The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 377–391 | Cite as

The Emperor’s perfect map: leadership by numbers



This paper establishes that system-generated data profiles are influencing the work of principals in three Queensland state schools. Drawing upon Foucault’s notions of governance, as well as research emphasising performative cultures and the importance placed upon numbers and data in education, this paper uses the tale of the Emperor’s map as a metaphor to explore the way principals’ work is being influenced by specific sets of data compiled by the department. These data profiles are representative of external accountabilities and high stakes testing regimes, as seen in systems that have adopted neoliberal policies which attempt to quantify the work being undertaken in schools. The paper demonstrates that principals are being constructed in part by discourses from a system that emphasises these system-generated performance data as a driver for school improvement.


School principals School improvement Data Performativity 


  1. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2012). National school improvement tool. Retrieved from
  2. Ball, S. (2003). The Teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S. (2005). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. Abingdon, VA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bessant, J. (2011). Conservatives, politics and the crisis of modern education in Australia. Policy Studies, 32(6), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloxham, R., Ehrich, L., & Iyer, R. (2015). Leading or managing? Assistant regional directors, school performance, in Queensland. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 354–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, K. (2005). Pivotal points: History, development, and promise of the principalship. In F. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cumming, J., & Dickson, E. (2013). Educational accountability tests, social and legal inclusion approaches to discrimination for students with disability: A national case study from Australia. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desrosieres, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dufour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1973). The order of things. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1994). Prisons et asiles dans le mecanisme du pouvoir. In Dits et ecrits (vol. 11, pp. 523-524). Paris: Gallimard. [This passage tans. Clare O’Farrell]. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from
  13. Foucault, M. (2000a). Sexuality and solitude. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Ethics (pp. 121–133). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2000b). Technologies of the self. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Ethics (pp. 223–251). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Garrick, B. (2011). The crisis discourse of a wicked policy problem: Vocational skills training in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillies, D. (2013). Educational leadership and Michel Foucault. Abingdon, VA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Gobby, B. (2013). Principal self-government and subjectification: The exercise of principal autonomy in the Western Australian Independent Public Schools programme. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonzales, R., & Firestone, W. (2013). Educational Tug-of-War: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray, J., Campbell-Evans, G., & Leggett, B. (2013). Independent public schools: Boards in transition. Leading & Managing, 19(1), 72–88.Google Scholar
  20. Hardy, I. (2013). Testing that counts: Contesting national literacy assessment policy in complex schooling settings. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 36(2), 67–77.Google Scholar
  21. Hardy, I. (2014). A Logic of appropriation: Enacting national testing (NAPLAN) in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardy, I., & Boyle, C. (2011). My School? Critiquing the abstraction and quantification of education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ironside, R. (2012, June 22). Funding lure for schools to become independent. The Courier Mail. Google Scholar
  24. Kane, C., Nancarrow, K., & Bavas, J. (2012, September 19). Langbroek announces Qld’s first independent state schools. ABC News.Google Scholar
  25. Keddie, A. (2013). Thriving amid the performative demands of the contemporary audit culture: A matter of school context. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6), 750–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, M., & Andrews, D. (2009). Parallel leadership: Changing landscapes for principals. In N. Cranston & L. Ehrich (Eds.), Australian school leadership today. Bowen Hills, QLD: Australian Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lingard, B., & McGregor, G. (2013). High stakes assessment and new curricula: A Queensland case of competing tensions in curriculum development. In G. Biesta & M. Priestley (Eds.), Reinventing the Curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 207–228). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  28. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). Catalyst data: Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moore, A. (2004). The good teacher. Dominant discourses in teaching and teacher education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niesche, R. (2011). Foucault and educational leadership. Disciplining the principal. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Niesche, R. (2013a). Governmentality and My school: School principals in societies of control. Educational Philosophy and Theory., 47(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Niesche, R. (2013b). Foucault, counter-conduct and school leadership as a form of political subjectivity. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(2), 144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter, T. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Queensland Department of Education Training and Employment (QDETE). (2011). United in our pursuit of excellence. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  36. Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (QDETE). (2012a). A shared challenge: Improving literacy, numeracy and science learning in Queensland primary schools. Retrieved from
  37. Queensland Department of Education Training and Employment (QDETE). (2012b) Education Queensland system review: Final report (Michael Fullan and Ben Levin Report). Education Queensland Response. Retrieved from
  38. Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (QDETE). (2014). Strategic plan 2014–2018. Retrieved from
  39. Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (QDETE). (2015). School performance assessment framework. Retrieved from
  40. Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Rousmaniere, K. (2013). Principal’s office: A social history of the American school principal. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press.Google Scholar
  42. Singh, P. (2014). Performativity and Pedagogising knowledge: Globalising educational policy formation, dissemination and enactment. Journal of Education Policy. doi:10.1080/02680939.2014.961968.
  43. Thomas, S. (2003). ‘The trouble with our schools’: A media construction of public discourses on Queensland schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, My school and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 62–84.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson, G., & Harbaugh, A. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(3), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomson, P. (2009). School Leadership. heads on the block?. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.c/- School of Teacher Education and Early ChildhoodUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations