School leaders as change agents: Do principals have the tools they need?

Abstract

In the current climate of accountability and calls for school improvement, principals are dealing with unceasing demands to implement new educational reforms. Yet do school leaders feel equipped to implement these mandates? This study investigated the perceptions of experienced elementary principals on whether they felt prepared to be effective change agents. Findings showed that principals felt they had received very little professional development on how to be a leader of change. Instead, their professional learning as change agents occurred through on the job experience and networking with trusted colleagues. This resulted in knowledge gaps in principals’ understanding of the change process. School leaders bear the responsibility of implementing change, yet principals suggest that reforms would see increased success if they were a shared responsibility with district leaders. Insights from experienced principals may help guide improved professional learning practices to provide educational leaders with the necessary skills to lead effective school improvement.

Keywords

change agent educational reform principal professional learning school leadership

Introduction

As the education field moved into the ‘age of accountability’ (Ranson, 2003: 471) in the late 1990s, there was a shift in the responsibilities of school leaders from managerial duties towards leading change and implementing reform (Fullan, 2016). It is most often school principals who are tasked with implementing new mandates (Leithwood et al., 1984). Yet some scholars caution against the consequences of implementing change without proper knowledge and understanding of the change process. Richard (1996) maintains, ‘Most educational reforms never reach, much less influence, long standing patterns of teaching practice’ (p. 6). He believes the fault lies with those tasked to implement change who naively believe that ‘good ideas would travel, of their own volition, into classrooms and schools’ (p. 10). Thus, lack of an understanding of the change process may be one of the contributing factors as to why many educational reforms fail.

Are we adequately preparing our school principals with the knowledge and skills to effectively lead change? Fullan (2016) believes not and claims, ‘What the principal should do specifically to manage change at the school level is a complex affair for which the principal has little preparation’ (p. 75). Hall et al. (1982) stress the importance of learning change agent skills and advise, ‘It is not too early to develop training programs that will prepare principals to be more effective in facilitating school improvement’ (p. 26). It seems that, more than 30 years later, this is still wise advice. The quest for school improvement has not diminished, yet knowledge on the effectiveness of professional development for school leaders is scarce (Huber, 2011). The aim of this exploratory study is to address this gap in the literature and gain an understanding of whether experienced principals perceive their professional learning has prepared them to be effective change agents.

Literature review

Transformational leadership

School leadership has been greatly debated over the past century in an attempt to find the best practices that will guarantee improved school outcomes. One significant theory that helped shape contemporary leadership was influenced by the research of Burns (1978). In his quest to define the ways leaders influence performance, Burns introduced the concept of transformational leadership, a move away from the traditional, autocratic style to a more collaborative and visionary model. As with many leadership styles, there is no unitary concept of transformational leadership, as there are a number of researchers who have proposed their own version (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Wiley, 1998). For the purposes of this study, the classic definition by Burns (1978) will be used: Transformational leadership is ‘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. 19). This view of transformational leadership supports change leadership by promoting a shared relationship that transforms both the leader and the follower and fosters mutual support and increased self-awareness to achieve a positive goal.

The literature on transformational leadership spans the globe and researchers such as Sun et al. (2017), in their review of two decades worth of research, have found it to be ‘the most-studied form of leadership across disciplines in both Western and Chinese contexts’ (p. 1). Studies support transformational leadership as a productive model for leaders when implementing reform (Simsek, 2013; Yukl, 1994). Leithwood (1994) investigated the impact of leadership styles on schools and found a transformational approach is needed for school leaders to successfully implement educational mandates. This aligns with other studies whose findings indicate transformational leadership characteristics such as collaboration and relationship building are significant factors in achieving school improvement (Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Yang, 2014). Smith and Bell (2011) also found that transformational leadership was the most effective leadership style in bringing about positive change: ‘Higher levels of success can only be achieved by embedding transformational leadership in order to develop strategies which will increase motivation and staff development, providing a workforce which is both inspirational and aspirational’ (p. 61). Overall, transformational leadership traits, characterized by mutual respect, empathy and trust, have been found to be essential when implementing change both school and system-wide (Kouzes and Posner, 2017).

Change agent leadership

‘A change agent is anyone who has the skill and power to stimulate, facilitate, and coordinate the change effort’ (Lunenburg, 2010: 5). Fullan (2002) believes a change agent requires specific skills and knowledge: ‘The principal of the future – The Cultural Change Principal – must be attuned to the big picture, a sophisticated conceptual thinker who transforms the organization through people and teams’ (p. 17). The belief that the principal carries the main responsibility for the difficult task of implementing unceasing school reforms is widely reported in the literature (Hargreaves and Fink, 2004; Leithwood et al., 1984). Marzano et al. (2005) speak to the relentlessness of educational change: ‘One of the constants within K-12 education is that someone is always trying to change it – someone is always proposing a new program or a new practice’ (p. 65). These researchers also warn: ‘If leadership techniques do not match the order of change required by an innovation, the innovation will probably fail regardless of its merits’ (p. 66). Indeed, researchers have found resistance or ‘potholes’ are inherent in the change process (Hall and Hord, 2015) and can be one of the largest barriers to principals as change agents (Harvey and Broyles, 2010). Yet Fox (2003), in a study on principals and the factors essential to implementing change, found that the skills of change agent leadership were lacking. Also worrisome were her main conclusions that ‘principals believe they are better trained in change than they really are’ (p. 131) and ‘when given the opportunity to identify change principles, principals failed in several key areas’ (p. 133). Thus, despite change agent leadership being cited as a critical competence for school principals, this skill may not be receiving the priority it deserves in principal professional development. Consequently, fault should not necessarily be found with principals if reforms are not successful. The urgency for acquiring change agent skills seems to be increasing, as the pace and magnitude of change is escalating (Fullan, 2016) and many new innovations are implemented without adequate planning or forethought. Hall and Hord (2015) echo Fox’s (2003) sentiments that this may be due to a lack of knowledge by leaders of the specifics of the change process, who are thus unaware of what pitfalls to look out for. Hall and Hord (2015) explain:

Those who initiate change and those who study it should be able to predict much more about what happens during this process than is typically the case. We also should be much better at attending to the needs of the people involved and preventing much that often goes wrong. (p. viii)

Educational reforms have been the topic of research for many decades. Despite the development of over 50 frameworks for studying change, these models have resulted in little actual change in classrooms (Gundy and Berger, 2016). This, however, may not be due to faulty models, but rather the change process may not be fully understood or utilized by change agents and therefore this learning gap needs to be addressed. While there are many change models to choose from that provide tangible tools to implementing reforms (Kotter, 2012; Lewin, 1947), Hall and Hord’s (2015) Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is one that is highly regarded. Leithwood and Duke (1999) credit CBAM as ‘clearly one of the best researched and disseminated’ (p. 60). Gundy and Berger (2016) examined different models of change and found CBAM ‘to be the most robust, empirically grounded model developed by researchers in the area of educational change’ (p. 4). Hall and Hord’s (2015) comprehensive review of the literature resulted in a framework for an effective change process that includes six factors: (1) developing a shared vision, (2) planning and providing resources, (3) investing in professional learning, (4) checking on progress, (5) providing continuous assistance and (6) creating a culture supportive of change. They contend that following a research-based process is ‘critical for all organizations and especially for school success in implementing today’s complex innovations and comprehensive reforms’ (p. 31). These six constructs closely align with the tenants of transformational leadership proposed by Kouzes and Posner (2017) that focus on collaboration and relationship building to effectively lead a staff through change. Their model of exemplary leadership is made up of elements that are highly similar to Hall and Hord’s (2015) factors, including a shared vision, modelling the way, supporting others to act and creating a culture of celebrating values and victories. Thus, supported by the principles of transformational leadership, Hall and Hord’s (2015) six factors of the change process are an effective model for school leaders who are tasked with leading change.

Professional learning

Professional learning for principals often starts with a principal preparation course. While there are many important topics to cover, the change process should be an essential component of any principal development programme (Petzko, 2008). Yet Hess and Kelly (2007) reported that the components of principal preparation programmes have not been able to keep pace with the new pressures on school leaders to increase performance. While research exists on the effectiveness of preparation programmes (Bottoms and O’Neill, 2001; Leithwood, 1994), there have been limited studies on professional development for practising principals. The principalship requires ongoing acquisition of knowledge and skills, but research does not seem to emphasize the importance of the principal as a learner (Matthews and Crow, 2010).

When seeking to understand principals’ perceptions of what types of opportunities they require as learners, not only in principal preparation programmes but also in ongoing professional development, it is helpful to understand the effective approaches to learning for leaders. Bush (2012), in his paper comparing international leadership development, stated that the new emphasis is on how programmes are designed and delivered. He found that leaders prefer to build on existing individualized experience and knowledge and that many countries use a reflective, mentoring approach to help facilitate learning. Armstrong’s (2014) study of newly appointed principals also found their learning and growth were enhanced with job-embedded opportunities for skill development and reflection. In addition, they singled out mentoring, networks and timely, targeted professional development as beneficial professional learning for leaders. These results aligned with Huber’s (2011) research on the approaches for professional learning for school leaders. Based on his findings, he constructed a learning framework for leaders that includes six components: courses, concrete experiences, feedback, collegial exchanges, self-study and reflection. This model ‘provides not only a framework of structure and analysis for particular research studies but also a framework for evaluation and for the needs assessment of professional development’ (Huber, 2011: 846). Few studies have asked for an experienced principal’s view on their opportunities for growth and learning in the skill sets required to lead educational reforms. This study will use Huber’s (2011) model of key professional learning methods to better understand the preferred learning approaches used by experienced principals to enhance their change agent knowledge and skills.

Conceptual framework

The purpose of this study is to determine whether experienced principals felt prepared in their role as change agents and to understand which approaches to professional learning best support them in acquiring these skills. Based on the literature, a conceptual framework was proposed to illustrate how a principal develops the skills to become an effective change agent (Figure 1). It was used to guide the study and analyse principals’ perceptions on their prior and ongoing professional learning and their knowledge of change leadership. The conceptual framework shows how the development of a principal as a change agent is supported when key professional learning methods (Huber, 2011) are used to learn specific knowledge and skills of an effective change process (Hall and Hord, 2015).

Figure 1.

A conceptual framework of the development of the principal as a change agent.

Method

‘Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their words, and what meaning they attribute to their experience’ (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016: 6). This study focuses on determining meaning and understanding from participants’ perspectives and is, therefore, best suited to a qualitative research methodology.

Data collection

Individual, face-to-face interviews were conducted with five elementary principals in Ontario. Participants were limited to experienced principals who had served in multiple schools and had additional experience at the district or system levels, who were thus able to base their answers on a broad range of experiences. Purposeful sampling was chosen, as it ‘is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned’ (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016: 96). Experienced Principals D’Angelo, Davis, Hasan, Miller and Nowak (all names are pseudonyms) participated in this study. As shown in Table 1, all five principals had 20–31 years of experience as an educator, including an average of 13 years as a school administrator. Most had been a principal in three different schools, and one had been at the helm of five schools. All schools were elementary schools with students ranging from kindergarten to grade 6 or 8, with the exception of one principal who also had experience at a grade 7 to 8 middle school. Principals had gained their experience from both urban and rural schools that ranged in size from 180 to 800 students. All five participants had experience in numerous district-level committees, and all but one also had system-level leadership experience outside of the district, such as teaching principal preparation courses, working for educational organizations (Ministry of Education, Principal’s Council, etc.) or teaching additional qualification courses run by university faculties of education.

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Principal pseudonym	Total years of experience as educator	Years of experience as principal	Number of schools as principal	School types	District-level experience	System-level experience
D’Angelo	20	10	3	K–8	Yes	Yes
Davis	21	12	3	K–6; K–8	Yes	Yes
Hasan	28	15	4	K–6; K–8	Yes	Yes
Miller	31	17	5	K–6; K–8 and 7–8	Yes	Yes
Nowak	25	13	3	K–6; K–8	Yes	No

The interview method was semi-structured to allow each principal’s story to be heard and to allow for rich data collection. The interview questions were piloted with a volunteer principal before the study began to test the suitability of the type and order of the questions and this resulted in a few changes to improve the flow and clarity. Participants were given the option to meet at their school or off-site, at a time and location of their convenience. After gaining written informed consent, the interviews were recorded and each lasted between 60 minutes and 90 minutes. Field notes were used to capture any thoughts or observations during and after each interview.

Data analysis

Interview transcripts and field notes were subjected to first and second cycle coding methods (Saldaña, 2013). First cycle coding involved line-by-line analysis of the transcripts and notes to identify categories and subcategories. Colour coding was done using highlighting, and keyword identifiers were jotted in the expanded left-hand margins of the transcripts. During this coding, connections were made using an iterative process that involved multiple readings to gain deeper interpretation of the meaning of the data. Based on these recurring regularities or patterns, second cycle coding was done by forming clusters and linking them to develop several themes. The coding process was inductive to begin, as data were gathered to build concepts, and then transformed into more of a deductive stance as final sets of themes were tested and confirmed with evidence from the study and the literature. Analytic memos were used to document and reflect on the process of inquiry and capture emergent patterns, concepts and themes (Saldaña, 2013). The credibility of the data was verified by conducting member checks (Marshall and Rossman, 2015), whereby each participant was given the opportunity to provide feedback on the preliminary findings.

Findings and discussion

Four key themes emerged from the analysis of the findings and are discussed under two main headings in the following sections.

Principals’ preparation as change agents

Limited change agent professional development

The principals who participated in this study agreed that school leaders play a vital role in implementing school reforms. Yet they also shared that they had received very little formal professional development on how to effectively influence change in their schools. Aside from some related topics woven into workshops (such as mentoring, walkthroughs, relationship building or critical conversations), participants found learning of the change process lacking in initial principal development courses or in ongoing professional learning offered by the district. Although it had been some time since the experienced principals had undergone their initial principal courses, two of the participants had recently taught a principal qualification programme and were more up to date on current practice. Principals Hasan and Miller acknowledged that the programme has not changed substantially since they took the course themselves over 15 years ago, as the content still focused primarily on management topics. This is disappointing, as over 30 years ago scholars such as Leithwood et al. (1984) commented on the importance of effective principal professional development on schools: ‘The possibility of significant impact on schools and the wide variation among principals in the amount of impact they have combine to provide a strong argument for attending to the nature and effect of in-service training provided to principals’ (p. 50). There is room for optimism, however, as Walker et al. (2013) reviewed five different leadership programmes from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States and found that educational reform agendas have started to prioritize the preparation of school leaders. Nevertheless, key topics are still missing from preparation courses. Despite the growing importance of empowering school leaders with the change agent skills to lead schools in educational reforms, most principal programmes have yet to pay sufficient attention to this area.

Gaps in the understanding of the change process

Despite little formal professional learning in the change process, most principals in this study felt they knew how to implement new initiatives. Over the course of their careers, they felt they had gained increased self-confidence and experience in undertaking numerous new mandates. While confidence and knowledge are important traits for leaders, the professional growth of the principals in this study did not include specific learning on the formal methodology of implementing change. While this study used Hall and Hord’s (2015) change theory as a framework, their model is similar to other change processes in the literature. It was clear that principals were more familiar with certain steps to promote change than others. For example, Principal D’Angelo was comfortable creating a shared vision:

When we began working on launching a new inquiry-based learning strategy, I sat down with my instructional team and together we came up with the messaging of why this was important for student learning. We explored this further with the rest of the teachers at the next staff meeting, as we knew it was important for everyone to have a say.

The second and third steps in the change process, providing resources and professional development, were also well understood. Supports were frequently provided to teachers in the form of articles, textbooks, manipulatives, technology and in-services. However, when participants were asked about their understanding of the subsequent steps in the change process, it was apparent there were gaps in their knowledge. For example, Principal Nowak described the change process as: ‘Look at data, make a plan, implement the plan and review it again’. When probing deeper, it became apparent that Nowak was missing an understanding of some of the key factors necessary to ‘implement the plan’, such as differentiated strategies on how to effectively check on progress and provide individual, targeted, ongoing assistance. According to Hall and Hord (2015), this lack of knowledge by school leaders is not surprising, as this is where the change process often breaks down:

More often than not, the change effort is lost when the leaders fail to routinely check on progress. Important checking actions include gathering data about the concerns of each implementer; collecting information about the developing knowledge and skills of implementers; collecting feedback at the end of workshops and providing feedback on the feedback; talking informally with users about their progress; and, at regular intervals, systematically measuring, analysing and interpreting stages of concern and levels of use. (p. 34)

Principals would benefit from specialized professional development on multifaceted techniques that analyse and act on specific teacher needs. Without this knowledge, many principals try an ineffective ‘one size fits all’ approach, but teachers are at different stages of understanding and skill and require differentiated interventions by principals. Without this personalized support, teachers often do not remain motivated to follow through on the implementation of new strategies.

These gaps in the understanding of the change process by school leaders may be a contributing factor as to why so many mandates fail. A number of participants in this study admitted that, while they say their initiatives were ‘successful’, they qualified their definition as: ‘Some of the teachers changed their practice’ (Principal Nowak) or ‘Nothing is ever successful across all divisions – but we had pockets of change’ (Principal Davis). Educational reforms fall short or are not sustainable if educators are not fully implementing high-leverage strategies known to improve student success. McCabe (2011) points out that the what to do is clear, but the how to do it is lacking: ‘Experts such as Michael Fullan, Doug Reeves, and Mike Schmoker have been very clear about what school leaders need to do to increase student achievement. But very little has changed in school improvement practices across the country’ (p. 1). The literature points to principal workload being one of the factors impeding the ability of principals to be successful instructional leaders (Gunter et al., 2004; Oplatka, 2017; Pollock, 2016). But in addition to workload, the results of this study also point to gaps in knowledge of the essential change strategies as a factor impeding principals to lead successful reforms. Refined knowledge and tools to help school leaders influence changes in practice by their staff may result in a shift towards increased school improvement.

Approaches to professional learning on change agent leadership

Key professional learning approaches

Not all of the key approaches to professional development were seen as helpful to the experienced principals in this study. Out of Huber’s (2011) six approaches to learning for leaders, two stood out as essential: networking with trusted colleagues and on the job experience. Principal D’Angelo explained the importance of professional relationships:

Talking to my colleagues is number one in what has helped me grow as an administrator. These would be my trusted colleagues, my inner circle. Each of them also has different areas of expertise that I can call individually when I need advice or support.

Principals also specified that it was these personal, professional networks that positively influenced on the job learning. Trusted peers helped them set directions and navigate difficult situations. As Principal Miller shared, ‘I think I learn most by doing. Over time, my experiences helped me know what worked best. But, before I start something new, I often call an administrator friend and bounce ideas off them, and this helps me fine tune my approach’. The importance placed on social networks aligns with Wenger’s Communities of Practice framework, defined as a ‘learning partnership among people who find it useful to learn from and with each other about a particular domain. They use each other’s experience of practice as a learning resource’ (Wenger et al., 2011: 9). But Principal Nowak worried that, despite their value, principals have not been encouraged to find their own professional learning partnerships:

I see some of my colleagues struggling to cope on their own. I don’t think the importance of building a support network has ever really been officially talked about by our board. I worry that some principals are scared to reach out, because they don’t want others to know they are struggling.

In addition to collegial exchange and concrete experiences, three of the principals indicated they also benefited from the opportunity to undertake reading for self-study and reflection. However, they commented that time pressures prevented them from doing this regularly. When it came to workshops, many of the participants shared their disappointment that these were often not very impactful or relevant to their practice. Principal Miller suggested that professional development be differentiated based on the principal’s needs:

I find that to fully understand something I need to hear it, see it, do it and then I can ‘own it’. What we have, however, are generic workshops that are often a ‘one-off’. What we need are small-group workshops on self-selected topics. We need a series of sessions, so that we can go back to our schools and try out new things and then come back to another session and debrief and go deeper.

From the viewpoint of experienced principals, future professional learning should provide resources to encourage networking to flourish, so that administrators can access this valuable yet overlooked tool for growth. Developers of principal professional development should also place greater emphasis on topics that are differentiated, long term, and provide opportunities for on the job learning. Zepeda et al. (2014) concur, ‘The principles of adult learning and engagement need to be widely manifested and job embedded within the very activities and learning opportunities for leaders across their career stages’ (p. 312).

Change agent leadership – A shared responsibility

When participants were asked: ‘What would help school leaders with their ongoing responsibilities in leading educational reforms?’, all five principals highlighted the importance of district support, yet many felt it was lacking. This points to another reason why reforms might fail – without proper support from the system, some principals may not fully ‘buy in’ to the necessity of a proposed mandate, or they might feel overloaded and reluctant to take on another responsibility. As emphasized by Principal Hasan, ‘I believe the responsibility for educational reforms needs a whole system approach, but this is not the reality in my board’. Fullan (2016) echoes this view and acknowledges, ‘It is time to go beyond the empty phrase, “the principal is the gatekeeper of change”’ (p. 124). The perception of the experienced school leaders in this study was that the responsibility for implementing change still rests fully on the shoulders of principals. They felt that, in order to see greater success in educational reforms, districts should more broadly share the responsibility for change implementation, including providing effective professional learning opportunities for principals. They also felt superintendents needed to be more involved in the school reform process. As Principal Davis voiced:

Superintendents need to take a more active part when they ask us to start a new mandate. They need to become more involved at the school level and make visits a higher priority. That way they will better understand where schools are at and who needs help.

Researchers such as Bird et al. (2013) have examined the role of the superintendent in educational reform and found they can have a significant impact: ‘The leadership style of the superintendent can permeate the culture of the school system with perhaps the most influence affecting the building principals’ (p. 92). They found the literature was lacking and thus highlighted the importance of undertaking further study on the influence of district leadership on school improvement. Some researchers are already working towards filling this gap. Leithwood’s (2013) paper titled Strong Districts & Their Leadership describes the characteristics of exceptionally performing districts that positively impact on student learning. Two of the key factors were an emphasis on district support for leadership development for principals, as well as job-embedded learning approaches. Leithwood (2013) also paints a vision of future district leadership where the superintendent needs to take on an expanded role in school improvement that ‘requires upgrading the nature of training now provided to superintendent aspirants, a task likely requiring the combined efforts of the Ministry, senior leaders’ professional associations and individual districts’ (p. 7). Thus, the role of principal as the sole ‘gatekeeper’ of change needs to be re-evaluated, so that the educational reform process can become a shared responsibility and school improvement initiatives can become more successful and sustainable.

Conclusion

Understanding of the change process is critical for leaders of system reform, but it appears that an emphasis on change agent skills has been overlooked. Fullan et al. (2005) warn, ‘The presence of change knowledge does not guarantee success, but its absence ensures failure’ (p. 54). This study found there was a lack of depth in change agent training offered to principals. Instead, learning about implementing reforms was done by networking with trusted colleagues or embedded in on the job experiences. Yet, without formal professional learning on the complexities of implementing change, principals had gaps in their knowledge of the process. They had not learned essential change implementation strategies, such as how to differentiate support for teachers at different stages of understanding and skill. Fullan (2016) highlights what needs to be done by educational policymakers and advisers: ‘Today the problem is to figure out how principals can be supported to become lead change agents’ (p. 14). Change agent instruction for principals should occur at various points during their career – pre-principal development courses, in-services for novice principals, as well as ongoing professional learning sessions for experienced administrators. Yet locally and abroad, there are struggles to properly arm principals with the tools they need to lead educational reforms. As highlighted in Educational Leadership and Change: An International Perspective (Wong and Cheng, 1995), researchers from across the globe are voicing a concern for improved, research-based professional development to empower principals. This suggests an urgent need for further study on how to best update principal preparation programmes and review ongoing professional learning practices to ensure they embed essential change leadership skills. Providing principals with relevant and experiential learning methods to acquire new knowledge and skills is also key. The conceptual framework of how to support principals as change agent, as presented in this article, includes key professional learning methods and essential steps of the change process and may be a helpful tool when developing the components of effective change agent professional development.

Findings also highlight that principals feel successful educational reform requires a commitment of a whole system approach. The role of districts has been a relatively new area of research. Leithwood et al. (2004) outline how initially, in the 1980s, the literature largely ignored the district’s role. However, in the 1990s, ‘The emergence of standards-based reforms and accountability systems at the state and district levels has led to renewed interest in and inquiry into the district role in educational change’ (p. 39). Marsh (2002) also found evidence that districts are key stakeholders in school reform and should be considered important agents of change. District leadership is an area that may have significant impact on the success of principals in implementing educational reforms and merits further study on a global scale. Indeed, Fullan and Boyle (2014) compared educational reform in three major cities in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. One of their key conclusions was despite differences in the education systems of the three different countries, a unifying factor was that meaningful school reform requires a comprehensive and coherent, whole system approach.

Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) also studied large-scale reform and underscore the complexity of achieving sustainable change, ‘Producing deep improvement that lasts and spreads remains an elusive goal of most educational change efforts’ (p. 5). Researchers are still seeking answers as to why many reforms are not successful. Since school leadership plays a vital role in setting the direction for successful outcomes, attention must be given to what tools principals require in order to foster school improvement. While acknowledging that this study is limited in scope and the topic of change agent leadership requires further investigation, the insights shared by experienced principals may be of interest to administrators, educational researchers and educational advisers who are involved in the development of leaders. Supporting the development of change agents is key to assisting schools undertake successful educational reform with the ultimate goal of positively impacting student learning and success.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karen S Acton

References

Armstrong

(2014) Transition to the Role of Principal and Vice-Principal Study. Report, Institute for Educational Leadership.

Bass

Riggio

(2006) Transformational Leadership, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bird

Dunaway

Hancock

, et al. (2013) The superintendent’s leadership role in school improvement: relationships between authenticity and best practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools 12(1):77–99.

Bottoms

O’Neill

(2001) Preparing a New Breed of School Principal: It’s Time for Action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Burns

(1978) Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Bush

(2012) International perspectives on leadership development: making a difference. Professional Development in Education 38(4):663–678.

Fox

(2003) Leading with change principles. Doctoral Dissertation, University of La Verne, California.

Fullan

(2002) The change leader. Educational Leadership 59(8):16–20.

Fullan

(2016) The New Meaning of Educational Change, 5th edn New York: Teachers College Press.

10.

Fullan

Boyle

(2014) Big-City School Reforms: Lessons from New York, Toronto, and London. New York: Teachers College Press.

11.

Fullan

Cuttress

Kilcher

(2005) 8 forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff Development 26(4):54–58.

12.

Gundy

Berger

(2016) Towards a model supporting educational change. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6(3):232–236.

13.

Gunter

Rayner

Thomas

, et al. (2004) Remodelling the school workforce: developing perspectives on headteacher workload. Management in Education 18(3):6–11.

14.

Hall

Hord

(2015) Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

15.

Hall

Rutherford

Griffin

(1982) Three change facilitator styles: some indicators and a proposed framework. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 19–23 March 1982, New York, NY.

16.

Hallinger

Heck

(2010) Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management 30(2):95–110.

17.

Hargreaves

Fink

(2004) The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership 61(7):8–13.

18.

Hargreaves

Goodson

(2006) Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(1):3–41.

19.

Harvey

Broyles

(2010) Resistance to Change: A Guide to Harnessing its Positive Power. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

20.

Hess

Kelly

(2007) Learning to lead: what gets taught in principal-preparation programs. Teachers College Record 109(1):244–274.

21.

Huber

(2011) The impact of professional development: a theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting training and development programmes. Professional Development in Education 37(5):837–853.

22.

Kotter

(2012) Leading Change. Brighton: Harvard Business Press.

23.

Kouzes

Posner

(2017) The Leadership Challenge, 6th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

24.

Leithwood

(1994) Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly 30(4):498–518.

25.

Leithwood

(2013) Strong Districts & Their Leadership. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute of Education Leadership.

26.

Leithwood

Duke

(1999) A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In: Murphy

Seashore

(eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45–72.

27.

Leithwood

Seashore

Anderson

, et al. (2004) Review of Research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

28.

Leithwood

Stanley

Montgomery

(1984) Training principals for school improvement. Education and Urban Society 17(1):49–71.

29.

Lewin

(1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations 1(1):5–41.

30.

Lunenburg

(2010) Managing change: the role of the change agent. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration 13(1):1–6.

31.

McCabe

(2011) The Fearless School Leader: Making the Right Decisions. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

32.

Marsh

(2002) How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: a review of emerging literature. In: Hightower

(ed.) School Districts and Instructional Renewal. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 25–40.

33.

Marshall

Rossman

(2015) Designing Qualitative Research, 6th edn. London: Sage.

34.

Marzano

Waters

McNulty

(2005) School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

35.

Matthews

Crow

(2010) The Principalship: New Roles in a Professional Learning Community. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

36.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

Oplatka

(2017) Principal workload. Journal of Educational Administration 55(5):552–568.

38.

Petzko

(2008) The perceptions of new principals regarding the knowledge and skills important to their initial success. NASSP Bulletin 92(3):224–250.

39.

Pollock

(2016) Principals’ work in Ontario, Canada: changing demographics, advancements in information communication technology and health and wellbeing. International Studies in Educational Administration 44(3):55–73.

40.

Ranson

(2003) Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy 18(5):459–480.

41.

Richard

(1996) Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review 66(1):1–27.

42.

Saldaña

(2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

43.

Simsek

(2013) Transformational leadership in educational context: a fantasy of education scholars. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 51:1–6.

44.

Smith

Bell

(2011) Transactional and transformational leadership in schools in challenging circumstances: a policy paradox. Management in Education 25(2):58–61.

45.

Sun

Chen

Zhang

(2017) A review of research evidence on the antecedents of transformational leadership. Education Sciences 7(1):1–27.

46.

Sun

Leithwood

(2012) Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 11(4):418–451.

47.

Walker

Bryant

Lee

(2013) International patterns in principal preparation: commonalities and variations in pre-service programmes. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 41(4):405–434.

48.

Wenger

Trayner

de Laat

(2011) Promoting and Assessing Value Creation in Communities and Networks: A Conceptual Framework. Heerlen, the Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University of the Netherlands.

49.

Wiley

(1998) School leadership and professional community: effects on student achievement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

50.

Wong

Cheng

(1995) Educational Leadership and Change: An International Perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

51.

Yang

(2014) Principals’ transformational leadership in school improvement. International Journal of Educational Management 28(3):279–288.

52.

Yukl

(1994) Leadership in Organizations, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

53.

Zepeda

Parylo

Bengtson

(2014) Analyzing principal professional development practices through the lens of adult learning theory. Professional Development in Education 40(2):295–315.