Small schools, big future.

Halsey, R. John

Introduction

Vibrant, productive rural communities are integral to Australia's sustainability. Population growth and an increasing preference for urban living linked with the challenges of food security, water supply, energy sufficiency, environmental health and territorial security underpin this position (Barlow, 2007; Diamond, 2005; Homer-Dixon, 2006). For rural communities to survive, prosper and be the innovative places and spaces Australia requires, leadership of small schools needs to be better understood, valued and supported by governments and policy-makers. A historical sketch of small schools and their characteristics together with some national and global population data provides the context for this article. Research undertaken on rural educational leadership in 2010 is used to argue for better ways of supporting the ongoing learning and work of principals of small schools.

By 2050 the world's population is predicted to peak between 9 and 10 billion. Australia's population is likely to have increased by 12 million to around 35 million, and an estimated two-thirds of the world's people will live in cities, with the pressure to guarantee food security likely to be at record levels (Brugmann, 2009). These factors, along with others such as the continued growth and reach of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), have important consequences for how children acquire their education and consequently for the futures of small schools in Australia.

Australia

Australia comprises six states and two territories, each of which has an elected parliament, as well as national government. Australia has a population of 22.5 million, the majority of whom live in the three most populous states--New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland--and a land mass of 7.5 million square kilometres. Distance and very low population density are two of the dominant challenges of ensuring all children access schooling. Under the Constitution, the states and territories are responsible for providing and managing schools. In recent years the national government has played an increasing role in education, through its financial powers and by developing coalitions of support for national initiatives such as the Australian curriculum, the public release of school performance data, and literacy and numeracy testing.

The significance of small schools

At the start of the 20th century, small schools, especially rural schools of one and two teachers, dotted the Australian landscape and were the face of public education for many thousands of children and their families.

In South Australia, for example, the situation for government schools was described as one in which:

more than half [of the 1,010 schools in the state] were one-room schools [mostly rural] staffed by mostly uncertified teachers ... discussion about rural schools, teachers and their practice was muted but rarely were they seen to be achieving the same standards as urban teachers and larger schools. (Whitehead, 2005, pp. 293-5)

By the 1940s, with growing pressure for universal access to secondary education and increasing mechanisation of farming (which accelerated farm amalgamations), the closure and consolidation of small schools gained momentum. Improved rural roads and transport options also played a significant role, as did the introduction of schools providing both primary and secondary education at the one site.

Notwithstanding the closure and amalgamation of small schools in Australia over the last half century, they remain numerically significant in the provision of education. Stipulating 100 enrolments or fewer to define a small school, based on 2008 data, there are more than 2,500 such schools in Australia. If 200 enrolments or fewer is used as the definition, there are 4,253 representing approximately 45% of all schools in Australia (Anderson et al., 2010). The majority of small schools are in non-urban locations and the more distant a community is from a capital or regional city, the more likely it is to have a small school. By definition then, small schools are a prominent feature of education in Australia, especially in rural and remote Australia, and therefore warrant consideration.

Characteristics of small schools

Small schools are of a scale that most people can relate to and feel relatively comfortable with. 'Researchers have repeatedly found that social capital is higher in smaller settings, smaller schools, smaller towns, smaller countries' (Putnam & Feldstein, 2003, p. 275). Trust is generally easier to develop and sustain in small settings, as is connecting members to issues. Size, according to Putnam and Feldstein, is important for bridging social capital and federation arrangements, the 'nesting of small groups within larger groups' (p. 278). But Putnam and Feldstein have some cautions about small-scale organisations or groups: 'smaller can [also] easily mean more parochial and smaller groups risk a not-in-my-backyard orientation' (p. 277).

Small schools are recognised as significant places in their communities. Leaders do not usually need to advocate the legitimacy of a small school at a local level. Because of their scale, their centrality to the community, and their reliance on enrolments for ongoing existence, small schools typically invite and encourage flows and movement of people and ideas (Bonner, 2008). They are widely distributed around the nation and represent a diverse network of physical and human infrastructure. In the main, small schools have well-established and integrated ways of operating. Specialists are few; well-informed and skilful generalists are relatively prevalent. Specialists and specialisms can create a sense of bounded or prescribed roles, which shape organisational culture (Trice & Beyer, 2005). Consequently, less role demarcation is apparent in small schools than in larger organisations. As well, small schools often play a critical role in the economic life of a community through employment and purchasing locally, by signalling evidence of vibrancy, and by producing catalytic and multiplier effects to 'outsiders'.

Although small schools are often under the threat of closure--and over a century or more many have closed--they have demonstrated remarkable resilience. In addition, they have a track record for innovation, responsiveness and adaptiveness that has been driven by numerous factors including multigrade pedagogy. Small schools have a relentless focus on the learning needs and achievements of their students, enhanced because each is known individually and as a member of a group. Many small schools also continue to live closely with risk, principally that of being closed in order to achieve economies of scale. One of the consequences has been that leaders of small schools have become adept at working with risk.

School leadership

School leadership is recognised to be complex and challenging and, more recently, crucial to the quality of the learning experiences and outcomes of students. Harris and Lambert (2003) asserted that the 'potential of leadership to influence school improvement remains uncontested but the type of leadership required for sustainable school improvement remains a matter of debate' (p. 2). They argued that the most effective school leaders 'build the capacity' (p. 3) of others to drive improvement. Leithwood, Luis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) concluded that 'leadership not only matters: it is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning'. The researchers found that school leaders achieve this kind of impact by 'setting directions ... developing people and ... making the organization work' (p. 1).

In North America, Edinger and Murphy (1995), in their investigation of rural principalship in British Columbia, found that 'the most important role of a contemporary rural principal was to establish and to nurture a climate in a school that was conducive to learning' (p. 76). Masumoto and Brown-Welty (2009), from their research of rural high schools in California concluded, amongst other things, that leaders in successful rural high schools

   maintain a school-wide focus on instruction and high expectations,
   develop multiple support systems for students with varying needs,
   and capitalize on strengths of teachers to enhance student
   outcomes. Successful leaders 'discover ways to utilize and stretch
   resources to help students, regardless of location or lack of
   funding'. (p. 15)

Starr and White (2008) studied small rural schools in Australia and found that a deep understanding of context is crucial to appreciating the complexities and challenges of rural principalship. In addition, their research highlighted the significance of constantly changing systems, policies and priorities in shaping the role of rural principals. The researchers concluded that '[s]tructural reforms have created a demarcation between those who have the power to control and develop broad policy decisions and policy implementers at the school level who are managed and marginalised' (p. 10). Related to the findings of Starr and White are those of Budge (2006) on the influence of place on rural leadership. Budge argued that, while a sense of place is essential for educational leaders per se, 'a critical leadership of place may be especially fitting for those living and working in a rural context since it seeks to bring to the foreground issues of importance to those living in such places' (p. 8).

Consistent with the findings of others in the field (for example, Mulford & Johns, 2004; Stoll & Fink, 1996;Wildy & Clarke, 2005), the literature on principalship briefly reviewed here underscores the crucial importance of the role of the principal and the fundamental importance of ensuring that a principal is well prepared for and supported in his or her work. Recent evidence shows that this is far from being a reality for many school leaders, with clear implications for school funding and operational policies. What is required is the adoption of a 'rural lens' (Wallace & Boylan, 2007), which, as Clarke and Stevens (2009) argued:

   requires a nuanced understanding of rural places engendering an
   acknowledgement of the distinctiveness of the rural environment at
   the macro level as well as recognition of the differences between
   rural schools [and contexts] at a micro level. (p. 289)

Current rural leadership

In 2010, leaders of rural schools were invited through the Sidney Myer Chair of Rural Education and Communities at Flinders University to participate in a national mapping of rural principals' preparation for leadership and the demands of their work. Leaders were asked to respond to the survey on the basis of the rural, regional or remote location definitions used by their employing authority. The research was conducted with the support of the Australian Primary and Secondary Principals Associations. A total of 683 online surveys were returned.

Despite the widely recognised complexity of a principal's role significance and its impact, 46% of respondents said they had received no preparation to become a school leader and a further 29% had only attended short courses on leadership. As noted earlier, principals play a critical role in terms of student learning, teacher satisfaction and contributions to community. Each of these factors applies even more so in rural and remote settings where there is usually only one school available to a family within reasonable travelling time. The data from the surveys indicates there are many aspects of rural school leadership that could be enhanced by devoting more resources and time to preparation before principals are appointed. For example, when asked to rank how demanding particular issues were on a seven-point scale (1 = not demanding; 7 =very demanding), 53% of school leaders rated managing underperforming staff at 6 or 7; 49% rated balancing local with state and national priorities also 6 or 7. Systems resourcing issues were ranked even higher--accessing services for students with disabilities was rated at 6 or 7 by 63% (the top priority); 61% ranked securing adequate funds to tackle inequities 6 or 7; and 54% rated securing suitable ICT for learning as demanding or very demanding.

While not all of the highly ranked issues may necessarily be resolved by better preparation for principalship, it is reasonable to expect there would be some ameliorating impacts. Knowledge and awareness of local, regional, national and global contexts, systems operations, theories of organisation, human resource management approaches and models, particularly ones that illuminate living and working productively in close proximity with colleagues and students, would all provide rural principals with extra capacities for leadership. As one respondent wrote:

   The complexity of the role [needs to] be acknowledged by the
   employing authorities. Being a leader in a small rural school
   requires a high level of emotional intelligence and understanding
   of people's needs. Systems used in metropolitan schools often do
   not work in small settings. [It is] good in theory but not in
   practice.

Dealing with the balance between work and private and family life is another area where pre-appointment preparation could be enhanced:

   It is often a really lonely position to be in. This [particularly]
   applies to people who decide on a leadership pathway for whom it is
   their community. Often there is no one to really talk to, and once
   in leadership you can be distanced by previous friends. It really
   is like living in a gold fish bowl, and everything you do is
   judged. It is like walking a fine line where you are never really
   free to be yourself in the community, yet the expectations of the
   position are always being judged.

Another wrote:

   The experience of living and working in a rural community,
   especially one that has a reputation like ours, has impacted on our
   family life in a negative way, and has made me seriously look at
   leaving the education field altogether.

There were numerous comments that point to another critical dimension of being a leader in a rural community: the expectations locals have of leaders in terms of availability compared to leaders in urban contexts (Halsey, 2006). One of the consistent themes, in addition to learning to live with the 'fish bowl' dimensions of small rural community professional leadership, is the need to develop strategies to negotiate and create boundaries and limits about availability and workload. The following comments from two leaders illuminate the point:

   The job is huge. Really it is two jobs rolled into one and there
   are never enough hours in the day to complete all that is asked of
   you so you work very long hours to get the job done properly. In
   remote communities many extra tasks fall on the Principal because
   the school is the centre of the community. This fact is often
   overlooked or not really understood by others in urban areas.

   The level of expectation placed on a leader ... in small
   communities is predominantly a factor that contributes to leaders
   leaving positions early. It is assumed that you will become
   involved in everything that goes on in the community regardless of
   family circumstances. Hence, young leaders can feel a great sense
   of pressure to become involved at the expense of time with their
   young children.

Responding to these messages requires more than a workshop or topic on time management. While this may be a part of an overall leadership support response, the essence of the quotations focuses on the complex and often politically charged challenge of navigating and negotiating priorities and opportunities in contexts where there is high surveillance of performance and low anonymity for recovery from any 'errors of judgement'. Given the profound influence of rural communities on the roles of school principals, a breakthrough in the preparation of leaders of small schools may result if it occurred in partnership with some members of the communities to which they are appointed. The logistics of making this happen are quite complex but given how significant school-community-parent-student partnerships are in driving high outcomes and schooling satisfaction ratings, the effort required could make a significant contribution towards preparing leaders for small (and other) rural schools.

Towards the future

The significance of rural communities for Australia's future will increase over the next four decades--this is the premise upon which the final section of this article is based. Neither population growth and food security, nor the growth demand for renewable energy, can be seriously tackled unless there is also a sustained effort to reduce the impact of human habitation on the natural environment. Critically, neither will be dealt with until policy-makers for education systems and other human services acknowledge that those who live and work in rural communities need access to essential human services such as education without a sense of constant struggle.

At state and national education policy-making levels, a shift in thinking about small rural schools is needed. Put succinctly, small schools are part of our nation's solutions in terms of Australia having the vibrant, productive rural communities it needs to ensure its sustainability. Their distribution throughout the nation represents a large and complex network of sites that are, in the main, intellectually rich and rich in facilities for education that is focused on nurturing individual capacities and also playing a role in sustaining the productive life of rural communities. So what else might be done to advance this?

The rural leadership data show that there are numerous issues in relation to leadership of small schools and also suggests action that, if taken, may well produce improvements in role and job satisfaction which in turn would likely have benefits for staff, students and communities. Four are briefly presented here.

First, a concerted effort needs to be made by employing authorities to assist leaders to achieve a more productive and enjoyable balance between the demands of their professional lives and those of their private lives. Although many school respondents reported high levels of job satisfaction, there were qualifications or downsides as well, as illustrated in the following comments:

   Small rural communities are difficult to manage but are also very
   rewarding. Remember you cannot please everyone all the time. It can
   be very difficult to find a work life balance. Be positive and
   provide a safe and supportive environment for staff and students is
   essential.

   I find it more rewarding being part of a rural community but it has
   its difficulties as you are expected to take part in every
   community leadership initiative as a matter of course. This means
   that the demands on your time are huge.

Second, many leaders of small schools described their work as very satisfying and rewarding:

   It is a very rewarding experience and I find that the students and
   families are very supportive.

   It is a joy. It should not be looked upon as in any way being a
   disadvantage. The ability to make a real difference is substantial.

Research that investigates the experiences of rural small school leaders who find their roles rewarding would help to shed further light on what needs to be done to make leadership of small schools a more attractive career pathway. A research focus on small school leadership careers is needed.

Third, comments from small-school leaders suggest that opportunities to share their experiences, concerns and problems with trusted others could well enhance their situations. It is acknowledged that most schools operate in district or regional groupings and that, although various kinds of support are available through them, more support is needed: for example, ICT-based professional support and leadership counselling.

Finally, a common theme of the leadership survey responses from small-school leaders is the demands placed upon them driven by the combination of three factors: school size, consequent resources allocation, and teaching and administrative workloads. Frequently, there are insufficient resources to do all that leaders believe needs to be done. While this is a feature of human services more broadly, it is particularly acute in small organisations. The idea of forming small entities into federations to exploit the benefits of both small and larger scale groupings is worth considering. There are numerous examples of school clusters and rural-city school partnering around the country operating beneficially for students, staff and communities. Research on school partnering and clustering with a particular focus on what works, for whom and at what cost would be useful. It would also be illuminating to investigate the problematic aspects of cluster-based arrangements and also to explore expanding small-school clusters to incorporate other human services and even local community governance arrangements. This may have the effect of opening new models of federated service delivery with education playing a key integrator role. It may also generate new leadership and management roles that span several sites, thus providing other kinds of leadership career pathways.

Conclusion

Small schools are numerically prolific in Australia. Historically, they have played an important role in educating generations of Australians, especially in rural areas. Population growth and the increasing pressure this will place on rural areas to produce food and other essentials for life mean that the significance of small schools is likely to increase as Australia deals with the challenges of sustainability. This in turn will require rethinking by governments and policy-makers about how small schools are valued and how to resource them. Critically, a focus on the preparation and support of leaders of small schools is central in deliberations to advance the place and importance of small schools in the provision of schooling in Australia.

References

Anderson, M., Davis, M., Douglas, P., Lloyd, D., Niven, B., & Thiele, H. (2010). A collective act: Leading a small school. Melbourne: ACER Press.

Barlow, M. (2007). Blue covenant: The global water crisis and the coming battle for the right to water. Melbourne: Black Ink Publishing.

Bonner, C. (2008). Schools and social capital. NSWSPC/PPA Sustaining Quality Schools. Retrieved 6 October 2010 from http://www.skyhigh.org.au/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=62

Brugmann, J. (2009). Welcome to the urban revolution: How cities are changing the world. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

Budge, K. (2006). Rural leaders, rural places: Problem, privilege, and possibility. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 21(13), 1-10.

Clarke, S., & Stevens, E. (2009). Sustainable leadership in small rural schools: Selected Australian vignettes. Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 277-293.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or survive. London, UK: Allen Lane Penguin Books.

Edinger, J., & Murphy, P. J. (1995). The contemporary rural principalship. Education Research and Perspectives, 22(1), 66-79.

Halsey, R. J. (2006). Towards a spatial 'self-help' map for teaching and living in a rural context. International Education Journal, 7(4), 490-498.

Harris, A., & Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity for school improvement. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Homer-Dixon, T. (2006). The upside of down. Melbourne: Text Publishing Company.

Leithwood K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Executive Summary. Toronto, Canada: Wallace Foundation.

Masumoto, M., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and school community interrelationships in high-performing, high-poverty, rural California high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(1), 1-18.

Mulford, B., & Johns, S. (2004). Successful school principalship. Leading and Managing, 10(1), 45-76.

Putnam, R. D., & Feldstein, L. M. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Starr, K., & White, S. (2008). The small rural school principalship: Key challenges and cross-school responses. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23(5), 1-12.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (2005). Changing organisational culture. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott & Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (6th ed., pp. 383-392). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Wallace, A., & Boylan, C. (2007). Reawakening education policy and practice in rural Australia. In N. Rees, D. Boyd & E. Terry (Eds.), Collaboration for success in rural and remote education and training: Proceedings of the 23rd National Rural Education Conference (pp. 15-29). Perth: Society for the Provision of Education in Rural Australia.

Whitehead, K. I. (2005). The insufficiency of the low grade teacher: A transnational matter. Australasian Canadian Studies, 22/23(2/1), 289-311.

Wildy, H., & Clarke, S. R. P. (2005). Leading the small rural school: The case of the novice principal. Leading and Managing, 11 (1), 43-56.

R. John Halsey

Flinders University

R. John Halsey is Sidney Myer Professor of Rural Education and Communities in the School of Education at Flinders University. Email: john.halsey@flinders.edu.au