Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

This is a copy of the penultimate draft of my presentation for the public lecture and panel discussion for the Gonski Institute for Education Public Lecture responding to #Gonski2 from an educational leadership perspective.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. Responses to Gonski 2.0: Educational Leadership Dr Scott Eacott School of Education | Gonski Institute for Education
  2. 2. From the Executive Summary • In a world where education defines opportunity, schooling must support every one of Australia’s 3.8 million school students to realise their full learning potential and achieve educational excellence. • Since 2000, however, academic performance has declined when compared to other Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries. • Declining academic performance is jeopardising the attainment of Australia’s aspiration for excellence and equity in school education. • The extent of the decline is widespread and equivalent to a generation of Australian school children falling short of their full learning potential.
  3. 3. An overview Who are we? The Educational Leadership and Policy research group in SoE We are responding to Chapter 4: Empowering and supporting school leaders Our goal A research informed dialogue and debate on the issues from an educational leadership perspective.
  4. 4. Recommendations and findings
  5. 5. My focus Three matters: 1. Variety of professional learning opportunities 2. Career stage and development needs 3. Relevance and currency
  6. 6. 1. Variety of professional learning Where are Australian principals/school leaders getting their PL? ACER’s Staff in Australia’s School Survey 2013
  7. 7. The underlying issue of quality Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen (2007) • Clear focus and values about leadership and learning around which the program is coherently based; • Standards-based curriculum emphasizing instructional leadership, organizational development, and change management; • Field-based internships with skilled supervision; • Cohort groups that create opportunities for collaboration and team- work in practice oriented situations; • Active instructional strategies that link theory and practice, such as problem based learning; • Rigorous recruitment and selection of both candidates and faculty; and • Strong partnerships with schools and districts to support quality field- based learning
  8. 8. Some ongoing research
  9. 9. 2. Career stage • How do we define ‘career stage’? • Experience | Performance | Role | ??? • Professional standards has temporality under revision • AITSL has the Principal Standard • Systems and credentials • Bach – (GC) M – EdD / PhD • Balancing • Learning to lead • Learning for leading Gonski 2.0 calls for personalised learning, how do we best personalise learning for current and aspiring school leaders?
  10. 10. 3. Relevance • Risks involved in standardizing the preparation of principals. A focus on what works reduces the importance of philosophy, sociology, history, organizational theory, among others internal contradictions, antinomies, circularities, and contested intersections. In short, a cutting-edge, research-centred preparation program would reflect the knowledge dynamic at work in which it is embedded. (English, 2006, p. 466) • The importance of learning to lead and learning for leadership and who can deliver it do you we want to learn how to play the game better or challenge the rules of the game and its formula for success. (Thomson, 2010) • It is being introduced to the conversation of the world that enables us to have clarity of purpose, coherence in practice, and generate the narrative of education.
  11. 11. Background research Eacott, S. (under review). Educational leadership researchers, (social) scientific credibility, and the Kardashian index. Eacott, S. (under review). Twitter tagging cartels, social science Kardashians, and the cult of the guru. Eacott, S. (2019). How to not be seduced by common-sense. In J.S. Brooks, & A. Heffernan, (Eds.), The school leadership survival guide: what to do when things go wrong, how to learn from mistakes, and why you should prepare for the worst. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Eacott, S. (2017). School leadership and the cult of the guru: The neo-Taylorism of Hattie. School Leadership & Management, 37(4), 413-426. Asuga, G.N., Eacott, S. & Sevcak, J. (2015). School leadership preparation and development in Kenya: evaluating performance impact and return on leadership development investment. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(3), 355-367. Eacott, S. & Hodges, K. (2014). The temporality of teaching under revision. Critical Studies in Education, 55(3), 289-302. Eacott, S. & Asuga, G. (2014). School leadership preparation and development in Africa: a critical insight. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(6), 919-934. Eacott, S. (2013). The return on investment in school leadership preparation and development programs: a pilot study on Australian university-based programs. International Journal of Educational Management , 27(7), 686-699. Eacott, S. (2012). Introducing under-graduate students to school leadership concepts. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(2), 159-172. Asuga, G., & Eacott, S. (2012). The learning needs of secondary school principals: the case of Nakuru district, Kenya. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 4(5), 133-140. Eacott, S. (2011). Preparing ‘educational’ leaders in managerialist times: an Australian story. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 43(1), 43-59. Eacott, S. (2011). Game changers. Education Review May, 25. Bates, R.J. & Eacott, S. (2009). Teaching educational leadership and administration in Australia. In H.M. Gunter & T. Fitzgerald, Educational administration and history: The state of the field (pp. 69-80). London: Routledge. Bates, R.J., & Eacott, S. (2008). Teaching educational leadership and administration in Australia. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(2), 149-160.
  12. 12. References Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. English, F. W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardised knowledge base in advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 461-472. English, F. W. (2003). Cookie cutter leaders for cookie cutter schools: the teleology of standardization and the de-legitimization of the university in educational leadership preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(1), 27-46. McKenzie, P. et al. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: main report on the survey. ACER: Melbourne. Thomson, P. (2010). Headteacher autonomy: a sketch of a Bourdieuian field analysis of position and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 51(1), 5-20.
  13. 13. Contact Details Dr Scott Eacott PhD MLMEd GradCertPTT BTeach/BSocSci FACEL Director, Higher Research Degree Programs School of Education University of New South Wales Sydney NSW AUSTRALIA 2052 P: +61 2 9385 0704 T: @ScottEacott E: W: