Pathways of Educational Leadership: Monitoring and Developing Skill Levels Among Educational Leaders in Australia

  • Patrick GriffinEmail author
  • Esther Care
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 16)


This chapter reports on the development of an educational leadership framework used for assessing existing and prospective educational leaders. The framework is based on an elaboration and operationalization of the Sergiovanni domains of leadership, and is linked to learning theory with a focus on Vygotsky’s work in order to help identify the professional development needs of teachers who aspire to occupy leadership roles in schools. A questionnaire was developed to assess leaders within the framework. Items were developed using a procedure reported by Griffin and Gillis (2001) and the Victorian Department of Education (2007), combining the ideas of Glaser (1981), Rasch (1960) and Vygotsky (1978), as illustrated by Griffin (2009). The questionnaire was field tested with more than 1,000 teachers. It showed evidence of high reliability and discriminating power based on leadership experience and training. It did not discriminate on the basis of gender, school size, school sector or location. The questionnaire was used as the basis for development of a 360° survey tool which is used in Victoria by teachers and school leaders to identify strengths and areas for improvement in their leadership practice. The framework is discussed in the context of the Victorian education and accountability system and its consequences for leadership development.


Leadership Team Transformational Leadership Professional Learning School Leader School Improvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom, S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Susan Fauer Company.Google Scholar
  4. Christie, R. (1991). Authoritarianism and related constructs. In J. P. Robins, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Eisner, E. (2002). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? Retrieved from The Encyclopedia of informal education: Accessed 19 Sept 2009.Google Scholar
  7. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, R. (1981). The future of testing: A research agenda for cognitive psychology and psychometrics. American Psychologist, 36, 923–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffin, P. (1987). Assessing the development of reading behaviors: A report of profiles and reading band development. Presented at the annual conference of the Australia Association for Research in Education, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Griffin, P. (1990). Profiling literacy development: Monitoring children’s growth towards literacy. Australian Journal of Education, 34, 290–311.Google Scholar
  11. Griffin, P. 1997. The ARC learning profiles. Melbourne: Assessment Research Centre, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  12. Griffin, P. (2007). The comfort of competence and the uncertainty of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin, P. (2009). Teachers’ use of assessment data. In C. M. Wyatt-Smith & J. J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 187–212). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Griffin, P., & Callingham, R. (2001/2004). Shaping assessment for effective intervention. Paper presented at the 18th biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Griffin, P., & Gillis, S. (2001). Competence and quality: Can we assess both? Paper presented at the National conference on grading on competency based assessment in VET, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Can leadership enhance school effectiveness? In T. Bush, L. Bell, J. Bolam, R. Glatter, & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Educational management: Redefining theory, policy, and practice (pp. 178–190). London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  17. Hoover, N. R. et al. (1991). Transformational and transactional leadership: An empirical test of a theory. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.Google Scholar
  18. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers’ and teacher leaders’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Ghent: Ghent University.Google Scholar
  19. Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  20. Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.Google Scholar
  21. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help school cultures. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Victoria, Canada, June.Google Scholar
  22. Masters, G. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masters, G. (1998a). Standards and assessment for students and teachers: A developmental paradigm. Seminar Series Paper, 74, IARTV.Google Scholar
  24. Masters, G. (1998b). Standards and assessment for students and teachers: A developmental paradigm. Melbourne: Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria.Google Scholar
  25. Masters, G., & Forster, M. (1996). ARK progress maps Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, P., Moorman, H., & Nusche, D. (2007). School leadership development strategies: Building leadership capacity in Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from Accessed 19 Sept 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell, D., & Tucker, S. (1992). Leadership as a way of thinking. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 30–35.Google Scholar
  28. Pounder, D., Ogawa, R., & Adams, E. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 564–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research. (Expanded Edition (1980) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  30. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests: Expanded edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sadler, R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sagor, R. (1992a). How to conduct collaborative actions research. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  33. Sagor, R (1992b). Three principals who make a difference. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 13–18.Google Scholar
  34. Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Sparks, D. (2003). Interview with Michael Fullan: Change agent. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1).Google Scholar
  36. Thurstone, L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 278–286.Google Scholar
  37. Victorian Department of Education. (2007). The developmental learning framework for school leaders. Melbourne: Office of School Education, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  38. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations