Essential learnings from a Catholic school amalgamation

Abstract

This paper analyses the impact of a recent large-scale Catholic school amalgamation. It explores how a change process that brought two existing schools together impacted staff, student and parent stakeholders within the initial year of a school amalgamation. The objective is to analyse the process to understand the impact and inform the leading and planning of future school amalgamations and associated processes, which have increased in recent years. The study was a single case study utilising survey data collected during the amalgamation. Participant perspectives are the primary means of data analysis, supplemented where relevant with documents relating to the planning and implementation of the amalgamation. Emerging themes are analysed to provide insight into the challenges and opportunities of current and future school amalgamations. This paper provides evidence of the school community's goodwill and commitment to a merged entity and highlights the complexities of a school amalgamation.

Keywords:

• Catholic school
• leadership
• single-sex schooling
• co-educational schooling
• school amalgamation

Introduction

Within an ever-increasing secularised society, the sociological challenge for Catholic schools is centred around cultural identity and relevance. Young people's search for a personalised understanding of spirituality and religious meaning (Franchi and Rymarz 2018) has progressively weakened formal religious practice (NCPR 2020). Such a cultural shift presents ongoing and challenging implications for Catholic schools and the Church more broadly. The future of Catholic schools was questioned by Kavanagh and Pallisier (2015), who asked whether Catholic schools would be Catholic in 2030. This challenge led Catholic schools to think more broadly about the education they provide to meet the needs of a secularising society.

Australia has three distinct schooling sectors: public/government, systemic Catholic schools, run by the local Diocese, and independent/private schools, which can be faith-based or secular. It has an extensive systemic Catholic school system. It is estimated that roughly 20% of students attend systemic Catholic schools (ABS 2022), and another 5–8% attend independent Catholic schools (NCEC 2022). The public-school sector has lost share to the growing Catholic and independent sectors (ABS 2022). Authentic Catholic schools are founded on the person of Jesus Christ and enlivened by the gospel as a deliberately distinct point of difference in providing a holistic education for young people (Cook and Simonds 2011). This point of difference lies within the Church's mission of Catholic schools as a primary evangelisation source. The Congregation of Catholic Education, which has the overall pontifical responsibility for Catholic schools, says, ‘The Catholic school is not reserved to Catholics only but is open to all, those who appreciate and share its qualified educational project’ (CCE 1998, 16).

The proposed amalgamation of two Catholic schools in Sydney, Australia, aimed to reimagine Catholic secondary education within a growing urban neighbourhood. The proposal presented the community with the challenge and opportunity to build a new school and culture. Such a proposal must account for three different evangelising contexts: staff and students who have never known the Christian message, staff and students who are active within the Christian faith, and staff and students who have lost a sense of their faith. In this case, neighbouring Catholic boys’ and Catholic girls’ high schools of different founding charisms would be combined in a co-educational environment. In describing how the development of these communities and charisms established their religious expressions, Schneiders (2000) explains:

Ongoing and deep narrative developed through the community’s history with all its myths and symbols, outstanding events and persons, struggles and triumphs, projects and challenges, that a group has been developing from its origins to the present, that has become the inner heritage of each member down through the years, giving them shared vision. (p.288)

In defining such shared characteristics, the cultural school symbols, stories, rituals, and liturgies complemented the curriculum content in nurturing a community of faith and service for those times (Convey 2012). Recognising these rituals, symbols, and stories is especially relevant when proposing a merger of different charisms and traditional schools.

Although the reasons for the merger were not solely based on single-sex and co-educational schooling, it was found that the biggest challenge of the merger was acculturating stakeholders into a new normal that focused on student learning and well-being, which was impacted significantly by the change from two single-sex entities to one co-educational environment that implemented a new parallel curriculum model. The parallel curriculum model would use single-sex core curriculum classes (English, mathematics, science) with other classes being co-educational. This required a paradigm change, where stakeholders had to remember and respect old cultures and charisms, move on from them, and embrace new ways of doing things.

The risk of underestimating or devaluing a Catholic school’s charism can arguably increase the risk of Catholic schools becoming a ‘one size fits all’ community (Neidhart and Lamb 2016). The specific charism of the religious founders who established Catholic school communities can provide contemporary Catholic school leaders with a meaningful spiritual framework for expressing and enacting a mission and vision that provides students and staff with a familiar story, tradition, and unifying language. This study aimed to ascertain the factors facilitating a successful school amalgamation within this Catholic context. This paper explores the reasons for amalgamation, the process of amalgamating and what was learned from the process to inform future amalgamations, which are becoming more frequent.

Background

The history of Catholic school amalgamations in Australia reflects a deliberate pattern of consolidations and mergers across various dioceses. These were often prompted by shifting demographics, financial considerations, and the aspiration to enrich educational offerings while safeguarding the sustainability of Catholic education. In Mount Gambier, SA, a foundational example is the merger of St Joseph’s Convent and St Paul’s Parish School into Mater Christi College in 1952. This progression continued with Tenison College's establishment in 1972, a fusion of Mater Christi and Marist Brothers Agricultural College. The pinnacle arrived in 2001 with Tenison Woods College, emerging from the amalgamation of St Paul’s Primary School and Tenison College, reshaping the Catholic educational landscape in Mount Gambier. Another early amalgamation was the Sisters of St Joseph of the Apparition’s school and the Marist Brothers’ St Paul’s Boys School in Northam in 1971, which resulted in a co-educational primary and secondary school on separate campuses. This merger was a proactive response to educational transformations and the necessity for pooled resources.

In a more recent example, the Melbourne Archdiocese amalgamated the Christian Brothers College St Kilda with Presentation College Windsor in 2021 to form St Mary’s College, which signified efforts to forge more substantial educational entities by combining historically distinct institutions. Furthermore, the merger of St James and St Bede’s, both imbued with a Lasallian ethos, emphasises the pursuit of enriching learning opportunities through consolidation.

In the Sydney Archdiocese, the transition from ‘St Mary's to St Catherine's’ (Luttrell and Lourey 2006) chronicles the sequence of Catholic school amalgamations within the Sydney Archdiocese from 1982 to 1999. This period saw numerous mergers, including Casimir Catholic College in Marrickville (1982), Trinity Catholic College in Auburn (1995), and Holy Spirit College in Lakemba (1998), the last such merger until the one described in this paper. Each consolidation aimed to streamline resources and enhance educational provisions to adapt to evolving needs. These examples across diverse Australian dioceses depict a consistent pattern of Catholic school amalgamations. These mergers strategically aim to ensure the continuity and quality of Catholic education amidst evolving demographics and educational requirements. By amalgamating strengths, resources, and educational philosophies, these initiatives strive to establish more robust and sustainable institutions to serve their communities better. However, the process and impact of these amalgamations have yet to receive the scrutiny and analysis necessary to learn from them and appraise their effects.

One such analysis in Norway, involving the amalgamation of three upper-secondary schools, was evaluated 2, 6, and 17 years after amalgamation. Saxi (2017) assessed the implementation problems associated with the change process and identified two primary sources of conflict: conflict of interest and culture conflict. This culture conflict can be characterised by the emotional interpretation of institutional symbols expressed through ‘deep-rooted values amongst organisational members’ (Saxi 2017, 5).

An example of institutional symbols can be seen in the establishment of Charles Sturt University. Hatton (2002) reported that the decision involving the former Lismore and Armidale colleges to retain their existing symbols and coats of arms was detrimental to the unifying process. To facilitate a re-culturing process, which is viewed in a less threatening way, the careful balance of acknowledging structural and cultural elements of the previous two organisations while at the same time presenting an emerging cultural identity of the new organisation requires what Blackmore and Sachs (2000, 14) call ‘the old skills of nurturing and new skills of emotional management under stress.’

Lindberg (2014) compared ineffective educational change interventions and argued that principals who invest in a short-term perspective on improving teaching and learning without considering long-term structures and systems are often in a continuous and reactive response cycle. Such cycles reflect findings that estimate 70% of organisational change efforts fail (Jacobs, van Witteloostuijn, and Christe-Zeyse 2013; Kotter 2014).

Considering such dim findings from the research on educational change, a different approach is warranted. Although there were many, one of the most significant considerations was combining traditionally single-sex schools to form a co-educational institution. Research findings between advocates claiming various student academic, sociological, or self-efficacy benefits for either co-education or single-sex schools are well documented (see Dix 2017; Fitzsimmons, Yates, and Callan 2018; Pahlke, Hyde, and Allison 2014). The multitude of varying and contextualising explanations for and against co-education and single-sex education, some of which include school culture and traditions and biological, socioeconomic and academic factors, make this a challenging and complex area to consider. Such a dynamic is highlighted by Mael (1998), who argued that educational initiatives within this area have varied in their direction according to the societal attitudes and beliefs of the time. This ranged from a perception in the 1970s that single-sex schooling reduced girls’ aspirations to the opposition of co-education in the 1980s due to a belief that boys were diminishing the achievement of girls (Mael 1998).

While the comparative achievement of learning outcomes between single-sex and co-education schools is narrow (Dix 2017), gender differences were found in the 2017 Tell Them from Me survey (CESE 2017). This study included 135,000 students in years 4–12 at NSW public schools and found a gender gap between girls and boys on most student engagement and well-being measures (CESE 2017). It found that girls have fewer disciplinary transgressions and have higher aspirations to finish year 12 and attend university (CESE 2017). In contrast, boys demonstrated a greater sense of belonging and a sense of connectedness to their school (CESE 2017). Such findings illustrate the importance of considering gender in student learning and engagement.

One approach that addresses gender imbalances is the hybrid parallel curriculum model implemented in this amalgamation and explored in literature by Hart (2016) and Pahlke and Hyde (2016). This model could be a promising solution to bridge the learning and well-being gender gaps. When considering combining two existing faith-based schools with long traditions of single-sex education into a new entity, it is essential to consider the choices determining students’ learning and well-being and how a new school culture will emerge.

Methods

This single exploratory case study (Yin 2017) analysed the phenomenon of a school amalgamation in Sydney, Australia, using a convergent mixed-methods approach (Patton 2015). The Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study at the University of Notre Dame Australia (Approval 018134S), and all participants signed informed consent. The quantitative phase allowed for the capture of precise statistical data from many parent, student and staff stakeholders. Qualitative open-ended questions produced thick descriptive comments providing context to the quantitative results. This combination produces transferable, if not generalisable, results that are both broad and concise for reporting purposes. Using a case study design within the paradigm of pragmatism (Creswell and Baez 2020) is consistent with the importance of identifying each school setting as unique and essential in contextualising an inquiry into a large-scale educational change process (Fullan 2009), thus allowing for the results to transcend the narrow field of Catholic school amalgamations.

The case study aimed to identify the impact of an organisational change process to capture valuable insights to inform other such interventions. The fundamental tenet of a pragmatic theoretical perspective requires an understanding of what the stakeholders believe about their reality and, in so doing, has the potential to transform practice (Kelly and Cordeiro 2020). Essentially, pragmatic inquiry recognises that individuals within social settings can experience the same action and change process differently, which was necessary given the amount of data collected from the three groups of stakeholders. The concurrent collection of quantitative and qualitative data from the participating staff, student and parent stakeholders (Table 1) provided a means to triangulate data from multiple stakeholders through statistical and thematic analysis.

Table 1. Combined school target population: Survey sample.

Cohort	Number
Staff members	85
Students	816
Parents	259

The survey comprised 52 questions, employed seven-point Likert scales, and allowed for open-ended comments in each section. A document review supplemented the survey where necessary to contextualise the data: the document review comprised policies, procedures, and the principal's notes. Analysing the qualitative comments involved analysis cycles: inspection, coding, categorising and modelling, with each cycle relying on memoing for overall stakeholder views and emerging themes (Kalpokaite and Radivojevic 2019). The quantitative analysis used the accumulated percentages from the Likert scale in the following way:

• A score below 3.00 (< 43%) indicated a critical deficiency in that area

• A score between 3.00 and 4.00 (43% – 57%) indicated an area of key concern

• A score between 4.00 and 5.00 (57% – 71%) was satisfactory, but an area in need of development

• A score between 5.00 and 6.00 (71% – 85%) indicated a positive result

• A score above 6.00 (85% – 100%) indicated a strong affirmation in that area

The findings are illustrated through frequency histograms for each identified area, visually representing each stakeholder within the case (Muijs 2011).

Results

Three main themes illustrate the data: student learning and well-being (SLW), physical learning environment (PLE), and leadership and administration (LA). The findings are based on the overall comparative Likert ratings and comment ratios from each stakeholder survey cohort.

Student learning and wellbeing

While the overall comparative Likert ratings from each stakeholder were positive (Figure 1), the positive–negative comment ratio seen in Figure 2 demonstrates a different perspective: 66% of staff, 44% of students and 53% of parents made negative comments in this category, which is indicative of the complexity within this theme (SLW).

Figure 1. Student learning and well-being: Average Likert rating.

Figure 2. Student learning and well-being – negative and positive comment ratio.

Staff rated the student learning and well-being category 5.39 (77%), the highest average rating across all categories. Comments were explicit in affirming the school's focus on student wellbeing. Staff regularly endorsed the inextricable links between learning and wellbeing, with one staff member commenting on how ‘the focus on well-being in the school is really something we should be proud of.’ This view is also supported by the staff member who explained, ‘In the first year of the new school, much progress is being made in many areas for our students in their learning.’

Student comments also expressed a positive level of satisfaction. A few comments are presented here: ‘I feel great being at this school. I feel I learn very well’ and, ‘I like the subjects at this school. They are fun. I enjoy learning new things in the subjects.’ Lastly, ‘Being able to have access to education and having the advantage of learning new things and studying the subjects I enjoy while meeting new people.’ In contrast to these views, there were also many critical comments. Students were especially critical of areas including assignment feedback and the consistent use of technology in lessons.

The Likert ratings in the parent survey were primarily positive, with a 5.23 (75%) rating. However, the 27:30 parent comment ratio demonstrates polarising views. Parents indicated that subject choice had improved since the amalgamation; however, there was considerable criticism on some issues, such as the new co-educational environment: ‘I know it has been a challenge for some girls’ school teachers who have not taught boys before, more so than the boys’ teachers who seem to have adjusted to teaching girls better.’ There were also positive comments on the co-educational model, referring to the parallel curriculum: ‘I think the school is unique in that it gives the best of both worlds for the students: single-sex classes in some subjects and then co-ed in others.’ Interestingly, the students often emphasised the positives of the co-education classes within the model, while the parents liked maintaining the single-sex core classes.

The analysis provided specific insights highlighting the links between students’ academic, sociological, and self-efficacy outcomes. Notably, there was recognition of the ongoing need to continue building a combined and fully integrated school learning culture. This was a powerful theme in the staff survey, but parents also noted that the school should consolidate and build on the progress.

Congruent to the comments regarding the co-educational environment, the data indicated the need for support and professional development for all staff in teaching either boys, girls or co-educational classes. This sort of pedagogical focus could address the evolving gender gaps (Fink et al. 2015; Wilcox et al. 2017) in supporting best practices in student learning and pastoral care. A whole-school pedagogical focus would further complement the level of commitment to student well-being that all stakeholders highlighted.

The introduction of the parallel curriculum model was an effective means of meeting the learning and well-being needs of students of both genders. It was a point of difference that was generally well-accepted by staff, students, and parents. The data indicated a general level of consistency from all three groups, acknowledging that the school endeavoured to meet all learners’ needs.

Valuing the physical learning environment in organisational change (PLE)

One significant challenge of the amalgamation involved consolidating and improving the functionality and connectedness of the buildings and recreational spaces. The data in this category illustrated a generally positive reaction from staff and parents; however, the student cohort indicated this was an area of challenge. Figure 3 shows the comparative ratings from each cohort, which illustrates that while the staff and parents rated this positively, the students gave it a satisfactory rating. This difference is reinforced by the comment ratio in Figure 4, where 87 (69%) students commented negatively about the physical learning environment.

Figure 3. Physical Learning Environment: Average Likert ratings.

Figure 4. Physical Learning Environment – negative and positive comment ratio.

As seen in Figure 3, the staff rated this category 5.67 (81%), the highest overall staff rating across the themes. The new combined staff room facilities likely influenced this result. A new staffroom, combining all staff, was essential to uniting two former staffroom cultures physically and culturally.

The significant increase in the size of the new school necessitated support from a centralised administration office, with the capacity to manage the increase in staff, student, and parent population. A specific question on the new office space, rated 6.0, the highest of all specific features.

Staff also indicated that the capital works building programme, including new learning spaces, a well-being centre, and a student cafeteria, provided students with additional learning and recreational opportunities. Consistent staff ratings highlight the design's practical and operational benefits and how the new buildings improved the school culture.

While there were only a few comments, a high percentage concerned the need for more consultation with stakeholders as opposed to the design of the facilities. These comments were double-coded as being critical of LA and PLE. The data highlight how improving organisational conditions, specifically within the PLE, allowed for social interactions to contribute to forming a new professional learning community.

The parent rating (5.33) and very few comments illustrated support for the improvements and that parents were generally satisfied.

In contrast to staff and parent perspectives, the rating from the students was 4.9 (70%). Only thirty-nine (31%) students highlighted strengths in the PLE. Indicative comments include: ‘I have access to the best learning possible using the most recent equipment’ and ‘How the school is now so modern.’ However, the criticism in this category far outweighed the positives. By opening up the previously separated school playgrounds and recreational areas to both male and female students, a particular shift in culture was needed. For generations, the pre-merged single-sex schools had clear boundaries, which had now been removed. Full access across the entire campus necessitated a period of acclimatisation, resulting in tension between genders. The following is an indicative comment:

It was functioning well until we combined schools with girls sitting on the field. I see the safety in it, but it is unacceptable to take it away from us boys because of stupid decisions that girls make by sitting on the field.

The school required male and female students to adapt to a new social paradigm, which they found challenging, such as proximity to toilet blocks. However, the school's various playgrounds, well-being centre, and student cafeteria were purposely built to provide a conduit for students to begin the socialisation process. This process would eventually lead to the formation of a cohesive student body cohort.

The findings confirm that the processes involved in modifying a school's PLE provided a necessary vehicle for contributing to large-scale educational and cultural change. While the staff and parents found this a net positive, the students struggled to adapt to their new surroundings. The previously segregated campus expansion provided a new physical and social context for staff and students. The PLE provided a structural framework for individual actions to flourish or to be openly challenged and worked through. The building programme was not only a necessary functional change element but also a visual and symbolic sign of the school environment, playing its part in contributing to the educational change process.

Balancing transactional and transformational leadership (LA)

The data relating to the leadership and administration revealed a mixed response. Figure 5 illustrates the ratings from each cohort and shows that the staff and students felt considerable improvements were required within this category.

Figure 5. Leadership and administration: Average Likert ratings.

These ratings are reinforced in Figure 6. While the staff and parent comment ratio was relatively evenly balanced, the students overwhelmingly (87%) responded negatively to this category.

Figure 6. Leadership and administration – negative and positive comment ratio.

Staff rated leadership and administration satisfactory but needing further development (4.88 and 70%), the lowest overall staff rating. The 11:15 comment ratio demonstrated the polarising status of staff during this time. While there were positive comments from a whole-school perspective, including how ‘Strong leadership has developed a very positive school culture’ and ‘I feel completely supported by the Leadership Team, and I trust each of them entirely,’ policy and procedure required attention. This statement characterised these comments, indicative of others: ‘Policies and procedures are still very unclear.’

The desire for a whole-school approach to policy is symptomatic of a combined staff developing a new culture. The inconsistent application of policies caused more consternation than the policies themselves. This is reflected in comments, such as: ‘The assumption of knowledge of some procedures can lead to confusion and frustration’ and ‘very different expectations of student behaviour and achievements between past boys’ and girls’ staff are evident.’ This emphasises how leadership overlaps and directly impacts the other three categories. All categories were influenced by leadership and administrative decisions directly affecting the change process. Therefore, the analysis of the LA data must account for the previously described human resources context of the amalgamation.

The student data illustrated a level of support and pride in the new school; however, they were critical policies and procedures (4.4 and 63%). The significant disparity in student comment ratio of 15:97 reinforces this as a central area of tension for students. The tensions concerned homework, recreational spaces, and the uniform policy.

In contrast to the staff and student data, parents rated this category at 5.3 (76%), which should be understood in context. The parents had a secondary experience of the leadership and administrative practices and were not directly impacted by the changes. Notably, their comments supported several operational and administrative processes, including communication effectiveness between home and school and their access to and support of whole-school policies. This points to an interesting finding: parents supported the new policies inconsistently enforced by staff and disliked by students.

The overall analysis of PLE highlights the various perspectives of stakeholders regarding the large-scale decisions and daily operative choices made to improve student learning and well-being. There appears to be a general acknowledgement that leadership and administration need more consistency and greater recognition of the struggles of acculturating to new policies and procedures in a new environment.

The identification and analysis of the three triangulated themes of The Relationship between Student Learning and Well-being (SLW), Valuing the Physical Learning Environment in Organisational Change (PLE), and Balancing Transactional and Transformational Leadership (LA) allowed for a cross-unit analysis of the stakeholder data sets to provide insight regarding the overall impact of the amalgamation.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Discussion

As Australian schools respond to the concern of meeting students’ social and emotional needs, there appears to be a dissonance between policy and practice (Powell and Graham 2017). Teachers have commonly associated student well-being with negative connotations in addressing student behaviour or mental health issues (Powell and Graham 2017). Such a perspective is reinforced by the OECD (2019), where Australian students rank in the bottom 10% for classroom disciplinary climate.

While any change process presents opportunities to be creative and innovative, there is also the complex process of compromising previous practices and long-held traditions to be part of a new whole. Catholic schools maintain a relational focus, thus preserving the original mission to educate in faith and build community. It is imperative that when new practices are adopted, core traditional values are maintained. During the initial year of the amalgamation, an ‘implementation dip’ (Fullan 2001) existed when the data was collected. This concept is beneficial in addressing the overall question of impact. Large-scale change processes commonly cause regressions or dips in performance before achieving the desired change (Saxi 2017). Each stakeholder was at different points of depth across a spectrum of the ‘dip’ during the data collection phase, which was also the initial year of the amalgamation.

A central feature of the amalgamation was re-culturing (Hargreaves 1994). This period of re-culturing included the processes involved in establishing new social norms of behaviour for stakeholders. Although the data suggests that the re-culturing was primarily about the co-educational space, one cannot dismiss the re-culturing that needed to occur due to the traditions of the charisms, which included single-sex education. Braniff (2007) believes there needs to be more clarity between the concept of a charism and an educational vision and argues that preserving a traditional charism of the founding religious orders is more about nostalgia than educating in faith. Pope John Paul II, in writing to the religious orders in his exhortation, Vita Consecrata (1996), encouraged a new perspective on the various traditional charisms and their institutes; ‘The participation of the laity often brings unexpected and rich insights into certain aspects of the charism leading to a more spiritual interpretation of it and helping to draw from it direction for new activities' (55).

In many ways, restructuring the two schools was the transactional and organisational part of the amalgamation. In contrast, re-culturing the new school was a transformational change in creating a framework of a new normal. Such a framework presupposes what it means to be an authentic Catholic school. It explicitly guides students and teachers in building relationships with self, God, the local and world community, and creation. The work of Cook and Simonds (2011, 323) articulates what is required for success: ‘Catholic educators who embrace the concept of relationship building as the organising principle for their schools will embark on a process of educational change.’ While the amalgamation intended to improve the scope and means to provide a quality Catholic school, the data shows only varying degrees of success.

Of the three stakeholder groups, the parents were most optimistic about the change. This is seen as successful community messaging and the preliminary work done to ensure the community agrees with the process. Parents supported the management of the change process and were consulted throughout the process; however, while they were essential stakeholders, they were not daily participants in the school's operations.

The students reacted positively to the new learning and well-being initiatives but found the new learning environment and leadership challenging. While the students were the most critical stakeholders in the process and were dually consulted, they needed more influence. Whether the students viewed the amalgamation as positive or negative was based on the degree to which they either embraced or opposed the balance between the old and the new. A perceived reduction in recreational opportunities and more structured regulations and policies countered the positive acceptance of co-educational classes, new facilities, and a strengthened sense of community. Some students perceived gender inequality in the curriculum and its delivery.

The group impacted most significantly was the staff, who arguably had negligible influence on the process. While staff were consulted and their feedback sought, their influence was limited. The new school would consolidate leadership positions, resulting in fewer staff and fewer leadership positions available. This was a cause for consternation. It is likely that the staff members who embraced the change were balanced in their views and provided positive feedback. In contrast, staff members who did not adapt well to the change process struggled to feel comfortable in the new school. Fullan (2001, 40) reports that subgroups must develop ‘new skills and new understandings as part of the change process.’ The staff needed these new skills and understandings but developed them with varying degrees of success.

The overall intention of the amalgamation was to improve a Catholic school community by creating a new school entity to meet the needs of a growing community. The data indicates a varied level of success from the different stakeholders’ points of view. Considering the time-bounded nature of this study, it would be valuable to consider further research at various points to measure the initiative's success over time, specifically, how long the acculturation process may take. The potential value of a longitudinal study that compares the perceived effects of a school amalgamation over time would further contribute to school leadership and evaluation methodology more broadly (Coleman and Thomas 2017; Saxi 2017). A comparative study with a non-faith-based school could provide insights into the distinctiveness of amalgamations in Catholic schools.

While there is no exact science for bringing about whole-school change (Thomson 2010), gaining a better understanding of the reciprocal relationship of stakeholders further equips future decision-makers in undertaking organisational change. Similarly, the findings in this study reinforce the importance of empowering a critical mass of staff to respond to and enact a whole-school change reform. While the leaders undertaking a large-scale change reform attempted to balance the complementary nature of transformational and transactional leadership styles, the importance of a collective form of practice should be recognised (Fullan 2015).

Recognising this substantial amalgamation, the following leadership framework aims to make these recommendations more transferable to the broader community. While the following framework may not be generalisable, it may provide a scaffold for future amalgamations and similar large-scale organisational change.

The framework presents each of the categories that inform each of the themes of this study and is underpinned by a collective expression of leadership that balances both the transformational and the necessary transactional and operational details. The framework is informed through a critical analysis and a greater understanding of each dimension. (Figure 7)

Figure 7. A framework for Conceptualising Catholic school amalgamations.

The first dimension of Catholic school life and culture is foundational to informing a change process (Lydon 2009). However, it could relate to any restructuring in which a culture transcends the entity's change. Part of this dimension is winning key stakeholders’ ‘hearts and minds’. It can be equally important in providing an authentic spiritual lens to establishing a new Catholic school entity. Catholic school life and culture, as seen through the broad spectrum of spiritual, liturgical, symbolic, and pastoral elements, is fundamental for a Catholic school to be authentic in achieving the mission of educating in faith.

The second dimension emphasises a vision for student learning and wellbeing. Contemporary student learning is inextricably linked to student well-being (Powell and Graham 2017); therefore, an explicit focus on student well-being that is effectively underpinned by student learning not only supports a change process within a whole-school restructure but is essential in the long-term sustainability of the new entity.

The third dimension relates to the physical learning environment. Successful school design not only provides an opportunity to improve a school's physical condition but can also provide an instrument to facilitate learning and well-being within the new school life and culture. Improving the physical learning environment assists both the organisational and social interactions for community stakeholders to come together (Spillane 2015).

Conclusion

The initial year of the amalgamation is too early to say with certainty whether it was successful or not. However, the delicate balance between transformational and transactional leadership in improving the critical objectives is essential to the success of this and possibly other organisational change processes. Student learning and well-being must be the foundation for all school-based organisational change. Leadership consultation and subsequent decisions must always consider the impact on the students and weigh the benefits. If, at any time, the advantage to students is questionable, then the decision should be reconsidered.

The school life and culture of any school, particularly Catholic schools, are challenging to foresee in a new entity. In bringing two distinct charisms into one school, the previous charisms must be respected and cherished, allowing a new culture to form. There are examples of previous Catholic school amalgamations where one founding religious school charism was favoured over another (Luttrell and Lourey 2006). Such decisions on the very fabric of a Catholic learning organisation directly impact the culture of a Catholic school. In this case, understanding the story and appreciating the history of the original schools, cultures, and Charisms allowed the two schools to merge in a restructured physical sense and, just as significantly, allowed for a re-culturing process to begin (Convey 2012).

Lastly, the physical learning environment facilitates the changes necessary to build a new school culture focused on student learning and well-being. Thoughtful and deliberate processes to change the physical learning environment, although a source of tension for some, sought to accelerate the acculturation process by bringing the staff and students together in their respective spaces.

Catholic school life and culture, student learning and well-being, and the physical learning environment are complementary and interrelated. Each is represented in the conceptual framework as being linked reciprocally. While these three themes represent the objectives of a change process, how they change and how the appropriate form of leadership can facilitate that change is at the heart of any successful transformation. A collective form of leadership balances a change process's transformational and transactional aspects and is the overriding leadership philosophy recommended for a Catholic school amalgamation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephen Gough

Stephen Gough is the Headmaster at Edmond Rice College, Wollongong. He has over 30 years of teaching and leadership experience, 20 of which have been in senior leadership roles. His research focuses on Catholic school leadership and improving student learning experience.

Sean P. Kearney

Sean P. Kearney is a professor of education at the University of Notre Dame, Australia, where he lectures on learning sciences and general pedagogy. His research spans school leadership, international immersion programmes, and assessment reform in higher education. He is past president and current vice president of the NSW Institute for Educational Research and co-founder of the Dayamani Foundation, which built and runs a residential school for at-risk children in Tenali, India.