The critical importance of principals in effecting educational change is widely acknowledged internationally (Leithwood et al., 2020). Yet, developing effective aspiring and practising principals is a persistent challenge across education systems across the globe (Drysdale & Gurr, in press; Pont et al., 2008). This presentation illustrates the research process and outcomes of a collaborative partnership between the Tasmanian Department of Education (DoE) and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) focussed on the development of an evidence-based framework to guide principal professional growth, with a view to maximising their impact on student and staff outcomes. The research contributes new conceptual understandings relevant to a broad international audience, whilst addressing a key policy and practice challenge.

Following inconsistent evidence on leader traits and their links to leadership effectiveness, the mid-20^th century saw a shift away from trait-based leadership theories (Zaccaro, 2007). Instead, educational leadership research focused on leadership practices; the “bundle of activities exercised by a person or group of persons which reflect the particular circumstances in which they find themselves and with some shared outcome(s) in mind” (Leithwood, 2017, p. 32). There is now substantial evidence about practices associated with effective school leadership (Gurr, 2015; Leithwood et al., 2020; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019), which has informed numerous frameworks internationally. One such a framework is ACER’s Principal Performance Improvement Tool (PPIT; Masters, 2018), which outlines the practices of highly effective principals across six domains or areas of practice.

Although a focus on effective practices is well established, research increasingly recognises the importance of a range of principal qualities (Drysdale & Gurr, in press; Gurr, 2015). These qualities interact with one another and underpin contextually contingent leadership behaviours and practices (Day et al., 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020). This research therefore used an integrated theoretical lens which draws upon multiple leadership theories and styles (Leithwood, 2017). For example, we embedded elements of instructional and distributed leadership.

DoE commissioned ACER to develop a Principal Capability Framework (PCF) to make explicit what principals need to be able to know, do and be like to enact the practices of effective principals. To some extent, evidence-based frameworks such as the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF; Leithwood, 2012) have recognised the influence of leadership capabilities on leader behaviour and practices. However, our review of research and existing frameworks showed that this field is conceptually messy. This finding corresponds with criticisms of prior research on leadership effectiveness as confounding leadership behaviours with attributes, leadership styles and school context (Liebowitz & Porter, 2019). Terms such as personal attributes, qualities and traits are used interchangeably. For example, traits were often confounded with capabilities. This is problematic because, while traits are relatively stable, capabilities can be influenced by experience and targeted intervention (Zaccaro, 2007) and are therefore of interest in principal development programs. In addition, many existing leadership frameworks use the term capability, but there is no agreed common definition. Hence, there is a need to (1) generate conceptual clarity around the nature of capabilities; (2) identify the key capabilities that underpin effective principal practice, and (3) describe a professional growth continuum for each capability to guide principal development.

The overarching research questions were:

• Which principal capabilities are associated with improved leadership effectiveness?
• What is the nature of professional growth across each capability?

The research used a design research methodology (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), which incorporated elements of literature review, stakeholder consultation, co-construction and practice-based research. To answer the first research question, we reviewed empirical literature to identify which characteristics or attributes are consistently associated with positive leadership outcomes. Through this process, four clusters of capabilities were identified from the education leadership literature (Leithwood, 2012, 2017), broader leadership literature (Zaccaro et al., 2018) and higher education literature (Scott, 2016). The capabilities within each cluster were identified through multiple cycles of review of the international literature, existing principal/ educational leadership frameworks, DoE frameworks and approaches, as well as in close consultation with DoE staff and key DoE stakeholders. After establishing the PCF, the next phase focused on investigating the nature of professional growth across each capability to inform development of the continuum descriptors. According to Leithwood (2017), one key challenge that framework developers face is striking a balance between specificity and generalisability to a range of contexts. Consistent with ACER’s approach to developing improvement tools, the PCF was developed in a way that makes explicit the capabilities that underpin effective practice, regardless of context and encourages tailored solutions as appropriate to the school. It recognises the unique challenges school leaders face within diverse contexts, as well as the range of ways in which capabilities may be demonstrated. In close consultation with key stakeholders, the international research evidence was aligned with key DoE policies and practice frameworks such at the PPIT (Masters, 2018) providing an evidence-based framework that is specific to DoE system needs and has broader applicability.

This research adds conceptual clarity to a historically messy field and has substantial benefits for further research, policy and practice. Four capability clusters were identified to conceptually frame principal capability: knowledge and expertise, cognitive capabilities, social capabilities, and personal capabilities. Principals draw upon their knowledge and expertise in all aspects of their leadership (Ackerman et al., 2011; Scott, 2016). Hence, our model distinguishes knowledge and expertise as a fundamental capability cluster. The other three PCF clusters are cognitive, social and personal. Capabilities within each of these clusters interact to enable enactment of effective leadership practices. Twenty-nine capabilities were identified across these four clusters. For each capability, evidence-based descriptors were developed along a three-stage professional growth continuum ranging from Proficient to Advanced. This continuum contributes substantial new knowledge to the educational leadership field, as no such continua exist to date. The PCF and associated continuum provide unique opportunities to evaluate and develop principal capabilities. A range of tools including a principal self-assessment tool is being developed to support implementation as part of ongoing professional learning and biennial Principal Development and Performance cycles. Importantly, the framework can be used as an evidence-based approach for aspiring principal identification and preparation programs, thereby addressing critical research gaps and practice challenges. A recent review of international research and practice showed that many educational jurisdictions are moving towards more systematic approaches to identifying and developing principals based on a broad range of quality indicators. However, this research also identified scope for further improvement (Drysdale & Gurr, in press). For example, historically there has been limited focus placed on developing key capabilities such as those in the social cluster (Ackerman et al., 2011). In summary, the PCF provides exciting opportunities to inform and enhance systemically aligned principal identification, development and ongoing professional growth policy and programs.

Ackerman, R. H., Donaldson, G. A., Mackenzie, S. V., & Marnik, G. F. (2011). Leadership learning that makes a difference in schools: Pushing the frontier at the University of Maine. In T. Townsend & J. MacBeath (Eds.), International Handbook of Leadership for Learning (pp. 375–396). Springer. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863 Drysdale, L., & Gurr, D. (in press). Finding and promoting effective leaders. In F.W. English (Ed.) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse. Palgrave. Gurr, D. (2015). A model of successful school leadership from the International Successful School Principalship Project. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun, & K. Pollock (Eds.), How school leaders contribute to student success: The four paths framework (pp. 15–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50980-8_2 Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario Leadership Framework 2012. http://Iel. Immix.a/Storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN. Pdf. Leithwood, K. (2017). The Ontario Leadership Framework: successful school leadership practices and personal leadership resources. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun, & K. Pollock (Eds.), How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success: The Four Paths Framework (pp. 31–43). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50980-8_3 Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 Liebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785–827. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319866133 Masters, G. N. (2018). Principal Performance Improvement Tool. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/30 McKenney. S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership – Volume 1: policy and practice. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Scott, G. (2016). Transforming graduate capabilities & achievement standards for a sustainable future. Key insights from a 2014-2016 Office for learning & teaching national senior teaching fellowship. http://flipcurric.edu.au/sites/flipcurric/media/107.pdf Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6 –16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6 Zaccaro, S. J., Green, J. P., Dubrow, S., & Kolze, M. (2018). Leader individual differences, situational parameters, and leadership outcomes: A comprehensive review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 2–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.10.003