councils initially appreciated, although no distinction is explored between the impact of this for government schools, nor are details provided about what this entails. This omission seems surprising given the growth in research related to financial governance and leadership in schools published between Bagnall’s two papers (Bush & Gamage, 2001; Caldwell & Hayward, 1998; Newcombe & McCormick, 2001; Newcombe, McCormick, & Sharpe, 1997).
Across both of Bagnall’s publications, the framing context is at the school or state level. In Bagnall (1997), this is likely due to the DP, an alternate matriculation credential, being the only IB programme then available. Later, Bagnall (2005) acknowledges the
presence of the PYP and MYP, although no state differences are examined. The impact of the Commonwealth, other than its support for increasing internationalism in Australian schools (Hill, 1990), is not explored, underscoring the impression that issues for principals have their genesis in state or locally based contextual circumstances. Since Bagnall’s reviews (1997, 2005), however, the governance contexts within which principals in Australian IB schools work have altered significantly. The field is much more contested than Bagnall’s studies acknowledge. The Commonwealth now exerts considerable and direct influence on
government and non-government schools alike through a series of measures, most of which have emerged since the most recent critical analysis (Bagnall, 2005). These developments are positioned as a form of cooperative federalism (Gerrard, Savage, & O'Connor, 2017; Lingard, 2000; Savage, 2016), yet critics argue that, rather than provide greater autonomy for school leaders under a framework of effective educational policy, they represent a “ministerialisation of policy making” (Lingard, Porter, Bartlett, & Knight, 1995, pp. 41-42). This manifests in “infiltration of economic and political discourses, particularly around matters of the
administration and management of school(ing)” (Eacott, 2013b, p. 176; brackets in original) and makes the work of principals more complex and chaotic, rather than less so (Gavin & McGrath-Champ, 2017; McGrath-Champ et al., 2017). Australian IB school principals now work in a comprehensive educational regulatory framework, or field, of:
national agreed goals for education (MCEETYA, 2008);
NAPLAN, a national assessment program consisting of literacy and numeracy testing (ACARA, 2016) linked to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015), and reported via the MySchool website (ACARA, 2019);
national disability standards for education (Australian Government, 2015) and nationally consistent processes for collection of student disability data
(Australian Government, 2018a);
national privacy principles and data security of personal information collected by the school (Australian Government, 2018b);
recurrent and capital school funding agreements (Gonski et al., 2011); and, teaching and leadership standards (AITSL, 2011, 2014).
Non-government schools are now also subject to reporting and compliance
obligations of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) or the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), established in 2013. These obligations include explicit requirement to meet governance standards comparable to those of
commercial companies and incorporated associations (AICD, 2013). Baxt (2016) advises these obligations extend to the chief executive officer, a title gaining currency in some non- government independent schools8. The ACNC (2018) thus expects principals in non- government independent schools to:
act with reasonable care and diligence;
act honestly in the best interests of the charity and for its purposes;
8 Independent schools using the term CEO on their school websites include Strathalbyn Christian College (WA),
Sheldon College (QLD), Haileybury (VIC), Forestville Montessori School (NSW), and Central Coast Grammar School (NSW). Independent Schools Queensland use the title principal/CEO in governance training materials (see https://www.isq.qld.edu.au/our-work-with-schools/governance-and-executive-oversight) and Lutheran Education Queensland explicitly state that each “School or College shall have a principal who is a suitably qualified educator appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the School/College” (Lutheran Church of Australia
not misuse the position of responsible person;
not to misuse information obtained in performing duties; disclose any actual or perceived conflict of interest;
ensure that the charity's financial affairs are managed responsibly; not allow a charity to operate while insolvent.
This is comprehensively different to the perceived autonomy of Bagnall’s (1997) non-
government school principal. There is no acknowledgement in his analysis that extensive and comprehensive governance fields set the framework within which principals of contemporary non-government schools work (Braddon & Hooper, 2018). This is surprising given Bagnall’s own use of Bourdieu in his earlier doctoral research (Bagnall, 1994).
Most of these developments have occurred since Bagnall’s (1997, 2005) analyses and they continue to expand their impact on the work of principals9. Because governance and policy requirements continue to evolve over time, analysis of their impact must be considered temporally and spatially, rather than normatively. Eacott (2013b) recognises, however, these wider influences do not negate or render impotent the power of the principal to act within their local context. They may constrain some, but not all, aspects of the principals’ work (Dinham, 2005). Understanding the leadership of Australian IB principals within the dynamic interplay of these contexts is therefore central to this research. The presence of the IB
compounds this.