1 Introduction

Continuous reform is an integral part of the educational landscape, as the role of education has changed over time. Through new thinking, education has moved from providing basic skills for all to the expectation that learning should be individualised and targeted to ensure all students contribute positively to society and achieve success in an increasingly globalised world (OECD, 2019; Savage, 2017). As a result of this shift in thinking, profound changes in education have shaped and moulded international, national and state systems, including that of the Victorian government education system, where the research of this qualitative case study takes place.

An integral part of this change has been the expectation that leadership in schools can drive the change and shift in focus. This expectation runs parallel to the increasing and unrelenting focus on literacy standards across the world and the resultant spotlight on early approaches to literacy and therefore, reading instruction. International surveys such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), in addition to prominent international research (Castles et al., 2018; Torgerson et al., 2019), show reading is still a contested space. This ongoing area of interest is situated both internationally and within Australia including the state of Victoria where the reported research on early reading was undertaken.

2 Search for the “right” approach

International and national literacy assessments, in which reading is typically emphasised, have fuelled perceptions that standards and student achievement in reading is falling (Martin, 2019; Thomson et al., 2019). Moreover, reporting of results from key high-stakes national testing such as the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) has placed a level of public scrutiny on teachers and their schools that previously did not exist (Polesel et al., 2014). In some cases, this public scrutiny is translated into educational imperatives that require school leadership to lift standards via results from standardised testing.

To address the educational imperatives commonly acknowledged as concerning by governments, policy makers, media and some researchers, leaders become responsible for finding the “right” approach or recipe for literacy. Often this recipe entails the purchase of commercially produced materials and professional development by companies that have flooded the education market, providing readily designed programs and resources aimed at raising literacy standards (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020). However, these programs often reduce reading to a focus on “phonetic decoding” ignoring the complexity of the reading process (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020, p. 3). Moreover, argues Wyse and Bradbury (2022), this narrow and reductive view of teaching reading can impact a student’s life chances because scripted or commercial programs can exclude a classroom teacher’s professional judgement needed to tailor individualised learning for “optimal” results (p. 42).

Unfortunately, the purchase of commercial programs often comes at the expense of leadership carefully developing “expert” teachers who can draw on their knowledge to inform their actions but also to challenge and modify their existing knowledge base (Beard et al., 2019). This, Adoniou (2015) argues, is integral to successful student outcomes. When teachers “know what”, “know why” and “know how” they are more agile at drawing from a range of pedagogical principles and practices to ensure they best address the individual learning needs of their students (Adoniou, 2015, p. 103).

3 The Victorian context and current policy

From 2007 onwards in the state of Victoria, Australia, government primary schools, teachers and schools have been required to make school-based and subsequent classroom-based decisions about the teaching of literacy (and therefore reading) (Department of Education and Training, 2020). Leaders were given autonomy to determine their school’s literacy plan and vision informed through consultation with the school community. Developing goals and literacy targets in response to their student cohort and community needs emerged as a new and unfamiliar task for leadership. In conjunction with this new autonomy was the expectation that school leadership has the knowledge to lead decision-making about literacy at their school setting. This assumption is underpinned by two important factors: the capacity of leaders to lead decision-making within their setting and the importance of disciplinary knowledge about literacy to guide any decisions made.

Firstly, not all leaders or the teams they lead are the same and therefore, school leadership decision-making also varies and is dependent on leaders and their approach to leadership. Whilst Hattie (2015, p. 38) argues for the importance of instructional leadership because of its “significant effect on student learning outcomes”, not all leaders are instructional leaders. In fact, Hattie quotes over 80% of school leaders identify as transformational leaders where vision, common goals and directions are created and set by leadership (2015, pp. 1–2). Acknowledging transformational leadership stems from a business model, instructional leadership has a prime focus on student learning including building the capacity of classroom teachers (Campbell et al., 2019). Effective instructional school leaders “influence” their colleagues through facilitating positive interactions around school structures and conditions, the development of relationships and the negotiation of school expectations and approaches (Day et al., 2016).

Secondly, in conjunction with differing leadership styles is the assumption that leadership draws and informs its development of a literacy vision, goals and directives on a deep disciplinary knowledge of literacy (including reading). However, some politicians, media sources, researchers and educators would disagree with this assumption, arguing that contemporary teachers and their leaders lack professional knowledge about how to teach reading (Buckingham et al., 2019; Martin, 2019; Stark et al., 2016).

Recognising these issues as important influencing factors in the work of leaders and schools, the Department of Education (Victoria) designed processes and/or resources to support collaborative-based inquiry-focused practice. The formalised introduction of professional learning communities (PLCs) and relevant support documents were made available to all Victorian government schools in 2018 and is ongoing (State Government of Victoria, 2021a). Based on 10 underlying principles, formation of PLCs enables groups of teachers to work collaboratively to analyse student data, use inquiry-based improvement strategies informed by evidence-based research and develop common understandings about the learning outcomes for their students (State Government of Victoria, 2021a). Nevertheless, schools are busy dynamic sites, with the nature of primary teaching being described as a “generalist” rather than “specialist” role. Therefore, reading knowledge and the evidence-base that leaders and colleagues draw from may in fact be informed by commercial products arriving in schools via sales representatives, word of mouth, email and/or professional networks or associations. These commercial programs differ in robustness and their integrity to the evidence-base which ultimately impacts the quality of teaching and learning (Beard et al., 2019).

It is the consequences of the move from prescription to self-determination in Victorian government schools that this research focuses on. Whilst contemporary understandings in the field of literacy teaching recognise the interplay between reading, writing, speaking and listening, it is the teaching and learning of reading that attracts the most attention and controversary (Castles et al., 2018; Torgerson et al., 2019). Given the attention ascribed to reading as a core component of becoming literate (Rowe, 2005), this paper shines a spotlight on the impact of leadership on the decision-making of three early career teachers of reading. Tim, Indiana and Anne (pseudonyms) formed part of a wider qualitative case study which set out to document Foundation to Year Two teachers’ principles, practices and priorities of teaching early reading in Victorian government primary schools.

4 The research process

4.1 Aims of the wider study

The wider study of 16 Foundation to Year Two teachers of early reading was undertaken across six metropolitan government sites, across a range of socio-economic communities, and involved collecting data from teachers of varied experiences. The study aimed to document a gap in the research which explains how contemporary teachers of early reading grapple with the highly contested theories of learning to read, and negotiate the conflicting and changeable reading pedagogies available for implementation, whilst also trying to support student engagement and motivation with the reading process. The wider study aimed to build a stronger understanding of how contemporary teachers inform their decision-making and pedagogic choices about teaching early reading.

4.2 The qualitative case study

Qualitative research design was selected as the methodology for the wider study because it is “socially situated, context-related, context-dependent and context-rich” research (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 288). With the research aim to investigate the relationship between a teacher’s principles, practices and priorities of teaching reading and how that influences pedagogic decision-making, qualitative research was best placed to investigate the social construction of reality and the relationship between these elements. Qualitative methods of data collection included transcribed teacher interviews, researcher field notes of three observed “typical” reading lessons per teacher, audio recordings of “typical” reading lessons, teacher planning documentation, online questionnaire responses (allowing for tallying) and “reading-related” photographic artefacts displayed in each classroom.

A case study method was determined for the wider study as it provides opportunities for investigating the specificity of a particular situation (Schwandt & Gates, 2018). As the focus was on what principles, practices and priorities teachers draw on or employ in the teaching of reading in F-2 primary school classrooms, “the experiences, perspectives, and worldviews of people in a particular set of circumstances” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 346) were important to document and analyse. Moreover, how these elements influenced a teacher’s pedagogic decision-making was of interest, particularly as it provided insights into broader issues such as teacher knowledge and teacher autonomy.

5 Data analysis

As the intention of the wider study was to produce one case study over six different school sites, analysis began with the individual participants, followed by a cross-case analysis of each site, then by multiple sites. Content analysis was selected to analyse the data, based on the three elements identified in the main thesis question: teacher principles, practices and priorities. These three elements were identified before the data collection began and worked well to establish the sorting of data (Cohen et al., 2018).

Content analysis was justified to analyse the data because it is a process of classifying comments into categories from “theoretical constructs or areas of interest” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 559). Moreover, this method has been attributed with being an “unobtrusive technique” of analysis as it focuses on written content that can be revisited several times to enable checking and verification (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 674). Transcribed audio recordings, field notes, planning documentation, online questionnaire responses and visual artefacts were coded and classified into the main themes of the study: teacher practices, principles and priorities which guided and influenced the teaching of reading in Victorian metropolitan government primary schools.

For clarity, the three key elements which inform the content analysis are defined here. Teacher principles encompass the theoretical beliefs which guide the thoughts, judgements and decisions teachers make and act on through the teaching act. Therefore, reading principles constitute a teacher’s overarching belief or their philosophy of teaching reading and how early reading is developed. On the other hand, practice is defined as the outcome of the planning process and includes the instructional techniques and classroom management strategies teachers employ to teach their students. Practice can be highly contextualised and targeted to the needs of individual students and cohorts, although as Hattie (2012) cautions, this is often not the case, with teachers using the same repertoire variation throughout their career regardless of student cohort. Priorities, the last of the three key elements pertinent to the wider study, refer to both personal and external priorities that influence a teacher’s principles and practices. Personal priorities could include for example the importance a teacher places on their continuing professional development and/or teacher knowledge to guide their teaching practice. External priorities can also influence a teacher’s principles and practices and these stem from school-based or system-based expectations and constraints placed on a classroom teacher. Depending on the school and the level of autonomy teachers are afforded, the impact of external priorities could influence classroom practice to varying degrees.

6 The selection of participants

Initial contact with principals sought their interest in the research. Once a principal gave approval for inclusion in the research, up to three teachers from each site from Foundation, Year One, Year Two or a combination F-2 classroom with varied years of teaching experience and gender were asked to volunteer. Whilst some participants mentioned their interest and/or investment in the teaching of reading as the motivator for their voluntary participation in this study, it was not assumed these comments applied to all participants. The 16 teacher participants ranged in teaching experience and age; the youngest participants were aged between 25 and 29, whilst the oldest was over 60 years of age. Moreover, one participant had 1 year of teaching experience contrasted by two participants that had 30 or more years of teaching experience. Fourteen of the participants were female and two were male. Although not an ideal gender representation, it is largely representative of the gender split found in early years classrooms across schools in Australia (McGrath & Van Berger, 2017).

7 Why choose a focus on these three teachers?

This paper reports on the stories of three early career teachers from the wider study and the influence of leadership on school-level decision-making related to the teaching of reading. This small group of participants clearly voiced their frustration with their school leadership including their literacy leaders. Emerging from the data analysis, the three participants acknowledged leadership principles or overarching beliefs and philosophy about teaching early reading were not collaboratively developed at their school sites. Neither were leadership decisions around school priorities such as timetabling of literacy lessons or purchase of reading resources open for discussion and teacher input. Moreover, leadership-mandated practices including literacy non-negotiables served to alienate and frustrate participants discussed in this paper, as they felt their ability to respond to their highly contextualised student cohort (Wyse & Bradbury, 2022) was compromised due to the expectation of following school-based one-size-fits-all directives (Mantei et al., 2022).

Nonetheless, these three teachers all complied with the priorities set by their leaders. As these teachers were all in the early stages of their career, they were subject to employment based on fixed-term contracts. When relying on the leaders in their respective schools for reemployment, these three teachers felt any challenge or questioning of school-based directives would be counterproductive to fitting in to their workplace and the longevity of their careers. The three teachers’ frustration resonates with recent Australian research which found securing a permanent position was essential to developing a sense of belonging and engagement with the teaching profession (Longmuir et al., 2022). Moreover, the same research found that leadership that facilitated the development of teacher “self-efficacy and the ability to deliver a differentiated curriculum” was an important factor to teacher satisfaction (Longmuir et al., 2022, p. 21). Teacher satisfaction is an underlying factor in determining whether teachers remain in the profession. Consequently, a focus on these three teachers is timely and necessary if the teaching profession as a whole wishes to continue to renew its numbers and promote the teaching profession as an ongoing career of choice.

8 Teacher stories — Tim, Indiana and Anne

Based around the three key elements of the main thesis question, analyses of the data were completed in phases. The first phase identified and recorded teaching practices from each data set. Identified teaching practices were then cross-matched against principles and practices of teaching reading in a second phase of analysis. Patterns emerging from this analysis were then compared to existing literature. It is here themes, interpretation and construction of rich data emerged in the form of the three teacher stories.

8.1 Tim’s story

8.1.1 Background information

After spending 20 years in an unrelated occupation, Tim came to teaching as his second career. Data were collected from Tim halfway through teaching his first year in the junior school after spending his previous 5 years of teaching in upper levels. Tim had solely taught in his present school setting which he described as “definitely an affluent area… books at home… family is educated”. At the time of the data collection, the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage showed Tim’s school had families predominantly from a high socio-economic background (ACARA, 2018).

8.1.2 Tim’s reading practice

In all three classroom observations, Tim modelled and shared the reading of an enlarged non-fiction big book at the beginning of each lesson. The choice of text determined the focus of his reading lesson; however, Tim did not determine the text choice. “The class focus text isn’t chosen by me, they were chosen for us. Because we work out of the [Australian commercial product] books”. This commercial program broken into comprehension strategies drove Tim’s program. “I didn’t choose them [the strategies], they were chosen for us”. When asked if this program was mandated in Tim’s school, he responded, “Yes…well that is the resource. There is no other resource… [and] this is what I hate about so many parts of the reading program and what I’m doing”.

When asked to articulate his principles of teaching reading, Tim stated “reading is just another word for comprehension or understanding”. This psycholinguistic (or top-down whole language approach) to reading (Goodman, 1992; Smith, 2012) saw Tim prioritise the use of a whole text so that meaning could be first established before unpacking the text to work on smaller components including the explicit teaching of genre, grammar and phonics. In addition, Tim elaborated on the importance of using “picture books that have a deeper message” as a teaching resource because they possessed,

a sophisticated and deep level of comprehension where you’re able to draw upon all sorts of resources and …really, really get to the heart of what the author is intending for that text , or understand all of their intentions. Cause you know, in a really well-made text there are multilevels, and that’s an intended thing.

In Tim’s classroom observations, it was clear he organised his students into small groups based on their reading ability. Over the course of the week, groups rotated through a series of reading activities including small group–mediated reading sessions with Tim. He was observed undertaking the practice of round-robin reading with his students which relies on students taking turns to read part of the text out loud to the small group. However, round-robin reading can contribute to frustration, inattention and/or disengagement in the listener as they either wait for their turn or listen to other students struggling with their reading (Chase Fair & Combs, 2011). This in turn contributes to decreased listening comprehension, the very principle Tim believed as most important when teaching reading (Opitz & Rasinski, 2008).

8.1.3 Literacy leadership decision-making at Tim’s school

Tim felt strongly about how the reading program was organised and directed from the Literacy Team. “I am still very much coming to terms with, very much grappling with at the moment…how to teach reading”. He felt the mandate to teach two guided reading sessions within a 50-min literacy session using commercial texts from a levelled reading program did not promote a deep focus on student discussion and comprehension. This conflicted with his own principles where he preferred to,

sit with a group….[and] be involved in their discussion…this whole idea of going through two different rotations in one session with a teacher group, that’s new to me. I’m still adjusting to that.

Tim described his compliance with leadership reading directives as “doing as I’m told” and Tim referred to the prescribed year level reading term planner which directed his reading lessons as evidence. He expressed his frustration with this non-negotiable, acknowledging the implementation of the reading planner came at the expense of building his teacher knowledge about reading, including the ability to undertake reflection and inquiry of practice with his team members. Due to this recognition, Tim stated “I wouldn’t be a good model [for others]. I’ve got a very strong opinion on that”.

8.2 Indiana’s story

8.2.1 Background information

At the time of the study, Indiana was in her first full year of teaching. Her data were collected from Foundation students in the third and fourth month of the school year. At interview, Indiana identified her students came from English as an Additional Language (EAL) backgrounds in a low socio-economic community. The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage resonated with Indiana’s description, placing the school community below the average socio-economic level (ACARA, 2018). Indiana identified the family backgrounds of students did impact student learning by stating, “families don’t value education, others don’t even read their reader so it’s really hard”.

8.2.2 Indiana’s reading practice

Indiana’s definition of reading included the importance of accurate decoding and was easily identified throughout all of her data sets. In all three reading observations, her letter of the week was prominently displayed in the classroom as an example of her cognitive approach (bottom-up approach focusing first on accurate decoding and word recognition of print) to reading (Adams, 1990).

Phonemic awareness and phonics received almost exclusive attention in two out of three of Indiana’s observed reading lessons. Both lessons demonstrated a strong connection between her principles on reading and her choice of reading practices such as her use of commercial synthetic interactive computer programs where letters and sounds were introduced through a structured approach. Indiana also included Cued Articulation in her teaching (Passy, 2010). She justified the inclusion of this approach because it assisted with “pronunciation and it helps them, like learn the sound better. If you show them an action, it stays in their memory better”. For that reason, Indiana held a steadfast belief that Cued Articulation to support phonemic awareness, letter/sound identification and sight words were “the three main things that I focus on in my reading” program.

Conversely, Indiana’s third observed lesson was a literature lesson. In this lesson, which Indiana’s literacy leader directed her to undertake to ensure consistency across her teaching unit, she used the shared reading practice to read an enlarged fiction text The Paper Bag Princess (Munsch, 2006) to her students. The choice of text was selected by her literacy leader because the letter of the week was “P”. However, there was only limited attention drawn to this point when looking at the title of the book, identifying words that began with the initial or final sound /p/ and when students made a puppet of the princess out of a paper bag. Moreover, students were not given the opportunity to retell the story or act out parts of the story taking on the persona of two of the main characters (princess and prince). Whilst Indiana did ask some incidental questions to clarify the meaning of “ashes”, “tangled” and “expensive”, there was no narrative in her teaching that linked the text to the letter of the week or her previous phonic lessons on /p/.

8.2.3 Literacy leadership decision-making at Indiana’s school

Indiana expressed her frustration and unease at using literature to support the teaching of phonics, as using a skill and drill method via the interactive whiteboard and use of student worksheets were her practices of choice. However, being a recent graduate from university, she also realised the dilemma she faced when beginning to teach in a school which did not have the same principles of early reading as herself,

When you come into a school it feels really different from uni. Yeah, so in your first year, it’s really hard to be like, oh this theorist says this. We should do that.

Yet, she did also concede that her focus is “just trying to get your head around what the school’s doing” in order to fit in (Longmuir et al., 2022). Indiana felt fitting in with her colleagues to become part of the team meant deferring to her more experienced counterparts. “It’s hard because you don’t want to step on somebody else’s toe, and say oh, what you are doing is wrong”. Her comments echo research investigating this tension between teacher autonomy and school-based directives, acknowledging this is a major reason behind teacher turnover and retention in the profession (Grant et al., 2020). Even though graduate teachers are new to the profession and need guidance with curriculum and pedagogy, they come to their roles as individuals with varied knowledge and skills. Therefore, leaders need to provide graduated support to “better enable their growth and adjustment in the classroom setting” (Grant et al., 2020, p. 103). Unfortunately, the graduate teachers focused on in this paper engaged in practices as directed by the school but felt a lack of cohesion, enjoyment and autonomy with their teaching (Adoniou, 2012; Grant et al., 2020). These feelings were clearly expressed by Indiana.

8.3 Anne’s story

8.3.1 Background information

Anne was the most senior teacher of this group, having taught for 5 of her 7 years in Victorian government schools. She was halfway through a Master of Education which was providing her with opportunities for reflection and for establishing “best practice” around the teaching of reading. At interview, Anne lamented the lack of parent helpers volunteering in her literacy classes, acknowledging this as unusual given the high parent interest and involvement at her school. The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage registered Anne’s school setting as comprising above average socio-economic levels (ACARA, 2018).

8.3.2 Anne’s teaching practices

Through the reading definition in Anne’s online questionnaire, lesson observations, teacher interview, planning documentation and photographs of classroom artefacts that supported her reading program, Anne demonstrated a psycholinguistic approach to teaching reading (Goodman, 1992; Smith, 2012).

In Anne’s observed Year Two lessons, she used shared reading of an enlarged digital text or big book at the beginning of each lesson to teach a comprehension strategy. Students then worked in small ability-based groups with Anne using the practice of guided reading to work on fluency or point of need instruction including phonemic awareness and phonics. Anne ensured all students read their text independently whilst she heard each member of the small group read a small section of the text out loud. A comprehension check was carried out before Anne moved to her second small group where the practice was repeated. All students returned to the main group to reflect on their learning before each lesson concluded. Students not working with Anne completed independent activities such as listening post, word games, worksheet-based activities and online reading with associated activities which were “modif[ied] or extend[ed]” depending on the student group.

8.3.3 Literacy leadership decision-making at Anne’s school

Even though Anne carried out each lesson with the same observed elements, she expressed frustration with the school timetabling priority and directives from leadership which impacted her reading program. She felt compromised that her teaching was rushed and not thorough enough.

I’ve struggled with the 50 minute block. I’ve found that it just seems so rushed. Look, you have to do two guided reading groups. I thought that was ridiculous cause it ends up being very, you know, choppy.

Anne also discussed the overarching literacy approach and reading plan for all year levels. At Anne’s school, the Professional Learning and Teaching (PLAT) Literacy Team determined the reading focus across the year which was broken into a term-by-term focus. The content of these reading planners was “dictated by [an] Assistant Principal” and was “probably based on the Early Years Model [Hill & Crevola, 1999] …Di Snowball [Australian literacy consultant] and I’m not sure…I don’t think it has been updated for a while”.

Anne also acknowledged that the PLAT Literacy Team had recently bought a comprehensive reading resource which was beginning to be implemented across the school. This program was to be used regularly as a “diagnostic” as well as providing “books to match” student levels and assist with student “writing”. However, Anne admitted, “we’re still getting our head around it at the moment. I don’t think it’s the right way to do it”. Whilst conceding her school was undergoing a “transitional period” around the teaching of reading, Anne bemoaned the lack of opportunity for input into the school literacy vision and for participatory discussion about the teaching of reading at her school.

9 Discussion

Through the data analysis of the three participants, there were several key points where the role of leadership was noted as having a strong influencing effect on individual teacher pedagogic decision-making about the teaching of reading.

9.1 Reflective practice and autonomy

In the first instance, leadership was identified as integral to staff developing a sense of autonomy and reflection about practice (Adoniou, 2012; Hattie & Anderman, 2020). All three participants reported school-based common goals and directives about reading were set from “above” without opportunity for input.

Hattie and Anderman (2020) discuss the importance of school leadership opening up spaces for conversation about teaching principles and practices. Teacher principles influence practice choices (implicitly or explicitly), so when teachers have a sense of autonomy and can make pedagogic decisions about their instructional practices, they are more likely to be motivated, which in turn encourages students to achieve at higher levels (Hattie & Anderman, 2020). Moreover, teachers need to feel empowered to question and inquire so that they can reflect on the evidence-base and how it relates to practice. Zeichner and Liston (2014) argue through this process teachers can ask bigger picture questions such as “Are the results good? For whom? And in what ways?” rather than simply ticking off a set of technical objectives (p. 12). This way of thinking may need to be articulated and modelled by leadership in conjunction with the “permission” to question and reflect.

9.2 Resources and programs

Moreover, leadership decisions about what resources are bought for the school and what non-negotiables are stipulated for teachers also impact reading programs. Examples of commercially produced products selected to fill a perceived gap were described by the three participants, such as packaged reading resources or online phonics programs. Mantei et al. (2022) argue that often these commercialised programs then become the reading program, with teachers becoming “technicians” rather than drawing on the “expertise, creativity and autonomy” usually associated with the craft of teaching (p. 757). When leadership mandates the use of commercial programs to ensure consistency across a school site, they also knowingly or tacitly promote a “one-size-fits-all” approach with an exclusive use of one pedagogy over others including a direction to privilege some texts over others (Mantei et al., 2022, p. 757).

Fortunately in 2017, a web-based Literacy Teaching Toolkit (LTT) was designed for Victorian educators including school leaders and made freely available by the Victorian Department of Education. This resource is designed to “provide access to evidence informed understandings about effective language and literacy teaching and learning” from birth to Year 10 (including reading) (State Government of Victoria, 2021c, para 6). Moreover, 2023 sees updated content which addresses the role of phonics and phonological awareness in the process of reading being progressively added to the LTT. Whilst this resource is comprehensive containing evidence-based research, videos of best-practice pedagogy and information on instructional approaches, once again it is up to leaders and teachers in schools to engage with the content. Additionally, even though the PLC initiative has been comprehensively rolled out to Victorian schools, its success is still contingent on how leadership supports and encourages its role in the contemporary work teachers undertake.

9.3 Daily administration

Furthermore, the influence of day-to-day leadership decisions such as timetabling and lesson length also impacts the quality of literacy programs and therefore the teaching of reading. Presently, and at the time of collecting data on these three teachers, there is a recommendation for 10 hours of literacy lessons in government primary schools in Victoria per week (State Government of Victoria, 2021b). However, this is not mandated, and each school can implement according to their cohort’s learning needs. Decisions made for ease of timetabling and/or to fit work force planning do impact the quality of programs. Leadership needs to be cognisant on the effect these decisions have and whether they are supportive or contradictory to the underlying whole school vision developed by the school.

9.4 Support for leaders

Finally, effective instructional leadership strategically plans, supports and monitors the professional growth of every teacher (Campbell et al., 2019). However, this is no easy task, especially when considering the diverse range of staff and school communities in Victoria. As the Victorian population is culturally, ethnically, geographically and linguistically diverse, finding the “right” model of reading is a challenging task and requires a multi-faceted approach where more than one approach and models may be required (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020). This task is further exacerbated when it assumes leadership is up to implementing and supporting this process. Like our students and those in the teaching profession, leadership also needs support and professional learning to execute their role effectively. This includes ongoing systemic training and support for leaders so that they can carry out the important work of improving student outcomes. Like effective classroom teachers, leaders also must be responsive but not dictate, be knowledgeable but open to new learning and must draw on a reputable evidence-base that has been objectively peer reviewed and researched (Day et al., 2016; State Government of Victoria, 2018). This unrelenting approach must be collaboratively developed and understood and provided in differentiated ways according to the learning needs of all staff so that all members feel empowered (Grant et al., 2020).

10 Conclusion

All three participants described in this paper acknowledged the impact of leadership on their daily work around the teaching of literacy, specifically about the teaching of reading. They described the negative way they perceived leadership in their school site shut down curiosity, inquiry into practice and ongoing development of teacher knowledge about reading. Conversely, these three participants were very articulate about what leadership practices were needed to support their professional growth and teacher knowledge: opportunities for dialogue, time for inquiry and reflection about practice and autonomy for pedagogic decision-making to cater for individuals within their cohort. Additionally, school-based priorities which impacted their teaching of reading such as time, professional development and physical resources to support new learning or maintenance of existing practice needed to be collaboratively informed.

Furthermore, research argues leadership must be sensitive to the context in which the school is located including the combination of teachers (less experienced to highly experienced), parents/carers and allied staff members (Day et al., 2016). All members of a school community need to participate in the development of a literacy vision, to inform common understandings which can be translated into a coherent and consistent school approach (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020; State Government of Victoria, 2018). Moreover, this must be ongoing for consistency, renewal and to ensure any new staff/community members can share in the vision.

An instructional leader is one that “creates a school climate in which everybody learns, learning is shared and critique isn’t tolerated, but welcomed” (Hattie, 2015, p. 39). Adoniou (2012) concurs, stating “schools with strong leadership…make creative and innovative responses…[and] are ultimately empowering places to be” (p. 85). A role that unfortunately Tim, Indiana and Anne felt they were not afforded, but if offered, would have been willing participants.