Abstract In New Zealand's compulsory education sector quality assurance is undertaken by the Education Review Office (ERO). When a school is found to be less effective than is acceptable through the triennial review process, ERO may return to review that school within six or twelve months. This Supplementary Review is identified to the Ministry of Education (MOE) which has several levels of intervention at its disposal which can be employed singularly or in concert to improve the school. Despite the support and interventions funded and/or managed by MOE, some schools have consecutive Supplementary Reviews and some remain under Statutory Intervention for several years. Commonalities among these schools that repeatedly or consistently present as 'at risk' may indicate a need for greater or different support or intervention. Self managing schools, while effective for many schools, may not be a workable and sustainable proposition for others. This may well be particularly true for those schools identified as 'at risk'. This paper considers ERO's process to identify schools 'at risk' and subsequent interventions employed by MOE to support the Principal and Board of Trustees in addressing improvements required within the school. Statistics and document analysis were used to extract data from documents with findings presented as a series of tables. It seeks a match between what is identified by ERO and the Statutory Intervention engaged by MOE. It explores the commonalities of schools under Statutory Intervention and on Supplementary Review. Practice in other countries is also considered in an effort to understand and contextualise the ideas and beliefs that support these approaches. While there is evidence ERO identifies teacher and Principal performance as major areas of concern, lead issues for Statutory Interventions in the same schools focus on the performance of the Board of Trustees as those with the responsibility of governing the school. The focus on governance to improve school performance is not working for some schools, more or different support may be necessary to effect positive change. The balance between capacity building, incentives and accountability for all involved in schools with Statutory Interventions, appears necessary for those with the capacity to improve.

Guided by the theoretical underpinnings of symbolic interactionism, this study set out to describe and analyse how stakeholders in a New Zealand Primary School understand effective school leadership, and how their meanings of leadership are influenced by the context in which they work. Review of the school leadership literature indicated that there was widespread agreement on the importance of leadership for school effectiveness but limited empirical data on how, or why, this was the case. To gain an understanding of stakeholders' meanings of effective leadership the study adopted a qualitative, case study design. Purposive, criterion-based selection was used to select a school considered to have highly effective leadership practices and to identify a cross-section of stakeholders within that school. The participants were the principal, Board of Trustees chairperson, assistant principal, teacher, general staff member, and student. Data were gathered from concept maps, semi-structured interviews and selected school documents such as the school's Education Review Office report and staff job descriptions. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods of analysis, specifically the use of constant comparison through open and axial coding. The findings of the study are presented and examined in terms of three theoretical propositions that encapsulate the stakeholders' meanings of effective school leadership. The first proposition examines three core values - concern for the individual, a commitment to learning, and an expectation of high performance - that permeated the school and influenced stakeholders' meanings and leadership practices. The second proposition examines the provision of direction, which involved articulation of a strong vision, use of symbols and ceremonies, modelling valued practices and beliefs, and raising the aspirations of staff and students. The third proposition examines leading and managing processes, which included the development of a team structure, leading and managing staff appointments and non-performance, managing communications, meetings and time, and providing opportunities for decision-making and leadership. Although considered in separate chapters, the three theoretical propositions are inter-related. The findings from this study highlight the importance of a set of core, common values for school leadership, confirm the role that leaders play in providing direction through a variety of symbolic activities, re-emphasise the need for studies of leadership to consider the context specific and people-based aspects of leadership, and confirm the place of teams in achieving a school's goals and reinforcing its values. The findings of the study also identify a need for team learning and development, and for a greater focus on values and beliefs in development programmes for principals. In addition, from both a theoretical and practical perspective, the findings establish a need for further research into the conception and practice of distributed leadership, and indicate that principals continue to play a central leadership role in self-managing, primary schools. The study's findings, thus, add to an at present limited base of empirical data on school leadership, and provide an insight into the perspectives of those involved in the leadership processes. Although the study's findings are based on a single school, in a particular context, the research design and methodology, including use of theoretical propositions, means the findings and conclusions generated from the study are pertinent to leadership theory, leadership research and leadership policy and practice in various contexts. The findings of this study are therefore likely to be of use to researchers of educational leadership, school principals, other school leaders, educational policy makers, and those designing and implementing professional learning programmes for principals and other school leaders.