This paper uses data from a study of 43 Australian schools across a wide range of contexts to discuss the professional learning required of leaders and teachers to enact pedagogical change. Fullan (2007) suggests that some theories of educational change are incomplete because they do not get close to what happens in classrooms and school cultures. Our research makes a contribution to the research knowledge on change action because it reports on system, schools and classroom change action. Entitled Effective Age Appropriate Pedagogies, this project represents the first stage of a longitudinal study funded by the Queensland Department of Education and Training (DET) to address the increasing national and international issue of “schoolification” in the early years.  Schoolification refers to the increasing pressure to introduce formal education to children at a younger age as part of an economic and social investment agenda (Irvine & Farrell, 2013). However, a meta-analysis of research (OECD, 2015) identifies social and emotional skill development as the important drivers of school and lifetime success.

The project had two components specifically undertaken by the researchers:  a professional learning program and a research program. These components were inextricably linked because the professional learning was framed within school-based action research projects which contributed to the research outcomes. A deliberate feature of the professional learning component was the construction of learning teams consisting of the Principal and early years’ teachers (Prep teachers) and where possible, other staff involved in teaching in the early years. We took this approach because Australian and international research on building school-wide capacity for improvement suggests conditions associated with school organisation, the task and the individual are important to manage change, improve classroom practices, and student outcomes (Thoonen et al. 2012).

The model of action research used by schools was based on the Dialectic Action Research Spiral (Mills, 2011). School teams analysed and interpreted school data to inform an action plan for each iterative action research cycle. A process of disciplined dialogue (Dempster, 2009) was introduced to schools to assist them in interrogating the data.

Research Question:

How can an educational system and its schools establish supportive conditions for teacher learning and change in order to re-focus and incorporate a range of age-appropriate pedagogies in teaching practices?

Objective: 

We aim to demonstrate how building school-wide capacity and teacher motivation changed teaching practices.

The key objective of the project was to refocus the attention of school and regional decision-makers on the importance of age-appropriate pedagogies for children in Prep and identify teaching practices and strategies to empower teacher curriculum decision making across a range of school and community contexts.

Theoretical Framework:

The study was framed considering the following core premises that underpin change knowledge in Fullan’s (2007) theory of action for educational change; a focus on motivation; capacity building with a focus on results; learning in context; changing context; a bias for reflective action; tri-level engagement; and persistence and flexibility in staying the course.

Anderson, S. & Kumari, R. (2009). Continuous improvement in schools: Understanding the practice. International Journal of Educational Development. 29, 281 -292. Arnold, D. & Marchese, T. (2011). Perspectives: The continuous improvement trap. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning (43(2), 16-20. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The psychologist,26(2), 120-123. Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Dempster, N. (2012) Principals leading learning: Developing and applying a leadership framework, Education 3-13, 40(1), 49-62. Ellis, C. & Castle, K. (2010). Teacher research as continuous process improvement. Quality Advances in Education, 18(4), 271-285. Fullan, M. (2007). Change theory as a force for school improvement. In J.M. Burger, C. Webber & P. Klinck (Eds.). Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for thinking education leaders (pp 27-39). Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Springer. Fullan, M. & Harvgreaves, A. (2013). Teacher development and educational change. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.). Teacher Development and Educational Change (pp 1-9). New York, NY: Routledge. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (2) 125-142. Irvine, S., & Farrell, A. (2013). Are we there yet? Early years reform in Queensland: Stakeholder perspectives on the introduction of funded preschool programmes in long day care services. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(2), 221-236. OECD. (2015). Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oort, F. & Peetsma, T. (2012). Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 441-460,