Such programs may assist school leaders in improving their knowledge of education law. Specialised education law training.
Tasmanian school principals can access specialised education law training in various ways. One option is to study with a university elsewhere in Australia. Tertiary courses include the Graduate Certificate in Education Law from the Australian Catholic University (Australian Catholic University, 2016), and the University of Western Australia’s Masters of Education by
coursework which may include a unit on education law (University of Western Australia, 2016). In addition the University of Technology Sydney offers a unit on the Law of Education as part of an undergraduate law degree (University of Technology Sydney, 2016).
Legal training is of course not limited to the offerings from tertiary institutions. Corporate providers such as Legalwise Seminars and LawSense offer regular training workshops and seminars on education law throughout Australia (Law Sense, 2016; Legalwise Seminars, 2016). The Victoria/Tasmania Branch of the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association (ANZELA) conducts occasional workshops on education law in Tasmania, whilst the national ANZELA body hosts a two-day conference annually (ANZELA, 2017). Principals may also attend in-service training on particular education law issues conducted or organised by school systems, professional associations, or statutory authorities. For example, training on anti- discrimination and inclusive education is regularly conducted by the Tasmanian Anti- Discrimination Commissioner, and Safe Work Australia offers training on health and safety legislation.
Principal Certification.
The Professional Standard provides a statement of what Australian school principals are expected to know, understand, and do to be effective in their roles (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2012b). Importantly, while knowledge and understanding are necessary, those cognitive elements are not sufficient. As B. Caldwell (2013) has pointed out, principals “must be able to ‘do’ and ‘achieve’.” (p. 5). This aspect of performance, and evidence thereof, links to the certification process.
In 2012, the Principals Australia Institute (PAI), a national professional body for Australian school leaders, commenced development of the Australian principal certification program, based on the requirements and practices of the Professional Standard (Principals Australia Institute, 2015). Principal certification has been defined as:
The formal procedure by which the achievement of principals is assessed, verified and recognised in writing by issuing a certificate as to the attributes, characteristics, qualities, qualification or status of individuals in accordance with profession-developed
requirements and the Australian Principal Standard. (Kilvert, 2013, p. 4)
Certification is a voluntary professional accreditation. It is not designed to be an eligibility requirement for appointment as a principal, a performance management tool for employers, or a qualification on completion of specific training (B. Caldwell, 2013; Kilvert, 2013; Principals Australia Institute, 2015). B. Caldwell (2013) has argued that the professional learning undertaken by principals to meet the demands of professional certification, aligned with the Professional Standard, will play an important role in the development of principals’ leadership knowledge, skills, and capacities. As such, engagement with the certification process by
Tasmanian principals may positively impact their knowledge of education law, although research findings are as yet unavailable.
Australian research.
The first wide-ranging empirical research conducted in Australia to highlight the legal
preparation and development of school principals was conducted by Stewart (1996b). From his sample of Queensland government school principals, around 16% indicated that they had
undertaken introductory (undergraduate) or advanced (postgraduate) tertiary studies in education law (Stewart, 1996a, 1996b). However, 39% had attended one or more, short (half a day or less) education law in-service training courses. Stewart and McCann later observed in respect of this form of professional development that, “These courses do not appear to have enhanced the level of knowledge of the principals undertaking them to any noticeable extent.” (Stewart & McCann, 1999, p. 137). In addition, Stewart (1996b) found no statistically significant difference between the knowledge levels of participants who had undertaken either form of training (university or in- service) and those who had not. Indeed, on a simple comparison basis, participants without university legal training scored higher than those with it on most knowledge questions, and those who had not attended in-service legal training scored higher than those who did on half of the
knowledge questions. Stewart (1996b) recommended that principal preparation and induction training address legal issues, and proposed that more frequent, more focused and more geographically accessible education law in-service training be conducted for Queensland government school principals.
McCann’s (2006) study of 102 Catholic school principals in Queensland reached findings that differed from Stewart’s (1996b) conclusions. Forty percent of participants in McCann’s research had studied some education law at tertiary level. Some 52% reported attending legal in- service training, with such courses being general in nature and usually lasting longer than one day. McCann recommended that education law be included as a formal unit of study in both teacher preparation and leadership preparation and development courses.
The small-scale exploratory study conducted by the researcher (Trimble, 2011) also examined the university-based education law preparation and development of school leaders, although the limited sample size of the study did not support the generalisability of the data. One third of participants had undertaken law-related university study. A higher proportion (47%) reported attending legal in-service or professional development courses. Overall, the researcher proposed that the education law training of school principals should be further investigated.
International research.
The United States literature on education law is replete with doctoral research studies concerning the impact of legal matters on school principals in different State jurisdictions (e.g., Bagnato, 1990; Brabrand, 2003; Burch, 2014; Copenhaver, 2005; Lewis, 2013). Although each American State system is unique in many respects, the influence of national Professional Standards,
program certification, and licensure arrangements mean that there are many elements in common among the State jurisdictions concerning the legal preparation and development of school
leaders. The national study conducted by Eberwein (2008) is discussed as an example of the American research base.
In his survey-based study, Eberwein found 87% of participants reported undertaking postgraduate university training as part of their pre-principalship licensure process, and 19% indicated they had completed a university-level law course after assuming the principalship. In addition, 58% reported having attended a comprehensive education law workshop or in-service, during the previous decade. Only 5% of participants indicated that they had received no
education law training. On average, participants rated their education law training as more effective than ineffective.
Eberwein analysed the training profile of participants against their legal knowledge score data to ascertain the impact of legal training. He found the highest mean knowledge scores were achieved by participants who had completed a university-level law course as part of their
principalship licensure process, followed by those who had attended comprehensive in-service law training. Principals who had taken a university law course after assuming a principalship role scored lower still. Those who reported no law training had the lowest mean knowledge score. The data also revealed a slight positive correlation between participants’ legal knowledge and their rating of training effectiveness.
The Canadian education law study conducted by Findlay in 2007 was based on survey data from 193 practising school principals in the Province of Saskatchewan. As expected in research of this nature, the survey included items relating to the participants’ legal preparation and development, as well as a legal knowledge test. Findlay found 47% of participants had undertaken a university-based legal course (mostly at undergraduate level), while 65% had attended in-service legal professional development. Findlay concluded:
Those respondents who had taken a university class did better on the number of correct responses than those who had not; some measure of education appears to provide
practising administrators with additional knowledge concerning legal issues in the school setting. (p. 194)
Summary — Principals’ preparation and development in education law.
A summary of the literature regarding school principals’ preparation and development in education law is at Figure 6.
The level of confidence school principals have in relation to their legal knowledge. The structure of the literature review on school principals’ legal knowledge is set out in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Structure of Research Question 1.
Literature.
The bounded rationality model of decision making (H. Simon, 1956, 1959, 1982, 1989) suggested that individuals make decisions under constraints of limited time, knowledge, and
Knowledge of education law is a requisite for principals under the Professional Standard (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2012b). However, no study or training in education law is mandated for Tasmanian principals. There are very limited opportunities currently available at UTAS for aspirant and practising principals to study education law, although such programs are available through tertiary institutions in other States. Education systems and other providers offer a range of leadership preparation and development courses aligned with the Professional Standard which may address some legal issues. Principal certification is voluntary, but may help to foster a professional environment encouraging improvements in education law knowledge. Previous Australian research has suggested that more legal training is required for principals, although the link between principals’ training and legal knowledge is contested.
information processing capacities. As such, decision makers — such as principals of schools — even in the most favourable of situations are likely to be prone to error (Etzioni, 2014; Sacchi & Burigo, 2008). This limitation on rationality may be heightened by a decision maker’s over- estimation of their own levels of knowledge, popularly termed the Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). This section discusses issues related to over-confidence and knowledge miscalibration.
There is a real and significant tendency for people to view themselves, the world, and the future more positively than is objectively warranted (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Fast,
Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012; Moore & Cain, 2007), and to think they know more than they actually know (Alba & Hutchinson, 2000; Asaad, 2015; Blavatskyy, 2009). Sound decision making typically requires accuracy in the information relied on by the decision maker, so over- confidence may have important consequences in an organisational setting. The literature relating to over-confidence in the accuracy of one’s own knowledge or judgement (Fast et al., 2012; Moore & Healy, 2008) links this decision making condition with negative behaviours (set out in Table 4), and to inferior job performance.
Table 4
Decision Making Behaviours Associated with Over-Confidence.
Behaviours References
Reduced accuracy Alba & Hutchinson, 2000; Kausel, Culbertson, Leiva, Slaughter ,&
Jackson, 2015; Soll & Klayman, 2004
Awareness of, & acceptance of, risk Asaad, 2015; Kausel et al. , 2015; Picone et al., 2014
Egocentric discounting of advice Picone et al., 2014; See at al., 2011; Yaniv, 2004
Reduced advice-taking See, Rothman & Soll, 2010; Tost, Gino & Larrick, 2012; Yaniv, 2004
Exaggerated decisiveness &
inflexibility Picone et al., 2014; Pillai, 2010; Shipman & Mumford, 2011
Impulsivity, quick decisions Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Picone et al., 2014
Reliance on intuition & experience Strahilevits, Harvey & Ariely, 2015
In relation to decision making tasks requiring careful deliberation and accuracy, the over- confidence of decision makers in their own knowledge may prove organisationally dysfunctional (Fast et al., 2012; See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011). As Tost, Gino and Larrick (2012)
have pointed out, over-confident decision makers are likely to feel that they do not need to rely on the advice of others. In light of this research, over-confidence may be important for school principals’ decisions regarding legal advice.
Australasian research.
The issue of participants’ over-confidence in the accuracy of their own legal knowledge was not addressed by the previous research conducted by Stewart (1996b), McCann (2006), or the researcher (Trimble, 2011). Some limited insight regarding education law over-confidence is, however, available from the Masters-level research undertaken in New Zealand by Wardle (2006). Using a case-study methodology, Wardle investigated the education law experiences of New Zealand school principals. In a series of questions based on the participants’ familiarity with education law, and their confidence in their own legal knowledge, one participant (Principal One — the youngest and least experienced participant) indicated a positive level of agreement regarding legal knowledge and confidence. Although the researcher did not link the participants’ level of knowledge accuracy with their confidence levels, he did find that the most confident participant (Principal One) correctly responded to only three of the seven knowledge test questions, perhaps raising the issue of over-confidence on the participant’s part.
International research.
The American research revealed a very limited consideration of the over-confidence issue. One instance in which it was addressed, to a degree, was the doctoral study reported by Andrews (2012) concerning social media and school educators’ knowledge of the law of free speech. Some 66% of participants considered their legal knowledge to be adequate, whereas only a third demonstrated an adequate level of legal understanding. The question of miscalibration between perceived confidence and assessed knowledge was not however pursued. Potential legal over- confidence was also flagged by Burch (2014), when investigating school principals’
understanding of constitutional law, although she ultimately found no descriptive difference between the principals’ perceived level of knowledge and their objectively-assessed knowledge.
Education law scholarship in Canada, however, presented a somewhat different picture. Leschied et al. (2000) examined the legal knowledge of Ontario public school educators, finding that participants had “a considerable lack of confidence in their ability to respond in an informed way to situations requiring knowledge of the law” (p. 40). The researchers went on to note that this level of under-confidence appeared justified in light of the participants’ low level of legal
knowledge. In contrast, the research undertaken by Findlay (2007a, 2007b) with school
principals from Saskatchewan determined that most participants (88% of sample) reported some measure of confidence when dealing with legal issues, although the poor mean results of 47.5% correct responses on the knowledge test suggested that such confidence might not have been well-founded.
The empirical research on the miscalibration between school principals perceived and actual education law knowledge remains inconclusive and warrants further attention.
Summary — The level of confidence school principals have in relation to their legal knowledge.
A summary of the literature review regarding the level of confidence principals have in their legal knowledge is at Figure 8.
Decision making literature and research identifies negative organisational consequences that may flow from over-confident decision makers who believe that they know more than they actually know. One particular area of dysfunction is reduced advice-taking. This line of research may have application to school principals who miscalibrate their subjective and objective legal knowledge. The issue of over-confidence has not been substantively addressed in Australian education law studies; it however appears to be an emergent theme in research from the United States, and has been recognised, to a limited degree, in Canadian research. Figure 8. Summary of the level of confidence school principals have in relation to their legal knowledge.
The accuracy and adequacy of school principals’ legal knowledge.
The structure of the literature review regarding school principals’ legal knowledge is set out in Figure 9. This section examines different approaches to the assessment of principals’ legal knowledge and their limitations in the context of education law research.
Figure 9. Structure of Research Question 1.2.
Literature.
Authorities both in Australia and overseas have proposed qualitative and normative standards for the assessment of school principals’ legal knowledge. As far back as 1988, the respected
Australian education lawyer, Dr. Helen Sungaila, suggested that an educator, “should have an understanding of the basic principles of that law which infringes on professional educational practice sufficient to recognise whether a problem which has arisen is one about which professional legal advice should be sought, or not” (p. xi). Similarly, Stewart and McCann (1999), considered that principals, “need to be sufficiently legally literate to be able to recognise when a legal problem is developing in their school and how to go about correcting that problem.” (p. 147) From a North American perspective, in calling for more law-informed educators,
Redfield (2003) argued for school leaders, “who can act preventively to avoid or minimise legal entanglements and proactively to influence both litigation strategy and government policy” (p. 611), whilst Russo (2015) has argued that it is essential for education leaders to have, at a minimum, a basic understanding of school law. Common to these conceptions regarding the education law knowledge required by school principals are two important themes. Firstly, that a
level of knowledge is required across the breadth of the education law field; and secondly, that such knowledge must be sufficient to support the principal taking action: to resolve the matter, or to seek advice.
The standard method to ascertain the accuracy of school principals’ legal understanding has become a legal knowledge test, undertaken as part of a quantitative survey. These
assessments exhibit considerable variation concerning: the width of legal knowledge examined (from broadly-based to a specific area of law); the types of law involved (legislation, common law, case decisions); the forms of question used (scenarios, short statements, multiple-choice, true/false); and critically, the score judged acceptable by the researcher. A range of American and Canadian studies that examined the legal knowledge of school principals is set out in Table 5. Convention within the field appears to have set the pass level at around 70% correct.
Table 5
American and Canadian Studies on School Principals’ Legal Knowledge Year Researcher Participants Test Results
1978 Zirkel (N) Professional
educators 20 items Mean score of 54% - a “fail grade”. More uninformed than informed responses. Law knowledge poor.
1983 Shaw (S) Principals 20 items Mean score of 48.5%; fairly good knowledge of
school law.
1985 Johnson (S) Principals 41 items Correct responses ranged from 25% (markedly
inaccurate) to 64% (markedly accurate). 1986 Abegglen (S) Public school
employees, including principals
35 items Mean score of 51%; result categorised as low
knowledge.
1986 Caldwell (S) Principals 40 items Mean score 78%; average level of knowledge.
1986 Ogletree &
Lewis (s) Principals & teachers 100 items Proficiency level defined as 70%; achieved on only 20 out of 100 items.
1986 Souve (S) Educators, including
principals 100 items Mean of 57.5%; participants very unfamiliar with school law.
1987 Kerrigan (S) Principals 15 items Principals not fully informed about school law;
legal knowledge classified as limited.
1988 Smith (S) Principals - Mean score of 74.1%; room for improvement in
legal knowledge.
1990 Clark (S) Superintendents &
Year Researcher Participants Test Results
principals correct.
1990 Osborn (S) Principals 40 items Mean score of 72%; fair knowledge of school
law.
1993 Hines (S) Principals &
designates - Participants mastered only 40% of the material.
1996 Gordon (S) Principals 40 items Mean score of 73%; average preparation.
1996 Robertson
(S) Principals 20 items Proficiency level defined as 70%. Mean score 60%;; inadequate knowledge base. 1996 Singletary
(S) Superintendents & educators, including principals
10 items Principals’ knowledge was superior to
superintendents & teachers, but all staff required refresher training.
1996 Zirkel (N) Educators, including
principals 13 items Highest correct score was 15%; very low, almost attributable to chance. 1998 *Peters &
Montgomerie (P)
Educators, including
principals 14 items Few participants had a firm grasp of the law as it pertains to rights in education.
1999 Kalafatis (S) Principals 40 items Proficiency level defined as 772.5%; 65%
failed to meet minimum competency level. 1999 Nardone (S) Principals and
assistant principals - Insufficient knowledge base in special education law.
2000 Bounds (S) Educators, including
principals - No group thoroughly understood all the components of school law.
2000 *Leschied, Lewis & Didkinson (P)
Educators, including
principals - Participants self-assessed as “somewhat knowledgeable”.