School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society - Executive Summary

The Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs funded the Innovation and Best Practice Project (IBPP) undertaken by a consortium of The University of Melbourne, Edith Cowan University, The University of Southern Queensland and The University of Sydney.

The project was undertaken within a context of the findings of contemporary research into effective teaching and learning as well as school effectiveness and improvement. A review of the literature on the impact of schools shows that the differences in the impact of teachers on learning outcomes for students are significantly greater than the impact of the differences between schools.

Research on learning shows that the key influences on learning include: school organisational features, home education contexts, school demographics and climate, design and delivery of curriculum and instruction, and teaching practices. Student influences on learning include their perceptions and expectations, attitudes, understandings and beliefs, and cognitive and meta-cognitive skills.

As we advance towards a knowledge society, constructivist methodologies of learning are likely to become more important. These focus on deep understanding of knowledge rather than on reproduction and recall and require the development of meta-cognitive skills to `work' successfully with knowledge.

The most influential teaching practices on learning outcomes include classroom management strategies, practices that support the development of meta- cognitive skills, and student-teacher social interactions. Actions close to the learning process have highest impact, but their efficacy may also be dependent on certain factors that are more distant from the learning process, such as the design of the curriculum and school and classroom organisation.

Classrooms with different emphases on how tightly learning is structured are likely to have differential influences on the learning outcomes of students. Older students, those of higher ability and those with a sound grasp of the substantive domain of their study can benefit from environments that are relatively unstructured. However, younger students and those less able and with a weaker grasp on the substantive domain of the field of study can benefit from learning environments that are more highly structured.

The Innovation and Best Practice Project (IBPP) invited 107 schools to evaluate the impact of their innovations on the learning outcomes for their students. Schools were asked to research and assess the magnitude of the impact of the innovation on learning outcomes and the differential impact of their innovation for different groups of students.

A wide cross-section of schools participated in the project. Two-thirds were from government school systems; one-fifth described themselves as serving communities with significant levels of social and economic disadvantage, more than one-sixth indicated that their innovation was in response to a perceived crisis or threat to their viability.

This report provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings from the 107 schools that participated in the project in terms of the process and impact of the innovations that they undertook. The report focuses on the groups of schools that focused on innovations in literacy in the early years of schooling, mathematics, information and communications technologies and the middle- years of schooling. In addition, it analyses the role of leadership in the innovations, the flexible use of resources and the process of managing innovation in schools. The concluding chapters draw out the implications of the findings of the research for practice in schools and for the development of policy to support innovation in schools.

Sixteen primary schools within the IBPP focused their innovations on improvements through innovative approaches to literacy learning.

The strongest evidence of successful literacy improvement was in improved results from assessments that schools used to compare the achievement of their students with those in other schools or with earlier cohorts of students in the same school.

The schools that provided the strongest evidence of improvements attributed to their innovations all focused on literacy in the early years of schooling. These innovations exhibited the following features:

• a coherent, whole-school programme to achieve literacy success;
• the development among staff of a set of shared beliefs and understandings and, in particular, high expectations for all students;
• the articulation of explicit standards and associated targets and the use of data to inform teaching and learning and to drive improvement;
• a team approach to professional learning that encouraged ongoing, site-based professional development, mentoring and coaching for teams of teachers;
• a willingness and capacity to make significant changes to school and class organisational arrangements;
• the provision of intervention programmes and special assistance to students who were not progressing at the same pace or reach the same standards as their peers;
• effective leadership by the principal, senior administrative staff and project coordinator; and
• proactive and systematic links with the home, the previous school, other service providers and the wider community.

There are four main conclusions from the projects undertaken by the IBPP early literacy schools. First, significant improvements in student learning outcomes are achievable through particular approaches to innovation and the implementation of best practice. Second, the use of data on student learning to inform teaching and learning and to drive improvement initiatives is important. Third, schools need to internalise powerful approaches to professional learning and staff development to bring about change. Finally, informed and committed instructional leadership on the part of the principal, senior staff, and teachers is required for successful innovation and implementation of best practice.

Nine IBPP schools focused their innovation on mathematics. All had as their major priority the expectation that students would experience success and gain confidence in their ability to study mathematics successfully.

Few of the mathematics projects presented approaches that sought to comprehensively reshape teaching and learning to the extent evident in other IBPP projects. The innovations varied from non-graded, mixed-ability mathematics classes to voluntary after school tutorials, to the use of technology to provide more realistic contexts for problem solving.

The mathematics innovations tended to be the result of the work of only one or two individuals within a subsection of the school and were rarely part of a whole-school approach to improvement involving other faculties or parts of the school.

Most of the schools found that significant progress was made in the performance of their students in mathematics over the period of the project. Students in these schools reported that they liked their mathematics classes to engage and motivate them, to allow them more time to absorb new concepts and to enable them to experience success in learning mathematics.

The teacher practices that were most effective in developing student capacity, confidence and engagement in mathematics were:

• a willingness to explore and consider alternative teaching practices and organisational structures;
• the provision of appropriate time for learning to take place;
• a recognition that students learn at different rates;
• the use of clear explanations;
• the introduction of new knowledge in manageable amounts;
• a willingness to respond to students' preferred ways of learning; and
• targeted individual assistance.

Testing of students was used more for grading and ranking purposes than to support teaching and learning, even at the primary school level. Most of the schools did not routinely analyse student outcome data or assess the impact of classroom practice on learning prior to their participation in the IBPP. Participation in the project heightened teacher awareness of accountability for improved student learning outcomes and assisted in clarifying teacher expectations of their students and themselves.

The project indicated that mathematics teaching would benefit from a coordinated initiative along the lines of recent successful literacy innovations. Such initiatives would need to support teachers to become better informed about the teaching practices most likely to lead to improved learning outcomes of students, provide access to appropriate professional development, provide enhanced access to technology and use data to drive improvement.

The 20 ICT schools in the IBPP sought to break the traditional teaching and learning mould and provide opportunities for young people to learn appropriate ICT-based skills and knowledge.

Most of the schools had implemented strategies to integrate ICT into their everyday learning environments. They focused their innovations on using computers and associated hardware (mostly scanners, printers, and video cameras), standard educational and business software and the internet to enhance the learning environment for students.

Schools used ICT to enhance teaching and learning in one of two ways:

• using technologies such as word processors to support the development of skills e.g., literacy skills through writing and revising text - uses often referred to as `learning with technology'; and
• using ICT to support constructivist approaches to learning - uses central to approaches referred to as `learning through technology'.

Many of the schools had restructured the physical environment to cater for the introduction of ICT. This was achieved most commonly by providing individual classrooms with direct access to computers as part of the normal classroom learning environment. A quarter of the schools had developed an extended learning environment that went beyond the school to virtual classrooms. These were available for both in-school and out-of-school learning.

The innovations often meant a considerable increase in workload for teachers during the development and implementation phase and a cultural shift in teacher attitudes before the innovation could be implemented.

The ICT innovations impacted on teachers in a number of ways:

• teacher beliefs and attitudes about learning and teaching styles and practices changed from traditional `chalk and talk' to student-focused learning;
• teachers were able to demonstrate concepts more efficiently and effectively using ICT resources such as CD digital texts, the internet and specialist software; and
• teachers experienced enhanced professional satisfaction from increased levels of student learning and more effective classroom management associated with learning through technology.

The range of outcomes that ICT schools considered important were, in general, much broader than those specified in current curriculum frameworks and systemic testing and assessment programmes. Cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes achieved for students were:

• enhanced social competencies through cooperative and collaborative learning;
• enhanced time management skills;
• acceptance of responsibility for their learning;
• mastery of curriculum-based learning outcomes;
• improved Year 12 examination results;
• improvements in learning against pre-specified outcomes criteria;
• increased use of, and enhanced capacity to use, meta-cognitive and higher- order problem solving skills;
• improvement in ICT skills;
• improved results in standardised state-wide literacy and numeracy tests; and
• reduced level of `unsatisfactory' progress.
• Schools had to deal with a range of challenges in the implementation of their ICT innovations. The most common were hardware/system reliability; winning over staff who were wary of change; overcoming the pressures on time and the crowded curriculum; providing adequate and appropriate professional development; and recruiting qualified staff.

The innovations showed that ICT itself can act as a catalyst to learning, can be effectively utilised to improve learning outcomes in both the cognitive and non- cognitive domains, and can be integrated into learning environments to support significant enhancements in student engagement, enjoyment and motivation to learn.

Thirty-three schools nominated the middle-years as the focus of their innovation. Among these schools there was a high level of engagement in fundamental issues concerning the nature of educational provision. While the changes schools had succeeded in implementing were often provisional, there was clear evidence that deep thinking had motivated the changes and that the groundwork was being prepared for more substantial reform.

The schools were clear about the changes they wanted to bring about in their students. The most frequently cited were:

• arresting the decline in students' level of engagement in learning and enjoyment of schooling;
• promoting students' sense of identity, belonging and self-esteem; and
• developing students' capacity and confidence to function as autonomous learners in the emerging knowledge society.

The middle-years innovations were characterised by teachers working together in teams; an emphasis on clear goals for students; targeting teaching to the needs of individual students; and greater participation by students in the design, development and delivery of learning programmes.

The innovations ranged from alternative models of school and class organisation—including the creation of middle-schools within schools; the development of competencies to facilitate life-long learning; primary to secondary transition programmes; and curriculum redevelopment. A small number of schools focused on developing alternative programmes for groups of students who had already disengaged from school-based learning or who had particular learning needs.

The innovations frequently required teachers to teach in different ways, such as a small team of teachers being responsible for teaching a relatively small number of students for a significant proportion of the week, and in some cases for more than one academic year. This also involved teaching across traditional subject boundaries. There was also evidence of a move towards teaching in larger blocks of time to reduce interruptions and allow opportunities for more in-depth learning and the use of cooperative learning techniques.

Most schools indicated that there had been improvements across a range of key outcomes, but particularly in increased student engagement in learning; changes in teacher beliefs, understandings, knowledge and expertise; changes in the way teachers taught in the classroom; and changes in student attitudes towards school.

The middle-school projects provided a foundation for change in schools across Australia that could constitute the first steps in a more lasting reform. Staff in schools acknowledged the low levels of engagement among many students during the middle-years and agreed that significant changes are justified in order to improve outcomes for students.

In most of the schools there was the perception of empowerment and openness to the more flexible strategies that can be implemented following enhanced levels of school self-management in many systems. Recent initiatives and research are providing school staff with access to a more complete picture of alternative models of educational provision in the middle-years.

Educational leadership was central to the success of the innovations in IBPP schools. School-based leadership is a function of both the principalship and key change agents both within and external to the school. Successful innovations represented the response of schools to an identified educational need and were supported by a clearly articulated school vision.

Three distinctive dimensions of school-based leadership are evident in successful school innovation: focused action; culture-building; and organisation-wide processes of learning.

Three forms of focused action fundamental to the exercise of leadership were evident in effective IBPP schools. School leaders responded strategically to crises (perceived or real), they pursued intrinsically motivating challenges and they facilitated and encouraged the innovative ideas of others. There was clear recognition of the importance of both individual and group leadership. Where educational innovation is successful, the leadership that underpins it is likely to be characterised in part by shared leadership among teachers and school managers.

The culture-building dimension of leadership was evident when school leaders sought to rebuild or enhance the culture and values in many of the IBPP schools. Religious beliefs and values underpinned innovations in Catholic and other church-based schools and Government schools often expressed an explicit commitment to the values underpinning public education.

Where the innovation was used to enrich school identity the innovation itself also acquired enhanced meaning. The result was a shared vision of `making a difference' that pervaded discussions and the approaches to curriculum, technology, and uses of time and space. Culture building was a powerful force in aligning school vision, participants' values and innovative processes. In IBPP schools it represented an important leadership dimension of successful school innovation and reform.

Leadership as organisation-wide processes of learning is a recent and increasingly important development. The IBPP research revealed two forms of organisation- wide learning that may well be regarded as manifesting leadership. The first form focuses on generating alignment between significant school organisational elements. The second form focuses on the development of a school-wide approach to pedagogy.

Principal-leaders and teacher-leaders are both important in successful school reform. Principal-leaders play a key role in meta-strategic leadership while teacher-leaders have primary roles in more direct matters of teaching and learning. Successful innovation requires effective articulation of the roles of those exercising leadership as much as the leadership capacities and capabilities of the individuals involved.

A third of the IBPP school research reports made no reference to flexibility as a factor in their success, although most schools used flexible arrangements of some kind. Schools introduced four kinds of instructional flexibility through their innovations:

• off-site learning;
• flexible student grouping;
• flexible use of staff; and
• school consortia.

Approximately 10 per cent of the innovations involved the use of facilities away from school premises. The reasons for doing so were varied. They included acquiring additional space, using commercial premises and using students' homes for learning. For example, one school delivered a specific programme off-site in order to make a symbolic statement about differences. The students were no longer in a familiar form of student-teacher relationship and the instructor was a dramatist, rather than a teacher.

Two schools made use of commercial properties, but for very different reasons- one to develop `city savvy' in Year 9 students and the other to develop `at-risk' students in an environment free of the `baggage' these students associated with schooling. Another school allowed students a choice of delivery mode for two of its courses, including an on-line virtual format that students could undertake at home.

Changes to the manner in which students are grouped were a central feature of some innovations. For example, 22 per cent of schools introduced multi-aged grouping and eight per cent created a new subgroup consisting of students with special needs. Thirteen per cent indicated that students were grouped according to ability while 20 per cent referred to the use of mixed-ability groups.

The most significant form of student grouping, in terms of flexibility, however, involved grouping students differently for different purposes in a two-tiered organisational structure. Twelve per cent of schools reported introducing some version of this structure to facilitate learning.

• In the first tier of a two-tier structure, students are grouped into classes of up to 30 students. An association between a teacher and a class remains intact for at least a school year and facilitates many aspects of school organisation.
• The first tier students are clustered into smaller groups for particular instructional purposes. Often students with similar needs will be drawn from across a number of classes. This second tier of student grouping enables fluid readjustments as circumstances change. By monitoring student progress and then clustering the students that have the most similar instructional needs, teachers can match their inputs to student needs.

Staff flexibility commonly involved secondary teachers in the middle-years of schooling teaching one or more subjects outside their area of specialisation. These innovations were introduced to strengthen the social and pastoral ties between teachers and their students. One school introduced subject specialist teachers into the upper primary years in order to prepare students for this `fact' of secondary school life, other schools introduced multi-subject teams with shared responsibility for several lower secondary classes. These teachers shared information about their students in an effort to introduce greater cohesion into the provision for junior secondary students.

Nearly half of all schools reported that associations with organisations outside the school facilitated their innovation. These associations were with universities, other schools, TAFE, business and local community organisations, to name just a few. Of the associations among education providers, the most common form was when a school established links with similar schools. For example, four primary schools recognising that resources could be pooled to provide something more substantial extended school provision through the establishment of an alternative campus for `at-risk' students. Another group of schools collaborated to access external professional development consultants on an ongoing basis. Some secondary schools established transition programmes with their contributing primary schools. If the links were sufficiently strong and ongoing the relationships were consolidated as a consortium.

The evidence about instructional flexibility shows that many schools were challenged to organise schools and classrooms in ways that enabled them to respond more effectively to the wide range of differing needs among their students. Notwithstanding considerable difficulties, schools experimented with flexible groupings, staff deployment practices, locations and structures in ways that challenged the tyranny of the conventional timetable, organisational structures and staffing practices and constraints.

The process of innovation in schools was focused on four issues: the impact of systemic practices and policies in school innovations on management flexibility; response to market pressures; the pattern of change over time; and the use of evaluation as a tool to help manage innovations.

Schools generally had substantial autonomy to initiate and implement reforms. Every school faced some obstacles, but the majority of schools either operated within or worked around constraints. Up to a third of schools reported a constraint they were unable to resolve, which were bureaucratic, cultural or ideological. Bureaucratic obstacles were the most common and difficult to resolve and were chiefly related to restrictions on the recruitment, selection and appointment of staff and lack of flexibility to deploy funding in ways that supported the improvement of learning. The staffing and funding flexibility issues were intertwined, because funding for staff constitutes the major share of school funds.

Cultural constraints usually related to the impact of changes on established practice or a lack of experience relevant to proposed changes. Ideological constraints, although less commonly reported, tended to have significant consequences. They occurred when staff viewpoints on educational responses to the innovation became polarised. Both cultural and ideological differences generated teacher resistance, which in most cases was successfully overcome.

The IBPP found educational needs and expectations were the primary motivators for schools to innovate. However, market pressures provided part of the rationale for innovation in 40 per cent of the schools. These schools indicated that their innovation was in part a response to the effects of market pressures on their school.

Factors such as declining enrolments or increased competition were clearly articulated as reasons for undertaking changes in a number of cases. These schools faced declining enrolments due to shifting demographics, new schools opening in their area or internal issues within the school. The innovations were designed to reposition the school in the eyes of its students and community.

The strategies that these schools implemented included flexible timetables; new tutorial style lessons; the increased choice of subjects to meet the needs of students; integration of information technology to update the school's educational provision and image; and the introduction of new approaches to teaching and learning with consequent pressure on teachers to update their practices. Four patterns of change were evident in IBPP schools:

• The most common pattern of change involved schools developing an innovation and then making further changes over a period of time as they fine-tuned it in response to feedback about its effectiveness.
• Some schools introduced an innovation, but had not refined it any further during the period of the project although many indicated they are likely to do so.
• A small number of schools made a change, reviewed it and then reverted to the situation that existed prior to the innovation. Two had rejected their innovations and the other two could be described as having given up.
• A small number of schools did not make the changes they planned. The evidence suggested that their failure to take action was significantly influenced by underlying inflexibilities.

All project schools provided some information about their innovations in a format that could usefully be described as `research data'. Some fixed their investigations squarely on their students' academic performance. Others also surveyed attitudes of teachers, parents and students or completed narratives of their implementation experiences.

IBPP schools received funding of $8,000-$15,000 to assist with their research and evaluation. The funds were sufficient to act as a catalyst for schools to engage in intensive innovation and evaluation of their projects. Almost all schools completed innovations but some, however, were still to integrate the findings of their evaluation into the decision-making and management of the school. It is clear that many schools have under-developed research and evaluation competencies. Many schools in the IBPP required considerable external assistance to evaluate their innovations.

The innovations undertaken by IBPP schools were new developments in the local context of the school in which they were implemented. It was not necessary that the innovations were at the leading edge of national and international practice, but, some are arguably at the leading edge of developments anywhere in the world. A notable feature of the innovations was their high rate of success in improving learning outcomes for students.

The following are the key findings about effective practice across the IBPP schools.

• Effective innovations were rooted in whole-school understandings and beliefs. This required schools to develop a shared understanding and set of beliefs about best practice for their student population and a preparedness to test strategies against alternative options. IBPP schools believed that students could master the basic skills and be successful learners.
• Distributed leadership is essential to developing awareness of emerging challenges and successful innovation. In most of the IBPP schools, the principal was a key supporter of the innovation and in many instances also the catalyst. However, teachers were the driving forces of instructional leadership. They brought the innovations into existence and fine-tuned them against data about their impact on student learning.
• Innovative schools were prepared to set standards and targets for their improvement and to modify these in light of experience. Many schools found that they had to invent their own strategies for measuring their success. This was due in part to the fact that the outcomes that many schools were aiming to improve were not measured or assessed by current measures of student learning.
• IBPP schools were prepared to take a hard look at their performance and subject their innovations to rigorous scrutiny. Participation in the IBPP required each school to evaluate the impact of its innovation on student learning outcomes. In a large majority of cases schools had not undertaken a rigorous evaluation of their performance data prior to their participation in the project.
• Teaching and learning was the principal focus of the innovation in each school. Many of the findings about teaching and learning practices are supported by the research literature. These findings support a model of cognitive development that focuses on the acquisition of basic cognitive skills in the early-years, the development of meta-cognitive skills and knowledge in the middle-years and cognitive maturity and self-directed learning in the senior years of schooling.
• The models of teaching that schools incorporated into their innovations were based on the integration of whole-class or large-group explicit teaching; small- group cooperative learning and teaching; and one-to-one tutoring. The one- to-one tutoring was employed to ensure that all students achieved at the level of mastery required for them to proceed to the next phase of their learning. Teachers used small-group learning to address the learning needs of particular sub-groups of students and to gain the benefits of cooperative learning and peer tutoring where appropriate.
• Probably the most important outcome of the IBPP project was its lessons for teacher learning. The most powerful innovations incorporated teams of teachers learning by `working' with new knowledge and, in the process, enhancing their understanding of the learning needs and capacities of their students. In these `learning teams', teachers played a variety of roles. Models of professional development based on the dissemination of information are inadequate for supporting teachers in their role in the emerging knowledge society. Professional learning requires active engagement and work on the knowledge being developed by teachers.
• The IBPP schools sought to enhance the learning network. This includes the parent community. In particular, schools focused on expanding the knowledge base and information about student learning to the student's home. Innovations in the middle-years and senior-years expanded the learning network to include local businesses and community organisations.
• The IBPP demonstrated some significant gaps in the capacity of schools to undertake innovation and evaluation without external support. Two main ones concerned the sourcing of relevant knowledge to support and develop their innovations, and skills and knowledge about how to collect and analyse data to evaluate the impact of the evaluations.

The outcomes that schools sought to improve through their innovations were broader than the standard set of curriculum outcomes currently assessed and reported by most schools. In addition to the standard outcomes associated with the knowledge that is the focus of formal curricula, IBPP schools sought to assess complex thinking skills, and the affective and social competencies of students.

Schools focused innovations on this set of skills and competencies because they were responding to the capacities that students need to acquire for their futures as citizens in the knowledge society, and as `knowledge-workers' of the future. These findings suggest that the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (The National Goals for Schooling [1999]), endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, will need further revision to reflect complex thinking skills, including second-order meta-cognitive skills and knowledge and the capacity for self-regulation of learning.

The IBPP was designed to support school innovation by exerting constructive pressure for schools to demonstrate their effectiveness in improving learning outcomes for students. Both constructive pressure and support are necessary components in the improvement of schools.

Pressure was applied internally in schools though the professional expectations and knowledge of teachers and their commitment to achieve the best for their students. External pressure came through specific developments in the educational environment of schooling such as increased devolution, increased accountability for student learning outcomes, and market forces. Government policies and programmes focused on improving literacy, education in the middle- years of schooling and information and communication technologies also exerted pressure on schools.

Government policies and programmes can both exert pressure and provide support. Schools were supported in their innovations by a range of government policies and programmes that created a climate conducive to innovation. The devolution of management and decision-making and the active promotion of initiatives in literacy, ICT and the middle-years of schooling were reflected in the IBPP innovations.

Self-managing schools have the flexibility to select and appoint staff to meet their specific programme needs and to manage resources in ways most appropriate to the teaching and learning goals each school. IBPP schools used the flexibility they had within a disciplined and strategic framework to improve student learning. They did not so much see themselves as restructuring time, space, roles and relationships, as changing their practices and organisational arrangements to achieve specific educational outcomes for students.

The drive to improve outcomes for students has emphasised the need for schools to develop their capacity to utilise data and evidence to drive improvement. Because schools have to make decisions about how best to use their resources, they are finding it necessary to develop the capacity to make well-informed decisions that are vital to their `competitiveness'. The increasing focus on performance accountability will require that schools develop the capacity to demonstrate their outcomes in a way that is open to public scrutiny and meets external standards.

Data-based approaches to the evaluation of school performance need to be considerably enhanced and their scope widened if they are to be useful in addressing the needs of individual schools. In many cases, schools found that there was a paucity of assessment instruments and rubrics and strategies available for gathering relevant evidence and information about the impact of their innovations.

The innovations that the IBPP schools implemented are no more than the tip of the iceberg of innovations in schools across the nation. A policy framework is crucial to support schools to develop and implement innovations, evaluate their impact on student learning outcomes and disseminate this knowledge so that it is accessible to other schools. Such a framework would enhance the capacity of schools to meet the demands that will be placed on them as we move towards a society and economy that makes better use of our intellectual capital.

The evidence from this research supports a continuation of devolution reforms to provide schools with the opportunities to address the challenges that lie ahead. Schools need to be supported by policy that is proactive in establishing an environment that maximises support for innovation as the vehicle for them to fulfil their crucial role in meeting the challenges of the knowledge-society and knowledge-economy.

The 107 schools that participated in the IBPP show that, given appropriate conditions, schools can produce the innovative responses that are capable of responding to the challenges ahead. The IBPP was successful in supporting innovation in the participating schools, and in providing new knowledge about the nature of school-based innovation and the factors that support and constrain innovation. It was also able to document a range of strategies and models that, through innovation, schools had demonstrated work better than standard practices. The broader policy agenda now needs to focus on how the future of schools in Australia can be supported and informed by encouraging innovation.