1  

‘Leaders as Moral Agents: Giving purpose to student outcome data’

Associate Professor Charles Burford Dr Philip Pettit

(Australian Catholic University) Abstract

Within the context of increasing policy interest in measuring and reporting student achievement in Australia, several challenges have emerged to focus on the central role of evidence-based leadership at the school level. Leaders are being faced with increasing pressure to not only improve student learning, but also to be responsible for producing and influencing evidence of student achievement. Recent international literature has identified these pressures as causing leaders to make conscious adaptations to their leadership practices (Fullan, 2009; Rowe, 2000), with the consequences of such actions resulting in moral and ethical tensions and sometimes discord at a person and community level (Frick, 2009).

A recent study by one of the authors (Pettit, 2010) explored how the experience of external

literacy and numeracy testing and data utilisation influenced the role played by school leadership in making decisions using such data to improve learning. This study reported on the importance of differing perceptions of principals and classroom teachers about the nature, role and impact of leadership in this process, and uncovered tensions about the value and purpose of using data on student achievement from external tests, the practical implications of operationalising an effective analysis and response to such data, and the contexts of accountability and public reporting in which such tests are conducted.

Findings as to how these experiences emerged as moral decision-making for educational

leaders contributed to the development of a conceptual framework for viewing leaders as ‘moral agents’ in making such decisions about, and leading the school in, the use of data on student achievement to improve learning outcomes. Introduction

Increasing demands by Australian governments and communities for results

accountability and the transparent reporting of student and school performance have meant that

schools, and their leaders, are being faced with increasing pressure to not only improve student

learning, but also to be responsible for producing and influencing evidence of student

achievement. Recent international literature has identified these pressures as causing leaders to

make conscious adaptations to their leadership practices (Fullan, 2009; Rowe, 2000), with the

consequences of such actions resulting in moral and ethical tensions and sometimes discord at a

person and community level a (Frick, 2009, p. 50).

A recent study by one of the authors (Pettit, 2010) on how one educational

jurisdiction in Australia made use of data from national testing of literacy and numeracy,

particularly in relation to the role that school leadership plays in this process is the foundation

of this paper. Part of the purpose of the study was to examine the experience of school leaders

making decisions using external testing data for the improvement of learning. The research

  2  

reported on the differing perceptions of principals and classroom teachers about the nature, role

and impact of leadership in this process uncovering tensions operating within schools about:

the value and purpose of using data on student achievement from external tests, the practical

implications of operationalising an effective analysis and response to such data, and the

contexts of accountability and public reporting in which such tests are conducted.

The paper will further analyse this research for how the findings demonstrated the

importance of moral decision-making for educational leaders and for them to become ‘moral

agents’. It will also present a conceptual framework to aid understanding of the context and

causes of the tensions experienced by leaders dealing with such decisions when leading the

school in, the use of, data on student achievement to improve learning outcomes.

Section 1: Leadership and Moral Agency

Educational literature and academic research over the last 15 years have attempted

to address the issues associated with leading educational change and school improvement along

with the relative merits of large-scale reform and school-level change. Moreover, much has

been written about the role of the school leader in adopting a moral stance to improving student

achievement together with increasing calls for school and system accountability in measuring

student performance.

Traditional models of school leadership have been questioned. New paradigms

involving “broad directional vision” (Fullan, 2009, p. 109), “moral action” (Sergiovanni, 2005)

and a leadership based on “moral praxis” (Frick, 2009) have highlighted the central role of

leaders in producing improvements in student achievement. Increasing demands by

governments and the community for results accountability and the transparent reporting of

student and school performance have meant that schools, and particularly school leaders, are

being faced with increasing pressure to make conscious adaptations to their practices (Fullan,

2009; Rowe, 2000), often resulting in “intrapersonal moral discord” (Frick, 2009, p. 50)

dilemmas and tensions between school leaders and professionals about the ‘why” of introduced

school initiatives. Further, the concept of moral purpose that is “socially just” (Hargreaves &

Fink, 2000, p. 3) has become a key element in re-forming school cultures and building capacity

for change. Sergiovanni (2005) makes the link between ‘moral action’ and leadership as “the

struggle to do the right thing according to a sense of values and what it means to be a human

being” (p. 115). This is reinforced by Frick (2009) who, in referring to the work of Shapiro and

Stefkovich (2005), makes the point that “moral considerations should be grounded in the prima

  3  

facie principle of serving the best interests of the student. This principle is affirmed as a moral

“ideal [that] must lie at the heart of any professional paradigm for educational leaders” (Frick,

2009, p. 53), a philosophy pursued in the ‘Best Interest of Students’ model of decision making

developed by Stefkovick and Begley (2007). Levin and Fullan (2008) extend this and

specifically appeal to educators’ sense of moral purpose in what they do: “… their belief that

education is about success for all students is a great potential motivator …” (p. 294).

These authors reflect the increasing calls for school leaders to adopt a ‘moral lens’

to not only recognise the value of student outcome data for improving learning, but also to be

able to operationalise appropriate responses, within the wider real-world context of reporting

and accountability for results. As a result of these pressures, there is a tension for school leaders

to be explicitly positioned at the nexus of leading change, improving learning and reporting

performance. Inherent in this tension is the importance of school leaders seeing the need for

improvement on the one hand, and then actually doing something about it. This relationship

between the moral purpose of using data on achievement to improve student outcomes, then

operationalising a response within a context of accountability and reporting, implies the need to

examine the role of leadership through the lens of ‘moral agency’ as a key driver in

understanding the actions of school leaders in giving purpose to student outcome data. This

finding and focus emerged from the research foundation of this paper

Section 2: Recent Research: School Leadership and Challenges within the Context of External Testing

With an increasing array of data available on students from external testing and

classroom-based assessment, the reporting of student and school performance has produced

new challenges for teachers, school leaders and school systems. Understanding these

challenges and their position within the “moral agency” debate is the purpose of this paper.

In a recent study (Pettit, 2010) attempted to understand and address the issues

involved in this debate for schools and systems by researching how one educational jurisdiction

makes use of data from national testing of literacy and numeracy, particularly in relation to the

role that school leaders play in this process. The purpose of the study was to examine how

literacy and numeracy testing data were being analysed and used in schools to effect changes in

teaching practices, and to determine the nature and role of leadership in this process. Differing

  4  

perceptions of principals and classroom teachers emerged about the nature, role, impact and

motivation of leadership uncovering tensions operating within schools about: the value and

purpose of using data on student achievement from external tests, the practical implications of

operationalising an effective analysis and response to such data, and the contexts of

accountability and public reporting in which such tests are conducted. These differences and

tensions were often seen to rest with perceived or communicated ‘meaning and purpose’ of the

testing and the use of the results

Research Methodology and Design Research by Hattie (2005) and Rowe (2000) indicated there is an expectation at

system and national policy levels that data on student achievement are collected for the

purposes of program accountability and for improving student learning. Given this current

agenda operating in Australia, Pettit’s (2009) study was framed by the overall research

question:

How does the experience of external testing and data utilisation affect

attitudes of teachers and principals to the tests, teaching practice and

school leadership?

To operationalise this research question and to enable the study to obtain specific

information for analysis, several contributing questions were developed. These centred on the

attitudes of principals and teachers to external testing of literacy and numeracy, how the

analysis and use of such data is led in the school, the effectiveness of data analysis, and the

impact this has on classroom teaching practices.

The research was undertaken across a system of 55 urban and rural Catholic

schools in one Australian Catholic diocese. A ‘multi-site’ case study approach was employed

to understand how and why teachers and school principals make meaning of external tests of

literacy and numeracy, and how such meanings influence their actions. This supported the

inductive approach to research and concentrated on the experiential knowledge of the

participants to provide a sound basis for understanding the research problem, analysing and

evaluating current policies, practices and procedures at the case study sites, and formulating

appropriate action plans.

The study was designed around several data collection phases employing a ‘mixed

methods’ approach to the use of both quantitative and qualitative data. Participants in the study

  5  

included school principals and teachers of Years 3, 5 and 7 (the school cohorts that undertook

the external literacy and numeracy tests in Australia at the time of the study).

The research was conducted over the following phases:

Identification of Issues: This involved an initial focus group meeting with principals and

officers from the Catholic Education Office (CEO); the governing body established by The

Catholic Church to administer their schools. Its purpose was to identify the issues for research

within the system of schools. From this an External Profile Testing survey instrument was

constructed, piloted and then fully administered across all Primary (Kindergarten to Year 6),

Central (Kindergarten to Year 10) and Secondary (Year 7 to Year 12) schools. The analysis of

data from the instrument produced four scales: Attitudes to the Worth of External Testing, Data

Leadership, Effective Data Analysis, and Impact on Teaching Practices. Analysis of the data

fell into two broad groups: quantitative analysis, involving descriptive and inferential statistics,

and qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses.

Exploration of Issues: This phase was conducted using semi-structured interviews to obtain

further insights from school personnel into the issues and themes identified in the previous

phase. Here, valuable situational and contextual information was obtained to complement the

largely quantitative data obtained in the survey.

Research Learnings: The final phase involved a re-formation of the initial focus group to

examine the learnings from the previous research phases and to consider the implications of the

findings for the system of schools. It represented a summary of research findings from the

previous phases - particularly data from the initial focus group, External Testing Profile

Instrument and semi-structured interviews encompassing the research questions.

Initial Research Findings The initial findings from the study highlighted the tensions existing in schools

concerning the value placed on student achievement data from external testing, leadership in,

and analysis of, the use of such data, as well as the impact this information has on teaching

practices. In summary, the research produced the following findings:

1. Differences exist in perceptions of the value of data from external testing

The degree to which the external tests of literacy and numeracy were perceived to

be of value was an important factor in determining the attitudes of teachers and principals to the

  6  

tests; and these, in turn, were seen to influence the level of engagement with the data. A key

finding from the study was the disparity between the school’s leadership and classroom

teachers regarding the value of the testing data. From a System viewpoint, this was indicated

by the Student Achievement coordinator, who stated that: “The teachers are not valuing the

data the way that the school’s leadership team is, and perhaps we need to re-look at this”. This

tension was reinforced, at the school level, by a Primary School principal who indicated that:

“The principal and assistant principal are thinking there is more value in

the external testing than some teachers are feeling and, if that’s an

indication of what is happening in the school, I guess there is some

work to be done to continue to educate the teachers about the value of

the data and to continue to work with the teachers about what we see as

the value in it.”

Further exploration of these views indicated specific differences and tensions

between principals and teachers at the school level. A typical view was that principals valued

the tests in terms of the school and cohort levels only, whereas practising teachers saw the

worth of the testing results resting with the individual class, teacher and student: “Using the

results from last year we could see the value of explicit teaching of the skills needed to ensure

the students are covering the skills” (Primary School Year 3 teacher), and “At a grade level, we

sat down and analysed the data together” (Primary School Year 5 teacher).

This research finding suggests the existence of a disjunction and tension between

the school leadership and classroom teachers regarding the value of the tests themselves, and

the emphasis that should be placed on the results. This raises further questions about why the

two groups should make such varying valuing decisions about the good of the process. We

suggest varying purposes between the two major groups as to the moral foundation of the

process account for the difference and require awareness and sensitivity on the part of leaders.

2. Accountability for testing results was viewed according to their perceived purpose

Accountability for testing results was seen to have value if it was related to the

diagnosis of student achievement and the contribution it had on influencing student and teacher

motivation. On the other hand, if external testing data were used for making comparisons

between teachers, schools and jurisdictions, its worth and purpose were diminished, and such

results were regarded as disjointed and largely unrelated from the teaching and learning process.

That is, such comparisons were seen to contribute little to improving student achievement.

  7  

Moreover, teachers were more likely to regard accountability in negative terms than were

school leaders, indicating a variation in the valuing processes regarding the ‘best interests’ of

the students as opposed to the best interests of the system.

Findings demonstrated a distinction between the different focus of the principal

compared with classroom teachers. From a leadership perspective, the school’s executive was

“concerned about the whole school, the big picture, and comparisons with last year’s cohort …

whereas the teachers look at their kids’ results, to see whether their kids have done well,

especially compared with children in other classes” (Primary School principal). This

observation then was linked to the development of explicit school-based programs based on

testing data and the communication of these with the teaching staff. Here, the school’s

leadership team was seen to “concentrate on the long term view” (Primary School principal),

as opposed to “the specific value of the tests being for the class teacher and individual teacher”

(Year 3 Primary School teacher).

These views indicate the importance of ensuring there is a shared understanding of

the purpose and relevance of the testing and subsequent data feedback for both the whole

school and the classroom. In the context of the classroom, the reliance only on whole-school or

cohort analysis may not actually make the clear and unambiguous links with the testing data

and, consequently, any relevance for the teacher in the context of the classroom may be

diminished. The study showed that the focus on accountability for testing results, and their

relationship with classroom instruction, created an incongruity and tension between the views

of the principal and those of the classroom teacher; the former concentrated on whole-school or

cohort comparisons, while teachers were concerned with the diagnostic power of the tests for

individual students in order to inform classroom pedagogy. One explanation for such

contradictions could be that a lack of sharing and acknowledging of the purpose of the process

could be at the core of this variation, as the moral purpose of both groups appears sound, but

the value choice differs. The concept of professional and public accountability and valuing

emerges here.

3. There were differences in the way leadership in data analysis and use is perceived

The research findings suggest that the role of evidence-based leadership is seen as

crucial in promoting ‘data utility’, but often is perceived to be absent in the analysis and use of

external testing results at the school level. The study showed that the components of such

leadership involved the identification of the data leader/s in the first place, and the subsequent

  8  

provision of operational elements to enable efficient and effective analysis and subsequent use

of the data. These included appropriate school structures, adequate time to undertake such

analysis, and the formulation of whole-school plans to make effective use of the information.

The research found differences in the perceptions of classroom teachers and

principals with regard to the effectiveness of leadership in using external testing data at the

school level. Across the research themes - Attitudes towards the Worth of External Testing

(WET), Leadership in Data Analysis (DL), Effective Data Analysis (EDA) and Impact on

Teaching Practices (ITP) – statistically significant differences were found between classroom

teachers and members of the school leadership team (especially principals) regarding external

testing. The extent of these differences is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: MEAN SCORES ACCORDING TO ROLE IN THE SCHOOL - LEADERSHIP COMBINED

Figure 1 shows that statistically significant mean differences (p<0.05) occurred

between the ‘leadership’ group (principals and assistant principals) and classroom teachers on

all four scales: Worth of External Testing [F(2,89) = 4.85], Data Leadership [F(2,68) = 6.05],

Effective Data Analysis [F(2,73) = 4.89] and Impact on Teaching Practices [F(2,80) = 3.94].

Here, moderate effect sizes occurred between teachers and the school leadership on Data

Leadership (d = 0.59) and Effective Data Analysis (d = 0.65), and small effect sizes on Worth

of External testing (d = 0.32) and Impact on Teaching Practices (d = 0.41). On all scales, the

responses by classroom teachers produced lower mean scores on the External Testing Profile

(ETP) instrument.

2.2  

2.3  

2.4  

2.5  

2.6  

2.7  

2.8  

2.9  

3.0  

WET   DL   EDA   ITP  

Mean  Scores  

Role  in  School  Leadership  Combined  

Principal  &  Asst.  Principal  Coordinators  

Teachers  

  9  

These differences illuminated tensions between teachers and principals at the

school level regarding the role and effectiveness of leadership in analysing and using the testing

results. Teachers, who were expected to use the results of external tests, were far less

convinced about the worth of such testing for the classroom, the role of data leadership in the

school, the effectiveness of how the data is analysed, and the impact of external test results in

teaching practices. The tension inherent in the process of utilising student data pointed to

explanations as to how one did this best from a technical leadership perspective; but more

importantly, pointed to the importance of a different leadership capability of understanding and

pursuing congruence of the moral purpose for the testing and the utilisation of the results. The

variance again pointed to the moral purpose of the testing.

4. Staff involvement and engagement in analysing and using results from external testing

cannot be assumed

Findings from the research suggest that, even though the involvement of a critical

mass of school staff in the actual analysis of the testing data was found to be important in

promoting teacher engagement with the information, there were differences in the way this was

operationalised across schools in the study. This diversity ranged from, in some cases, one or

two members of the school’s leadership team analysing the testing results and presenting them

to staff, to the involvement of a number of classroom teachers and learning support staff in

collaboration with at least one member of the executive. A general lack of involvement of

school staff in data analysis was seen to impact on personal engagement with the data, thereby

inhibiting a shared understanding of the results across the school. This finding has implications

for the development of a whole-school, coordinated approach to using the data the effect

changes to classroom pedagogy and suggested the issue of the moral purpose for the use of the

data was missing.

This disparity between principals’ and teachers’ sense of the moral purpose of

external tests of literacy and numeracy was seen to impact on the involvement and degree of

engagement of staff in using the testing results. The study showed the lack of participation by

teachers in this process was seen to impact on their engagement with the feedback data and its

subsequent use for student diagnosis. A note of frustration concerning staff access and

involvement in data analysis was given by a Year 7 teacher of a large Secondary school. When

asked if teachers of Year 7 were involved, she stated:

“No I don’t think so. I think the analysis is given to them. I assume the

person doing the analysis is trained in this and can do it appropriately.

  10  

I’m not entirely sure how well the analysis is done. I don’t get to see

the data per se. I just get to see the results of the analysis”.

Similarly, the teachers’ desire for access to the testing data and involvement in the

process of analysis is, perhaps, summed up by this comment: “Including the staff as much as

possible is vital in this because it creates value” (Primary School Year 5 teacher).

These statements highlight the desire of staff to be involved in the actual analysis of

the testing results and evidence of moral purpose at work. Many teachers, however, had

experienced no real engagement with the data and, consequently, indicated little commitment to

the process of analysis or significance placed on the results. When asked about the follow-

through at the school in using the testing results, a further statement by a teacher highlights

some frustration with the lack of effective leadership in ensuring the results are fully utilised to

effect change: “No. At this point it just peters out. It doesn’t really go anywhere. I don’t think

anything else really happens to it.” (Primary School Year 3 teacher)

The study revealed a call for personal engagement of more staff members with the

testing feedback data to promote “greater ownership at the initial stage by getting more teachers

to actually analyse the data” (CEO Student Achievement coordinator), rather than leaving it to a

small group of teachers. In this sense there was a real need for teachers’ perceptions of the

moral worth of testing data to be matched by effective school leadership in facilitating such

engagement. In many cases, such congruence was absent. Findings from the study also suggest

that limiting teacher access to the data had constrained the school’s capacity to make sense of

the test results and, therefore, to develop a valid and agreed school-determined annual Literacy

and Numeracy Plans.

These findings indicate a profound sense of frustration with, and disconnection

between, the principal’s whole-school view of the testing results and that of the classroom

teacher. Even though school leaders were concerned mainly with the public reporting of

cohort-level results, the classroom teacher’s emphasis was explicitly student-centred, and

confined to the diagnostic power of the testing feedback for individual students in their class.

This reflected a clear tension in the perceived moral purpose of the operation and further

supported the proposition that absence of models and processes for understanding and

mobilising moral action among teachers on the part of leaders was an important contributing

factor to these tensions.

  11  

5. Linking external testing data with classroom-based assessment is valued, but often

missing

The last finding from the research considered the relationship between external

testing and its potential to impact on teaching practices. The study found that linking external

testing data with curriculum delivery and classroom-based assessment was valued, but often

missing. The study confirmed that external testing of literacy and numeracy has the potential to

impact positively on student achievement, especially when used in conjunction with school-

based assessment information. If treated as another source of data, such testing was seen, at

least in theory, to complement classroom pedagogy and assessment practices in providing

further information on student performance. However, the study found little evidence of

external testing systematically effecting change in teaching practices across the system of

schools, and seemed to be related to how teachers viewed the efficacy of such tests for their

own classroom pedagogies.

The study showed that if the results from external testing of literacy and numeracy

are to have utility, they need to be seen to support what happens in the classroom, especially by

the classroom teacher. The findings strongly suggest, however, that data from external tests of

literacy and numeracy were not effectively used by classroom teachers in their curriculum

delivery, assessment and pedagogical practices.

These issues indicated that the link between external testing and classroom

pedagogy was not seen by all participants; some saw little connection between the two. In their

view, this link was tenuous at best, with scant evidence of it in their schools. When asked if

they, or teachers in their school, saw pedagogy differently as a result of the testing feedback,

most answered in the negative: “No, not really. I haven’t noticed any changes to teaching

practices” (Primary School assistant principal and Year 3 teacher), “Not to a very high level”

(Primary School Year 5 teacher), and “No, not really … we have not done this yet, especially

at this time of the year, with semester reports, etc.” (Primary School Year 5 teacher).

The tension produced here is a culmination of a fundamental mismatch between

teachers’ and principals’ beliefs in the real, diagnostic and practical moral purpose of testing

data to improve student outcomes, the frustrations caused by school structures that, in many

cases, hindered the effective analysis and use of such information, and the inability of teachers

to see the impact of this on teaching practices and curriculum delivery. The different

  12  

understandings of the role of leadership in this process were viewed by teachers to hinder the

effective analysis and use of the testing data and suggest possible reasons for the degree of

(dis)engagement with the data and the extent to which such data analysis and use is led in the

school. Not only were principals’ actions seen in some cases to be ineffective in creating moral

purpose they were at times seen as undermining teachers moral purpose.

Section 3: Implications of the Research

The findings from the study demonstrated the importance of the perceived value of student

achievement data from external testing of literacy and numeracy in informing decisions about

student outcomes, and the central role of school leadership in utilising such evidence of

learning. However, the lack of explicit leadership in this process was found to inhibit the

potential effectiveness of data analysis and use. The associated low levels of access and

engagement of teachers in this process further affected the ability and willingness of teachers to

incorporate the testing feedback information into classroom teaching practices.

The research found that clear and unambiguous evidence-based, and morally

purposed leadership is required for effective diagnosis of student achievement to be made and

for the results to be explained to the wider community. Further, the often-low priority given in

schools to the analysis and use of testing data belies the importance placed on literacy and

numeracy planning at the system level. The lack of involvement of many school staff in

planning for literacy and numeracy was shown to further disengage leaders and classroom

teachers from understanding the data in the first place, as well as the subsequent development

of possibilities for integration with curriculum, assessment and pedagogy.

The research findings, therefore, have implications for the nature and practice of

school leadership, particularly with regard to the moral purpose of external testing, the use of

such data within the school, and the impact of accountability and public reporting of results.

The resulting tensions highlighted by the study also have implications for school leaders in the

way they approach the analysis and use of data from external testing of literacy and numeracy

within schools in three areas: firstly, in recognising the moral purpose of valuing evidence of

student learning focused on student need. Secondly, institutional and organisational constructs

can either hinder or contribute to this moral purpose and the effectively operationalising of

responses that links data analysis and use. These can directly impact on engagement with the

data and the capability and willingness of teachers and principals to incorporate results with

  13  

classroom pedagogy. The third area of tension refers to the context in which the testing, and

the school’s response, is situated. Specifically, this involves the interplay between government

and System accountability and the perceived dichotomy between using the results for public

reporting of a school’s ‘performance’ versus the diagnosis of student learning.

Central to these areas of tension is an understanding of the role of school leaders as

moral agents in using data to give purpose to student learning and outcomes. The findings

from Pettit’s (2009) research were used to inform the development of a conceptual framework

designed to help educators understand the tensions operating for school leaders between the

(often) competing elements of the moral value placed on data for student learning, the role of

school leaders in operationalising the response, and the recognition of external influences that

provide the context for actions and influence value choices.

Section 4: Leaders as Moral Agents – a Conceptual Framework

Context of the Framework The recognition that leaders in service organisations, such as schools, experience moral and

ethical tensions when balancing the demands of competing stakeholders, in areas such as

utilising student achievement data, had been reported in the SOLR Project by Duignan et al

(2003), and Duignan and Burford (2003). That study found that leaders in contemporary

organisations require frames of reference that can assist them to manage situations of

uncertainty, ambiguity and seeming contradictions or paradox. The challenges facing leaders in

both the SOLR and Pettit (2010) research are complex and multidimensional as outlined in the

findings. Many of these challenges present themselves as tensions where value choices are

often between right-right, rather than right-or-wrong alternatives (Kidder, 1995). Finding

optimal resolutions to such tension situations demands mindsets and approaches based on

understanding the competing value elements within the decisions.

The capability of leaders to recognise, articulate and prioritise values in the

leadership of organisations has been a consistent focus of writers and researchers on leadership

over the past thirty years (Burns 1978, Fullan 2002, Hodgkinson 1996, Sergiovanni 2005,

Starratt 2004, and Willower 1981,). The writing of these authors have, to varying degrees,

focused on the construct of “moral purpose” and associated leadership processes described

variously as “moral potency” (Hanna and Avolio, 2010), “moral agency” (Bandura, 2006) and

“moral literacy” (Tuana, 2007). Essentially, all these leadership foci view the ultimate

  14  

effectiveness of the leadership process and the outcomes of organisational goals as resting in

the pursuit and fulfilment of the moral and ethical needs of all individuals involved in

leadership processes. Such leadership is a counterbalance to the often cynical and

dehumanising behaviours of leaders and managers operating from an economic rationalist

framework that can "debilitate, coerce and frustrate people inside and outside the organisation"

(Starratt 1993, p. 63). The focus is on "elevating leaders' moral reasoning" (Terry, 1993, p. 46)

which is also central to Burns' (1978) distinction between leadership that is transactional and

that which is transformational. Burns (1978) states that transforming leadership "occurs when

one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one

another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p. 20). Moral agency emphasises the

assertion of transformational activities, but also addresses the removal of the immoral, seeing

moral agents as committing themselves to social obligations and righteous causes and being

considerate of the moral implications for their actions for both self and others.

Bandura (2006) describes moral agency as having two aspects, one inhibitive the

other proactive:

“The inhibitive form is manifested in the power to refrain from

behaving inhumanely; the proactive form is expressed in the power to

behave humanely. Thus in exercising this dual nature of morality,

people do benevolent things, as well as refrain from doing harmful

things. When individuals strongly invest their self-worth in certain

principles and values they will sacrifice their self-interest and submit to

prolonged maltreatment rather than accede to what they regard as unjust

or immoral. (p.171).

Hanna and Avolio (2010), in introducing the concept of moral potency, extend the

moral agency approach to incorporate the perspective of courage to act ethically and persevere

in the face of adversity and challenges. This moral potency is seen as being a combination of

the strength of ownership of the moral aspects of one’s environment, reinforced by belief in

one’s efficacy to achieve moral purpose, but subject to variability due to the psychological and

emotional demands of different contexts. These authors present a model to help leaders

develop in these crucial areas of moral ownership, courage and efficacy while stressing the

importance influence of complex and changing environments (pp. 1-4). The identification of

the ongoing challenge to consistency of moral agency from environment and psychological

changes supports the need for further research into models of analysis to aid moral purpose in

  15  

individuals and organisations. Questions of why individuals engage and/or disengage, advocate

or withdraw from various moral behaviours could rest with greater understanding of their value

orientation and prioritising, especially at times of competing motivations.

The noted educational leadership writer Willower (1981) saw moral purpose as

essentially a deeply philosophical value choice operation that should have two main

characteristics. First, it should furnish broad visions of what human beings and schools might

become at their best. Second, it should speak realistically to the problem of concrete moral

choice that is such a salient feature of the life of educational leaders.

This focus on a value choice fits with the works of Begley and Stefkovich (2007),

Branson (2009) and Starratt (2004), who point to the need for leaders to make choices in

paradoxical valuing situations, such as using student outcome data for marketing or learning

purposes, as requiring more than management skills and competencies. They stressed the need

for creative, intuitive frameworks based on in-depth understanding of human nature and of the

ethical, moral, even spiritual dimensions inherent in human interaction and value choice.

Branson (2009), in his research with Australian Principals, used structured self-reflection as a

way to improve the moral leadership of school leaders, and asserted that moral consciousness

involves not only addressing a moral issue cognitively but also owning the outcome by acting

self-reflectively rather than reacting to a situation. This is achieved through reflecting on the

uniqueness of the self and tracing this image through a journey incorporating self-esteem,

motives, values, beliefs, and behaviours of the leader. Through this reflective interrogation of

self, leaders rise above self-interest to act morally, or at least have a better understanding why

they have not (Branson, 2009). Duignan (2007) similarly describes this moral focused

leadership as being authentic and suggests: “Authentic leadership is centrally concerned with

ethics and morality and with deciding what is significant, what is right and what is worthwhile”

(p. 34). To incorporate the concepts of agency and potency one would add the caveat; and then

have the conviction, belief and courage to do the right thing.

Core to the literature messages of the last decade is that the moral purpose of our

schools could be undermined if the leaders within the school were not perceived as being truly

ethical and moral in their decision-making. Pettit’s (2010) research suggests the current data-

driven, standardization and testing regime have created an educational landscape; more than in

the past, where school leaders are challenged to reflect about how they think about and become

aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives; how their moral character is

  16  

perceived by others; and their awareness of the forces influencing purpose in the context in

which they operate. (as cited in Avolio, Gardner et al., 2004).

Further validating the importance of moral purpose as foundational to leadership

for learning in schools is the experience of the Leaders Transforming Learners and Learning

(LTLL) Project by Bezzina and Burford (2010). This project set out to explore the ways in

which participants in multiple school sites experienced and responded to leadership which drew

on an explicit sense of moral purpose which was reflected in the essential values and ethics

seen as core to the mission of the school. Focusing on, and coming to grips with, the moral and

ethical dimensions of teaching, learning and leading which were found to be the first step in

engaging teachers and leaders in school renewal and change.

The findings of the LTLL projects yielded a picture of a group of schools

undergoing genuine change both in leadership and learning practice and outcomes. The

findings showed that teachers and leaders, when focusing on moral purpose, learning outcomes,

leadership and classroom behaviours, all tended to return to the capacity of moral purpose to

trigger change and improvement (Bezzina and Burford, 2010). In seeking to understand this

dynamic, these authors incorporated an adaptation of Tuana’s (2007) concept of moral literacy

to better understand the process by which leaders and teachers experience and resolve moral

dilemmas about teaching, leading and learning. She argues that moral literacy has three basic

components: moral sensitivity; moral reasoning skills and moral imagination.

Stefkovich and Begley (2007), in their research regarding ethical leadership, also

describe this type of self-reflection as being at the core of ‘moral literacy’:

“It is apparent that in order to cultivate the ability to distinguish the

difference between using ethics and being ethical, we need the capacity

to discriminate actual intentions within ourselves and among others. This

is not moral relativism, nor is it value absolutism; it is critical thinking

and moral literacy.” (p. 211)

These authors proposed a “Best Interests” model; referred to earlier, which was

developed to guide educational leaders to make decisions in the ethical interests of students.

The model focuses on avoiding the possible problem of a conflict in the use of simpler

approaches which appear as “a good ethic” at times, and at other times as a justification for

adult behaviour that is not ethical. These constitute the practical challenges to moral advocacy

and potency as identified by Hanna and Avolio (2010). The elements of the “Best Interests”

  17  

model are the rights of the child and learner, responsibility for our duty as educators and

citizens, and respect for the uniqueness and diversity of students (Stefkovich and Begley, 2007).

The model emphasises the importance of leaders engaging in “active inquiry and self reflection”

(p. 221), suggesting an integrative approach utilising the inquiry and reflection that are also an

important part of Branson’s (2010) model. Both these approaches have resonance with Tuana’s

(2007) moral sensitivity model, which has three major components:

(1) the ability to determine whether or not a situation involves ethical issues;

(2) awareness of the moral intensity of the ethical situation; and

(3) the ability to identify the moral virtues or values underlying an ethical situation

(p. 366)

This sensitivity is also present in Bandura’s (2006) approach to moral agency

whereby, individuals adopt standards of right and wrong that serve as guides and deterrents for

conduct:

“In this self regulatory process, people monitor their conduct and the

conditions under which it occurs, judge it in relation to their moral

standards and perceived circumstances and regulate their actions by the

consequences they apply to themselves.” (p.171)

Weaver (2006) saw such sensitivity as being at the heart of ‘moral identity’, which

he sees as taking its orientation from virtue ethics. He claims the structuring of organisational

resources and activity in ways that foster the investment of self in the practice of virtue are

important, even if there might be other (more efficient) ways to achieve an organisation’s ends.

The more organisations provide resources and opportunities for exercising moral agency, the

more self-important the moral identities of organisational members become in a virtuous circle

(p. 351). The importance of moral identity and the concept of knowing the moral self, seen in

so many of the approaches to achieving moral purpose discussed here, are foundational to the

expression of moral agency by leaders in schools. This finding emerged as a critical element in

Pettit’s (2010) research as a realisation that the use of student data resources in schools has

major implications for the moral life of its members.

The tensions inherent in the moral agency challenges identified in both the SOLR

and Pettit (2010) studies call for qualities, mindsets and dispositions that help leaders form

creative frameworks for choice and action that complement but transcend competencies and

  18  

management skills, and yet grow the moral identity of the individual leader and all school

community members.

To investigate this further, the relationship between the value of student testing and

the links between data analysis and their use from Pettit’s (2010) study needed to be explored

to consider perceptions of the purpose and worth of the testing on the one hand and the

professional implications and applications of analysing and using the data on the other, both

within the context of external reporting and accountability. Moral Agency is posited as a

framework to describe how one views and operationalises the external testing of literacy and

numeracy, and tries to capture the elements of value choice, and moral ‘agency’, ‘literacy’ and

‘potency’.

This discussion of leadership tensions and the frameworks and approaches designed

to assist with understanding moral action and decision-making for the best interests of students

informed the development of a ‘Moral Agency and Leadership Purpose’ framework that emerged

from the Pettit (2009) research (see Figure 2).

FIGURE 2 MORAL AGENCY AND LEADERSHIP PURPOSE

At the core of the model is the concept of Moral Agency, where the leader not only

espouses morally appropriate behaviour, but consciously avoids doing harm, a concept that

resonates with the “Best Interests” model of Stefkovich and Begley (2007). This value choice

occurs in a circumstance of competing values associated with the Moral Purpose of ‘seeing the

need’, much as Tuana (2007) suggests in her moral sensitivity model. The Professional Purpose

of ‘operationalising the response’ and the Public Purpose of ‘recognising the context’ reflecting

the direction of Hanna and Avilio, (2010) about the importance of context in influencing moral

agency. It is within these tensions that the challenge to the moral agency and potency will

MORAL  AGENCY  

Moral Purpose

Professional Purpose

Public Purpose

  19  

reside. Recognising, naming and confronting these challenges for the maintenance of the moral

purpose and identity of the leader may, as Bandura (2006) suggests in his human agency model,

sustain the moral purpose and life of the leader and those being led.

One component of the ‘Moral Agency and Leadership Purpose’ framework

presented here involves the concept of ‘Moral Purpose’ (Fullan, 2005), and is related to ‘moral

action’ (Sergiovanni, 2005) and the “living out of ethical beliefs and commitments” (Starratt,

2004, p. 5) as discussed earlier. In the context of this paper it includes the factors that

contribute to the value one places on external testing, along with the differing attitudes of

principals and teachers towards such testing and morality of its use. It is here where one’s

values and beliefs are the building blocks for determining moral action based on ‘seeing the

need’ to improve student outcomes. The concept indicates how moral purpose is constructed

for and by the individual (Branson, 2010, Fullan, 2005; Levin & Fullan, 2008; Sergiovanni,

2005; Starratt, 1993; Van Meer, 2009, and Tuana 2007). The data captured in the theme

‘Attitudes of Principals and Teachers’ to external testing identified this as one of the important

system learning’s. If one views the external testing of literacy and numeracy as a valuable

component of knowledge about student achievement and morally appropriate, data from such

tests are more likely to be used within the classroom and for whole-school planning in an

integrated sense as the moral worth becomes the source of teacher ownership and purpose. On

the other hand, if little moral value is placed on the tests, external testing results are less likely

to be incorporated into data leadership actions by the principal or classroom pedagogy by the

teacher. This approach is also congruent with Fullan’s (1991) concept of “subjective reality” (p.

33), Geijsel and Meijers (2005) study of the emotional side of change, and Hargreaves’ (2004)

study of the inseparability of change and emotion as significant determinants of attitude and

behaviour. Thus, the study found that a high moral value placed on testing feedback for its

significance in the learning of students would be a likely precondition for the effective use of

such information in leadership and practice in the analysis and use of feedback data.

The second component of the ‘Moral Agency and Leadership Purpose’ framework-

Professional Purpose – (Figure 2) involves an understanding of what educators know as the

right thing to do within the profession. It considers the factors that operationalise beliefs into

action and seeks to explain how attitudes and practices affect current behaviour –

‘operationalising the response’. Previous research has demonstrated that the school context by

itself is not enough to drive effective or sustainable change (Fullan, 2005; Harris, 2005). Other

studies have pointed to the perception of inclusivity (Hargreaves, 2004) as a key driver in

  20  

determining one’s willingness to operationalise attitudes. Pettit’s (2010) study, however, has

demonstrated that there are differences in the way the analysis and use of testing data is led in

the school as well as in the degree to which teaching practices are changed in the classroom.

The main influences on Professional Purpose from the study involve coming to terms with the

demands of the teaching profession to do what is in the best interests of the students (Begley

and Stefkovich, 2010) and to operationalise appropriate responses to perceived needs (Starratt,

2004). From the research, the effects of time lags between test administration and subsequent

analysis and use of the testing data, the often tenuous link between external and school-based

datasets on student achievement, and the lack of a strong connection between testing data and

classroom pedagogy call into question the value placed on student achievement data in the first

place, as well as the professional role of educators in ‘seeing the need’ and ‘operationalising the

response’. These influences match the themes of ‘Time Lags’, ‘Link between External Testing

and Curriculum Implementation’ and ‘Using Data to Inform Pedagogy’ identified from the

system learnings. Other studies (Cotton 2003; Harris, 2005) have demonstrated the importance

of leadership at school and system level in generating and sustaining school improvement, the

impact of the classroom teacher on effecting change in student achievement (McGuigan & Hoy,

2006; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004) and the role of data in improving student outcomes

(DeCourcy, 2005; Hattie, 2005; Rowe, 2000).

However this study found that, even though these factors identified by previous

research were regarded as important, the degree to which feedback from external testing is

actually led and used in the school, and the extent to which such information informs whole-

school planning and classroom teaching practices, is dependent on the value placed on the data

in the first place by teachers and leaders, again highlighting the moral significance of the

purpose behind the use of the data. This research found that such a link cannot be assumed, and

points to possible contextual issues that are interfering, distracting and competing with the

moral purpose of the individuals involved.

The third element of the concept shown in Figure 2 - Public Purpose - represents

the external context affecting leadership in the analysis and use of student outcome data.

Academic literature has highlighted results accountability as an important feature of the way

external tests of literacy and numeracy are viewed and how the results are interpreted

(Cumming & Maxwell, 2004; Koretz, 2002; McWilliam & Perry, 2006; Rowe, 2000).

Moreover, leadership at the school and system level has emerged as a crucial element in any

attempt to effectively analyse and use data on student achievement (Fullan, 2002; Leithwood et

  21  

al., 2004). This involves a strategic approach by the school’s leadership to ‘recognise the

context’ within which actions can be undertaken and the need to have the courage to give moral

potency to this purpose.

The study also showed that influences such as government and system

accountability for student performance, as well as the role of leadership in designing and

implementing school and system planning, are factors that influence principals’ and teachers’

use of the results from external literacy and numeracy testing. However, this study also found

that accountability is viewed in two different ways. Some participants saw it in a positive light

as a driver for change, while others viewed it in a negative sense based on comparison and

competition between schools. Here the differences and tensions are associated with differing

value priorities and subsequent varying moral importance of the testing, the data and its use

The press for change and the use of external testing data seemed to be viewed as self serving

and not in the interests of genuine learning. The perception of these external influences seemed

to be different at the level of leadership and teachers. Further, the research found that the role

of leadership in data analysis and school planning was viewed differently by teachers and

principals, with classroom practitioners being less convinced about the quality of such

leadership in supporting the teacher. The explanation that the morality of the purpose seemed

also to influence the valuing of the leadership and intervention processes gives significance to

the perception of practitioners of the morality of external influences in their professional lives.

These influences are external to the individual’s value system and repertoire of practices.

The core of the concept - Moral Agency - lies in the area of intersection between the

highly personal perception of ‘Moral Purpose’ of the testing itself (‘seeing the need’), the

‘Professional Purpose’ for the individual in linking the analysis and use of testing data

(‘operationalising the response’), and the external factors of ‘Public Purpose’ that influence

action (‘recognising the context’). It is here that one makes judgments about the worth of

particular behaviours in influencing action (Fullan, 1991; Geijsel & Meijers, 2005; Harris,

2005; Romero, 1998) that leads to moral growth for all the school community.

Section 5: Conclusion

The ‘Moral Agency and Leadership Purpose’ framework emerged from the analysis of the

factors that were found to have influenced how teachers and principals view external testing,

how the results are analysed and used, how such a process is led at the school level, and the

impact of testing on teaching practices. While principals and classroom teachers thought the

  22  

data and feedback from external testing had high moral value, the latter group was less

convinced about its applicability in an operational sense for use in the classroom to affect

student outcomes. This gave rise to a heightened professional tension between knowing what

is the right thing to do, but being somewhat unable to do it. In this sense, the ‘moral potency’

of the data was lost in translation between analysis and practical application; the ‘moral agency’

of school leaders was not operationalised to create the conditions conducive for effective

analysis and use of the data. Similarly, if results accountability emphasises comparison over

diagnosis, the findings from the study suggest that even less value is placed on feedback from

external testing as a source of valid and reliable information on student achievement.

The components of the ‘Moral Agency and Leadership Purpose’ framework were

designed to reflect the lack of explicit leadership found in the study, implying that the ‘moral

purpose’ of external testing of literacy and numeracy cannot be assumed. The can also be seen

in understanding the variability of ‘professional purpose’ for the analysis and use of such

information shared within and among schools. The research found that clear and unambiguous

evidence-based and morally focused leadership is required for effective diagnosis of student

achievement to be made but that the context and valuing process of the individuals will

influence the perceptions and ownership of the initiatives. The framework represents a scaffold

for understanding and explaining the connection between the value placed on external testing

of literacy and numeracy on the one hand, and the degree to which the professional purpose for,

and actual practices of, data leadership, effective data analysis and pedagogy are changed as a

result of the testing.

Hopefully, it also gives a more general understanding of the interplay of beliefs and

values in determining attitudes and observable behaviours of principals and teachers towards

external interventions and change in schools. Within the wider context of evidence-based

leadership, the ‘Moral Agency’ model also suggests a framework for understanding the

approach taken by school leaders in giving purpose to any improvement process such as the

utilization of student test data and also gives understanding as to the source of

misunderstandings, tensions and sometimes conflict between teachers and leaders about these

purposes and resolving these tensions through shared understanding and dialogue.

The paper has suggested that moral, professional and public purpose are at the heart

of moral agency in cultivating leadership that gives purpose to student outcome data. This

  23  

process challenges leaders to be moral agents who can acknowledge, understand and pursue

value choices with courage and sensitivity.

  24  

References

Avolio, B., Gardiner, W. L et al. (2004) Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823

Bandura, A. (2006). Towards a Psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 1(2): 164-180

Begley, P. T. & Stefkovich, J. (2007). Integrating values and ethics into post secondary teaching for leadership development: principals, concepts and strategies. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 398-412.

Bezzina, M. & Burford, C. (2010). Leaders Transforming Learning and Learners: An Australian Innovation in Leadership, Learning and Moral Purpose. In A. Normore (ed.), Global perspectives on educational leadership reform: The development and preparation of leaders of learning and learners of leadership. 265-285. North America: Emerald group publishers.

Branson, C. (2009). Leadership for an Age of Wisdom. London, Springer.

Branson, C. (2010). Leading Educational Change Wisely. Boston, Sense

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and Student Achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Cumming, J., & Maxwell, G. (2004). Assessment in Australian Schools: currrent practice and trends. Assessment in Education, 11(1).

Duignan, P. (2007). Educational leadership: Key challenges and ethical tensions. Cambridge University Press New York, NY

Duignan. P. & Burford, C. (2003) ‘Preparing educational leaders for the paradoxes and dilemmas of contemporary schooling’. Paper presented at the British Educational Research association Annual conference , UK: Exeter.

Duigan, P. et al. (2003). SOLR project: Contemporary challenges and implications for leaders in frontline human service organisations. Sydney, ACU National.

DeCourcy, J. (2005). Using HSC data to give principals leverage. Paper presented at the Using Data to Support Learning Research Conference, Melbourne.

Frick, W. (2009). Principals' Value-informed Decision making, Intrapersonal moral discord, and Pathways to Resolution: The Complexities of Moral Leadership Praxis. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 50-74.

  25  

Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2002). The Change Leader. Educational Leadership(May).

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale Reform Comes of Age. Journal of Educational Change, (10), 101-103.

Geijsel, F., & Meijers, F. (2005). Identity learning: the core process of educational change. Educational Studies, 31(4), pp. 419-430.

Hanna, S. T. & Avolio, B. J. (2010) Moral potency: Building the capacity for Character –Based Leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 62(4), 291-310

Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24(2).

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2000). The Three Dimensions of Reform. Educational Leadership 57(7).

Harris, A. (2005). Leading or following educational change? School Leadership and Management, 25(5), 417-419.

Hattie, J. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? Paper presented at the Using Data to Support Learning Research Conference, Melbourne.

Hodgkinson, C. (1996). Administrative philosophy; values and motivations in administrative life. Trowbridge: Redwood Books.

Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educators' Productivity. The Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 752-777.

Kidder, R.M. (1995) How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. New York: William Morrow

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership for large-scale reform: the case of England's National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. School Leadership & Management, 24(1), 57-79.

Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning About System Renewal. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 36(2), 289-303.

McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. (2006). Principal Leadership: Creating a Culture of Academic Optimism to Improve Achievement for All Students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.

  26  

McWilliam, E., & Perry, L. (2006). On Being More Accountable: The Push and Pull of Risk in School Leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(2), 97-109.

Pettit, P. (2009). From data-informed to data-led? School leadership within the context of external testing. (Doctoral dissertation, Australian Catholic University, 2009)

Pettit, P. (2010). From data-informed to data-led? School leadership within the context of external testing. Leading & Managing, 16(2), 90-107

Romero, M. (1998). Educational Change and Discourse Communities: representing change in postmodern times. Curriculum Studies, 6(1).

Rowe, K. (2000). Assessment, League Tables and School Effectiveness: consider the issues and 'let's get real'! Journal of Educational Enquiry, 1(1).

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The Virtues of Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 112-123.

Starratt, R. (1993). Transforming Life in Schools: Conversations about Leadership and School Renewal. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Administration.

Starratt, R. (2004). Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2005). Ethical Leadership and Decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (2nd ed.). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stefkovich, J. A. & Begley, P. T. (2007) Ethical School Leadership: Defining the Best Interests of students. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2) 205-224.

Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership: Courage in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering Student Learning: The Relationship of Collective Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189-209.

Tuana, N. (2007). Conceptualizing moral literacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 364-378.

Van Meer, E. (2009). The Reemergence of Moral Purpose in School Administration. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 15(2), 159-164.

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in Organisations: Moral Identity as a Foundation for Moral Agency. Organisational Studies. 27(3): 341-368.

Willower, D. (1981) Educational Administration; Some Philosophical and Other Considerations. The Journal of Educational Administration,19(2), 115-140.