Moral purpose: a blind spot in ethical leadership?
Introduction
In recent years there has been increased interest in gaining a deeper understanding of
the role of leadership in cultivating and promoting the core work of the school - teaching
and learning (Leithwood, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Robinson, 2007;
Robinson, Hohepa, & Lloyd, 2009). While delivering an important message, current
regimes of high-stakes standardised testing, league tables, and the use of data systems
as census and control mechanisms may be driving educators to neglect authentic
learning. Constant demands for change, increased politicisation of educational data and
the commercialisation of schooling and its outcomes can create technical frames of
reference for leaders which can cause them to ignore or take for granted other
dimensions of their practice – including the moral purpose of the core work of the
school.
Moral purpose can be understood as the commitment to ends that express underlying
values and ethics. In the particular context of schools, the commitment is ultimately to
the gradual transformation of the learner into a fuller, richer, deeper human being.
Moral purpose becomes powerful when it is shared. The National College of School
Leadership (2006) describes shared moral purpose as “a compelling idea or aspirational
purpose, a shared belief [that a team] can achieve far more for their end users together
than they can alone”(p. 3). The foundations for such a shared sense of purpose lie in a
shared commitment to explicit values (Andrews & Lewis, 2004). This implies clarity of
understanding as well as the creation of a context in which this understanding can
become widely owned. For teachers, their moral purpose lies in the answer they find to
Greenfield’s (2004, p. 174) question: “Leading and teaching to what ends and by what
means?” or more concretely: “What should I do, and how, if I am to make a genuine
difference in the lives of my students?”
Moral purpose is therefore the fundamental to the educative enterprise in the school. It
can be argued that educators engage with this purpose when they infuse academic
learning with a dimension of personal meaning, and thereby enrich the whole learning
process (Starratt, 2004). The authentic learning which results is more than taking new
knowledge and skills for oneself, and broader than the quest for relevance. It is about
giving of one’s unique humanity to others and to the community.
This is taken to
another level when all members of a professional learning community share such
aspirations and approaches(Andrews & Lewis, 2004). Learning which is not authentic
to the needs of the student’s life remains superficial, and supporting its existence in
schools can be judged to be unethical (Starratt, 2004).
The facilitation of authentic learning is at the heart of the moral purpose of schools
because it engages students in a deeper understanding of the nature and purpose of
their lives and opens up possibilities for contributing to the greater good of the
community and society (Hodgkinson, 1991). Authentic learning is personalized learning,
when the subject of the learning is connected to the lived experience and cultural
context of the learner, where the learning connects the learner to some aspect of his or
her world. Authentic learning assists the learner in their construction of selfunderstanding in relation to that world. Authentic educational leaders face the
challenge of embedding this sense of moral purpose in the work of their schools, and
translating it into action. While stories of such leaders abound, this is an area of
schooling that has been under-researched (Starratt, 2004).
Discussions of teaching and learning in schools can often tend towards questions of
technique rather than underlying purpose – with attention given to the “what” and the
“how” rather than the “why”. This might be understood through an application of
Moberg’s (2006) notions of frames and blind spots. A frame is described as a personal
perspective on a situation “comprising well-learned sets of associations that focus
people’s attention on and label some aspects of a situation to the exclusion of others”.
The existence of frames creates, in turn, blind spots- “defects in one’s perceptual field
that can cloud one’s judgement, lead to erroneous conclusions, or provide insufficient
triggers to appropriate action”(Moberg, 2006, p. 414). In the case of leading and
learning, the conventional, procedural approach can be understood as creating a
technical frame, which has a blind spot which provides insufficient triggers to moral
consideration. As is the way with driving blind spots, this process can be quite
unconscious. Weaver (2006, p. 350) describes the process in this way:
Unethical behavior often emerges from the overall organizational process,
without awareness or unethical intent on the part of many organization
members. Organizations can embed, routinize, and rationalize improper
behavior, and socialize new organization members into an unethical
cognitive and behavioral framework
Leaders in schools can themselves manifest this type of ethical blindness. Begley and
Stefkovich (2007, p. 401) note that administrators consciously employ ethics as a guide
to action “relatively infrequently” and under specific conditions, usually related to
urgency.
This paper draws on a study of a project called Leaders Transforming Learning and
Learners (LTLL) (Bezzina, 2008b; Bezzina & Burford, 2010; Bezzina, Burford, &
Duignan, 2007; Burford & Bezzina, 2007), The project involved teachers and leaders in
focusing explicitly on the moral dimensions of learning and leadership. The study
attempts to identify the components and consequences of a leadership approach that
explicitly addresses the development of a shared sense of moral purpose in a sample of
primary and secondary schools.
The Leaders Transforming Learning and Learners Project
It is an initiative that combines dimensions of professional development and school
improvement (the LTLL project) and research (the study of this project), situated in a
sample of Catholic schools in New South Wales, Australia. Its pilot phase (2005-2006)
included nine primary and secondary schools from four school systems, and the first
follow up phase (LTLL2) which provides the data for this paper (2007-2009) involved 11
primary and secondary schools from five school systems.
In brief, schools have been involved, with support from their districts and Australian
Catholic University, in a combination of university- and school-based activities that
critically applied a values-based conceptual framework to leadership for learning. The
school based improvement activities that were at the heart of this engagement were
informed by the LTLL conceptual framework, and formed the focus of the research.
The eleven schools in LTLL2 committed to working with the University and their district
administration for a period of two years during which time they would engage in a
process of focus identification, initiative design, implementation and reflective
refinement of their initiative. This process was shaped by a school team that was made
up of the principal, a teacher with formal leadership responsibilities, and a third teacher
with no specific formal leadership role, but with leadership potential. A number of
schools sent additional members for their teams.
The eleven school teams came
together for plenary sessions six times for a full day in the course of the twoyear
engagement with the project. The first session was built around a structured reflection
guide that assisted in identifying an appropriate improvement initiative for each school
through a detailed consideration of each of the components of the conceptual
framework (described below) and indicators of its presence. This initiative was the focus
of each school’s activity across its two year engagement with the project. The last
session was a showcase of school initiatives and their outcomes. The intervening
sessions provided skills in the gathering and use of evidence, and an opportunity to
deepen understanding and consider the implications of each of the elements of the
conceptual model for their initiative. Plenaries always included the opportunity for some
new input related to the focus for the day, to hear from other schools, to give and
receive feedback and to reshape plans in the light of the day’s learning.
Between plenary sessions, schools were expected to continue to implement and
monitor the action plan they had laid out in the period after the first plenary, and
modified as appropriate after each subsequent plenary. Each sponsoring school system
had a designated person who maintained contact with their system’s schools between
plenaries, providing support and advice and facilitating communication among the
schools from their system. Schools were encouraged to keep a record of their activities,
and were expected to produce a formal report and presentation at the end of the two
years, based on the evidence they had gathered.
The conceptual framework which informed the LTLL project, and became a focus of
study, was developed by a stakeholder team made up of both university and school
system representatives (seen as experts) as part of the pilot program (2005-2006) . This
was modified and further validated during the second phase of the study (LTLL2 : 20072009) using a similar process, but this time informed by the outcomes of the pilot and
the feedback of the participants in that phase of the study. The engagement of
stakeholders in this way was important in maintaining a sense of intellectual ownership
to accompany the financial sponsorship of the school systems.
This framework is an attempt to bring an ethical perspective to the growing consensus
in the literature around leadership and learning behaviours that have been shown to
enhance student learning (for example in the work of Robinson and Lloyd (2009); Hattie
(2003) and Marzano et al. (2005). The elements of the framework that were supported
through the pilot as contributing to a transformative experience for the learner are
values, ethics, authentic learning and educative leadership, with a particular focus on
teachers as leaders.
The understanding of the transformed learner, informed by a set of explicit values and
ethics, forms a core expression of moral purpose. This perspective, embracing values,
ethics and vision, follows the position of Begley and Johansson (2003) who describe the
tendency for scholars in educational administration to adopt the words ethics or moral
as an umbrella term for anything values-related. Moral purpose is operationalised in the
teaching and leadership behaviours in the other elements of the framework. These
elements have been described in detail elsewhere (Bezzina, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, In
press). The structure of the framework is intended to illustrate the way in which, where
a school is serious about its moral purpose (the values and ethics in the flowing spiral
which forms the “spine” of the framework), this will impact on both learning and
leadership practice. Moreover, this purpose will be reflected in the aspirations for
students (the transformed learner) and it will provide coherence in tying the other
elements together as they are expressed in the actions of teachers as leaders.
In LTLL2 (2007-2009) the schools involved worked with the framework elements shown
in Figure 1 using a detailed set of focuses for each element and indicators for each
focus, as a basis for reflection.
Figure 1: The LTLL Conceptual Framework
Space precludes a detailed treatment of all of the elements of the framework. This can
be found elsewhere (eg (Bezzina, 2008a)). However, in order to give a better sense of
each, the components are listed in Figure 2 below. Participants had access to a detailed
breakdown of the kinds of evidence they might expect to see if they each element were
operative in their school. This process is described below.
Figure 2: The elements and components of the LTLL Conceptual Framework
ELEMENT
COMPONENTS
Values
 Excellence
 Justice
 Transformation
 Common Good
 Catholicity
 Responsibility
 Presence
 Authenticity
Single component
Ethics
Transformed Learner
Authentic Learning
Educative Leadership
Teacher as Leader





Standards for learning
Organising for learning
Pedagogy
Student engagement
Assessment FOR and AS
learning.
Leadership:
 Through collegiality
 Based on evidence
 For professional learning
 For sustainability
 Building
culture
and
community
 For effective change
 Through networking
 Building capability
Single component
Purpose of the LTLL Study
The Leaders Transforming Learning and Learners (LTLL) study aims to explore how
leadership and learning practices based on a shared moral purpose facilitate the work
of teachers and leaders in enhancing student learning. The purpose of the second
phase of the LTLL project (LTLL2) was to investigate the ways in which using the
conceptual framework described above could inform and enhance the identification and
implementation of school initiatives for improvement, with particular attention given to
moral purpose. In particular, this paper sets out to explore the dynamics by which
exposure to a moral rationale is given expression in the school, and how this is
perceived as impacting on teaching, leadership practice and student outcomes.
Methodology
The full LTLL2 sample comprised eleven case study schools, five secondary and six
primary, drawn from five Catholic educational systems in New South Wales, Australia.
The schools were nominated by their systems’ representatives on the project
management team on the basis of readiness for a process of reflection and renewal.
Two of these systems were based in rural areas and the other three were in
metropolitan Sydney. Forty five teachers made up the eleven project teams who were
part of the study. The whole project was designed and managed collaboratively by
representatives of the Australian Catholic University, and the systems to which they
belonged. The schools were the unit of analysis, and the data were gathered before and
after the program through the use of a Reflection Guide built around the conceptual
framework, and through in-depth interviews at the conclusion of the second year of the
project. The Reflection Guide was originally developed from a review of relevant
literature, and then was trialled during the pilot phase of LTLL. It was modified in the
light of feedback from participants in the pilot for use in LTLL2. A sample section is
contained in Appendix 1. The data from the comparison of the initial use of the
Reflection Guide and its completion after two years has been explored elsewhere
(Bezzina, In press) and will not be taken up in this paper.
School teams used the LTLL Reflection Guide to rate their school’s performance on
each focus in each element of the model, using a three point “traffic light” scale (Red not in evidence, Amber -unsure, Green - clearly in evidence), and to nominate the
sources of evidence for their rating. At the conclusion of the initial workshop, each
school had developed a profile of their school’s current performance at the
commencement of LTLL. This was then used as a basis on which schools decided on
an improvement initiative, and it constituted a benchmark measure for each school.
Subsequent to the completion of the developmental element of the LTLL project (after
two years), the project team from each school was interviewed. These focus group
interviews conducted after the end of formal engagement with the University provided
the data for the present paper. There were 11 core questions for these interviews,
conducted with each of the eleven school teams. The questions appear in Appendix 2.
The interview was conducted with the three members of the LTLL project team.
Each interview was recorded and the transcripts provided an exact record of the
interviews. The data analysis was based on the interview transcripts, and was
conducted as follows:
-The interview transcripts were read and a list of themes that
emerged from the data was developed;
-The themes were organised relative to the interview questions and
a data record sheet developed;
-Each interview transcript was read a second time to identify
responses that indicated an agreement with the themes. If there
were data that indicated an agreement with a theme, that theme
was coded as being present in that school. Each school then had a
profile of themes that had emerged in interviews;
-A complete record of the interview responses by schools and
across all schools was developed based on the elements of the
conceptual framework as well as well as emergent themes;
-Each interview transcript was read a third time to check the
responses on the data record sheet against the original data, and to
identify any inaccuracies in the analysis;
-Subsequent to the analysis by emergent theme, data were
interrogated to explore the dynamics of the underlying processes.
Results
Analysis of the interview transcriptions yielded a number of emergent themes under
each of the elements of the conceptual framework. This paper addresses some of
these findings as they provide insight into the general consequences of a focus on
moral purpose, and consequences for student outcomes and teacher and leadership
practices more specifically. The sub-themes related to these four themes are reported
in tabular format, and then illustrated using extracts from typical interview transcripts.
For the purposes of this analysis, sub themes were reported where they were observed
in 5 or more of the eleven schools, this being considered to reflect a reasonable pattern
of consistency, worthy of further discussion.
Consequences of a focus on moral purpose
Table 1 below lists the sub-themes that emerged from interviews relating generally to
consequences of a focus on moral purpose.
Table I: Themes reflecting the consequences of a focus on moral purpose (in 5 or more
schools)
Theme
Sub-themes
Frequency
(Number
of
schools)
on 8
Consequences of focus on
moral purpose
Teachers
focused
authenticity in learning
There was a clearer sense of 8
purpose
Moral purpose had a major 8
impact on practice
Eight of the eleven schools reported a greater focus among teachers on authentic
learning as a key expression of moral purpose. This process of paying attention to
fundamental purpose is pivotal in prompting action, as described by one school, where
the principal described the process among staff:
they're looking at what the reason behind doing the work is all about. So that
whole sense of why are we doing it? What's the purpose of doing it? If it's not
useful then why are we doing it? So it's become a bit of the culture of the
school.
In another school, this focus was described in terms of its attention to learning.
Consideration of purpose often gives rise to questions for further reflection:
We are now thinking more authentically in terms of tasks that have been
taught in the classroom, and other teachers are also feeling the same way more critically reflecting on the current program that they're using and whether
those tasks are engaging, whether they're real life, whether they're
meaningful, explaining to the students why they need to learn what they're
learning, why they're studying a particular unit.
This initial focus on moral purpose gives rise to greater clarity of purpose (reported in
eight of the eleven schools). The shared sense of purpose gives a sense of cohesion –
getting it together - about the activities of the school. One school put it this way:
I think it will continue more so now that we’ve got it all together. I think it’s given
us a great direction and pathway to take and I know that the teachers seem to
find it quite easy to slip those values into everything we’re doing in class and
through all our units, we embed them now.
This clarity and cohesion then act as a stimulus – described by one school as “a driving
purpose” – an impetus for action that is informed by purpose. This was reported in eight
of the LTLL schools and described by one of the principals in this way:
I think that one of the biggest impacts has been on moral purpose for the
school. We've gone down a process with the staff over the last two years of
first of all giving them the language of what moral purpose is all about. …. ….
So that whole sense of why are we doing it? ….. That's impacted on not only
the teaching but also the learning that's going on because as a consequence
of that some of the pedagogy has really shifted.
The impact on teaching and learning noted by this respondent is addressed in the
following sections.
Classroom practice
One clear impact on teaching and learning had to do with changes in classroom
practice. Responses around the Authentic Learning element of the conceptual model
gave rise to four consistently identified sub-themes in this area of practice. These
appear in Table 2.
Table II: Themes reflecting classroom practices (in 5 or more schools)
Theme
Sub-themes
Classroom practice
Classroom practice has
changed.
There is a more student centred
approach
Students report tasks are more
engaging, more authentic, more
meaningful
There is a focus on authentic
teaching and learning
Frequency
(Number of
schools)
9
7
6
5
Nine of the eleven schools reported changes in classroom practice in general terms,
while more specific observations were made about student centred approaches (7
schools), student reports of authenticity and engagement (6) and explicit focus on
authenticity (5).
A renewed focus on the needs of the student has been one of the consequences of
addressing the issue of moral purpose. One teacher captured this focus most
eloquently:
We’re thinking about what is really meaningful for the children, is going to make a
difference for the 21st century child. Through that process, everything we do,
speaking as a teacher in the classroom, everything I do now, I think: “What benefit
is this going to be to the children? How meaningful is this going to be in their life?
Is this really going to transform their learning?”
A student centred approach, in conjunction with clarity about authentic learning,
enhances student sensitivity to the importance of authenticity, as in this example:
The children are now really questioning the value of their learning and [the
teacher] says it keeps her on task as well, to make sure what she’s doing is truly
authentic. So we really do believe, the four of us, that there have been enormous
shifts in the classroom that we have data to support.
One teacher spoke about this same emphasis with considerable (but not
atypical) pride:
My understanding of authentic learning is probably one of my greatest
achievements as a result of this. I thought I knew what authentic learning was and
to a degree I did. However, in reading, in listening, in observing and in thinking
and reflecting, I believe my understanding is now greater. And I'll ask the harder
questions… I really think about learning differently now. I always knew that
learning needs to have real life links and that sort of thing. That it needed to be
fun and engaging and motivating. But when you think about the word authentic it
has a different connotation now. It's about students really being transformed for
the long term. You know that about education, that's what you're here for. But I
suppose it's just thinking more critically now about why we do what we do and
what impact short term and long term that will have on our students.
This teacher’s insight takes a life-long perspective on education, and reflects a
considered realization of the need for a different approach to teaching and learning with
attention to authenticity. Attention to authenticity, as was discussed earlier, results in
enhanced student engagement.
Student outcomes
One of the major concerns of the school and system partners was to determine what (if
any) effect this focus on moral purpose had on student outcomes. Each school
determined the outcomes towards which it was working, and these were not limited to
traditional test scores or academic outcomes. The gathering of evidence about
outcomes formed a major element of participation in the project. Perceptions of the
outcomes for students were gathered during interviews and are reported in Table 3.
Table III: Themes reflecting student outcomes (in 5 or more schools)
Theme
Student outcomes
Sub-themes
Frequency
(Number
of
schools)
Students were more motivated 10
and engaged
The
program
was 8
transformational
Students achieved at a higher 8
level
Students
took
more 8
responsibility for their learning
Students learned at greater 6
depth
The feedback from interview respondents highlighted student engagement, overall
program impact, and level and depth of achievement.
There was a strong consensus among participants (eight schools) that participation in
the program had had a transformational effect for students – but not limited to students.
One school saw itself as having transformed the learning, and being confident that this
would “transform the learners”. Another typical response was even stronger:
The transformation has not only been with the students, it's been with the
teachers as well. But it's very much a journey. It's far from over. There'll be
no end. It's a continuous learning journey because transformation is an
ongoing process.
This sense of transformation is given expression in terms of achievement levels, where
eight of the eleven schools reported significant growth. One school, which chose to
focus on the Australian National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
(NAPLAN) results, reported a 43% growth in the area of numeracy, with all students
above benchmarks. They report that this enhances their sense that they are actually
able to make a difference. A second school that focused on NAPLAN described its
results as “excellent”, and a third described the dynamic that they saw at work in their
own learning gain:
I think it was about 65 per cent above state growth that we had across all
the areas of literacy, which was phenomenal. The only thing that was
different was the [LTLL] initiative. The teachers were the same, … the
quality of the students overall was the same - but it was very much, I think,
the way that they were engaged in their learning, and what they were being
asked to do was really of a more challenging, more interesting, higher order.
Six schools reported not only increased achievement levels but greater depth of
learning. In some instances this is connected to breadth and extension, while more
commonly it has to do with processes of meta-cognition such as those described by this
school:
I think another clear student outcome lies in the student’s ability to talk about
their own learning. We’ve really, very much tried to help them to develop really
strong meta cognitive skills, and to be able to have those conversations about
what helps them to learn better, and what’s underpinning what they’re being
asked to do. I think those conversations happen within their classrooms … I’ve
really noticed the different level - the depth of conversation now that you can
have with them, in terms of their learning. They expect to be learning, they
expect to learn well here and they - if they’re not, then they will actually ask
questions about it, which we think is a really good thing.
One of the major factors contributing to these outcomes was most often described as an
improvement in student engagement (ten schools). This was described in a multitude of
ways, some of which appear below, from 5 different schools:

the classrooms are far more active than they were
....
It's far more active
and engaging and interactive. Far less teacher directed.

trying to integrate some high order thinking tasks into my assessment practice
... It’s ... engagement, that’s the main thing. It comes back to engagement.
You can just see it in the classroom.

We’ve done some data analysis on student engagement. The results were
very positive in terms of their interest and the fact they enjoy learning. They
like to be there.

The responsibility to be responsible for their own learning and also to share
their ideas with others.

So to me that's a huge thing. I think there's ownership of the learning and I
think there is an engagement in the learning because they have a choice.
Teachers are reporting engagement as not being simply about being active. It involves
self-responsibility, challenge, self-direction and collaboration. Having considered the
implications of a focus on moral purpose, and the resultant outcomes for students
(which have been in the areas of performance, engagement and depth of learning),
attention now turns to the ways in which leadership practices were affected.
Leadership practices
Discussions of leadership in LTLL were not limited to those in formal positions of
responsibility, and this is reflected in the requirement that there be at least one member
of each school team who did not hold such a position.
The eight sub-themes identified by more than five schools in the study reflect a specific
focus on teachers as leaders, realignment of the practices of the formal leadership team
in the school, the dynamics of collaboration and relationship and teachers initiative.
These are reflected in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Themes reflecting leadership practices (in 5 or more schools)
Theme
Sub-themes
Frequency
(Number
of
schools)
and 10
Leadership practices
Enhanced collaboration
professional dialogue
Increased focus on teacher
leadership
Development of teachers as
leaders
Increased sharing of resources
Teachers
taking
greater
initiative
More sharing of responsibility
Practice of leadership team has
changed
There were increased levels of
trust
8
8
8
7
6
6
6
A move to greater levels of teacher leadership, sometimes referred to as shared
leadership, is described by participants as one of the key dynamics of their participation
in the project, with eight schools reporting an increased focus on teacher leadership and
eight describing the ways in which they worked to develop teacher leaders. Both
emphases are captured by one comment that described the process of shared
leadership as being “about empowering teacher leadership as well”.
The pervasive understanding of teacher leadership is typified by the following comment:
There really has been a growth of informal leadership. People who aren’t in
coordinator roles or other specific titles have really taken ownership and
leadership of various aspects of the school day.
Another school developed plans to reflect the growing appreciation of teacher
leadership in its meeting structures:
… next year we're building on this by changing our whole model of staff
meetings and so on so that we have the focus on teacher leadership.
This move to realign structure impacts also on the traditional ways in which leadership
teams operate. With the growing awareness of the capacities of all teachers, six of the
eleven schools report initiatives to change the practice of leadership teams. Two
schools put it this way:
As we read more and discussed more we realised that every teacher on staff is
a leader. So we changed the name of that [the leadership team] to the school
executive. …. We felt that every staff member is a leader in our staff. We could
see that becoming reality and we could see classroom teachers with expertise
in different areas leading other staff members.
I think that's been one of the glaring good spots to the whole thing. Because
there's been a shift from the leadership team doing everything, or the old LTLL
team doing everything to teachers actually taking responsibilities at their own
level to do things.
As the second of the two previous quotations makes clear, the focus on teacher
leadership creates opportunities for initiative. Seven of the eleven schools noted
greater incidence of teacher initiative. As the next quotation highlights, this initiative
grows out of the shift in the leadership.
There's a real increase in enthusiasm, there's great motivation. We've had
people sort of - probably the staff previously were very compliant and very
hard working but now - and - but now it's great because they're showing - and
not that they didn't do that prior, but they're showing initiative and they're
actually - they're coming up with different ideas to run with … There's been a
shift in the leadership.
Teacher leadership both builds on, and contributes to, increased collaboration among
teachers. Collaborative practice, as described in the next quotation, was one significant
outcome for practice:
… the biggest impact that I've seen as the principal is that the staff are
now sitting together, they're developing work together and they're
looking at what the reason behind doing the work is all about.
The principal quoted below put the issue even more strongly:
The professional walls have just gone down. …. That’s just been blown
away because there are no cells anymore because you’re there with your
peers, with your colleagues learning from one another and teaching
together.
In fact, ten of the eleven schools commented on increased dialogue and collaboration,
and eight on sharing of resources. Participants noted that along with increased
collaboration, there was an increase in levels of trust, and that this increase was an
evolving process but one that was most important.
People trust one another. Not completely everyone but they're getting
there. It's that you're not going to judge me, you're going to help me.
That's huge, it's really big.
Trust is significant because it allows teachers to admit to what might be seen as
inadequacies:
That's the biggest thing in my eyes that I've seen grow. As people's
confidence and competence has grown, they are more confident to say
I don't understand that, can I go here and talk to someone about this or
can I now be involved in the planning sessions with someone so I can
then actually program this and get my head around it. It's okay to say
you don't know.
If it is “OK to say you don’t know”, it is possible to have greater levels of collaboration,
more initiative and ultimately greater exercise of teacher leadership. The power of
shared leadership can grow out of an acknowledgement of individual inadequacy.
Discussion
The LTLL study set out to explore the ways in which participants experienced and
responded to leadership that draws on an explicit sense of moral purpose. The results
of this study show that the use of a conceptual framework which places moral purpose
explicitly at the centre of the work of teaching and leading does impact on both
processes and outcomes in schools.
Participants’ responses yields a picture of a group of schools that underwent genuine
change both in leadership and learning practice and outcomes. Their discussions of the
implications of focusing on moral purpose, of learning outcomes, of leadership and
classroom behaviours all tended to return to the capacity of attention to moral purpose
to act as a catalyst for change and improvement, and particularly through efforts to
enhance authentic learning.
In the first instance, and as discussed elsewhere (Bezzina, In press), focussing on, and
coming to grips with, the ethical dimensions of the work of teaching, can be seen as the
first step in engaging teachers and leaders with the power of moral purpose in schools.
This has resonance with Tuana’s notion of moral sensitivity (2007, p. 366) which is
described as having 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.
The data presented in this paper paints a picture of participants who acknowledge an
increased (or, in some cases, new) sense of the fact that their work as educators is one
that is fundamentally moral. Beyond this, there is an explicit sense of the centrality of
this moral purpose in the work of the school. Finally, as a consequence of engaging
with formal discussion of moral purpose and in particular, authentic learning,
participants are able to name and discuss elements of their practice which underpin the
changes they see occurring.
One participant’s comment captures the three components in a single statement. Each
component is noted in brackets inside the quotation:
I don't know if it was the first year here but I'd never once heard anything about moral
purpose. [ APPRECIATION THAT THE SITUATION INVOLVES ETHICAL ISSUES] I just
knew I wanted to be a teacher, didn't think about why or anything. Learning about this
transformational learning [THE UNDERLYING VALUE], I can't go back. I can't go back
and teach any other way.[INTENSITY] If I go to another school I have no idea what I'm
going to do because I now have to teach this way, I've had to change me
personally[INTENSITY].
Conclusion
The LTLL study set out to investigate the linkages between leadership and learning for
students and found that leaders at the formal and informal level make these differences
in practices and outcomes by participating in a complex process of engaging self and
others in an explicit consideration of the moral worthiness of their work as educators.
A significant insight that emerges from this study is that the movement towards
increased moral sensitivity enhanced commitment to shared values. This movement
seems to have provided a driver for ethically driven behavior. Part of the contribution of
LTLL was to draw attention to these values, which, in turn, increased teacher and leader
sensitivity to their operation. They had been previously ignored or underplayed in the
school culture and practice of individuals, creating frames marked by ethical blind spots
(Moberg, 2006).
Opening up the ethical dimensions of learning and leadership in the context of the
school both created shared meaning and enhanced shared leadership (Bezzina,
2008b). Drawing attention to the blind spots around ethical leadership has broadened
the teachers’ and leaders’ frame of reference. The overall effect has been variously
described by participants as making the application of values easier, as an impetus to
action, or as a standard against which performance (past and present) must be
measured.
This paper describes the changes in leadership and teaching practices that grew
out of an explicit moral purpose, and impacted on student learning. Perhaps more
importantly, though, it has made a contribution to the emerging appreciation of the fact
that moral sensitivity can act as a catalyst for morally motivated behaviours. The
question that the present analysis does not address is the dynamics by which teachers
and leaders go from this moral sensitivity to taking ethical action. Casting light on this
blind spot will be fertile ground for further research and study.
References
Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2004). Building sustaunable future: improving schools. 7(2), 129-150.
Begley, P. T., & Johansson, O. (Eds.). (2003). The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Begley, P. T., & Stefkovich, J. (2007). Integrating values and ethics into post secondary teaching for
leadership development: Principles, concepts, and strategies. Journal of Educational
Administration, 45 (4), 398-412.
Bezzina, M. (2007). Moral purpose and shared leadership: The leaders transforming learning and
learners pilot study. . Paper presented at the ACER Conference: The Leadership Challenge Improving Learning in Schools., Melbourne.
Bezzina, M. (2008a). Both "Catholic" and "school": leading learning with moral purpose. In A.
Benjamin & D. Riley (Eds.), Catholic Schools: Hope in Uncertain Times (pp. 264). Melbourne:
John Garratt Publishing.
Bezzina, M. (2008b). We do make a difference: Shared moral purpose and shared leadership in the
pursuit of learning. Leading and Managing, 14(1), 38-59.
Bezzina, M. (In press). Paying attention to moral purpose in leading learning: Lessons from the
Leaders Transforming Learning and Learners project. . Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership.
Bezzina, M., & Burford, C. (2010). Moral purpose in leading for learning. Paper presented at the 15th
Annual International UCEA Conference on Values and Leadership.
Bezzina, M., Burford, C., & Duignan, P. (2007, July 29-August 1). Leaders Transforming Learning and
Learners:Messages for Catholic Leaders. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference
on Catholic Education Leadership, Sydney.
Burford, C., & Bezzina, M. (2007). Leaders Transforming Learning and Learners (LTLL) 2004-2007.
Strathfield: Flagship for Creative and Authentic Leadership, Australian Catholic University.
Greenfield, W. D. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2),
174-196.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the Research evicence? Paper presented at the
ACER Conference, Melbourne.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational Leadership: The Moral Art. New York: SUNY.
Leithwood, K., and Reihl, C.,. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Nottingham:
NCSL.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership that Works. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Moberg, D. J. (2006). Ethics Blind Spots in Organizations: How Systematic Errors in Person
Perception Undermine Moral Agency. Organization Studies, 27(3), 413-428.
NCSL. (2006). Five Pillars of Distributed Leadership. Distributed leadership Retrieved April 30,
2007, from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/distributedleadership
Robinson, V. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Making sense of What Works and
Why. (Vol. 41). Sydney: ACEL.
Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying
what works and why: Best evidence synthesis iteration(BES). Wellington.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tuana, N. (2007). Conceptualising Moral Literacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 364378.
Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organisations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency.
Organisation Studies, 27(3), 341-386.
Appendix 1: Extract from Reflection Guide
SCHOOL REFLECTION GUIDE
We will use this reflection guide as an aid to learning in our orientation session. After discussing each of the elements, you will be asked to rate it
using the traffic lights and to provide some evidence for your view. The traffic lights are used as follows:
Not in evidence
Unsure if present
Clearly in evidence
Please keep this as a record of where you saw your school as we begin our journey.
Focus 3: Values
Our values shape our behaviours. If we genuinely hold particular values, they should be visible in what we do in schools and how we do it.
Different schools may choose to name different values as central to their activities. The LTLL2 model proposes 5 as a starting point, and
elaborates on each of them. Your school may choose to name others, but if you do so, you need to seek to elaborate each with indicators as we
have done for ours below.
Excellence
Catholic schools must be good schools. That is, they must seek
the very best outcomes for all their students. This comes down
to ensuring the highest quality of teaching and learning both for
staff and students.
An effective Catholic School:







Shares an explicit view of what constitutes good
teaching and learning
Has high expectations of students and teachers
Embeds best current understandings of teaching and
learning in practice Caters for individual differences
Celebrates a whole range of achievement within the
community
Expects and supports continuous staff professional
development
Builds collaborative cultures of practice
Expects that students are able to articulate values and
live them out
Appendix 2: Interview Questions
1. How has the LTLL experience impacted in your school in terms of sense of moral
purpose?
2. How has the LTLL experience impacted in your school in terms of school
leadership?
3. How has the LTLL experience impacted in your school in terms of classroom
practice?
4. How has the LTLL experience impacted in your school in terms of staff
collaboration?
5. How has the LTLL experience impacted in your school in terms of student
engagement in learning?
6. How has the LTLL experience impacted on student outcomes?
7, How has the LTLL experience impacted in your school in terms of the learning
culture of your school?
8. How has the LTLL experience impacted on your school in terms of the evidence
used by teachers?
9. What has been your most significant learning from LTLL?
10. What were the biggest challenges you faced? How did you address them?
11. What have you achieved through LTLL? What in particular helped you do this?