Values-Virtues Leadership and the Australian Professional Standard for Principals: Toward a Distinctive Touchstone for Principals in Christian Faith-Based Schools

TEACH Journal of Christian Education, Nov 2017

The article challenges school leaders in Christian faith-based (CFB) schools to live Jesus’ kingdom values and virtues in their daily professional working and personal lives. To further this, the writer proposes an ethics, moral and spiritual purpose lens to ‘refract’ distinctive leadership profiles ─ complementary to the published Australian Professional Standard for Principals (APSP) ─ to encourage principals to engage in reflection and renewal, and bridge the gap between leadership rhetoric and practice.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

Values-Virtues Leadership and the Australian Professional Standard for Principals: Toward a Distinctive Touchstone for Principals in Christian Faith-Based Schools

TEACH Journal of Christian Education Faith-Based Schools Wilf Rieger Avondale College ResearchOnline@Avondale Recommended Citation Follow this and additional works at: - Article 6 TEACHR “apublic statement setting out what principals are expected to know, understand and do to succeed in their work ” Values-virtues leadership & the Australian Professional Standard for Principals: Towards a distinctive touchstone for principals in Christian faith-based schools Wilf Rieger Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Avondale College of Higher Education, Cooranbong, NSW Abstract The article challenges school leaders in Christian faith-based (CFB) schools to live Jesus’ kingdom values and virtues in their daily professional working and personal lives. To further this, the writer proposes an ethics, moral and spiritual purpose lens to ‘refract’ distinctive leadership profiles ─ complementary to the published Australian Professional Standard for Principals (APSP) ─ to encourage principals to engage in reflection and renewal, and bridge the gap between leadership rhetoric and practice. Introduction and background Two seminal documents developed by The Australian Institute for Teaching and Learning (AITSL) have delineated clear criteria for practising educators in Australian schools: the Australian Professional Standard for Principals1, following in the wake of its earlier counterpart for teachers. What is the APSP essentially about? A précis might best describe it as, “a public statement setting out what principals are expected to know, understand and do to succeed in their work”2 and in their leadership role, to guide, “develop and support teaching that maximises impact on student learning.”3 In the presented AITSL model (see Figure 1, next page), principals are called upon to view their role through three leadership lenses: a) Leadership requirements; b) Professional practices; and c) Leadership emphasis4 ─ each linked to its related focuses. The outcome of using this ‘frame of reference’ is a set of detailed leadership behaviour, actions and descriptors, providing a comprehensive framework known as Leadership Profiles, with ascending levels of proficiency for a) and b) above, but not for c). Requirements and practices of the model are always situated in context and conceived as being “fully interdependent, integrated and with no hierarchy implied.”5 Perhaps, of particular interest, is the explanation: The Standard [APSP] is applicable to principals irrespective of context or experience. What will vary is the emphasis given to particular elements of the standard as principals respond to context, expertise and career stage.6 Noticeably, principals’ work as set out by the APSP is characterised by a complexity that lies in the depth and breadth of tasks set in diverse social, economic, bureaucratic, financial, and political contexts, as part of the quintessential assignment of leading students’ education. Also, it is evident that AITSL’s APSP views schools implicitly as sociotechnical organisations that conform to a social systems model, i.e. schools’ mutually interacting and interwoven parts are in continual, dynamic interaction with their external environments, all of which impacts leadership practice in achieving schools’ goals. Historically, a draft of the APSP was initially piloted and subsequently endorsed for implementation by Ministers at the Standing Council of Education and Early Childhood. The present APSP (also referred to as The Standard in AITSL’s twenty-nine page document) is intended for use in all Australian schools and education systems. This raises important questions for principals in Christian faith-based schools: Are these mandated APSP leadership requirements and professional practices, in addition to a ‘veneer of religiosity’, all that there is to being a quality educational leader; or is there more? Moreover, what kind of narrative should shape leadership in CFB schools? ─ learning communities that have a Christian spiritual dimension. In seeking to address the above posed questions, the article examines first the relevance and significance of values and virtues in leadership literature, initially from a secular perspective and then from a Christian viewpoint. This is the precursor to proposing a complementary modification to the existing AITSL model ─ to include an additional (fourth) lens ─ and thus, hopefully, offer enriched, transforming and more meaningful Leadership Profiles to principals in CFB schools. Ensuing profiles furnish insights about the relational side of educational leadership that give rise to a different narrative for leaders in CFB schools; before a general conclusion is presented. A secular perspective A scanning of current literature shows that the study of leadership is generally characterised by ambiguity, complexity and change (perhaps the 2016 US presidential election and its result being an interesting case in point) . Contributing to this perplexity is the plethora of leadership styles and models that exist. For instance, UCLA adjunct professor Murray Johannsen lists twenty,7 even which, by no means constitutes the full extent! AITSL ─ probably wisely ─ neither endorses nor mentions a particular leadership style or model for educators. It leaves role incumbents free to choose and adapt, inter alia, to suit personal characteristics, circumstances, contexts and cultures; instead, focusing on specific, expected actions and behaviours. In the category of vision and values (a subset of the AITSL leadership requirements), The Standard is noticeably (and perhaps understandably) not extensive. Why? First, The Standard’s intentional primary focus is on the quality of learning. Second, ‘the elephant in the room’ is the prickly question of values ─ the principles, beliefs, convictions and standards that consistently guide personal behaviour ─ but more specifically, which values and whose? Alain de Botton, philosopher and author observes: We are the inheritors of an idea, endorsed by both the right and left wings of the political spectrum, that the most fundamental reality of nations is their financial state ….8 Accordingly, it appears that education in many countries has increasingly become part of a pragmatic, economic efficiency paradigm. In this context, The Standard for principals, The leadership lenses, Professional Practices, Leadership Requirements and Leadership Emphasis, and the focuses linked to each lens Copyright 2015, Education Services Australia Ltd. as the legal entity for the COAG Education Council. The Standard was developed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and endorsed by the Council [used with permission]. “‘the elephant in the room’ is the prickly question of values … but more specifically, which values and whose? ” “the world at large, is ‘suffering’ not so much from a lack of knowledge and expertise, but experiencing a crisis of moral purpose. ” with the Leadership Profiles in particular, may be perceived as ‘performance genre’.9 Its language is one of competence, technical knowledge, skills and tasks together with audit requirements ─ much in the manner of the preceding APST document, standards for teachers. John Sullivan incisively comments on such language contexts: The use of technical or instrumental language assumes that ends or ultimate purposes and values are either already agreed upon and can be taken for granted or that they cannot be agreed upon and are best left out [emphasis added].10 The Standard for principals appears to straddle both of Sullivan’s categories; although one could point to the nine values listed on the widely circulated poster, Values for Australian schooling.11 But are these suggested values intended and/or sufficient for educational leaders? Furthermore, the diverse nature of multi-cultural societies (such as Australia) heightens the challenge to achieve a wide range of agreed, shared values; notably, to include those values that are perceived as moral or spiritual ones. Even acclaimed Canadian educational researcher and author Michael Fullan in his, The moral imperative of school leadership (2003)12 and Indelible leadership (2016 ),13 deals only with generalities. Fullan points to principals’ need for a moral compass and exhorts them to consider and reflect on the purpose of life, work and being. For him, moral imperative is about commitment, identity and passion; he interprets character simply as citizenship. But beyond that, no further exhortation is presented, inevitably because of the wide variance in, or absence of clearly articulated agreed moral values in many western democracies. Values are important. Especially is this the case when (not) espoused and acted upon by leaders ─ whether at a global, national or local level. The evidence provided at the hearings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuses (that included Christian education institutions) and separately, the reported cases of corruption and criminal behaviour in some state government education jurisdictions indicate, regrettably, the lack of integrity and ‘moral fibre’ by some leaders across the educational spectrum in Australia, and the need for, what noted psychologists Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman term “character strengths and virtues.”14 Extreme failures in leadership behaviour highlight the importance of moral purpose and the significance of values and virtues. Similarly, but contrastingly, noble and inspiring leadership underscores and embodies them. Thus, one might readily conclude that society and perhaps the world at large, is ‘suffering’ not so much from a lack of knowledge and expertise, but experiencing a crisis of moral purpose. Jean McNiff, international educator and action research exponent, expresses a widely held view in asserting: “… values are the beliefs and principles we live and explain how the living of those values turns us into virtuous practitioners.”15 Ethicist Arthur Holmes contends that a virtuous nature covers not only one’s conduct; it also includes motives, intentions and underlying dispositions ─ inner states that are not merely cognitive but also affective.16 Among other voices that underscore the importance of values in the workplace17, Shari Baig argues: “Both competency and character are emerging as an indispensible set of critical necessities of contemporary educators” (emphasis added).18 When intentionally lived out, positive values (vis a vis vices) no longer remain abstractions and, when habitually embodied in an individual, they develop into virtues. These constitute arête, the moral excellence esteemed by classical Greek philosophers; the very essence of the notion of character; not to be confused with personality, however. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it as follows: On the assumption that what kind of person one is, is constituted by one’s character, the link between moral character and virtue is clear. We can think of one’s moral character as primarily a function of whether she has or lacks various moral virtues or vices.19 Shlomo Back, former president of Beersheba’s Kaye Academic College of Education, in Israel, also argues for the embodiment of morality. Referring to Aristotelian conceptions of life that is meaningful, is good, has purpose and leads to wellbeing, puts educational leaders on notice: Educators have no option but to offer a personal example to their pupils who learn from their behaviour more than they learn from their words (emphasis added).20 It has been argued thus far that in a socioeconomic culture (such as Australia’s) steeped in techne ─ of technical competence and know-how ─ there is a critical need of sophia or phronesis; a need of wisdom that embraces values and virtues. It follows that the case for a fourth lens (an ethics, moral and spiritual purpose lens, additional to the AITSL model) which allows principals to view their decisions, actions, practices and behaviours, appears to be a valid and reasonable one. However, the question remains: Which values and whose? For CFB schools, this does not represent a contested issue, but is worthy of closer examination. A Christian viewpoint Moral excellence is significant in the teachings of all major world religions. For Christians, virtues are those moral principles that are in harmony with biblical teachings and are best exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus ─ someone who always ‘walked the talk’ ─ for whom proclamation was synonymous with incarnation and whose life was integrated and not compartmentalised. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matth. 5:3─7:27) Jesus clearly articulates the values and virtues he wants his listeners and followers to embrace and practise, a point not lost by New Testament gospel and epistle writers enjoining believers to being doers and not hearers of the word only (Matth. 7:24, Luke 6:47, James 1:22, 23). Practising lawyer and legal philosopher Iain Benson,21 divides virtues into two major groups: natural and supernatural ─ those that are perceived by reason and those received by revelation, i.e. through the power of the Holy Spirit. By way of illustration, Benson22 refers to Aristotle who, in the Nichomachean Ethics, names practical wisdom, self-control, courage and justice as four cardinal virtues (among other virtues). These are regarded as belonging to the first group, whereas the apostle Paul’s admonition to the church at Corinth (1Cor 13), counselling his audience to practice faith, hope and above all charity (love) ─ later expanded in his letter to the church in Galatia (Gal. 5:22, 23) ─ belong to the second group, and are often referred to as the Fruit of the Spirit. Benson also differentiates between values and virtues.23 He claims, in post-modern society values have not only become relativised (a matter of personal preference), everyone has their own, with an origin in self, but they also have been trivialised. Trivialisation may vary from valuing a beautiful car, or the skill of playing Pokémon, to telling clever jokes. Hence, Benson counsels alertness to the possibility that values language-use in the domain of moral principles (vis a vis art, economics or music, for instance) can open the door to confusion. He argues: … all of what used to be called virtues, are treated as values, makes no distinction between justice and the colour of a T-shirt … Values language is an obscuring language for morality used when the idea of purpose has been destroyed.24 Clearly, values language is not necessarily moral language and does not have to refer to something that is true. Virtues, in contrast, make a claim for objective truth,25 a category that is central to the Gospel and supported by Jesus’ declaration: “… you will know the truth, and it will make you free” (John 8:32, NLT) ─ truth that will liberate people from being enslaved to sin and lead to freedom from falsehoods and vices. Evidently then, it will be necessary for principals to “make sense of non-sense values that inhabit the cultural landscape.”26 How should we regard values then? It is proposed that values being espoused by CBF schools’ leadership in essence are kingdom values ─ i.e. they should fit into a biblical framework; harmonise with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount; and lead to shared purposes for human life and the particular community in which principals serve. Principals should also ensure that ‘values’ that are actually preferences ─ whether their own or those of others ─ do not pose as moral principles. In their 2014 Australian research study of leadership in three faith-based schools, Striepe, Clarke and O’Donoghue report that participating principals’ values had a distinctly religious dimension. Principals stated that their “personal faith or spirituality was continually connected to their perspectives on leadership”27 substantiating claims in the wider literature28 that faith can transform the meaning of values “beyond how they are generally understood within society.”29 The authors of the 2014 study dwell on the desirability for all leaders in faithbased schools to take time to identify their values and how these should inform and impact what they do. How then does one move from rhetoric to reality? To live out virtues and noble values surely is a formidable challenge for CFB school principals. It is entirely a faith endeavour. For Christians, virtues are not self-generated, but grace-imbued (John 15:4). As also has been pointed out: The Holy Spirit gently works on people’s hearts and minds. …By reproducing Christ’s character in us, He thus brings to life Christlike virtues in our lives [if we choose to follow his prompting and leading].30 This kind of values-virtues leadership ministry is grounded in service and stewardship. If its practice appears naive and unrealistic in the milieu of everyday school life, then leaders may take heart from the testimony of the apostle Paul who claimed the promise: “My grace is enough for you. For where there is weakness, my power is shown more completely” (2Cor 12:9, J.B. Phillips Translation). Despite the perceived challenges, interestingly, there is also some encouraging research evidence from the Christian schools sector: “… the gaining of status, power and financial benefit had very little influence on [questionnaire respondents’] decision to apply for school leadership positions … [rather] … being able to implement positive change, improve educational processes, and make a difference in the lives of students, were what prompted them [aspirants] to apply for leadership positions.31 “Evidently then, it will be necessary for principals “to make sense of nonsense values that inhabit the landscape” ” “there is a case for a fourth lens ─ an ethics, moral and spiritual purpose one ─ through which principals might view their practice. ” Having examined relevant literature from a Christian perspective, one can conclude again that there is a case for a fourth lens ─ an ethics, moral and spiritual purpose one ─ through which principals might view their practice. This idea is likely to resonate strongly with the client communities of CFB schools. The fourth lens A point of departure Figure 2 shows an adaptation of AITSL’s Australian Professional Standard for Principals model (depicted by Figure 1). The component parts of AITSL’s model lead to sets of descriptors – Leadership Profiles ─ that delineate expected professional practice and specific actions by principals. The adaptation, represented by Figure 2 retains all of the categories and components of the original AITSL model; however it exhibits an additional fourth lens. If one were to use a photography analogy, it is intended to provide principals with a fast, wide prime lens i.e. with a focal length that gives a wide-angle perspective and an aperture that captures maximum light. The posited fourth lens, in harmony with the AITSL model, also leads to a set of Leadership Profiles, as displayed in Tables 1a and 1b (See pages 2931), which show a congruence between values and clear, specific actions. The Leadership Profiles for principals connect with the Lead career stage of the Teacher Ministry Standards 8, 9 and 10 for focus areas 8.1 to 10.6, as delineated in TEACH Journal of Christian Education 5(2), 8-14. In a sense, the profiles represent a Weberian ideal type, which does not refer to perfect things, morals or ideals that are mandated, but incorporates the common elements of the many phenomena of desirable moral and ethical leadership in CFB schools. The proposed adaptation does not claim to be or constitute a values-virtues model of leadership. Rather, the approach taken to leadership is an eclectic one, augmenting the AITSL model and underlining the critical importance that values and virtues play in effective, ethical educational leadership. Also, a perusal of The Standard suggests that axiology is not one of its numerous strengths, i.e. in terms of moral purpose ─ what is of value? Under Leadership Requirements, AITSL’s Standard paints “vision and values” in very broad brushstrokes. Leadership is perceived principally in terms of intellectual, organisational, technical and social competence. The use of a fourth lens should thus assist principals in CFB schools to set their sight in another direction; a new one. The specificity shown in Tables 1a and 1b ─ an ethics specificity not evident in The Standard ─ may be too large a step for some leaders, but it should be noted that ethics commentators in the business world currently do not seem to have a difficulty in this respect, as the following IVEY Business Journal article abstract indicates: The sum of virtues, values and traits equals character. … For many, however, virtues, values and traits remain indefinable, even elusive. The authors define them; they also de-construct them, in the It should be noted that the above values and virtues (and leaders’ practices/actions) will also intersect with the categories of Leadership Emphasis ─ operational, relational, strategic and systemic. Furthermore, they should be matched (according to AITSL’s Standard for Principals framework) to the context, career stage and capabilities in, and with which principals exercise leadership. “The specificity shown in Tables 1a and 1b ─ an ethics specificity not evident in The Standard ─ may be too large a step for some leaders ” “ Promoting and celebrating students’ character development and facilitating their free choice to follow Jesus ” Leading the management of the school • Culture-formation, as modelled by Jesus and the apostle Paul; it forms the foundation stone of a Christian faith-based school (Luke 10:27; Phil 4:9) • Trust(worthiness) and acceptance; important building blocks of strong and loving Christian school communities (John 4:7-9; Mk 10:14; Col 1:9) • Nurture and care; characteristics of healthy schools ─ where people are enabled to contribute, learn, and are loved and valued (John 21:15; Matth 18:12) • Empowerment, encouragement, inclusivity; ensuring continuity of leadership; ‘power shared, is power multiplied’ (Ex 18:18-22; 1Kings 19:19-21; 2Tim 1:3-4; Ruth 2:10) • Responsibility for and ownership of actions and decisions (Jer 13:20; Gal 6:7; Ez 3:16-19; James 5:16) • Transparency and openness, in decision-making processes and actions (Matth 5:37; John 18:20; Acts 5:14; 2Pet 1:16; Acts 15:4-31) • Goodwill and reconciliation in cases of discord or conflict (Matth 5:9, 23-24; Rom 12:18; 1Cor 6:2,4,5) • Perceptiveness and sensitivity in relation to the context of learning and leading (Acts 17: 22-31; 1Cor 9:19-23) • Discernment in regards to the school’s ‘fruitage’ and mission (1Kings 3:9; Heb 5:14) Engaging & working with the community • Gratitude, thankfulness; awareness of the source of our benefits, joys, successes and achievements (Ps 26:7; Eph 5:20; Ph’m 4,5) • Witness and proclamation to and worship with the community (Isa 43:10) It should be noted that the above values and virtues (and leaders’ practices/actions) will also intersect with the categories of Leadership Emphasis ─ operational, relational, strategic and systemic. Furthermore, they should be matched (according to AITSL’s Standard for Principals framework) to the context, career stage and capabilities in, and with which principals exercise leadership. * See TEACH Journal of Christian Education, 8(5), 8-14 process demonstrating how character fuels people in their personal journey to become better leaders.32 Similarly, there are some voices in academia that argue: “Character, not charisma is the critical measure of leadership excellence.”33 Furthermore, the additional lens finds support in the 2008 Melbourne Declaration. The landmark declaration upholds the development of personal values; attributes such as honesty, resilience; empathy and respect for others; an expectation of acting with moral and ethical integrity, and an understanding of “the spiritual, moral and aesthetic dimensions of life”.34 The lens thus serves as a reminder for the CFB schools sector of its reason d’être and the need for each school to have a clear mission and philosophy. Without these, according to educational administrator Dr Lisa BeardsleyHardy, there is the real danger that Christian schools “become driven by market forces; defined by national standards and accrediting agencies; and formed by culture rather than acting to redeem culture through the power of Christ.”35 The Leadership Profiles, ‘refracted’ through the use of the fourth lens, largely speak for themselves. However, following their tabling, various observations, comments and explanations, some general and others specific, may be warranted to enhance clarity and comprehension. Schools ─ learning communities living in relationship Using the fourth lens intentionally not only accentuates the relational side of learning and “there is the real danger that Christian schools become driven by market forces; defined by national standards … and formed by culture rather than acting to redeem culture ” “ There is a ‘temptation’ that principals might see themselves as educational entrepreneurs rather than servantstewardship leaders. ” teaching, as pointed out by Professor Viviane Robinson: “Effective leaders do not get the relationships right and then tackle the educational challenges ─ they incorporate both sets of constraints into their problem solving;”36 Also, in rightly incorporating the ethical, moral and spiritual dimension, the lens provides a wider perspective. Through the Leadership Profiles, the fourth lens shines a light on what it means to be human ─ to live in relationship with others (not forgetting God and the environment) ─ as underlined, for instance, by two educators; an author and a principal, respectively: The quality of the relationship that students have in class with their peers and teachers is important to their success in school.37 Positive educator and student relationships outweigh content knowledge. Content knowledge can always be learned and mastered. Relationships are built on respect and trust.38 Practices should always be in congruence with claimed values, as the comments of a 2014 NSW Higher School Certificate student ─ whose school ranked in the top 40 in the state ─ reveal: [The school] Manufactures students to only care about careers, nothing else matters to them but good grades. Not at all a nurturing environment. It’s the kids who top the class who receive help. The rest drop right through the system. Unfortunate waste of what could be one of the best schools on the central coast [sic].39 The student’s comments should be seen in the wider context of the 2015 PISA40 results. Australia has again dropped several places on some measures ─ behind Kazakhstan! Increasingly, there is a chorus of influential voices lamenting that Australia, inevitably, will be “left behind” in the educational Olympic gold medal count, as if scripted in some imaginary dispensationalist education narrative. Ubiquitous comparisons, particularly with southeast Asian countries, rarely provide a complete picture. The data with the attendant rankings can be misleading, to say the least. Rarely is there mention of the human cost of rankings and test cultures. Conversely, wise principals always are aware that the unceasing quest for success, when narrowly defined, is harming young people.41 A different drummer Principals in CFB schools participate in a different narrative when they view their leadership practice through the fourth lens, and act accordingly. In embracing kingdom values and virtues, principals are committing to kingdom actions and practices in keeping with their leadership ministry. They follow a different drummer on several major fronts: Identity Their identity and ground of their being is found in Jesus Christ, not in their knowledge and competence, important though these may be. A real danger exists that performance expectations and continual evaluation can result in identity formation that is dependent on comparison with pre-determined measures or standards based on unexamined assumptions. Role In their role as stewards, principals in CFB schools are entrusted with diverse responsibilities. These include human, physical and financial resources. As leaders they are expected to further the Kingdom of God, as they nurture, develop and grow their school communities. In so doing there is the ‘temptation’ that principals might see themselves as educational entrepreneurs rather than as servantstewardship leaders. While there is a valid case for financial understanding and management, they may be attracted to buy into a business model for their school, replete with brand-type marketing and slick, feel-good slogans. CFB schools are faith projects (where the Gifts and Fruit of the Spirit are in evidence) and should never be confused with business enterprises. Service A calling to service is an integral part of valuesvirtues leadership that requires integrity and humility as manifested by Jesus’ actions and words: “… the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many” (Matth 20:28, NIV). When a leader “who beautifully, though not perfectly exemplifies the life of a disciple of Jesus, we get the overwhelming desire to live such a life ourselves”.42 Competence and expertise For committed Christians, competence and expertise, in the form of abilities, accomplishments, expertness and skills, are means to an end ─ to serve the community ─ and acknowledge them as God’s gifts. They may be developed to a high degree and accomplish much good. Status and recognition Pride goes before a fall, according to the book of Proverbs. Pride is probably the ‘genesis’ of all sin and perhaps the most destructive of all. Respect of persons should always be mutual. On the other hand, superiority, condescension or highhandedness have no place in CFB schools. Leaders should always be mindful that at the foot of the cross, all are equal, in case anyone may be enticed by status and recognition. Power and empowerment Power with others, and self-control accomplishes much more than power over and control of others. Thus power shared, is power multiplied. These principles from the secular and spiritual realms (Prov. 25:28, Matth. 28:18, Acts 1:8) are applicable to Christian learning communities. As leaders, principals have the task to empower and mentor others in their learning community. Culture and conduct Culture and conduct are fundamental elements of CFB schools; elements that wise leaders will develop and maintain. An effective principal will foster, build on and shape the time-honoured and cherished narrative ─ the collective memories ─ that invigorate and motivate the school community to live out its mission. Similarly, the spiritual truism of, “belonging, believing and being”, will characterise the conduct of leaders and led. Structures and communication Effective principals will put in place organisational structures and communication channels that are in harmony with their CFB learning communities’ shared values. These are made visible not only in policy documents, directives and digital newsletters, but also in the lives of school community members. Furthermore, when the scriptural principle of contributive structuring (1Cor 12:14-27) is applied to schools’ various endeavours, principals should discover that the whole will always be greater than the sum of the individual parts. Concluding thoughts The proposal of using an ethics, moral and spiritual purpose lens to view the Australian Professional Standard for Principals has resulted in complementary, distinctive Leadership profiles. These should not be seen as dictated outcomes for leaders in CFB schools. Rather, they should be regarded as a challenge for reflection, a mirror for deep personal self-examination and/or an avenue for renewal. It is hoped and it follows that principals in Christian faith-based schools are now challenged to ‘interpret’ this document, applying their own distinctive understanding of what comprises meaningful, holistic, values-virtues leadership practice, as servants and stewards to their own learning communities. TEACH Endnotes and references 1 “The spiritual truism of “belonging, believing, and being”, will characterise the conduct of leaders and led ” Australian Institute for Teaching and Learning ( 2015 ). 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , Ibid. pp. 3 , 10 , 11 , 4 . 7 Accessed 11 /11/ 2016 . 8 De Botton, A. ( 2014 ). The news: A user's manual . New York, NY: Pantheon Books , p. 127 . 9 Matthias, L. ( 2015 ). The cry of a teacher's soul . Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, p. 59 . 10 Sullivan, J. ( 2007 ). Reading habits, scripture and the university. Grand Rapids , MI: Zondervan, p. 235 . 11 point_values Accessed 11 /11/ 2016 . 12 Fullan, M. ( 2003 ). The moral imperative of school leadership . Thousand Oaks , CAL: Corwin Press. 13 Fullan, M. ( 2016 ). Indelible leadership: Always leave them learning. Thousand Oaks , CAL: Corwin Press. 14 Peterson, C. and Seligman , M. ( 2006 ). Character strengths and University Press. 15 McNiff, J . (Ed.), ( 2013 ). Editorial. Value and virtue in practice- based research . Dorset, UK: September Books. 16 Holmes, A. ( 1984 ). Ethics. Approaching moral decisions . Downers Grove , IL: Intervarsity Press, p. 116 . I am indebted to and his insights. 17 Dean , K. ( 2012 ). Values-based leadership: How our personal Leadership , 5 ( 1 ), 59 - 66 , is one example. 18 Baig, S. ( 2014 ). Beyond the content and pedagogy: A step development. The Journal of Values-based Leadership , 7 ( 2 ), 1 - 6, p. 8 . 19 Tempe, K. ( 2007 ). Moral character . The internet encyclopedia Accessed 11 /11/ 2016 . 20 Back, S. ( 2002 ). The Aristotelian challenge of teacher education. History of Intellectual Culture , 2 ( 1 ). www.ucalgary. ca/hic Accessed 11 /11/2016 21 Benson, I. ( 2008 ). Do “values” mean anything at all? Science , 33 ( 1 ), 1 - 22 . 22 Ibid. 23 Benson, I. ( 2000 ) Values and virtues: A modern confusion . An address given in Powell River , BC , Canada; May 30 . 24, 25 Ibid . 26 Osborne, A. ( 2012 ). Leadership training that challenges hearts and minds. Nurture , 46 ( 2 ), 8 - 10 . 27 Striepe, M. , Clarke , S. , & O'Donoghue , T. ( 2014 ). Spirituality, faith-based schools . Issues in Educational Leadership , 24 ( 1 ), 85- 97 ; p. 90 . 28 Dantley, M. ( 2008 ). The 2007 Willower Family Lecture ─ Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7 ( 4 ), 451 - 460 . 29 Striepe, M., p. 90 . 30 Hasel, F. ( 2017 ). The Holy Spirit and spirituality . Adult teachers Sabbath School Bible study guide , p. 23 . 31 Williams, P. & Morey , P. ( 2014 ). Future leadership of schools TEACH Journal of Christian Education , 9 ( 2 ), 22 - 32 , p. 31 . 32 Crossan, M. , Gandz , J. , & Seijts , G. ( 2012 ). Developing developing-leadership-character/ Accessed 11 /11/ 2016 . 33 Sankar, Y. ( 2003 ). Character not charisma is the critical Organizational Studies , 9 ( 4 ), 45 - 55 . 34 Australian Education Ministers ( 2008 ). Melbourne declaration Youth Affairs . 35 Beardsley-Hardy , L. ( 2015 ). Adventist education can learn from Sabbath School . Adventist Review , 192 ( 26 ), 16 - 17 . 36 Robinson, V. ( 2007 ). School leadership and student outcomes: Series , No 41 . 37 Copeland, M. ( 2014 ). The emerging significance of values Leadership Studies , 8 ( 2 ), 105 - 135 , p. 130 . 38 Dodd, R. ( 2016 ). Ultimate Guide: Best instructional practices 2016 /03/ultimate-guide -best-instructional. html Accessed 11 /11/ 2016 . 39 Accessed 11 /11/ 2016 . 40 Acronym; PISA: Program for International Student Assessment [OECD] 41 Clark , L. ( 2016 ). Beautiful failures . Melbourne, Vic: Random House. 42 Caesar, L. with Scur , B. and Brace , S. ( 2016 ). Fascinated with Christ . Adventist World, 12 ( 1 ), 21 - 23

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

Wilf Rieger. Values-Virtues Leadership and the Australian Professional Standard for Principals: Toward a Distinctive Touchstone for Principals in Christian Faith-Based Schools, TEACH Journal of Christian Education, 2017,