 Tēnā koutu katoa. Thank you, Mr Dean. Perhaps my passion for educational leadership came from a family of teachers and principals, but also, surprise surprise, from my stint as head of school. Well, I realised that it was not only important and extremely difficult to do in an academic environment, but I became aware of the attributions that others make about the importance of leadership. And I wasn't so aware of it until that time. So, good research things come out of being ahead of school for those of you that are contemplating it. Policymakers, politicians and the general public have absolutely no doubt about the importance of school leadership to student outcomes. We need parents use it, the quality of leadership, or what they think the quality of leadership is, as a way of choosing a school for their children. Absolutely no doubt of its importance. And yet paradoxically, researchers have had huge trouble both testing and demonstrating the link between the quality of school leadership and student outcomes, whether those outcomes are well-being social outcomes, or academic outcomes in the sense of achievement measured over time, i.e. learning. And perhaps one of the reasons for the difficulty that researchers have had in making this link is the long causal chain between school leadership and outcomes, because school leaders exercise their influence indirectly by creating the conditions and make it possible for teachers to make a bigger difference with the students that they're working with. So that's one reason why perhaps it's been so difficult to demonstrate or test the strength of this link. And the other reason is perhaps that educational leadership research has been theorised, or at least the measures that have been used to assess the quality of school leadership, have been based on business and management theories of leadership. Notably a theory called transformational leadership, which assesses the extent to which leaders have such qualities as charisma, able to motivate their followers, are able to provide intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. In other words, the qualities that were assessed were the qualities that are generic to leadership of any organisation. Missing from those measures and from those theories are engagement with the work of education. Engagement, for example, items such as our school leadership are the principal of the school as reported by teachers, because it's teachers that complete these surveys about the quality of school leadership that my school principal gives useful feedback to teachers. My school principal works with teachers to learn from students' work about how to improve teaching, etc. Those were missing. That led to a question that I had and the Ministry of Education had who funded this work. That led to a question about what happens if we can sort the research into measures which have actually tried to access the specifically educational features of leadership versus the more generic. That's the result that we got from the first meta-analysis, is that the transformational leadership studies have shown an average effect of leadership on student outcomes of slightly less than 0.2 and what's called instructional leadership in the United States. Measures of leadership that are theorised in more educational terms are showing a considerably greater impact on student outcomes. Still not large, but the relative difference is quite important. These studies were theorised as a miscellany of a whole lot of other different theories. That's interesting. That's showing that maybe we need to attend to the way we theorise and measure educational leadership if we're going to look for these effects. Maybe educational leadership needs to be thought about at least in terms of inclusive of the educational practices involved and the educational knowledge. But these are still very abstract conceptions of leadership. If we're thinking about how do we take this knowledge into the possibilities for intervention and for leadership development on which millions of dollars are being spent in OECD countries and indeed wider than that, just talking about instructional leadership is far too abstract a conception. The next question we asked is what are actually the practices involved? Can we see these practices in more detail? Can we learn about the relative impacts of different sorts of leadership practice? That was our second meta-analysis, which a team of us did. It shows some of the average relative effects of dimensions or sets of practices. We can create something of a story about how leadership makes its effect through setting goals and expectations, resourcing those goals, getting involved in the work of monitoring, overseeing, being close to the work of teaching and learning. This one is a biggie which is learning with your teachers and supporting that learning both formally and informally and all on the foundation of an environment, a context which is culturally, physically and socially safe and inclusive for both staff and students. Those are some of the relative effects that we have based on the research evidence that we had at the time. Since doing that work, our research team, involving Clare Sinema, Deidre Lefevre, myself, Fraka Maia and some of our students, has been looking at the second question. If we think about these as sets of practices that we know something about the relative effects of those practices on student outcomes and equality of teaching, next question is, what are the capabilities that leaders need in order to be able to engage in those practices? Our current research programme is looking very much at how do leaders build the trust that they need in order to do the work of improvement which involves solving complex teaching and learning problems and bringing your educational knowledge to bear. Thanks very much.