Scenario-based teaching and learning emphasises the shared, collaborative nature of constructing knowledge and understanding in a non-competitive learning environment that is intended to have participants be socially interactive with each other. Cranston depicts one of the key tangible benefits of cases as being a stimulus for ‘real life collegiate
discussions’ with colleagues (2008, p. 593). This depiction affirms a learning environment where listening to other learners is a key feature, and which values personal, as well as shared, reflection. This is an environment ideally suited to educational leaders and aspiring leaders. Cranston describes the use of case learning in leadership workshops for principals in Queensland as representing ‘powerful and authentic ways for leadership development among school leaders’ (2008, p. 581). In outlining the use of cases in scenario-based teaching and learning, Cranston strongly affirms the value of having rich workshop activities, which produce ‘creative and critical discussions’ in respect of authentic leadership challenges (2008, p. 581).
At the heart of the case learning model which Cranston (2008) advocates is a focus on the exploration by school leaders and aspiring leaders of authentic aspects of professional practice. The clear intention is that this professional learning does not necessarily result in one designated outcome where all of the participants adopt the same managerial approach to solving a problem or all reach the same conclusion. This form of learning, by its intention, encompasses greater degrees of complexity than models based on a designated problem-solving strategy with a fixed solution. In the often frenetic world of decision making in schools, there is invariably no simple right or wrong answer for many of the ethical dilemmas that are encountered by school leaders and their leadership teams on a daily basis.
The use of the word ‘creative’ by Cranston (2008, p. 581) strongly implies that one important aspect of the professional learning is to provide a framework that allows for school leaders to think tactically and strategically, as well as logically and creatively. This allows the leaders to develop and weigh up more than one approach that they can apply to the complexities of the dilemma or situation with which they are dealing. The end result may also be that the learning experience provides the participants with a greater sense of clarity regarding the dilemma. This is why individual reflection and shared reflection with colleagues remain integral components of this model of professional learning.
As I noted in Scholarly Paper 1, case-based learning is of particular value in education as a mechanism for the professional learning of leaders and aspiring leaders. The emphasis is not just on the ethical dilemma or problem itself, but on the ‘many nuances that surround, impact on and complexify the problem’ (Cranston, 2008, p. 584).For this reason, the key focus of the professional learning is on the exploration of the issues and the working through of tactics and strategies in relation to dealing with the cases as they are discussed. Often there are no neat solutions, but what emerges from the professional practice is greater clarity on how to move forward in resolving difficult tensions, conflicts and complex multi-layered ethical dilemmas. For Cranston, this process resonates, as a powerful illustration of how facilitated collegial discussions around cases, can ‘generate new meanings, understandings and learnings’ (2008, p. 593).
Difficult situations and ethical dilemmas faced by school leaders in Australia have become more complex and multifaceted in an era of heightened expectations on the part of
stakeholders. As schools in New South Wales move towards a more devolved mode of operation as a result of the state government’s educational reform initiative, Local Schools,
autonomy, there is more potential for heightened conflict with key stakeholders in school communities inclusive of parents, staff, community members and external providers. This has clearly been witnessed in New South Wales public schools where conflicts have arisen in response to the application of departmental and school policy making which does not meet parent expectations. One recent example comes from an online newspaper article, ‘NSW Department of Education abandons second property deal for overcrowded school’ (Bagshaw, 2016b). The article captures the furore by parents from Homebush West Public School when the Department of Education chose not to purchase surplus land from a neighbouring church to increase the existing school site, which was suffering an enrolment surge.
The complexity of this situation for educational leaders and the need for a paradigm shift in traditional models of professional learning for school leaders is illustrated by Branson and Gross with their observation that contemporary leaders were being ‘regularly
confronted by unusual, complex, and challenging situations, which demanded that they make choices’ (2014, p. 3). In a study on leadership capacity building and succession planning, Fink described the need for developing leaders to be part of challenging activities that ‘stretched’ their skills sets and capacity through appropriate professional learning, mentoring and performance feedback (2010, p. 140).
In some ways, Begley and Johansson best conceptualise the increased difficulty faced by school leaders and their leadership teams in terms of their depiction of leaders
encountering situations where ‘consensus cannot be achieved, rendering obsolete the traditional notions of problem solving’ (2008, p. 425). As the two researchers note, ‘traditional notions’ for the solving of problems and issues no longer hold true (2008, p. 425). Their comments confirm that a paradigm shift is needed to accommodate the array of
reform and especially the moves towards more localised decision making. Such a shift needs to be inclusive of new governance structures in schools, heightened expectations, increased relationships with stakeholders and ongoing professional learning to support the induction of new and aspiring leaders into the complex role of a school principal.
Belardi views some of the developments delivered through greater localised decision making as evidence of the different ethical spaces in which principals now operate, and the way in which school leaders are pulled ‘in seemingly opposite directions’ by the ‘broad and concurrent policy trends – centralisation at the federal level and increased principal autonomy at the local level’ (2010, p. 17). Belardi depicts the impact in terms of an educational playing field bracing for more acute and challenging dilemmas ‘including instances of children and teachers cheating and unfair pressure being placed on students to achieve certain benchmarks’ (2010, p. 17). This depiction is in response to the specific pressures exerted by reform agendas addressing school performance and accountability. The real challenge for many educational leaders is defined by the manner in which they introduce change-management practices into their school communities to meet the array of new accountabilities without causing schism and discord.
Dempster et al. (2004a) have further captured the confronting nature of this complexity with their research titled, ‘Conflicts, confusions and contradictions in principals’ ethical decision making’. The more recent research by Belardi is an obvious echo with its title, ‘Conflicts, conundrums and the greater moral good’ (2010). This innate complexity and level of challenge is clear evidence of the need for transparency in the decision-making process and ethical frameworks to guide the decision making. This is of crucial importance to leaders and their leadership teams as decisions are made, shaped, contested and, in some cases, re-made on the educational playing field.