Article

Policy Futures in Education

Educational change 2015, Vol. 13(8) 1010–1026
! Author(s) 2015

leadership through a new Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

zonal theory lens: Using DOI: 10.1177/1478210315588840

pfe.sagepub.com

mathematics curriculum
change as the example
Janeen Lamb
Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University, Australia

Christopher M Branson
Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, New Zealand

Abstract
This paper outlines actions that educational change leaders can take to better meet their
curriculum change obligations and responsibilities. In order to do this we extend Vygotsky’s
(1978) zonal theory and its many extensions and elaborations by positioning educational
change leadership within this theory. We rename the zones to Zone of Principal
Responsibilities, Zone of Principal Support, Zone of Professional Learning, Zone of Teacher
Resistance and Zone of Principal Illusion, and we introduce the Zone of Curriculum Change
and represent these zones in diagrammatical form. We use our research on mathematics
curriculum change in one school as an example of how our new zonal theory lens supports
educational change leadership. Our findings illuminate possible actions and reactions of the
principal and the teacher that ultimately suggest a way forward for turning around unsuccessful
curriculum change. Our new zonal theory provides opportunities for change leaders to reduce
teacher resistance with evidence that the action and reaction of the principal and the teacher are
not independent of each other but are, in fact, co-constructed.

Keywords
change leadership, curriculum reform, zonal theory, teacher resistance

Corresponding author:
Christopher M Branson, Professor of Educational Leadership, Faculty of Education University of Waikato, Private Bag
3105, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Email: cbranson@waikato.ac.nz
Lamb and Branson 1011

Introduction
Much of the educational change literature positions the commencement of deliberately
focused and organised educational change in the early 1960s, but also acknowledges the
regularity of failure in these endeavours. For example, Fullan (2005) declares that while
some progress has been made in knowing how to better lead educational reform processes,
invariably they remain: ‘neither deep nor sustainable’ (Fullan, 2005: 1). Similarly,
Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) lament: ‘producing deep improvement that lasts and
spreads remains an elusive goal of most educational change efforts’ (Hargreaves and
Goodson, 2006: 5). Moreover, Hargreaves (2005) himself, argues that even with all the
knowledge we have gained over the past 50 years about how to effectively lead change:
‘too many change efforts remain disappointing and ineffective [and] successful school
change on a widespread basis continues to be infuriatingly elusive’ (Hargreaves, 2005:
282). Despite all our theories and all our efforts, deeply effective and sustainable
educational change remains indefinable. Finding the correct way to properly lead
educational change is not just about ensuring that our schools will be able to achieve
what they are meant to but also to ensure that all involved in the change process are
better prepared to meet their obligations and responsibilities.
Many who have experienced deliberate educational change, either as leaders or
participants, may well acknowledge it as being a time of tension and uncertainty. Despite
the abundance of literature prescribing how such change can be best implemented and
managed, the reality rarely mirrors the ideal. Often, people are troubled by the transition
asked of them by the change and so amend, resist or undermine the change (Bridges, 2002).
As a result, tension and uncertainty arises and important obligations and responsibilities
become confused, if not avoided. In this circumstance, achieving successful and sustainable
change becomes far more difficult.
This paper, and the research which it draws upon, reflects that educational change theory
has overemphasised the functional learning associated with the change process at the
expense of social learning. Every change mandates new ways to function for those
involved; those bringing about the change will be required to learn new ways to act. But
within an organisation every change also mandates new ways to socialise for those involved;
those bringing about the change will be required to learn new ways to relate, cooperate and
work together.
For the leader of the change, this awareness is paramount yet little theoretical or research
attention has been offered for guidance. Much has been written about how the leader should
function in order to implement successful and sustainable change (see for example Fullan,
2006; Hallinger, 2003; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Snowdon and Gorton, 1998). A diligent
leader can readily learn the functionalities of leading educational change from these and
other sources. However, from a social learning perspective there is much less guidance.
Certainly the emotional consequences associated with change have been highlighted (see
Blenkin et al., 1997; Branson, 2010; Bridges, 2002; Hargreaves, 2005). Here the leader is
urged to suitably attend to the likely existence of resistance to change caused by the
emotional response to it from those being asked to implement it. Also, more recent
educational change literature has emphasised the need for the leader to be an integral
participator and contributor to the change process (e.g. Dinham, 2009; Leithwood and
Day, 2007; Robinson, 2007). Moreover, Haslam et al. (2011) argue that it is not only
within the confines of the educational change process that the leader needs to be clearly
seen as an integral and active member. These authors argue that the essence of leadership is
1012 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

about instinctively and authentically being a part of the group and advocating on behalf of
the group.
The departure point for this paper is its recognition of the limitations of this current
guidance for the leader with respect to the social learning aspect of change implementation.
This paper is informed by research that draws on one primary school’s implementation of a
new mathematics curriculum at a time when many different curriculum changes were
expected across each subject area. In doing this, the principal’s actions as leader and the
teachers actions as members of the professional learning community provide insights into
how curriculum change in mathematics was implemented in this particular primary school.
In order to develop these insights, an extension of Vygotsky’s (1978) zonal theory is provided
as a way to present an illustration and description of some of the essential obligations and
responsibilities inherent within every educational change process. In this way, this paper not
only highlights the pivotal social learning manifest in educational change but, by doing so, it
simultaneously provides guidance for how these can be readily addressed. Thus, this paper
provides a unique contribution to the educational change leadership literature and, thereby,
offers increased optimism for the achievement of successful educational change
implementation in future.

The conceptual foundation

Vygotsky (1978) first introduced the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to
more fully describe the relational or social interplay that occurs between a teacher and a
student’s learning during times of guided learning. He described the ZPD as the: ‘distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development under adult guidance or in collaboration with more
capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). He saw this zone as the space in which learning takes
place. This theory stimulated considerable debate and research being further developed by
many researchers (e.g. Blanton et al., 2001; Blanton et al., 2005; Cazden, 1983; Oerter, 1992;
Valsiner 1987, 1997). The argument presented in this paper is that the educational change
literature, with its emphasis on the principal being the leader of the required new
professional learning, positions the principal as akin to that of the teacher in Vygotsky’s
(1978) theory. Simply, in the Vygotsky (1978) conceptual model, the relationship of teacher
to the student is the same as that of the principal to the teacher. The expectation is that the
principal will be guiding the teacher’s learning of the required new professional skills and
knowledge, which will bring about the desired change.
To make this application of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory more explicit to this research, the
ZPD has been renamed the Zone of Professional Learning (ZPL). The ZPL is the
professional and personal interplay that occurs between the principal and a teacher’s
professional learning as, together, they seek to provide quality student learning in the school.
Our research also draws on Valsiner’s (1987) research that identified a further two zones,
which he called the Zone of Free Movement (ZFM) and the Zone of Promoted Action
(ZPA). Within our research, the ZFM is referred to as the Zone of Principal
Responsibilities (ZPR), which is the total educational environment that is established by
the principal and which establishes the fundamental professional parameters for the actions
and thinking the teacher is permitted to undertake. Valsiner (1987) describes this zone as
characterising ‘the set of what is available . . . to the [teacher] at a given time’ (Valsiner, 1987:
232). He argues that the boundaries of the ZPR are constantly being reorganised such that
Lamb and Branson 1013

the: ‘reorganization may be initiated by either the [teacher] or [principal] or by both of them
at the same time’ (Valsiner, 1987: 232). This could lead to, for example, the principal
constraining the teacher’s choice of actions or thinking and can therefore direct the future
development of the educational environment experienced in the school. For example, in the
current climate where many curriculum changes at the same time is the norm, the ZPR
would encompass each required curriculum change.
Valsiner (1987) goes on to describe the ZPA, but in this instance called the Zone of
Principal Support (ZPS), as a: ‘set of activities, objects, or areas in the environment, in
respect of which the [teacher’s] actions are promoted’ (Valsiner, 1987: 99–100) that can be
used to encourage the teacher to perform positively, constructively and confidently in all
of their teaching endeavours. In other words, the ZPR describes the principal’s entire set
of professional responsibilities, as well as their values, principles, processes, attitudes and
expectations, which combine to establish the school’s educational environment. The
principal’s responsibilities are so wide it is not possible for the principal to be explicitly
supporting each aspect of this environment at each and every moment. Thus, the principal
will select particular aspects of this environment based upon a personal sense of what
might be more influential and important and provide tangible support for these aspects.
This may mean for example, that the principal might engage the services of an external
consultant to provide a professional learning opportunity aligned with a perceived new
requirement of the change. This could involve the provision of professional readings
about new initiatives, additional resources or some release time to encourage the
teacher to be continually consolidating and enhancing their professional skills and
knowledge.
The interaction of these zones is such that the action that is supported must be allowed
and therefore the ZPS is within the ZPR. Nonetheless, the ZPR and the ZPS are interrelated
and constantly undergoing change as the principal and teacher interact resulting in
negotiated professional learning within the zones. This negotiation occurs as the ZPS will
not cover all the principal’s responsibilities and as pressures within the sociocultural
environment of the school changes, the ZPS will change.
Making the interactions of these zones more complex is that for optimal teacher
professional learning, Valsiner (1987) argues that actions that are supported must be
within the teacher’s ZPD, or in this instance their ZPL. The principal cannot ask more of
the teacher than the teacher feels capable of doing and relevant to their perceived
professional requirements. Moreover, Oerter’s (1992) later research identified that in
situations of deliberate learning, for example in the situation of intentional professional
learning during implementation of a desired educational change: ‘it is the [teacher] who
constructs – with help – his or her [professional] learning, sometimes with unexpected
results’ (Oerter, 1992: 188). He makes the point that any analysis of the ZPL must include
a description of the object of the learning and the: ‘kinds of actions that have to be
performed on that object’ (Oerter, 1992: 196) and that these objects can be physical or
verbal labels for objects or situations. For instance, where the principal wishes to create a
prescribed change to a teacher’s professional performance so as to support an educational
change, they may consider using specific professional readings, relevant videos or providing
classroom observations as an avenue for professional reflection in dialogue with a mentor.
However, despite the teacher’s direct involvement in such professional learning activities,
these in themselves do not guarantee that the teacher will immediately apply the learning and
change their professional performance.
1014 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

An application of both Valsiner (1987) and Oerter (1992) to the role of the leader of
educational change would posit both that the full potential of the teacher will not be realised
at any one time, as some part of the teacher’s ZPL will always be outside the ZPR as not all
possibilities can be provided. For teacher learning, Valsiner’s (1987) theory is used to argue
that the ZPS is socioculturally constructed and, as a consequence, can only develop those
aspects of the ZPL that are within the established social norms. The overlap in actions that
are within the ZPR and the ZPS is where the teacher’s ZPL is realised; as it is at this point
that the teacher, through active engagement, appropriates social interaction. Oerter (1992)
calls this ‘canalization’ (Oerter, 1992: 193) meaning a secured section of possibilities within
defined boundaries of what is allowable.
Advancing this theory further, Oerter (1992) expands on the notion that not every
potential for enhancing the teacher’s ZPL can be provided and therefore there are actions
that are not available to the teacher. He argues that the ZPR is limited by the professional
learning opportunities that are offered by the principal and the ZPS is limited by the
principal’s vision and description of the desired change. In arguing this case for unfulfilled
potential, an interpretation of his thoughts are provided in the following model, displayed as
Figure 1, that has been adapted in accordance with the adjustments previously described in
order to apply its precepts to the context of a school’s professional learning environment.
A final extension of Valsiner’s (1987) zones theory proposed by Blanton et al. (2005) is
also applicable to this discussion. In their analysis of experienced teachers’ responses to
professional development they identified a further zone, which they called the Illusionary
Zone (IZ) of promoted action. This is a zone of permissibility that the principal appears to
establish through behaviours and routines, but in reality does not support. They see the IZ as
being separate from the ZPS in that the ZPS is within the ZPR, while the IZ is outside these
zones. Again, applying this refinement to the context of a school’s professional learning
environment, the Zone of Principal Illusion (ZPI) would be the aspect of this
environment, which the principal publicly proclaims to support but, in reality, does not
support. This understanding comes to the fore when some significant influence, external

Figure 1. The proposed reconstruction of Oerter’s (1992) model for use in a school’s professional learning
environment.
Lamb and Branson 1015

to the school and independent of the principal’s involvement and agreement, creates the need
for professional learning in the school. For example, when a governing or legislative body
mandates a curriculum change, which the principal is either not entirely in agreement with or
senses a personal deficiency in the specific new knowledge or skills inherent in the required
change, or has so many other changes underway that they are not able to commit to the new
change at this time and therefore creates the illusion that change is occurring.
Also, we argue that in the context of a school’s professional learning environment, another
IZ exists. This is the illusion presented by the teacher whereby they generally present as loyal,
positive and committed; in reality there are some aspects of the professional learning
environment that they do not accept or practise. This zone is referred to as the Zone of
Teacher Resistance (ZTR). Since it is created in response to the expected ZPL, it is
proposed that it sits inside this zone. The more resistance the teacher feels towards what is
being expected of them, the more the ZTR equates to the ZPL, and vice versa.
All of what has been described in this section with respect to not only the application of
Vygotsky’s (1978) zonal theory and its subsequent extensions and elaborations but also
when it is interpreted so as to apply to the introduction of a desired curriculum change
within a school’s existing professional learning environment, can be illustrated as shown in
Figure 2.
Essentially, Figure 2 has two fundamental intersecting components that need to be further
highlighted. The first fundamental component is that of the ZPR, while the second
fundamental component is the Zone of Curriculum Change (ZCC). This zone represents
the sum total of all the relevant professional knowledge and skills required by all within a
school that is wishing to completely imbed a particular new enhancement into its curriculum.
The understanding that the current research literature unequivocally aligns responsibility for
the successful institutionalisation of any curriculum change at the foot of the principal is
indicated in Figure 2 by the intersection of the two fundamental components. In this way,

Figure 2. An interpretation of the extension to zonal theory as applied to the situation of commencing the
introduction of a curriculum change in a school.
1016 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

part of the ZPR, and hence parts of the ZPS, ZPL and ZTR, lie within the ZCC. This
illustrates that some of the principal’s educational responsibility is directed towards the
curriculum change and, thereby, the principal will choose to explicitly support certain
professional learning initiatives specific to the development of the curriculum
enhancement’s required professional knowledge and skills. In this way, a portion of the
teacher’s professional learning will be commensurate with this curriculum enhancement
but, at the same time, some of their resistance will also be aligned with it. However, it
can be noticed in Figure 2 that not all of the ZCC is included in the ZPR. This is to
recognise the likelihood that the principal will not completely and wholeheartedly support
the proposed curriculum change. Thus, this area of the ZCC that is outside of the ZPR can
be labelled as the ZPI, because this segment represents those parts of the curriculum change
that the principal indicates public and outward support for, but privately and inwardly does
not wish to support at the time shown by Figure 2.
This paper will now proceed to apply this further refinement of Vygotsky’s (1978) zonal
theory to the study of particular curriculum change. Although this refinement provides an
explicit depiction of the socio-political environment, which invariably arises whenever a new
curriculum enhancement is attempted, its illustrative power comes to the fore when it is
applied to specific curriculum change projects. In this way, it can highlight the likely success
detractors and, thereby, point to ways in which the ultimate institutionalisation of the
change can be achieved.

The research design

This study relied on a mixed methods approach to the various moments of data
collection, analysis and interpretation where it took a sequential approach so that
qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis occurred in stages rather than
concurrently. The two stages were exploration and inspection. During the exploration
stage, the principal was interviewed to develop a broad understanding of the research
site. These qualitative data were then combined with the literature to develop and validate
a theoretically-based and construct-specific questionnaire (quantitative approach). The
inspection stage of the study then involved further qualitative data collection through
focus group and individual interviews. These interviews provided an avenue by which
to further interrogate the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the first
stage of this study.

Participants
The participant selection was guided by the boundary of the participating primary school.
Within this research site, key personnel, including the members of administrative team (i.e.
the principal, deputy principal, head of curriculum and head of special education unit) and
26 classroom teachers from Years 1–7, participated in the study.

Data collection and analysis

Interviews were conducted with the principal and head of curriculum during the exploration
stage, which led to the development of a questionnaire that was administered to 25 of the 26
classroom teachers, validated and the data analysed. This analysis raised a number of
Lamb and Branson 1017

unresolved issues that led the investigation in the inspection stage of the study. Here, focus
group interviews were conducted with each year level of teachers. This was followed by
further clarification of the issues with individual interviews involving each of the four
members of the administrative team. This two-stage data collection process was supported
by a three-step iterative process of data analysis termed as first-, second- and third-order
interpretation (Neuman, 2007: 160). The first-order interpretation is from the perspective of
the participants being studied. The second-order interpretation stems from the perspective of
the researcher and involves eliciting the underlying coherence or sense of meaning in the
data. Third-order interpretation involves the researcher assigning general theoretical
significance to the data. This theoretical significance is being presented in this paper.

Discussion informed by the enhanced zonal theory

ZPR
This study is set in the context of an avalanche of curriculum change. Change has been
required of principals and teachers across every subject area in the years leading up to the
study. Moreover, in some subject areas more than one change was required. For primary
school teachers, who are generalist teachers, this has meant that curriculum change was
required in each subject they were teaching. In this context the principal’s ZPR
encompasses all these curriculum changes and he found this to be a daunting task as he
described the situation: ‘We used to have one syllabus document change every couple of
years. Recently we have had every KLA [Key Learning Area] change’.

ZPS
This study was interested in curriculum change in mathematics and, therefore, data
collection was specifically around the supports provided by the principal to promote
curriculum change in mathematics. During his interview, the principal indicated that he
had been very proactive in putting in place supports for teachers during this time of many
curriculum changes. He discussed staff meetings and the quarterly curriculum forum as well
as the year level coordinators’ meeting. He went on to explain that: ‘every other Monday we
have a staff meeting which has a clearly set professional agenda . . . put together as an admin
team with input from our year level coordinators’. In addition he had appointed year level
coordinators who organised fortnightly year level meetings that benefit from the attendance
of a member of the administration team.

The year level coordinators need to email various members of the admin team their agenda. We
also then have specific input into those agendas to insure that we are talking curriculum issues
through, such as mathematics or English or whatever, so that we have a conduit or forum as well
to come down to year level specific activities.

He also indicated that he instigated the head of curriculum [HOC] role. When asked
how successful he believed this new position to be he responded enthusiastically saying:
‘I wanted the HOC to be working with us [the administration team] to develop the
integrated units of work with clear intent and linked to assessment and reporting. We
have achieved that’.
1018 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

The principal also discussed two new structures – a year level planning day to plan
integrated units of work in a school matrix across each of the key learning areas, and two
half-days of moderation across each year level.

We have now established another set of release times for teachers with advanced organisers for
moderation. . . So that is part of the planning processes across the whole school, and obviously
those planning processes will be even more developed with the mathematics as well.
Professional development was also considered important and the principal acknowledged
that with devolution, processes have changed, and that the need to take direct charge of
professional development rests with him rather than the system authority. In the process of
planning for professional development, the principal listed the various opportunities for
external professional development offered to teachers. Firstly, teachers can attend
professional development that they identify as relevant; secondly, the ‘outside expert’
comes to the school: ‘We can get someone in here just for our staff’. Thirdly, teachers can
attend professional development with colleagues from neighbouring schools. Here the
principal often takes the initiative by holding district workshops in the school hall.
The principal also discussed that he provided all teachers with the school mathematics
program and a mathematics textbook that he considered to be a very supportive resource.
The reform textbook was considered particularly helpful as it mirrored the most recent
change to the mathematics curriculum.
Following this interview with the principal it was evident that he had indeed instigated a
number of initiatives to support teachers indicating a large ZPS as he attempted to meet the
requirements of the ZPR. These data were used to develop and validate a survey that was
administered to the teachers in the school.

ZPL
Teachers’ survey and interview data were analysed in an effort to develop a sophisticated
understanding of the effectiveness of the ZPS for supporting each teacher’s ZPL necessary to
meet the demands of the ZPR. The gap between the principal’s intention and reality of
supporting curriculum change in mathematics was identified making it difficult for
teachers to change their instructional practices in line with the intent of the new
mathematics curriculum.
The teachers were clear that whole school staff meetings and quarterly forums were not
structures for supporting curriculum change. Typical of the teachers’ responses was:

You especially find out new information because, I think that the meetings are an opportunity
for a lot of examination of [Education] Department documentation, and I think that sort of
seems to be the main purpose of these meetings (I3P7T3).
In response to questions about fortnightly year level coordinators’ meetings, the
coordinators unanimously agreed that their fortnightly meetings did not involve planning
and collaboration but rather they focused on administrative issues. As one coordinator
explained:

I think, really, the position of Year Level Coordinator, you don’t really have any [authority],
you’re just a coordinator. . . It’s more organisational things.
Lamb and Branson 1019

Explaining this point further, the teachers also noted that the head of curriculum was
primarily responsible for providing support for curriculum change. When they were asked
to clarify the extent of year level planning and collaboration that focused on mathematics
there was unanimous agreement among teachers that planning days and moderation days
were not utilised for mathematics planning. As one teacher explained:

When we have these moderation days or we have planning days, we go through all the writing
tasks and the science etc.; it’s really supposed to be the units we’ve already been planning with
the HOC, we really don’t give maths much thought (I1P25T1).
Following this discussion, experienced upper years teachers were asked how confident they
were when teaching mathematics. One teacher explained that she is usually confident with
respect to her teaching: ‘but maths is not my best subject’ (I1P27T2). These teachers were
then specifically asked about their teaching of new content such as algebra. This question
gained unexpected insights with one teacher’s reluctant response:

I have just been keeping my head above water this year getting used to the new content, so I’m
probably not a good one to answer that question, or not very well anyway (I4P28T1).
The discussion that followed revealed a general unease with respect to investigative
pedagogy that was more pronounced with the experienced teachers exemplified by this
comment:

I don’t think we ever really got our head around investigations . . . an activity that we do in the
room might accidentally be an investigation but because I’m a bit wishy-washy about what
investigations are . . . it could accidentally happen to be there and it could be called an
investigation (I1P27T2).

During the discussion with the teachers, it became apparent that once the reform textbook
was introduced into the school, there was no further professional support provided to the
teachers. As this teacher explains:

It was just kind of, you know, as we introduced [the textbook] and all the rest of it –
investigations were kind of encouraged, but there wasn’t any guide as far as kind of training
and how to do it (I1P33T2).
These interview data indicate that activities provided in the principal’s ZPS were not effective
for enhancing the teachers’ ZPL. As a way to further indicate the failure of these supports to
promote teacher learning in the requirements of the new mathematics curriculum, 56% of
teachers negatively endorsed the item: ‘I have a good knowledge of investigation based
pedagogy in mathematics’ when responding to the survey. Further, the reform textbook
did not provide the support hoped by the principal as 68% of teachers negatively
endorsed the item: ‘Using [the textbook] has helped me to implement the school
mathematics plan’. Moreover, 91.7% of teachers disendorsed the item: ‘I have accessed
external professional development on the implementation of the mathematics [curriculum]
as a member of the school community’.

ZCC
For this principal, his ZPR is large. He has many competing interests for his attention. The
data gathered from his teachers would suggest that the ZPS for mathematics is very small
1020 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

and would therefore only support a small ZCC. It appears that the only supports provided to
teachers for curriculum change in mathematics were the textbook and the school program.

ZPI
Interview data collected during the inspection stage of the study highlighted a gap between
the principal’s espoused set of activities that create the ZPS for curriculum change in
mathematics. The principal had created an illusion for the researchers, and possibly even
for himself, as he presented the picture that a full set of activities was in place to support
curriculum change efforts in mathematics.
Despite claims by the principal that professional development was a feature of this school,
when the head of curriculum was asked to comment specifically on the external professional
development provided during the implementing of the new mathematics curriculum she said:
‘At the moment no, no, it’s not the same amount [as it is for English] at this stage; it’s sort of
dried up’.
Later the head of curriculum agreed that there had been no year level planning in
mathematics and, justifying this omission, she argued that it was impossible to work on
every key learning area at any one time. Faced with widespread curriculum reform across
each key learning area, her role was to ensure that the documentation was correct. She did
this by providing the school mathematics program.

ZTR
As teachers struggled with implementing the new mathematics curriculum, evidence of
resistance became apparent. One teacher explained how she was exhausted by all the
change and the requirements that go hand in hand with it. She went on to say: ‘I’m just
trying to keep a low profile’ (I4P28T1).
Teachers were also critical of the reform textbook series, this time because it was
‘so prescriptive’, preventing them from incorporating some of their existing practices.
In contrast, they were very positive about the recent introduction of the school
program in mathematics that only listed content to be taught each term. This
provided them with the freedom to incorporate their ‘tried and tested’ practices.
This teacher explains:

I found last year that teaching [from the textbook] was very challenging because every single
lesson was a brand new lesson. Five days a week you were doing brand new stuff, and I found
that was hard. Now I’ve gone back. There seems to be a lot of practice – once they get the
understanding, they listen to me and practice a lot. It’s much better (I7P2T1).

This comment suggests that the teachers demonstrate a low level of persistence in the face of
obstacles. Another experienced teacher encountered similar difficulties. Her decision to limit
investigative pedagogy was justified by lack of time and resources, indicating that demanding
situations did not result in a determined effort by teachers.

Investigations did sort of get put in the ‘‘too hard box’’ because there’s so many other things to
cover, and that’s going to take all this extra time and resources, and I don’t probably know
enough about it to really make it as effective as I could . . . therefore I was concentrating on what
I already know (I6P22T4).
Lamb and Branson 1021

In addition, it seems that low levels of content knowledge efficacy encouraged teachers to
avoid using investigative pedagogy. As an experienced teacher explains: ‘If I give them
[students] an open ended investigation I could really end up in trouble, but if I teach
them something, I make sure I have that bit right at least’ (I7P23T4).
These examples present the case of limited supports that are directly aligned with the
change in mathematics resulting in a reduced ZPL and increased ZTR to the curriculum
change. At the same time the principal has created an illusion, the ZPI, that curriculum
change was happening (see Figure 3).

What is happening in this situation?

What Figure 3 explicitly illustrates are the most likely sources of emotion and tension, which
not only regularly accompany educational change processes but also significantly contribute
to its lack of success (Branson, 2010; Bridges, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves, 2005). From
Figure 3 it can be seen how much of the principal’s personal involvement in the curriculum
change is illusionary or inauthentic. The principal is masquerading as a supporter of the
curriculum change. But this is neither an easy nor a satisfying place in which to be. In such
circumstances, one’s professional and personal reputation and credibility are constantly on
the line as the potential for being discovered as being a ‘fake’ and, thus, untrustworthy, is
ever present. To be considered untrustworthy is the unmaking of leadership (Branson, 2010;
Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Haslam et al., 2011; Lyman et al., 2012).
In response to such potential reputational and credibility threats, Figure 3 shows how the
principal is likely to enact avoidance and minimalisation strategies. Such strategies seek to
reduce the opportunities for the principal’s true knowledge, skills and commitment specific
to the particular curriculum change to become known. Avoidance is achieved when the
principal intentionally preoccupies their time with as many other responsibilities as

Figure 3. An interpretation and enhancement of zonal theory as applied to the situation of unsuccessful or
tentative implementation of a curriculum change into a school.
1022 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

practicable and the skewed shape of the ZPR illustrates this. Minimalisation occurs when the
principal chooses to restrict the amount of support provided to the implementation of the
curriculum change, which is shown as a smaller ZPS area in Figure 3. Quite possibly, what
the principal supports is directly aligned to their own limited knowledge and skills, thereby
enabling the appearance of credibility to exist.
However, such minimalisation of support by the principal only heightens the development
of a discrepancy between what new professional knowledge and skills the teachers really
require in order to successfully implement the curriculum change and what professional
support they are actually receiving. Figure 3 illustrates these discrepancies in a number of
ways. First, it illustrates how little of the ZCC is taken up by the ZPR, ZPS and, thus, ZPL.
This implies that there is so much required new professional knowledge and skills embedded
within the curriculum change that will not be accessible to the teacher under normal
circumstances within the school. As a result, a teacher’s sense of competence and
confidence in implementing the necessary changes will be compromised and their
resistance towards implementing the change will grow.
Moreover, this resistance can be enhanced because the principal is likely to be providing
additional professional learning support for new teacher responsibilities other than those
aligned with the curriculum change. As the principal avoids the professional demands of the
curriculum change by preoccupying their time with other responsibilities, they will develop
the ZPS and, thus, ZPL into these areas, too. Although well intentioned, for the teacher this
becomes a significant distraction from the curriculum change and invokes a sense of being
overwhelmed by change. Too many changes and nothing seeming to be done thoroughly and
so the temptation is to resist as much as possible, as shown by the enlarged ZTR. Where
there is strong resistance to educational change, there is strong emotional tension and
uncertainty (Bridges, 2002; Deal and Peterson, 1999; Fullan, 2001; Heifetz, 1994;
Wheatley, 2006). Under such unhelpful conditions, there is little chance that the
implementation of any educational change, least being the desired curriculum change, will
succeed.

Turning this unhelpful situation around

For the principal, the first step towards redressing such an unhelpful and, ultimately,
unsuccessful educational change situation is to accept and own the pivotal components of
the reality. Once these are owned, improving the school’s educational change culture
becomes far more likely. To this end, Figure 4 provides a guideline for not only what is
required to improve a school’s educational change culture but also illustrates what are the
explicit outcomes of this improvement.
The first step to be taken by the principal is to greatly reduce the ZPI – an obvious and
vital, but often ignored, step. In other words, much, much more of the ZPR must occupy the
ZCC. The principal must authentically absorb into their ZPR as much of the relevant
professional knowledge and skills required to successfully implement the desired
curriculum change. To achieve this outcome, the principal must begin by privately
acknowledging the limitations of their current professional knowledge and skills in the
relevant curriculum area and then to proactively seek ways to overcome these limitations.
Overcoming these limitations can be achieved either directly or indirectly. Acting directly
would involve the principal seeking the support of a specialist curriculum adviser or a more
expert colleague to significantly increase their professional knowledge and skills. On the
Lamb and Branson 1023

Figure 4. An interpretation and extension of zonal theory as applied to the situation of successful
implementation of a curriculum change into a school.

other hand, acting indirectly would involve the principal in publicly acknowledging their
current lack of some of the required new knowledge and skills, but then supporting another
more expert staff member to lead the curriculum change. However, it is essential for the
principal to still be involved in the curriculum change and to be seen to be having their own
professional knowledge and skills enhanced by this lead teacher. This is illustrated in
Figure 4 by means of the much larger proportion of the ZPS occupying the ZPR within
the ZCC.
In this way, the principal is not only explicitly showing how important the desired
curriculum change is to the school community by the amount of personal time and effort
they are publicly committing to it but also they are modelling the required learning and
becoming intimately familiar with its inherent demands. From this commitment, modelling
and familiarity, the principal is more inclined to become quickly aware of any unexpected
deficiencies in how the curriculum change is being supported and make prompt adjustment
to this support as necessary. This is shown by the much larger ZPS. In addition, due to the
principal’s intimate knowledge of the demands of the curriculum change, the potential for
the teachers’ professional learning to be far more strategic and specific is enhanced. The
principal does not have to be convinced that a particular avenue of teacher professional
learning is required to progress the curriculum change, rather they are likely to have already
foreseen the need and have considered ways for enabling it to happen. This is indicated by
the increased size of the ZPL. Indeed, in a truly effective educational change strategy, the
ZPL would be an expanding, rather than a static, feature.
Within such a strategic, flexible and rich professional learning environment it is far less
likely that the teachers will harbour deep-seated resistance. Although nil resistance might be
an improbable ideal, any reduction in teacher resistance is a valuable and beneficial outcome
for the educational change leader. As Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) posit, well-supported
teachers will overcome any residual feelings of doubt and uncertainty about educational
changes, because they truly want to make a difference in the learning of their students.
1024 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

In other words, the natural tendency for resistance towards any proposed educational
change is minimised where the teacher feels appreciated, supported, encouraged and
affirmed by the principal. An intimately involved principal, as indicated in Figure 4 by
much of the ZCC being occupied by part of the ZPR, is far more able to regularly and
sincerely provide these essential outcomes to each teacher. All of this is shown in Figure 4 by
the reduction in size of the ZTR.

Conclusion
This paper began by acknowledging the widely held perception of ineffectiveness of many
intended educational change processes. Hence, we proposed that finding the correct way to
properly lead educational change is not just about ensuring that our schools will be able to
achieve what they are meant to but also to ensure that all involved in the change process are
better prepared to meet their obligations and responsibilities. It is this latter requirement that
has been the focus of this paper. Specifically, this theoretical and conceptual discussion
presents a visual illustration of both the necessary and the possible roles for key persons
in a school reform. In this way, it brings into explicit focus the inherent obligations and
responsibilities associated with each of these roles. Our argument is that avoidance or
minimisation of personal obligations and responsibilities is far more difficult when
everyone knows what these are meant to be and especially when these are visually displayed.
To this end, Vygotsky’s (1978) zonal theory was chosen as the cornerstone in this
process since it makes manifest the essential relationship between the principal and the
teacher in the achievement of effective and sustainable educational change. Then, through
the application and extension of subsequent enhancements to Vygotsky’s (1978) original
theory and the presentation of these in diagrammatical form, this paper disunites this
essential relationship in order to illustrate its inherent interrelational and interdependent
features. In this way, the possible actions and reactions of the principal and the teacher are
presented and described. The most important feature of these illustrations is the realisation
that the action and reaction of the principal and the teacher are not independent of each
other but are, in fact, co-constructed. The actions and reactions of the teacher will be
influenced by the actions and reactions of the principal and vice versa. The achievement of
effective and sustainable educational change requires the establishment of a close
professional partnership between the principal and each teacher involved in the change
process.
Specific to the role of the principal in an educational change process, the extended zonal
model developed in this paper illustrates why the principal cannot avoid, abate or
discriminate their personal involvement. Uncertainty or a lack of self-efficacy cannot
justify diminished or non-involvement. Rather, this extended model clearly exemplifies the
likely negative consequences of such action, and the accompanying discussion places the
responsibility squarely upon the principal to seek whatever means possible for overcoming
any feelings of uncertainty or a lack of confidence and efficacy. The principal must undertake
opportunities for strategic professional learning so that they are readily able to be a close
professional partner with each teacher involved in the change. Strategic professional learning
enables the principal to maximise their professional support to each teacher and, thereby,
greatly increase the opportunities for the teacher to gain the necessary professional learning,
which will make them far more positive about the change. In this way, the desired
educational change is most likely to be effective, successful and sustainable.
Lamb and Branson 1025

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.

References
Blanton ML, Berenson S and Norwood K (2001) Exploring a pedagogy for the supervision of
prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 4(3): 177–204.
Blanton ML, Westbrook S and Carter G (2005) Using Valsiner’s zone theory to interpret teaching
practices in mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 8:
5–33.
Blenkin G, Edwards G and Kelly A (1997) Perspectives on educational change. In: Harris A, Bennett
N and Preedy M (eds) Organizational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education. Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press, pp.216–230.
Branson CM (2010) Leading Educational Change Wisely. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Bridges W (2002) Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
Cazden C (1983) Peekaboo as an instrumental model: Discourse development at home and at school.
In: Bain B (ed.) The Sociogenesis of Language and Human Conduct. New York, NY: Plenum Press,
pp.33–35.
Deal TE and Peterson KD (1999) Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dinham S (2009) Leadership for student achievement. In: Cranston NC and Ehrich LC (eds)
Australian School Leadership Today. Brisbane, QLD: Australian Academic Press, pp.395–413.
Fullan M (2001) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan M (2005) Leadership & Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Fullan M (2006) The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational
Change 7(3): 113–122.
Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instrumental and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–351.
Hargreaves A (2005) Pushing the boundaries of educational change. In: Hargreaves A (ed.) Extending
Educational Change: International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.1–14.
Hargreaves A and Fink D (2006) Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves A and Goodson I (2006) Educational change over time? The sustainability and
nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational
Administration Quarterly 42(1): 3–41.
Hargreaves A and Fullan M (2012) Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Haslam SA, Reicher SD and Platow MJ (2011) The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence
and Power. Hove, Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Heifetz RA (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leithwood K and Day C (2007) What we have learned: A broad view. In: Leithwood K and Day C
(eds) Successful School Leadership in Times of Change. Toronto, Canada: Springer, pp.189–203.
Lyman L, Strachan J and Lazaridou A (2012) Social Justice Leadership: Insights of Women Educators
Worldwide. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Neuman WL (2007) Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
1026 Policy Futures in Education 13(8)

Oerter FK (1992) The zone of proximal development for learning and teaching. In: Oser K, Dick A
and Patry J (eds) Effective and Responsible Teaching: The New Synthesis. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, pp.187–202.
Robinson V (2007) School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why
(Monograph No. 41). Melbourne, VIC: ACEL.
Snowdon P and Gorton R (1998) School improvement. In: Gorton R, Alston J and Snowden P (eds)
School Leadership & Administration: Important Concepts, Case Studies and Simulations. Boston,
MA: McGraw Hill, pp.121–141.
Valsiner J (1987) Culture and the Development of Children’s Action: A Cultural-Historical Theory of
Developmental Psychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Valsiner J (1997) Culture and the Development of Children’s Actions: A Theory of Human Development.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published in 1934).
Wheatley M (2006) Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Dr Janeen Lamb is Director, Higher Degree Research at Australian Catholic University. Her
research areas include mathematics education and educational leadership while she teaches
research methods in higher degree research courses. She is currently principal supervisor for
five doctoral students.

Dr Christopher Branson holds the professorial chair in educational leadership in the Faculty
of Education at the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand. His research areas
include issues associated with authentic leadership, ethical leadership, organisational values,
organisational development, social justice, and self-reflection. He is the author of three
books: Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership, Leadership for an Age of Wisdom,
and Leading Educational Change Wisely.