Michelle Cotter Thesis Final 2011

Examination of the Leadership Expectations of
Curriculum Coordinators in the Archdiocese of

Melbourne – A Case Study Approach
Michelle Cotter
BEd, Grad Dip RE, Grad Dip IT, Post Grad Dip Adult Ed & Training, M REd,
M Ed Leadership
Submitted in (partial) fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of

Education.
May, 2011
Graduate School of Education

The University of Melbourne
1
2
Contents
Declaration of Originality 6
Acknowledgements 7
Abstract 8
Acronyms 10
Chapter 1 - Introduction 11
Introduction 10
Background and Context 10
Contemporary schooling and school improvement 13
Leadership 14
The importance of the study 16
Research Questions 17
Methodology 17
Summary of Thesis Structure 19
Chapter 2 – Literature Review 21

Introduction 21
Curriculum 22
Leadership of Curriculum for Contemporary Schooling 28
Approaches to Leadership of the Curriculum for Contemporary 39

Schooling
The Role of the Curriculum Coordinator within the school 47
Curriculum Leadership at the Heart of School Development 53
Qualities of Effective Curriculum Coordinators 59

Conclusion 64
Chapter 3 - Methodology 65
Introduction 65
Methodology 65
3
Case Study Approach 69
Interview Analysis and Theme Identification 75
Case Study Description 80
Trustworthiness 85
Limitations and Delimitations 88
Summary 89
Chapter 4 – Case Study A 90

School Profile 90
How do curriculum coordinators, senior leaders and teachers perceive 93
the role of the curriculum coordinator?
What factors contribute to, or hinder, the sustaining and building of the 105
leadership capacity of the curriculum coordinator?
How do curriculum coordinators contribute to school improvement? 116
Conclusions 117
Chapter 5 – Case Study B 119

School Profile 119
Conclusions 143
Chapter 6 – Case Study C 145

School Profile 145
4
Conclusions 171
Chapter 7 – Summary of Case Studies 174

Research Question 1: How do curriculum coordinators, senior leaders 174
and teachers perceive the role of the curriculum coordinator?
Research Question 2: What factors contribute to, or hinder, the 183
sustaining and building of the leadership capacity of the curriculum
coordinator?
Research Question 3: How do curriculum coordinators contribute to 190
school improvement?
Chapter 8 – Discussion of Findings 192

leadership capacity of curriculum coordinators?
Summary of Findings 215
Recommendations for Further Research 220
Appendices 224
Appendix A: Interview questions 224
Appendix B: Theme development 225
Appendix C: Sample interview transcript extract thematic analysis 227
References 228
5
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
This thesis does not contain material which has been accepted for any other degree in
any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material
previously published or written by any other person, except where due reference is given
in the text.
Signature:
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The willingness of the 39 participants who were interviewed in this research is gratefully
acknowledged. The generosity of the principals of the three schools enabling this
research to take part and allowing the members of their Leadership Teams and teachers
to participate is also gratefully acknowledged. Pressures on time were significant for
leaders at the time of this research and an enormous gratitude is expressed to those who
took the time to provide me with considered and reflective responses throughout the case
studies.
I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of my supervisors, Dr David

Gurr and Dr Lawrie Drysdale, in the preparation and completion of this doctorate thesis.
Their ongoing support and positive contribution was a key motivating factor in the
completion of this research.
I also thank my family for their ongoing encouragement, practical and moral support
over the duration of this study, my mother Carmel Cotter and my sister Lisa Mitchell
have offered invaluable personal support to me throughout my further study. The interest
and support of my colleagues from Mercy College, Coburg, has been of great value,
their enthusiasm and interest in me completing this research has been encouraging and
motivating. I also acknowledge the support provided by my colleague and friend Dr
Mary Oski, having been able to share the doctoral research experience over prolonged
study sessions at night and on weekends, made the experience much more enjoyable.
7
ABSTRACT
In Australia, as in many countries, there is increasing pressure on schools to improve
student outcomes. Whilst this is often driven by political and accountability concerns, at
a school level there is a realisation that teaching and learning needs to change to better
meet the needs of students. Many secondary schools will have a curriculum coordinator
to help in this reform, yet this role has received little research attention. This research
specifically examined the leadership expectations that teachers, senior leaders and
curriculum coordinators had of the curriculum coordinator role in three Catholic
secondary schools in Melbourne, Australia. In total 39 interviews were conducted across
the three schools.
The curriculum coordinator role was found to be positioned at the senior leadership
level, but differently remunerated dependent on local conditions. Regardless of this,
curriculum coordinators were expected to perform similar duties in their role, primarily
promoting and supporting learning and teaching suited to local conditions. There were
several tensions in the role:
• Curriculum coordinators were expected to ensure the school was compliant with
externally imposed curriculum changes, but with minimal impact on local
priorities in achieving this.
• Curriculum coordinators were expected to provide operational guidance to the
school, subject departments and teachers on curriculum matters, yet respect the
autonomy of teachers and middle leaders in doing so.
• They were expected to ‘be in the know’ about the latest curriculum innovations
but filter these so teachers were not overwhelmed by change.
• They were expected to manage people and curriculum processes and in so doing
hold people to account, whilst maintaining personable relationships.
• Curriculum coordinators were seen as holding the vision for learning and
teaching at their school, but there was little clarity about what this was, how it
was developed nor when they dedicated time to this aspect of their work.
8
Across the three schools the curriculum coordinator role was found to be complex and
required both leadership and management. It had expectations of practical competence
and these were prioritised over visionary and improvement focused leadership. School
improvement did not feature in how the role was enacted, or in expectations of what the
role should be. There was a lack of detailed understanding of what strategic school
improvement is and what the senior leadership role of curriculum coordinator would
contribute to it. Subsequently the daily management duties of the curriculum coordinator
role take up most of their time and they are not really empowered to be catalysts for
change and improvement as leaders of learning and teaching.
9
Acronyms
CAMM Curriculum Area Middle Managers

CBAM Concerns Based Adoption Model
CECV Catholic Education Commission of Victoria
CEOM Catholic Education Office Melbourne
CSF (I & II) Curriculum Standards Framework I & II
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ICT Information and Communication Technology
KLA Key Learning Area
LAL Learning Area Leader
LBOTE Language Background Other Than English
LT Leadership Team
MCEETYA Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs
NAPLAN National Assessment Program Literacy And Numeracy
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
POL Position of Leadership
SES Socio Economic Status
SIF School Improvement Framework
SMT School Management Team
UBD Understanding By Design
VCAL Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning
VCE Victorian Certificate of Education
VELS Victorian Essential Learning Standards
VRQA Victorian Qualification and Qualifications Authority
10
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Introduction
This chapter provides the background and context of the study including the significance
of the current emphasis on leadership in schools and in school improvement. It refers
particularly to the educational context in Victoria and more specifically to the Catholic
sector of the Archdiocese of Melbourne. An outline of the prevailing understanding of
school curriculum and differing perspectives on leadership is provided to ensure
familiarity and understanding of the subsequent research. An overview of the
methodology used in the research is provided in addition to a brief description of the
chapters included in the thesis.
Background and Context

In 2009 the Archdiocese of Melbourne had 67 Catholic Secondary schools, including 24
co-educational, 18 boys’ and 25 girls’ schools (CECV: 2009). Some of these schools are
aligned with and governed by religious congregations and others are diocesan and
therefore non-congregationally aligned. The selection of three school sites for this
research includes a selection across these different types of Catholic secondary schools.
Examination of similarities and differences for the role of curriculum coordinator in
different schools is the rationale for this selection. There proved however to be no
significant impact on the role of the curriculum coordinator aligned with the governance
of the school.
Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne are characterised by the

principles for Catholic education articulated by the Church. Catholic schools are;
partners with the Church and parents in the Church’s educational mission; community
providers of a public service, and public institutions contributing to the achievement of
the public goals of excellence and equity. The educational provision of Catholic schools
is then transparent in its accountabilities to Government funding bodies as well as being
distinctly Catholic in nature (CEOM, 2009).
11
At the sector level the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria has committed all
Catholic schools to an agenda of curriculum reform through the adoption of the
Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS). The learning and teaching reforms that
VELS directs schools to adopt have an explicit impact on curriculum practices, and
therefore whole school curriculum leadership. As a result of this reform it is logical to
conclude that the curriculum coordinator role in a school can have a significant part to
play in learning and teaching reform. This sector wide commitment to curriculum reform
has implications for the work of curriculum coordinators. They have a particular
responsibility for the preparation and development of their school for VELS
implementation. Curriculum coordinators in other education sectors in Victoria can be
expected to have similar experiences in relation to both State and National education
reform agenda.
The leadership structure and organisational hierarchy within Catholic schools in the
Archdiocese of Melbourne is determined at school level. Hence the expectations,
responsibilities and significance of the curriculum coordination role vary; however, the
role usually entails oversight of the whole school academic curriculum. In addition to
this role, each school could be expected to have a number of people who are identified
as responsible for specific aspects of curriculum, such as Key Learning Area (KLA)
coordinators, VELS Domain coordinators or Curriculum Area Middle Manager
(CAMM).
The nature and significance of the role of curriculum coordinator in schools is a

consideration of this research. How and where the leadership of curriculum fits within
the leadership structure of the school also offers some insight into expectations held for
curriculum coordination leadership. Placement of the role within the hierarchical
structure influences perceptions of the significance of the role, as well as the capacity of
individual curriculum coordinators to influence school improvement. The leadership that
is expected of curriculum coordinators and the way in which they lead is important to
investigate in order to further understand ongoing education reform.
12
Contemporary schooling and school improvement
Contemporary schooling needs to be considered across all aspects of education in the
twenty-first century (Caldwell, 2005). It is both inevitable and critical for schools
seeking to provide contemporary learning environments for their students to have
leaders who focus specifically on improving the learning and teaching in their school.
The curriculum coordinator leadership position has a particular role to play in bringing
about reform that promotes contemporary schooling.
The movement towards contemporary schooling is driven by a wide range of factors

including national economic prosperity (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 2002). In the
Australian context this is generally funnelled down through Government policy which is
then connected to education funding. As such some of the learning and teaching
initiatives that dominate the education landscape are seen as externally imposed
changes. Most recently initiatives include the VELS, ratings based plain English
reporting and looming closer, the Australian Curriculum. Externally imposed
curriculum reform means that curriculum coordinators have a specific role in facilitating
and leading these changes in their schools. The profile of the curriculum coordinator in
times of such change is particularly highlighted. They are seen to have a responsibility to
ensure the school community understands and can implement the reforms. In the light of
such current curriculum reforms it is then timely to investigate curriculum coordination
at school level. Understanding the expectations held for their roles as leaders in their
schools, the factors that support or hinder them in performing their roles and the
contribution they make to the improvement of their school will assist with this.
The evolution of education to better reflect contemporary society calls for both change
and school improvement in the design and pedagogical approaches employed in
education. As such the concept of school improvement is driven by a belief in the need
for the improvement of the outcomes of schooling for all students and the capacity of
schools to manage change (Hopkins, 2005). The leadership focus of the curriculum
coordinator on learning and teaching is then foundational to a school’s improvement
13
journey (Matthews, 2009). If schools are to improve the levels of education attainable by
young people they must improve in the areas of learning and teaching for all of their
students. In part this improvement is contributed to by educational leadership
Leadership
Current research emphasises the significance of leadership in creating the conditions and
climate in which effective learning and teaching occurs (Busher, 2006; Fink, 2010;
Leithwood, Anderson, Mascall & Strauss, 2010). Effective educational leaders engage
and inspire school communities to develop a shared vision, mission and strategic
direction for their school (Davies, 2008, NCSL, 2009a). The curriculum coordinator
leadership role within this research basis has a function in leading for improved
schooling and more specifically learning and teaching in their school.
Curriculum coordinators in Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne

share a commonality in their Melbourne and Catholic setting whilst retaining a unique
context within their specific schools. A Catholic schools’ relationship to the Catholic
Education Office Melbourne (CEOM); as well as the Catholic Education Commission of
Victoria (CECV) and the Archdiocese, further strengthen common expectations and
requirements that impact on school based curriculum coordination.
How the holder of this role in a school fulfils the position, responsibilities and duties of
curriculum coordinator in a Catholic setting is shaped by the values of Catholic
educational leadership. This commonality of educational context of Catholic secondary
schools in Melbourne means that the examination of curriculum coordination across
three different schools shares a common values basis. Whilst the case study schools are
each unique, they are tied to the same broad purpose of the provision of Catholic
education and the expectation of the curriculum coordinator to act as a leader and a
teacher within the teachings of the Church. The impact and implications of Catholicity
on the schools are both implicit and explicit for the curriculum coordination role. In
addition, the expectations of the role of curriculum coordinator are influenced by the
14
Catholic nature of the school, sometimes including the influence of the charism of the
school.
The broad concept of Catholic educational leadership also distinctly connects all
curriculum coordinators in Catholic schools. The Gospel values and Church teachings
upon which Catholic education is based ensure that leadership within the Catholic sector
differs to other educational sectors. This difference from other sectors unifies the
experience of curriculum coordinators in Catholic schools. The Leadership in Catholic
Schools: Development Framework and Standards of Practice (2005) provides an
explicit common Catholic context for comparing experiences of leadership in Catholic
schools. As a framework the Standards set parameters for leadership in the Catholic
context through ‘Guiding Conceptions of Leadership’:
• Having a clear moral purpose
• Relationship Building
• Understanding and Managing Change
• Creating and Sharing Knowledge
• Ensuring coherence and alignment of structures
The Standards also identify ‘Leadership Actions in Five Key Areas’:
Area 1: The Faith Community
Area 2: A Vision for the Whole School
Area 3: Teaching and Learning
Area 4: People and Resources
and
Area 5: Community
These Standards have been endorsed by the CECV and act as a common point of
reference for this research. They can be used in the research as a framework for
exploring the perceptions of the specifically Catholic context aspect of curriculum
coordination. The relevance and importance of the identified factors of leadership, as
outlined in the Standards, for curriculum leaders may also be revealed as a result of this
research. Excluding Area 1: The Faith Community, the other Leadership Actions in Key
Areas have relevance across sectors and for educational leadership. They also share a
similarity to dimensions of leadership identified in broader leadership research.
15
The importance of the study
This research into curriculum coordination leadership seeks to examine the case study
schools and build an analytical picture of curriculum coordination leadership in these
settings. It also informs the broader body of research into educational leadership, as well
as providing insight into the nature of the role as currently experienced in the local
Melbourne Catholic secondary school setting. Comparison of the research findings to
the body of educational leadership literature confirms some aspects of educational
leadership theory. It also identifies some differences in the translation of theory into
practice.
The implications for school based practice and policy whilst context referenced in this
research do provide insight into the changing educational landscape for leaders in
schools. The expectations of the curriculum coordinator are revealed to be largely
contingent upon the school context, leadership history at the school and personal
approaches to leadership. Whilst similarities between schools and interviewee groups
confirm and consolidate some commonly held views, they also highlight shared deficits
in approaching school improvement strategically. It is both what is found to be positive
in the performance of the role and what is negative that adds to the significance of the
research in further building a picture of educational leadership.
The impact of curriculum reform in a school within a sector or across sectors is usually
experienced by all teachers, as well as by school leaders, and is intended and motivated
by the improvement of student learning. Teachers can be expected to be engaged with
the curriculum by virtue of their status as teacher professionals. How the curriculum is
lead and how it is perceived to be lead can then be expected to have an impact on all
teachers and across a school. The perceptions of other key stakeholders in a school offer
an insight into the attributes deemed most significant for curriculum coordination. In a
period of significant curriculum reform it is timely to consider the expectations and
experiences of curriculum coordination at school level, to ascertain what actions,
attributes and behaviours of curriculum leaders are deemed most successful. A range of
school level key stakeholders could be expected to have a view of how the curriculum is
16
led in their school and how effectively the goals of learning and teaching are achieved.
This research seeks to reveal these potential multiple perspectives, confirming their
diversity or similarity of views.
Specifically in relation to Catholic educational leadership, this research offers an insight

into curriculum coordination as it is realised in a Catholic context for the continued
provision of Catholic education. The expectations of leaders in a Catholic context are
imbued with a particular religious tradition and set of articulated and shared values.
Developing a deeper understanding of just what is expected of curriculum coordinators
provides a valuable contribution to both the Catholic school sector and the education
community, as well as wider society. Proposing a picture of and for curriculum
coordination leadership through this case study investigation is a possible outcome of
this research.
Research Questions
This research has a focus on three key questions:
• How do curriculum coordinators, senior leaders and teachers perceive the
role of curriculum coordinators?
• What factors contribute to, or hinder, the sustaining and building of the
• How do curriculum coordinators contribute to school improvement?
Three different groups of interviewees provide insight into expectations held for the role
of the curriculum coordinator; senior leaders (including the principal), the curriculum
coordinators, and teachers (including those middle leaders with a Position of Leadership,
POL).
Methodology
The methodology used to undertake the research was qualitative. It sought to understand
the behaviours and beliefs that are held in a Catholic school setting relating to
curriculum coordination leadership. It is underpinned by the principles of hermeneutics
and within a phenomenological design. The study sought to describe the phenomena of
curriculum coordination leadership within an explicit setting, the Catholic secondary
17
school in Melbourne, Australia. Three individual Catholic school sites were used as case
study sites and staff volunteered to be interviewed. Relevant school based documents,
such as the role description of the curriculum coordinator at the school, explanations or
descriptions of the school’s leadership structure and organisational health data were also
considered. Research conclusions for each site are drawn as well as site commonalities
and differences identified to gain a picture of possible trends across Catholic secondary
schools.
The participants invited for interview were key stakeholders in the curriculum at each
school. They were from different groups within the school: a) those who report to the
curriculum coordinator; b) whomever the curriculum coordinator reports to; c) teachers
who observe the work of the curriculum coordinator; d) the curriculum coordinator; and,
e) if appropriate the peers of the curriculum coordinator (for example, in some cases the
curriculum coordinator was one of the deputy principals and in this case a peer level
perception from other members of the School Management Team (SMT) added to the
research).
A semi-structured interview design was used to enable the interviews to respond to

interviewee background and perceptions whilst still covering the research questions.
Interviews were conducted individually and recorded on audio tape as well as through
note taking during the interview by the researcher. Each site-specific profile was
compared and contrasted using anonymous site identifiers.
The persons in the role of curriculum coordinator at each site were not specific subjects
under investigation. Rather, the focus was on the perspectives from which they
themselves (as curriculum coordinators), those to whom they report (principal or another
leader within the school), those who report to them (curriculum area middle managers),
their colleagues (peers at the same leadership level within their school) and teachers
viewed the role. Curriculum coordinators were invited to share their views on
curriculum coordination leadership and what factors enable and hinder this. The research
findings endeavoured to identify the characteristics of the phenomenon of curriculum
18
coordination leadership within Catholic education in response to the three key research
questions.
A final reflection upon the methodology relates to the relationship between the
researcher and the school participants. The researcher has previously held the role of
curriculum coordinator in a Catholic secondary school but was not in such a position at
the time of interviews taking place. Subsequently some participants were familiar with
the researcher in their previous role, but not as colleagues working in the same school.
Appropriate means were taken to ensure that participants were involved in the research
in an informed and voluntary capacity and that their involvement and responses would
be de-identified within the research report. However it is important to consider that some
participants may have felt some inhibitions in speaking freely and honestly due to
researcher familiarity. Conversely, it may also be the case that some participants
provided feedback that was influenced by prior association and perception.
Summary of Thesis Structure

The structure of this thesis is outlined in brief below in the chapter overviews:
Chapter one, introduction

An overview of the focus, purpose, methodology and research base of the research is
explained. The methodology used is explained in brief and the context for the case study
research sites within the Catholic education sector in the Archdiocese of Melbourne is
explained.
Chapter two, review of literature

The literature reviewed is selected in order to place this research into the broader context
of educational leadership research. An investigation of contemporary understandings
and expectations for schooling, curriculum and school improvement are unpacked in
order to inform the analysis of curriculum reform in the local Victorian schooling
context. Educational leadership theory is examined in order to unpack the more general
concepts of leadership in schools and the relationship of leadership theories such as
distributive, instructional, strategic and transformational leadership to the role of the
curriculum coordinator.
19
Chapter three, methodology
The research methodology employed in this research is a qualitative case study
approach. It is underpinned by the principles of hermeneutics and within a
phenomenological design. The study seeks to describe the phenomena of curriculum
coordination leadership within an explicit setting, the Catholic school. This chapter
outlines the specific methodology used to enact the research and explains the limitations
and considerations noted as a result of the methodology.
Chapters four through six provide the findings from each of the three schools
Chapter seven, summary of case studies

This chapter summarises the similarities and differences evident across the three case
study sites as well as between interviewee groups.
Chapter eight, discussion of findings

The discussion of research findings examines the findings of each of the research
questions in the light of the body of literature aligned with the study. Recommendations
for further research are also identified.
20
Chapter 2 - Literature Review
Introduction
Much has been said about leadership and leaders in many and varied contexts, but very
little has been specifically researched specifically about curriculum coordination
leadership. Whilst researchers have investigated the leadership styles, qualities, actions
and behaviours of leaders there is scarce specific insight into this particular leadership
role in secondary schools. A small body of empirical research into curriculum
coordination in primary schools does exist and to some extent this is helpful in this
research (O’Neil, 1996). The plethora of educational leadership research has predictably
resulted in many interpretations and definitions of leadership, but none that specifically
and authentically relate to curriculum coordination leadership in a secondary school
setting. Gurr (1996, p. 5) remarks that there exists a complexity in defining leadership:
When people are allowed to define the scope of the leadership role; a rich
description of this phenomenon eventuates, suggesting that it may be futile to
pursue simple definitions.
It is likely that this will apply to curriculum coordination leadership also. It is also likely
to vary across school contexts because each school’s context and culture are unique
(Middlewood, 2001, Whiteside, 1996). Exploring the nature of curriculum coordination
leadership subsequently necessitates a strong reliance on leadership literature in general.
What follows is an exploration of the body of literature relevant to the experience of
curriculum coordination leadership in Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of
Melbourne.
The term and title ‘curriculum coordinator’ is anecdotally common in Catholic

secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, as is a belief and experience of this
role being a feature of school leadership structures. Based on this common language in
schools the term curriculum coordination and curriculum coordinator are used
throughout this research to describe the senior leadership role that is focused on the
curriculum. Reference is made to leadership as an action and feature of the role because
21
the purpose of this study is to examine the nature of the leadership evident in the
performance of the role of the ‘curriculum coordinator’. The review of literature that
follows is compared and contrasted to this so named ‘curriculum coordination or
curriculum coordinator leadership’ role.
The consideration of literature relevant to an examination of the leadership role of the

curriculum coordinator encompasses a diversity of areas. These areas include defining
and considering curriculum in the Victorian context, leadership for contemporary
schooling, approaches to leadership, the role of the curriculum coordinator within the
school and in school development and the qualities of effective curriculum coordination.
Curriculum
This section explores definitions of curriculum, coordinating the curriculum and

curriculum specifically in the Victorian context.
Defining Curriculum
Important to an exploration of curriculum coordination leadership is an understanding of
what is meant by curriculum. There are divergent views on this, from the narrowest
perspective of the design of subject offerings to the broadest which encompasses all
school related activities (Stern & Kysilka, 2008). According to van den Akker (2004)
there are four levels at which curriculum can be considered:
• System / society / nation / state (or macro) level
• School / institution (or meso) level
• Classroom (or micro) level
• Individual / personal (or nano) level
The most significant distinction between the levels is system level curriculum
development, which is ‘generic’ in nature, and ‘site specific’ or school curriculum which
is customised to the local environment. The macro and meso levels van den Aker
advises may appear to be blended in school sectors or districts where there are large
22
numbers of schools, as is the case in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The curriculum
coordinator’s leadership has the greatest significance in the meso, micro and nano levels.
According to Wiles (2007, p. 2) a dynamic and adaptive definition of curriculum best

serves contemporary schooling:
The curriculum represents a set of desired goals or values that are activated
through a development process and culminate in successful learning experiences
for students.
This definition directly aligns the curriculum coordinator with leading the learning and
teaching actions of curriculum rather than the theory. It is also an inclusive view of
curriculum which encompasses learning experiences broadly and not limited to simply
subject based learning. Levin’s (2008) definition, whilst simple and succinct, is also
useful to consider in its directness. For Levin (2008, p. 8), curriculum is “an official
statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do”. Within this context,
the measure of the success of the curriculum is focused on the outcomes for learners. For
curriculum coordinators this definition puts an emphasis on the importance of their
leadership with a ‘whole school’ and ‘whole student as learner’ perspective.
Ladson-Billings and Brown (2008, p. 143) describe the curriculum as organic which
further articulates the complexity associated with this ‘whole school’ view:
The curriculum is a living and breathing organism through which we create our
vision of our pasts, presents and futures. It is also a moving target that we have
difficulty getting our hands and minds around. Its relevancy is tied directly to the
material and symbolic condition of our lives. It is both a door keeper and a
liberator. It provides both opportunity and constraint.
Kelly (2004, p. 8) provides a good summation of curriculum, defining it as, “the totality
of the experiences the pupil has as a result of the provision made.” He comments further,
that for curriculum to be successful the teacher is the crucial element. Consequently, this
is highlighting the significance of the curriculum coordinator’s work in influencing
23
teacher practice not just designing curriculum structures. Curriculum leadership in this
view requires an inclusive and collaborative approach that brings together a much wider
perspective on ‘learning’.
Coordinating the Curriculum

In focusing on the whole school context, the leadership of the curriculum coordinator in
a school is about learning and teaching, but it is influenced by and influences other
elements of school life. Understanding the complexities of the role within the broader
scheme of school life and leadership is important.
Bowring-Carr (2005) argues that all leaders in schools need to be constantly engaged in
discussions about learning. He claims that learning is a personal responsibility for all
leaders in the school community. Whilst in some ways this shared commitment to
student learning may assist the curriculum coordinator in their role, it can
simultaneously create added tension in requiring them to lead, influence and respond to
the directions provided by other leaders.
School based descriptions of learning and teaching provide an insight into the
dimensions and explicitly articulated expectations of the role of curriculum coordinator.
Positioned at the Deputy Principal level the role is described as follows at a large
Catholic co-educational secondary school:
The Deputy Principal Teaching and Learning shares in the Principal’s
leadership and represents the Principal in discharging their duties. They report
to the Principal under the following dimensions:
• Faith Community
• Vision for the whole school
• Teaching and Learning
• People and Resources
• Community
• Other Duties
24
At the Director level in a medium sized Catholic girls’ secondary school the role is
described in the following way:
The Director of Learning is responsible for articulating and enacting a whole
school learning community approach to curriculum. Shaping a vision, and
leadership and administration of learning and teaching programs are key
priorities. A critical awareness of education sector trends, learning and teaching
innovations and strategic approaches to improving student learning outcomes is
expected. This includes developing the whole school professional learning plan in
alignment with the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) registration requirements
and the College's school improvement plan. Collaboratively, the Director of
Learning strategically plans, develops and implements the curriculum. This
incorporates management of structures, establishing a shared vision and
evaluation of approaches to curriculum delivery in co-operation with Heads of
Learning and other key stakeholders. The Director of Learning is responsible for
the leadership of all aspects of curriculum including:
• Course documentation, resources, budgeting and excursions
• Assessment, examinations and reporting
• Curriculum publications and subject selection
• VELS, VCE, VET and VCAL programs
• Whole school and individual professional learning planning
• Accreditation
Both the Deputy and Director roles are situated as senior leaders within the schools.
They share an emphasis on collaboration with others and require both leadership and
management. The Deputy level requires explicit leadership across five spheres of
schooling improvement as well as an ‘other duties’ category. The Director level role is
contained to a specific focus on learning, including staff professional learning.
These two descriptions are school context specific, however they highlight the role of
the curriculum coordinator as having multiple and varied dimensions. It is because of
this that researching the role further, to shed more light on it than current literature
provides, is important. Kelly (2004) identifies leadership in this area as significant
25
because its focus is on the very purpose for schools – learning and teaching. Better
understanding the expectations and performance of the role should support the
implementation of educational reforms aimed at improving student learning.
Curriculum in the Victorian Context

In the Victorian context there have been several empirical studies of the work of those
who lead the curriculum in schools, including Key Learning Areas (KLA). These
investigations shed some light on the whole school curriculum coordination role as a
whole school leadership position.
White (2000) explores “The Leadership Role of the Curriculum Area Middle Managers
in Selected Victorian Government Secondary Schools”. This investigation concludes
that the role of English and Mathematics Curriculum Area Middle Managers (CAMM)
does include leadership, but that this leadership role can be limited by school contextual
issues, including role expectations from teachers and senior leadership. Insights from
White’s research provide a critical grounding for this research. He identifies significant
gaps in research in relation to curriculum leadership including a lack of clarity in what
the role of a CAMM in the Victorian State education system involves.
Keane’s (2010) research built upon White’s (2000) by exploring the role of learning area
leaders in Catholic secondary schools. Keane (2010, p. 163) concludes that “leadership
is complex and multi-dimensional and is seen to be central to improvement in student
learning outcomes.” However, he also acknowledges that clarification in a number of
areas of Learning Area Leadership (LAL) is still needed. These include the way that
middle leadership impacts on student learning outcomes, what factors in the context of
individual schools inhibit or enhance the leadership of the LALs and the roles of the
leaders of teaching and learning in secondary schools and their relationship with the
LALs.
Ling’s (1998) research preceded that of White and Keane, and is directly focussed on
curriculum coordinators in Victorian independent secondary schools. Ling concludes
26
that curriculum coordinator leaders are caught between leading and managing. He
describes them as acting within complex interactions between heads of department and
the principal. He claims that this power oriented positioning creates issues related to
both:
..the moral standing, moral right and moral capacity of the curriculum
coordinator and the skill or capacity of the curriculum coordinator to utilise this
moral standing or right (Ling, 1998, p. ix).
Ling (1998) followed by White (2000) and then Keane (2010) each offer insight into
curriculum related leadership in schools. Their research, whilst specifically focused on
the case study schools examined and influenced by situational factors, provide some
guidance and learning for this research. Drawing on the most recent findings of Keane
(2010) it is clear that there remain tensions for curriculum leadership in schools.
Particularly relevant to this examination of curriculum coordinator leadership is Keane’s
finding that middle leaders’ relationships with curriculum coordinators are complex and
require greater role clarity. In particular Keane found that middle level leaders and
senior leaders need to work more strategically together in shaping approaches to
learning and teaching. In a similar vein White’s (2000) investigation identifies the
necessity for greater clarity of how CAMMs lead the curriculum. White proposes a
model of CAMM leadership that identifies four leadership roles for CAMMs:
instructional leader, learning area architect, curriculum strategist, and administrative
leader. The dynamic in the relationship between middle leaders and curriculum
coordinators is seen to impact on how both roles lead. Ling (1998) also finds the
positioning of curriculum leaders in wider school structures to be a factor that influences
their capacity to lead. These research findings are the antecedents of this research in the
local Melbourne context and it continues a fifteen year research tradition seeking to
colour and clarify how curriculum leaders in schools make a difference to their schools.
By building on the findings of Keane (2010), Ling (1998) and White (2000), the
expectations and experiences of curriculum leadership in the Victorian secondary school
setting in the early twenty-first century is further understood. Understanding of
27
curriculum coordination leadership in our local setting needs to be specifically enhanced
if leadership responses are to address local and unique needs and issues. In his overview
of Australian educational leadership research, Mulford (2007, p. 19) concludes that there
is a deficit in current research that specifically focuses on Australian contexts. A key
purpose of this study is to partly fill the gap in Australian context knowledge about
educational leadership and to raise awareness of the role of the curriculum coordinator
as leader in the Catholic secondary school setting.
Leadership of Curriculum for Contemporary Schooling

This section explores the scope of leadership learning, global trends and local context,
the impact of change on leadership of the curriculum and contemporary schooling.
Scope of Leadership of the Curriculum

The curriculum coordinator has a particular but not sole role in readying their school as a
place for contemporary schooling. According to Wiles (2009) curriculum work is central
to all leadership activity in schools. The scope of this responsibility includes leadership
of global trends within the local context, leading for changed thinking and practices in
teaching, as well as leading the wider school community in the transition to
contemporary learning (Matthews, 2009). Whilst the curriculum coordinator has
learning and teaching as their particular leadership focus, their work has implications for
other spheres of schooling also. Consequently the curriculum coordinator’s leadership
influences and guides the whole school vision to some extent. Wiles (2009, p.1) sees
such curriculum leadership as “pretty much what the individual leader makes it“. He
contends that the role of curriculum leaders is to both maintain the existing program and
broaden it by providing vision, organisation and motivation so that others participate in
school redesign. Hence, curriculum coordinators are change agents as well as stewards
of local culture, customs and values in their promotion of contemporary learning. Their
leadership of global trends in synergy with the needs and issues of the local context of
their school is an important feature of their leadership.
28
Global Trends and Local Context
Global education trends undoubtedly make waves that reach Australia’s shores and
impact on the leadership of the curriculum coordinator. Razik (2010) claims that these
trends are shaped by social, technological, economic and political factors that influence
all levels of education and educational policy. Some of these waves have short-term
ripple effects on education and others are seen to have longer lasting effects. Beare,
Caldwell and Millikan’s (1989) identification of movement towards whole school
system improvement initiatives late last century are an example. Their research
concludes that governments are responding to changing social values that prioritise
quality, equity and efficiency that subsequently shape public policy in education. They
identify changed government directions with energies “devoted primarily to setting
broad goals and expectations, specifying outcomes and establishing frameworks for
accountability” (Beare, Caldwell & Millikan, 1989, p. 152). Twenty years later, for
curriculum coordinators this has meant, in the local context, implementing prescribed
curriculum frameworks and external testing regimes such as VELS, NAPLAN, PISA
and soon the Australian Curriculum.
The importance for curriculum coordinators in implementing new initiatives is

heightened through the publication of test score rankings for schools, sectors, states and
nations that enable performance comparison. These public comparisons are symptomatic
of what Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (2002) identify as a prevailing sentiment in
many parts of the world that governments have grown impatient for educational change.
Their impatience is driven by a belief that the national economy is directly related to the
quality of its schools. Hence improving schools is not just a social good but also a factor
to consider in GDP. Leithwood et al. (2002) name this movement ‘The New Right’ and
attribute to it the increased accountability measures that are seen to overburden school
leaders. The curriculum coordinator whilst not usually the ‘accountable signatory’ on
testing and curriculum framework compliance for a secondary school, is responsible for
ensuring the principal can attest to the compliance of the curriculum area. Their
leadership of learning and teaching accountabilities is now a regular feature of the
29
school calendar in Victorian schools. This global trend does influence the type of work
they put their energies into.
Global trends are also evident in the nature of schools and schooling which impacts on
curriculum coordination leadership in terms of how the curriculum is designed and
delivered. Caldwell (2006) amongst others, asserts that the factory model of schooling
has passed its use-by-date and yet many of its characteristics linger in classrooms,
curriculum documentation and pedagogy. Even earlier Lawton (2003) argues that the
curriculum was out of date and that schools need to do more to make a complex and
confusing world more meaningful for secondary students in terms of curriculum
pedagogy and school organisation. The problem for leaders is,
...the delicate balance between having a clear vision of what needs to be done
and respecting the professional autonomy of those who must implement the
reform (2003, p. 404).
The curriculum coordinator commonly faces this tension as they lead change initiatives.
Without the ‘buy-in’ of all stakeholders involved in reform and innovation the
improvement of pedagogy faces considerable difficulty (Davies, 2006; Kimmelman,
2010). Crowther, Ferguson and Hann (2009) promote a parallel leadership model to
deal with this complexity. They identify the need to create accountable and synergetic
relationships between teacher leaders and principals to achieve sustained improvement
of pedagogy.
Focusing global education reform on learning and teaching might seem obvious but it
has taken some time to eventuate. Caldwell’s (2005) work on schools for the 21st century
argues strongly for transformation of schools and places leadership of the curriculum as
central to shaping the ‘school of the future’. Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) argue that, “It’s
about learning (and it’s about time)”. Their focus on learning recognises global learning
trends, but stresses the need for it be connected intimately to the local environment. As a
result they see leadership of learning as bringing the community together to learn.
In a world of complex and paradoxical social forces, it is the connectedness
that successful leaders contribute to their schools……while many ‘dots’ are
30
similar to those in other schools, many in each school are different and
combine in unique ways (Stoll, Fink and Earl, 2003, p. 129).
Leadership from a local context is not a fixed point but an evolving journey; as the
community learns and changes so must its leaders. The curriculum coordinator has a role
in helping people make sense of both where they are and where they are headed in this
global context of leadership for contemporary schooling.
Impact of Change on Leadership of the Curriculum

Change in education and society is overwhelmingly perceived as inevitable and
increasingly complex and rapid by education researchers and commentators (Caldwell,
2006; Cheng, 2008; Davies, 2006; Fullan, 1993, 2001, 2008; Hargreaves & Shirley,
2009; Kimmelman, 2010; Stoll, Fink & Earl, 2003; West-Burnham, 2009). The
implementation of school reform with a stated objective of improving the effectiveness
of educational organisations is often focused primarily on curriculum reform, with
improved learning outcomes as the key driver (Kimmelman, 2010, p. 154).
Schools are impacted by change in many and varied ways and curriculum coordinator
leaders are called to respond to these changes. Garrett (2005) identifies leading and
managing change as an essential skill for those in schools. He argues that regardless of
whether they are working at classroom level, middle leadership or senior leadership, the
capacity to engage with and respond to change is critical. For curriculum coordinators
the ability to lead change with a view to the contemporary context is critical. Caldwell
(2006, p. 15) contends that across the globe there is a call for “...significant, systemic
and sustained improvement for all students in all settings.” He argues that schools need
strategic leaders of change who work to nurture their learning community with a deep
concern for pedagogy and curriculum. There is no doubt that the curriculum coordinator
has a key role in such leadership.
Furthermore, the factors that influence and cause change in school are diverse and
intimately connected to change in society at large (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). A range
of small changes for individual students and staff influence school life each and every
31
day. Larger changes requiring a shift in educational practice can however be much
harder to implement. Both of these factors impact on the role of the curriculum
coordinator. Curriculum coordinators support individuals in their learning and are
responsible for the school’s overall formal curriculum (Kelly, 2004). Ensuring that
learning programs meet accountability requirements and respond to local and personal
needs also falls within their leadership domain (NCSL, 2009b). The larger platform of
educational policy reform is something the curriculum coordinator has less direct
influence over, but it significantly impacts on what is required and expected of them as
leaders and teachers. Hartle and Hobby (2003) identified the growing importance of
knowledge as putting a new premium on learning that prompts a review of the role of
teacher and learner. NCSL research findings on ‘School Leadership Today’ (2009b)
further assert that over the last decade it has become clear that, “leading change is one of
the most fundamental skills demanded of school leaders” (2009b, p. 13).
Arends and Kilcher (2009) categorise three realities that have changed learning and
teaching in schools as: societal pressure for standards and accountability, increased
student diversity and fundamental changes in technology and globalisation. These
realities certainly impact on the role of the curriculum coordinator in leading staff to
adapt to and adopt educational change through:
• Implementing new curriculum frameworks (eg.VELS / Australian Curriculum)
• Standardised testing (eg. NAPLAN)
• Developing individualising learning programs to meet diverse learning needs and
backgrounds (eg. Thinking Curriculum, Science of Learning)
• Embracing technologies (eg. e-networks, Internet, portable technologies)
Understanding the nature of change, the shape that change gives to school culture and
how individual educators respond to change is necessary. According to Deal and
Peterson (2009, p. 249) all school leaders of the future will face five paradoxes in their
work, the third of these being the paradox of change. They describe this paradox as
challenging leaders to “perpetuate what is thriving in the present while reaching for what
may be even better in the future”. Curriculum coordinators in the current climate
32
preparing their school for the Australian Curriculum and still teaching within VELS is a
good example of this specific challenge.
In an effective learning organisation all the stakeholders are involved in the educative
process (Bell & Bolam, 2010). The organisational learning of schools according to Hill
and Crevola (2000) is closely aligned with the capacity of the people and the
organisation to change. They see the pursuit of improvement as a team endeavour, not a
solo pursuit and argue that,
Change is constant, therefore organisations do not have the option of standing
still; they either go backwards or forwards, and going forwards involves
organizational learning (Hill & Crevola, 2000, p. 394).
Similarly Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) describe the experience of change in schools as a
rollercoaster ride.
Educators can’t hide their heads in the hope that ‘this too shall pass’. They have
a choice to make – wait until directed to change by others, or take charge of
change and attempt to influence the future of schools and schooling
The role of the curriculum coordinator in such organisational learning is to lead so that
curriculum reform is actually absorbed into professional practice and not allowed to
overwhelm the practitioners. O'Neil’s (2003) research in New Zealand in the 1990s
investigated the leadership of curriculum reform and found that the context of individual
schools, the usual work and expectations of teachers and the broader educational climate
all have a consistent impact on curriculum leadership. O’Neil observed teachers and
curriculum leaders engaged creatively and energetically with change, however;
"curriculum innovation always took place alongside other day-to-day routines and
seasonal patterns for work” (O’Neil, 2003, p. 145). He saw that these multiple demands
meant that:
Any potential benefit of voluntary curriculum innovation had to constantly be
weighed against costs in terms of other workgroup priorities, the energies and
33
dispositions of fellow workgroup members and their personal health and
wellbeing (O’Neil , 2003, p. 145).
Hence, a substantial leadership challenge for curriculum coordinators is to balance

organisation, individual and personal needs. O’Neil claims that curriculum coordinators
need to work as a leader within their leadership context and in relation to those they
lead, not just as leaders of change or reform. If curriculum coordinators are to lead
improved outcomes in learning and teaching they must be concerned with engaging
teachers in change. This requires engaging others in change, and according to Fullan
(2010) a central element of this necessitates connecting peers to purposeful change.
However, as argued by West-Burnham (2009), change is daunting for leaders and
followers alike and Fullan’s (2001) case for the chaos of change as ultimately being a
necessity to achieve improvement or a changed future reality does nothing to allay the
fear:
A culture of change consists of great rapidity and nonlinearity on the one hand
and equally great potential for creative breakthroughs on the other. The paradox
is that transformation would not be possible without accompanying messiness
(Fullan, 2001, p. 31).
Fullan (2001) argues that whilst change can be understood, and perhaps led, it cannot be
entirely managed nor controlled. For curriculum coordinators balancing regulation and
compliance with learning innovation and improvement is a challenge. In order to
understand the change process he contends that leaders need to develop a mind-set and
action set that are constantly cultivated, refined and developed. Leaders such as the
curriculum coordinator need to know:
• The goal is not to innovate the most
• It is not enough to have the best idea
• Appreciation of the implementation dip is needed
• Resistance needs to be redefined
• Reculturing is the name of the game
• Never approach change as a checklist but always as a complexity
34
The curriculum coordinator who seeks to implement curriculum changes, such as VELS
and the upcoming Australian Curriculum, needs to have both a personal dynamic for
change and the capacity to manage it for themselves and for others.
This current context demands both responsive and accountable leadership. Stoll, Bolam
and Collarbone (2002) recognise leadership for change as a matter of building capacity
for learning and requiring complex understanding by leaders. They identify the necessity
for leaders to make decisions about changes they wish to lead and how to lead them as
only one factor. Parallel to this is leading things they do not want to lead, but must find
ways to connect decisions and actions in order to make them meaningful and relevant
for stakeholders and themselves. These factors require curriculum coordinators to be
responsive to people, the school community and external forces in their leadership of
change.
Contemporary Schooling – The Transition from Now to Tomorrow for Schools

The curriculum coordinator has a specific role in leading their school to be
contemporary in its learning and teaching in a way which is recognisable in school based
role descriptions. The contemporary school in Australia according to MCEETYA (2005)
is embedded in social, political and economic activity and needs to respond to a range of
factors that shape society because these significantly impact on education. MCEETYA
identify the following social factors in particular:
• international interdependency and global engagement
• values, ethics, responsibilities and cultural sensitivity
• communities and economies exploiting communication, information and
knowledge
• rapid development and uptake of ICT in work, learning and leisure
• access to technologies and policies to address inequalities
As a result of these, the contemporary school needs to have a curriculum which is

focused on “relevance, understanding, rigour and depth, engaging all students in
authentic learning” (MCEETYA, 2005, p. 6). Realising this vision for contemporary
35
schooling MCEETYA also identifies a critical importance of educational leadership to
enable this. The role of the curriculum coordinator in bringing about such contemporary
learning is context specific, but still impacted on by societal concepts.
The role of the curriculum coordinator has a focus on leading contemporary schooling
through the instructional program. Meece and Schaefer (2010, p. 4) argue that this needs
to take place through the implementation of “practices, programs and policies to foster
the positive development of all youth” (2010, p. 4). They describe the importance of
schooling as influencing all aspects of students’ lives, with the cumulative effects of
schooling strongly contributing to their lives as adults. The pressure on schools to
transform their provision of education in a contemporary way is clearly compelling.
The role of the curriculum coordinator in influencing others to not only comply but
change their instructional practice is challenging. Hill and Crevola (2000, p. 395) believe
that:
Despite successive waves of reform, schools have until recently struggled to
accommodate externally imposed change; and attempts to improve them have
typically resulted in sporadic and short lived improvements in standards of
academic performance.
The challenge for curriculum coordinators is not just to understand what is required from
external agencies and manage compliance but more significantly to bring about
pedagogical change. Their role requires what Walker (2010) describes as building and
leading a learning culture. Such a culture coherently connects what we know about
effective classroom learning with supportive organisational conditions and with
leadership practice.
A changing world and the changed nature of schooling; from the industrial revolution
model to the landscape of a community that learns together inspires Hartle and Hobby’s
(2003) view of leadership in a learning community. They see a shift in the educational
environment that will mean teachers and leaders’ jobs will never be the same again.
Their research is contextualised in an era of profound change that emphasises
36
independent and customised learning in schools coming to the fore and this needing
outstanding motivational leadership. The curriculum coordinator as leader in this
paradigm has a pedagogical leadership role. Sergiovanni (1998) identifies ten
components of this leadership type that need to be considered in synergy:
• Purposing
• Maintaining harmony
• Instutionalising values
• Motivating
• Problem solving
• Managing
• Explaining
• Enabling
• Modelling
• Supervising
Leading pedagogically requires the leader to learn, teach and model a contemporary
approach to leading and learning. Leaders such as the curriculum coordinator in this
contemporary schooling context need a real understanding of what contemporary
learning is and need to be able to convince others to share the same belief. According to
Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) this capacity is captured in a set of seven ‘learnings for
leaders’:
• Understanding learning
• Critical thinking
• Contextual understanding
• Political acumen
• Emotional understanding
• Making connections
• Futures thinking
The role of the curriculum coordinator as leader in and for contemporary schooling is
indeed considerable in the light of these two conceptual frameworks, and they are
37
certainly not the only ones available in the educational leadership literature. However,
conceptual guides such as these do provide a language for leadership which aligns the
contemporary vocabulary of leadership, school improvement and educational reform.
These frameworks are not specific to the role of the curriculum coordinator but are
logically aligned to what is described by Wiles (2009, p. 22) as the curriculum leaders’
role:
Define the program, collaborate among all of the members of the school
community, provide a path or way of working for others to follow and
coordinating activity leading to the attainment of the program.
Knowing staff professional learning needs is also a critical dimension of curriculum

coordination leadership in contemporary schooling in order to build capacity. According
to Hartle and Hobby (2003, p. 384) the most significant role of leaders within schools in
“seeking to respond to the demands of the modern society, is to work with their staff to
help them improve themselves". The curriculum coordinator needs therefore to be
concerned with building the capacity of others and it is through this means that school
improvement and curriculum reform is able to be pursued. Hartle and Hobby (2003, p.
385) see this when "successful leaders deconstruct the goals of the school into practical
programmes of development" (2003, p. 385). An effective curriculum coordinator does
this in partnership with middle leaders in designing learning programs and pedagogical
approaches for subjects and year groups.
The curriculum coordinator is a leader amongst the community and not above it as a
pedagogical leader (Sergiovanni, 1998). They need to be able to lead in the context of
the school environment and must deeply understand that environment, actively engaging
with the narrative of the school as they lead for a transition to contemporary schooling.
The pedagogical leadership that Sergiovanni (1998) identifies requires an acceptance of
the story of the community to guide both policy and practice. According to Sergiovanni
schools subscribing to the idea of the community need to understand connections using
the narrative of social covenants not contracts requiring lists of rules. A strong moral
purpose also resonates in this leadership approach, "Pedagogical authority ensures that
38
people make good decisions and face up to their responsibilities, and that things work
right for children" (Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 166). The leading of schools from now to
tomorrow includes a role for curriculum coordination leadership because their work is
focused on improving the learning experiences of students. Fullan’s (2006) eight factors
of strategic intent needed from leaders at all levels to enable improvement highlight the
types of strategic focus curriculum coordinators need.
1. A guiding coalition constantly in communication
2. Peace and stability and other “distractors”
3. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat
4. Negotiating aspirational targets
5. Capacity building in relation to the targets
6. Growing the financial investment
7. Evolving positive pressure
8. Connecting the dots with complementary components
According to this strategic turnaround approach the curriculum coordinator needs to

understand contemporary learning needs, the situation for their school and the leadership
needed to bring about contemporary learning experiences. As a result curriculum
coordinators are leaders with specific but also divergent leadership responsibilities and
they need a repertoire of leadership approaches.
Approaches to Leadership of the Curriculum for Contemporary

Schooling
Leading in the contemporary school can be understood through a number of lenses and
each of these impacts on the leadership of the curriculum coordinator. The emergence of
different leadership forces over time show changing approaches to school leadership and
highlights the primacy of learning and teaching leadership in schools in general. A
distributive leadership approach does this also in the dynamic of a professional learning
community. The positioning of the curriculum coordinator for leadership effectiveness
provides further insight into how this senior leadership role makes a difference to
student learning.
39
In recent years it has become clearer that leadership does make a difference to student
achievement (Fink, 2010). Whilst differing from the direct impact of teaching, it is well
recognised that leadership plays a key role in building and supporting levels of teacher
capability by shaping the conditions and climate in which effective teaching and
learning occurs. Leithwood and Duke (1999) in their extensive review of educational
leadership journals in ‘A century's Quest to understand school leadership’ identify six
models of contemporary leadership practice: instructional, transformational, moral,
participative, managerial and contingency. This schema at a glance provides a
retrospective oversight of how leadership has been enacted over time. Each of these
models of leadership is discussed briefly in the following section. The concepts of
distributive and strategic leadership are also explored as they too add useful insights to
curriculum coordination leadership for the contemporary school.
Instructional leadership has its focus on the behaviours of teachers as they engage in
activities directly affecting the growth of students. Authority and influence are allocated
to formal roles such as the curriculum coordinator with a targeted focus on reform
through pedagogy. Instructional leaders seek to shape the role of a number of people in
the school and have three broad functions; defining the school mission, managing the
instructional program, and promoting school climate. Whilst this typology lends itself to
the principalship, the curriculum coordinator has instructional responsibilities as the
leader of learning and teaching. In particular the ‘managing the instructional program’
dimension is essential to curriculum coordination. Earlier Duke (1987) proposed a vision
of instructional leadership that involves two broad interrelated areas of activity: fostering
excellence in teaching; and the capacity to deal successfully with certain key situations.
Both of these are connected to curriculum coordination responsibilities as change agents.
More recently Hattie’s (2009, p. 84) findings on instructional leadership conclude that
the specific dimensions of instructional leadership that had greatest effects on student
outcomes were:
...promoting and participating in teacher learning and development, planning,
coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum…strategic
40
resourcing....…establishing goals and expectations and ensuring an orderly and
supportive environment
A number of educational leadership researchers have expanded the normal

understanding of instructional leadership because they see it as too narrow a view of
leadership to improve learning outcomes. Rhodes and Brundett (2010) prefer learning
centred leadership, or leadership for learning which finds positive and potent expression
for the learning experiences of all learners and not just change in instructional practice.
Leithwood, Anderson, Mascall and Strauss (2010) in their more recent work present
‘four paths’ through which leaders influence student learning. They reject narrow
conceptions of instructional leadership enacted by principals as the most effective way
of improving student learning. Instead they highlight the need for principals to,
“delegate much of the work of improving classroom instruction to others” (Leithwood,
Anderson, Mascall & Strauss, 2010, p. 27).
In terms of research interest, transformational leadership is the second most researched

form of educational leadership after instructional leadership (Leithwood & Duke, 1999).
Transformational leadership has a focus on fostering commitment and enhancing the
capacities of others. The leadership offered in the transformational paradigm is
characterised by a leader who, “defines direction, inspires, motivates, challenges and
develops those around them” (Gurr, 2001, p.1). Characteristics that shape
transformational leadership are identified by Kouzes and Posner (2002) as including:
• Challenging the processes
• Inspiring a shared vision
• Enabling others to act
• Modelling the way
• Encouraging the heart
Davies and Davies (2005) argue that transformational leaders in schools offer staff,
students and administrators conditions which sustain performance as a learning
community. They seek to build their community of learning around shared goals for
41
improvement. Developing people and redesigning the organisation as well as leader
qualities such as charisma, inspirational leadership, consideration for individuals and
providing an intellectually stimulating workplace are all indicators of transformational
leadership (Davies & Davies, 2005).This model of leadership is applicable to the role of
curriculum coordinator, their capacity to lead in this way can however be constrained by
the extent of their sphere of whole school influence. Within their individual context they
may not be empowered to lead in such a way that serves to strategically improve the
whole school.
Moral leadership has a focus on the values and ethics of leadership. Its concern is with
the normative, political and democratic and symbolic concepts of leadership and is a
values driven concept with a strong cultural basis. The curriculum coordinator and other
school leaders, as moral leaders, are faced with the challenge of converting their moral
leadership principles into educational leadership practice (West-Burnham, 2009). The
capacity of the curriculum coordinator to be a moral leader is not a teachable set of
principles, it is rather a process of personal development over time (West-Burnham,
2009, p. 68). As the person in the role becomes more experienced their leadership
practice becomes more embedded. According to West-Burnham this is a movement
towards personal authenticity and intuitive understanding that better informs leadership
action from a moral basis. The differences in the leadership experience of the person
holding the role of the curriculum coordinator in a school has a particular relevance here.
Those who are least experienced could be expected to be least developed in this
dimension of their leadership.
Participative leadership stresses the decision making processes of the group. This form
of leadership is associated with democratic decision making and enhanced
organisational effectiveness. In relation to the curriculum coordinator’s leadership this
resonates with curriculum committee or team structures as well as leadership team or
executive team membership. According to Wiles (2009) having a team that works
collaboratively on the learning and teaching vision is critical to the success of
curriculum work. The participative model has a strong distributive structure and
42
philosophy to it. The principal is not exclusively the leader of the school and its
endeavours; others in roles such as that of the curriculum coordinator are active
participants in the leadership of the school. The modelling of a participative approach to
leadership empowers curriculum coordinators to actively influence teaching and
learning.
Managerial Leadership focuses on the functions, tasks or behaviours of the leader. This
model is highly connected to administrative roles within a school hierarchy. It is likely
that the functional and task driven dimensions of the curriculum coordinator role has a
strong presence in this model. Differentiating between management and leadership is,
according to Bush, Bell and Middlewood (2010, p. 5) important in relation to curriculum
coordination. They contend, that in practice, schools need visionary leadership but they
recognise that this is constrained to some extent by a centralised curriculum and so
effective management can be more prominent.
The sixth model identified by Leithwood and Duke (1999) is contingency leadership
which focuses on how leaders respond to the unique situations and contexts they are in.
This model recognises that there can be wide variations in contexts of leadership and
there is a potential that in order to be effective these contexts require varied leadership
responses. The unique context in which each curriculum coordinator leads makes
contingency leadership relevant.
In addition to these six models, Davies (2006) describes strategic leadership as necessary
for a school to be strategically successful. Such a school is educationally effective in the
short term and is able to translate strategy into excellent educational provision which is
sustainable in the medium to long term. The role of the curriculum coordinator can be
aligned with such a strategic approach as they lead learning and teaching operationally
on a day-to-day basis within the wider whole school improvement vision. A leader
demonstrating individual strategic leadership according to Davies is able to operate with
people wisdom, contextual wisdom and procedural wisdom. The curriculum
coordinators’ work impacts on people, context and procedure regularly through the
43
implementation of initiatives and programs in a strategic way. For example the VELS
framework requires them to present and promote a pedagogical philosophy that engages
teachers in changing their classroom practice. Simultaneously they need to ensure that
content changes to learning and teaching programs are also adopted to meet with VELS
requirements and that these are documented. Davies (2008, p. 97), in exploring the
sustainability of strategic leadership, identifies the importance of balancing the strategic
with the operational:
Focusing on the basics of school systems and operational frameworks to ensure
consistent high-quality education clearly has to be a focus for leaders.....and has
to be set in the context of building longer-term sustainable capacity.
Finally, it is important in the discussion of leadership models to explore the notion of

distributed leadership. The argument for distributed leadership in schools is strong
(Davies, 2006; Donaldson, 2006; Fink, 2005; Hargreaves, 2009; Harris, 2008; Spillane,
2006) and it is related to the earlier concept of participative leadership. Indeed without
it, the role of curriculum coordination diminishes in its leadership capacity. Davies
(2006) aligns the interest in distributed leadership as a shift in mental models about
leadership across schools. He sees the shift from the principal being leader of curriculum
and middle managers administering, to principals being leaders of educational leaders.
As such the curriculum coordinator role can be one that reflects leadership being
distributed to others. However, Kelly (2004) points out that a distributive approach does
not mean that the role is entirely or primarily about leadership in practice. There remains
a significant component of the practical and operational needed in distributed leadership
practice as the management of tasks and processes still needs to achieved.
Harris (2008) describes a mindset change as important for distributed leadership to

engage the many in leadership rather than the few. Her research has revealed that
distributed leadership does have an impact on student learning because it is a capacity
building model of leadership. Harris (2008) contends that true distribution of leadership
can only be achieved by ‘deliberately creating and orchestrating the internal conditions’
which support it in the whole school. The danger according to Harris is that what is
distributed may not be leadership. Leithwood, Mascall and Strauss (2009, p. 280)
44
similarly argue that the distribution of leadership is contingent upon actual leadership
being distributed, as opposed to tasks or duties. They contend that distributed leadership:
...appears in quite different patterns, includes the distribution of a potentially
wide array of different leadership functions and arises as a response to many
different challenges.
How the curriculum coordinator is able to lead for educational reform is likely to be
influenced by the nature of the distribution of leadership in their school. How they
subsequently distribute leadership is similarly significant.
Duke (2010) argues that one of the factors contributing to sustaining school
improvement is the distribution of leadership. He sees the distribution of leadership by
the principal as a risk and needing to be contextually determined. Without it however,
any turnaround in improvement in student learning in the long-term is hampered. The
distribution of learning and teaching leadership in particular is a high stakes decision in
schools at risk of failing according to Duke (2010). The research on school improvement
would however contend that for such schools to improve the collective efforts of those
in the school are needed. For example, Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) argue this case as
they perceive distributive leadership to be grounded in, and advancing, a compelling and
inclusive moral purpose in educational leadership.
Whilst independent leadership models can offer distinctly different perspectives on

leadership they can also be interdependent and related. Fullan’s (2001) work offers a
synthesis of approaches to educational leadership founded on an improvement
imperative. He identifies five components of effective leadership that show a crossover
between leadership models such as those described above. He argues that these five
components are crucial to leadership and “represent independent but mutual reinforcing
forces for positive change” (Fullan, 2001, p. 3). The five components include:
• moral purpose
• understanding change
• building relationships
45
• knowledge creation and sharing
• coherence making
Fullan describes these components as critical elements for all school leaders regardless
of their place in the school’s leadership structure. Leadership approaches do not however
exist in isolation to the human and personal qualities of the leader and Fullan describes
such qualities as demonstrating an energy-enthusiasm-hopefulness constellation. This
concept is based on the leader who displays the five components of effective leadership
in such a way that has a positive impact on their leadership and subsequently displays
enthusiasm and confidence which are infectious to those around them.
Further, Kaser and Halbert (2009, p. 2) contend that leaders need, “broad cognitive-
emotional capacities rather than narrow forms of behavioural competence”. The
curriculum coordinator according to their view doesn’t then need a leadership style as
much as they need a disposition to lead. Fink (2005, p. 101) supports this concept of no
single leadership approach being adequate to lead in our epoch and offers the view that
one only needs to:
...look at the diversity of roles played by educational leaders to recognise that
most adopt many styles of leadership depending on the situation.
The Leadership Standards Framework (LSF) (CECV, 2005) also offers curriculum
coordinators in the Archdiocese of Melbourne context an approach to underpin their
leadership. It provides leadership guiding conceptions and capabilities for leaders in
Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne which could have particular relevance
for curriculum coordinators. The LSF five guiding conceptions for leadership are:
1. Having a clear moral purpose
2. Relationship building
3. Understanding and managing change
4. Creating and sharing knowledge
5. Ensuring coherence and alignment of structures
46
Each of these guiding conceptions is designed to shape the actions of all leaders in
Catholic schools around religious, professional and ethical principles and purposes,
including the role of the curriculum coordinator. The LSF further explains that:
Exercising leadership in a school setting primarily entails mobilising and
energizing others, with the aim of improving teaching and learning. Since
improvement of a school’s performance frequently involves doing things
differently from how they have been done in the past, such leadership often
requires managing a process of change (CECV, 2005, p.4).
It is clear then that no single approach to leadership fits the role of the curriculum
coordinator. Instead a breadth and depth of understanding of the different models is
needed. Curriculum coordinators and other school leaders need to be clear about what
leadership is needed in each context.
The Role of the Curriculum Coordinator within the School
This section explores learning communities and positioning of the curriculum

coordinator within this concept.
Learning Communities
The learning community is one that seeks to improve collectively for each other and
with each other. This term, according to Carpenter and Matters (2003, p. 1), has been
variously interchanged with learning community, professional learning community and
communities of learning which share a common foundation:
Teacher professional learning communities engage in common work and, to a
certain extent, share similar values, norms and orientations towards teaching,
students and schooling and choose to cooperate collaboratively.
This strong emphasis on learning for the whole community is specifically connected to
the work of the curriculum coordinator. According to Sergiovanni (2005, p. 43) the
hallmarks of a learning community are evident where communities of practice “bubble
up” and collaborative cultures “trickle down”. In this environment the combination of
47
leadership, vision, mission and action are in alignment and to some extent all could be
expected to be a part of the curriculum coordinator’s role.
For Starratt (2005, p. 68) educational leadership in a professional learning community is

also an ethical act:
The educational leader calls out to the school community to embrace the
intrinsic ethic of learning and teaching, to see learning and teaching as a
dramatically moral activity, the dramatic activity of defining oneself as a human
and social, civil and cultural being, and the communal defining of a community
as a human, social, civil and cultural community.
The role of the curriculum coordinator in making this call is in the learning and teaching
sphere specifically, but is done so within the broader school vision. However, how they
do this is contingent upon their school and leadership context.
Sergiovanni (1998) contends that when a school is a learning community with inquiry at
its centre there is a particular requirement on educational leaders, including the
curriculum coordinator to see their own leadership success reflected in the leadership
development and capacity of others. The building of such professional capital is
essential to the curriculum coordinator’s work in leading their colleagues in the vision
for learning and teaching. It is shaped by both the cultural values of the school and the
nature of the relationships formed and forged. Sergiovanni (1998, p. 164) identifies the
value of such capital in strengthening the community:
Professional capital is created as a fabric of reciprocal responsibilities, and
support is woven among the faculty that adds value to teachers and students
alike.
In such a community context curriculum coordination is collaborative in nature and

purpose and success is achieved through the combined and focused efforts of all those
involved. The relationships the curriculum coordinator forges are then an essential
component of their leadership. Ling’s (1998, p. 2) research reiterates this in the role of
the curriculum coordinator which has a focus on “the social act, including the
48
conversations, of curriculum change and improvement in the quality of education”.
Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) similarly contend that leadership for learning must embrace
the concept that leaders must relate to others on a personal level. They (Stoll, Fink and
Earl, 2003, pp. 114) assert that the “essence of the educational enterprise is its
humanity…..we invite others personally to see themselves as able, worthwhile and
valuable” to contribute to the school as a learning community. Curriculum coordinators
need to forge relationships in their role so that the school as a learning community may
see, understand and embrace their collective and shared identity.
The curriculum coordinator needs to build reciprocal relationships of trust in all

directions in their learning community. According to Fullan (1993b) relationship
building is closely linked to community building because without the binding
relationships of those who work and learn together there is unlikely to be a learning
community. Kaser and Halbert (2009 ) add to this view and assert that the strongest
forms of schooling are in fact characterised by trusting relationships. The extent to
which the curriculum coordinator can build trusting relationships could be expected to
impact on the effectiveness of their leadership. Hess and Robinson (2006) support this
and claim that the development of genuine and engaging relationships with all
stakeholders as a major task for all leaders, but crucial if they seek to build community
capacity. Sergiovanni’s (1999b) stewardship as leadership also “represents primarily an
act of trust” between leader and follower. Hartle and Hobby (2003, p. 389) add further to
this in describing successful teaching and leadership as making clear that “the most
important system within a school is that which describes the relationship between the
people who work and learn in the school”. They also warn that the nature of complex
and diverse communities means that relationships “both formal - in terms of managerial
duties, statutory accountabilities, hierarchies, etc. - and informal - in terms of climate,
friendships and culture” are complex and the informal relationships are frequently the
most powerful (Hartle & Hobby, 2003, p. 389).
The nuances of relationships also need to be considered in how others are invited into
the learning community by leaders such as the curriculum coordinator, according to
49
NCSL (2007) research into ‘What we know about school leadership’. People are never
neutral in their interactions according to Novak (2003) and for this reason the
educational leader needs to have an awareness and understanding of how
communications take place and what impact they have on the heart of the educative
purpose in their school. Novak sees schools as living and dynamic organisms that need
strategic alignment from leaders such as the curriculum coordinator who know and
understand themselves and their community.
Positioning for Leadership Effectiveness

As mentioned previously, the role of the curriculum coordinator is influenced by a range
of factors, including but not restricted to the principal’s leadership and the school
context. A determination of their leadership effectiveness is similarly influenced by
various measures of the success of the school’s curriculum in improving student learning
outcomes. Levacic (2010) describes such outcomes as either cognitive or affective, with
cognitive ones being more easily measured, because they are tangible, and affective ones
focusing on attitudes and behaviours that are less easily judged. The curriculum
coordinator’s positioning as an effective leader can then be measured by student
performance in part, but it must also be considered in the light of related whole school
curriculum matters such as staff professional learning.
School leaders can improve teacher effectiveness through appropriate
professional development and by fostering school cultures that enhance teacher
motivation (Levacic, 2010, p. 211).
Given that the educational leadership research consistently advises that the biggest factor
in improving student learning is teachers (Hattie 2009; Levacic 2010) then the
curriculum coordinator as a senior leader needs to be an ‘influencer’ of teachers through
their leadership. How they position themselves as an educational leader to do this is
important. The NCSL (2007) report ‘What we know about school leadership’ collates
and summarises extensive research into school leadership and how it impacts on pupil
learning in practice. The report concludes that successful and effective school leadership
recognises that:
50
1. Context matters
2. The core tasks of school leaders are clear
3. Learning-centred leadership is critical
4. Distributing leadership matters
5. School leadership is hard work and rewarding
6. Leadership in schools is changing
7. Leadership development and succession planning have never been more
Important.
The curriculum coordinator role could be expected to be both influenced by and
influence these factors in their school context to some extent.
Hattie’s (2009) meta-analysis research on visible learning is a further lens from which
divergent leadership theories and their effectiveness can be viewed. His focus on what it
is that actually has an impact on student learning is an important consideration in
assessing the effectiveness of specific leadership theories in the school context. Hattie
(2009, p. 239) concludes that there are six signposts towards excellence in education,
five of these begin with attention on teachers and the sixth with leaders and teachers
together.
School leaders and teachers need to create school, staffroom, and classroom
environments where error is welcomed as a learning opportunity, where
discarding incorrect knowledge and understandings is welcomed, and where
participants can feel safe to learn, re-learn and explore knowledge and
understanding.
Creating an openness to learning is viewed as a leadership characteristic, and the role of
the curriculum coordinator as a leader of learning and teaching has a natural alignment,
but still it is not specifically recognised in summaries such as Hattie’s.
Much of the research that seeks to locate dominant and successful leadership theories
targets principal leadership specifically and implies that their leadership style sets the
tone for their school (Keane, 2010). With this in mind the leadership effectiveness of the
curriculum coordinator can be expected to be shaped at least in part by their principal.
51
Ylimaki, Gurr, Drysdale and Bennett (2009, p. 298) in their comparative investigation of
successful school principals in Australia and the US conclude that in addition to the core
leadership practices found by Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris and Hopkins (2006)
successful principals ensured that:
...there was a safe environment, had clearly articulated core values and
expectations, hired staff who were supportive of the school philosophy and
teaching increasingly diverse populations, constructed context-sensitive
improvement plans, established trust, ensured they were visible in the school,
and were good at the building of productive coalitions with community
organizations.
These factors are considerable and how they manifest in the many leadership styles is
interesting to consider, as is how they relate to other senior leadership roles in schools.
There are links to transformational, instructional and distributive leadership in this list
and some elements of these practices enter the curriculum coordinator’s leadership
domain but are not explicitly identified. Hattie’s (2009) research reveals compelling
evidence to clarify which of these styles have the greatest impact on student learning.
According to Hattie (2009, p. 83), whilst teachers have a preference for transformational
leadership styles in their schools, instructional leadership has the greatest impact on
student learning outcomes.
It is school leaders who promote challenging goals, and then establish safe
environments for teachers to critique, question, and support other teachers to
reach these goals together that have most effect on student outcomes.
The curriculum coordinator as a senior school leader has some capacity to create such
conditions (Kelly, 2004). Once again, however, their influence on teaching and learning
is shaped by their sphere of influence over school culture (Glatthorn, 1997). As the
research on middle-level leaders has shown, too often they are not supported to be
leaders in the fullest sense as described above (Keane, 2010; White, 2000).
52
Curriculum Leadership at the Heart of School Development
This section unpacks the positioning of the role of the curriculum coordinator,
challenges they encounter and their contribution to school improvement.
Positioning of the Role of the Curriculum Coordinator

The role of the curriculum coordinator is positioned differently across schools (Kelly,
2004; Middlewood, 2001; Wiles, 2009); however, consistently the principal is identified
as the key curriculum leader in the school (Marsh, 2004; NCSL, 2007; Southwood,
2004). This primacy of the principal is important to be mindful of in examining the
leadership role of the curriculum coordinator. According to Marsh (2004) the principal’s
leadership of curriculum is one of the many and varied responsibilities they have. As
such the extent to which they lead and manage the curriculum is variable depending on
time, place and context for their school (Reeves, 2010).
The positioning of the curriculum coordination role and its purpose and focus does then
also vary, in sync with the principal’s leadership and school context. Kelly (2004)
identifies a growing trend in the movement towards secondary schools making senior
appointments of teachers with special responsibility for coordinating and guiding
curriculum. Kelly sees this as a step towards achieving coordinated development across
the curriculum and away from isolated individual subject curriculum development. This
view is also supported by the findings outlined in the NCSL (2009a) publication
‘Making a Difference’ which reports that the most effective schools are led by teams not
individuals. Whilst not specifically identifying curriculum coordinators the report
emphasises the importance of having senior leaders with areas of specialisation to
support the principal’s leadership.
The scope of curriculum coordination leadership in a school is also a factor that

influences the extent of their authority. With the core business of a school being learning
and teaching and therefore improving student learning, the curriculum coordination role
could impact on all aspects of student learning (Lumby, 2001).
53
Burton (2001, p. 61) focuses more specifically on planning of learning and teaching and
sees management structures for curriculum as only relevant as enabling factors. Such
structures are set in place to support curriculum provision and need to be:
...developed and enforced as a unifying force to ensure a consistent approach to
devolved resource allocation, curriculum planning formats and processes,
delegation of responsibilities and lines of accountability.
Middlewood’s (2001) view of leading the curriculum is that all senior leaders are
responsible for it within their roles. This shared responsibility is in addition to that of
any single individual who might have curriculum as their specific portfolio. He identifies
the specific dimensions of curriculum leadership requiring attention by all senior leaders
in schools as:
• Having a view of the whole curriculum
• Ensuring accountability of high standards in learning and teaching
• Developing an appropriate culture and environment
• Being a model for both learners and teachers
This view of learning at the centre of all leadership is further supported by the NCSL
(2007, p. 8) report ‘What we know about school leadership’ findings which identifies
learning-centred leadership as what is needed more than any other kind of leadership.
The rationale for this emphasis is that:
Leadership of learning lies at the very heart of school leadership. Schools are
places where children and young people are expected to learn what a community
or society decides should be passed on to them. This means that school leaders
are responsible for the learning that takes place there and as such school leaders
are leaders of learning.
Given the variance in views on curriculum leadership it is reasonable to conclude that

curriculum coordination leadership may take different forms. Regardless of positioning
in a school’s leadership structure, curriculum coordination is centrally focused on
improving student learning. Such a focus on learning and teaching makes the curriculum
coordination leadership particularly important and little understood. Better
54
understanding the purpose, expectations and potential of the curriculum coordination
role seems well overdue.
Challenges in the Role of the Curriculum Coordinator

The curriculum coordinator has specific responsibility for leading learning and teaching,
but does so from within both the vision of the principal and that of the broader school
community. They lead this aspect of schooling in the context of the principal being
ultimately responsible for the school’s curriculum and improvement plans (Kelly, 2004;
Matthews, 1989; Middlewood, 2001). Whether curriculum coordinators in their schools
are middle or senior leaders is one factor that causes tension for their role, and depends
on school size and leadership structures (NCSL, 2009) The design of leadership for
different school systems and then the structure of individual schools within these
systems creates difference in how the role is positioned. There exists disparity between
the sphere of influence of the curriculum coordinator role and its level of seniority
within the leadership structure of the school.
Busher (2006) argues that middle leaders are empowered by senior leaders but only
operate successfully with the consent of their colleagues. The context for middle leaders
in schools is also not a fixed point, according to Moore (2007, p. 20). It is a shifting
paradigm depending on circumstance and priority:
Middle leaders undertake an immensely complex task of being attentive to both
senior leaders as well as to their faculty colleagues. They have to play the dual
role of often being compatriots with senior leaders while on other occasions they
are the conduits of imperatives from these same senior colleagues. At the same
time they are expected to both lead their teams assertively while also cultivating a
collegiate team spirit.
According to Matthews (2009, p. 34) middle leadership is distinguished from senior
leadership by senior leaders having:
...a greater emphasis on leadership across the school, usually taking distributed
responsibility. They are also often members of teams led by middle leaders,
especially in secondary schools, where senior leaders continue to provide some
specialist subject teaching.
55
The different positioning of the curriculum coordination leadership potentially creates
both tension and dilemmas for their authority, autonomy and influence on school culture
and school wide initiatives. What is clear is, curriculum coordinators as either senior or
middle leaders, must operate with sensitivity to school culture, context and their position
in the school’s leadership structure.
Being both leader and colleague to fellow teachers is one of the tensions curriculum
coordinators face, either as a middle or senior leader. As a change agent curriculum
coordinators must build strong and flexible relationships with surety of their leadership
position. Mulford and Edmunds (2009, p. 58) support this view and contend that if
educators are to better understand and take action for successful school leadership then
schools and leaders need to “move not only to multiple forms of leadership but also to a
more complex set of relationships”.
Learning about one’s own leadership is an additional element that contributes to the
tensions and dilemmas of the curriculum coordinator. West-Burnham (2005) suggests
that leadership learning needs to be underpinned by an understanding of the individual
person and their leadership rather than a prescribed capacity building taxonomy or
continuum that is progressed through. Ellison (2005) in contrast concludes that
leadership standards and expectations need to be adopted as relevant and appropriate,
bearing in mind school context, transferability, legislation and economics. The emphasis
Ellison places on competence and competency standards is underpinned by a belief that
leadership is a journey for each individual and not an isolated event. Ellison (2005)
argues that critical to the journey is self reflection that includes an awareness of skills
and knowledge necessary to perform specific leadership roles. This self reflective
approach is consistent with the notion of capacity building being a personal endeavour,
influenced but not dictated by generalised leadership concepts. Shaped by school
community, personal history and broader education and societal factors, capacity
building for curriculum coordination leadership is both personal and public.
A further tension is the balance between leadership and management. Caldwell (2006, p.
6) argues that leadership and management are different.
56
Leadership is a process for establishing direction, aligning people, motivating
and inspiring, achieving change. Management is a process that calls for planning
and budgeting, organising and staffing, controlling and problem solving, and
producing a degree of predictability.
The role of the curriculum coordinator as outlined in school based descriptions of the
role requires both leadership and management. These two aspects of the role create
dilemmas for the curriculum coordinator in determining how their work is focused daily.
Matthews (2009) also highlights this tension through recognition of both essential and
contemporary challenges that school leaders face in leading learning. Those that
resonate particularly with the role of the curriculum coordinator are:
1. Essential Challenges
• Ensuring consistently good teaching and learning
• Strategically managing resources and the environment
• Building the school as a professional leaning community
2. Contemporary Challenges
• The synergy between standards and welfare
• Personalisation
• The progression of particular groups of students.
The blend of leadership and management in these responsibilities is evident across both
essential challenges (shorter term) and contemporary challenges (longer term) of
curriculum coordination leadership.
School Improvement and Curriculum Coordination Leadership

School improvement as defined by Hopkins (2005, p. 3) is:
...a distinct approach to educational change that enhances student outcomes as
well as strengthening the school’s capacity for managing change.
Leading a school community towards improvement necessitates commitment to this by
all members of the school, including the curriculum coordinator and is to a large extent
about leadership and learning (Reeves, 2008a). Important to the work of the curriculum
coordinator is the link that Silins and Mulford (2007, p. 655) make between school
57
improvement and leadership, “shared learning, empowerment and leadership are pre-
requisites for school improvement”. The three leadership variables that they found to
directly influence the level of organisational learning in a school are particularly
important to curriculum coordination leadership:
• the transformational nature of the principal’s leadership
• the existence of distributed leadership practices in the form of the school’s
administrators being involved in the core business of the school
• the extent of teacher leadership in the school.
The underpinning importance of learning and teaching in school improvement

emphasises the curriculum coordinator’s role. Whilst the principal leadership still has
particular influence over the school the priority placed on ‘learning’ for organisational
improvement makes the curriculum leadership significant.
Educational leadership for school improvement sees the role of leaders, including
curriculum coordinators, in schools needing to be focused on developing their school
holistically (Caldwell, 2006; Davies, 2006; Oski, 2010). MacGlichrist (2003) sees this as
multidimensional and interdependent with leaders needing to understand the interwoven
nature of their leadership. They need to understand the educational context, the
improvement drivers as well as the forces driving initiatives in the wider community.
Fullan (1993a) argues that change is a constant rather than an event and is a key tenant
of a leader’s responsibility.
Caldwell (2005) claims that sustainable improvement in schools needs four significant
dimensions: strategic, educational, responsive and cultural. Caldwell’s view is that to
bring radical change in education to realisation it must not only be the ‘head’ that holds
the strategic vision for improvement but rather all leaders and teachers. The curriculum
coordinator has a central role to play in this distribution of leadership for improvement.
As the non-principal leader with responsibility for the ‘school’s curriculum’, the
curriculum coordinator contributes to improvement through their leadership of the
58
curriculum. According to Reeves (2010, p. 49) such leadership includes some basic
proficiency requirements:
ensuring the school has a curriculum for every class based on the standards of
the state or district and that each course has a document that identifies what
students are expected to know and be able to do in order to be successful in the
class.
Leading for school improvement in curriculum is broader than these management type
dimensions, but it does include them.
Having the skills to both lead and manage for improvement cannot however be assumed
in curriculum coordinators or other leaders. Oski (2010) advises that the capacity of
leaders to strategically lead their school in the pursuit of its improvement goals is still
found to be underdeveloped. She identifies the need for senior leaders’ roles and
responsibilities in the processes of evaluating their achievements and monitoring and
adapting their improvement strategies to be developed. Oski (2010, p. 325) contends
that:
There is still extensive need to build the capacity of leaders to fully recognise
their role in leading the school improvement agenda and focus their attention on
the core purpose of improving student learning.
Leadership for the improvement of learning experiences and outcomes of students is

central to the role of the curriculum coordinator. How curriculum coordinators are able
to be leaders of improvement does vary. This is influenced by their role’s positioning,
relationships and knowledge of what needs to be done to improve.
Qualities of Effective Curriculum Coordinators
Teachers become school leaders and some of them become curriculum coordinators. As
referred to in the earlier section, critical to the curriculum coordinator’s leadership in a
community of leaning are the relationships they forge. The effectiveness of relationships
that leaders build are according to Leithwood et al. (2006, p. 14) distinguished by a
small number of personal traits.
59
The most successful school leaders are open-minded and ready to learn from
others. They are also flexible rather than dogmatic in their thinking within a
system of core values, persistent ... resilient and optimistic.
The personal qualities they bring to their leadership role inform how they lead and how
others view their leadership, relate to them and engage with the learning and teaching
vision they promote. Perceptions of their leadership result from these relationships and
are varied. A number of researchers have expanded on the qualities required for
effective leadership. They include views on personal authenticity, credibility, emotional
intelligence and moral purpose.
Leaders are people who need others to follow them to be successful in their roles
(Fullan, 1993b, 2006; Greenleaf, 1977; Sergiovanni, 1992). For the curriculum
coordinator and other school leaders the need for followers is obvious but cannot be
assumed (Donaldson, 2006). Fullan (1993b, p. 143) describes the significance of the
relationships leaders form as integral to learning:
People need the capacity to form and reform productive learning relationships
time and time again. The more people who have it, the more likely there will be
connections that are generative of new learning experiences.
The curriculum coordinator must also be seen as teacher and staff member because these
factors contribute to their authenticity as a leader. Ling’s (1998) research concludes that
even when personal narratives of the concept of the curriculum coordinator role are
unpacked the role continues to be ambiguous. His findings reveal the significance of the
actual person who is the curriculum coordinator (Ling, 1998, p. 209).
Numerous educational leadership researchers similarly recognise the importance of

leaders building relationships. MacGilchrist (2003), Sergiovanni (1998) and Stoll, Fink
and Earl (2003), all identify aspects of interpersonal leadership capability as critical in
educational leadership. Curriculum coordinators having interpersonal skills that enable
them to build positive relationships could be expected to be essential also. Hill and
60
Crevola (2000, p. 377) argue that successful leaders build relationships that are
improvement oriented because they:
...do not control or direct or prod or manipulate; rather they empower through
enablement, through pulling rather than pushing, and by encouraging initiative
The curriculum coordination leadership role, as a change agent, works to connect
teachers to the school vision for learning and teaching. The extent to which they are
successful in doing this is related to the emotionally intelligent relationships they forge
and the personal qualities they are able to utilise.
Emotional intelligence as defined by Goleman (1997) is widely identified as having

relevance to leadership (Bullock, 2009; Davies, 2006, 2008; Hargreaves, 2008; Novak,
2008). The curriculum coordinator’s leadership is not exempt from this. The nature of
their work, as described by Kelly (2004) ‘in the middle of school initiatives and change’,
means that they can often work in a myriad of individual and organisational emotion
(Middlewood, 2001). Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002, p. 3) contend that the
significance of leader emotional intelligence is so important that:
Even if they get everything else just right, if leaders fail in this primal task of
driving emotion in the right direction, nothing they do will work as well as it
could or should.
The importance of the curriculum coordinator being an emotionally intelligent leader is

in the light of this considerable. James (2003) sees the responsibility of the leader to
engage with the emotion of the workplace as involving the transforming of anxiety and
emotion into creativity. The role of the curriculum coordinator as a change agent aligns
with the key features James identifies:
• creating a secure framework
• explanation and articulation of what is going on in the organisation – especially
in times of change
• modelling emotional self management
• knowing and understanding behaviours associated with emotions
• talking with colleagues about these as is appropriate in context.
61
Bullock (2009, p. 4) warns however, that whilst evidence from his research indicates
that senior leaders view emotional intelligence as among the most important qualities for
effective school leadership:
...there is also clear evidence that EI offered no guarantee of success on its own,
but rather was highly interdependent on high expectations and effective
communication.
The findings in ‘What we know about school leaders’ (NCSL, 2007) concludes that
there is now growing agreement that there is a core set of leadership practices that form
the ‘basics’ of successful leadership. These basics are relevant to the curriculum
coordination leadership as well as other school leaders.
1. Building vision and setting directions.
2. Understanding and developing people
3. Redesigning the organisation
4. Manage the teaching and learning programme
In addition to these leadership practices a range of personal qualities are also
recognisable in successful leadership. They include:
Optimism and a positive disposition; a developmental orientation (e.g. that
people and organisations can and do improve); and a strong moral
compass.....These qualities are vital because leadership is powerfully
motivational and, by definition, de-motivational when it is less effective.
Inspiring others and securing their ‘followership’ is part and parcel of
leadership (NCSL, 2001, p. 6).
Even though the leadership of the curriculum coordinator can be influenced by factors
outside of their control, their ability to demonstrate the personal qualities and leadership
basics identified is certainly within their own domain.
Senge (1990) identifies individual disciplines of leadership and learning as spanning the
range of conceptual, interpersonal and creative capacities that are vital to leadership. He
argues that leaders in learning organizations are people who are themselves learners.
62
Further to this Senge (1990, p. 360) argues that there is a deeply personal nature to
leadership which results ultimately in people following “people who believe in
something and have the ability to achieve results in the service of those beliefs”. The
need for the curriculum coordinator to have a personal vision is evident. It is not enough
for them to just represent the school or principal’s vision; they must share in these and
have their own articulation of it.
Sergiovanni (2001) argues that for organisational learning to occur leaders such as the
curriculum coordinator must prioritise their own learning. The reality of daily school life
according to Sergiovanni (2001) is that schools, teachers and leaders alike, are
overwhelmed by duties not focused on learning and teaching and this makes a focus on
learning difficult. Schein (2004) adds to this, arguing that the leader of the future must
have the capacity to grow and develop and be a perpetual learner.
West-Burnham (2005) argues that leadership capacity building is deeply personal and
highly individual. He sees leadership learning as unique, individual and subjective. It has
a composite of knowledge, skills, experience and personal qualities in varying ratios
according to time, place and personality and is understood through relationships, not
status. Thus the uniqueness of the people in the role of curriculum coordinator, as well
as the schools they work in, contributes to their leadership capacity and credibility.
Furthermore, Leithwood and Beatty (2008, p. 148) identify the necessity to lead with
teachers’ emotions in mind. They argue that if leaders want teachers to respond
creatively and constructively to improvement initiatives they need to “model the courage
it takes to face the emotional discomfort associated with such imperatives”.
Fullan (1993) argues that leaders need four core capacities: personal vision building,
inquiry, mastery and collaboration, each which speak to their credibility. These
individual capacities are paralleled with organisational capacity building in: shared
vision-building, organisational structures, norms and practices of inquiry, focus on
organisational development and know how, and collaborative work cultures. Fullan
(1993) believes that a dual approach to developing individuals and the school as an
63
institution concurrently is essential. The individual leadership vision and capacity of the
curriculum coordinator would then be critical to them as well as their school. He warns
that whilst shared vision is important, “for it to be effective you have to have something
to share” (Fullan 1993, p 64). Vision sharing is however risky and “forces us to come
out of the closet with doubts about ourselves and what we are doing” (Fullan 1993, p
64). The curriculum coordinator faces this risk as a change agent presenting reform
agendas to their school community. Hargreaves (2008, p. 130) describes this risk as
leadership that changes what exists:
Leadership is intended influence. It moves people from one place to another when
initially they might have not thought themselves interested in, willing to or
capable of doing so.
Conclusion
An examination of literature related to curriculum coordination leadership reveals many

platforms. These include the areas of contemporary schooling, leadership types, school
community building, management and school improvement. What binds the many
potential components of leadership of learning and teaching together is what Fullan
(2008, p. 19) describes as the mission of the principal, “creating deep cultures that work
daily on purposeful, continuous learning”. Such a view of principalship has direct
impact on the curriculum coordination leadership role because it implies leadership
distribution to their role and offers clarity for the focus of their work.
Whilst the expectations of any leadership role including the curriculum coordination is
highly context bound, across schools they share the same simple premise. That is that
the core business of schools is learning and teaching and this is their specific area of
leadership responsibility. It is a relentless focus on this that colours the many factors that
influence the curriculum coordination leadership role.
What becomes obvious from the plethora of literature is that curriculum coordinator
leaders and their followers need to be able to reflect together, learn together and inquire
64
together to construct a reality that helps them to navigate through a complex world of
change in their context.
The focus of this research in relation to curriculum coordination leadership is:

Chapter three, the methodology, follows this chapter and outlines the research approach
undertaken in this study.
65
Chapter 3 – Methodology
Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodology used in the study. The chosen qualitative
methodological approach, hermeneutic phenomenology, is discussed and justified. Data
collection and analysis methods are outlined and described. A description of the case
study sites and the participants involved in the research is provided and the
trustworthiness of the research and the limitations and delimitations are discussed.
The research questions being investigated are:

Methodology
Qualitative research methodology seeks to find out the reality constructed by
individuals, it takes apart a phenomenon to look at its component parts and then seeks to
reveal how all the parts work together (Borg, Gall & Gall, 1993; Lichtman, 2006;
Merriam, 1998; Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008). According to Borg, Gall and Gall
(1993, p. 194), the use of this methodology seeks to:
make objective descriptions of a limited set of phenomena and also to determine
whether the phenomena can be controlled through certain interventions.
It is then appropriate for this study which seeks to understand the phenomena of
curriculum coordination leadership in its natural case study settings. The naturalist
inquiry method is employed in the study with the research using a human instrument to
conduct interviews in the field (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
66
There are limitations in the use of qualitative methodology such as the applicability of
research findings across different research sites. According to Borg et al., (1993), this
approach is predicated on an assumption that each individual, each culture and each
setting is unique and the purpose of the research is to consider and appreciate the
uniqueness of each setting. Merriam (1998, p. 6) identifies the key philosophical
assumption of qualitative research being that reality is constructed by individuals
interacting with their social worlds. As such “qualitative researchers are interested in
understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is how they make sense of their
world and the experiences they have in the world”. This understanding does then make
the qualitative methodology best aligned to this study.
The researchers’ use of qualitative methodology utilises a case study approach. The case
study approach does not have any particular method for data collection or analysis,
however some methods are more common than others (Stake, 1995). The study
endeavours to understand the behaviours and beliefs that are held in a Catholic school
setting relating to curriculum coordination leadership. Yin (2009), describes the case
study method as an all encompassing method of research with two parts:
Part One: A case study is an empirical inquiry that:

• Investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real life context
especially when,
• The boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
Part Two: The case inquiry
• Copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more
variables of interest than data points, and as one result,
• Relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a
triangulating fashion, and as another result,
• Benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data
collection and analysis.
67
This research is approached using the technique of hermeneutics within a
phenomenological design. Minichiello et al., (2008) advise that qualitative research
methods have been particularly shaped by the thinking of interpretivist thinking that has
its roots in hermeneutics. Tesch (1990) describes the hermeneutic technique as being
more concerned with the social rather than the individual meaning of actions. Packer
(1985) explains that hermeneutics attempts “to describe and study meaningful human
phenomena in a careful and detailed manner as free as possible from prior theoretical
assumptions and aims at progressive uncovering and explication” (Packer, 1985, p.
1081, 1089) Lichtman (2006, p. 73) advises that in a hermeneutical approach two
assumptions are made, “humans use language to experience the world and that we get
understanding and knowledge through our language”. The purpose of phenomenological
reflection is to try and grasp the essential meaning of something. According to van
Manen (1990, p. 9), this is “the study of the lifeworld – the world as we immediately
experience it”. Schostack (2006, p. 77-78) understands this approach to inquiry as
providing no external vantage point from which a total or transcendental view of human
life can be seen.
In order to interpret a particular or phenomenon of social life it has to be placed
within its context, its epoch, its way of life. However, to understand a way of life
one has to see how it is enacted, articulated in the instances and phenomenon
that comprise the way of life. There is then a kind of circle where the part is
understood in the context of the whole and the whole is comprehended in relation
to the part.
For the research at hand the hermeneutic concern is the social meaning given to the role
of the curriculum coordinator and the phenomenological the role in the ‘world’ of each
of the schools.
The hermeneutic phenomenology qualitative methodology has its basis in a naturalistic

approach to inquiry. The naturalistic approach identifies the researcher as the key
instrument in the research and focuses on understanding the meaning the people under
study give to their experience (Tesch, 1990, p. 50). Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 187)
explain that the naturalist approaches have a characteristic pattern and are always carried
68
out in a natural setting because context is heavily implicated in meaning. This approach,
they explain also requires a human instrument that is fully adaptive to the indeterminate
situation that is likely to be encountered. This research seeks to describe both the
phenomena under investigation (curriculum coordination leadership) and the
interpretation of the data collected regarding the phenomena in each of the unique case
study sites, using the researcher as the human instrument. The researcher aims to
develop descriptions of the phenomenon of curriculum coordination leadership as a
result of the experiences and opinions described by participants interviewed. There was
no a priori framework in hermeneutic phenomenology. The researcher has the “freedom
to investigate various conceptions (of the phenomenon)” and provided participants with
the opportunity to “convey their own understandings” (Gurr, 1996, p. 23).
Case Study Approach

According to Merriam (1998, p. 27) the single most defining characteristic of case study
research “lies in delimiting the object of the study”. Yin (2009, p. 10) prescribes the use
of case study methodology if the purpose of the research is to determine “how or why”.
The decision to use a case study approach in this research is to develop an understanding
of the phenomena of curriculum coordination leadership in a specific setting; hence the
object for this study is the phenomena of curriculum coordination leadership. Stake
(2006) adds to the understanding of the nature of case studies in seeing the case as
dynamic, operating in real time, acting purposefully, encountering obstacles and with a
strong sense of self. This research study took place in three Catholic secondary schools,
each research site is unique and the focus of the research is to develop an understanding
of the curriculum coordination leadership role at the individual site. Borg, Gall and Gall
(1993, p. 203) identify the purpose of such research being to develop an understanding
of individuals and events in their natural state whilst assuming the setting is unique;
“case studies focus on contemporary phenomenon by studying single instances of the
phenomenon”.
The decision to make this research a case study is determined by its focus on a single
subject common to each site, the whole school curriculum coordination leadership role.
69
The examination of the perceptions of this role by members of each school seeks to
identify perceptions of the role and its functioning in the school. Merriam (1998) sees
the decision to focus on enquiry around an instance in one setting as a ‘case’. Miles and
Huberman (1994) advise that as a result a bounded system which identifies a clearly
defined object for the study is needed. The researcher first determines the bounded
system for the examination, in this research the bounded system is the examination of
the curriculum coordination leadership role at each of the three school sites. With three
sites being examined in this study the research becomes a multi-case study. Stake (2006,
p. 5-6) describes the single case and multi-case relationship as follows;
the single case is of interest because it belongs to a particular collection of
cases. The individual cases share a common characteristic of condition. The
cases in the collection are somehow categorically bound together.
Numerous researchers such as Borg et al. (2006), Lichtman (2006), Merriam (1998),
Schostak, (2006), Stake (2006) and Yin (2009) agree that multi-cases in a study add to
the probable trustworthiness of the study. Merriam (1998, p. 40) sees the advantages of
multiple cases in a study as adding to how compelling a study is likely to be:
The inclusion of multiple cases is, in fact, a common strategy for enhancing the
external validity or generalizability of ...findings.
The perspectives of the curriculum coordinators, senior leaders and teachers are gathered
in the research as well as any available and relevant supporting documentation that
explains or outlines aspects of the school. This documentation is used only to further
inform the researcher’s tacit knowledge of the case site and is not analysed as part of the
research findings.
By gathering key stakeholder perceptions on their experiences of curriculum

coordination leadership an ethnographic view is formed of each school. The
ethnographic approach enables the researcher to view each research site individually.
Stake (2006, p. 2) advises that “to study a case we carefully examine its functioning and
activities, but the first objective of a case study is to understand the case”. By exploring
curriculum coordination holistically, the school’s unique customs, values and
communication styles are considered and are distinguished from other schools.
70
Understanding of the concept of leadership and expectations for leadership in each
school site can also be expected to be shaped by the school’s culture. Interviewees can
be expected to be influenced by the school culture in a range of ways and varying depths
depending on their individual experiences of leadership both inside and outside of this
school. Minichiello et al. (2008, p. 19) believes that:
qualitative methods strive to show that actors have a multiplicity of strategies or
tactics at their disposal that guide their actions; they are seen as human agents
that are purposive, reflective beings.
Merriam (1998, p. 29) defines three special characteristics of qualitative case studies;
particularistic, descriptive and heuristic. This study best fits the descriptive
characteristics as it has as its end product a rich, thick description of the phenomenon
under study.
Interviewing as data collection method

The method for collecting data from research participants is via interview, which is the
most commonly used form of qualitative research (Minichiello et al., 2008). Using this
approach the researcher seeks to understand the meaning participants in the research
give in their responses. Schostak (2006, p. 22) sees each interview as providing a point
of view that takes ‘the other’ and ‘otherness’ into account. He further explains that, it is
in the ‘betweeness” of interviews, that credibility for the interview in the case study
method can be found.
There is in every view always a difference, a ‘betweeness’ that cannot be crossed
as a subject looks towards, or reaches towards the other. The interview, in this
sense, is constructive and de-constructive of cases not as singular instances, nor
as bounded systems but as infinitely extensible, richly connectable plays or
weavings of ever expanding horizons of difference.
In being the key instrument in this research, the researcher needs to minimise their
influence on the data garnered from interview. According to van Manen (1990, p.66) use
of interviewing as the data collection method in research that uses hermeneutic
phenomenology serves two specific purposes.
71
1 Collecting and exploring experiential narrative material that can be a resource
for better understanding a human phenomenon.
2 Developing a conversational relation with the interviewee about the meaning of
an experience.
Van Manen’s (1990) first purpose was adopted in this research. The research sought the
views of three different interest groups (curriculum coordinators, leaders and teachers)
in each of the case study schools to gain insight into the phenomenon under
investigation.
An in-depth semi-structured interview style was used to conduct interviews. This

questioning format uses the broad topic approach to guide questioning within the
interview without fixed wording or fixed ordering of questions. It enabled participants to
share their perceptions uninhibited by directed questioning. Minichiello et al. (2008)
describe this approach as structured interviewing. It requires the researcher to ask pre-
determined questions in a prescribed order. It does not allow for deviation by
participants onto related topics or ideas that they think of in relation to the topic but not
specifically asked by the researcher. The richness of data collected from semi-structured
interviews is of greater value to this research than that of the possible greater
consistency that results from structured interviews produce. In providing participants
with the latitude to guide the sharing of their own ideas on curriculum coordination
leadership this research offers genuine site specific insight. In semi-structured interviews
whilst the topic areas guide the questioning the mode of questioning is more
conversational (Minichiello et al., 2008, p. 51-53). Whilst the conversational style of the
semi-structured interview can enhance participant comfort with the researcher it can also
detract from the interview data’s external validity. Because the interview is only semi-
structured it is not possible to comprehensively replicate the interview model.
Minichiello et al. (2008, p. 183) warn that “the researcher can never be ultimately sure
that he or she has understood all the meanings and cultural implications elicited in in-
depth interviews”.
72
In this study, using the semi-structured in-depth interview approach, fourteen questions
are asked of interviewees to elicit participant perspectives on curriculum coordination
leadership. The question schedule is outlined below:
1. Can you please tell me a little about your teaching experience.
2. As a teacher in a Catholic school can you describe your experience of curriculum
coordination in your school?
3. What do you think the main purpose of having a curriculum coordinator in a
secondary school is?
4. What does the curriculum coordinator in your school do?
5. Can you tell me about the leadership and management roles of the curriculum
coordinator in your school?
6. Can you tell me about the impact of the curriculum coordinator on school
improvement planning at your school?
7. What do you see as the greatest challenges for the curriculum coordinator at the
present time?
8. What factors support or hinder the performance of the role of curriculum coordinator
in your school?
9. What are the strengths of your curriculum coordinator and what could they do
better?
10. Do you see anyone other than the curriculum coordinator leading the curriculum in
your school?
11. What changes would you suggest to for the role of curriculum coordinator in your
school?
12. What advice would you offer a person in the role of curriculum coordinator in your
school?
13. Are you familiar with the Leadership Standards Framework – Guiding Conceptions
of Leadership? (outline these briefly if not familiar). How do these resonate with
curriculum coordination as you experience it in your school?
14. Any further comments?
73
Interviews are conducted with volunteer participants, who are key stakeholders in the
curriculum at each school, at a time suitable to the school and the participant.
Interviewees are from different groups within the school: a) those who report to the
curriculum coordinator b) whomever the curriculum coordinator reports to c) teachers
who observe the work of the curriculum coordinator and d) the curriculum coordinator
and e) if appropriate the peers of the curriculum coordinator (in some cases the
curriculum coordinator may be one of the deputy principals and in this case a peer level
perception from other members of the School Management Team (SMT)) / Leadership
Team (LT). The interview process commences with the interviewer introducing themself
and briefing the participant on the purpose of the interview, assuring them of the
confidentiality surrounding the interview and asking about their role in the school and
years at the school. This is done to establish a positive rapport with the interview
participant prior to beginning the formal interview. Interviewees are directed to respond
to questions based on personal reflection of their observations and experiences. The
interviewee’s background and perspective based on their position in the school
determine some of the interview design elements during the course of the interview. All
questions are asked of each interviewee, however the sequence of questions is altered as
appropriate to interviewee responses. On occasions an interviewee’s response to a
question encompasses another question set to be asked later in the interview. When this
occurs the interviewer avoids repeating the question and instead asks the next most
pertinent question or the question next listed on the interview schedule. Throughout the
interview an active listening technique is used until the interview came to a natural
conclusion.
Reference to the role description for the curriculum coordinator in the school is made
during some interviews where, either one is yet to be established or if the interviewee
mentioned the role description in their responses. Reference to the Standards of Practice
for Leadership (2005) in the Archdiocese of Melbourne is also made. The guiding
conceptions of leadership are used as a stimulus for discussion about expectations for the
role of curriculum coordinator. Interviewees are asked to consider the guiding
74
conceptions of leadership and comment on whether in their experience these resonate
with the role of the curriculum coordinator.
At the point in time during the interviewee that thirteen of the fourteen scheduled
questions had been asked the interviewee is given the opportunity to share any further
insights or opinions on the matter of their expectations or experiences of curriculum
coordination leadership in their school.
Interviews are conducted individually between the researcher and the voluntary
participant, in an office or room made available to the researcher by a school liaison
person. All interviews are recorded on audio tape as well as through note taking during
the interview done by the researcher. All interviews are transcribed in full and
transcriptions are returned to participants for checking and editing if the participant
thought this is appropriate. Participants are advised that they could add material to their
interview transcript as well as editing or deleting information if they wish to by
returning the transcript with annotations to the researcher. Of the 39 individuals
participants in the study one participant made an alteration to their transcript, this
alteration being an error of fact they recognise in their response to a question that
elicited information about how meetings are organised at their school.
Interview Analysis and Theme Identification

This section provides a description of the process undertaken for the analysis of
participant interviews and the development of themes. Each of the three case studies are
treated independently and the process used to analyse the interview data followed the
qualitative methodology advocated by Miles and Huberman (1994). It incorporates data
reduction assisted by the use of NVivo, data display and conclusions drawn,
trustworthiness procedures are also built into the design for the analysis of the study
data. Qualitative researchers use inductive methods for categorising and organising data
into patterns that produce descriptive narratives. According to Lichtman (2006) an
inductive approach has the researcher moving from the concrete to the abstract in their
analysis, looking first at the data to gain an understanding of the phenomena. Qualitative
75
research typically yields verbal descriptions derived from interviews and observational
notes both which are then analysed for themes and patterns which are described and
illustrated with examples from the primary source material (data) gathered in the
research (Borg et al., 1993). Initially the categories developed from the analysis of the
data are based on the interview questions; this evolves as further themes emerge in the
closer analysis of the data. The data reduction method is applied to the transcripts during
the coding process which seeks to identify themes within the “meaning units”. Tesch
(1990) describes the reduction of data in this way as identifying smaller parts in a data
document which is comprehensible by itself and contains one idea. These segments of
text are then tagged to a theme and a strand within this theme along with other segments
of text. The example below shows collaboration as a ‘meaning unit’ being identified
which became a part of the collaboration theme.
we do try and operate on a shared leadership model. So it’s a very flat
leadership model that we have here. (LTOC1).
The interpretational analysis used in this research is completed using the following
staged process:
1. Reading and rereading the data (interview transcripts) to gain familiarity with it
as a reflection of a perspective from the point of view of the interviewee’s role in
the school (curriculum coordinator, senior leader, teacher) and to better
understand the school site as a ‘case’.
2. Identification of ‘meaning units’ are then used to identify themes (categories or
broad areas) relevant to the phenomenon under examination and these are coded
for each interview transcript.
3. Consideration of themes in relation to the whole transcript and identification of
any not yet specified themes relevant to the transcript and the school.
4. Use of any contextual material such as social, historical and individual
information, available to reconsider theme categories and strands within themes.
The initial identification of thematic categories and strands within each of these
categories is completed making a judgement about the relevance of the information
76
garnered through interview relating to the phenomenon under investigation. Gurr (1996)
identifies the efficiency of this method in the amount of time spent analysing the data,
but also warns of the danger in losing some of the detail in so doing. Van Manen (1990)
sees this as a ‘selective’ approach to interpretation and Gurr (1996) describes the process
as condensing the material from the data being interpreted so as to locate themes. Tesch
(1990) describes this coding process as the identification of ‘meaning units’ that enable
the researcher to identify themes. Burns (2000) sees this process for the identification of
themes in qualitative research as important as it enables the labelling, retrieval and
organisation of data in a manageable way that will later allow the researcher to evaluate
the plausibility of their research questions.
Qualitative researchers rely on the analysis of data through inductive methods of

categorizing and organising the data into patterns that produce descriptive narratives.
The preliminary categories were generated from the questions posed in the interview and
focused on topics of interest and relevance to the research. This method enabled the data
to be initially broken up. Following this process additional theme categories emerged
and therefore the initial categories that were preconceived by the researcher were not
entirely relied upon in the development of final research findings.
The process of data reduction involved segmenting the transcripts into small data units
that contained information relating to a particular category; that is ‘a segment of text that
is comprehensible by itself and contains one idea, episode, or piece of information
(Tesch, 1990, p. 116). This was then followed by tagging it to a particular theme or code
given to other portions of text that appeared to be related to the same common theme.
The ‘meaning units’ or themes initially interpreted in the research are followed by the
closer identification of strands within each theme; these are firstly identified on a school
site basis. The themes initially identified in the research are as follows:
1. Advice for the curriculum coordinator
2. Applicability of the leadership standards framework
3. Changes to the role of the curriculum coordinator
4. Leadership and Management
77
5. Expectations of the role of curriculum coordinator
6. Factors that support or hinder the role
7. Greatest challenges
8. Impact on school improvement
9. Others in the school who lead
10. Purpose of the curriculum coordination role
11. Issues specific to the school
12. Strengths of the curriculum coordinator
13. Work of the curriculum coordinator
When individual interview transcripts are considered, themes and strands that are
evident are identified and these are ascribed to interviewee groupings. Interviewee
groupings for each case study site are as follows:
a. Curriculum coordinator
b. Principal
c. Leadership Team Members:
i. Pastoral focus leadership responsibilities
ii. Curriculum focus leadership responsibilities (including Religious
Education / Faith Development)
iii. Other leadership focus responsibilities (mainly operational but not
exclusively)
d. Position of Leadership (POL) holders:
i. Curriculum POL
ii. Pastoral Student Wellbeing POL
e. Classroom Teacher (Non POL holder)
The following attributes are assigned to each participant to allow for a diversity of
queries and analysis relating to nodes / themes and attributes:
• School
• Geographic region
• Current role / position in the school
• School Type
78
The grouping of interviewee responses emphasises the views of a group of participants
for interviewee groups C – E, rather than individual participant views, however it also
enables the range of thematic responses to be manageable in this research. The
groupings allow analysis of commonalities and differences in perspectives at each case
study site as well as across sites when cases are comparatively analysed. Interviewee
groups A and B are individual people (only one person in that role) at each case study
site and hence they are grouped in case study comparison analysis but not for their
specific case study site.
The identification of theme areas and strands within them takes place concurrently with
the coding of interview transcripts. This process enables commonalities across
interviewees to be recognised as the picture of the case study site is formed in the light
of the phenomenon under examination at each school. The long list of themes derived
from initial analysis is later reconsidered to develop a series of main themes. The main
themes are incorporated into the discussion of the findings of the research and are used
to frame but not constrain the discussion (Burns, 2000).
NVivo is used to assist in analysing transcript data from interviews. This computer
software provides support for the analysis process of the kind that manual procedures
cannot efficiently undertake. Minichiello et al. (2008, p. 252) describe the advantages of
using computer based tools for qualitative data analysis as:
they can handle voluminous textual data to facilitate the retrieval of large,
relatively unsystematised text material, assist in the task of analysing material
which is analytically complex and, and ‘cut’ the data in a number of different
ways across a range of cases.
A further advantage of using NVivo is that it can be used effectively for both visual and
node coding (Richards, 1999). The visual coding capacity in NVivo enables the
researcher to consider the transcript data and reflect on differences and similarities in the
data. Following this visualisation the creation of nodes / themes and strands within the
79
nodes is possible along with the linking of participant attributes to nodes. This web of
connections made possible more complex analysis of the transcript data.
NVivo allows for subtle analysis of data and enables the researcher to consider the data
and how it can be linked, shaped, searched and modelled (Minichiello et al., 2008). The
creation and use of matrices’ in NVivo is extensive in the research analysis. The design
of matrices’ enables variations in the attributes, cases and cross cases to generate
complex data according to themes / nodes. The visual displays created as a result of the
matrices also provide easy access to coded sections of text within transcripts as well as
other quantifiable features of the analysed text. Number and range of references, number
of sources, percentage of coded coverage within a data source and number of words
coded are all possible to analyse.
Each case study’s data is dealt with independently and then analysis of the combined
data takes place. This process enables the identification of main themes across data and
across refined interviewee groups. There is a consistency of approach to dealing with the
data of individual cases and across cases.
Case Study Description

Three Catholic secondary schools in the metropolitan area of Melbourne are the sites for
this case study research. The schools are selected according to site type, single sex or co-
educational and congregational or diocesan. This diversity of site characteristics for each
case study is sought so that each site specific profile could be compared and contrasted.
Differences and similarities in perceived views of and for curriculum coordination
leadership needs can also be made according to site characteristic type.
The schools are approached via letter after the Catholic Education Office Melbourne
(CEOM) has given approval for such an approach to be made. In total six schools are
approached and three agreed to participate in the research. The three that declined
involvement did so due to their commitments to other projects requiring people’s time
80
and energies. The three secondary schools that agreed to participate in the research had
the following characteristics:
School A: single sex girls’ school, congregationally owned and governed
and located in the south eastern region of Melbourne
School B: co-educational school, diocesan owned and located in the outer
northern region of Melbourne
School C: single sex boys’ school, diocesan owned with an alignment
with a congregational charism, located in the outer eastern region of
Melbourne.
In agreeing to participate in the research following the invitation in writing each of the
schools is self-selected. The enrolments of the three schools fit within the range of 800 –
1700 students.
The persons in the role of curriculum coordinator at each site are not specific subjects
under investigation. Rather, the perspectives from which they themselves (as curriculum
coordinators), those to whom they report (principal or another leader within the school),
those who report to them (curriculum area middle managers), their colleagues (peers at
the same leadership level within their school) and teachers, view curriculum
coordination leadership are the focus. Curriculum coordinators are invited to share their
views on what is needed for effective curriculum coordination leadership and what
factors enable and hinder this. The research findings endeavour to identify the
characteristics of the phenomenon of the curriculum coordination leadership role within
Catholic education in response to the three key research questions.
The participants interviewed in each school and each of their roles in the school are
shown in Table 1 – Participants Interviewed and their Role in Each School. The roles are
divided into three sections, Leadership Team Members, POL Holders and Non POL
Holders.
81
Table 1 – Participants Interviewed and their Role in Each School
School A School B School C
Role Number of Role Number of Role Number of
Participants Participants Participants
Leadership Team Members Leadership Team Members Leadership Team Members
Principal 1 Principal 1 Principal 1
Curriculum 1 Curriculum 1 Curriculum 1
Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator
Leadership 3 Leadership 1 Leadership 1
Team Team Member - Team Member
Member - Pastoral - Pastoral
Pastoral
Leadership 1 Leadership 3 Leadership 1
Team Team Member - Team Member
Member - Other - Other
Other
Leadership 1
Team Member
– Curriculum
POL Holders POL Holders POL Holders
Position of 2 Position of 4 Position of 4
Leadership Leadership Leadership
Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum
Position of 2 Position of 1 Position of 2
Leadership Leadership Leadership
Pastoral Pastoral Pastoral
Non POL Holders Non POL Holders Non POL Holders
Classroom 3 Classroom 1 Classroom 3
Teacher Teacher Teacher
Interviewee groups are identified by the researcher to give a breadth of perspectives on

the curriculum coordination leadership role at a single case study site. The variation in
number of interviews conducted at each case study site within each interviewee group is
due to availability of people for interview and their willingness to participate in the
research. All interview participants are volunteers. Either the principal, their personal
assistant or the deputy principal coordinated arrangements for interviews at the school
site prior to the researcher attending. On some occasions people scheduled for interview
became unexpectedly unavailable, in these instances the site coordinator arranged for an
alternative time or a different person with a similar type of role in the school to be
interviewed. Other than wanting to interview people from the school from within each of
the interviewee group categories there are no restrictions or qualifications placed on the
selection of people for interview. Teaching experience across interviewee groups ranges
from first year to in excess of twenty five years of teaching experience. The gender of
82
interviewees was 24 female and 15 male interviewees across the interviewee groups. A
number of interviewees indicate that they had held various Positions of Leadership
(POL) during their teaching career and have taught in a number of different settings. As
with the work of White (2000) and Gurr (1996) this study can be criticised on the basis
of the selection of teachers for participation in interviewees. The selection of
interviewees by the site based coordinator may have resulted in interviewees being
selected because they were sympathetic to the person asking them to be involved or
some other aspect of the school known only to them. As was the case for White (2000)
and Gurr (1996) this factor does not matter to this research because the purpose of the
research is not evaluative in nature. The person in the role at the school site is not being
evaluated in their performance but rather the research focused on ascertaining
interviewee’s individual perceptions of the phenomenon of curriculum coordination
leadership.
Each school site and each participant is assured that as much as was possible their
anonymity would be assured by the researcher. As such each school site is referred to in
the research by a code, A, B or C. Similarly each participant is de-identified as much as
possible using a coding system that tags the participant’s role and school and indicates
via a number only to identify them as unique. The coding system is outlined in the table
below, Table 2: Coding System for Interview Participants. An example of a code for a
classroom teacher participant in school C is, eg. CTC2. Where no unique participant
number is assigned to a participant that person is the only interviewee from their
category, eg. PA is the principal from school A.
83
Table 2: Coding System for Interview Participants
Unique
School
Role Code Participant
Identifier
Number
Principal P A, B or C NA
Curriculum Coordinator CC A, B or C NA
Leadership Team Member – LTC A, B or C 1-3
Curriculum
Leadership Team Member - Pastoral LTP A, B or C 1-3
Leadership Team Member - Other LTO A, B or C 1-3
Position of Leadership Curriculum POLC A, B or C 1-4
Position of Leadership Pastoral POLP A, B or C 1-2
Classroom Teacher CT A, B or C 1-3
The interviewer negotiated with the school based coordinator as to the most appropriate
times and days to conduct interviews. There is considerable flexibility around this and
the researcher adjusts to suit school and interviewee needs. All interviews are conducted
across terms one to three in the 2009 school year (February to September). Interviews
are for between 25 minutes and one hour in length. All interviewees and school based
liaison coordinators are very helpful to the researcher and show interest in the
researcher’s background and reasons for undertaking doctoral research. Considerable
effort is taken to enable the researcher to conduct interviews with a cross section of the
teaching staff. The limitations of interviewee availability in some interviewee categories
are worth noting, but are out of the control of the researcher. The most likely reasons for
lack of availability for interview or invitation to interview not being offered to a person
or role are derived from researcher observation and informal conversation outside of
interviews. The reasons the interviewer is able to note are:
1. Time: demands on teacher time due to unexpected obligations or particularly
heavy work demands.
2. Discernment: the site based liaison coordinator discerning that at that time of the
study being undertaken, other school based matters relating to a person and / or
their role made it inappropriate or undesirable to invite them for interview.
84
As was the case with White’s (2000) research, it is not apparent at the time schools
agreed to be involved in the research that there would be any issues relating to
availability of teachers for interview. Hence whilst the richness of data collected from
each site may have been enhanced from interviews with other teachers, there is still a
considerable thickness in the discoveries and descriptions of the examination of the
phenomenon of curriculum coordination leadership at each school.
Trustworthiness
The trustworthiness of an inquiry relates to the extent to which the research findings can
be trusted. Merriam (1998, p. 198) describes the trustworthiness of research as:
the extent that there has been some accountability for their validity and
reliability....ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves
conducting the investigation in an ethical manner.
Merriam (1998, p. 199-200) advises that validity and reliability concerns of research can
be:
approached through careful attention to a study’s conceptualisation and the
ways in which the data were collected, analysed, and interpreted, and the way in
which the findings are presented.
Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 329) advise that because naturalistic inquiry operates as an
open system of inquiry no amount of member checking, triangulation, persistent
observation, auditing or whatever can ever compel the research findings to the
consumer. They suggest that at best research undertaken as a naturalistic inquiry can
persuade the consumer and that it is the consumer of the study’s responsibility to
determine if the findings are relevant to them. Trustworthiness has four components,
credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
Credibility
Credibility describes the extent to which the study is credible to those participating in
the research and the context within which the study takes place. According to Lincoln
and Guba (1985) credibility is a twofold task, it requires the researcher to carry out the
inquiry in such a way that the probability that the findings will be found to be credible is
enhanced and secondly to demonstrate the credibility of the findings by having them
85
approved by the constructors of the multiple realities being studied. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) present the credibility criterion as a substitute for the conventionalist
trustworthiness criterion – internal validity, they claim that in a naturalist inquiry
internal validity is not an appropriate concept for credibility. Merrriam (1998, p. 203)
describes internal validity as dealing with how research findings match reality. This is an
isomorphic state and Merriam warns that within such a construct it is necessary to
understand the perspectives of those involved in the phenomenon of interest, to uncover
the complexity of human behaviour in a contextual framework and to present an holistic
interpretation of what is happening.
Credibility in this thesis is achieved through member checking and triangulation. Each
interview participant is given the opportunity to check the validity of their interview
transcript and make adjustments as they saw necessary to properly represent their
perspective on the phenomenon under investigation. Triangulation is also employed to
attest to the credibility of the study via the use of multiple and different sources.
Multiple interviews at each case study site take place to increase the likelihood of
accurate findings, accuracy of specific data and accuracy about the phenomenon under
investigation at a specific site. Of Merriam’s (1998) six basic strategies to enhance
internal validity; 1) Triangulation, 2) Member Checks, 3) Long-term observation, 4)
Peer examination, 5) Participatory or collaborative modes of research and 6)
Researcher’s bias, 1, 2, 4 and 6 are applied in this study. One and two have already been
explained in the context of Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) naturalistic inquiry approach.
Four and six are evidenced also, 4) Peer examination has taken place through the
doctoral supervision process and 6) Researcher’s bias through explanations proffered in
the discussion section of the thesis.
Transferability
Transferability refers to the extent to which the design of the study can be applied to
other studies. There is a recognised tension in the ability of a case study to be applied to
another setting whereby the conditions of the other setting are not known to the
researcher. For Merriam (1998) this criteria fits within reliability, the reliability of a
86
qualitative investigation using a human instrument (the interviewer) creates tensions for
the replication of conditions for the study because the subject of the study may be in
flux, multifaceted and highly contextual. Further to this Merriam (1998, p. 206) advises
that the “emergent design of a qualitative case study precludes a priori controls,
achieving reliability in the traditional sense is not only fanciful but impossible”.
Transferability in this thesis is achieved through the researcher providing credible site
specific (non identifiable) information that would allow other researchers to make the
determination of the appropriateness of this research design in their study. Lincoln and
Guba’s (1985, p. 298) conclude that:
The original inquirer cannot know the sites to which transferability might be
sought, but the appliers can and do.... the responsibility of the original
investigator ends in providing sufficient descriptive data to make such similarity
judgements possible.
Hence the extent to which this study is applicable and transferable to other settings is out
of the hands of the researcher.
Dependability and confirmability

Dependability and confirmability relates to the process used in the study and whether it
is stable over time, across researchers and methods. Miles and Huberman’s (1994, p. 38)
conclusions about reliability in the use of the human instrument in qualitative research
conclude that on balance:
a knowledgeable practitioner with conceptual interests and more than one
disciplinary perspective is often a better research ‘instrument’ in a qualitative
study.
Confirmability refers to the extent to which findings are attributes of the participants and
context and not characteristics the researcher has imposed. The ability to track the raw
data and the processes used to compress and analyse them is important to these criteria.
Dependability and confirmability in this thesis is attested to through the measures taken
to ensure credibility; member checking, peer debriefing and triangulation. These provide
assurances of both dependability and confirmability, as does the use of NVivo as the
87
data processing tool. This tool enabled the effective and efficient recording of materials
which include raw data in the form of digital audio recordings, transcriptions of
interviews in text format, processes used for coding, coded data, the development of
matrices and the diversity of queries made of the data. The use of this tool enables others
to follow the sequence of how the data has been collected, processed, condensed and
analysed. The conclusions drawn from the research are explicitly connected to examples
drawn from the data. Should the need arise, the data from the study has been retained
and would be available so much as would meet with the ethical restraints of the study.
Limitations and Delimitations

The delimitations of research refer to the boundaries that are assigned to the study and
limitations refers to the qualifications that are based on the findings of the study. This
study uses the naturalist inquiry method in a case study approach and as such generates a
series of problems and constraints for itself. The qualitative methodology employed in
this research causes many of the limitations for the findings of the study and the
delimitations are similarly attributable; this is consistent with Gurr’s (1996) study.
The most common limitation of case study research is the limitation of time. There
exists in this study a limitation on the time available to provide the desired level of detail
in the research. Another limitation is the integrity, bias and skills of the interviewer.
Merriam (1998) identifies three qualities needed by a researcher; 1) tolerance of
ambiguity, 2) sensitivity and 3) good communicator. The extent to which the
investigator in this study is able to demonstrate these qualities causes a limitation for the
study.
Le Compte and Preissle (1993, p. 92) advise that:

qualitative research is distinguished partly by its admission of the subjective
perceptions and biases of both participants and researcher into the research
frame.
These factors are delimitations of this study which operates as a naturalist inquiry.
Because of its focus-determined nature these features need to be factored into
88
consideration of the study and its findings. The boundaries of the research relate to the
nature of leadership in each of the school case study sites in the examination of the
leadership expectations of the curriculum coordination role at each school. The research
is restricted to three secondary schools and whilst the findings may have wider
applicability in the educational leadership literature no such applicability is implied or
assumed by the researcher. The research also only includes the perspectives of those
interviewed in each of the schools and hence other views may have been present at the
schools but not discovered by the researcher. Caution needs to be exercised in the use of
the research to make general comments or judgements from these results about
leadership in other secondary schools, in the education sector or in relation to leadership.
Summary
The methodological approach used to undertake this study has followed common
practice for qualitative research. It investigates the socially constructed reality of the role
of the curriculum coordinator in three different case study settings. The views of the role
of the curriculum coordinator are highly dependent upon the views of interviewees. The
study seeks to interpret these views in their context and in relation to each other so as to
identify main themes which name and describe the phenomena of curriculum
coordination leadership.
Following the identification of the research topic an extensive literature review was
conducted to inform both the depth and breadth of research questions that could shape
the investigation. A case study methodological approach was designed using a semi-
structured interview instrument to elicit a range of perspectives on the phenomena under
examination. A detailed description of the findings of the research is provided in each of
the case study chapters and in the summary chapter which draws together the findings
from each of the case study sites. The discussion chapter offers insights into the
implications of these findings and possible future research that could further inform the
field of educational leadership.
89
Chapter 4 – Case Study A
School Profile
School A is a single sex, congregationally owned girls’ school and is part of a network
of Brigidine schools, and it is governed by the College’s advisory Stewardship Council.
Located in the southern suburbs of Melbourne, it has a high proportion of students with
a Language Background Other than English (LBOTE). The socio economic status (SES)
of the school is below 90, ranking it amongst the more disadvantaged schools in the
Catholic sector and the state.
The principal of the College has been in this role for more than ten years and has worked
at the school for more than 20 years. They have established a core senior leadership
team with three senior teachers each with more than 20 years experience at the school
and the curriculum coordinator is one of these senior leaders. The core leadership team
have a strong familiarity with each other and recognise this as both advantageous and
disadvantageous. There are also two junior members of the leadership team who hold
pastoral Positions of Leadership (POL). These two staff applied for a three-year term as
a member of the leadership team and were appointed with the purpose of giving further
insight into whole school leadership.
The curriculum coordinator formally leads a team of Key Learning Areas (KLA)
curriculum leaders as well as having responsibility for other non-KLA POL curriculum
leaders. These leaders have responsibility for special needs, library services, literacy,
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Victorian Certificate of Applied
Learning (VCAL). The KLA curriculum leaders (sometimes referred to as Department
Heads by interviewees) lead the teachers who teach subjects within their KLA. The
curriculum coordinator is a stalwart of the College, and is recognised as bringing
educational expertise and experience as well as unique personal character to the way
they lead. As a result of having been part of the College community for such a long time
and in the role for more than a decade, the understanding interviewees have of the role is
significantly influenced by CCA’s role model.
90
The themes relating to curriculum coordination leadership discovered in this research at
school A are outlined in table three below.
Table 3: Case Study School A Thematic Summary

Principal Curriculum Leadership Leadership POL: POL: Classroom
Coordinator Team: Team: Curriculum Pastoral Teacher
Pastoral Other
Vision       
Purpose of Role
Working With
Others       
Knowing,
Understanding
& Interpreting       
Being in the
Know       
Leading Others       
Key Work
Professional
Learning       
Accountabilities       
Interpersonal
      
Expectations
Skills
Teaches
Classes
      
Confident &
Capable       
Copes with
Strengths
Complexity       
Personal
Character       
Engaging
Staff       
Challenges
Embracing
Change       
Greater
Collaboration       
Changes
to Role
Practicalities
      
LSF Guiding
Conceptions       
Leadership &
Management
Leadership
      
Management
      
Curriculum POL       
Others Who Lead
Principal
      
Curriculum
Non-KLA
Curriculum POL
      
Leadership
Team Members       
91
Principal Curriculum Leadership Leadership POL: POL: Classroom
Coordinator Team: Team: Curriculum Pastoral Teacher
Pastoral Other
Non-KLA
Curriculum POL       
Hindrance
People
      
Office Location
      
Supports
Assistant
Coordinator       
Collaboration
Improvement
Contribution
to School
      
= Theme revealed  = Theme not revealed

The Leadership structure at school A is:
Principal
Leadership Team Members:
Senior - Curriculum, Pastoral Care (Student Wellbeing), Community Liaison
Junior – x 2 (currently) Year 12 Coordinator and Year 7 Coordinator
Year Level Coordinators x 6: at POL 3 Level
Years 7 – 12 Level Coordinators (Pastoral Care)
KLA Heads (Department Heads) x 9: at POL 2 Level
English, Maths, SOSE, Science, LOTE, Technology, The Arts, Health and Physical
Education, Religious Education
Other Curriculum Leaders:
Special needs, Library services, Literacy, ICT and VCAL
92
Table 4 below indicates the interviewee role groupings and the number of interviewees
from each group.
Table 4: Interviewee Codes School A
Role Code No. of
Interviewees
Principal PA 1
Curriculum Coordinator CCA 1
Leadership Team Member - Pastoral LTPA 3
Leadership Team Member - Other LTOA 1
Position of Leadership Curriculum POLCA 2
Position of Leadership Pastoral POLPA 2
Classroom Teacher CTA 3
The findings of the research undertaken at School A are outlined below and are
structured according to the three key research questions. Within each research question a
series of key themes are identified and these are used to further refine the structure of the
findings this chapter.
How do curriculum coordinators, senior leaders and teachers perceive

the role of curriculum coordinators?
The findings from this research question reveal that the three groups of interviewees
share some opinions on the role of the curriculum coordinator but that they also have
some differences in views. The key areas uncovered are purpose, key work and
expectations of the curriculum coordinator role.
Purpose of the Curriculum Coordination Role

The purpose of the curriculum coordinator role is generally believed to have three foci,
vision, working with others and knowing, understanding and interpreting curriculum
information.
93
Having a vision for the learning and teaching program is emphasised by interviewees as
a specific purpose of the role, but it is mainly described in general and non-specific
terms. Concepts like creating, explaining and setting vision are used to explain
perceptions of vision but there is little clarity about the purpose of the curriculum
coordinator operating at the “whole school – big picture’ vision level. Creating a vision
for learning and teaching across the school is seen as a senior leadership team
responsibility which, when it has been created is then shared with others. Subsequently
creating a vision is viewed primarily as a conceptual and philosophical idea of ‘vision
for the future’ with little collective ownership for this or conception of how it is
applicable in the classroom.
..someone has to lead the way in taking the time to be aware of new research and
trends, and new ideas or old ideas, or groundbreaking stuff that’s happening in
education. While everyone else is down in the trenches working, it’s really good
if you’ve got someone keeping the vision alive (CTA1).
This classroom teacher suggests that the vision already exists and that the curriculum
coordinator is responsible for nurturing ‘it’ as everyone else busily ‘does the work’ of
learning and teaching. This distinction between the work of the curriculum coordinator
and classroom teachers is noteworthy; it suggests that classroom teachers don’t have a
role in co-creating the learning and teaching vision. In a similar vein, the curriculum
coordinator places minimal importance on the creation of a clear vision, but rather
prioritises awareness of classroom practice rather than explicitly leading teachers to
enact an explicit school wide vision. Vision creation as a mutual shouldering of
responsibility is a view shared by senior school leaders who see the principal as
particularly influential in learning and teaching and the curriculum coordinator to some
degree complementing their direction setting.
The boss doesn't know everything, so therefore you need to have that curriculum
perspective and CCA puts that hat on (LTOA).
The principal is commonly seen to be central to whole school vision and the curriculum
coordinator is relied upon to provide specific expertise on this despite being disinclined
to self identify as a leader of vision themselves. Who is actually ‘leading’ the learning
and teaching vision and what this vision is at school A is not entirely clear. Even
94
though leadership team members believe that explaining the vision to staff is an
important purpose of the curriculum coordination role they aren’t clear about what this
vision is.
I think it’s about having a vision and balancing that vision with the external
demands that are placed on schools and helping staff move through those
competing demands so that what the outcome is remains educationally valid,
provides the best for kids and does it within the context of our own local vision
(PA).
There is a lack of clarity about the explicit direction for learning and teaching at the
school, but a general desire to ‘do good things’. Leadership team members believe
curriculum is and should be talked about “anywhere and all of the time;” however,
middle leaders and teachers focus on a desire for practical direction above broader
vision. Classroom teachers consistently believe that the curriculum coordinator knows
things that they don’t. They express a high level of trust in the role to look after the
‘vision’ without necessarily wanting to know more about it themselves.
It would be great if we all had time to do the professional reading, but if you’ve
got somebody who perhaps is more attuned to that and who can link you into
that, I think they can be a bridge to what’s going on in the other schools in your
area, to state schools, nationally and even internationally (CTA1).
Analysing what is relevant locally and presenting this to the leadership team and wider
school with due consideration of local needs and issues is expected of the curriculum
coordinator and a confidence in them being able to gather, decipher, filter and share
information is strongly held. This is largely based on them having fulfilled expectations
consistently over time.
The curriculum coordinator needs to know what curriculum directions are
coming and how this impacts on us and how we see it affecting our kids and
benefiting our kids (LTOA).
Familiarity is an indicator for confidence in the person in the role and collaboration is
often aligned with positive personal relationships; “there is an enormous amount of
connecting, both at department head level and at individual staff level” (LTOA).
95
Collaboration is also seen to be measured via task completion, the view of curriculum
coordination leadership described below sees collaboration as a matter of task
completion underscored by relational trust.
…when VELS were introduced CCA was giving out the appropriate
booklets that were relevant to my subject area…….and we were asked to
perform audits, which I did, so I suppose the curriculum co-coordinator
then places some sort of trust in each department co-coordinator
thinking that that person hopefully should know what they’re doing in
their area (POLCA1).
Having certainty and clarity around what tasks need to be undertaken gives POLCA1
confidence and they see this as how they collaborate with the curriculum coordinator.
Collaboration at school A generally has a strong element of consultation more than any
tangible partnership in working towards a common learning and teaching vision. Sharing
the load, as reflected in leadership team members’ comments is reiterated by classroom
teachers, “the curriculum coordinator can’t do it all, so CCA needs a team of people…”
(CTA3). Working with others is valued across the school and practical clarity around
what needs to be done is most prioritised.
I would say that the key thing would be, the curriculum coordinator mustn’t work
in isolation and alone. There has to be lots and lots of talk with people. So I’d
say a good curriculum coordinator would be talking to people as much as
possible and getting feedback from people (LTPA2).
Direction setting expectations of the curriculum coordinator are consistently related to
individuals knowing what they are expected to do and this dominates perceptions of the
purpose of the role of curriculum coordinator. There is a strong desire by non-leadership
team members for the curriculum coordinator to ‘make things clear for them’ and to
eliminate ambiguity in their work.
The curriculum coordinator’s leadership includes liaison with non-KLA curriculum

leaders, whose roles include special needs, literacy, library, ICT and VCAL. None of
these people were available for interview and hence a limitation of this research is the
absence of their voices on curriculum coordination leadership. Formal processes for
96
liaising and accountabilities for these roles are consistently identified by senior leaders
as problematic.
it’s been a bit on the edge, or we [curriculum coordinator and principal] feel it
hasn’t been enough – they [literacy coordinator] haven’t been linked in enough,
even though we constantly try to have meetings and they have meetings with the
principal all the time, but we’re hoping that that will be better next year (CCA).
Lack of clarity about line management accountability for non-KLA curriculum leaders is
evident, the principal sees these leaders as directly reporting to the curriculum
coordinator, but the curriculum coordinator sees their liaison with the principal as more
significant. The widely held belief that collaboration takes place through personable
relationships at school A creates difficulties in targeting performance issues that are
intimated in relation to some of these roles and the literacy coordinator role specifically.
Knowing, understanding and interpreting the curriculum from the principal’s point of
view is a people-centred affective dimension of the role that is crucial. The practical
actions of the curriculum coordinator are seen as needing to consistently reflect the
school’s values. “I think it is very hands-on. You have to know how things operate and
do things. I think you have to be able to show and lead by doing” (PA). The curriculum
coordinator shares the view that their role is an action-centred one that models what is
valued, and one that prioritises students’ actual learning experiences; “I want to see
what’s happening. I want to look at what we are giving our kids“(CCA). Other
interviewees placed little or no importance on this purpose, which highlights a similarity
in perspective by the principal and curriculum coordinator and a different focus by all
others.
Key Work of the Curriculum Coordinator

The key work of the curriculum coordinator, as distinct from the purpose of the role,
spans a range of duties and capacities including ‘being in the know’, leading others,
supporting professional learning, and accountability matters. Each of these include
observable actions, are a feature of school structures, or are the result of external
requirements.
97
The idea of ‘being in the know’ emphasises currency and breadth of knowledge about
contemporary curriculum issues and external requirements. The curriculum coordinator
is consistently perceived to have a handle on a plethora of external information and is
trusted to discern what is important, interesting and relevant. Their capacity to remain
abreast of a considerable volume of curriculum information is seen as a significant task
and one they successfully carry out.
The curriculum coordinator is always trying to keep up with the latest, whatever
is going on or what we are being told to do, and distributing that information
(POLPA1).
The curriculum coordinator suggests that maintaining a currency of curriculum
knowledge is a continuous process and one that they undertake with the principal’s
support and active involvement. These two school leaders describe their work together
as jointly leading learning and teaching and whilst their close collaboration adds weight
to curriculum decision making it also detracts from the independence of the curriculum
coordinator’s leadership.
External requirements are perceived to be an unavoidable aspect of curriculum

leadership at the current time. Knowing what government and sector requirements are
and ensuring the school fulfils these is consistently identified as key work for the
curriculum coordinator. There is a consistent association made between reporting
requirements and the implementation of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards
(VELS) as government requirements needing to be managed and taking up considerable
time and energy. Making sure staff understand what they need to do, and are confident
they can do what is required, is explicitly identified as key work the curriculum
coordinator is relied upon to do.
There is a confidence in the competence of the curriculum coordinator to manage

regulatory requirements and respond to new initiatives with particular attention given to
local context issues. Determining what is relevant for school A, when choice over
initiatives exists, rates significantly and the curriculum coordinator is seen to positively
discriminate before adopting new initiatives.
98
[the curriculum coordinator] is in tune with curriculum directions…..and is able
to articulate how change impinges at the local level......How does curriculum
change or curriculum initiative or curriculum directions impact on us directly?
How can we benefit from it in terms of our cohort? In terms of how it affects our
kids and how it can assist and develop learning in our kids (LTOA).
The curriculum coordinator is believed to be a powerful, intelligent and well informed
voice in whole school leadership generally; their perspective is seen to be brought to the
table of leadership team discussions consistently and to have influence. Their personality
and character adds to their presence and are seen to flavour the school’s approach to
curriculum.
Leading others as key work of the curriculum coordinator is seen through their liaison
with and support of curriculum middle leaders and in the running of curriculum
meetings. Leadership as a supportive relationship is emphasised and promoted as a non-
directive and non-authoritarian enterprise. An inexperienced classroom teacher describes
the KLA POL and curriculum coordinator working in partnership rather than in a line
management approach, which is a consistently held view.
I think that they’d [curriculum POL holders] be somewhat self-motivated, but CCA
also would coordinate and organise the curriculum….maybe with the whole
leadership team (CTA2).
Collaboration as the basis for leadership of curriculum POL is prioritised by leadership
team members and further confirms a cultural resistance to line management structures.
They believe that the KLA curriculum leaders should be, “in partnership” with the
curriculum coordinator in leading the school’s curriculum, but consistently imply that
this is not the reality.
there is some leadership lacking at that level and I think there probably needs to
be a freshness within that group because I think that department heads quite often
are reactive rather than proactive. Reactive to directions and things imposed upon
them (LTOA).
99
Formal curriculum meetings are seen as forums for liaison and leadership of KLA
curriculum leaders, interviewees who did not attend the meetings see this structure as a
formal, collaborative and structured platform for curriculum leadership to take place.
Those who do attend these meetings do not share experiences that reflect this belief.
Attendance by the principal at these meetings is observed as creating an interesting
dynamic. Their attendance could be seen as support being given to the school’s
curriculum; although by the principal’s own admission, their attendance might also add
confusion to who is leading and in what direction.
We have our curriculum meetings obviously and I go to most of those meetings and
sometimes I will bring things up out of midair. We might end up with a lively
debate going on there. Often it’s just a two person debate, so probably I should
keep quiet because others don’t enter into it (PA).
Staff professional learning is embedded in the curriculum coordination role and assumed
by them to be a logical dimension of their work. Others perceive the aptitude of the
curriculum coordinator in this area to be more significant than the curriculum
coordinator does. The principal’s comments on professional learning and the role of
curriculum coordinator provide some insight into their self perception of their
leadership; “I think CCA doesn’t see that [professional learning] is special but it is [and
CCA is] particularly gifted” (PA). There is a belief that professional learning is
fundamental to the work of the curriculum coordinator with particular emphasis placed
on their delivery of professional learning with a high level of expertise and passion.
Developing the skills and knowledge of staff through professional learning is seen as
critical in the role by the principal and classroom teachers and other leaders see it as
underpinning the school’s development strategy. Professional learning is identified as
supporting graduate teachers, consistently demonstrating knowledge of latest research
through the sharing of professional reading and experienced through the delivery of
targeted programs.
The curriculum coordinator addresses the staff regularly about curriculum
issues and as a member of the Leadership team leads the staff in curriculum
development. As well as their team and that filters down through other teams
(LTPA3).
100
Another aspect of the professional learning dimension of the role is the administration
and promotion of opportunities to others. This aspect again highlights the curriculum
coordinator sharing information and knowledge but there is a strong sense of them
leaving decisions about opportunities for learning to people’s own discretion.
The curriculum coordinator is always advertising stuff on the CEO, the CEVN
website, and the designer PD and if I get things given to me through my subject
association or if there are any other PD things that come, CCA will happily sign
and support us going (POLCA1).
The expectation and experience of professional learning as core to the work of the
curriculum coordinator is consistent. Perspectives on whether it is delivery of staff
education, promoting available opportunities and administration or a combination of
both are points of difference in views held by interviewees. The curriculum coordinator
believes it’s ‘everything they do in relation to staff’, whilst others, particularly
classroom teachers, see it more narrowly and personally as an information and
administrative ‘service’ and leadership team members commonly see it as ‘talking about
curriculum’ in public forums.
The matters of curriculum accountability that are perceived as the work of the
curriculum coordinator are mainly focused on reporting and curriculum documentation
reflecting classroom practice. The focus of these accountability areas is to keep others
on task and ensure practical tasks are accomplished. Reporting at the end of semester
(twice per year), and mid semester interim reports (twice per year) is a public and
process oriented accountability that everyone in the school is aware of. The
relentlessness of reporting in the work of the curriculum coordinator is captured by a
pastoral leader, “there’s the reporting process as well, which always seems to be ongoing
on” (POLPA1). The perception of reporting being always “on the go” explains the
consistency of identification of this aspect of the curriculum coordinators’ work by
interviewees. All teachers in the school are affected by it and they know that the
curriculum coordinator is responsible for it through their public instructions.
101
CCA’s the person who has to have the final say, who puts together and who
edits, discusses, analyses, looks at, collates all the comment banks...CCA’s
managing the tasks (CTA3).
Interestingly the language used to describe the work of the curriculum coordinator on
reporting is ‘managing reporting’ and the language of leadership is missing. There is a
belief that reporting work is practical and task oriented and from the curriculum
coordinator’s perspective it is also just simply time consuming and not visionary or
culture building
What takes up a lot of my time? Report templates, fixing those up and settling on
comment banks. People change comment banks. I oversee these because, with
comment banks, everybody says they go out of control and a whole lot of
mistakes happen if someone doesn’t really see what’s happening (CCA).
Minimising possible difficulties in report comments by ‘doing or fixing’ comment

databanks for people highlights leadership as service to others. It is interesting to note
that this high level of quality control is not objected to by interviewees, despite the
stringent control being centrally exercised significantly contrasting expectations of
autonomy in other areas of school life such as classroom practice.
I’m reading for everything. I’m reading for appropriateness, because we have
things like achievements and recommendations, and, for example, people can put
in achievements things that aren’t achievements……..Before you’d know it, in
one year, the comment banks would be full of stuff that we’d have to pick up
while reading (CCA).
Practical accountability for curriculum documentation and classroom practice is

described as being much less ardently enforced. In contrast to reporting there is little
active involvement in daily school life around this aspect of the accountability work of
the curriculum coordinator. A factor to consider in this is the relative lack of autonomy
teachers have in reporting, as opposed to the freedom they have in their pedagogical
practice in their classrooms. The curriculum coordinators’ reflections suggest ‘hope’
rather than certainty in accountability in classroom practice; “People are talking the talk.
Whether it will happen and does happen is another matter?”(CCA). Accountability for
102
ensuring documentation is complete is seen as an onerous task, but once again a
practical one that time is invested in when everything else is done.
The units [UBD courses]…… ideally they were supposed to be finished at the
end of last year. I have been struggling to go through them (CCA).
Accountability for the implementation of the UBD curriculum design is undertaken as a

documentation audit, however the application of the pedagogy of UBD is not tangibly
accounted for. The busyness and diversity of school life is the reason given as to why
classroom pedagogy can’t be tracked. This perpetuates a professional culture at school A
of teachers being trusted to implement pedagogy changes based on their own judgement.
Practical accountabilities around pedagogy appear to be missing, but this is not
something interviewees see as a deficit. What is consistently evident is the key work of
the curriculum coordinator mainly being seen as giving instructions about practical and
transparent tasks such as documenting curriculum plans and written reports. The work of
the curriculum coordinator as leading these is clearly recognised, the other aspects of the
professional lives of teachers appear to be left to professional trust and integrity.
Expectations of the Curriculum Coordinator

‘Expectations’ held for the curriculum coordinator role are largely aspirational or
‘idealised qualities’ desired in senior leaders. A strong emphasis is placed on personal
character, in particular having interpersonal skills that promote a ‘people centred’
approach to leadership.
Being seen to be ‘available to people’ and the working relationship of the curriculum
coordinator with KLA heads is consistently observed and valuable.. Personally as well
as professionally connecting with colleagues at all levels in the school is also seen as an
important indicator of strong interpersonal skills. Physical presence and availability to
listen to people dominates descriptions of expectations and experiences of the
curriculum coordinator as a leader who gives priority to people and their individual
needs.
103
There has to be lots and lots of talk with people. So I’d say a good curriculum
coordinator would be talking to people as much as possible and getting feedback
from people (LTPA2).
Being extremely accessible - I’ll be flitting past and the curriculum coordinator
doesn’t look that harassed so I’ll go in and say, what do you reckon? So we’ve
got that instant feedback and CCA’s also got instant questioning of me
(POLCA2).
For the curriculum coordinator themselves assumes interpersonal skills in their

leadership as ‘a given’, they see leadership as fundamentally needing to be about action
and service and this requires positive connections with people.
my goals are not so much the relationship building, but, supporting staff. I think
it’s so important – the people who do the work in school are the people who are
in touch with the kids (CCA).
The curriculum coordinator, ‘understanding what it’s like for teachers in classrooms’ by
teaching classes is seen by many as a necessity. A belief that the curriculum
coordinator’s theoretical knowledge needs to be balanced with current practical
experience of being ‘hands on’ in student learning is strong.
Curriculum also most obviously is about students and so curriculum is not just in
terms of the paper, the units, the courses that are run and ensuring that, all the
i's are dotted and t's are crossed, but it's also about knowing what's taking place
in the classroom(LTOA).
Even though time pressures are recognised as a tension for the curriculum coordinator,
teaching ‘like everyone else’ overrides sympathy for the pressures and complexities in
the role. “if you take that [teaching classes] away, my belief is that you lose touch with
reality” (POLCA2). An experienced classroom teacher adds to this, articulating a
reasonably common perception of egalitarianism being important in the school’s
leadership and hence reinforcing the significance of the curriculum coordinator teaching
classes:
104
I think it’s important that CCA keeps their hand in that pie. Because then CCA’s
still one of us…… I think it makes you more approachable because colleagues
see you as a colleague, as opposed to just a person with their own office ……. I
like the fact that their job is defined by bells as well, you can’t just keep going
and doing what you want to do now because the bell’s just gone. Everyone’s got
to go off to class and that includes you CCA (CTA3).
What factors contribute to, or hinder, the sustaining and building of

the leadership capacity of curriculum coordinators?
share some opinions on the factors that contribute to or hinder the sustaining and
building of the leadership capacity of the curriculum coordinator but that they also have
some differences in views. The key areas are, strengths, challenges, changes to the role
of the curriculum coordinator, leadership and management, others who lead the
curriculum and supports and hindrances to the role.
Strengths of the Curriculum Coordinator

Leading confidently and capably is seen as a particular strength of the curriculum
coordinator, this capacity is seen in the ability to synthesize relevant information and
latest research for others. Curriculum POL holders rated particularly positively the
capacity of the curriculum coordinator to brief them on key matters and draw complex
ideas together as a natural giftedness. “CCA can pluck things out of the air. I’d be
struggling to find words to explain something, CCA’s got that gift” (POLCA2).
Complementing this cognitive capacity the curriculum coordinator is perceived to have
well informed judgment.
CCA won’t accept things on face value. CCA will challenge them and research
them. Then if CCA supports them you know CCA has looked at it. CCA’s not just
jumping on the bandwagon. CCA has looked at it from all angles (CTA1).
Classroom teachers, more than any others, perceive a high level of complexity in the
curriculum coordinator role. As ‘non-leaders’ they see the role as highly complex and
105
infer that it seems ‘impossibly demanding’; their view of how the curriculum
coordinator deals with this is very affirming.
The curriculum coordinator has a good overview of the whole picture, as
opposed to, just the little day-to-day things. They can see it from a whole school
perspective and bring that perspective to meetings in a way that classroom
teachers often can’t (CTA3).
In contrast, leaders recognise considerable demands in the role, but see these as just a
part of senior leadership that needs to be and is done effectively. They express
heightened ‘standard expectations’ for a senior leadership role such as curriculum
coordinator, at times comparing and contrasting their own leadership to explain their
view. The curriculum coordinator’s lack of comment on the complexity of their role
suggests they share a similar perspective to their ‘senior leader colleagues’.
The personal character of the curriculum coordinator as a strength of their leadership is

widely reflected on and highly valued. Interviewees overwhelmingly see them as
‘likeable’ and this character feature has an influence on how they are seen to perform
their role and are able to engage others.
CCA’s very approachable and you’ve got to have that. CCA’s got a good sense
of humour and you can have a laugh with CCA and I think that’s really
important for someone in a leadership capacity. You’ve got to be approachable
and you’ve got to be able to have a laugh (CTA3)
CCA tries to know people, CCA treats people really well. CCA’s very good at
working with the people……CCA’s very good at knowing what people think and
where they’re at (LTPA1).
Challenges in the role of the Curriculum Coordinator

When identifying the strengths of the curriculum coordinator interviewees often contrast
these with the challenges they also see. Most challenges centre around two main issues,
engaging staff and embracing change.
106
Engaging staff is believed to be a critical and demanding feature of the role and both
POL holders and classroom teachers see this challenge as significant. They recognise
challenges in having the vision for learning and teaching tangibly translated into daily
school life for students:
Keeping the curriculum dynamic and moving. Making sure that it is up to date,
that we understand what we are supposed to be teaching but also to engender the
kids with a love of learning and to get them engaged (POLPA2)
Further challenges at a more pragmatic level are recognised in ensuring the completion
of tasks by others. This performance management related challenge is frequently related
to middle leaders not being seen to be performing at the expected standard. Whilst the
group of curriculum middle leaders are seen to be supportive, some of them are also
variously perceived as not being held to account by the curriculum coordinator.
Managing the team and trying to have an overall goal…trying to manage the
combination of the development and the whole school approach…….Especially
when you probably have a battle at times with certain departments who aren’t
interested in change - even a bit passive aggressive (POLPA1).
Engaging staff so that they are able and prepared to embrace change is commonly
identified as an ongoing challenge. The prominence of curriculum initiatives externally
imposed on schools is frequently noted as bringing this challenge to the forefront of
school life.
The greatest challenge must be navigating the government requirements within
the lived reality in the school (CTA2).
Classroom teachers, as the staff group most responsible for implementing learning and
teaching changes in the classroom note external requirements as presenting change
challenges most significantly. The frequency of change pervades their comments with a
strong sense of the inevitability of it being ongoing. “I suppose sometimes I just feel that
once you’ve got everything down-pat it’s time to change things and that can be
exhausting” (CTA3). The tension for the curriculum coordinator in firstly keeping up
with changes themselves and secondly getting staff onboard is also observed, the
107
reporting requirements and processes being an example of externally imposed change
that firstly needs to be ‘decrypted’ and then ‘sold’ to the teaching staff group.
moving around and running around in circles with reporting...and having to
answer to the staff, who also all have opinions on the method and how we’re
doing it and when we’re doing it and why we’re doing it (CTA2).
The principal also notes embracing change as a challenge, although their emphasis is on
changing others’ perceptions not the curriculum coordinator getting tasks done.
I think we have to constantly work with people about changing their
understanding of teaching and there are many reasons why people will see
things differently (PA).
Adding to the challenges of leading the curriculum are pressures of time. Perceptions of
being time poor are echoed by classroom teachers, the curriculum coordinator and
leadership team members. They see this pressure in terms of ‘fitting new tasks into the
role; “Never having enough time”(CTA1), the curriculum coordinator expresses their
personal frustration about embracing change as, “I haven’t had enough time to do that,
because I’ve been running around” (CCA).
Changes to the role of the Curriculum Coordinator

When interviewees were invited to make recommendations for changes to the role of the
curriculum coordinator they offer both practical and personal advice. Letting others take
responsibility and holding them to account are most prominently identified, with both of
these factors explicitly referencing the curriculum coordinators’ working relationships
with middle level curriculum leaders. Performance and accountability around curriculum
middle leadership roles is highlighted on several occasions, “It should be a partnership.
I think if I was to make an observation I think that there is some leadership lacking at
that level” (LTOA). The only two interviewee groups not to offer advice on change
around the curriculum coordinator dealing with performance management and
accountability were the two POL groups at school A. This could be because they believe
that middle leaders are already suitably responsible and accountable or because
individuals in these roles are unlikely to present themselves as being challenges to the
curriculum coordinators’ leadership. The principal’s advice around the curriculum
108
coordinator needing to challenge middle leaders highlights the need for explicit and
directive accountability
it is okay to say why aren’t these things happening? This is what they have to do
as a teacher…this is their role as coordinators or whatever in these areas and
building in that authority, that comfort level of doing that with people is really
important (PA).
Suggestions for change to practical elements of the curriculum coordination role stem
from it being recognised as a complex one, but despite this an understanding of the
diversity of responsibilities is only observed by leadership team members. Their deeper
understanding of the role pervades their responses and suggestions to split the role come
from this group alone.
I think the curriculum coordinator’s job is so big, CCA does get support from the
leadership team and particularly the principal…But I think that CCA needs an
extra support person (LTAP3).
The curriculum coordinator agrees to some extent and identifies additional support
specifically in leading professional learning. The nexus between learning and teaching
and developing teacher capacity is seen by the curriculum coordinator as crucial. They
identify some potential for greater responsibility by curriculum POL in driving
professional learning as one way forward. There is however no strategic plan suggested
for developing the leadership capacity of curriculum middle leaders to embrace
professional learning in their role. The desire to have this group take a more active
responsibility for staff professional learning seems to be more of a hope than a plan.
...possibly professional learning…..Somebody else dealing with that. But I think
we came to a conclusion that if there was another person taking that on as their
whole job, then could they really do it effectively? I thought maybe the
department coordinators need to emphasise that much more in their role (CCA).
Some interviewees want the information shared by the curriculum coordinator to be

more filtered; they see reducing the quantity of information shared as a change that
would simplify directions, make them more achievable and less overwhelming and
directly benefit themselves.
109
Measure the amount of information that’s given out because I feel we get
overloaded with information at times……I take this view, take a little bit of
information and do it well, rather than get bombarded (POLCA2).
The expectation implied here is that the responsibility for making the meaning of
curriculum change simpler and more manageable rests with the curriculum coordinator.
This view is not consistent with the views of senior leaders who see middle leaders as
needing to be more proactive in their leadership of the curriculum.
Personal advice for changes to the role frequently relate to aspects of personal charisma
and are associated with being optimistic and maintaining a passionate approach to
curriculum leadership. This advice promotes a need for public optimism being
consistently portrayed even in the face of ‘external requirements being imposed’ or staff
resistance to change. The passion of the curriculum coordinator for learning and
teaching is seen as a strength and their ability to make meaning in the local context is
associated with this passion for finding out new things and implementing, ‘what’s good
for our kids’. When this passion is not evident the impact is seen to be considerably
negative.
When the curriculum coordinator’s passionate they’re fantastic but then at times
you can feel that they’re concerned when not everybody cares ….[and that]
causes CCA to rush or think “oh it’s not that important” or something
(POLPA1).
Maintaining “passion” is further emphasised by classroom teachers, pastoral POL and
the curriculum coordinator themselves. The self criticism of the curriculum coordinator
appears to be largely unwarranted based on the majority of other interviewee’s
observations, “It is so important to energise – I think as a leadership role, as a
curriculum role, I should be doing more of that” (CCA).
Leadership and Management

A part of the interview schedule directed interviewees to the Catholic Education Office
(CEO) Melbourne and CEO Sale, Leadership Standards Framework (LSF). This
framework is shaped around five guiding conceptions of leadership which provide a
110
basis for what “leaders know, believe and do” (2005: 3) in Catholic schools.
Interviewees are shown the guiding conceptions statements and are asked how they
think these guiding conceptions resonate with the role of the curriculum coordinator. A
strong identification with each of the guiding conceptions results, however the
curriculum coordinator themselves sees the fewest links between their role and the
guiding conceptions. The principal’s insight into the personal qualities of the curriculum
coordinator at school A provides a possible context for their attitude to the LSF.
CCA’s Irish, you have to understand…….Anything that smacks of authority and
that might – it’s why CCA won’t [engage with] (PA).
Regardless of these personal qualities, the role of curriculum coordinator as performed at

school A is seen to embody each of the guiding conceptions of leadership. The most
consistently referenced and emphasised is, ‘Understanding and Managing Change’.
Work done in implementing initiatives and ensuring government requirements are
complied with are linked to this guiding conception,
to the best of the curriculum coordinator’s ability, given the stuff that the
government might throw at us…….CCA takes it on board and rolls their eyes but
then gets on with it (CTA3).
The second most recognised guiding conception is ‘Building Relationships’ and the
curriculum coordinator, whilst reticent to ascribe to formal structures like the LSF,
places a high level of importance on working with people. The perspective they present
in relation to working with people to achieve curriculum outcomes is very much a
leadership as service model and little indication of their own leadership ambition is
evident. The extent to which the guiding conceptions are seen to resonate with the role
of curriculum coordinator present a consistent view of what leadership is at the school.
What is necessary in the role due to external requirements and what is contextually
important for the school community are commonly understood. These aspects of
curriculum coordination are seen to be best achieved through harmonious relationships
which are described as being based upon mutual trust, autonomy and respect.
111
relationship building, because it’s about building relationships between the
leadership team and the staff, in terms of where we’re going and building that
and being an advocate for the students and their learning needs (CTA1).
The curriculum coordinator is believed to be both a leader and manager in the way they
perform their role. A belief that leadership dimensions dominate the role came from
leaders in the school but not from classroom teachers. The role embracing ‘bigger
picture’ visionary leadership is most clearly identified by colleagues on the leadership
team; as might be expected they recognise functional management dimensions as
necessary but see the leadership aspects as more significant.
I see the curriculum coordinator as being a real visionary....I think CCA’s a
really big ideas person…..I’m not saying that CCA doesn’t do the other, but I
would say that CCA’s strengths would be in the big picture and the nuts and
bolts stuff they hate….Although they do it (LTPA1).
Similarly the curriculum coordinator sees both leadership and management as necessary
in their role; “the leadership curriculum philosophy rather than management is a
priority” (CCA). Those outside of the leadership team generally see the management
dimensions of the role as connected to accountability and processes and these seem to
dominate.
It’s really easy to get weighed down by the management side of it…..if you have
teachers who are not doing the right thing and being professional, that’s when
the management side takes over (CTA1).
A small number of interviewees did not distinguish between leadership and management
in the role. The importance of relationships and clear instructions were more important
to them than the theoretical divide between the two concepts. A curriculum middle
leader commented; “I'd say it's much the same thing” (POLCA2) and a classroom
teacher notes:
I think when the job’s done at its most successful, it’s combined and some people
do the two things separately incredibly well, but when the two things are working
in harmony, that’s when you’re getting the best result for the staff and students
(CTA1).
112
Despite a distinct lack of clarity about what whole school curriculum leadership is, most
interviewees expressed a confidence in the way the curriculum coordination role is
undertaken in their school. For most, management was observable administrative tasks
and leadership a visionary but not specific concept. Whilst leadership is seen as more
significant, it is management that is believed to be critical to the smooth running of
curriculum and it is management therefore that matters most to those following the
directions from curriculum leadership.
Others who lead the curriculum

In this section interviewees are asked who else at school A they think leads the
curriculum. Whilst there is a consistently strong belief that curriculum leadership needs
to be collaborative in nature there are limited examples of this actually occurring. The
connection between the curriculum coordinator and the principal is the most observed
example and both of these interviewees similarly recognise their joint effort in
developing the vision for curriculum. Others seen as leading the curriculum are KLA
Heads and members of the Leadership Team; the most obvious group of middle leaders
not recognised are non-KLA Curriculum POL holders.
All interviewee groups recognise the principal as a curriculum leader, “CCA would
drive it but they’re in constant consultation with the Principal” (POLCA2), the depth and
breadth of curriculum involvement by the principal is seen as significant, “the principal
seems to know everything as well” (POLPA1). The strength of their collaboration is also
endorsed by the curriculum coordinator; interestingly there is no sense of their own
leadership being compromised by this involvement.
...a very hands-on principal who really knows what’s happening in the
school....[the principal] wants to see what’s happening.....the principal, is
really, really good on this. We talk all the time…and they’re a hands-on
principal and is fantastic and energises me in that direction (CCA).
KLA-POL effectiveness arises again when interviewees identify this group of middle
leaders as others who lead, or who should lead the curriculum. A perception emerges
across a number of interviews that KLA POL act more as managers of the curriculum
113
rather than as leaders, this judgement being largely based on them following directives
from the curriculum coordinator rather than taking full responsibility for their KLA.
I think that there can be some work done with department heads in terms of
getting them to own their department more than I think they are currently
owning them (LTOA).
There is a general vagueness around what ‘more or better’ leadership of the curriculum
would look like. The KLA-POL needing to ‘own their department more’ suggests
accountability for processes, procedures and deliverables, but doesn’t deal with vision or
improvement. Building the leadership capacity of the KLA-POL so that they are more
active in making others accountable is however commonly suggested.
I think that the KLA heads have great difficulty themselves passing on or
being leaders in themselves of their teams....[telling] people that this is
what we need to do, but then if people don’t do it..[they will] just do it for
them (LTPA2).
Observations of the leadership team as leading the curriculum come from both within
this group and outside of it. Both experienced and inexperienced teachers identify
members of the leadership team performing their roles in a way that also contributes to
leading the curriculum. It is interesting to note the language used to describe the work of
the leadership team is still that of management, but also that this senior leadership team
is focused on learning.
All the management decisions they make, from class sizes to room
allocation, to staff combinations, will impact on the learning of the students
and impact on how effectively the curriculum is delivered (CTA1).
Non-KLA curriculum leaders perceived to be under performing are again raised in

response to others who ‘should’ be leading the curriculum. None of the interviewees
who are formal school leaders themselves recognise this group as curriculum leaders.
Interviewees who commented that these roles are curriculum leaders emphasise service
provision rather than leadership or management.
114
Factors that Hinder and Support the Curriculum Coordinator
There are a range of factors identified as hindering or supporting the curriculum
coordinator. A connection between hindrances and perceived poor performance by non-
KLA curriculum leaders is consistently made. These comments are specifically targeted
at times and emphasise the need for greater clarity around role responsibilities, duties
and deliverables for specific roles. For some interviewees, perceived poor performance
relates to a lack of capacity by individuals to translate, communicate and bring the
curriculum to life in their specialist area. Whilst discontent with performance in Non-
KLA curriculum areas is identified by all interviewee groups and there is a belief that
‘something should be done’, no one articulates what this should or could be. The
perceived shortfall in leadership by these non-KLA curriculum leaders is observed as
being ‘picked up’ by the curriculum coordinator, making their job more complex and
demanding than it should be and hence a hindrance.
The curriculum coordinator can’t do it all, they need a team of people to
help them out. They need their own little team, it’s too big a job (CTA3).
Tension around accountability and performance deliverables in non-KLA curriculum
POL roles and whole school curriculum coordination is described by several
interviewees. The principal and others intimate that a structural redesign of these
leadership roles is being considered for the future in order to provide better support for
the curriculum coordination role.
The complexity of the curriculum coordination role and people in general is believed to
cause some hindrances. The depth and breadth of relevant information is seen to make
the role a complex one and dealing with a considerable volume of information a major
feat.
...it's a huge responsibility. There are so many different facets to it that it would
be hard to stay on top of it all. So anyone that does it, I can take my hat off to
them. And it seems to be a position that's getting more and more complex and
more and more critical (LTOA).
Seeing people as a hindrance drew together perceptions of the difficulties faced by the
curriculum coordinator in leading people with a diversity of skill levels and
115
personalities, within parameters of time and limited resources. A reliance on personal
relationships in the culture at school A is also seen to compound ‘people’ issues, “I think
too much of it’s personal, for example because you know the person you’re willing to
help out, and it shouldn’t be like that, but it is” (CTA3).
The factors identified as supports to the curriculum coordinator include the location of
their office and the assistant curriculum coordinator role. Office location, in close
proximity to staff, whilst a logistical matter literally, reflects a belief in genuine
openness and accessibility being important and lived out by the school’s senior leaders.
“I think it’s really important that they are not sitting up in their ivory tower, reading
books and sending the odd email. I think they need to touch base with staff regularly”
(CTA1). The importance placed on accessibility of the staff to the curriculum
coordinator re-iterates the premium placed on people and relationships at school A.
The role of the assistant curriculum coordinator is identified by all interviewees as a

support for the curriculum coordinator. The reality of what function this role is intended
to play and what actually happens in providing support lacks clarity, the principal
explains the original purpose of the role and how they see it actually being performed.
It had a leading aspect to it but it didn’t evolve.....The deficiencies with the job
description and the vision which didn’t really translate. We hoped it would be
more a minor leadership role where people could dabble and see what it’s like
to be a curriculum coordinator for succession planning (PA)
How do curriculum coordinators contribute to school improvement?

Interviewees are asked to comment on how they see the curriculum coordinator
contributing to school improvement. There is not at all a strong sense of what school
improvement means other than ‘improving things’ and interviewee responses relate to
collaboration and the collegial enterprise of improving the school to best meet student
needs in general terms. The curriculum perspective being continuously heard in
professional discussions is identified, but strategic leadership intent in this is not
described. The influence of the curriculum coordinator as a result of their standing in the
116
school community and priority placed on local context and needs seems to be the more
powerful forces in improvement planning.
Conclusions
The leadership expectations of the role of curriculum coordinator at school A vary to
some extent across interviewee groups. Understanding of the purpose of and key work
of the role is generally consistent with many interviewees recognising operational
aspects they observe the curriculum coordinator doing in their daily work as leadership.
Understanding of a difference between the leadership and management components of
the role of curriculum coordinator elicits some differentiation between interviewee
groups, senior leaders see the greater significance of leadership in the role over
management, however they do recognise management skills as necessary. All
interviewee groups identify the personal qualities and / or the local context as crucial to
the way the role is performed. The challenges facing the role are similarly identified
between interviewee groups.
The purpose of the curriculum coordinator’s role both in school A, and as generally
perceived as it would be in ‘any school’, is most commonly understood to be about
organising operational tasks and indicating future directions for the curriculum.
Operational tasks such as reporting and curriculum documentation are commonly
observed as the work that takes up large amounts of time and these are believed to be
effectively performed. Visionary dimensions are identified by individuals across
interviewee groups, but are most commonly emphasised by the leadership team
interviewee group. The most distinct difference in expectations are between leadership
team members and those who are not in this group. Leadership team members recognise
operational dimensions of the role as necessary, but see the ‘big picture’ leadership as an
equally important and everyday responsibility.
School A’s charism and context is unique, the importance of it permeates observations
about the curriculum coordinator’s leadership and a focus on, ‘what’s best for our kids’
is fundamental to how the curriculum coordinator is expected to and does lead. A
117
commitment to the concept of a ‘flat leadership structure’ is consistently articulated by
the principal but is not necessarily reflected in the POL remuneration structure. The POL
leadership structure provides insight into the value placed on different areas of
leadership. Pastoral POLs are positioned more significantly than curriculum POLs in
terms of time and money connected to the roles and the leadership team includes three
pastoral specific leaders, and only one curriculum position. Despite this difference in the
design of the leadership structure the voice of curriculum is commonly seen to be
foundational and forceful in whole school leadership decision making. The person who
fulfils the role is believed to have a significant impact on the leadership profile for
curriculum, the fit of the role within the leadership team explains some of the challenges
identified. The perceived challenges faced by the curriculum coordinator reflect
interviewee’s perceptions of what leadership is and should be. Largely centred on
accountability and relationships, the expectations that the curriculum coordinator hold
others to account, and do so whilst maintaining personal relationships, creates tensions
when considered in the light of the school culture. The leadership expectations for the
role of curriculum coordinator at school A can be aligned with the LSF despite the
disinclination of the curriculum coordinator themselves to acknowledge any such
authoritative framework. The framework does however provide a language for further
development of the role within the school.
Perceptions regarding the performance of the role of curriculum coordinator are largely
positive, the points of difference between interviewee perspectives being a difference in
views about leadership of the ‘bigger picture’ through curriculum development and
management of daily operational matters. The idea and language of school improvement
is not evident across interviewee groups. Most interpret the idea of how the curriculum
coordinator contributes to school improvement as how they make ‘things better’,
however what these ‘things’ are and what strategies are employed to achieve this is not
uncovered.
118
Chapter 5 – Case Study B
School Profile
Case study school B is a Catholic diocesan co-educational secondary school in the outer
northern region of Melbourne with a low SES of around 90. Canonical administrators
manage the governance of the College with an advisory board. Student enrolment is
approximately 1600, more than 58% having a language background other than English
(LBOTE). The total staff of the school is 220, 144 of these being teachers. The school
has two campuses which are approximately five kilometres apart, senior (years 9 – 12)
and junior (years 7 – 8). There is minimal cross campus teaching and the curriculum
coordinator’s home base is on the senior campus.
The principal of school B has held their role for two years but has been teaching for
more than 30 years, immediately prior to school B they held the role of principal in a
Catholic co-educational secondary school interstate. They lead a large leadership team
and leadership executive which spans the two campuses. The executive leadership team
comprises staff with leadership responsibilities in pastoral care (student wellbeing),
campus administration, learning and teaching, faith education and student services. The
executive team is mainly a senior campus team but includes the head of the junior
campus. The curriculum coordinator leads the heads of learning team, which includes
nine key learning areas (including religious education). They also chair the curriculum
review team which is made up of teacher and leader volunteer teachers. The role of the
curriculum coordinator is to lead learning and teaching across both campuses, with an
assistant curriculum coordinator based at the junior campus supporting them.
The themes relating to curriculum coordination leadership discovered through this

research are outlined in Table 5 below.
119
Table 5: Case Study School B Thematic Summary
Leadership Leadership Classroom
Curriculum POL: POL:
Principal Team: Team: Teacher
Coordinator Curriculum Pastoral
Pastoral Other
Vision       
Sets directions
Purpose of Role
for the Work of       

Others
Organises
Curriculum       
Matters
Shares
Information       
Abreast of New
Ideas       
Key Work
Supports
Curriculum       
Leaders
Professional
Learning       
Interpersonal
Expectations
Skills
      
Teaches
Classes
      
Confident &
Capable       
Strengths
Copes with
Complexity       
Personal
Character       
Engaging
Staff       
Implementing
Challenges
Change       
Keeping People
Accountable       
Embracing
Change       
Greater
      
Changes to Role
Collaboration
Making Others
Take on       
Responsibility
Lessen
Administrative       
Requirements
LSF Guiding
Conceptions       
Leadership &
Management
Leadership       
Management       
120
Leadership Leadership
Curriculum POL: POL: Classroom
Principal Team: Team:
Coordinator Curriculum Pastoral Teacher
Pastoral Other
Curriculum POL       
Others Who Lead
Curriculum
Principal       
Non-KLA
Curriculum POL       
The Leadership
Team       
Being a Two
Campus School       
Hindrance
People       
Complexity of
the Role
      
Office Location       
Supports
Administrative
Support
      
Improvement
Contribution
to School
Driving Vision       
The POL structure at school B is:

Principal
Deputy Principals x 5: Curriculum, Religious Education, Head of Senior School, Head
of Junior School and Student Wellbeing
Other members: Head of Student Services, Campus Organiser / Timetabler (POL 4)
Year Level Coordinators x 6: at POL 3 Level
KLA Heads (Department Heads) x 9: at POL 2 Level
VCE / VET, Learning Technologies
121
from each group.
Table 6: Interviewee Codes School B

Role Code No. of
Interviewees
Principal PB 1
Curriculum Coordinator CCB 1
Leadership Team Member - Pastoral LTPB 1
Leadership Team Member - Other LTOB 3
Position of Leadership Curriculum POLCB 4
Position of Leadership Pastoral POLPB 1
Classroom Teacher CTB 1
The findings of the research undertaken at School B are outlined below and are
series of key areas are identified and these are used to further refine the structure of the
findings in this chapter.

some differences in views. The key areas are, purpose, key work and expectations of the
curriculum coordinator role.
Purpose of the curriculum coordination role

The purpose of the curriculum coordinator role at school B is predominantly perceived
to be about a combination of creating a vision, setting directions for the work of others,
organising curriculum matters and sharing information with others.
122
Creating the school wide vision for learning and teaching is frequently identified as an
important purpose of the curriculum coordination role and is described as demonstrating
an awareness of future directions and requirements and how they apply to the local
context at school B.
[the curriculum coordinator needs] to be aware firstly of the trends and
directions that learning and teaching are going in and then to facilitate the
exchange of the relevant aspects of what they’ve learnt to staff.....And through
the targeting of particular curriculum problems or priorities for the year and
then addressing those in a logical fashion (LTPB1).
The necessity to have a ‘bigger picture view’ is conceptualised in terms of overseeing
the ‘whole school’, with its many and varied parts being drawn together in the vision
developed by the curriculum coordinator.
I think they have to be open to what the school’s vision is and how we will
ultimately come together to satisfy that vision. I think they’ve almost got to be
very octopus in style and just know everything and bring us together
(POLPB1).
Perceptions of the purpose for leadership around vision are considerable and are
underpinned by a belief that the curriculum coordinator needs to have the capacity to
manage people through clear directions on how the learning and teaching vision will
come to life. The resonance between managing people and enacting the vision is strong
and is also commonly recognised as a challenging task. It is also connected to setting the
direction for the work of others, which is commonly associated with external
accountabilities that the curriculum coordinator is expected to know about in order to
satisfy sector and government authorities.
A line management approach to communicating requirements to others is consistently

evident. This leadership structure is seen as working directly with curriculum POL and
through them communication to teachers about curriculum occurs. The sharing of
information about what has happened, is described by one curriculum POL as a method
of setting directions. “I am accountable for telling CCB, where we’re [the KLA is] at
and in terms of where we’re going, that’s where I look to CCB for guidance to make
123
sure that I’m on track (POLCB2)”. The curriculum coordinator sees a similar gathering
and distributing information pattern as a purpose of their leadership role.
I think the main purpose of my role is to ensure that I’m up to date with what is
happening in the educational community to make sure that I have a good
understanding of what expectations, curriculum priorities and directions are
from the state government, Catholic Education Office and now the federal
level.....Then to make sure that I understand or process it, and that I then feed
all that into the school (CCB).
Being able to interpret and then contextualise how school B might enact the
requirements set by “external authorities” is seen as a priority. Additionally, there
appears to be a high level of autonomy for the curriculum coordinator in determining
how, when and which of the optional external ideas or curriculum opportunities are
implemented. There seems to be some disengagement by other senior leaders in the
whole school vision for learning and teaching. The principal’s perceptions of the
purpose of the role of the curriculum coordinator support this:
CCB is the one who probably is more aware than I would be or perhaps other
people on executive. They are aware of what the cutting edge is at the moment.
...and has those sorts of contacts outside the school in that sphere and brings
that into us in our discussions. The curriculum coordinator has a pretty clear
sense of us moving forward (PB).
Key work of the curriculum coordinator

The day to day work of the curriculum coordinator is generally observed to be mainly a
combination of engaging with - new ideas, leaders, professional learning and managing
accountabilities. The frequency of observations in each of these areas made by
interviewee groups reflects the relative closeness or distance of each group’s daily
working relationship with the curriculum coordinator. Classroom teachers by far make
the least comment, and appear to have the least direct contact with the curriculum
coordinator; in contrast, curriculum POL holders comment frequently and describe
themselves as having consistent daily interactions. The curriculum coordinator’s work is
minimally described by members of the leadership team; a respectful tone for their work
124
is evident, however actual understanding of the day to day work in leading learning and
teaching is limited.
The extent to which the curriculum coordinator is ‘in the know’ about new initiatives is
important to those they work most closely with. Interviewees own sense of having up to
date knowledge from outside of the school, as a result of their close working relationship
with the curriculum coordinator is a factor in this. Further to this perception of the
curriculum coordinators’ work being externally influenced, the principal identifies
involvement in networks and sector advisory groups as a part of their work that
positively influences the currency of their knowledge about future directions at school B.
There is a belief that the work of the curriculum coordinator is to know more than others
in relation to government requirements and the latest educational research. The reality of
this for their work is that its breadth and depth is complex, multifaceted and time
consuming. Subsequently, curriculum POL describe variable levels of support being
available to them; “last year I felt sometimes that I was a little on my own in the sense
that CCB was just too busy and that was the reality of it (POLCB2)”.
Leading others through change and innovation is seen as essential work of the
curriculum coordinator and the foundation of their working relationship with KLA
curriculum POL holders. This group of school leaders report directly to the curriculum
coordinator and are seen as the major conduit to the teaching staff in terms of learning
and teaching information and innovation.
CCB needs to have a sound relationship with the KLA heads particularly so
that they are able to glean as much knowledge as possible and are able to get
an inside hold on challenges that are faced by the specific KLA (POLCB2).
Curriculum POL also see an aspect of the work of the curriculum coordinator being
about bringing ideas together by liaising with the curriculum team, and them
determining the best way forward, together. This collaborative approach is seen to have
both positive and negative dimensions:
125
Quite often it’s all about the discussion.....And so sometimes decisions are
made, but I think sometimes a lot of the stuff just keeps rolling on because it’s
too hard (POLCB4).
The importance of working relationships with curriculum leaders is consistently

emphasised; “often lots of meetings and touching base with different groups (LTOB3)”,
in contrast, liaising with the principal is identified by only the principal as key work of
the curriculum coordinator.
Providing learning opportunities for others is seen by most as key work and observed
through the promotion of professional learning opportunities and expectations for
professional practices:
The curriculum coordinator does try and develop – encourage people in terms
of their own professional development, making people have their own
individual PD plans (POLCB4).
Consistent efforts in promoting professional learning by the curriculum coordinator is

recognised by members of the leadership team, their views often centring on the more
administrative aspects. “I get waterfalls of information from CCB and this may be
interesting and you get a great list of possible PDs for myself or for my staff (LTOB2)”.
Expectations of the curriculum coordinator as a leader

Expectations of the curriculum coordinator as a leader reveal priorities in them having
interpersonal skills and remaining in touch with teaching in the contemporary classroom.
A general expectation of the curriculum coordinator crudely put is that they are expected
to – ‘do the job’.
The perception of the curriculum coordinator at school B as being open to other people’s
ideas and being personable correlates with an aptitude for interpersonal relationships
according to most interviewees. Their interpersonal capacity is emphasised by
experienced teachers at school B through comparisons to previous curriculum
coordinators and curriculum POL echo this belief also. They in particular see the
126
capacity to change as natural and requiring flexibility, which in turn reflects
interpersonal capacity.
CCB has a really good balance between those things [change and
relationships] and so CCB manages well. CCB manages differently to some
other people that we have had here and were very pedantic about getting things
done and triple signing everything and so CCB is a bit more flexible
(POLCB3).
School B is recognised as significantly large, so much so that no one person could have
a detailed knowledge of what is actually going on in most classrooms. This is generally
seen as problematic for the curriculum coordinator who seeks to instil improvement in
all classrooms. One consistent perception held by some but not all interviewee groups of
how to address this is the curriculum coordinator teaching classes.
I think it would be really important for the curriculum coordinator to actually
continue teaching in terms of the way that their role is perceived by other
people (LTOB3).

Strengths of the curriculum coordinator in the school

The strengths of the curriculum coordinator at school B are described within three main
areas, leading confidently and capably, their ability to cope with complexity and the
strength of their personal character. There is overall a generally positive view of how the
curriculum coordinator performs their role. Positive perceptions of the curriculum
127
coordinator’s personal character are consistently seen as a strength in their role
performance. This links closely to their relationship building, relies heavily on the
personal values of interviewees and is most important to those interviewees with a
strong and daily professional relationship with them.
The curriculum POL holders group consistently expresses a confidence in the capacity
of the curriculum coordinator as a leader. They have a good day to day knowledge of the
work of the curriculum coordinator through the proximity of their offices and their
comments reflect both a respect for the work that is undertaken and how it is done. A
well informed passion for innovation is particularly valued by this group, as well as
being recognised across most other interviewee groups.
CCB is constantly looking for new things that we can do as a school, better
ways of operating, better ways of improving our timetable, the way we teach,
organising PD (POLCB3).
Further to this is an acute awareness of the discretion exercised by the curriculum
coordinator in pursuing innovation. Whilst the inevitability of change is generally
accepted, change for the sake of change is something the curriculum coordinator is seen
to oppose, and this is highly valued.
I have noticed with VELS, CCB has said, we have done enough, we will just
leave this now and let’s not have change just for the sake of change. Let’s leave
that and work on something that is really going to benefit us more which may be
ICT and developing our ICT and E-learning etcetera… CCB doesn’t go into
change for the sake of change (POLCB3).
The curriculum coordinator’s capacity to respond to change is seen as a personal
strength as well as an asset to school B in supporting staff.
Demonstrating a confidence and capability in dealing with whole school curriculum is

recognised by the curriculum coordinator themselves as knowing, understanding and
analysing the implications of external forces influencing school B. The principal
believes that maintaining the bigger picture view of curriculum is critical:
128
I think CCB is a big picture person...... it seems to me that one of the tensions
that a curriculum coordinator faces is that if they come from being a head of
learning – they have to step out of that sort of silo and they have to suddenly
embrace the whole thing and CCB does that fantastically (PB).
The ability of the curriculum coordinator to synthesise a plethora of external information

so that it is relevant for school B is both highly valued by interviewees and deemed a
considerable strength of theirs. The curriculum coordinator similarly recognises the
processing of multiple sources of information and making meaning in the local context
as critical to their role. Reflections on their daily work and professional interactions
reveal that this synthesis and communication of information is both a priority and
regular practice:
I make sure that I understand or process it, and that I then feed all that into the
school. Some of those initiatives, priorities and so forth, new directions are
whole school. Some of them affect just individual departments. I think that it’s
really important that I’m up to speed so that I can have the leaders, middle
leaders at the school and the teaching staff up to speed (CCB).
The personal characteristics which influence and flavour how new information is
delivered to colleagues clearly has an impact on how they respond to change and
innovation, solicited or unsolicited. A consistent perception of the current curriculum
coordinator is that they have a genuine passion and energy for their role and that even
though the role and its responsibilities can be exhausting this enthusiasm is sustained:
I think CCB is incredibly passionate about what CCB does which is great and I
think CCB should maintain that enthusiasm because if you lose that you can
quickly lose your petrol in the tank (POLCB1).
The personal strength of CCB is seen to add to their professional competence and
supports their strong professional standing.
The complexity of the role of curriculum coordinator is broadly recognised by those who
interact regularly with the curriculum coordinator. Leadership team colleagues show
greatest insight into the complexities and issues dealt with by them and curriculum POL
129
holders who recognise this. In contrast, those without consistent contact show limited
insight into the complexity and capacity of the curriculum coordinator to deal with it.
The most commonly identified strength of the curriculum coordinator in dealing with
complex curriculum issues is their availability to people. In being seen as available to
respond to and / or deal with other people’s priorities or issues the conclusion is drawn
that the curriculum coordinator can and does cope with diverse and complex issues as a
leader; “touching base with different groups, putting out, spot fires, lots of that sort of
thing, debriefing with people..... (LTOB3)”. This availability and attention to each
individual’s needs is also highly valued as a strength in their leadership.
CCB is great because people, just go barging into CCB’s office all the time and
CCB will just stop what they’re doing and listen and give you that attention,
whereas CCB never seems to be angry or irritated (POLCB3).
CCB is able to listen well and makes themselves very available. There’s a
pastoral element there too, CCB makes sure that we’re okay, it’s nice to know
that if you happen to be going through a rough patch, CCB’ll sort of say is
everything okay (POLCB2).
Multitasking is also observed as a strength of the curriculum coordinator, again it is

fellow leaders who highlight this capacity. The ability to work on multiple tasks or
projects; big or small, is consistently observed by those with close day to day working
relationships with the curriculum coordinator; “I think they’re always under the pump
trying to keep up with everything” (LTOB1).
Perceptions of the challenges in the role of the curriculum coordinator

The challenges the curriculum coordinator faces range from engaging staff to embracing
change and whilst both of these are distinct challenges they are also described by many
as being connected. The challenge of engaging staff is seen to have a number of specific
elements including, implementing whole school change, holding people to account and
getting people on board. Embracing change is perceived to be a challenge by many
130
interviewees in terms of, understanding, keeping up with and implementing change. A
consistent factor across the spectrum of challenges is the ‘people factor’, that is the
extent to which staff are seen to engage with curriculum leadership directions and
embrace new ideas and innovations to improve learning and teaching at the school.
Getting people on board, whilst used commonly to describe a challenge faced by the
curriculum coordinator, is not clearly defined. Its use as a description of challenge
implies the extent to which staff ‘buy-in on any given curriculum idea’ to the extent that
they change their own actions, attitudes or behaviours in approaching learning and
teaching. The reference to ‘getting people on board’ explicitly includes developing the
leadership capacity of curriculum leaders and reveals a consistent sense of the need for
learning and teaching to have greater middle level strategic direction. In particular new
leadership roles in literacy and numeracy are generally applauded by interviewees as
structurally good ideas. The realisation of these roles as performed at the time of
interview suggests some disappointment and frustration in the extent to which the roles
were adding value. A reasonably common belief is held that the curriculum coordinator
needs to hold the people in these roles to account for their performance. Interestingly the
expectation that the curriculum coordinator seeks to improve the performance of these
leaders is seen as necessary by others but is not highlighted by the curriculum
coordinator themselves. The nature of performance concerns as seen by leadership team
members ranged from actual completion of tasks to broader expectations of curriculum
leadership roles in shaping learning and teaching.
Getting a cohesive group of people to work together, to work cohesively,
particularly the heads of learning team requires getting people out of their
comfort zone and is a really big challenge (LTPB1).
An influential factor in the general challenge of curriculum leadership at school B is

consistently hinged to the size and design of the school as an organisation. Getting
people on board with innovations and ensuring the vision is enacted is generally seen as
a sizeable task. The principal describes this challenge as a complex one that revolves
around leadership but does not suggest any specific strategies as how to do this.
131
Leading a large organisation – I think it’s probably true to say is very hard – it
is like the Queen Mary, very hard to turn around....Leading a staff is one of the
difficulties of the role that you are trying to encourage, to nurture, to push
(PB).
Understanding people as individuals as well as the school environment in which they

operate is consistently seen to be crucial in achieving a successful outcome and
overcoming the challenges.
Greatest challenge is getting everybody to come to the party - it’s a people

thing…..sometimes the bigger the school the easier some people are able to get
lost in it and therefore sometimes people prioritise things differently. So what
might seem urgent to the curriculum coordinator is on the backburner for
somebody else.. that’s the challenge -- to keep them all stimulated and happy
(POLPB1).
Challenges for the curriculum coordinator in the transition between change ideas and
planning through to action in the classroom is described as a combination of factors
including, keeping up with the volume of changes, ensuring people understand the
change and practical implementation difficulties. The prominence of change in
curriculum coordination leadership is undisputed by interviewees; they cite the
introduction of a renewed Victorian curriculum, the implementation of ratings based
reporting requirements, increased state wide testing and the heralding of a national
curriculum as change challenges. They also suggest these changes raise the profile of
curriculum and heighten the transparency and perceived challenges in leading learning
and teaching at the school level.
Interviewees consistently recognise the enormity of the ‘change challenges’ faced by the
curriculum coordinator, but see the repercussions for themselves more readily. In
dealing with curriculum change themselves they expect direction, support, partnership
and consideration for their personal circumstances from the curriculum coordinator.
it’s great for them to come up with these great ideas, but where do we fit them
in...the challenge for the curriculum coordinator would be that they have to
132
keep abreast of all the changes of each KLA, be familiar enough with each KLA
so they can offer concrete input....and show both signs of management and
leadership because they need to contain things, but we also need to go with
CCB through changes as well. So they need to inspire us to take us through
those changes (POLCB2).
The pace, depth and breadth of change is seen as a considerable challenge; being able to
have a “birds eye view” of ‘everything curriculum’ is understood to be overwhelming
but is still expected by most interviewees. The curriculum coordinator recognises this
diversity and complexity associated with change as a challenge, they believe that the
heart of the issue is in deciding what the most important and crucial change is.
I think there needs to be some sort of understanding of all the priorities that we
have to deal with at once and what is it that we need to do first. It’s just every
time I turn around there’s a new priority (CCB).
Changes to the role and advice for the curriculum coordinator

Suggested changes and advice for the role of the curriculum coordinator fall into two
areas, collaboration with others and practicalities, overwhelmingly interviewees have
more opinions to offer on practical functions and processes. A strong sense of loyalty to
the person in the role flavoured most comments and there is a reticence to criticize
performance. The less emotive and personal areas of practical changes elicited
recommendations focusing on curriculum processes and structures. Whilst these are
associated with the curriculum coordinator they are not presented as criticism of the
curriculum coordinator’s performance of their role.
Some interviewees from the curriculum POL group suggest change is needed in
communication as a way of improving collaboration. They emphasis clarity around the
whole school curriculum goals, ensuring staff and students both know and understand
what is being prioritised in learning and teaching as necessary changes. Combined with
letting others take on responsibility, a picture of greater empowerment of middle leaders
to take on responsibility for curriculum leadership is painted. Interestingly the
curriculum coordinator makes no comments relating to collaboration, perhaps because
133
they believe their current practice suitably meets the needs of the role and they are not
aware of others’ opinions. Reference to a specific issue illustrates a perceived dichotomy
between learning and teaching and student wellbeing (pastoral care) and a desire by
some for greater collaboration between the two.
...if you want to bring us to the party you’ve almost got to just make us feel as
though we’re part of this decision making process and we’re being heard
(POLPB1).
The role of the assistant curriculum coordinator is also used to illustrate a

recommendation associated with letting others take on responsibility. The purpose of
this role remains unclear; interviewees suggest different interpretations of the role and
views on current performance, compounded by the incumbent not being available for
interview this matter remains unclear. LTPB1 specifically identifies better role
management for the assistant curriculum coordinator as a way of alleviating some of the
time and task tension for the curriculum coordinator:
I think the curriculum coordinator needs to really think about how they’re using
their assistant, the person has got a fair slab of time and should be able to be
taking on responsibility for particular roles or particular projects (LTPB1).
Suggestions for ‘practical changes’ to the role of the curriculum coordination category
raise numerous but isolated individual perspectives. On a number of occasions the
suggestions for change are acknowledged as being made without any clear idea of how
such changes can actually be realised. The distinction between leadership and
management requirements of the role are highlighted by those who work most closely
with the curriculum coordinator on a daily basis. These interviewees use administration
of professional learning to illustrate a significant factor that takes up much time.
However, they also see the synchronicity of these two areas as desirable to ensure staff
learning is focused on curriculum innovations and future directions.
perhaps the professional learning although I think the only way that that could
really work is if the curriculum coordinator still oversaw it but there was a
professional learning coordinator that just assisted with the day to day running
of it and management (LTOB3).
134
The role of the curriculum coordinator is broadly acknowledged as a diverse one, with a
wide range of significant responsibilities that often interconnect. The advice of many,
including the principal, to remain focused on adventurous innovation is seen as difficult
to balance when the administration is so demanding.
I guess they [curriculum coordinators] need to be adventurous. They need to
have their antennae out, listening and participating in what is going on, to see
where we are heading – they really do need to be at the forefront, at the edges
of what is going on (PB).
In this section interviewees were directed to consider the alignment of the LSF with the
role of the curriculum coordinator at their school and to reflect on the differences, if any,
between leadership and management in the role. The guided direction nature of
interviewee’s consideration of the LSF means that a high number of responses are
recorded. Of the five guiding conceptions, understanding and managing change is
considered by all interviewee groups to be the most pertinent to the curriculum
coordination role. Given the currency of change in the education sector at present this is
not unexpected.
understanding and managing change, that’s really the key thing......There’s
been a lot of change and it’s constant and you really need to get a good grasp
of it if you’re going to show any signs of leadership (POLCB2).
The importance of the curriculum coordinator meaningfully connecting with people is

also emphasised as critical to their role. On a number of occasions interviewees
explicitly identify the curriculum coordinator at school B as having particular strengths
in relationship building. Curriculum POL holders see themselves as a key group for the
curriculum coordinator to build relationships with, the influence of their relationships is
seen as crucial to the implementation of school wide curriculum change.
I think that the curriculum coordinator really needs to have a sound
relationship with the KLA heads particularly so that they are able to glean as
135
much knowledge as possible and get an inside hold onto challenges that are
faced by the specific KLA because they need to know that to be able to manage
it (POLCB2).
These curriculum leaders are consistently seen as the conduit between the senior
learning and teaching leadership in school B and classroom teachers, “Relationship
building, CCB has got a huge job in that” (LTOB2) and “I think CCB works hard at
trying to do that” (LTOB1). The curriculum coordinator is recognised as being proactive
in relationship building in both formal and informal contexts; they also see this as a
priority in their personal approach to leadership.
Building relationships is my own individual thing in my role..... I think I focus a
lot on building relationships with people. Sometimes I feel like it’s just on the
run all the time (CCB).
The leadership structure at school B makes the distinction between leaders and non-
leaders quite acute. This is frequently explained as a result of the size of the school and
subsequently the curriculum coordinator remains largely removed from non-leader
teaching staff members – or as described by one interviewee “staff at the grass roots”
(POLCB4).
The creation and sharing of knowledge is deemed to be critical to the role and regularly
evidenced in daily practice. With a close connection to understanding and managing
change, knowledge creation is associated with new ideas. The curriculum coordinator
sees this area as most significant and the enormity of this responsibility re-iterated by an
experienced classroom teacher; “the curriculum coordinator does a good job of trying to
share knowledge, but they are bloody trying to share knowledge with over 120 staff”
(CTB1). Ensuring alignment and coherence of structures strand is least identified with
by interviewees and the curriculum coordinator recognises this guiding conceptions as
the most problematic in their role.
Ensuring coherence… that is probably the biggest challenge for me. I’m
constantly seeing misalignment with things (CCB).
Perceptions of how the role of the curriculum coordinator leads or manages at school B
shows some differentiations in understanding what aspects of the role are leadership and
136
which are management. How leadership and management may or may not be the same
or different is similarly not clear to all interviewees. Unprompted, interviewees are
asked to draw their own conclusions based on what they experience. Interviewees are
unanimous in their judgment that the curriculum coordination role requires both
leadership and management. The complexity of the role is seen as a factor that
influences management dominating at times but there is a commonly held belief that
leadership is more important.
Sadly in schools you tend not to get enough support and so you end up doing a
lot of the management stuff and run around doing stuff when you should be just
leading (POLCB1).
The curriculum coordinators’ own reflections on the split between leadership and
management captures the tension between daily operational matters and bigger picture
innovation:
Sometimes it feels like it’s 10/90. It feels like it’s 10% leadership and 90%
management, but probably overall I probably feel like I do 40% leadership and
60% management (CCB).

Interviewees are asked to consider who other than the curriculum coordinator they
would consider as leading the curriculum in school B and their responses reveal a
diversity of people and roles. Interestingly the formal committee structure associated
with the curriculum at the school is not identified.
The Heads of Learning POL are recognised by most interviewees as leaders of the
curriculum and the school’s formal leadership hierarchy is commonly used to define
those associated with curriculum leadership; “usually my first port of call is the head of
learning because ultimately it is their responsibility to guide you” (POLPB1) and “the
curriculum coordinator’s first level down, which would be all the heads of learning”
(CTB1). The assistant heads of learning are not recognised as leading the curriculum
even though they are part of the formal leadership structure. Assistant heads roles are
clearly defined in terms of curriculum leadership purpose but are rather described as
137
following directions by heads of learning. The principal’s reflection on the design and
definition of the assistant head of learning role similarly does not promote experiences
of strong leadership in this role:
we have in each of the KLAs an assistant head of learning, but their roles are
fairly minor in a way, although, some are better than others. [They take
direction from the head of learning who is always housed at the 9 -12 campus]
which is an interesting point in itself, there is no real necessity for the head of
learning to be housed here [9 – 12 campus] other than most heads of learning
would probably be your Year 11 and 12 teachers (PB).
Non-KLA curriculum POL are recognised as leaders of the curriculum to some extent,
Again design and focus of some of these roles is described as having a much stronger
focus on management functions rather than leading for curriculum vision. The
relationship of the curriculum coordinator with these roles appears to have stronger
interpersonal links than the leadership of the whole team of people with curriculum
leadership responsibilities. One such POL holder describes their professional
relationship with the curriculum coordinator as follows:
I don’t fit in with anyone anywhere. I’m not on the curriculum committee and
I’m not on the heads of learning committee. I’m a guest as requested...In my
role description I am accountable to the curriculum coordinator I think but I’m
pretty independent,, but we do talk a lot (POLCB4).
Some staff without formal curriculum POL are also recognised as leaders or influencers
on the curriculum at school B. Most commonly the principal is cited as a curriculum
leader, however all references about them in regards curriculum leadership are
exclusively aligned with hierarchical position. It is almost as if the principal must be
deemed a curriculum leader because they are the most senior leader of the school. There
remains however a strong suggestion of empowerment by the principal which
consistently emphasises a high level of autonomy for the curriculum coordinator.
At the moment I would suggest that the principal allows every person in the
school to perform their roles to the best of their ability. So I would suggest it’s
138
almost a case of saying well you’re the curriculum coordinator, go and do your
job (CTB1).
Individual members of the leadership team are regularly recognised as leading the
curriculum because they are senior leaders. The extent to which the leadership team
executive is viewed as leading the curriculum does however vary considerably. As the
executive team that oversees the whole school it has a responsibility to lead for learning
and teaching, however as described by the principal their work, “tends to get bogged
down in the more mundane things” (PB).
The leadership landscape at the school has changed over time and continues to do so
according to a number of interviewees who have been at the school for more than ten
years. The sphere of influence of pastoral leaders in school B operations is mentioned on
a number of occasions by pastoral leaders themselves and by others. Implications in the
changes to leadership roles and people appointed to them is that learning and teaching
and student wellbeing should be more connected and united, this is not however the case
at present. Individual pastoral POL holders do see themselves as leading student
wellbeing with a curriculum perspective also but this area of the school is still seen as
more focused on discipline and welfare.
Factors that hinder and support the curriculum coordinator in their school
Interviewees describe a range of factors that they perceive as hindering or supporting
their curriculum coordinator. The two most commonly identified hindrances are ‘people’
and ‘being a two campus school’. Whilst there is acknowledgement that people are
supportive factors, a number of interviewees recognise the negative impact of some
people’s behaviours on the work of the curriculum coordinator. The issue of being a two
campus school is raised as a ‘state of being’, undesirable, but unavoidable.
The challenges of dealing with people when leading a curriculum that is changing are
identified as common ‘people factors’ that cause hindrance. The nature of ‘people’ being
a hindrance in this context is explained by a curriculum POL as; “a small minority of
139
people taking up all your energy and time” (POLCB4). The curriculum coordinator’s
self reflections on the hindrances they face relating to people link directly to people and
how they engage with change; “hindrances are some of these old mentalities” (CCB).
Working with specialist roles and the people appointed to them is also identified by
some interviewees, in particular relating to issues of role clarity for literacy
coordination. What is expected in the role and accountability for this is seen by some but
not all interviewees as a hindrance to the curriculum coordinator. Those perceiving
performance difficulties currently attribute this to role clarity and accountability; “my
concern would be that maybe that role needed to be more clearly defined” (POLCB2).
The two campus school issue is a consistent hindrance identified by most interviewees,
from both campuses. The size of the school with two independent sites operating to
serve students is a constant hindrance and fundamental problem for the curriculum
coordinator in seeking to achieve consistency in learning and teaching.
The challenge is the two campuses - bringing them together and how effectively
can you lead two campuses in a department aspect and also leading that
amount of people who come from various walks of life let alone different
teaching methodologies (POLPB1).
The assistant curriculum coordinator role is highlighted by some interviewees as a

hindrance. Whilst the premise of having an assistant did suggest support according to
some interviewees, role clarity around the assistant role and management of
performance in the role is seen by others as hindering.
The complexity of the role is also recognised by many as a hindrance, the size of the
school, perceptions of being time poor and the diversity of responsibilities each make
school life on a daily basis busy and at times difficult. “The thing that would hinder
CCB would probably be just the busyness of the school” (POLCB2). Another dimension
of complexity, but identified independently as a hindrance, is the synthesis between
learning and teaching and student wellbeing. Whilst the relationship of the director of
student wellbeing and the curriculum coordinator is seen to promote the synthesis of
140
these areas of school life, tension between these areas in the wider school domain is seen
by some as a hindrance. The curriculum coordinator describes this tension as lack of
engagement by some pastoral leaders with change, innovation and the ‘bigger picture’.
“People just do whatever they wanted whenever and not feel that they need to fit into an
overall scheme” (CCB). Historical authority and decision making power is also
perceived as being a factor in the tension between these two areas.
There’s a history in the school that the year level coordinators run the
school......Maybe this year things might start to be a little bit different because
it’s the deputy principal position (CCB).
This tension is similarly described by a pastoral leader on the leadership team as a

hindrance that is being worked on.
Between learning and teaching and pastoral, they are – each vying for their
own recognition, their own status. And they’re not always working together.
There are groups that see pastoral in its own little box and curriculum over
here and you can’t deal with students in that way because one will impact on
the other. We are trying to get over some of those historical barriers (LTPB1).
The practical support of clerical assistance is identified by a majority of interviewees as

the most significant supportive factor for the curriculum coordinator. Most interviewees
commented on the current clerical assistance being overdue and having made a tangible
and observable difference to how the curriculum coordinator performs their role.
the change two years ago of actually having a secretary was one of the best
things for someone in that position....they keep the curriculum coordinator on
track more than they used to be in the past....I think someone in that position
needs that clerical admin assistant to focus on other more important things than
getting the minutes out or writing agendas or photocopying (POLCB4).
141
The curriculum coordinators’ impact on school improvement is consistently associated

within the broader landscape of the whole school leadership being responsible for this.
The idea of strategic school improvement is not however clearly articulated. A number
of interviewees see discrete leadership of the learning and teaching vision as the way the
curriculum coordinator contributes to the concept of school improvement. In this
mindset the setting of directions for the whole school curriculum is commonly deferred
solely to the curriculum coordinator and is seen in isolation to other aspects of school
life.
The reflections of the curriculum coordinator on how they see themselves contributing
to school improvement reinforces previous suggestions that they have a high level of
autonomy, independence and responsibility for learning and teaching. Whilst the
principal is recognised as the ultimate school based authority, the actual learning and
teaching improvement agenda is seen to be driven solely by the curriculum coordinator.
“in terms of teaching and learning sometimes it feels like I’m almost like a sole voice.
Sometimes it feels like I’m completely responsible for it” (CCB). The hierarchical
leadership structure is aligned with how the school’s improvement planning is
developed. The emphasis is very much on a top down approach that leaves senior
leaders to construct strategies for achieving the articulated goals and bringing to life the
general vision. A curriculum POL holder describes their experience of involvement in
school improvement planning, including how they see the curriculum coordinator
contributing to improvement.
I assume those goals and I am not quite sure now, but I think they sort of come
from the principal and then I think the executive leadership team would develop
those goals and then it’s the curriculum coordinator’s job to pass those on to
the heads of learning and we certainly discuss them in our meeting and so we
have the school goals and then we have to come up with our KLA goals
incorporating the school goals (POLCB3).
142
Conclusions
The leadership expectations for the role of the curriculum coordinator at school B vary
across interviewee groups. A basic expectation common to each of the interviewee
groups is that they expect the curriculum coordinator to, ‘get the job done’. A significant
factor recognised by interviewees in shaping their expectations and perceptions is the
school context. School B is considered to have a large staff and the size of the school is
seen to have considerable impact on how the role of curriculum coordinator can be
performed as a result of this.
Perceptions of the purpose of the role are focused on leading the vision for learning and
teaching at school B and setting directions for the work of teachers. A tension in this is
the curriculum coordinators’ ability to bring non-curriculum leaders ‘onboard’ with the
vision for learning and teaching. The curriculum coordinator is recognised as having
strong interpersonal skills and having effective relationships with their direct reports -
the heads of learning. Their key work is widely identified as working with and through
this group of leaders to ensure current and future directions are put in place.
Expectations for operational accountabilities are minimally identified, the implication is
that this is largely, ‘getting the job done’.
The curriculum coordinator is newly appointed to the deputy principal position. This
hierarchical position is seen as a ‘step up’ and reflects a strongly authoritative approach
to leadership that is tied to titles. The curriculum coordinator has a large degree of
autonomy in how they perform their role, with in-principle support from the principal
but little daily interaction indicated. Whilst other members of the executive show
support for the curriculum coordinator and recognise the enthusiasm and energy brought
to the role; they largely don’t see a strong synthesis between their areas of leadership
and the learning and teaching vision. These leadership team members maintain their
focus on their own independent leadership responsibilities rather than the collective
responsibility for leadership of the whole school. This demarcation at the senior
leadership level is largely seen to be reflected across the school.
143
The challenges the curriculum coordinator is recognised as facing mainly relate to
engaging staff and embracing change. The frequency of change and ensuring that the
directions set to implement changes are followed through with are seen as significant
challenges. Bringing the whole school in alignment with the vision for learning and
teaching is challenging at the individual classroom level and in attempts to synthesise
student wellbeing and learning and teaching. ‘People’ are identified as providing both
supports to the role as well as causing some of the consistent hindrances. This battle is
sometimes with individual leaders not performing a role as desired and at other times
with groups who prioritise differently to the curriculum coordinator.
Changes to the role and advice for the curriculum coordinator are aligned with the
challenges, most interviewees are careful not to suggest the curriculum coordinator
doesn’t, ‘get the job done’ in their recognition of changes but rather their focus is on
preferred or optimum design and functioning of the role. Performance of the role viewed
as leadership or management is influenced by the extent to which interviewees work on
a day to day basis with the curriculum coordinator. The role is seen to align closely with
the LSF, the curriculum coordinator is believed to have particular strength in
understanding and managing change. There is little evidence of strategically focused
school improvement as an important part of the role of the curriculum coordinator.
144
Chapter 6 – Case Study C
School Profile
School C is a year seven to twelve Diocesan boys’ College in the outer east region of
Melbourne with approximately 950 boys currently enrolled and was established in 1965.
The College has an alliance with the Salesians of Don Bosco who were initially asked to
staff the school by the then Archbishop of Melbourne and as a result the College adopts
the Salesian charism. Currently there are 132 staff members, 86 of them teaching staff
and most of these being full time. The school has an SES score of around 100 and less
than 11% of students have a language background other than English (LBOTE).
The College is governed by the Canonical Administrators of the school and has an
advisory board which is made up of representatives from the Canonical Administrators,
staff and parents. The principal has been in their position for 5 years, prior to this role
they were principal of a co-educational Catholic secondary school in regional Victoria.
The principal is also a past teaching staff member of the school who taught for less than
five years at the College early in their career. The leadership team at the College is
responsible for the leadership of all aspects of daily school life. Its membership includes
the principal, deputy principal College operations, deputy principal student wellbeing,
director of curriculum, director of external programs, director of religious education and
director of student services (Occhiena Centre).
Immediately prior to this research taking place the College undertook a significant
renewal of the Position of Leadership (POL) structure. The design and make-up of the
leadership team is part of the renewed leadership structure at the College, but is not
included in POL remuneration. The role of the curriculum coordinator changed as a
result of the new structure and the director of curriculum role became responsible for
curriculum years seven to twelve with a particular emphasis on pedagogy. A curriculum
programs director was retained with their key responsibility being post compulsory
schooling and pathways. The new POL structure sees the abandonment of nine Key
145
Learning Area (KLA) POL and the introduction of four curriculum development leaders,
using the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS) domain framework as a
model. In addition to this level of curriculum leadership, five year level curriculum
leaders, one for each year level (VCE only having one) have been introduced. The
school is divided into three sub-schools in the restructure, junior school: years seven and
eight, Valdocco: year nine and Senior School: years ten through to twelve. Each of these
sub-schools has a head who is responsible for overseeing both student wellbeing and
curriculum in their sub-school. Student wellbeing focused year level coordinators have
been retained in the new structure, a premise of the new structure is that student
wellbeing and curriculum leaders work together to support student learning needs.
The curriculum coordinator at school C has worked in the College as a student wellbeing
leader for three years in the role of Head of Valdocco. At the time of this research they
were in the first year of their role as curriculum coordinator and were in their fourth year
as a staff member.
The themes relating to curriculum coordination leadership discovered through this

research are outlined in Table 7 below.
146
Table 7: Case Study School C Thematic Summary
Leadership Leadership Leadership Classroom
Curriculum POL: POL:
Principal Team: Team: Team: Teacher
Coordinator Curriculum Pastoral
Curriculum Pastoral Other
Vision
Creation        
Vision
Setting
       
Purpose of Role
Works with
Others and
sets        
directions
Knows,
understands
and
interprets        
curriculum
info.
Currency of
Knowledge
       
Leading
Others        
Key Work
Professional
Learning
       
Ensure
Programs        
Run
Reporting        
Interperson
       
Expectations
al Skills
Teaches
Classes        
Flexibility        
Confident &
Capable
       
Strengths
Copes with
Complexity
       
Personable        
Getting
People        
Onboard
Challenges
Keeping 
People       
Accountable
Embracing    
Change
   
Leadership
Changes to
Focus
       
Role
Operational
Practicalitie        
s
147
Curriculu Leadership
Leadership
m Team: Leadership POL: POL: Classroom
Principal Team:
Coordinat Curriculum Team: Other Curriculum Pastoral Teacher
Pastoral
or
LSF Guiding
Conceptions        
Leadership &
Management
Leadership        
Management        
Teachers        
Others Who Lead
Principal        
Curriculum
Pastoral
Leaders        
Curriculum
Development        
Team
Hindrance
People        
Time        
Supports
Changed
Structure        
Improvement
Contribution
to School
Impact on
Improvement
       

The POL structure at school C is:
Principal
Deputy Principals: Student Wellbeing, Operations
Directors of: Learning, External Programs, Occhiena Centre and Religious Education
Heads of Schools x 3: at POL 3.5 Level
Year 7 & 8 School
Year 9 Campus - Valdocco
Year 10 – 12 School
Year Level Pastoral Coordinators x 6: at POL 2.5 Level
Learning Development Coordinators x 4: at POL 2.5 Level
Year Level Curriculum Leaders x 5: at POL 2 Level
VET / VCAL
148
from each group.
Table 8: Interviewee Codes School C

Role Code No. of
Interviewees
Principal PC 1
Curriculum Coordinator CCC 1
Leadership Team Member – Curriculum LTCC 1
Leadership Team Member - Pastoral LTPC 1
Leadership Team Member - Other LTOC 1
Position of Leadership Curriculum POLCC 4
Position of Leadership Pastoral POLPC 2
Classroom Teacher CTC 3
The findings of the research undertaken at School C are outlined below and are
series of key areas are identified and these are used to further refine the structure of the
findings in this chapter.

some differences in views. The key areas are, purpose, key work and expectations of the
curriculum coordinator role.
Purpose of the curriculum coordination role

The purpose of the curriculum coordination role is mainly understood in terms of vision,
working with others and to a lesser extent demonstrating expert knowledge. The impact
of the recent local changes to the focus and purpose of the leadership structure at the
school are commonly referenced by interviewees and significantly impact on their
149
perceptions.
Creating vision is the most consistently recognised purpose of the role of the curriculum
coordinator, with most interviewee groups suggesting this vision needs to be dynamic
and improvement focused. The curriculum coordinator agrees and sees the leadership of
the vision as a critical collaborative enterprise. Setting the vision is seen as distinct from
creating it and according to the curriculum coordinator and a number of others; it is
believed to be focused on ensuring vision implementation actually takes place, “ensuring
there is a vision there and that we have gate keeping, that we actually look after
everything” (CCC). There is a strong belief in senior leadership roles that once the
vision is created and set it is their primary role to reinforce it with all other staff.
Working with others in regards setting directions and expectations for the focus of
curriculum related work is seen by most interviewees as important in the purpose of the
role of the curriculum coordinator. A generally held belief about the nature of setting
directions is associated with the leadership structure change. The curriculum coordinator
role is, as a result of the restructure, expected to clarify for staff how their own roles
should operate within the new structure and what they need to do in terms of task
completion. The setting of work directions expectations described is both practical and
developmental, many see the curriculum coordinator as helping others (including
themselves) to understand their own professional purpose in the curriculum area.
I take a lot of direction from the curriculum coordinator in terms of what they
expect from me, particularly in these early stages. Although the curriculum
coordination role is also new, so they are also finding their feet. It’s really in a
state of flux at the moment, we’re slowly forming our roles ....the curriculum
coordinator is someone who helps me clarify my role (POLCC2).
There is a consistent accountability flavour to responses indicating a purpose of the
curriculum coordination role is setting directions. There is a distinct focus on wanting to
know what the tangible features of the ‘end product’ of curriculum initiatives needs to
look like. A classroom teacher captures this perception of the purpose of the curriculum
coordination role as accountability for themselves; “to make sure that the curriculum
150
that we’re undertaking is what we’re meant to be doing. I guess an audit or a checking
off” (CTC2).
Working with others is generally perceived to be valued at school C, however the

expected purpose of the curriculum coordination leadership suggests a level of
independence is expected in the way the person in the role performs their
responsibilities. Interestingly even though the inclusive language of ‘we’ is frequently
used by interviewees in describing the purpose of the role, very few interviewees
specifically identify collaboration as key to working with others.
The purpose of the curriculum coordinator role to provide expert knowledge is only
minimally identified by interviewees. The extent to which the curriculum coordinator is
expected to, inspire others, know what works best at their school and organise learning
and teaching matters is highlighted by some but not many interviewees. Interviewees
describe coming to terms with new leadership roles, structures and processes as well as
courses and programs as the critical first steps for themselves and the school. Those who
identify this expert knowledge related area communicate a sense of needing to catch
their breath as a result of massive and rapid change before moving further ahead. The
purpose of the curriculum coordinator role for them, in this context, is firstly to
consolidate and steady what has changed. Leadership team members’ observations do
not resonate with this sense of ‘pausing’ but rather emphasise the need to be ‘ever ready’
for further change and they see this as an essential purpose for the curriculum
coordination role.
You can’t have a curriculum that sits and gains dust. It’s got to be emerging all
the time and that doesn’t mean changing it every six months. It just means
keeping it fresh, and when the change does come through then you’re ready for
it (LTPC1).
The principal in particular focuses attention on the purpose of all curriculum leaders,
including the curriculum coordinator; being to understand the context of their school
setting, be responsible for it and simultaneously have a detailed knowledge of
contemporary curriculum innovation. Through this combination of factors in curriculum
151
leadership they see positive experiences and outcomes for students resulting.
...the best teacher and the best student with the worst curriculum will give you
what you anticipate which is a disaster (PC).
Perceptions of the key work of the curriculum coordinator

Interviewees’ reflections on what they believe to be the key work of the curriculum
coordinator highlight current knowledge, leading others, professional learning and
addressing accountabilities. Consistent across responses is an ambiguity as a result of the
new leadership structure at the College about who does what in terms of curriculum
leadership and at which level responsibility rests.
Demonstrating a currency of knowledge about educational innovation is only minimally

identified as key for the curriculum coordinator. An emphasis on drawing ideas from
within school C exists rather than the curriculum coordinator leading by interpreting and
presenting ideas externally sourced. Interviewees generally express a belief that school
C has, at the present time, suitably developed the curriculum focus and structures and
has implemented required frameworks to an extent that they have reached a plateau. The
curriculum coordinator identifies the national curriculum as the next external factor to be
concerned with ‘being in the know’ about.
The applicability of initiatives relevant to the education of boys is consistently referred

to as important to the work of the curriculum coordinator, with an expectation of them
having an overarching view of what is happening in the curriculum being generally held.
The responsibility for delivering a curriculum consistent with the vision for learning and
teaching appropriate to boys is however largely seen as classroom teachers’
responsibility. With this mindset the curriculum coordinator’s key work remains in a
practical sense at a distance from the learning experiences of students.
The role of the curriculum co-ordinator is to get an idea of where we are, what
are the skills we’re teaching and the value judgements that we’re actually
placing on it by saying these are the skills that we really are pushing, rather
152
than these other ones. So we need to be aware of what we are covering and
what we’re not (POLCC3).
Leading others as an aspect of the key work of the curriculum coordinator is mainly
associated with how they are seen to work with the four learning development
coordinators. These newly created curriculum leadership roles are yet to be fully shaped
in day to day operations at the school, but they are explicitly attempting to abandon
administrative subject based management to focus on curriculum and learning programs
design. The curriculum coordinator believes that this leadership focus better enables
curriculum leadership rather than curriculum management; however they also recognise
that the new structure still needs some modification to roles and responsibilities to get
processes right. Currently the hierarchy highlights the key working relationships for
learning development coordinators and year level curriculum leaders with the
curriculum coordinator. It differentiates the leadership for pedagogy development work
of the learning development coordinators and their immediate leader; the curriculum
coordinator, from the curriculum documentation work of the year level curriculum
leaders. The level of confidence with which interviewees describe the practical
functioning of their new structure is limited. They do however consistently see School
C’s focus on re-energizing learning and teaching as a critical priority for the key work of
all curriculum leaders, there is general agreement that the current momentum for change
is critical to the way forward.
the process of change in the school at the moment is that everyone’s
encouraged to come up with ideas (CCC).
Professional learning is observed and believed to be the work of the curriculum

coordinator by some interviewees in the context of administration of professional
learning requests or opportunities. The curriculum coordinator describes their work in
professional learning in terms of processing requests from staff to participate in external
professional learning and advises that clerical support is available to them for this
administrative work. There is no indication by any of the interviewees of the curriculum
coordinator delivering professional learning to small or large groups of staff as a formal
153
aspect of their work.
Ensuring matters of accountability are appropriately dealt with is commonly perceived

to be a major element of the key work of the curriculum coordinator. The actions
observed as associated with accountability responsibilities are ensuring programs are
running and organising reporting. Those interviewees with the most consistent
involvement in curriculum daily as classroom teachers or curriculum leaders, most
frequently identify the curriculum coordinator’s key work being accountability related.
The curriculum coordinator identifies a key aspect of their work as accountability for the
learning and teaching vision in classroom practice. This includes teacher performance
and is influenced by a belief that the principal expects them to make sure staff are
accountable for bringing the learning and teaching vision to life in their teaching.
Firstly to give teachers as much support, genuine support as we can and
number two, we make them accountable because this is a student school (CCC).
The emphasis here is on teachers delivering learning that is aligned with the vision for
the curriculum. The curriculum coordinator sees them as responsible for this alignment
as a matter of accountability. There is however no indication given of how this
accountability takes place other than when teachers are known to be struggling and the
curriculum coordinator provides them with support.
We give them as much support, genuine support as we can.....So if a teacher
does need to be put on a due process which is very, very rare, we won’t baulk at
it but we do everything we can to avoid it beforehand (CCC).
The operational aspect of the work of the curriculum coordinator in reporting is twice
yearly semester reporting, as well as interim reporting. It has two main dimensions, the
communication process with teaching staff about what they need to do and how to report
on student achievement and secondly the management of the information technology
that supports reporting. The curriculum coordinator is responsible for both dimensions
but is not practically involved in the information technology management aspect other
than to liaise with the administrative support person who does this work.
154
I’m in charge of the reporting and assessment but I’ve got an administrator that
does most of the really hard work (CCC).
The work of the curriculum coordinator in ensuring programs are running is described
by a number of interviewees and seen as a feature of accountabilities; but is also seen as
the collective effort and responsibility of all curriculum leaders. This collective
responsibility is based on a belief that teachers in classrooms need to be ultimately
responsible for the learning in their classrooms. The mantra about classroom practice is
strong among curriculum leaders and to some extent classroom teachers; it promotes
pedagogy above curriculum framework levels and progression point reporting.
..it’s not a matter of looking at the VELS and ticking off the VELS and make
sure that it’s taught in the curriculum. We’re actually looking at what’s taught
and how it’s taught and how it suits our boys, at that particular year level
(LTPC1).
The emphasis on the local context is consistently a strong influence in setting
expectations for the design and delivery of the curriculum, as is the inclusive language
that describes ‘our’ efforts to educate ‘our’ boys.
Expectations of the curriculum coordinator as a leader

The expectations held for the role of curriculum coordination leadership at school C are
heavily influenced by perceptions and hopes for the school’s changed leadership
structure to make the difference that was planned. There are two broad categories that
capture the expectations that interviewees have of the curriculum coordinator, staff
interactions and having classroom teaching experience. The tone evident in
interviewee’s responses about the type of leadership needed at school C is one of
distributed responsibility for changing curriculum at the school, rather than an
expectation that the curriculum coordinator is more responsible than others. The
principal in particular is emphatic about the need for the curriculum coordinator to work
through others and does believe they model this approach with the curriculum
coordinator and other senior leaders.
155
Expectations relating to interpersonal skills are for the most part minimally identified by
interviewees. The professional and the personal are generally understood to be
reasonably independent of each other in the performance of the role of curriculum
coordinator and this is apparently what is wanted and expected in leaders at school C.
The researcher did not identify any particular sense of interpersonal skills being lacking
in the curriculum coordinator as perceived by interviewees, nor that are they identified
as clearly skilled in this area either. An implication of professional respect including
personal regard is evident, but this is largely not seen by interviewees to be relevant to
the role being performed. The curriculum coordinator’s only comment in the area of
interpersonal skills is a self belief in the need for them to continue to learn in order to
interact with staff and students and be an effective leader.
The principal comments, in quite some detail, on both the flexibility and the autonomy
that they believe the curriculum coordinator needs to exercise in their leadership.
Flexibility and autonomy as expected leadership attributes are seen to have a strong
basis at school C; they are consistently observed by interviewees as priority leadership
attributes and again resonate with a belief in distributing responsibility for bringing the
learning and teaching vision to life.
I’ve tried to teach humility in leadership too. That you know, you need to admit
that when you’ve made a mistake. You need to be open to the ideas of others,
because they may have better ideas, in some areas than you......Your credibility
as a leader doesn’t come from your brilliance, it comes from your capacity to
have a central idea that others can sign up to, and then the skill to extract from
everybody their own individual brilliance (PC).
This expectation is underpinned by an emphasis on both distributing responsibility and
empowering others and a philosophy of creating leadership capacity in others is clearly
evident. The curriculum coordinator is included in this distributive approach to
leadership which the principal describes as a commitment to the principle of subsidiarity
in decision making.
...you make the decision as far down into the school as you can.......if we’re
practising authentic delegation, so it’s not just a task but it’s tasks and
156
processes with a defined outcome, or preferred outcome, then they have to
mirror that with the people that they lead. So that’s number one. Because what
I try and model is the multiplier effect (PC).
Classroom teachers place some premium on the interpersonal skills of the curriculum
coordinator at the level of interacting with individual teachers; “I think that they need to
be someone that you can approach, someone that you can discuss things with, someone
that can give you guidance when you’ve come to a stop” (CTC2). Curriculum and
pastoral POL broadly speak of interpersonal skills as an expectation of the role but with
a greater emphasis on being a part of the ‘way leadership’ and decision making is
approached at school C rather than personally associated with the curriculum
coordination role.
Knowing what it is like to be a classroom teacher is most important to non-leadership

team members, it is POL holders and classroom teachers who mainly see it as most
desirable for the curriculum coordinator to have current classroom experience. The
curriculum coordinator at school C does teach classes and these classes are at both the
senior and junior ends of the school. By experiencing classroom teaching it is believed
that the curriculum coordinator is able to empathise with teachers’ daily experiences and
support them, “those that lead should ensure that they are involved at the grassroots
level” (POLCC1). In addition to connecting with classroom teachers’ daily lives, the
value placed on current classroom experience is that it is perceived to provide a role
model for best practice in the contemporary classroom.
Curriculum leaders should understand that you can’t improve learning
outcomes unless you improve what happens in the classroom, so that needs to
be a focus of theirs....They also need to understand that student wellbeing is
part of the equation of what happens (PC).
157
Strengths of the curriculum coordinator at school C

Interviewees do not comment in depth about the specific strengths of their curriculum
coordinator. This seems to be because of the relatively short period of time the new
leadership structure has been in operation at school C and hence the limited time the
curriculum coordinator has been in this role.
Colleagues on the leadership team with whom the curriculum coordinator works closely
show the greatest insight into perceived areas of strength. Whilst their comments are
largely general in nature they consistently reflect a belief in the ‘sincerity’ of the
curriculum coordinator’s leadership and a confidence in their cognitive aptitude.
The curriculum coordinator needs to have a really good breadth of knowledge
regarding what’s current in educational thought, and practice. The curriculum
coordinator has a great saying...we don’t do best practice, we do next practice,
because the best practice is already yesterday’s story - which is fantastic - what
a beautiful way to conceptualise everything that we do (LTPC1).
Other interviewees are less specific and use a range of descriptive words and phrases to
describe the capacity of the curriculum coordinator to lead confidently and capably. The
word ‘visionary’ (and its derivatives) are used to capture the knowledge capacity,
leadership demeanour and energy for learning and teaching of the curriculum
coordinator. These are perceived as specific strengths in their leadership of the
158
curriculum at school C both directly and indirectly. Whilst they are attributed to the
individual, they are also seen as a feature of leadership in general across school C,
leadership that is focused on the needs of the local context, “I think we have an idea
about how boys learn” (POLPC1). The curriculum coordinator reflects that they think
their greatest strengths as a confident and capable leader is, “probably energy, I
hope.....creativity” (CCC).
The complexity of the role of curriculum coordinator and interviewee perceptions of the
incumbents’ capacity to cope with this is impacted on by limited opportunity to observe
them in their role. The capacity to engage others in dialog about learning and teaching
endeavours is distinctly observed as a strength of the curriculum coordinator, their
availability to other people and an openness to their ideas is cited to describe this. A
classroom teacher reflects on the availability of the curriculum coordinator to discuss
issues specific to them as an individual.
I think it’s got a very high priority...... I just think that for a leader to be really
good they need to be at the ground roots and CCC seems to be there (CTC2).
Such observations of professional practice are re-iterated by the curriculum coordinator
who places a premium on seeing the curriculum through many lenses. They see this as
the best way to find solutions to meet specific needs or to respond to a particular
situation. The curriculum coordinator’s approach to inviting others into the curriculum
conversation is in alignment with the school’s improvement mantra and the principal’s
belief in applying the principle of subsidiarity in decision making.
...you listen to what people are saying and you change it and I like the fact that
I’m prepared to do that and I honestly believe that if we can take something out
there and if we can tweak it and make it better, then we should do that. I don’t
hold onto things and say well this has my stamp on it, it’s got to go this way, I
don’t care if it doesn’t even have my name on it (CCC).
Perceived strengths relating to personal character are minimally commented on by

interviewees, one that is particularly highlighted, although minimally, is their
communication skills. Listening to and understanding people’s view is identified by
159
some interviewees as a particular strength in how the role is performed personably. The
curriculum coordinator also reflects on the significance of this and relays an example of
receiving feedback from a teacher that acknowledges their capacity in this strand.
...the nicest thing I heard the other day from a teacher was because I’ve come
up with all these proposals and I’ve been prepared to change and they said to
me - you’re a listener aren’t you (CCC).
Perceptions of the challenges in the role of the curriculum coordinator

Challenges in the role of the curriculum coordinator fall into two categories, engaging
staff and embracing change, with the greater challenges relating to people rather than
information. The curriculum coordinator role design in relation to learning development
coordinators and year level curriculum leaders removes them from some dimensions of
teacher level engagement with learning and teaching innovation and accountability.
Getting people onboard is most commonly identified as a challenge across interviewee

groups, with the curriculum coordinator highlighting that it is not the people who are the
challenge in their view but rather their engagement with new ideas. The description
below of a recent experience highlights this distinction between leading people and
leading ideas.
I didn’t think it was going to be staff, I didn’t think it was going to be a
challenge to bring about change with staff because this is a school that’s done
amazing change and I found in one meeting that I took that for granted (CCC).
Working with individuals and giving them personalised positive feedback to get them
onboard is identified as a way of engaging staff in curriculum development, “tap into the
people that are here and encourage them” (LTCC1). In a similar vein a classroom
teacher sees the challenge of getting people onboard relating to ensuring they understand
the benefits of changes.
Getting people to see the benefits of it especially when it needs to change,
change is really hard for a lot of people and why should we change what we
already do. I guess getting them to understand why it is that we’re doing what
we’re doing now as opposed to what we were doing (CTC2).
160
Holding people to account is connected to the challenge of getting people onboard,
comments surrounding this theme are closely connected to bringing the vision for
learning and teaching to life. The curriculum coordinator sees this aspect of leadership
as a challenge in terms of drawing people into thinking and living the vision for the
future and resourcing them to be able to fulfil it in their teaching.
...putting fuel into a system that still would be stagnant and we need to find a
way to get people to think and be prepared to think (CCC).
The principal highlights the need to develop the capacity of curriculum leaders at the
middle levels of the leadership structure as a challenge and sees one of the dangers of
not doing this being that the curriculum coordinator, “ends up doing all the work ” (PC).
This concern and challenge speaks to issues of role clarity and engaging staff by getting
people onboard. Clarity around the role for the learning development coordinator is a
specific challenge associated with the new structure according to the curriculum
coordinator. They see the need for greater clarity around the roles of the year level
curriculum leaders who report directly to the curriculum coordinator, but also work
closely with the learning development coordinators, “until we can get to a model where
we’ve got the management of curriculum being taken care of, we won’t be able to give
creative thinkers time” (CCC).
Embracing change as a challenge for the curriculum coordinator elicits comment from
all interviewees except the principal. The school is commonly identified as having
changed significantly in recent times and the principal consistently emphasises the
necessity for change and innovation in school life, hence change is a constant in their
view not a challenge.
The matter of establishing changes across the whole school is highlighted by a number
of interviewees. All of them make reference to the need to manage the speed,
complexity and intended outcomes of changes. With a belief that learning and teaching
is the core business of the school, the curriculum coordinator is identified as needing to
deal with this challenge.
161
...there’s so many things we’re looking at in terms of development of
technologies. We’re still struggling with even something small like keeping
mobile phones in or out of the school. That, to me, is a curriculum issue as
much as a pastoral issue as well (POLPC2).
Leadership team members also comment on the challenges of keeping up with changes
in regards new ideas as well as external requirements.
The National Curriculum coming in is going to be a big challenge for us, it’s
ensuring that with all the pressures that are coming from outside for
transparency that it doesn’t take away from our ability to cater for individual
difference with kids.... we’ve got to try and balance both (LTOC1).
The challenge of embracing change is also seen as needing an approach to leadership
that is sensitive to the internal culture of the school, “the greatest challenge is being very
careful that you don’t overdo it in the sense of initiating too much change” (LTPC1).
These two views on keeping up with changes as a challenge are seen as specific
challenges for the curriculum coordinator in their leadership of the whole school
curriculum. They are also expressed as a collective challenge for the school community
and in particular the leadership team, if the vision for the school is to be achieved. The
curriculum coordinator shares a similar view of the collegiality and collaboration of
embracing change. They reflect on the current experience at school C and see a further
tension in not thwarting other leaders in their desire to bring about change.
I want to make sure with the new model we can maintain what we’ve got. And
after six months in discussions and dialogue and you’ve got these four people
with great ideas and you can see obvious challenges that we have to address
straightaway (CCC).
Changes to the role and advice for the curriculum coordinator

Advice for the curriculum coordinator and suggestions for changes to the role at school
C are again influenced by the newness of the structure they are operating within. A
number of interviewees comment that at this point in time in the implementation of the
new leadership structure they see no need to change the role at all. Their
recommendations are largely centred on further clarity of role responsibilities and
162
processes relating to the newly implemented structure. In particular sharpening of the
focus of the curriculum coordinator’s leadership and minor operational factors are
identified.
The curriculum coordinator, like most interviewees reflects that it is too early in the new
leadership structure to definitively identify changes that need to be made to their role.
They do however confirm that if the need for change in the role emerges over time, then
these changes will be made as a natural dimension of the school’s commitment to
improvement. They identify a need to clarify aspects of cross over between different
curriculum roles but do not see this as a major change.
...we probably need to do a little fine tuning and tweaking and making sure that
everyone’s comfortable in their other roles. There is a little bit of - confusion or
perhaps overlap - the role descriptions need to be modified a little bit so that
we don’t bang heads but we know who’s doing what all the time. But it’s not a
major issue, it’s a very flattened structure so we perhaps need to be a little bit
pointy in some regards (CCC).
The need for further role clarity is also observed by interviewees outside of the
curriculum leadership structure, “I’d actually have the roles a little bit more defined”
(POLPC1). From within the structure at the middle curriculum leadership level a similar
view is evident, “be specific about what the curriculum coordinator expects and advice
that they give” (POLCC2). The suggestion here is that as a middle level curriculum
leader they need and want more specific direction in how to fulfil the curriculum vision
of the school through their own leadership.
Recommendations around setting targets and greater collaboration are represented by

individual interviewees with reference to specific issues as individuals see them at
school C. These individual examples are important in that they link to communication
about priorities and processes in making decisions about learning and teaching, however
they are isolated examples. The message for the curriculum coordinator is to pay
attention to the specific issues that impact on the individuals they lead, as well as the
whole school.
163
Interviewees generally do not identify a large number of operational practicalities they
would recommend as changes in the role of the curriculum coordinator. For the most
part single issues are identified by individual interviewees that do not provide any
thematic indicators for suggested changes. These examples do however provide an
overview of the range of needs, demands and expectations in the design and
performance of the role as seen by a range of staff. The advice given by the curriculum
coordinator for anyone in the role re-iterates the moral imperative in leading learning
and teaching with the practicalities of performing the role.
Focus on student learning, focus on supporting staff to be the best they can be,
ensure the structures allow learning to occur and resource it effectively,
professional development and time. Be adaptive so when you’ve got to find if a
teacher needs a break, you know you don’t have to stick to the policy at all, you
need to find a way to support the teacher, support the students. So be creative
but at the same time be consistent and those two sometimes fly in the face of
each other. And put fun in it, find opportunity to celebrate and have fun (CCC).

Interviewees strongly identify aspects of leadership and management in the role of the
curriculum coordinator that resonate with the LSF. They also recognise difference
between the leadership and management dimensions of the role of the curriculum
coordinator at school C.
Consistent and strong connections are made between the role of the curriculum
coordinator and the guiding conceptions of leadership in the LSF. The LSF strand most
identified with is relationship building, as the aspect most commented on as important
by classroom teachers. For other interviewees the relationship building strand connected
closely with other stands, in particular understanding and managing change. A
connection between succeeding with change and strong relationships is generally seen as
critical to both change projects and school culture.
164
I would always put together relationship building and managing change. We
talk about it not just about being professional it’s about being collegial.
They’re both required here in terms of our working relationships (LTOC1).
The understanding and managing change and moral purpose strands are frequently
identified by interviewees, the changed leadership structure at the school is seen to
heavily influence interviewee’s perceptions in this area.
Understanding and managing change. I think that needs work, only just from
understanding leadership and the amount of time to change a culture, the
amount of time that is required (LTCC1).
Having a clear moral purpose is important to all interviewee groups, the resonance of
this with the specific curriculum coordination role is consistent with general
expectations for all leadership roles at school C.
The creating and sharing knowledge strand is recognised as a feature of the leadership of
the curriculum coordinator in relation to whole school leadership and school culture.
...creating and sharing knowledge is so important that we develop open
processes so that it reduces the work but it also means you get better outcomes
(LTOC1).
Ensuring the coherence and alignment of structures is also widely identified as a
component of the curriculum coordinator’s approach to leadership. It is frequently
aligned with the changes to the leadership structure and as such seen to be a concept that
needs attention, is largely getting it and must be flexible and be able to respond to
emerging issues.
...making sure that your structures [meet school needs], that was the whole
reason we changed it last year because we were having a traditional KLA
structure trying to meet the needs of our program based school and therefore
you’ve got to make sure that your curriculum structures meet the needs of the
programs you’re delivering (LTOC1).
165
Interviewee’s identification of a distinction between leadership and management in the
role of the curriculum coordinator is reasonably evenly split. Opinions largely differ
depending on whether they believe that the role should be functioning with a focus on
leadership or an acknowledgement that the current local context of the new leadership
structure necessitates a focus on management. None of the interviewees offers a clear
definition of how they see leadership and management as different to each other. The
implication in their responses is that leadership is about future directions and new ideas
and management is about processes, requirements and administration.
Interviewees who see the curriculum coordination role being a 50 / 50, leadership /
management split consistently indicate that they are describing an ideal rather than a
daily reality. Reasoning behind the identification of there is a 50 / 50 split is based on
perception of a leader needing to be both operational and visionary in the school C
context.
Well you’d hope that it’s a 50/50 really....I think if you can get that [balance],
because there’s a lot of management, and there’s, increasingly a requirement
on compliance...So you hope it’s a 50/50 (LTOC1).
Those who identify leadership as a dominant feature of how the curriculum coordinator
performs their role describe this predominantly in terms of their work on vision. The
perceived improvement focus promoted at the school consistently underpins
interviewee’s perceptions of change and seeing ‘leadership’ as observable as a result of
this emphasis. “Leadership here is about, we need to look at this, this, this and this and
forward visions and visionary looking” (LTCC1). Whilst seeing leadership as a more
desirable approach to curriculum coordination, management is recognised as being
infused with leadership, the separation of the two being dependent upon what the focus
is.
I guess part of leadership is sometimes management it just goes hand in hand
with, that’s the way you want it structured or not that’s just when you break it
down it’s really hard to separate the two (CTC2).
166
Interviewees who describe management as the more significant dimension of the
curriculum coordination role at present are mainly from the curriculum POL group, who
work daily with and report directly to the curriculum coordinator. The current situation
at school C is consistently seen as balancing these two dimensions.
At the moment the curriculum coordinator’s still working out the mechanics of
things here. So, that kind of visionary thing, although it is present, at the
moment the focus is definitely more on getting things working (POLCC2).

The breadth of leadership of the curriculum at school C outside of the role of the
curriculum coordinator is broadly perceived to be wide ranging. Interviewees identify
individuals, groups of people and teams as well as the most generic, ‘everyone is a
curriculum leader’.
Teachers are the most commonly and consistently identified group of ‘others who lead
the curriculum’, which is consistent with the principal’s description of the school’s
preferred and promoted culture of distributed responsibility.
Everybody’s responsible for what happens in their own classroom, and for
meeting the standards and it being established through curriculum
design....we’ve built a culture here, and I think the argument has been won, that
there has to be constant change. If there’s not constant change then there is
going to be stagnation.....people accept that that’s the reality. So the
professionalism of the individual teacher is connected to that sense of ongoing
change and constant improvement (PC).
Curriculum POL recognise a shared responsibility for curriculum by all teachers as
having workload ‘pay off’ for all and empowering teachers to utilise their expertise;
curriculum POL also see ownership of change being realised through this. “The load is
shared and that creates ownership for staff, so it actually pulls staff into the centre, rather
than standing from the outside” (POLCC1). In alignment with this perception of every
teacher being a curriculum leader is the responsibility of members of the leadership team
to show leadership in this area also, regardless of their specific responsibility.
167
The principal and pastoral leaders are next most frequently recognised as leaders of the
curriculum. The principal’s role in curriculum leadership is consistently described within
the context of the whole school vision; they are seen to have a commitment to
curriculum innovation and seen to demonstrate this by empowering others to develop
ideas and programs. “The principal stands back and expects other people to take on the
role and then other people do” (POLPC 2). The curriculum coordinators’ observation of
the principal sees the latter as a powerful force in curriculum leadership at school C.
[the principal] is a curriculum leader...if you take ideas to them, you know it’s
going to get changed and they will want to put their mark on it….I haven’t seen
another principal that actually has owned curriculum so much. The principal
thinks about education as curriculum, not about making boys look good ...they
have a whole picture about it, I don’t agree with everything they think and say
but I absolutely agree with the way the principal goes about it...whenever they
see that people can do it they allow people to do it to the point that they can’t
do it and then they’ll direct them (CCC).
Pastoral POL as curriculum leaders are identified under the ‘everybody’ banner,
however they are described as having a responsibility to understand student welfare
issues in relation to students’ capacity to learn and their actual learning experiences. The
principal sees the design of the heads of school roles as both leaders in curriculum and
student wellbeing as a model for other pastoral leaders in how to approach this.
The curriculum development team and the learning development coordinators are the
least recognised as curriculum leaders. The learning development coordinators and the
curriculum development team are new dimensions in the changed leadership structure
and are still shaping their identities.
...the role of curriculum and development team is innovation in curriculum but
it is not, should not just be left to the people who are in the leadership roles.
There are directors of the whole process, but all the ideas shouldn’t just come
from them (POLCC1).
168
Factors that hinder and support in the school’s specific context
A range of factors are identified as hindering or supporting the curriculum coordinator
role with the most common hindrances being people and time and the most supportive
factor being the changed leadership structure.
‘People’ being a hindrance is described in terms of individuals finding their way within
the changed leadership structure, either in new roles themselves or in working with
others in their roles. The principal sees the people in the two senior leadership roles as
having some initial difficulties; they view the changed structure transition time as being
a hindrance which is connected to the two personalities and leadership styles finding a
way to work with each other.
we’ve got two senior people that I want on my executive and what you’ve got is
two different personality types with two different management and leadership
styles, as in the two directors, so getting that to work has been a challenge, and
maybe, it may get better next year (PC).
The need for role clarity suggested by the principal is also raised by a member of the
leadership team in their understanding of the senior curriculum roles 1) pathways and 2)
learning and teaching working in sync, they see the tiered structure to be duplicitous to
some extent and hence causing some hindrance.
CCC’s role from what I understand is pedagogy and curriculum and
professional learning...curriculum leaders and it is a real tiered structured
thing and when you think about the number of staff and the number of positions,
there are not many people that are just teachers...there is a lot of overlap. You
see lots of faces in the same meeting, different meetings for different things
(LTCC1).
The lack of time available to complete tasks, meet with people and implement changes is
generally recognised as a hindrance to the curriculum coordinator. Time; along with the
complexity of the role and the broad focus of curriculum change combine to create a
suggestion of change fatigue at school C. A classroom teacher observes the combination
169
of these factors as being a hindrance.
Because there are so many aspects of it, so many facets there’s lots to cover,
not a lot of time.....The sheer amount is quite large so that also makes it very
difficult (CTC2).
The factor most frequently identified as supporting the curriculum coordinator role is the
same changed POL structure that is seen to cause some hindrance. Whilst most see the
new structure supporting better curriculum leadership at the school, they concede that it
has yet to be ‘bedded down’ and hence the curriculum coordination role being supported
by the structure is in some ways not yet known.
...the structural changes that have occurred in terms of leadership have placed
emphasis on not delineating between curriculum and wellbeing. In fact they’re
one and the same. They meld together (LTPC1).
In addition the structure is seen as having distributed leadership amongst more staff and
this is perceived as a supportive factor, “what’s making it work is that there are more
people involved in curriculum now, a lot more” (CTC3). The observation of the
curriculum coordinator in regards to the supportive nature of the new leadership
structure highlights the breaking down of some of the traditional barriers in curriculum
leadership at school C; “it’s a very flattened structure so you can be a little bit flexible”
(CCC).
Other supportive factors much less observed, however commented on include,

administrative support, people, leadership team colleagues and the school’s educational
vision. The synthesis between learning and teaching and student wellbeing is highlighted
in particular by the curriculum coordinator. The curriculum coordinator promotes a
particular philosophical belief about the synchronicity between student wellbeing and
learning and teaching that is formalised in the changed POL structure at school C.
I’ve never seen pastoral care as being removed from curriculum so it’s sort of
been a bug bear I guess. And I think because I worked so long in pastoral care
I was really aware of the needs of curriculum (CCC).
170
Interviewees comment on how the curriculum coordinator contributes to school

improvement minimally. The changes to the leadership structure at the school in the year
previous are described in considerable detail and are largely perceived by interviewees
to be improvement focused. As such the current year has, by the curriculum
coordinator’s own admission been a year of consolidating as a priority and not
specifically seeking further improvements. As a result very few interviewees identify the
current curriculum coordinator as having a significant role in school improvement, other
than in representing the interests of learning and teaching in the new POL structure. A
colleague on the leadership team does however comment that the current efforts of the
curriculum coordinator are in their observations strategically directed, but that actual
change and improvement will take some time to be realized, “they have got a good plan
and I think it is going to take maybe three or four years to get a marked improvement”
(LTCC1).
Conclusions
The leadership expectations for the role of the curriculum coordinator at school C are
significantly influenced by the development of the new POL leadership structure at the
school. The structure is described as being designed to ‘marry the pastoral and
curriculum needs of students to provide a proactive and formative leadership response’.
The objectives for the structure being:
• to build on present capacity for wellbeing and curriculum leadership,
• model a team approach,
• be formative for leaders, encouraging them to discover, invent and invigorate
• be responsive to the needs of boys’ education
The curriculum coordination role in this structure is significantly different from the
previous design of the role at school C. Interviewees refer to the curriculum coordination
role in the light of the new structure significantly throughout their interviews. In the light
of this, the identified purpose and expectations of the curriculum coordinator role at
school C is consistently seen to be to ‘figure out’ how the new structure for curriculum
171
leadership at the school could best work.
The key work of the curriculum coordinator, aside from making the new structure work,
is to create the school’s learning and teaching vision specifically to meet the needs of
boys. Once this is established it is to set directions for others on how to bring the vision
to life. The key working relationships identified for the curriculum coordinator are also
closely focused on the vision work. The curriculum coordinator and the learning
development coordinators who report directly to the curriculum coordinator are seen to
be working on how they will make the leadership of the learning and teaching vision
effective in achieving student learning improvement. The involvement of the principal in
the work of the curriculum coordinator is not evident on a daily basis, but the principal is
seen to be driving a philosophy of distributed responsibility for improving learning and
teaching at school C. The design and implementation of the new leadership structure is
seen to reflect the principal’s belief in improvement by the principle of subsidiarity. The
curriculum coordinator is viewed as merely one person and factor in the whole structure,
not necessarily a focal point.
The strengths and expectations of the curriculum coordinator are often linked by
interviewees. They see and expect a level of professional conduct in their school leaders
and take for granted that high standards of personal and professional integrity exist. The
curriculum coordinator is perceived as being amicable and flexible in how they approach
their work and this is a factor in them being favourably regarded as a professional. The
whole school culture for leadership is seen to be one that promotes individuals to bring
new ideas about in a way that is proactive. The curriculum coordinator is seen to be
working in this way. For some interviewees there is a perception that there needs to be a
slowing of change and innovation at the present time. Harnessing the energies and
talents of people to ‘get them onboard’ with bringing changes into action is seen as a
challenge the curriculum coordinator currently faces in general terms in regards learning
and teaching.
172
The new leadership structure being in its first year is widely recognised as a challenge
for the curriculum coordinator. The newness of the structure and therefore the
expectations for the role of curriculum coordination are identified as causing much of
their current work being management rather than leadership focused. This initial period
for the curriculum leadership positions at school C is also seen to raise issues of role
clarity for the curriculum leaders themselves and others working with them. The factors
that hinder the role of the curriculum coordinator are consistently very similar to the
challenges.
The curriculum and therefore those who lead it are seen to be driving forces for the
improvement of the school. There is however a strong emphasis on all teachers being
responsible for curriculum development and hence school improvement through the
work they do in their classrooms. The curriculum coordinator has a strong network of
support through members of the leadership team and the learning development
coordinators. The evolution of the leadership structure and their performance in this new
structure is expected to be a positive one for the boys’ learning at school C. With this
evolution it is also reasonable to believe that the leadership expectations of the
curriculum coordinator role will change.
173
Chapter 7 – Summary of Case Studies
This chapter summarises the findings of the three case studies, it identifies the
commonalities and differences across the case study schools in relation to the research
questions. The perceptions of different interviewee groups are considered as are the
factors common and distinct across case study schools. To remind the reader, the
composition of interview group membership is summarised in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Interviewee Participants by School and Group

Interviewee Groups School A School B School C Totals
Curriculum Coordinators 1 1 1 3
Leadership Team Members 5 5 4 14
Non Leadership Team Members 7 6 9 22
Total Number of Participants 13 12 14 39
Table 10: Curriculum Coordinator Interviewee Characteristics by School

Characteristics School A School B School C
Gender Female Female Male
Years in Role 10 Years 3 Years 1 Year
Years at the School +20 Years 3 Years 4 Years
Research Question 1: How do curriculum coordinators, senior leaders

and teachers perceive the role of curriculum coordinators?
Table 11 below summarises the themes evident across schools and interviewee groups in
relation to perceptions of the role of the curriculum coordinator. The extent to which
interviewees perceive the role to be related to each of the themes is indicated using a
four scale symbol scheme. Where interviewees’ perceptions show clear evidence of the
theme a (tick) is indicated, where the theme is somewhat evident but not a clear
majority a  (circle) is used, where a theme is minimally evident a  (square) is used
and in the case where a theme is not evident a  (cross) is used.
174
The thematic framework for this research was developed from the initial perceptions of
the researcher and was centred around the research questions. As a result of the
interview process and the analysis of transcripts the list of themes was reduced from the
initial list and the ideas generated from interviews were categorised into like strands and
then connected under theme categories.
Table 11: Perceptions of the role of the curriculum coordinator according to

themes
School A School B School C

Coordinator
Coordinator
Coordinator
Curriculum
Curriculum
Curriculum
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Members
Members
Members
Members
Members
Members
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team
Non-
Non-
Non-
Educational
  
Expertise
     
Providing
        
Clarity
    
Engaging
   
Others
Competence
        
Core
The curriculum coordination role is believed to be a busy one incorporating a range of

functions and purposes in school life. Performance of these is most commonly observed
in the completion of milestone tasks that are part of the school year cycle and seen to
require a blend of leadership and management capacities. What matters most to
interviewees is that the role of the curriculum coordinator is competently performed, for
the most part competence is expressed in terms of the curriculum coordinator being seen
to be able to ‘do their job’. These perceptions of fulfilling the responsibilities of the role
175
fitting within one or more of four cornerstones concepts; educational expertise,
providing clarity, engaging others and core (or practical) competences. The extent to
which different interviewee groups and schools perceive these concepts as important
differentiates them, but in most cases only marginally. A commonality of perceptions is
generally shared across schools, but more strongly evident is a general consistency of
perspectives held by interviewee groups across schools. The most consistently aligned
perspectives are evident amongst interviewees from the leadership team group. These
interviewees may have differed in the priorities they held for the role of the curriculum
coordinator but they show the greatest understanding of the role in daily school life.
The educational expertise of the curriculum coordinator is critical to perceptions of them

performing their role confidently, with the main emphasis in this on professional
knowledge and understanding change. Their capacity to lead externally driven change,
whilst showing an intimate understanding of the school context by sifting information
into a manageable format for teachers is seen as them demonstrating educational
expertise. The extent to which the three curriculum coordinators are seen to meet with
expectations of educational expertise is variable and dependent upon the interviewee’s
own experience and expertise and the local context for leadership and curriculum.
Change and innovation are consistently recognised as key elements of expertise. Having
a breadth of knowledge of educational research is an indicator of capability and is seen
as important in being able to engage meaningfully with topics important to others. This
capacity to ‘know things’ is strongly associated with reading widely and an expertise
demonstrated when new information is shared with others. To some extent the
curriculum coordinator is expected to be ‘doing the thinking / learning for others’. The
curriculum coordinator at school A is most recognised as having expert knowledge and
understanding of change and the coordinator at school C least. This contrast is explained
to some extent by the extremes in their years of experience in the role. The types of
change and innovation knowledge identified by non-leadership team interviewees is
often associated with compliance, in contrast to leadership team members who generally
highlight pedagogy and ‘big picture’ knowledge as the most valuable contribution the
176
curriculum coordinator makes to whole school leadership.
Leading change innovations and making sense of them is recognised as challenging and
often emotive. Also seen as important in making sense of change are school values being
observable in the curriculum coordinator’s leadership, “a clear moral purpose in
understanding management of change are basically the crux of it (PB)”. Two of the
curriculum coordinators, A and B, similarly identify ensuring others in the school are
meaningfully involved in the change they experience as critical.
...it’s also about assisting others in understanding and managing their change.
So it’s creating all these other change managers (CCB)
Understanding and managing change.....If it’s good, we take it on whole

heartedly. If it’s not we try to minimise the damage done, but we still do it
(CCA).
Knowing and understanding the issues, complexities and cultural nuances of their school
environment is significantly important to all interviewee groups at each school. All
highlight the need for the curriculum coordinator to be able to judge the ‘what’ of new
curriculum initiatives and then to show discernment in setting directions relating to
these.
If you run curriculum in a school you’ve got to understand your kids and
you’ve got to understand your school (CTB1).
Local context of course varies across schools but perceptions of what makes each school
unique remains consistent across interviewee groups within each school. At school A the
local context relates to the multicultural, LBOTE and low SES backgrounds of students,
at school B it is the size of the school with some reference to low SES and at school C
the local context is almost exclusively about boys’ education. The curriculum
coordinator role is generally perceived to be best performed when these specific factors
of local context are seen to be weighed against innovation opportunities. This approach
is believed by middle and senior leaders in particular to better enable staff to make sense
of change. Critically analysing options before making decisions is respected and valued
and is specifically commented on at schools A and B. The curriculum coordinator
177
knowing what is current in educational circles gives interviewees’ confidence that their
curriculum coordinator has a grip on contemporary big picture thinking, even when they
themselves don’t. Interviewees at school B most frequently recognise their curriculum
coordinator as flagging current innovations and improvement opportunities. “The
curriculum coordinator embraces change and wants to change and look ahead and
progress and get the school involved in new initiatives (POLCB3)”.
Teaching classes themselves and therefore knowing what’s happening in classes at a

practical personal experience level is also seen as a way the curriculum coordinator
demonstrates their educational expertise; “I think it would be really important for the
curriculum coordinator to actually continue teaching in terms of the way that their role is
perceived by other people (LTOB3)”. This perspective is seen to influence school
culture and commonly based on the need for the curriculum coordinator to experience
the practicalities of implementing the changes they promote to others.
...those that lead should ensure that they are involved at, the old phrase, at the
grassroots level, where they get into the classroom (POLCC1).
Expectations of the curriculum coordinator in demonstrating educational expertise focus
heavily on change; the management of change being seen to require new knowledge,
their own and others’ professional learning, attention to student needs and organisation
of operational factors. The non-leadership team interviewees see greater significance in
the curriculum coordinator knowing how new ideas work best operationally and
leadership team colleagues focus on bigger picture thinking associated with change.
Providing clarity is generally seen as a strength of the curriculum coordinator roles, it

encompasses being big picture thinkers, providing direction and sharing information. At
schools A and B the LSF guiding conception, ‘4.Creating and sharing knowledge’ is
recognised as significant. Most commonly clarity is experienced at these schools
through work in professional learning, sharing professional reading and a commitment
to formally and informally interacting with staff. At school C interviewees largely do not
identify providing clarity as a priority, many interviewees from this school view the
changed POL structure as an event that has clarified curriculum leadership and as a
178
result it is not currently seen as a strength of the curriculum coordinator.
Stepping back from operational detail and having a grander vision for learning and
teaching is understood to be a feature of big picture thinking that is important in the
curriculum coordination role. Each of the curriculum coordinators are humble in their
self analysis of their impact on vision; they are keen to draw others into the vision
creation equation rather than claim this work as their own. Many others however saw the
vision as resting with them. Leadership team members are usually emphatic in the
importance of the curriculum coordinator having a vision for learning and teaching, but
see others influencing this also.
I see the curriculum coordinator as being a real visionary. They’ve got a really
good grasp of where they think we should be heading. I find them a really good
source of knowledge and inspiration (LTPA1).
Non-leadership team members recognise vision creation as both providing clarity and
having a unifying effect. They recognise it as bringing people together to work towards a
shared and common purpose in learning and teaching, but often perceive it to be
something the curriculum coordinator creates as the leader and others follow.
...to be a central person who’s seen to be a leader....How they disseminate
information, how they foster excellence, how they support their colleagues and
how they also challenge their colleagues towards best practice (POLCC2).
Perceptions about the extent to which the curriculum coordinator is seen to provide
clarity by giving instructional directions for teachers varies across schools but views are
consistent within each school. At school A instructional direction is commonly
identified; being the smallest school is a factor in this, in comparison to school B, the
largest of the three schools, where providing directions is minimally noted. The larger
staff at school B means that the work of the curriculum coordinator is more concentrated
on middle leaders than teachers. At school C the recent changes to the leadership
structure dominate interviewees’ comments with a strong emphasis on the need to
consolidate the new structure, particularly in relation to the four domain leaders. The
philosophy of the new structure is acknowledged, but the practicalities of it functioning
are less clear.
179
Processes and protocols relating to the vision in practice dominate views about
providing clarity at each school; the curriculum coordinator is largely seen as doing this
work themselves rather than in collaboration with others. High profile annual curriculum
items such as reports are frequently cited to illustrate how practical clarity is
experienced. Accountability for following directions is nearly always implied, but not
evidenced, except in relation to reporting. “[CCB] makes sure that we’re all on track that
what we do is reflected correctly in the reports (POLCB2)”. The curriculum coordinators
see themselves as both providing direction and holding people to account, but with little
explanation about how they actually manage accountability. The LSF guiding
conception, ‘5.Coherence and alignment of structures’ aligns with providing direction
and clarity, for many interviewees it is most important at schools A and C. Challenges in
achieving clarity are recognised and largely centred around ‘getting others onboard’.
Engaging others includes fostering relationships and distributing leadership

responsibility. The significance of fostering relationships is most pronounced at school
A and least at school C. Collaboration is frequently and consistently identified as a way
that others are engaged in the work the curriculum coordinator leads. Founded on mutual
professional respect, collaboration experienced with a team orientation is apparent
across interviewee groups and schools. How collaboration is recognised varies between
interviewees and is mainly dependent on the interviewee’s own preferred leadership
style. Those with a particularly ‘managerialistic’ preference describe it as giving
instructions and information and others see it as a directional force and curriculum
coordinators see it as a tool for change.
Collaborating by working with direct reports is generally believed to be important, and

seen through recent curriculum innovations. A more explicit hierarchical flow of
information and then requisite action is most pronounced as a form of collaboration at
school C; “then there’s the literacy and numeracy coordinators and then there’s the year
level curriculum leaders…..So it’s a bit of a stepping stone (CTC3)”. In contrast, at
school A, a more relational consultative approach is favoured. Perceptions of
collaboration through the relationship of the principal and the curriculum coordinator
180
vary greatly. The principal at school A is seen by most to be a curriculum leader with a
strong emphasis on their practical involvement in the day to day curriculum of the
school. This is different from school C where the principal appears to be removed from
most of the work of the curriculum coordinator. At school B there is an authoritarian and
hierarchical whole school leadership perspective which dominates, with the principal
recognised as ultimate authority figure but not directly involved in curriculum on a day
to day basis.
The distribution of leadership is recognised as a way of engaging others in the

curriculum, overwhelmingly such distribution is seen to be directed to middle level
curriculum leaders. Perceptions of how successfully this occurs vary across schools and
interviewee groups. A view that non-KLA curriculum leaders do not work closely with
the curriculum coordinator is consistently held. The lack of liaison with these leaders is
seen as problematic or ignored, and whilst some attempt to address this is flagged in
some cases, little strategic intent to address it is evident. The area of curriculum related
leadership which is excluded from all discussions at each school but is acknowledged in
POL structures was e-learning or ICT.
Others identified as leading the curriculum include pastoral leaders and whilst
curriculum leadership is not seen to be formally a part of these roles at schools A and B
it is perceived to be emerging and necessary, “it is the two hats, and my role is sort of
juggling which hat I’m wearing” (POLPC2).
Core competencies describe the fundamental skills and attributes needed for the role and
are consistently seen as ‘leadership basics’ for a senior leadership position. The most
significant noted are operational and accountability responsibilities, moral purpose and
being people centred.
Operational accountability responsibilities at school C are less important in contrast to

schools A and B. The operational and accountability factors are generally most
prioritised by non-leadership team members and least by the curriculum coordinators.
181
Leadership team peers recognise the necessity of operational core competencies but
consider other leadership capacities as more significant. They are perceived to take up
significant amounts of time and necessitate managing multiple matters concurrently, as
does ‘knowing government initiatives and requirements’. Interviewees who themselves
had greater familiarity with external requirements are less inclined to highlight this as a
core competency, but do see capacity in this area as necessary. Curriculum coordinators
do not at all prioritise operational and accountability aspects in their roles, their silence
on this supports the idea that basic core competency skills and aptitudes in senior
leadership role are expected entry level skills for the role.
Moral purpose as a core competency is mostly identified when interviewees are

prompted with the LSF, guiding conception of leadership; ‘1.Having a Clear Moral
Purpose’. School values and the articulated mission of the school shape most perceptions
around moral purpose. The diversity of language used to describe it includes words
about the Catholic mission of the school community such as; ‘core values’, ‘faith’ and
‘theological point of view’. Responses also emphasise the ‘doing’ of moral purpose
through actions and behaviours in words and phrases such as; ‘draws everyone in’,
‘shared’, ‘caring’ and ‘rights and responsibilities’. A further group of words relating to
moral purpose as relational are also used; ‘welfare of staff’, ‘consideration’,
‘understanding’, ‘humility’ and ‘relationships’. These words are used by interviewees to
describe what they personally experience, feel and perceive to be moral leadership.
Judgements about the person in the role ‘being a good person’ appear to be the basis
upon which moral purpose is overwhelmingly determined. Moral purpose is distinctly
differently understood by interviewees; some seeing it in the action of leading learning
in the best interests of students, others drawing heavily on witness to the Catholicity of
the school and some seeing it as approaches to staff. An assumed and implied, but often
not articulated set of common values upon which Catholic education is based connect
the various views. Schools A and C have an explicitly espoused connection to a religious
charism and reference to it is one way interviewees describe moral purpose. Personal
regard and respectfulness is focused on and expressed with a more secular moral
emphasis at school B where the alignment to a charism is not spoken of.
182
Perceptions of being people centred are largely based on experiences of respectful
personal and professional interactions which are personable, energetic and enthusiastic.
The curriculum coordinator interviewee group make very few comments regarding
being people centred. The dimension that each of them does comment on is energy and
enthusiasm, they each imply a moral responsibility to be energetic and enthusiastic for
the greater good of learning and teaching at their school and see this as role modelling
and having a positive impact. Schools A and B and not school C place some emphasis
on people centred dimensions of leadership. School A places a higher premium on
individual staff needs being accommodated, the reason for this could be attributed to this
school being the smallest of the schools. At school A the curriculum coordinator has
fewer staff to be available to and the sphere of interaction between the curriculum
coordinator and all other staff is noticeably more intimate. At school B curriculum POL
holders are the link between the curriculum coordinator and classroom teachers. At
school A the curriculum coordinator has regular classroom teacher interactions and is
not dependent on their curriculum POL holders to convey curriculum messages. Staff
interactions at school C are more delineated, the curriculum coordinator works closely
with their team of four curriculum leaders and distantly with others.
Research Question 2: What factors contribute to or hinder the

sustaining and building of the leadership capacity of curriculum
coordinators?
The specific factors that contribute to or hinder the sustaining and building of the
leadership capacity of curriculum coordinators are as diverse as the individuals who
fulfil the roles in each of the schools. The most common factors within and across
schools do however provide some insight into what assists curriculum coordinators and
what stops them from being leaders. Factors found to contribute to sustaining and
building their leadership capacity broadly fit four categories:
• Relationships
• Emotional Intelligence
• Cognitive Capacity
• Practical Resources
183
Factors found to hinder their leadership capacity are:
• Human behaviours
• Perceptions of being time poor
When considering the four factors that contribute to sustaining and building leadership
capacity it is wise to be mindful of site and role specific contexts. Supportive factors are
shaped by the number of years the curriculum coordinator has taught and been in the
role as well as the stability of the school’s leadership structure, each of these supportive
factors also has a range of sub-dimensions. Table 12 below outlines these factors.
Table 12: Factors which contribute to the sustaining and building the leadership
capacity of curriculum coordinators
Relationships Emotional Cognitive Practical

Intelligences Capacity Resources
School Assistant Curriculum Moral purpose Ability to Location of
A Coordinator Role Energy and synthesise Office Near
KLA Heads enthusiasm information Staff
Leadership Team Knowledge of
Principal latest research
Availability to
people
School Personal Being Ability to Location of
B relationships personable synthesise Office
Heads of Learning Energy and information Administrative
Availability to enthusiasm Multitasking support
people Knowledge of
latest research
School Teachers Being Knowledge of Changes to
C Principal personable latest research leadership
Pastoral leaders structures
Availability to Administrative
people support
184
The significance of relationships features significantly in all three schools as a factor that
builds and sustains leadership capacity. The types of relationships vary between each
school but ‘availability to people in general’ is common to them and important in
varying degrees. Casual or spontaneous interactions between the curriculum coordinator
and others elicit positive perceptions of the curriculum coordinator as a leader.
Relationships with colleagues range from personal support (school B), support via
structures that articulate responsibilities (school C) to collegial senior leadership team
relationships focused on being true to the school’s mission (school A).
‘Personal relationships’ with colleagues are deemed to provide support in the form of a
‘confidant’ and mostly important when the curriculum coordinator experiences difficulty
or frustration in their role.
Some people on staff are very supportive of the curriculum coordinator and
they know that they can close the door and just let go – it will never exit that
room (LTPB1).
Awareness of the challenges, key work and core values at school A reveal a collegial
strength in how the senior leadership team supports each other. Knowledge of the
context for the curriculum coordinator in developing middle leaders supports a belief in
building others’ capacity through relationships.
I think that the department heads quite often are reactive rather than proactive.
Reactive to directions and things imposed upon them by the curriculum
coordinator and the Principal (LTOA).
Availability to people is seen somewhat as a ‘feat’ of leadership and builds a reputation
of competence due to the curriculum coordinator being able to cope with multiple
demands.
...people are just barging into the office all the time and the curriculum
coordinator will just stop what they are doing and listen and give you that
attention (POLCB3).
The emotional intelligence of the curriculum coordinator is closely aligned with their
forging effective relationships with people, the most significant form of emotional
185
intelligence noted is them being personable. This is evidenced through them
demonstrating interpersonal skills, and whilst highly subjective they illustrate
perceptions of the curriculum coordinator being calm, attentive when listening and seen
to form their own views based on shared moral values. Modelling passion, energy and
enthusiasm for their role is also seen as a positive aspect of their emotional intelligence.
The curriculum coordinator is still very passionate about educating teenagers.
So whilst the frustrations of the job do get in the way at times, one of their
strengths is that passion (CTA1).
Demonstrating a high level of cognitive capacity is seen as an ability to synthesise
relevant information and knowledge of educational research. Interviewees are
“impressed” by what the curriculum coordinator knows (presumably in comparison to
their own curriculum knowledge) and this is perceived to both sustain and build their
capacity and profile as a leader.
The curriculum coordinator is particularly gifted......not everyone can think like
them .... That is a particular gift that they bring to the job even without that
ability to do that next step of translating (PA).
Practical resources that support and build capacity include diverse factors such as
administrative support, the location of the curriculum coordinators’ office, and unique to
school C – the changed leadership structure. Administrative support is basically seen to
free up their time to undertake non administrative core work. Perception of such
practical resources is commonly seen in terms of how the curriculum coordinator is
resourced to serve the needs of others. When these resources are observed as in place
their leadership capacity is deemed to be positively affected.
The curriculum coordinator’s office is off the staff room as people enter and
leave ....The office used to be upstairs, so you only went over there if you really
could be bothered. So you either caught the coordinator on the hop, or went
straight to the principal because they were downstairs (CTA1).
The ‘availability when needed’ as described above is identified at school B also, but not
at school C where the curriculum coordinator is seen to be closeted away. The difference
in perceptions of availability, as a result of the positioning of the curriculum
coordinators’ office at schools A and B, also reflects the nature of interactions with POL
186
holders and teachers at the two schools. At school B the emphasis on the positioning of
the office is on access by POL holders; “I like the fact that the curriculum coordinator’s
in a position where all the KLA’s are in the same area. So that makes for easy access
(POLCB2)”. At school A access is seen as a feature of sustaining leadership capacity
because of the access ‘everyone’ has to them.
Unique to school C is the changed leadership structure; it is identified as a practical

resource in terms of how this structural change is perceived to expand leadership
responsibility across the school and connect learning and student wellbeing.
...in the past year level coordinators would deal with teaching and learning and
it would become a bit of a dead end, it would become a pastoral issue, not a
teaching and learning issue. Now we can have a curriculum leader that can
look for interventions, can basically be aware of each student’s learning
(CCC).
Establishing protocols and procedures for the new structure are seen as key capacity
building measures, “it’s a new role, this new leadership structure, that’s still being felt,
still being worked out (POLPC2)” and “It’s really in a state of flux at the moment.
We’re slowly forming our roles (POLCC2)”. There are some unknowns in the
restructure which are yet to be unpacked as either a support or hindrance; one is the
hierarchical position of the curriculum coordinator at director level and not deputy
principal as it has been previously.
A smaller number of factors are identified as hindering the curriculum coordinators’

leadership capacity; these fit two broad categories; human behaviours and perceptions of
being time poor, Table 13 below outlines these.
187
Table 13: Factors which hinder the sustaining and building of the leadership
capacity of curriculum coordinators
Perceptions of being time Human behaviours

poor
School A Keeping up with changes Ensuring directions are followed
Getting people on board
Others taking on responsibility
Non KLA Curriculum POL
School B Keeping up with changes Getting people on board
Splitting the role Holding people to account
Two campus school People
School C Keeping up with changes Getting people on board
Time People
A hindrance that is raised in each school is the perception of the curriculum coordinator
being time poor. The views expressed in relation to time being a hindrance are largely
framed within the construct that if there was ‘more time’ more could be achieved and
that the curriculum coordinator would be less overwhelmed and hence their leadership
capacity enhanced. Whilst time is seen as a hindrance to the leadership capacity of the
curriculum coordinator it is also largely recognised to be an inevitable construct in a role
which is mainly focused on change and innovation.
...being on top of the curriculum and knowing exactly what everyone’s doing
and ensuring that we are providing a great curriculum across the board to all
our students........And so the demands on someone like the curriculum
coordinator are massive (LTOB1).
Whilst it is fair to say that there is a perception of being time poor having a negative
impact on building and sustaining leadership capacity; other than splitting the role there
appears to interviewees to be no solution to this situation.
The inclusion of the two campus school factor as being a reason for the curriculum
coordinator being time poor is perceived as a result of the distance between the senior
188
and junior campus at school B causes some time tensions. The pressure on the
curriculum coordinators’ time is expressed as being the reason for their minimal
presence at the junior campus.
The size of this school and the fact that we are on two campuses makes it tough,
we are a physically big school and it is hard to get around the school
(POLCB1).
The suggestion of splitting the role of the curriculum coordinator is a single school issue.
At school B interviewees recognise the size of the school and the inclusion of whole
school professional learning responsibilities in the role as causing a time hindrance.
I think professional development needs to be reassessed.... I think in a school of
this size to have one person trying to manage both is ludicrous....I think that as
a school we need to review the role of the assistant as in curriculum and
possibly even alter it in such a way that you might have two people or three
people that work with the curriculum coordinator in the whole curriculum area
(LTPB1).
Human behaviours as factors that hinder the building and sustaining of the leadership
capacity of the curriculum coordinator are complex. These factors are; ensuring
directions are followed, getting people onboard, others taking on responsibility, non-
KLA curriculum POL, holding people to account and people. This diversity of factors
reflect the individual circumstances within which each curriculum coordinator leads.
Each school shares in common ‘getting people onboard’ and other factors are either
evident in only one or two of the other schools, these are however frequently interwoven
with the challenges of ‘getting people on board’.
Getting people onboard as a hindrance to the leadership capacity of the curriculum

coordinator refers to the difficulty the curriculum coordinator experiences in getting all
staff meaningfully engaged in curriculum initiatives, “there is a lot of always trying to
educate everyone to look at the whole school curriculum not just their area…and not
offending anyone” (PA). This highlights the challenge of maintaining relationships
whilst being an agent of change; “the role for curriculum leaders is I think to tap into the
189
people that are here and encourage them (LTCC1)”. Balancing individual needs and
organisational future directions is also highlighted as both a relational and improvement
challenge that hinders.
Getting people out of their comfort zone is a really big challenge…currently
we’re facing the difficulty between inequity of roles and inequity of
responsibilities, or the perception of those inequities (LTPB1).
Matters of accountability highlighted in numerous hindrance factors focus on specific
issues and performance in roles at schools A and B. Whilst the people and the roles are
distinct to each school, the negative impact of perceived lack of accountability for
performance is seen to have a negative impact on the leadership capacity of the
curriculum coordinator. When POL holders are perceived to be underperforming in their
roles and action is not seen to be taken, the curriculum coordinators’ leadership capacity
is diminished.
I think it’s really important as a leader to be able to talk to somebody if you
think they’re not actually following the vision and actively working against
it….It’s really hard to do, but I think that you need to do it because it de-
energises people that are working towards the vision (LTPA1).
The non-KLA curriculum POL roles are specifically identified as being a hindrance to
the building and sustaining of the leadership capacity of the curriculum coordinator.
Interviewees describe specific people in roles as not performing their roles well and this
is seen to reflect negatively on the leadership capacity of the curriculum coordinator.
Ensuring directions are followed is the most tangible of the accountability factors within
human behaviours that are believed to negatively impact.
Research Question 3: How do curriculum coordinators contribute to

school improvement?
There is minimal recognition of the role of the curriculum coordinator contributing to
school improvement at each school, with a general lack of familiarity with any formally
structured school improvement framework evident. As a result, the idea of how the
curriculum coordinator contributes to school improvement is consistently missing. At
best, interviewees identify factors that they perceive as improving the school that they
190
also see the curriculum coordinators’ leadership responsibility. These factors are
described as the curriculum coordinator contributing to school improvement via
collaboration with other areas (at all schools), in developing and implementing the
learning and teaching vision (school A only) and through setting goals (schools B and
C).
Collaborating with other areas as a factor in the curriculum coordinator contributing to

school improvement includes reference to annual goals or foci for the school that are
generally known but not articulated as being strategically understood. At school B the
annual focus is described as being about school improvement and it is assumed that the
leadership team and the curriculum coordinator collaborate to develop ideas for
improving the curriculum at the school based on this.
There is a perceived strategic component to collaborating with others in communicating

with staff about why ‘things’ are being done. At school A this is described as
information sharing with the whole staff by the curriculum coordinator, as distinct from
school B where the process takes place through hierarchical line management. Setting
goals as a way the curriculum coordinator contributes to school improvement very
minimally features and again reference to this factor crosses over collaboration.
A strategic goal setting language is absent from all of the interviewees’ descriptions of
the curriculum coordinators’ contribution to school improvement. Their contribution is
rather described as general goal setting and is largely broad and non-target or evidenced
related. There exists a general belief at each of the schools that goal setting is a visionary
activity about learning and teaching principles, or about buildings and the design of
learning spaces, but not something related to measurable outcomes.
191
Chapter 8 – Discussion of Findings
This chapter identifies those findings from the research that are confirmed in the wider
body of educational research and it raises some new ideas specific to curriculum
coordination leadership. The discussion considers the implications of the findings for
educational policy and practice in schools and it is structured around the three focus
questions for the research:
Three different groups of interviewees provided insight into expectations held for the
role of the curriculum coordinator; senior leaders including the principal, the curriculum
coordinators and teachers, including those with a POL. Interviewees across schools
shared similar views relating to the importance of culture and values for the role of
curriculum coordinator, but differed in their perspectives on the key work of the role.
Comparison of the research findings to the body of educational leadership literature
confirmed some aspects of educational leadership theory and highlighted some
differences in the translation of leadership theory into practice. The implications for
school based practice and policy provided insight into the changing educational
landscape for leaders in schools. The expectations of the curriculum coordinator are
revealed to be largely contingent upon the school context, leadership history in general
at the school, and personal approaches to leadership. The curriculum coordinators’
influence on school improvement is consistently unclear or not understood, seemingly
mainly due to a lack of clarity around the CEOM strategic approach to school
improvement planning using the SIF.
192
This section unpacks the perceptions held for the role of curriculum coordinator and the
implications of these. It explores what curriculum and its coordination is understood to
mean, how influential the local school context is in shaping views on it and it discusses
the preferred leadership styles for the role of the curriculum coordinator.
‘The curriculum’
Most commonly interviewees held the view that ‘the curriculum’ is understood as the
formal program for subjects. Subsequently within the context of this definition the
curriculum coordinator role is seen as the arbiter of the school’s formal program of
subjects. Their authority and expertise in this was primarily described as about providing
clarity around externally imposed curriculum requirements for subjects, authorising
subject offerings and alignment with the VELS and VCE frameworks.
The curriculum coordinator makes sure that courses are documented and taught
appropriately within the classes.....continually developing and seeing where we
need to go (POLCB3).
This view is shared across interviewee groups and schools and is consistent with Levin’s
(2008) definition of curriculum which focuses on knowledge and skill development as
what curriculum is and means. Levin’s emphasis on what students know and can do
aligns in the Victorian context of this research with the frequently referenced VELS
implementation.
Such an understanding of curriculum coordination implies it was seen largely as a matter

of formal accountability and compliance. This confirms Keane’s (2010) findings that the
notion of curriculum is ‘shrinking’ as schools seek to remain consistent with ‘norms’
that are bound to common formal and prescribed system level curriculum. This also
supports van den Akker’s (2004) proposition of the meso and micro levels in curriculum
coordination leadership. The accountability (meso) perception was most strongly held
by teachers and middle level POL holders. Their association of curriculum development
with compliance revealed a connection with tangible concepts. It also warned of a
193
potential mindset that the curriculum is a static concept rather than an organic one. The
consequence was that pedagogy was sidelined in perceptions of the work of the
curriculum coordinator because they are focused on ‘ticking the compliance boxes’.
Having the ’learner’ as the focus of curriculum leadership

Interviewees in each of the case study schools saw their students at the centre of
curriculum at their school. They expected their curriculum coordinator to pro-actively
lead with a view to the best interests of their students above all else, including matters of
compliance.
The descriptions of curriculum developed by Kelly (2004), Stern and Kysilka (2008) and
Wiles (2007) about learning and development, including but not restricted to academic
skills and knowledge, are frequently evident in how ‘learning’ and hence curriculum was
viewed. Curriculum coordinators specifically, highlighted balancing external curriculum
requirements with local conditions and priorities. They saw this as a key pressure whilst
trying to keep student learning and development holistically at the centre of the
curriculum. They supported the view of whole person learner-centred curriculum, but
found it challenging to translate this into their curriculum leadership on a daily basis. To
some degree the separation of student wellbeing and curriculum as distinct areas of
school leadership accentuated a narrow view of curriculum. Polarising academic and
wellbeing in distinct leadership roles saw curriculum focusing on ‘the head’ and
wellbeing ‘the heart’.
A sentiment of anti-authoritarianism regarding externally imposed curriculum was

somewhat evident and was believed to detract from the ability to localise curriculum
directions. This view was proffered most frequently at School A, where a religious
charism was explicitly evident and influential in school life, decision making and
curriculum directions. These interviewees consistently indicated they complied
grudgingly, seeing their own knowledge of their students as a much better guide for
curriculum directions and keeping the learner at the centre.
194
Coordination specific to the local context
An acute awareness of and responsiveness to local priorities was a consistently held
expectation for the curriculum coordinators. At each school, interviewees across each of
the groups identified the necessity of the curriculum coordinator to know and understand
how their school was unique in the way they led the curriculum. At school A this
specifically related to charism and SES, at school B to student population, and at school
C through a focus on boys’ education. Interviewees consistently expected the curriculum
coordinator to be able to bring this specific context knowledge to the fore. Interviewees
perceived that leading with such factors clearly evident was a significant feature of
success. Many researchers (e.g. Fullan, 2006; Hartle and Hobby, 2003; MacGilchrist,
2003; NCSL, 2007; Sergiovanni, 1998; Stoll, Fink and Earl, 2003) suggest that it is
important for educational leaders to pay attention to local context. There are however
systemic concerns about this approach when policy implementation is compromised in
the belief that it must be adjusted for local context, so there is a role dilemma.
When pride in and protection of ‘local turf’ was detected in the curriculum coordinator’s
response to external requirements they were believed to be leading for their local
context. This expectation of leadership is consistent with the idea of schools as
individual and unique learning communities (Fullan, 1993a; Hartle and Hobby, 2003;
Kaser and Halbert, 2009; Sergiovanni, 1998, 2005; Starrat, 2005) and needing leaders
who know, understand and respond as such.
We’re not going to respond to things like reporting or government policies just
for the sake of the government saying jump this high. ....... We will stand back
and say hang on, what is it about, does this fit into our philosophy? (PA).
Being seen to understand the practical reality of curriculum initiatives from the
perspective of classroom teachers was identified as critical. A feeling of education in a
constant cycle of development and innovation contributed to a sense of change as
overwhelming if left unchecked by the curriculum coordinator. The curriculum
coordinator was relied upon to ‘protect’ staff from a feeling of change fatigue, in part by
empathising with their daily experiences. From the perspective of whole school
curriculum leadership this required the curriculum coordinators to have an appreciation
195
of what Fullan (2001) describes as the implementation dip. Such an understanding means
they factor into their leadership of change the natural “down side” experienced by
participants in change. Whilst the body of modern educational literature identifies a need
for holistic global reform to schooling (Caldwell, 2005; Crowther, Fergurson and Hann,
2009; Davies, 2006; Fullan, 2006, 2010; Hill & Crevola, 2000; Lawton, 2003; NCSL,
2009a, 2010; Stoll, Fink and Earl, 2003) the curriculum coordinator was expected to play
a buffering role in response to this to some extent. They were expected to heed the
impact of change momentum, as they led teachers towards further changes to learning
and teaching practice.
Defining the role of Curriculum Coordinator

No single definition of the role of curriculum coordinator was found in this research and
there is little academic reference to a dedicated curriculum coordinator position in the
literature (Kelly, 2004; Wiles, 2009). Educational literature generally focuses on
leadership of learning as one dimension of educational leadership in general (Caldwell,
2006; Collarbone, 2003; Davies, 2006; Fullan, 2001, 2006; Hargreaves and Shirley,
2009; Southworth, 2009; Stoll, Bolam and Collarbone, 2002; Stoll, Fink and Earl, 2003;
NCSL, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Walker, 2010) whilst the case study schools identified this
area of leadership separately. This research exposed limited commonalities in the whole
school curriculum leadership role between the case study schools. The role was
consistently positioned in senior leadership with remuneration and hierarchical status
varying. Leading curriculum in Levin’s (2008) narrow terms was common, however
broader appreciation of school culture and matters of compliance was also expected.
Other expectations for the role were largely unique to individual schools and there was
little clarity around strategic improvement of student learning outcomes.
As a consequence the localisation of definitions for curriculum coordination leadership

poses some problems for the establishment of a sector wide profile for the specific
position. Despite, and perhaps because of the diversity of role responsibilities and both
explicit and implicit expectations for curriculum coordinators in their individual school,
the application of generic leadership standards or frameworks is possible, but at what
196
level is unclear. Interestingly the LSF (2005) was not used in a strategic way to build the
leadership capacity, but there was some familiarity with leadership concepts and
language evident. Interviewees confirmed this by acknowledging that their curriculum
coordinators, almost without exception, demonstrated all of the LSF (2005) five guiding
conceptions of leadership. Despite this broader concept of leadership being identified
they still saw the curriculum coordinator’s key work as operationally focussed. An
implication for sector leadership policy initiatives was that greater clarity around
leadership, as opposed to management, may be needed to develop strategic dimensions
of the role of curriculum coordinator.
Transactional leadership and accountability

The findings of this research regarding leadership styles in curriculum coordination
show that there was a preference for a transactional approach without accountability.
Transactional style management tasks were common between the curriculum
coordinator and middle leaders in particular. Ensuring management aspects of the
curriculum were undertaken consistently dominated how they saw themselves working
together. Accountability for performance standards was not associated with measurable
targets and was not evident or desired. As a result there was an element of acceptance of
perceived under-performance by middle leaders. Instead of strategic and transparent
accountability there was a strong reliance at each school upon professional trust that
built and sustained what Ryan and Bohlin (1999) describe as a community of virtue, that
is a community that operates largely on relationships dependent upon shared values
Fink’s (2005) invitational leadership was evident in terms of trust and optimism, but it
was weakened by the absence of the accountability aspect of respect and intentionality.
With a similar focus, Hill and Crevola (2000) identify mentoring and developing others’
capacity as a central aspect in fostering relationships. None of the interviewees however
recognised this in their direct report relationship with the curriculum coordinator,
preferring instead to feel as if they are known and understood in a relational sense.
Evidence of this was the overt rejection of the curriculum coordinator having explicit
influence on KLA-POL domains. There was some dissatisfaction expressed about some
197
curriculum middle leader performance of their roles and the extent to which they were
held to account. Despite this there was however no desire for the curriculum coordinator
to institute performance appraisal or overt accountability measures in relation to these
direct reports.
The relationships the curriculum coordinators foster were anecdotally positive, except in
a few isolated cases where individuals appeared disaffected. Each of the schools was
perceived as a ‘happy’ place for staff and a professional congeniality existed. Continuing
to operate from a transactional and operationally focused paradigm poses some
difficulties for building the curriculum coordinators’ capacity as strategic leaders.
Distributing leadership
Appointment to a formal leadership role was for many interviewees an indicator of
distributed leadership. Subsequently curriculum leadership was seen to be most
prominently distributed to middle level KLA-POL holders. The committees they were
members of such as the ‘Heads of Learning Committee’, were however overwhelmingly
not seen in this same way. This suggested individuals and not teams were perceived to
provide leadership. Teachers, the principal and non-KLA Curriculum POL were
minimally recognised as having curriculum leadership responsibility and Pastoral POL
less again. Harris’s (2008) advice that whatever leadership is adopted should be
primarily about having a positive influence on student learning seemed to ring true in
intention but not practice. Ordinary daily school life saw curriculum leadership focused
on a small and narrow group within each school and each of the schools saw no problem
with this.
The curriculum services were non-KLA or Domain roles and were amongst the least
identified as having curriculum leadership responsibility distributed to them. The
specialised and unfamiliar nature of these roles set them apart and there existed a lack of
clarity and certainty about how they could or should fit with the curriculum coordinator.
198
I am accountable to the curriculum coordinator, I think my role comes under
theirs, but I’m pretty independent.... Because part of my role is I don’t fit in with
anyone anywhere (POLCB4).
There was a sense that these roles performed curriculum related duties rather than
curriculum leadership. Leithwood, Mascall and Strauss’ (2009) view that distributed
leadership responsibilities need to be about actual leadership and not tasks or duties
being distributed. Consequently the curriculum coordinators clearly needed to work
differently with these roles to build the capacity of curriculum leadership in their school.
What works best for maintaining whole school curriculum in the current manner does
seem to be well served by a ‘coordination’ approach rather than a leadership one.
The curriculum coordinators each claimed to adhere to a distributive leadership practice

themselves, but a lack of strategic clarity existed from them about this and if it was
having a positive effect and was worth doing. Perceptions on leadership being
distributed at school C reflected a closer consistency with leadership interactions rather
than the actions (Harris, 2008). Whilst the renewed leadership structure at the school
promoted a model of distributed responsibility, whether that practice actually occurred
consistently was questionable. The belief in the new structure creating a distributed
model of middle leadership was strong in rhetoric; however the new leadership structure
was not yet fully understood by all. The new structure has meant that distributed
leadership was narrowed to a smaller number of formal more senior leaders. One of the
factors that might impact on the flow-on effect of the distributive curriculum leadership
at school C could have been the processes in place (or lack thereof) for the next tier of
curriculum leaders at each year level. Whilst many interviewees described the design of
the new leadership structure as a distributed model, no-one described it operating this
way. The change of structure in formal positions of leadership runs the risk of being
little more than title changes if daily practice does not transparently and strategically
change also.
199
The version of distributed leadership at school B was heavily reliant upon a line
management structure that provided direction to middle leaders by the senior leader –
the curriculum coordinator:
I’m really relying on the curriculum coordinator to give me information on how
to direct my KLA (POLCB2).
This distributed leadership scenario is certainly not one of shared responsibility (Harris,
2008), but rather in Fink’s (2005) terms, one where POL were given directions and not
the power of authority to empower staff as leaders themselves.
The situation at school A was similar, but deeply bound to a school culture that
explicitly espoused a ‘shared covenant of values’ that for them was interpreted as
distributing leadership. Their shared Brigidine values were seen to guide all leadership
practices and relationships, including distributing curriculum leadership across the
school. In this context distributed curriculum leadership was perceived as upholding
shared values and attitudes. It supported the view of Hargraves and Shirley (2009) who
identify the necessity for a compelling and inclusive moral purpose in the distribution of
leadership. The manner in which the perceived distribution of curriculum leadership
occurred at school A was explicitly through formal middle leaders and implicitly with all
staff through relationships based on mutual trust and respect.
A general intention of involving others in leading curriculum was evident at each of the
schools and they each had a POL leadership structure that theoretically did this. Whether
involvement in curriculum leadership actually extended to empowering others to be
leaders for curriculum, rather than managers of changes directed by the curriculum
coordinator was questionable. An examination of the formal leadership structures at
each school unpacked structural features of how curriculum leadership responsibility
was distributed. Southworth’s (2009) description of “simply sharing leadership” was
more evident in practice and philosophy at each of the schools than authentic distributive
leadership. As such the coordination of curriculum tasks had a much greater emphasis
than leadership for strategic improvement.
200
Transformational and Instructional leadership
The curriculum coordinators in each of the schools were looked to by others to provide a
guiding vision for learning and teaching in their schools. Despite an inability of most
interviewees to articulate what this vision was they overwhelmingly believed the
curriculum coordinator had one for their school. This was commonly described as the
curriculum coordinator ‘directing’ how the school would achieve externally imposed
government requirements rather than shaping the vision for learning as espoused by
Davies (2005, 2008), Gurr (2001) and Leithwood and Duke (1999) . Teachers and POL
holders wanted the curriculum coordinator to specifically and explicitly direct their work
in a way that eliminated ambiguity. Subsequently there was evidence of a deferral of
leadership for contemporary learning to this one senior leadership role in the school,
rather than a transformational approach that engaged others in a community of learning.
...it’s really important that somebody is making sure that people are working
towards a common goal, trying to keep the students at the centre of that (CTA1).
This view reiterated Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) assertion that what people look for in
their leaders is explicit direction and concern for the future of the organisation. The
importance of the personal integrity and charisma of the individual person who was the
curriculum coordinator was also evident and confirmed the findings of Davies (2005),
Leithwood and Duke (1999) and Leithwood and Jantzi (2005). The person rather than
the strategic enterprise consistently dominated perceptions of how the role of the
curriculum coordinator should be and was performed. This reinforced personal support
for the curriculum coordinators and built personal allegiance. It did not foster a
collective strategic effort towards school improvement.
Changes to curriculum coordinator titles to Director of Learning or Learning and

Teaching Coordinator indicated some effort to change the focus of the position in terms
of public profile. No rationale was evident for the title changes and it had no overt
significance for interviewees. Such title changes could highlight pedagogical leadership
rather than administrative; however, in the schools examined this was not seen to have
altered perception or function of the role. It was seen to be a broad, senior and
201
significant one focused on the formal curriculum and student learning, but more
concerned with coordinating the functions of the role than leading for innovation.
There was little explicit interest in curriculum coordinators being instructional leaders as
described by Leithwood, Anderson, Mascall and Strauss (2010).The extent to which the
curriculum coordination role in its existing design impacted on learning improvement
was an unasked question. Impacting on teacher professional learning as a feature of
instructional leadership was evidenced, but it featured as a management and organisation
responsibility of the curriculum coordinator at schools A and B rather than as a
performance and development concept. Hattie’s (2009) factors of instructional
leadership that have an effect on student outcomes which were clearly not observable in
this research are the planning, coordinating and evaluating of teaching. The curriculum
coordinators did not expect to directly observe learning and teaching in individual
classrooms as instructional leaders of the curriculum, and interviewees did not expect
them to. There remained a strict code of not interfering in teacher’s classroom territory.
Subsequently, their capacity to lead ‘instructionally’ seemed then to be curtailed by a
number of factors, ‘principal leadership directing the whole school leadership
philosophy’, a lack of instructional leadership skills and knowledge, and a lack of a
strategic approach to school improvement.

This section discusses perceptions of the role of the curriculum coordinator in relation to
curriculum in the contemporary school. It explores global trends, vision and direction,
change management and qualities of effective leadership and how they variously built,
sustained or hindered the curriculum coordinator’s leadership.
Global Trends
In the most straightforward sense contemporary schooling in the twenty-first century is

the antithesis of the industrial model for education (Caldwell, 2006; Hargreaves, 2009;
202
Lawton, 2003; Matthews, 2009). A more complex view suggests that schools are
learning communities that focus on continuous improvement and are motivated to better
understand what it is to learn and how to best learn (Caldwell, 2005; Crowther,
Fergurson and Hann, 2009; Davies, 2006; Fullan, 2006, 2010; Hill and Crevola, 2000;
Lawton, 2003; NCSL, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Stoll, Fink and Earl, 2003). Participants in
this research demonstrated a narrow view of contemporary schooling, viewing the
concept of twenty-first century education as mainly minor innovation in subject content
and teaching methodology.
Curriculum coordinators in the case study schools were consistently described as having
expertise around curriculum framework content and structured change, and this is what
was seen to constitute their knowledge of global trends. In addition to ‘knowing’ new
information, curriculum coordinators were perceived to be effective leaders if they
filtered information and distributed a synthesised version of it to staff. A culture of the
curriculum coordinator almost taking sole responsibility for organisational learning
around global trends in the first instance was quite alarming. It suggested a deficit in
organisational culture and meant the curriculum coordinators were to a large extent
isolated pilots of curriculum reform in their school. They ventured into the seas of the
broader educational community often alone or only with one or two others from their
school. They brought back what they thought was the best offerings to enhance the
already existing curriculum at their school and then went about the task of convincing
others. They were then expected to be expert guides; assisting POL holders and teachers
to find a way to accommodate the essence of global trends in contemporary schooling in
the easiest way. As a result, a reluctance to embrace change ideas that were not pre-
tested seemed to exist and hinder the curriculum coordinator’s leadership as they were
attempting to balance the new without dislodging too much of the old.
A positive aspect of the curriculum coordinator role in the case study schools was that
there was someone bringing new ideas from outside back into the school. The individual
responsibility attributed to the curriculum coordinator to gather and share information is
however contrary to the literature that espouses effective learning organisations as places
203
where all stakeholders are a part of this (Bell and Bolam, 2010; Hill and Crevola, 2000).
Whilst the strategic leadership literature does identify the need for individuals to bring
knowledge and ideas into an organisation (Davies, 2006), it does not promote the ‘lone
ranger’ mode of operating that seems to be relied upon at the case study schools.
Curriculum coordinators are relied upon by their colleagues to have expertise that brings
global reform initiatives to their school in the form of:
• updating the teaching personnel’s educational theory and reform knowledge,
• departmental and sector initiatives and requirements and
• context specific expertise about how initiatives best apply to their school setting.
Their educational expertise was commonly expected to be in the form of ‘gate keeper’
for the school. Their capacity to know and respond to the implications of change
initiatives in a way that protects the local context was highly regarded. The differences
observed between schools about how well the gate keeping occurred was slight but
highlighted an alignment between years of experience in the role and perceived
capability. Years of experience in the role was both a support and a hindrance depending
on context.
Having a vision and setting directions

Communicating a vision and future directions for learning and teaching was expected of
the curriculum coordinator and was perceived to build and sustain their leadership
profile. In what breadth and depth they did this varied, as did interviewee recall of the
vision, which was an indicator of the extent the vision was actually embedded in the
school.
An energy and enthusiasm for student learning was interpreted as curriculum vision at
school A. Because the curriculum coordinator was seen as having a passion and moral
commitment to their school and high intellectual capacity, interviewees assumed and
trusted that they had a vision. Subsequently the curriculum coordinator enjoyed high
personal professional regard from their colleagues and was seen to care deeply about
student learning. Their vision was however a non-strategic one drawn from informal
observation, conversation and intuition rather than strategic design. There was an
204
alignment between how this curriculum coordinator was perceived to perform their role
with the personal demeanour aspects of leadership identified by Stoll, Fink and Earl
(2003), however, it did not evolve into a vision for strategic directions, goals and
growth. Fink’s (2005) contention that those who follow want to know that their leader
has a purposeful direction was seen to be somewhat true, however, there was a desired
‘blinkedness’ about just how involved non-senior leaders in particular want to be in the
vision. There was little evidence of inviting others in the school into strategic goal
setting for improvement centred on the vision as recommended by educational
researchers in the last decade (Davies, 2006; Fullan, 2006; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005).
An anomaly did emerge in that interviewees from the school saw the vision of the
curriculum coordinator building and sustaining their leadership, but when compared to
the educational literature this was an area of relative weaknesses that constrained their
leadership for school improvement.
Interviewee groups at school B presented varied perceptions of the importance of vision

to the role of the curriculum coordinator. There was some recognition of it having a ‘big
picture’ impact on the school but it appeared not to be embedded in daily school life.
The curriculum coordinator appeared to be generally supported but they were isolated in
their attempts to develop and instil a vision for curriculum.
The in-principle significance of vision and direction in the role of the curriculum
coordinator was supported at school C and was seen to build their leadership profile and
capacity. Understanding of what a vision for curriculum meant was however generally
restricted to alignment with externally imposed curriculum change and accountability.
There was a vocal pursuit of improved learning at the school which was connected to the
curriculum coordinator role, but not seen as driven by them. This aspect of the vision
was instead more like a generic catch cry stemming from the principal and echoed by
others, including the curriculum coordinator. So whilst there was an intimation of
instructional leadership (Hattie, 2009) and a hint of strategic leadership (Davies, 2006),
neither were prominent in the leadership of the curriculum coordinator. As the least
experienced of the curriculum coordinators they relied most heavily on the tangible
205
accountabilities to inform their leadership of the vision and set directions as a way of
sustaining their own leadership confidence.
Change Management
Curriculum coordinators in each of the case study schools were consistently connected
with and concerned about change. Their leadership capacity was commonly measured
against how they were perceived to cope with it. Their awareness of, responsibility for
and response to change on behalf of their school was seen as building their leadership
capacity, but it was also seen as a hindrance. There was a tendency to see change in a
more negative than positive light, and subsequently, whilst the curriculum coordinators
were perceived to cope with externally driven change, they were not generally seen to
willingly embrace it or be energised by it. An anomaly of this research is that whilst the
curriculum coordinators were seen to some extent to resist change that was not of their
own initiative (a position endorsed by their colleagues), they were still seen as being
effective leaders of change in their schools. Whilst they demonstrated a number of the
qualities recognised by the NSCL (2009a) research on school leadership approaches to
change which promote an optimistic outlook, there was not consistent evidence that they
shared an optimistic outlook for change themselves. The NCSL (2009a) findings
reported that in the current era of rapid change school leaders need to be able to
collaborate, adapt, explain, synthesise, model, personalise and localise. The curriculum
coordinators in this study were perceived to have these capabilities in general terms, but
none-the-less they did not present a positive view of change in their leadership roles.
This might be explained in part by them often being reactionary rather than innovators
for strategic change and improvement themselves. The curriculum coordinators were
often seen to react to the inevitability of change (Deal and Peterson, 2009; Kelly, 2004,
NCSL, 2009a) and whilst perceptions of them coping with change in a reactionary way
was a sustaining factor in their leadership, change itself was perceived as a hindrance.
The curriculum coordinator at school B described knowledge as a key component in

change and critical in their role, which reflected the findings of Hartle and Hobby
(2003). Acquiring change related knowledge was seen by them as passing on of
206
information and in so doing passing on of the momentum to bring about change. One of
the factors associated with and hampering the change the curriculum coordinator
managed at school B was the size of the school.
...this school is incredibly, I won’t say bureaucratic, but it’s very administrative
and it’s very large and the juggernaut doesn’t turn quickly (CTB1).
One of the consistent themes relating to the curriculum coordinator’s management of
change at school B was a resistance to the speed and quantity of change and a desire for
it to be controlled and held at bay if possible. Such a mindset to change was contrary to
the advice of Fullan (2001) who warns against seeing change as a checklist and Stoll,
Fink and Earl (2003) who advise that change is a roller coaster and schools and their
leaders need to ‘get on board’.
Leadership as service in a learning community (Sergiovanni, 1998, 1999a, 2005, 2009)

was relevant to change for the curriculum coordinator at school A more than any of the
other schools. Their capacity to cope with change was readily seen as a capacity building
strength in their leadership, because they were seen as capable of interpreting change for
their school and their teachers. The perception of externally imposed change was seen in
a negative light and as a result the curriculum coordinator’s ability to make ‘it’ easier for
others was a considerable strength which sustained their leadership profile. O’Neil’s
(2003) strong connection between support and communication in the management of
change was consistent with how this curriculum coordinator was seen to lead in relation
to change. Perceptions of change at school A reflect the warnings of West-Burnham
(2009) about change being daunting, but rejects the advice of Fullan (2001) who suggests
that for improvement to occur change must be chaotic. School A’s approach to externally
imposed curriculum change seemed to be midway between reluctantly enforcing change
and ignoring it. Such an approach whilst appearing to build supportive leader-teacher
relationships ran the risk of failing to build capacity for learning (Stoll, Bolam and
Collarbone, 2002). Externally imposed change with any sense of authoritarianism in
particular was resisted at school A, the grounding for this view was a consistently anti-
authoritarian mindset.
207
In contrast, school C’s leadership team members presented a much greater confidence in
their organisational capacity to deal with change, almost wearing it as a badge of pride.
Whilst the curriculum coordinator was not attributed with the creation of the school’s
self-perceived robust attitude to absorbing change, they were expected to operate within
it. There was an implication that their capacity to wear the “roll with the punches” badge
of change was an indication of their leadership capacity. Hill and Crevola’s (2000)
approach to change as a constant, and Stoll, Fink and Earl’s (2003) belief that change
cannot be hidden from, are reflected in the espoused attitude to change at school C. The
dangers of change when it was not managed were however also evident. Like school A,
they reflected the need for change management to be about engaging people in it and not
just surviving it.
Curriculum coordinators were held with a strong positive regard, as interviewees

believed they understood the implications of change and were able to make sense of it
for them in their school setting. This sentiment reflects what Fullan (2010) describes as
connecting peers to purposeful change. It is also evident that there was an experience of
strong moral purpose in the way support was provided (Bullock, 2009; James, 2003).
The factor that was consistently missing; however, was the strategic intent in relation to
change (Davies, 2006). An emphasis on helping individuals cope specifically to their
personal needs overrode any greater organisational or student learning outcome
objectives in change initiatives. There was an absence of meaningful goal setting,
transparent targets and intended outcomes in any of the descriptions of the purpose and
vision associated with changes. Educational policy reforms experienced in Victorian
schools over the last two decades include the Curriculum Standards Framework (CSF) I
and II, the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS), and Australian National
Curriculum. The curriculum coordinators were acknowledged as the faces of these
reforms in each of their schools, but they were mainly presented as reactors to them
rather than being activists for strategic improvement through their implementation. The
consequence of this was, among other things, that their schools were more inclined to
approach change as something to be coped with in the first instance, endured as the
implications are unpacked, and eventually absorbed into current practice. This follows
208
the pattern identified in the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) of change for
individuals that recognises the need to support people through seven phases of change
(Horsley, 2005). The first of these phases being focused on how individuals see change
and themselves and only when issues relating to self and change are resolved do
individuals consider matters of change and impact on other factors such as student
learning.
Qualities of Effective Leadership - Engaging Others and Forging Relationships

The personal and professional qualities of the curriculum coordinator were perceived to
be important factors that built and sustained their leadership capacity. This included the
capacity to engage others in matters of school curriculum and foster interpersonal
relationships. The importance of leaders having interpersonal skills in this study further
confirmed these same findings in research about the leadership needed in the
contemporary world. Stoll, Bolam and Collarbone (2002), Fullan (2006, 2010), Hartle
and Hobby (2003), James (2003), NCSL (2007, 2009b, 2010), Sergiovanni (1998, 2009)
and West-Burnham (2009) each recognise the capacity to relate to those being led in
their own context as a fundamental necessity of leadership. This research confirmed
relationships as key in curriculum coordination leadership, but also revealed that
relationships (and people in general) are also a hindrance to leadership. The commitment
of time to building and sustaining relationships was presented as the key factor making
relationship building difficult. Perceptions of not having enough time and having too
many things to do in the available time compounded all of the other complexities
involved in building and sustaining relationships with colleagues.
Interviewees across the case study schools who generally placed the greatest
significance on engaging others were the middle leaders and teachers. They identified
fostering relationships, sharing information and collaborating as the strategies the
curriculum coordinator undertook in their work to engage others. When these were seen
as being done the curriculum coordinator’s leadership profile was built and / or
sustained. The way interviewees preferred curriculum coordinators to engage others
revealed a consistent bias towards a transformational leadership approach and an implied
209
aversion to the curriculum coordinator being an instructional leader. As previously
discussed, this research has uncovered a lack of strategic intent and clarity in visions for
learning and teaching, but revealed a strong sentiment of ‘trust based on shared good
intentions’ as a foundation to professional relationships.
Fostering relationships with middle leaders was an important dimension of the

curriculum coordinator engaging others and was commonly aligned with the formal
leadership structures at each of the schools. The influence of structures noted by
interviewees confirmed Busher’s (2006) findings on middle leaders and the
organisational structures that shape their leadership. In particular line management up
and down organisational structures in parallel with personal relationships with
colleagues was seen to be problematic. Strong personal relationships were at times
viewed by those outside of these to establish a professional bias towards an ‘in crowd’.
Those who shared a personal relationship with the curriculum coordinator saw
themselves offering empathetic support for a perennially busy leader and friend. The
perceptions of personal relationships influencing leadership decisions were more
prominent in the case study schools where the curriculum coordinator was a woman.
Curriculum coordinators’ relationships with middle leaders were seen as positive from a
sharing and distributing leadership responsibilities perspective and negative in terms of
accountability and performance. Curriculum coordinators themselves did not however
see possible tensions in relationships regarding accountability and performance as
hindering their leadership. How they saw fostering relationships as important was
commonly referred to as shared values driving a desire to ‘make things better’ for the
students, based on ‘friendly relationships’ with like minded colleagues. Curriculum
coordinators did not identify an explicit strategic intent for improving student learning
outcomes through building relationships such as Davies (2006) promotes. There was no
desire to have a formal performance management function in their professional
relationships.
Positive comments on the fostering of relationships by and with the curriculum
210
coordinator were obvious in this research, in particular at schools A and B where there
was a strong familiarity with the person in the role. There was some suggestion that at
the two larger schools (B and C), that relationships were not intentionally fostered with
all staff because size makes this difficult, which is consistent with Darling-Hammond’s
(2009) view on the complexities of large schools. The size of the staffs, busyness of the
curriculum coordination role and there appearing to be not enough time to spend in
fostering relationships were raised as hindrances to sustaining the curriculum
coordinator’s leadership. Negative comments mainly came from those without POL, this
suggested that the connection between curriculum coordinators as senior leaders and
teachers was distanced and remained a hierarchical relationship. Hess and Robinson
(2006) suggest that such a situation inhibits building the capacity of the whole school
community and this has some serious implications for school wide improvement in
learning and teaching.
Formal forums, such as heads of learning or curriculum meetings, operated in each of

the schools and provided places for middle leaders and the curriculum coordinators to
engage. These were commonly perceived to be forums where information was shared or
distributed. Whilst they potentially engaged members of them, they also locked non-
leaders out of the formal learning and teaching dialog. Such structures, whilst logical,
highlighted a blocker to what Collinson and Cook (2007) describe as the necessity to
form an organisational climate that engages all. The opportunity for non-leaders to form
a meaningful professional relationship with the curriculum coordinator was only evident
at school A, the smallest of the three case study schools.
The qualities of effective curriculum coordination leadership evident in this research

surrounded engaging others and forging relationships. When perceived to be doing both
of these well, the curriculum coordinator’s leadership capacity was built and sustained.
The main factor contributing to such capacity related to school size. At school A, the
smallest of the schools, the curriculum coordinator was expected to share information
with all staff, and the POL hierarchy was to some extent bypassed on some whole school
learning and teaching matters. At school B, the largest of the schools, the curriculum
211
coordinator was seen to give some information at a whole school level, but shared
information and collaborated mainly with middle leaders. At school C, with its new
leadership structure, the curriculum coordinator worked closely constructing information
and understanding its significance to their school mainly with the four domain leaders.
Leadership heavily reliant upon relationships for engagement, as was revealed to some
extent in this research, is consistent with Stoll, Fink and Earl’s (2003) humanity of
leadership and Sergiovanni’s (1998) development of human capital. What it does not do
is make clear a strategic improvement intent through the building of relationships by the
curriculum coordinator. As a result there was an implication that relationships can be
both a hindrance and a support depending on how and why the curriculum coordinator
forms and maintains them.
The role of the curriculum coordinators in contributing to school improvement is

discussed in the context of school improvement as implemented in the Catholic sector in
the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The fact that the three case study schools, had not
undertaken the School Improvement Framework (SIF) at the time of the research,
proved to be a significant factor in interviewee understanding of the concept of strategic
school improvement and how the curriculum coordinator contributed to it.
School Improvement
A significant finding of this research surrounded perceptions about school improvement
and curriculum coordination leadership. There was a generally consistent lack of clarity
about what school improvement meant at the whole school level and more specifically in
relation to the role of the curriculum coordinator. An almost complete absence of an
evidence-based approach to improvement planning meant that interviewees heavily
referenced intuition as the reason for pursuing some things in learning and teaching and
not others.
212
The research into school improvement, originating in parallel with the research into
school effectiveness, is premised on the basic idea of schooling seeking to improve the
level of student achievement (Oski, 2010). The distinction between effectiveness and
improvement whilst not explicitly explored in this research has become apparent as
relevant to the findings. Bollen (1996) drew a distinction between these two concepts
that is helpful in understanding the positioning of the three schools. School effectiveness
is characterised as taking a picture of a school and comparing another school to it and
improvement is about telling stories about development and improvement in schools. In
each of the schools there existed a genuine commitment to providing an effective
education for students’, ‘what’s best for our students’ was echoed across schools and
interviewee groups as being a motivating factor in school decision-making. The factors
that were commonly described as contributing to efforts to be an ‘effective school’
ranged from learning focused on skills and knowledge, to care for personal wellbeing
and nurturing faith development. Interviewees frequently described a sense of the whole
school seeking to improve, they mainly did not describe changed practices which
resulted from strategic improvement initiatives. The focus was overwhelmingly on
‘comparing pictures of their school’ rather than on what had strategically taken place
over time to improve student experience.
How curriculum coordinators, or those they lead, know when they have achieved what
they wanted to achieve was largely subjective rather than evidence-based. There was a
consistent lack of reference to an evidence-based approach to improvement at each of
the schools. It was interesting to note that none of the case study school sites had at the
time of the research undertaken the CEOM SIF review process. This factor may have
contributed to the lack of familiarity with the philosophy, processes and focus of
strategic school improvement planning. This process is now commonly experienced in
Catholic schools in Melbourne as a result of the Victorian Registration and
Qualifications Authority (VRQA) requirements administered by the Catholic Education
Commission of Victoria (CECV) through the SIF. Having general goals and seeking an
improved vision for the future was evident, but these were not revealed as driving the
vision of any of the schools. None of the schools expected or wanted to remain
213
unchanged; they just didn’t have a transparent framework to be strategic about
improvement, nor an approach that enabled curriculum coordinators to be strategic
leading forces in it. Overwhelmingly the sense of how curriculum coordinators
contributed to whole school improvement was general and relied heavily on their
personal qualities.
Having a vision for learning and teaching commonly took the place of improvement
planning in the thinking of interviewees. There was a belief that there was a vision for
learning and teaching at each of the schools and that the curriculum coordinator was
mainly responsible for shaping this. How this vision translated into school improvement
in daily school life was less clear. To some extent it was thought to be the improvement
plan. Areas of learning priority, general annual goal setting and working towards
clarified curriculum processes were the most common examples given of vision and
were often associated with externally imposed reform changes. They were not described
by any of the interviewees as strategically mapped out or enacted through the curriculum
coordinator’s leadership.
The greatest clarity on the school’s improvement planning came from members of the
schools’ leadership teams. Suggesting perhaps that any improvement agenda the school
did have was centred on senior leadership and this could be a significant reason why
there wasn’t a school wide common language for strategic improvement. There existed a
focus from this group of interviewees on school improvement as development planning
(Davies and Ellison, 1999) more than a sustained strategic approach to improvement
(Davies, 2006). As a result curriculum focused actions were not seen to be targeted or a
part of a bigger plan for school improvement. Task completion, such as aligning learning
programs with VELS in documentation, was commonly represented as an action for
improvement. It was described by interviewees as their observation of the achievement
of milestones or completed projects. Areas such as literacy, ICT and timetable
organisation were named as areas where recently improvement efforts have been
focused and ‘actions’ were known to have taken place. The curriculum coordinators in
each of the schools was perceived as being associated with, but not key catalysts of, such
214
improvement foci. Specialists in these areas were seen as independent drivers for
improvement in these areas. Even though they were part of the bigger learning and
teaching picture they were not explicitly identified as working under the direction of the
curriculum coordinator.
Aligning the people, the organisation and the strategy was the point at which strategic
leadership for improvement became less evident in the case study schools. The
curriculum coordinator was perceived as working with their curriculum team and
depending on whether the interviewee was from within or outside this team, there was
some alignment to improvement effort. Davies (2006) final two strategic approaches,
determining effective strategic intervention points and developing strategic capabilities
within the school, were not evident in descriptions of the curriculum coordinators’
leadership for school improvement at any of the schools. The curriculum coordinators
were not empowered to have whole school improvement strategic influence. They were
seen as responsible for learning and teaching, but there remained a demarcation of the
sphere of their influence despite them having leadership responsibility that impacted
across the whole school. The implications of this absence of informed school
improvement were unnoticed by the schools themselves.
Summary of Findings
The findings of this research reveal a large number of commonalities between the three
schools about the expectations and experiences of curriculum coordination leadership.
Various aspects of the body of wider educational leadership literature are supported,
however overwhelmingly this case study research found that curriculum coordination
leadership did not have a focus on improvement of learning and teaching in a holistic
and strategic sense. The concerns of Hill and Crevola (2000) about schools struggling to
accommodate waves of reform appeared still to be evident. A mindset around
curriculum, learning and teaching and the role of curriculum leadership remaining
steeped in practices aligned with an industrial model of schooling (Caldwell, 2006)
pervaded daily leadership practice. The commitment of the curriculum coordinators and
the personnel in their schools to provide effective schooling was not in question, but the
215
role and purpose of curriculum leadership in the curriculum coordinator as a senior
leadership role was generally unclear and without consensus. There are seven key
findings of this research into the leadership role of the curriculum coordinator in
Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.
How curriculum coordinators, senior leaders and teachers perceive the role of the
curriculum coordinator
What ‘the curriculum’ was understood to mean was overwhelmingly the formal program
for subjects offered in the school. The curriculum coordinator role was seen to be the
arbiter of said curriculum and as a result they were restricted in their capacity to have
influence as instructional leaders. Having such a conservative definition of curriculum
and using the title of curriculum coordinator placed a particular emphasis on the ‘meso’-
school level curriculum (van den Akker, 2004), in the eyes of teachers and middle
leaders in particular. School compliance with the implementation of the VELS
curriculum framework significantly magnified attention on the connection between
curriculum coordination and curriculum documentation. Furthermore, the requirements
to implement VELS and its association with ratings based assessment and reporting
created a sense of ‘curriculum’ coordination leadership being overwhelmingly busy,
taxing and management oriented. As a result the more liberal perceptions of curriculum
being about students’ learning and growing into adulthood (Kelly, 2004; Ladson-
Billings & Brown, 2008; Wiles, 2007) did not feature heavily in interviewees’ mindsets
about what the curriculum coordinator focused on.
There was no consensus on the role of the curriculum coordinator as a senior leader,
despite the commonalities in narrowly defining what the curriculum was. There was a
dedicated senior leadership role named curriculum coordinator, or another similar title,
and this role was responsible for ensuring the mandated curriculum at each of the
schools existed. What they did as a leader outside of this accountability aspect of their
role was as diverse as each of the schools was different. The nature of these features
varied considerably based on the school’s local historical precedent for the curriculum
coordinator role; broader school leadership structures, the philosophy which
216
underpinned leadership at the school and the role of the principal, as well as the personal
qualities, skills and attributes of the curriculum coordinator. Each of these factors even
when common between schools was experienced in a unique way. What the curriculum
coordinator did in each of the case study schools was often a set of duties, a checklist of
requirements for ensuring curriculum compliance at the school, or general curriculum
management. Active leadership of a vision for curriculum for improving student
learning outcomes across the school was evident in thinking and philosophising about
the curriculum coordination role, but the actual performance of the role did not reflect
this as an active focus. The extent to which operational and management duties caused a
hindrance to the curriculum coordination leadership was evident, but different across
schools and interviewee perceptions. Observations of general busyness or dealing with
the messiness and complexity of multiple tasks relating to curriculum within reporting
and assessment timelines were common. The curriculum coordination role was expected
to deal with these factors and they were seen to take up considerable time, seemingly
pushing out time for active instructional leadership of a clear vision for strategic
improvement in learning and teaching.
Factors that contribute to, or hinder, sustaining and building the leadership of the
curriculum coordinator
A highly valued feature of the curriculum coordination leadership in each of the case
study schools was the person in the role having and demonstrating management of the
curriculum in alignment with the local context. Adaption of externally imposed
curriculum initiatives to local needs that reflected an awareness and responsiveness to
local priorities was a strongly held expectation. This capacity to represent and protect
local conditions was commonly articulated in a way that could be described as a desire
for the curriculum coordinator to demonstrate territorial pride. The belief in the
‘uniqueness’ of the learners, their learning needs and the school was commonly shared
across all schools and interviewee groups. The curriculum coordinator was expected to
be knowledgeable about global trends but to filter ideas and act as ‘gate keeper’. At
times they were expected to resist external ideas about learning and teaching innovation
to protect staff from being overwhelmed and to ‘stand up’ for local priorities. This
217
mindset made them powerful knowledge brokers in their schools with a high level of
professional trust placed in their decision making. There was generally a blending of
interviewee understanding of global education trends and educational compliance. As a
result, how the curriculum coordinator responded as a leader to these staff was similarly
confused. To some extent leadership of curriculum was seen as the responsibility of a
number of formal leaders in the school, including the principal, however
overwhelmingly the responsibility to ensure the school was ‘on track’ in learning and
teaching was abdicated to the curriculum coordinator role and was largely a matter of
management. The idea of shared or distributed leadership was interpreted in action as
directed responsibility more than anything else. The principals at two of the schools
were seen as influences on the curriculum and were variously seen as knowledgeable in
learning and teaching, but they were mostly not seen as curriculum leaders at their
schools.
Change and people were generally perceived to be the greatest hindrance to the
curriculum coordinator’s leadership. This was problematic for a curriculum coordination
role that sought to bring about improvement for students in their school, because change
is fundamental to improving the current situation and the only way to bring about
change is through people. Both change and people were observed to take up much time
and energy, a view which was underscored by what was a personal tentativeness about
change themselves in the case of most interviewees. The association of the curriculum
coordination role with change was most commonly aligned with current and future
change imposed from external authorities. It carried with it a general but not overriding
downbeat tone about external interference, but positivity towards the curriculum
coordinator ‘making the most of it’. To a degree this view of change management in
curriculum coordination is contrary to the findings of the NCSL (2009a) research about
how all leaders need to be change managers. Rather than being innovators for change
and improvement themselves the curriculum coordinators were seen to react to what
educational researchers commonly view as the inevitability of change (Caldwell, 2005,
Davies, 2006, Fullan, 2001, 2010). Seeing change as mainly doing the same things
somewhat differently was perhaps prevalent because the ‘buy in’ to change had not
218
occurred at a strategic improvement level. There was a conspicuous absence of thinking
or talking about evidence as a catalyst for curriculum change. This suggested the
learning outcomes data available to all schools via NAPLAN and VCAA was not
utilised to inform a strategic approach to curriculum change. The reasons for doing new
or innovative things at each of the schools was described and rationalised as instinctive
rather than strategic. This created some inherent problems if the role of the curriculum
coordinator was to have strategic improvement influence.
Providing clarity around the vision and future directions for learning and teaching was
an expectation held for the curriculum coordinators and perceived to build leadership
capacity at each of the case study schools. The responsibility for this in the eyes of the
curriculum coordinators themselves was a collective one, but the details around this
remain general. Middle level leaders with targeted curriculum leadership roles in key
learning areas or domains were associated with the vision. The input they had into
shaping it was unclear, more commonly they “followed through” with the curriculum
vision initiatives implementation. The principal in each of the schools was clearly
identified as the person to whom the curriculum coordinator was ultimately accountable.
Their role in whole school curriculum coordination leadership was not clear in two of
the schools and in the third they were closely connected to it and relied upon by the
curriculum coordinator. For other interviewees the curriculum coordinator was the face
and voice of the learning and teaching vision at their school and others connected to
formal curriculum leadership carried out their directions. Vision and future directions for
curriculum were described as announcements rather than strategic directions responding
to current and emerging learning needs. It was in this aspect of curriculum coordination
leadership in the case study schools that instructional leadership was most lacking. The
translation of curriculum vision and directions into classroom practice remained a
distinctly private affair. The middle level curriculum leaders as intermediaries between
senior leadership and classroom teachers maintained this status quo. As a result their
existed little formal accountability for change as a response to vision and little desire to
address this formally as a performance issue. Whilst providing vision and direction for
219
others was seen as a way the curriculum coordinators built a strong profile for their
leadership, this research has also found that the details of the vision are lacking clarity.
The personal qualities of the curriculum coordinator were perceived to be factors

influencing their role performance as a professional. These qualities included engaging
others and fostering relationships in a way that demonstrated strong interpersonal skills.
Being personable and personally engaging with teachers and middle leaders both
personally and professionally was generally identified as important and also experienced
by interviewees. A tone of respect for the person in the role was consistently evident and
this positive perception influenced how their professional role performance was viewed.
Interviewees having experience of positive interactions with the curriculum coordinator
was observably a key factor in how they built and sustained their leadership capacity
How curriculum coordinators contribute to school improvement

A significant finding of this research surrounds perceptions about school improvement
and curriculum coordination leadership. There was a generally consistent lack of clarity
about what strategic school improvement meant at the whole school level and more
specifically in relation to the role of the curriculum coordinator. There existed a strong
motivation and commitment to improving the curriculum but little or no strategic
framework for this to occur. Subsequently interviewees did not articulate an
understanding of the strategic improvement directions for curriculum. Nor did there
seem to be a common and school wide improvement agenda beyond change innovation.
This is a significant concern for the future development and influence of the role of the
curriculum coordinator and the capacity of schools to improve learning outcomes for
students.
Recommendations for Further Research

There are five key recommendations for further research in relation to curriculum
coordination leadership as a result of this research. These five recommendations are
listed below in brief and then explained in further detail following the list.
220
1. That the findings of this study be tested in schools which have implemented a
school improvement planning framework.
2. That secondary school position of leadership structures be examined in relation
to how they relate to the curriculum coordinator role.
3. That the influence of curriculum coordination leadership on student learning
outcomes be investigated.
4. That how the role of curriculum coordinator can be better supported be
investigated.
5. That curriculum coordination leadership as a dimension of all senior leadership
roles, rather than an individual and distinct position in senior leadership teams be
investigated
In relation to recommendation one: researching perceptions of curriculum coordination

leadership in a school setting where an explicit school improvement framework is in
operation, would offer further insight. The extent to which such improvement
frameworks impact on curriculum coordination leadership for strategic improvement
would be of value. An examination of curriculum coordination in schools where the
language of strategic improvement is explicit could offer greater insight into how
curriculum leadership can add to a school improvement. This case study research has
revealed a deficit in strategic school improvement thinking, planning and language in
each of the case study schools in general and in relation to curriculum improvement.
This makes an evaluation of how curriculum coordinators influence improvement as
leaders difficult to ascertain. Whilst the application of the CEOM SIF, as a structural
model for school improvement, is unlikely to change this quickly, it would be useful to
the Catholic sector and to schools to gain a better understanding as to whether it does.
Furthermore, the extent to which the SIF or other models for school improvement offer
direction and support to curriculum coordinators to improve the learning experiences of
students as a result of their leadership could be valuable.
In relation to recommendation two: the existence of a curriculum coordination role and

its hierarchical positioning in schools has been little researched. Despite this the role was
221
found to be well entrenched in the case study schools’ leadership structures and
anecdotally this is also the case across the sector in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The
design of the role at each school was however largely context reliant and specifically
tailored to the person holding the position. The role of curriculum coordinator as senior
leader needs some clarification, but this is also a matter of wider clarification of
leadership philosophy, structures and protocols at a whole school level. The curriculum
coordination role in relation to the formal secondary school leadership structures and
how it adds value to leading contemporary schools is an area of research that could add
to the field of educational leadership. At the sector level leadership frameworks such as
the LSF developed through the CEOM offers some guidance to leaders in schools, but it
does perhaps need a clearer connection to specific roles such as the curriculum
coordinator role. How the LSF builds and sustains the leadership capacity of curriculum
coordinators in secondary schools could also be explicitly examined through research.
In relation to recommendation three: unpacking what is needed and what makes a

difference to student learning outcomes in relation to leadership in schools has been
widely researched and instructional leadership research is emerging as significant. With
the purpose of schooling being learning and teaching and findings on the impact of
leadership on learning outcomes showing it to be second only to classroom teaching;
understanding the impact of curriculum coordination leadership on student learning
outcomes needs to be better understood. The impact is likely to be indirect and as a
result any research in the area may need to be longitudinal. Such findings may however
provide insight into what areas curriculum coordinators need to focus their energies and
efforts to actually make a difference to students.
In relation to recommendation four: if the role of curriculum coordinator is to be

retained, with a greater focus on improvement and learning outcomes, the implications
for changed approaches for leadership of this area are critical. Alternatively, if the role is
to become more entrenched in compliance and administration of externally imposed
change at the school level then the devolution of the role to something less than senior
leadership is perhaps warranted. Investigating whether or not there is a better or different
222
way to balance compliance with the demands of external curriculum requirements,
learning and teaching capacity building of teachers and improving student learning
outcomes is well overdue. Too much of the focus and effort of the curriculum
coordinators in the case study schools was observed to be about matters other than the
instructional teaching and learning experiences of students. Whilst personal leadership
practice is clearly a factor in how a role such as that of the curriculum coordinator is
performed, clarity around what is needed to enable a greater focus on learning and
teaching is needed. This is a consideration at the school level but also at the sector level
where directions and funding for better support of the role of the curriculum coordinator
can set trends.
In relation to recommendation five: an examination of the curriculum coordination as a

senior leadership role in contrast to other senior leadership roles might provide some
validity to the argument for not making this role a distinct one in schools. Examination
of other senior leadership roles in secondary schools, as well as the role of the principal
and the support structures available for these roles could encourage an approach where
the responsibilities for curriculum leadership is embedded in all roles. It is worth noting
that a similar argument could exist in other senior leadership roles, for example that
student wellbeing should be the responsibility of all senior leaders rather than a distinct
role. An examination of senior leadership structures that serve a strategic improvement
focus would of course require a wider investigation of a school’s leadership
environment.
223
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. Can you please tell me a little about your teaching experience.

2. As a teacher in a Catholic school can you describe your experience of curriculum
coordination in your school?
3. What do you think the main purpose of having a curriculum coordinator in a
secondary school is?
4. What does the curriculum coordinator in your school do?
5. Can you tell me about the leadership and management roles of the curriculum
coordinator in your school?
6. Can you tell me about the impact of the curriculum coordinator on school
improvement planning at your school?
7. What do you see as the greatest challenges for the curriculum coordinator at the
present time?
8. What factors support or hinder the performance of the role of curriculum coordinator
in your school?
9. What are the strengths of your curriculum coordinator and what could they do
better?
10. Do you see anyone other than the curriculum coordinator leading the curriculum in
your school?
11. What changes would you suggest to for the role of curriculum coordinator in your
school?
12. What advice would you offer a person in the role of curriculum coordinator in your
school?
13. Are you familiar with the Leadership Standards Framework – Guiding Conceptions
of Leadership? (outline these briefly if not familiar). How do these resonate with
curriculum coordination as you experience it in your school?
14. Any further comments?
224
Appendix B: Theme Development
Initial Themes Identified by the Researcher
1. Advice for the curriculum coordinator

2. Applicability of the leadership standards framework
3. Changes to the role of the curriculum coordinator
4. Leadership and Management
5. Expectations of the role of curriculum coordinator
6. Factors that support or hinder the role
7. Greatest challenges
8. Impact on school improvement
9. Others in the school who lead
10. Purpose of the curriculum coordination role
11. Issues specific to the school
12. Strengths of the curriculum coordinator
13. Work of the curriculum coordinator
Sample Theme Categories Identified With Strands After Close Interview Analysis
of a Case Study School C
Purpose of the Role

Vision creation
Vision setting
Works with Others and sets directions
Knows, understands and interprets curriculum information
Key Work
Currency of knowledge
Leading others
Professional learning
Ensure programs run
Reporting
Expectations
Interpersonal skills
Teaches classes
Flexibility
225
Strengths
Confident and capable
Copes with complexity
Personable
Challenges
Getting people onboard
Keeping people accountable
Embracing change
Changes to role
Leadership focus
Operational practicalities
Leadership and management

LSF guiding conceptions
Leadership
Management

Teachers
Principal
Pastoral leaders
Curriculum development team
Hindrances
People
Time
Supports
Changed structure
Contribution to school improvement

Impact on school improvement
Broad Theme Categories Applied to All Case Studies
Educational Expertise
Providing Clarity
Engaging Others
Core Competence
226
Appendix C: Sample Interview Transcript Extract Thematic Analysis
The following interview extract comes from Curriculum Coordinator C.
...you listen to what people are saying and you change it and I like the fact that
I’m prepared to do that and I honestly believe that if we can take something out
there and if we can tweak it and make it better, then we should do that. I don’t
hold onto things and say well this has my stamp on it, it’s got to go this way, I
don’t care if it doesn’t even have my name on it (CCC).
In this section of the interview dialog CCC is responding to question three in the
interview regimen, “3.What do you think the main purpose of having a curriculum
coordinator in a secondary school is?” Of their own accord they also delve into what
they see their strengths in the role are (interview question nine, “9.What are the strengths
of your curriculum coordinator and what could they do better?”). Analysis of their
interview transcript shows that their full response to this question encompasses a number
of thematic areas. As a sample, in the text quoted above, this text was initially broadly
coded in the following categories and strands:
Purpose of the Role
Vision creation
Vision setting
Works with Others and sets directions
and
Strengths
Confident and capable
Copes with complexity
Personable
In the further refinement of the analysis this data is allocated to the broad theme
categories Engaging Others and Educational Expertise. Using this pattern of theme
refinement during analysis the theme framework was developed following the analysis
of all 39 interview transcripts.
227
References
Arends, R & Kilcher, A 2009, Teaching for student learning, New York, Routledge.
Beare, H, Caldwell, BJ & Millikan, RH 1989, Creating an excellent school, London,

Routledge.
Bell, L & Bolam, R 2010, ‘Teacher professionalism and continuing professional

development: contested concepts and their implications for school leaders’, in T Bush, L
Bell & D Middlewood (Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and
management, SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 89-111.
Bollen, R 1996, ‘School effectiveness and school improvement’, in D Reynolds, R

Bollen, B Creemers, D Hopkins, L Stoll & N Lagerweij, (Eds.), Making good schools:
linking school effectiveness and school improvement, Routledge, London and New York,
pp. 1-20.
Borg, WR, Gall, JP & Gall, MD, 1993, Applying educational research, New York:
Longman.
Bowring-Carr, C 2005, ‘Leading learning’ in B Davies, L Ellison & C Bowring-Carr

(Eds.), School leadership in the 21st century: developing a strategic approach,
RoutledgeFalmer, London and New York, pp. 111-125.
Bullock, K 2009, The importance of emotional intelligence to effective school

leadership, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham, retrieved on August
12, 2010 from www.nationalcollege.org.uk/
Burns, R 2000, Introduction to research methods,4th edn, Pearson Education, Frenchs

Forest.
Burton, N 2001, ‘Managing the planning of learning and teaching’, in D Middlewood &
N Burton (Eds.), Managing the curriculum, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 55-69.
Bush, T, Bell, L & Middlewood, D 2010, ‘Introduction: new directions in educational

leadership’, in T Bush, L Bell & D Middlewood (Eds.), The principles of educational
leadership and management, SAGE, London, pp. 3-12.
Busher, H 2006, Understanding educational leadership, Open University Press,

Berkshire.
Caldwell, B 2005, ‘The transformation of schools in the twenty-first century’, in B

Davies, L Ellison & C Bowring-Carr (Eds.), School leadership in the 21st century,
RoutledgeFalmer, London and New York, pp. 185-205.
228
Caldwell, B 2006, Re-imagining school leadership, ACER Press, Camberwell.
Carpenter, L & Matters, P 2003, ‘Learning communities today - who benefits?’ in

NZARE/AARE Conference Proceedings Auckland, 2003.
Catholic Education Commission of Victoria 2010, Facts and figures on catholic

education in the archdiocese of Melbourne sourced from CECV census 2009, retrieved
November 12, 2010, from http://www.ceomelb.catholic.edu.au/
Catholic Education Commission of Victoria 2005, Leadership standards framework

(LSF), retrieved on December 15, 2009, from www.lsf.vic.catholic.edu.au
Catholic Education Office Melbourne 2009, About catholic education, retrieved on

September 9, 2009 from http://www.ceomelb.catholic.edu.au/
Cheng, YC 2008, ‘New learning and school leadership: paradigm shift towards the third
wave in J Macbeath and Y Cheng (Eds.), Leadership for learning, Sense Publishers,
Rotterdam, pp. 15-35.
Collarbone, P 2003 ‘Leading the learning community’ in B Davies & J West-Burnham

(Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management, Pearson Education,
London, pp. 375-380.
Collinson, V & Cook, TF 2007, Organisational learning, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
CRC Sydenham 2010, Positions available 2010, retrieved on October 10, 2010, from
www.crcsydenham.net/uploads/downloads/staff_opp/Deputy%20Principal%20-
%20Learning%20%20Teaching%20Role%20Description.pdf
Crowther, F, Fergurson, M & Hann, L 2009, Developing teacher leaders, Corwin,

Thousand Oaks.
Darling-Hammond, L 2009, ‘Teaching and the change wars: the professionalism

hypothesis’ in A Hargreaves & M Fullan (Eds.), Change wars, Hawker Brownlow,
Moorabbin, pp. 35-51.
Davies, B & Davies, B 2005, ‘Strategic leadership’ in B Davies (Ed.), The essentials of
school leadership, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 10-30.
Davies, B 2006, Leading the strategically focused school: success and sustainability.
SAGE, London and Thousand Oaks.
Davies, B 2008, ‘Passionate leadership in action’ in B Davies & T Brighouse (Eds.),

Passionate leadership in education, SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 91-106.
229
Davies, B & Ellison, L 1999, Strategic direction and development of the school,
Routledge, London and New York.
Day, C, Harris, A & Hadfield, M 2001, ‘Grounding knowledge of schools in stakeholder

realities’ in B Fidler (Ed.), School leadership & management, Vol. 21 Issue 1, 24, pp.
19-42.
Deal, T & Peterson, K 2009, Shaping school culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Donaldson, GA 2006, Cultivating leadership in schools, Teachers College Press, New

York.
Duke, DL 1987, School leadership and instructional improvement, Random House, New
York.
Duke, DL 2010, Differentiating school leadership, Corwin, Thousand Oaks.
Ellison, L 2005, ‘The competent leader’ in B Davies, L Ellison & C Bowring-Carr

(Eds.), School leadership in the 21st century, RoutledgeFalmer, London and New York,
pp. 32-51.
Fink, D 2005, Leadership for mortals, Paul Chapman, London.
Fink, D 2010, The succession challenge, SAGE London.
Fullan, M 1993a, Change forces, The Falmer Press, London.
Fullan, M 1993b, ‘Moral pursuit and change agentry’, in H Tomlinson (Ed.),

Educational management, RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 60-70.
Fullan, M 2001, Leading in a culture of change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Fullan, M 2006, Turnaround leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Fullan, M 2008, What’s worth fighting for in the principalship, Teachers College Press,
New York.
Fullan, M 2010, Motion leadership, Corwin, Thousand Oaks.
Garrett, V 2005, ‘Leading and managing change’ in B Davies, L Ellison & C Bowring-
Carr (Eds.), School leadership in the 21st century, RoutledgeFalmer, London and New
York, pp. 72-92.
Glatthorn, AA 1997, The principal as curriculum leader: shaping what is taught and
tested, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks.
Goleman, D 1997, Emotional intelligence, Bantam. New York.

230
Goleman, D, Boyatzis, R & McKee, A 2002, The new leaders, Little Brown, London.
Greenleaf, RK 1977, Servant leadership, Paulist Press, New York.
Gurr, D 1996, ‘The leadership role of principals in selected secondary “schools of the
future”: principal and teacher perspectives’, Doctoral Thesis, University of Melbourne.
Hargreaves, A 2008, ‘The emotional geographies of educational leadership’ in B Davies

& T Brighouse (Eds.), Passionate leadership in education, SAGE, Los Angeles, pp.
129-150.
Hargreaves, A 2009, ‘The fourth way of change: towards an age of inspiration and
sustainability’ in A Hargreaves & M Fullan (Eds.), Change wars, Hawker Brownlow,
Moorabbin, pp. 11-44.
Hargreaves, A & Shirley, D 2009, The fourth way, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Harris, A 2008, Distributed leadership, Routledge, Milton Park.
Hartle, F & Hobby R 2003, ‘Leadership in a learning community: your job will never be
the same again’, in B Davies & J West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational
leadership and management, Pearson Education, London, pp. 381-393.
Hattie, J 2009, Visible learning, Routledge, Milton Park.
Hess, R & Robinson, J 2006, Priority leadership, Rowman & Littlefield Education,
Lanham.
Hill, P & Crevola, C 2000, ‘Organisational learning’ in B Davies & J West-Burnham

(Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management, Pearson, London, pp.
394-403.
Hopkins, D. (Ed.), 2005, The practice and theory of school improvement: international
handbook of educational change, Springer, London.
Horsley, SL 2005, The concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): a model for change in
individuals, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa., retrieved on February 4,
2011, from http://www.nationalacademies.org/rise/backg4a.htm
James, C 2003, ‘The work of educational leaders in building creative and passionate
schools and colleges’ in H Tomlinson (Ed.), Educational management,
RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 263-275.
Kaser, L & Halbert, J 2009, Leadership mindsets: innovation and learning in the
transformation of schools, Routledge, London and New York.
231
Keane, W 2010, ‘Case Studies in learning area leadership in catholic secondary schools
in Melbourne, Australia’, Doctoral thesis, University of Melbourne.
Kelly, A 2004, The curriculum: theory and practice, SAGE, London.
Kimmelman, P L 2010, The school leadership triangle, Corwin, Thousand Oaks.
Kouzes, J & Posner, B 2003, The leadership challenge. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.
Ladson-Billings, G & Brown, K 2008, ‘Curriculum and cultural diversity’ in FM

Connelly, M Fang He & J Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and
instruction, SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 153-175.
Lawton, D 2003, ‘Pedagogy reborn: opportunities and dangers?’ in B Davies & J West-
Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management, Pearson,
Le Compte, MD & Preissle, J 1993, Ethnography and qualitative design in educational

research, Academic Press, San Diego.
Leithwood, K & Beatty, B 2008, Leading with teacher emotions in mind, Corwin Press,
Thousand Oaks.
Leithwood, K, Anderson, S, Mascall B & Strauss, T 2010, ‘School leaders' influence on

student learning: the four paths’, in T Bush, L Bell, L & D Middlewood (Eds.), The
principles of educational leadership and management, SAGE London, pp. 13-30.
Leithwood, K, Day C, Sammons, P, Harris, A & Hopkins D 2006, Seven strong claims
about leadership, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham, retrieved
November 22, 2010 from www.nationalcollege.org.uk/
Leithwood, K & Jantzi, D 2005, ‘Transformational leadership, in B Davies (Ed.), The

essentials of school leadership, Paul Chapman, London, pp.31-43.
Leithwood, K, Jantzi, D & Steinbach, R 2002, ‘Leadership practices for accountable

schools’, in K Leithwood & P Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of
educational leadership and administration, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.
849-879.
Leithwood, K & Duke, DL 1999, ‘A century's quest to understand school leadership’ in

H Tomlinson (Ed.), 2004, Educational management, Volume 1, RoutledgeFalmer,
London, pp. 91-143.
Leithwood, K, Mascall, B & Strauss, T 2009, ‘What we have learned and where we go
from here’, in K Leithwood, B Mascall & T Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership
according to the evidence, Routledge, New York, pp.269-282.
232
Levacic, R 2010, ‘Managing resources to support learning’, in T Bush, L Bell & D
Middlewood (Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and management, SAGE,
London, pp. 197-215:.
Levin, B 2008, ‘Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in
schools’, in FM Connelly (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction,
SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 7-24.
Lichtman, M 2006, Qualitative research in education. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Lincoln, Y S & Guba, E G 1985, Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE, Newbury Park.
Ling, I 1998, ‘The role of the curriculum coordinator’, Doctoral thesis, University of
Melbourne.
Lumby, J 2001, ‘Framing teaching and learning in the twenty-first century', in D

Middlewood & N Burton (Eds.), Managing the curriculum, Paul Chapman, London, pp.
2-17.
MacGilchrist, B 2003 ‘Learning and teaching in the intelligent school’, in B Davies & J
West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management, Pearson,
Marsh, C 2004, Key concepts for understanding curriculum, RoutledgeFalmer, New

York.
Matthews, J 1989, Curriculum exposed, David Fulton Publishers, London.
Matthews, P 2009, How do school leaders successfully lead learning? National College
for School Leadership, Nottingham, retrieved November 22, 2010 from
www.nationalcollege.org.uk/
Meece, J & Schaefer, V 2010, ‘Schools as a context of human development’ in J Meece

& J Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human development,
Routledge, New York, pp. 3-5.
Merriam, S B 1998, Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Middlewood, D 2001, ‘Leadership of the curriculum: setting the vision’, in D

Middlewood & N Burton (Eds.), Managing the curriculum, Paul Chapman London, pp.
107-121.
Miles, M & Huberman, A M 1994, Qualitative data analysis. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Minichiello, V, Aroni, R & Hays, T 2008, In-Depth interviewing: principles, techniques,

analysis, Pearson Education, Sydney.
233
Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs 2005,
Contemporary learning in an online world, retrieved September 25, 2010 from
www.mceedya.edu.au/verve/_resources/ICT_LearningOnlineWorldContemporaryLearni
ng.pdf
Moore, E 2007, Ringing the changes, National College for School Leadership,
Nottingham, retrieved November 22, 2010 from www.nationalcollege.org.uk/
Mulford, B 2007, Overview of research on Australian educational leadership 2001 –

2005. ACEL Monograph Series, ACEL, Sydney, Vol. 40.
Mulford, B & Edmunds, B 2009, Successful school principalship in Tasmania, Faculty

of Education, University of Tasmania, retrieved on October 4, 2010 from
www.fcms.its.utas.edu.au
National College of School Leadership 2007, What we know about school leadership,
National College for School Leadership, Nottingham, retrieved July 23, 2010 from
National College of School Leadership 2009, International symposium paper:

leadership for the 21st century, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham,
retrieved on August 20, 2010 from www.nationalcollege.org.uk/
National College of School Leadership 2009, Making a difference, National College for
School Leadership, Nottingham, retrieved on August 24, 2010 from
National College of School Leadership 2009, School leadership today, National College
for School Leadership, Nottingham, retrieved on August 24, 2010 from
Novak, J 2003, ‘Invitational leadership and the pursuit of educational living’, in B

Davies & J West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and
management, Pearson, London, 67-74.
Novak, J 2008, ‘Inviting passionate educational leadership’, in B Davies & T Brighouse

(Eds.), Passionate leadership in education, SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 35-55.
O’Neil, J 2003, ‘Understanding curriculum leadership in secondary school’, in Bennett,

N & Anderson, L (Eds.), Rethinking educational leadership, SAGE, London, pp.143-
156.
O’Neil, J & Kitson, N 1996, Effective curriculum management, Routledge, London.
234
Oski, M 2010, ‘Examination of the impact of the catholic education office Melbourne
school improvement framework on school improvement planning processes within
catholic primary schools’ Doctoral thesis, University of Melbourne.
Packer, M J 1985, ‘Hermeneutic inquiry in the study of human conduct’, American

psychologist, 10(40), pp. 1081-1093.
Razik, T & Swanson A 2010, Fundamental concepts of educational leadership &

management, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Reeves, D 2008a, Leadership and learning, ACEL Monograph Series, ACEL,

Winmalee, 43.
Reeves, D 2008b, Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school, ASCD,

Alexandria.
Reeves, D 2010, Assessing educational leaders, Corwin, Thousand Oaks.
Rhodes, C & Brundrett, M 2010, ‘Leadership for learning’, in T Bush, L Bell & D
London, pp.153-175.
Richards, L 1999, Using NVivo in qualitative research, SAGE, London.
Ryan, K & Bohlin, K 1999, Building character in schools, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Schein, E 2004, Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Schostak, J 2006, Interviewing and representation in qualitative research, Open

University Press, Berkshire.
Senge, P 1990, The fifth discipline, Doubleday, New York.
Sergiovanni, TJ 1992, Moral leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Sergiovanni, TJ 1998, ‘Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school

effectiveness’ in Journal of leadership in education: theory and practice, 1, pp. 37– 46.
Sergiovanni, TJ 1999a, ‘Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results’, n TJ

Sergiovanni (Ed.), Rethinking leadership, SkyLight, Arlington, pp. 73-82.
Sergiovanni, TJ 1999b, ‘Leadership as stewardship’ in TJ Sergiovanni (Ed.), Rethinking

leadership, SkyLight, Arlington, pp. 57-68.
Sergiovanni, T.J. 2001, Leadership, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sergiovanni, T J 2005, Strengthening the heartbeat, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

235
Sergiovanni, TJ 2009, The principalship, Pearson, Boston.
Silins, H & Mulford, B 2007, ‘Leadership and school effectiveness and improvement’,
in H Tomlinson (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement,
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 635-658.
Southwood, G 2004, Primary school leadership in context, RoutledgeFalmer London.
Southworth, G 2009, ‘School leadership: what we know and what it means for schools,
their leaders and policy’ CSE Seminar Series, CSE, East Melbourne, 23, pp. 1-23.
Spillane, J 2006, Distributed leadership, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
Stake, R 1995, The art of case study research, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Stake, R 2006, Multiple case study analysis, The Guilford Press, New York.
Starratt, R 2005, ‘Ethical leadership’, in B Davies (Ed.), The essentials of school

leadership, SAGE, London, pp. 61-74.
Stern, B & Kysilka, M 2008, Contemporary curriculum readings, SAGE, Los Angeles.
Stoll, L, Bolam, R & Collarbone, P 2002, ‘Leading for change: building capacity for
learning’, in K Leithwood & P Hallinger (Eds.), Second educational handbook of
educational leadership and administration, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 41-74.
Stoll, L, Fink, D & Earl, L 2003, It's about learning (and it's about time), Routledge,
London.
Tesch, R 1990, Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools, The Falmer
Press, New York.
van den Akker, J 2004, ‘Curriculum perspectives: an introduction’, in J van den Akker,
W Kuiper & U Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
pp. 1-10.
van Manen, M 1990, Researching lived experience, State University of New York Press,
London.
Walker, A 2010, ‘Building and leading learning cultures’, in T Bush, T Bell & D
West-Burnham, J 2005, ‘Learning to lead’, in B Davies & J West-Burnham (Eds.),

Handbook of educational leadership, Pearson, London, pp. 51-66.
236
West-Burnham, J 2009, Rethinking Educational Leadership, Continuum. New York.
White, P 2000, ‘The leadership of curriculum area middle managers in selected

Victorian government secondary schools’, Doctoral Thesis, University of Melbourne.
Whiteside, T 1996, ‘The role of the co-ordinator auditing for development’, in J O'Neil
& N Kitson (Eds.), Effective curriculum management, Routledge, London, pp. 32-40.
Wiles, J 2009, Leading curriculum development, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks.
Wiles, J & Bondi, J 2007, Curriculum development: a guide to practice, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River.
Yin, R K 2009, Case study research design and methods, SAGE, California.
Ylimaki, RM, Gurr, D, Drysdale, L & Bennett, JV 2009, ‘Successful school principals in
Australia and the US: findings from an international study’, in AW Wiseman (Ed.),
Educational leadership: global contexts and international comparisons, Emerald,
Bingley, pp. 273 – 301.
237

Michelle Cotter Thesis Final 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michelle Cotter Thesis Final 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michelle Cotter Thesis Final 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examination of the Leadership Expectations of

Curriculum Coordinators in the Archdiocese of

Submitted in (partial) fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of

Graduate School of Education

Chapter 2 – Literature Review 21

Approaches to Leadership of the Curriculum for Contemporary 39

Qualities of Effective Curriculum Coordinators 59

Chapter 4 – Case Study A 90

Chapter 5 – Case Study B 119

Chapter 6 – Case Study C 145

Chapter 7 – Summary of Case Studies 174

Chapter 8 – Discussion of Findings 192

I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of my supervisors, Dr David

CAMM Curriculum Area Middle Managers

Background and Context

Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne are characterised by the

The nature and significance of the role of curriculum coordinator in schools is a

The movement towards contemporary schooling is driven by a wide range of factors

Curriculum coordinators in Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Melbourne

Specifically in relation to Catholic educational leadership, this research offers an insight

A semi-structured interview design was used to enable the interviews to respond to

Summary of Thesis Structure

Chapter one, introduction

Chapter two, review of literature

Chapter seven, summary of case studies

Chapter eight, discussion of findings

The term and title ‘curriculum coordinator’ is anecdotally common in Catholic

The consideration of literature relevant to an examination of the leadership role of the

This section explores definitions of curriculum, coordinating the curriculum and

According to Wiles (2007, p. 2) a dynamic and adaptive definition of curriculum best

Coordinating the Curriculum

Curriculum in the Victorian Context

Leadership of Curriculum for Contemporary Schooling

Scope of Leadership of the Curriculum

The importance for curriculum coordinators in implementing new initiatives is

Impact of Change on Leadership of the Curriculum

Hence, a substantial leadership challenge for curriculum coordinators is to balance

Contemporary Schooling – The Transition from Now to Tomorrow for Schools

As a result of these, the contemporary school needs to have a curriculum which is

Knowing staff professional learning needs is also a critical dimension of curriculum

According to this strategic turnaround approach the curriculum coordinator needs to

Approaches to Leadership of the Curriculum for Contemporary

A number of educational leadership researchers have expanded the normal

In terms of research interest, transformational leadership is the second most researched

Finally, it is important in the discussion of leadership models to explore the notion of

Harris (2008) describes a mindset change as important for distributed leadership to

Whilst independent leadership models can offer distinctly different perspectives on

The Role of the Curriculum Coordinator within the School

This section explores learning communities and positioning of the curriculum

For Starratt (2005, p. 68) educational leadership in a professional learning community is

In such a community context curriculum coordination is collaborative in nature and

The curriculum coordinator needs to build reciprocal relationships of trust in all

Positioning for Leadership Effectiveness

Positioning of the Role of the Curriculum Coordinator

The scope of curriculum coordination leadership in a school is also a factor that

Given the variance in views on curriculum leadership it is reasonable to conclude that

Challenges in the Role of the Curriculum Coordinator

School Improvement and Curriculum Coordination Leadership

The underpinning importance of learning and teaching in school improvement

Leadership for the improvement of learning experiences and outcomes of students is