Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers, Volume 10: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

DEDICATION To Saran’s mama, Maggie Shaw, and Richard’s loving wife, Margo; we are very grateful for your sacrifice and d...

Author: Saran Donahoo | Richard C Hunter

134 downloads 4193 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

DEDICATION To Saran’s mama, Maggie Shaw, and Richard’s loving wife, Margo; we are very grateful for your sacrifice and dedication. We greatly appreciate your unwavering support and encouragement.

INTRODUCTION: TEACHING LEADERS TO LEAD TEACHERS: EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE ERA OF CONSTANT CRISIS Saran Donahoo and Richard C. Hunter ABSTRACT Today, the public schools are in crisis with various sectors of society questioning their performance and ability to provide the quality of education needed to maintain our nation’s pre-eminence in the world economy. We organized the book into three sections, which examine the complex issue of public education and suggest that increasing the role teachers and others play in delivering public education will enhance and improve schools. The first section focuses on the academic processes prospective school leaders must go through before entering an administrative position. Chapters in this section discuss issues such as those who train, hire, and aspire to become school leaders. The second section examines issues affecting administrators while serving in the role of school leader. Topics discussed include using community cultural values to create a positive school climate and environment, various issues affecting teacher leadership, and the politics of school administration. The final section of the book encourages both active and potential school leaders to re-examine

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 1–4 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10024-X

1

2

SARAN DONAHOO AND RICHARD C. HUNTER

themselves as leaders and encourages practitioners to consider their perspective on school administration and their rise to the position.

In the current context, two key perceptions reverberate through policies, media, and public opinion about education: (1) schools are doing a bad job of educating students and (2) just about everyone knows how to fix schools, except public educators. The first recurring perspective dates back to A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and its central conclusion that public education was in desperate need of reform because of schools’ inability to effectively prepare students to maintain the United States’ superior economic and technological position in the world economy. In reaching this conclusion, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) encouraged all sectors of society to question the quality of the public educational system, which now bears the blame and the burden for everything from decreased civic engagement to rising poverty rates (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Ironically, the second perspective is actually an outgrowth of response and reaction to A Nation at Risk since the high social stakes attached to public education makes everyone feel as though they have what it takes to reverse the perceived trend of school failure. As a result, school leaders now face unremitting scrutiny as more policymakers, parents, students, and community members challenge the status of public education. Today, many individuals and organizations have become educational experts who possess the knowledge and experience to manage and sustain public schools (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Green & McKerrow in this volume; Starr also in this volume). Essentially, school leaders now serve in an ‘‘era of constant crisis’’ since they are expected to improve student achievement, address social and child development concerns, and turnout well-prepared citizens who will contribute to both the economic and the social success of the nation. This high expectation is strongly advocated despite the public educational system’s not having adequate financial and material resources, insufficient faculty and staff, and an overwhelming list of duties and responsibilities, particularly in the urban schools of America (Hunter, 2007, p. 104). No matter how leaders succeed at their jobs, there remains a ‘‘constant’’ need to improve or fix something at their schools (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 12). Given the close scrutiny of public schools and their leaders, it should come as no surprise that some districts are experiencing a leadership shortage. Whether administrators leave because of retirement or some other reason, more than 50% of America’s public schools now need or will need

Introduction: Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers

3

new administrators (Normore, 2004; Paton & Shaw, 2006; Tallerico, 2000). While some districts remain attractive and draw a reasonable number of applicants, schools that have the greatest need for strong and experienced leaders generally experience greater problems in attracting leaders (Roza, Celio, Harvey, & Wishon, 2003). At the same time, the ‘‘constant crisis’’ has diminished teacher interest in moving into the leadership pipeline. Disincentives such as greater workload and expectations, loss of vacation and time away from school, and negative impacts on families and personal health resulting from stress and the need to respond to the ‘‘constant crisis’’ have caused many teachers to lose interests in ascending to an administrative role (Howley, Andrianaivo, & Perry, 2005). These conditions work to instill hope in prospective school leaders and help them to re-energize present administrators by providing some overviews and insights on issues that help to shape the ‘‘constant crisis.’’ Addressing the ‘‘constant crisis,’’ this book features three sections. The first section, Preparation and Foundations, focuses on the academic and other processes prospective school leaders must go through before entering an administrative position. The topics in this section address issues for those who train, hire, and aspire to become school leaders should consider and may want to incorporate into their philosophies. Next, the chapters in Leading to Learn While Learning to Lead examine issues affecting administrators while serving in the role of school leaders. Topics include using community cultural values to create a positive school climate and environment, administrative issues related to special education, and various issues affecting teacher leadership and the politics of school administration. The final section of the book, Reflection and Reform, encourages both active and potential school leaders to re-examine themselves as leaders, their perspectives on school administration, as well as their preparation and rise to the position, and role in leading teachers, serving students, and helping others to transition into school leadership.

REFERENCES Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 9–16. Howley, A., Andrianaivo, S., & Perry, J. (2005, April). The pain outweighs the gain: Why teachers don’t want to become principals. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 757–782.

4

SARAN DONAHOO AND RICHARD C. HUNTER

Hunter, R. C. (2007). NCLB and the new ESEA Title I program. In: F. Brown & R. C. Hunter (Eds), No child left behind and other federal programs for urban school districts (pp. 91–110). Oxford, UK: Elsevier (JAI). National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. Normore, A. H. (2004, April–June). Socializing school leaders to meet leadership challenges that doom all but the most heroic and talented leaders to failure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(2), 107–125. Paton, G., & Shaw, M. (2006, September 8). Chronic loss of school leaders. Times Educational Supplement (4702), 1. Roza, M., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., & Wishon, S. (2003, January). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals? Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/NR/ rdonlyres/29107E23-7EEA-4459-AED7-B0AEEDC7B885/0/AMatterofDefinition.pdf Tallerico, M. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 18–43.

BECOMING A LEADER OF CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Alan C. Jones ABSTRACT For the last decade, policy makers and boards of education have been mandating and searching for school leaders who are knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction or what the reform literature terms instructional leadership. The recognition that expertise in teaching and learning is critical to the achievement in our schools, however, has often been overwhelmed by the management functions of administration and programs in educational administration, which continue to support the role of manager, and provides little, if any, substance for the kinds of knowledge and skills necessary to lead a school instructionally. Recent studies of the instructional leadership contend that the content that has been neglected in the training of administrators is an understanding of subject matter and how an educational leader must transform the theories, ideas, and practices of a subject or discipline into the everyday understandings of classroom teaching. Although the new construct of Leadership Content Knowledge (LDK) provides a new understanding about what leaders need to know about teaching and learning in order to effectively perform the role of instructional leader, the studies of LDK have not yet provided a process for becoming a leader of content knowledge. The author describes a framework for how an educational administrator would become a ‘‘Leader of Content Knowledge.’’ Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 7–21 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10001-9

7

8

ALAN C. JONES

INTRODUCTION For the last decade, policymakers and boards of education have been mandating and searching for leaders who are knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction. The name given to these school administrators is instructional leaders. The problem that has plagued the literature on instructional leadership is how policymakers and boards of education interpret this role. The public has largely viewed the role of instructional leader as a school administrator who effectively manages test-driven curricular and instructional programs rather than assuming a leadership role in challenging the ‘‘assign/assess’’ (Tharp, 1993, p. 270) mode of instruction that pervades our schooling system in the United States. The essential difference between the two roles rests with their orientation towards the means and ends of an organization. Managers are rewarded for planning, directing, and monitoring what is already in place and for guiding a process of continuous improvement. Leaders, on the other hand, assume responsibility for what the literature (Evans, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1996; Vaill, 1982) calls ‘‘purposing’’ – the ability to create the capacity, the vocabulary, and the organizational configuration for the aims of the organization to be realized in the daily functions of employees. While the private sector has wholeheartedly embraced the distinction between managers and leaders and are willing to offer lucrative rewards for leadership, school districts, in the words of Sergiovanni (1996), continue to be ‘‘overmanaged and underled’’ (p. 4). Although governmental bodies are calling for instructional leaders to direct our schools, a cursory view of what administrators do on a daily basis reveals why the management function becomes a priority for school administrators. Parents, school boards, and students expect that their schools will operate effectively and efficiently – the buses will run on time, the bathrooms will be clean, all students will have correct schedules at the beginning of the school year, grades will be issued on time, and yes, the football field will be properly lined for the Friday night game. Along with the public expectation for well-run schools, school administrators would freely admit that one could feel good about seeing and being a part of the very tangible outcomes of a well-run school. The same expectation for performance and satisfaction for a job well done cannot be said about the role of instructional leaders. School administrators who venture into the realm of curriculum and instruction are confronted with a formidable set of institutional, cultural, and political obstacles that will never be fully resolved, are messy to mediate, and will exert a heavy toll

Becoming a Leader of Content Knowledge

9

on those who challenge the prevailing norms of schooling in America. Not only must the educational leader confront public and institutional norms that are hostile to change, but he or she will also confront these unfriendly forces with little or no training in the knowledge and skills necessary to become an instructional leader. A recent study of programs in educational leadership found that the design and implementation of the curriculum for most educational leadership programs continues to support the role of a manager and provides little, if any, content regarding the kinds of knowledge and skills necessary to lead a school instructionally. The report implies that the process of becoming an instructional leader will require a highly personal journey with little assistance from institutional approaches to teaching educational administration (Levine, 2005). Having said that, the literature on organizational leadership is replete with examples of women and men who have orchestrated fundamental changes in the direction and the day-to-day operations of the organizations they lead. Although portraits of these individuals exhibit a wide range of personality types, working styles, and experiences, the common attribute these leaders possess is a laser-like focus on what the organization ought to be doing and an ability to transform the ought of the organization into the everyday functions of their employees (Drucker, 2006). The other quality that sets these leaders apart from others in the field is their personal commitment to becoming students of their industry, whatever it might be. This quality is a dramatic departure from past organizational literature that portrayed the ideal CEO as one who had been trained in professional-management theories and industrial psychology and could move easily between different kinds of businesses. Professional-management approaches to leadership were founded on the belief that there is a set of generic knowledge and skills in ‘‘planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting’’ that could be applied to any organization (Sergiovanni, 2005, p. 12). What industry learned a decade ago and unfortunately what recent national disasters have demonstrated is the critical importance of expert knowledge in establishing the direction of an organization and in the day-to-day decisions that must be made to implement that direction. In the field of education, the quality of expert knowledge has recently been termed in the literature as, ‘‘Leadership Content Knowledge’’ (Stein & Nelson, 2003). What is insightful about leadership content knowledge (LDK), is the expectation that a school leader not only be able to manage the instructional change, but more importantly, take responsibility for ‘‘some degree of understanding of the various subject matters under their

10

ALAN C. JONES

purview,’’ (Stein & Nelson, 2003, p. 424) so they can have a ‘‘grasp on where expertise resides in relation to particular tasks and then to arrange environments that make interactive learning possible’’ (Stein & Nelson, 2003, p. 426). The leader of content knowledge is expected to carry on simultaneously the management function of instructional improvement – the old instructional leadership role – and the teaching function of instructional improvement – which requires that the educational leader insert themselves into the trenches of an instructional improvement effort and confront the day-to-day problems of ‘‘how to teach the subject matter, and how students learn the subject matter’’ (Stein & Nelson, 2003, p. 426). What is missing from this new construct of ‘‘administrators-as-teachers’’ (Stein & Nelson, 2003, p. 426) are concrete examples of how an administrator transforms himself or herself from their traditional role as an instructional leader to a leader of content knowledge. There are no institutional approaches to becoming a leader of content knowledge and, even if there were, the highly contextual nature of any instructional improvement would defy efforts to create a curriculum for becoming a leader of content knowledge. While the research and institutional curricular are silent on the process for developing leaders of content knowledge, there are abundant writings on effective leaders in particular fields or industries who acknowledged the value of knowing their fields well and knowing how that knowledge of the content became the core competency for realizing the goals of the organization. The subject of this paper is to draw on the experiences of these leaders of content knowledge to develop a hypothetical model that a school leader might emulate to become a leader of content knowledge. The model that I propose is framed as a series of journeys – each journey informs the other journey and like all journeys can lead to unexpected destinations.

THE PERSONAL JOURNEY The foundation of LDK is the development of a framework for thinking about emerging instructional challenges. Frameworks are not a collection of programs or random pieces of information associated with an instructional program. Rather they are ‘‘a set of interrelated programs for students and staff that are guided by a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning climate and are pursued over a sustained period’’ (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001, p. 299). A common framework that would encompass most change initiatives in schools and


11

would address most of the instructional problems that confront teachers on a daily basis are the fundamental questions of schooling:

How do children learn? What knowledge is of most worth? How should we teach children? How should we organize subject matter? How should we assess what students understand?

When encountering an instructional problem the educational leader’s private challenge, which eventually becomes a public challenge, is to develop a coherent framework for each of the fundamental questions of schooling in relation to the instructional problem to be solved. Coherence is the key because teachers become very frustrated when they are asked to apply a little of this theory, some of those ideas, and a few of these practices. Teachers are much more open to an instructional improvement initiative if the leader helps them as they connect the dots in implementing a change, i.e., theories agree with ideas, ideas agree with actions, actions agree with practices. The most pervasive impediment to instructional improvement is the lack of a coherent framework for understanding the causes and possible solutions for an instructional problem. The construction of a coherent response to the fundamental questions of schooling is the most difficult part of the instructional improvement process. In the messy world of schooling, there will always be a continuum of theories, ideas, and practices for each fundamental question – each theory, idea, or practice vying to influence the direction and content of the instructional change imitative. B. F. Skinner, for example, would respond to the question of what knowledge is of most worth and how to organize subject matter far differently than John Dewey. Secondly, each instructional problem which arises brings with it particular circumstances that do not play well to grand theories of learning, knowledge, teaching, organization, and assessment. The first journey, then, for the leader of content knowledge, is a private one in which the educational leader finds opportunities to mentally wander back and forth between the fundamental questions of schooling and the theories and practices governing the instructional problem. Throughout this personal journey, the wanderings between the world of theory and the world of practice would be continually informed by the research in the area, talks with experts, and ongoing discussions with those staff members most affected by the instructional problem. Joseph Schwab (1978) termed such a process the ‘‘Arts of the Eclectic’’ (p. 326). What Schwab meant by the ‘‘Arts of the Eclectic’’ is the proposition that the

12

ALAN C. JONES

possessor of only one theory or a series of like-minded theories will experience the ‘‘vice of tunnel vision’’ in a world of ‘‘radical pluralism’’ (Schwab, 1978, p. 333). Administrators who practice Schwab’s approach to curriculum building become experts in the art of weaving together loosely coupled systems of theories, ideas, and practices that will establish a recognizable mosaic of core values and organizational aims into a perfect synthesis of the how and the what of schooling. The final resolution to the instructional problem, then, is often inelegant, but strikes a delicate balance between theory, technique, and the social context of the problem. Some seasoned school administrators might view the personal journey as a huge waste of time. The management mentality of those school leaders who thrive on putting fires out is to jump into the decision-making stage as quickly as possible – first shoot, then aim. The profound insight of Stein and Nelson’s (2003) construct of LDK, is the essential role that subject matter knowledge plays in the ongoing dialogue between an instructional leader and his or her staff over an instructional problem. Instructional leaders gain legitimacy in the eyes of teachers who are more likely to invite an administrator into discussions about instructional problems when the administrator demonstrates an understanding of the frameworks, theories, and ideas that govern a content or skill domain. The invitation to discuss an instructional problem provides the leader of content knowledge with the opening to formulate, along with the teachers, a coherent approach to understanding and acting upon an instructional problem and the development of common responses to the multitude of big and little problems that evolve out of any instructional change effort. The challenge in each of these conversations is to subtly weave into each discussion a blend of theories, ideas, and practices that reflect a coherent instructional response to the fundamental questions of schooling and an instructional framework that builds a bridge between the remote world of theory and the immediate world of the classroom. A trait of all these discussions are those healthy disagreements over a proposed system of theories, ideas, and practices that can be expected when teachers and administrators come together to discuss the messy world of classroom practice. Those educational leaders who have skipped the personal journey will view these interchanges with those in the trenches as disagreeable and situations to avoid rather than opportunities to influence the direction of the conversation and the thinking of the participants in the discussion. If the educational leader has taken the time to wrestle with the problem privately – the personal journey – the leader is equipped to nudge the staff closer to the theories, ideas, and practices they are proposing. To be


13

sure, the particulars of any instructional problem – the instructional preparation of the staff, the available resources, and the population to be served – will always result in solutions that move the continuum of theories, ideas, and practices a bit farther from an ideal, but ultimately the staff will move towards a favored theory or practice if the discussion is navigated by an educational leader who has ‘‘prepared relentlessly’’ (Giuliani, 2002) for the change initiative. Leaders of content knowledge are not philosopher kings whose personal search for meaning will result in an idealized realization of what is true, good, and beautiful. Rather the personal journey of a leader of content knowledge provides a process for understanding what is not known about teaching and learning and a Socratic habit of questioning conventional assumptions about teaching and learning in the journey towards a common framework for solving an instructional problem.

THE PUBLIC JOURNEY Although it would appear that the personal journey of a leader of content knowledge is primarily a contemplative process that proceeds at a distance from the instructional problem under consideration, the ultimate success to solving an instructional problem and building a consensus for the solution demands that the leader of content knowledge spend considerable time thinking about how to implement a response to the instructional problem. Teachers will resist any change initiative that is high on ends and low on means. Teachers are, and will always be, pragmatists – they want to know what will work on Monday morning. Leaders of content knowledge must be able to provide teachers with a framework that not only explains why something will work, but the kinds of classroom particulars that make things work. In other words, the personal journey informs the public journey and the public journey continually informs the personal journey. Administrators-as-managers approach implementation as a problem of capacity – the capacity to fund, to schedule, to purchase, to employ, to assign, and to assess. Leaders of content knowledge approach implementation as a problem of teaching and learning – knowing about the subject matter; knowing about how children learn the subject matter; knowing about how teachers can assist students in learning the subject matter; and knowing how to hold teachers accountable for changing their practices to accommodate new theories, ideas, and practices.

14

ALAN C. JONES

When thinking about the implementation of an instructional change initiative, the leader of content knowledge first begins with a picture of what should be happening in the classroom. When this picture is clear to the educational leader, then, almost simultaneously, the leader executes the managerial steps that will align the leader’s vision with the appropriate resources and personnel. A staff, for example, may reach consensus on the establishment of a personalized learning environment that catered to the learning styles and interests for a group of disaffected students who are failing all of their subjects and not attending school. The role of the leader of content knowledge in the design process is to maintain a faithful commitment to the learning principles developed during the personal journey and then to provide the logistical and monetary support to accomplish the goals of the program. Throughout the implementation process, as with all other instructional improvement efforts, the leader of content knowledge must assume responsibility for both providing the proper mix of resources for furthering the change initiative and creating an environment where there is constant dialogue about the program’s response to the fundamental questions of learning.

THE SITUATIONAL JOURNEY The final journey a leader of content knowledge must undergo is to provide consistency, concentration, and meaning within the day-to-day uncertainties of a change initiative. At this critical juncture in the implementation process, administrators-as-managers assume the role of distant observer and transmitter of orders. Without a personal framework for understanding the instructional implications of a change initiative or specific knowledge about the theories, ideas, and practices that govern the change initiative, the manager can do little else, but inspect and expect. The leaders of content knowledge, however, do not view a change initiative through binoculars but rather find some way to insert themselves directly into the change initiative. The leaders of content knowledge will assume a number of different roles outside the formal positions in the school hierarchy – a department chairperson, a member of behavior disorder team, a member of a team to study interdisciplinary studies – to directly experience the uncertainties that accompany any complex social experiment. The dual role of administrator and leader of content knowledge affords the administrator with the opportunity to make the day-to-day adjustments to variables in a new program that are not working as planned. Knowledge of the instructional


15

components of a change initiative provides the leader of content knowledge with the opportunity to meaningfully participate in an ongoing dialogue with faculty on perceptions and priorities of the program. Most importantly, the leader of content knowledge understands the subtle changes that must occur in a change initiative that evolve out of staff insights – that the literature calls tacit knowledge – about what is working and what is not working in the program. The final and most important task of a leader of content knowledge is to leave the situation in good hands – or what the literature now calls, ‘‘distributed leadership’’ (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Being embedded in the day-to-day operations of the instructional improvement initiative provides the leader of content knowledge with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate the leadership potential of those most involved in the change effort. When working shoulder-to-shoulder with teachers and other staff members the leader of content knowledge can accurately assess what a potential teacher leader understands of the theories, ideas, and practices associated with the change initiative, her ability to influence her colleagues to stay the course, and her commitment to the goals of the change initiative. The underlying goal of working closely with prospective teacher leaders is to assist in the development of a knowledge base and interpersonal skills to institutionalize the strategies teachers and administrators have agreed upon. The most satisfying part of the situational journey are the weekly conversations with teachers, department chairpersons, and support staff who have assumed the mantle of leader of content knowledge and knowing that it is safe to move on to the next instructional challenge.

THE JOURNEY NEVER ENDS The characteristic that distinguishes administrators-as-managers and leaders of content knowledge is the way the change initiative culminates. Administrators-as-managers approach the change initiative process as a series of tasks, which the supervisor in charge checks off one-by-one. The final check-off might be a completed budget, a new room configuration, the administration of a test, or the filing of a report. Leaders of content knowledge, on the other hand, understand that changing the hearts and minds of those most directly working with children requires a process in which teachers are immersed in learning environments and conversational forums where they are able to interact with colleagues and mentors about the theories, ideas, and practices they are being asked to apply in their

16

ALAN C. JONES

classrooms. Teachers are willing to change very deeply held beliefs and practices about teaching and learning if the change makes sense to them, if they perceive a long-term commitment by an administrator to the change initiative, and if they receive proper support throughout the change process. So, for the leader of content knowledge the journey never ends. One situation leads to another situation.

A CASE STUDY: THE CHALLENGE OF HIGH HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES How would a leader of content knowledge solve the problem of high Hispanic dropout rates in a high school? The typical response of most school administrators to an achievement problem in their school is to adopt a program. The program will usually include several one-day workshops led by a well-known guru in the field. The staff would receive notice of their involvement in the program at an opening day workshop. The announcement of the new program would be accompanied by a brief power-point presentation of what the program entails and the schedule for the in-service workshops. Because the agenda for the opening day workshop is jammed with managerial matters, there is little time to explain to the staff the rationale for the program or the theories, ideas, and practices that govern the program. One year later when achievement gains have failed to materialize, school administrators will blame teachers for failing to buy into the new program. Administrators who approach instructional change in the mode of shoot first and then aim do not have much time for recriminations because it is a new year and time for a new program. A leader of content knowledge, however, would approach an instructional problem quite differently. There would be no grand announcement of a program or a schedule to launch the faculty into action, but rather, a series of mini-presentations that would begin with factual representations of the problem and then, as the year progressed, the communication of an agenda in the form of an instructional story (Gardner, 1995) that is told over and over again in faculty meetings, in school board meetings, in meetings with district personnel, and most importantly in the daily hallway and classroom conversations with teachers, students, and support personnel. The instructional story would always be composed of the facts of the problem, the emotional toll the problem is taking on students, parents, and teachers, and possible solutions for the problem. The


17

instructional story would always pass through oral transmission so audiences feel the seriousness, passion, and purposefulness of the leader of content knowledge. The power of the instructional story does not lie in the emotional force of the story alone, however, but ultimately in the substance of the story – a philosophy of education – that weaves theories, ideas, and the practice of curriculum and instruction into the everyday routines and varied understandings of the school community she leads. In the case of high Hispanic dropout rates, the story might look something like this: For the last five years, one-third of the Hispanic students who begin in our school will not walk across the stage four years later. All of us sitting in this auditorium have experienced the pain of students and parents who have undergone the life-changing decision to quit high school – it is like a death without a funeral. Many of you have stopped me in the hallway, dropped into my office, or cornered me in the parking lot to tell me a story of one of your best Hispanic students who decided to dropout of school. Let me interject that I truly appreciate all the efforts this faculty is making to support students whose native language and immigrant status has made it difficult for our new arrivals to do well in school. Of particular concern to me is the high number of Hispanic students who come to us from good high schools in Mexico and still fail to graduate. In talking with students, parents, and colleagues in districts with similar populations it appears that highly educated Hispanic students drop out of school because of their frustration in basic skills classes where they feel stuck because of their inability to speak English. If I placed myself in a similar position I can see where I would become bored in courses where I was not challenged and where I felt I was going nowhere. The research on the problem of high dropout rates among Hispanic students is all over the place. Some researchers feel that the solution lies in the community; some feel that the solution lies with better ESL/bilingual programs; some feel that more attention needs to be paid to employing more Hispanic teachers. As you know, over the last 5 years we have implemented a number of changes in our school to address each of these approaches to the problem with limited success. Recently, there have been several writers who focused on the problem of how to increase the retention rate of academically talented Hispanic students. Again, the solutions offered by researchers are all over the map, but a common theme that emerges from effective programs for second language learners is the inclusion of classes, especially advanced classes, that are conducted in the native language. Some of you have expressed to me concerns about not emphasizing the importance of learning English. I agree with this concern. I feel this concern should be an important part of the conversations we will be having this year about how best to address the instructional needs of Hispanic students who are academically prepared to do well in advanced classes in mathematics and science.

The construction of this instructional story by the leader of content knowledge would begin a year or more before any public pronouncements about the problem came to light. That year would become a period of

18

ALAN C. JONES

private study of the problem. The leader of content knowledge would seek out experts in the field who have studied and written about the problem of high Hispanic dropout rates. Based on these conversations, the leader of content knowledge would select monographs and research articles that represent a continuum of theories, ideas, and practices in the field. She would then allocate time to read about the problem, talk about the problem with experts in the field, and finally to begin to run her thoughts by staff members most affected by the problem. The goal of this personal journey for the leader of content knowledge is to allocate the necessary time to become immersed in the theories, ideas, and practices associated with the problem and, then, to seek out as many opportunities as possible to translate the theories, ideas, and practices from the professional literature into the everyday vocabulary, metaphors, analogies, and personal histories of the teachers they work with. The eventual success of the instructional story will depend on how well the leader of content knowledge has woven the theories and ideas from the professional literature into the everyday realities of classroom practice and, most importantly, how well the story stands up to ‘‘competing counterstories’’ (Gardner, 1995) of staff members. In the case of Spanish-speaking content classes (science, social studies, mathematics) the instructional story would have to withstand the very powerful counterstory of the absolute duty of schools to teach recently arrived immigrants English as quickly as possible and to accomplish this moral and pedagogical function in classes where the recently arrived immigrant is totally immersed in Englishspeaking classes. What makes the personal and public journeys of the leader of content knowledge so vital to the process of solving an instructional problem is the personal understandings that come with the private study of the problem and with these understandings the development of necessary knowledge to define the problem for the staff, to explain an instructional framework that would address the problem, and to relate the components of the instructional framework to the everyday realities of classroom teaching. In the case of high Hispanic dropout rates, the leader of content knowledge has defined the problem – the dropping out of high-achieving Hispanic students who do not have access to higher level math and science classes; she has proposed a solution for the problem – the creation of advanced classes in mathematics and science that are taught in Spanish; she has identified indicators of success – the graduation rates of high-achieving Hispanic students. The knowledge base developed during the personal and


19

private journeys serve also as a solid foundation for confronting the ‘‘little’’ problems and competing counterstories (Gardner, 1995) that will emerge during the implementation of upper-level content classes taught in Spanish. The final guarantee, however, of the fulfillment of the goals and strategies of an instructional story is the day-to-day discussions and decisions that surface, situation-by-situation, as teachers work to develop curricular and instructional strategies for teaching advanced content classes in Spanish. The personal and private journey would reveal in which situations the leader of content knowledge should become involved. In the case of teaching advanced content classes in a second language, the challenge that will confront teachers in the program is finding materials in the second language – textbooks, lab activities, assessment instruments, technology applications – and personnel that possess a facility with the second language to teach the class and translate the materials. The ideal strategy for this instructional problem is the employment of Spanish speaking teachers who are certified in mathematics and science. Knowing this, the leader of content knowledge would become very much involved in the recruitment and employment of prospective teachers – which would include contacting department chairpersons of science and mathematics at universities with significant Hispanic populations; mentoring promising Hispanic students in these departments; and developing school and district incentives that would attract these candidates to their school. The other situation that the leader of content knowledge must become a part of is the lesson planning process. What this means operationally is the development of a team format that will allow teachers in the program to collaborate on lessons and a process for requesting the materials and intellectual resources they will need to create lessons, materials, and assessments in Spanish. While teachers are becoming acclimated to their new assignments the leader of content knowledge would have found ways to subtly become an accepted member of the planning team. Their role on the team is part manager of resources and logistics, part cheerleader, and part keeper of the faith in the philosophical assumptions guiding the change initiative. In every situation where teachers come together to change what they do in classrooms, the leader of content knowledge plays the all important role of establishing an intellectual climate where teachers feel free to create the details of classroom instruction and at the same time maintaining the boundaries for the faithful adherence to the theories, ideas, and practices that have been woven together to form a school’s response to the instructional challenge of the day.

20

ALAN C. JONES

THE CHOICE FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS A recent report (HSSE, 2005) on student satisfaction with their school experience gives voice to Goodlad’s (1984) observation over 20 years ago that schools are places where students have become emotionally deadened by the routines of schooling and intellectually morbid by an institutional curriculum that prizes completion of work rather than understanding and reflection. Faced with these contemporary realities of schooling in America and the direction where the school reform literature is pointing, school administrators have three choices: they can retreat to their office; they can dance around the classroom (administrators-as-managers); or they can enter the classroom as leaders of content knowledge. Administrators who choose to enter the classroom will truly begin a difficult private and public journey into teaching and learning – but it will be a journey that has the only real opportunity to fully develop the creativity, intelligence, and the competence of our next generation of children.

REFERENCES Drucker, P. (2006). What makes an effective executive. In: T. A. Steward (Ed.), Classic Drucker: Essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review (pp. 115–125). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, H. (in collaboration with Laskin, E). (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books. Giuliani, R. (with Kurson, K.). (2002). Leadership. New York: Hyperion. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. A study of schooling in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. High School Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). What we can learn from students. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, HSSE. Levine, A. (2005, March). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. In: I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different ? Why is it important ? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


21

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. K. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448. Tharp, R. (1993). Institutional and social context of educational practice and reform. In: E. Forman, N. Minick & C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 269–282). New York: Oxford University Press. Vaill, P. B. (1982). The purposing of high-performing systems. Organizational Dynamics, 11(2), 23–29.

LEARNER-CENTERED LEADERSHIP: LEARNING THROUGH MENTORING, COACHING, AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Arnold B. Danzig, Ran Chen and Dee Ann Spencer ABSTRACT This chapter explores the concept and application of learner-centered leadership. The exploration of learner-centered leadership requires rethinking the purposes and actions of school leaders, and its application implies new knowledge and skills for aspiring administrators and new models for professional development for those already on the job. The chapter explores foundational concepts on leadership and their application to a U.S. Department of Education funded project on administrator preparation and professional development.

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 23–40 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10002-0

23

24

ARNOLD B. DANZIG ET AL.

INTRODUCTION This chapter explores the concept and application of learner-centered leadership. The exploration of learner-centered leadership requires rethinking the purposes and actions of school leaders, and its application implies new knowledge and skills for aspiring administrators and new models for professional development for those already on the job (Danzig, Borman, Jones, & Wright, 2007). Learner-centered leadership also implies a belief in democracy, and places responsibility for learning with all of the participants in educational settings: students, staff, teachers, and administrators. In this sense, learner-centered leadership stands in opposition to the forces promoting organizational efficiency and standardization. Learner-centered leadership argues for a shift in the personal dispositions and professional norms of school leaders around learning. This shift requires leaders to be better educated and to develop deeper and richer understandings of how people learn (National Research Council, 2000). Learner-centered leaders need to connect formal knowledge with understanding that comes from experience. They draw from social science and craft knowledge, ethical, legal reasoning, and the tacit understanding that comes from reflection in- and on-action (Bellamy, Fulmer, Murphy, & Muth, 2003; Scho¨n, 1991). The authors hope that the themes raised in this chapter deepen and extend readers’ understanding of the meaning of learner-centered leadership. The more general consideration of the conceptual framework is followed by a discussion of some of the practices developed and utilized in a learner-centered leadership program (LCL) for aspiring, rising, and experienced urban school administrators.

LEARNER-CENTERED LEADERSHIP: AN OVERVIEW This overview begins some of the basic psychological principles associated with learner-centered leadership. The section explores connections between learning principles and leadership, and extends the discussion to adult learning and professional development. The section concludes by contrasting learnercentered leadership with instructional leadership and considers challenges to the concept of learner-centered leadership. The theoretical framework for this section draws from the literature on adult learning theory (Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 2001a, 2001b), learner-centered psychological principles (American Psychological Association (APA), 1997), adult learner autonomy

Learner-Centered Leadership

25

(Pierce & Kalkman, 2003), learning as a social activity situated in personal and professional contexts (Guskey, 2000; Hansman, 2001; Lave & Wegner, 1991), and organizational learning (Scho¨n, 1991; Senge et al., 1999; Vickers, 1995; Weick, 1993; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Learner-Centered Psychological Principles The American Psychological Association Work Group on School Redesign and Reform (APA, 1997) uses the term learner-centered psychological principles to explore many of the factors related to how people learn. These principles suggest that successful learners reflect on how they think and learn, and use this information to choose fitting strategies, methods, and goals for themselves. Successful learners monitor progress and make adjustments either to methods or goals when a problem arises. When instructing learners, methods that tap high-order meta-cognition enhance learning and personal responsibility (APA, 1997). Learning is social and takes place in a social context. Citing Lave and Wegner (1991), Hansman (2001) argues that people learn as they participate with a community of learners, interacting with the community and understanding and participating in its history, assumptions, cultural values, and rules. She believes that communities of practice are self-organized with selected groups of people who share a common purpose and desire to learn what the others know. Therefore, learning is not static or void of context; but is something that we learn and rehash in social contexts. Social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others influence learning. Giving the learner an opportunity to interact and collaborate with others on instructional tasks helps to enhance learning. Learning settings that allow for social interactions, and that respect diversity, encourage flexible thinking and social competence (Hansman, 2001). Extending Learning Principles to Adult Learners and School Leaders The determinants of effective professional development for teachers provide some guidance for understanding the professional development of learnercentered leaders. Data from a longitudinal study on the effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002) indicate that professional development is more effective in changing teachers’ classroom practice when it has four features: (1) collective participation of teachers from the same school, department, or grade;

26


(2) active learning opportunities; (3) coherence – activities are consistent with teachers’ goals, are based on their previous knowledge, and are followed up with activities built on the activities teachers attended; (4) reform activities – substitute traditional workshops or conferences by teacher study groups, teacher networks, mentoring, internships, and resource centers. Successful learning for teachers and school administrators embeds new knowledge into the existing roles, processes, and structures of schools (Guskey, 2000). Understanding the processes by which adults learn is the key to creating professional development practices for school leaders. Over the years, different philosophical orientations have guided the education and professional development of school administrators: (1) traditional/scientific management, (2) craft, and (3) reflective inquiry (Fenwick & Pierce, 2002; Holland, 2005). The administrator in the traditional view is the passive recipient of new knowledge delivered in group settings by consultants or experts. The craft model exposes the principal to knowledge from seasoned administrators whom she or he shadows in internships and field experiences. The third approach, reflective inquiry, which encourages the principal to generate knowledge through a process of systematic inquiry is more commonly associated with learnercentered leadership. The sources of knowledge focus on self-reflection and engagement. Networking, mentoring, reflective reading, and writing are key components of this approach (Holland, 2005).

Some Key Elements of Learner-Centered Leadership The managers and leaders of today’s institutions need a deep understanding of the underlying principles of their services. For learner-centered leaders, this understanding requires study and understanding of the conditions, which affect learning in educational settings, and consideration of learning is relevant to all: students, teachers, staff, and administrators. Built around the study of and reflection on practice, years of successful experience in the classroom often provide the basis for an appreciation for the dynamics engaged in learning. Learning and Autonomy Learner-centered leaders begin with an understanding of themselves as learners. They know what motivates them, and recognize how motivation affects what is learned and how it is learned. This awareness extends beyond the self, and extends to an awareness of how others learn, and the


27

conditions, which facilitate the learning for children and adults. Learnercentered leaders recognize that learners need control over their own learning and view freedom and autonomy as primary sources of motivation. They view sanctions-based approaches to learning as ineffective and lacking longterm viability for motivating others to learn. Learner-centered leadership gives priority to the autonomous learning that comes from professional networks and peers; learning focuses on mentoring and coaching, which require separation from the role of supervisor and evaluator. The role expectation for a school principal to be expert in everything – content knowledge, authority on instructional pedagogy, and model for individual and organizational excellence – is unrealistic. Learnercentered leaders open spaces and provide opportunities for others to empower themselves, and to facilitate their own learning. The people who inhabit schools must individually and collectively engage in this vision. Learning from Experience A constructivist’s view of leadership resonates with the learner-centered leadership approach. Walker and Lambert (1995) propose that reformulated personal schemas clarify the inconsistency between information and experience during the process of knowing. Individuals give meaning to experience, and meanwhile, construct knowledge from experience. Reflection, mediation, and social interactions are the keys in the processes of obtaining knowledge. In the face of new experience, the individual learns and comes to know by ‘‘applying reflective interpretation within social contexts’’ (Walker & Lambert, 1995, p. 2). Different from the hierarchical structure of traditional schools, the organizational structure of a school that emphasizes constructivist leadership is flat and integrated. All adults are involved in the interactive processes of learning and leading. Participants work together to create the common purposes and goals, based on their individual and collective experiences. As a self-motivating community, the school encourages conversation and shared inquiry among its members to construct knowledge, identify problems, and promote collective growth (Walker & Lambert, 1995). This focus on inquiry (and access to learning) is central to the meaning of learnercentered leadership. Adaptive Practice Learner-centered leaders engage in adaptive practice. Adaptive leadership involves the leader’s ability to understand and give meaning to how the day-to-day activities of participants contribute to educational purposes.

28


Leadership, in this view, is the leader’s ability to mobilize adaptation and diminish gaps between values held and realities faced (Heifetz, 1994). Leaders engage in adaptive work by interpreting and analyzing the reality, respecting and negotiating internal and external conflicts, increasing community cohesion, and developing norms of responsibility taking. The ability to reflect improves and new ways of resolving conflicts develop through adaptive work (Heifetz, 1994). Learner-centered leadership centers on defining purposes that touch upon individual and community learning. As Lieberman, Falk, and Alexander (2007) point out, learner-centered schools ask leaders to be educators, problem solvers, crisis managers, change agents, enablers, consensus builders, and networkers.

Learning Occurs in Multiple Contexts People learn in multiple contexts. People define, acquire, and use knowledge at the individual, organizational, and community levels. If the learning that occurs in schools is to go beyond individual learning, there must be organizational learning as well. Organizational learning focuses attention on how groups of people come together to share information, make decisions, and take actions related to individual and organizational goals (Scho¨n, 1991; Senge et al., 1999; Weick, 1993; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Learner-centered leaders also serve community ideals, while recognizing that the community is a work-in-progress. This image of the principal as community builder encourages others to be leaders in their own right and to see to it that the organization deeply distributes leadership. Focusing on community presses learner-centered leaders to ask questions about community values, and to question educational issues around equity and fairness. A community committed to learning also requires a process of working through differences in beliefs and opinions. Learner-centered leaders are heavily involved in defining the purposes, identifying vision, and giving meaning to actions (Bennis, 2003; Weick & Roberts, 1993). These commitments involve greater attention to the people that inhabit schools and communities, and to the knowledge and values of students, parents, families, and communities (Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Learner-centered leadership centers on the learning required to understand, articulate, and communicate the knowledge and values of multiple constituents and stakeholders. Collaboration requires learning in order to make sense of conflicting norms and information, consider new ideas, and model democratic participation, which embraces differences. These attributes are essential in the repertoire of learner-centered leaders.


29

Application to Practice: The Learner-Centered Leadership (LCL) Project The learner-centered leadership approach described in this chapter draws on the authors’ experiences of developing and evaluating a program for rising, aspiring, and experienced school administrators and the learning and professional development activities that authors created as part of the program. The Learner-Centered Leadership for Language and Culturally Diverse Schools in High Needs Urban Settings program is a United States Department of Education funded project involving the educational leadership and policy program at a large metropolitan university, a research center on educational equity, and four urban school districts. Three of the four districts serve children in grades K-8 and feed into the fourth district, a central high school district. Each of the districts has a high percentage of students and families in poverty and/or English Language Learners. Many come from Latin America with the majority from Mexico. The aim of the project was to prepare new school leaders, especially woman and Latinos, to assume positions as assistant principals and principals in these districts’ schools. Approximately 100 people participated, either as aspiring, novice, or veteran building administrators, central office administrators, or higher educational faculty and staff. The project aimed for collaboration and partnership among the school districts and the university. To accomplish project goals, the project team sponsored university and district-led workshops and institutes, informal socials, and activities that provide opportunities for mentoring and reflection, and participated in team-building exercises modeled after challenge courses. A brief summary of project activities include the following: Squaw Peak Hike – Participants had an opportunity to meet informally during the morning for a hike up to the summit of Squaw Peak. Those who wanted had an opportunity to get breakfast after the 2-hour hike. Sunrise Storytelling – School district administrators hosted a morning coffee social where participants from all three groups had an opportunity to share humorous stories related to teaching or administrative experiences. Nineteen participants reflecting all three groups attended the Sunrise Storytelling. Management vs. Leadership Conversations – During this second Saturday session, participants first had an opportunity to meet in respective rising administrator or accomplished administrator groups in order to wrap up unfinished business from the previous meeting. During the second half of the session, participants broke out into small groups in order to have an

30


opportunity to engage in more intimate discussions. Facilitators from the four districts provided prompts to initiate the discussion and lead the activities. Participants worked in the first series of small groups discussing leadership versus management, and during the second series of small groups carefully considered a scenario related to a teacher’s dress code violation in order to apply some of the concepts from the first small group. Professional Portfolios – Rising administrators had an opportunity to talk about the importance of professional portfolios in relation to personal improvement and reflective practice. The participants used the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and state standards as a foundation for dialogue about professional leadership practices and daily activities that reflect these practices. Facilitators introduced rising administrators to professional portfolios and the importance of capturing daily practice in a format that reflects professional standards and principles of learner-centered leadership. Facilitators also used the workshop to introduce the action planning activity that all rising administrators completed as part of their participation in the program. Program facilitators shared a draft of the action plan with the participants. Participants agreed that they could intertwine the professional portfolio, the state professional standards, and the action plan in a way that engages the participants to professionally improve while simultaneously helping the school work toward its site improvement goals. Seventeen of the rising administrators attended. At the end of the workshop, 15 of the participants completed a feedback form. Student Achievement and School Climate – Participants from one of the school district’s developed the curriculum and experience and hosted this workshop, which focused on both using data to improve student achievement and fostering a school climate that reflects student success. Sixty-four people attended the workshop. McDowell Mountain Hike – Participants had an opportunity to meet informally to hike the summit trail at McDowell Mountain Regional Park. After the hike, participants met for breakfast. Facilitative Leadership – The leadership team from an elementary school district developed the curriculum and facilitated the workshop on facilitative leadership. During this activity, participants learned several strategies related to this leadership skill. Fifty-two participants attended this event. Coffee Gathering – Administrators from the high school district hosted a coffee gathering for all participants during the morning. This was an informal opportunity for the participants to socialize.


31

Reading Roundtables – The program organized roundtables using the project website and Listserv. All participants took part in two online Summer Reading Roundtables. This reading and discussion focused on connecting LCL project participants with some of the leading researchers and practitioners in the fields of urban education and education for linguistically and culturally diverse settings and draw from popular readings in the field. The planning group opted to capitalize on the strength of technology to facilitate summer book discussions among participants who could be anywhere in the country. Strand Workshops focused on four topic areas developed by district participants: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Human relations/communication Language and cultural diversity Learner-centered leadership Mediating change/dealing with resistance

Rising administrators selected two strands that tied directly to the action goals they identified. The workshops focused on providing the rising administrators with resources and information that they could incorporate into their comprehensive action plan and to continue to develop relationships between mentors and those receiving mentoring so that the rising administrators could identify key individuals who could act as coaches with specific steps of the action plan. Southwest Leadership Institute – This institute featured the work of Peter Senge et al. (1999). Twenty-four participants from the LCL project attended the conference and also served as facilitators of the breakout sessions at the conference. The institute introduced its strategies and materials as well as the book used in subsequent workshops facilitated by LCL participants. For example, drawing on an ‘‘iceberg metaphor’’ allowed participants to examine dilemmas related to urban education and reflect on the root causes of school failure. The Southwest Leadership Institute served as a conduit for disseminating valuable strategies that rising administrators could incorporate into their action plans and that accomplished administrators could use as part of school improvement planning. Action Planning Workshop – The project team identified six attributes that the action plans of the rising administrator should reflect. The plans were to be: (1) specific, (2) observable and measurable, (3) data-driven, (4) continuous and ongoing, (5) sustainable, and (6) critically reflective. In developing a model for action plans, the participants studied various models and noted that these six attributes were critical regardless of an action plan’s format or

32


focus (e.g., professional development, program implementation, or action research). The action planning process and project outcomes combined the need for a critical and reflective process for planning and a practical way for novice administrators to negotiate the change process in their schools and districts. One of the districts included these administrator action plans as part of the annual evaluation system. School, family, community connections – Participants attended workshop strands related to family, school, community connections with three strands built around school and district interests: (1) parents’ involvement and participation in learning, (2) development of plans to encourage business partnerships, community partnership and resources for families, and (3) communication and involvement with parents of students in special education. Formal mentoring relationships – The districts teams and project participants viewed mentoring relationships as critical. The research on mentoring made it clear that these relationships should be systemic and planned (Daresh, 2001; Hay, 1995; Johnson, 1997). In the high school district, participants decided to develop mentor pairs based on the location of the participating administrators. With the three elementary districts, the pairings related specifically to the action plan goals. The novice or rising administrators each selected an individual who had expertise and knowledge that aligned with the action goal and perceived needs addressed by the action plan. Coaching mentoring – Along with one-on-one relationships, the district teams also wanted to use team coaching as a mentoring process. In this process, each rising administrator worked with a team of mentors to help with the implementation of the action plan. Each rising administrator identified a mentor(s) with each action step or strategy associated with the plan. This mentor served as a coach who specifically assisted the mentee with the completion of that action step. Participants were encouraged to use mentors outside of the district teams including university faculty and mentors from the other three districts. By doing this, the mentoring process became more collaborative and worked to develop inter-district and district–university relationships.

Summary of the Learner-Centered Leadership Program’s Approach to Learning Established and experienced administrators took part in many of the same activities described above for rising administrators. Their involvement,


33

however, was qualitatively different. The experienced administrators planned meetings and facilitated learning in activities and workshops. Rather than describing their role in each of the activities, it may be more fruitful to highlight the nature of this facilitation in four key realms: (1) co-instruction, (2) planning teams, (3) action planning, and (4) mentoring. Melding practice and theory, or theory-infused practice is an explicit goal of the Learnercentered Leadership Program and experienced school administrators served this goal in multiple ways. 1. Co-instruction went beyond the workshops. As mentioned above, the professors and practitioners co-taught courses for the Master’s program for aspiring administrators. Clinical faculty with strong administrative experience at principal and superintendent levels co-taught four of the ten courses and supervised both internships. Established administrators also facilitated online discussions for the summer roundtables. 2. Planning Teams created four strands that focused attention on the issues and challenges associated with urban education. The strands, which developed from needs assessments and program priorities, are human relations/communication, language and cultural diversity, learner-centered leadership, and mediating change/dealing with resistance. The planning team for each strand includes mentors, liaisons, and University faculty. 3. Action Planning served to make professional development part of daily practice with alignment to district goals and objectives. The project team identified six critical attributes that the final action plans need to reflect. The action planning gave established administrators participants the opportunity to serve as outside resources on goal-driven plans. 4. Mentoring went on informally in some of the districts, but the creation and support of a formal mentoring program was a way of ensuring that administrators who might otherwise have been missed were included.

Preliminary Outcomes The following section gives data from important project tasks. The obvious challenge to building strong collaborative relationships was the differing rhythms of the higher education and K-12 educational systems. The program used information and communication technologies to help bridge the gap in a number of ways. Project participants launched a project website to serve as a clearinghouse to link participants with human and information

34


Table 1.

Usage Patterns of Quickbase Tools and Listserv in LearnerCentered Leadership.

Quickbase Summer Institute RSVP Resource Links Resource Guide Participant Directory Mentor/Mentee Expertise Clearinghouse Summer Reading Roundtable Sign-up Document Library ASU-LCL Listserv 12/13/2002–7/11/2005 Number of posts Number of discrete threads Number of posts related to summer book discussion (3 summers) Number of online book discussion posts ( two summers) Number of posts related to professional meetings Number of posts related to personal/professional accomplishments

Number of hits 165 671 740 2,206 443 8,341 3,987 428 82 138 116 68 27

resources and a Listserv to provide for interaction among participants whose daily routines for the most part precluded much face-to-face interaction at scheduled meetings. A back-office web-based subscription database system called Quickbase, which housed directories and archives (see Table 1) served as the project website. Participants accessed the project website to obtain information about each other’s expertise and contact information. The first most frequently used function, as reflected by the number of hits in the Quickbase database, was to sign up to participate in summer book discussions that were held during the summers of 2003, 2004, and 2005. The second highest number of hits in the Quickbase database was in the Document Library, where presentations, forms, academic papers, and other documents were stored and readily available for download directly from the LCL website. The third most frequently accessed Quickbase database was the Participant Directory, which included contact information and role descriptions for each of the participants in the project. Online book discussions elicited the richest content during the course of the project. Typical is this excerpt from a discussion of Kohl’s (1995) I Won’t Learn From You: When I first read ‘‘I Won’t Learn From You,’’ it was a true epiphany. I became more sensitive of the why of student behaviors. I was aware of their need to want to choose a role model from their own culture. y Many of us who participated in the Urban


35

Systemic Initiative participated in a group that addressed equity issues in teaching mathematics. We studied teacher behaviors that students interpret as discriminatory or biased. We explored whether we taught ‘‘math’’ or taught students how to do math.

Project Participation At the most basic level, participation rates and satisfaction levels provide indications of program efficacy. The average rate of attendance across the four school districts ranged from 58 to 73% in Year One and from 70 to 76% in Year Two. As seen in Tables 2 and 3, participants’ ratings of activities were high with 78–100% indicating they were ‘‘Mostly’’ or ‘‘Very’’ satisfied with the activities. For 10 out of the 13 activities presented in the tables, 90–100% of participants indicated that ‘‘Overall’’ they were either ‘‘Mostly’’ or ‘‘Very’’ satisfied. Another indication of project relevance is the movement into leadership positions and upward mobility of project participants. Table 4 provides a summary of this information.

Theoretical Implications: What We Have Learned The best examples of learning and professional development reflect a method of embedding new knowledge into the existing roles, processes, and structures of schools (Guskey, 2000). Our approach fosters individual and collective learning through a collaborative mentoring process that includes multiple opportunities for participation and information sharing, action learning, coaching, mentoring, and reflection on practice. The chapter describes some of the methods used to embed learning into leadership practices among busy and sometimes overworked teachers and administrators. In the feedback collected from participants in the LCL program, the dominant theme that has emerged is the importance of having the time to engage in conversation with other administrators about the intricacies of administration in urban settings. In several instances, case stories (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002) provided data that participants could critically analyze to discuss impact of instructional and programmatic decisions on student achievement. Based on self-determined needs and action planning goals at the school site, participants had an opportunity to participate in thematically based collaborative mentoring sessions. Participants then used these sessions as a framework to examine programs and instructional practices at their individual school site, raise issues and concerns, and adopt new strategies concerning student learning.

Participantsa No. attended No. evaluations

Problem-Solving Workshop 4/12/2003

Professional Portfolios 4/30/2003

Facilitative Leadership 6/7/2003

School Reform via Reading 9/17/2003

All (N=44) (N=35)

Rising Administration (N=17) (N=15)

All (N=52) (N=47)

All (N=58) (N=32)

%

%

No.

0 0 4 31

6.7 53.3 40.0

Better understand expectations Not at all 0 Somewhat 0 Mostly 11.1 4 Very 88.9 32

Overall level of satisfaction Not at all Somewhat Mostly 11.4 Very 88.6

All (N=59) (N=30)

%

No.

%

0 1 8 6

29.8 70.2

0 0 14 33

6.3 15.6 31.3 46.9

2 5 10 15

6.7 20.0 73.3

7.7 61.5 30.8

0 1 8 4

6.5 34.8 58.7

0 3 16 27

6.3 15.6 28.1 50.0

2 5 9 16

2.4 2.4 29.3 65.9

1 1 12 27

3.1 3.1 9.4 84.4

1 1 3 27

3.1

19.1 80.9

0 0 9 38

Facilities comfortable Not at all Somewhat 11.8 Mostly 32.4 Very 55.9

0 4 11 19

26.7 73.3

0 0 4 11

Satisfied with information Not at all Somewhat 2.9 Mostly 25.7 Very 71.4

0 1 9 25

6.7 53.3 40.0

0 1 8 6

26.6 70.3

No.

Superintendents’ PUHSD Arizona Learns Forum Workshop 10/17/2003 11/19/2003

1 0 8.5 22.5

%

No.

All (N=55) (N=21) %

No.

0 2 6 22

14.3 85.7

0 0 3 18

8.3 18.3 73.3

0 2.5 5.5 22

4.8 14.3 81.0

0 1 3 17

6.7 93.3

0 0 2 28

9.5 90.5

0 0 2 19

13.3 86.7

0 0 4 26

9.5 90.5

0 0 2 19

Participants in workshops consisted of aspiring administrators, rising administrators, mentors, and project team members. ‘All’ refers to all four groups.


No.

a

LCL Activity Evaluations: 2003.

36

Table 2.

Mentoring Models Nature of Mentoring Workshop 9/10/2003 Workshop 4/7/2004

Participantsa No. attended No. evaluations

Mentor (N=22) (N=19) %

Fall Institute: High Stakes Testing 10/23/2004

Mentor (N=28) (N=17)

All

Alhambra (N=29) (N=22)

(N=46)

No.

%

No.

%

No.

0 1.5 7.5 10

5.9 17.6 5.9 70.6

1 3 1 12

4.3 34.8 60.9

0 2 16 28

0 2.5 8 8.5

5.9 11.7 17.6 64.7

1 2 3 11

15.2 19.6 65.2

0 7 9 30

Discussion of action plans helpful Not at all 0 Somewhat 7.9 1.5 Mostly 7.9 1.5 Very 84.2 16

5.9 29.4 64.7

0 1 5 11

2.3 4.7 53.5 39.5

1 2 23 17

41.1 58.8

0 0 7 10

6.7 42.2 51.1

0 3 19 23

Overall level of satisfaction Not at all Somewhat 7.9 Mostly 39.5 Very 52.6 Sharing insightful and beneficial Not at all Somewhat 13.2 Mostly 42.1 Very 44.7

Caused thinking about issues Not at all Somewhat 18.4 Mostly 23.7 Very 57.9

0 3.5 4.5 11

Winter Institute: Winter Institute: Business Partnerships Community Resources 2/26/2005 2/26/2005 District (N=21) (N=15)

Winter Institute: Parent Involvement 2/26/2005

Winter Institute: Parent School Relationships 2/26/2005

District (N=24) (N=20)

District (N=27) (N=25)

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

9.1 90.9

0 0 2 20

13.3 13.3 73.3

0 2 2 11

5.0 20.0 75.0

0 1 4 15

4.0 20.0 76.0

0 1 5 19

4.5 95.5

0 0 1 21

6.7 13.3 80.0

0 1 2 12

25.0 75.0

0 0 5 15

8.3 12.5 79.2

0 2 3 19

4.5 95.5

0 0 1 21

6.7 93.3

0 0 1 14

8.0 92.0

0 0 2 23

4.5 95.5

0 0 1 21

6.7 13.3 80.0

0 1 2 12

32.0 68.0

0 0 8 17

10.0 15.0 75.0

2 0 3 15

25.0 75.0

0 0 5 15


Table 3. LCL Activity Evaluations: 2003–2005.

37

Table 3. (Continued )

Discussion satisfying? Not at all Somewhat Satisfied Mostly Very Presenters engaging? Not at all Somewhat Satisfied Mostly Very

No. evaluations

%

No.

2.9 14.3 31.4 51.4

0 1 5 11 18

5.7 8.6 28.6 57.1

0 2 3 10 20

2.9 34.3 62.9

0 0 1 12 22

Gained new info about class, ethnicity, and family? Not at all Somewhat Satisfied 20.0 Mostly 20.0 Very 60.0

0 0 7 7 21

Learned new tools and tips? Not at all Somewhat Satisfied Mostly Very

1 1 6 14 13

a

2.9 2.9 17.1 40.0 37.1

Action plan process a valuable part of LCL? Not at all Somewhat Mostly Very

Action plan presentation good for reflection? Not at all Somewhat Mostly Very

Summer Institute 6/11/05 (N=32) %

No.

3.1 15.6 81.3

0 1 5 26

18.8 81.3

0 0 6 26

Action plan helped create a focused action plan process? Not at all Somewhat Mostly 12.5 Very 87.5

0 0 4 28

Participants in workshops consisted of aspiring administrators, rising administrators, mentors, and project team members. ‘All’ refers to all four groups.


Able to speak openly? Not at all Somewhat Satisfied Mostly Very

Summer Institute 6/10/05 (N=35)

38

No. evaluations


Table 4.

39

Promotions of LCL Rising Administrators through 2006.

Promotions (Job)

District

Assistant Principal (AP) to Principal Teacher to AP Continuing as AP Teacher to Student Advisor Resigned or retired from district a

C

A

R

P

8 3

8a 1

4

6 2

5 1 1

3

Six of these promotions were participants accepting position in other school districts.

This collaborative mentoring model, examined through this research project, was designed to assist school leaders in urban districts develop collective wisdom regarding practice. The importance of learning to leadership practice, the significance of language and culture, and the availability of community resources are part of the wisdom to be tapped to ensure that all students, especially those at greatest risk of failure, achieve at par with or better than their counterparts in affluent communities. A learner-centered approach to leadership with collaborative mentoring assists school administrators to become better learners, collaborators, and problem-solvers; it encourages school leaders to tap into community resources and think systemically about how to manage challenges associated with urban, diverse schools. The hope is that these learner-centered leaders take actions that result in better learning outcomes for students.

REFERENCES Ackerman, R., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How real leadership emerges in times of crisis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Retrieved on October 13, 2004, from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html Bellamy, T., Fulmer, C., Murphy, M., & Muth, R. (2003). A framework for school leadership accomplishments: Perspectives on knowledge, practice, and preparation for principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(4), 241–261. Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Danzig, A., Borman, K., Jones, B., & Wright, W. (2007). Learner-centered leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Daresh, J. (2001). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

40


Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. Fenwick, L., & Pierce, M. (2002). Professional development of principals. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hansman, C. A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. In: S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory #89 (pp. 43–51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hay, J. (1995). Transformational mentoring: Creating developmental alliances for changing organizational cultures. New York: McGraw-Hill. Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holland, (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement. Research Points: Essential Information for Education Policy, 3(1), 1–4. Johnson, H. (1997). Mentoring for exceptional performance. Glendale, CA: Griffin Publishing. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education. Kohl, H. R. (1995). ‘‘I won’t learn from you:’’ and other thoughts on creative maladjustment. New York: The New Press. Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lieberman, A., Falk, B., & Alexander, A. (2007). A culture in the making: Leadership in learner-centered schools. In: A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones & W. Wright (Eds), Learner-centered leadership (pp. 23–499). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Merriam, S. (2001a). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. In: S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory, No. 89 (pp. 3–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. (2001b). Something old, something new: Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. In: S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory, No. 89 (pp. 93–96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expaned edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pierce, J. W., & Kalkman, D. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles in teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 127–132. Scho¨n, D. (1991). The reflective turn. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Currency/ Doubleday. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Vickers, G. (1995). The art of judgment: A study of policy making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walker, D., & Lambert, L. (1995). Learning and leading theory: A century in the making. In: L. Lambert (Ed.), The constructivist leader (pp. 1–27). New York: Teachers College Press. Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Man Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. Weick, K., & Roberts, K. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.

TECHNOLOGY FOR 21ST CENTURY EDUCATIONAL LEADERS: A NEW STANDARD FOR SUCCESS Robert Jason Hancock and John Fulwiler ABSTRACT This chapter presents a crosswalk of the International Society for Technology Standards for Administrators commonly referred to as NETS*A, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for Administrators and the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards. This crosswalk will serve as a framework for a discussion of how the administrative standards have evolved to their current state and how administrators can best shift dispositions and knowledge and skills to get the maximum impact of technology in their standards-based leadership activities. The chapter finishes with practical advice as to how administrators can proceed to assess their environment and use appropriate technology to facilitate meeting the requirements of the revised standards.

INTRODUCTION The frequent additions to the educational administrator’s functional vocabulary clearly illustrates that we are living in a time of constant crisis Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 41–56 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10003-2

41

42

ROBERT JASON HANCOCK AND JOHN FULWILER

in the field of education. Take for example, the term cyberbullying, which was relatively unknown prior to 2005, but now serves an entire section in many school districts’ acceptable use policies (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). In order to keep pace with the fast pace of change that technology has forced in society, it becomes necessary to adjust traditional definitions of what an administrator needs to know in terms of awareness, knowledge, and skills to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities offered by the information age and provide guidance as to how an administrator should leverage the resources and opportunities of the digital revolution to streamline the process of setting organizational and learning objectives, continually assessing outcomes, fostering pluralistic communication and joint governance of school activities, and providing authentic learning experiences which are of benefit to all stakeholders in the learning community. Traditional preparation programs have done a wonderful job of preparing administrators for the traditional environment, but as the new administrator steps forth into the arena of high stakes testing and technological terrorism where pressing legal precedent is less Brown v. Board of Education (1954) than Klump v. Nazareth Area School District (2006), one must examine if our programs have kept up to date (Young, Crow, Orr, Ogawa, & Creighton, 2005). Staying with legal examples, are we prepared to say that our assistant principal is or is not free to count a classroom picture as directory information and thus post the photo on the web without violating the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act? Is that same assistant free to claim that the Deepfreeze program is enough to ensure compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act? Did our preparation programs address these issues in enough detail that our new administrators would be prepared to make informed decisions? These are the questions, which must drive our examination of what must happen to ensure that our administrators have the knowledge they need to operate at a high level in an increasingly technological world.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITIONAL STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATORS The traditional definitions of what an administrator needs to know in terms of awareness, knowledge, and skills have always been set through standards such as those provided by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure

Technology for 21st Century Educational Leaders

43

Consortium (ISLLC), which produced one of the first sets of leadership standards. The history of standards in educational administration largely centers around ISLLC and the activities of its parent organizations. In 1988, 10 educational associations who had a vested interest in having standards for administrators created the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), the parent organization of ISLLC (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996). These associations (1996) included the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of School Administrators, Association of School Business Officials, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Council of Chief State School Officers, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, National School Boards Association, and University Council for Educational Administration. In 1994, these organizations comprising NPBEA created the ISLLC as professional standards for administrators using funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Danforth Foundation (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996). ISLLC was primarily comprised of members from various relevant academic institutions and members of the parent professional organizations with representatives from all over the nation. From 1994 through 1996, ISLLC went through a process of authoring the standards and circulating them for review. In 1996, NPBEA formally adopted the standards and turned them over to the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for publication. From 1996 onward, CCSSO has worked with certifying agencies to ensure that ISLLC standards form a basis for professional assessments such as the Praxis, SLLA, and SSA. According to CCSSO data (1996), 41 states currently report either having adopted ISLLC standards or standards aligned with and/ or derived from ISLLC standards. Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) guidelines often received more attention than ISLLC standards in the early days due in large part to the focus of professional preparation programs overseen by NCATE on maintaining accreditation. It is still not unusual to hear ELCC on the lips of an educational leadership professor a bit more than ISLLC as the day-to-day drudgery of authoring spa reports buries the origins and complexities of the creation process. Over time, as states adopted ISLLC standards and universities remained primarily concerned with ELCC guidelines (National Policy Board For Educational Administration, 2002), a number of professors began to complain about the knowledge burden placed on students. In response, the NPBEA moved to incorporate ISLLC standards within the framework of ELCC guidelines producing the ELCC standards.

44


The legacy of a system with many parents, however, is that the many certifying agencies, primarily states, have systems centered on ISLLC standards, most preparation programs focus on the now combined ELCC standards, and the NPBEA struggles to reconcile the two through the actions of CCSSO. The Council for Chief State School Officers (2006) recently formed the Interstate Consortium on School Leadership (ICSL) to help reconcile state policies for those highly qualified with respect to the ISLLC and ELCC standards. These efforts include creating an inclusive process for updating the ISLLC and ELCC standards.

TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATORS Technology standards did not receive major attention in the ISLLC/ELCC structure until NPBEA began combing the two and updating them. It was during this process (2002) that NPBEA contacted the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) National Center for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology for feedback on the revised standards. ISTE has literally set the international standard(s) for technology integration in education (International Society for Technology in Education, 2001) and has published and disseminated standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The normal label given to these standards is the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) with a corresponding letter for the level of standard. For example, the NETS*S are the NETS for Students, likewise the NETS*T are teacher standards, and most importantly the NETS*A are administrator standards. Having already produced the NETS*S and NETS*T, it was natural that ISTE became involved with a collaborative movement for administrative standards for technology. ISTE served as the organizational entity and fiscal agent for a consortium of thirteen educational leadership entities, the majority being NPBEA members, who wanted a set of standards to reflect the best in current thinking about what school administrators could do to ensure that optimum benefits are derived from technology (Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001). With the final draft released in November 1, 2001, the end product of this initiative is better now be known as the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA). At the same time, ISTE released the NETS*A. The NETS*A is identical to the


45

TSSA standards (ISTE, 2001), but expands upon it a bit by adding two new specific job roles. The scope of the TSSA (2001) document covers the job roles of superintendent, district leader, and campus principal and assistant principal. The NETS*A expands upon the TSSA document to include the job roles of district technology director and building technology facilitator. Also, ISTE expanded upon the document to include ‘‘essential conditions’’ necessary to implement the standards (ISTE, 2001). For practical purposes, the actual standards and performance indicators are identical. In summary, the TSSA/NETS*A (2001) standards focus on the following six areas: 1. Leadership and Vision. School administrators should provide leadership by developing and promoting both a long-range vision and a comprehensive plan to integrate technology in schools and districts. 2. Learning and Teaching. Education leaders should ensure the successful infusion of technology into all aspects of teaching and learning by attending to issues such as curricular design, instructional strategies, learning environments, and appropriate technology purchases. 3. Productivity and Professional Practice. School leaders should make use of technology in their own work to improve school management, collaboration, communication, and their own professional development. 4. Support, Management, and Operations. Administrators should be actively involved in planning for all aspects of technology implementation – including technology compatibility, budgetary elements, staffing, technical support, and technology upgrade issues. 5. Assessment and Evaluation. Administrators should take leadership in the use of the assessment and data-gathering capabilities of technology to improve student learning, professional development, and administrative and operational systems. 6. Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues. School leaders need to comprehend and develop policies about the social, legal, and ethical aspects of technology usage, to communicate those policies to staff and students, and to enforce those policies when necessary.

FROM STANDARDS TO PRACTICE The revised ELCC standards advocate strongly for the heavy infusion of technology (NPBEA, 2002, p. 1) stating that Never before have schools and their communities faced such rapid technological change. Never before has technology so directly affected teaching and learning, as do computers

46

ROBERT JASON HANCOCK AND JOHN FULWILER and telecommunications systems. Never before have schools been so challenged as the chief seat of learning, as do the new technologically based independent information systems. The World Wide Web has become a pervasive fact of life in homes and schools. Incorporating technology for instruction, management, and evaluation requires that schools be alert, flexible, and committed to student results rather than to institutional structures and traditions. (p. 1)

James Bosco, chair of the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative and a board member and past chair of the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) gave the following reasons for the separate existence of the TSSA standards saying that, We have often been asked why we developed the technology standards as a separate set, rather than incorporate them into broader and more comprehensive school-administrator standards. The answer is that there are many different administrator standards in use today, and selecting one to the exclusion of others would not be productive. Nevertheless, we agree that it makes sense in any use of the TSSA standards to incorporate them into existing administrator standards where these are in use. (Bosco, 2001, p. 1)

While this answer is definitely justifiable, it is not overly useful for the practicing administrator or the administrator preparation program in aligning what is already a somewhat tangled web of standards. To assist the practitioner and the programs that prepare practitioners, the authors have developed a crosswalk of ISLLC, ELCC, and NETS*A standards that are in the Appendices of this volume. To facilitate readability, this crosswalk of standards uses parenthetical references as we discuss shifts in administrator dispositions toward the utilization of technology as well as the knowledge and skills required to maximize the potential of technology tools. Administrators and others involved with technology in elementary and secondary schools should realize that standards relevant to the effective use of technology do not necessarily have anything to do with specific technology skills.

SHIFTING DISPOSITIONS TOWARD APPROPRIATE USE OF TECHNOLOGY If there is a key disposition element for the effective use of technology by an administrator to positively impact the school environment it is encapsulated by the ISLLC disposition in ISLLC standard one which centers on the administrator being committed to doing the work required for high levels of personal and organization performance. This disposition is key, in that while technology can drastically improve data collection and management,


47

effectively drive decision making, facilitate management and organization activities, improve instruction, and enhance pluralistic communication, the first step remains the daunting one of identifying the numerous relevant technologies and how they might be implemented in the school environment. Each of the above-mentioned areas of improvement is a knowledge and skill area identified in the ISLLC/ELCC standards that coordinates with an appropriate NETS*A standard, but these areas will never be touched if the administrator is not willing to work very hard to make systemic changes that utilize technology to gather information from multiple sources, organize and analyze that data effectively, and present the findings to the school community in a way that supports an ongoing, inclusive communication process that results in shared decision making. The profit motive in business drives the utilization of effective and efficient technologies for process management, but often this motive is not present in educational communities. Too often, educators hope for the easily implemented, easily understood technology panacea that will immediately offer return on investment. Unfortunately, the truth is that educators face an overabundance of solutions of situational specific impact. This situation requires a very attentive and wellinformed administrator. Note that by ‘‘well-informed’’ the authors do not mean that the administrator need be a ‘‘technology person,’’ but rather a skilled administrator trained in making qualitative judgments as to the programmatic impact of a particular solution. For example, the decision as to whether the school should purchase a handheld device driven primary reading inventory or a digitally based benchmarking system for standardized testing requires little in technical knowledge on the part of the administrator. What it does require is an understanding on the part of the administrator as to the needs of his/her environment and how technology might be best specifically applied to reasonably meet those needs. This level of understanding is far in excess of the level of assigning financial resources, which is perhaps the unfortunate reason that many of our schools have become computer graveyards of little understood and drastically underutilized technology. Administrators must do an about face from thinking I need four computers per classroom to a new direction where a considered judgment states a need for a program that can do a trend analysis on attendance and inform the leadership team at which level it may need to start directing financial resources to address a potential problem. This type of thought process has existed in business for some time, but it is not prevalent in education. The other relevant dispositions deal with the administrator being willing to establish effective pluralistic school communities where the school

48


functions as an extension of the will of the larger community. Gone are the days where an administrator could act in isolation. Now, the administrator needs to master the appropriate technology to manage the flow of data required for true shared decision making. The process of shifting dispositions is not easy because the fundamental shift is basically that technology can help, but that the effective implementation of technology is not easy to accomplish. This is where it is vital that the district expend adequate resources to have unbiased experts to provide timely advice on technology systems that gather, organize, and analyze data on management and operations facilitating digital-based decision making, technology systems that improve instruction, and technology systems that facilitate communication. The administrator must drive the initiative for change, but they must have a learning community if they are to affect it successfully.

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS RELEVANT TO THE EFFECTIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY The Education Commission of the States recently completed an analysis (Anthes, 2005) of five different leadership standards (ISLLC, ELCC, NAESP, SREB, and McREL) and found the following commonalities among all standards:

Developing and articulating a vision Strategic decision making and implementation Promoting community engagement Creating a culture of learning Using data appropriately Understanding curriculum and instruction Seeking engagement from all staff Understanding effective management Providing high-quality professional growth opportunities to staff Communicating effectively and honestly with staff, students and community members

These commonalities sync nicely with the leadership transitions outlined by the new ELCC standards (ELCC, 2002), which call for an administrative shift from technical skills to interpersonal skills; from an administrator as a director to an administrator as a consensus builder and motivator; from resource allocation to accountability for processes and results; from a campus


49

administrator to integrator of school and community services; and finally, from policy recipient to policy participant. If these are the directions in which administrative practice is heading, it makes sense to ensure that the technology knowledge and skills are relevant. An examination of the ISLLC/ELCC/NETS*A crosswalk presented in the appendices of this volume reveals that there are three main categories of technology relevant to advancing all of these standards. These are technology systems that gather, organize, and analyze data on demographics and instruction as well as management and operations, thus facilitating digitalbased decision making, technology systems that improve instruction, and technology systems that facilitate communication. The administrator would be well advised to use these systems to streamline the process of setting organizational and learning objectives, continually assess climate, culture, and outcomes, disseminate information, foster pluralistic communication and joint governance of school activities, and provide authentic learning experiences which are of benefit to all stakeholders in the learning community.

EXAMPLES OF HOW TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED TO MEET ADMINISTRATOR STANDARDS Upon examining the ISLLC/ELCC/NETS*A crosswalk it becomes clear that the ISTE Standard 1D: to use data in making leadership decisions standards as well as the ISTE Standard 5B: to use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and student learning (ISTE, 2001) by far have the most correlations with the ISLLC and ELCC standards. This makes it very clear that both districts and campuses should be using technology to facilitate data acquisition, organization, and analysis. There are countless ways that technology can facilitate these processes, but it is worthwhile to go into major groupings here. First, in dealing with data acquisition, it makes sense to have access to a survey system, which administrators can use to readily acquire data from all members of the school community. Schools can accomplish this using a variety of formats from in house systems to online pay services, but the goal should be to obtain inexpensive access to a system that will allow schools to construct, administer, and analyze surveys quickly. Even cheap systems readily offer built-in descriptive analysis features that make it easy to note

50


potential impacts of policy shifts on climate and culture. The second would be to have access to a student information management system (SIMS) or data warehouse that offers an intuitive interface, multiple levels of accessibility, the ability to aggregate and disaggregate information rapidly, the ability to generate standard and custom reports, the ability to provide longitudinal analysis of specific cohorts of students and faculty, and most importantly the ability to interface with state and federal data systems as well as your own data gathering and analysis tools. The third would be to have a variety of tools to gather data and bring it into the SIMS system. Most critical would be an electronic system for benchmark testing to analyze student progress, but it is easily conceivable to have everything from teacher walkthroughs and evaluations conducted on a handheld device using software such as go-observe to student discipline actively added to the system by simply synching a hand-held device. As the SIMS system organizes and manages student data, business process management software, can and should improve management in a variety of tasks including enrollment, facilities management, human resources, food services, provisioning/inventory, contract management, health care systems, and let us not forget, finance. Again, the gain is organization, and the difference from the world of business to the world of K-12 education is one of training. It is rare to find a project manager without at least a working knowledge of Microsoft Project, but it is relatively hard to find even a senior manager with equivalent knowledge in a K-12 district. From the author’s personal experiences in central office, those administrators with this type of experience were far more likely to serve on the construction side rather than the instructional side of district operations with their knowledge originating from sources other than administrative preparation programs. Data and workflow management do not receive heavy emphasis in preparation programs despite a strong correlation of ISLLC and ELCC standards with the ISTE NETS*A standard 4B: to implement and use integrated technology-based management and operations systems (2001). Technology spent upon organization of resources is seldom money poorly spent. Data analysis systems make some administrative tasks much easier such as instructional supervision. Administration can easily calculate faculty performance through longitudinal analysis of student achievement from benchmark to benchmark, and formal assessment to formal assessment, allowing the administrator to construct proper interventions and growth plans. These systems also encourage peak performance in that instructors are well aware that the system is monitoring them, and even more importantly, item analysis tells them which relevant standards they are not covering in


51

sufficient detail. Data analysis can also automate some tasks such as ordering of supplies when on-campus inventories drop below a certain point so that administrative and clerical staff can focus on the important issues of supervising teaching and learning and managing workflow. Sound digital-based decision making relies on technology systems that gather, organize, and analyze data. Technology supports digital-based decision making when the administrator has timely access to enough relevant information to make choices based upon the merits of the data. If the administrator lacks sufficient data to make informed decisions, then they need to consider how they can close that information gap through a systematic application of available technology resources or the acquisition of such resources. Broad areas of focus where schools should gather and assess data regularly include school and community climate and culture, student demographics and achievement, faculty and staff performance, and all relevant management and organizational indicators. The administrator should get in the habit of preparing a decision brief for his learning community for major decisions. A decision brief should include an introduction of the issue under consideration, relevant data that gathered, potential options with positive and negative consequences for each option, a recommendation from the administration as to the best course of action, and finally, possible methods of evaluating and monitoring potential outcomes of the course of action selected through further data gathering and analysis. Administrators should disseminate this brief for discussion among the instructional leadership team and the learning community as a whole. Also, upon examination of the ISLLC/ELCC/NETS*A crosswalk, it becomes clear that ISTE Standard 3B: to employ technology for communication and collaboration among colleagues, staff, parents, students, and the larger community as well as ISTE Standard 3C: create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity (ISTE, 2001), have a direct tie-in to support the type of culture outlined by all the major standards groups. Administrators should keep all stakeholders in mind as they investigate, develop, apply, and evaluate their school’s technological structures and resources. The age of online learning and online communities is definitely upon us, and it is the CMS or curriculum management system, which is providing the very vital link between student and instructor. The college student has long been familiar with environments such as WebCT or Blackboard, and now so is the district high school or middle school student. The CMS has migrated to the district and now serves as a primary means of communication from

52


teacher to parent in many communities (Devaney & Hancock, 2006). A plethora of online environments whether pay or ad supported or open source are showing up in districts as a means of facilitating parent teacher communication. At a minimum the district and campus web-sites have become clearing houses for every type of information from board policy, district handbooks, to lunch menus and sports schedules. The authors advise that the administrator consider the culture of their environment before attempting to build an online community. Studies (e.g., TallentRunnels, Thomas, Lan, & Cooper, 2006) indicate that a starting point for discussion regarding online learning grounded in research on institutional and administrative factors, course environment, learners’ outcomes, and learners’ characteristics that impact course implementation and delivery. ISTE Standard 2A, another ISTE standard useful to administrators, suggests using technology: to identify, use, evaluate, and promote appropriate technologies to enhance and support instruction and standards-based curriculum leading to high levels of student achievement (ISTE, 2001), and serves as the foundation of what is commonly termed ‘‘instructional technology.’’ Ironically, this standard is actually one of the easier to implement as it centers on ensuring that the teacher has the ability to use technology to favorably impact instruction in a way that would not be possible without the technology. It is perhaps best approached by ensuring that the school is implementing the NETS*S and NETS*T in a verifiable manner using either portfolio assessment (preferable as it shows what is actually going on in the classroom) or competency examination and strict guidelines to required levels of integration to illustrate compliance. The authors do not advise mandating which technologies to use for the same reason that schools generally do not mandate that all faculty members use a certain teaching style. However, it is highly advisable that the administration communicates the expectation that staff members use the best-possible methods and tools. The judges of the best-possible methods and tools should be the learning community, which includes the administrator, the technology facilitator, the curriculum specialist, and other relevant faculty. Upon reaching a consensus, the administrator ensures that everyone follows through. For example, the community decides to use the software Kidspiration as a means of employing double-bubble thinking maps for comparison/contrast in the third grade classroom. The administration ensures that the equipment and software is in place and that everyone has training. Teachers begin implementation, and administration ensures that implementation is consistent throughout all classrooms. It is imperative that administration does not attempt to


53

implement any uses of technology, which the school cannot support through adequate training and material resources. Nothing angers teachers more quickly than being trained on technology, which they do not have or being forced to implement technology programs for which they have received no training. Instructional technology integrations that achieve measurable results tend to have grassroots origins, strong teacher support, a good program of professional preparation, and adequate material resources. Top down mandates and poor preparation are a recipe for disaster. It is very important to remember that it is the needs of instruction that defines the type and scope of technology integration. The primary role of the administrator as an instructional leader in this equation is to determine if the instructional gains are worth the cost in terms of time and money of the implementation. To waste time is folly, to pay for the privilege is inexcusable. Off the cuff implementations are rarely a good idea, as is mentioned in NETS*A Standard One (2001), sustained change is best achieved through a campus technology plan assembled by the campus technology committee, of which the administrator should be a member. This plan should succinctly state the vision of the campus with regard to technology implementation, have a program plan for implementing initiatives to achieve the vision, have measurable objectives for assessing the implementation of those initiatives, and a have a timeline for change. The plan should be aligned with both the district technology plan and the campus improvement plan and should address relevant national and state standards centering on the NETS*S, NETS*T, and NETS*A. Initiatives should originate from whole community consideration of instructional objectives and learner outcomes given school and community climate and culture. Finally, initiatives should have adequate secured resources prior to professional planning and implementation and means of maintaining those resources into the life of the implementation. It is a common mistake to purchase computers and not provide for their upkeep or replacement; this often results in a radical drop-off in program performance over time. Each technology plan should include a functional replacement cycle for hardware and software and the committee should carefully ask questions like how will we update this equipment and software every 5 years if we are to sustain this program into the future? It is imperative that every member of the planning team be aware that the cost of a computer is not anywhere close to the much greater cost of sustaining the implementation of a focused program of instruction over time using a computer. In an environment where it often takes 5 years to show impact, to plan 1 year into the future is not a good idea. It is a good piece of practical advise to make sure that good hardware

54


warranties, preferably on-site service provided next business day in accordance with the projected lifespan of a piece of hardware. Put simply, if you plan to have it 5 years and then replace it, pay for the 5 year warranty. Most companies that deal with education will actually supply you with parts and pay you for your people’s time if you are lucky enough to have timely, quality district on-site hardware repair. The key is to build things into your plan to minimize downtime. If you have a lab of 25 computers that is routinely down at a level of 20% (unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence), you effectively have a lab of 20 computers. If you lose a teacher station normally heavily used by your staff, you lose all your technology management and communication functionality such as attendance, memos and all technology assisted instruction driven by that computer. Good warranties, over sizing lab environments, and having a few mobile spares for mission critical machines can help to offset these problems. Last, but definitely not least, are all of the legal and ethical considerations of NETS*A Standard 6 (2001) where we began this conversation about the requirements of these times of crisis. Fortunately for the building level administrator, they should be able to stay legally safe by keeping handy copies of two items they need to have handy anyway, these being the district’s policies and procedures and the district discipline handbook. They also need to obtain access to and read the district’s acceptable use policy (AUP). These documents combined will cover appropriate and inappropriate conduct in the digital sphere as well as courses of action in terms of dealing with infractions. It is the job of the senior administration and the district chief technology officer to make sure that board policy and the AUP are up to date in terms of what does and does not constitute acceptable use, privacy, etc. It is, however, a wise idea to remain generally aware of legal precedent in terms of a frame of reference as we shift ever further into digital domains. It is also a good idea to keep an idea of maintaining equitable access across distinct demographics of your population. Model ethical behavior and observance of policy and your people will also be motivated to behave ethically (Starratt, 2004).

DO NOT BECOME OVERWHELMED It is a wise idea for the new administrator to never examine all of the administrator standards at one time. Even this crosswalk of the ISLLC/ ELCC/NETS*A is best used as a reference work for what should be going


55

on in the learning community. Change in any environment takes time and sustained effort. It is enough that the administrator should set high expectations, and then develop a systematic process for achieving sustainable improvement.

CONCRETE ADVICE FOR NEW PRINCIPALS The first actions of a new principal should always be assess, assess, assess. Upon beginning a new position, it is very wise for the principal to have several meetings with both his/her curriculum and technology coordinators and assistant principals to determine their particular skill sets with regard to instructional and organizational oversight. From here, begin an evaluation of how technology is supporting job functions identified in the standards. What technology systems are in place that gather, organize, and analyze data on demographics and instruction as well as management and operations? What technology systems are in place to improve instruction? What technology systems are in place that facilitate pluralistic communication? Pay specific attention to how school climate and culture may or may not react to change in these areas. Check to see if a technology committee oversees and monitors the alignment of the current technology plan. Is the district AUP available to faculty and staff ? Know your standards and keep informed. ISTE has standard guides as well as books and electronic tools that help with implementing all the technology standards. Make these items part of a professional library of all standards relevant to your learning community. Remember that you do not need to know everything about everything; you just need to know enough to make informed decisions. Once you know generally what should be in place and what you actually have in place you can begin to search for the specific technology to fit your unique needs and plan for their implementation. Finally, and most importantly, set high expectations for yourself and others. Remind others that a heart surgeon does not have the luxury of choosing to do open heart surgery because they choose not to use a new tool and technique like heart catheterization. Ignorance of proper tools and techniques and/or resistance to using them has a price, which come in the form of losses in effectiveness, efficiency, and achievement. Proper implementation of technology support structures in an environment not used to them can be a very work-intensive process, but our students and parents will be very grateful if we take the time to build new standards for success.

56


REFERENCES Anthes, K. (2005, January). Leader standards. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http:// www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=5819 Bosco, J. (2001). Benchmark your technology know-how. Retrieved August 25, 2006, from http:// content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=53 Brown v. Board of Education. (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2006). Major milestones in leadership standards. Retrieved February 10, 2006, http://www.ccsso.org/projects/interstate_ consortium_on_school_leadership/#milestones. Devaney, T., & Hancock, R. (2006). Technology skills, availability, and anxiety of graduate students enrolled in online programs. Mid-south educational research association annual conference, November 8th, 2006, Brimingham, Alabama. Educational Leadership Constituent Council. (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf International Society for Technology in Education. (2001). Technology standards for administrators [on-line]. Retrieved June 12th, 2006, from http://cnets.iste.org/administrators/ Klump v. Nazareth Area School District. (2006). 425 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E. D. Pa.). National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2002). Instructions to implement standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/index.html Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., & Cooper, S. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93–126. Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative. (2001). Technology standards for school administrators [on-line]. Retrieved June 10th, 2006, from http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/ Young, M. D., Crow, G. M., Orr, T., Ogawa, R., & Creighton, T. (2005). An educative look at ‘‘educating school leaders.’’ Retrieved June 8, 2006, http://www.ucea.org/pdf/EducLeaders RespMar18.pdf

THE CSUN/LAUSD COLLABORATIVE: A MODEL UNIVERSITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP IN THE PREPARATION OF NEW SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Terrance G. Jakubowski and Deborah Leidner ABSTRACT Recognizing the need for a pool of diverse future administrators, the Los Angeles Unified School District entered into a partnership with the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at California State University, Northridge to prepare the next generation of leaders. The process to develop the program and produce the cadre of candidates is a study in the facilitation of the transition of educators from teachers to administrators. This chapter examines the issues encountered and the processes established to create a rigorous, accessible master’s degree/ Administrative Credential Program that met the needs of the students and the school district.


57

58

TERRANCE G. JAKUBOWSKI AND DEBORAH LEIDNER

INTRODUCTION There has never been a greater need to help people interested in becoming school administrators to make the transition from teacher to administrator. Evidence exists that there is a shortage of qualified school administrators. In the United States, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) reported that this shortage is occurring among rural, urban, and suburban schools and at all levels: elementary, junior high/middle, and senior high (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Canada (Williams, 2001), England (Earley, Evans, Collarbone, Gold, & Halpin, 2002), Australia (Gronn & RawlingSanaei, 2003), and New Zealand (Brooking, Collins, Court, & O’Neill, 2003) have also reported shortages of school administrators. Inadequate school funding, balancing school management with instructional leadership, educating an increasingly diverse student population, highstakes accountability initiatives, and the fact that a large number of current administrators are nearing retirement age are all contributing factors to this shortage (Borja, 2001; Daresh, 1992; Fink & Brayman, 2006; Nakamura & Samuels, 2000; Sherman, 2005; Steinberg, 2000). In one large urban school district, over half of the school-based administrators and almost two-thirds of the non-school-based administrators were 50 years of age or older in the 2005–2006 school year (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2005a, 2005b). In the next few years, there will be large-scale retirements of administrators, and we need to start preparing the leaders of tomorrow now. How to address this shortage of current and future administrators is a critical question for both school districts and universities that prepare school administrators. In his testimony before the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Commission, Dr. Don Iglesias, Superintendent of the San Jose` (CA) Unified School District, indicated that there is a need to ‘‘open the spigot’’ to increase the supply of highly qualified teachers into our schools (D. Iglesias, personal communication, April 9, 2006). To address the increased need for teachers, counselors, and other school staff, an increasing number of partnerships between school districts and universities have been formed (e.g., Dimmitt, 2003; Hanks & Velaski, 2003; Lewis, 2004; Mariage & Garmon, 2003; McCurry, 2002; Passman, 2002; Schultheiss, 2005; Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2006). The same is true for school administrators; we need to increase the supply of qualified school administrators. In his introduction to The CSU Presidents Task Force on Education Leadership Programs (California State University, 2003), John Welty, President of California State University, Fresno stated: We all have a shared responsibility to prepare administrators for the demands of their job y educational institutions must provide future educational leaders with the

The CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative

59

tools that will allow them to be successful in leading their schools to improved learning by all. (p. 5)

In the report it was stressed that: for programs to be effective, they must reflect the dynamic, context-specific nature of local schools and the developmental needs of emerging and career leaders who work there. Each individual school and district has a unique and complex culture that determines its support for new instructional leaders. As districts evolve over time, the educational leadership programs must also evolve, as they strive to provide the leaders, their schools, and their districts with the support needed to sustain their growth in effectiveness. (California State University, 2003, p. 19)

However, it is obvious that it is not as simple as opening a spigot and producing more administrators. The transition from teacher to administrator is much more than a change of job title and role. The perspective of administrators is different from that of teachers in some very significant ways. One important way is that school-based administrators, especially the principal, are different from teachers in that the administrator is the representative of the school and the district to the public. The principal is held accountable for everything that occurs at the school, both positive and negative, whether or not it is under the principal’s control. They are expected to carry out and enforce district policies, even when they personally disagree. Administrators are required to take a much more global perspective of the educational process. Instead of just focusing on one classroom, administrators must be knowledgeable on how the activities in each classroom interact and affect a department/grade level, school, feeder pattern, or whole district. With this global focus, administrators are required to make decisions for the school and adjudicate disagreements between students, staff, parents, and the community. Administrators have a supervisory and evaluative role of teachers and other staff at the school. These transitions can be overwhelming, especially if the teacher has not had experience with or exposure to these responsibilities. A second reason why it is becoming much more important to assist in the transition from teacher to administrator is that the role of the administrator has changed to reflect changes in public education. Over the past decade, as public education has progressed toward standards-based education, highstakes testing and accountability, and higher public scrutiny, school administration has become much more difficult. To be effective in this new environment, the roles of the principal, assistant principal, and district-level administrator has changed from a directorial manager to a facilitative leader. Those entering administration today need help in developing these leadership skills.

60


A third reason for this increased need to facilitate the transition from teacher to administrator is the change in the pool of prospective administrators. The CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative, as is the case with school districts and postsecondary educational institutions across the country, need to recruit skilled underrepresented minority administrators to address the needs of students in urban areas. An increasing number of teachers come from minority (both ethnic and linguistic) backgrounds, and are the first (or of the first generation) of their family to attend college, and/or live in homes where English is not the first language spoken. Many first generation graduate students, especially English Learners, enter Masters’ Programs and Administrator Certification Programs lacking written and oral communication skills. These students may also have had few opportunities to develop and demonstrate leadership skills required for advancement in graduate programs and in entry-level positions. They must lead in complex environments requiring interpersonal skills, cultural proficiency, and the ability to solve challenging cross-cultural problems. These intelligent and dedicated individuals may need additional assistance in learning about organizations (schools, districts, state departments of education) that are culturally different from their own personal backgrounds. A fourth, and final, reason for this increased need to facilitate the transition is a better understanding of the changes required to make the transition. With the immediate need for administrators, it is no longer possible to assign people into entry-level administrative positions and wait 5–10 years for them to ‘become’ administrators. Just as for our students and teachers, the expectations for administrators have been raised. While it is unreasonable to expect a novice administrator to have all of the skills of an expert veteran, there are high expectations for new administrators. So, what should those responsible for facilitating the transition from teacher to administrator be doing to be successful? Vornberg and Davis (1997) identified several characteristics associated with successful administrator training programs: (a) selection of candidates on a competitive basis, (b) internship is a significant and early part of the program, (c) inclusion in a cohort group at the beginning of the program, (d) focused study on the principalship and related skills, (e) specialized studies in communications and intergroup dynamics, (f) an introduction to the culture of the principalship, and (g) participation in staff development activities with practicing principals. A partnership combining the resources of both school districts and universities may be the best model for accomplishing these goals. One such partnership is the California State University, Northridge/Los Angeles Unified School District (CSUN/LAUSD) Collaborative. The


61

leadership in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS) saw the need to become a university serving the entire Los Angeles area, not just the suburban area surrounding the campus. The department sought to create a ‘‘living laboratory’’ for school reform, encouraging a combination of theory and practice, with discussion and action research aimed at investigating, designing, and implementing innovative models of reform. The LAUSD saw the need to be pro-active in the identification, recruitment, and preparation of new administrators. We are able to present the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative from a unique perspective. At the time the Collaborative was formed, Debbie Leidner was a superintendent in the LAUSD and worked with the ELPS department in the development of the Collaborative. She has since retired from the school district and is now a full-time faculty member in the ELPS department, working with the multiple cohorts of the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative and joint ventures between CSUN and other school districts. Terrance Jakubowski was a student in the first CSUN/LAUSD cohort and is currently serving in his first school-based administrative position as a middle school assistant principal. He also works as an adjunct lecturer for the ELPS department, teaching the research methodology course. Our backgrounds allow us to present the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative from many different perspectives: as teachers in the Collaborative, as a liaison between the university and school district, as school district personnel looking to hire new administrators, and as a student in the Collaborative.

The Start of the Collaborative In 2000, the 730,000 student LAUSD created a plan to reorganize into 11 local districts, operating under the central district. The concept behind the local districts was to provide many support services, such as operational support, instructional support, business and facilities, and other leadership services closer to the schools and community. The local districts ranged in size from 50 to 80 K-12 schools, with each serving from 50,000 to 80,000 students. The boundaries were established by LAUSD, and approved by the Board of Education. Due to political pressure and budget constraints, in 2004 the number of local districts was reduced to eight, with serving as many as 118 schools and some local districts with over 100,000 students. As 1 of the original 11 local district superintendents in LAUSD, Debbie Leidner had responsibility for 70 schools, with over 70,000 students. It was obvious from the time the local districts developed in 2000 that

62


administrator turnover would be a constant, due to retirements, promotions, and added positions at the school, local district, and district levels. The weekly local district staff meeting featured a never empty list of unfilled positions, from entry-level curriculum specialists and assistant principals to principals and directors, supervising schools and programs. It was becoming increasingly difficult to find qualified leaders to fill the positions. In discussions with staff and other superintendents, there was no doubt that the talent existed in the schools and that there were teachers, coordinators, and coaches with the desire and capacity to lead; but they needed the degree, certification, and training. It was the decision of the local district to work with a partner university to grow their own cadre of future leaders. CSUN sat in the middle of the local district, with an outstanding reputation for producing a large number of qualified teachers for the Southern California area. The Educational Leadership program was not as well known thanks in large part to competition from the ‘‘for-profit’’ institutions that had advertising budgets and varying degrees of rigor. In talking with students in the CSUN program, the program determined that they were frustrated with access to the campus, including a difficult parking situation, and they often were unable to complete on-campus courses in a logical sequence, in a reasonable length of time. In initial discussions with LAUSD, the ELPS department recognized that nationwide there existed a lack of competent principals to replace a retiring generation of baby boomers that would reach epidemic proportions by the close of the decade. They understood that the urban centers seeking qualified underrepresented minority leaders to fill administrative positions only exacerbated the problem because there were too few graduating from institutions of higher education. One of the department’s goals is to educate a new generation of school leaders who look like the students at the schools within the Southern California area, and who truly represent the rich diversity of the region. CSUN has been very successful in this goal: figures indicate that 33% of the Administrative Credential students are White, while 10% are African American and approximately 40% are Latino/Hispanic. The other students are characteristic of the diverse ethnicities represented in school districts throughout Southern California. The ELPS department took on the challenge for the local district and the Southern California K-12 community by developing a model to deliver the next generation of leaders. With two excellent department chairs, a cooperative faculty within the department, and the support of the Dean of the College of Education, the department launched the cohort program, which grew into one of the largest, most diverse in the nation.


63

The delivery of a viable Administrative Credential Program that meets the individual needs of the diverse local districts of the LAUSD, and the surrounding smaller districts, was a challenge. The answer came through the development of a cohort program, individually crafted to provide a combination of research-based instruction and concrete practical application. The program takes place at school district sites, utilizing a combination of a group of full-time CSUN faculty, along with a number of experienced field administrators, who serve as part-time instructors. By delivering the cohorts at the local sites and utilizing experienced field administrators, the department sought to prepare administrators familiar with the diverse needs of the individual urban communities. Public criticism of administrator preparation programs often centers on the need for better integration of theory and practice. The often-heard cry to eliminate the ‘‘ivory tower’’ has called for better collaboration between the university and the field. However, three problems exist. First, there has been little systematic effort to assure that curricular outcomes are aligned and constant. In other words, when multiple sections of the same course are taught, it is important to assure that the learning outcomes of students are the same from one instructor to another. Second, experience has taught us that many administrators are well versed in methodologies to evaluate teachers, but often have not been in the classroom for many years. Because of this, they need guidance to be highly effective in delivering instruction in a graduate program. Finally, the K-12 student populations, in our large cities particularly, call for a greater number of professors of color who often have a deeper understanding of the issues facing students and teachers, and can act as role models. An opportunity to work in higher education as a parttime or adjunct professor, while holding a role as a school leader, provided an introduction to higher education to those individuals who might seek to eventually take a position as a full-time professor. The ELPS department saw the recruitment, training, and support of this large cadre of part-time faculty as a first step in the process of identifying the next generation of full-time university professors, and a faculty that better reflects the diverse community it serves. These practitioners, teaching and coaching our future principals, may well become the researchers and leaders in postsecondary education tomorrow who reflect the diversity of the participating districts, demonstrate effective school site/district practices, and incorporate the six California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Standards into their instruction. Hoping to address the problems that generally accompany university/ school collaborations, the department maintained a practice calling for

64


adjunct faculty to utilize established course outlines, develop class syllabi, design effective lesson plans and course activities, and utilize assessment tools. There is an on-going support model utilizing full-time faculty who oversee the cohorts and individual courses, and provide written materials, and on-line assistance, as well as on-going coaching. There are assessment tools that allow the university and districts to measure the effectiveness of the instructors through end of program student surveys, and end of course instructor evaluations.

The Benefits of the Collaborative The LAUSD/CSUN Collaborative developed to address the needs of the prospective students and create a program that contained the characteristics for a successful school administrator program described by Vornberg and Davis (1997). The program implemented a cadre model enabling the courses to function in an interconnected manner and allowing the students to build relationships with peers whom they work with throughout their careers. By partnering with the school district, CSUN was able to bring the university to the student, eliminating many of the barriers associated with attending classes on campus, and at the same time, have a program with the rigor of a university-based program. The students in the Collaborative complete the same scope and sequence of courses as on-campus university program, and are subject to the same requirements as students in the on-campus program. The school district also played an important role throughout the program. Senior LAUSD administrative staff (principals and their supervisors) were involved in all aspects of the program, including the recruitment and selection of prospective administrators and serving as adjunct instructors in some courses. This interaction between current and future administrators had advantages for both the students and the district, as the school district administrators were able to know the candidates at a much deeper level and the students were able to start acculturating to the district administrative culture. This interaction is also valuable as it provides the students the opportunity to develop a keener insight into the roles, responsibilities, and experiences of administrators. As teachers in the Collaborative, both authors have found that the students are very interested in our daily experiences and in developing a deeper understanding of school leadership from a practical perspective.


65

The Curriculum The curriculum focuses on three important aspects of school leadership, the knowledge of how to lead a school and the issues associated with school leadership, the skills to put the knowledge into practice, and the dispositions (attitudes and beliefs) needed to be successful. The program includes foundational courses in contemporary administrative leadership; organization and administration of elementary, secondary, and special education; and supervision of curriculum and instruction. These courses provide students with both a historical and current theoretical perspective on school leadership. There are also courses of a more practical nature, such as legal aspects of educational administration, business and financial aspects of educational administration, management of human resources, school community relations, decisionmaking simulation in educational administration, and fieldwork. There are several overarching themes that are incorporated into all of the courses. In this era of high-stakes accountability (NCLB), the operation of schools and school districts has gone through several changes. One of these changes is a stronger emphasis on curriculum and student achievement. School administrators are under more pressure to improve the achievement for all students, including growing populations of ethnic minorities, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and students with special needs. Many school districts have standardized the curriculum in the core subject areas (English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Science) by implementing district-wide instructional programs, common periodic assessments, and instructional/pacing guides. Many accountability programs include the removal of the principal and other administrators for a lack of improvement in the instructional program. By ELPS department mandate, in all of the courses, instructors relate their content, both theoretical and practical, to the improvement of student achievement. A second important change is in the relationship between the school and the community. The combination of increased accountability, the charter school movement, and the internet has allowed the public greater access to information about the school and greater opportunities for the public to interact with the school. More than ever before, school administrators are involved in a constant public relations campaign to keep children in their schools and provide a rigorous, standards-based education in a safe, welcoming environment. A third major change in school administration, related to the other two, is the increased need for schools to collaborate with partners. To provide a

66


rigorous, standards-based curriculum to all students, it is becoming increasingly necessary for schools to work with parents, universities, corporations, and foundations. Administrators need to be aware of not only their students’ needs, but also the resources that are available to meet the needs. A major emphasis in the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative is to provide students with strategies to manage these and other changes when they have become administrators. A second major theme of the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative is leadership in a time of change. The changes listed above, and others, often require the staff at the school to change their routines and practices. This can be a difficult process. School administrators need to be leaders and guide the teachers and others on the staff to make the necessary changes. True leadership is both an earned and a learned attribute, and the instructors infuse into their courses strategies to help new administrators start the process of becoming leaders, even before their first administrative assignment. A third major theme of the Collaborative is the politics of school administration. Every school district has its own culture and political structure, and many new administrators are not aware of this structure. One of the major advantages of using school district personnel as instructors is that they can explain to the students the culture and political structure of the district from firsthand experience. A fourth major theme of the Collaborative is that the students need to have a realistic perspective of the role of the administrator. Most people, including teachers, do not have a complete picture of the role and responsibilities of the administrator. Often, the students base their perceptions of administration on their limited exposure and interaction with administrators and by sources that lack knowledge of the day-to-day operations of a school, such as the media, politicians, and employee unions. The instructors in the Collaborative share with the students their experiences, both the positive and the negative, so that the students develop a realistic perspective of the job of administrator. A fifth, and final, major theme of the Collaborative is ethical leadership. Ethics is an important part of being an effective leader. For principals to effectively lead their schools, they must lead in a fair and ethical manner. They must treat all the members of their staffs and community fairly, be honest, and conduct themselves properly at all times. Ethical leadership is of increasing importance in this era of accountability and high-stakes testing. There are unfortunate examples of schools that circumvent rules to meet the objectives of their accountability programs. When these misdeeds come to light, the result damages the school’s reputation and the credibility of the staff. The administrators, as the leaders of the school, bear the responsibility


Table 1.

67

Job Description of Instructors in a Typical CSUN/LAUSD Cohort.

Course Contemporary Administrative Leadership Legal Aspects of Educational Administration Business and Financial Aspects of Educational Administration Management of Human Resources School Community Relations Organization and Administration of Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Supervision of Curriculum and Instruction Decision-Making Simulation in Educational Administration Fieldwork

Instructor’s Background Director of School Services School District Attorney Veteran Principal Retired Director of Human Resources Director of School Services District Director of Special Education Retired Principal University Professor Director of Special Education Services

of ensuring that all staff members under their authority, including themselves, act in an ethical manner. The instructors in the Collaborative include discussions of ethical behavior in their curricula. To present and model these themes effectively while teaching the content of the courses, the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative utilizes a mix of universitybased instructors and veteran, effective school administrators. One of Levine’s (2005) criteria for an effective administrator training program is a faculty composition of scholars and practitioners expert in school leadership, up-to-date in their fields, intellectually productive, and strong roots in the academy and the schools. For an example of the background of the instructors in the Collaborative, Table 1 presents the job titles of the instructors in Terrance’s classes. A Director of School Services is an administrator who supervises a group of principals. As illustrated in this example, the students in this cohort gain exposure to many instructors who were expert in school leadership, up-to-date in their fields, and rooted in the schools. Facilitating the Transition from Teacher to Administrator An additional aspect of the curriculum is helping students make the transition from thinking and acting as a classroom teacher to being an administrator. Through our experiences, we have observed transitions in the students in the Collaborative. In the first class of the cohort, many of the

68


students talk and write from the perspective of their current role as teachers, sometimes expressing negative attitudes about administration. Some enter the program, thinking only of the units that will move them along the salary schedule, with little thought to actually becoming administrators. Over time, their speech and writing began to take on more of an administrative perspective. The students became more willing and able to perceive an issue from both the teachers’ and administration’s perspective. There are two important reasons for this transition. First, with so many of the courses being taught by practicing, expert administrators, the students are interacting more in-depth with a wider range of administrators. Second, almost all of the courses have a reflection component. In these reflections, students are required to examine their personal beliefs regarding teaching, school administration, and leadership. By engaging in these reflections, the students are activating and crystallizing their own beliefs; they begin to feel a ‘‘passion’’ for leadership and school administration. As instructors meet informally, in part-time faculty meetings, and in regular discussions among full-time professors, there is often reference made to observations of Cohort instructors moving ‘‘Teacher Talk’’ to neutral. There are stories told about the lesson or day that they can see a student ‘‘crossing the line’’ and beginning to think like an administrator. Over time, the student conversations and writings take on an administrator perspective. Students experience the ‘‘Ah Ha’s’’ (personal insight about administration and personal practices) as they examine their personal beliefs. Another transition that many of the students experience through their participation in the Collaborative is a change in their relationships with their teaching peers. Some teachers experienced negative feedback at the school site from peers, being told that they had ‘sold-out’ to administration. These students come to view their actions at the school site with greater suspicion, as if their decision to take a class in educational administration has made them a de facto administrator. As we develop programs to prepare administrators, we need to recognize that these transitions are an essential part of the preparation of administrators. We need to ensure that programs address these transitions and guide students to address these issues as they prepare the next generation of school administrators. Initial Experiences and Lessons Learned As with any program, there were some lessons we have learned and changes we have made from our initial experiences with the first cohort. In the enthusiasm to get the Collaborative up and running, the first cohorts were


69

open to anyone willing to fill out the application form and submit the fee. While this process did attract many students who have gone on to become successful administrators, there were also some people in the first cohorts who were not as interested in becoming administrators as they were in earning what they perceived as easy college units and a master’s degree for advancement on the salary schedule and hanging out with their friends. There were also some students who may have been sincere in their desire to become administrators, but were in the first 2–3 years of their teaching careers and did not have the background and experiences necessary to understand some of the theories and actions of school leadership. In later cohorts, the program has implemented several different screening processes to help identify the students with the greatest potential to become leaders. Screening processes include, either solely or in combination: letters of recommendation from principals, an interview and recommendation of a principal’s supervisor, essays outlining the reasons why the student wanted to be part of the cohort, and interviews with panels of district administrative personnel who would be teaching courses in the cohort. A second issue related to the selection of candidates was the size of the first cohort. Over 70 students were in the first cohort and two teachers teamtaught the classes. These large classes limited the amount of interaction that each student could have with a smaller class. The large class size also created some concerns, as some simple, common procedures such as passing out materials and collecting assignments became more difficult. Based on these early experiences with large cohorts, we learned that it was important to keep cohorts to 25 or fewer students. A third issue related to the need for screening is the development of effective communication skills on the part of new administrator. Some of our students are initially weak in oral and written communication skills. Being a leader, especially a leader of other adults, requires that you communicate in a direct, succinct, and polite manner in writing memos, providing directions, and in oral communication. Many of our students have little or no experience in communicating as administrators. To help students become better writers, the Collaborative emphasizes that writing is an important component of being an administrator. Students practice various authentic writing tasks they will use in the school setting, and the reflective journal gives the students the opportunity to practice these skills. Many of this new generation of Administrative Credential students lived in multiple foreign countries before coming to the United States. Many others grew up in this country, but come from homes where English was not the first language. These are intelligent, capable, motivated individuals who are

70


willing to learn and receive encouragement from their school and district administrators to seek their graduate degrees and advanced credentials. These students have a strong commitment to education; they simply need additional support to strengthen their verbal and written language skills. An Evaluation of the Cohort In his examination of university-based school leadership programs in the United States, Levine (2005) used nine criteria for excellence to evaluate the programs studied. These criteria, and how well the CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative meets these criteria is summarized in Table 2. The CSUN/ LAUSD Collaborative meets eight of the nine criteria, with one of the criteria not applicable in a practitioner-focused program (Research is high in quality, driven by practice, and useful to practitioners and/or policy makers).

SUMMARY As the demand for new school administrators continues to remain high, role of school administration continues to evolve, and the pool of potential administrators becomes increasingly diverse, those responsible for the preparation of new administrators need to develop programs that are both effective and rigorous. The CSUN/LAUSD Collaborative is one example of how to combine the resources and talents of the university and the school district to develop people who are ready to lead our students and teachers in the 21st century. As of the fall of 2006, the CSUN ELPS department serves over 1,000 Administrative Credential candidates. Of this total, approximately 200 students attend the traditional on-campus MA/Credential program, a number similar to the department’s size before the first CSUN/ LAUSD Collaborative Cohort. An additional 850 students are enrolled in cohorted collaborative programs at 14 regional locations – LAUSD Local Districts 1 through 7, as well as the Centinella, East Ventura, Glendale, Hueneme, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, and Ventura School Districts. To provide perspective on the size of the program within LAUSD, the college serves over 600 credential candidates enrolled in 27 different cohorts. The Administrative Credential Program will remain necessary at its present level as the baby boomers turn 60, and the demand to replace them with a highly competent cadre of leaders intensifies.


Table 2.

71

Levine’s (2005) Criteria for Excellence Applied to the CSUN/ LAUSD Collaborative.

Criteria

Met Criterion

Explanation

Purpose is explicit, focusing on the education of practicing school leaders Goals reflect needs of today’s leaders, schools, and children Success tied to student learning

Yes

Curriculum is rigorous, coherent, and organized to teach the skills and knowledge needed by leaders at specific types of schools and at the various stages of their careers

Yes

Curriculum integrates the theory and practice of administration

Yes

Faculty is composed of scholars and practitioners expert in school leadership, up-to-date in their fields, intellectually productive, and rooted in the academy and the schools Number of professors and fields of expertise aligned with curriculum and student enrollment

Yes

The purpose of the Collaborative is the preparation of school-based administrators. This purpose is explicitly stated at the orientation to the program and in each class. The Collaborative embodies the mission of the CSUN ELPS Department: to prepare and inspire educational leaders to maximize student learning and access, link theory to practice, support collaborative partnerships, and promote culturally responsive leadership in a diverse environment. Courses focus on specific skills required by administrators (i.e., finance, law, human resources). Rigor is assessed through performance and the department comprehensive exam administered to students in both the cohorts and on-campus programs. Courses are taught by a combination of university and senior (successful principal and higher) school district personnel. School district personnel teach courses in aspects of school leadership that they have both reputational and demonstrated expertise (i.e., school law is taught by a district lawyer). The assignment of school district personnel to teach courses within their areas of expertise helps ensure that the number of professors and fields of expertise aligned with curriculum and student enrollment and needs.

72


Table 2. (Continued ) Criteria

Met Criterion

Admissions criteria designed to recruit students with the capacity and motivation to become successful school leaders

Yes

Graduation standards are high and the degrees awarded are appropriate to the profession

Yes

Research is high in quality, driven by practice, and useful to practitioners and/or policy makers

NA

Resources adequate to support the program

Yes

Continuing self-assessment and performance improvement.

Yes

Explanation Student surveys and observations by full-time faculty help assure acceptable performance. Recruitment is by referral from principals and senior school district staff, with particular emphasis on the identification of teachers with demonstrated leadership of leadership potential. Graduation is contingent on the successful completion of a comprehensive examination assessing both the factual knowledge required by school administrators and the ability to use multiple theories to solve realistic scenarios encountered by school administrators. Students in the program earn a master’s degree and state-issued Administrative Credential necessary to serve as an administrator. The program focuses on the use of research to improve school leadership. In addition to the incorporation of current, practical research in all courses, all students are required to complete a research course. The time of LAUSD personnel and District facilities are utilized to augment the resources of the university in providing support to the Collaborative. Program assessment takes place annually. Course content is examined by the ELPS Department and revised to better meet student needs.


73

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We sincerely acknowledge the contributions of the full- and part-time faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at California State University, Northridge, especially Antonia Sims, William De La Torre, and Richard Castallo, department chairs who guided the program from dream to reality; and the unconditional support of Phillip Rusche, Dean of the Michael D. Eisner College of Education. We also are grateful for the cooperation of the many administrators in the Los Angeles Unified School District who have provided their support and guidance to the Collaborative. We also acknowledge with love and gratitude the family and friends who support us daily.

REFERENCES Borja, R. R. (2001). Growing their own crisis hasn’t hit Virginia yet, but many school officials are bracing for it. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 151(73), B1. Brooking, K., Collins, G., Court, M., & O’Neill, J. (2003). Getting below the surface of the principal recruitment ‘‘crisis’’ in New Zealand primary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 146–159. California State University. (2003). The CSU presidents task force on education leadership programs. Long Beach, CA: California State University. Daresh, J. C. (1992, December). Mentoring programs to support beginning school leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Springs, CO. Dimmitt, C. (2003). Transforming school counseling practice through collaboration and the use of data: A study of academic failure in high school. Professional School Counseling, 6, 340–349. Earley, P., Evans, J., Collarbone, P., Gold, A., & Halpin, D. (2002). Establishing the current state of school leadership in England: Research report no. 336. London: Department for Education and Skills. Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62–89. Gronn, P., & Rawling-Sanaei, F. (2003). Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 172–185. Hanks, J. A., & Velaski, A. (2003). A summertime collaboration between speech-language pathology and deaf education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36, 58–63. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved on October 15, 2006, from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf Lewis, R. E. (2004). Let knowledge serve the city: A community-based school counseling practicum. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 43, 91–104. Los Angeles Unified School District. (2005a). [Age distribution of non-schoolbased administrators on the Master Salary Schedule: September 2005]. Unpublished raw data.

74


Los Angeles Unified School District. (2005b). [Age distribution of schoolbased administrators on the Master Salary Schedule: September 2005]. Unpublished raw data. Mariage, T. V., & Garmon, M. A. (2003). A case of educational change: Improving student achievement through a school-university partnership. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 215–234. McCurry, D. S. (2002, April). Multimedia case-based support of experiential teacher education: Critical self reflection and dialogue in multi-cultural contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Nakamura, D., & Samuels, C. A. (2000). In school, changes at the top: Area faces shortage of new principals. The Washington Post, 123(203), A01. Passman, R. (2002, April). Going public: Middle-level teachers build a learning community through reflective discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2005). University-urban school collaboration in school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 8, 330–336. Sherman, W. H. (2005). Preserving the status quo or renegotiating leadership: Women’s experiences with a district-based aspiring leaders program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 707–740. Steinberg, J. (2000, September 3). Nation’s schools struggling to find enough principals. The New York Times (on-line). Retrieved on January 16, 2007, from http://select.nytimes. com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D12F73B540C708CDDA00894D8404482 Vornberg, J. A., & Davis, J. (1997, August). The Meadows Principal Improvement Program: A pre-service field based model for the preparation of principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Education Administration, Vail, CO. Williams, T. (2001). Unrecognized exodus, unaccepted accountability: The looming shortage of principals and vice principals in Ontario public school boards. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Principals Council. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Haudenschild, M. (2006, April). Using activity theory to identify contradictions and tensions in teacher professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

HARMONIOUS TEXTURE OF CULTURAL VALUES AND DEMOCRACY: PATTERNS OF SUCCESS Sadegu¨l Akbaba-Altun ABSTRACT The aim of this qualitative study was to determine what makes school principals successful. The study obtained data through interviews, both face-to-face and via e-mail correspondence. Content analysis provides the framework for analyzing the data. The data revealed that successful school principals have three different, but interrelated competencies, which are personal, administrative, and leadership competencies. The study also indicates that those successful principals gave priority to human relations, they see the school as their home where principals created a warm atmosphere, communicated effectively with all stakeholders, committed themselves to their schools, managed schools in a democratic way, solved problems on time and effectively.


77

78

SADEGU¨L AKBABA-ALTUN

INTRODUCTION The Turkish Education System, run by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE), is a centralized system, which has democratic, modern, secular, and co-education characteristics. The aims of the system are to increase the prosperity and welfare of Turkish citizens and society, to support and accelerate economic, social, cultural development in accordance with national unity and integrity toward creative and distinguished participants of a contemporary civilization (MEB, 2006). According to the Basic Law on National Education No. 1739, the Turkish educational system consists of two main divisions: Formal Education and Non-formal Education. The school system in formal education has four levels: Pre-school Education, Primary Education, Secondary Education, and Higher Education. Since this study mainly focuses on principals in elementary schools, only the elementary school system will be described below.

Elementary Education System in Turkey In Turkey, elementary education for children ranging in age from 6 to 14 is guaranteed by law and is compulsory for all citizens to attend free of charge. At these schools, students attend uninterrupted for a period of 8 years and graduates earn elementary school diplomas. The purpose of elementary education is to ensure that every Turkish child acquires the basic knowledge, skills, behaviors, and habits to become a good citizen, is raised in line with the national moral concepts and is prepared for life and for the next education level parallel to his/her interests and skills. In the academic year 2005–2006, 10,673,937 students attended and 389,859 teachers taught in 34,990 schools, each with its own building principal. The following section provides the context of school administration.

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION IN TURKISH CONTEXT Until 1998, except for some short-term in-service training, there was no special principal training in Turkey. Although, there are educational administration and supervision departments within Turkish universities, their graduates have not obtained appointments as school principals or educational administrators. Since the Turkish educational system is

Harmonious Texture of Cultural Values and Democracy

79

centralized, the MoNE appoints school principals, vice principals, and other educational administrators (Akbaba, 1999). According to policy, principals are appointed from the pool of assistant principals, vice principals, or teachers who have master’s or doctorate degrees from educational administration departments. However, in practice, ordinary teachers can receive appointments as school principals without any training or experience. The media speculates that these appointments were a result of political affiliation with the party that is presently ruling the government. The accusations have provoked discussions about the politicization of education and unfair promotion (Akbaba, 1999; C - ınkır, 2001). As a result of these discussions, the conditions of training, evaluating, and being a principal have changed. In 1998, a new regulation, which is called ‘‘regulation regarding appointment and transfer of educational administrators who are working under the Ministry of National Education,’’ was enacted requiring prospective principals to have 5-years of experience as a teacher. The new regulation mandates that each candidate must take an exam that covers the following areas: Turkish History (20%), Turkish (30%), and regulations and laws concerning public administration and educational administration (50%). Candidate teachers must achieve a minimum score of 70 out of 100 in order to pass the exam. When a teacher passes the exam, s/he gets an invitation for training in a total of 120 credit hours from the Educational Administration Department or Directorate of In-Service Training. After finishing this training program, they take a centralized exam given by the MoNE to determine who will receive an appointment to what kind of schools (i.e., A (large school), B (medium school), C (small school)). In order to work in an A type school, administrators need to get 80 points out of 100. For a B type school, they need to get 75 points out of 100. For a C type school, they need to get a minimum 70 points out of 100. One copy of the evaluation report goes to the Directorate of Personal Affairs because they can also appoint school principals from those candidates. Pre-service principals obtain the certificate after training is complete and remains valid for 5 years. This process resulted in more objective and collaborative effort between universities and public schools. Notably, some research results (e.g., Is- ık, 2003) and some practical concerns frame the implementations of new regulations. First of all, school administrator candidates became unsuccessful in the Selection Exam. That was a nation-wide breakdown. Many academicians and practitioners questioned the education system, which produced such unsuccessful results. Since there were not enough candidates to pass the exam, many schools

80


remained under the administration of deputy (substitute) administrators for an extended period of time. Later, a number of administrators were appointed to these posts either from existing school teachers or current administrators (for example, a school administrator at a C type school receiving an appointment to A type of school). Secondly, most of those who passed the exam had no administration experience and were new to the profession. They experienced difficulties in schools since they had limited administrative skills and they were relatively young among older teachers and administrators, who also did not welcome them. Consequently, they preferred to move to less-populated cities or towns, or even leave their posts. Thirdly, the in-service training programs are geared more toward theory rather than practice. In 2002, the previous regulation changed; and, in 2004 the final version of the regulation went into action. According to these current regulations, schools select administrators for two different positions: School Principals and Assistant Principals. Those who would like to become a school principal need to take a nationwide criterion-based ‘‘proficiency’’ exam. In order to qualify for placement as a school administrator, candidates should: a. have at least 2 years of experience in school administration, if requested to be appointed to type C schools, b. have at least 3 years of experience in school administration, if requested to be appointed to type B schools, c. have at least 5 years of experience in school administration, or 4 years of experience 1 year of which is in an administrative position in a type B school, if requested to be appointed to type A schools (MEB, 2004). To become assistant principals, all teachers and substitute-deputy school principals may take an ‘‘Assistant Principal exam.’’ This exam lasts 110 min and consists of 100 multiple-choice questions. Among subject topics are Turkish language and principals of official correspondence (25%), National security and principles (15%), Constitution (15%), Common World Knowledge (20%), and Rules and Regulations (25%). Those who pass the national exam go for an interview with the Directorate of National Education in candidates’ respective cities. The Directorate composes a commission from various department chairs in the directorate and one school principal from type A schools. This commission finalizes the selection and appointment of each school principal. Although research about educational administration in Turkey goes back for decades, there is no special agenda or systemization among those studies. Research and articles on school administrators and principals in Turkey after


81

2000 are mainly theories in educational administration and organizational theories (e.g., Akbaba-Altun, 2001; Aypay, 2001; To¨remen, 2000); principals’ roles (e.g., Akbaba-Altun, 2004; Do¨nmez, 2001; Tan, 2002; Turan, 2002); school culture and values (e.g., Akbaba-Altun, 2003; Atay, 2001a; Sag˘nak, 2004; S-ahin 2004; So¨nmez, 2006; Tas- , 2002); leadership (e.g., Celep, 2001; Gu¨mu¨-s eli, 2001; Korkmaz, 2006; O¨zmen, 2003; S-is- man & Turan, 2004; Turan & Ebic- liog˘lu, 2002); school administration (e.g., Akc- ay & Bas- ar, 2004; Aytac- , 2000; Bayrak & Yemenici, 2001; S- ahin, 2003); principals’ burnout (e.g., Aksu & Baysal, 2005; Babaog˘lan, 2006; Izgar, 2001;); school principals’ competencies (e.g., Do¨nmez, 2002; S- ahin, 2000); classroom management and discipline problems (e.g., Aksoy, 2001; Hos- go¨ru¨r, 2002; Tu¨rnu¨klu¨, Zoralog˘lu, & Gemici, 2001); principals’ problem-solving skills (e.g., Atay, 2001b; C - elikten, 2001; Semerci & C - elik, 2002). As is seen above, what makes school principals successful has not yet been studied alone in Turkey. The aim of this study is to determine what makes school principals successful. Specifically, it was aimed to answer the following questions: a. b. c. d.

How do successful school principals perceive themselves? In which fields predominately have they been successful? How have they achieved their goals? What competencies do those successful principals have?

METHODOLOGY This study collected data from 22 principals of elementary schools in the urban area, and from 17 principals of elementary schools in rural areas of a small city with a population of about 314,266 in the Western Black Sea Region. Elementary schools undergo an evaluation twice a year in Turkey. Elementary education inspector reports, therefore, are good sources of information, and used in this study to identify the names of the successful principals, and the specific areas in which they succeed most. In this respect, I chose 39 elementary school principals (4 female, 35 male) to participate in interviews. The average of their total work experience was 20.6 years, and the average of their work experience as a principal was 10.7 years. Seventeen of the participating school principals took the exam as their own choice while they were teachers at schools. Four of them received encouragement from their peer-teachers to become a school principal. Eleven of them obtained an appointment as a school principal by the proposal of higher administration. While three of them declared that they


82

became principals by chance, four of the school principals said that they had to become a school principal due to the existing conditions. In summary, more than half of the successful school principals became principals out of their own will. Semi-structured interviews served as the means for collecting the data. The interview sessions took place both through face-to-face meetings and via e-mail correspondences. The following questions were asked to the school principals: a. Do you perceive yourself successful? If so, in which fields you think you are successful. How did you achieve this success? Can you explain this by examples? b. Could you explain the transition process from teaching to administration? When did you decide to be an administrator? Who do you think should become an administrator from teaching? c. What should school administrators know before being an administrator? In other words, what characteristics should you or principal candidates have to become a leader? d. What are the key points to be a successful school administrator? Could you point to any strategies or skills? Content analysis provided the framework for analyzing the collected data, and the presentation of the findings uses the ‘‘HOME’’ metaphor and diagrams. In the findings section, ‘‘hanim’’ is added to the pseudonyms for females and ‘‘bey’’ is added for male participants.

FINDINGS This study explored successful school principals’ perceptions about themselves, their success areas, and in what ways they think they are successful. The research questions frame and organize this section of this chapter. Finally, I propose a model for being a successful school principal.

How do School Principals Perceive Themselves? Although all the school principals perceive themselves as successful, they express their success with a modest expression by saying ‘‘I am a little bit successful,’’ ‘‘Others say that I am successful,’’ or ‘‘I am unsuccessful in this and that and the other’’ since to praise oneself is not acceptable behavior in Turkish culture. More than half of the school principals perceive themselves as successful (21 out of 39). Others, however, stated that


83

they are successful (a) ‘‘under certain circumstances,’’ (b) ‘‘in certain areas,’’ (c) ‘‘partially successful,’’ (d) ‘‘depends on conditions apart from me, for example my teachers’ efforts,’’ and (e) ‘‘my success depends on team work in my school.’’

The principals seem to succeed in different areas. For example, while some of them succeed in providing physical and technological facilities or planning social and sporting events, some others attract attention with their success in academic fields or communication skills.

THE KEY TO SUCCESS IS TO FOCUS ON HUMAN RELATIONS The data shows that successful school principals care about human relations and highly attach importance to individuals. According to them, school principals should be relationship oriented. The following statements are some excerpts from principals’ reflections: I put effort to keep human relations apart from the hierarchical orders. Our trust relationship was established keeping the formal corresponding away from our human relationships. (16th school principal, Su¨reyya Bey) I think we need to value the people as human beings. Mutual respect, tolerance and understanding should always be maintained. Whoever the other part is, a school principal should listen to him/her and make his/her decision accordingly. Communication should be established in an effective way. (21st school principal, Arif Bey) I have a high level of relationship between my personnel, teachers, and the people around my school. I have established this successful relationship by using mutual communication techniques, analyzing people’s traditions and daily practices. I can also add that I communicate in a healthy way with my students in a face to face setting. I think I owe this to the team work (Assistant principals, teachers, PTA members, parents, school personnel, and parents). (28th school principal, Hu¨seyin Bey)

School principals go further to add that it is equally important sustaining this relationship as well as establishing it. The following statements reflect their concerns and suggestions to make this relationship sustainable. At the core of communication is human being. I do not see any obstacle to break down this communication as long as one accepts the fact that each individual is unique in nature, perfectionism is relative, valuing individuals as individuals and respect to other parties is necessary for a successful two-way communication. (37th school principal, Mustafa Bey)


84

Fig. 1 displays the patterns of principals’ interactions with stakeholders: Fig. 1 indicates that successful school principals give priority to human relations to achieve their tasks and duties successfully. In this interaction pattern, principals communicate with students, teachers, community members, and parents effectively and maintain this effective communication with a different strategy and tones. They communicate with community members and parents in a more traditional way. Principals understand their

Fig. 1.

Successful Principals’ Interaction with Stakeholders.


85

tradition and culture, and consider the tradition as a means to reach them. On the other hand, principals use a democratic voice when they communicate with teachers. When the communication is established, trust comes out both from inside and outside the school. This trust usually results in support for administrators to achieve their goals.

Competencies for Successful Principals The interview questions led the emergence of principals’ competencies from the perspectives of school principals. I categorized these competencies as personal, administrative, and leadership competencies. Personal Competencies The personal competencies are: caring, sociable, democratic, courageous, positive, self-confident, decisive, initiator, open to changes and developments, handy, hard-working, patient, permissive, articulate, fair, selfdevotion, understanding, reliable and trustworthy, open to criticism, emphatic understanding, humble, responsible, dynamic, problem solver, risk taker. Administrative Competencies Administrative competencies are: commitment to the school; knowing rules, regulations, and laws; effective communication; using technological tools; effective connection with environment; democratic management; team work; open to changes and developments; participative management. Leadership Competencies Leadership competencies are: influence on others, vision, commitment, motivation, innate capacity of management, decisiveness, articulation, effective speech, capacity for meeting needs of the school, risk taking, valuing people, dynamism, developing ‘‘us’’ feeling instead of me, keeping promises.

A MODEL FOR SUCCESS: SCHOOL IS HOME School principals equate the school structure with that of home. That is, they perceive themselves as parents (either mom or dad), students as their kids, teachers as relatives of the kids, and interestingly, real parents of the

86


students as the guests of the school. They perceive their schools as their homes. The following statements clearly indicate their perceptions: We emphasize the family environment, where respect and love take place in our school. As a result, new comers also get accepted easily and get adapted to us quickly. (10th school principal, Mehmet Bey) I always tell that we are family. Mistakes will always be made. But, our relations will make them up. (19th school principal, Orhan Bey) I consider school as a core family. I managed the harmony in my school by maintaining the harmony among family members. I try to be a model to my personnel, which gives me the success. (3rd school principal, Zu¨htu¨ Bey)

While school principals perceive their schools as their homes, they accept the parents as guests to their homes. Guests have a special role in Turkish culture. Traditional Turkish houses also include a separate Guest Room. School principals emphasize that parents are special and should always receive special treatment. School principals keep in mind their human relations in their relations with parents. I give importance to parents. When they come to my school, I try to make them feel they are treated special and treat them with respect. My communication with them is based on respect. I emphasize that this is their school and we are trespassers in order to motivate them. (11th school principal, Akif Bey) I welcomed the parents as guests to my house. I believed what they said without claiming any conditions. I accepted their verbal statements as written ones. I made them feel that I trust and believe in them. This kind of attitude became reciprocal. Once this kind of trust relationship was established, the things got easier. (24th school principal, Hayati Bey) I try to explain parents that both of us want the same thing, which is the quest of how we could take children a step further. I talk to them in person and/or in groups. I try to make my meetings in a respectful manner: neither by praising or criticizing them too much. (35th school principal, Nehir Hanım)

School principals said that they used traditional values and traditions in their communication with parents. This manner in their communication ensures their (parents’) full support. I try to be supportive to parents outside school. I write their official intention letters, I follow their papers in other organizations. I raise funds for families in need. I join their


87

funerals and wedding ceremonies. Parents were always supportive toward me, maybe for these reasons. (35th school principal, Nehir Hanım)

This study revealed that the participants perceived the school as home. They say ‘‘School is our home,’’ ‘‘School is home for understanding and knowledge.’’ Successful school principals perceive parents as guests. That’s way they take care of them. Based on what principals said, I propose the following home model (see Fig. 2). The roof represents the successful principals’ competency areas, which are personal, administrative, and leadership competencies. Principals who have those competencies create livable school atmosphere. In this atmosphere, there is a warm climate, and principals value teachers, students, and parents. Most of all, the principals devote themselves to his or her school, teachers, students, and parents. In addition, principals communicate with parents and establish good relationships within the school environment, manage their

Personal Competencies

Leadership Competencies

Administrative Competencies Principals as parents create a liveable school atmosphere. In this atmosphere: • Principals create a warm climate • Principals devote themselves to their work • Principals communicate effectively • Principals manage school democratically • Principals solve problems on time and effectively

Fig. 2.

Home Model.

88


school democratically, and finally they solve problems on time and effectively. The following section will describe these themes in detail. Creating Warm and Lively School Atmosphere In this study, one of the patterns in principals’ understanding of a school as a family is to create a warm and lively school atmosphere. This metaphor falls into two categories: principals’ expectations, and creating and maintaining such an environment. School principals have the belief that mutual understanding and respect is essential for creating a warm atmosphere in schools. They also consider it as a tool for getting things done. In addition, all stakeholders mutually share this idea for accomplishments. For example, Orhan Bey, 19th school principal said that: ‘‘I believe that if we establish a mutually respectful rapport between teachers and us [administrators], we get things done easily. Never say ‘I did it,’ but ‘we did it.’ ’’ Zeki Bey, A type school principal also emphasizes the importance of making these expectations explicit by saying ‘‘we perceive the parents as the second force and we make them feel so. We listen to them and include them in decision making process. We make them feel that we cannot make it without their support. We also make them feel that they are the owners of the school.’’ Creating such a warm and lively environment is the priority for school principals. Orhan Bey, 19th school principal defined his ‘‘first priority as to create a family atmosphere, which is based on love and respect, in their school.’’ However, they are also aware of the fact that creating such an environment alone is not enough. Moreover, principals’ efforts should focus on maintaining this warmth. As some of the principals said, they keep the organizational climate as the one in their families. In order to maintain this warmth, they ‘‘never put teachers and parents in a dense situation.’’ The suggestions to keep this environment a warm and lively one are stated as follows: Our approach to teachers, the way we address them, our understanding of managing their relations with their peers, our guidance to our vice principals on the way of managing their relations with teachers, repeatedly voice our trust in them, praising their success, providing support instead of criticism when teachers make something wrong helped us [administrators] to turn our school environment into positive one. (24th school principal, Hayati Bey)

School administrators consider ‘‘being objective and fair-minded’’ toward teachers as essential attitudes to establish and maintain this trustable


89

environment. According to them, the key points are being a caring and respectful person, as well as attentively listening to the teachers. The most important characteristic of an administrator is the trust in their teachers. Yet, they expect the similar attitude from the teachers, as well. The following statements reflect school principals’ attitudes: In our school, there is an environment where people are open to communication, have the trust and the sharing attitude among themselves. In order to provide such an environment, individuals need to feel that they are being heard and cared. (37th school principal, Mustafa Bey) All personnel like each other, respect to each other, and trust in each other. It is not only the administrator attitude, but the teachers’ attitudes also count. Thus, there is a contribution of other personnel in order to establish this positive environment. Being objective and fair-minded is essential to establish this trustable environment. (2nd school principal, Kemal Bey) I always valued my teachers and showed the respect to their rights. (13th school principal, S-ener Bey) I am together with my teachers. I do not sit in my room doors closed. I am sensitive to their family problems, because I am sensitive to their moods. When I see them worried or depressed, I invite them to my room to talk. If they need and ask for it, I give them the day off. If I can do it, I do thin in unofficial way. My teachers can request the day off easily when they need it. Outside of school, family visits frequently happen among my teachers. (1st school principal, Yener Bey)

Showing respect to parents also leads to a mutual sharing between principals and parents. According to the principals, ‘‘when parents visit them here [at school] and receive the respect, they share their thoughts and feelings directly with us.’’ During those times, principals ‘‘welcome parents as they are guests in their house.’’ 24th school principal, Hayati bey said: ‘‘I believe in whatever the parents say with no preconceived notions. I considered their words as written declarations. I firstly made them understand that I respect and believe in them. This attitude eventually turned to be a mutual respect and belief.’’ Not only do parents look forward to visits, but principals do so as well. These visits serve as tools to gain and maintain respect and trust. Female school principal, Gu¨ler hanım clearly supports this idea by saying that: ‘‘I visit the parents in villages. We make the parents who visit our school feel special. For example, we never keep them waiting; we immediately welcome them and talk with them. Such attempts eventually result in gaining their respect and trust in us.’’

90


Principals’ Commitment and Self-Devotion School principals devote themselves to their schools. Their perception of being a successful school principal includes commitment to school and sacrifice of their time and effort. Arif bey, 21st school principal, reflects this common view by claiming ‘‘the most important characteristic of an administrator is to make his/her personnel devote themselves to their organization.’’ Sometimes, school principals perceive this commitment (or devotion) as an obstacle. For example, Mert Bey, 22nd school principal says: ‘‘the only obstacle is that I cannot spend enough time with my family.’’ Another principal, Can Ege Bey adds: ‘‘I can easily say that I cannot spend time for my private life.’’ However, they always put the schools as their first priority. For example, two of the school principals stated that: Administrators should be self- sacrificing; thinking about their schools more than their homes. (12th school principal, Turgay Bey) Administrators should be among those who know about education and can devote their time to their job and keep their families as second importance. (2nd school principal, Kemal Bey)

As Orhan Bey, 19th school principal mentions, ‘‘the administrators should show his/her devotion to the school. The administrators should be an exemplar of devotion by their commitments to their duties.’’

Principals Should Use Effective Communication Skills School principals use both horizontal and vertical communication. This communication includes communication with superior posts, with other schools, with teachers, students, and parents. Successful school principals declared that they used formal and informal communication types, and preferred to build their communication on openness and trust relationship. In communication, we use formal and informal communication types. Our primary concern is to keep the communication channels open. With stakeholders in schools, we use informal ways, using more verbal communication. Instead of using vertical communication, we use horizontal one. y we use direct communication ways and help spread the information as soon as possible among the stakeholders. (9th school principal, Sadık Bey)


91

School principals also state how they maintain communication with other partners as follows: We gather together with teachers, parents and student representatives. We have at least four meetings with parents. In addition, we have information sharing meetings, both school wide and classroom wide. We publish school and wall newspaper. We display and distribute them. Thus, we offer ways for parents and students to communicate with us and others in the school. (5th school principal, S- eref Bey)

School principals emphasized that it is their priority to keep communication with parents and sustain it. The following statements are examples from them: We organize parent meetings every month. We offer transportation service to bring them to school if they needed. When needed, we call the parents and invite them to school, and they come. We also visit the villages to talk with the parents. (4th school principal, Gu¨ler Hanım) It is essential for a healthy communication to listen to and learn about our parents’ requests, wishes, needs, feelings and thoughts from the very first hand. (9th school principal, Sadık Bey)

School principals communicate with teachers by sharing the issues with them, joining activities outside school, and keeping the communication channels open. The following statements reflect their communication types: We have a successful communication between our parents and teachers. Most of the times, we share the issues with teachers in teachers’ lounge; we talk about the acceptable and unacceptable cases by keeping the communication channels and our doors open to teachers and parents. (8th school principal, Ecevit Bey) I invite my teachers to my home and I visit them at their homes. My teachers also visit each others. We gather together on certain occasions. I try to be together with my teachers. (17th school principal, Olcay Bey)

School principals stated that they are in good communication and in consultation with other schools. In addition, they also said that they could communicate with other school principals, supervisors, and their superiors about the controversial issues. They go on further to add that they could establish open and trustable communication with their superiors. I do not attempt to perform actions without informing my superiors. I follow the hierarchy in bureaucracy. I also inform my superiors about my wrong actions. (19th school principal, Orhan Bey)

92


To conclude, successful school principals emphasize the communication to be open, sincere, and transparent in order to make things easier.

Principals Manage Schools Democratically In terms of school principals’ administrative style, they claim that they are open, transparent, and encourage teachers to participate in their decisions, and empower teachers and assistant principals, and finally be transparent and open to the environment as well. One interview of principals clearly indicates their thoughts: Mutual respect is important. Stakeholders observe what is happening in a transparent manner. When openness is ensured, trust comes eventually. We do that. One should do his/her best in teaching, should follow and know about the regulations, and raise his/her voice when they observe things going wrong or are incomplete. (3rd school principal, Zu¨htu¨ Bey)

School principals also mentioned that transparency and openness in communications and administration make the things go well with the following statements. We develop our relations within community in a transparent manner. We make our teachers feel that they are important for this organization. (5th school principal, S- eref Bey) Parents’ trust to the administration also helps establish openness. When stakeholders know where and how the money is spent build up trust. (38th school principal, Bu¨lent Bey)

School principals indicate that they invite teachers into the decisionmaking process, which leads to establish a better communication, increase the respect level, and foster the productivity in their schools. I take most of the decisions together with my teachers. I monitor and follow up the outcomes. (15th school principal, Abdurrahman Bey) All personnel is part of the administration. This perception helps to establish a better communication with them and build a respectful relationship among each other. As personnel shared the responsibility with administration, they worked more efficiently and helped to boost the success in the school. (18th school principal, Ali Bey)

It is also noteworthy to mention what Mert Bey, 22nd school principal said: ‘‘I always keep my eyebrows at the same level. In other words,


93

I organize my relationship in a democratic and objective manner all the time. I maintain communication by giving all personnel – under the roof of the school – the feeling of being a part of a family and the notion of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’. ’’ School principals report that they empower the assistant principals and teachers. Orhan Bey, 19th school principal said ‘‘in terms of empowerment, I distribute my duties and responsibilities among my subordinates and do follow ups. When everybody does their duties on time, things go well. When I observe incompleteness, I interfere and help out.’’

Principals Solve Problems on Time and Effectively In their statements, school principals mentioned the importance of determining the source of problems, being persistent on solving the problems, and once its source is determined, solving them immediately. In order to reach the source of problems, school principals should be in dialogue with related partners; accept their mistakes or incomplete steps; and determine the source of the problems in order to solve it. To put it another way, they should not cover the problems. At least I do it in that way. Unsolved problems lead to bigger and bigger problems. Therefore, my purpose is not to accuse of anybody, but to solve the problems. (5th school principal, S- eref Bey) I take the necessary measures and steps to solve the problems immediately, before they become bigger ones. (13th school principal, S-ener Bey)

A school principal should determine the source of the problems and solve them effectively. A school principal should be problem solvers not problem makers.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION This study clearly indicates that administrative style of Turkish primary school principals is culturally bound, that is, the cultural values of the society that they live in directly affects the way that they manage their schools. For example, family is still very important in Turkish context, and the person who is responsible for caring and watching for the family is the father. Particularly, male school principals adopting the role of the fathers in the families try to manage the school in the way as fathers do.

94


Furthermore, they skillfully blend the cultural traits with democratic management principles such as transparency, openness and participation. Clearly, this harmonious texture leads them to success, and strengthens their relationship with others. School principals build effective communication bridges by using traditional values and communication strategies, especially with their societal and parental relations. This communication process leads to good rapport and trusting relationships. Consequently, parents trust their principals and support their policies and practices. Moreover, successful school principals are in good communication with their teachers and students at school; yet, the strategies show differences. While using traditional strategies outside, school principals tend to show more democratic and participative voice in school. This combination, using traditional and democratic voices in different contexts, harmonizes to contribute to school success. More than half of the school principals became school principals unwillingly. This shows that having willingness alone is not sufficient enough to be a successful school principal. This finding also supports the idea that the school principals’ success is so complex in nature that it is difficult to determine with a single factor or variable. One of the underlying factors in making school principals successful is that they give importance to ‘‘human relations.’’ Yu¨cel and Turan (2006) found that the most important issue for Turkish principals is the maintenance of good relationship in the school. When realizing the vision of a school, ‘‘human relations’’ should be the first step. This study revealed that school principals needed to develop personal, administrative, and leadership competencies. These competencies are in parallel with S-ahin’s (2000) Delphi study. These findings suggest the need to consider these competencies when training school principals. School principals approach problems in a persistent way and insist on finding the sources of the problems. Semerci and C - elik (2002) reported that elementary school principals solved all the problems they have encountered and did not leave any problem out. When gathering information about the problems, the school principals collected data from their personnel. Moreover, when making decisions, they tried to act in a democratic and objective manner. However, senior school principals tend to make their decisions individually, whereas younger school principals make group decisions. In conclusion, this study also shows that successful school principals blend cultural values and democratic management principles. So, culturally


95

dominated communities such as Turkey can adapt this model by blending their own cultural values with universal democratic values.

REFERENCES Akbaba, S. (1999, February). Principal training in Turkey. Ohio Principals’ Newsletter, p. 4. Akbaba-Altun, S. (2001). Kaos ve yo¨netim [Chaos and administration]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 28, 451–469. Akbaba-Altun, S. (2003). Eg˘itim yo¨netimi ve deg˘erler [Educational administration and values]. Deg˘erler Eg˘itimi Dergisi (Values Education Journal), 1(1), 7–18. Akbaba-Altun, S. (2004). Information technology classrooms and elementary school principals’ roles: Turkish experience. Education and Information Technologies, 9(3), 255–270. Akc- ay, C., & Bas- ar, M. A. (2004). I˙lko¨g˘retim okul mu¨du¨rlerinin yo¨netsel go¨revlere ayırdıkları zaman ve bunları o¨nemli go¨rme dereceleri [Elementary school principals’ time allocation for administrative tasks and their perceived level of importance]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 38, 170–197. Aksoy, N. (2001). Sınıf Yo¨netimi ve Disiplin Modellerinin Dayandıg˘ı Temel Yaklas- ımlar [Classroom management and basic approaches to discipline models]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 25, 9–20. Aksu, A., & Baysal, A. (2005). I˙lko¨g˘retim okulu mu¨du¨rlerinde tu¨kenmis- lik [Elementary school principals’ burnout]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 41, 7–24. Atay, K. (2001a). O¨g˘retmen, yo¨netici ve denetmenlerin bakıs- ac- ısından okul ku¨ltu¨ru¨ ve o¨g˘retmen verimlilig˘ine etkisi [School culture and its effect on teachers’ productivity from the views of teachers, administrators, and supervisors]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 26, 179–194. Atay, K. (2001b). Okul Mu¨du¨rlerinin C - atıs- maları C - o¨zu¨mleme Stratejilerine ilis- kin, O¨g˘retmen, Okul Mu¨du¨ru¨ ve Denetmen Algıları. [The perceptions of teachers, school principals, and supervisors on school principals’ conflict resolution strategies]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 25, 63–74. Aypay, A. (2001). O¨rgu¨tsel Analizde Teorik Gelis- meler: Yeni Kurumsalcılık [Theoretical developments in organizational analysis: New institutionalization]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 28, 501–511. Aytac- , T. (2000). Eg˘itim Yo¨netiminde Yeni Bir Paradigma: Okul Merkezli Yo¨netim [A new paradigm in educational administration: School-based management]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 21, 55–81. Babaog˘lan, E. (2006). I˙lko¨g˘retim Okulu Yo¨neticilerinde Tu¨kenmis- lik [Burnout in elementary school principals]. Doktora Tezi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Abant I˙zzet Baysal University, Bolu. Bayrak, C., & Yemenici, H. (2001). Okula Dayalı Yo¨netim [School-based management]. EJER (Eurasian Journal of Educational Research), 5(1), 21–28. Celep, C. (2001). O¨g˘renen O¨nder Olarak Okul Yo¨neticisi. [School administartor as an instructional leaders], EJER (Eurasion Journal of Educational Research), 3–4. Retrieved on October 18, 2006, from http://www.aniyayincilik.com.tr/dergi/default.asp?kategori =16&kelime=&SF=4

96


C - elikten, M. (2001). Okul Yo¨neticilerinin Problem C - o¨zme Becerileri [School principals’problem solving skills]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 27, 297–309. C - ınkır, S- . (2001). Training provision for existing and prospective primary headteachers in England. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Leeds, School of Education, England. Do¨nmez, B. (2001). Okul Gu¨venlig˘i Sorunu ve Okul Yo¨neticisinin Rolu¨ [The problem of school safety and the role of school principal]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 25, 21–35. Do¨nmez, B. (2002). Mu¨fettis- , Okul Mu¨du¨ru¨ ve O¨g˘retmen Algılarına Go¨re I˙lko¨g˘retim Okulu Mu¨du¨rlerinin Yeterlikleri [Elementary school principals’ competencies based on the perceptions of supervisors, school administrators, and teachers]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 29, 27–45. Gu¨mu¨-seli, A.I˙. (2001). C - ag˘das- Okul Mu¨du¨ru¨nu¨n Liderlik Alanları [Contemporary school principals’ leadership areas]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 28, 531–548. Hos- go¨ru¨r, V. (2002). Sınıf Yo¨netiminde Yapısalcı Yaklas- ım [Constructivist approach in classroom management]. EJER (Eurasian Journal of Educational Research), 9, 73–78. Is- ık, H. (2003). From policy into practice: The effects of principal preparation programs on principal behaavior. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12(4), 260–274. Izgar, H. (2001). Okul Yo¨neticilerinin Tu¨kenmis- lik Du¨zeyleri [School administrators’ burnout levels]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 27, 335–346. Korkmaz, M. (2006). Okul Yo¨neticilerinin Kis- ilik O¨zellikleri ile Liderlik Stilleri Arasındaki I˙liski [The relationship between school administrators’ personal traits and leadership styles]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 46, 199–226. MEB Mevzuat Bankası. (2004). Milli Eg˘itim Bakanlıg˘ı Eg˘itim Kurumları Yo¨neticilerinin Atama ve Yer Deg˘is- tirme Yo¨netmelig˘i. (MONE Regulations Bank. Ministry of National Education Institutions’ Administrators Appointment and Transfer Regulation). Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette). 11.1.2004/25343. Retrieved on August 20, 2006, from http:// rega.basbakanlik.gov.tr/ Ministry of National Education-MEB. (2006). The structure of the Turkish educational system. Retrieved on October 18, 2006, from http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/ EDUCATION-system.htm O¨zmen, F. (2003). Liderlik tarzları ve okul yo¨neticilerinin liderlik eg˘itimi [School administrators’ leadership styles and leadership education]. EJER (Eurasian Journal of Educational Research), 13, 164–172. Sag˘nak, M. (2004). O¨rgu¨tlerde deg˘erler yo¨nu¨nden birey o¨rgu¨t uyumu ve sonuc- ları [Individual and organizational harmony regarding values and its consequencies in organizations]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 37, 72–95. S- ahin, A. E. (2000). I˙lko¨g˘retim Okul Mu¨du¨rlerinin Yeterlikleri [Competencies for the Turkish elementary principals]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 22, 243–260. S- ahin, S. (2003). Okul Merkezli Yo¨netim Uygulamaları [School-based administration practices]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 36, 583–605. S- ahin, S. (2004). Okul Mu¨du¨ru¨ ve o¨g˘retmenler ile okulun bazı o¨zellikler ac- ısından okul ku¨ltu¨ru¨ u¨zerine bir deg˘erlendirme [An evaluation on school culture based on certain characteristics of school principals and teachers]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 39, 458–474.


97

Semerci, N., & C - elik, V. (2002). I˙lko¨g˘retimde Problem ve C - o¨zu¨m Yolları [Problem and problem solving strategies in elementary education]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 30, 69–80. S- is- man, M., & Turan, S. (2004). O¨rgu¨tsel semboller ve eg˘itimde sembolik liderlik [Organiational symbols and symbolic leadership in education]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 37, 96–117. So¨nmez, M. A. (2006). Meslek Liselerinde O¨rgu¨t Ku¨ltu¨ru¨ [Organizational culture in vocational high schools]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 45, 85–108. Tan, M. (2002). I˙lko¨g˘retim okulu yo¨neticilerinin halkla ilis- kiler rolu¨ [Elementary school administrators’ public relation roles]. EJER (Eurasian Journal of Educational Research), 9, 115–125. Tas- , H. (2002). Yaratıcı O¨rgu¨t Ku¨ltu¨ru¨nu¨n Olus- turumasında Yo¨netim Su¨rec- lerinin Yo¨netimi [Management of administration processes on the way of creating organizational culture]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 32, 532–555. To¨remen, F. (2000). Kaos Teorisi ve Eg˘itim Yo¨neticisinin Rolu¨ [Chaos theory and the roles of educational administrator]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 22, 203–219. Turan, S. (2002). Teknolojinin okul yo¨netiminde etkin kullanımında eg˘itim yo¨neticisinin rolu¨ [The role school administrators on the effective use of technology in school administration]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 30, 271–281. Turan, S., & Ebic- liog˘lu, N. (2002). Okul Mu¨du¨rlerinin Liderlik O¨zelliklerinin Cinsiyet Acısından Deg˘erlendirlimesi [An evaluation of school principals’ leadership characteristics and gender factor]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 31, 444–458. Tu¨rnu¨klu¨, A., Zoralog˘lu, Y., & Gemici, Y. (2001). I˙lko¨g˘retim Okullarında Okul Yo¨netimine Yansıyan Disiplin Sorunları [Discipline problems reported to the school administration in elementary schools]. Eg˘itim Yo¨netimi (Educational Administration), 27, 417–441. Yu¨cel, C., & Turan, S. (2006). Correlates in work contexts of Turkish principalship. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Fransisco, CA: April, 7–11, 2006.

THE ROLE OF THE BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR IN SPECIAL EDUCATION SUPERVISION John W. Hunt ABSTRACT One of the most challenging issues facing building level administrators is the supervision of special education programs in their schools. This chapter outlines the role of the building administrator in overseeing the implementation of special education laws and policies from the initial process of referring students for special education services through the implementation and monitoring phases of service delivery at the building level. Detailed topics include dealing with parents, regular education staff, and student privacy issues. This text examines student discipline and due process complaints as well as strategies for dealing with outside agencies, such as child welfare departments and law enforcement officials. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the No Child Left Behind Act, and its impact on special education services at the building level.


99

100

JOHN W. HUNT

INTRODUCTION Whether they carry the title of principal or assistant principal, one of the most daunting issues faced by building level administrators is the supervision of special education services in their schools. This task is especially challenging for new administrators, particularly those who do not come from a special education background. Since the passage of Public Law 94–142, or the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (1975), the demands placed upon building level administrators have increased almost exponentially. Since its inception, policymakers have amended the EHA several times to broaden the categories of disabilities covered, extend the ages of covered children, and expand the services provided. As part of the 1990 reauthorization of the EHA, Congress renamed the act the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which has also gone through a variety of revisions during the past 15 years that affect the special education issues that administrators must address in their buildings. In addition to changes to the law, the nature of students in the nation’s schools has also changed over the past few decades. Special education is one of the fastest growing programs in our nation’s educational system. During the 2001–2002 school year, the 6.4 million students with disabilities constituted approximately 13% of all students in our public school system (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The special education population has essentially doubled since the 1970s, when special education programming was first mandated. Our student population is now also much more diverse than at any time in our history. During the process of determining the appropriate range of services to offer students in our schools, diversity has often been confused with the concept of deficit. While researchers have suggested a strong link between a background of poverty, language, and racial barriers and being at risk for special education services (Baca & Almanza, 1991), building leaders need to be very cognizant of the differences between deficit and diversity. This is a dichotomy, which administrators must help make more transparent to the teachers in their buildings.

PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS Building level administrators must balance the roles of legal administrator and child advocate as they set the tone for the provision of special education services in their buildings. Some refer to this balancing act as the ethics of

The Role of the Building Administrator

101

administration (Ubben, Hughes, & Norris, 2007). The two sides of this coin are the ethic of care and of justice. According to these authors, The ethic of justice is based on a sense of fairness and equality. Individuals are treated in a uniform manner; individual differences are not always considered. An ethic of justice places much emphasis on maintaining moral rules and on recognizing and respecting the rights of others. Relations are reciprocal and mediated through rules, with rules becoming a means for minimizing hurt to others. (p. 160)

Conversely, The ethic of care forms a protective network through which principals may articulate a more effective and personally relevant special education service delivery system. An ethic of care ensures that decisions are based on ethical consideration of relationships rather than merely on rules, regulations, and a sense of fairness advocated by a strict adherence to an ethic of justice. (Ubben et al., 2007, p. 160)

Nowhere are these differing aspects of care more apparent than in area of special education. Principals and other building administrators periodically run into conflicts at the very basic level of providing students with disabilities with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Often, this issue arises very early in the process as educators make determinations regarding the least restrictive environment (LRE) in which a child is to be educated. Essentially, each child with disabilities must receive an education in a program designed to meet his or her educational needs while being educated with peers without disabilities in the regular educational environment to the maximum extent appropriate. Facing the need to serve many students and the desire to maintain discipline, principals frequently find that some teachers are anxious to move students into more restrictive educational settings without first examining less restrictive means of addressing the specific educational needs of these students. While this may be human nature, it certainly flies in the face of the intent of the law in this area. A major contributor to this scenario is that many teachers do not have a clear idea of the options available to them before referring struggling youngsters for special education services. These alternative or adaptive strategies simply do not exist in the toolkits provided to many of these teachers. Building administrators should ensure that an intervention checklist is available to all teachers. If such a list does not exist in the building, or in the district, the administrator can work with the special education staff to develop such an instrument for teacher use. The administrator could also contact other schools, school districts, or special education cooperatives to review any intervention checklists that they may have in use. At the very least, the intervention checklist should include a

102

JOHN W. HUNT

variety and range of suggestions in the following types of areas: environment, assignments, testing adaptations, organizational skills, instruction/innovation, and behavior. Many times, the regular classroom teacher just needs reassurance when dealing with struggling students. While some might think of an intervention checklist as a crutch, in actuality, it is just another tool for use by the classroom teacher. Perhaps the classroom teacher is relatively new to the profession, or the teacher may have an especially challenging class. Regardless of the reasons for the teacher’s trepidation, a behavioral intervention checklist may be just what it will take to give the regular classroom teacher the confidence to move forward with these children. In addition, the alternative or adaptive strategies just mentioned should be in the repertoire of all teachers, not just those in special education. To the extent that the building level administrator can ensure that all teachers are implementing a variety of intervention techniques, the stronger the instructional program will be in that administrator’s building. In order to help guarantee that students are only considered for special education services in a considered and thoughtful fashion, the administrator must be certain that a formal child-study process exists in his or her building. The elements of a good child-study process include early parent involvement, widespread involvement of appropriate certificated school staff members, and administrative monitoring throughout the review. The building administrator must ensure that the referring teacher has first attempted an adequate number of the alternative and adaptive strategies just mentioned before moving forward to the next step. When it becomes evident that a particular student may be moving toward placement in special education, the responsible administrator must remain intimately involved throughout the process. Gone are the days when school administrators could designate this responsibility to a qualified special education teacher. Given the rise in both the risks and costs of providing these programs, principals can no longer afford to step out of the loop regarding special education decisions. The building level administrator is the one individual at the school level who will have the best view of the overall big picture in terms of available resources.

MONITORING THE PROCESS While the purpose of the child-study process is to provide the student in question with a workable educational program, schools can deliver the


103

needed services in a variety of ways. In this era, it is not unusual for parents and/or guardians to come to staffing meetings with a particular educational program in mind. Frequently, such programs use facilities that are outof-district, and often cost much more than providing services using district space and personnel. Moreover, advocates representing these costly external programs often accompany these parents to special education staffing meetings for the sole purpose of building more support for that particular program or approach. Many times, such advocates speak with a voice of authority, which can be intimidating to classroom teachers. The absence of a building administrator from these staffing not only limits the perspective of the discussion, but can also lead to unnecessarily costly decisions. Once made, these decisions are binding upon the school and the district. Even when parents and/or advocates do not push for a particular program or service, classroom teachers and special educators may gravitate toward a program, which is either impractical or unduly expensive. Once again, since the building level administrator has the best overall view of the resources and options available, that individual should be present to participate in the deliberations over each child’s educational placement. Ultimately, the primary reason for the building administrator to stay involved in the daily activities of the special education program and with the special needs children in the school is that such activities are outward expressions of the building leader’s commitment to special education. Only through the commitment of the building leader to special education programs and children will the staff totally accept special education youngsters as ‘‘our kids’’ rather than ‘‘those kids.’’ Recognizing the need to use resources efficiently and effectively, administrators would do well to remember that parents often know their children better than any school employee. Principals should listen to and consider the views and opinions of parents throughout the placement process. It is also possible for advocates to play a useful role in the educational placement process. There are times when they can help convince a parent or guardian that the program the school is proposing is one that makes good educational sense for the child in question.

SECTION 504 PLANS If all participants follow proper procedures throughout the child-study process, it is not unusual for the results of a child-study team meeting to result in some sort of special education program for the child in question.

104

JOHN W. HUNT

In some occasions, it may be determined that the student does not qualify for special education services. In such instances, however, it is not unusual to determine the need to closely monitor the child’s educational process for a period of time. Another possibility, which may arise out of the child-study process, is the determination to place a student on a Section 504 plan. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights law that prohibits any educational institution that receives federal funds from discriminating in the delivery of programs and activities, employment, and access to facilities (Underwood & Webb, 2006). Basically, Section 504 applies to any student with either a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, or who is regarded as having or has had such impairment. Many times, Section 504 plans protect students who do not qualify for special education services. Common examples would be to provide reasonable accommodations, which would enable impaired children to participate in extracurricular activities, physical education, or field trips. While the development and implementation of a Section 504 plan does not require the development of an individualized education plan (IEP), it does require the notification of the parents. Although not required by law, it is a wise practice to develop a Section 504 Accommodation Plan for use with 504 students. This will help guarantee that all involved staff properly monitor the progress of such students and appropriately deliver the promised services.

STUDENT RECORDS AND PRIVACY Once placed in special education programs, building level administrators still have many responsibilities regarding these students. One of the ongoing issues that administrators must monitor is that of student and family privacy. Passed in 1974, the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of educational records. While not limited to special education legislation, this law does apply to all students including those receiving special education services. FERPA gives parents and eligible students the right to review and inspect their educational records. Parents and eligible students also have the right to request that schools make corrections to their educational records if they believe that the information is inaccurate or violates their privacy rights. Beyond FERPA, administrators must take special precautions when dealing with special education records. For instance, schools must be careful to maintain special education files that are separate from other school


105

records. Also, schools must closely monitor and control access to special education records even among school personnel. Only those school personnel with authorized direct access to the child, or other individuals to whom the parents have given written permission for access, such as an outside psychologist, may examine the files. The district records custodian should keep a log of all requests to view the files including copies of all actual written requests. Schools should avoid making reference to special education files within a student’s other educational records. It is permissible to code the regular education folder so that authorized school employees know that a special education file exists, but this should be done in a fashion that is not obvious to the casual reader of the file. In addition to protecting written records and files, building administrators also have an obligation to set the tone for restricting ‘‘lounge talk’’ about students. Teachers have a propensity to talk about students, often forgetting that many schools have parent and community volunteers present. There have even been situations in which teacher talk regarding students has been overhead in public places, such as restaurants. While this type of teacher talk is not appropriate in the case of any student, such talk is fraught with difficulties when the conversation regards special education youngsters. Building leaders must continually reinforce the concept that student privacy is important and only those professionals with a legitimate need to know should have access to such sensitive information. This will not necessarily be a popular stance among staff members, but it is absolutely the correct approach for any administrator to employ. When a building leader is consistent in this area, staff members will eventually become more accepting of the need to protect student privacy. The goal is for each building to establish a culture in which all employees value and actively work to maintain student privacy.

WORKING WITH PARENTS AND ADVOCATES A major skill set required for building level administrators is the ability to work harmoniously with the parents of special education children. Often, the very act of having a child identified as a special education youngster comes as a shock to parents. At the very least, such identification leads to some level of stress or even resistance on the part of parents. Ultimately, parents and guardians generally fall into different modes of operation when dealing with schools regarding their special education children. A majority of the parents with special education students are

106

JOHN W. HUNT

supportive of the school and its programming for their children. Such parents attend the required meetings and do their best to support the school’s efforts and recommendations on the home front. They speak positively about the school in front of their children and usually have faith that the school is doing what is best for their youngsters. These parents believe in establishing and working to maintain a partnership with the school. They are generally accepting of their child’s needs, and they respect what the school is doing to overcome the deficits exhibited by their child. These parents are relatively easy for the administrator to work with on a regular basis. While a majority of the parents of special education students are supportive of the school, and its efforts, it may not seem so when the principal must deal with the smaller groups of parents that are not so supportive. A few parents are unsupportive through their passivity. These are the non-responsive parents. These are the parents who do not reply to meeting notices or do not respond to telephone calls. They do not attend scheduled meetings. At times, these parents must work, or they may not have transportation to attend meetings. Childcare may also be an issue with some parents. Sadly, in other cases, a small set of parents seems to have no interest in the education of their children. In the case of the non-responsive parent, it may be possible to find another relative or responsible adult who is willing to serve in loco parentis and become an advocate for these children. In the most extreme cases, it may become necessary to get the state child welfare agencies involved with families. At the very least, agencies may consider the unwillingness or inability to support the educational needs of their children as a form of neglect. While non-responsive parents are frustrating to deal with, aggressive parents typically make the building leader’s life more stressful. Aggressive parents often fall into two categories. One category of aggressive parents is those in a state of denial regarding the abilities and needs of their children. These denying parents are often unable to accept the possibility that their children have disabilities. Unfortunately, a few parents in this category see the child’s disability as a reflection upon themselves as parents or as individuals. In such cases, it may be human nature to blame their children or the school for the educational struggles encountered by their children. When the denying parent blames the child, he or she will often place impossible conditions or demands upon the struggling child. The parent may force the child to do hours of homework each evening, often at the expense of playtime and participation in fun activities. In terms of the school, parents in denial will frequently refuse to sign for necessary diagnostic testing, attend meetings, or sign documents that result from those meetings that they


107

attend. Whether the denying parent manifests behaviors directed toward the child, the school, or both, these families need parent education. The building leader needs to reassure the parent that the child in question can continue to make educational progress. Leaders must also emphasize the importance of teamwork with these parents. By working together as a unit, the home and school can ensure that each child will make steady progress and improvement. Administrators and teachers must encourage the parent to recognize and celebrate small achievements on the part of the child. The building administrator must see patience as a virtue when dealing with these parents. Perhaps the most difficult type of aggressive parents for the building administrator are those who are openly belligerent regarding the special education needs and programming of their children. These parents will challenge the testing and assessments done by the school staff and may wish to interject their own independent assessment results into the proceedings. Administrators should expect that these demanding parents will be unhappy with the educational programming proposed by the school, and they may often propose more elaborate and expensive programs than those recommended by the school staff. It is not unusual for these parents to rely on an advocate in their quest for a particular, specialized program. In some districts, the same advocates may show up with different parents, repeatedly promoting a particular program. The ironic element in this regard is that the programs promoted by these demanding parents and advocates are often more restrictive than those being proposed by the school. While this runs counter to the concept of providing an appropriate educational program in the LRE possible, school leaders may find it difficult to convince these belligerent parents to accept in-district alternatives. It is easy for the negative attitude displayed by the belligerent parent to draw in the building administrator. It is human nature for emotions to continually rise as the parent or advocate makes more and more outlandish claims and recommendations. While difficult to implement, the best advice possible for the building administrator in dealing with aggressively belligerent parents is to remain calm. Do not feed the negativity displayed by the parents. Remain calm and keep the end objective in mind, which is the correct educational programming for the child. The second piece of advice in dealing with this type of parent is for the building administrator to be willing to call for reinforcements from the district office or from the special education cooperative, if one exists. Many districts and cooperatives have special education coordinators and directors that are very experienced at dealing with aggressive parents.

108

JOHN W. HUNT

DUE PROCESS COMPLAINTS In spite of the best efforts by school personnel, there are times when parents and school officials come to an impasse regarding the appropriate educational programming for the child. When parents and the school are unable to come to resolution on their own, the IDEA mandates a formal set of procedures to resolve the conflict. Among these procedures are a resolution meeting, opportunity to meet with a disinterested party, voluntary mediation, and a formal due process hearing all of which lead to a legally binding, written agreement when successful. While it is possible that the issues involved can be resolved via the voluntary mediation process, mediation cannot delay due process. When mediation does not work, either party can file a written complaint with the state education agency. This filing leads to a highly prescribed, and often expensive, resolution process. A due process hearing is the next step in this process, when mediation fails, or if the mediation step is skipped. A due process hearing is a process wherein a party alleges an issue relating to the identification, evaluation, or education of a child, or the provision of an FAPE for the child. Due process hearings are formal, quasijudicial forums in which parties to a dispute present arguments and evidence to a hearing officer (Virginia Department of Education, 2007). There are several things for the building leader to keep in mind regarding due process complaints. First, when it becomes apparent that a situation may be heading toward a due process complaint, the building leader should inform either the director of special education or the district superintendent. It is also critical to inform the school district or special education cooperative attorney as well as the district’s insurance carrier. It is important to notify the attorney as early as possible because district will have only a short time to gather materials and supporting data in the event that parents file a complaint. The district must also notify its insurance carrier regarding due process complaints given the high costs if the school receives an order to pay compensation. While due process complaints are relatively rare, it is extremely important to follow all procedures and timelines in such cases. Ultimately, if either side in the dispute is unhappy with the end results of the due process complaint, formal legal action remains a possibility.

DISCIPLINE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS Student discipline is one of the primary responsibilities of the building administrator. Students classified as special education pose particular issues for the administrator in this arena. The first question in any disciplinary


109

situation is to determine whether the student has an IEP. If the answer is in the affirmative, you must ask whether or not the IEP includes a behavior intervention plan. If a behavior intervention plan indeed exists, then the school must follow the procedures contained within the IEP. Generally, a school district may suspend a student and discontinue educational services for a period up to 10 days. The law does not regard such short-term suspensions as a change in placement for special education purposes. The building administrator must remember that unlike students not classified as special education, the 10-day limit is a cumulative total for students with IEPs. Once the total days of suspension for an IEP student exceeds 10 days in any year; this may constitute a change in placement for the student. It is permissible to suspend an IEP for a total of more than 10 days if the behavior leading to the discipline was not a manifestation of the child’s disability. The key question is whether it is the child’s disability that has led to the undesirable behavior? If the behavior is a manifestation of the child’s disability, then the school must utilize the provisions of the IEP to address the behavior. If the behavior is not a manifestation of the child’s behavior, then the school can discipline the special education youngster in the same manner as any other student. The 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA made several changes to the manifestation determination process in an effort to reduce the number of students whose misbehavior is an element of their disability. Schools must now hold a hearing to determine whether the behavior is a manifestation of the disability within 10 school days of any decision to change a placement for disciplinary reasons. Previously, the manifestation team included the original IEP team and other qualified personnel. The membership of the new manifestation team draws the school district personnel, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team. This gives the district more flexibility in staffing a manifestation team. Under the 2004 IDEA reauthorization, the manifestation determination standard has changed in favor of school districts. Now, the student’s disability must be the ‘‘cause’’ of the misbehavior, ‘‘have a direct and substantial relationship’’ to the misbehavior, or be the ‘‘direct result’’ of the school’s failure to implement the student’s IEP. In the past, any minor and even tangential violation of the student’s IEP could have led to a manifestation determination. For example, the school’s failure to allow a student to utilize a particular instructional aid called for in the IEP could have led to a positive manifestation decision for a student involved in a fight. Now, there must be a strong and direct relationship between the school’s failure and the student’s misbehavior.

110

JOHN W. HUNT

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS There are cases when a special education student is so out of control that the behavior mandates immediate action on the part of the building administrator. These instances typically involve aggressive and physical behavior on the part of the student toward other students, and perhaps even school staff members. Teachers may fear for the safety of their other students, or for their own personal welfare. It is possible for the teachers involved and their colleagues to place great pressure on the building administrator to take immediate action regarding students who exhibit such aggressive behaviors. One possible avenue of relief in such situations is placing students in an interim alternative educational setting. The previous version (1997) of the IDEA restricted use of this punishment to students who committed weapons or drug offenses. However, under the new version of the IDEA, school districts may also ask a hearing officer to remove a student to an alternative educational setting if a student is dangerous to himself or others. Districts now have the right to automatically place students in an alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days for any of the following offenses: a weapon offense, a drug offense, or if the student inflicts serious bodily injury to another person. In each of these three scenarios, the results of the manifestation determination are irrelevant and the student must remain in the alternative educational setting for the duration of the 45 school day period.

WORKING WITH OUTSIDE AGENCIES Another area of responsibility for building administrators is the necessity to work with outside public agencies. The two most common agencies of this type are public welfare or human service agencies, and law enforcement agencies. In both cases, these agencies will have some degree of direct access to the schools in our communities. Each of these agencies will have a degree of authority and legal responsibility in their dealings with schools. In some instances, their power will supersede that of the building administrator. Perhaps one of the most common examples of outside agency involvement in the school setting is the investigation of child abuse allegations. Child welfare agencies often find the school to be the appropriate location in which to conduct initial interviews. Generally, child welfare agencies have the authority to interview students in a private setting, without the school administrator being present. In some


111

instances, child welfare agents may even take students into custody from the school setting. In a similar fashion, most cases of school involvement with law enforcement agencies involve requests by police officers to interview students in the school setting. Once again, officers may choose to conduct these interviews in private. If officers wish to remove a student from the school setting, the building administrator should insist that the officer first take custody of the student in question. School and state regulations regarding the questioning of students by outside agencies, as well as the practice of taking students into custody, may vary from locale to locale. It is incumbent upon the building administrator to be familiar not only with district policies regarding such situations, but also with all applicable state laws. A key ingredient for more positive relations with outside agencies in any setting is to establish good relationships with key personnel in all instances. This is especially appropriate in the case of law enforcement agencies. It is always good to enjoy a positive relationship with the local police department. Some schools are fortunate enough to have the services of a school resource officer. These individuals are actual police officers assigned to a particular building, or buildings, for the academic school year. These officers typically return to other duties during the summer. When a school resource officer is present; many of the difficulties previously mentioned simply do not arise. In some states, it is possible, and even desirable, to establish interagency agreements with outside agencies, such as the police. Such agreements essentially establish the guidelines, which control the working relationships between the signatories to the agreement. While the relationships between schools and outside agencies have an impact on all students, the implications for special education youngsters may be particularly critical. The greatest area of peril would seem to be in the area of student rights and privacy. In addition to FERPA, many states have student rights and privacy acts which parallel FERPA, and which may contain particular provisions, which specifically address special education issues. The building administrator must be aware of all such guidelines.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND In January, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. While the NCLB applies to the educational achievement and progress of all public school students, it

112

JOHN W. HUNT

contains elements, which add another layer of responsibility as building administrators deal with special education issues. One of the provisions of NCLB is that students at particular grade levels must be tested in specific subject areas to determine whether they, and consequently their schools, are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward achievement goals established by each state and approved by the federal government. Special education students are not exempt from these standards. One of the mandates of NCLB is that 95% of all students with disabilities must participate in this testing, with or without accommodations. Alternative assessments for students with IEP’s are possible. However, alternative assessments of children with disabilities must meet the respective states’ challenging academic content standards and with the requirements of NCLB. The school’s calculation of AYP as proficient can count the positive scores of up to 1% of the students tested using alternative assessments. Given the limitations, schools generally reserve using the alternative assessment for students with substantial cognitive impairments. If the school tests more than 1% of all students under the alternative assessment, their proficient scores will not count toward meeting AYP goals. Another NCLB issue, with implications for special education, is the issue of highly qualified teachers. Historically, some areas of the country have found it difficult to attract properly certificated special education teachers. Certainly, the implementation of NCLB has only helped to exacerbate this situation. While the states have the responsibility of determining proper qualifications for teachers, state plans must have federal approval, which many states find it difficult to attain. Under NCLB, the federal government requires that special education teachers have certification in all the areas they teach, not just the certificate for working with special needs students. This can pose significant problems at the high school level. While some existing special education teachers have achieved the highly qualified designation under High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) procedures, others have not. The HOUSSE procedures provide a mechanism whereby states can provide alternative means for teachers to obtain highly qualified status and essentially be ‘‘grandfathered’’ in terms of their qualifications (Illinois State Board of Education, 2007). According to NCLB guidelines, if students receive instruction from a less than highly qualified teacher for more than 4 weeks, then the school must send a letter notifying the parents. From the perspective of the building administrator, this causes morale issues on at least two fronts. Certainly, receiving an evaluation of less than highly qualified may negatively affect the teachers labeled with this designation. Also, this type of issue can certainly lead to


113

public relations issues in the community. In either case, the building leader will have work to do in order to overcome the negative feelings generated.

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, while the supervision of special education can obviously be challenging for the building administrator, it can also be rewarding. An administrator can gain a strong sense of accomplishment when the special education students in his or her building are making steady progress. It will not be unusual for the building administrator to strongly reinforce the ethic of care when dealing in the special education realm. It will take all of the administrator’s skill to deal with staff, parents, outside agencies, and a whole host of regulations while dealing with these youngsters. Ultimately, the administrator needs to remember that a vast majority of the students designated as special needs will go on to lead fulfilling and productive lives. It may just take a bit more administrative effort in the case of these students. We typically appreciate those achievements that come with the greatest effort. The success of our special education students should be no exception to this sentiment.

REFERENCES Baca, L., & Almanza, E. (1991). Language minority students with disabilities. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1975). Pub. L. No 94–142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975). Illinois State Board of Education. (2007). Message regarding NCLB/HOUSSE. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from www.isbe.net/board/archievemessages/special_message_ HOUSSE_NCLB.pdf Ubben, G., Hughes, L., & Norris, C. (2007). The principal: Creative leadership for excellence in schools (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, p. 158. United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Service. (2004). Statistics of public elementary and secondary school systems. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/pdf/table52.pdf Virginia Department of Education, Division of Special Education & Student Services. (2007). Special education due process and complaints. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/dueprocess.html

EVALUATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS: PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRINCIPAL Pamela Hudson Baker and Frederick J. Brigham ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter is to describe the basic ideas behind human and social capital, relate those ideas to teacher education and staffdevelopment activities, and then summarize key literature regarding faculty evaluation methods with an eye toward building the human and social capital within schools. The probable outcome of targeted professional development for special educators is enhanced collective efficacy across the entire school community. The chapter concludes with the application of situational leadership, a model that appears to have particular utility toward building the human and social capital of a school.

INTRODUCTION An old saw proclaims: ‘‘Eventually, each community ends up with the teachers it deserves.’’ It typically refers to school initiatives that drive Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 115–130 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10007-X

115

116

PAMELA HUDSON BAKER AND FREDERICK J. BRIGHAM

teachers away from needy communities. It may also apply to communities with schools that develop the capacity of their teachers to support their students and solve the educational problems that face the schools. Such a capacity-building orientation is wise given the diversity of life in American communities and the lack of agreement about the essential components and nature of a ‘‘good school’’ (Cuban, 2000). The concepts of human capital and social capital involve building the capacity of people within a community to perform operations, solve problems, or engage in other forms of productivity. Human capital refers to properties of individuals and social capital refers to the connections among individuals – ‘‘social networks and norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’’ (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). Human and social capital operate in a manner that is similar to the more traditional forms of capital (e.g., bricks and mortar, financial, or machinery) that is essential for success. We suggest that both human capital and social capital are crucial to the educational opportunities that we wish our schools to provide.

Human and Social Capital in Special Education In recent years, concern has grown over the number of new and promising teachers, particularly special educators, who begin their careers and quickly leave the profession (Billingsley, 2005). Considering human capital as the skills of the individual teacher and social capital as the social network that supports the teacher provides some insight into the question of why some teachers have long and effective careers and other equally promising educators rapidly exit the profession. Billingsley (2005) suggested that the working conditions teachers face (e.g., job match, salary, induction, administrative support, and school climate) directly impact their decisions to engage in or exit the profession altogether. It is unlikely that most educators teach in the kind of schools that they themselves attended. The exodus of new teachers from the profession suggests that most educators perceive the differences in the schools where they work and those that they attended to be less than desirable. Levine (2006) alluded to this problem noting that 62% of teacher education alumni reported being unprepared for the realities of today’s classroom environments. Many of these teachers are likely to leave the profession because they feel poorly equipped to solve the problems that they face in their classroom and also because they feel inadequately supported in dealing with the challenges of contemporary classroom instruction (human and social capital, respectively).

Evaluation and Professional Development of Special Education Teachers

117

Having a corps of competent educators who possess the ability and willingness to identify and solve the educational problems facing the community is one important element of the community. Those who doubt this assertion should ask a realtor about the impact of the perceived quality of neighborhood schools on property values in the community. Strongly and positively tied to economic and social well being, education is one key indicator of human and social capital development (Cheng, 2001; Domina, 2006; Lucarelli, 2004; Psacharopoulos & World Bank, 1995). Educational attainment has often served as a proxy for systems believed to maintain social class distinctions (Collins, 1979). In this view, a system that is only loosely related to actual performance exacerbates the disadvantages of individuals from lower class backgrounds and those with disabilities. In other words, this view holds that the outcome of the contest is set; not by how well one plays, but by one’s starting position. However, an alternative view of human and social capital suggests that education, employment, and worker compensation are a competition for scarce resources that are rewarded on the merit of performance. As with most arguments, the truth probably contains elements of both positions, but research in this area (e.g., Farkas, 1996; Neckerman & Kirschenman, 1991) suggests that advantages are more likely to accrue to those with a favorable set of skills and habits rather than simply from social status or disability level. Schools can teach and students can learn skills and habits; however, social advantage and the presence of a disability are less alterable by educational intervention. Thus, the development of human and social capital is crucial to leveling the playing field for less privileged members of society as well as students with disabilities. Ogbu (2003) and Farkas (1996) among others document that both schools and families habits and styles directly as well as indirectly through larger elements of society transmit skills. We suggest that similar patterns of transmission affect the performance of teachers in American schools, and thus, are worthy of consideration with regard to the staff-development activities and consideration of the culture of the school district or building administrative staff. A recent trend in social migration in the United States reveals congregation of human capital in some areas and depletion of human capital in others (Domina, 2006; Xue, 2004). Schools are strongly affected by this trend in that the pool of highly talented educators is much larger in areas in which social capital accumulates, and often quite depleted in sparsely populated areas or in communities with highly transient or impoverished populations (areas with depleted social capital). The depleted

118


supply of special educators, in turn, limits the ability of the schools to transmit forms of social capital to the children they serve. In order for schools to adequately meet their goals, they should consider the principles of human capital development for their instructional staff as well as for their students (Becker, 1975; Bills, 2003; Navickas, 2005; Pastorino, 2005). Therefore, it is most productive to view teacher evaluation and professionaldevelopment activities in terms of human and, subsequently, social capital development (Gute, 2005).

Teacher Evaluation and Professional-Development Practices Teacher evaluation in the United States is nearly as old as public education itself. Starting in 1654, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colonies required the elders of a town, as well as the overseers of Harvard University, to insure that no teachers were hired who were unsound in the faith or scandalous in their lives (Marks, Stoops, & King-Stoops, 1985, emphasis added). The assumption appears to be that ‘‘good people’’ will make good teachers. As American schools evolved, school leaders realized that there is more to being a good teacher than simply being a good person. Subsequently, they adopted personnel evaluation ideas from other forms of endeavor, primarily business and industry. During the 1900s, the ‘‘efficiency movement’’ that swept through manufacturing moved into the schools with the result that many implemented a cost–benefit approach to teacher evaluation (Davis, 1964). In a cost–benefit approach, teachers and schools are similar to factories or machines. Given the appropriate inputs, one could reasonably expect demonstrable outputs. Research regarding the methods based on the efficiency model suggested that the results were often haphazard, unreliable and less than helpful to schools and communities in judging the quality of their schools and school personnel (Rosell, 1991). By the 1970s, the model of ‘‘clinical supervision’’ (Cogan, 1972) had come to dominate practices in teacher evaluation. Clinical supervision is a model wherein supervisors working with clients construct individualized learning plans to ensure that the teacher, counselor, or therapist develops and employs optimal outcomes for the clients (Leddick, 1994). Lowe and Brigham (2000) reviewed the models of supervision available as well as the training and backgrounds of the administrative personnel most often responsible for evaluation of special educators. They noted that the application of general models of teacher evaluation across special education and general education settings was an increasingly common phenomenon.


119

Justification for such practices comes in the form of statements such as ‘‘students are students’’ or ‘‘good teaching is good teaching’’ (Boone & Avila, 1992). In their review, however, Lowe and Brigham (2000) suggested that principals who possessed neither experience nor training in special education most often carried out the evaluation procedures. Research indicates that teacher training programs for special educators and general educators, while overlapping in many areas, have a number of critical distinctions (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005). Lowe and Brigham (2000) concluded that the application of general education models of supervision to special education would be an unprofitable enterprise. Hess and Brigham (2001) considered the impact of special education regulation with regard to a number of features of one state’s educational system. They concluded that special education most often uses a compliancedriven model of evaluation rather than an outcome-driven model. Howard (1995) noted that stagnation and ineffectiveness most often characterize the compliance models commonly associated with bureaucratic institutions. Therefore, as important as legal compliance is to professional practice in special education, compliance models of evaluation alone are unlikely to lead to improved outcomes for students. Although education of individuals with disabilities is important enough to have generated its own federal law and regulations, there are no provisions regarding staff evaluation in the federal statute (Bateman, Bright, O’Shea, O’Shea, & Algozzine, 2007). Bateman et al. suggested administrators employ a clinical supervision model based on meeting the goals of the students’ individual education plans (IEPs). However, two issues seem problematic with regard to that suggestion. First, the quality of individual IEPs is highly variable (Smith, 1990) and the inspection of their considerations for the evaluation process reduces to a compliance-driven checklist. While a compliance model is a logical result of the litigious climate in which special education mandates operate, it is not associated with the kind of human and social capital development that is required of effective school leadership. In our search of evaluation and staff-development models with empirical validation, we found few validated for special educators and none clearly aimed at measuring anything beyond legal compliance. As scientists, we would prefer to follow the trail of scientific validation, but we are also advocates for our children, their teachers, and their schools. Scientists are bound to remain within the domain of what is known, but advocates have the responsibility of trying to solve problems in the absence of complete knowledge (Brigham, Gustashaw, & Brigham, 2004). In the absence of complete knowledge of what other models to try, we suggest

120


Situational Leadership Theory as a potentially useful model for building human and social capital in the schools.

The Role of the Administrator In the previous section, we concluded that current models of special education teacher evaluation and professional development focus on regulatory compliance. However, because teacher attrition is such a large problem, particularly in special education, these models do not appear to be highly effective in producing the sort of human and social capital that our schools require. While we acknowledge the importance of compliance with regulations and school policies, we suggest that a more individualized process of developing skilled educators may be necessary. In the twenty-first century, leaders in educational settings are assigned the responsibility to facilitate the effective education of all students in increasingly diverse environments. Thus, school principals are embroiled in a highly challenging and complex situation. Staff members expect them to be inspirational leaders, while simultaneously being effective managers of an expansive range of responsibilities. Fullan (2000) noted that contemporary administrators are often overwhelmed and pressured to deliver instant solutions rather than sustainable innovation that could more effectively address the need for internal growth. However, Marsh (2000) suggested that an increased focus on accountability for value-added student achievement forces administrators to maintain a results-driven environment. In this regard, McLeskey (2005) reported that research consistently indicates that teachers make the greatest impact on student achievement; however, the ways that school leaders can enhance teacher performance as a means to enhancing student achievement are unclear. In one view, the role of the school administrator is to make everyone else’s job easier to do (Baker, 2004). To the extent that this is correct, special education teachers must become a focal point of the organization if schools are to adequately address the needs of all learners, because special educators deal with the more marginalized students in the school population. In order to do so, principals must devise methods for supporting a teacher population with disparate skills in order to enhance teacher efficacy. We suggest that a more contextually embedded approach should supersede the compliance model in order for the necessary human and social capital development to occur. In essence, this indicates that principals are responsible for cultivating effective special educators, which enhances the


121

social capital of the school so that students can meet achievement goals that have been established both internally and externally. McLeskey (2005) supported the importance of the development of new special educators by stating that even when teachers have been fully trained, a new special education teacher needs 4 to 6 years to emerge as a proficient teacher. Yet, over 50% of special educators exit the profession or switch to general education within their first 4 years in the classroom (McLeskey, 2005). Many frequently cite a lack of support from administrators as the reason for attrition in special education (Billingsley, 2005). Administrative support also appears to have a relationship to teacher self-efficacy as administrators facilitate the professional-development process. Senge (2006) suggested that attaining a level of personal mastery (human capital) is a critical element in any effective learning organization (social capital). Learning organizations are interdependent environments where sustainable actions are cultivated so that reaction to crisis is not what guides the evolution of the organization. Consideration of schools as learning organizations would naturally lead one to explore the role of teacher efficacy in the achievement of positive outcomes for the entire school. The literature regarding problem solving and cognitive performance suggests that, when tasks are easy, individuals complete them with highly automatized processes that are unavailable for inspection. Conversely, when tasks are very difficult, few mental resources are available for reflection and thinking about strategies to process the problem (Berry, Gilhooly, Keane, Logie, & Erdos, 1990; Tai, Loehr, & Brigham, 2006; Taylor & Dionne, 2000). Our experience confirms that this logic applies to the challenges teachers face across their careers, and particularly in the early years. Too little challenge provides no reason to grow as a teacher; and when faced with too great a challenge teachers are too overwhelmed to profit and grow from their experience. However, given optimal conditions, teachers can develop a strong sense of self-efficacy that can carry them through the more challenging aspects of the profession.

The Role of Teacher Efficacy Fewer special educators enter the profession fully certified than general educators (Boe & Cook, 2006) and special educators exit the profession more rapidly than their general education counterparts (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). Together, these observations suggest that when faced with an overly challenging situation, teachers, like their students, fail to develop the

122


sense of efficacy necessary to persevere. In this section, we examine the relationship of teacher efficacy to human capital and the need to address the specific needs presented by a variety of situations. Remembering that it takes 4 to 6 years for a special educator to feel well-prepared (McLeskey, 2005), much of the responsibility for induction into the profession falls to the principal. We also examine the role of the principal in the facilitation of a supportive environment in which human and social capital development can lead to the collective efficacy of the school itself. Self-Efficacy as Human Capital Bandura (1993) purported that people engage in the tasks they feel confident they can do and avoid those at which they feel less competent. Further, people who believed they had the ability to effect change (the definition of self-efficacy) tended to exercise greater perseverance and ingenuity in finding ways to impact their situation. Bandura also made a connection to affective processes noting that people who believed in their ability to manage challenging events experienced a lower sense of anxiety. Stress reactions resulted when those with a lower sense of self-efficacy attempted to cope with situations perceived to be threatening. People with a low sense of selfefficacy perceived difficult tasks as a personal threat, thus tending to avoid such situations whenever possible. Application of these concepts to educational settings suggests that teachers who lack a strong sense of selfefficacy are likely to exit or avoid situations in which they are uncomfortable. Perhaps this accounts for some of the attrition found among teachers, especially special educators. Overwhelmed by their own lack of human capital, they are unable to take advantage of the support of colleagues and administrators as the available social capital. Bandura (1993) further noted that teachers who believed in their personal efficacy (a teacher’s individual skills for facilitating student learning) were better able to motivate students, promote learning, and also were more likely to create learning environments supportive of academic progress for their students. When teachers reported the belief that they could effectively educate their students, they tended to be willing to persevere through more challenging tasks (Bandura, 1993). When teachers possess a strong sense of teaching efficacy, believing that in spite of external factors inhibiting student progress a teacher can make a difference, they tend to provide more praise and direct help to students having difficulty learning (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and were more willing to adopt innovations (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992). Teachers who were confident in their skills also demonstrated more effective classroom-management strategies (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990).


123

Conversely, teachers with a lower sense of instructional efficacy tended to be more critical of students, giving up on those who failed to succeed. Thus, individual teacher’s experiences of success or and perceptions of failure impact the entire school community. Collective Efficacy as Social Capital Teachers who experience a strong sense of self-efficacy positively impact student achievement. When that happens, changes in a building-wide sense of collective efficacy follow. A sense of collective efficacy can be viewed as the organizational extension of self-efficacy in that it is a belief that teachers have regarding the ability of the faculty to accomplish the task of facilitating student achievement in the school as a whole (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2004). It is important to note that efficacy perceptions can drive actions that, in turn, can impact the entire organization as they represent the social capital of the collective whole. Consider the situation in which a school receives a new principal charged with addressing the low achievement among students on grade level proficiency tests. This principal is an advocate of responsible inclusion (Vaughn & Schumm, 1995) of learners with exceptional needs and believes that ongoing support is a priority. This principal institutes and supports a co-teaching model that partners special educators and general educators in the general education classroom (i.e., enhances human capital). The general educator is the content specialist and the special educator is the learning specialist. Together, the teachers succeed in facilitating a 100% pass rate on grade level proficiency tests for a highly diverse group of learners. What happens to their willingness to take on a diverse group in the future? As these two teachers share strategies with other teachers who experience similar levels of success, what happens to the entire faculty’s willingness to tackle difficult learning circumstances? Schools do not move from academic at-risk status to high achiever status when only a few individuals experience success. It happens when the unit as a whole believes they can make enough difference to take actions that improve achievement (i.e., enhanced social capital). Seeing evidence that actions make a difference changes attitudes. Teacher behaviors impact attitude; attitude affects expectations, and expectations of future successes impact behaviors. Bandura and Rosenthal (1966) noted the importance of vicarious reinforcement in this social learning process. They suggested that, when people observe either positive or negative outcomes from an action, they use that information in planning their own actions. This is one reason that pre-service teacher preparation programs alone

124


cannot possibly provide teachers with all of the skills they need for success. Practice is a critical component of the learning process (Elmore, 2002) and, as McLeskey (2005) noted, it takes 4 to 6 years of practice to become a proficient special educator. It follows that evaluation and professionaldevelopment activities that enhance teacher efficacy beliefs could be used to provide the practice needed to gain a teaching force that is more prepared to promote the increasingly high levels of achievement desired for all learners. Marsh (2000) suggested that leaders are most effective when they facilitate success among practitioners in a manner that builds skill and confidence. The compliance model that characterizes most evaluation and professionaldevelopment programs fails to take into account the interaction between teacher confidence and the challenges they face. Clearly a model that takes such situational elements into account would be helpful. We suggest utilizing a variety of professional-development options that extend beyond what has been the typical approach. Aligning teacher performance with specific interventions, just as the special educator does for the exceptional learner, may offer sustainable solutions to complex problems. ‘‘Situational Leadership’’ appears to be a model with such potential.

Situational Leadership Situational leadership is a well-established concept, but scholars rarely apply it to educational settings. In the situational leadership model, administrators should adjust their management strategies according to the needs of individual teachers (Baker, 2005; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996). A combination of one’s ability and willingness to do a job indicates a situational need for differing leadership approaches to get that job done. These needs fall into four key areas. An individual can be (a) unableunwilling, (b) unable-willing, (c) able-unwilling, or (d) able-willing. Each of these types of individuals would receive support differently within one of four differing approaches (a) telling them what to do, (b) selling them on what to do, (c) participating with them to determine what to do, or (d) delegating authority so they decide what to do (Hersey et al., 1996). In educational settings, application of the situational leadership model would suggest that the administrator consider the readiness state (i.e., ability and willingness) for whatever a situation demands. Differing levels of readiness would merit differing intervention styles, each with their own specific tactics (see Table 1). For instance, rather than providing one-size-fits-all professional development, teachers and principals could jointly select


Table 1.

125

Teacher Readiness for Situational Leadership.

Able-willing Teacher need: supported autonomy Administrative approach (delegating): Encourage independence to implement ideas, value input, give support upon request

Unable-willing Teacher need: resources Administrative approach (selling): Provide ideas and strategies with ample opportunities to ask clarifying questions

Able-unwilling Teacher need: Involvement Administrative approach (participating): Include in a forum for sharing ideas and using joint decision-making

Unable-unwilling Teacher need: Clear expectations Administrative approach (telling): Provide specific directions and close supervision

development options they feel would be beneficial relative to individual evaluation goals (Baker, 2005). Ireh and Bailey (1999) examined situational leadership perspectives among superintendents and found that more participants utilized selling and participating approaches rather than the telling or delegating approaches. To the extent this is true among principals, it may suggest that administrators are more comfortable dealing with teachers who possess blended traits (i.e. able-unwilling and unable-willing) rather than polarized perspectives (i.e. able-willing and unable-unwilling). Baker (2005) conducted a study based upon teacher perceptions of their readiness (ability and willingness) to manage challenging student behaviors. Interestingly, 73% of the sample represented the polarized perspectives (i.e. able-willing, 55%; unable-unwilling, 18%). The study categorized only 27% of teachers as possessing the blended traits with 4% as able-unwilling and 23% as unablewilling. Taken together, these two studies suggest that there is often a mismatch between teachers’ supervisory needs and administrative actions. If administrators are less likely to delegate and tell, they may be using a style that is misaligned with the needs of the majority of teachers. Ralph (2004) adapted the situational leadership concepts to develop a contextual supervision model (CS) for use between cooperating teachers and student teachers. He trained the cooperating teachers to (a) assess the student teacher’s readiness level, (b) match a leadership style to the need, and (c) continuously adapt to changing needs. Ralph reported a positive change in confidence and/or competence among student teachers in most cases. The primary limitation in using this adaptation of the situational leadership model was the inability of some cooperating teachers to change styles to meet the needs of the intern.

126


Bess and Goldman (2001) emphasized the importance of administrator awareness of teacher skills and flexibility to adapt to differing needs when applying situational leadership to K-12 settings. Thus, teachers who are able-willing should be able to access different options than those who are unable-unwilling (Baker, 2005). For instance, teachers who are able-willing can be models, even mentors, for others by providing training and support in professional-development situations. Administrators should delegate responsibility and resources to this group, while maintaining a willingness to listen and problem-solve. For teachers who are unable-willing, the administrator may need to facilitate conference-style professional-development programs where teachers can seek effective ideas and strategies they feel would be helpful. Administrators should provide frequent and timely follow-up sessions so that teachers can ask questions and get feedback as they attempt to implement new techniques. This would afford opportunities for building both competence and confidence, thus selling these teachers on using more effective techniques. However, administrators must also address the needs of teachers who are unwilling to change their practices. When addressing the needs of teachers who are able-unwilling, an administrator should offer the opportunity for participation in the change process. Situational leadership theory suggests that administrators should invite these teachers to be committee members as solution seekers. They could then share ideas, face the decision to support or refute initiatives offered, and participate in the decision-making process. When trying to support teachers who are unable-unwilling, an administrator may need to tell them clearly what expectations exist and what supports are available. The administrator may also need to formalize this process with an action plan inclusive of strategies to frequently document progress. Adopting a situational approach may recognize that as schools have challenged teachers to better meet the individual needs of students, they may have come to expect that their own individual needs for support should be met as well (Baker, 2005).

CONCLUSION When teachers achieve, students achieve. If achievement among all learners in inclusive environments is a goal, then principals need to be responsive to teacher needs (Crockett, 2002). In order to provide such individualized approaches, the administrator would use the evaluation process to gain knowledge of teacher needs and


127

then involve the teacher in building a plan of professional development to address those needs. As the intent of this process is to employ teachers who can effectively meet the needs of all learners, the situational evaluation approach would include elements related to both self-efficacy and readiness for supporting all learners. What do teachers believe they are able to do well? What are they willing to do? What intimidates them? Treating special educators and general educators differently in the evaluation process would be natural because schools would have already established the individualization of the process. Building the human capital of each teacher could help to build the social capital of the entire faculty. Once an administrator has succeeded in embedding competent individuals within a network of support and achievement, this blending of human and social capital creates an environment in which failure is unlikely and success builds upon success.

REFERENCES Baker, P. H. (2004, April 15). Applying situational leadership to support teachers who manage challenging student behaviors. Paper presented at the annual Council for Exceptional Children Convention, New Orleans, LA. Baker, P. H. (2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teachers to meet the challenge? . American Secondary Education, 33(3), 51–64. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. Bandura, A., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1966). Vicarious classical conditioning as a function of arousal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(1), 54–62. Bateman, D., Bright, K. L., O’Shea, D. J., O’Shea, L. J., & Algozzine, B. (2007). The special education program administrator’s handbook. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research: Distributed by Columbia University Press. Berry, D. C., Gilhooly, K. J., Keane, M. T. G., Logie, R. H., & Erdos, G. (1990). Talking about cognitive processes. In: K. J. Gilhooly, M. T. G. Keane, R. H. Logie & G. Erdos (Eds), Lines of thinking: Reflections on the psychology of thought: Skills, emotion, creative processes, individual differences and teaching thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 87–98). New York: Wiley. Bess, J. L., & Goldman, P. (2001). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K-12 schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 419–450. Billingsley, B. S. (2005). Cultivating and keeping committed special education teachers: What principals and district leaders can do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bills, D. B. (2003). Credentials, signals, and screens: Explaining the relationship between schooling and job assignment. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 441–469. Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 443–460.

128


Boone, M., & Avila, L. (1992). Wasn’t that a good special education lesson? NASSP Bulletin, 76(544), 88–94. Brigham, F. J., Gustashaw, W. E., III, & Brigham, M. S. (2004). Scientific practice and the tradition of advocacy in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 200–206. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242–252. Cheng, V. K.-W. (2001). Social capital: Resources for the production of human capital within and across time. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Cogan, M. L. (1972). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic Press. Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special education’s role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 157–168. Cuban, L. (2000). Why is it so hard to get ‘‘good’’ schools? In: L. Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds), Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with intractable American dilemmas (pp. 148–169). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Davis, H. (1964). Evolution of current practices in evaluating teacher competence. In: B. J. Biddle & W. J. Ellena (Eds), Contemporary research on teacher effectiveness (pp. 41–66). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Domina, T. (2006). Brain drain and brain gain: Educational segregation in the United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, New York. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Farkas, G. (1996). Human capital or cultural capital ? Ethnicity and poverty groups in an urban school district. New York: A. de Gruyter. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 70–84. Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership in the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. In: The Jossey–Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 156–163). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. Gute, D. S. (2005). Living room learning, professionalism, progressivism: Bridging fragmented instructional philosophies through everyday aesthetics and flow. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Iowa City, IA. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hess, F. M., & Brigham, F. J. (2001). How federal special education policy affects schooling in Virginia. In: C. E. Finn, Jr., A. J. Rotherham & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 161–182). Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and The Progressive Policy Institute.


129

Howard, P. K. (1995). The death of common sense: How law is suffocating America. Thorndike, ME: G.K. Hall. Ireh, M., & Bailey, J. (1999). A study of superintendents’ change leadership styles using the situational leadership model. American Secondary Education, 27(4), 22–32. Leddick, G. R. (1994). Models of Clinical Supervision. ERIC Digest. Greensboro NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 372 340). Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers: Executive summary. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Lowe, M. A., & Brigham, F. J. (2000). Supervising special education instruction: Does it deserve a special place in administrative preparatory programs? Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448 530). Lucarelli, C. M. (2004). Developing competencies and capabilities through human capital development. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York. Marks, J. R., Stoops, E., & King-Stoops, J. (1985). Handbook of educational supervision: A guide for the practitioner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Marsh, D. D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating three essential perspectives. In: The Jossey–Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 126– 145). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. McLeskey, J. (2005). Foreword. In: B. S. Billingsley (Ed.), Cultivating and keeping committed special education teachers: What principals and district leaders can do (pp. xvi–xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5–21. Navickas, T. (2005). A study of the chief learning officer’s (CLO) role and best practices for the optimal leveraging of human capital in creating fundamental organizational change during times of constant and continuous change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Benedictine University, Chicago, IL. Neckerman, K. M., & Kirschenman, J. (1991). Hiring strategies, racial bias, and inner-city workers. Social Problems, 38(4), 433–447. Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Pastorino, E. (2005). Essays on careers in firms. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, State College, PA. Psacharopoulos, G.World Bank. (1995). Building human capital for better lives. Washington, DC: World Bank. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ralph, E. G. (2004). Enhancing managers’ supervisory effectiveness: A promising model. Journal of Management Development, 24(3), 267–284. Rosell, J. E. (1991). Perceptions of regular and special education teachers and administrators about the process of teacher evaluation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

130


Smith, S. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education – from intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57(1), 6–14. Tai, R. F., Loehr, J. F., & Brigham, F. J. (2006). An exploration of the use of eye-gaze tracking to study problem-solving on standardized science assessments. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 29(2), 183–206. Taylor, K. L., & Dionne, J. P. (2000). Accessing problem-solving strategy knowledge: The complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 413–425. Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264–270, 290. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148. Xue, J. (2004). What drives a knowledge-based industry to cluster? A latent variable analysis. Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR EFFICACY: ASSESSMENT OF BELIEFS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Daniel L. McCollum and Lawrence T. Kajs ABSTRACT While facing challenges and crises in the leadership of schools, school administrators need to have three vital characteristics: up-to-date knowledge, relevant skills, and sound dispositions. Self-referent dispositions that refer to thoughts and feelings about one’s knowledge and skills play a key role in the success of professionals in carrying out day-to-day activities. One self-referent construct is self-efficacy, which pertains to a person’s confidence in their knowledge and skills. This chapter discusses social cognitive theory, in general, and self-efficacy, in particular, to describe how the self-efficacy construct is relevant to school administrators’ ability to lead schools.


131

132

DANIEL L. MCCOLLUM AND LAWRENCE T. KAJS

INTRODUCTION ‘‘They are able who think they are able.’’ – Virgil (Roman poet)

Leading a school requires specialized knowledge and skills, but that is not all. Consider Ross and Rachel, both former teachers and now beginning principals. Ross and Rachel have earned master’s degrees from reputable institutions and have obtained principal certification. From their coursework, they have received knowledge and skills essential for their roles as instructional leaders, including budget management, community collaboration, and staff development, to name a few. In a short time, both Ross and Rachel find themselves trying to survive financial shortfalls, and handle political pressures, as well as recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. Early into the position, Ross finds himself doubting his abilities to cope with these struggles, and other schools in the district and state are outperforming his students on standardized exams. On the other hand, Rachel demonstrates self-confidence in her abilities and finds her teachers and students are recognized by the district and state for outstanding performances. In light of these challenges of a principal’s job, a third variable besides knowledge and skills comes into play – the principal’s disposition. In this case, the level of self-efficacy, which is the confidence in self to handle the demands of a school administrator. Efficacy, which is a component of social cognitive theory, is a powerful construct and holds great promise for the development of effective school leaders who face challenging times. This chapter will first provide a brief overview of the social cognitive theory, of which the self-efficacy construct is a component. Second, a literature review will define and describe self-efficacy, as well as explain efficacy in the context of teachers and school administrators. Third, there will be a discussion on measuring the efficacy of school administrators (e.g., principals), specifically, the use of the School Administrator Efficacy Scale (SAES) in assessing school administrators’ beliefs about their levels of knowledge and skills. Fourth, we describe the various uses of the SAES as a viable tool in the professional development of school administrators. Last, the chapter will conclude with final thoughts about school administrator efficacy, its assessment with the SAES, and long-term benefits to school administrators and their schools’ effectiveness.

School Administrator Efficacy

133

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory has critical implications of how people relate to the world around them. His theory postulates that people are active agents that can control their environment, internal processes (e.g., thoughts and feelings), and behaviors. Human functioning derives through a dynamic interaction of behavior, environment, and personal factors (Pajares, 2002). This interaction is referred to as reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 2002) (see Fig. 1). Of primary importance in the social cognitive theory is the concept of change, in particular, the methods by which an individual agent can enact change on their environment, inner processes, or behaviors. Given the interaction among the three factors that determine human functioning, any efforts to create change can be directed toward one or all three dimensions. Change in any one factor will create change in all three dimensions, hence the basis for the reciprocity is outlined in Fig. 1. For example, principals are faced with motivating teachers, enlisting community involvement, and enhancing student performance. In the framework of social cognitive theory, principals can work to alter teachers’ negative self-beliefs about their skills and abilities (personal factors), improve teachers’ self-regulatory practices (behavioral factors), and correct structures in schools and classrooms that may be impeding students’ academic performance (environmental factors). Change in any one or all of these dimensions will impact principals, teachers, students, and the school community at large. A key aspect of social cognitive theory is the practice of reflection or introspection about one’s own actions and thoughts. In other words, within this theory, agents have the ability to think about what they do and what BEHAVIORIAL FACTORS

PERSONAL FACTORS (cognitive, affective, and biological events)

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Fig. 1. Reciprocal Determinism from Pajares (2002). Source: Adapted from http:// www.des.emory.edu/mfp/eff.html, reprinted with permission from Frank Pajares.

134


they think. Bandura (1986) explained, ‘‘thoughts can regulate actions’’ (p. 15); and this is essential in the social cognitive model. This leads again to the concept of agency, by which individuals can control their thoughts, beliefs, and feelings, and in turn their actions. People are both the ‘‘products and producer of their own environments’’ (Pajares, 2002, p. 2). An individual’s self-referent thoughts, beliefs, and feelings are essential elements of their actions and abilities to change their environment.

OVERVIEW OF EFFICACY Central to the social cognitive theory are thoughts people have about their actions, of which self-efficacy beliefs are a key component. Self-efficacy beliefs are ‘‘people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances’’ (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). ‘‘Self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment’’ (Pajares, 2002, p. 3). If people do not believe their actions can result in desired outcomes, they are not likely to engage in such actions. Thus, self-efficacy is key to motivation, particularly in the face of difficult challenges. Not only are requisite knowledge and skills needed to complete a task or reach a goal, but also the belief that one has the necessary knowledge and skills to accomplish the outcome. Bandura (1997) wrote, ‘‘people’s level of motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectively true’’ (p. 2). People’s efficacy beliefs play a crucial role in their actions, which in turn influence their environments and future thoughts. For an individual to engage in a particular desired task (act toward a goal), he/she must possess some degree of self-efficacy. Successes resulting from pursuing goals will lead to greater levels of efficacy, which in turn will lead to the pursuit of higher and more challenging goals. Again, the cycle will continue with greater successes, leading to greater efficacy. This process linking efficacy, actions, and successes is diagramed in Fig. 2. The level of self-efficacy will largely influence the tasks and goals one chooses. In the context of schools, a principal, teacher, or student who is efficacious will anticipate successes. A principal confident in one’s teaching and leadership skills will anticipate successful results from one’s instructional leadership. On the other hand, a principal who doubts one’s teaching and leadership abilities will envision mediocre outcomes, and possibly even failure. Therefore, the principal with low instructional leadership efficacy levels


135 EFFICACY

ACTION

SUCCESS

Fig. 2.

A Cycle of Self-Efficacy.

will probably not engage in the behaviors needed for the successful leadership of the school, while the efficacious principal will exercise the requisite behaviors, and most likely be successful (see Fig. 2). Not only does efficacy influence the tasks and actions people choose, but also helps in determining the amount of effort spent and the level of perseverance displayed (Bandura, 1982; Covington, 1984; Pajares, 2002). Moreover, the amount of resiliency a person has to failures largely accounts for their level of efficacy (Pajares, 2002). In addition, more efficacious individuals place greater intrinsic value on tasks, become more deeply involved in tasks, and better sustain their efforts even when faced with challenges (Pajares, 2002). Thus, efficacy is a critical element for goal and action choice, as well as effort, perseverance, resiliency, and engagement in particular actions toward outcomes. Fervent effort, perseverance, resiliency, and engagement tend to lead to success, which in turn leads to greater efficacy and higher level task performance. In the context of school administration, an efficacious principal will be more engaged, will put forth greater effort, and exercise a higher degree of perseverance in accomplishing school goals such as taking actions to strengthen students’ academic performances. Teacher Efficacy For almost as many years as scholars have studied self-efficacy, teacher efficacy has also been a matter of investigation. The study of teacher efficacy began with Bergman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, and Zellman (1977) who suggested that a teacher’s beliefs might impact student performance. Those researchers defined teacher efficacy as, ‘‘the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance’’ (p. 137). More recently, teacher efficacy was defined by Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy (1998) as ‘‘the teacher’s belief in his or her own capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context’’ (p. 233). Since earlier

136


conceptualizations of the teacher efficacy construct, many studies have refined the construct, its measures, and its correlates. There are many positive outcomes that have been associated with teacher efficacy. Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that efficacious teachers better deal with failing students, avoid criticism, and persist through difficulties. Additionally, efficacious teachers spend more time doing interactive instruction (Smylie, 1988), use more teaching innovations (Guskey, 1988), and are more committed to teaching (Coladarci, 1992). Emmer and Hickman (1990) found that more efficacious teachers seek help with disciplinary problems when assistance is needed. Higher teacher efficacy is associated with greater job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003) and lower burnout (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000). Moreover, teacher efficacy is also associated with student characteristics such as greater student efficacy (Anderson, Green, & Loewen, 1988) and improved student motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Based on the research, teacher efficacy is a useful construct in predicting a variety of desirable teacher characteristics, as well as student characteristics and student performance (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Examining the many findings in support of the usefulness of the teacher efficacy construct, McCollum, Kajs, and Minter (2006a) posited the following questions: Could the efficacy construct be used in a similar manner for school administrators? What if efficacious school principals are better able to cope with stress, more effective in student interactions, and more likely to ask for help when necessary, as well as develop and experience better relationships with teachers? Given the recent changes in the role definition and preparation, especially as an instructional leader, a school administrator’s level of self-efficacy should receive more attention toward effectively carrying out leadership responsibilities such as curricular development, professional development planning, and community building (McCollum et al., 2006b).

School Administrator Efficacy What is school administrator efficacy? In accordance with Bandura (1986) a school administrator’s efficacy is the judgment of one’s ‘‘capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required’’ for successful completion of school leadership tasks and reaching desired school outcomes (p. 396). Efficacy can serve as a means to understanding school administrators’ thoughts and motivations, tied to their behaviors and the school


137

environments they create. School leaders with a sense of efficacy tend to make noble efforts to achieve school goals, including a relentless persistence even through difficult circumstances (Osterman & Sullivan, 1996). School administrator’s efficacy can affect task performance, motivational level, and self-improvement efforts linked to school practices (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). Furthermore, efficacy is especially critical in relation to instructional leadership because the quality of a school administrator’s leadership ‘‘is linked statistically and practically to student achievement’’ (Kaplan, Owings, & Nunnery, 2005, p. 43). Dimmock and Hattie (1996) concluded that principal efficacy is central for schools going through a restructuring process, and Smith, Guarino, Strom, and Adams (2006) noted that principal efficacy affects how well teachers instruct and students learn. Because of the major, long-term impact that school administrator efficacy can play in the lives of the campus community and the community at large, the study of the efficacy construct and how it influences multiple school-related activities and processes, for example, planning, decision making, and organizational development, is vital.

Measuring School Administrator Efficacy The studies on measuring the school administrator efficacy construct are limited. The few studies on the construct that do exist demonstrate a promising line of research (e.g., McCollum et al., 2006a, 2006b; TschannenMoran & Gareis, 2004). Four studies have sought to measure the efficacy of principals and/or assistant principals. Dimmock and Hattie (1996) and Smith et al. (2006) created measures of principal efficacy. The former produced the principal efficacy vignettes, while the latter authored the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) studied the principal efficacy vignettes of Dimmock and Hattie (1996). Based on factor analytic results and Cronbach’s Alpha, they found that the validity and reliability of that scale were greatly lacking. The conclusion was that the principal efficacy vignettes were not psychometrically sound enough for further use in research or practice (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). While Smith et al.’s (2006) PSES demonstrated some early construct validity evidence identified via exploratory factor analysis, they clearly lacked content validity in their scale. That is, Smith et al. (2006) measured only efficacy in instructional leadership and efficacy in management. The dimensions of a school administrator’s job exceed those identified by Smith et al. (2006).

138


The question arises, how can the duties of a school administrator (e.g., assistant principal, principal) be succinctly delineated so efficacy can be measured for those tasks? Toward concisely identifying the component knowledge and skills exercised by a school administrator and measuring efficacy percepts of those core knowledge and skills, two research teams, that is, Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) and McCollum et al., (2005, 2006a, 2006b), directed their attention to the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. With the ISLLC standards as the basis for the component knowledge and skills of the school administrator’s job, Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) authored the Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSES). Through exploratory factor analysis, they identified three dimensions of the principal’s job (i.e., management, instructional leadership, and moral leadership) and found a good reliability for their scale based on Cronbach’s Alpha. While the initial psychometric properties of the PSES have promise, this measure still appeared to underrepresent the principal’s roles in the school. A follow-up confirmatory factor analysis study could have led to stronger construct validity evidence. To expand upon the dimensions of school administrator efficacy addressed by Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004), McCollum et al. (2005, 2006a, 2006b) referred to the Educational Leadership Constituency Council (ELCC) standards for school administrator preparation. The first six of the seven ELCC standards are the previously mentioned ISLLC standards. These six standards cover major components of school administration (e.g., instructional leadership, community collaboration), whereas ELCC standard 7 focuses on applying and synthesizing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions acquired in standards one through six, during internship experiences. Presented in Table 1 are the seven ELCC standards (National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2002, pp. 1–18). Through a series of studies, McCollum et al. (2005, 2006a, 2006b) created the SAES (see appendix). They identified the dimensions of the school administrator efficacy construct using exploratory factor analysis, and found strong construct validity evidence for the measure using confirmatory factor analysis, as well as good (0.81) to excellent (0.95) reliability in the SAES subscales. The SAES measures eight dimensions (subscales) of school administrator efficacy: (1) instructional leadership and staff development, (2) school climate development, (3) community collaboration, (4) data-based decision making aligned with legal and ethical principles, (5) resource and facility management, (6) use of community resources, (7) communication in a diverse environment, and (8) development of school vision (McCollum et al., 2005, 2006a, 2006b). While multiple researchers have sought to measure the


Table 1. Standard No. Standard 1

Standard 2

Standard 3

Standard 4

Standard 5

Standard 6

Standard 7

139

The Seven ELCC Standards. Description

Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported by the school community. Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff. Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by collaborating with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner. Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. The internship provides significant opportunities for candidates to synthesize and apply the knowledge and practice and develop the skills identified in Standards 1–6 through substantial, sustained, standards-based work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by the institution and school district personnel for graduate credit.

efficacy construct in school administrators, it appears that McCollum et al. (2005, 2006a, 2006b) have best represented the construct through the ELCC/ ISLLC standards. In addition, these authors carefully constructed a line of research to support the validity and reliability of the SAES.

Teacher Efficacy is Related to Administrator Efficacy Using the SAES, McCollum et al., (2006c) sought to identify relationships between teacher efficacy and school administrator efficacy, studying

140


teachers who had become beginning principals or who were aspiring to be school administrators. Based on data collected from 367 early career principals and principal trainees who had an average of 8.4 years (SD=5.66) teaching experience and an average of 4 months (SD=2.16) experience as principals, there are relationships between being an efficacious teacher and an efficacious administrator. The sample was largely in the role of teacher, transitioning to the role of school administrator. The participants were given Bandura’s (2004) measure of teacher efficacy and McCollum et al. (2005, 2006a, 2006b) measure of school administrator efficacy (see also appendix), the SAES. Teachers with greater efficacy in decision making were more likely to respond efficaciously about garnering community collaboration in the role of principal (r=0.34). Also, teachers who were confident in the area of influencing school resources had higher degrees of efficacy in community collaboration (r=0.26). Moreover, teachers with higher levels of confidence in the field of instruction had higher levels of school administrator efficacy in the area of communicating with diverse populations (r=0.32). Diverse communication as a principal was also linked with the disciplinary efficacy of teachers (r=0.38). Those in the role of teacher who responded as having confidence in the ability to increase parental involvement showed higher levels of efficacy in the role of principal to do the same (r=0.39). In addition, teachers who saw themselves as efficacious in promoting community involvement in schools were found more likely to be efficacious as principals in developing community support (r=0.50). Last, teachers with higher degrees of efficacy for influencing school climate had greater efficacy in the area of instructional leadership in the role of principal (r=0.41). Based on the results, an efficacious teacher is more likely to respond confidently in effectively handling the chief duties of a school principal. Given the relationship between teacher and school administrator efficacy, the SAES could be used as an assessment device for teachers aspiring to be principals, as well as in the development of current school administrators.

Assessment of School Administrators’ Professional Development Needs With the increased attention to the critical leadership role of campus principals in the success of schools (Barth, 2001; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004), school administrators’ ongoing professional development also deserves additional consideration. Lashway (1998) has noted the value of having school administrators periodically obtain feedback through formal assessments and


141

reflection about their professional development needs to increase professional growth and performance. Lashway (1998) has offered six criteria for selecting assessment of school administrators: (1) ‘‘decide what you want to know,’’ (2) ‘‘locate the instruments most appropriate for your purposes,’’ (3) ‘‘judge the credibility of the test,’’ (4) ‘‘determine how much support the instrument provides for follow-up and professional development,’’ (5) ‘‘consider the practical issues,’’ and (6) ‘‘once the assessment has been administered, provide support for professional development’’ (pp. 2–3). The SAES can serve as a viable assessment tool in assisting aspiring and current school administrators to determine their professional development strengths and needs since it addresses these six criteria. The SAES allows school administrators to gauge their confidence levels in core knowledge and skills of the profession. This instrument is a valid and reliable measure of efficacy, based on the ELCC/ISLLC standards. In fact, as discussed earlier, the SAES has the best psychometric properties of the school administrator efficacy instruments available; the line of research produced by McCollum et al. (2005, 2006a, 2006b) supports the credibility of the test. School leaders can use the SAES to repeatedly gauge growth and development in knowledge and skills, as well as dispositions, as the school administrator participates in professional development activities. Findings provide support for the use of the SAES in measuring confidence levels in key knowledge and skills based on professional development activities. Using a longitudinal approach spanning over 2 years), we have administered the SAES to educational leadership graduate students in Collaborative Bilingual Administrator Training (CBAT) program at the University of Houston-Clear Lake. The CBAT program is a 5-year, federally funded project designed to prepare bilingual school principals in addressing the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs) in the Houston Metropolitan area. The CBAT graduate students were administered the SAES at the start of their principal preparation plan, then, reassessed midway through the program. At this point of the longitudinal study, students have showed increases in school administrator efficacy for those areas of knowledge and skills addressed in their coursework (McCollum et al., 2006d). At the end of the CBAT program, graduate students will complete a post-test with the SAES to determine further levels of development in self-efficacy. In addition to using the SAES to assess aspiring school administrators, this instrument can serve as a self-assessment tool for school administrators in the field, allowing them to review and reflect on their individual strengths and needs. Administrators, school boards, and educational leadership programs can use these results to create or revise their professional

142


development plans. Many principals are expected to create a yearly professional development program; consequently, the SAES can assist toward the development of this plan. Jackson (2005) has reported that using a self-assessment approach can enhance educators’ motivation toward a performance improvement process because it gives them control over the information regarding their needs; thereby, eliminating public exposure of their weaknesses. Giving the school administrator power over such private information encourages them to be honest in assessing their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. In addition, a confidential self-assessment approach, along with the ability to choose relevant training programs can increase motivation and participation in professional development activities (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). The social cognitive processes of self-observation, self-monitoring, self-judgment, self-reaction, and self-evaluation along with planning, goal-setting, and strategizing are key elements in becoming a self-regulated, lifelong learning professional (Ormrod, 2003; Schunk, 2000). Professional development programs for aspiring and existing school administrators should be planned in accordance with four sources of efficacy information: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, and biological events (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 2002). The most prominent of the four sources, as well as the most powerful determinant of efficacy, is mastery experiences, described as an individual’s past successes and failures. For example, a mastery experience would be giving a principal intern who holds requisite knowledge and skills from college coursework a leadership role in the development of the campus planning process and to increase the principal intern’s level of efficacy for instructional leadership. The second source, vicarious experiences, occurs when an individual observes the activities of a mentor or experienced professional. It’s especially helpful when the mentor or professional has similarities to the learner. For example, a vicarious experience would be allowing the prote´ge´ to shadow the principal– mentor on leadership tasks; thus, building prote´ge´ efficacy through the examination of successful experiences. The third source, social persuasions, takes place when an individual is influenced by others. A principal–mentor providing a prote´ge´ positive feedback on coursework and field experiences can build a prote´ge´’s efficacy. Jackson (2002) found that a simple task like a mentor emailing a prote´ge´ could enhance efficacy and performance. The fourth and last source is biological sensations, for example, anxiety and stress, which can influence an individual’s interpretations regarding one’s abilities. To enhance a prote´ge´’s efficacy, a principal–mentor or professor could persuade a prote´ge´ to practice strategies and techniques, for example, seeking reliable advice about a dilemma to reduce stress and anxiety. Consequently,


143

the professional development activities, for example, field experiences and workshops, of aspiring and practicing school administrators should target the constructive use of the four sources of efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS There is an increasing amount of knowledge regarding the efficacy of school administrators and its impact on the profession. School administrator efficacy is tied to effort, perseverance, motivation, self-improvement, performance on the job, and student performance. There are valid and reliable measures of school administrator efficacy (e.g., SAES) that can be used to assess or self-assess the construct for professional development planning. Whether its community relations, finance, instructional leadership, staff development, or crisis management, a school administrator needs to be efficacious for the tasks at hand to engage in the needed actions to create change and meet school and community goals. Without efficacy, no action for improvement or change will take place.

REFERENCES Anderson, R., Green, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148–165. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2004) Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html#instruments Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bergman, P., McLaughlin M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII Factors affecting implementation and continuation Report No. R-1589/7-HEW, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived selfefficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239–253. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821–832.

144


Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323–337. Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 1–20. Dimmock, C., & Hattie, J. (1996). School principals’ self-efficacy and its measurement in a context of restructuring. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 62–75. Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution, and reasoned action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69. Jackson, J. W. (2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 243–254. Jackson, L. (2005). Teacher training: Is your staff development program working. Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/teacher_training/teacher_training 005.shtml Kaplan, L. S., Owings, W. A., & Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting interstate school leaders licensure consortium standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 28–44. Lashway, L. (1998, October). An array of tools gives depth and breadth to formal assessments of principals. The School Administrator (on-line). Retrieved April 21, 2006, from http:// www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=4534&snItemNumber=950 &tnItemNumber=951 Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2004). Educational administration (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. McCollum, D. L., Kajs, L. J., & Minter, N. (2005). School administrators’ efficacy: A model and measure. Paper Presented at the International Conference of the Allied Academies in the Academy of Educational Leadership, Memphis, TN. McCollum, D. L., Kajs, L. T., & Minter, N. (2006a). School administrators’ efficacy: A model and measure. Education Leadership Review, 7(1), 81–92. McCollum, D. L., Kajs, L. T., & Minter, N. (2006b). A confirmatory factor analysis of the school administrator efficacy scale (SAES). Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10(3), 105–119. McCollum, D. L., Kajs, L. T., & Minter, N. (2006c). Correlations between teacher and school administrator efficacy. Unpublished raw data. McCollum, D. L., Kajs, L. T., & Minter, N. (2006d). Collaborative Bilingual Administrator Training (CBAT) evaluation data. Unpublished raw data. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Educational leadership constituent council (ELCC): New ELCC Standards – NCATE approved. Fairfax, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/


145

Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Osterman, K., & Sullivan, S. (1996). New principals in an urban bureaucracy: A sense of efficacy. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 661–690. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved April 21, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. E. (1998). Psychology and work today: An introduction to industrial and organization psychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, W., Guarino, A., Strom, P., & Adams, O. (2006). Effective teaching and learning environments and principal self-efficacy. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 3(2), 4–23. Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual career change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 573–585. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.

APPENDIX. ITEMS FROM THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ EFFICACY SCALE (SAES) (MCCOLLUM ET AL., 2005)

Factor 1: Instructional Leadership and Staff Development 12. I am confident in my understanding of the total instruction program in my school. 13. I am able to understand the process of curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation. 14. I am confident in my knowledge of best-practice research related to instructional practices. 15. I am able to develop a systematic process for mentoring teachers on my campus. 16. I am confident that I understand and can communicate to staff the complex instructional and motivational issues that are presented by a diverse student population.

146


17. I am confident in my skills to lead staff to understand and respect the diversity of our student population. 18. I am confident that I can lead staff to appreciate the kinds of knowledge and skills students and their families can add to the learning process. 19. I understand the development of a professional growth plan. 20. I have a clear sense of my own personal development needs and the resources I can access to address those needs. 21. I am confident in my skills to assess the staff development needs of a school. 22. I am confident that I possess the skills needed to implement the effective use of resources so that priority is given to support student learning. 23. I am confident in my skills to engage staff in the development of effective campus improvement plans that result in improved learning. Factor 2: School Climate Development 5. I have the ability to engage students in the assessment of our school climate. 6. I have the ability to assess school climate using multiple methods. 7. I have the ability to engage staff in the assessment of our school climate. 8. I have the ability to engage parents in the assessment of our school climate. 9. I am confident that I know how to use data about our school climate to improve the school culture in ways that promote staff and student morale. 10. I am confident that I know how to use data about our school climate to encourage appropriate student behavior. 11. I am confident that I know how to use data about our school climate to support a positive learning environment. Factor 3: Community Collaboration 35. I understand community relations models that are needed to create partnerships with business, community, and institutions of higher education. 36. I am confident in my ability to use marketing strategies and processes to create partnerships with business, community, and institutions of higher education. 37. I can identify and describe the services of community agencies that provide resources for the families of children in my school.


147

38. I am confident in my skills to involve families and community stakeholders in the decision making process at our school. 49. I am confident I can resolve issues related to budgeting. 50. I am able to supplement school resources by attaining resources from the community. 51. I am confident I can solicit community resources to resolve school issues. Factor 4: Data-Based Decision Making Aligned with Legal and Ethical Principles 39. I can make sound decisions and am able to explain them based on professional, ethical, and legal principles. 40. I am confident in my ability to understand and evaluate education research that is related to programs and issues in my school. 41. I am confident in my ability to apply appropriate research methods in the school context. 42. I can explain to staff and parents the decision-making process of my school district. 43. I can explain to staff and parents how the governance process of my school is related to state and national institutions and politics. 44. I am confident in my ability to examine student performance data to extract the information necessary for campus improvement planning. 46. I can make decisions within the boundaries of ethical and legal principles. 47. I am able to explain the role of law and politics in shaping the school community. Factor 5: Resource and Facility Management 29. I am confident in my knowledge of legal principles that promote educational equity. 30. I am able to provide safe facilities (building, playground) according to legal principles. 31. In accordance with legal principles, I am confident I can find information to address problems with facilities. 32. I am able to find the appropriate personnel to resolve facility-related problems. 33. I am confident in my ability to identify additional resources to assist all the individuals in my school. Factor 6: Use of Community Resources 25. I am confident I could use community resources to support student achievement.

148


26. I am confident I could use community resources to solve school problems. 27. I am confident I could use community resources to achieve school goals Factor 7: Communication in a Diverse Environment 24. I am confident in my skills to interact positively with the different groups that make up my school community. 34. I am confident in my ability to lead my staff in involving families in the education of their children. 45. I am confident in my communication abilities to lead in a variety of educational settings. Factor 8: Development of School Vision 1. I am confident that I possess the skills to lead a school community in the development of a clear vision. 2. I can develop a vision that will help ensure the success of all students. 3. I am able to use strategic planning processes to develop the vision of the school. 4. I am confident that I can establish two-way communication with stakeholders (staff, parents, students, community) in order to obtain the commitment necessary for implementing the vision for our school. Note: The items are scored are a seven point Likert-type scale, with 1=not at all true of me, 7=completely true of me. Items should be administered in the order they are numbered, not in the order presented here.

PRINCIPALS IMPROVING SCHOOLS THROUGH ENHANCED TEACHER LEADERSHIP Richard C. Hunter ABSTRACT This chapter is on teacher leadership and how principals can improve schools by increasing the role teacher’s play in school operations. The author maintains that principals and teachers must work together if schools are to achieve higher levels of student performance, especially those who serve high concentrations of minority students. Various leadership theories are presented, as well as recommendations of how principals and teachers can work together to enhance the leadership abilities of both.

INTRODUCTION Over the years, there has been great concern about the quality of the American educational system. This concern has been greatest in public schools serving large numbers of minority students. Several efforts to improve schools for these students and the entire public education population can be traced to the Russian’s launching of the satellite, Sputnik


149

150

RICHARD C. HUNTER

(Hodgkinson, 1991, pp. 9–10; Berliner & Biddle, 1997, pp. 1–5; Tanner, 2000, p. 190). The constant cry to improve public education has given rise to many educational initiatives. These initiatives are too numerous to discuss in this short paper. However, Hunter (2006a, pp. 92–97) discussed several of the most important interventions in American public education, including public school desegregation, the school reform and restructuring movements of the 1980s and 1990s, public school finance litigation, the standards movement, statewide accountability models, school takeovers, privatization, and now, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (PL 107–110).

Most Controversial Intervention NCLB is considered as the most controversial intervention of the federal government, which for years has sought to improve public education, particularly for children from under privileged backgrounds (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2006, p. 47). This legislation seeks to close the long-standing achievement gap between white, black, and Hispanic students. NCLB requires school districts to: disaggregate student achievement test data, make annual yearly progress with each subgroup tested, report progress against high benchmarks for student achievement, hire fully qualified teachers and aides, improve school safety, and provide tutorial services for needy students, etc. (Talbert-Johnson & Russo, 2006, pp. 112–114).

Emphasis on Data During much of the 1990s and throughout today, public schools have put considerable emphasis on data-driven decision making. This has certainly become a requirement for school districts, since the passage of NCLB. Hunter (2006b, p. 296) discussed the emphasis of the Bush administration, as using federal technology funds to analyze student achievement. What does the emphasis on data-driven decision mean? Schmoker (1999a, pp. 44) indicates that: You cannot fight what you cannot see and data makes the invisible visible. Data promotes certainty and increases teacher confidence, and informs what you are doing.

Because of these factors, public schools have focused on data and its usages in relation to teacher instruction (Wong & Nicotera, 2007, p. 160).

Principals Improving Schools Through Enhanced Teacher Leadership

151

Some question the narrow emphasis on test data and maintain students are receiving a substandard education. Still others are concerned that teacher motivation is suffering because of the emphasis on test scores (Sergiovanni, 2006a, pp. 311–312). This leads me to the question, what have the results been since of the emphasis on data-driven decision making in the public schools of the United States?

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT What has happened over time to student achievement in public schools? Has the achievement gap for white, Afro-American, and Hispanic students been closed? Closing the achievement gap has been a primary goal of public education for the last several decades, more pointedly since the implementation of NCLB. It should be acknowledged, that states individually assesses student performance, using different metrics and cut scores. Unfortunately, this process makes it difficult to compare student achievement among states. Because of this, the federal government created the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) program, which tests a sample of public school students from each state. Data are reported annually on several subject areas by the U.S. Department of Education for students in grades 4 and 8. Selected recent test data from NAEP are presented in the following tables (see Tables 1 and 2). Analysis of the NAEP data from the previous tables indicates both fourth and eighth grade black and Hispanic students made greater gains in mathematics, for the period in question, than white students. Therefore, progress was made toward narrowing the achievement gap in this subject area, during the period in question for these student groups in comparison Table 1. Subgroup Year 2005 1992 Change

NAEP Test Data: U.S. Fourth Grade NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores by Subgroup and Year. All Students American Indian

237.1 218.6 18.5

227.1 N/A N/A

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

250.8 N/A N/A

219.7 191.9 27.8

225.1 200.9 24.2

247.7 226.7 21.0

Source: Institute of Education Science (IES) (2006). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

152

Table 2. Subgroup Year 2005 1992 Change

RICHARD C. HUNTER

NAEP Test Data: U.S. Eighth Grade NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores by Subgroup and Year. All Students American Indian

277.5 266.9 10.6

265.6 N/A N/A

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

294.5 290.0 4.5

254.2 233.2 21.0

261.1 247.0 14.1

287.6 275.7 11.9


to white students. It should be noted, the achievement gap in mathematics between white, black, and Hispanic students is still too great. Asian student achievement in mathematics for both fourth and eighth graders was greater than for white students. Analysis of the NAEP data from the previous tables indicates both fourth and eighth grade black and Hispanic students made greater gains in reading, for the period in question, than white students. Therefore, progress was made toward narrowing the achievement gap in this subject area, during the period in question for these student groups in comparison to white students. It should be noted, the achievement gap in reading between white, black, and Hispanic students is still too great. Asian student achievement in reading for both fourth and eighth graders is close to or greater than for white students (see Tables 3 and 4).

Has NCLB Made A Difference? Some maintain NCLB has not improved public education. Bracey (2006, p. 151) accused current Secretary of Education, Margaret Spelling of cherry picking data to suggest NCLB has made a difference in public education. He maintains, there are some gains for public school students, but not of the magnitude suggested by the Secretary Spelling. This view is supported by the work of Linn, Baker, and Betebenner (2003, pp. 3–4), who also does not believe NCLB has made a difference in public education. On the other hand, Jennings and Rentner (2006, pp. 110–112) offered 10 effects of NCLB on public education, including the following: States report students are achieving higher scores on their assessments; however, it is unclear that students are learning more.


Table 3. Subgroup Year 2005 1992 Change

153

U.S. Fourth Grade NAEP Reading Scale Scores by Subgroup and Year. All Students American Indian

217.3 214.8 2.5

204.6 N/A N/A

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

227.2 215.0 12.2

198.9 191.0 7.9

201.3 194.5 6.8

227.6 222.8 4.8


Table 4. U.S. Eighth Grade NAEP Reading Scale Scores by Subgroup and Year. Subgroup Year 2005 1992 Change

All Students American Indian

260.4 257.9 2.5

250.7 N/A N/A

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

269.7 267.3 2.4

242.0 235.9 6.1

244.9 238.4 6.5

269.4 265.0 4.4


Students are taking more tests. Schools are paying more attention to the achievement gap. Borsuk (2006, p. 1) indicates minority public school students in Wisconsin are slightly better off, but still maintain larger achievement gaps in comparison to white students in most states.

THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP Schools will be unable to achieve the lofty goals established for them without improving and maximizing the leadership role of personnel in public schools, especially teachers and principals (Neuman & Simmons, 2000, p. 9). Because of this, leadership is discussed extensively in this chapter. There are many definitions of leadership. However, there are essential elements present in each definition, including a process for leaders to influence the behaviors of followers or individuals acting alone in

154

RICHARD C. HUNTER

positions of power (Owens, 2001, p. 233). Leadership is not just about making decisions, but is about making the right decisions. Doing the right things that will lead to school improvement is the challenge of leadership for school principals. Kowalski (2003, p. 182) indicated leadership is a process where individuals influence groups or individuals to achieve a common goal. He reminds us leadership involves influence, occurs in groups, and requires an attention to goals (Northouse, 2007, p. 3). To assist school administrators in making the right decisions several theoretical constructs of leadership have been created. Theory X was developed and recognized workers dislike their work and must be prodded or coerced by their supervisors to get work done. Theory Y, on the other hand, was based on the assumption that people, including workers, are good and will exercise self-control to get jobs done (McGregor, 1978, p. 18). Two additional important leadership theories are transactional leadership that is based on the extrinsic motivational needs of followers and transformational leadership, which indicates leaders are not merely power brokers, but must work with followers to increase each others functioning (Burns, 1978, p. 20; Hoy & Miskel, 2005, pp. 396–397). Burn’s work on leadership has shaped the way we think today and are important to creating effective learning communities in public schools. Another important theory of leadership is moral leadership, which is derived from the feelings of teachers for each other, their students, and their school. Moral leadership is powerful and helps create a sense of interdependence and belief in a shared commitment for the school among teachers and administrators (Sergiovanni, 2006b, p. 162).

RECOMMENDATIONS The theories of moral and transformational leadership provide theoretical lens for crafting recommendations to indicate how school principals should work with teachers to improve the functioning of both and achieve greater school improvement. They are presented in the following sections of this chapter.

Moral Leadership Theory Based Recommendations Schools are powerful and very important organizations for society and individuals as well. The literature indicates the values and actions of schools


155

should be morally based. Teachers should be concerned about how decisions impact not only students, but faculty as well. Because of this, schools: serve young people, help them establish their values, and assist in development of student aspirations. Schools have been given a high place in our society; and principals should promote moral development in schools. For purposes of this paper, one idea relating to moral leadership is discussed because this concept can be fully embodied into professional learning communities. Here teacher leader’s actions are based on their commitments to students and teachers (Sergiovanni, 2006c, p. 315). Professional Learning Communities The literature is replete with information on the importance of professional learning communities. Senge (2006, pp. 57–67) presented several laws to guide the work of personnel in professional learning communities, including the following:

Today’s problems come from past solutions. The harder you push an organization, the harder the system pushes back. Behavior gets better before it get worse. The easy way out often leads back to where you began. The cure can sometimes be worst than the disease. Faster is slower. Cause and effect are not closely aligned in time and space. Small changes can produce great results and areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious. You can have your cake and eat it too. However, this occurs at different times. Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two smaller elephants. There is no blame. The principal should create an environment where the professional dignity of teachers is recognized and valued. Teachers should also be viewed as leaders and important individuals, who are crucial to the success of schools. Principals should create caring and sharing environments, where learning is the cornerstone of everything in schools. Since, public schools are organizations created to foster learning and the well being of young people, it is essential for principals to encourage teachers to think beyond themselves, and about the power of learning, and working together (Haas, 1994, pp. 60–63).

156

RICHARD C. HUNTER

Transformational Theory Based Recommendations As mentioned earlier, transformational leaders use their work with followers to improve functioning. This theory suggests principals should work with others, especially teachers to improve their performance. I have selected the following areas to present ways for principals to work teachers, department heads, and lead teachers to enhance their leadership abilities (functioning) and improve schools. Planning for School Success Principals should engage teacher’s school improvement. This means the identification on mission statements, goals, and development of strategic plans to improve educational quality. Planning is an important and powerful management tool and collaboration and careful development can improve the functioning of principals, teachers, and others in schools. The by-product of improved functioning, brought about through planning, can lead to improved student achievement. As a former school administrator, I implemented a collaborative school improvement planning model with teachers and other important stakeholders. This action resulted in the development of a vision and strategic plan for the school. These processes required teachers and me, as principal, to perform at higher levels, as required by goals and objectives of the strategic plan. I found this involvement changed my relationship with teachers and others. After beginning the planning process, I was no longer perceived as a top-down administrator, but one who recognized the leadership abilities of teachers and others and was comfortable in using them to assist me in developing strategies to improve the school. In this process, teachers became leaders, not just followers and began to lead, particularly in areas of great knowledge and passion. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of collaborative planning in developing shared ownership/ leadership for schools. Principals should lead faculty to view schools as important social institutions for students and as organizations that can be improved if teachers exercise greater leadership, practice teamwork, and are willing to assist principals in determining the means through which schools will be improved. The sharing of position of power by principals with teachers and others causes them to improve their functioning and clarifies their role in school improvement. Supervising Untenured Teachers Principals cannot effectively supervise untenured teachers without relying on the leadership of master teachers. The ratio of teachers to principals is


157

too great for meaningful supervision to occur. Moreover, the knowledge base of principals is limited, when compared to the cumulative knowledge of faculty. Principals must recognize and understand they need teachers to exercise greater leadership, with regard to supervising beginner and lessexperienced teachers. There are many impediments to implementing structures to involve more teacher leaders in the supervision of teachers. Programs, such as lead/master teachers, peer evaluation, and differentiated staffing have experienced problems with implementation. Some of these impediments include unionization, pay, time, and creating a sense of shared responsibility. Principals should understand these impediments are not fatal and can be overcome if they focus attention and economic resources on these problems. What is important for principals to understand and accept is they cannot effectively supervise teachers without engaging other teachers in the process (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998, p. 146).

Mentoring Beginning Teachers Data on teacher turnover indicates new teachers must be mentored in order for them to remain in their positions. Here again, principals cannot successfully mentor all beginning teachers, particularly in large schools (Gabriel, 2005, p. 126). Mentoring new teachers provides great opportunities for teachers to use their leadership skills. The importance of teachermentoring programs has been recognized and the literature indicates many programs are not successful because adequate provisions for regular meeting times and the lack of a proper system procedures to successfully match mentors and beginner teachers (Angelle (2006, p. 320). These problems can be overcome by principals, who very carefully and systematically design and implement mentoring programs with experienced master teachers. In the early days of my career, I was a principal of a laboratory school in California. Master teachers were identified by the University of California at Berkeley and were given responsibility for both pre-service and in-service for teachers. Since, there were several master teachers it was possible to devote considerable amounts of time to supporting future and beginning teachers. Principals should learn to utilize their resources in more flexible ways. They should also provide resources to address the problem areas identified in the literature that have kept teacher mentoring programs from achieving success. Addressing the high turnover of teachers in public education is an important area and impacts educational quality (Seyfarth, 2002, pp. 111–113).

158

RICHARD C. HUNTER

Conducting Professional Development The primary mission of schools is to improve education for students. However, this will not be achieved without first improving the capacity, knowledge, and skills of teachers. The literature is clear on the importance of enhancing the professional development of teachers. However, this too will not be accomplished without principals utilizing the knowledge and skills of experienced teachers. Principal should use resources to enable teacher leaders to share their knowledge and skills with other teachers. I worked, as principal, in a school whose faculty decided to increase classsizes and allow the principal to deploy two teachers to non-instructional duties based on jointly developed priorities for the school. These persons did not work in the area of professional development, but could have. Also, one successful professional-development program I observed was conducted by principals. They identified the skills administrators needed and selected other principals knowledgeable in those areas needed to conduct professional development for other principals. This concept could be used for teachers to exercise leadership for professional development. The literature on professional development indicates participants do not value professional development if it is not relevant to their needs (Gordon. 2004, pp. 6–8). Getting experienced teachers to determine, plan, and implement a professional-development program guards against this problem. Selecting New Teachers Teachers should be called upon to assist in selecting new teachers. Again, the literature indicates outstanding teachers are essential to high student performance. Teachers must be encouraged to play a major role in the selection of teachers. Often new teachers are selected during the summer of the school year. Principals should formulate interview panels including practicing experienced teachers and funds must be provided for teachers to work on these panels during the summer (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2006, p. 285).

CONCLUSION This chapter has raised several important issues in public education, including the thesis that principals cannot improve schools without increasing teacher leadership. Everyone understands teachers are essential to the success of students, but what is not as widely accepted is they are also crucial in establishing


159

successful learning communities (Haas, 1994, pp. 61–63). The primary role of teachers is instructional and adequate provisions have not been made to permit them to fully develop their leadership potential, except for lead teachers in elementary schools and department heads in secondary schools. In the opinion of the author, principals cannot adequately improve schools without the direct involvement of teacher leaders in several important areas, including, planning for the schools success, mentoring and supervising new teachers, conducting professional development, and selecting new teachers. The budgeting for schools needs to reflect these realities and school districts should provide additional funds to give master and experienced teachers additional compensation and time to be engaged in these very important activities. Finally, other changes in the practice of school administration should be made to create new models of teacher leadership (NAESP, 2001, p. 2).

REFERENCES Angelle, P. S. (2006). Instructional leadership and monitoring: Increasing teacher intent to stay through socialization, Reston, VA. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 90(4), 318–334. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1997). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing USA. Borsuk, A. (2006). State learning gap persists: Chasm between black, white students is near worst in U.S., Milwaukee, WI. Journal Sentinal Online (December 16), 1–2. Bracey, G. W. (2006). The 16th Bracey Report on Education in the United The Condition of Public Education: When political considerations define the agenda for or shape the findings of research, the results can seem frustrating or silly-but often the losers are students and teachers, Bloomington, ID. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 151–166. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2006). Educational leadership: A problem-based approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association of Curriculum Development. Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Haas, L. (1994). The teacher as leader. In: W. J. Mathis (Ed.), Field guide to educational renewal: Vermont restructuring collaborative (pp. 60–84). Brandon, VT: Restructuring Collaborative. Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 9–16. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Hunter, R. C. (2006a). NCLB and the new ESEA title I program: Poverty and education. In: F. Brown & R. C. Hunter (Eds), No child left behind and other federal programs for urban school districts (pp. 91–110). Oxford, England: Elsevier JAI.

160

RICHARD C. HUNTER

Hunter, R. (2006b). Superintendent leadership for technology integration in public education. In: S. Tettegah & R. C. Hunter (Eds), Technology and education: Issues in administration, policy, and application in k12 schools. Oxford, England: Elsevier JAI. Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools, Bloomington, IN. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110–122. Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Contemporary school administration: An introduction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2003). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Washington, DC. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3–16. McGregor, D. (1978). Leadership and motivation. Boston, MA: MIT Press. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning communities standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: National Association of Elementary School Principals. Neuman, M., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning, Bloomington, IN. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 9–12. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: Instructional leadership and school reform (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2006). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision redefinition (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Seyfarth, J. T. (2002). Human resources management for effective school, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Talbert-Johnson, C., & Russo, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing accountability in urban schools. In: F. Brown & R. C. Hunter (Eds), No child left behind and other federal programs for urban school districts (pp. 111–126). Oxford, England: Elsevier JAI. Tanner, D. (2000). The scold war persistent attacks on Americas schools, Bloomington, IN. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 188–202. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). NAEP Data. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics. Wong, K. K., & Nicotera, A. (2007). Successful schools and educational accountability: Concepts and skills to meet leadership challenges. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

DEVELOPING A STRATEGY TO ENHANCE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL CREDIBILITY Nancy Lauzon and Serge Be´gin ABSTRACT This paper is based on the conviction that school principal leadership varies considerably in accordance with the level of credibility they develop with the groups with which they interact. To become better leaders, school principals must adopt a proactive approach and develop the means of consolidating their credibility. Readers will understand that school principals have potential levers at their disposal, which can serve to enhance their credibility. We identified these levers by interviewing experienced school leaders. For each lever, we propose a series of actions and provide concrete examples. The text concludes with an overview and questions designed to guide readers in formulating their own individual action plans.

INTRODUCTION In Que´bec schools, the school principal’s influence is key to mobilizing team interest in undertaking various school-related projects such as education Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 161–177 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10010-X

161

162

NANCY LAUZON AND SERGE BE´GIN

reform, the development of an ongoing training culture, or the initiation of partnerships with organizations active in the health and social services sector. As evidenced by Gather Thurler (2000), a European researcher in education, school principals cannot rely solely upon their authority or the exercise of their formal powers to manage a school. In actual fact, quite the contrary is true. In a best-case scenario, reliance upon one’s authority would tend to suggest that one’s influence is not sufficient to rally one’s troops around a given project or cause. In a worst-case scenario, action or a strategy of the like could generate an angry outcry from members of the school team, even outright rejection of a principal’s leadership owing to a management approach deemed by subordinates to be too autocratic. Readers will appreciate the following statement by Mintzberg (2005): Management is, in itself, largely an exercise in facilitation. (y) However, especially in the case of larger corporations or those in the business of promoting knowledge, managers must be excellent leaders if their subordinates are to (y) willingly follow their lead. The role of the leader is to ensure that others give the best of themselves. (pp. 8–9)

Quite obviously, this situation does not apply solely to school principals. However, a number of factors do combine to help one understand the challenges faced by these public-sector managers. In addition to the advent of new generations of employees who entertain very different ties with individuals of authority, other factors would also appear to be at play. Consider the fact that teachers define themselves and seek to be recognized as professionals, not to mention the union and political power exercised at school boards across Que´bec.1 School board commissioners2 tangibly wield the political power to intervene in matters of school board management. To the foregoing list, we are of the opinion that one must add the fact that school principals are trained to be educators, not managers.3 Consider, for a moment, their primary career choice and their initial university training, which, instead of focusing on management, concentrates on teaching and learning. Coaching conducted with new school principals suggests that the latter must, from the moment they are promoted to principal, alter their perception of what schools are and realign criteria, which impact decision making in their new role. In certain instances, the move from teacher to principal is not without obstacles. This passage oblige´ from classroom-based vision to organization-based vision indeed requires appreciable adjustment when it comes to outlining organizational priorities. Some school principals with whom we have worked pointed out that at times, early in their careers as principals, they had the impression of betraying their former teacher

School Principal Credibility

163

colleagues when required to factor variables relating to cost and efficiency into the decision-making equation.

FACTORS INFLUENCING PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT The findings outlined above and the challenges at hand lead us to ask ourselves what are the factors which can help develop or enhance school principal influence in a given school environment? In keeping with work by Strong (1991), Collerette (2002), Gather Thurler (2000) and other researchers, we must ask ourselves the following question: How can school principals produce an effect or elicit a reaction from their employees? And, more precisely, how can school principals impact the behavior of one or more members of the school team? In our opinion, these questions are of central importance for without influence, school principals have little chance of mobilizing and securing the commitment of the members of their school organizations. And yet, both team mobilization and commitment are essential to the achievement of the organizational goal of ensuring student success. We therefore find ourselves in agreement with the questions posed by Politis (2005) to the effect that: Moreover, effective leadership frequently is defined as the ability to influence employees so that they are committed to accomplishing organizational goals (Yulk, 1994). In this context, power is defined as the ability of management to influence the behavior, intentions, attitudes, beliefs, emotions or values of subordinates (French & Raven, 1959). To this end, we are led to ask what it is to provide the bases for such an influence. (p. 199)

An initial lead, which should aid us in answering these central questions can doubtless be found in the knowledge of power sources. In this instance, power is the capacity of an individual (or group) to cause another individual (or a group) to act or think differently than would otherwise have been the case had the first individual or group not intervened (Collerette, 2002). In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to the classification proposed by French and Raven (1959), which according to Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2002), is the approach most widely used to conceptualize power sources in context of interpersonal influence. Then there is the classification developed by Bolman and Deal (1996), which has the benefit of making certain clarifications with respect to the principal sources of power.


164

Data garnered from interviews and analyzed in light of the classifications put forward by these authors indeed suggests that certain of these power sources are possible resources for school principals seeking to establish their influence. More precisely, our research suggests that the leaders with whom we met, being unable to use their authority (coercion and reward) in a number of given management situations, would rely mainly upon their power as experts (information and know-how) and their ability to demonstrate mastery of meanings and symbols to influence the members of their teams. This same research also suggests that it is not sufficient for school principals simply to have these resources – power sources – at hand to influence the members of their school teams. Rather, it is important for principals to establish their credibility with a critical mass of players. For the purposes of this paper, we consider credibility as the quality of a human agent of persuasion which renders such agent more influential albeit independent of the content of the persuasive message (Politis, 2005). Thus between power sources and principal influence lies another basic variable, namely principal credibility. Interviews with experienced Que´bec school principals considered leaders in their respective environments brings to light the existing correlation between leader influence, level of established credibility, and action taken to establish this level of credibility. In this regard, our work bears out findings by others in matters relating to interpersonal influence, notably the theory developed by Strong (1991),4 which has been the subject of considerable empirical research effort.5 According to Strong (1991) and illustrated in Fig. 1, influence is the consequence of an individual’s credibility and the latter’s credibility a function of the cues, leads or signals provided by such individual. Subsequent to a meta-analysis of research conducted based on the theory advocated by Strong (1991), Hoyt (1996) concluded as follows:

Cues/ indicators, signals: words, action

Credibility

Fig. 1.

Influence

Model Proposed by Strong (1991).


165

the present review provides support for several of the conclusions arrived at by prior reviewers. First, it confirms the key propositions of Strong’s (1968) theory: y cues are reliably associated with credibility perceptions in these studies, and there is evidence from field studies that credibility is strongly related to influence. (p. 440)

Hence our interest in finding out how new principals can develop their credibility with a view to establishing and enhancing their influence.

TWO PREMISES FOR FUTURE/NEW PRINCIPALS Prior to delving into the heart of the matter, it is important to introduce two premises which underpin the approach we advocate for future/new principals. The first relates to the fact that principals are considered professionals and the second to the attitude principals are encouraged to favor in seeking to develop their credibility and, as a consequence, their potential influence. The first premise relates to the fact that principals are considered professionals in the modern, broadly accepted meaning of the term.6 In this sense, principals must therefore not only know how to carry out the prescribed duties incumbent thereupon but also to know how to go above and beyond these duties (Le Boterf, 2002). Accordingly, in the face of the unforeseen and unexpected, or the complexity of stakeholder systems and logic, principals must know how to take initiative, make decisions, negotiate, arbitrate, make choices, take risks, react to unexpected turns of events, innovate on a day-to-day basis, and assume responsibility (Perrenoud, 1998). As pointed out by Le Boterf (2002), principals must not just make choices, but make choices in unstable, fleeting emergency situations. What is more, knowing how to act as a professional – in the case of school principals – entails not only knowing how to tackle an incident, but also knowing how to anticipate it. Recognizing school principals as professionals – in the light of the modern meaning of the term – we advocate from the standpoint that we do not focus on prescribed knowledge when seeking to build principal credibility. In this sense, we find ourselves in agreement with Le Boterf (2002) who alleges as follows: ‘‘In the end, it is not necessary to be competent to carry out that which is prescribed or to apply that which is already known’’ (p. 46). Rather, we are interested in the skills, which provide principals with the wherewithal to take action and to know what to do in a given circumstance. A second premise suggests a change in stance on behalf of new school principals who are urged invited to move away from a trial-and-error-based

166


system towards a more strategic approach to developing professional influence. Accordingly, principals are invited to reflect upon their desired goals in terms of influence and, as a consequence, build upon their base of current and future credibility. For the purposes of the approach at hand, it goes without saying that principals must make proper allowance not only for the aspects recognized by the circles in which they evolve (e.g., schools, school boards, professional associations), but also for the elements they themselves value as accomplished individuals poised to exercise influence. In short, this attitude requires that principals adopt clearly recognizable positions. We have observed, without placing ourselves at odds with currently taught leadership theories that this second premise tends to put these theories into perspective. Thus, there exists a certain consensus to the effect that the leadership skills demonstrated by principals are defined based on the context in which they work. Following this line of reasoning, an individual deemed to be a leader in a given environment, at a given time, and in a given culture, would not necessarily be perceived as a leader in another type of environment. Far from denying the significance of how credible new principals are perceived to be in their environment, we believe that it is important to underscore that all new principals possess tools which lend them power in this regard. When taken to the extreme, some assume that the principal is in a passive situation, even invoke a sense of powerlessness: How and to what extent can one’s environment cast or not cast one as a leader? This is a question asked time and again in workshops conducted with new school principals. Furthermore, how does one go about envisaging a situation where principals attempt to change the culture of their environment with a view to creating an opening for professional development? It is highly likely that many will not consider these principals as leaders in this environment, at least in the near term. However, they may find their credibility receives more recognition from their school board employer, fellow colleagues, or both. Thus, without denying the contextual dimension of leadership, we advise that new principals adopt a more proactive stance. We are convinced that principals can acquire real power in this regard and develop power from the standpoint of their credibility by being more influential agents of persuasion independent of the content of the persuasive message. More precisely, rather than investing the environment with full powers to decide whether or not they are leaders, principals can decide to develop a strategy with a view to establishing the foundation for their credibility. Hence, the primary goal of


167

this paper: Provide future/new principals with leads for developing potential influence based on credibility,7 thereby ensuring that they are recognized as professionals and viewed as proactive players.

PROPOSED BENCHMARK Having explained our premises, it is now relevant to introduce questions of a more specific nature in terms of developing the credibility of future/new school principals. The questions that will guide us in formulating a development strategy and enhancing credibility are: What are the factors underpinning school principal credibility? Since the data collected during interviews suggests focusing on one’s powers as an expert (information and know-how) and mastery of meanings and symbols as sources of credibility, is it then possible to examine school principal credibility from the standpoint of skills to be developed (successful mobilization of knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal relations)? And in the case at hand, which professional activities demonstrate mastery of specific skills by school principals (leads, demonstrated expertise, and mastery of meanings and symbols)? Motivated by the desire to inspire future/new school principals to formulate strategies for developing their credibility, we grouped the answers to the foregoing questions together to form a benchmark. As you will see, benchmarking makes it possible not only to broaden one’s understanding of what underpins school principal credibility, but also to suggest leads future/ new principals would do well to explore, develop, and enhance their credibility.

Overall Principal Credibility As shown in Fig. 2, our proposed approach surmises that overall principal credibility is equal to the sum of one’s credibility in a number of different areas of professional endeavor. Given that data collected to date pointed to two main sources of school principal power – power as an expert (information and know-how) as well as the mastery of meanings and symbols, we chose to examine school principal credibility from the standpoint of skills. When approached from this angle, the overall


168

Overall credibility of new school principals ∑ skills in various areas of professional endeavour * ∑ recognition by one’s environment (e.g.: school team, colleagues, school board)

Credibility Area A

Credibility Area B

Credibility Area C

Credibility Area D

Recognized skills in this area




∑ skills in this area* ∑ recognition of these skills by environment

Fig. 2.

+


+


+


Components of Overall Credibility of New School Principals.

credibility of new school principals would correspond to the sum of their skills in various professional areas of endeavor and the value accorded to each of these skills by their respective environments, hence the notion of ‘recognized skills.’ Now then, to be able to suggest leads for taking action and formulating a strategy, we must ask ourselves the following question: What exactly are the possible professional areas of endeavor, which impact credibility? In other words, in which areas of professional endeavor must school principals demonstrate skill? To date, interviews conducted with school principals recognized as leaders have enabled us to shortlist eight broad, possible areas of credibility. Each of these areas relates to possible, specific areas of intervention by school principals. And, in the light of our proposed approach, each of these professional areas requires that school principals be invested with the power to mobilize those around them, and to master a given repository of knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal skills.8


169

Given the potential impact of school principal credibility in these areas of endeavor, the latter have been designated as ‘levers of credibility.’ These levers of credibility include as follows: 1. Educational lever 2. EHDAA lever (students with handicap or demonstrating learning or adaptability difficulty) 3. Organizational and financial management lever 4. Personnel management lever 5. Legal lever 6. Symbolic lever 7. Leadership levier 8. Community relations lever It goes without saying that new school principals cannot master all the skills required in each of the eight different areas of credibility. However, these areas can serve as anchor points for evaluating one’s current credibility potential and setting possible professional-development targets with respect thereto. In other words, new school principals can ask themselves as follows: What are my current strengths and limits with regard to these areas of credibility in terms of knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal skills? In which areas do I seek and am I poised to develop and enhance my credibility in the near, medium, and longer terms? Our thinking here is in keeping with that of Keys and Case (1990) who state as follows: Managers who possess expert knowledge in a field and who continually build that knowledge base are in a position to convert successful attempts into sustained power. In the early stages of a career (or shortly after a move) power from expertise is usually tentative and fragile like the first strands of a web. y But enhancing expert-based power involves publicizing one’s expertise as well as acquiring it. (p. 44)

Credibility of Future/New School Principals in a Given Area As shown in Fig. 3 and supported by the authors quoted above, school principal credibility in a given area varies in accordance with the skills specific to each individual and the recognition achieved by such individual in his or her environment through the demonstration of such skills. Additionally, as indicated in Fig. 3, school principal skills in a given area owe to one’s ability to mobilize relevant resources and to put the mobilization effort to tangible use in professional activities deemed to be


170

Resources incorporated by school principal: Knowledge, know-how interpersonal skills AND Environmental resources

Fig. 3.

Mobilization of resources and translation into strategic activities

Skill Area A

Recognition by environment: value accorded this particular skill

Credibility Area A

Credibility in a Given Area of Professional Endeavor.

strategic in nature. The resources in the case at hand include work-related knowledge and environmental resources incorporated into the whole (Le Boterf, 2002). Knowledge incorporated by school principals can be theoretical, environmental/contextual, procedural, etc. Environmental resources can include one’s network of personal contacts, software, material resources, etc. Thus the capacity of school principals to mobilize, incorporate knowledge and environmental resources, and translate this mobilization into tangible activities is an essential condition to establishing one’s credibility. In this regard, we concur with actual authors, who suggest that skills must be rooted in action (Sandberg, 2000; Le Boterf, 2002). Hence, the importance for school principals to strategically select their course of action if they indeed seek to establish their credibility. By action, we mean deeds, pronouncements, etc., which transform into testimonials and serve as indicators of skill in a given area. However, mobilizing resources and translating mobilization efforts into tangible professional activities is not sufficient for establishing school principal credibility. The environment in which these activities take place must recognize that they have value. Accordingly, the more a critical mass of players value a particular area in a given environment–school, professional association, school board – the more these recognized skills will impact the overall school principal credibility. One could thus speak of ‘added value’ to the credibility in this particular area compared with other areas of professional endeavor. Based on the responses of school principals interviewed, we are of the opinion that recognition per se can derive from a plurality of sources such as


171

a critical mass of employees, but also colleagues and school board representatives. Recognition can also manifest itself in a number of different ways. For example, a school principal with recognized credibility in a given area serve as an expert at a school board or other meeting where colleagues of his or hers are present. Alternatively, others may solicit this same individual to sit in a committee active in his or her particular area of credibility. A school board department head might seek out the counsel of the school principal in relation to drafting a document or resolving a problem. The ideas put forth by the principal could lead to a consensus and incite members of the school team to take action or rally around a cause. Other bodies (government ministries, for example) or school boards may also feel encouraged to contact the school principal owing to the latter’s reputation as a recognized resource individual. Additionally, others may circulate the principal’s curriculum vitae for the purposes of future career advancement. Accordingly, future/new school principals should select areas of credibility based not only on personal beliefs, values, and potential, but also on the level of recognition afforded these areas of credibility in their respective environments and the importance they could have in terms of career advancement.

Formulating a Credibility Strategy: How and Why Fig. 4 illustrates the process as a whole and reminds readers that, based on the approach advocated herein, the possession of knowledge replete with the capacity to mobilize those around us, albeit necessary, is not sufficient for developing or maintaining one’s credibility. Thus, if we wish to take inspiration from leads designed to aid in formulating a development strategy and consolidating the credibility of future/new school principals, we must account for more than just the resources one masters or has at one’s disposal (what=knowledge). We must also make proper allowance for the situations, which would allow one to demonstrate mastery in each of the eight areas identified for the purposes hereof (how). We must, therefore, introduce two key questions as a must: 1. What knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal skills are required for the purposes of mobilization, and must be demonstrated or mastered with regard to the eight target professional areas of endeavor? 2. What activities are to be favored for demonstrating the requisite mastery?


172

Levers of credibility relating to expertise and mastery of meanings and symbols (power sources)

1. Resources incorporated by school principal: Mobilization of resources Knowledge, and know-how, translation interpersonal into skills 2. strategic AND activities Environmental resources

Fig. 4.

Skill Area A

Credibility Area A

Skill Area B

Recognition of skill by environment

Skill Area ‘n’

Credibility Area ‘n’

Overall credibility

Illustration of Process Leading to New School Principal Credibility.

Examples of Application of Proposed Benchmark Given the limits of this document,9 we have decided to present excerpts from the tool developed for new school principals and designed to inspire them to formulate a personal development strategy. More specifically, this tool enables them not only to conduct a diagnostic of their current situation in terms of their credibility in each of the eight target areas, but also to seek out leads for taking action and developing their credibility. The presentation of these examples also makes it possible to showcase the rationale behind application of our benchmarking approach. Thus, based on the examples provided, new school principals can initiate reflection and establish anchor points for the areas upon which they intend to focus (Table 1). Thus, if school principals are to become models of human resource management, they must first be familiar with the fundamentals of welcoming new employees and acknowledging work well done. They must then ensure that they consistently take action as required to welcome any new employees, and ably convey their expectations and priorities to the members of the school team as a whole.

Professional Areas/Levers of Credibility

Educational Lever

EHDAA Lever

My knowledge, I know the various I know the know-how, and educational different interpersonal key words learning styles skills relating to these areas I know the various I am capable of educational naming or approaches recognizing students in difficulty I know what skills are required of a good teacher

Personnel Management Lever

Legal Lever

I know the rules of financial management

Symbolic Lever

Leadership Lever

Community Relations Lever

I know the I know the laws elements to applying to focus on when school welcoming a management newly hired employee I know the policies I know the levers I know what the and procedural of recognition duties of the rules of my to be applied in principal and school board the workplace teachers are

I know the history of the school: noteworthy individuals and events

I know the different leadership techniques

I know the values espoused by different school groups

I am capable of locating requisite financial files on a computer

I know the characteristics of different generations of employees

I am knowledgeable of personnel collective agreements

I am capable of listing school rituals

I produce documents which are accurate and ensure that they are ready on time

I prepare candidate interviews (selection)

I sit on committees focusing on these areas

I institute practices and rituals

I am capable of I know the leaders leading a group of the various to make a communities in decision my region whenever necessary I establish rules I am capable of which negotiating incorporate a informal measure of partnerships flexibility and which foster involvement by everyone My meetings I entertain ties respect the with social announced clubs in my time allotment region

I know the community groups in my region

173

Action on my I seek out student behalf to results ensure that my skills in each of these areas gain recognition

I am capable of convincing teachers of the importance of adapting teaching to their student audiences I allocate monetary resources for professionals and class assistants

Organizational and Financial Management Lever


Table 1. Strategic Knowledge and Professional Activities Specific to the Eight Target Areas (Excerpts).

174

Table 1. (Continued ) Professional Areas/Levers of Credibility

Educational Lever

EHDAA Lever

Organizational and Financial Management Lever

Personnel Management Lever

Legal Lever

I organize educationrelated events

I find requisite budgets for problem cases, as required

I ensure that equipment and furniture are repaired quickly

I put these points on meetings agendas

I sent notes to individuals to mark special occasions

I follow up on meetings

I invite VIPs to attend student events

I provide (or organize) training on education reform

Parents are quickly advised and invited to play an active role

I set up the requisite mechanisms to provide for the proper dissemination of information

I organize a structured welcome meeting for each new employee I announce, at the outset of each year, priority issues and expectations

I enrol in training in school employee responsibilities

I make it a point to remember birthdays and acknowledge departures

I draft quality minutes

I underscore community support

Symbolic Lever

Leadership Lever

Community Relations Lever



175

CONCLUSION In conclusion, we wish to stress a number of important points. First, as our approach suggests, we believe that an individual’s credibility and, as a consequence, influence represent potential for development and not stable personality traits. We are also convinced that future or new school principals are invested with the power to develop their credibility and, as a consequence, their potential influence. Indeed, they must not relinquish to their respective environments the power to decide whether or not they are leaders or individuals of influence. It goes without saying that our approach is in keeping with work conducted in the field of empowerment and herein defined as the process by which an individual comes to master a new situation (Lauzon, 1997). Our approach further puts the onus on future/new school principals in the matter of individual credibility. Lastly, the approach we advocate suggests that one’s credibility builds up over time and that the individual must first select the areas of credibility with respect to which he or she already boasts acquired skills or strengths (knowledge, professional activities), the aim being to further one’s individual success.

Questions to Help Guide Future/New School Principals in Developing their Credibility The approach advocated in this chapter comprises five main steps: 1. You are first invited to select one or two areas from among the eight target areas and justify your choice based on your beliefs, values, career aspirations, and the environment in which you work. In this regard, we suggest that you choose areas with respect to which you believe you already possess certain strengths rather than those which would pose a greater challenge for you or with respect to which additional skills would be required to resolve major problems in the environment in which you currently work. 2. Drawing inspiration from the examples provided (Table 1), what knowledge do you require for each of the areas you intend to focus upon to develop your individual credibility and influence? (Do not hesitate to consult recognized school principals in your region to help you establish requisite knowledge and skills.) 3. Drawing inspiration from the examples provided (Table 1), what are the professional activities in which you could involve yourself with a view to

176


making known your skills in this area? (Do not hesitate to consult recognized school principals in your region to help you identify possible action to be taken.) 4. For each area of credibility, how would you rate yourself in terms of knowledge and professional activities? 5. In light of the diagnostic drawn up in Step 4 above, what are your development strategies for the near, medium, and longer terms?

NOTES 1. In Que´bec, public schools, adult education centers and vocational training centers are grouped together under school boards. This intermediate structure between the Ministry of Education and the school is found only in the public sector. School boards could be likened to a form of local government and are charged with organizing and dispensing educational services to the preschool, primary and secondary orders of education within a given territory. – Reference website: http:// www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/rens/brochu/cs.htm 2. Representatives elected by the people 3. Only since 2001 have individuals aspiring to become school principals been required to have 30 credits of management training as set out in the provisions of the Que´bec Public Education Act. 4. Caution must be exercised in applying this model to school principal influence as Strong’s (1991) theory was not aimed at professionals in this category. However, work currently under way into school principals points up the same factors identified by Strong (1991). We therefore believe the model to be relevant. 5. Hoyt (1996) proposes a synthesis of work conducted based on this theory (meta-analysis) 6. In this particular instance, although the meaning of the word ‘professional’ strays from that applying to an individual who is a member of a recognized professional body, the school principal professional is expected to abide by an accepted set of moral and ethical standards. See Le Boterf (2002). 7. An approach such as this can also assist experienced principals but this was not our goal at the outset. 8. Certain work-related knowledge will undeniably contribute to school principal credibility in more than just one area of professional endeavour. 9. The tool developed for new school principals is quite voluminous–some twenty or so pages in length. Hence we are unable to incorporate it into this chapter. This tool in fact outlines the knowledge (resources that can be mobilized) and activities deemed strategic for the eight areas of credibility identified. New school principals can therefore conduct a self-diagnosis and then formulate a strategy for developing/maintaining their credibility based on the material appearing herein.


177

REFERENCES Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1996). Repenser les organisations: Pour que diriger soit un art [Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership]. Paris, France: Maxima. Collerette, P. (2002). Pouvoir, leadership et autorite´ dans les organizations. (Power, leadership and authority in organizations). Sainte-Foy, Que´., Canada: Presses de l’Universite´ du Que´bec. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of power. In: D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Gather Thurler, M. (2000). Innover au coeur de l’e´tablissement scolaire. [Innovate in school environment]. Issy-les-Moulineaux, France: ESF e´diteur. Hoyt, W. T. (1996). Antecedents and effects of perceived therapist credibility: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 43(4), 430–447. Keys, B., & Case, T. (1990). How to become an influential manager. The Executive, 4(4), 38–51. Lauzon, N. (1997). L’habilitation des employee´s dans un contexte d’e´quipe de travail. [Employee’s empowerment in work teams] Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montreál (Canada). Le Boterf, G. (2002). De´velopper la compe´tence des professionnels. [Improve the competences of professionals]. Paris, France: E´ditions d’Organisation. Mintzberg, H. (2005). Des managers, des vrais! Pas des MBA [Managers not MBAs]. Paris, France: E´ditions d’Organisation. Perrenoud, P. (1998). Diriger en pe´riode de transformation ou de crise, n’est-ce pas, tout simplement, diriger? [Lead in periods of transformation or crises, is not just manage?]. In: G. Pelletier, R. Charron (Eds), Diriger en pe´riode de transformation (pp. 7–30). Montreál, Canada: E´ditions de l’AFIDES. Politis, J. D. (2005). The influence of managerial power and credibility on knowledge acquisition attributes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 197–214. Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 9–25. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2002). Relative power and influence strategy: The effects of agent-target organizational power on superiors’ choice of influence strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 167–179. Strong, S. R. (1991). Social influence and change in therapeutic relationships. In: C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 540–562). New York: Pergamon Press.

EDUCATION LEADERSHIP AS ‘CAPITAL’ FOR A DIVERSE SCHOOL SETTING: UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF SOCIAL AND SYMBOLIC CAPITAL AS EXEMPLARS OF SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES RoSusan D. Bartee ABSTRACT Dynamics of social and symbolic capital within diverse school settings affect how stakeholders (i.e., administrators, teachers, parents, students) influence, interpret, and/or implement the complex demands of education leadership. Educational leadership, as simultaneously possessing both constant and fluid tendencies, is fundamental to establishing benchmarks to successfully impact the educational experience. Having the requisite social and symbolic capital serves as a conduit for accessing quality networks as well as the signification of having gained reputable, legitimate schooling experiences. Notwithstanding, the transferability of those forms of capital provides the venue for K-12 administration to ‘teach effectively’ Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 179–194 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10011-1

179

180

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

and ‘lead responsibly’ within leadership contexts, particularly given this era of accountability. The intersection of the theoretical (teaching) and applied (leading) functions of educational leadership lends a democratic model for managing the resulting politics and generating leadership strategies as representative of social and symbolic capital.

INTRODUCTION Educational leadership requires deliberate efforts to manage public schools in ways to fulfill the demands of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and accountability without compromising the local, yet contending, needs of students and parents. The inherent complexities embedded within the concept of ‘leading to learn while learning to lead’ involve continuous negotiation and contemplation about maximizing the effectiveness of the leadership position (English, 2005; Hargreaves, 2006). Determining the level of direct leadership and indirect followship to enact becomes the persisting challenge that the process of being leader entails. Wagner et al. (2006) suggests that the combined perspectives that data, accountability, and relationships yield links effective leadership. Access to stakeholder relationships as a venue for garnering insight and information is useful toward informing the leader and the respective leadership style. Notwithstanding, educational leadership requires buy-in from multiple stakeholders that is critical toward manifesting effective and successful practices. Democratic leadership styles of collaboration and open dialogue establish a tone that sincere value is being placed upon manifesting the greater good for the school (Goodman, Baron, & Myers, 2005). Understanding the implications for horizontal and vertical forms of accountability informs the outcome of the leadership process (Wagner et al., 2006). While there are both primary and secondary stakeholders and although the leaders have the final say-so, the school community at large gains ownership in the decision-making efforts and outcomes. Anderson and Pini (2005) suggest that the need to keep the public involved and informed about school activities provides a framework for institutionalizing and sustaining the leadership goals. Such strategic approach uses the public interests to sell the leader’s vision instead of the leader having to do the legwork and sell the vision directly for himself or herself. Again, leaders have to consider the role of buy-in and its impact in their quest to build relationships and networks to maintain effective leadership.

Education Leadership as ‘Capital’ for a Diverse School Setting

181

The process of effectuating educational leadership uniquely intertwines the implications for symbolic and social capital. When considering the elements of capital as exclusive assets that contain the capacity to reproduce both profitable and meaningful rewards, educational leadership is an enacted representation of best practices (i.e., policies, research) and emergent interests (i.e., school councils, parent groups). In effect, the total of such representation contributes to the overall vision for the operation and governance of the school. As a result, the following questions have been posed to extract more details about how this process works: (1) What defines educational leadership within a diverse school? (2) In what ways do the various components of educational leadership impact school outcomes? By examining these questions, educators can gain more insight about the intricacies of educational leadership for a diverse school setting.

INTERACTIVE DYNAMICS OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CAPITAL FORMS Educational leadership embodies the capacity to create conducive contexts to manifest effective learning and schooling, while learning to lead and leading to learn. The vision, or lack thereof, of the primary (Principals) and secondary (teachers) leaders is critical to the magnitude at which students benefit from their overall educational experiences. Educators must exemplify quality leadership both inside and outside the school environment. Not only must the educational leadership invite and involve various stakeholders to share in the vision, educational leadership must actively demonstrate their followship ability by being active followers and participants. In effect, such two-fold leadership substantiates the vision while granting creditability to the visionary. Maehr and Midgley (1996) states the following perspectives: Leadership exists in many quarters of a school, but it is the potential for leadership that exists in the role of Principal that is of special significance in bringing about school culture change. Of course, simply being appointed to a Principalship does not make one a leader in the sense that he/she will act effectively to transform school culture. But we believed at the outset that it would probably be impossible for schoolwide change to occur if the person who sits in the Principal’s chair wished to block it. Teachers and other staff members are not in a position to command resources housed in the school budget and do no usually have entreé to upper administration or a network of policy makers in

182

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

district and state offices. The leadership of teachers most often resides in the persuasiveness of their ideas and the respect they are accorded for their expertise. It is certainly important but different than the leadership role that can and must be played by the Principal. That leadership may be exercised in a variety of ways, but must be supportive of the course of change. The Principal need not lead the parade, but she [he] had better join it! (p. 132)

The aforementioned perspectives specifically distinguish between the tasks and possibilities of the Principal as a leader and the teacher as a leader. Literally, the Principal becomes the face of the school and its leadership. Certain priviliges are afforded to the Principal as the leader. In effect, the position is engendered with predisposed forms of access to other commensurate leaders. The teacher serves in an advisory role to the Principal, the deliverer of instruction to their students, and other similarly situated roles to parents and perhaps the community. Wagner et al. (2006) asserts the following: Organizations that engage in ongoing dialogue around goals, priorities, and professional standards for individual and group performance intentionally foster the skills and norms that require everyone in the system to work more collaboratively and to be more accountable to one another. Everyone’s work becomes more visible – beginning with the leader. The leader models learning, teamwork, and openness to others’ feedback – behaviors very different from those that are traditionally associated with school or district leadership. (p. 16)

While the Principal is the face of the school, overall, it remains important for the Principal to have buy-in of teachers in order to ensure that the school vision is promoted irrespective of politically driven issues and contentions that may emerge. Ongoing collaborative efforts are important for the Principal to espouse in the respective leadership styles. Providing teachers with the opportunity to voice their concerns as well as participate in professional development opportunities enhances the likelihood that the prolonged support of the Principal will continue. Such support becomes critical toward maintaining a sense of community and cohesion for the school. The leadership position and how it manifests uniquely intertwined both symbolic and social capital. The position (in and of itself) of Principal or any primary leader is symbolic capital. The title of Principal embodies symbolic capital in that it connotes authority. Bourdieu (1984) states: it is predisposed to function as symbolic capital, i.e. to be recognized as capital and recognized as legitimate competence, as authority exerting an effect of (mis)recognition y . Furthermore, the specifically symbolic logic of distinction additionally secures material and symbolic profits for the possessors. y(p. 245)


183

The symbolic capital attached to the position of Principal inherently places legitimacy on the person occupying the position. While the position itself does not necessarily transfer into quality leadership, the leader assumes access to social capital. Social capital comprises inclusive networks and associations that are valuable for information exchange and resource acquisition (Bourdieu, 1984, 1986; Lee & Croninger, 1999). The position of Principal as educational leader assigns an automatic passport to those influential networks and resources in the respective community as well as state and even federal officials. It is important too that the Principal gets buy-in from these external networks and associations given their capability to promote the school vision through both financial and/or nonfinancial means. Education leaders become responsible, in many regards, for how well students and their families are able to adapt to the academic requirements within the school setting as well as the subsequent educational experience. Marshall (2006) asserts the following statements: Preparing our children for wise world shaping requires a generative learning system that (1) recognizes the processes and structures of learning as nested and interdependent and (2) understands learning as a continuous natural process of constructing meaning through creative inquiry, sustained engagement, and imaginative exploration and discovery. (p. xv)

The conceptualization of ‘generative learning’ is one in which links the educational experience to both internal and external phenomena. Internally, it is imperative that learning goals are interconnected with school polices and practices. As promoted by the educational leadership, leaders must align organized structures of policies and implemented practices in deliberate ways to manifest desired outcomes. Not only does such interconnectedness serve as a unique venue to facilitate cognitive development, but also demonstrates a need to integrate noncognitive activities as part of the learning continuum. Externally, civic and community networks offer relevant experiences for practical insight and valuable information. These networks are critical toward building cohesion or filling the gap between knowledge and application. In effect, the combined pursuit of cognitive and noncognitive activities contributes to the capacity at which individuals enjoy lifelong learning. There is a need for educational leadership to exercise its social capital by demonstrating how the participation in extracurricular activities meets the needs of the civic networks and community associations. Social capital presents the opportunity for a win–win situation of the educational

184

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

leadership because of its transferability in both school and work context (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). Particularly, as in the aforementioned approach of generative learning, participating in extracurricular activities provides a venue to cultivate or nurture students for their academic careers or work force in ways that are hands-on and practical. Educational leadership via social capital is in a unique position to advocate for support in order to build the morale for its school. As Lee and Croninger (1999) state, ‘‘Social capital is a resource embedded in a person’s social networkythe manner in which the structural characteristics of social groups facilitate or hinder helpful exchanges between members’’ (p. 6). Therefore, it remains important that educational leaders know how to manage and negotiate the relationships. Educational leaders in the 21st century must contend with prevailing issues and subsequent challenges related to school accountability and standardization (Johnson, 2006; Lambert & McCarthy, 2006; Lipman, 2004). NCLB of 2001 requires that schools maintain compliance with federalized standards for academic performance levels or encounter repercussions for failure to meet the standards. The achievement, or lack thereof, of accountability and standardization is the measuring stick by which state and federal officials determine the credibility of a school and, more particularly, its leadership. McDonald (1996) assumes the following position: There are two fundamental models of accountability on the policy agenda, a marketoriented approach and a state-regulated approach. In the market version, schools are held accountable for student performance, usually on the basis of standardized test scoresy . In the state-regulated model, students and schools are held accountable for achieving high standards based on standardized test results, schools are rated, and underperforming schools are subject to various consequences. y(pp. 7–8)

Like student success, market-oriented and state-regulated models inextricably tie effective leadership, to test scores. Test scores serve as a symbolic representation of what constitutes a quality schooling and educational experience. As an objectified form, symbolic capital is ‘‘the form that various species of capital assume when they are perceived and recognized as legitimate’’ (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 127). Stakeholders view these symbolic icons as means to access whether or not students from this school are intellectually capable and even driven to succeed. In its objectified form, test scores become the mechanism for determining whether or not colleges and universities enroll students. Likewise, institutions measure the objectified form of the quality of the mission statement against the symbolic capital, or


185

lack thereof, based on the test scores. In effect, the capacity of symbolic capital to impact school accountability is significant.

Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks Theoretical Perspective Functionalist paradigm locates schools as socializing institutions that operate for the purpose of reinforcing the existing social and political order (deMarrais & LeCompte, 1999; Hurn, 1993). Implicit within functionalism resonates the undergirding belief that consensus and agreement exists about the role of schools within society. Enactment of federal and state educational policies provides the context to determine how leaders carry out the role. In effect, irrespective of personal beliefs, from a professional standpoint, educational leaders must align their leadership styles and the mission of the schools in ways to compliment the governing policies. Hurn (1993) asserts the following statements: Schooling represents an efficient and rational way of sorting and selecting talented people so that the most able and motivated attain the highest status positions. In other words, schools help create a society of equal opportunity where effort and ability rather than family background determine a person’s status. (pp. 42–43)

The process of schooling creates the opportunity to identify those students who have the intellectual capacity to succeed in a highly structured society. Functionalist suggests that the pursuit or attainment of occupations become a reflection of the inherent abilities. The idea is that students demonstrate such level of skills or aptitude on standardized tests that focus on assessing these abilities. Educational leadership is to be able to identify those students and recommend them for rigorous academic courses and complimentary activities. Functionalist further suggests that a fair and level playing field exists for students to be able to achieve the highest academic accolades. Any inequalities or indifferences that emerge in the pursuit of educational attainment are not necessarily systematic, but on a case-by-case basis. In effect, educational leadership serves as a gatekeeper in their acquired responsibilities to monitor how students matriculate and teachers facilitate the educational processes within the academic pipeline. Understanding the larger role of schools becomes critical to the type of curriculum implemented within the particular schools. Some school curricula are college preparatory and some are vocational-tracked, or some inclusion of them both. The type of access for which students are qualified

186

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

or gained impacts their matriculation through the academic pipeline and on into the societal workforce. Hurn further asserts the following statements: Second, the functional paradigm sees schools as teaching the kind of cognitive skills and norms essential for the performance of most adult roles in a society increasingly dependent on knowledge for economic growthy . Creation and transmission of knowledge become ever more important, and the institutions that are primarily concerned with such knowledge become increasingly vital to the societies’ welfare. (p. 43)

In particular, college preparatory schools focus on accepting students who have the credentials (i.e., test scores, grades) that demonstrate their ability to excel within intellectually rigorous curricula. Mastery of such curriculum prepares students for access to highly selective institutions of higher education. The guiding assumption is that the students who excel both the school and university arena will be the ones who are prepared and qualified to become the leaders of the next generation. Educational leadership has the responsibility of reconciling the differences between exercising meritocratic goals without comprising democratic principles (English, 2005; McNamee, 2004). Again, how the concept of the educational leader as a gatekeeper gets individualized and thereby operationalized becomes critical to the role of ‘leading to learn while learning to lead.’ Methods and Methodologies This analysis of education leadership as social and symbolic capital stems from a larger study involving African American students and the need for multiple forms of capital. The study used survey and interview protocols to collect data from administrators, parents, and senior-level students in a high performing magnet school in Chicago, IL. The total enrollment of the school is over 2,100 students and the racial composition is as follows: 39% Black, 23% White, 19% Hispanic, 18% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.7% Native American. The school has 36% students from lower income backgrounds, a 96% graduation rate, and 25 is the composite score on the ACT. Westlake Magnet High School is the pseudonym used to reference this school. The study used purposeful, voluntary sampling to choose participants. While the total number of participants interviewed in the larger study is 39, this chapter will only use data from the five interviewed administrators (i.e., Principal, Assistant Principals, Guidance Counselor, Attendance Counselor) and five interviewed teachers. This analysis will not use any of the survey data from the student participants. Additionally, it is important to include the credentials of the administrators and the teachers. One of the


187

administrators has a Ph.D. and the remaining four administrators have master’s degrees. The administrators have served in their positions for at least 7 years or more. As it relates to teachers in this study, they are also from different backgrounds. One of teachers has a Ph.D. and the remaining four teachers have master’s degrees. All of the teachers are teaching courses based on their undergraduate degrees. More specifically, as a qualitative analysis, the paper uses transcripts of interview data from the administrators and teachers. The analysis examines interviews from the interactive dynamics of educational leadership and social and symbolic capital. The study identifies relevant themes and supporting data to demonstrate how educational leadership emerges as a form of social and symbolic capital in the quest of ‘leading to learn while learning to lead.’

DEFINING THE COMPONENTS OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP The academic and administrative components of educational leadership contribute to the overall vision for the school. Effectiveness of such components, however, resonates in the level in which information from the various stakeholders is gathered and integrated. One idea is that those who are involved directly in the school affairs are able to benefit professionally, while providing an academic service to the students. Answering the question of ‘what defines educational leadership within a diverse school’ is as follows according to the Principal: We have three goals that we have institutionalized y . One is technology, two is staff development and three is academic achievement for students y . We believe that schools should strive to be state of the art in terms of technology. That’s the way of the world whether people like it or not and we have tried very, very hard through many initiatives to ensure that our students have the resources available through technology that they need y . Our second goal, staff development, obviously encompasses professional development in which we really emphasize to teachers that we want them to improve as teachers and improve their craft so we give them dollars each and every year to attend seminars of their choice to enhance what they’re doing in the classroom y . Then our third goal, academic achievement, we have an aspect of the school which is strategic planning, which we look at the test data and analyze it to make sure that we are doing what we should be doing to educate our students here so we always are proactive in terms of looking at the data, understanding the data and implementing programs to improve academic achievement for students. Obviously, that goes along with incorporation of the many activities we offer here at the school. Students can come up with an activity that they

188

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

want, if they can identify a sponsor and it’s a reasonable program or activity then we allow it to happen and, again, we believe that those two go hand in hand.

The Principal articulated a clear mission or vision for the school. The incorporation of staff development is an important part of the teaching and learning environment of the school. Teachers must be current on the latest trends about teaching as a way to inform their pedagogy. Integrating technology within the classroom pursuits only enhance their knowledge base and capacity in which they gain literacy in areas other than their courses. Having student input in this process allows the students to contribute to the development of their own academic pathway for learning. More importantly, delegated responsibilities, as part of the leadership model, are beneficial to fostering a healthy, school context. Those involved must be able to actively demonstrate their knowledge base. The Principal also states: I would say to them that you must empower your teachers to be those leaders in the classroom and address curricular issues. Principal cannot do it all. I majored in PE in college. I didn’t major in Math, I didn’t major in English. I’m not the expert in the classroom when it comes to that. I have a general overview or framework of what should happen but I think that we as educators, Principals in particular, need to rely on the expertise of the classroom teachers and give them an opportunity to collaborate with their colleagues to improve the academics within a school setting.

Emphasizing the need for in-school dialogue about the different activities for improving academic outcomes for use in the school setting is important. Considering the ‘teacher as expert’ shows a respect for their teaching ability as well as enhances teacher morale. Principal is situating their leadership position as one in which uses both direct leadership and indirect followship to execute the components of educational leadership. The Principal, as the primary leader, is often responsible for looking at the bigger picture for educational leadership. However, the bigger picture only becomes clear if other lower level administrators and teachers properly address the details. An Assistant Principal asserts the following statements: Umm y I’m- I’m pretty much a-a bottom line type of person I – I think that uh if everybody is communicating and the students and the parents understand expectation of the teacher uh and the expectation are realistic I think that everybody ought to be successful all the time in school at learning y

The importance of effective and open communication becomes a significant component in creating an environment for which quality teaching and learning can occur. In such environment, all of those involved in the process of educating the child understand each of their responsibilities. By engaging parents, teachers, and students in dialogue about the vision of the school,


189

it increases the likelihood of maintaining their commitment to the goals. Furthermore, being interested in how to maximize the learning potentials of the children is important. As a teacher states: ‘‘Well, I just y all kids can learn and it’s just trying to find out the best way to meet their needs in terms of learning styles and to try to do it with some fun.’’ Finding creative ways to motivate children’s interests in learning encourages them to exhibit their best skills. Principals, as primary leaders, can engage in various activities to demonstrate an effective use of symbolic capital and its impact. This is achieved by providing a context for open and honest dialogue. Creating access for professional development opportunities and using parent and student input as well as teacher expertise are the venues by which to do so. These efforts signify the active commitment toward creating social-capital based relationships for executing and maintaining quality leadership. It important, however, that morale and buy-in is already established with teacher and parent stakeholders prior to accessing the relationship for some type of return.

DEMONSTRATING IMPACT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP The capacity at which schools are competitive on multiple levels often determines the demonstrated impact of educational leadership. From the fulfillment of demands associated with NCLB to fostering high graduation rates and college enrollment, schools face burdens that often extend beyond classroom practices. In light of the defined components of educational leadership, it is important to understand how leaders and others operationalize those components. The question, ‘in what ways do the various components of educational leadership impact school policies and practices,’ is one in which seeks to garner insight into this educational phenomena. The Principal states the following perspectives: A typical graduate of Westlake Magnet would probably be a student with a grade point average of 3.0 or higher, definitely confident, academically prepared, has probably applied between 5–10 schools and been admitted to most. Most of the students probably have applied to at least one Ivy League school whether they get in or not, self motivated graduate. For the most part they know what they want in terms of a major. We have 96% of our students are graduates that go on to a four-year institution.

Having a strong vision for the school lends itself to graduating students who are strong academically. There is alignment between the components of

190

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

education leadership and given the outcomes of the students attending this school. Students are enjoying the possibilities of options associated with attending highly selective institutions. Although some students may not succeed in this environment, given the graduation rate, it is clear that students understand their purpose for attending Westlake Magnet School. More specifically, the demonstrated impact of educational leadership is a crucial element of the structure of the curriculum within the school. The selected type of curriculum, in many regards, enhances accountability efforts to achieve desired educational outcomes. The governing educational policies from federal platforms to enrollment into institutions of higher education receive serious consideration. The Principal asserts the following: I think the rigor of the course. AP courses here are very, very rigorous. They’re taught on a college level and, you know, nationally the requirements are already set so a number of pages having to be read, material being covered. It’s very, very fast paced and very, very rigorous and I think the students understand that and so a student might have – or might be reluctant to enroll in the class, although they might have met all the criteria, depending on what their other classes for that particular year are.

By examining multiple facets of what enhances the likelihood of students receiving the highest academic achievement levels, the schools can incorporate these findings into its goals. The mission statement of the school is clear and details how to implement the processes needed to achieve these goals. And as the Principal asserts further in light of this viewpoint: ‘‘academics plus extracurricular activities equal success y and obviously my philosophy is we’re trying to develop the whole child and ensure y a productive experience by participating in extracurricular activities. Educating the whole child is fundamental to executing effective leadership.’’ It is important that students are constantly aware of the expectation as espoused by the Principal and implemented by other administrators and teachers. To do so, leadership must take specific efforts to ensure that the goal of college preparation is achieved. An Assistant Principal asserts the following: the primary goal we have is to get kids in a position where they can apply to and be accepted at colleges of their choosing y . Everything we do uh, should line up with that primary goal. Certainly there are secondary goals every school would like to – to have students of good character who uh are well-rounded person who contribute to their communities in – in different ways with service learning opportunities as well as a leadership opportunities. But our primary goal is college preparatory. So umm we hope that every child when they become seniors can – can submit an application to somewhere they really want to go and be accepted at that school.


191

While college preparatory is a number one goal for this school, there is a sincere interest in the development of the whole student. Students encounter a school context that nurtures both personal as well as academic interests. By employing service and leadership opportunities, the school exposes the student to an educational experience inclusive of academic and nonacademic experiences. The Guidance Counselor, too, asserts the following viewpoints: As the student progresses here at our school, as a senior counselor y the typical kind of student graduates from this school. They’re intelligent y . Intellectually, the student would have somewhere let’s say about a 23-24-25 ACTy . I don’t know what to say except that they are – they think highly of themselves. Westlake Magnet has the reputation that makes them feel like they’re #1. The students are proud of themselves coming from this institution. They feel that they can compete with anybody, anywhere in the country and any school because they feel, ‘‘Well, I’m a graduate of Westlake Magnet.’’ They have high expectations of themselves and of the people around them. I guess I already said they’re high achievers. They constantly achieve.

Building high morale of the students in this public school becomes a significant accomplishment that will contribute to their overall ability to achieve in colleges and universities. The symbolic capital that students gain from graduating from an institution that has the name recognition is important. Such name lends credibility to the grades and test scores that determine if selective institutions of higher education choose to accept a student. Such name recognition brings national and public attention to the quality of leadership and educational programming at the school. From this particular standing of the demonstrated impact of educational leadership, the implications of social capital are not readily identifiable. Demonstrated implications of social capital will be significant and most noticeable for when students gain acceptance into the highly selective institutions. The level of resources and networks will provide these students with the association that they need in their career pursuits.

DEFENDING DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIES FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP The use of democratic strategies within education leadership creates a context for effective teaching and learning for this diverse school setting. Collaborative efforts provide the venue by which to engage teachers, parents, and students in their educational experience. Using horizontal style of accountability, collaborative efforts have allowed these individuals

192

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

assume ownership for the vision of the leader and corresponding leadership styles. In effect, the integration of collaborative efforts increases the likelihood for which the Principal has been able to maintain cohesion and cooperation among the important stakeholders, particularly among teachers. Understanding that quality leadership is reliant upon a committed followship, it is important to assume a leadership style that is conducive to garnering sustained support. Leading as a facilitator not dictator establishes the basis for fostering and nurturing collegiality among the teachers and those other stakeholders involved. The Principal asserts the following perspectives: I define my role as truly a facilitator. I don’t really look at my role as the educational leader. I look at my faculty members as the educational leaders in the classroom. I’m here to provide resources for the teachers to facilitate any concerns or issues that they have, to address those in a timely manner. I think if you talk to any teachers in the building they would say that the management style that we’ve institutionalized here, they’re comfortable with that. It’s one of an open door policy, they can express whatever they need to express and they will be listened to, their concerns are addressed immediately, they don’t have to wait to schedule a conference and then I meet with them a week later, it’s done on the spot most of the time so I think that we have a productive working relationship with our faculty and staff here.

Situating the leadership style as facilitator is one, which is considerate of the diverse interests and views. Being an accessible leader bridges the gap between the lines of administration and teaching. Furthermore, the impact of such leadership style passes down into the classroom. A teacher states the following: I really, frankly believe that I am a facilitator of learning. I personally am not the type that likes to lecture and dictate learning. I’d rather have students to discover learning, discover skills, discover ideas and concepts y . And I also believe in holistic education. Looking at students, not just as the child sitting in the seat, you know, and rumors circulating around the room but as an individual who has spiritual needs, who has social needs, who has academic needs. Each one of those needs needs to be attended to and addressed. Children are very individual and with a lot of my teaching styles and strategies my attempt is to make sure that the individual needs are assessed and observed and then if there are situations or problems I can deal with them a lot better for them. All right, I’ve received lots of feedback from the kids and they seem to like that kind of style, I suppose. One student, I remember her telling me that, ‘‘I really like the fact that you integrate.

Having a teacher subscribe to the same style of leading in classroom endeavors as the Principal subscribes to in the administrative endeavors indicates the level of buy-in for which teachers need to have in the pursuit


193

of effecting educational leadership. The cohesion in leading and teaching styles further contributes to the professionalism that exists throughout the school culture. Both students and teachers receive and deserve respect for what they contribute to the overall learning and teaching experience. The leader has provided a constructive vision with details that teachers and students can individualize in order to meet the corresponding needs.

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL AND SYMBOLIC CAPITAL FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP In the era of NCLB, accountability for educational leadership has become increasingly important in the quest to manifest high academic outcomes. Leaders must embrace the concept of accountability as a venue for effectuating creative leadership strategies and a committed followship (Duke, Grogan, Tucker, & Heinecke, 2003). Achieving effective educational leadership requires the use of democratic strategies to encourage buy-in and collaborative efforts via professional development for teachers and parent and student input. Consistency among the approach to educational leadership needs to exist among the various levels of leadership (i.e., administration, teaching). As part of the quest of ‘leading to learn and learning to lead,’ the process of negotiating and facilitating leadership styles allows for the leaders to adequately reflect and evaluate whether or not the school is attaining the pursued vision. Therefore, enacting educational leadership in a diverse school setting requires clear understanding and functions for the roles for which different stakeholders are to assume within the vision of the school (Dowdy & Wynne, 2005; Madsen & Mabokela, 2005). Being aware and cognizant of those key individuals in the relevant external and internal networks provides a useful context for accessing the embedded social capital through the use of strategic activities. Articulating a vision that is clearly defined and considerate of the political climate, social demands, and higher educational policies situates the goals of the schools as being transferable to other contexts. The symbolic capital espoused within this approach enables the school to garner name recognition for its quality leadership and rigorous academic curriculum. Integrating social and symbolic capital to foster effective educational leadership is maximizing the use of nonmaterial resources to attain the highest academic outcomes.

194

ROSUSAN D. BARTEE

REFERENCES Anderson, G. L., & Pini, M. (2005). Educational leadership and the new economy: Keeping the public in public schools. In: F. W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 216–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–260). New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dowdy, J. K., & Wynne, J. T. (2005). Racism, research, and educational reform: Voices from the city. New York: Peter Lang. Duke, D. L., Grogan, M., Tucker, P. D., & Heinecke, W. (Eds). (2003). Educational leadership in an age of accountability: The Virginia experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. English, F. (Ed.) (2005). The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Goodman, J., Baron, D., & Myers, C. (2005). Constructing a democratic foundation for schoolbased reform: The local politics of school autonomy and internal governance. In: F. W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 297–332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hargreaves, A. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hurn, C. (1993). The limits and possibilities of schooling: An introduction to the sociology of education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D., & Johnson, B. (2006). High stakes: Poverty, testing, and failure in American schools. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield. Lambert, R., & McCarthy, C. (Eds). (2006). Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Lee, V. E., & Croninger, R. G. (1999). Elements of social capital in the context of six high schools. Report No. EA 031052, Office of Educational Research and Improvement: Washington, DC, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454 582). Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: Routledge Falmer. Madsen, J. A., & Mabokela, R. (2005). Culturally relevant schools: Creating positive workplace relationships and preventing intergroup differences. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Maehr, M., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. deMarrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Marshall, S. P. (2006). The power to transform: Leadership that bring learning and schooling to life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McDonald, J. P. (1996). Redesigning schools: Lessons for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McNamee, S. J. (2004). The meritocracy myth. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., Howell, A., & Rasmussen, H. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

THE MICROPOLITICS OF TEACHER LEADERSHIP THROUGH AN ASSUMPTIVE WORLDS FRAMEWORK Jan A. Yow ABSTRACT In the constant crisis of educational administration, teacher leaders may no longer be ignored as qualified individuals to help lead schools. Who better to teach leaders to lead teachers than teachers? In this chapter, I use an Assumptive Worlds framework to analyze the micropolitics of 12 secondary mathematics teacher leaders. The qualitative data comes from a larger study that explored secondary mathematics teacher definitions, perceptions, and enactments of teacher leadership. As viewed through the Assumptive Worlds framework, teacher leaders can help bridge the divide between teachers and administrators so schools work better for kids.

INTRODUCTION I think that the biggest part of teacher leadership is that you are a change agent. You are affecting change. It could be at the staff level; it could be at the classroom level; or it Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 195–215 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10012-3

195

196

JAN A. YOW

could be at the district level. You could be affecting change to your superiors and so I think the biggest component to teacher leadership is being a change agent. And that means a lot of things but that means that you are impacting people in a positive way, you are affecting change for them in a positive way. And even affecting change in the lives of students and parents in a positive way. I think that, to me, is what teacher leadership means. (Bess, interview 1)

Like Bess1 says, teacher leadership is a topic discussed at varying levels of the educational community including the national, state, and local levels. As a classroom teacher, Bess describes her own ideas about teacher leadership. In this chapter, I discuss the micropolitics of teacher leadership as described by classroom teachers. It is important to first briefly discuss the macropolitics from a national and state level before addressing the micropolitics of teacher leadership. Next, I provide the context, an overview of the classroom teacher participants, and a description of the common mathematics education masters program all participants completed together. I continue with a review of the literature on teacher leadership and more specifically, mathematics teacher leadership. From there, I offer a brief description of the Assumptive Worlds framework (Young, 1977 as cited by Marshall & Mitchell, 1991) I will use to track the political strategies of these 12 teacher leaders. I conclude with a few final comments about how this analysis will inform future research.

MACROPOLITICS OF TEACHER LEADERSHIP In 1983, a national report entitled A Nation at Risk (authored by The National Commission on Excellence in Education) stated the grave condition of U.S. schools and called for reform. Mathematics education was cited as being particularly weak and demands were made for higher quality mathematics teachers. In 1986, the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession issued their response entitled A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. The National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) also issued their own responses: Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989), Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (1991), and Assessment Standards for School Mathematics (1995). Then in 1996, the NCTM revised these original documents into the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,

The Micropolitics of Teacher Leadership

197

1983) propelled national reform, calling for higher standards, and achieving them. One achievement begun by this report has been the growing emphasis on teacher leadership, high-quality teachers who guide others (Dozier, 2004). The National Scene At a national level, the Carnegie Task Force report argued that ‘‘teachers should become leaders in curriculum, instruction, social redesign, and professional development and that the real power to improve achievement lay with teachers’’ (Lieberman & Miller, 2004, p. 13). Upon the recommendation of the Carnegie Task Force, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) developed as a national certification process for classroom teachers. The Carnegie Task Force and ultimately the NBPTS knew that high-quality teaching existed and needed documentation and national recognition. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2006) offers five propositions to answer the central focus of What teachers should know and be able to do. Proposition 1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning. Proposition 2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. Proposition 3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. Proposition 4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. Proposition 5. Teachers are members of learning communities. (NBPTS, 2006) The push for ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’ have received even greater emphasis because of the No Child Left Behind Act. Potential pay for performance policies and high stakes testing has also caused teacher leadership to be on federal minds. Officials at both the national and state levels are placing more pressure on classroom teachers to be leaders in their field.

198

JAN A. YOW

The State Scene Formerly known as the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) completed a state-level survey of teacher working conditions. One of the key findings in the report was that leadership is critical to improving working conditions; however, principals and teachers view those working conditions very differently (CTQ, 2005). Based on the results of its original survey, the CTQ created the Teacher Leaders Network where teacher leaders from across the state, and recently, from across the nation, gather on an online listserv to discuss topics concerning teacher leadership. Why Teacher Leadership? Looking at the national research around teacher leadership, many have defined the phrase broadly. While some say that all teachers are leaders (Barth, 2001), others say that teacher leaders are excellent teachers who influence others (Dozier, 2004; Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Miller, Moon, & Elko, 2000). Even though teacher leadership has appeared in the literature for over thirty years (Andrew, 1974; Rogus, 1988; York-Barr & Duke, 2004; Zimpher, 1988), scholars have yet to agree upon a concise definition. Another dilemma in the field of teacher leadership is that many ask the question, why organized study around teacher leadership? Teacher leaders already exist in our schools: grade level chairs, department chairs, and curriculum developers. Yet to be developed are non-traditional roles available to teacher leaders: leaders of teacher research inquiry groups in their schools, co-leaders of lesson study projects in their district (MacLean & Mohr, 1999; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Schools have realized that the traditional roles and designs of schooling need to be changed in order for schools to work for all children. The teaching profession needs to realize that traditional roles and designs of teaching need to be changed in order for schools to work for all teachers. As Pellicer and Anderson (2001) proclaim, ‘‘[w]ithout question teacher leadership is more important today to the success of America’s schools than it has ever been before’’ (p. 1). Bess, the classroom teacher whose quote opened this chapter, is one of 12 high school teachers whose words will provide the data for this chapter. The data used in this chapter comes from a larger study exploring how secondary mathematics teachers define, perceive, and enact teacher leadership. Whereas the larger study includes a pre- and a post-survey, three interviews, and two focus groups over an academic year, the data used in this chapter will come only from two interviews and two focus groups.


199

CONTEXT Participants The thirteen teachers invited to participate in the study are all recent graduates of a masters program at a large southeastern university. The study includes twelve of the thirteen teachers invited to participate. One invited participant decided not to teach the following year and felt her participation would not inform the study. The twelve teachers were a part of the cohort in the mathematics education concentration area. All twelve teachers remained full-time secondary mathematics teachers throughout the program and eleven are still currently teaching full-time. The one teacher not teaching, Anna, is now a mathematics educational consultant for a testing company. I worked with these teachers for two and a half years as their masters program teaching assistant. The teachers range in years of experience from four to 34 years and work in four different counties ranging from urban to rural settings.

Masters of Education Program The Masters of Education (M.Ed.) program, a two and a half year program, is tailored for full-time teachers. The program is both distance education, where classes meet away from the university campus in area schools, as well as a hybrid program, where courses meet face-to-face and online. The M.Ed. program has several content specialty areas including K-12 literacy and 6–12 social studies running concurrently with the 8–12 Mathematics. A total of 56 students were enrolled from all three specialty area, thirteen being in the 8–12 Mathematics cohort. The program has three guiding foci: teacher as content specialist, teacher as researcher, and teacher as change agent. All students take a core set of classes regardless of specialty area. In addition, each specialty area takes specific courses directly related to their content specialty. These three foci are woven throughout the program courses with the first course entitled Reinventing Teaching and the final course entitled Teacher Leadership and Democratic Schooling. Students are admitted as cohorts by content area meaning that they complete the program with the same group of classmates, taking each course together. For example, the participants in this study began the 8–12 Mathematics M.Ed. program with 14 students in their cohort. With one student leaving the program for financial reasons, the 13 teachers in the

200

JAN A. YOW

cohort completed 31 hours of coursework together over three summers and two academic years. The culminating masters project completed by the students is a comprehensive portfolio in which they address their growth in all three program foci with supporting artifacts taken from projects completed throughout their coursework.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP LITERATURE In this section, I review general literature on teacher leadership and then I look specifically at literature on mathematics teacher leadership. Wasley (1991) was one of the first researchers to use data from teacher interviews and observations when she published a book entitled Teachers Who Lead. In interviewing and observing three teachers leaders, Wasley (1991) profiled each to allow others to ‘‘see’’ what teacher leadership looked like. In these three in-depth case studies, Wasley (1991) was shocked at the complexity of the teacher leader role. The roles involved power, authority, decision-making relationships, different kinds of collaboration, and communicating beliefs about teaching and learning. Factors that allowed these teacher leaders to be successful with their colleagues also constrained them (Wasley 1991). Teacher Leadership Related to Wasley’s (1991) work, other researchers have surveyed, interviewed, and observed teachers in order to better understand teacher leadership. Several common themes and findings have emerged throughout this research: trust and relationships, political understanding, knowledge of change, and teaching and learning expertise. Trust and the importance of building relationships is a shared characteristic across the research. Teacher leaders employed a set of skills that involved building both trust and rapport in addition to creating a confidence in others (Miles, Saxl, & Lieberman, 1988). Management of interpersonal relationships and communication skills were characteristics of teacher leaders (O’Connor & Boles, 1992). In addition to trust, teacher leaders are also aware of the political climate in which they work. Teacher leaders understand how power and authority contribute to decisions made in education (O’Connor & Boles, 1992). Teacher leaders recognize that schools operate as organizations that deal with power dynamics (Miles et al., 1988). Teacher leaders use their knowledge of the political climate in making decisions and building


201

relationships (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Connected to trust, Fullan (2002) says teacher leaders embody a sense of ‘‘moral purpose,’’ which he defines as a ‘‘principled behavior connected to something greater than ourselves that relates to human and social development.’’ As change is inevitable, teacher leaders understand its impact on schools and the teaching and learning that take place within them. Teacher leaders have a clear knowledge of how change happens (Fullan, 1994); they can also deal with change as well as adapt when it occurs (Miles et al., 1988; O’Connor & Boles, 1992). This adaptability prevails in teacher leader characteristics. Another characteristic of teacher leaders is their expertise of teaching and learning. Teacher leaders not only understand the complexities of teaching and learning (Fullan, 1994), but also influence their peers in teaching and learning (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). They understand that teaching and learning is a lifelong endeavor. Teacher leaders should engage in self-inquiry and share their discoveries with colleagues (Miles et al., 1988; Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Throughout these various lists of teacher leader qualities, common themes emerge. Scholars agree on the importance of building trust among colleagues and being a part of a learning community (Miles et al., 2000; Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Also, many mention the importance of understanding how organizations work and the political arena within which schools operate. Several researchers mention the understanding of the change process and the willingness to take risks as key components to teacher leadership (Fullan, 1994; Lieberman & Miller, 2004). These characteristics are important to keep in mind as we review the mathematics teacher leadership literature and move on to the discussion of the micropolitics of teacher leadership. Mathematics Teacher Leadership Similar to the literature on teacher leadership, literature on mathematics teacher leadership also finds that teacher leaders must build relationships and understand the change process (Miller et al., 2000). More specifically, this body of literature focuses on the teacher leader’s expertise in mathematics and the mathematics classroom (Langbort, 2001). In Who are Teacher Leaders? Langbort (2001) lists 18 attributes of a mathematics teacher leader including being a mentor to other mathematics teachers, a spokesperson for mathematics education, and an active member of the mathematics education community. Being a teacher leader involves understanding the complexities of the change process. Recent research into professional development of mathematics and

202

JAN A. YOW

science teachers has revealed just how complex the change process can be. The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) outlines the stages that teacher leaders go through when implementing changes such as new curricula (Hall & Hord, 1987; Loucks-Horsley, 1996). The CBAM ‘‘applies to anyone experiencing change’’ and holds that ‘‘people considering and experiencing change evolve in the kinds of questions they ask and in their use of whatever the change is’’ such as ‘‘What is it? How will it affect me?y Is this change working for students? Is there something that will work even better?’’ (Loucks-Horsley, 1996, p. 1). With assumptions such as the importance of understanding the change process from the participant’s view and the idea that change is a process and not an event, the complexities of mathematics teacher leadership are clear. The literature on mathematics teacher leadership calls on teacher leaders to develop relationships and build a ‘‘critical mass for change’’ (Miller et al., 2000). A crucial factor that both Miller et al. (2000) and Fullan (1994) address is the need to build relationships with individuals who hold different opinions or may disagree with one another. Sustainable change does not occur when the critical mass for change all look and think alike. Langbort (2001) talks more specifically to the classroom teaching practice of mathematics teacher leaders and also to their responsibility to represent mathematics education to the larger community. Literature on teacher leadership offers insight into what researchers have found so far. Historically, teacher leadership literature has focused more in the elementary school level and less on content-specific teachers. This chapter hopes to contribute to the only recently started discussion about mathematics teacher leadership and even more specifically, secondary mathematics teacher leaders. In doing so, this chapter will use the lens of the Assumptive Worlds framework to bring secondary mathematics teachers into the conversation using specific examples from their lived realities (Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin, 2005).

FRAMEWORK: ASSUMPTIVE WORLDS In 1991, Marshall and Mitchell used Young’s (1977) description of ‘‘assumptive worlds of policymakers’’ to frame their study of assistant principals: the ‘‘subjective understandings of the environment in which they operate’’ (2), incorporating ‘‘several intermingled elements of belief, perception, evaluation, and intention as response to the reality out there’’ (3) This is a crucial, unexplored variable in


203

site-level politics. It means that among policy actors there is a shared sense of what is appropriate in action, interaction, and choice. That sense is inculcated through socialization in their distinctive organizational culture. (Marshall & Mitchell, 1991, p. 397)

From their analysis of data, Marshall and Mitchell (1991) identified four domains of site-level Assumptive Worlds. They define the domains as ‘‘action guides containing operational principles that are shared understandings about how to act and think’’ (Marshall & Mitchell, 1991, p. 400). Domain 1: The right and responsibility to imitate Rule 1: Limit risk taking Rule 2: Remake policy quietly Domain 2: Acceptable and unacceptable values Rule 1: Avoid moral dilemmas Rule 2: Do not display divergent values Domain 3: Patterns of expected behavior Rule 1: Commitment is required Rule 2: Do not get labeled as a troublemaker Rule 3: Keep disputes private Rule 4: Cover all your bases Domain 4: School site conditions affect political relationships Rule 1: Build administrator team trust Rule 2: Align your turf Marshall and Mitchell (1991) used this framework to organize the lived realities (Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin, 2005) of assistant principals. For the purposes of this chapter, I will use the same framework to organize the lived realities of the 12 teacher leaders. In some cases, the lived realities align with the domains and rules. In other cases, their lived realities defy certain domains and rules.

TEACHER LEADER LIVED REALITIES Bess sees teacher leadership as encompassing positive change for classrooms and staffs. Other teacher leaders often feel change as being forced upon them rather than something with which they are a part (Bailey, 2000; Levin & Riffel, 2000). Tyack and Cuban (1995) ask us to consider looking at public school reform from the inside out, involving teachers in the process. It is the 80-20 rule. I am wearing out because of the 80-20 rule. 20% of the people do 80% of the work. And it seems like the same body of people that do most of the peripheral type stuff whether it be work at ballgames, or, that we are required to do here

204

JAN A. YOW

and sometimes it makes it very difficult to say no because they say, well take it up with the principal, that’s what they’ve been saying lately. If you can’t do that then you need to take it up with your principal. OK, I told you I couldn’t do it. I haven’t had a planning period in about two weeks, and I’m not going to have one this week so it makes it tough. (Dinah, focus group 2)

In this section of the chapter, I will introduce each domain and its corresponding rules, followed by teacher leader lived realities that either support or defy the domain or rule. As these lived realities will highlight how these teachers are politicking from the margins (Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin, 2005), it is also important to keep the Marshall and Gerstl-Pepin’s (2005) Politics from Margin to Center diagram (Fig. 1) in mind (87). In this case, the hegemonic policy arena ignores the marginalized teachers by disregarding their unmet needs and lived realities. It is important, however, to note a concern about teacher empowerment shared by Anderson (1991). He warns that it remains uncertain if the current climate of ‘‘managing organizational culture, ‘empowering’ teachers, and flattening hierarchies means anything more than new management techniques for greater control and efficiency’’ (Anderson, 1991, p. 136). In addition, as these teacher leaders represent the disenfranchised and disempowered, they also represent the lowerarchy (Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin, 2005). In order to become enfranchised and empowered and pull themselves up from the lowerarchy, they participate in micropolitics, ‘‘the overt and covert processes through which individuals and groups in an organization’s immediate environment acquire and exercise power to promote and protect their interests’’ (Malen, 1995, p. 147). Domain 1: The Right and Responsibility to Initiate The right and responsibility to initiate for a teacher leader is a grassroots effort. Policies do not necessarily emanate from the larger school or district.

Hegemonic Policy Arena

Counternarratives and Lived Reality/Unmet Needs Disenfranchised and Counterpublics Disempowered

Fig. 1.

Lived Realities and Unmet Needs.


205

On the contrary, teacher leaders and their colleagues initiate their own agendas that they believe will improve the learning environment for their students. Rule 1: Limit Risk Taking Risk taking is characteristic of teacher leadership (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Although the twelve teacher leaders span the continuum for ‘‘playing it safe’’ to taking risks, several provided examples of risks they had taken, some that had been successful and others that have not. Upon years of discussion of a change to the school day schedule, a local district is changing its daily schedule again, adding an additional period. An email stated that even though the majority of teachers and students were against the change, it would still occur. Mitch felt that his students were unaware of the impending change so he took time during class to share the upcoming change with them. After talking with his students and sending an email around to the faculty, Mitch began to feel he owed it to his students to attend the school board meeting the night that the change was discussed. He took a risk in addressing the school board with his concerns. So it’s a little discouraging that that happens because there is a process that we all go through and to be honest with you this is the first board meeting that I went to, but there is a process to all of this and I just felt like we were, this is an example of top down kind of business, politics for that matter. If you are going to make a change, good leaders tend to go and get the opinions of the people who are working for them and this was fed to us as this is what we are going to do y I think that [is] being a voice of information and communicating information you know. It was important for my kids to understand that there was a seven period day being discussed and they did not know about it. Some of the numbers came back and 80% of the teachers opposed a seven period day and 65% of the students opposed a seven period day and yet we’re going to have a seven period day. (Mitch, interview 1)

Rule 2: Remake Policy Quietly When teachers begin teaching at a school, the dominant school culture quickly envelops them (McNeil, 1985). As in McNeil’s (1985) study at a magnet school, teachers brought in other good teachers who they knew would conform to their expectations. Teachers who do not conform quickly to the dominant culture and wish to make policy changes must do so strategically and quietly. In talking with the 12 teacher leaders, a continuum developed as they described teacher leadership with one end of the continuum being ‘‘visible, but not noisy’’ (Dinah, interview 1) and the other being ‘‘an instigator creating conflict’’ (Debra, interview 1), a louder, more activist vision. Several teachers classified themselves as on the ‘‘visible, but not noisy’’ side of the

206

JAN A. YOW

continuum: Dinah, Bev, and Sally. However, even though they self-classified as ‘‘visible, but not noisy,’’ they noted policy changes they quietly attempted. There’s a lot of things I did for the school, always did the schedule. I had created a program called Bulldog Boot camp that we did on Saturdays. It was a remedial program we did for targeted kids to help them pass the [state final exam] and I was the coordinator and teacher and all that. I also started a Parent Math Night and we expanded that into a Reading and Math Night so parents would go around and teachers would do a fun lesson with them so we had a big time with that. (Bev, interview 1)

In thinking about quietly remaking policy, Ginsburg, Kamat, Raghu, and Weaver (1995) do remind us that, ‘‘nonparticipation is also a political act’’ (p. 26). So even when teacher leaders are ‘‘not noisy,’’ they are participating politically. As a veteran teacher with over 30 years of experience, Hannah feels like EF Hutton because when she speaks, people listen. She sees that hallway and after-school conversations with her principal affect change. She sees policy changes occur from comments she herself quietly made in passing. Anna, on the other hand, speaks of teacher leaders wanting the credit for successful policy implementation. If something goes correctly, then teachers who may have quietly been a part of the implementation secretly want to be seen as the individual who championed the policy through. She uses the example of a district that does not want to follow the lead of other districts in implementing a new bell schedule because they want others to view them as educational innovators. She proposes that even though teacher leaders want to remake policy quietly, they want the recognition for success. Domain 2: Acceptable and Unacceptable Values Much like teachers are quickly immersed in the culture of a new school, so too are they inundated with the accepted and unaccepted values of that same school culture. Teacher leaders are aware of the influence of those values and able to navigate their own political agendas within them. Rule 1: Avoid Moral Dilemmas Political decisions are full of moral dilemmas; decisions are value laden. Educators, specifically, teacher leaders in this case, can and should be considered as political actors y . Casting the notion of educators and politics in this way means that educators are political actors regardless of whether they are active or passive; autonomous or heteronomous vis-a`-vis other groups; conservative or change-oriented; seeking individual, occupational group, or larger collectivities; and/


207

or serving dominant group, subordinate group, or human interests. (Ginsburg et al., 1995, p. 7)

In Jim’s case, he is currently collecting data on all teachers in the mathematics department. As department chair, he is aware of the administration’s agenda to deny a teacher tenure; Jim feels tenure denial is unfounded and rather a result of the administration’s dislike of the teacher. Therefore, he feels a moral obligation to collect data on all mathematics teachers in order to prove to the administration that this teacher, whose test scores are equal to or above the test scores of her colleagues, deservers tenure in spite of personal dislike on the part of members of the administration. Oliver sees how the moral dilemmas between principals and teachers parallel the moral dilemmas between teacher and students. I think principals want to give, they have, this is a guess, I think that they are so wrapped up in what they need to do in school that basically what they want is no trouble. And teacher leadership means trouble, it means conflict, it means resolution of conflict, it means spending time over what teachers think are important. Which isn’t any different than the conflict teachers and students face. Students think they know a lot and they do. If you want them to get involved and feel important and get involved in the classroom you listen to them and allow them to have a lot of say. (Oliver, interview 1)

Teachers understand the feeling of being marginalized and largely ignored. What is ironic is that many of them use similar silencing strategies on the very students they teach in the micropolitics of the classroom (Anderson, 1990). Rule 2: Do not Display Divergent Values Ciara moved to a different state after completing the masters program. She left a high school teaching position that she held for 18 years for a middle grade position. With so much change, Ciara found herself as the new kid on the block at a high-performing school. One of her largest frustrations with her new state is the emphasis put on high-stakes testing (she refers to the school as a ‘‘factory’’) and the non-use of calculators in teaching students mathematics. Coming from a state where calculator use was routine for teachers and students, Ciara finds herself trying to conform to her new school, while struggling with not being able to use calculators to help her students gain a deeper understanding of the material that she knows calculators would provide. Ciara knows that she at least has to conform to the shared values in her new school outside her classroom; what she does in her classroom is another story: The worst thing I think I could have said and I didn’t say this, ‘‘In [my old state], we did it this way.’’ That was probably the worst thing I could have said, but instead, I just did

208

JAN A. YOW

it. People would say, Well what are you doing? Well, I’m doing this, this, and this, and I’ve had good luck at this so far and if you have anything you’d like to suggest, and their like, Oh, well that looks interesting and that kind of thing. And so it goes. (Ciara, focus group 1)

Another example finds Ciara struggling with a new principal. In her new state, superintendents are elected and her principal is rarely in the building as he is running for the office. When he is in the building, he pressures her to give up her planning period, a common practice in her new school. For additional pay, teachers give up their planning period to teach an additional class. Ciara, however, does not feel comfortable or prepared enough to do so, as this year is her first year in a new school and a new state. She does, however, continue to experience the pressure to conform to the same values as her colleagues. Finally, Ciara is challenged by those same values of her colleagues that are divergent from her own. It [her new school] is a shallow place. I have this one buddy in the math department and she is kind of a math nerd. I like talking to her because she is smart and I like talking to her. The other teachers eat together at lunch and when she walks out of the room they all roll their eyes because all she talks about is math. If you’re not allowed to be nerdy at school where can you be? (Ciara, interview 2)

Her colleagues do not talk about mathematics or their classes, but Ciara enjoys such professional conversations. Much like her plan to subtly integrate calculators, it is Ciara’s hope that her subtle divergence from those values will result in more conversation. I’m trying to show people that it’s ok to be passionate about your subject and I don’t see that happening because it’s all about the [test] and that leaves very little room for the art of teaching. I’m very subtly trying to encourage teachers that it is OK to enjoy what you do whatever it is. I know even when I worked at Leek Senior, we were just a bunch of math geeks and it was fun and there is none of that that goes on in this school. I’m trying to interject those conversations subtly, sometime frustrating kind of manner. (Ciara, interview 2)

Domain 3: Patterns of Expected Behavior Much like the culture and values of a school are strictly defined, so too are the patterns of expected behavior. Some teacher leaders adhere to those patterns, while others take the opportunity to be street-level bureaucrats and diverge from those patterns in order to affect change.


209

Rule 1: Commitment is Required Debra practiced her right to not meet the requirement of commitment. For years, she had signed her School Improvement Plan because she thought it was mandatory; Debra did not want to be seen as a troublemaker. However, this year, Debra saw things differently. She refused to sign the School Improvement Plan. The rest of the plan is fantastic but then there is that one statement that we waive that restriction on class size and we actually signed and voted on our school improvement plan in the spring I think it was and I voted against it for that reason and there were only 11 teachers that voted against it and we have 65 teacher on staff and I remember asking when I first came here and we were approving voting on the school improvement plan I asked about that waiver that was in there and said I didn’t want to sign it for that reason and one of the assistant principals said to me, ‘‘Well you have to sign it, we have to have total agreement,’’ and so I did sign it the first time because I was new and I was told that is what I had to do but last time I voted against it and that was the minority, the minority of the teachers voted against it and so I thought that may be one thing I should do as a teacher leader is get out next time the school improvement plan comes up for a vote I should go around and talk to all the teachers and say, ‘‘You don’t have to sign this agreement,’’ and I think, I guess I would be the instigator and probably would get a reputation of trouble maker, but then I start thinking I only have four more years to keep teaching anyway. I don’t care. (Debra, interview no. 2)

Debra was also a part of another meeting where she and her colleagues Dinah and Oliver tried to be committed, but, in reality, were not. The district planned a meeting of all mathematics teachers from elementary to high school. The larger goal of the meeting was to improve transition between grade levels. Unfortunately for these three teacher leaders, they felt more specific goals were necessary and left the meeting feeling it had turned into a gripe session with high school teachers blaming middle school teachers and middle school teachers blaming elementary teachers. Although they saw the value in a vertical team meeting, these teachers were not committed to the meeting nor felt they benefited from attending. Rule 2: Do not Get Labeled as a Troublemaker In defining teacher leadership, Debra saw it as a sort of middle ground between being a troublemaker and being helpful. One side of me, when I was listening to our instructors [from the Teacher Leadership and Democratic Schooling course] encouraging us to be teacher leaders, I think in the back of my mind, they are encouraging us to be instigators and I think about trouble-maker and I kind of wish it wasn’t like that because in my own view, I’d like to think of teacher leaders as somebody who is helpful to other teachers and students, somebody who attempts to do good things like implement new programs that are beneficial. So I guess

210

JAN A. YOW

one side of me sees teacher leaders as someone who complains and wants to change everything about the school and then somebody else on the other hand, teacher leader being somebody who wants to improve and do good for the school. So probably a true teacher leaders is somebody who is in between so you would have the gumption to stand up and complain when things are not right but not just always be a complainer. (Debra, interview 1)

Like Rule 2 states, Debra did not want to be labeled as a troublemaker. Jim, on the other hand, sees being a troublemaker as part of being a teacher leader. He credits his loud, activist voice in successfully receiving reimbursement (along with his colleagues) for having completed advanced degree courses. The district had initially committed to paying for the courses, but later decided not to offer reimbursement after the courses were complete. Before Jim was able to secure the reimbursement, he emailed the district office several times, even changing the subject line to ‘‘National Board Certification’’ once his emails stopped being opened so district personnel would open the emails. District personnel would open the email that would say, ‘‘I do have a question about National Board Certification, but first I have a question about reimbursement.’’ Another time he worked to secure transferring sick days to his wife and had to be persistent. When emails were not answered, he called. When calls were not returned, he went to the office in person. ‘‘If nothing else, they know me by name over there. Now they know I might as well just answer his calls’’ (Jim, interview 1). Jim knows the feeling of being labeled or marginalized for being outspoken (Anderson, 1990). Rule 3: Keep Disputes Private Oliver’s principal reprimanded him for teaching topics that were not in the book after a parent showed concern. In looking for support from his fellow teacher leaders, Oliver asked Dinah and Debra for their opinions, choosing not to keep the dispute private. They discovered that the topics he was teaching, although not in the book, were in the state curriculum and therefore, needed to be taught. Rule 4: Cover All Your Bases Jim and his fellow department co-chair cover their bases by each talking to a respective administrator. Each has a stronger relationship and better working history with an administrator so when issues arise that need addressing, it is Jim’s role to work with one administrator and his co-chair’s job to work with the other administrator. Teachers and administrators who


211

work in educational institutions are immersed in the interpersonal and the micropolitical (Ginsburg et al., 1995). Jim has also had to cover all his bases with securing the required four math credits for seniors in danger of not graduating. Some advanced students at his school complete all available mathematic courses by their sophomore year; for instance, they take Advanced Placement Calculus as a sophomore, but still need two more math credits to graduate. Because Jim had not been able to convince the district to rectify the problem, he took it upon himself to call in favors from area universities to have professors teach applicable mathematics courses to these students.

Domain 4: School Site Relationships Affect Political Relationships At the school site level, relationships are political and similar to family relationships or citizens of communities (Ginsburg et al., 1995). Just like in a family or community, members must address both trust and turf. Political nature of relationships within schools is just as worthy of study as the political nature of schools (Malen, 1995). Rule 1: Build Administrator (Teacher Leader) Team Trust Bess recognizes that trust building is a process; trust comes from relationship building. I am very relationally strong. So I think that is probably my greatest strength as a classroom teacher. I am very good at building relationships with each and every kid, with staff members, and creating positive repoire between people so that’s probably my biggest strength y . I’ve learned a lot about leadership, that it takes time to create change. And it also has to be framed the right way. You can’ t bully your way into change so you have to build repoire, build relationships, and then through that process engender change. (Bess, interview 1)

With her work as the School Improvement Plan chair, Bess has seen that many in the school must build the document and that she must open the process to all teachers. Teachers are more supportive of policies that they work to create (Heck, Brandon, & Wang, 2001). Rule 2: Align Your Turf Mitch’s district is implementing a portfolio component if students fail the state final exam. Although not pleased with the need to include a portfolio when a student’s ongoing grade exhibits successful performance, Mitch

212

JAN A. YOW

recognizes that this process is happening and so, wanted to align his turf. He volunteered to be a part of the initial meetings for the portfolio development. Because educational practices are typically resistant to external mandates specifically around academic improvement, Mitch’s involvement, as a classroom teacher leader, is imperative (Heck et al., 2001). An example where turf was not in alignment and therefore, teachers did not feel that they were benefiting is a monthly professional-development meeting at one school. Oliver, Dinah, and Debra feel weekly professionaldevelopment meetings about writing are more suited for the English and history departments and therefore, do not see their involvement as worth their time. As they were not involved in the planning for the development and did not align their turf, they do not see it as a benefit, but rather a waste of 45 minutes of their planning period.

FINAL COMMENTS Teacher leaders represent a larger group of teachers who are a part of a marginalized group. This group of 12 teachers demonstrates their methods of politicking from the margins by their lived realities and unmet needs. Their participation in the micropolitics offers them opportunities to advance themselves from the lowerarchy. The Assumptive Worlds framework as explained by Marshall and Mitchell (1991) provides a lens with which to view teacher leader actions. Continued conversations with teacher leaders need to inform future potential for teacher empowerment that does not weaken or marginalize other stakeholders like students and administrators (Anderson, 1990). Teacher leaders can help bridge the divide between teachers and administrators so schools work better for kids. The more lived realities of disempowerment and counternarratives offered will help to meet Kahne’s (1994) call to create more democratic communities in the Deweyan sense. Then, Bess’s idea of teacher leadership’s positive influence on the lives of students and parents, and I would add teachers, administrators, and schools, can be recognized.

NOTE 1. The names of research participants have been changed to protect their anonymity.


213

REFERENCES Anderson, G. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers: Ideological control in an elementary school. In: J. Blase´ (Ed.), The politics of life in schools (pp. 120–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Anderson, G. L. (1990). Toward a critical constructivist approach to school administration: Invisibility, legitimation, and the study of non-events. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 38–59. Andrew, M. D. (1974). Teacher leadership: A model for change. Bulletin 37. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Bailey, B. (2000). The impact of mandated change on teachers. In: N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading, and the realities of reform (pp. 112–128). New York: Routledge Falmer. Barth, R. S. (2001). The teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443–449. Center for Teaching Quality. (2005). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions: A report to Governor Easley on the 2004 Teacher Working Conditions Survey of North Carolina. Retrieved on April 23, 2006, from http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/ TWC_FullReport.pdf Dozier, T. (2004, October). Turning good teachers into great leaders. PowerPoint presentation at the National Principals Forum, Washington, DC. Fullan, M. (1994). Teacher leadership: A failure to conceptualize. In: D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Perspectives on the professional development of teachers (pp. 241–253). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Fullan, M. (2002). Moral purpose writ large. The School Administrator [On-line]. Retrieved October 2, 2005, from http://staging.aasa.rd.net/publications Ginsburg, M. B., Kamat, S., Raghu, R., & Weaver, J. (1995). Educators and politics: Interpretations, involvement, and implications. In: M. Ginsburg (Ed.), The politics of educators’ work and lives (pp. 3–54). New York: Garland Publishing. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press. Heck, R. H., Brandon, P. R., & Wang, J. (2001). Implementing site-managed educational changes: Examining levels of implementation and effect. Educational Policy, 15(2), 302–322. Kahne, J. (1994). Democratic communities, equity, and excellence: A Deweyan reframing of educational policy analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 233–248. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Langbort, C. (2001). The professional development of effective teacher leaders. In: C. R. Nesbit, J. D. Wallace, D. K. Pugalee, A. Miller & W. J. DiBiase (Eds), Developing teacher leaders: Professional development in science and mathematics (pp. 245–266). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearing house for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No ED 451 031). Levin, B., & Riffel, J. A. (2000). Changing schools in a changing world. In: N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading, and the realities of reform (pp. 178–194). New York: Routledge Falmer. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.

214

JAN A. YOW

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In: R. Bybee (Ed.), National standards and the science curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. MacLean, M. S., & Mohr, M. M. (1999). Teacher researchers at work. Washington, DC: National Writing Project. Malen, B. (1995). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school politics. In: J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (Eds), The study of educational politics: The 1994 commemorative yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 147–167). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. Marshall, C., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2005). Re-framing educational politics for social justice. New York: Pearson. Marshall, C., & Mitchell, B. A. (1991). The assumptive worlds of fledgling administrators. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 396–415. McNeil, L. M. (1985). Exit, voice and community: Magnet teachers’ responses to standardization. Journal of Educational Policy, 1(1), 93–113. Miles, M., Saxl, E., & Lieberman, A. (1988). What skills do educational ‘‘change agents’’ need? An empirical view. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(2), 157–193. Miller, B., Moon, J., & Elko, S. (2000). Teacher leadership in mathematics and science: Casebook and facilitator’s guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2006). What teachers should know and be able to do: The five core propositions of the National Board. Retrieved on April 23, 2006, from http://www.nbpts.org/about/coreprops.cfm National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. O’Connor, K., & Boles, K. (1992, April). Assessing the needs of teacher leaders in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 348 770). Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (2001). Teacher leadership: A promising paradigm for improving instruction in science and mathematics. Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 465 586). Rogus, J. F. (1988). Teacher leader programming: Theoretical underpinnings. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 46–52. Stigler, J. M., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: University Press.


215

Wasley, P. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric and reform and the realities of practice. New York: Teachers College Press. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–317. Zimpher, N. L. (1988). A design for the professional development of teacher leaders. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 53–60.

PROFESSIONAL DEFERENCE: WHEN DOES IT BECOME CRITICAL? Judith A. Green and K. Kelly McKerrow ABSTRACT This chapter presents a critical analysis of administration and its dysfunctional relationship to teaching and learning. Researchers conducted an ethnographic study over the course of 2 years. The reflective narrative (Nielsen, 1995) is of an iteration of Smith and Geoffrey’s (1968) insider–outsider technique revealed systemic dysfunction, professional deference, and disregard. It provides the framework from which to view the dysfunctional behavior of both teachers and administrators. The critical analysis provides a research to practice component, which informs the preparation of future administrators through the revelation of the study’s administrative challenges and expectations in the field of education.

INTRODUCTION University teaching, past administrative practice, and current observations, all point to the fact that administrators and those who teach them have


217

218

JUDITH A. GREEN AND K. KELLY McKERROW

created a problem in education. Administration enables educators to choose to ignore good practice, to accommodate unreasonable demands, and to avoid inveighing against the structures that support those demands. That is what we should have been teaching – inveighing against an unreasonable system: assisting future administrators in developing the strength, integrity, and will to accomplish that end. To do that, however, would require us to reflect on our own administration and teaching at the university, something we were not readily inclined nor compelled to do. Operating from a position of power affords one the privilege of ignoring certain things as well as avoiding reflection. Administrators, control the programs and those in them with the standard functionalist invocation. We all know the drill – scarce resources, efficiency, policy prohibition, or accountability. If these do not work to quell complaints, we use the ‘‘big picture’’ or ‘‘competing values’’ arguments. University professors could ignore actual K-12 practice altogether, which would be easy since so many of our colleagues in departments of educational administration were never in it. Paradoxically, it is here where we become the arbiters of what counts as knowledge about administration. Our unwillingness to confront our own administrative and pedagogical cowardice remained unchallenged not only by our colleagues at the university, but also by us, until now. There is danger in our collective failure to examine our own use and abuse of power/discipline; our unwillingness to move beyond our own walls to connect theory and practice; our inability to understand and celebrate, rather than capitalize on, the differences between us; and our reluctance to contest all knowledge, including our own, rather than eschewing the others’ knowledge. Theorizing about educational administration without any context or experience of it is as fundamentally ineffective as practicing without a theoretical or philosophical base. Perhaps it is even worse! The dysfunctional educational administration narrative, with its marginalization of real administrative practice, teaching, and learning, has taken over the educational conversation (McKerrow, 1997). The narrative that drives educational administration theory and practice is misguided and dangerous. ‘‘A backseat driver may be more expert than the actual driver, but there are limits to what can be accomplished from the rear seat’’ (Meier, 2000, p. 29). More problematic is the amorality that attaches to the administrative narrative. It avoids the messiness of attending to real teaching and learning in a specific context, and freeing itself from accusations of immorality (McKerrow, 1997). This administrative colonization of pedagogy enables administrators to reap the benefits of educational rhetoric without

Professional Deference: When does it Become Critical?

219

significant challenge or outrage at the damage it is doing in the meantime. Who can argue with the ubiquitous statements, ‘‘All children can learn,’’ or ‘‘Leave no child behind?’’ Yet, who understands that it is generally cowardly, self-serving, inarticulate administrative practice that leaves children behind? What happened with the Title I program in Riverton was a case in point. It had more to do with the hegemonic narrative emerging from educational administration professors than any experiences of good teaching and learning. It is a cautionary tale about the everyday, banal damage administrators and academics have done in schools and our attempt to understand it.

Methodology Riverton is a small, rural community in the Midwest. The school is a large K-4 building housing over 750 students and 100 staff members. Dorothy James is the principal of Riverton Elementary where one of us was the administrator 7 years ago. She is also one of three co-researchers working on the ethnographic research project that provided the data for this chapter (Smith & Geoffrey, 1968). We have been working together on this project since the fall of 1999. The research assigned pseudonyms to all informants to protect their anonymity. Events included in the research report that could violate the anonymity of the district, the informants, or the principal were changed or excluded (Lee, 2001). We chose reflective narrative (Carter, 1993; Casey, 1995; Heshusius, 1994; Nielsen, 1995; Riessman, 1993) as the methodology since it satisfied a need to critique our dual roles as researchers and administrators. The purpose of using narrative analysis is to appreciate the contextual complexity of schooling (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996), to represent our unique point of view, and to describe a series of events from that point of view only (Riessman, 1993). Title I Dorothy James became the new Riverton Elementary School principal in the spring of 1999. She had lots of energy, matched only by her enthusiasm for the job and a determination to focus on ‘‘reading, reading, reading, and more reading.’’ She immediately met with the Title I Reading specialists and the Kindergarten, First, and Second grade teachers to review student data and begin planning a new Literacy Project with. The goal was to improve

220


the reading levels of students who scored below the 25th percentile on the state-mandated test. The teachers wanted to begin this project a year earlier but Anna Proski, Dorothy’s predecessor, was leaving. Actually, Anna had checked out mentally months before she left that June. ‘‘Anna just didn’t have anything left anymore,’’ said Candace Trovar, one of the Title I teachers. ‘‘She seldom came out of her office and when she did, it was to go home. We needed Dorothy.’’ The program started by capitalizing on the expertise of 25 teachers, Kindergarten through grade two. They developed a long-range plan and everyone endorsed it, even three self-proclaimed, conservative, First grade ‘‘phonics’’ teachers. Dorothy went to all the meetings but did not take a leadership role. She never shied away from telling the group exactly what she thought but only when asked. She intentionally avoided imposing her point of view on the group. On numerous occasions across the 2.5 years of the study, Dorothy talked about negotiating the fine line between sharing her ideas and imposing them. During one interview she said, Of course I tell them what I think but they know what is best. After all, they are the ones who are doing the teaching. I think I can add to the discussion and I do. In the end, they are the ones who have to do it [teach]. If we disagree, we disagree. Would I make them accept my idea? Hell no! What good does that do!

Dorothy was convinced that successful implementation of the Literacy Project required all 25 teachers to work together. A reflection documented in the field notes indicated there was no way Dorothy was going to get that kind of cooperation. In this district, there were always respectful but awkward coalitions of regular and special area teachers but never any real working together. There were constant and legitimate concerns about scheduling, authority issues surrounding push-in programs, concerns about who was in charge, who was accountable, who modified their teaching, and who accommodated who in the regular classroom. The teachers’ final plan was sensitive to these long-term issues. The group arrived at reasonable expectations for both regular and special area teachers. They also made participation voluntary. Dorothy was delighted when there was ‘‘one hundred percent buy-in’’ from all of the teachers. The project would be phased-in over 5 years. Years one and two were dedicated to faculty training and implementation in Kindergarten and First grades. Each subsequent year, another grade level would be added and formative evaluations completed. By year five, there would be full implementation through grade four and a summative evaluation.


221

The beauty of the program was that it required no additional personnel. Federal monies were used to pay the Title I teachers who were trained as part of their professional development programs. They provided training to the rest of the faculty. By the end of the 1999–2000 school year, the Literacy Project had begun. The cohort of Second grade teachers even began to meet and plan for FY 2001. Everyone assumed things would proceed as planned. Those assumptions were unwarranted. After 2 years of planning and 1 year of successful implementation, the bottom fell out of the reading program. Dorothy called one of the researchers after a bi-weekly administrative team meeting in early August. She was upset and mad. I feel like a damn war zone is coming up – World War Three! I mean, I feel like, real truthfully, everyday is a war zone on various fronts. Now its textbook selection, then it’s the Writing Coordinator and now its PDC [professional development committee] and Title I.

Rancor among administrative team members had been heating up since May. Dorothy referred to it as the ‘‘end of her honeymoon.’’ District resources were scarce. Funding for the Literacy Project resulted from a compromise of competing budget items from the middle school and high school. The rules had also changed. Participants ignored ‘‘holistic accountability’’ (Reeves, 2004). The criteria for programmatic support and survival were no longer planning or pedagogy. It was power and politics. Four things coalesced to undermine the Riverton Elementary’s Literacy Project. First, the district budget was in serious trouble. There was constant confusion about the severity of the budget crunch since deficits reported in the local newspaper ranged from $120,000 to 250,000, to half a million dollars, all within a 1 month period of time. There was the general public perception that the superintendent was mismanaging the budget. Dorothy held a similar point of view. Two tax levies failed. The crisis deepened. The district was ‘‘red tagged’’ by the federal auditors. This meant that only the chief federal auditor for the region would review and approve Riverton’s federal budgets. This made it even more critical to use funds for programs with the greatest need: a factor in Title I guidelines. Second, building level administrators focused on low state test scores. Sherry Hobson, district-wide Director of Instruction, targeted low writing scores. This was odd because writing scores were no lower than the reading or math scores. Dorothy disagreed with Hobson’s assessment and insisted the elementary maintain a focus on reading. The middle and high school principals had other

222


administrative concerns. Low writing scores were not among them. Neither were reading or math scores for that matter. Third, the impetus for targeting writing came from the state. There was a push to encourage districts to hire writing coordinators, create writing programs, develop writing prompts, and establish local writing rubrics. The choice to focus on writing had more to do with the state’s agenda than any assessed needs or priorities of the Riverton School District. Sherry Hobson chose to use her district-level position to promote the idea of hiring a writing coordinator. This was not surprising since Sherry was the curriculum and assessment liaison to the state department. Additionally, she had a propensity, not unlike a lot of administrators, to solve problems by hiring someone to coordinate or direct rather than actually teach. For example, the special education office, organized years before, ballooned from a half-time director of special education position in 1978 to four full-time persons by 1998. This was in spite of the fact that the number of students decreased over the last 20 years. Sherry was the director during all of the growth and, even now, suggested the district needed a fifth position – one additional Process Coordinator. Finally, Lona Bardwell, a Seventh grade language arts teacher wanted to teach part-time. The timing and logic of Hobson’s request for a writing coordinator to solve the ‘‘problem’’ of low writing scores was serendipitous. It was a solution to an immediate administrative personnel problem, a contrived writing problem, pressure (read grant monies) from the state to address their agenda, and a propensity to solve problems by coordinating them. It never occurred to anyone that Lona Bardwell, the new writing coordinator, taught Language Arts in one of the grades where the scores had dropped in recent years. The issue now was to find the $20,000 to fund the part-time coordinator position and convince the other principals that there was a writing problem. Title I was the solution. The district could arbitrarily reallocate monies to the middle school by taking it out of the elementary budget. There was no increase in funding for the current fiscal year so cuts in the current elementary budget were imminent. There was one more problem – Dorothy’s vocal opposition. Three things needed to occur. The middle school principal needed to make writing a priority, the superintendent needed to approve the reallocation, and Hobson had to overcome Dorothy’s opposition. Hobson first met with Valerie Higgins, the middle school principal. Valerie thought the idea of a writing coordinator had merit. It kept Lona Bardwell happy and she was a good teacher. Besides, the elementary school


223

had been using the lion’s share of the monies for years. The rationale emerged. Ignoring any long-term vision and appealing only to fairness countered Dorothy’s opposition to the abrupt budgetary change. Valerie Higgins alluded to this in an interview. She commented, Dorothy’s got a lot more money [than me]. She’s got all the Title One money and that’s because we’re not school-wide all the way through Title One. Our new curriculum director [Sherry Hobson] is helping us. She’s definitely focused on K-12 which is what she should be in her position. Therefore, she’s been a little more able to work with us for middle school and high school. So that whole philosophy of K-12 partnership teamwork is something that we’re constantly striving for and wanting to share with each other. But it’s not coming easy for a variety of reasons – historical reasons and the fact that the money hasn’t been shared so far. [It] makes it difficult for you to make that first step. Somebody’s programs are going to lose if the money has to get spread out. Somebody’s got to give something up – to loosen up those purse strings. That hasn’t happened. And to be real honest, Dorothy’s pretty possessive of her funds. I don’t know that the rest of us wouldn’t be if we had the same thing. So that’s not a negative comment. She’s looking out for the programs that she has established that are using those funds.

It seemed fair and reasonable to a few administrators that the middle school see some of the Title I money. The budget was tight. The middle school writing scores were down. The state was emphasizing writing and promoting professional development workshops for teachers. There was a language arts teacher who wanted half-time employment. Combine those elements with the lack of a district focus and a middle school principal who eschewed planning and who was piqued by not having what she perceived as her fair share of federal monies. Viola! The solution was to hire Lona Bardwell half-time to ‘‘do a variety of writing exercises with the regular classroom teachers in K-12’’ by reallocating elementary Title I monies to the middle school. Dorothy was livid. She reacted angrily to a request from Bardwell that her teachers spend time creating building level writing prompts and rubrics. The seventh grade has a paragraph as a writing goal – a paragraph! Mine [teachers] were aghast. Nonya, who is fabulous, has hers [second grade students] writing five paragraph descriptive and narrative pieces already. She [Nonya] told me, ‘‘Dorothy, they’re expectations are too low.’’ Where is the director [of instruction] in all this? Can’t she make the demand that there be a K-12 writing program with a process that’s involved and understand that you can’t have a booklet of ends?’’ Sherry tends to focus on having a product in front of her. So basically, what I am saying to my staff, without saying it, because I won’t say it, is that I am playing the game. I’ll turn it in [elementary writing rubrics]. Then let me go ahead and work through my process.

This was an intriguing issue. Sherry had made vague innuendoes on occasion that Dorothy did not have the whole picture and was interested in

224


her building only. On the other hand, Dorothy never said anything negative about Sherry. She did express concern that ‘‘they were growing apart’’ because of philosophical differences. Dorothy expressed hope that their friendship could withstand this issue. It did not. Over the course of the next few months, things got worse. The Title I teachers went to see the superintendent about the decision to take $20,000 from the elementary budget. He listened for a few minutes then cut them off saying that they were ‘‘unprofessional’’ and ‘‘whiners [their words].’’ One of them quit to teach reading at a local state university. She had been with the district over twenty years.

Dorothy cut back her expenditures, shuffled line items, and cobbled together a package that sustained the Literacy Project for the rest of the year. It was not the same. She lost one of her best trainers and some of the enthusiasm for the project. We took this opportunity to pursue Dorothy’s ideas about administration soon after these events occurred. She spent one entire evening talking about her frustration and anger. She laughed about her plans to keep the project alive despite the cuts. One element of that conversation shed light on administration generally and this issue in particular. She commented that she still thinks that everyone (teachers) knows what works for them. They know instinctively. Most teachers know what effective teaching is. So you need to leave them to their own design to figure that out and allow them to follow that curriculum and move on with it. You do not need a fancy dancy word or a colorful box with cards in it – which is what they sell us a lot of the time. What they do not give us is time. All that administrators buy is the fancy box. She could tell from her curriculum class (at the university) on Wednesday nights. She hated going to that class because she had one administrator who would say, ‘‘Oh, I got all my teachers and they turn in their lesson plans and they are all coded to the curriculum and yadda, yadda, yadda.’’ She was thinking, ‘‘That would go over real big in my building!’’ Analysis What emerged from the data collection, reflection on it, and a preliminary analysis was the identification of a combination of forces that actually socialized Dorothy to interfere with the ability of the faculty to teach well. Her job was to disempower them literally and then make them feel good about it. Academics have promoted the idea of empowerment and practitioners have been encouraged to it (Sergiovanni, 1991, 1994, 1995). It is one of those buzzwords Dorothy mentioned. The real issue that


225

emerged in this case was cultivation of acceptance and resignation not empowerment. We are unconvinced that most administrators empower teachers to teach. Empowerment is too out of control for administrators to take seriously given that their main job is to keep control (Cusick, 1992; Hoy & Miskel, 1996). What administrators do is take the power to teach away. They also sit by and do nothing while others take it away, which is the same thing. As administrators, we seem blind to our subtle but systematic attempts to disempower educators. How can that occur? What mechanisms are in place that enable administrators like Dorothy to think she should empower teachers and then participate in organizational practices that systematically disempower them? Perhaps the idea of empowerment was a backlash to the systematic disempowerment taking place in schools under the guise of educational administration. Dorothy’s real job was to suppress the fact that teachers were not allowed to exercise fundamental professional discretion in their teaching. The district rewarded her for stabilizing (Lyotard, 1979) the school, while circumstances foisted unreasonable demands upon students and teachers. In fact, we would suggest that this is precisely what educational administration is supposed to do. These activities define a good administrator. Dorothy’s leadership helped the teachers plan and build a Literacy Project constructed on the expertise of the teachers in Riverton (Marzano, 2003), not the state department, not some university consultants. Confronted with a disruption in the plan, her work quickly turned to restabilizing the organization. She listened, she sent letters of appreciation for teacher’s efforts, she supported those who were angry and consoled them when they returned from the superintendent’s office. She also cried when some left. Her role reduced to cooling the teachers out so they would not inveigh against the system that guarantees their failure (Andrews, Lee, & James, 2001; Clark, 1960; Goffman, 1952; Parker, 1995). Dorothy is quite extraordinary in this regard. She works hard and earns a lot of respect from her teachers. The elementary teachers were quite impressed with Dorothy’s efforts to minimize the effects of the budget cuts on their teaching. One of them told us, She believes that, if you need something, you NEED something. She’ll do everything in her power to get it. For example, on requisitions, she says, ‘‘If you need it, put it down. I’ll take it over there and not cut it before I leave. If it needs to be cut, we’ll cut it when it comes back. I will fight for whatever you need.’’ So I think that she would do anything, everything in her power to make sure that we had what we needed to feel comfortable.

226


The teachers appreciated the fact that Dorothy knew what she was doing with regard to elementary reading. Most administrators in Riverton had little or no understanding of reading development in elementary students. We suspect this is the case in most districts. The administrators rationalized their own shortcomings in this regard. They told themselves that the teachers were the real experts, that they should depend on them for advice, and that all they needed to do was empower the teachers. They seldom confronted the immorality of their cavalier attitude when they usurped pedagogical needs with their own agenda, the superintendent’s agenda, or the state’s agenda. They thought they had the big picture as if the teachers did not. It was little consolation for cowardice. This organizational rationality makes it easy to minimize the importance of pedagogy that administrators do not understand, especially when administrators have other administrative work to do, like budgets or schedules or evaluations. Administrators direct their efforts at the abstract organization and its stability (Cusick, 1992; Greenfield, 1975; Lyotard, 1979; Perrow, 1986), not at specific students or teachers in the schools. Dorothy spent the lions’ share of her time organizing and reorganizing Riverton Elementary. She helped those in it adjust. While administrators are sensitive to the relatively concrete, local narrative that drives teaching and learning, when it comes down to it, the politics and needs of the organization invariably trump individual respect for teachers. It takes some administrators longer to learn this fact of organizational life. Some never learn it. Valerie Higgins, the middle school principal, talked about her vision for working with Dorothy and the high school principal, Betty Schaefer. We came with the idea and philosophy that we wanted to change that and become partners. We have made some strides in doing that, however, the nature of the beast sometimes doesn’t allow that to become quite as fully implemented as you’d like for it to. In all reality, we each have to look out for our own buildings to some degree. Every building is unique.

Valerie betrays her own socialization (Spindler, 1959; Wolcott, 1973). At one time, there was a desire to collaborate and work together. Now, she understands that her work is a competitive ‘‘beast’’ that requires her to look out for her own building. This focus on competition actually creates the need to spend more of the district’s scarce resources (Kouzes & Posner, 1995): one of the four driving forces credited with undermining the Literacy Project. Dorothy was not so easy to socialize. She continues to have trouble sacrificing her view that administration should serve the interest of teaching


227

and learning and not the other way around. She constantly reflected, almost perseverated, on pedagogical issues during the bi-weekly administrative team meetings. It took a while, but she finally learned to sit down, shut up, listen, and give no more information than was absolutely necessary. There were times however when she could not remain silent. The Title I issue was one of them. She spoke out during Ad Team meetings, set up conferences to explain her position, and sent copies of her long-range plans to the district administrators. There was a clear reaction among the central office administration to Dorothy’s vociferous defense of her Title I budget. The absence of pedagogy and current research on accountability and student achievement from the overall discussion reduced this issue to an unwarranted personal level. In this case, some perceived that Dorothy was hurting children by not embracing a contrived solution to a nonexistent problem. The assistant superintendent and former coach, Rob Farmer, said, I’m here to be a team player and I really sense that from Dorothy. She’s a team player and she’s going to fight, and she does, for her kids and her building. Then it comes to a point where she can see that, if she goes this direction, it might hurt kids in the middle and high schools. That’s when she drops out. She’s going to fight for her kids and her program and her school and her teachers, and so forth, tooth and nail, cause she has. I think it was Title One? She believed the money should be targeted for elementary kids and so forth. I’m a team player. If we are not willing to discuss and constructively critique each other then we are standing out there alone and we need to be a team.

The importance of teamwork is legendary among administrators. ‘‘Going along to get along,’’ suppressing adverse opinions, and demonstrating support for those with more power leads to the reward of membership on the team. Membership is attractive to administrators who want to move up in the organization. Failure to play by the rules signals the possibility of ‘‘standing out there alone’’ or being tossed off the team. Whyte (1957) refers to this as ‘‘false collectivization.’’ The organization man is not yet so indoctrinated that he does not chafe at the pressures on his independence, and sometimes he even suspects that the group may be as much a tyrant as the despot it replaced. It is the burden of the new group doctrine that such misgivings, if they are not maladjustment on the part of the individual, are simply a lack of knowledge, a lack of mastery of managerial techniques. The doctrine may be wrong, but the constant impress of it is helping to undercut the few personal defenses left to the individual; more to the point, it is making an organization life increasingly hostile to the nonbeliever who hangs on to his defenses. (Whyte, 1957, p. 55)

False collectivization minimizes the possibility that administrators react to decisions with outrage. In fact, it guarantees that they do not react at all. However, it does not explain why educators generally and administrators

228


specifically, do not exercise their ethical, professional discretion. During the heat of the Title I issue, one of Dorothy’s administrative colleagues, Don Thomas, told me, I’ve sat in meetings with her [Dorothy] and you could hear a pin drop. She would say, ‘‘I don’t agree with that becausey’’ or ‘‘We need to be careful about that becausey’’ Ethically speaking she has the right stuff. I think she’s willing to express that sometimes in unpopular situations. I wish we all had a better sense of indignation sometimes. I think that would be good. You think about those things afterward. You think about what you should have done. I think Dorothy has the right stuff. I think it’s because she was raised that way. I think [its] that old Nebraska background. She can’t help it. I don’t know how some of the other folks were raised but she will never have a problem going home and sleeping at night. She has good ethics, I think.

Recognition of Dorothy’s willingness to say what she thought and attaching ethics to it is telling. At times, the ubiquitous and hegemonic educational administrative narrative so overwhelms educators that they view a rational response to it as extraordinary and ethical. Perhaps it is. It implies a courageousness not taught or demonstrated in educational administration departments (Beck & Murphy, 1994) and seldom seen in actual practice. The administrative narrative specifically avoids reflection on questions not asked, the inconsistencies not pointed out, the damage perpetrated on students and teachers, thus suppressing the ideas. School personnel call this unreflective point of view cooperation and teamwork. Or is it silent surrender to powerful organizational hegemony? It is an educator’s dysfunctional professional deference (Andrews et al., 2001) to a reflective educational administrative narrative. The administrative narrative cools out or compresses those who would confront the conventional wisdom, and if that fails, they usually leave the organization one way or another. Most of the faculty at Riverton elementary never questioned the legitimacy of the cuts. They complained about it. They made fun of it. In the end, they accepted it. The teachers who reacted with outrage left or retreated and asked ‘‘to be left alone.’’ No one confronted it. Few do.

DYSFUNCTIONAL DEFERENCE AND DISREGARD There are two ways in which dysfunctional professional deference develops and continues. First, the theoretical narrative that drives educational administration endorses, even requires, professional deference. Endorsing a particular narrative is evident as much by what is not said than by what is


229

said by academics. The literature in educational administration virtually ignores its relationship to teaching and learning (Murphy, 1999). There is a body of research on the traditional scientific management paradigm and its impact on the way we conceptualize and theorize about administration. Few alternative ways of understanding administration have emerged in the literature (Bates, 1981; Capper, 1993; Davies & Foster, 1994; Tosi, 1982). Even less literature examines how these alternatives might eventually translate into practice (Burbules, 1993; Capper, 1993; Fazzaro, Walter, & McKerrow, 1994; Foster, 1986, 1998). This gap between theory and practice is due, in part, from a misunderstanding of the relationship between administration and practical, pedagogical realities. There is a general expectation that administrators should defer to some theoretical knowledge base and that teachers defer to the big picture knowledge base of administrators mostly about finances and facilities. The subtle disregard that academics demonstrate toward practice masks the necessity that academics should defer to practitioners. This deference and disregard play out among our organizational affiliations and professional activities. There is a clear status hierarchy among educational administration organizations. The field views those dominated by academics and researchers in one way. Yet, it views those with more practicing administrators in another. That the field views these organizations differently at all makes the point. To understand how educational administration promotes teaching and learning (something it purports to do), we cannot separate research and practice (Foster, 1986). Otherwise, we compromise some fundamental truths about education not the least of which is that it is highly contextual (Bredeson, 2002). Second, current administrative practice privileges its own point of view by suppressing the educational narrative, by default (McKerrow, 1997). It succeeds because it retains enough popular educational language to mask its singular focus on administration, not teaching and learning. The system expects teachers to defer to administration. They seldom question the legitimacy of this point of view, despite their awareness that it does harm to their professional integrity and to students. One need only consider high stakes testing to understand this point. Dysfunctional professional deference enables the abstract, administrative narrative to supercede the local, pedagogical one. This deference to the hierarchy reflects a commitment to organizational values not pedagogical ones. Further, it suggests that teachers’ contextual knowledge is somehow less valuable than that of the administrator whose priorities focus on the needs of the organization. Meier (2000) informs us here,

230


What is missing in our schools is balance – some power in the hands of those whose agenda is first and foremost the feelings of particular kids, their particular families, their perceived local values and needs. Without this balance my knowledge that holding David in third grade will not produce the desired effect is useless [italics mine] knowledge. So is my knowledge of different ways to reach him through literature or history. This absence of local power is bad for David and bad for democracy. (p. 29)

There is a price for cultivating, even demanding, professional deference. The contextual knowledge about the educational needs of the students in Riverton was no match for the administrative narrative and the power that sustained it. University researchers and professors who do not defer to contextual knowledge in teaching and administration when they construct theories help to sustain that power. They also fail to confront their own practice, the dysfunctional deference they exercise, and the fundamental disregard they hold for their colleagues in the field. We ought to ask the question, ‘‘What kind of educators are we becoming?’’ in order to inform our efforts to construct theories about educators. Introspection and selfreflection, it seems are where the real data exist.

CONCLUSION The logic that supported the teachers’ Literacy Program was not the same logic that drove administrative decisions about reading in the district. An administrative narrative renders teachers’ knowledge useless in informing decisions driven by that context. In this case, the administrative narrative prevailed, not because it was good for kids, but because it satisfied some distorted, administrative construct about good or efficient administration. It also pandered to the notion of equity to defeat arguments against it. Marzano (2003) suggests that principals demonstrate leadership for change by working with classroom teachers to bring about educational reform. We concur but add that this requires district-level administration to create a structure that supports building administrators as they function in that capacity. Clearly, teachers are more than victims of administrative functionaries, like Dorothy, who the system socialized to cool them out and make them feel alright about failing at teaching. So too, administrators are more than victims. Dysfunctional professional deference transcends research, theory, and practice and provides one framework for beginning to examine how it is that educators continue to operate within a system that demands the sacrifice of so much professional integrity. Reeve’s (2004) notion of holistic accountability takes into account the actions of board members and policy


231

makers in addition to what teachers and administrators do. False dichotomies of theory and practice, academic and practitioner sustain these points of view. The dysfunctional professional deference and disregard that emerge from them suggest that they must bridge. This case describes just some of the mechanisms that allow educators, teachers, administrators, and academics to sacrifice their professional expertise to the whims, politics, and economics of administration. It reveals the numerous opportunities to integrate leadership and contextuality inherent in the real-life experiences taking place in our schools.

REFERENCES Andrews, M., Lee, S. S., & James, D. (2001, November). The man in the principal’s office (re)visited by a woman. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council of Educational Administrators, Cincinnati, OH. Bates, R. (1981). Educational administration, the technologisation of reason, and the management of knowledge: Toward a critical theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA. Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership programs: An expanding role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bredeson, P. (2002). Paradoxes in professional development: Implications for principal learning, work, and licensing. In: W. Lin (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on School Leader Preparation, Licensure/Certification, Selection, Evaluation, and Professional Development, National Taipei Teachers College Principals’ Center, Taipei, China (pp. 393–411). Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College. Capper, C. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society: A multi-paradigm approach. In: C. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society (pp. 7–36). Albany, NY: SUNY. Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5–18. Casey, K. (1995). The new narrative research in education. In: M. Apple (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 21, pp. 211–253). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional landscapes: Teacher stories – stories of teachers – school stories – stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30. Clark, B. R. (1960). The ‘‘cooling-out’’ function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65(May), 569–576. Cusick, P. A. (1992). The educational system: Its nature and logic. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Davies, J. S., & Foster, W. (1994). A postmodern analysis of educational administration. In: S. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership (pp. 61–71). Westport, CT: Praeger.

232


Fazzaro, C. J., Walter, J. E., & McKerrow, K. K. (1994). Education administration in a postmodern society: Implications for moral practice. In: S. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership (pp. 85–95). Westport, CT: Praeger. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Foster, W. (1998). Editor’s forward. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 294–297. Goffman, R. (1952). On cooling the mark out: Some aspects of adaptation to failure. Psychiatry, 15, 451–463. Greenfield, T.B. (1975). Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In: M.G. Hughes (Ed.), Administering education: International challenge (pp. 71–99). London: Athlone. Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15–22. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Lee, S. S. (2001). A root out of dry ground: Resolving the researcher/researched dilemma. In: J. Zeni (Ed.), Ethical issues in practitioner research (pp. 61–71). New York: Teachers College. Lyotard, J. F. (1979). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McKerrow, K. K. (1997). Ethical administration: An oxymoron? Journal of School Leadership, 7(2), 210–225. Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education? Boston, MA: Beacon. Murphy, J. (1999). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen. Nielsen, H. B. (1995). Seductive texts with serious intentions. Educational Researcher, 24(1), 4–12. Parker, W. C. (1995). The urban curriculum and the allocating function of schools. In: E. Stevens & G. Woods (Eds), Justice, ideology, and education (pp. 178–182). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis: Qualitative research methods series (Vol. 30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). The roots of school leadership. Principal, 74(2), 6–9. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Smith, L., & Geoffrey, W. (1968). The complexities of an urban classroom: An analysis toward a general theory of teaching. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.


233

Spindler, G. D. (1959). The transmission of American culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tosi, H. J., Jr. (1982). Toward a paradigm shift in the study of leadership. In: J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 222–235). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Whyte, W. H. (1957). The organization man. New York, NY: Anchor. Wolcott, H. (1973). The man in the principal’s office: An ethnography. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY WILL REQUIRE CONSTRUCTIVIST LEADERSHIP SKILLS Joe Ann Hinrichs ABSTRACT Education is experiencing a serious time of crisis with the many demands and restraints of the No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB) coupled with the dissatisfaction of public education in general. As society and various legislative bodies find fault with the current educational model, school leadership is under siege and in danger of failure by default. Districts will need to tap their greatest resource, the collaborative strengths and passion of each educator in the building to survive. Schools need the strongest and best educators to pick up the gauntlet of leadership: Leaders wanted, apply inside!

INTRODUCTION Educational leaders are floundering in their efforts to meet the needs of today’s diverse student population. At the same time, they are facing a Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 237–249 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10014-7

237

238

JOE ANN HINRICHS

multi-headed dragon of pressures and restraints from outside of the schoolhouse door. Stress and controversy have become common daily occurrences for building principal and teachers (Senge, 2000; Somech & Wenderow, 2006). In many areas, violence and disrespect are additional concerns that building and district personnel must face. Yet, the public wonders why school leaders are headed out of the door instead of seeking the once desirable role of school leadership. Some educators are beginning to ask themselves ‘why should I spend my life dealing with stress and dissatisfaction at every turn?’ While at the same time, national news reports show concern about the rising numbers of turnover among school administration and teachers. Predictions about the future deficit in these areas are alarming. Sustaining quality leadership will become increasingly more difficult if supportive networks of leadership are not formed. The networking of teachers, administrators, and parents is necessary if society is to provide a community of leadership within the schoolhouse of tomorrow. This chapter will attempt to unpack some of the leadership skills that are needed for the 21st century and to discuss the scaffolding upon which to build a collaborative leadership system.

SOCIETAL WAVES OF CHANGE The world outside of the schoolhouse is rapidly changing. Society shifts created many changes which would eventually impact the home and the school. Future Shock written in the 1970s, The Third Wave in the 1980s (Toffler, 1980), Powershift in the 1990s were and still are the leading futuristic books, which tell the story of the three waves of cultural changes to date in our society as we know it (Toffler, 1990). The first wave of society was the agrarian period (Toffler, 1980). Education of children took place at home with their mother or religious leaders, life was rural and isolated (Spring, 1990). Farming and other agricultural vocations were the mainstay. The second wave was industrial with vast changes in the way people lived, worked, traveled, and educated their children. Small schools developed, education took place in groups led by a teacher. More and more parents, both male and female, were working outside of the home. Mass schooling developed and public school systems evolved (Spring, 1990; Cremin, 1964; Rippa, 1992; Toffler, 1980). Society changed a great deal to reflect the differences of that time. Family structures and culture became diverse and reshaped as careers and global travel became the norm (Toffler, 1980).

School Leadership in the 21st Century

239

The decline of the family as a powerful institution did not begin with Dr. Spock or Playboy magazine. It began when the industrial revolution stripped most of these functions out of the family. Work shifted from the factory to the office. The sick went off to hospitals, kids to schools, couples to movie theaters. The elderly went into nursing homes. (Toffler, 1994, p. 86)

Early in the twenty-first century, the third wave had begun, the age of information and technology (Toffler, 1980). Futurists and historians have predicted the waves of cultural change in which we are currently living. We have stepped through the portal of agrarian, and industrial, to the current mode of fast-paced access to information (Toffler, 1990). The world had become a more global environment and our society continues to wrestle with the dynamics of those changes. The information age, or the third wave as it is referred to, brings a re-empowerment of the family (Toffler, 1994). As adults decide to work at home and utilize the internet as a connection to the outside work, families begin to make other changes also about how to best educate their children. Alternative delivery systems for providing schooling have become more fluid, students are homeschooled, virtual schools are accessed readily and charter schools, as well as, private schools become more popular as the disenchantment with public education developed (Toffler, 1980, 1994). While change is the one constant in all of our lives, the arrival of the third wave in society presents challenges and opportunities for school leadership (Toffler, 1990, 1994). Education is currently experiencing a serious time of crisis with the many demands and restraints of NCLB coupled with the dissatisfaction of public education in general. As society and various legislative bodies are finding increasing fault with our current educational model, school leadership is under siege and in danger of failure by default. The challenges that leaders face are so varied and so complex that one person cannot hope to be successful on his own (Drucker, 1995; Fullan, 2000; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Senge, 2000). Leaders will need to tap their greatest resource, the collaborative strengths and passion of each educator in the building. There is a cultural shift in our society today from persons who lead with an authoritative voice to those who inspire others to develop leadership talent from within the school. Empirical studies found in the literature describe the need for buildings to foster communities of learners in the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 1998, 2000; Senge, 2000; Wenglinsky, 2002), while also actively developing communities of leadership district-wide (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Walhstrom, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Lambert, 2002a, 2002b; Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002).

240

JOE ANN HINRICHS

Leadership Defined Leadership that will address the educational challenges of the 21st century is still trying to define itself and develop a style. While that is taking place, students need to be educated and teachers need to be supported, there is no time to stop and ‘figure it out.’ So many great experts and scholars have defined leadership in such an elegant manner that it seems natural to be confused by what leadership really is. For the sake of clarification, this chapter has embraced Dr. Stephen Covey’s (2004) definition of a leader, Simply put – at its most elemental and practical level – leadership is communicating to people their worth and potential so clearly that they come to see it in themselves. Think about this definition. Isn’t it the essence of the kind of leadership that influences and truly endures?! To communicate the worth and potential of others so clearly, so powerfully and so consistently that they see it in themselves is to set in motion the process of seeing, doing, and becoming. (p. 98)

In the past, leadership has been more isolated. The lone ranger model of leadership (Lambert, 2002a, 2002b; Maxwell, 2003), one person or a very few administrators making the key decisions in the building is now obsolete. ‘‘Forget your tired old ideas about leadership. The most successful corporation of the 1990s will be something called a learning organization’’ (Senge, 1990, p. 13). Leadership for the 21st century will call for a new ‘mental model’ (Senge, 2000, p. 7), which is collaborative and actively draw upon the strengths of all building leadership. Leadership that pools resources, that works to honor everyone’s contribution to the common good of the school, in which a leader is a guide who inspires others to develop their own leadership talents to reach the full potential of their talents and skills (Gabriel, 2005). Lambert, 2002a, 2002b describes how the role of the principal must change to meet the current and future demands upon leadership. ‘‘Today’s effective principal constructs a shared vision with members of the school community, convenes the conversations, insists on a student problem learning focus, evokes and supports leadership in others, models and participates in collaborative practice. This work requires skill and new understanding; it is much easier to tell or to manage than it is to perform as a collaborative instructional leader’’ (Lambert, 2002a, 2002b, p. 39). Although school district administrators undergo recruitment and training for their role of providing management of a school building and leadership of personnel for a school system, the models seems to be already outdated by the time the person takes their position. Just as society and the social


241

culture within which we live today has vastly reshaped, there is a need for the administration of the district/building to become more distributive, more participatory, and more collaborative in word and deed or practice. While this metamorphosis of leadership is taking place, the information age of society is beginning to change the landscape of society. There is a shift in societal expectations for the leadership of the school. The information age is dictating the need for new leadership configurations, new avenues of accountability for student learning that have not existed in a consistent manner before. However, the complexity of our world will demand that leadership change to meet the needs of a very different society, a culture of diversity (Huitt, 1999). It is time to adopt a we versus me model of leadership. School leadership that involves all of the major stakeholders (administrators, teachers, parents, community members) is a strong collaborative model. Working collaboratively as a team may be one of the best resolutions to the existence of school leadership in the teacher and administrative ranks. It is time to create a model that will draw upon the best of all stakeholders’ skills to better meet the unique issues that educators and families face today.

COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP OF THE 21ST CENTURY The role of leadership must now come from the strength of a collaborative effort of those who feel ownership in the school system, those who are stakeholders in the future success of their student body. We can no longer expect or desire one person to lead such a complicated enterprise as a school building that is required to be so many things to so many people. The culture of leadership needs to change to a collaborative model (Kouzes & Posen, 2002; Danielson, 2006; Marzano et al., 2005; Somech & Wenderow, 2006), a design that can draw upon the best strengths, ideas, skills, and dreams of everyone in the schoolhouse. Bringing invested and valued stakeholders to the decision table is the key to providing a positive and supportive learning environment for students. Schools that learn describes five learning disciplines of organizational learning: personal mastery, shared vision, mental models, team learning, and systems thinking (Senge, 2000). When stakeholders are valued in a

242

JOE ANN HINRICHS

system, it important to address these five areas. Senge (2000) defines them in this way: Personal mastery is the practice of articulating a coherent image of your personal vision – the results you most want to create in your lifey Shared vision [refers to] people with a common purpose (e.g. teachers, administrators, and staff in a school) can learn to nourish a sense of commitment in a group or organization by developing shared images of the future that they seek to create and the principles and guiding practices by which they hope to get there. Mental models [is the] discipline of reflection and inquiry skillsyfocused around developing awareness of attitudes and perceptions – your own and those of others around you. Team Learning [is the] discipline of group interaction. Through such techniques as dialogue and skillful discussion, small groups of people transform their collective thinking, learning to mobilize their energies and actions to achieve common goals and drawing forth an intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents. Systems Thinking [is when] people learn to better understand interdependency and change and thereby are able to deal more effectively with the forces that shape the consequences of their actions (pp. 7–8). Learning organizations attract leadership that will guide all stakeholders to construct a meaningful direction for their school; leadership that will foster the development of a shared vision to work as a team. To work as a team with a shared vision requires collaboration. However, ‘‘collaboration does not come as a natural consequence of working in a school. It must be taught, learned, nurtured, and supported until it replaces working privately’’ (Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles, 1988, p. 356). Teacher isolation comes naturally in a school because of the individual classrooms, individual teams versus very much team teaching. Consequently, creating a community of collaboration among all of the schoolhouse stakeholders must be deliberate not to mention consistent to become successful. Breaking the isolation barriers down within the school and between the school and the community is a definite cultural change (Fullan, 2001; Task Force on Teacher Leadership, 1991; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). While teachers are ‘natural’ leaders, the trick on the part of the administrator, is to let it happen and support, coach, and mentor the process. While some teachers have difficulty envisioning themselves as leaders (McEwan, 2003), they are short changing themselves and their peers.


243

‘‘However, the individual who sees teaching as anything other than an opportunity to lead misses the mark completely’’ (McEwan, 2003, p. 101). Most of the time, the best leaders come from the ranks of those who are the best teachers, educators who hear a calling or a desire to do more for their students by leaving the classroom or by extending their role as a teacher to become part of a leadership team within their schools (Lambert, 2003; Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Seminal theorists of yesterday, Dewey (1997), Bruner (1996), Vygotsky (1978), and Bandura (1977) believed that learning should be active, meaningful, experiential, and reconnecting to our background knowledge to foster cognitive development schema. Bandura (1977) described human beings as having strong social needs. Consequently, a constructivist leader (Lambert, 2002a, 2002b; Peckover, Peterson, Christiansen, & Covert, 2006) in the 21st century would adopt the strategy of mentoring, coaching, facilitating, and providing resources as they work side by side to develop and nurture a community of learners. In an editorial entitled Components of Authentic Learning, Rule (2006) reports the idea that the teacher in the classroom should be more of a mentor and resource provider than a disseminator of knowledge. It is in this setting that students, teachers, administrators, parents, and community members will have to change to meet the challenges of the information age and to lead the cultural change that will happen in the next century (Oakes & Lipton, 2003). Constructivist educators believe that learning is active and personal. ‘‘It is a theory that says that learning means constructing and developing one’s own knowledge; that we do this by actively questioning, interpreting, problem solving, and creating; and that in-depth understanding is one result of this learning’’ (Marlowe & Page, 1998, p. 27). Leadership for the future then will need to be as a team, a unit of strong individuals who each bring their particular strengths to the table of decisionmaking.

Friend and Cook’s Collaborative Model of Interaction An operational definition of constructive leadership can begin with a foundation as described by Friend and Cook (2003) in their book, Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Personnel. ‘‘Interpersonal collaboration is a style for direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in share shared decision making as they work toward a common goal’’ (p. 5).

244

JOE ANN HINRICHS

Collaboration is characterized not only by a definition, but by six important characteristics that Friend and Cook (2003) have developed: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Collaboration is voluntary Collaboration requires parity among participants Collaboration is based on mutual goals Collaboration depends on shared responsibility for participation and decision making 5. Individuals who collaborate share resources 6. individuals who collaborate share accountability for outcomes (pp. 6–11) Collaboration that is voluntary within a collaborative effort is imperative. Individuals mandated or assigned without the voluntary desire to contribute to the partnership will be wasting their own time and damaging the mutual desire to effect change. All participants must be willing to contribute to and assume responsibility for the decisions, achievements, and evaluations of this collaborative relationship or process. Parity among the participants refers to equal partnerships in which each person’s contribution to the partnership is equally valued. Power, organization, and decision-making are shared among participants. Within a collaborative partnership, it is significant that there be mutual goals. Everyone in a partnership or collaborative system must agree upon what the end result is to become. Common goals are created when collaborative members share this common objective(s). An important characteristic of collaboration is for participants to share responsibility and power in making decisions. Shared responsibility refers to actively participating in decisions and jointly being responsible for those acts. Sharing turf is a hard obstacle to overcome in any collaboration. However, for a collaborative to work, people must enter this situation willing to work toward creating trust, and be responsive versus closed to a different way of viewing issues or situations. Resources are an important aspect of collaborations. Sharing equally with flexibility is important to the trust and support of collaboration. People need a sense of control to spend and to do for students within their own decisionmaking authority. Lastly, the characteristic of sharing responsibility is important. Shared responsibility and accountability for the outcomes of events is a challenge but must be honored for a collaborative relationship to work. Leadership from inside and outside of the classroom will provide the catalyst for positive changes. Teachers and administrators who can provide


245

this leadership create a powerful team approach to student learning. The Wallace report (Leithwood et al., 2004) describes the merits of distributive, collaborative, participative leadership that shows potential for positive influence upon student learning when the terms are not merely slogans or lip service. Implementing a collaborative leadership style will draw upon the best strengths and talents of those who are responsible for the students and their learning. A close review of the research literature developed by the Wallace Foundation presents several salient points. ‘‘Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school’’ (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 5). Leithwood et al. (2004) describes how teacher leadership can provide the support and strategies that are needed, in part, due to the uniqueness of the close proximity that teachers have to their students. Master teachers who are current with best-practice strategies are in an important place to be able to assess student learning and provide an intervention or strategy that is needed. Secondly, that ‘‘leadership effects are usually largest where and when they are needed most’’ (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 5). The idea being that schools with the greatest needs can be most benefited by strong leadership. ‘‘Many factors may contribute to such turnarounds, but leadership is the catalyst’’ (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 5). Student success is indeed the focus of the daily business of school. It takes more than the administrator or administrative team to make that happen. Teacher expertise is one of the most-important variables affecting student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1998; DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Teacher development, professional development will have to take a front row seat in school district priorities instead of a mere tag on at the end of the budgetplanning sessions, let along cut out at the last minute to balance the proposed budget. Principle-Centered Leadership The most-important trait that the administrative leader of tomorrow needs is to be a principle center person. Stephen Covey’s (2004) work depicts that type of person very clearly. He begins by defining the term, principlecentered leadership: Principle-centered leadership is practiced from the inside out on four levels: (1) personal (my relationship with myself); (2) interpersonal (my relationships and interactions with others); (3) managerial (my responsibilities to get a job done with others); and

246

JOE ANN HINRICHS

(4) organizational (my need to organize other people – to recruit them, train them, compensate them, build teams, solve problems, and create aligned structure, strategy, and systems Covey, 1991, p. 31).

A True Story of Principle-Centered Leadership Once upon a few decades ago, I was principal in an elementary building in the midwest. This was my first principalship. When the superintendent of schools hired me, he encouraged me to take my background knowledge as an educational consultant, as a master teacher, and as someone who enjoyed mentoring people to help ‘my’ new school reach its potential. Well, needless to say, I was thrilled to have landed my first administrative job, but no sooner had I left his office than I realized that I did not really know what a principal does and I had no REAL clue as to what I would be facing. What I did tell myself as I began that first year, I am not real proud of it, but, I told myself that ‘I just didn’t want to do any damage.’ I was going to go in and keep things orderly and just let the teachers do what they already knew how to do, teach their classes what they need to know. So – the year began! You might have guessed by now that before the first month was up, I knew that I was in WAY over my head – I needed help. After all, my ONE goal was not to cause damage. So I called a faculty meeting and asked the teachers a simple question – (what a mistake that was). If you could have your way with this school, what would you like to see happen and how would you go about it? In order to ‘hear’ everyone’s thoughtful response to that question, I asked them to write to me about it and leave it in my mailbox or email it. Before very long, the teachers had generated a list of things that they wanted to see happen that would bring about a better learning situation for our student population and the community. I handed out a document that was simply a listing of their ideas and asked where they wanted to begin. After a good deal of conversation, it became clear that they wanted to do all of it now! The faculty was hungry to have leaders ask for their opinion and really listen to them. They were also ready to work hard to move their school forward to help the students in our care. So we began a long-range plan of what we wanted to do. Then we worked out how we would do it, who we needed to help us, and the school set about transitioning their ‘shared vision’ into a working plan. The building adopted


247

the mission statement of, ‘‘Whatever it takes!’’ And that is what they did. We learned, we changed, we struggled, we wrote grants, and we enlisted everyone, students, parents, community, school board members, everyone that had a stakeholder role in our school – worked. There is a happy ending to the story, the school moved from being a traditional elementary school with a series of segregated special education classes as well as two or three sections of each regular grade to a new and wonderfully productive school. We implemented a non-graded, multi-age, inclusive elementary school, which also invited a full complement of head start to join us in one wing and a magnet school for gifted and talented children in 5th and 6th grade. The plan for the gifted classes was referred to as the ‘50-50 plan’ because 50% of the day the 1% of the gifted and talented population of students came from across a large district (26 students) to meet with their intellectual peers and studied core areas of reading, math, and language arts. The other 50% of the day these students attended class with everyone else in heterogeneous groups, as were the teachers. This school made fantastic strides academically in the face of the same ethnic and economic problems that we have today. They were successful because we as a faculty worked collaboratively as principle-centered educators for the good of every child in that building. I will never forget their efforts, or my first few years as a building principal.

The Tapestry of Collaboration The closely woven threads of stakeholders form the tapestry of collaboration. Each thread represents a person who comes to this point in time from their own personal experiences, their love for children, and their observations of children fighting daily to stay in school or merely to survive. Each person has a very unique sense of passion to make a difference for children; each person owns a sincere dedication to how important learning and education are for the students they serve. This tapestry of people from all walks of life and professions is driven by a compassion that is greater than themselves. Together they create a vision for struggling against all odds, to keep the faith for children, and to light a candle for a wholesome way of life in their own corner of the universe. The strongest and best educators are needed to pick up this gauntlet of leadership: Leaders wanted, apply inside!

248

JOE ANN HINRICHS

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publications. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Covey, S. (1991). Principle centered leadership. New York, NY: Free Press, Simon and Schuster. Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit from effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free Press, Simon and Schuster. Cremin, L. A. (1964). The transformation of the school. New York, NY: Vintage Books, Random House. Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership: That strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6–11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of State policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Drucker, P. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New York, NY: Dutton. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & Dufour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership for the twenty-first century. In: The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 156–163). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Huitt, W. (1999). Success in the information age: A paradigm shift. Revision of paper developed for a workshop presentation at the Georgia Independent School Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November 6, 1995. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/ whuitt/col/context/infoage.html Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posen, B. (2002). Leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Lambert, L. (2002a). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37–40. Lambert, L. (2002b). The constructivist leader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Walhstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


249

Lieberman, A., Saxl, E., & Miles, M. (1988). Teacher leadership: Ideology and practice. In: A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (p. 356). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Department). Maxwell, J. (2003). Real leadership: The 101 collection: What every leader needs to know. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc. McEwan, E. (2003). 7 Steps to effective instructional leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2003). Teaching to change the world (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Peckover, R. B., Peterson, S., Christiansen, P., & Covert, L. (2006). A constructivist pathway to teacher leadership. Academic Exchange, 10(2), 136–140. Rippa, A. A. (1992). Education in a free society: An American history (7th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Rule, A. (Ed.) (2006). Editorial: The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1), 1–10. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Publishers. Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn. New York, NY: Doubleday Publishers. Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive leadership on teachers’ performance. The intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and leader–member exchange. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 746–772. Spring, J. (1990). The American school 1642–1990 (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Task Force on Teacher Leadership. (1991). Leadership for student learning: Redefining the teacher as leader. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Toffler, A., & Toffler, H. (1994). Creating a new civilization: The politics of the third wave. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher physiological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved November, 11, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND REFORM: THE PREPARATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Saran Donahoo and Michael Stokes ABSTRACT Issued in 2005, the Levine report challenges the current way that colleges and universities prepare pre-service administrators to lead elementary and secondary schools. The reforms recommended by the report include shifting attention away from educational research in favor of a more practical focus. Although we support the idea of making school leadership programs more practice-oriented, we disagree with the suggestion that students receive little or no research training. This chapter discusses how learning and conducting educational research can benefit those preparing to lead schools in the educational environment of the 21st century.

INTRODUCTION Arthur Levine’s (2005) evaluation and report on educational leadership programs offers a variety of recommendations that challenge the current way we prepare individuals to serve as school administrators. Among other conclusions reached by the report, Levine (2005) argues that research in Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 251–260 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10015-9

251

252

SARAN DONAHOO AND MICHAEL STOKES

educational administration is weak, poorly structured, and has little to offer that improves either the practice of school leadership or the development of policies aimed at schools. At the same time, Levine (2005) also contends that educational leadership programs focus too much on research and neglect to offer courses that students need to become effective administrators. While we support some of the contentions offered by Levine (2005), we find that his assessment of the value that research has on educational leadership preparation and for pre-service school leaders is somewhat shortsighted. This chapter explores how school leaders can benefit from reading and doing educational research. First, this chapter discusses some key findings of the Levine (2005) report and how research can assist with improving perceived deficiencies in leadership preparation. Acknowledging that Levine (2005) champions the National College for School Leadership’s (NCSL) 10 principles of what school leadership programs should offer and what school leaders need to know as a model for improving leadership preparation programs in the United States, we next examine how research can help to support these principles. Finally, the chapter ends by recommending ways for improving the link between research and practice.

The State of Leadership Preparation The Levine (2005) report is one of the more recent works to examine and critique educational leadership preparation programs. In doing so, Levine (2005) reaches conclusions regarding the state and effectiveness of educational leadership programs similar to other scholars before him (Forsyth, 1987; Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; McLaughlin & Moore, 1990; Milstein (1999); Murphy & Forsyth, 1999; Schubert, 2004; Weinand, 1997; Young, Petersen, & Short, 2002). Findings presented in the Levine (2005) report include the following: The pedagogy and curricula of educational leadership programs lack purpose and do not really seem to prepare students to serve as school administrators. Pre-service administrators desire, but rarely receive coursework that is directly relevant to their future careers. The courses, books, and general approach in leadership programs are often outdated. Teaching methods focus too much on academics at the expense of neglecting practical training.

Educational Research and Reform

253

When utilized, clinical/practical experiences are undervalued and marginalized from other program requirements. Programs fail to adequately balance faculty who have administrative experience with those who are strong academics. Research in educational administration has little meaning to people outside of the academy. Requirements that students complete traditional academic studies overburdens faculty and perpetuates the production of weak research in the field. Neither the EdD nor the PhD degrees adequately prepare students to lead schools. To be sure, many of the critiques offered by Levine (2005) remain just as valid now as they were when other scholars raised similar issues before him. However, we question Levine’s (2005) finding that educational research in general and academic research requirements in particular provide little benefit to those interested and committed to the practice of school administration. Recognizing that school leadership programs must change to better prepare administrators to serve in the educational environments of the 21st century, completely segregating leadership preparation from academic research is not the answer. While not necessarily the path for all, the ability and opportunity to do research does offer some advantages to school leaders. One advantage that conducting research offers school leaders is a chance to develop skills in identifying good and bad studies. An increase in educational research has accompanied the rise in media and public interest in education (Berliner & Biddle, 1999; Shipps, Fowlkes, & Peltzman, 2006). However, not all of this research utilizes suitable methodologies or provides suggestions applicable to all educational circumstances. Levine (2005) himself argues that much of the existing research in educational administration is inadequate and champions various approaches and programs with little empirical evidence of proven success. As such, it is crucial that school leaders know how to read between the lines and judge the practical implications of educational research as they consider or respond to requests to implement new approaches based on the findings of what may be unreliable research. Conducting research helps school leadership students to develop a better understanding of the research process, which they can use to identify studies and data that can help them to improve the achievement of and the services offered to their K-12 students. In addition to accurately judging the value of educational studies, developing research skills also allows school administrators to better

254


connect theoretical and academic work to the practice of school leadership. Levine (2005) maintains that many faculty members and educational scholars lack the experience needed to help improve the practice of administration. Well-versed in the practice of leadership, school principals and superintendents have an insider view of administration that most academics do not have the opportunity to obtain. Accordingly, school administrators are in the best position to improve the relationship between research and practice by using their experiential knowledge to select and execute the research projects that offer the best chance of realistically affecting students, teachers, leaders, and schools in positive ways. Beyond paving the way to improve the linkage between research and practice, exposure to research also helps to promote data-driven decision making. At its root, data-driven decision making encourages school leaders to use research gathered specifically about their students and their schools to improve teaching, learning, and achievement (Bernhardt, 2004; Petrides, 2006; Streifer & Schumann, 2005). Despite its potential, some educators shy away from data-driven decision making fearing both the research process and the truths that the data may reveal (Petrides, 2006). Exposure to research during the preparation program will help to ease school leaders into the process of data-driven decision making by allowing them to make better use of the information gathered about their schools. Administrators who are researchers also have a better opportunity of developing the skills and experience that will allow them to effectively introduce and implement data-driven decision making with teachers who may be skeptical of changes to their schools (Petrides, 2006; Streifer & Schumann, 2005).

Principles of the National College for School Leadership Although Levine (2005) is very critical of educational leadership programs in the U.S., his report does offer some directions as to how we might look to improving administrator preparation. Looking across the Atlantic Ocean, Levine (2005) cites England’s NCSL and its 10 principles about what school leaders need to know and what leadership programs need to offer as a model for helping to improve preparation programs in the U.S. Although it has no impact on Levine’s (2005) view of research, including research in school leadership training has the potential to extend the effectiveness of the NCSL principles. As cited by Levine (2005), research specifically promotes and


255

fosters the following NCSL principles: 1. Be purposeful, inclusive, and values driven – Research helps leaders to develop visions and plans for their schools that are purposeful, inclusive, and values driven by learning more about the issues schools and their students now face. Reading and participating in the research process helps pre-service administrators’ transition from the single classroom or academic discipline perspective to the whole school or districtwide outlook of education where the needs of all students must be addressed. 3. Promote an active view of learning – Reading and conducting research encourages school leaders to remain active learners making it easier for them to apply this expectation to and support this as a reality for their students, teachers, and schools. It is much easier to cultivate active learning when leaders take this journey with their students, faculty, and staff, not apart from them. 4. Be instructionally focused – Firsthand knowledge of research helps administrators to identify good studies that can help them to improve the instruction offered to, achievement of, and learning outcomes among their students. Research helps school leaders to learn new techniques, while also recognizing the potential traps of new programs that may not be as effective in their individual school environments as presented in published finding of educational research. 6. Build capacity by developing the school as a learning community – Research skills help school leaders to develop learning communities more effectively by moving beyond simple trial and error methods for determining the deficiencies of programs and identifying approaches that will work best in an individual school. While program evaluation skills help school leaders to judge the effectiveness of plans already put into operation, research experience provides the skills leaders need to effectively evaluate and estimate the value and impact of a program at the particular school in question before investing significant time and other resources in implementing something that is simply incompatible with their schools and students. 7. Be future-oriented and strategically driven – Research skills help school leaders to develop strategies for improving their schools. Every year, schools collect significant amounts of data on their students. Administrators trained in research acquire the ability to devise meaningful approaches to the problems facing their schools, which can help to address both current and future concerns.

256


8. Draw on experiential and innovative methodologies – Research encourages originality and innovation by drawing on the expertise, knowledge, and experience of school leaders. The skills needed to successfully complete graduate or professional research promote pedagogical and administrative improvements by mandating that school leaders first learn what others have done to address the problem; second, assess the situation affecting the students; and third, devise approaches that speak about the specific issues taking place at their schools that draw upon or, when necessary, deviate from past and contemporary responses.

Administrative Preparation and the Practice of Research As Levine (2005) suggests, the 10 principles of the NCSL do offer a template and a starting point for school leadership programs in the U.S. as we look at revising preparation requirements to impart and enhance the skills needed for administrative practice. At the same time, neither emulating the NCSL in particular nor reforming school leadership programs in general mandate the full elimination of research courses and degree requirements. Here are some possible ways to help improve the relationship between research and practice as we look to making school leadership programs more effective in preparing administrators to manage and operate schools. Practice Relevant Research Most studies agree that research in educational administration is far removed from, irrelevant to, or simply fails to offer meaningful input related to the practice of school leadership (Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Levine, 2005; Murphy & Forsyth, 1999; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006; Riehl, Larson, Short, & Reitzug, 2000). Even so, removing research requirements from school leadership preparation programs would only further exacerbate this problem. Rather than separate research from practice, educational administration programs need to look to devising new ways of bridging the two by allowing and encouraging pre-service school leaders to engage in practice-relevant research. Compared to more traditional research in the field, practice-relevant research begins and ends with the question: ‘‘How might this help to address problems in or generally improve school leadership?’’ This research speaks to scholars by utilizing one or more of the many accepted methodologies to gather data about a particular problem, school, or group of students. At the same time, this research also maintains a constant eye toward practice by always looking toward presenting the data


257

and analysis in ways that active school leaders can use to more effectively manage their schools and serve their stakeholders. Practice-relevant research requires us to accept that all educational research is anecdotal because every child and every school are different. Even the most efficient and effective program is not guaranteed to produce good results in every academic situation. As such, all well designed, executed, and analyzed research data has the potential to improve teaching, learning, and the manner in which we run schools. Practice-Directed Methodologies Many school leaders find academic research to be frustrating because it does not appear to appreciate or allow for the elements most important to practice (Levine, 2005). To address this, preparation programs and scholarly journals should become more accepting of research methodologies that have a strong relationship to practice. These include action research, program development, and program evaluation. Each of these methods allows school leaders to focus their attention on real students and teachers who are having real experiences in real schools. These methods also provide opportunities for leadership students to employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative structures, which utilize skills that many school leadership preparation programs traditionally encourage students to develop. While students will still have to complete traditional academic task such as writing a literature review and obtaining both committee and human subjects approval before proceeding with their projects, allowing them to develop more practice-relevant projects will increase the usefulness of the research element of the program. These programs will differ from traditional research requirements due to their strong emphasis on practice by generating information that school leaders may want to have and need to know. Foundation for Practice Despite some existing inefficiencies in the field, reading and conducting research can help pre-service administrators better acquire the skills needed to lead schools if their academic experiences help to build a foundation for their professional responsibilities. As reported by Lester (1993), Levine (2005), and others, practitioners of school leadership often find that their preparation programs did not emphasize the skills they need to effectively manage and operate schools. Leadership programs can improve this by ensuring that the research that students read and execute relates directly to helping them to understand and meet the challenges of school

258


administration. This means deliberately selecting course materials that discuss concepts and problems relevant to the work of school leaders. In addition, internships and practicum experiences should be more than just add-ons with little relevancy to coursework. Rather, readings, projects, and assignments should lay the foundation for practical experiences by allowing students opportunities to examine elements of school leadership, how these elements differ from the duties traditionally addressed by teachers and other non-administrative staff members, and what future leaders may need to consider as they face these and other similar issues in their schools. Programs should deliberately link coursework to practical experiences through the use of common or two part projects that involve a combination of both academic and professional tasks to enrich the learning process for students. This can be useful for both research and non-researching students as preparation programs refashion themselves to ensure that their objectives mesh with their students’ goals.

CONCLUSION To be sure, the current structure of school leadership programs does not support the development of all of the skills that administrators need to run schools. Pre-service principals and superintendents need curricula and assignments that are directly aligned with the skills they will use to manage and lead schools. Henceforth, we can no longer afford to regard practice as peripheral to degree requirements and academic work. Yet, as school leadership programs undergo reform and revisions, we should not completely remove research training and experiences from the coursework and degrees made available to these students. Simply reading research materials is not enough. Although students can learn a lot by being exposed to research through courses and conducting literature reviews, those opportunities usually focus more attention on completing an assignment than on devising uses for the information that will help improve either the practice of leadership or some other element of education that falls within the purview of school leaders. Conducting original research requires scholars at all levels and from every background to identify their own questions, sources, and possible solutions. The research process is valuable for school administrators because it encourages them to focus on two overarching questions: What are the needs of my students, teachers, and school?’’ and ‘‘How might I best allocate school resources to fulfill those needs?’’ Although administrators who lack research experience must also


259

face these two questions, the skills used to complete original research projects and studies will help school leaders to better answer these questions by providing tools that will help them to both identify the problems facing their schools and devise appropriate solutions. In addition to the potential for improving the practice of school leadership, providing pre-service administrators with research opportunities will also help to improve preparation programs. Some of today’s educational leaders will eventually move from running schools and districts to helping to train others to serve in those positions by joining the faculty of leadership preparation programs. Any effort at improving instruction must start with them by helping these practitioners to develop research skills, which will also help to better connect research to practice. Researchers who lack practical experience as school leaders are generally limited to imparting content knowledge. It can be equally unjust to hire individuals for their practical knowledge and background, while excluding them from some elements of the academy or devaluing their contributions because of their lack of research. Ending the polarization of research and practice must begin with school leadership programs by fostering the development of practice-relevant researchers or research-trained practitioners who understand each end of the spectrum education well enough to effectively teach and improve them both.

REFERENCES Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1999). The awful alliance of the media and public-school critics – ‘‘if it bleeds, it leads’’ – but that doesn’t make it fair. The Education Digest, 64(5), 4–11. Bernhardt, V. L. (2004). Continuous improvement: It takes more than just test scores. Leadership, 34(2), 16–19. Forsyth, P. B. (1987, November). Revamping the preparation of school administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 201), Albuquerque, NM. Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233–256. Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192–212. Lester, P. E. (1993, April). Preparing administrators for the twenty-first century. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 364 945), Portsmouth, NH. Levine, A. (2005, March). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Educating Schools Project. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf

260


McLaughlin, J. M., & Moore, C. E. (1990, October). The reform movement and Ed.D. expansion. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the Midwest Council for Educational Administration (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 325 941), St. Cloud, MN. Milstein, M. M. (1999). Reflections on the evolution of educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 537–545. Murphy, J., & Forsyth, P. B. (1999). Educational administration: A decade of reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation in the United States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26(2), 183–195. Petrides, L. A. (2006). Using data to support school reform. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 33(8), 38–41. Riehl, C., Larson, C. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, knowing to do, and doing to learn. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 391–427. Schubert, J. M. (2004). The impact of emerging trends in educational leadership on department chairs’ perceptions of Ed.D. program design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO. Shipps, D., Fowlkes, E., & Peltzman, A. (2006). Journalism and urban school reform: Versions of democratic decisions making in two American cities. American Journal of Education, 112(3), 363–391. Streifer, P. A., & Schumann, J. A. (2005). Using data mining to identify actionable information: Breaking new ground in data-driven decision making. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 281–293. Weinand, N. A. (1997). An assessment of the doctoral program in educational administration at the University of Minnesota. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, MN. Young, M. D., Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 137–175.

SUPPORTING TEACHER LEADERSHIP: MIXED PERCEPTIONS OF MANDATED FACULTY STUDY GROUPS Janice L. Hutinger ¼ Carol A. Mullen$ ABSTRACT Faculty study groups offer one means for encouraging teachers to lead other teachers. As a popular staff-development delivery model, faculty study groups can promote school success while encouraging a climate of teaching and learning leadership to be fostered. At issue, however, are issues of choice and empowerment with respect to teachers’ readiness to embrace imposed initiatives. This site-based investigation reports teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of the mandated study-group process. Mixed results with respect to compulsory professional development are described in the areas of growth and collegiality, student achievement, emotional support, time restraints, and personality conflicts. $

An equal sign (=) appears between the names of the two authors to underscore that writing responsibilities pertaining to this project were shared equally. For the originating source of the equal sign and a description of its relevance that suggests a new inquiry relationship symbolizing genuine partnership, see Mullen, C. A. = Kochan, F. K. (2001). Issues of collaborative authorship in higher education. The Educational Forum, 65(2), 128–135. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the University of South Florida.


261

262

JANICE L. HUTINGER = CAROL A. MULLEN

INTRODUCTION The focus of this study is teacher readiness with respect to involvement in mandated faculty study groups as a means of enforced staff development. Acceptance of study groups increases when teachers perceive this model as an opportunity for professional learning and schoolwide improvement. We framed this study, asking, do study-group models promote teacher leadership and professional development and, if so, how? This project involves the collaboration of an elementary special education teacher (Jan, a doctoral student) and an educational researcher (Carol, a professor in leadership studies) who teach in Florida. We have joined forces to learn about the perceptions of elementary teachers engaged in an initial study-group experience.1 We investigated teachers’ feelings about and reactions toward involvement in a faculty study-group model prior to its initiation and at its conclusion.

KEY CONCEPTS AND RELEVANT LITERATURE New Directions in Staff Development State law requires teacher participation in staff-development training, which school districts regulate. District personnel typically make available trainings that include exposure to new techniques. Traditionally, teachers have been free to select areas of training regardless of their relevance to their classroom or school (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Speck & Knipe, 2005). In recent years, federal mandates and state statutes have pressed for staff development directly linked to student achievement measurable by standards-driven tests (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Tallerico, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (U. S. Department of Education, 2004) calls for high-quality professional-development activities that impact classroom instruction and teacher performance (section 9101(34)(A)(v)(I)). Administrators responsible for staff-development needs must evaluate their trainings in the light of current laws and state-issued protocols. In their pursuit of optimal delivery models that support student learning, site-based leaders will need to include teachers as key decision makers (Speck & Knipe, 2005). Teachers who select the methods for engaging in faculty development report increased success and satisfaction in achieving their goals (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997). However, as school leaders struggle to implement the

Supporting Teacher Leadership

263

most-effective methods of professional training identified by research and professional organizations, including the National Staff Development Council (NSDC), teachers’ preferences may give way to administrative convenience or preference for particular models. Teachers commonly participate in staff-development models for which they do not share an affinity or support on philosophical grounds.

Rethinking Traditional Staff Development The design of staff development for school faculties has undergone many changes during the previous 3 decades (Roberts & Pruitt, 2003). The traditional workshop model had limited success in providing teachers the needed support for adopting or developing new skills (National Staff Development Counsel (NSDC), 2005; Speck & Knipe, 2005). Contrary to best practices regarding adult learning, professional development often view teachers as passive learners by dominating training sessions with transmission models (Birchak et al., 1998). Lack of contextual information and poor support help explain why new techniques or materials are rarely incorporated into teachers’ pedagogy (Murphy & Lick, 2005). It comes as no surprise, then, that many faculties feel reluctant to embrace new programs or initiatives. Like the traditional workshops models that provide little instructional benefit for teachers, Lindstrom and Speck (2004) argue that many may view new models of staff development with skepticism. To decrease the gulf between traditional staff development and the needs of teachers, school leaders are looking at alternative delivery models in an effort to better connect what teachers learn during staff development and what they implement in the classroom. Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) confirm that when teachers participate in a collaborative culture, they experience ‘‘more satisfying and productive work environments’’ and ‘‘student achievement is raised’’ (p. 49). Leaders responsible for teachers’ developmental needs must focus on facilitating a culture at their site that directly addresses faculty and student needs.

High-Quality Professional Development Where sustained, faculty study groups have the potential to enhance the professional development of entire school faculties. Although study groups do not replace other forms of staff development, they can be the critical

264


site-based component of teacher leadership (Birchak et al., 1998). After having researched faculty development in Chicago’s public schools, Smylie, Allensworth, Greensberg, Harris, and Luppescu (2001) concluded that by combining staff-development opportunities (e.g., teacher networks, school activities) leaders improved the quality of teacher leadership and community. Researchers describe the conditions typically found in high-quality professional development. Smylie et al. (2001) determined that these reflect active teacher collaboration focused on student needs and schoolimprovement goals, and allowing teachers time to incorporate the new learning. Speck and Knipe (2005) describe outstanding professional development as faculty collaboration rooted in ‘‘learner-centered, jobembedded processes’’ (p. 24). They say these processes enable teachers to reflect on their current practice and in ways that focus on student learning. When such relevant strategies go through effective implementation, leadership supports teacher learning and professional development (Roberts & Pruitt, 2003). When teachers excel in content knowledge or teaching techniques resulting in student achievement, the school level must mirror these gains (Dufour, 2004). To benefit from a high-quality professional-development program and support schoolwide change needed to advance student learning, proactive leaders organize their faculties into learning communities. Professional Learning Communities The arrangement of educators into professional learning communities (PLCs) has been widely accepted as a means of effective staff development (Dufour, Eaker, & Dufour, 2005). In contrast to staff development that promotes individual learning, the configuration of PLCs allows for teambased collaboration (Lindstrom & Speck, 2004). Speck and Knipe (2005) define professional learning community as a ‘‘culture of collaboration’’ characterized by ‘‘continuous learning’’ (p. 24). The learning community is now the focus of staff development at the national level, as confirmed by the National Staff Development Counsel (NSDC) (2005), which has asserted that PLCs are vehicles for creating community, promoting teacher learning and supporting student achievement. Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) say that effective PLCs establish a schoolwide culture that normalizes teacher collaboration and critical examination of practice for improving student outcomes. Learning communities provide a blueprint for promoting the dual goals of professional leadership and student achievement.


265

Building Teacher Leadership through Study Groups A critical component of a learning community is the configuration of study groups. The study-group strategy is one of the cornerstones of a PLC, providing a framework for teacher development (Roberts & Pruitt, 2003). Study groups have traditionally served as a means for professionals to explore common interests. While there is no singular definition or structure of study groups, they are basically a strategy for organizing teachers into a learning community and changing a school’s culture (Roberts & Pruitt, 2003). The PLC operates under the premise that all staff should provide the opportunity to develop leadership, making teacher leadership a priority (Dufour et al., 2005). Generally, a study group composed of 2–20 teachers, although the optimal size is 3–6 members (Murphy & Lick, 2005). Job-alike (e.g., first grade teachers), topic-centered (e.g., math), action research, or book study can serve as the basis for grouping educators. Faculty Study Group The whole faculty study group is a small group that generates the ability to learn (Murphy & Lick, 2005). To be effective, at least 75% of a school’s teachers must be willing to participate in regularly scheduled meetings focused on school improvement directly linked to student learning. A unique strength of the study-group format is the synergistic co-mentoring relationship centered on self-directedness, goal setting, interdependence, empowerment, and openness. When area schools in Missouri implemented this model, ‘‘the district moved from being provisionally [state] accredited to receiving a perfect score – a decision solely made on improvement in student learning’’ (Richardson, 2005, p. 1). Shared Leadership Participation in study groups provides teachers the opportunity to develop shared leadership. This is an essential aspect of a PLC (Dufour et al., 2005), allowing teachers to take ownership of their own learning while working with administrators to develop collaborative leadership (Lindstrom & Speck, 2004). Building team capacity, providing collegial support, enhancing group learning, and developing collaborative strategies are all catalysts for teacher development (Birchak et al., 1998). Fullan, Cuttress, and Kilcher (2005) describe capacity in this context as the development of new knowledge and skills, resources, and shared identity, with emphasis on the ‘‘motivation to work together for greater change’’ (p. 54). Capacity building through shared leadership encourages teachers to grow into new levels of leadership.

266


Dialogue and Reflection Engaging in dialogue and self-reflection is critical to ongoing learning for teachers. Inquiry–reflection cycles embed the study-group process. Speck and Knipe (2005) contend that reflection is a ‘‘purposeful strategy’’ for developing new understanding that results from having access to different perspectives and for changing behavior (p. 116). Birchak et al. (1998) and Roberts and Pruitt (2003) concur that study groups provide the context needed for collegial dialogue and reflection. Through these processes teachers learn to challenge their own beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes, and, importantly, closely examine their teaching practices. Meyer (1998) adds that as new learning occurs, members think differently, which in turn influences the group to change. Negative Impact of Study-Group Participation Although teachers engage in study groups generally document positive outcomes, research indicates that group dynamics can generate negative tensions. The behavior of members is critical to the success of the study group. Murphy and Lick (2005) recommend supporting full and balanced participation, while simultaneously checking aggressive personalities and competitive egos. Birchak et al. (1998) observed that personality differences are common in groups, warning that intensity of conflict can negatively affect productivity. Moreover, study-group members who publicly receive praise find that colleagues who are not involved with the study group many incite division. Unresolved interpersonal dynamics can perpetuate an insider/outsider faculty culture (Meyer, 1998). Voluntary Versus Mandatory Study Groups When study groups are voluntary, teachers gain knowledge and develop ownership and collegiality (Cayuso, Fegan, & McAlister, 2004). However, when schools mandate faculty participation in study groups, the very fact that the schools require participation may limit any anticipated gains. Although both mandated and voluntary study groups report positive results, teachers tend to experience greater satisfaction from groups formed voluntarily (e.g., Speck & Knipe, 2005). Smylie et al. (2001) confirm that while quality staff development is achievable in either context, teachers are less responsive to imposed professional development. With choice being a critical issue, Birchak et al. (1998) contend that mandated study groups violate the very belief ‘‘that teachers need to take charge of their own learning and transformation’’ (p. 16). McEwan (2003) cautions that when teachers are coerced into compliance, many will simply follow the rules but


267

with little commitment or engagement. Empowering faculty to make decisions concerning their involvement may be the most-effective means for facilitating success. Legislative Mandate for Learning Communities Years ago, the Florida Senate (2000) enacted the School Community Professional Development Act. This legislation mandates that Florida’s 67 school districts implement a staff-development system and offer training consistent with teachers’ professional-development plans, known widely as PDP. The Florida Department of Education (2004) adopted 66 standards for use in guiding staff development. To provide a method for conducting ongoing evaluation of staff development within schools, the FDOE developed a Professional Development System Evaluation Protocol (PDSEP) (2004): One section of this document (Standard 1.1.6: Learning Communities) focuses on the development of effective instructional practice through research. Learning communities, as defined by the Florida Department of Education (2004), are faculty groups that meet regularly to improve learning and teaching practices. To receive an acceptable rating on this standard, schools must provide evidence that teachers who are interviewed by statecertified reviewers are learning community members. Florida Context In spring 2003, state evaluators chose five Florida school districts to receive an onsite review; the following school year, the state chose 12 school districts for evaluation. The State Board of Education has scheduled each district to receive evaluations on a 5-year cycle. Findings reported from the spring 2003 evaluation indicated that all five districts received less than good (score of 1.9 or lower) on Faculty Standard 1.1.6 Learning Communities (Byrne & Pollock, 2004). To assist districts that do not receive an acceptable score, the state intervenes, providing technical assistance specifically designed to establish learning communities.

FEATURED CASE: A SCHOOL FACULTY IN TRANSITION The elementary school featured in this study is located in Florida and serves predominantly middle class families. This site has consistently received a grade of ‘‘A’’ with respect to state’s school grading system as well as a 5-Star Award for Excellence. In spring 2005, the district informed all schools that the current

268


system of staff development would be shifting to accommodate the state’s new protocols. Districts instructed principals to develop a staff-development plan directly related to teacher learning and student achievement. The school principal assembled a core team of teacher leaders to assist in designing and implementing the staff-development training for 2005–2006. The team included the administrators and the reading specialist, a special education teacher (Jan, the first author), and other faculty. Members decided that Jan and the reading specialist should conduct the school’s trainings. The team scheduled eight weekly, 45-min trainings. The goal was to expose the teachers to principles of learning that would serve as core topics in the study groups.

Staff Development in Transition Contractual negotiations with the district’s teachers’ union that summer resulted in removal of the traditional 2-day staff-development training. Control for staff development moved onsite and allowed faculty members to choose their own content and delivery model, provided that model abided by state-and-district guidelines. Additionally, the district implemented its revised comprehensive reading plan, requiring that teachers hold weekly meetings to review students’ reading data. This school’s district strongly encouraged the use of faculty study groups for satisfying the requirements of the state-adopted protocols and weekly meetings. To guide this initiative, school administrators attended training on study-group formats.

Teacher Resistance During a planning meeting after the first training session, the core team discussed how the teachers immediately resisted the proposed development of faculty study groups. Faculty argued that the addition of another mandated meeting would limit their time to meet with parents, attend to class administrative duties, or plan their instruction. The core team had anticipated the uneasiness with the new plan, but felt certain that the movement to study groups would positively impact student achievement. Resistance to new initiatives is to be expected, but school faculties should continue to move forward and to minimize any negative impact (Murphy & Lick, 2005). To assist teachers in adapting to a rigorous study-group model, the core team analyzed possible effects of the new plan. This faculty was shifting to an


269

entrenched staff-development framework, a change requiring use of a weekly planning time (previously available for personal planning) to collaboratively analyze student work and test results. At the principal’s request, the core team guided coordination and development of the new model.

Launching the Schoolwide Initiative In November 2005, the teachers at this site formed study groups. Using the school-improvement plan as a guide, the teachers and administrators decided which focus areas to study. The staff chose topics such as graphic organizers, reading strategies, and brain-based strategies and then voluntarily divided into groups of three to six. The team scheduled 15 study-group meetings, satisfying the district’s requirement for staff-development credits.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND: METHODS AND PROCEDURES The purpose of the survey (see appendix) is to examine teachers’ personal feelings toward involvement in a faculty study group prior to the actual formation of the groups. We expected that the information would assist the core team in making decisions about the needs of staff. A follow-up survey was distributed in April 2006 that contained the same items and questions, altered only to demonstrate past involvement.2 An open-ended question was added that probed teachers’ perceptions of teacher leadership development based on their study-group participation.

Prior Information of Faculty Study Groups Survey Structure The survey consisted of: (1) teacher participants’ basic demographic information, (2) perceptions and knowledge of study groups, and (3) openended questions focused on anticipated advantages and disadvantages of faculty involvement. Teachers, as defined by this study, are those who hold a state teaching certificate and are in Florida’s educational records database as a classroom educator. Of the 61 teachers, 27 were primary level, 23 were intermediate level, and 11 were special area teachers (e.g., music, art).

270


Survey Distribution Procedure The teachers received the survey during the third of eight training sessions. Jan read the directions for completing the instrument and faculty received 20 min. The participants completed surveys anonymously and submitted to her internal mailbox. Rating Scale Data Using a scale, the teachers rated items from ‘‘1’’ (strongly agree) to ‘‘5’’ (strongly disagree) in the topic sections Personal Perceptions, Faculty Study Groups, and Terminology Associated with Faculty Study Groups.3 In Personal Perceptions, teachers recorded their personal views of working with colleagues in study groups or individually, learning new instructional strategies, and enhancing student achievement (i.e., the extent to which student learning may benefit from teacher involvement in faculty study groups). The Faculty Study Groups section assessed teachers’ opinions of study groups as a method of professional development and numerically reflected requirement of mandated study groups. Open-Ended Questions We identified patterns in the open-ended question data for both fall and spring. Salient themes emerged from our coding of words and phrases.

DATA RESULTS: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF MANDATED CHANGE Here we first report the results from the initial (fall 2005) survey and then move to those from the follow-up (spring 2006) survey. This section is built around the rating scale survey and written responses received from the elementary school faculty. Personal Perceptions All 61 teachers reported having felt confident with respect to working cooperatively in a peer group. Similarly, most (57) shared that they enjoyed working in small groups to complete a specific goal and almost all, but one felt confident that working within a faculty cohort would benefit their professional growth. Additionally, all but one teacher felt comfortable discussing their teaching style and addressing instructional areas that may


271

need improvement, while most (56) felt involvement in the groups could benefit their students. Faculty Study Groups When asked if they considered study groups to be an effective method of staff development, the majority (45) agreed, however, 15 teachers chose undecided and one disagreed. Most (49) reported that study groups could help build a sense of community. We did not define ‘‘sense of community’’ and so teachers’ interpretations probably varied. The majority (45) also reported that its interest in whole-school academic improvement could increase with the study-group involvement. About half (30) of the teachers thought that staff development via study groups should always directly link student data analysis. Concerning the directive of mandated study groups, approximately onethird (24) believed study groups should only be voluntary, while 19 reported agreed with mandating study groups (the rest were undecided). Less than half (27) reported that the weekly format was more effective than the previous 2-day delivery method, while the majority (29) was undecided. When asked if weekly study groups would take too much time from the school week, the majority was unsure. Open-Ended Question Results Based on question 1 concerning the advantages or benefits of working in faculty study groups, three themes emerged: professional growth and collegiality, student achievement, and emotional support. Teachers identified time restraints, personality conflicts, and personal vulnerability in response to question 2 regarding the disadvantages or anticipated problems. Advantages of Faculty Study Groups Professional Growth and Collegiality. A majority of responses emphasized personal growth and collegiality as benefits of adopting the study-group approach to staff development. Some teachers focused on their professional growth, as in ‘‘It would help to facilitate my educational development and learning from each other,’’ and ‘‘I’m excited about being a learner.’’ Highlights also included ‘‘continually growing as we learn,’’ ‘‘gaining knowledge from others’ experiences and prior knowledge,’’ and ‘‘learning alongside professionals – stimulating.’’ Someone hoped the experience would ‘‘improve understanding of theory in practice and increase effectiveness of teaching.’’ ‘‘The advantage is everybody learns’’ was the sentiment expressed.

272


As seems clear, teachers were alluding to the enhancement of collegiality. A teacher with faculty group experience shared this insight, ‘‘We learn from both seasoned and unseasoned teachers.’’ Anticipated benefits of working together included the sharing of ‘‘concepts, ideas, and perspectives,’’ the exchanging of ‘‘teaching strategies and ideas,’’ and the discussing of ‘‘numerous ideas from various viewpoints.’’ Student Achievement. Teachers focused on the direct benefit of achievement for students: ‘‘Hopefully, the topic we study will have relevance to our students’ needs.’’ One individual anticipated that the study-group method would provide opportunity for ‘‘learning new ways of teaching to increase student learning.’’ Teachers hoped that the experience of participating in a study group would have a ‘‘positive contribution to student learning’’ because ‘‘what is discussed in the study group will be taken back to the classroom.’’ Some felt they could ‘‘focus on what interests us while improving student achievement.’’ In sum, advantages to students of teacher participation resolved around issues of relevance and applicability, learning and improvement. Emotional Support. Teachers commented on their own needs and comfort with respect to study-group participation, as in ‘‘I think people learn better in small groups. You will feel more comfortable and be more accountable for your participation.’’ Another noted the importance that ‘‘support from each other will comfort overworked teachers.’’ Several faculty anticipated ‘‘having better communication’’ with peers and being ‘‘able to share your opinions with others.’’ Someone anticipated having ‘‘the chance to know other faculty.’’ Many saw the support group as a professional ‘‘support’’ that accommodated their ‘‘comfort level.’’ Disadvantages of Faculty Study Groups Time Constraints. Over 30 teachers identified time as a restriction to faculty study-group involvement, anticipating commitment to a weekly meeting would ‘‘consume too much time during the week.’’ They seemed to bemoan or even resent the ‘‘loss of planning time’’: ‘‘Everyone is so busy. It’s not that we don’t want to participate, but we are stressed,’’ and ‘‘Our hours are already too full.’’ A clear message being sent – study groups are yet another requirement added to an already long list of responsibilities. Poor Cooperation. Thirty individuals flagged strong opinions and personality conflicts as possible difficulties. Although all the teachers felt they could work cooperatively in a peer group, many expressed reservations


273

about their colleagues’ ability to do the same. Some teachers felt that ‘‘differences of opinion’’ could hinder a group’s progress. One teacher worried that ‘‘personal stands that are embedded like a religion debate’’ could exacerbate problems. Similarly, many teachers voiced concern over colleagues exhibiting behaviors that would impede the learning of the groups. Teachers with study-group experience wrote, ‘‘I’m worried that I may not choose a group that will be personally beneficial due to colleagues that ‘slack,’’’ and ‘‘people who feel forced to participate complain, lowering the morale. I’ve already seen it.’’ Others noted that ‘‘poor attitudes from co-workers,’’ ‘‘the work ethic of the group,’’ and ‘‘non-participation of all members’’ could all potentially present problems. Personal Vulnerability. Working in small groups might jeopardize emotional safety, it was expressed: ‘‘I’d be afraid to state my opinion if it made me look weak,’’ and ‘‘some people, due to inexperience or personality, might feel discomfort or have nothing to offer.’’ Anticipating emotional challenges, some teachers used such descriptors as ‘‘vulnerability’’ and ‘‘discouraging.’’

FOLLOW-UP SPRING SURVEY In April 2006, after completing the 15 group meetings over a 5-month period, the staff completed a follow-up survey. Assessed were their opinions of the study-group participation process and judgment as to whether this format had supported their teacher leadership development. Once again, the dataset included classroom teachers only; the analysis examined 57 surveys. As might be expected, owing to actual experience, differences in the results became clear.

Rating Scale Data Personal Perceptions Teachers’ personal views were reported with reference to working with colleagues in study groups or individually, learning new instructional strategies, and enhancing student achievement. Five questions showed an increase in positive responses, one, and a decrease in agreement, and four remained relatively unchanged.

274


Question 3 asked teachers to rate their confidence in assisting colleagues in analyzing student data. The fall survey results indicated that 77% of the teachers agreed they could assist their co-workers in analyzing data whereas the spring data suggested improvement based on the fact that 95% of the teachers reported confidence in this area. Similarly, question 6 guided teachers to rate their level of confidence in assisting colleagues in finding solutions to classroom-based problems. The spring results indicate that 93% of the teachers felt confident they could help others, an improvement over the 85% reported earlier. When asked if study groups benefited their professional growth (question 7), 95% of the teachers responded affirmatively, an increase from 85%. Referencing question 9 on the spring survey, 99% reported comfort with respect to discussing instructional improvements, again showing an increase from 84%. Only one item showed a decrease in teacher agreement. Regarding whether their involvement in study groups would benefit their students, 90% of the teachers affirmed this outcome in the fall whereas in the spring 77% believed that they had made this gain. The open-ended question revealed some insight into possible reasons for this decline. One teacher indicated her group was ‘‘not sure where the process should be leading.’’ Others observed that their colleagues started to ‘‘lose interest and momentum due to time constraints’’ or that too many teaching levels were represented. Teachers suggested that ‘‘groups should be grade [level] or [teaching] team specific.’’ Several noted their topic was only loosely related to the needs of their students or had ‘‘no direct relevance to student achievement.’’ The decline clearly indicates the possibility that some study groups lacked a clear direction of purpose or instead focused on general principals of learning rather than analysis of student data.

Faculty Study Groups Regarding teachers’ opinions of faculty study groups as a viable method of professional development, notable differences arose with respect to three questions. Question 3 asked teachers to evaluate whether the weekly staffdevelopment model proved to be more effective than the previous two-day delivery method. During the fall, 39% preferred the weekly staffdevelopment model whereas by the spring an increase (52%) in teacher agreement was evident. However, the summative data indicated that many more teachers came to feel that faculty study groups took too much time away from the school


275

week. In the fall, only 25% of the teachers thought that this might be the case, but after participating 56% thought so.

Open-Ended Question Results Regarding benefits of working in faculty study groups, three themes emerged: shared dialogue, strategies and ideas, and building positive culture. With respect to disadvantages, the overwhelming majority listed the time requirement. The spring survey also asked, ‘‘In what way(s) did participation in study groups contribute to your development as a teacher leader?’’ From the analysis, student learning, strategies and ideas, and leadership all emerged as themes.

Advantages of Faculty Study Groups Shared Dialogue Three-fourths (39) of the teachers reported that study groups provided an opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue concerning classroom practice. They talked about issues of sharing and engagement, as in the ‘‘Sharing of philosophy and ideas encouraged us to put new learning into action,’’ and ‘‘We engaged in discussion, problem solving, and analysis of what was/was not working in our classrooms.’’ They enjoyed ‘‘hearing other teachers’ views on classroom life’’ and learning from the ‘‘cross section of ideas and perspectives.’’ Shared Strategies Almost one-third (20) shared that study groups provided an atmosphere for the faculty to share ideas and strategies. Teachers reported having been able to ‘‘discuss strategies with co-workers,’’ ‘‘try new strategies,’’ and ‘‘learn new things from peers.’’ Positive Culture Additionally, one-third (22) reported that study groups facilitated a positive school culture and had become a ‘‘close cohort of peers working towards one goal.’’ Involvement helped them ‘‘feel part of a small group within a large faculty’’ while ‘‘building camaraderie across the teacher teams.’’ Several exclaimed that they ‘‘love the small group’’ context, describing it as a ‘‘safe place to share’’ and ‘‘get to know other faculty.’’

276


Disadvantages of Faculty Study Groups Time Requirements Almost two-thirds (38) of the teachers believed the study groups stole time from teaching and planning. ‘‘Devoting 30 to 45 minutes every week to study group in addition to an extra 45 minutes to read materials took too much time,’’ and ‘‘Sometimes I could have really used that meeting time to do work in my classroom.’’ Group Dynamics Ten teachers suggested that problems with group dynamics can impede a group’s progress. Six pointed to how ‘‘personality conflicts can occur when teachers are nonflexible toward ‘‘new ideas’’ and ‘‘members take over the group and gear the agenda’’ toward personal preferences. Others noted the demonstration of differing levels of commitment to the group norms: ‘‘Some members were unable to meet because of prior obligations so we were unable to learn from those with valuable information.’’ Others observed that their colleagues were ‘‘not invested’’ and ‘‘really didn’t want to be there.’’ Limited Time for Learning Another disadvantage cited by the informants was that the sessions were simply too short to be productive. It was noted that ‘‘the 35-minute format curtailed learning,’’ as the format was too ‘‘short’’ for ‘‘trying out new ideas’’ and ‘‘reporting on them the next week.’’

Supporting Teacher Leadership Growing teacher leadership involves the sharing of strategies and ideas. Teachers had shared their best ideas: ‘‘I was able to bring ideas to my group about things I do in my classroom. The members implemented my ideas and felt they really worked,’’ and ‘‘Colleagues brainstormed about my ideas for improving student work.’’ Members were also the recipients of new learning: ‘‘I learned new strategies for my kids and received relevant documents that I’m using.’’ Another one-third (16) referred to the positive impact the study groups had on their leadership with respect to student learning. For example, teachers shared, ‘‘I took ownership of what I learned, modified ideas to fit my students’ needs, implemented them and saw results,’’ and ‘‘I was able to relate ideas from my study group to my student groups.’’ What teachers


277

learned from each other had ‘‘a positive effect on [their] students’’ and ‘‘classroom climate.’’ Twelve teachers shared that the experience enriched their personal leadership: ‘‘I was able to use my strengths to assist my peers,’’ and ‘‘I learned about the operations and methodologies of other classrooms.’’ The teachers gained ‘‘a first-hand view of how groups work and their internal dynamics’’ and experienced leading adults. A teacher facilitator added, ‘‘I showed leadership through planning and organizing, and through working with the group to draw out people’s opinions and ideas.’’

DISCUSSION OF THE ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS Teachers who are reluctant to participate in study groups may be reacting to the impending requirement of sharing teaching practices and discussions that involve their students. Individuals who have had unpleasant experiences with collaboration may gravitate toward individual learning, their ‘‘armor’’ or ‘‘protection against scrutiny and intrusion’’ (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996, p. 41). Although the teachers we surveyed believed that study groups would be beneficial, their initial feedback suggested wariness due to the perceived lack of cooperation of colleagues, insufficient time to complete existing tasks, and concern for emotional safety. One can view mandated faculty study groups as ‘‘contrived collegiality’’ (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996, p. 58), the catalyst of which are formal bureaucratic procedures intended to increase collaborative work. This viewpoint puts into perspective the components that drive the creation of such cooperative enterprises. Faculty study groups can bring teachers together via a forced structure, but cooperation and productive discourse are not guaranteed. Teachers bring to study groups a plethora of perceptions and experiences that can hinder or accelerate collective learning. When faced with a top-down situation that involves little or no choice, teachers may acquiesce with no authentic investment. This concern was ‘‘voiced’’ by many of our respondents.

Mandated versus Voluntary Study Groups The teachers we surveyed had mixed feelings as to whether study groups should be mandated, which strikes us as more judicial than the literature we encountered. Specifically, 19 teachers spoke against voluntary study groups, 18 teachers remained undecided, and 19 teachers agreed these should be

278


voluntary. Educators who fall into the last category may have issues with the mandated format and would need guidance from peers and administration to derive benefit.

Time as a Critical Factor Time stood out as a critical factor with respect to the study-group initiative. Based on our results, the faculty were concerned about the time study-group participation would inevitably require. Once again, it appears that this teacher sample was conflicted as to whether the weekly required format proved more effective that the previous 2-day delivery method.

Supporting Teacher Leadership Comparing the characteristics of teacher leadership with the study-group model, it becomes evident that the latter has the potential to foster similar conditions and benefits as teacher leadership: a focus on inquiry, reflection, and learning, shared responsibility in decision making and leadership, collegial respect of teacher knowledge and expertise, embedded roles of learning and leading, site-based decision making, and designated time and access to colleagues (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Our study confirms that teachers find study-group participation beneficial to enhancing their professional growth and expanding their repertoire.

DEPARTING WORDS School administrators must support teachers as an integral part of any staffdevelopment initiative. It is essential that faculty reactions, whether professional or emotional, be addressed. As another key point, commitment to new staff-development practices necessitates transformation of engrained beliefs, practices, and norms, not just changes in procedures. When formulating staff-development initiatives, administrators play a crucial role in orchestrating the interaction of time, personnel, and resources. From the beginning, teachers should receive the greatest flexibility feasibly possible. In the context of the study-group model, teachers appreciate choosing their own topics, working with peers and forming bonds, and learning new ideas of an applicable and relevant nature.


279

Less positively, teachers do not always embrace this particular format due to the time commitment and interpersonal barriers perceived or experienced. One the one hand, administrators will need to expose misconceptions that impede collegial learning while, on the other hand, creating conditions that foster teacher leadership and minimize barriers to group learning. Administrators who are proactive and visionary build teacher leadership capacity; they directly involve the teacher leaders at their school in planning, implementation, and coordination of the new initiative without abandoning them. Also, leaders who recognize the key components that foster teacher leadership create a climate that supports the dual agendas of teacher learning and student achievement. Finally, we hope that our study will prove useful to school teams engaged in designing a faculty study-group model, implementing the new format, or assessing its outcomes.

NOTES 1. Researcher bias can influence the interpretation of data and the results. Monitoring the limitations inherent in our teacher and researcher roles, we collaborated on all aspects of this study. Although Jan’s teacher leadership role at the school may have influenced our response rates (100% on the initial survey and 93% on the follow-up), the results vary, implying that her ‘‘authority’’ was not an issue relative to the data obtained. 2. The follow-up survey is not included here as it was based on the original (Appendix A). 3. The reporting of the data exclude the results gathered in survey Section III, Terminology Associated with Faculty Study Groups, as this topic is outside the scope of this paper.

REFERENCES Birchak, B., Connor, C., Crawford, K. M., Kahn, L. H., Kaser, S., Turner, S., & Short, K. G. (1998). Teacher study groups: Building community through dialogue and reflection. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Byrne, A., & Pollock, H. (2004). Catch the wave for professional development with impact (Staff Developers’ Toolkit) (pp. 1–31). Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http:// www.teachinflorida.com/teachertoolkit/StaffDevToolkit.asp Cayuso, E., Fegan, C., & McAlister, D. (2004). Designing teacher study groups: A guide for success. Gainesville, FL: Maupin House Publishing. Dufour, R. (2004). Leading edge: The best staff development is the workplace, not in a workshop. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 63–64.

280


Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. In: R. Dufour, R. Eaker & R. Dufour (Eds), On common ground (pp. 1–6). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Florida Department of Education. (2004). Professional development system evaluation protocol reviewer’s guide (pp. 1–47). Retrieved September 3, 2005, from http:// www.teachinflorida.com/teachertoolkit/Process_Review-Intro.pdf Florida Senate. (2000). School Community Professional Development Act (Florida Statute, 1012.98). Retrieved March 3, 2005, from, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index. cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch1012/SEC98.HTM& Title=-%3E2002-%3ECh1012-%3ESection%2098 Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). Eight forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54–58. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press. Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. (The Wallace Foundation) (pp. 1–17). Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org Lindstrom, P. H., & Speck, M. (2004). The principal as professional development leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. McEwan, E. K. (2003). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Meyer, R. J. (1998). Learning from a researcher, a researcher learning. In: R. J. Meyer, L. Brown, E. DeNino, K. Larson, M. McKenzie, K. Ridder & K. Zetterman (Eds), Composing a teacher study group: Learnng about inquiry in primary classrooms (pp. 120–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murphy, C. U., & Lick, D. W. (2005). Whole-faculty study groups (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. National Staff Development Council (NSDC). (2005). Learning communities (pp. 1–7). Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/learningcommunities.cfm Richardson, J. (2005). Study groups lift Missouri district’s teachers, principals and students. (Results) (pp. 1–3). Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/ publications/results/res12-04rich.cfm Roberts, S. M., & Pruitt, E. Z. (2003). Schools as professional learning communities: Collaborative activities and strategies for professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Smylie, M. A., Allensworth, E., Greensberg, R. C., Harris, R., & Luppescu. S. (2001). Teacher professional development in Chicago: Supporting effective practice. Report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project. (Consortium on Chicago School Research). Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/p0a02.html Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2005). Why can’t we get it right? Designing high-quality professional development for standards-based schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Tallerico, M. (2005). Supporting and sustaining teachers’ professional development: A principal’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


281

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, January 16). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.

APPENDIX. SURVEY OF TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY STUDY GROUPS (AUTHORS, 2005) This survey is designed to explore your knowledge of and beliefs about faculty study groups. Your responses will be treated confidentially and your ratings will be reported anonymously as part of a larger database.

Demographic Information 1. Check current position: ___primary teacher ___intermediate teacher ___special area teacher ___support staff 2. Check the number of years you have been worked in the field of education. ____0–5 ____6–10 ____11–15 ____16–20 ____21–25 ____26–30 ____31 or over 3. Previous Experience in a Professional Learning Community or Study Group Check all the statements that apply: ___I have previously been involved with a school that adopted a Professional Learning Community model. ___I have previously been involved in a faculty study group. ___I have experience working in study groups outside the school environment (e.g., religious studies, graduate studies, book club). Instruction: Indicate your feelings about each statement. Display your answer by marking 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for each item. Circle the ‘‘1’’ to indicate that you strongly agree. Circle the ‘‘5’’ to indicate you strongly disagree. Circle ‘‘2,’’ ‘‘3,’’ or ‘‘4’’ if you agree, are undecided, or disagree. 1 Strongly Agree

2 Agree

3 Undecided

4 Disagree

5 Strongly Disagree

282


I. Personal Perceptions 1. I am confident I can work cooperatively in a group of peers. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I enjoy working in small groups to complete a specific goal or task. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I feel confident that I can assist my colleagues in analyzing student data. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am comfortable discussing my teaching style with my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I am open to learning new instructional strategies and incorporating them in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel confident about assisting my colleagues in finding solutions to problems they experience in the classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I believe working with a small group of educators will be beneficial to my professional growth. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I feel my students will benefit from my involvement in a faculty study group. 1 2 3 4 5 9. With a selected colleague, I feel comfortable discussing areas of my teaching that may need improvement. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel comfortable allowing a colleague to observe my teaching and give me feedback. 1 2 3 4 5

II. Faculty Study Groups 1. I think conducting faculty study groups is an effective method to provide staff development. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I think faculty study groups will help my school build a greater sense of community. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I believe weekly staff development is more effective than the previous 2day delivery method. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I believe involvement in a faculty study group will increase my interest in whole-school academic improvement. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I think faculty study groups will take too much time from the school week. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I believe faculty study groups should be voluntary rather than mandatory. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I think that staff development should always be directly linked to student data. 1 2 3 4 5


283

III. Terminology Associated With Faculty Study Groups 1. I have a good understanding of how to disaggregate data. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have a good understanding of how my Professional Development Plan needs to be related to the school’s Continuous Improvement Plan as well as my student data. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am familiar with action research and feel comfortable incorporating the process in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I have a good understanding of how coaching and mentoring can be used in a faculty study groups. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I am familiar with the concept of data cycle and can use it to analyze my student data. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am familiar with the concept of job embedded staff development and understand its purposed benefits for teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am familiar with the decision-making cycle and can use it to solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I understand the framework of Context-Process-Content as it relates to a study group. 1 2 3 4 5 Please respond to the following questions in longhand: 1. What do you think will be the advantages or benefits of working in faculty study groups? 2. What do you think will be the disadvantages or anticipated problems that may occur while working in faculty study groups?

ACHIEVING LEADERSHIP SUCCESS WITH LIMITED RESOURCES Enid B. Jones and Justina O. Osa ABSTRACT The district leader is in a position to use the budget process to achieve success in leadership. The school budget has increased in importance since the era in accountability has gained momentum with the implementation of NCLB (2001). A functional budget allows for a picture of the purpose and goals of each school and the district as a whole. If leaders view the budget as an enabling document, then the pre- and post-budget processes as well as the actual budget can be part of the tools of leadership for the district. The successful district leader has to be an astute fiscal leader who is prepared to be flexible in a dynamic setting, especially as both input and output of education are people who are themselves volatile. The national, political, and social settings can influence and be influenced by the outcomes of the education process and the successful leader can make a mark in all these arenas by the way the district budget is developed and managed.

INTRODUCTION Historically, public schools in America have been under the control of state governments as public education is not one of the responsibilities laid out in

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 285–298 r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10017-2

285

286

ENID B. JONES AND JUSTINA O. OSA

the U.S. Constitution and there is no national education policy. The federal government gains influence through the General Welfare Clause and judicial interpretations of the constitution. Hence, federal funding comprised only 8.5% of the total funding for the 2002–2003 academic year whereas in 1977– 1978, it was 9.4%. Serious decline in this source began in the early eighties when the percentage dropped to 6.8 and has increased steadily since 1998 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). The federal interest, however, has been apparent since the ordinances of 1785 and 1787 when Congress set aside one plot of land in each township for schools and arranged for local tax revenues to support education (Thorpe, 1909). This kind of arrangement did not allow for fiscal neutrality, which later became the doctrine upon which citizens challenged many states’ school finance systems in the courts. The stage was set, however, for local governance and local funding of public education. In 1917, federal funds represented 0.3% of total funding, while states contributed 16.5% and local governments 83.2% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). However, in 2002– 2003 state and local funding were 48.7 and 42.8%, respectively (ibid ). With the increase of state contribution came the increase in state regulations and mandates that were established outside the local districts. So while the school district leader is responsible for the welfare of the schools in the area, he or she must meet the requirements set by federal, state, and local governments while meeting the aspirations of local communities. The twentieth century view of school finance has given way to the modern realities that money plays a key role on several fronts. The amount of money spent on each regular student and special education student for instruction, transportation, staff development, new facilities and maintenance, supplies, technology, and the salaries paid to teachers and administrators in this time of accountability are just some of the reasons that fiscal leadership at the district level is worth examining in this chapter. After all, without money, there will be no schools and without efficient spending, the outcomes will continue to be less than adequate. There is a general scarcity of funds in the nation, though the scarcity is more acute in some states than others. The demands for funding for other social needs are leaping ahead of the needs of education. Consequently, school finance at all levels – federal, state, and local falls into an economic squeeze. Budgetary cuts continue to eat deeply into the base funding available for education. The realities of financial constraints have made it imperative that the leaders develop and use good financial management skills to achieve success during any period of lean resources. Budgeting is an important procedure in the financial management of school districts (Staples & Rubin, 1997). The primary purpose of the

Achieving Leadership Success with Limited Resources

287

budget is to translate the district’s educational priorities into programmatic and financial terms (Hartman, 1988). It is in the budgeting process that there exists a need to provide appropriate leadership that would ensure the opportunity to make things right with both the input and output functions in a dynamic setting. While building principals are responsible for maintaining and operating public schools, they generally have limited fiscal power having authority to make decisions concerning as little as 2% of their schools’ budgets. This was due to the fact that the state level of government administered the majority of allocated funds. Schools allocate approximately 70% of these funds to salaries and another 28% for facilities and categorical aid. Hence, we can define fiscal leadership as making adjustments in the budgeted items to ensure that the school meets its policy goals in a dynamic situation within established legal and statutory parameters. The National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) maintains that strong leadership is essential in order to produce effective and sustainable school reform. Successful district leaders are ones who are visionary and have developed district policies that focus on students and staff, and set the tone for all the schools in the district (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2002). Reform, however, is not possible without sound management of funds and other resources. District leaders must take into consideration the idiosyncrasies of each school in the district, while considering the most efficient way to operate the commonalities to the best advantage for the students, teachers, administrators, and staff. The commonalities in school management include: budget planning, personnel administration, purchasing, risk management, capital outlay maintenance and operations, and technology planning. Further, two of the indicators to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (Department of Education, 2002) have direct implications for funding and leadership. The requirement of making schools more accountable for the results of all students by requiring annual testing in grades three through eight for their knowledge of reading and mathematics by the 2005 academic year is costly and to some extent mandates new directions for some school districts. The requirements to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in all classrooms and to ensure that all local education agencies with Title I schools have highly qualified paraprofessionals have tested the leadership and resources of many school districts in their attempts to achieve these goals (Department of Education, 2002 – NCLB Act of 2001). Policy changes and reform efforts constantly challenge fiscal leadership to improve student achievement even as school systems are not necessarily allotted adequate

288


funding to meet the goals and objectives of new reform mandates. Case in point is the monitoring needed to be able to move funds between grants to meet the NCLB mandates. Under the Act, it is possible to move 50% of funds received under Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, Safe and Drug Free Schools, or Title I among anyone of those grants. This transfer of funds provides an avenue for the fiscal leader to meet the regulated goals while serving district needs with sound leadership. It is important that the leader understands the bureaucracy that governs fiscal activities such as funds transfers. Fiscal leadership for superintendents requires reporting up the ladder to the school board and state government as the leader meets policy constraints while satisfying policy goals. Such a leader must also report and satisfy requirements as well as needs down the ladder to several building level principals at the elementary, middle, high, and special schools in the district. Administrators can decentralize some functions, however, they cannot delegate fiscal functions in the current structure of funding public schools even to the district level. There may be several portals of entry and even distributed environments where information and functions are of a wide group of users, however, decision making on fiscal matters still tends to remain centralized at the state level. Rather, the district becomes a conduit for the flow of funds and keeper of records of expenditure. District personnel are also responsible for providing data from all levels so that the school board can make sound fiscal decisions. Technological support and innovations have made this process very easy and manageable even at the micro level. The challenges that could defeat the system are found in the reliability of the data put into the system and the ability of decisions makers to preempt changes and allow for flexibility in application of the decisions given fiscal constraints. Diagramatically, Fig. 1 illustrates the flow of funds and decision making to some extent. Given the constant claim of limited resources and the need to satisfy taxpayers that the investment in education is warranted will indeed show increasing returns to individuals and society; fiscal leadership at the district State Department of Education School Board and District Office Schools in District Fig. 1.

Diagrammatic Representation of the Flow of Funds from State Department of Education to Schools in District.


289

Fig. 2. State Revenue as a Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: School year 2002–2003. Source: U.S. Department of Education (2004). http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/graphs/topic.asp?INDEX=5

level is a complex job. In 2002–2003, the total revenues for elementary and secondary schools were in excess of $440 billion with states providing approximately $214 billion and localities $188 billion (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). In Fig. 2 it can be seen how national averages vary greatly between districts. The average for these state date is 48.7% while Arizona lies at the median with 48.4%. One of the first functions of the leader in fiscal matters is to develop a budget that aligns with policies drawn from the legal framework of the state, local, and federal governments as well as from the courts rulings on education finance issues in 45 states (see Table 1).

The School District Budget Budget management is the process of regulating expenditures during the budget year to ensure that they do not exceed authorized amounts and that schools apply the funds for the proper purposes (Hartman, 1988). The school budget has increased in importance, if that is possible, since the era in accountability has gained momentum with the implementation of NCLB Act of 2001 (Department of Education, 2002) with the need for more highstakes testing and the impact of interpretation of the results on school personnel. The budget lays out the cost of programs, turns the money into

290


Table 1. In Process(24) Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Georgia Idaho Indiana Kentucky Maryland Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Wyoming

Education Finance Cases By State and Status. No Current Lawsuit (21) Alabama California Florida Illinois Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin

Never Had a Lawsuit (5) Delaware Hawaii Mississippi Nevada Utah

Source: Hunter (2007). Adapted with permission of the author. The cases listed in the first column denote those recently filed as well as cases where full implementation of the remedy seems close at hand.

policy goals and program outcomes, shows priorities; it gives a historical outline of the decisions, efforts, and outcomes that occurred in previous planning periods, and provides the groundwork for change. With its accompanying notes, the budget also provides the basis for the annual audit and opportunity to compare planned spending and actions with actual, thus allowing for the closure of the planning loop each year. The budget allows for operational control, but most importantly, the budget enables leaders to achieve the best goals for students, teachers, and staff (Jones, 2001). Pre-Budget Activities At each school, the principal seeks input from the school’s planning team. In many instances, the team will use information from the previous year’s


291

Budget = revenue – expenditure = programs + suppliers + individuals served + timeline + political elements.

Fig. 3.

Process for Budget Activity.

budget to determine the needs for the current year. One possible exception to this method occurs where the school district follows a zero-based method and evaluates each item according to need and current cost. The point of the exercise is to involve the teachers and staff in the planning process and ensure that both monetary and non-monetary resources are available for the school year. The role of the principal is crucial. The principal usually functions as the guide by sharing and adequately translating into understandable and working terms the parameters dictated by federal, state, and local governments and any other mandates based in the law. It is in melding the mandates with policy and needs that the first step in leadership success begins. The district level personnel must combine all the budgets of the elementary, middle, secondary, and special schools along with that of the central office to complete the pre-budget process, which can be outlined as follows in Fig. 3. As a political instrument, the budget is not a common view, yet this function could well be most important for the success of the leadership provided by the superintendent. The budget must consider and reflect the interests of various stakeholders and focus groups. The budget provides a picture for the community about much more than how much the district is spending. It tells how much schools spend on instruction, on various ancillary items, special needs children and how much each group of teachers and administrators earn. The budget is subject to approval not just by the school board, but also by the board of public opinion and since it is a source of historical data, the community can track changes and enhancements. In fact, it behooves the superintendent to include the public in developing the budget so that they can claim ownership and provide appropriate support to enhance the success and attainment of predetermined goals. After all, the local community owns the school building as they purchased it with revenue from their property taxes at the expense of other city and community services. It is their right to participate in the plan to spend school funds. The budget shows the local community the amount of funds allocated by both federal and state governments. These funds are highly contentious contributions to the budget, especially in view of vertical and horizontal

292


equity elements in the distribution of money for schools and in relation to taxpayers’ equity. Further, the amount contributed by local revenue is usually a residual amount derived from the formula-driven state allocation. Federal funds focus on a philosophy of leveling the playing field so that a community can discern if they are receiving their ‘‘fair’’ share of the federal budget in their local budget. The political arena can influence the functions defined in the budget. A functional budget allows for a picture of the purpose and goals of each school and the district as a whole. It also provides a picture of return on resources used when matched with student performance. If there is congruency between the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders, then the budget becomes a community effort and hence, it is a powerful tool to show leadership success (Hartman, 1988). This fiscal outline of the philosophy of education underpinning the district enables the leader to make policy-driven decisions that are optimum for the students at all levels in the district. In 1997, the publishers of Rethinking Schools (1997) expressed the sentiment that governments should tie education funding to a new, invigorating vision of schooling and that adequate resources are a prerequisite to better schools. Each line item reflects the human element of the budget. The expectations of the local and the state communities, the school’s planning committee, which reflects the hopes and aspirations of the teachers and staff, the staff at the central office and the nominated or elected members of the school board all influence the budget. Central to the process is the school district superintendent who must present the combined input of each group and present an effective and efficient budget to the school board. Under the leadership of the superintendent, school personnel can provide the innovative ideas for curriculum development, improved teaching practices, school improvement efforts, school operations, and easier pathways for students because they are on the front lines of the daily operations of schools. The district funds activities and programs in order of importance for each identified group of students. The budget adequately developed and implemented by the leader becomes the lifeblood that guides the flow of operations in the schools. The impact of the budget on local and state economy can be great. Even a budget decision to buy a particular textbook, or sign a contract with a particular supplier for many of the items used constantly in daily school life can determine individual wealth. Table 2 illustrates the total expenditure on schools and the proportion of the gross domestic product (GDP) as appropriated for a 10-year period. As demonstrated in the table, the proportion of the GDP going to education overall has not increased much from 1993 to 2003 nor has the amount appropriated for public education.


293

Table 2. Expenditures of Educational Institutions Related to the Gross Domestic Product, By Level of Institution: Selected Years, 1993–2003. Year

GDP (Billions of Current Dollars)

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

6,657.4 7,072.3 7,397.7 7,816.9 8,304.3 8,747.0 9,268.4 9,817.0 10,128.0 10,469.6 10,971.2

Percent Used For Public Percent Used for All Schools Educational Institutions 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2005).

The absolute dollar amount increased with economic growth and the concomitant increase in the current dollar value of the GDP. However, there has been no improvement in the political will to support public education despite the evidence that there are glaring areas of inequities and inadequacies both between districts and within them. Further, the local community, business and volunteer groups can provide some services and hence, the community is an integral part of the school. Post-Budget Activities Another measure of leadership success is the post-budget activity, implementation of the budget at the school level and at the district level after the school board has debated, approved, adopted, and published the budget and the state department of education has accepted it. The philosophy of the district leader is important in the implementation of the budget. Spending patterns and outcomes have to satisfy the level of sacrifice made by the community to generate required tax revenues. The report of actual expenditures is as important as the initial budget plan. Here is a true test of leadership success. Meeting policy goals, satisfying community expectations, and meeting the needs of the students is more than just estimating the amount of funds the school will need. Expenditure plans must have some flexibility and the ability to adjust the budget so that it aligns with the changes in enrollment, the supply of teachers and staff, the economy, the location of suppliers, gas prices, and so on that are out of the

294


control of the planners. Further, ensuring that expenditures remain in the fund category to which the school allocated them and that the purchase of services and goods will indeed meet the fund goals are crucial to the leader. Planners even need to consider a mid-year increase in the flow of funds as well as a freezing of funds. Leadership success means anticipating these events and working with experts to keep the school year or years (in the case of multi-year budgets) solvent. The budget is one of the phases in the planning cycle that shows the distribution of responsibility and, to some extent, the authority to make budgetary decisions in the school district. It clearly shows the sources of revenues, mainly federal, state, and local, but it also shows the inner breakdown of each source over time. At the end of each fiscal year, schools should compare the actual expenditure with the planned expenditure and financial personnel both open and close the planning loop. Educators and district leaders evaluate and review the past year activities to determine how the school might have handled operations differently given the constraints. Schools then use information from this process to build the new budget so that the policymakers and planners can make decisions and projections based on recent data. This process satisfies the control feature of both the budgeting process and planning process as fiscal control goes to the heart of performance and results. Since the budgeting process is a dynamic measure of the school operations, fund balances, supplies and salaries, to mention just a few fiscal activities, performance and outcomes are dependent on the availability of monetary and non-monetary resources. Information from the planned and actual expenditures provides feedback for state departments of education to adjust the state-aid funding formulae and open or close avenues of support for schools as needed. The historical data property of budget reporting is invaluable as a source of trend on enrollment of students, changes in demand and supply of teachers and staff, rate of change in salaries and benefits, changes in fund balances, and the timing of changes in the school year. This latter issue is very important because the flow of revenue is dependent on the rate at which taxes are collected. The budget is a means of control during the fiscal year, but more so at the end of the year as the analysis of past operations can provide pathways for keeping current with the changing needs of the students. A major post-budget activity is auditing. Originally, the purpose of auditing was to detect and deter error and fraud in the handling of money within a closed system. A closed system is necessary because only within such a system can one expect that all money flows will balance. Financial


295

audit defines the units of closed finance, the units of ‘accountability’ (Charlton & Andras, 2000). Within a closed system, an audit detects errors and fraud through sampling information and cross-checking it for inconsistencies (Flint, 1988). In an audit, all sources should exhibit consistent results. Since a school system is a complex organization with many strands, the number of potential cross-checks is almost infinite. Beyond fiscal concerns, schools also use auditing with quality assurance technologies, which instead of monitoring cash flows in a closed system to detect financial fraud, focus on compliance by assessing other forms of school information (Power, 1997). Essentially, the school system has explicitly defined goals, objectives, outcomes, and statutes under which it must operate, and quality assurance auditing monitors whether that system is in compliance. The district leader has to establish a management function that allows the auditing function to have positive outcomes. Hence, by processing information parallel to the information processed for an audit and by monitoring systems and process in the district, schools can meld the two functions to create the most effective and efficient system. The district leader has to understand the audit function as a means of protection for all stakeholders and an efficient method for detecting and correcting errors in the next accounting period, and an opportunity to modernize the fiscal operations after each period. Schools run on public funds. As such, schools generally use fund accounting, which requires the assurance that the school uses all funds for the purposes specifically designated. It is in the audit function that the leader is vindicated. The successful leader would have to have a good knowledge of the processes and procedures approved by the school district in order to have a problem-free auditing. The audit with the accompanying management letter provides funders with proof that the school met all legal and statutory requirements for the designated period. A successful district leader would have met the educational mission within statutory requirements. The audit function is a positive reinforcement of the successful leadership of the district superintendent. As illustrated by a positive audit result, it is through guidance from the head that the school achieves its goals and applies its funds appropriately. Hence, this function also provides the platform from which to launch long-term goals and serves as a motivation to all levels of leadership. The internal audit function is an opportunity to test budget structure and resilience as the system monitors itself. Reports from internal audits are key communication instruments for the district leader. If schools combine this function with a continuous process, then there will be very few areas of uncertainties when state or federal

296


governments authorize an external audit. Given the level of technology currently used in state and district systems, the continuous internal audit is automatic. As the school encumbers funds to meet needs, the electronic system automatically adjusts to show revenue sources and availability, while also balancing fund accounts. Thus, the district leader can determine if policy goals are being met adequately through the planned strategies. Leaders also have an opportunity to take corrective action, thus allowing for seamless use of leadership and management of resources at all school levels. The external audit allows the leader to take an all encompassing look at accounting practices, resource management, and policy fit. Preparation for the external audit is tantamount to preparation for accreditation in that it is an examination based on the interlocking of services, monetary and nonmonetary, to see if funds are being used as defined and that all statutory and legal requirements are met. Further, the report from an independent body of auditors provides information on areas of strengths, weaknesses, and new avenues that can better serve the purpose. The accompanying management letter can be a source of great satisfaction or a means for great change. Either way this report reflects the culmination of work and efforts of all parties in the school system as well as the quality of the leadership in the district in achieving educational goals that provide the optimum service for the students. The audit report will follow guidelines provided by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) in addition to other governmental mandates, thus ensuring the professionalism of the exercise and the report. In addition to developing and using knowledge and skills needed for using limited resources wisely the leader has to build trust, healthy relationships, and goodwill with the various stakeholders and make social networks work for him/her. The goal for the social networks is not for socialization but for cooperation and support. Political savoir-faire will boost the efficiency of both budget development and implementation processes. Leadership success, even fiscal leadership success, comes more readily when the leader combines what he/she knows with whom he/she knows.

CONCLUSION The successful district leader has to be an astute fiscal leader who is prepared to be flexible in a dynamic setting. The literature makes reference to the school district or to schools but the district leaders are in fact dealing with individuals and groups of people attached to the schools at various levels as


297

they attempt to achieve educational goals that will lead to the success of students. The outcome of their efforts is not immediately measurable but rather will emerge over a lifetime. The inputs are fluid as are the outcomes hence management functions as defined or carried out in the industrial sector have to be seen differently in the school systems where the stake holders can be influenced by events that are themselves volatile. Fiscal management is dependent on several external parties such as the federal, state, and local governments, non-profit groups, parents, and the general public. In addition, there are inanimate elements such as the state of school facilities over time, changes in building codes, changes in technological methods, changes in the economy that can lead to a withholding of funds, changes in the international economic, social and political settings. As Drucker (1999) puts it, school administrators are, in fact change, leaders who must have the willingness and ability to change what is already taking place, while setting policies and procedures that will create the future. Fiscal leaders have another role in that they provide fodder for researchers and state-aid funding formulae. Some state legislatures have relied on cost studies in developing their funding formulae and in providing accurate data the fiscal leader can make a great contribution.

REFERENCES Charlton, B. G., & Andras, P. (2002). The misuse of quality assurance techniques in the UK university expansion. European Political Science, 2002(2), 24–35. Retrieved on November 29, 2006, from http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/auditab.html Drucker, P. F. (1999). Change leaders. 21(June), 64–66. Flint, D. (1988). Philosophy and principles of auditing. London: Macmillan. Hartman, W. T. (1988). School district budgeting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hunter, M. A. (2007). Litigations challenging constitutionality of K-12 funding in the 50 states. National Access Network [On-line]. Retrieved on February 3, 2007, from http:// www.schoolfunding.info/litigation/In-Process%20Litigations.pdf Jones, E. B. (2001). Cash management. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Author. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2002). The role of school leadership in improving student achievement (Brochure). Denver, CO: NCSL Task Force on School Leadership. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. New York: Oxford University Press. Rethinking Schools. (1997). Funding for justice: Money, equity and the future of public education. Milwaukee, WI: Author. Staples, C. L., & Rubin, M. A. (1997). Budget control in Virginia public school districts. Public Budgeting and Finance, 17(1), 74–88.

298


Thorpe, F. N. (Ed.). (1909). Federal and state constitutions. Retrieved on November 28, 2006, from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/5.htm U.S. Department of Commerce. (2005). Finance survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved on November 28, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ d05/tables/dt05_025.asp U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Promoting educational excellence for all Americans. Public Law print of PL 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved on November 28, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2004). National public education financial survey. Retrieved on November 28, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/graphs/topic.asp?INDEX=5

SERVING COMMUNITY: PROSOCIAL ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION Emma-Jane Jaques and Athena Vongalis-Macrow ABSTRACT The rise of managerialism in the 1990s entrenched bureaucratic practices as core education and training for educational administrators. As the educational divide between those who achieve and those who fall short continues to problematize the success of educational reforms, the work of administrators becomes critical to review. The current challenge for educational administration is to provide an environment that genuinely serves the interests of complex diversity and social justice in education systems by building the frameworks that respects differences, protects the weak, and regulates the strong. By taking a more prosocial stance with issues relating to cultural diversity, equity, and democracy, educational administration can transform society, the school, and the classroom, through humanistic and interpretive management practices, and influencing pedagogy, curriculum, educator training, and the socio-political system.

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 299–311 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10018-4

299

300

EMMA-JANE JAQUES AND ATHENA VONGALIS-MACROW

INTRODUCTION Recent developments in educational administration advocate that administrators take a more prosocial stance in order to transform the bureaucratic nature of educational administration (Marshall, 2004). Educational administration can serve the interests of social justice in education systems and address issues related to cultural diversity, equity, and democracy that continue to problematize schooling and educational reforms. By taking a more prosocial stance with such issues, educational administration becomes a conduit for socially just practices. A small, but significant step in creating bridges between educational practices and social transformation for a more socially just society in which oppression and domination give way to diversity and difference. Building socially just communities generates notions and practices of interdependency and cooperation ensuring that all members of the community are recognized through equitable treatment, which sees their contributions facilitated and valued (Murphy, 2003). This chapter reflects on current changes in Educational Administration that resonate with international movements to reform the theory and practice of educational administrators. In the past, education has been a vehicle for reinforcing the dominant socio-political position and has alienated the ‘other’ – poor, immigrant, female, gay, of different race, disabilities, ethnicity, religion, language, or culture. In current educational administration theory and practice, there is an imperative for educators and administrators to generate transformative practices more inclusive of marginalised groups so that education systems provide equal access and quality outcomes for all.

TOWARDS PROSOCIAL EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION Previously, educational administration has performed a variety of different functions. From its primitive origins, to socializing students for society, workforce preparation, and developing the ‘whole’ student, educational administrators have the capacity to transform society and the individual. Schools have ‘‘a professional mandate to act in the students’ and the community’s best interests’’ (Murphy, 2002, p. 13) and educational administrators have applied a number of different management models,

Serving Community

301

for example scientific, bureaucratic, humanistic/behavioral, total quality and systems theory, in an attempt to achieve this. Despite these efforts, prior to the focus on social justice issues, education was exclusive. The beliefs and narrative of the dominant socio-political class, white western males were central to education, which maintained their dominant position (Smyth, 2004). Bowles and Ginitis (1976) claim that education was maintaining social division, and failing to address equality and equity issues. It reproduces economic inequality and distorts personal development. Young (1971) asserted issues of knowledge as a means of control and the concept of conscious and unconscious selection and organization of knowledge. Bernstein (1999) discussed language as a vehicle for class exclusion and how knowledge is a reflection of the distribution of power and social control. Bourdieu (1999) argued that education provides an understanding of culture and how the dominant cultural group uses this to legitimate its knowledge against ‘subordinate’ knowledge. This awareness that education was exclusive was an incentive for educators to enhance the quality and accessibility to education. ‘‘[At this time,] education was the new religion that promised empowerment, equity and a means of radical economic change’’ (Blackmore, 2004, p. 21) during the period where education defined society and was a social space that offered an alternative view. With the emergence of multiculturalism, equal opportunity, and participation, became a struggle over meaning, evolving from multiple perspectives and difference (Blackmore, 2004). There was an attempt to include and value those of different races, abilities, ethnicities, religions, languages, and cultures in all aspects of education. Educational administrators and teachers were advocates for the less privileged. Even though education became more accessible than it had been before, an expanded education system has not led to a substantial improvement in retention rates in secondary schooling and higher education participation or educational outcomes for working-class students, many ethnic minorities, and indigenous people (McInerney, 2003). Moreover, since the global trends of the 1990s, neo-liberal ideologies of market theories and social conservatism globally have had a profound negative impact on social justice progress (Blackmore, 2004). Globalization and economic rationalism has given rise to deregulated labor markets, increased performance management measures, and further marginalized the ‘other.’ This market-driven approach to education has consisted of decentralizing and outsourcing for increased efficiencies (Blackmore, 2004), yet it has led to the introduction of a more regulated approach to

302


curriculum. Furthermore, stringent performance measures of students, teachers, and schools, has increased competition and subsequently marketized schools. Ultimately, within this environment, market forces have practically reduced most to apply to a ‘job-slots’ approach to schooling. Within a devolutionary or self-managed schools system, stakeholders make the school rather than the public education system accountable for the successful management of the school and educational outcomes of the students (McInerney, 2003). This means that educators must deal with problems at the local level, which puts additional pressure on educational administrators and the school community. In relation to the allocation of education, there has also been a shift from the state to the market. Schools compete for enrollments as ‘‘‘parental choice’ and ‘equity standards’ have gained currency’’ (McInerney, 2003, p. 3). Funding models are based on enrolments and market choice, but ‘‘[m]arkets [should not] be the redistributive mechanism for education (which is a democratic right), as markets advantage those with the wealth and knowledge, i.e. cultural and economic capital’’ (Blackmore, 2004, p. 30). The responsibility of educational disadvantage is shifted to parents and school communities, as the state backs away from the funding of public education (McInerney, 2003). However, [i]t is insufficient to explain disadvantage as residing entirely inside, and therefore able to be managed by the school. There is a wider social context of ‘exclusionary social forces’ y like race, class, gender and ethnicity. (Smyth, 2004, p. 30)

This sense of being driven by market pressures also limits opportunities for developing an effective approach to social justice in and through education, curriculum thinking, and exploring potential restructuring (Murphy, 2002). Moreover, this structure forces educational administrators to increase their reliance on commercial partnerships and local school funding to maintain curriculum (McInerney, 2003). Traditionally, educational administrators and teachers have constructed curriculum by selecting ‘worthwhile’ knowledge (Murphy, 2003). However, there is a view that educational administrators and teachers no longer have any real autonomy due to a decade of managerialism, and market-driven educational reforms (McInerney, 2003), such as enforcing prescriptive curriculum. The limited control of curriculum reduces the flexibility to explore solutions regarding social justice and limits opportunities to criticize the status quo. This, the current trend of wedge politics (Blackmore, 2004), and perhaps counter-terrorism attitudes, further encourages a climate of marginalization.

Serving Community

303

Therefore, unless the various groups in a culturally ‘plural’ society have access to and share in an equitable manner the political economic and other resources of the country then the schools would not be very effective in trying to achieve the goals of equity and cultural diversity. (Bacchus, 1991, p. 94)

Likewise, recent curriculum and assessment reforms have tended to move away from disciplinary-based knowledge and towards more problem solving and interdisciplinary knowledge (Blackmore, 2004). Although this approach may be beneficial in a post-modern era, this may result in educational administrators and teachers no longer being the primary definers of school knowledge but facilitators of learning and producers or culture – ‘‘[k]nowledge is now both a commodity and a source of status’’ (Blackmore, 2004, p. 27). Regarding performance measures, working to establish uniform goals and quality control for education, in an attempt to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and links to the needs of industry. ‘‘While policy and financial contracts steer, performance management, quality assurance and performance indicators are the pedals of this new engine of management. The tools that calibrate this machine are the audit, the review, evaluations, standardized tests and exit scores.’’ Nevertheless, this current emphasis on a credentialed society defines student outcomes in terms of academic results from limited, standardized testing of basic skills, which demonstrate little about what has been learnt and how well it has been learned (Zyngier, 2003). It fails to value and define quality education via non-monetary benefits. In addition, government schools have greater responsibilities to a more diverse student population and have less control over outcomes than those that can be selective. Yet, market accountabilities overlook these differences by focusing on consumer satisfaction surveys, and simple academic scores (Blackmore, 2004). This de-emphasizes the link between the school and the community and the quest for social justice, and focuses on school, teacher, and student performance, competition, parental choice, and market allocation of education. Furman and Gruenewald (2004) also argue that this distracts from community well-being as well as other important ‘moral purposes’ of schooling.

REALIZING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS Globalization, economic restructuring, escalating unemployment, and the growing casualization of the workforce are constructing an even more unequal society (McInerney, 2003). Industries are no longer restricted to hiring local workers because they can set up production to take advantage

304


of cheaper offshore labor. These, technological advances, and conservative industrial relations laws, will further reduce the need for production workers, thus increasing competition for work. In a reaction to this trend, ‘‘[s]chool’s purposes have narrowed too far to a ‘human capital’ argument whereby schools are only valued for their contribution to the economic life of the nation and the future job prospects of individual students’’ (Brennan, 2001, as cited by Zyngier, 2003, p. 43), further marginalizing the ‘other’. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) argue that schools should never be mere training grounds for the industrial or economic needs of a nation (Zyngier, 2004). ‘‘[P]ersistent and predictable structural inequalities that continue to advantage and disadvantage social groupsyis neither the result of individual attributes of the student, nor of cultural or other deprivation but the very nature of the socio-political system’’ (Zyngier, 2004, p. 41). Although all this demonstrates the disturbing trend of further marginalizing the ‘other,’ reducing education to a commodity, and students to ‘human capital,’ there is a renewed sense of common belonging, of spontaneous and committed citizenship, emerging from disillusionment with globalization and current politics (Loller & Butcher, 2005). Additionally, there are still many educators who are committed to multicultural education and equity projects that will continue to struggle for a socially just curriculum – collective agency (McInerney, 2003). With all this in mind, ‘‘[f]or all our sakes we need to work together to build the frameworks of a new global society and economy that respects differences, protect the weak and regulate the strong’’ (United Nations Development Program [UNDP] Report, 1999, as cited by Loller & Butcher, 2005, p. 2), and the challenge for educational administration is to provide an environment that does genuinely serve the interests of social justice in education systems. Educational administration can achieve this via working to transform society, the school, and the classroom, through humanistic and interpretive management practices, and influencing pedagogy, curriculum, educator training, and the socio-political system. There are many management models available for educational administrators to perform as a change agent and support social justice transformation within their schools. Encouraging a ‘learning organization’ environment (Calabrese & Shoho, 2000), where there is a collective responsibility and accountability for problem identification and development of solutions, is an effective way to effect change. This model allows the school team, students and community to work together to identify and resolve social justice issues.

Serving Community

305

Other models, such as Duffy’s (1997) Knowledge Work Supervision paradigm, would function well in the current climate of quality control and systematic thinking, but does not seem to address social justice issues. Moreover, conducting equity audits is another tool available for educational administrators to reflect on social justice issues (Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004). This resembles today’s environment of measurement and accountability, but it does take up the issues of teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity to ensure that programs are just, democratic, emphatic, and optimistic (Shields, 2004). Bacchus (1991) also suggests that ‘‘Government Departments of Education are not flexible enough to handle situations which do not exactly fit into the traditional administrative patterns’’ (p. 85). In other words, educational administrators may need to be more flexible in their management of schools to provide education that caters to marginalized groups. This can be achieved through: whole school reform; restructuring the organization or working groups; ensuring that the appropriate staff are appointed and in particular to social justice advocacy roles (McInerney, 2003; Murphy, 2002); securing alternative resources for extra programs (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004); adopting a more consultative approach to resource allocation (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004); involving the community and students in curriculum development (McInerney, 2003); and providing education that caters to all learners (Bacchus, 1991). The educational administrator may also adapt the organizational culture of their school to address social justice issues (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004). Building capacity, trust, autonomy, and teamwork (Shields, 2004); and inspiring and empowering teachers are all events that will bring about cultural and social transformation (Murphy, 2002). Creating a school culture that values students, and their communities, encourages them, challenges them, and provides them with emotional and social support, will also be effective. An environment where the value ends of leadership should be to enhance equity, social justice, and quality of life; to expand access and opportunity; to encourage respect and difference and diversity; to strengthen democracy, civic life, and civic responsibility; and to promote cultural enrichment, creative expression, intellectual honesty, the advancement of knowledge, and personal freedom coupled with responsibility. (Astin et al., 2000 as cited by Shields, 2004, p. 113)

Additionally, consulting with the teachers, students, and community will also ensure transformative, moral, and communal leadership (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004). Educational administrators need to connect with their

306


community and involve local institutions, such as religion, language, and other aspects of cultural systems, to achieve a culturally ‘plural’ society (Bacchus, 1991). However, ‘‘[d]emocratic participation in decision making cannot be accomplished simply by issuing an invitation and holding an open meeting; it often requires teaching people how to participate, making them feel comfortable, and empowering them to feel competent and capable’’ (Shields, 2004, p. 124). Shields (2004) claims that by schools can overcome the ‘pathologies of silence’ (well-intentioned attempts to pretend that all students are the same instead of singling them out and perhaps causing offense) and ‘color-blindness’ (ignoring color and subsequently, culture) by encouraging ‘moral dialogue’ (the act of communicating for greater understanding of differences). Even further, Furman and Gruenewald (2004) maintain ‘‘that social justice cannot be achieved without an expanded, ecological viewpoint that takes seriously the cultural and ecological conflicts inherent in preparing youth to enter the global economy’’ (p. 54). Encouraging a school environment that examines and challenges the status quo is another way that educational administrators may contend with injustice in their schools (McInerney, 2003; Murphy, 2002; Shields, 2004). Shields (2004) contends that deficit thinking and blaming the victim, which tends to be instinctive within the ‘dominant’ discourse, is probably the most viable reason for poor achievement among marginalized students. She elaborates further that pathologizing or treating differences as deficits, engenders in students and their families feelings that, they and their lives and abilities, are abnormal, or subnormal, and unacceptable within the education process (Shields, 2004). Moreover, educational administrators and teachers must learn to acknowledge and validate difference appropriately when challenging the status quo and confronting these unintentional behaviors. It is necessary for educational administrators to develop their staff members into ‘‘exploratory thinkers concerned with addressing individuals needs within particular contexts, rather than committing to a system supported by abstract ideas and generalizations’’ (Murphy, 2002, p. 12). In turn, staff members become educators who can critically analyze their practices and take responsibility for student outcomes (Shields, 2004). Educational administrators and teachers must also develop positive relationships with students, and the community, so that they bring their experiences into the school and facilitate moral dialogue (McInerney, 2003; Shields, 2004). In turn, this overcomes pathologies of silence, acknowledges difference, whether cultural, racial, religious, in social status, ability, gender, sexual orientation, learning style, etc, and becomes inclusive (Shields, 2004). ‘‘Unless all children experience a sense of belonging in our schools, they are

Serving Community

307

being educated in institutions that exclude and marginalize them, that perpetuate inequity and inequality rather than democracy and social justice’’ (Shields, 2004, p. 122). Another vehicle for educational administrators to serve the interests of social justice in education systems is to influence the pedagogical practices within their schools. A socially just pedagogy must be inclusive, engaging and enabling students in valued and worthwhile activities, linking learning not just to the community but also empowering students to use their own authentic knowledge, values ad culture to take control of their own lives. (Zyngier, 2003, p. 45)

One strategy is encouraging school–community connectedness (McInerney, 2003; Zyngier, 2003). This approach emphasizes active student-centered learning and the development of autonomous learners, improves higher order thinking and in-depth learning, links the home and the school, utilizes off-campus learning resources and learning in the wider community, and enables the school to be less bureaucratic and more community minded (Zyngier, 2003). Moreover, productive pedagogy encompasses intellectually challenging and relevant or connected curriculum, recognition of difference, and social supportiveness (Zyngier, 2003). Generative pedagogy expands these approaches to incorporate social justice elements in the classroom (Zyngier, 2003). However, [i]n order to reintroduce a generative pedagogy into schools, teachers will need to decide how to combine a socially just curriculum and teaching with an emphasis on student habitats while acknowledging the role of dominant knowledge as ‘‘the cultural capital of the dominant’’. (Zyngier, 2003, p. 47)

as well complying with imposed performance measures (Murphy, 2003). These strategies also illustrate that education is not just about academic achievements, but also about developing the ‘whole’ student – academically, emotionally, and morally. Some practical examples of pedagogy that addresses social and ecological injustice are: transformative learning, where students explore areas of interpersonal and intercultural dissonance (Loller & Butcher, 2005); natural history, where students experience the living world outside the classroom; cultural journalism, where students create connections with the cultural life of the communities they belong; and action research, where students become change agents (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004). These approaches must incorporate critical analysis of the assumptions, and unjust outcomes present in conventional educational and cultural outcomes in order to be successful (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004). ‘‘Teachers of course cannot do it

308


on their own – but without a change in the way that they teach, improved student outcomes for those needing the most assistance will never be achieved’’ (Zyngier, 2003, p. 45). Additionally, educational administrators should also ensure that educational practices value and encourage students, provide emotional and social support, broaden learning opportunities, and harness respect and understanding (Smyth, 2004). Influencing the school curriculum is another way in which educational administrators may focus on social injustice. The content of curriculum is central to transforming society and therefore concern for social justice should underpin the curriculum and remain a feature of school planning processes (McInerney, 2003). Exploring topics such as justice, democracy, respect, understanding, values, traditions, cultural studies, environmental studies, natural sciences, deconstruction, to name just a few, will allow students to experience other realities, as well as, the dominant discourse. Moreover, to assist this transformation, [s]ociety will need to accommodate an engaged, empowered and perhaps enraged generation of critically reflexive learners demanding not just ‘‘sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, not concerned just with the redistribution of goods and services, but social justice and equity not just for the few but for all. (Zyngier, 2003, p. 44)

Furthermore, involving marginalized groups in curriculum development provides a sense of being entrenched in society and a feeling that they enjoy the respect of other groups, rather than being dominated by them (Bacchus, 1991). We must ensure that educators do not celebrate some legitimate differences and pathologise others. Instead we must ‘open our curriculum, our policies, our hearts, and our minds to challenge inequities, to eliminate pathologies, and to ensure inclusive and respectful education for all students. (Shields, 2004, p. 128)

Involving marginalized groups in the development of curriculum will help to significantly enrich all areas including music, dance, art, language, literature, food, etc. To serve the interests of social justice in education systems, educational administrators can also influence educator training via the selection of course students, course content, and professional development for both teachers and educational administrators themselves. Brown (2004) discusses how adult learning theory, transformative learning theory, and critical social theory are related to the pedagogical approaches of critical reflection, rational discourse, and policy praxis to increase recognition,

Serving Community

309

acknowledgement, and action within educator training programs. According to Brown (2004), self-directed learning, critical reflection, experiential learning, and learning to learn constitute adult learning theory. Transformative learning relates to ‘transforming frames of reference’ (Loller & Butcher, 2005). Moreover, critical social theory is ‘‘a theory of existence that views people as subjects, not objects, who are constantly reflecting and acting on the transformation of their world so it can become a more equitable place for all to live’’ (Brown, 2004, p. 85). Awareness through critical reflection requires both critical enquiry and self-reflection. Brown (2004) describes how cultural autobiography, life history interviews, prejudice-reduction workshops, and reflective analysis journals help raise consciousness, promote transformative learning, and subsequently develop future leaders of social justice, equity, and action. Acknowledgement through [r]ational discourse involves a commitment to extended and repeated conversations that evolve over time into a culture of careful listening and cautious openness to new perspectives, not shared understanding in the sense of consensus but rather deeper and richer understanding of our biases as well as where our colleagues are coming from on particular issues and how each of us differently constructs those issues. (Brown, 2004, p. 93)

Brown (2004) cites cross-cultural interviews, educational plunge, and diversity panels as pedagogical processes that assist openness, respect, and equal participation. Furthermore, action through policy praxis requires inductive and deductive forms of reasoning. Brown (2004) outlines activist action plans as a transformative pedagogy that teaches educational leaders ‘‘to be proactive verses reactive, to embrace conflict rather than avoid it, and to engage inyopportunities for ‘creative analysis of difference, power and privilege’ ’’ (p. 98). Although the above examples of pedagogy offer strategies for enhancing educator training, it would also be appropriate to adapt these for students to affect social justice in schools. Likewise, the examples outlined earlier regarding pedagogy in schools would also be applicable for educator training. Even further, by participating in professional-development programs and growing through ongoing learning, educational administrators may themselves come to understand social justice issues better. Similarly, Furman and Gruenewald (2004) and McInerney (2003), demonstrate how educational administrators can utilize teacher professional-development sessions to promote social justice stratagem. Additionally, ‘‘staff development activities should invite community members into the process both as

310


learners ad as potential resources for identifying and designing appropriate projects to serve as ‘laboratories’ for professional development and placebased projects’’ (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004, p. 71). Finally, educational administrators can work within the socio-political system and counsel their governments to ensure that social justice issues are advocated in regulated curriculum and throughout educational policy (Smyth, 2004); and that student, teacher and school quality measurements also feature the non-monetary benefits of education. After all, ‘‘educational reforms have to work through teachers, and worthwhile reforms have to work with them’’. (Connell, 1993 as cited by McInerney, 2003, p. 3)

EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE AND DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE To conclude, this chapter explored the question of how educational administrators can serve the interests of social justice in education systems from a generalist perspective. Social justice in education systems is a significant and complex issue, and cannot possibly be achieved by educational administrators alone. However, educational administrators can attempt to transform society, the school, and the classroom through humanistic and interpretive management practices, and influencing pedagogy, curriculum, educator training, and the socio-political system, as well as develop learning communities, build the professional capacity of teachers, take advice from parents, engage in collaborative and consultative decision making, resolve conflicts, engage in effective instructional leadership, and attend respectively, immediately, and appropriately to the needs and requests of families with diverse cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. (Shields, 2004, p. 109)

REFERENCES Bacchus, M. K. (1991). Equity and cultural diversity. In: W. Walker, R. Farquhar & M. Hughes (Eds), Advancing education: School leadership in action (pp. 75–89). London: The Falmer Press. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. Blackmore, J. (2004). Passion, professionalism and performativity and other matters regarding gender and social justice. Keynote presented to Managing Diversity Forum, Melbourne, November, 2004. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Structures, habitus, practices. In: A. Elliot (Ed.), Contemporary social theory (pp. 107–118). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Bowles, S., & Ginitis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Serving Community

311

Brown, K. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108. Calabrese, R. L., & Shoho, A. (2000). Recasting educational administration programs as learning organizations. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 210–215. Duffy, F. M. (1997). Knowledge work supervision: Transforming school systems into high performing learning organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(1), 26–31. Furman, G. C., & Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47–76. Loller, M., & Butcher, J. (2005, October 19). Confronting global and local justice issues: A challenge for educators. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://www.aare.edu.au/99/ pap/lol199442.htm Marshall, C. (2004). Social justice challenges to educational administration: Introduction to a special issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 3–13. McInerney, P. (2003). Renegotiating schooling for social justice in an age of marketisation. Australian Journal of Education, 47(3), 251–265. Murphy, S. (2003). The state, the market, and a school’s quest for social justice & fairness. Changing Education: A Journal for Teachers and Administrators, 6(3), 10–14. Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogue leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109–132. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 133–161. Smyth, J. (2004). Social capital and the ‘socially just school’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(1), 20–33. Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and control. London: Macmillan. Zyngier, D. (2003). Connectedness – isn’t it time that education came out from behind the classroom door and rediscovered social justice. Social Alternatives, 33(3), 41–49.

TRANSFORMATIVE LEADERSHIP FOR DIVERSE LEARNING COMMUNITIES: REDEFINING THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES IN URBAN SCHOOLS Lucretia D. Peebles and Toby Hopstone ABSTRACT Surprisingly, urban principals seldom learn transformative leadership in their administrator preparation programs, thus missing out on its value in redefining the moral and ethical imperatives to improve with effective leadership and teaching, poor and minority students’ academic learning outcomes and performance on NCLB-mandated high-stakes accountability tests for professional learning communities. This chapter historicizes contexts and analyzes kaleidoscopic reflections of newly practicing urban school principals to illuminate chaos that often forces them into survival-mode managing rather than leading transformatively with structural reforms, and to make them aware of ‘‘equity traps’’ resistant to leadership intent upon radically transforming schools into productive and socially just learning communities. Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 313–329 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10019-6

313

314

LUCRETIA D. PEEBLES AND TOBY HOPSTONE

INTRODUCTION American public education is facing a serious crisis in one of its most complex and diverse learning communities – urban schools. The crisis is one of leadership, and the training of urban school principals, a problem existing as complexly as it does for several reasons: a diminished pool of school leaders (Fenwick, 2000); inadequate compensation and extended workday; irrelevant preparation and courses in ‘‘graduate training programs/ preparation’’ (Fenwick, 2000, p. 10) and educational leadership program[s] (Shen, Cooley, Ruhl-Smith, & Keiser, 2005, pp. 142–145); ‘‘criticisms from parents, teachers, board members, and business and industrial leaders’’ (Cooley & Shen, 2005, p. 148); and enormous demographic changes and consequent diversity in our nation (Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; Malone & Caddell, 2000; Olson, 2000a, 2000b; Young, Peterson, & Short, 2002). The leadership challenge, as described by New York’s Commissioner of Education, Richard Mills, is three-fold: ‘‘a shortage of people willing to lead, a shortage of people able to lead, and an atmosphere that is incredibly hostile toward leaders’’ (Mitgang, 2006, p. 5). Notwithstanding their complexity, these leadership issues speak to the urgent need for school districts to recruit qualified principals who have the instructional leadership acuity and moral turpitude to provide the highest quality of education for students who attend our most demographically challenged public institutions (e.g., urban schools). Moreover, these principals must also advocate equal access and equal opportunity to ensure that their students will be able to obtain the necessary knowledge, skills, and tools to pursue post-graduation options that, potentially, will improve the quality of their adult lives. In a fascinating book, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the TwentyFirst Century, Friedman (2006) includes vivid illustrations of technology and its impact on globalization in the United States of America, as well as other countries around the world. One compelling aspect of his discussion prompts a question about the utilitarian and meritocratic purposes of American education: What should be the primary goal of public education in the twenty-first century? Certainly, we have to move beyond the minimal achievement standards mandated by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Throughout the book, Friedman (2006) reminds us of the dearth of students in the mathematics, science, and technology pools. Indeed, this fact casts a disturbing commentary on the public schools – instruments of the global economy – and their failure to deliver to students the essential skills and information that are needed in 2006, to

Transformative Leadership for Diverse Learning Communities

315

level the playing field in the global marketplace. Clearly, one can conclude from reading Friedman’s (2006) book that, indeed, the world is flat and that conspicuously absent from the global landscape are poor and minority students whose inadequate urban school educations prevent them from competing with Indian, Russian and Chinese students whose exceptional skills – in technology, mathematics, science, communication and collaboration – make clear the division between winners or untouchables (those who are employable) and losers or disposables (those who will be unemployed). Additionally, technology and globalization have flattened the world, making it easier for U.S. companies to search globally for cheap labor and, consequently, to outsource jobs overseas. Thus, fewer jobs are available for minimally skilled workers in the United States. Moreover, the flattening of the world has made it easier for Indian and Chinese workers to compete for technical jobs, hence, lowering the probability of U.S. workers’ ability to secure employment even in their home country. Urban school students are the future of our nation, and it is imperative that the schools these students attend prepare them to experience a future that is radically different from their present realities. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine all of the issues associated with the crisis of leadership in urban schools (e.g., diverse learning communities). Instead, the main purpose here is to provide a context for the discussion of the unique challenges of urban school leadership. Furthermore, this chapter will discuss transformative leadership as it relates to diverse learning communities and examine the role professional learning communities (PLCs) can play in supporting instructional improvement and student achievement. To accomplish this task, the first section of the chapter provides a historical context that describes the changing role of the principal, the development of urban schools, the impact of school reform on the current crisis in urban schools, and an overview of research on PLCs. The terms urban schools and diverse learning communities are used synonymously in this discussion. Using reflective comments from informal interviews, the second part of the chapter provides an in-depth examination of the perspectives of principals fairly new (1–4 years) to working in an urban school/district, a highly contrasting context from a suburban school. The reflective discussion uses the chaotic conditions and realities of urban school leadership, the theories of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), transformative leadership (Dantley, 2003), and equity traps (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004) as lenses to construct order and understanding.

316


The chapter addresses the following questions: 1. What are the most crucial challenges facing principals in urban schools? 2. What is transformative leadership? How can principals in urban schools become more transformative in their leadership? 3. How can PLCs become more transformative in their leadership?

HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR SCHOOL AND LEADERSHIP REFORM The Changing Role of the Principal The leadership crisis in urban schools initially resulted from changes that occurred in the nature and scope of the principal’s job in the late 1800s. During the second half of the nineteenth century, as industrialization fueled the growth from informal villages into urban centers, dramatic increases in population forced schools to bureaucratize because the loose structure of the small villages was unable to accommodate the increasing demand for educational access. Consequently, as schools increased in size, they needed a mechanism to monitor and standardize education; thus, schools ‘‘became bureaucracies, specialization occurred and principal teachers were hired in the late 1880s’’ (Peebles, 2000a, p. 45). The principal teachers served ‘‘as key instructional leaders in the school’’ (Peebles, 2000a, p. 45). As urban cities developed, the growth and complexity of schools increased, and this led to a broader scope of responsibilities for principal teachers who assumed managerial responsibilities such as hiring staff, school finance, and building supervision (Seyfarth, 1999). According to Cuban (1988), the principal teacher’s title was eventually shortened to ‘‘principal’’ and ‘‘it acquired a political dimension, through which role occupants sought to sense and transform public expectations into formal decision and authoritative actions’’ (p. 76). During the last 40 years, the role of the principal has changed significantly. From 1960 to 1980, principals functioned as managers, and those who served as athletic coaches appeared to be a natural fit for the principal’s job. The manager was not an instructional leader. He or she simply maintained order and managed the school. The role of the principal was not the primary focus of school reforms during the 1980s. The 1983 Blue Ribbon report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) alerted the public to the dismal state of public education


317

in the United States and called on governors, legislators, and policymakers to improve with drastic reforms, the quality of K-12 education to increase the nation’s competitiveness in mathematics and science. Many promoted site-based management as a bottom-up reform to engage teachers, those closest to the students, in making decisions related to improving student achievement. Site-based management shifted principals from being authoritarian leaders to democratic and collaborative leaders who welcomed all stakeholders. Addressing one of several characteristics of an effective school as identified by Edmonds (1986) and Brookover and Lezotte (1979), effective schools research helped to characterize principals as instructional leaders in the 1990s. In the latter part of that decade, systemic reform introduced through standards-based education and the 2001 NCLB Act’s high-stakes accountability tests refocused principals on their primary role as instructional leaders. As a result, principals began to use different forms of leadership – facilitative, collaborative, and transformative – to support teachers in their efforts to improve student achievement and to respond to the changing demographics in their complex and diverse learning communities.

From Common to Urban Schools The urban schools of our contemporary society developed from the common schools founded by Horace Mann in the 1840s to educate students from different socioeconomic strata and ethnic and religious backgrounds all under one roof. For more than 160 years, public schools have operated much like factories using the same molds – irrespective of the differences in raw materials – to produce workers for society. Based upon the idea ‘‘one size fits all,’’ schools evolved into bureaucracies with the utilitarian function to more efficiently educate the masses of Americans and help them quickly assimilate into the ‘‘American way of life,’’ literate and knowledgeable about their civic responsibility to preserve the democracy. Public schools also perpetuated the social and economic stratification in society by serving as a sorting machine (Spring, 1989): selecting some students for technical professions and others for service-oriented careers, and pushing out those whom they could not select. However, public schools fail to educate the majority of the poor and minority students who enter or select them as their educational choice (Young & Clinchy, 1992). These students spend 13 years in school and exit

318


without having mastered minimal basic skills to function in society, the facts that have raised serious concerns about the future of the United States and its ability to maintain preeminence as a global leader in a quickly flattening world (Friedman, 2006).

School Reform Public schools experienced reform in three distinct waves. The first wave began in 1983 just before the release of A Nation at Risk, and governors and legislators mandated top-down reforms to increase academic rigor, lengthen the school day and increase professional standards for teachers (Hess, 1999). During the second wave of reform that began in 1986, the focus shifted to teacher development and training, and parent and student empowerment. The third wave of reform started in 1989 and moved away from changing schools to transforming the school systems (Cookson, 1994). Olson and Rothman (1993) provide a vivid description of reforms that characterized the third wave: District leaders tried to alter teaching practices by decentralizing power within school districts, increasing time for teacher planning and preparation, changing the classroom role of the teacher from that of lecturer to that of guide, emphasizing problem-solving skills, using alternative assessments to measure student learning, grouping students in new ways, integrating more small group and tutorial instructional sessions into the school day; and clustering teachers into teams. (as cited by Hess, 1999, p. 4)

After more than two decades of intensive school reforms from the state to the classroom and the introduction of systemic reform as mandated by the NCLB Act of 2001 (NCLB), the achievement gap between white students and poor and minority students has increased. As urban schools struggle to meet the demands of NCLB, the crisis in urban schools has proliferated and fueled criticism from various states, educators, legislators, policymakers, and civil rights organizations who have demanded less stringent sanctions and more creative solutions and alternatives to NCLB. While NCLB has not realized significant gains in achievement for poor and minority students, it has been successful in focusing educators, parents, students, and policymakers on accountability and student achievement of the state standards as measured on the state accountability test (Hess & Petrilli, 2006).


319

Administrator Preparation Programs Administrator preparation programs have had a difficult time keeping pace with school reforms and their impact on school leaders. Urban school principals commonly experience either the culture shock or simply feel inadequately prepared to perform their jobs. Moreover, some principals feel shortchanged by their administrator preparation programs, and feel that even though they received excellent theoretical frameworks, their programs were substandard in orientating them to the day-to-day realities of being principals in urban school districts. In a study on administrator preparation programs, Shen et al. (2005) found that ‘‘the theoretical studies helped the informants develop a more comprehensive and balanced perspective on educational goals and schooling functions’’ (p. 144). When surveyed, a statistically significant number of respondents rated their internship experiences highly and suggested that educational leadership programs become more field-based (Jacobs, 1991; Shen et al., 2005). However, Shen et al. (2005) also noted that in light of the conservative tenor of the field of educational administration and its tendency to be self-perpetuating, many school administrators ‘‘have failed to meet the challenges faced by students and the communities they serve’’ (p. 144) and increasingly find themselves as the target of reform. Related to limited practical experience, administrator preparation programs also fail to adequately address race or issues related to diversity and social justice. A study conducted by McCarthy (1999) supports this contention as she found missing from core courses in leadership preparation programs are, ‘‘courses that prepare prospective administrators to engage issues of diversity knowledgeably and effectively’’ (Peebles, 2000b, p. 205). McCarthy (1999) also noted that in 1989, the National Policy Board of Educational Administration recommended that the curriculum in leadership programs be refocused to include: Social and cultural influences on schooling; teaching and learning processes and school improvement; organizational theory; methodologies of organizational studies and policy analysis; leadership and management processes and functions; policy studies and politics of education; and the moral and ethical dimension of schooling. (p. 75)

Moreover, those who train prospective teachers must make a concerted effort to include courses that address the difficult issues of race and poverty. In administrator preparation programs, ‘‘as much as possible, these courses should engage practitioners from the field in interactions with prospective leaders, to help them become more knowledgeable about the historical

320


framework and scope of some of the issues of diversity they will encounter’’ (Peebles, 2000b, p. 206). Peebles (2000b) also calls for a paradigm shift in administrator training programs in both where the training occurs and also how it occurs by asserting that the training needs to occur away from the university and in the schools to, ‘‘enable prospective principals to make immediate connections between theory and practice’’ (p. 206). Indeed, Peebles (2000b) proposes a radical shift regarding how the administrator training should occur: Since leadership is developmental and constantly evolving, it should begin as one is inducted into the teaching ranks. New strategies for training leaders must cross discipline-specific boundaries to involve both teacher preparation and administrator preparation candidates in shared classroom and internship learning opportunities to foster leadership, problem solving, capacity building, and lifelong learning. (p. 207)

This paradigm shift requires that administrator preparation programs continue to seek new relationships with schools districts to learn how they might assist in providing professional development and assessment and evaluation, and in helping practicing and prospective principals to engage parents and the community in the schools. The leadership crisis requires professors who teach in administrator preparation programs to evaluate their programs to assess the courses and experiences that prepare prospective leaders to be effective in diverse learning communities, or urban schools. In order to ensure that prospective principals receive relevant information, professors should engage as coinstructors in their courses, practitioner experts who are currently working in the schools to teach courses to prepare prospective principals to work in urban schools. Another change that must occur in administrator preparation programs concerns the boundaries between the university and the school districts that stand in the way of allowing professors and practitioner experts to have joint appointments either in the school district or university. For example, if a university wants to establish more accountability in administrator preparation programs to ensure that students are receiving information consistent with the lived realities of working in an urban school, then the university should require professors to spend half their time in the schools and half their time at the university. The university and school district could develop a plan to pay the salaries of the professors or practitioner experts in exchange for their work in the field or at the university, respectively. Ultimately, the benefactors of the collaborative training effort will be future leaders who receive more effective preparation to be successful in their jobs.


321

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES PLCs have their roots in idea championed by President George H. Bush in 1989 and Goals 2000, which was, ‘‘a list of objectives that students should aspire to by the end of the century’’ (Huffman & Hipp, 2003, p. 3). Goals 2000 included: (1) promoting student readiness to learn; (2) increasing graduation rates; (3) raising student competencies in crucial subject areas; (4) increasing emphasis on mathematics and science; (5) attaining adult literacy; (6) decreasing use of drugs and violence on school campuses; (7) providing professional development opportunities for educators; and (8) increasing parental involvement in school activities and decision making. Huffman and Hipp (2003) contend that the reaction to Goals 2000 triggered a ‘‘Restructuring Movement’’ (p. 3) and a number of developments, including a movement from the top-down district management of schools to a bottom-up site-level management to create collaborations – ‘‘to make decisions, develop policies and procedures and discuss the needs of students’’ – between administrators, teachers, and parents (Lieberman, 1995 as cited by Blase´ & Blase´, 2004, p. 176). Essentially, Goals 2000 motivated the creation of PLCs by encouraging administrators to collaborate with and include other stakeholders in making decisions that affect their schools. According to Blase´ and Blase´ (2004), PLCs promote ‘‘continuous learning, reflective, and focused on improving student outcomes’’ (p. 176). Reculturing schools into PLCs requires ‘‘shared values and norms, an emphasis on learning, reflective dialogue, deprivatization of practice, and collaboration’’ (Blase´ & Blase´, 2004, p. 176). PLCs help to structure the interactions of the educators in the school, using their shared values and norms to target the improvement of teachers’ instructional skills and learning outcomes for students. The challenge of building a successful PLC in which teachers’ collective actions focus on the agreed upon goals requires time, reflective dialogue, and a leader skilled in scaffolding the work to ensure that teachers are connected and supported during the change process. In his examination of common principles of successful recultured schools, Miller (1998) indicates that change is an important characteristic of PLCs. Other characteristics of successful recultured schools include having principals, who are courageous risktakers, demonstrate an appreciation for innovation, and a long-term perspective. The teachers in these schools have highly developed, effective teaching practices, assume leadership among their peers, and involve themselves in inquiry and reflection about instructional practices, student learning, and assessment. These schools constantly focus on improving

322


learning and development for both students and teachers. Additionally, these schools also reach outside of their boundaries by creating partnerships with universities and educational networks (Miller, 1998). In essence, PLCs help to reform and improve schools by distributing leadership, magnifying social justice issues as schools seek to advocate for and enrich the lives of underserved students; encourage collective action, participation, and responsibility among stakeholders; and promote the adoption of new solutions to challenging problems found in urban schools.

NEW PRINCIPALS IN URBAN SCHOOLS Principals have one of the most difficult jobs in the public school system; and, in order to ensure their effective leadership, they must strike a healthy balance between internal and external demands for higher accountability in the current standards-focused policy environment. The monumental challenges of leadership in urban schools further exacerbate the complexity of being a new principal. Urban schools primarily educate ‘‘the vast majority of poor, [underserved] minority, and immigrant children’’ (Resnick & Glennan, 2002, p. 160). These schools are plagued by ‘‘social, economic, and educational disparities (Peebles, 2000b, p. 199). Urban principals often find that issues unrelated to education, which they must address in order to support teaching and learning, compromise the instructional focus. What distinguishes urban schools from their suburban counterparts? According to Caroline Hodges Persell (1989), suburban schools cater to more students from higher socioeconomic classes than urban schools, which enroll a majority of poor and minority students. Other differences noted by Persell (1989) were the physical appearance of school campuses, the scope of the facilities, access to technology, the quality of the curriculum, teacher quality, class size, school size, discipline policies, academic advisement availability, and the presence of an academic school culture which is known and valued by students (cited in Peebles, 2000b, p. 199). Resnick and Glennan (2002) found that in urban schools, ‘‘achievement levels are low;’’ ‘‘attracting and holding well-prepared teachers’’ and leaders is difficult, leadership turnover is high, and per pupil expenditures are not adequate to meet the students’ needs’’ (p. 160). Selected reflections from informal interviews with three principals, two women in their second year of leadership and a man who had been a principal for 4 years, as part of a pilot study that examines novice principals’ perceptions of their experiences in diverse learning communities are used to


323

illustrate new principals’ experiences in urban schools. Interviewees responded to five questions involving training, challenges facing urban school principals, personal leadership challenges in urban schools, NCLB and student achievement, and their transformative leadership. This section explores the role of the principal in developing these PLCs to effectively address the crises in America’s urban public schools. Must the urban principalship take a unique approach? What does the landscape look like for principals as they walk through the door, and what models can they claim that will help them transform what they see? This chapter also discusses transformative leadership and its utility in helping new principals to redefine their PLCs to support teachers to be effective instructional leaders.

Contrasting Contexts New principals assume the helm of their schools eager to engage their staffs in the creation of a shared and compelling vision grounded in instructional leadership. Skillful instructional leadership on the part of the principal is critical: reviewing and discussing lesson plans, ensuring professional development focusing on standards-based instruction, alignment of curriculum with assessment, and provision of forums within a PLC, for ongoing collaborative review of student work, are just some of the elements that fall on the shoulders of instructional leaders (Danielson, 2002; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Knowing what to do, however, is often not enough for principals today in America’s cities. School leadership must address the achievement lag facing struggling students, yet urban settings often present complex, contentious, or compromised contexts that militate against new principals’ dreams as they experience dissonance in their efforts to use their instructional leadership knowledge and skills to provide leadership in their urban schools. Maya Katz, a white, 49-year-old, second-year urban middle school principal was in the beginning stages of writing her dissertation when she ascended to the principalship. She came to the job with an impressive repertoire of leadership and teaching experiences in suburban schools; however, unanticipated challenges at her new middle school have forced her to give priority to management and facility issues and secondary attention to instruction and student achievement. It seemed obvious what needed to be done to address low performance scores, when I moved to an urban city to become a principal. Coming from a Title I suburban/rural district, working as an assistant principal, our middle school had begun to make

324


significant gains due to our focus on backwards design and common assessments. Students move forward when they have access to good teaching.

Aaron Friedman, a white 30-year-old, fourth-year urban elementary school principal found the inflexibility of NCLB challenging and added that, ‘‘it has helped focus the discussion and attention on student achievement and [it had] given teeth to aligning curriculum towards key standards which is good.’’ Friedman has implemented ‘‘a few’’ systems to help his teachers support students in achieving the standards: Increased collaboration time, stipends for teachers, public accountability for students, teachers, parents, and principal using data through graphs at family events and outside of classrooms and office; clear best practices developed by teacher leaders derived from research, their practices, and observing other high quality schools; coaching for teachers, leadership teams to increase ownership and relevance; differentiated professional development so it is more tailored to teacher needs; outcomes driven environment and focus on moving borderline students to the next level via intervention programs that not only focus on the low-achieving but the middle borderline proficient one using strong after-school teachers (who are often credentialed); raising money and utilizing resultsbased budgeting (which I support) to have small class sizes, and being responsive to needs for materials, resources or professional development for teachers.

Anita Rincon, a 30-year-old African American, second year urban middle school principal interviewed for this chapter discussed how her administrator training had not prepared her for the realities of an inner-city school. The university program I attended trained me to address the overall functions of a school site such as standards-based instruction, budgeting, education codes, and parent involvement. However, the program did not focus on urban education. Therefore, there were many issues that are specific to working with an urban population that were not addressed.

Rincon learned about urban schools in a teacher preparation program she completed at a leading southern California University of California campus. Aaron Friedman found his internship experience that ‘‘taught [him] to align assessment and instruction’’ was more valuable than his Harvard University and California State University administrator preparation. He also noted that ‘‘coaching from the Bay Area Coalition of Essential Schools and Jonathan Klein (who was never a principal)’’ were highly instrumental in his training. When asked about the most crucial problem facing urban school principals, Rincon’s response summed up the totality of experiences echoed by countless novice and experienced principals. As an urban principal, you are faced with challenges of addressing a multitude of situations simultaneously that are what may be considered urgent. It is as if you were a doctor working in a triage with hundreds of patients all needing your care at once.


325

An urban principal will deal with working in a school that may be academically performing below grade level, face constant safety issues such as intruders coming on the campus (lock-downs), deal with irate parents who may want to engage in physical contact with students, address the severe social needs of students, encounter shortages and high turnover in both ‘‘qualified’’ full-time and substitute teachers, inherit costly, long-overdue maintenance and repairs, and grapple with the need to fulfill federal, state, and community expectations using severely limited budgets and resources. Overall, it is a challenging situation that no one could ever imagine until actually experiencing the position. An Urban Principal requires one with a clear vision and passion to work with children and [who] is an empowered agent of social change who will make a way when there seems to be no way possible.

The research well documents this personal commitment; however, organizational change must also accompany this approach to education. Detailing specific components of PLCs, and the personal commitment necessary to actually implement better practice, DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) note that ‘‘until they began to act differently, to do differently, there was little reason to expect different results’’ (p. 139).

Transformative Leadership Transformative leadership is highly applicable to leadership in urban schools because it focuses on social justice and its context of interactions is value-laden. Astin and Astin (2000) emphasize that which values determine decision making and the recognition that each member of the educational community has leadership potential are two basic assumptions of transformative leadership theory. They additionally delineate transformative leadership qualities of the individual (self-knowledge, authenticity, empathy, commitment, competence) and the group (collaboration, shared purpose, division of labor, disagreement with respect, learning environment), which correspond in a reciprocal way (p. 14). It is this reciprocal quality, this interdependence, that arises from the sense of both a spiritual and practical purpose a group shares, and that characterizes the community of practice transformative leaders encourage in urban schools through their PLCs. Moving beyond the duality of manager/leader (Bennis & Nanus, 1985) to the configurations and interplay of transformative leadership means that leaders have actualized new ways to solve problems because the old ways were neither effective nor comprehensive enough. The reason for this deficiency is that the functioning of the organization lacked values. As bell hooks (2003) noted,

326


We may unwittingly collude with structures of domination because of the way learning is organized in institutions. Or we may gather material to teach that is non-biased and yet present it in a manner that is biased, thus reinforcing existing oppressive hierarchies. (pp. 45–47)

The phenomenon of transformative leadership derives from a values-driven, ethical foundation. Because transformative leadership holds individual and group expectations, as well as their concomitant obligations of personal and social responsibility, a natural organizational expression is a community of practice. As principals embody the transformative aspects of leadership, these communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) have become viable forums for confronting the momentous and seemingly insoluble tide of crises that slosh across the day. When ordinary solutions do not apply, these communities of practice provide new perspectives and alternative ways of thinking for the PLC. The ways in which transformative leadership is realized in urban settings is an interesting ‘‘particularity of experience.’’ The need for revision at the institutional level is clear: no longer can the ‘‘funds of knowledge’’ (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) owned by parents and community be ignored. The marginalized voices of the forgotten and shafted, the voices of students, must be part of any solution. There is a need for a new kind of relationship, one of trust and mutual respect, between educators, students, and their families. Yet, how do these abstract nouns become real? Michael E. Dantley (2003) suggests the following: ‘‘Transformative leadership demands that educational leaders critically assess the asymmetrical relations of power in the organizational context and deconstruct, through a critical hermeneutic, those practices and cultural artifacts that engender an anti-democratic discourse in organizations such as schools’’ (p. 4). Transformative leaders must be highly conscious, capably critical, and intent on equity. New principals can become transformative leaders who move beyond abstractions of their newly acquired leadership theories to develop the infrastructure that will support their effective leadership in urban schools. Of primary importance is their ability to identify pragmatic ways in which equity issues – in real-time classrooms, hallways, faculty lounges, schools – keep them from actually putting more equitable practice in place. Tracking, teachers in culture shock, lack of books, access to foreign language instruction, arts education – these explicitly smack of equity issues. However, leaders overlook and bypass many subtle equity traps due to lack of awareness.


327

Kathryn Bell McKenzie and James Joseph Scheurich (2004) have developed a research-based construct that they call equity traps: ‘‘ways of thinking or assumptions that prevent educators from believing that their students of color can be successful learners’’ (pp. 601–602). The four equity traps discussed by McKenzie and Scheurich are the deficit view, racial erasure, employment and avoidance of the gaze, and paralogic beliefs and behaviors. New principals must pressure their administrator training programs to teach them about these equity traps in their initial preparation of prospective principals for urban schools. Although highly trained prospective leaders are willing to work in urban schools, serving as a principal becomes less attractive when the training they have received to be successful in their new positions is disconnected from the realities of working in urban schools. The medical profession does not allow a resident to assume full responsibility for the life of a patient. Therefore, urban schools must discontinue the practice of placing the lives and futures of poor, minority, and immigrant children in the hands of those who are ill prepared to lead in chaotic urban schools. New principals’ on-the-job training should not jeopardize an underserved child’s future options. The training of new leaders for urban schools must occur while prospective leaders are enrolled in their administrator training programs, under the direction of highly qualified professors and practitioners who have served effectively as transformative leaders in urban schools or diverse learning communities.

CONCLUSION Although the transformation of a school does not rest entirely on the principal’s shoulders, the development of a community of practice in which a PLC can use transformative leadership practices to confront and address concerns of equity cannot proceed for long without his/her guidance. Firmly grounded in a sense of social justice, an orientation of inclusion, and a determination to strategically avoid the equity traps that catch so many administrators in the quicksand of collusion with the status quo; today’s transformative principals must be clear that every decision is a question of leadership. Forcing a context of values, infusing dialogue with ethical perspective, and implementing a developmental approach to teacher growth will all serve to solidify a community of practice that will ultimately transform both the PLC (school) and the community.

328


REFERENCES Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Blase´, J., & Blase´, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement. (Occasional Paper No. 17). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research and Teaching. Cistone, P. J., & Stevenson, J. M. (2000). Perspectives on the urban school principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 435–442. Cookson, P. (1994). School choice: The struggle for the soul of American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2005). Who will lead: The top 10 factors that influence teachers moving into administration. In: J. Shen (Ed.), School principals (pp. 148–153). New York: Peter Lang. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dantley, M. E. (2003). Critical spirituality: Enhancing transformative leadership through critical theory and African American prophetic spirituality. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(1), 3–17. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Edmonds, R. R. (1986). Characteristics of effective schools. In: U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children (pp. 93–104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fenwick, L.T. (2000). The principal’s shortage: Who will lead? Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind primer. New York: Peter Lang. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge. Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning communities. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Jacobs, H. L. (1991). Gender differences in the program effects of administrative preparation. Planning and Changing, 22(1), 46–64. Lieberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing practice, structure, and culture. In: A. Lieberman (Ed.), The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up (pp. 1–17). New York: Teachers College Press.


329

Malone, B.G., & Caddell, T.A. (2000). A crisis in leadership: Where are tomorrow’s principals? The Clearing House, 73(3), 162–164. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. McCarthy, M. M. (1999). How are school leaders prepared: Trends and future directions. Educational Horizons, 77(2), 74–81. McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601–632. Miller, L. (1998). Redefining teachers, reculturing school: Connections, commitment, and challenges. In: A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of educational change, part one (pp. 529–543). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Mitgang, L. D. (2006). Educational leadership: The essential ingredient. New York: The Wallace Foundation. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Olson, L. (2000a). Policy focus converges on leadership: Several major new efforts under way. Education Week, 19(17), 1–16. Olson, L. (2000b). Principals wanted: Apply just about anywhere. Education Week, 19(17), 16. Olson, L., & Rothman, R. (1993). Roadmap to reform. Education Week, 12(30), 13–17. Peebles, L. (2000a). The challenge of leadership in charter schools. Journal of Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, 1(2), 41–48. Peebles, L. D. (2000b). Millennial challenges for educational leadership: Revisiting issues of diversity. In: P. Jenlink (Ed.), Marching into a new millennium: Challenges to educational leadership (pp. 190–211). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Persell, C. H. (1989). Social class and educational equality. In: J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (2nd edn., pp. 71–89). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Resnick, L. B., & Glennan, T. K. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In: A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & W. M. McLaughlin (Eds), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160–172). NY: Teachers College Press. Seyfarth, J. T. (1999). The principal: New leadership for new challenges. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Shen, J., Cooley, V. E., Ruhl-Smith, C. D., & Keiser, N. M. (2005). Quality and impact of educational leadership programs: A national study. In: J. Shen (Ed.), School principals (pp. 133–147). New York: Peter Lang. Spring, J. (1989). The great sorting machine (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Young, M. D., Peterson, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 137–175. Young, T. W., & Clinchy, E. (1992). Choice in public education. New York: Teachers College Press.

PRINCIPAL ‘DISENGAGEMENT’: ARE THE SOLUTIONS ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM? Karen Starr ABSTRACT Australia has to find solutions to a critical shortage of school principals, and to this end, governments are spending millions of dollars on the development of leadership standards and professional learning programs. This article focuses on the ‘disengagement’ problem and examines the disincentives for aspirants to undertake the role and for incumbents to continue in the role. Various responsive measures are critiqued, and alternative proposals that arise out of discussions with principals are discussed.

INTRODUCTION A principal needs to have the power and strength of Superman, the intelligence of Albert Einstein, the popularity of Princess Diana, the political savvy of a presidential candidate, [and] the care and compassion of Mother Teresa. (School Principal, Independent Schools Queensland, 2006a)

Perhaps it is the perceptions about the principalship such as that expressed in the quotation above that are putting people off embarking on principalship. Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 331–348 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10020-2

331

332

KAREN STARR

In Australia, there are over 9800 schools and most of these will see their principal retire within the next 5 years. This chapter discusses the school leadership shortage and critically analyzes the range of policy responses that governments around Australia are pursuing to address this issue. The paper then focuses on the views of principals, which, if considered, would herald an entirely different set of policy responses to this growing problem.

LEADERSHIP DISENGAGEMENT Many schools are finding it difficult fill principal vacancies, with too few applications received on the whole and too few ‘quality’ applicants amongst them. (Macnamara, 2006, p. 26)

The term ‘leadership disengagement’ is new in the field of educational leadership. It refers to the phenomenon that media reports have called the ‘school leadership crisis’ – a shortage of people who are prepared to be principals. The fact is that many schools are finding it difficult to appoint a principal, with too few applications coming in (Blackmore, Thomson, & Barty, 2004; Preston, Blackmore, & Thomson, 2005), and an increasing shortfall of suitable qualified applicants (ASPA, 1999; Cervini, 2003; Milburn, 2006a, 2006c; Thomson, Blackmore, Sachs, & Tregenza, 2003). At the same time, there is a disinclination of experienced principals to undertake further principalships, with attrition and turnover rates rising (Barty, Thomson, Blackmore, & Sachs, 2004; Preston et al., 2005; Starr, 2000). Adding to the principal supply problem is the fact that principals are vulnerable employees, employed on a short-term contractual basis (usually 5 years), which are renewable dependent on a range of stakeholders. Currently, tenure is decreasing with the average being five years (Littleford & Associates, 2002; Millikan, 2002; Preston et al., 2005). Exacerbating the problem of leadership disengagement is a shortage of teachers in Australia, and this situation will worsen, with too few trainees entering the profession and 25% of qualified teachers leaving within the first 5 years of appointment. The average age of Australian educators is 51 years, so large-scale retirements are expected in the near future, especially since some public-sector superannuation schemes provide inducements for retirement at the age of 54 years and 11 months (54/11 schemes). Finally, another important issue is the very biased and unrepresentative composition of the principalship. Despite the fact that teaching is a feminized

Principal ‘Disengagement’

333

profession and many have embraced cultural diversity as an undisputed foundation for education institutions, white, able-bodied men from Englishspeaking backgrounds continue to dominate the principalship. In South Australia, for example, male teachers who represent one quarter of the teaching force are twice as likely to become a principal than a woman (Ramsay as cited by Kleinig, 2006).

What is Causing ‘Disengagement’? The reasons for poor attraction and retention rates in the principalship are many and complex, but the prime reason appears to be that the principalship has become increasingly difficult and complex (D’Arbon, Duigan, Duncan, & Goodwin, 2001; Millikan, 2002; Myers, 2006); more time and task intensive, and leaving too little private time (Lacey, 2002a, 2002b). Many, especially women, are eschewing possibilities of career advancement past middlemanagement positions in schools, since the principalship is perceived to come at too high a cost to personal and family life (Blackmore, 1999; Leech, 2006; Milburn, 2006b). Prospective principal applicants cite various other disincentives: a school’s location (with far rural schools being the least desirable); a school’s size (very small or very large schools are not attractive); a school’s reputation; an incumbent principal who is presumed to be re-applying for the job at the expiration of a contract; and the rigorous, impersonal application and interview process (ASPA, 1999; Barty et al., 2004). There are perceptions about ‘biased’ selection panels and school councils who have a preferred applicant. There are also concerns about ‘cloning’ which favors similar types of people for the principalship, with leadership potential assumed to be outweighed by experience (Gronn, 2003). Remuneration levels are considered to be too low for the level of responsibility assumed (Cervini, 2003; Thomson et al., 2003), and there is a view that it is safer to stay with permanent, tenured employment in a lower paid position with good holidays than risk trading these favorable conditions for a 5 year contract, with fewer holidays, longer hours, and no guarantee of continuity. Some aspirants have expressed disaffection with policy regimes, which are inimical to social democratic principles (Starr, 2000). Along the same lines, there is concern that a large amount of principals’ time is spent implementing state-mandated reforms (Cervini, 2003). Policy pressures for accountability, resource reduction, and a general malaise in the morale of the education workforce are also deterrents to promotion (Starr, 2000).

334

KAREN STARR

Thoughts of taking responsibility for the business side of the school can be daunting for aspirants. There is little training for people who have progressed through the ranks of school-promotion systems to acquire these skills and knowledge. Sarason (1982) questions the suitability of a background in classroom teaching as preparation for school leadership, due to the very narrow perceptions of the role developed through life in the classroom. Now it can be said that deputy and assistant principalships are no longer adequate training grounds for the principalship. The principalship has changed irrevocably due to restructurings and reforms over the past two decades (Starr, 2006a). As neo-liberal, market economic, ‘small government’ policy regimes replaced social democratic agendas, principals took up activities that fell to them through the downsizing of education bureaucracies. To cope with the increased workload and significant turnabout in foci, principals in the main delegated day-to-day curriculum, student welfare, and school operational activities to deputies and assistant principals. This in turn signified an intensification of workloads at this level, and made for quite separate roles, with each player taking major responsibility for particular areas and functions to ensure the smooth running of schools. To ensure that centrally imposed work functions were carried out at the school level, all manner of audit, compliance and accountability mechanisms were introduced, so that education departments that were diminished in size still maintained control over schools and obtained the information they required. Principals took on the global budgets; facilities maintenance and development; marketing, promotional work and public relations; local council master planning approvals processes; certified employment agreements with staff; occupational health and safety, and the list goes on. In a nutshell, assistant and deputy principals had much responsibility delegated to them through reforms that maneuvered principals towards the business, compliance and strategic aspects of schools. Many principals have complained about this overbearing technical/ rational focus, while they still have to maintain oversight and overall responsibility for all school activities (Starr, 2000). There is also a stark contradiction, with educational leadership stuck in the modernist project, while globalization calls for post-modern ways of thinking and operating, with flexibility, creativity, lateral thinking, and networking being at the core. New appointees to the principalship are often shocked to find what their new job actually entails. Aspirants to the principalship report feeling


335

anxious, unsure, vulnerable, and in need of support and mentoring when they first consider and take steps towards the principalship, primarily due to anxieties about the business side of school leadership (Gronn & Lacey, 2004; Starr, 2006a). Media reports do not help. They ‘‘accentuate long hours including weekends and at night, high stress, pressure, dealing with conflicting demands and being pulled from one activity to another at frenetic pace’’ (Thomson et al., 2003, p. 5). Thomson et al. (2003) argue that the ‘‘principal’s job is vitally important, difficult, underpaid and people are not adequately prepared for it’’, and pose the question ‘‘why would anyone do this job?’’ (p. 8). Highlighting the supply issue only serves to reinforce negative perceptions about the principalship, thereby abetting the problem (Thomson et al., 2003, p. 8). Front-page media attention given to increasing stress levels and instances of suicide amongst principals exacerbate already negative perceptions (Myers, 2006; Thomson et al., 2003; Tomazin & Waldon, 2004). Not so long ago, the principalship was a sought-after and desirable post, with high competition for appointments. Now, however, the role is increasingly viewed as an unappealing rather than privileged position (Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Preston et al., 2005).

Government Responses to Leadership Disengagement Commonwealth and state governments in Australia are responding to the school leadership issue in several ways. Funds have been released to the states to introduce leadership preparation programs and activities that build the capacity of school leadership teams. In addition, national and state-level officials are developing leadership standards and frameworks ostensibly to not only guide the careers of school leaders, but also to qualify the components of effective school leadership. The leadershipdisengagement problem prompted these measures, but they are infused with concerns about education ‘crises’ concerning school failure (in literacy, numeracy, the teaching of history and civics, to cite some recent examples) that regularly air in the media in scandalous fashion. Hence, governments recognise the pivotal role of principals in leading the school improvement agenda. In addition, governments are implementing urgent, short-term measures to fill leadership vacancies. The critiques of these responses are below.

336

KAREN STARR

LEADERSHIP STANDARDS The Australian states are in the process of developing school leadership standards, frameworks or capability statements. In Victoria, for example, the Department of Education and Training is constructing a Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders (2006a). The national industry body, ‘Teaching Australia’ is formulating profession-wide, nation-wide standards for school leadership. States are designing these initiatives to accommodate the needs of distinct career stages from aspiring to experienced school leaders, so as to incrementally nuance these stages. The fundamental plank of these developments is the imperative of continuous school improvement and better student-learning outcomes. Principals feel that, like many other reforms, they have not been sufficiently involved and instrumental in their development (Starr, 2006a). The call for the development of leadership standards has not come from principals. This is a critical point because one of the greatest criticisms targeted structural reforms of the past is that they have not only changed the nature of the principalship radically, but they have involved a fundamental shift in the political positioning of principals, from key participants in policy development, to peripheral implementers of policy devised and developed by central officers. Principals perceive that their position has slipped to one of perfunctory middle management despite the rhetoric of empowerment through local school management or devolution of authority to schools (Starr, 2000). These perceptions of marginalization have created distrust and skepticism amongst some principals about developments such as leadership standards, which can serve many functions and suit the interests of many masters. What is commencing in the name of professional learning may in future serve for appraisal, accreditation, recruitment and advancement purposes, since at the present time principals require no additional formal qualifications to undertake the job. For example, in the United States ‘essential competencies’ and ‘critical success factors’ have been developed alongside rigorous internship performance evaluation procedures and reward programs for all new principals (Southern Regional Education Board, 2005). Hence, although principals are aware that their professional learning needs are changing, they question the fundamental purposes behind these developments. There are many criticisms of one-size-fits-all standards or frameworks. For example, while standards are considered to be gender neutral, their effects can be gender biased as they stem from a masculinist, technical-managerial, patriarchal culture that pervades policy work within the state (Reay & Ball, 2004).


337

Another major issue is that standards fail to take into account the quotidian of schools, or considerations such as their location, or the myriad contextual issues and interests that make principals’ work different in every school. This criticism is very problematic, because principals already feel that their job is misunderstood by those who have not been principals, and they are concerned that position descriptions, appraisal mechanisms, and professional-development programs are inadequate and fail to capture the reality of the job. There are concerns that the standards elide much of what principals actually do, or suggest that there is much more balance across the various facets of the job than is actually the case. Many principals hold the same criticism about leadership standards as they do with student standardised testing regimes (Hayes, Mills, Christie, & Lingard, 2006). These positivistic artifacts are normalized abstractions that eschew the exigencies of everyday practice, the messiness of school life, and fail to recognise much of the daily work of principals. Furthermore, principals dislike managerial tasks that are externally imposed, extrinsic to the school and which add to their workload (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004; Starr, 2000, 2006a). Gronn (2003) points out that it is quite possible for increased accountability through the introduction of leadership standards or frameworks that exacerbate workload issues and focus on the increasingly technical nature of principals’ work. The bottom line is that principals do not believe that leadership standards will improve their performance or the performance of students and may well contribute to stress and perceptions of increased external surveillance. Research has yet to determine that emphasizing the managerial or administrative functions for principals enhances student-learning outcomes. Increasingly, the standardized test scores achieved by students serve as the main gauge with which we measure the effectiveness of schools and their principals. Improvements in test scores indicate school improvement. However, improved student-learning outcomes mean different things in different settings (West, Ainscow, & Stanford, 2005). For example, effective interventions by school leaders can result in many positive student outcomes such as increased attendances, improved retention rates or students’ feeling a greater sense of connectedness with the school, but standardized tests sequester these outcomes by serving as the measuring stick of school improvement. Hence, the valorization and hegemony of quantitative methods devalues some critical achievements that make a difference to student learning and the effectiveness of teaching and schooling. Hogan and Donovan (2005) argue that school outcomes should reflect the true nature of

338

KAREN STARR

schooling and suggest that decontextualized test results are indefensible on equity grounds. They: y [underestimate] the net contribution that schools make to individual wellbeing and aggregate social utility and [permit] a highly stratified and limited measure of school performance [and] academic achievement. (Hogan & Donovan, 2005, p. 100)

The focus on formal academic student outcomes suggests a simplistic link between principals’ work and the quality and effectiveness of student learning (Gurr, Drysdale, & Mulford, 2006). While it is accepted that there is a link between leadership and school improvement (e.g. Harris & Crispeels, 2006), the relationship between the two is a much more controversial proposition (Harris, 2005). Standards constitute a very limited definition of success ‘‘for both schools and principals, with these typically constrained to student performance on external tests of literacy and numeracy (Gurr et al., 2006, pp. 372–373). A principal’s work is much more vicarious to and distanced from the work of students than people might imagine (Lingard & Christie, 2003; Millikan, 2002; Preston et al., 2005). It is teachers who have the most immediate and direct influence on learners and learning. School leaders who hold formal titles influence the context and support for learning, but the vastness of the principal’s role means that they spend less time with students than others directly involved in the delivery of curriculum and pedagogy (Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo, 2003; Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004; Starr, 2000). Harris (2005) refers to a ‘paucity’ of research into the relationship between leadership practice and student-learning outcomes and states that: y the bulk of school leadership literature has tended to concern itself with the traits and skills of [principals] rather than to probe for any correlation or causation, the net result being the field still has little evidence about the exact relationship between leadership and organizational outcomes. (p. 3)

Despite the lack of concurrence in research literature from around the world, Australian governments are investing heavily in school leadership development and standards, with high expectations for amelioration in teaching and learning outcomes. The more governments spend on leadership development, the higher the stakes and the expectations. School improvement requires more than simplistic, one-size-fits-all policy solutions. School improvements encounter vulnerability, uncertainty, unreliability, and the great need for approaches that are flexible and adaptable. Schools are fickle and capricious contexts in which to bring about change, especially in difficult and volatile situations. School leaders


339

must maneuver a very specific set of locally devised measures and processes in order to address the needs of context-specific circumstances and problems (Lingard, Ladwig, & Luke, 1998; West et al., 2005).

CAPACITY-BUILDING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS Another significant development has been the leadership-capacity-building projects initiated through the Australian Government Quality Teaching Program (AGQTP). These states-organized initiatives run with names such as ‘capacity building for school leadership teams’ (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2006b). Some commentators argue that capacity-building measures are largely a response to stakeholders’ perceptions that schools are becoming less relevant and less responsive to the expectations and current lifestyles of their clientele and to the needs of the nation’s future labor pool (e.g. Hayes et al., 2006). These capacity-building exercises focus on school renewal aimed at improving student-learning outcomes through the professional development of school leaders. This exercise leads to the development of case studies demonstrating ‘best practice.’ Assessments of effectiveness will focus on improvements in student scores on formal standardized tests, so that schools can more readily be compared with each other, and individual school scores can be tracked longitudinally to gauge longer term effects. The capacity building for leadership teams initiative appears to demonstrate an appreciation that ‘one person can’t do it all,’ but there is some slippage here. In this ‘team’ concept, stakeholders make principals, deputy/ assistant principals and leading teachers accountable for school renewal. So while this initiative is trending in the direction of distributive or shared leadership and away from past concepts of the individual, heroic, charismatic leader, the focus actually remains on school leaders with formal leadership titles. Job descriptions, employment contracts, and appraisal mechanisms still place responsibility for school improvement and student-learning outcomes on school leaders, and particularly on the principal. This is a favorable position to be in when activities are successful and a very unenviable position to hold when outcomes fall short of external expectations or if no improvements arise. A failing school is attributed to a failing principal. Officials and schools must rectify these anomalies in order to effectively pursue distributive leadership. There is no provision yet for combined

340

KAREN STARR

appraisal of the ‘leadership team’ and traditional trait theories of leadership continues to imbue position descriptions (Lingard & Christie, 2003; Starr, 2006b). This is unfortunate when leadership in schools is a circumjacent phenomenon, despite the fact that some individuals hold formal titles, take more carriage, or hold more responsibility (Gronn, 2000). School leadership acts are interdependent, draw on the capacities of many individuals, and are enacted at all levels of the organization. Principals do not abrogate their responsibility in a distributed leadership contexts. Tasks and leadership power is shared, thereby building the leadership capacity of the school. This accords with the views of Mulford and Silins (2003) who suggest that school leadership appears to be most effective when it comprises positional leadership and distributed leadership forms. If this assertion is correct, then leaders should place much more emphasis on the ‘‘shared work performance’’ of a ‘‘complex working whole’’ (Gronn, 2000, p. 5). The role of senior teams then becomes one of ‘‘overseeing or guaranteeing co-ordination and communication, ensuring organisational continuity, and especially managing learning and knowledge’’ (Gronn, 2000, p. 5). Citing Kerr & Jermier, Gronn, 2000 asks why formal leaders should have the privilege of being held responsible for organisational events and achievements, when they actually transpire through numerous causal paths and argues that leaders are more dependent on ‘followers’ than the other way around.

FINDING AND ATTRACTING SCHOOL LEADERS Government funds are also available to develop the professional learning of aspirants in the hope that they will seek promotion to the principalship. Hence considerable thought is going into the supply problem through succession planning, besides efforts to retain principals. For example, current principals are being encouraged to delay their retirement; retirees are being encouraged to return to schools in short-term locum positions; aggressive advertising, training, and recruitment campaigns have been launched to attract aspirants to difficult-to-staff locations; personnel search companies are being employed to seek out and appoint principals; mentors and coaches have been assigned to principals; financial support has been provided for a small number of aspirants to participate in higher degree courses; there are programs to encourage and support women in educational leadership; principal wellness programs have been implemented in light of a


341

high incidence of stress (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004); work shadowing, peer partnering, and orientation programs have been developed. Education departments are pressing for stronger links between principals’ work and university leadership preparation programs; some states are developing supervised and structured internships, which will include field experience; networks of schools are fostering stronger relationships and local school districts are taking responsibility for the support, induction, and professional development of principals and leadership aspirants. AGQTP funded programs are nurturing talented teachers. Schools are negotiating and offering additional benefits such as sabbaticals, personal trainers or executive coaches, and improved conditions, especially in ‘unattractive’ localities. Possible Solutions Identified by Principals With leadership disengagement currently receiving a thorough public airing, it is not surprising that some researchers are starting to conclude that now might be the time for the principalship to be reconfigured/re-thought/ re-formed (e.g. Harris, Brown, & Abbott, 2006; Thomson et al., 2003; Thomson & Blackmore, 2006). Ideas include:

Job sharing or co-principalships Executive headships (where a principal leads more than one school) Formalized distributive or shared leadership Disassembling the principalship into several distinct director-type positions Employing contractual consultants to undertake administration tasks, to take the pressure off school leaders during extra busy times of the year Hiring additional staff to run the business side of the school Appointing principals that do not have an educational background. Some of these suggestions attempt to separate leadership and management tasks, although principals do not see this as a realistic possibility. And the talk about appointing non-educators to the principalship, if implemented, would indicate an appreciation that the job is now that of a Chief Executive Officer and more managerial than educational in focus, although principals’ associations strongly oppose this development. Interviews with principals about possible solutions to the disengagement problem, however, generally do not include any of the strategies mentioned so far. Experienced school leaders are suggesting some much more straightforward measures, many of which would be very simple to implement.

342

KAREN STARR

One area school leaders feel reforms should address is workload expectations. Principals seek a workload that predominantly concentrates on educational leadership rather than time-consuming management tasks. There needs to be a re-focusing on leadership, which management tasks must not subjugate. If this does not happen, then principals argue that they will need more administrative support (Independent Schools Queensland [ISQ], 2006a, 2006b). In addition, principals are asking for more involvement in national and statewide policy decisions. Leadership comprises macro, meso, and micro aspects, but at present, principals have too little time to engage in macro policy debates and decisions or meso reforms and restructurings. As stated above, principals perceive that these important decision-making forums marginalize them (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004; Starr, 2000). At present, the school-based, micro aspects, many of which are imposed by external agencies, consume too much of a principal’s time and energy. Fullan (2003) argues correctly that, ‘‘the problem is the lack of opportunity for principals to shape the agenda and the limited resources at their disposal to make a difference’’ (p. 14). There needs to be a way of engaging principals to take responsibility for the profession and be involved in the development of education futures in this country. Principals need time to engage in the work of principals’ associations, where collegiality and networks enable and support their work, as well as form collective views about future policy directions. Hence, principals want to be much more involved at national, state, and local levels of educational decision-making (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004; Starr, 2000). Certainly, principals’ associations are calling for more ‘job-specific’ knowledge and ‘specialized career pathways’ (Thomson et al., 2003), and want to take the lead in these developments. At the micro level, principals want to be able to prioritize their work to focus more on the educational side of the school. This actually means re-prioritizing. Principals do not want to add to their already burdensome workloads. Principals insist that they urgently require a more realistic conception about how change and renewal occur and the best way to manage this process at the school level. Thoroughness in preparation, research and action, and reflection requires much more time than is presently assumed, although given that reforms have occurred in rapid succession, it appears that perhaps very little consideration is given to this very important matter. Reforms initiated internally are the most successful reforms. However, externally created reforms need to allow schools much more


343

time to familiarize, adapt, and assimilate the initiative into their specific contexts. There needs to be a realistic conception about what schools report and what they actually do. No policy implementation is immutable, and principals will succeed to greater or lesser degrees at implementing policies depending on the prevailing views and attitudes amongst members of the staff. Individuals within an organization have affiliations with different stakeholder groups who hold convergent understandings, attitudes, and assessments about purpose and strategy. Harnessing dialogue and a spirit of cooperation can ease tensions in change management just as policy change generates spaces for new ways of working. However, the commitment of agents can be provisional and it is the role of the formal leader to create a climate of common purpose and common ground in order to achieve policy change, reforms, and renewal. As a result, some desired outcomes will not succeed due to a lack of time or constraints that stem from the agential power of individuals and stakeholder groups within the organization. There will always be tensions between the degree of control that an organization can exert on individuals and the scope for collaboration and cooperation (Rayman-Bacchus, 2006). Hence, principals are aware that many policy initiatives appear to be in place, but no significant change has occurred. This common scenario wastes everybody’s time. School personnel argue that they cannot give proper attention to the array of demands that beset them because these demands take them away from their ‘core business’ of teaching and learning. Practitioners see this as an irony – reforms aim to improve schools and student-learning outcomes, yet invariably entail work impositions of a very administrative/technical nature that take attention and time away from students and pedagogical renewal. Hence, schools have become very good at reporting what governments, councils, and other stakeholder groups want to hear, yet in reality, change imperatives that are introduced in rapid succession may receive low priority attention in schools, and practice may not change in the ways that policy creators might have expected. Hence, there needs to be a reduction in expectations about the amount and rate of change that can occur within a school year. At present, the drive for performance outcomes is unrealistic and unhelpful rather than beneficial to schools and principals. In the same vein, schools need to be ‘de-cluttered’ in terms of school calendar events. Teachers and principals require more time to pursue their main responsibilities, but at present, ambitious school calendars disparately disperse their time with a breadth of events, many of which focus on raising money for the school. Time-intensive calendar obligations that have evolved

344

KAREN STARR

due to increasing parental and community demands have diluted the focus on teaching and learning. Schools must rigorously protect the time allocated for prime activities such as curricular and extra-curricular programs. Schools should be more proactive in ensuring that parents and others are aware of importance and imperatives of their core foci – teaching and learning and school improvement. Principals are calling for greater status and recognition and levels of remuneration that adequately reflect the expectations and responsibilities of the role. What constitutes a reasonable working week for employees and to family-friendly working hours should also receive consideration. Principals often feel that their own children suffer due to their commitments to other people’s children. While 60 hours per week is the average for Australian principals (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004), it is clear that at busy times of the school year and during periods of extensive reforms and restructurings, the number of hours worked often exceeds 70 hours per week on an average (Starr, 2000). This is unacceptable by any measure and exceeds the time per week worked by principals in the United States, Finland, Italy, Portugal, France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2004; National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2003). Sensible, family-friendly working hours should be actively encouraged. Certainly, attendance at school functions out of hours should count as work. It is clear that if schools are pursuing a distributive model of leadership and if teachers and educational leaders are to share power and decisionmaking in school improvement activities, then responsibility for school improvement and student-learning outcomes rests with all educational employees. As such, job and personnel specifications, performance appraisal policies (for teams and individuals), and employment contracts should reflect these responsibilities. Power, professionalism, and responsibility shared in this way would reflect a true commitment to shared leadership and give credence to leadership teams. Naturally, principals have positional power and responsibilities, but the core work of the school and demands for improved student-learning outcomes involves everyone. Hence, change and renewal are a part of what the school does, not simply a hierarchical responsibility. Ultimately, a shared conception of leadership speaks to democracy and a redistribution of power and responsibility. Schools and education officials need to emphasize the benefits of engagement in school leadership and the positive aspects of these roles. The most optimistic finding in the Department of Education and Training’s report ‘The Privilege and the Price’ (2004) is that ‘‘principals and assistant


345

principals almost universally love their job’’ (p. 21). The principalship is a way of life that has an important impact in the community and especially on the lives of young people. Principals find their contribution to the future well-being of young people and the prosperity of the country to be highly satisfying. It is these aspects that need to receive public exposure. At the same time, much research, including ‘The Privilege and the Price,’ suggest that principals see many aspects of their jobs that they would like to change. Principals’ associations and networks should be proactive in promoting principal-directed change to make the role more manageable, which could make it even more productive in terms of school renewal.

CONCLUSION The work of principals is no longer attractive enough for many existing principals to want to continue in the role or for new leaders to apply for the position in the first place. It is clear that attempts to solve the new crisis of leadership disengagement should focus on strategies that address the concerns of current principals, as well as re-definitions of the principalship based on more realistic expectations of collective agency in the pursuit of continual school renewal and improved student-learning outcomes. This should occur alongside a shift away from traditional trait theory models of leadership to a full endorsement of distributive leadership with all the corollary consequences that this shift will entail for educators in schools. Clearly, the concerns of principals are not reflected in existing government policy. If leadership disengagement is a problem to be solved, then a good starting point would be listening to, and addressing, the concerns and ideas raised by principals themselves.

REFERENCES Australian Secondary Principals’ Association. (1999). School leaders: Shortage and Suitability in Australian Public Schools. Retrieved August 13, 2006, from http://www.aspa.asn.au/ Policies/Pollead.htm Barty, K., Thomson, P., Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2004). Unpacking the issues: Researching the shortage of school principals in two states of Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 1–18. Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school leadteachers and principals on student outcomes. EEP Review (On-line). Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/

346

KAREN STARR

Blackmore, J. (1999). Troubling women: Feminism, leadership and educational change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Blackmore, P., Thomson, P., & Barty, K. (2004). Principal selection: Homosociability, the search for security and the production of normalised principal identities. Paper presented at AARE conference, Melbourne, 28 Nov–2 Dec 2004. Cervini, E. (2003). Shortage of school principals looming. The Age, 17(August). D’Arbon, T., Duigan, P., Duncan, D. J., & Goodwin, K. (2001). Planning for future leadership of Catholic schools in NSW. Paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference, Leeds, UK, September 13–15, 2001. Department of Education and Training, Victoria. (2004). The privilege and the price. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from www.de&t.vic.gov.edu.au Department of Education and Training, Victoria. (2006a). A developmental learning framework for school leaders. Melbourne: Author, School Leadership Unit, Office of School Education. Department of Education and Training, Victoria. (2006b). Learning to lead effective schools: Leadership development proposal 2007. Melbourne: Author, School Leadership Unit, Office of School Education. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Ontario Principals’ Council and Corwin Press. Gronn, P. (2000). A realist view of leadership. The Practising Administrator, 22(1), 4–18. Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Sage/Paul Chapman. Gronn, P., & Lacey, K. (2004). Positioning oneself for leadership: Feelings of vulnerability among aspirant principals. School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 405–424. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal leadership. School Leadership & Management, 26(4), 371–395. Harris, A. (2005). Getting ahead in leadership: Exploring the ‘leadership equals improvement’ relationship. School Leadership and Management, 25(1), 3–6. Harris, A., Brown, D., & Abbott, I. (2006). Executive leadership: Another lever in the system? School Leadership & Management, 26(4), 397–409. Harris, A., & Crispeels, J. (Eds) (2006). Improving schools and systems: International perspectives. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers & schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Hogan, D., & Donovan, C. (2005). The social outcomes of schooling: Subjective agency among Tasmanian adolescents. Leading and Managing, 11(12), 84–102. Independent Schools Queensland. (2006a). The principal shortage and what we should be doing about it (part one). Briefings, 10(2), 1–3. Independent Schools Queensland. (2006b). The principal shortage and what we should be doing about it (part two). Briefings, 10(3), 1–3. Kleinig, X. (2006, October 13). Aim to be principal, women teachers urged. The Advertiser, Adelaide, South Australia, Lacey, K. (2002a). Avoiding the principalship. Principal Matters, 53(Nov.), 25–29. Lacey, K. (2002b). Understanding principal class leadership aspirations: Policy and planning implications. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Education and Training, Victoria.


347

Leech, R. (2006, June). Through the glass ceiling. Teacher – National Education Magazine, Australian Council for Educational Research, Victoria, 6–11. Lingard, B., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading theory: Bourdieu and the field of educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 317–333. Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., & Luke, A. (1998). School effects in postmodern conditions. In: R. Slee, G. Weiner & S. Tomlinson (Eds), Effective for whom? School effectiveness and the school improvement movement (pp. 84–101). London: Falmer Press. Littleford & Associates. (2002). Is it ‘‘the end’’ ? And if so, then what ? Baton Rouge, LA: Author. Macnamara, L. (2006). Principals lose their job appeal. The Australian, Higher Education Supplement, 26(August). Milburn, C. (2006a, April 10). It’s crunch time. The Age, Education News. Milburn, C. (2006b, April 10). Principal goes to court over onerous hours. The Age. Milburn, C. (2006c). Head hunt flawed. The Age, Education News, 3(April). Millikan, R. (2002, October). Governance and administration of schools: The importance of stability, continuity and high quality board and school leadership. Melbourne: IARTV Occasional Paper, No. 77. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175–195. Myers, T. (2006, June). Principals under pressure. Teacher – National Education Magazine, Australian Council for Educational Research, Victoria, 12–16. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2003). Fact sheet on the principal shortage. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.crpe.org/pubs/introMatterof Definition.shtml Pounder, D. G., & Merrill, R. J. (2001). Job desirability in the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–53. Preston, B., Blackmore, J., & Thomson, P. (2005). Lifelong work, inter-generational shifts, and the future of school leadership: Tracking trends and proposing policies on principal demand and supply. Unpublished paper. Rayman-Bacchus, L. (2006). Constructing organization: A paradox of inertia and innovation. Paper presented at the 6th International Management Conference: Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations, Monash University, Prato, Italy, 11–14 July, 2006. Reay, D., & Ball, S. (2004). Essentials of female management. In: H. Tomlinson (Ed.), Educational management: Major themes in education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Falmer. Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of schools and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Southern Regional Education Board. (2005). The principal internship: How can we get it right ? Altanta, GA: Author. Starr, K. (2000). That roar which lies at the other side of silence. An analysis of women principals’ responses to structural reform in South Australian education. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of South Australia. Starr, K. (2006a). The crisis in school leadership. Keynote Address delivered to the Catholic Education Commission, Victoria Principals’ and Deputy Principals’ Annual Conference, National Gallery of Victoria, 5 August, 2006. Starr, K. (2006b). What is expected of principals anyway ? An investigation of job and person specifications for principal positions. Keynote Address delivered to the Association of

348

KAREN STARR

Heads of Independent Schools, Australia (Victorian Division), Annual Residential Seminar, Werribee Mansion, Werribee, Victoria, 18 May, 2006. Thomson, P., & Blackmore, J. (2006). Beyond the power of one: Redesigning the work of school principals. Journal Educational Change, 7(3), 161–177. Thomson, P., Blackmore, J., Sachs, J., & Tregenza, K. (2003). High stake principalship: Sleepless nights, heart attacks and sudden death. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 118–132. Tomazin, F., & Waldon, S. (2004). Stress making principals ill: Study. The Age, 1(October). West, M., Ainscow, M., & Stanford, J. (2005). Sustaining improvement in our schools in challenging circumstances: A study of successful practice. School Leadership & Management, 25(1), 77–93.

STAYING THE COURSE: SELF-CARE AND MANTRAS FOR THE EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Oare’ Dozier-Henry ABSTRACT The dislocation between what people are and what they have to do produces an erosion in values, dignity, spirit, and will (Maslow, Stephens, and Heil (1998)). For educators in the new millennia, these are trying times. The lack of prestige and autonomy combined with exponentially increasing demands contributes to the high rate of attrition, stress, and burnout. To stay the course and remain vibrantly engaged in the profession will require an extraordinary degree of self-care. This chapter offers a lens for viewing systemic factors affecting the educational landscape and underscores the need for educators to employ individual and collective strategies to preserve health and well-being.


349

350

OARE’ DOZIER-HENRY

INTRODUCTION

The ominous word ‘‘multitasking’’ hints at the overload we face daily. Information technology is never asleep y manifestd through cell phones, email, instant messages, beepers and other electronic leashes. (Weiss, 2003, p. 2) ‘‘The best leave, the rest burnout’’. (Anonymous (n.d.))

The first 6 years of the 21st century have proven to be a time of crisis and promise. The Chinese character for ‘‘crisis’’ above is symbolic of the dialectical relationship that characterizes the plight of contemporary educators. It is believed that the above symbol for crisis embodies its dual reality: danger yet opportunity. One could argue that this is a millennium ushered in without a clear moral compass. Obsessions with materialism, celebrities, and shrinking resources take priority over communal well-being, altruism, and a vision of hope. The erosion of former sustaining values seems a significant part of the danger. The assumption of values that contradict the historical thrust of teaching undermines the covenant of the teaching profession. For as Schwab et al. (1986) averred, ‘‘The profession of teaching has historically been viewed as a labor of love’’ (p. 1). Persistent media attention keeps us familiar with the escalating dangers in contemporary school settings. Most vivid are images of the physical dangers that educators face in atmospheres of accelerating violence. These scenes have martyred teachers and students. Since 1997, a series of killings has erupted in schools, most notably in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas and Springfield, Oregon. Not only in urban landscapes have metal detectors become a way of life. The Columbine high school massacre conforms to a pattern: an apparently contented suburb – imaged as ‘‘Anytown, USA’’ – transformed by inexplicable violence. Data from the Department of Justice aggregated for 2003 recorded 183,000 non-fatal crimes against teachers nationwide with 65,000 of those classified as violent (Bureau of Justice, 2004). The violence is not limited to the United States, Argentina, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Germany, Scotland, Sweden, and Yemen have also experienced and reported school atrocities (Pearson Education, Inc., 2006). In the midst of this mayhem and

Staying the Course

351

contradiction, stakeholders expect educators to ‘‘reach out to children and teach them to express their anger and to resolve their conflicts with words, not weapons’’ (Rosenthal, 2006).2 Politicians, parents, and schools expect teachers to deliver more with less. They expect educators to perform miracles, no matter what the cost to their own health, happiness, family life, or life balance. Neither the psychological costs nor the academic outcomes that attend living with fear receive much attention from school districts (Montgomery & Rupp, 2005; Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006). Changes in society manifest themselves in the educational system because by society’s members construct it to, in French sociologist Durkheim’s words, ‘‘express their needs.’’ In short, society constructs its educational system to promote and reproduce its ideal of what a human should be, especially of what a human being should be as a part of society. Educational systems are a window into society’s organization and values, both past and present. ‘‘Teaching is merely a shortened version of the intellectual culture of the adult’’ (Durkheim as cited by Giddens, 1972, p. 205). Teachers inculcate the ideals and knowledge of society in their students. Thus, changes in both the method and content of teaching necessarily embody many important and substantial changes in the greater culture. Chubb and Moe (1990) argue that reforms are destined to fail because they do not get to the root of the problem. The schools, they claim, are not the fundamental cause of poor academic performance. Rather, the problem lies in the institutions of direct democratic control, which traditionally govern schools. Reformers fail to solve the problem when they do not examine the system itself. Weingarten (2004) notes: Few professionals are aware when they choose their careers that they may place themselves at great risk y . For in caring for the people they serve they expose themselves daily, repetitively, and cumulatively to the violence and violation that permeates the lives of their constituents. (p. 93)

As stressful as the job of the contemporary educational administrator is, it is critical that educators recognize the potential impact of work/life stressors on performance. To sustain a leadership position requires one to think critically and creatively, to animate the future by persistence and hard work, and to nurture excellence in others. Sadly, the well-being of those entrusted with the nurturing and empowerment of the next generation is undervalued. Despite the obvious, persistent, attendant pressures that educators face, society offers no safety net. Districts have few resources to combat burnout and the academic preparation of new teachers ignores this troubling phenomenon.

352


Examination of teacher well-being and relationship to productivity in the U.S. commenced during the 1930s, when the NEA published a series of articles on the health and happiness of teachers. Seventy-five years later, there is still a perceived disconnect regarding this effect. Addressing teacher satisfaction is critical in an era where half of new teachers drop out of the profession within the first 5 years (Brock & Grady, 2002). Current realities of classroom life have made teaching an inherently stressful occupation since ‘‘educators today are expected to cure society’s ills, prepare young adults for life in a complex technological society and accomplish both of these for salaries not commensurate with their education’’ [emphasis original] (Schwab, Jackson, & Schuler, 1986, p. 14). The work of the school administrator is often described as fragmented and unrelenting. It has been estimated that up to 40% of U.S. teachers will not teach until retirement. Carr’s study (1994) related the high incidence of anxiety and depression among principals to conceiving educational administration as a technical activity. Ample research on the different sources of stress and their eventual consequences in teachers and student teachers exists (Brouwers, Evers, & Tomic, 1999; Burke, Greenglass, & Schwarzer, 1996; Hipps & Malpin, 1991; LeCompte & Dworkin, 1991; Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Fewer sources link educator challenges to systemic issues (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).

THE EMERGENCE OF THE TECHNOCRATIC WORLDVIEW Technocracy, a term adopted by Neil Postman (1992), describes a society where tools play such a pivotal role in culture that everything must give way to the advancement of the tools. Technocracy is a social and economic system, which avers that modern technology and government organized on a scientific basis can lead to a society of abundance. The tendency in American culture to turn over to technology sovereignty, command, and control over all of our social institutions is in tension with the work of knowledge workers and human services personnel. Postman (1992) described it as America adopting a new religion, as it were, and the religion is its faith that human progress and technological innovation is the same thing and that we can achieve paradise through greater and greater commitment to technology (para 1). Further, Postman (1992) argued that belief in technological solutions has largely replaced the older, more

Staying the Course

353

traditional notion of spirituality or faith in some transcendent, benign design. The wholesale adoption of technocracy ‘‘rocked the world.’’ By-products of this ‘‘new world order’’ include the ascendance of experts, cults of efficiency, credentialing, an emphasis on measurements that propel datadriven decisions, and the dysfunctional marriage of business and the school enterprise. As it pertains to educators, the social costs of this thrust have largely gone unexamined. Durkheim’s work a century ago identified the presence of what he called anomie, a by-product of societal shifts. Anomie represented a state where norms (expectations on behaviors) are confused, unclear or absent. Durkheim felt normlessness led to deviant behavior (Giddens, 1972). When the rules on how people ought to behave with each other are unclear and people do not know what to expect from one another, it is prescriptive of anomie and may be a precursor of burnout. For educators, the sine qua non of placing education matters outside the control of educators deprofessionalizes teaching and disempowers the profession. Schon (1987) identified technical rationality as the schools’ prevailing epistemology and deemed it inadequate for solving the complex problems of educational practice. The emphasis on standards, ‘‘bottom lines,’’ accountability, and finite measurements coincide with decreasing public confidence in schools. Educators become mere tools of political office holders who are the ‘‘master craftsmen’’ of curricular blueprints that shift as economic interests cycle. The purpose of education currently is not to teach the young to make a life; the focus is on making a living. Burnout is a major consumer of educators at all levels (Burke et al., 1996; Carr, 1994; Hipps & Malpin, 1991; Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Burnout basically describes people in human service professions who ‘‘wear out.’’ Burnout is different from depression, which is a more general state of distress that affects all life domains. Burnout is context specific in that it refers to the depletion of an individual’s energetic resources at work. The current experience of burnout plays out in a more challenging social context, with educators struggling harder for social credibility and job security. Due to greater demands on their time and energy, teachers are being pressed to do more work with fewer resources, while receiving fewer rewards and less recognition of their efforts. Literature documenting teacher stress is ubiquitous across school personnel categories (teachers, counselors, administrators) and well represented internationally (Bindhu & Sudheeshkumar, 2006; Brouwers et al., 1999; Carr, 1994). A plethora of research on the different sources of stress and their eventual consequences in school personnel exists. Scholars

354


used varying methods to explain the complex relationships between the sources of psychological stress and other intricately related constructs such as coping mechanisms, personality traits, emotional responses, environmental effects, and burnout. Although definitions of burnout vary, Maslach (1982) who went on to develop the primary measurement instrument argued that three core aspects of burnout are commonly included in these definitions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feelings of low accomplishment. Often, being emotionally exhausted from one’s work is the first sign of burnout. Burnout and vital exhaustion (a construct closely related to burnout) are outcomes of the chronic depletion of the individual’s coping resources attributed to prolonged exposure to stress. Early research on burnout focused on organizational and attitudinal consequences and negative mental health outcomes. More recent evidence link burnout to negative physical health outcomes, particularly cardiovascular disease (Toker, Shirom, Shapira, Berliner, & Melamed, 2005). A study by Burke et al. (1996) showed the consequences of burnout, which include heart symptoms and depressive mood. Brouwers et al. (1999) results showed that teachers’ perceived lack of support from colleagues and principals had a significant effect on their self-efficacy beliefs in eliciting support from them, and those self-efficacy beliefs predicted their level of burnout. Teachers’ level of burnout predicted the extent to which they felt lack of support. Budinick (2006) survey of an urban, kindergarten through twelfth grade, public school system investigated teacher burnout and perceived school psychologist support. Organizational sources of stress rated as the most important for which to obtain support from the school psychologist. If we expect educators to continue teaching year after year with enthusiasm, then schools must implement burnout prevention strategies. Excessive, prolonged stress can alter the body’s normal physiologic function. Adequate coping mechanisms are mandated (Cooley & Shen, 2000). Since the accountable institutions have yet to embrace the importance of this, it falls to the individual educator to implement self-care to avoid the ravages of burnout.

THE URGENCY OF SELF-CARE Stress begins with your thoughts. It is not the events of your life that cause stress, But the way you think about them. ‘‘Man (sic) is not disturbed by things but by the views he takes of them’’. (Epictetus, 120 AD)

Staying the Course

355

Stress eats away at our happiness and joy, as well as our stomach lining. Stress raises blood pressure and directly harms our cardiovascular system. Stress depresses our immune system and allows chronic illnesses to overwhelm causing pain, disability, even death, and us. Basically, stress robs us of happiness and joy. It is literally a killer. To stay the course, administrators must arm themselves with self-knowledge and specific strategies that maintain physical health, intellectual acuity, and emotional well-being. People are the architects of their own change. The key is an inner attitude of taking responsibility for the quality of our own lives. To combat stress, Cedoline (1982) encouraged teachers to engage in selftalk and positive attitudes to dispel stress and involve themselves in more physical activity to generate the endorphins that lead to good feelings, chant a ‘‘mantra’’ and meditate daily, focus on breathing and rely upon deep muscle relaxation, biofeedback, and autogenic training (autohypnotic suggestion). Educators should be wary of the technocratic, compartmentalizing worldview lens, which privileges cognition over affect rather than their successful marriage. Instead of defining personal wealth in terms of what one owns, try calculating your wealth by the quality of your relationships and their experiences of meaning. Educators are encouraged to act out of a sense that life is an interconnected whole. This begins with the recognition of the need for balance – the integration of work and play, conviviality and solitude, growth and rest. Intentional stress reduction and employment of behaviors that promote physical and mental vitality secure landscapes of health. Because of the multi-faceted oneness that undergirds the seeming fragments of life, we teach who we are (Smith, 2005). Thus, the never ending search for self-awareness is paramount in the quest for stress reduction. Self-awareness is the springboard to the inner work that is the homeostasis of balanced living. Parker Palmer observed the essence of our craft: Teaching, like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s inwardness, for better or worse. As I teach, I project the condition of my soul onto my students, my subject, and our way of being together. The entanglements I experience in the classroom are often no more or less than the convolutions of my inner life. Viewed from this angle, teaching holds a mirror to the soul. (Smith, 2005,para 24)

It is the same with leadership. We are multi-dimensional beings. By developing only one dimension and neglecting the others, we block access to our full potential. Can we really expect people to perform exceptionally when we do not empower and develop them on all levels? The wealth of any

356


organization is its human resources. Educational leaders should be developing people concurrently on every level: thinking, feeling, and acting. To do this, the leader must think critically and creatively, to animate the future by persistence and hard work, and to nurture excellence in others.

STRATEGIES FOR SELF-CARE Self-care! That’s it. It’s just paying attention to a beneficial way of living your life so that your exchanges and interactions with other people are loving and caring, and your attitudes to your self are that way, too. (Pelletier as cited by Ferguson, n.d., p. 6)

Chronic or long-term stress is the most threatening (Pelletier as cited by Ferguson, n.d.). The main ways to fight chronic stress are stress management, diet, and exercise. Pelletier’s research suggests a synergistic effect among these three. If you start exercising, it breaks up both physical and mental tension. Self-care is a critical component in the management of stress (Ferguson, n.d.). How does one begin? when you’re doing it right, there’s a spark, an element of vitality, of discovery, that makes it really exciting. You’ve got to follow the little messages from inside that tell you what’s right for you, no matter what any expert says. (Pelletier as cited by Ferguson, n.d., p. 6)

First Things First Determine what really matters to you. This is not simply goal-setting. It is focusing on the ride or the how of getting there. You want a terminal degree, but your parents may be relying on you more in their elder years. How will you achieve the necessary balance between your work and central and peripheral life commitments? How will you accommodate the predictable stresses that attend accomplishment of any goal? You need a plan. Patterson and Kelleher (2005) found that an individual’s perspective breeds resilience, and that resilience was the ingredient that led to the continued effectiveness and love of one’s work. Boris-Schacter and Langer (2006) stress that the first task is for principals to determine who they are, what they value, and how their passions could be integrated with their professional goals.

Staying the Course

357

Engage in a Process of Play/Discovery and Pay Attention! Do you know what really brings you joy? Or are we working so hard that that joy is something abstract? We may work hard, but we certainly do not play hard. Play can be a recreational form of discovery. How many hours a week do you devote to play? Alternately, do we know our triggers? Examine your resistance points – the things that irritate you, limit you, or cause you to react. We often resist what we most need to learn. The next time you find yourself resisting new information, a particular situation, or something someone else is saying, ask yourself: What is it that is really bothering me about this? Is there something that I need to learn? Aromatherapy, Ayurveda, reflexology, and massage provide alternative healing options for restoring mind, body, and soul. Touch (massage) is a powerful healer and has been shown to boost the immune system, alleviate pain, combat depression, and reduce stress (Diego, Jones, Field, & Hernandez-Reif, 1998; Field et al., 2005).

Meditate! Any activity that you can invest with prolonged and focused attention can be a form of meditation. The benefit comes from the sustained focus, which lowers stress by allowing you to take a break from a cumulative, destructive cycle. According to Pelletier, ‘‘Any activity that you have in your life can be used as a meditation. It can be looking at a mandala, doing a mantra, sex, prayer, walking, running – it can be anything’’ (Ferguson, n.d., p. 5). It should be done routinely and result in a feeling of renewal and satisfaction.

Affirmations and Mantras Anxiety symptoms are due to a complex interplay between the mind and body. In part, the thousands of mental messages you send yourself each day with your thoughts determine emotional and physical health. Affirmations offer a way to change these negative belief systems to thoughts that preserve peace and calm. Positive statements replace the anxiety inducing messages with thoughts that make you feel good. The word mantra is a Sanskrit word combining the two syllables: man, meaning mind, and tra translated as deliverance. Typically associated with Hinduism and Buddhism, mantras are also part of Judaism, Christianity,

358


and Islam. These religions consider the name of God to be a powerful mantra. ‘‘In Catholicism there are the prayers such as the Our Father (Pater noster) and Hail Mary, especially when prayed as the Rosary, which might be considered mantras in essence. Even Protestantism embodies the ‘Our Father’ ’’ (‘‘Mantras,’’ n.d., para 4). The mantra’s purpose is to assist the mind in focusing when it is scattered. The mantra helps one focus by using repetition of sounds, words, or phrases. A few mantras/affirmations for educational leaders include:3 This, too, shall pass. Moderation in all things, including moderation Be the change you wish to see in the world – Ghandi Done is better than perfect.

Exercise The more you exercise, the greater the capacity your body has to handle stress and challenges. Keep your mind and body sharp. Resilience is a requirement of living. Exercise is a vital key to physical balance because it improves health while regulating daily stress. Create a Personal Network of Support Support is not a luxury; it is a necessity. The network may or may not be comprised of individuals from work. Wherever they come from, they should be prepared to act as sounding boards, cheerleaders, and honesty mirrors when necessary. You must trust them. Sometimes the network involves employing people to make other areas of your life easier: a personal trainer, someone to run errands or do housekeeping chores, a babysitter. You have to realize and affirm that you are worth this investment. Struggle with your budget if need be, but fund your well-being. Improve Your Diet Poor nutrition can lead to a lack of energy. Skipping meals or eating on the run is characteristic of the modern professional’s work style. Energy levels can be improved by eating foods rich in B vitamins and iron such as lentils, dark meat, and peas and foods that maintain energy levels such as whole

Staying the Course

359

grain breads and apples (Karr, 1992; Williams, 1990). Physical warning signs of stress include drinking too many caffeinated beverages, relying too much on nicotine and alcohol, sleeping pills, and other medication. Administrators may also note changes in the body’s normal functions: trembling hands, a pounding heart, and difficult digestion (Karr, 1992).

Organize and Take Collective Action If educators continue to bear great burdens and suffer silently, they teach that we cannot constructively use dissent or open debate to solve problems. Instead, educators should strengthen the rich tradition of their forbears that built the edifice called school, organize and take collective action to improve conditions, and secure the support needed from institutions that insures every student has the opportunity to learn and every teacher has the opportunity to do his/her work from a position of well-being.

THE OPPORTUNITY ‘‘Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work’’. (Thomas Edison)

As previously noted, the Chinese character for danger carries within it the embryo of opportunity. Despite the onslaught/‘‘danger’’ of an imposing technocratic new world order, the opportunity exists for the rekindling of the social engineering work educators are responsible for.4 The price humans are paying for is simply too high for the lifestyles we’ve assumed. When the work place cannot recognize the human side of work, the risk of burnout increases and brings with it high costs. The dislocation between what people and what they have to do (Maslach & Leiter, 1997) produces an erosion in values, dignity, spirit, and will. This is tantamount to a corrosion of the human soul. The opportunity exists for educators to demonstrate healing by beginning with themselves. They will have to acknowledge that there is not a ‘‘one size fits all’’ remedy to the ubiquitous problem. A plethora of approaches will be required, tailored to suit the needs of individuals. Yet, strategies that tell teachers they suffer burnout because they are unable to cope imply that it is the teachers who are flawed and not the system (LeCompte & Dworkin, 1991) needs serious scrutiny if not ejected. What if educators decided that

360


they would not submit to objectionable work conditions that tax their health and personal lives? What if they decided to empower themselves by organizing and lobbying against unhealthy, diminishing policies that erode their power and professionalism? The arc and impact of our response as educators has the potential to send shockwaves through society. Let us move from compliance to community. Power up! The Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step We have a long journey ahead. As Ghandi observed,’’ we must become the change we wish to see.’’ Reflection is the ‘‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends’’ (Dewey, Boydston, & Simon, 1989, p. 9). Reflective thinking begins with a state of doubt, hesitation, or perplexity and launches interior and exterior searches to find material that will resolve, clarify, or otherwise address the doubt. The following questions are offered for educators to consider in personal terms. Praxis – action, reflection, corrective action – is encouraged as a method that can be especially productive in groups. For Inner Reflection 1. Do I feel invigorated by my work? my colleagues? my students? 2. Is my career/calling educational administration? Teaching? Counseling? How do I know this? 3. If I am feeling unsatisfied with my work, what are the sources of the dissatisfaction? 4. How many hours a week do I build in time for play/re-creation? Are the activities truly recreating hope and vigor in me? 5. Who are my cheerleaders? How do I utilize my personal support group when I am challenged? 6. Am I making a difference in the lives of my students and/or staff? Will making this difference sustain me until retirement? 7. What do I do to insure that I stay balanced evenly between family and work life responsibilities? For Discussion with Colleagues 1. Are educators treated with dignity and respect generally? In my specific work context?

Staying the Course

361

2. How does public perception of our profession affect teacher and administrator morale? 3. What can educators do to improve the societal perception of teachers? 4. What would it take for me to become involved in organizing responses to issues important to the profession? Would I give it time? 5. How can we work as tactical allies to bring about needed dialogue and ultimately change? Colleagues who wish to extend this discussion and possibly act are invited to collaborate with the author. Please email [email protected].

NOTES 1. Chinese character w¯ei; Chinese character j¯ı (in simplified form) together denote ‘‘crisis.’’ 2. A paraphrase of former President Bill Clinton’s partial response to nation regarding the Littleton murders. See Rosenthal (2006). 3. See 43 Folders (2006) for additional suggestions or to contribute your own. 4. See the works of Theodore Brameld and George Counts who advocated the role of educators as ‘‘social reconstructionists.’’

REFERENCES Anonymous. (n.d.). Mantras. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://www.themystica.com/ mystica/articles/m/mantra.html Bindhu, C. M., & Sudheeshkumar, P. K. (2006). Job satisfaction and stress coping skills of primary school teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 492 585). Boris-Schacter, S., & Langer, S. (2006). Balanced leadership: How effective principals manage their work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Brock, B., & Grady, M. (2002). Avoiding burnout: A principal’s guide to keeping the fire alive. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 466 573). Brouwers, A., Evers, W., & Tomic, W. (1999). Teacher burnout and self-efficacy in soliciting social support. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437 342). Budinick, L. (2006). A study of the teacher burnout and school psychologist support. Unpublished dissertation, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Proquest, UMI. Bureau of Justice. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/[email protected] Burke, R., Greenglass, E., & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Predicting teacher burnout time: Over effects of work stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout and its consequences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 9(3), 261–275. Carr, A. (1994). Anxiety and depression among school principals – warning, principalship can be hazardous to your health. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(3), 18–34.

362


Cedoline, A. J. (1982). Job burnout in public education: Symptoms, causes and survival skills. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2000). Factors influencing applying for urban principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 443–454. Dewey, J., Boydston, J., & Simon, H. F. (1989). John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Diego, M. A., Jones, N. A., Field, T., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (1998). Aromatherapy reduces anxiety and enhances EEG patterns associated with positive mood and alertness. International Journal of Neuroscience, 96, 217–224. Ferguson, T. (n.d.) A field guide to stress: Interview with Kenneth R. Pelletier Ph.D. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from http://www.healthy.net/scr/Interview.asp?Id=253 Field, T., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Cisneros, W., Feijo, L., Vera, Y., & Gil, K. (2005). Lavender fragrance cleansing gel effects on relaxation. International Journal of Neuroscience, 115, 207–222. 43 Folders. (2006). Personal mantras. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://wiki.43folders. com/index.php/Personal_Mantras Giddens, A. (1972). Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings. London: Cambridge University. Hipps, E. S., & Malpin, G. (1991). The relationship of locus of control, stress related to performance-based accreditation, and job stress to burnout in public school teachers and principals. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 557). Karr, K. (1992). Taking time for me: How caregivers can effectively deal with stress. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. LeCompte, M. D., & Dworkin, A. (1991). Giving up on school: Teacher dropouts and teacher burnouts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maslow, A. H., Stephens, D. C., & Heil, G. (1998). Maslow on management. New York: Wiley. Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 458–486. Patterson, J., & Kelleher, P. (2005). Resilient school leaders: Strategies for turning adversity into achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pearson Education, Inc. (2006). A timeline of recent worldwide school shootings. Retrieved September 9, 2006, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1115 Rosenthal, S. (2006, September 22). Violence 101: Who is responsible for the Montreal massacre? Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://powerandpowerlessness.typepad.com/susans_ blog/2006/09/index.html Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schwab, R., Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (1986). Educator burnout: Sources and consequences. Educational Research Quarterly, 10(3), 14–30.

Staying the Course

363

Smith, M. K. (2005). Parker J. Palmer: Community, knowing and spirituality in education. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/palmer.htm Toker, S., Shirom, A., Shapira, I., Berliner, S., & Melamed, S. (2005). The association between burnout, depression, anxiety & inflammation biomarkers: C-reactive protein & fibrinogen in men and women. Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, 10(4), 344–362. Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a climate of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85–111. Vandenberghe, R., & Huberman, A. (Eds) (2006). Understanding and preventing teacher burnout. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weingarten, K. (2004). Common shock: Witnessing violence every day: How we are harmed, how we can heal. New York: New American Library. Weiss, B. (2003). Eliminating stress, finding inner peace. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House. Williams, J. (1990). How I fought teacher burnout with good nutrition. Instructor, 107(2), 96.

LEADING WHILE LOOKING BACK AND WITHIN: REFLECTIVE AND REFLEXIVE MODES Thomas G. Ryan ABSTRACT To benefit from reflective and reflexive actions there is a need to contrast these terms to understand each one. Each term is linked to selfdevelopment. For instance, to be reflexive is to self-examine, to consider your internal conversation, and use this voice to guide, support, and enhance your work. Reflexivity is linked to introspection and the moment of action. Reflection is the act of looking upon the action after it has passed. The term reflexivity is less common yet there are several forms of reflexivity. Becoming aware helps all of us to make sense of their own reflexivity and reflections.

INTRODUCTION Teaching, mentoring, and inspiring young people are a lot to demand from one person. The challenge to model, lead, and motivate youth is not a simple or formulaic task. Leading involves personal, interpersonal, organizational, and instructional knowledge, skills, and behaviors. Within the personal Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 10, 365–372 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(07)10022-6

365

366

THOMAS G. RYAN

domain of leadership, each educator gathers self knowledge as they act and this continuous growth, if processed effectively, is a constant source of perspective, feedback, and guidance. The average classroom teacher plans, instructs, monitors, assesses, and evaluates each and every day. This is one framework for teaching; however, it can be misleading to define teaching in this limited manner. We need to define leading in the classroom as something deeper and with greater breadth. Levin and Nolan (2004) define teaching as, ‘‘the use of preplanned behaviors, founded in learning principles and child development theory and directed toward both instructional delivery and classroom management, that increase the probability of affecting a positive change in student behavior’’ (p. 4). A classroom leader needs to manage from a self-informed position that is open to change, yet plan and deliver in a manner that produces positive change. As a classroom leader, I was prepared, trained (interned), and informed as to what teaching was and what it was not. In fact, my teacher training taught me how to learn from my lived experiences and I believe that, ‘‘intern teachers are better prepared to teach and learn if they use critical reflection as a tool to enhance their performance as professionals’’ (Goethals, Howard, & Sanders, 2004, p. 181). My teacher training demanded that I record my thoughts and reflect upon what had happened during a lesson, activity, or task (supervision). I completed these tasks and like many of the new teachers I graduated with, believed that we could now continue the growth or professional development on our own using these reflective tools. Indeed, Henniger (2004), points out that, ‘‘the practice of reflection has the potential to lead to significant growth as an educator. These thoughtful considerations of your teaching and student learning will lay the groundwork for a successful career in education ‘‘(p. 369). To this day, which is far removed from my teacher training, I recall the rudiments of reflection. As a new teacher, I found that I was leading and acting. Yet, at the same time, I was reflecting on my actions. It was at times overwhelming to be aware of so much because the moment I spoke or moved, I examined and evaluated my behavior and thoughts. I did this because I was, like most educators, interested in improving and changing my practice (praxis), moment by moment, day by day, and year to year. As the successful years passed, I would habitually engage in reflection-on-action and analyze the past with a desire to improve. The process did improve my comprehension and understanding of self, the events, and the context. I focused on the present with an eye to the future and this motivated and inspired personal change and action each day. No matter how much I changed and improved,

Leading While Looking Back and Within

367

I could connect where I was at present with where I was at some point in the past. I had evidence (data) all around me in the classroom and as I accumulated more data (notes, illustrations, photos, daybook, and plans), the more change and improvement seemed to follow. This made sense since I had read that, good qualitative research, like any other research, requires careful record keeping as a way of connecting with important audiences. The first audience is self: The notebooks of the molecular biologist, the industrial sociologist, or the clinical drug tester help each keep track of what was done along the way, suggest ways of improving next steps, and give reassurance about the reproducibility of the results. (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 280)

I carefully noted my reflections on action and these acts influenced me and led me to read about capturing reflections only to discover how confused I was. What I discovered after many years in the classroom is that I was actually being personally reflexive, which is quite different from being reflective. The reflexive process involves introspection. A deep inward gaze into every interaction whether it be in teaching or any other interaction in life. Interactive introspection was the tool I used to improve my interactions and study my thoughts, feelings, and behavior. I considered my mental state, my emotional being, thoughts, and motives within a context. I also used reflection; however, this occurred after my action and not during, which meant I was actually being personally reflexive when I was introspective during the moment. The tension of reflection and being reflexive was bothersome since I was still confused conceptually so I read deeper and wider. I then discovered that being reflexive is not a straightforward matter. There are, and have been for many years in various disciplines such as Anthropology, English, Psychology, and Sociology types of reflexivity, which involve introspection. Within education, reflexivity involves most often the teacher as a researcher or the teacher and the immediate environment. Educational reflexivity occurs most often, yet not exclusively, in the school and classroom contexts. Changes in environment and the participants impact reflexivity. To be reflexive, participants (teachers) investigate their interactions via introspection as they occur and in the reflective mode, participants reflect on various elements (verbal, nonverbal, feelings, and thoughts) following the action. Indeed, ‘‘reflective knowledge has to do with normative states in social, economic and political realms. It concerns a vision of what ought to be’’ (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005, p. 7).

368

THOMAS G. RYAN

I realized while teaching that I could sense when I was missing, overlooking, or forgetting something within a lesson, activity, or task. My reflexive (inner voice) enriched my sensitivity and recalled while in a reflective mode. Arguably, there is a place in every research inquiry for both reflexivity and reflection and the challenge is to attend to both modes in a confident manner. Being reflective and reflexive is a good sign within a study as Sandelowski & Barroso (2002) explain: Reflexivity is a hallmark of excellent qualitative research and it entails the ability and willingness of researchers to acknowledge and take account of the many ways they themselves influence research findings and thus what comes to be accepted as knowledge. Reflexivity implies the ability to reflect inward toward oneself as an inquirer; outward to the cultural, historical, linguistic, political, and other forces that shape everything about inquiry; and, in between researcher and participant to the social interaction they share. (p. 222)

Being reflexive and discussing reflexivity in education increases the credibility of research and enriches professional development, yet, it is important to illuminate and describe the different kinds of reflexivity. Reflexivity has deep roots and breadth in most disciplines especially in the social sciences. I found out that ‘‘systematic reflexivity is the constant analysis of one’s own theoretical and methodological presuppositions’’ (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005, p. 6). As a classroom teacher, there are many presuppositions to explore. For instance, the belief that a firm tone of voice will encourage appropriate student behaviors or a friendly smiling disposition will cause students to look upon the teacher favorably is worth pondering. Both of these presuppositions may undergo reflective scrutiny during the moment they occur. Systematic reflexivity has given birth to epistemic and methodological reflexivity. Epistemic reflexivity concerns the researcher’s or teacher’s belief system and allows for the examination and testing of assumptions. Further, ‘‘epistemic reflexivity is the constant analysis of your lived experience as well as your own theoretical and methodological presuppositions’’ (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005, p. 62). Teachers and researchers who investigate epistemological assumptions are not only interested in description, understanding, and change, they are also interested in critical progress. Critical thinking requires questioning and judging of various selected teaching assumptions and it is necessary to move forward to expose data and realize meaning in praxis. Also, critical theorization through questioning allows the unearthing of what may be hidden within an assumption. The goal is most often to discover emancipation via critical


369

thinking and action (Holmes, Cockburn-Wootten, Motion, Zorn, & Roper, 2005). As well as critical thinking and theorizing in the classroom, which is really a means of research, Nightingale and Cromby (1999) add, Epistemological reflexivity requires us to engage with questions such as: How has the research question defined and limited what can be ‘found?’ Thus, epistemological reflexivity encourages us to reflect upon the assumptions (about the world, about knowledge) that we have made in the course of the research, and it helps us to think about the implications of such assumptions for the research and its findings. How has the design of the study and the method of analysis ‘constructed’ the data and the findings? How could the research question have been investigated differently? To what extent would this have given rise to a different understanding of the phenomenon under investigation? (p. 228)

This critical stance gives way to understanding, theory, and change. It is the very assumptions that may have been hidden before any reflexive action that are at issue. It is a means to study personal beliefs and assumptions embedded in cognition. If a teacher wanted to analyze his/her behavior and not his/her thoughts, then we need to explore another vein of reflexivity. Methodological reflexivity, which is what I engaged in most often, requires the teacher to observe and examine his or her own behavior within the classroom or school as it occurs. For example, a teacher could experiment with verbal communicative behaviors to find out if the changes made in verbal behavior caused desired outcomes. The methodological reflexive educator is hoping to improve teaching methods and realize just how well implementation takes place as the actions unfold. Within pre-service teaching programs, the expectation is very much the same in courses labeled ‘methods’ as students need to think within the moment and it is a prepatory task as the practicum demands that the student teacher judge actions as they occur to fine tune his/her performance introspectively. Similarly, the in-service educator will often change their praxis due to selfexamination (Ryan, 2005). Being reflexive when you are close to the data, in fact you are the data in many cases, is vital to explore in any professional development effort. In addition to being reflexive, Russell and Mcpherson (2001) suggest, a successful pre-service program is not a teacher-building factory, but rather the first step in a long, collaborative, and reflective process that influences the professional development of a teacher’s career. A pre-service program can either set this process in motion with the appropriate tools, attitudes, and expectations, or it can set the novice up for a dizzying fall from the heights of unchallenged naive idealism. (p. 8)

370

THOMAS G. RYAN

Teaching, changing, and being reflective and reflexive often requires the deconstruction of praxis. As we examine and uncover layers of concern, we actually change because of our efforts. Labeled hyper-reflexivity (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005), this deconstruction and analysis of our own praxis has links to a postmodern stance. ‘‘The teacher practicing from a postmodern perspective is committed to revealing and deconstructing the politics of difference in education. Deconstruction is not just a method but is a way of thinking about or seeing the danger of what is powerful and useful’’ (Ironside, 2001, p. 81). Hyper-reflexive practice will have an instantaneous collision with existing praxis yet the outcome is often improved practice, as teachers install fresh insights into each interaction. The following image displays the relationship of these terms (Fig. 1). Teaching is arguably an opportunity to explore self, praxis, and human nature. Educators learn about what they know and uncover their own ignorance. This uncovering can be a positive force if the decision is made to use this opportunity to move forward, change, and learn. Gabel (2001) concludes, We are in an era of teacher education during which reflective practice y and the value of reflexivity between experience and pedagogy are common research themes y Race, class, gender, and ethnicity are explored in texts and courses in teacher education. Case studies are used to help teacher candidates examine their experiences and make use of

Reflexivity (Introspection)

Hyper-Reflexive (Deconstruction of Praxis)

Systematic Reflexivity (Presuppositions) (Theory/Methods)

Epistemic Reflexivity (Beliefs & Assumptions)

(Ryan 2005)

Fig. 1. The Figure Shows the Relationship of Reflexivity (Introspection), HyperReflexive (Deconstruction of Praxis), Systematic Reflexivity (Presuppositions) (Theory/Methods), and Epistemic Reflexivity (Beliefs & Assumptions). Source: Ryan (2005, p.11). Copyright r 2005 by Temeron Detselig. Reprinted with Permission.


371

them while they grow as teachers. Teaching journals are assigned to facilitate deep and critical reflection on one’s experiences in the field. At times, it seems that every possible identity is explored, every experience is examined, and every personal story is told. (p. 37)

Nonetheless, we need to continue along this path. Self-examination and selfmanagement are popular movements today since improving and building from within are widespread educational goals. We are committed to questioning in order to examine and improve our teaching, our curricula, and ourselves. The teacher–researcher–leader is continually adding to current knowledge and skills by building onto what exists. Often, the new constructions require significant modification of what exists to overcome inertia, existing structures and established norms. The reflexive and reflective teacher–researcher resembles, social constructionists who are always faced with the problem of having to ‘parenthesize’ their substantive claims (e.g. about the nature and functions of the self) as ‘not true’, and ‘not real’, in order to foreground the anti-objectivism of their claims (that any account is ‘local’ and value-laden, rather than universal and morally neutral). But such an ‘outsider stance’ is an enormously powerful critical tool – it enables people to question ‘what their doings are doing’y . It is this reflective and reflexive ability which allows for social and personal change, and which has been captured in most theories of the self, though especially attended to in developmental theories. (Lewis, 2003, p. 231)

Causing an educator to reconsider, change, or adapt requires inner forces. For instance, a teacher–researcher is both excited and worried as s/he reflexively questions his/her actions and thoughts. The researcher records the experience (journals, memos, notes, photos, and video) and yet, is the evidence accurate, riddled with bias, misperception, or lacking detail? The goal may be to capture the experience; however, identity and reality reflect one another. The observer and the observed are inextricably tied together in a reflection. Sorting out what is, and what is not, may confuse even the most capable teacher–researcher. Nonetheless, out of this tension and confusion surfaces a useful source of professional development. Reflexivity of any sort can actually nourish reflections as introspection leads to heightened awareness, change, growth and improvement of self and the educational profession.

REFERENCES Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your organization. London: Sage. Gabel, S. L. (2001). I wash my face with dirty water. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 31–38. Goethals, S. M., Howard, R. A., & Sanders, M. M. (2004). Student teaching: A process approach to reflective practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merill Prentice Hall.

372

THOMAS G. RYAN

Henniger, M. L. (2004). The teaching experience: An introduction to reflective practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merill Prentice Hall. Holmes, P., Cockburn-Wootten, C., Motion, J., Zorn, E. T., & Roper, J. (2005). Critical reflexive practice in teaching management communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 68(2), 247–257. Ironside, P. M. (2001). Creating a research base for nursing education: An interpretive review of conventional, critical, feminist, postmodern, and phenomenologic pedagogies. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(3), 72–88. Lewis, Y. (2003). The self as a moral concept. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 225–236. Levin, J., & Nolan, J. F. (2004). Principles of classroom management: A professional decisionmaking model (4th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Nightingale, D., & Cromby, J. (Eds). (1999). Social constructionist psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press. Retrieved November 18, 2003, from http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/ michael/qual_reflexivity.htm Russell, T., & Mcpherson, S. (2001). Indicators of success in teacher education: A review and analysis of recent research. Paper presented at the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium Teacher Education/Educator Training: Current Trends and Future Directions (May 22–23, 2001), Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. Ryan, T. G. (2005). The reflexive classroom manager. Calgary, Alta, Canada: Temeron Books/ Detselig Publications. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(3), 213–220.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sadegu¨l Akbaba-Altun, PhD, EdD, is currently an associate professor of Educational Administration at Baskent University, Faculty of Education in Turkey. Dr. Akbaba-Altun’s educational background includes a BSc in Guidance and Counseling and an MSc in Educational Administration and Supervision, both from METU; a PhD in Institute of Social Sciences with an emphasis on Educational Administration and Supervision from Ankara University; and an EdD in Curriculum and Instruction with the emphasis on Elementary Education from the University of Cincinnati. Her research areas include Chaos Theory, Leadership, Integrating Computer Technologies Into Education, and Supervision. Pamela Hudson Baker, EdD, is an assistant professor of special education at George Mason University. Prior to making the move to higher education, she was the coordinator of a regional day treatment center where students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) received specialized services. She has taught students with a variety of special needs in inclusive, resource, and self-contained environments. RoSusan D. Bartee, PhD, is currently an associate professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS. Dr. Bartee’s research interests are K-12 education leadership, social contexts of schools, and university–school partnerships. Dr. Bartee teaches educational leadership, research methods, and cultural contexts of education courses. Prior to joining the academy, Dr. Bartee served as the associate director at the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in Washington, DC providing administrative leadership for the Reading First Teacher Education Network (RFTEN), a $4.5 million dollar federal grant that focused on restructuring teacher education programs through the use of evidence-based research. Dr. Bartee also served as Interim Executive Director of the Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of the United 373

374

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Negro College Fund. Dr. Bartee has taught at the University of Maryland and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). A former Institute of Governmental Affairs Program Fellow (IGAP), Dr. Bartee received a PhD in Educational Policy Studies from UIUC, an MA in Liberal Studies from Northwestern University, and a BA in English (magna cum laude) from Tougaloo College in Jackson, MS. Frederick J. Brigham, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at George Mason University. He has previously served on the faculties of the University of Virginia, Bowling Green State University, and Valparaiso University. He is also a former school administrator and has taught in special education and general education settings at the elementary and secondary levels. He teaches courses in educational assessment and instructional methods. Serge Be´gin has had a long career in education serving as a teacher, curriculum counselor, and school principal. He also served as vice president and president of different employees unions and an administration union. He was part of both union and administration negotiating teams. The Minister of Education of Quebec also selected him to serve on three different inquiring committees. He currently teaches at Montreal University and presents at conferences. Ran Chen is a doctoral student in the Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Arizona State University. She is a research assistant examining educational leadership and the connections between leadership and human values. She completed her undergraduate degree at Peking University majoring in English language and literature with a minor in economics. She also worked as a research assistant at the China National Institute for Educational Research in Beijing, examining educational policy for students with special needs. Arnold B. Danzig, PhD, is associate professor of educational leadership in the Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Arizona State University. He is principal investigator of a 3-year grant from the United State Department of Education entitled ‘‘Learner Centered Leadership for Language and Culturally Diverse Schools in High Needs Urban Settings.’’ He has authored and co-authored numerous articles on educational policy, leadership and professional development which appear in International Studies in Educational Administration, Journal of Educational Administration, Educational Leadership and Administration, Journal of Educational and

About the Authors

375

Psychological Consultation, and the Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of School Administration. His most recent edited book is Learner-Centered Leadership: Research, Policy, and Practice (2007) published by Lawrence Erlbaum. Saran Donahoo is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Higher Education at Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale. She earned both her doctorate in higher education administration and her MA in history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She completed her BA in secondary education at the University of Arizona. Her research interests include history of education, legal issues affecting education, educational policy, and educational diversity and equity. Dr. Donahoo has authored and co-authored publications that appear in Education and Urban Society, Equity & Excellence in Education, Teachers College Record, and Urban Education. Dr. Oare’ Dozier-Henry, affectionately known to her students as ‘‘Dr. D-H,’’ joined the faculty of Florida A&M University in the fall of 1991. She is a tenured full professor in the Department of Educational Leadership & Human Services. As an adult educator, she is concerned with transforming the consciousness and perspectives of adults. The politics and construction of knowledge constitute central themes in her research. Believing that schools serve as petri dishes for society’s future, Dr. D-H is concerned with the preparation of empowered, vibrant school leaders. Her current research interests center on leadership studies, optimal human development, and the role of culture in learning. Dr. John Fulwiler, a professor of Educational Administration and Technology, who joined the faculty of Southeastern Louisiana University in 2006. He has a degree in Social Work from East Tennessee State University, an MSW degree in Community Organization from LSU, and an EdD in Higher Education Administration from the University of Southern Mississippi, as well as advanced study in Gerontology from the University of Southern California. Dr. Fulwiler has taught in the graduate programs at Xavier University of Louisiana and was responsible for teaching Instructional Technology and managing the PT3 grant (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology) from the US Department of Education. Additionally, Dr. Fulwiler was a member of the development team, which collaborated with the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, to create PASSPORT, the electronic assessment system that is being used by over 20 teacher education programs in Louisiana http://www.pass-port.org

376

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Judith A. Green is an associate professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. She obtained her doctorate in educational administration in 1990, her masters in elementary education and special education in 1982, and her bachelors degree in education in 1977 from Purdue University. Dr. Green worked as a case worker and teacher prior to becoming an administrator. She provided 13 years of service as a building and district level administrator and served as assistant professor in the Department of Elementary Education-College of Education at Kansas State University. Her research and teaching are in the areas of cultural foundations of education, educational administration, leadership theory, personnel evaluation, and program evaluation. Dr. Robert Jason Hancock has a PhD in Educational Computing from the University of North Texas and an MEd in Educational Leadership from the University of Texas at San Antonio. He is currently the editor for NCPEA Connexions for Educational Technology Leadership. He is also a reviewer for several international and national journals in the fields of educational leadership and educational technology and has published numerous journal articles and book chapters. Dr. Hancock has received multiple grant awards with total amounts in the millions of dollars and has been a part of several major grant initiatives funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education. Prior to joining higher education, Dr. Hancock served as a District Technology Coordinator for 5 years in North Texas. Prior to this he founded and coordinated the Rhodes Technology Academy, a technology magnet middle school in San Antonio Texas that came about as an offshoot of the New American School Design’s Project Co-Nect. Joe Ann Hinrichs is Faculty Chair for EdD Program in the College of Education at Walden University. She also serves as the Program Director for K-12 Leadership for PhD Programs at Walden University. She has wealth of instructional experience having served as a teacher in Illinois, Missouri, and New York at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. She has also served as a school principal, district superintendent, assistant regional superintendent, and a state-level director for gifted education. Dr. Hinrichs earned a BA (Education, K-12) and two MAs from the University of Illinois in Educational Leadership (K-12) and English and Literature, respectively. She also obtained an EdS with a superintendent certificate and an EdD in Educational Leadership from Northern Illinois University. Her research interests include classroom assessment, reading and literacy topics-working

About the Authors

377

with local schools, and using value-added assessment to measure the real growth of a student, year-round schooling, and highly qualified teachers under NCLB. Toby Hopstone, EdD is the director of Special Services in Walnut Creek, California. Dr. Hopstone has served as a program specialist, middle school principal, middle school vice principal, and teacher in urban and suburban districts. Her research interests include middle grades leadership, distributed leadership, special education and equity issues in education. John W. Hunt, PhD, served 34 years as a teacher, principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent in the public schools in Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, and Washington. He spent the last 11 years of his public school career as a superintendent in Illinois. He joined the faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville in August of 2005. He teaches courses in the principalship, district curriculum development, school law, and strategic planning, among others. His primary research interest is the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on teachers, administrators, and school districts. Richard C. Hunter, EdD, is a professor of educational administration and former head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). He previously served as a professor and chair of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and earned his doctorate of educational administration degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Hunter has worked in the public schools as a teacher, principal, assistant and associate superintendent, and superintendent in the cities of Richmond, Virginia; Dayton, Ohio; and Baltimore, Maryland. Janice L. Hutinger, MEd, is a doctoral student in educational leadership at the University of South Florida (USF). She holds a master’s degree in this discipline and a bachelor’s degree in special education. Janice is currently a supervisor of exceptional student education in Pasco County, Florida. Her experience includes more than 19 years as an elementary teacher in both basic and special education. In 2005, she was awarded the Berbecker Fellowship from USF’s College of Education. She has co-authored a chapter (with Carol A. Mullen) on countering interruptions of teaching in Curriculum Leadership Development (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007).

378

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Terrance G. Jakubowski, PhD, has served for 5 years as an adjunct lecturer with the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at California State University, Northridge, teaching research methodology courses. He is also an assistant principal at Orville Wright Middle/Magnet School in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Prior to becoming an assistant principal, he has served in the LAUSD as a teacher, advisor, data analyst, and program coordinator, conducting many professional development sessions on using student assessment data to improve instruction. Dr. Jakubowski earned his bachelor’s degree in Secondary Physical Science (Education) from the University of Calgary. After moving to Southern California to start his teaching career, he earned his teaching credentials and an MA in Computer Based Education from California State University, Dominguez Hills. While serving as a full-time teacher, he completed his doctorate in Educational Psychology at the University of Southern California. Emma-Jane Jaques is a Chartered Australian Human Resources professional and has a Bachelor of Arts (Psychology), Bachelor of Business, Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary) and a Master of Educational Leadership and Management. She has experience as a secondary education teacher and a program developer and facilitator in a management training context. Emma is currently employed in the Victorian Public Health sector (Australia) as a Human Resources Project Officer. Alan C. Jones, EdD, is an assistant professor of administration and supervision at Saint Xavier University in Chicago. He served 34 years as a teacher, assistant principal, and high school principal in the public schools in suburban Chicago. He teaches courses in administration and supervision, philosophy of education, and curriculum and instruction. Dr. Jones has published a number of articles on educational policy, instructional leadership, and curriculum which appear in Kappan, Principal Leadership, Education Week, Educational Digest, Educational Forum, The School Administrator, and Illinois Association of School Boards Journal. Dr. Jones’ primary research interests are the developmental stages of instructional leadership, administrative strategies for addressing the conflict between the institutional goals of schooling and the goals of the practice of teaching, and the meaning and implications of ‘‘master-narratives’’ that are presently governing the policy agenda of public schools. Dr. Enid B. Jones is professor of Educational Leadership and director of the Doctor of Education Program at Virginia State University. Her educational

About the Authors

379

background includes a seminar at Oxford Round Table at Lincoln College, Oxford, United Kingdom and The Harvard Seminar on Public Engagement: Reconnecting Schools, Parents and Communities; Harvard Graduate School of Education; and Bridges, Educational Leadership for Women, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her earned degrees include an EdD in Higher Education Administration from the University of Florida, an MBA in Finance from New York University, and a BSc (Econ) from University of the West Indies, Jamaica, West Indies. She has published journal articles and a book on school finance as well as manuals on educational leadership. Lawrence T. Kajs received his EdD in Educational Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from Harvard University. Dr. Kajs is an associate professor and chair of Educational Leadership Program at the University of Houston–Clear Lake. He teaches in the areas of school law, organizational theory, and school personnel. His research interests focus on administrative strategies that address a proactive approach toward the improvement of schools. He has served on two Editorial Boards (a) Education Leadership Review (ELR), associated with the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration and (b) Education Law Into Practice, published in West’s Law Reporter, associated with the Education Law Association. Nancy Lauzon has a PhD in administration specializing in Human Resources. She is presently a professor at University of Sherbrooke (Que´bec, Canada). In the past, she held positions in public and private sectors. Her previous employments were in Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (Quebec) in the capacity of Human Resources and quality director, analyst for CEFRIO (Centre francophone d’informatisation des organisations) and researcher for CETO (Centre d’e´tudes en transformation des organisations)—HEC Montreal. Deborah Leidner, EdD, joined the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies following a 33-year career in the Los Angeles Unified School District. She has served the California State University, Northridge (CSUN) College of Education as a conduit between the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) helping to establish and maintain partnerships between the two. During her tenure as a Local District Superintendent in LAUSD, Dr. Leidner was responsible for the development of six new schools, including the new high school on the CSUN

380

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

campus. She earned her BA in Political Science, and her teaching credential at Cal State, Northridge (CSUN) and her MA in Educational Administration and an administrative credential from California Lutheran University. Dr. Leidner holds a doctorate in Educational Administration from Brigham Young University, with a specialization in organizational development. Daniel L. McCollum received his PhD in Educational Psychology from Penn State with a specialization in Educational and Psychological Measurement. Dr. McCollum is an assistant professor of Educational Foundations – Research and Statistics at the University of Houston – Clear Lake. He teaches students from all of the School of Education’s graduate programs, including Educational Leadership, Counseling, Curriculum & Instruction, Early Childhood Education, Instructional Technology, and Multicultural Education. His research deals with measuring and enhancing students’ motivation and performance, specifically through studying self-efficacy, goal orientations, and social goals. He has served as the vice-chair, program chair, and chair of the American Educational Research Association’s ‘‘Professors of Educational Research’’ Special Interest Group. Dr. K. Kelly McKerrow is currently an associate professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Higher Education at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. She also has a cross appointment in the Women’s Studies program. She received her doctorate from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale in 1986, her master’s in school leadership from Southeast Missouri State University in 1980 and her bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Missouri, St. Louis in 1975. She also has a degree from Jewish Hospital School of Nursing. Dr. McKerrow worked as a nurse and teacher prior to moving into administration. She spent 8 years in K-12 administration and served as assistant professor in the Department of Educational Studies, School of Education at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. Her research and teaching are in the areas of leadership theory, cultural foundations of education, school community relations, and elementary administration. Carol A. Mullen, PhD, is a professor and chair at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Dr. Mullen has published over 130 works, including 12 books, most recently Curriculum Leadership Development (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007), A Graduate Student Guide (Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006), Fire and Ice (Peter Lang, 2005), The Mentorship

About the Authors

381

Primer (Peter Lang, 2005), and Climbing the Himalayas of School Leadership (ScarecrowEducation, 2004). She is editor of the international refereed journal Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning and the former faculty mentoring director of the University of South Florida’s College of Education New Faculty Mentoring Program (NFMP). Dr. Mullen has received numerous research and teaching awards, including the 2005 Florida Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (FASCD) Teaching and Research Excellence Award in instructional supervision. Justina O. Osa, EdD, MSLS, MEd, is an associate professor in the Graduate Professional Education Programs at the Virginia State University. Osa came to Virginia State University from the Pennsylvania State University. She has more than 30 years experience in higher education, secondary school teaching, and administration and in librarianship. Her research has focused on variables that impact academic success for all students, literacy development for all students, and competence and emotional perspectives of leadership and management. Osa has published book chapters and peer-reviewed articles, presented papers at professional conferences, and conducted workshops on these variables. Osa is a member of numerous professional organizations including the American Educational Research Association, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and American Library Association. Lucretia D. Peebles, PhD, is an associate professor of Education at Loyola Marymount University and the associate director of the Educational Leadership for Social Justice Doctoral Program at Loyola Marymount University in Loss Angeles where she teaches courses in leadership, educational law and policy, and the context of schooling. Dr. Peebles has previously served on the faculties of the University of Denver, Spelman College, and Saint Mary’s College of California. Prior to becoming an academic, Dr. Peebles worked extensively in urban public school systems where she served as a middle school principal, middle school assistant principal, and high school American History, Social Science and English teacher. Dr. Peebles has worked with charter schools for ten years and completed the Northwest Regional Laboratory’s Charter Starter’s Institute and the California Charter School Association’s Charter Launch Program. She currently serves as a founding board member of New Heights Charter School in Los Angeles; and, while she was on the faculty at the University of Denver, Dr. Peebles served as a founding board member on the Odyssey

382

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Charter School Board in Denver, Colorado for four years. Her research focuses on charter school leadership, professional culture/learning communities, urban school and charter school leadership, and issues of equity and social justice. Dr. Peebles has also served as a consultant and charter school designer/developer, and has collaborated on several evaluation projects related to student achievement in charter schools. Dr. Thomas G. Ryan, HBPE, BEd (Lakehead), MEd (Sask), EdD, (OISE/ UT) has been teaching since 1985. He began teaching at the postsecondary level for Confederation College in Thunder Bay. He then moved into the secondary level and taught physical education, law, history, and special education. Dr. Ryan has also taught special education at the elementary school level. At the University level, Dr. Ryan taught within the Faculty of Education at the University of Lethbridge (Evaluation, Research Methods) and recently authored and taught on-line for Campus Alberta Applied Psychology (Research Methods). At present, he is teaching Classroom Management, Physical Education, Special Education and Graduate courses at Nipissing University. Dr. Dee Ann Spencer, Senior Research Specialist in the College of Education at Arizona State University, has been conducting research in schools for over 30 years. For the past 18 years, she has focused on program evaluations supported by federal, state, local, and foundation grants and contracts such as Title I, Title VII, and Title IX programs, Technology Innovation Challenge grants, Teaching American History grants, and several National Science Foundation grants, which have involved school-wide and school district reforms, the introduction of innovative strategies for developing school management systems, strategies for teacher professional development, for the implementation of new instructional strategies for increasing students’ literacy and mathematics and science skills, and the effects on teachers and students of introducing technology in classrooms. Prof. Karen Starr is the director of the Centre for Educational Leadership and renewal in the Education Faculty of Deakin University. Prior to this appointment she was a school principal for 15 years in Victoria and South Australia. Dr. Starr was chief writer of the South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability Framework, and in 2004 won the National Telstra Business Women’s Award for the not-for-profit sector. Her research interests include the principalship, educational leadership, governance, and the management of change and renewal in schools.

About the Authors

383

Michael Stokes is currently the assistant to the vice chancellor for Student Affairs at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIU). He is also a doctoral student in Education Administration & Higher Education at SIU where he earned two MS degrees – one in Organization & Administration in Higher Education and the other in Workforce Education & Development. He completed a BA in History-Political Science & Health, Physical Education, and Recreation from Jamestown College (Jamestown, ND). An experienced student affairs professional having worked at The Ohio State University, Georgia Southern University, Eastern Illinois University, Elizabeth City State University, and Chicago State University as well as SIU, his research interests include college and university presidents, school administrator preparation, and gender and racial issues. Athena Vongalis-Macrow has extensive experience as a teacher in secondary, postsecondary, and tertiary contexts. Since 1994, Dr. Vongalis-Macrow has been teaching and researching in international education. Her research has included analyses of educational reforms, restructuring of education systems and teacher education. Current research interests include teacher professionalism, the impact of globalization on education systems, policy, and governance in education. Jan A. Yow is an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Jan completed her PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As a National Board Certified high school mathematics teacher, Jan’s passion to learn more about how teachers could play an active role in leadership took her to the Harvard Graduate School of Education to complete her master’s degree in teacher leadership. Her research focuses on mathematics education and teacher leadership.

SUBJECT INDEX Communication, Informal, 90 Community Engagement and Management, 48 Competing Values, 218 Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), 202 Constructivist Leadership, 27, 237 Content Knowledge, 7, 9–20, 27, 259, 264 Credibility, 66, 141, 161, 163–176, 184, 191, 353, 368 Credibility, Levers of, 169, 172–173 Crosswalk, 41, 46, 49, 51, 54 Cultural values, 1, 3, 25, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93–95 Curriculum, 7–10, 12, 17, 20, 30, 43, 48, 51–52, 55, 62, 65–67, 71, 171, 185–186, 190, 193, 196–198, 210, 222–224, 292, 299, 302–305, 307–308, 310, 319, 322–324, 334, 338

Accountability, 48, 58–59, 65–66, 120, 150, 180, 184–185, 190–191, 193, 218, 221, 227, 230, 241, 244, 285–286, 289, 295, 304–305, 313, 317–318, 320, 322, 324, 333–334, 337, 353 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 112, 287 Anomie, 353 Assessment, 10–11, 19, 45, 50, 52, 64, 72, 107, 112, 131–132, 140–142, 151, 196, 221–222, 252, 303, 320–321, 323–324 Assumptive Worlds Framework, 195–196, 202, 212 Australia, 58, 331–333, 335–336 Benchmark, 50, 167, 172 Budget Management, 132, 289 Budget Process, 285, 291 Burnout, 81, 136, 349–351, 353–354, 359

Data-Driven Decision-Making, 150–151, 254 Democratic Leadership, 180 Digital Based Decision-Making, 48, 51 Disempower, 224–225 Diverse Learning Communities, 313–315, 317, 319–323, 325, 327 Diversity, 25, 31, 33, 62–63, 100, 116, 241, 299–300, 303, 305, 309, 314, 319–320, 333 Diversity, Cultural, 31, 33, 299, 300, 303, 333 Due Process, 99, 108 Dysfunctional Behavior, 217

Capacity building, 265, 320, 339 Closed System, 294–295 Collaboration, 28–29, 45, 51, 63, 132, 138, 140, 156, 180, 200, 242–244, 247, 262, 264, 277, 315, 321, 324–325, 343 Collaborative Leaders, 238, 241, 245, 265, 317 Collectivization, 227 Communication, 16, 25, 31–33, 42, 45, 47–49, 51–52, 54–55, 58, 60, 69, 83–86, 89–94, 138, 140, 188, 200, 272, 295, 315, 340 Communication, Formal, 90 385

386 Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), 100 Educational Administration, 1, 7, 9, 23, 41, 43, 57, 65, 67–68, 77–81, 99, 115, 131, 138, 149, 161, 179, 195, 217–219, 225, 228–229, 237, 251–253, 256, 261, 285, 299–300, 304, 313, 319, 331, 349, 352, 360, 365 Educational Leadership, 9, 29, 41, 43–44, 57, 59, 61–62, 138, 141, 179–181, 183–191, 193, 251–252, 254, 314, 319, 332, 334, 340, 342 Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC), 41, 43 Educational Technology, 44, 288 Educational Policy, 310 Educational Research, 251–253, 255, 257, 262 Efficacy, 35, 115, 120–124, 127, 131–143, 354 Efficacy, Administrator, 131–132, 136–141, 143 Efficacy, Collective, 115, 122–123 Efficacy, Principal, 137 Efficacy, Self, 121–123, 127, 131–132, 134–137, 141, 354, 380 Efficacy, Teacher, 135 Empower, 27, 92–93, 188, 225–226, 355, 360 Empowerment, 93, 175, 204, 212, 224–225, 239, 261, 265, 301, 318, 336, 351 Equity, 28–29, 35, 230, 292, 299–305, 308–309, 313, 315, 326–327, 338 Ethical Leadership, 66 Faculty Study Groups, 261–263, 268–272, 274–277, 279 Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 104 Fiscal Leadership, 286–288, 296

SUBJECT INDEX Followship, 180–181, 188, 192–193 Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), 101 General Welfare Clause, 286 Generative Learning, 183–184 Globalization, 301, 303–304, 314–315, 334 Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 292 Health, 3, 50, 162, 334, 349, 351–352, 354–355, 357–358, 360 High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), 112 High-Stakes Testing, 66, 207 Highly Qualified, 44, 58, 112, 132, 197, 287, 327 Holistic Accountability, 221, 230 Human capital, 116–118, 121–123, 127, 304 Human relations, 31, 33, 77, 83–84, 86, 94 Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 100 Individualized Education Plan (IEP), 104 Insider-Outsider Issues, 85, 181 Instructional Leader, 7–10, 12, 24, 51, 53, 58–59, 132, 134, 136–138, 140, 142–143, 240, 310, 314, 316–317, 323 Interpersonal, 15, 25, 48, 60, 163–164, 167–173, 200, 211, 243, 245, 266, 279, 307, 365 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), 30, 41, 138 Leadership, 1–3, 7–10, 15, 23–37, 39, 41, 43–45, 47–49, 51, 57–62, 64–72, 77, 81, 85, 87, 94, 115, 119–120, 124–126, 131, 134–138, 140–143, 149, 151, 153–159, 161–163, 166, 169, 173–174, 179–193, 195–203, 205, 207,

Subject Index 209, 211–212, 220, 225, 230–231, 237–247, 251–254, 256–259, 261–265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 275–279, 285–289, 291–296, 305, 310, 313–317, 319–327, 331–342, 344–345, 351, 355, 366 Leadership Accountability, 180, 193 Leadership, Effective, 163, 180, 184, 190, 313, 322, 326 Leadership, Effectiveness, 180, 252 Leadership Content Knowledge, 7, 9 Leadership Disengagement, 332, 335, 341, 345 Leadership, Journery, 255 Leadership Preparation, 252–253, 256–257, 259, 319, 335, 341 Leadership Preparation Programs, 252, 256–257, 259, 319, 335, 341 Leadership Preparation Programs Reform, 252, 256–257, 259, 319, 335, 341 Leadership, Transformation, 154, 156 Learner-Centered Leadership, 23–33, 35, 37 Learning, 3, 7, 10–11, 13–17, 20, 23–29, 32–33, 35, 39, 42, 45–46, 48–49, 51–52, 55, 59–60, 63, 71, 75, 118, 121–124, 139, 142, 152, 154–155, 159, 162, 169, 173, 180–184, 186–193, 197, 200–201, 205, 217–219, 226–227, 229, 240–243, 245–247, 251, 254–255, 257–258, 261–268, 270–279, 303–304, 306–310, 313–315, 317–323, 325–327, 331, 336–340, 343–345, 366 Learning Organization, 121, 240, 242, 304 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), 101 Levine, Arthur, 251 Lowerarchy, 204, 212 Macropolitics, 196 Manager, 7, 9, 14, 19, 50, 59, 316, 325 Mann, Horace, 317

387 Mantra, 355, 357–358 Marginalization, 218, 302, 336 Market-driven, 301–302 Mathematics Education, 196, 199, 201–202 Measurement, 305, 354 Mentoring, 19, 23, 26–27, 29, 31–33, 35, 37, 39, 157, 159, 243, 246, 265, 335, 365 Micropolitics, 195–197, 199, 201, 203–205, 207, 209, 211–212 Moral Leadership, 138, 154–155 Motivation, 26–27, 72, 85, 134, 136, 142–143, 151, 265, 295 Multicultural Education, 304 Multiculturalism, 301 National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), 58 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), 44 National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), 43 National Staff Development Council (NSDC), 263 No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 58, 180, 287, 314 Parents, 2, 8, 16–17, 28, 32, 44, 51, 55, 59, 66, 83–92, 94, 99, 103–108, 112–113, 174, 179–180, 182, 186, 188, 191, 196, 206, 212, 238, 241, 243, 247, 268, 297, 302, 310, 314, 318, 320–321, 324–326, 344, 351, 356 Pedagogy, 27, 188, 218, 221, 226–227, 252, 263, 299, 304, 307, 309–310, 338, 370 Perseverance, 122, 135, 143 Politics of School Administration, 1, 3, 66 Power, 16–17, 110, 142, 154–156, 162–164, 166–169, 172, 175, 197, 200, 204, 218, 221, 225, 227, 230, 244, 287, 295, 301, 309, 318, 326, 331, 340, 343–344, 360

388 Practice-Relevant Research, 256–257, 259 Praxis, 43, 308–309, 360, 366, 368–370 Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSES), 138 Principals’ Competencies, 81, 85 Principals’ Competencies, Administrative, 85 Principals’ Competencies, Leadership, 85 Principals’ Training, 78, 94 Principalship, 60, 181, 246, 323, 331–336, 340–341, 345 Principle Centered Leadership, 245–246 Professional Deference and Disregard, 231 Professional Development, 23–26, 29, 32–33, 35, 45, 115, 117, 119–121, 123–125, 127, 132, 136, 140–143, 158–159, 166, 182, 187, 189, 193, 197, 201, 221, 223, 245, 261–264, 266–267, 270, 274, 308, 310, 320–321, 323–324, 339, 341, 366, 368–369, 371 Prosocial, 299–300 Que´bec, 374, 379 Reflection, 3, 20, 24, 26–27, 29, 35, 38, 68, 106, 121, 133, 141, 172, 185, 218, 220, 224, 228, 235, 242, 266, 278, 301, 308–309, 321, 342, 360, 365–368, 371 Reflexive, 308, 365, 367–371 Reflexivity, 365, 367–371 Reflexivity, Epistemic, 368, 370 Reflexivity, Hyper-, 370 Reflexivity, Methodological, 368–369 Reflexivity, Systematic, 368, 370 Research Training, 251, 258 Resilience, 295, 356, 358

SUBJECT INDEX School Administrator Efficacy Scale (SAES), 132 School as family, 86, 88 School Board, 8, 16, 43, 141, 162, 166, 168, 170–171, 173, 176, 205, 247, 288, 291–293 School Budget, 181, 285, 289 School Finance, 150, 286, 316 School Improvement, 31, 154, 156, 209, 211, 265, 292, 319, 335–339, 344 School Principal, 27, 43, 58, 77–94, 120, 136, 140–141, 154, 161–173, 175–176, 219, 221–223, 226, 254, 268, 313–314, 319, 323–324, 331, 344 Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), 103–104 Self-Care, 349, 354, 356 Situational Leadership, 115, 120, 124–126 Social Capital, 115–123, 127, 181–184, 191, 193 Social Change, 325 Social Cognitive Theory, 131–134 Social Justice, 299–310, 319, 322, 325, 327 Socialization, 203, 226, 296 Special education, 3, 32, 65, 67, 99–113, 115–121, 123, 125, 222, 247, 262, 268, 286 Staff Development, 60, 132, 138, 143, 187–188, 262–264, 266–268, 271, 286, 309 Standards, 30, 41–55, 59, 63, 65–66, 72, 112, 138–139, 141, 150, 176, 182, 184, 196–197, 262, 267, 296, 302, 314, 317–318, 322–324, 331, 335–338, 353 Stakeholders, 28, 42, 49, 51, 77, 84, 88, 90, 92, 156, 179–181, 184, 187, 189, 192–193, 212, 241–242, 247, 257, 291–292, 295–296, 302, 317, 321–322, 332, 339, 351

Subject Index Stress, 3, 105, 122, 136, 142, 175, 238, 335, 337, 341, 349, 352–359 Student Achievement, 2, 30, 35, 50, 52, 65, 120, 123, 137, 150–152, 156, 227, 245, 261–264, 268, 270–274, 279, 287, 315, 317–318, 323–324 Student Discipline, 50, 99, 108 Student Information Management System (SIMS), 50 Student Privacy, 99, 105 Students with Disabilities, 100–101, 112, 117 Succession Planning, 340 Supervision, 43, 50, 65, 67, 78, 99–100, 113, 118–119, 125, 157, 305, 316, 366 Symbolic Capital, 179–180, 182–187, 189, 191, 193 Teacher Leaders, 1, 3, 15, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157–159, 195–212, 242, 245, 261–265, 267–269, 271, 273, 275–279, 324 Teacher Leadership, 1, 3, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157–159, 195–203, 205, 207, 209, 211–212, 242, 245, 261–265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 275–279

389 Technocracy, 352–353 Theory to Practice, 71 Transformative Leadership, 313, 315–317, 319, 321, 323, 325–327 Turkey, 78, 80–81, 95 University – School District Partnerships, 57 Urban School Principal, 313–314, 319, 323–324 Urban Schools, 2, 58, 313–318, 320, 322–327 Values, 1, 3, 12, 25, 28, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85–87, 89, 91, 93–95, 117, 154–155, 163, 171, 173, 175, 203, 206–208, 218, 229–230, 255, 305, 307–308, 321, 325–327, 349–351, 359 Vision, 12, 14, 27–28, 45, 48, 53, 85, 94, 138–139, 156, 162, 180–183, 187–189, 192–193, 205, 223, 226, 240–242, 246–247, 292, 323, 325, 350, 367 Well-Being, 134, 303, 345, 349–352, 355, 358–359

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers, Volume 10: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Administering Special Education, Volume 7 In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Principals in Succession: Transfer and Rotation in Educational Administration

Greenfield on Educational Administration: Towards a Humane Craft (Educational Management)

Crisis in Tax Administration

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 24 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization) (Advances in Library Administration ... in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 25 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 20 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Centering Educational Administration: Cultivating Meaning, Community, Responsibility (Topics in Educational Leadership)

Challenges of Urban Education and Efficacy of School Reform (Advances in Educational Administration)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research

Values of Educational Administration: A Book of Readings

Educational administration: theory, research, and practice (9th Ed.)

Spirituality in Educational Leadership (The Soul of Educational Leadership Series)

Educational research in Europe

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 23

No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts, Volume 9 (Advances in Educational Administration)

Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Volume 7 (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

System Administration Guide: Advanced Administration

Methodological Advances in Cross-National Surveys of Educational Achievement

Educational Studies in Mathematics - Volume 59

Political Approaches to Educational Administration and Leadership (Routledge Research in Education)

Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research (Quantitative Methodology Series)

Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research (Quantitative Methodology Series)

Educational Studies in Mathematics - Volume 51

Handbook of Educational Policy (Educational Psychology)

Emotion in Education (Educational Psychology)

New Public Administration in Britain

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers, Volume 10: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Administering Special Education, Volume 7 In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Principals in Succession: Transfer and Rotation in Educational Administration

Greenfield on Educational Administration: Towards a Humane Craft (Educational Management)

Crisis in Tax Administration

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 24 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization) (Advances in Library Administration ... in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 25 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 20 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Centering Educational Administration: Cultivating Meaning, Community, Responsibility (Topics in Educational Leadership)

Challenges of Urban Education and Efficacy of School Reform (Advances in Educational Administration)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research

Values of Educational Administration: A Book of Readings

Educational administration: theory, research, and practice (9th Ed.)

Spirituality in Educational Leadership (The Soul of Educational Leadership Series)

Educational research in Europe

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 23

No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts, Volume 9 (Advances in Educational Administration)

Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Volume 7 (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

System Administration Guide: Advanced Administration

Methodological Advances in Cross-National Surveys of Educational Achievement

Educational Studies in Mathematics - Volume 59

Political Approaches to Educational Administration and Leadership (Routledge Research in Education)

Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research (Quantitative Methodology Series)

Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research (Quantitative Methodology Series)

Educational Studies in Mathematics - Volume 51

Handbook of Educational Policy (Educational Psychology)

Emotion in Education (Educational Psychology)

New Public Administration in Britain

Recommend Documents