School systems internationally are focused on improving classroom teaching and learning to enhance student outcomes, with teacher professional development (PD) recognised as an important strategy to improve classroom practices (Ostinelli & Crescentini, 2024; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). School middle leaders (MLs) are acknowledged experts in teaching and learning, who collaborate closely with classroom teachers and school executive (Harris & Jones, 2017). The curriculum expertise and the unique positioning of MLs sees them having the capacity to positively influence classroom teaching and learning (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019). This potential has led MLs increasingly being recruited to develop and facilitate school-based teacher PD to improve classroom teaching and learning (Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford & Grootenboer, 2019) and has resulted in a greater interest by schools and education authorities in ML roles, responsibilities, and practices (Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford & Lamanna, 2021).

Internationally a range of ML practices have been identified as potentially positively influencing classroom teaching and student learning (Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2020). These include, MLs collaborating with principals and teachers to ensure shared understandings (Leithwood 2016), ML translating school system policy directives, school executive expectations and curriculum changes to be successfully implemented in classrooms (Nehez et al. 2021), ML creating a collaborative school culture focused on teaching and learning (Bryant, Wong, & Adames 2020) and, ML developing and sharing resources with the support of, and through, collaboration with colleagues (Hammersley-Fletcher & Kirkham, 2007). While there are a range of ML practices identified as positively impacting classroom teaching and learning, there is limited understanding of the practices MLs perceive as central to their work, if these practices actually support classroom teaching and learning, and currently there is no empirically informed instrument to investigate the phenomenon.

Informed by a series of small-scale empirical research studies in Australia, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand, Grootenboer, Rönnerman& Edwards-Groves (2017), using the ‘theory of practice architectures’ (Kemmis et al., 2014), a ML practice model was developed.  The theory of practice architectures provides an ontological perspective of ML practices, focusing on the ‘sayings, doings, and relatings’ of MLs in their particular school sites. This is an intentional ontological shift that centres the study on the (middle) leading that actually occurs in school sites, and the happening of middle leading as it unfolds in time and space. 

Three broad and related practices undertaken by middle leaders when leading professional development in schools were identified, and informed the ML practice model (see Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2020, p. 5).

1. Leading & Teaching: Leading both curriculum and pedagogical development of other teachers AS WELL AS teaching their own classes. Includes providing professional learning for other teachers.

2. Managing & Facilitating: Managing spaces for curriculum and pedagogical development e.g., moderation meetings that require ‘management’ practices to organise time and place, AS WELL AS facilitation of the moderation p

3.Collaboration & Communication:Collaboration AND communication with senior leaders and teachers on actions needed to achieve school goals.

This presentation reports on Middle Leading Practice School Survey (MLPSS), which was theoretically grounded by ML practice model. The survey provided an understanding of the demographics of Australian MLS, but importantly investigated MLs perceptions of the practices that were central to their leading of teaching and learning in their school sites.  

The research questions that guided this study were:

1. What are the dominant demographic profiles of the Australian school MLs who completed the MLPSS survey? (maybe take out?)
2. What practices do Australian school MLs perceive they enact in leading teaching and learning development in their school sites?  

The MLPSS was an online questionnaire distributed through Australian teacher professional learning organisations and completed by school MLs (n=199). The first part of the MLPSS collected basic demographic data, the second asked MLs to respond to 23 Likert scale questions based on the three dimensions of ML practice stated above. There were nine items for the practice domain of “Teaching and Leading”, seven items for “Managing and Facilitating”, and seven items “Collaboration and Communication. The participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert Scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) the extent to which they engaged in a specific middle leading practice. This was to ensure that the instrument had a phenomenological focus that centred on ML practices. To answer the first research question, descriptive statistics were calculated for the MLPSS demographic data, to address the second research question a series of exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses were completed The first EFA was a parallel analysis to estimate the number of factors to retain in the next stage of the EFA, this was followed by a standard EFA. Due to inconclusive results from the first 2 analysis, a subsequent forced three and four factor EFAs were completed (Fabrigar et al., 1999). To understand the robustness of the proposed 3 factor model (MLPSS), a CFA was undertaken ( Bollen, 1989). Finally based on the parallel and exploratory factor analysis, and inconsideration of the factorial structure of the MLPSS, a four factor School Middle Leading Practice Model (SMLPM) was proposed. 1. Leading & Managing School Teaching, Learning & Curriculum: Middle leader’s practices of leading and managing the development of school curriculum, professional learning and teaching and learning initiatives and responding to school management issues – this factor focused on practices for growth and stability at the school level. 2. Supporting Colleague Teachers Development: Middle leader’s practices including facilitating class observations, teacher collaborations, mentoring and performance appraisal of colleagues and the informal part of ML work – this factor focused on practices at the teacher level. 3. Collaborating with Teacher Colleagues on Teaching and Learning: Middle leader’s practices of planning, discussing, and collaborating with colleagues on issues around teaching and learning – this factor focused on collaborating with teachers on T&L 4. Collaborating with & Advocating to School Principal: Middle leader’s practices related to working with their school principal - this factor focused on practices working with the principal.

Education systems and schools worldwide have an increasing expectation that MLs will lead teacher PD to improve classroom teaching and learning (Lipscombe et al., 2021), however there is limited understanding of the actual practices of MLS and if they align with those identified as having the potential to positively impact classrooms. In reference to ML practices there are several important outcomes from this study. Firstly, as there is no known suitable instrument to investigate MLs practices the study provides a tested survey for researching ML practices, and through statistical multivariate analysis of the data, a revised model School Middle Leading Practice Model (SMLPM) is proposed. Secondly the study provides empirically informed understandings of the practices MLs perceive are core to their work. Data showed that MLs perceive their practices in relation to others (principal, teacher colleagues, school), a finding that is not surprising as previous research has highlighted the relational nature of middle leading (Edward- Groves et al., 2019). Aligned with this finding is the importance MLs placed on practicing leading upwards with the school principal. These results suggest that when developing models of ML practices and PD, attention needs to be paid to not only ML practices but whom the practices are directed. As ML are increasingly being asked to positively impact classroom teaching and learning, an important finding of the 4-factor solution was the leading practices of MLs are primarily focused on the teachers they lead, evident in domains 2, 3 and 4, highlighting ML practices relate to collaborating with, supporting, and advocating for their teacher colleagues. This result suggests that MLs perceive their leading practices as focused on influencing their teacher colleagues and therefore what happens in classrooms; a finding that suggests that ML are well-placed to drive school PD to support classroom teaching and learning.

Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179. Bryant, D. A., Y.L. Wong, and A. Adames. 2020. “How middle leaders support in-service teachers on-site professional learning.” International Journal of Educational Research. 100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101530 Darling-Hammond, L., R. Chung Wei, A. Alethea, N. Richardson, S. Orphanos. 2009. “Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad.” National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign Network, Stanford, CA. Edwards-Groves, C., P. Grootenboer, I. Hardy, and K. Rönnerman. 2019. “Driving Change from The Middle’: Middle Leading for Site Based Educational Development.” School Leadership and Management, 39 (3-4), 315–333. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 Harris, A., and M. S. Jones. 2017. “Disciplined Collaboration and Enquiry: Evaluating the Impact of Professional Learning.” Journal of Professional Capital and Community 2 (4): 200–214. doi:10.1108/JPCC-05-2017-0011. Grootenboer, P., C. Edwards-Groves, C. and K. Rönnerman. 2020. Middle Leadership in Schools: A Practical Guide for Leading Learning: Routledge. Grootenboer, P., K. Rönnerman, and C. Edwards-Groves. 2017. “Leading from the Middle: A Praxis-Oriented Practice.” In Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education:Praxis, Diversity and Contestation, edited by P. Grootenboer, C. Edwards-Groves, and S.Choy, 243–263. Springer. Kemmis, S., J. Wilkinson, C. Edwards-Groves, I. Hardy, P. Grootenboer, and L. Bristol. 2014.Changing Practices, Changing Education. Springer. Leithwood, K. 2016. “Department-Head Leadership for School Improvement.” Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15 (2): 117-140. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2015.1044538 Lipscombe K, Tindall-Ford SK, and Grootenboer, P. 2020b. Middle leading and influence in two Australian schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 48(6): 1063–1079. Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. 2021. School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220983328 Nehez, J., U. Blossing, L. Gyllander Torkildsen, R. Lander, and A. Orlin. 2021. “Middle leaders translating knowledge about improvement: Making change in the school and preschool organisation.” Journal of Educational Change 23 (3):15–341 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09418-2. Ostinelli, G., & Alberto Crescentini, A. 2024. Policy, culture and practice in teacher professional development in five European countries. A comparative analysis, Professional Development in Education, 50:1, 74-90, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1883719