Working with teams of teachers in the implementation of curriculum reform, the Heads of Faculty articulated their approach to bringing the reform to reality within their faculties. They commented that they were not able to work alone in the reform process, and sought collaborative, distributed and shared leadership strategies to provide the smoothest transition in the implementation of the mandated curriculum reform.
The majority of the Heads of Faculty commented on their use of collaborative strategies in the implementation of curriculum reform. Comments such as teachers tended to work in pairs or threes to develop material . . . there has to be collaborative leadership . . . otherwise I will walk away at the end of the term and nobody will feel ownership, were predominant in responses to how Heads of Faculty employed collaborative leadership. The literature also pointed to the significance of collaboration in the implementation of change (Hinton, 2004; Moore, 2007b).
Other Heads of Faculty saw the necessity of working with a range of leadership personnel in the case study school as important in successful implementation of mandated curriculum reform. The Post Year 10 Coordinator suggested that in implementing the current mandated curriculum reform there has been collaboration between leaders at different levels . . .. The Deputy Principal (Learning & Teaching) and the Faculty Heads have been key people in implementing these reforms.
Some of the Heads of Faculty worked only with key personnel in their faculty, relying on their skills to work collaboratively with the other staff members who were perhaps not so positive. Yes . . . particularly with the key colleagues who embraced the changes at an early stage. These people brought their own ideas/directions and provided much needed energy, inspiration and reflective feedback. They were often ‘bridges’ to other staff. These individuals also gained significant confidence/stature from leading the change process.
Some Heads of Faculty in smaller multi-disciplinary faculties worked in a way that could get the practical side of reform completed. They got their staff to do the preliminary work and they took on the role of “coordinator” of the reform -I coordinate the responses, but all staff collaborate to provide material to be coordinated/collated in the project. The collaborative approach makes the change easier for others in the team to own. This was supported in the literature by Moore (2007a), who suggested that one size does not fit all faculties, and that individual faculties would find the way of working with their teams to ensure successful implementation of reform.
It was interesting to note that there was great variation of understanding of the meaning of the word “collaboration” as some Heads of Faculty saw it as delegation, others interpreted it as distributing the roles (Bennett, 2008), whilst others had not engaged in any form of collaborative practice. Collaborative leadership is essential because the nominated leader—the Head of Faculty cannot micro manage that many people. Therefore bringing people together, workable teams are important and this is when it works well. However, the risk is that sharing leadership has more room for failure if the group doesn’t work well. In this case the Head of Faculty focused and relied more on shared leadership rather than collaborative leadership in a large “core” faculty.
In faculties where large numbers at each year level required units of work to be completed for curriculum documents, the Heads of Faculty put their staff into specific year levels groups, and got them to devise the new curriculum elements and complete the task. The Head of Faculty, in this case, was the “overseer.” The initial work was done by the whole team working together to update the units . . . then one particular teacher took on the task to bring all of the work of the
different teachers into one unified product. The two parts are essential—if it is all one person’s work, the change may not by adopted by the whole group. The literature concurs that the notion of team composition in faculties is significant in the implementation of reform (Moore, 2007a; Rosenfeld et al., 2008).
Some Heads of Faculties faced challenges with the entire concept of collaborative leadership, and the case study school structures made it difficult for some faculties to engage in authentic collaborative practice. The faculty staff was not faculty specific staff so their focus was split and they needed to make a decision about which faculty they would work in for the purposes of curriculum reform. The faculty staff was not constant, so Heads of Faculty were faced with a situation in which ever changing teams of teachers makes it difficult to experience true collaborative leadership as the team spirit does not enjoy continuity.
Education systems
In 2003, influenced by the impending national reforms for post Year 10 students in Australia, the Tasmanian Government began planning for a state-wide reform of Senior Secondary Colleges and the Technical and Further Education institutions. The reforms were slowly being introduced into these institutions, mandated by the government. To date the case study school has been involved in the state-wide and national reforms, largely in the Vocational Education curriculum and programs. Gradually the influence of further state-wide and national curriculum reforms will require further change to the existing reforms already taken on board in schools since 2003. From a school perspective, there seemed little or no choice in whether to implement the mandated reform. Fully aware of the need to prepare for the impending mandated reform, the case study school had support structures in place for curriculum personnel and staff. The school was very well supported by leadership structures and the literature supported this strategy for implementing reform (Fullan, 2001; Moore, 2007a). Given all the possible information sharing, professional learning, and clear communication of the impending reforms, the Heads of Faculty were those responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the reforms in the classrooms. It is at this level that the tension of consistency occurred for the Heads of Faculty, as
we all came from different levels of experience, knowledge, and personal factors, when it came to working with teachers in leading change (Starratt, 1994). Regardless of the academic level of those involved in reform, emotions play a role (Bissell, 2002; Fullan, 2001). This was true for teachers and leaders at all levels. Feelings of loss, resistance, excitement, and anger, were some of the emotions people experience when confronted with yet another reform, and it needed to be acknowledged that the vocation of teaching and leadership involves emotional work (Conners & D’Arbon, 1997; Fullan, 2001). The support structures for Heads of Faculty leading mandated curriculum reform in the school needed to take this diversity of experience and emotion into account, as there were those who required and sought more professional and or pastoral support than others.
As a consequence of the implementation process within the school, the roles for the Heads of Faculty changed. The Heads were challenged to implement a major curriculum initiative, sometimes moving them out of their comfort zone to embrace change, and accept an additional workload. Some Heads of Faculty spoke of realising a sense of alienation in their role at times when they were required to lead curriculum reform (Cranston & Ehrich, 2004). They were dealing with their staff, and their usual daily duties, whilst coming to terms with the reform. The support structures, whether they were sourced from outside the school, offered by colleagues or the Leadership Team in the case study school, allayed some of the fears, and made the pathway for reform a smoother transition within the system.
The data strongly suggested that Heads of Faculty were extremely busy middle leaders in the case study school, and that they would welcome more time release, particularly at times when major mandated curriculum reform was required to be implemented. This type of allowance has huge resource ramifications for schools, as staffing and financial constraints impact on the entire school.
Leadership implications
Regardless of the type of curriculum reform, be it either internally or externally imposed, Heads of Faculty were the personnel responsible for its implementation. It was essential that middle leaders were equipped with the leadership qualities
that enabled them to lead in the context of their own school and to work with their staff to create a positive culture for the impending reform. Through observation, professional learning and exemplary practice, Heads of Faculty needed to devise a plan that provided the most appropriate “blue print” for successful implementation in their own faculty. The Heads of Faculty had the overview of the impending mandated reform and the shared vision that enabled them to best discern the strategies for successful implementation of reform with their own staff. Individual contexts and the opportunities and challenges that they presented were different.
Despite sometimes feeling like the meat in the sandwich in a school, placed, as they are, between the teaching staff and the Leadership Team (Moore, 2007b), Heads of Faculty needed to be resilient and able to harness all experiences which arose, both negative and positive, to create the best outcome for all students and staff. Working collaboratively with a range of personnel created a sense of teamwork within a community where clear lines of communication and a sensitivity to the needs of all were recognised. Perhaps the most useful tool in a Head of Faculty toolbox is a sense of humour for breaking the tension in what is sometimes a difficult time for all in the reform process.
Conclusion
The role of the Head of Faculty is complex and so is the leadership of mandated curriculum reform. The role of leader requires knowledge, skills and support all packaged within a given context, the case study school. The way each of the Heads of Faculty relied on their knowledge, leadership skills and levels of support differed one from the other. There were, however, some communal elements and strategies which created a more positive culture and smoother pathway for the reform journey.