Facultatea de Psihologie i tiinele Educaiei

COALA MASTERAL
MANAGEMENT EDUCAIONAL PROF. UNIV. DR. ION NEGRE-DOBRIDOR

MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL

LEADERSHIP
- documentar -

1 noiembrie 2009

Cuprins
1

I.

TEORIILE I MODELELE MANAGEMENTULUI EDUCAIONAL

1. Distinguishing Educational Leadership and Management 2. The Significance of the Educational Context 3. Conceptualising Educational Management 4. The Relevance of Theory to Good Practice 5. The Nature of Theory 6. The Characteristics of Theory 7. Models of Educational Management 8. Formal models 9. Collegial models 10.Political models 11. Subjective models 12.Ambiguity models 13.Cultural models 14.Concluzion: Comparing the Management Models 15.Using Theory to Improve Practice

II.

STUDII DE MANAGEMENT I LEADERSHIP PUBLICATE N ERIC

1. The Strategies of a Leader 2. Transformational Leadership 3. Facilitative Leadership 4. Visionary Leadership 5. Ethical Leadership 6. Inducting School Leaders 7. Leadership for School Culture 8. Mistakes Educational Leaders Make 9. Principal Monitoring 10.

Collaborative Schools

11. Leadership for School Culture

III.

STUDII DE LEADERSHIP COLAR PUBLICATE N EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, ASCDE

We Can Do Better - Ron Brandt Making Math Count Managing Leadership - Joanne Rooney Supporting New Educators - Naomi Thiers Multiple Measures.The New Teacher's Guide to Better Assessment- Mary Jo Grdina

Theories of Educational Management

Summary: Educational management is a field of study and practice concerned with the operation of educational organizations. The present author has argued consistently (Bush, 1986; Bush, 1995; Bush, 1999; Bush, 2003) that educational management has to be centrally concerned with the purpose or aims of education. These purposes or goals provide the crucial sense of direction to underpin the management of educational institutions. Unless this link between purpose and management is clear and close, there is a danger of managerialism . . . a stress on procedures at the expense of educational purpose and values (Bush, 1999, p. 240). Management possesses no super-ordinate goals or values of its own. The pursuit of efficiency may be the mission statement of management but this is efficiency in the achievement of objectives which others define (Newman & Clarke, 1994, p. 29).

Note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base in educational administration. The process of deciding on the aims of the organization is at the heart of educational management. In some settings, aims are decided by the principal, often working in association with senior colleagues and perhaps a small group of lay stakeholders. In many schools, however, goal setting is a corporate activity undertaken by formal bodies or informal groups. School aims are strongly influenced by pressures from the external environment. Many countries have a national curriculum and these often leave little scope for schools to decide their own educational aims. Institutions may be left with the residual task of interpreting external imperatives rather than determining aims on the basis of their own assessment of student need. The key issue here is the extent to which school managers are able to modify government policy and develop alternative approaches based on school-level values and vision. Do they have to follow the script, or can they ad lib?

1.Distinguishing
3

Educational Leadership and Management

The concept of management overlaps with two similar terms, leadership and administration. Management is widely used in Britain, Europe, and Africa, for example, while administration is preferred in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Leadership is of great contemporary interest in most countries in the developed World. Dimmock (1999) differentiates these concepts whilst also acknowledging that there are competing definitions: School leaders [experience] tensions between competing elements of leadership, management and administration. Irrespective of how these terms are defined, school leaders experience difficulty in deciding the balance between higher order tasks designed to improve staff, student and school performance (leadership), routine maintenance of present operations (management) and lower order duties (administration). (p. 442) Administration is not associated with lower order duties in the U.S. but may be seen as the overarching term, which embraces both leadership and management. Cuban (1988) provides one of the clearest distinctions between leadership and management. By leadership, I mean influencing others actions in achieving desirable ends . . . . Managing is maintaining efficiently and effectively current organisational arrangements . . . . I prize both managing and leading and attach no special value to either since different settings and times call for varied responses. (p. xx) Leadership and management need to be given equal prominence if schools are to operate effectively and achieve their objectives. Leading and managing are distinct, but both are important . . . . The challenge of modern organisations requires the objective perspective of the manager as well as the flashes of vision and commitment wise leadership provides (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. xiii-xiv). The English National College for School Leadership. The contemporary emphasis on leadership rather than management is illustrated starkly by the opening of the English National College for School Leadership (NCSL) in November 2000. NCSLs stress on leadership has led to a neglect of management. Visionary and inspirational leadership are advocated but much less attention is given to the structures and processes required to implement these ideas successfully. A fuller discussion of the NCSL may be found in Bush (2006).

2.The Significance of the Educational Context

Educational management as a field of study and practice was derived from management principles first applied to industry and commerce, mainly in the United States. Theory development largely involved the application of industrial models to educational settings. As the subject became established as an academic field in its own right, its theorists and practitioners began to develop alternative models based on their observation of, and experience in, schools and colleges. By the 21st century the main theories, featured in this chapter, have either been developed in the educational context or have been adapted from industrial models to meet the specific requirements of schools and colleges. Educational management has progressed from being a new field dependent upon 4

ideas developed in other settings to become an established field with its own theories and research.

3.Conceptualising Educational Management

Leadership and management are often regarded as essentially practical activities. Practitioners and policy-makers tend to be dismissive of theories and concepts for their alleged remoteness from the real school situation. Willower (1980, p. 2), for example, asserts that the application of theories by practicing administrators [is] a difficult and problematic undertaking. Indeed, it is clear that theories are simply not used very much in the realm of practice. This comment suggests that theory and practice are regarded as separate aspects of educational leadership and management. Academics develop and refine theory while managers engage in practice. In short, there is a theory/ practice divide, or gap (English, 2002): The theory-practice gap stands as the Gordian Knot of educational administration. Rather than be cut, it has become a permanent fixture of the landscape because it is embedded in the way we construct theories for use . . . The theory-practice gap will be removed when we construct different and better theories that predict the effects of practice. (p. 1, 3)

4.The Relevance of Theory to Good Practice

If practitioners shun theory then they must rely on experience as a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem they draw on a range of options suggested by previous experience with that type of issue. However, it is wishful thinking to assume that experience alone will teach leaders everything they need to know (Copland et al, 2002, p. 75). Teachers sometimes explain their decisions as just common sense. However, such apparently pragmatic decisions are often based on implicit theories. When a teacher or a manager takes a decision it reflects in part that persons view of the organization. Such views or preconceptions are coloured by experience and by the attitudes engendered by that experience. These attitudes take on the character of frames of reference or theories, which inevitably influence the decision-making process. Theory serves to provide a rationale for decision-making. Managerial activity is enhanced by an explicit awareness of the theoretical framework underpinning practice in educational institutions. There are three main arguments to support the view that managers have much to learn from an appreciation of theory, providing that it is grounded firmly (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in the realities of practice: 1.Reliance on facts as the sole guide to action is unsatisfactory because all evidence requires interpretation. Theory provides mental models (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 75) to help in understanding the nature and effects of practice. 2.Dependence on personal experience in interpreting facts and making decisions is narrow because it discards the knowledge of others. Familiarity with the arguments and insights of theorists enables the practitioner to deploy a wide range of experience and understanding in resolving the problems of today. An 5

understanding of theory also helps reduces the likelihood of mistakes occurring while experience is being acquired. 3.Experience may be particularly unhelpful as the sole guide to action when the practitioner begins to operate in a different context. Organizational variables may mean that practice in one school or college has little relevance in the new environment. A broader awareness of theory and practice may be valuable as the manager attempts to interpret behaviour in the fresh situation. Of course, theory is useful only so long as it has relevance to practice in education. Hoyle (1986) distinguishes between theory-for-understanding and theory-for-practice. While both are potentially valuable, the latter is more significant for managers in education. The relevance of theory should be judged by the extent to which it informs managerial action and contributes to the resolution of practical problems in schools and colleges.

5.The Nature of Theory

There is no single all-embracing theory of educational management. In part this reflects the astonishing diversity of educational institutions, ranging from small rural elementary schools to very large universities and colleges. It relates also to the varied nature of the problems encountered in schools and colleges, which require different approaches and solutions. Above all, it reflects the multifaceted nature of theory in education and the social sciences: Students of educational management who turn to organisational theory for guidance in their attempt to understand and manage educational institutions will not find a single, universally applicable theory but a multiplicity of theoretical approaches each jealously guarded by a particular epistemic community (Ribbins, 1985, p. 223). The existence of several different perspectives creates what Bolman and Deal (1997, p. 11) describe as conceptual pluralism: a jangling discord of multiple voices. Each theory has something to offer in explaining behaviour and events in educational institutions. The perspectives favoured by managers, explicitly or implicitly, inevitably influence or determine decision-making. Griffiths (1997) provides strong arguments to underpin his advocacy of theoretical pluralism. The basic idea is that all problems cannot be studied fruitfully using a single theory. Some problems are large and complex and no single theory is capable of encompassing them, while others, although seemingly simple and straightforward, can be better understood through the use of multiple theories . . . particular theories are appropriate to certain problems, but not others (Griffiths, 1997, p. 372).

6.The Characteristics of Theory

Most theories of educational leadership and management possess three major characteristics: 1.Theories tend to be normative in that they reflect beliefs about the nature of educational institutions and the behaviour of individuals within them. Simkins (1999) stresses the importance of distinguishing between descriptive and normative uses of theory. This is a distinction which is often not clearly made. The former are those which attempt to describe the nature of organisations and 6

how they work and, sometimes, to explain why they are as they are. The latter, in contrast, attempt to prescribe how organisations should or might be managed to achieve particular outcomes more effectively (p. 270). 2.Theories tend to be selective or partial in that they emphasize certain aspects of the institution at the expense of other elements. The espousal of one theoretical model leads to the neglect of other approaches. Schools and colleges are arguably too complex to be capable of analysis through a single dimension. 3.Theories of educational management are often based on, or supported by, observation of practice in educational institutions. English (2002, p. 1) says that observation may be used in two ways. First, observation may be followed by the development of concepts, which then become theoretical frames. Such perspectives based on data from systematic observation are sometimes called grounded theory. Because such approaches are derived from empirical inquiry in schools and colleges, they are more likely to be perceived as relevant by practitioners. Secondly, researchers may use a specific theoretical frame to select concepts to be tested through observation. The research is then used to prove or verify the efficacy of the theory (English, 2002, p. 1).

7.Models of Educational Management: An Introduction

Several writers have chosen to present theories in distinct groups or bundles but they differ in the models chosen, the emphasis given to particular approaches and the terminology used to describe them. Two of the best known frameworks are those by Bolman and Deal (1997) and Morgan (1997). In this chapter, the main theories are classified into six major models of educational management (Bush, 2003). All these models are given significant attention in the literature of educational management and have been subject to a degree of empirical verification. Table 1 shows the six models and links them to parallel leadership models. The links between management and leadership models are given extended treatment in Bush (2003).

8.FORMAL MODELS
Formal model is an umbrella term used to embrace a number of similar but not identical approaches. The title formal is used because these theories emphasize the official and structural elements of organizations: Formal models assume that organisations are hierarchical systems in which managers use rational means to pursue agreed goals. Heads possess authority legitimised by their formal positions within the organisation and are accountable to sponsoring bodies for the activities of their organisation (Bush, 2003, p. 37). This model has seven major features: 1. They tend to treat organizations as systems. A system comprises elements that have clear organisational links with each other. Within schools, for example, departments and other sub-units are systemically related to each other and to the institution itself. 2. Formal models give prominence to the official structure of the organization. Formal structures are often represented by organization charts, which show the authorized pattern of relationships between members of the institution. 8

3. In formal models the official structures of the organization tend to be hierarchical. Teachers are responsible to department chairs who, in turn, are answerable to principals for the activities of their departments. The hierarchy thus represents a means of control for leaders over their staff. 4. All formal approaches typify schools as goal-seeking organizations. The institution is thought to have official purposes, which are accepted and pursued by members of the organization. Increasingly, goals are set within a broader vision of a preferred future for the school (Beare, Caldwell, & Millikan, 1989). 5. Formal models assume that managerial decisions are made through a rational process. Typically, all the options are considered and evaluated in terms of the goals of the organization. The most suitable alternative is then selected to enable those objectives to be pursued. 6. Formal approaches present the authority of leaders as a product of their official positions within the organization. Principals power is positional and is sustained only while they continue to hold their posts. In formal models there is an emphasis on the accountability of the organization to its sponsoring body. Most schools remain responsible to the school district. In many centralised systems, school principals are accountable to national or state governments. In decentralised systems, principals are answerable to their governing boards. (Adapted from Bush, 2003, p. 37-38). These seven basic features are present to a greater or lesser degree in each of the individual theories, which together comprise the formal models. These are:

STRUCTURAL MODELS; SYSTEMS MODELS; BUREAUCRATIC MODELS; RATIONAL MODELS; HIERARCHICAL MODELS.

A full discussion of each of these sub-models appears in Bush (2003).

Managerial Leadership
The type of leadership most closely associated with formal models is managerial. Managerial leadership assumes that the focus of leaders ought to be on functions, tasks and behaviours and that if these functions are carried out competently the work of others in the organisation will be facilitated. Most approaches to managerial leadership also assume that the behaviour of organisational members is largely rational. Authority and influence are allocated to formal positions in proportion to the status of those positions in the organisational hierarchy. (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 14) Dresslers (2001) review of leadership in Charter schools in the United States shows the significance of managerial leadership: Traditionally, the principals role has been clearly focused on management responsibilities (p. 9

175). Managerial leadership is focused on managing existing successfully rather than visioning a better future for the school.

activities

The Limitations of Formal Models

The various formal models pervade much of the literature on educational management. They are normative approaches in that they present ideas about how people in organizations ought to behave. Levacic et al (1999) argue that these assumptions underpin the educational reforms of the 1990s, notably in England: A major development in educational management in the last decade has been much greater emphasis on defining effective leadership by individuals in management posts in terms of the effectiveness of their organisation, which is increasingly judged in relation to measurable outcomes for students . . . This is argued to require a rational-technicist approach to the structuring of decisionmaking. (p. 15) CELE CINCI SLBICIUNI ALE MODELELOR FORMALE There are five specific weaknesses associated with formal models: 1. It may be unrealistic to characterize schools and colleges as goaloriented organizations. It is often difficult to ascertain the goals of educational institutions. Formal objectives may have little operational relevance because they are often vague and general, because there may be many different goals competing for resources, and because goals may emanate from individuals and groups as well as from the leaders of the organisation. Even where the purposes of schools and colleges have been clarified, there are further problems in judging whether objectives have been achieved. Policymakers and practitioners often rely on examination performance to assess schools but this is only one dimension of the educational process. 2.The portrayal of decision-making as a rational process is fraught with difficulties. The belief that managerial action is preceded by a process of evaluation of alternatives and a considered choice of the most appropriate option is rarely substantiated. Much human behaviour is irrational and this inevitably influences the nature of decision-making in education. Weick (1976, p. 1), for example,asserts that rational practice is the exception rather than the norm. 3.Formal models focus on the organization as an entity and ignore or underestimate the contribution of individuals. They assume that people occupy preordained positions in the structure and that their behaviour reflects their organizational positions rather than their individual qualities and experience. Greenfield (1973)has been particularly critical of this view (see the discussion of subjective models, below). Samier (2002, p. 40) adopts a similar approach, expressing concern about the role technical rationality plays in crippling the personality of the bureaucrat, reducing him [sic] to a cog in a machine.

10

4.A central assumption of formal models is that power resides at the apex of the pyramid. Principals possess authority by virtue of their positions as the appointed leaders of their institutions. This focus on official authority leads to a view of institutional management which is essentially top down. Policy is laid down by senior managers and implemented by staff lower down the hierarchy. Their acceptance of managerial decisions is regarded as unproblematic. Organizations with large numbers of professional staff tend to exhibit signs of tension between the conflicting demands of professionalism and the hierarchy. Formal models assume that leaders, because they are appointed on merit, have the competence to issue appropriate instructions to subordinates. Professional organizations have a different ethos with expertise distributed widely within the institution. This may come into conflict with professional authority. 5.Formal approaches are based on the implicit assumption that organizations are relatively stable. Individuals may come and go but they slot into predetermined positions in a static structure. Organisations operating in simpler and more stable environments are likely to employ less complex and more centralised structures, with authority, rules and policies as the primary vehicles for co-ordinating the work (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 77). Assumptions of stability are unrealistic in contemporary schools. March and Olsen (1976, p.21) are right to claim that Individuals find themselves in a more complex, less stable and less understood world than that described by standard theories of organisational choice.

Are Formal Models Still Valid?

These criticisms of formal models suggest that they have serious limitations. The dominance of the hierarchy is compromised by the expertise possessed by professional staff. The supposed rationality of the decision-making process requires modification to allow for the pace and complexity of change. The concept of organizational goals is challenged by those who point to the existence of multiple objectives in education and the possible conflict between goals held at individual, departmental and institutional levels. Rationalistic-bureaucratic notions . . . have largely proven to be sterile and to have little application to administrative practice in the real world (Owens & Shakeshaft, 1992, p. 4) Despite these limitations, it would be inappropriate to dismiss formal approaches as irrelevant to schools and colleges. The other models discussed in this chapter were all developed as a reaction to the perceived weaknesses of formal theories. However, these alternative perspectives have not succeeded in dislodging the formal models, which remain valid as partial descriptions of organization and management in education. Owens and Shakeshaft (1992)refer to a reduction of confidence in bureaucratic models, and a paradigm shift to a more sophisticated analysis, but formal models still have much to contribute to our understanding of schools as organisations.

9.COLLEGIAL MODELS
Central Features of Collegial Models
11

Collegial models include all those theories that emphasize that power and decision-making should be shared among some or all members of the organization (Bush, 2003): Collegial models assume that organizations determine policy and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to consensus. Power is shared among some or all members of the organization who are thought to have a shared understanding about the aims of the institution. (p. 64) Brundrett (1998) says that collegiality can broadly be defined as teachers conferring and collaborating with other teachers (p. 305). Little (1990) explains that the reason to pursue the study and practice of collegiality is that, presumably, something is gained when teachers work together and something is lost when they do not (p. 166). Collegial models have the following major features: 1.Theyare strongly normative in orientation. The advocacy of collegiality is made more on the basis of prescription than on research-based studies of school practice (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996, p. 443). 2.Collegial models seem to be particularly appropriate for organizations such as schools and colleges that have significant numbers of professional staff. Teachers have an authority of expertise that contrasts with the positional authority associated with formal models. Teachers require a measure of autonomy in the classroom but also need to collaborate to ensure a coherent approach to teaching and learning (Brundrett, 1998, p. 307). Collegial models assume that professionals also have a right to share in the wider decision-making process. Shared decisions are likely to be better informed and are also much more likely to be implemented effectively. 3.Collegial models assume a common set of values held by members of the organization. These common values guide the managerial activities of the organization and are thought to lead to shared educational objectives. The common values of professionals form part of the justification for the optimistic assumption that it is always possible to reach agreement about goals and policies. Brundrett (1998, p. 308) goes further in referring to the importance of shared vision as a basis for collegial decision-making. 4.The size of decision-making groups is an important element in collegial management. They have to be sufficiently small to enable everyone to be heard. This may mean that collegiality works better in elementary schools, or in sub-units, than at the institutional level in secondary schools. Meetings of the whole staff may operate collegially in small schools but may be suitable only for information exchange in larger institutions. The collegial model deals with this problem of scale by building-in the assumption that teachers have formal representation within the various decisionmaking bodies. The democratic element of formal representation rests on the allegiance owed by participants to their constituencies (Bush, 2003, p. 67). 5.Collegial models assume that decisions are reached by consensus. The belief that there are common values and shared objectives leads to the view that 12

it is both desirable and possible to resolve problems by agreement. The decisionmaking process may be elongated by the search for compromise but this is regarded as an acceptable price to pay to maintain the aura of shared values and beliefs. The case for consensual decision-making rests in part on the ethical dimension of collegiality. Imposing decisions on staff is considered morally repugnant, and inconsistent with the notion of consent. (Bush, 2003, p. 65-67).

Participative Leadership
Because policy is determined within a participative framework, the principal is expected to adopt participative leadership strategies. Heroic models of leadership are inappropriate when influence and power are widely distributed within the institution. The collegial leader is at most a first among equals in an academic organisation supposedly run by professional experts . . . the collegial leader is not so much a star standing alone as the developer of consensus among the professionals who must share the burden of the decision. (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 45) While transformational leadership is consistent with the collegial model, in that it assumes that leaders and staff have shared values and common interests (Bush, 2003, p. 76), the leadership model most relevant to collegiality is participative leadership, which assumes that the decision-making processes of the group ought to be the central focus of the group (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 12). This is a normative model, underpinned by three criteria (Leithwood et al, 1999):

Participation will increase school effectiveness. Participation is justified by democratic principles. Leadership is potentially available to any legitimate stakeholder. (p. 12)

Sergiovanni (1984) claims that a participative approach succeeds in bonding staff together and in easing the pressures on school principals. The burdens of leadership will be less if leadership functions and roles are shared and if the concept of leadership density were to emerge as a viable replacement for principal leadership (p. 13).

Limitations of Collegial Models

Collegial models have been popular in the academic and official literature on educational Collegial models have been popular in the academic and official literature on educational management since the 1980s. However, their critics point to a number of limitations: 1. Collegial models are so strongly normative that they tend to obscure rather than portray reality. Precepts about the most appropriate ways of managing educational institutions mingle with descriptions of behaviour. While collegiality is increasingly advocated, the evidence of its presence in schools and colleges tends to be sketchy and incomplete. The collegial literature often confuses descriptive and normative enterprises . . . The collegial idea of round table decision making does not accurately reflect the actual processes in most institutions (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 33). 13

2. Collegial approaches to decision-making tend to be slow and cumbersome. When policy proposals require the approval of a series of committees, the process is often tortuous and time consuming. Participants may have to endure many lengthy meetings before issues are resolved. This requires patience and a considerable investment of time. Several English primary school heads interviewed by Webb and Vulliamy (1996) refer to the time-consuming nature of meetings where the discussion phase seemed to go on and on (p. 445) and I felt we werent getting anywhere (p. 446). 3. A fundamental assumption of democratic models is that decisions are reached by consensus. It is believed that the outcome of debate should be agreement based on the shared values of participants. In practice, though, teachers have their own views and may also represent constituencies within the school or college. Inevitably these sectional interests have a significant influence on committees processes. The participatory framework may become the focal point for disagreement between factions. 4. Collegial models have to be evaluated in relation to the special features of educational institutions. The participative aspects of decisionmaking exist alongside the structural and bureaucratic components of schools and colleges. Often there is tension between these rather different modes of management. The participative element rests on the authority of expertise possessed by professional staff but this rarely trumps the positional authority of official leaders or the formal power of external bodies. Brundrett (1998) claims that collegiality is inevitably the handmaiden of an ever increasingly centralised bureaucracy (p. 313) 5. Collegial approaches to school and college decision-making may be difficult to sustain because principals remain accountable to various external groups. They may experience considerable difficulty in defending policies that have emerged from a collegial process but do not enjoy their personal support. Brundrett (1998) is right to argue that heads need to be genuinely brave to lend power to a democratic forum which may make decisions with which the headteacher may not themselves agree (p. 310). 6. The effectiveness of a collegial system depends in part on the attitudes of staff. If they actively support participation then it may succeed. If they display apathy or hostility, it seems certain to fail. Wallace (1989) argues that teachers may not welcome collegiality because they are disinclined to accept any authority intermediate between themselves and the principal. 7. Collegial processes in schools depend even more on the attitudes of principals than on the support of teachers. Participative machinery can be established only with the support of the principal, who has the legal authority to manage the school. Hoyle (1986) concludes that its dependence on the principals support limits the validity of the collegiality model.

Contrived Collegiality
Hargreaves (1994) makes a more fundamental criticism of collegiality, arguing that it is being espoused or contrived by official groups in order to secure the implementation of national or state policy. Contrived collegiality has the following features (Hargreaves, 1994): 14

 Administratively regulated rather than spontaneous. Compulsory rather than discretionary. Geared to the implementation of the mandates of government or the principal. Fixed in time and place. Designed to have predictable outcomes. (p. 195-196) Webb and Vulliamy (1996) argue that collegial frameworks may be used for essentially political activity, the focus of the next section of this chapter (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996): The current climate . . . encourages headteachers to be powerful and, if necessary, manipulative leaders in order to ensure that policies and practices agreed upon are ones that they can wholeheartedly support and defend. (p. 448)

Is Collegiality an Unattainable Ideal?

Collegial models contribute several important concepts to the theory of educational management. Participative approaches are a necessary antidote to the rigid hierarchical assumptions of the formal models. However, collegial perspectives underestimate the official authority of the principal and present bland assumptions of consensus, which often cannot be substantiated. Little (1990)following substantial research in the United States, concludes that collegiality turns out to be rare (p.187). Collegiality is an elusive ideal but a measure of participation is essential if schools are to be harmonious and creative organisations.

10.POLITICAL MODELS
Central Features of Political Models
Political models embrace those theories that characterize decision-making as a bargaining process. Analysis focuses on the distribution of power and influence in organizations and on the bargaining and negotiation between interest groups. Conflict is regarded as endemic within organizations and management is directed towards the regulation of political behaviour (Bush, 2003): Political models assume that in organizations policy and decisions emerge through a process of negotiation and bargaining. Interest groups develop and form alliances in pursuit of particular policy objectives. Conflict is viewed as a natural phenomenon and power accrues to dominant coalitions rather than being the preserve of formal leaders. (p. 89) Baldridges (1971) research in universities in the U.S. led him to conclude that the political model, rather than the formal or collegial perspectives, best captured the realities of life in higher education. Political models have the following major features: 1.They tend to focus on group activity rather than the institution as a whole. Ball (1987) refers to baronial politics (p. 221) and discusses the nature 15

of conflict between the leaders of subgroups. He adds that conflict between barons is primarily about resources and power. 2.Political models are concerned with interests and interest groups. Individuals are thought to have a variety of interests that they pursue within the organization. In talking about interests, we are talking about pre-dispositions embracing goals, values, desires, expectations, and other orientations and inclinations that lead a person to act in one way rather than another (Morgan, 1997, p. 61). 3.Political models stress the prevalence of conflict in organizations. Interest groups pursue their independent objectives, which may contrast sharply with the aims of other subunits within the institution and lead to conflict between them. Conflict will always be present in organisations . . . its source rests in some perceived or real divergence of interests (Morgan, 1997, p. 167). 4.Political models assume that the goals of organizations are unstable, ambiguous and contested. Individuals, interest groups and coalitions have their own purposes and act towards their achievement. Goals may be disputed and then become a significant element in the conflict between groups (Bolman & Deal, 1991): The political frame . . . insists that organisational goals are set through negotiations among the members of coalitions. Different individuals and groups have different objectives and resources, and each attempt to bargain with other members or coalitions to influence goals and decision-making process. (p. 190) 5.As noted above, decisions within political arenas emerge after a complex process of bargaining and negotiation. Organisational goals and decisions emerge from ongoing processes of bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among members of different coalitions (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 186). 6.The concept of power is central to all political theories. The outcomes of the complex decision-making process are likely to be determined according to the relative power of the individuals and interest groups involved in the debate. Power is the medium through which conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved. Power influences who gets what, when and how . . . the sources of power are rich and varied (Morgan, 1997, p. 170-171).

Sources of Power in Education

Power may be regarded as the ability to determine the behaviour of others or to decide the outcome of conflict. Where there is disagreement it is likely to be resolved according to the relative resources of power available to the participants. There are many sources of power but in broad terms a distinction can be made between authority and influence. Authority is legitimate power, which is vested in leaders within formal organizations. Influence depends on personal characteristics and expertise. There are SIX SIGNIFICANT FORMS OF POWER relevant to schools and colleges: 1.Positional power. A major source of power in any organization is that accruing to individuals who hold an official position in the institution. Handy (1993, p. 128) says that positional power is legal or legitimate power. In schools, the principal is regarded as the legitimate leader and possesses legal authority. 16

2.Authority of expertise. In professional organizations there is a significant reservoir of power available to those who possess appropriate expertise. Teachers, for example, have specialist knowledge of aspects of the curriculum. The expert . . . often carries an aura of authority and power that can add considerable weight to a decision that rests in the balance (Morgan, 1997, p. 181). 3.Personal power. Individuals who are charismatic or possess verbal skills or certain other characteristics may be able to exercise personal power. These personal skills are independent of the power accruing to individuals by virtue of their position in the organization (Bolman & Deal, 1991). 4.Control of rewards. Power is likely to be possessed to a significant degree by individuals who have control of rewards. In education, rewards may include promotion, good references, and allocation to favoured classes or groups. Individuals who control or influence the allocation of these benefits may be able to determine the behaviour of teachers who seek one or more of the rewards. 5.Coercive power. The mirror image of the control of rewards may be coercive power. This implies the ability to enforce compliance, backed by the threat of sanctions. Coercive power rests on the ability to constrain, to block, to interfere, or to punish (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 196). 1. Control of resources. Control of the distribution of resources may be an important source of power in educational institutions, particularly in selfmanaging schools. Decisions about the allocation of resources are likely to be among the most significant aspects of the policy process in such organisations. Control of these resources may give power over those people who wish to acquire them. Consideration of all these sources of power leads to the conclusion that principals possess substantial resources of authority and influence. However, they do not have absolute power. Other leaders and teachers also have power, arising principally from their personal qualities and expertise. These other sources of power may act as a counter-balance to the principals positional authority and control of rewards.

Transactional Leadership
The leadership model most closely aligned with political models is that of transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is leadership in which relationships with teachers are based upon an exchange for some valued resource. To the teacher, interaction between administrators and teachers is usually episodic, short-lived and limited to the exchange transaction (Miller & Miller, 2001, p. 182). This exchange process is an established political strategy. As we noted earlier, principals hold power in the form of key rewards such as promotion and references. However, they require the co-operation of staff to secure the effective management of the school. An exchange may secure benefits for both parties to the arrangement. The major limitation of such a process is that it does not engage staff beyond the immediate gains arising from the transaction.

17

Transactional leadership does not produce long-term commitment to the values and vision promoted by school leaders.

The Limitations of Political Models

Political models are primarily descriptive and analytical. The focus on interests, conflict between groups, and power provides a valid and persuasive interpretation of the decision-making process in schools. However, these theories do have four major limitations: 1.Political models are immersed so strongly in the language of power, conflict and manipulation that they neglect other standard aspects of organizations. There is little recognition that most organizations operate for much of the time according to routine bureaucratic procedures. The focus is heavily on policy formulation while the implementation of policy receives little attention. The outcomes of bargaining and negotiation are endorsed, or may falter, within the formal authority structure of the school or college. 2.Political models stress the influence of interest groups on decisionmaking. The assumption is that organizations are fragmented into groups, which pursue their own independent goals. This aspect of political models may be inappropriate for elementary schools, which may not have the apparatus for political activity. The institutional level may be the center of attention for staff in these schools, invalidating the political models emphasis on interest group fragmentation. 3.In political models there is too much emphasis on conflict and a neglect of the possibility of professional collaboration leading to agreed outcomes. The assumption that teachers are engaged in a calculated pursuit of their own interests underestimates the capacity of teachers to work in harmony with colleagues for the benefit of their pupils and students. 4.Political models are regarded primarily as descriptive or explanatory theories. Their advocates claim that these approaches are realistic portrayals of the decision-making process in schools and colleges. There is no suggestion that teachers should pursue their own self-interest, simply an assessment, based on observation, that their behaviour is consistent with apolitical perspective. Nevertheless, the less attractive aspects of political models may make them unacceptable to many educationists for ethical reasons.

Are Political Models Valid?

Political models provide rich descriptions and persuasive analysis of events and behaviour in schools and colleges. The explicit recognition of interests as prime motivators for action is valid, as are the concepts of conflict and power. For many teachers and school leaders, political models fit their experience of day-to-day reality in schools. Lindle (1999), a school administrator in the United States, argues that it is a pervasive feature of schools.

11.Subjective Models
Central Features of Subjective Models
18

Subjective models focus on individuals within organizations rather than the total institution or its subunits. These perspectives suggest that each person has a subjective and selective perception of the organization. Events and situations have different meanings for the various participants in institutions. Organizations are portrayed as complex units, which reflect the numerous meanings and perceptions of all the people within them. Organizations are social constructions in the sense that they emerge from the interaction of their participants. They are manifestations of the values and beliefs of individuals rather than the concrete realities presented in formal models (Bush, 2003): Subjective models assume that organizations are the creations of the people within them. Participants are thought to interpret situations in different ways and these individual perceptions are derived from their background and values. Organizations have different meanings for each of their members and exist only in the experience of those members. (p. 113) Subjective models became prominent in educational management as a result of the work of Thomas Greenfield in the 1970s and 1980s. Greenfield was concerned about several aspects of systems theory, which he regarded as the dominant model of educational organizations. He argues that systems theory is bad theory and criticizes its focus on the institution as a concrete reality (Greenfield, 1973): Most theories of organisation grossly simplify the nature of the reality with which they deal. The drive to see the organisation as a single kind of entity with a life of its own apart from the perceptions and beliefs of those involved in it blinds us to its complexity and the variety of organisations people create around themselves. (p. 571) Subjective models have the following major features: 1. They focus on the beliefs and perceptions of individual members of organizations rather than the institutional level or interest groups. The focus on individuals rather than the organization is a fundamental difference between subjective and formal models, and creates what Hodgkinson (1993) regards as an unbridgeable divide. A fact can never entail a value, and an individual can never become a collective (p. xii). 2. Subjective models are concerned with the meanings placed on events by people within organizations. The focus is on the individual interpretation of behaviour rather than the situations and actions themselves. Events and meanings are loosely coupled: the same events can have very different meanings for different people because of differences in the schema that they use to interpret their experience (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 244). 3. The different meanings placed on situations by the various participants are products of their values, background and experience. So the interpretation of events depends on the beliefs held by each member of the organization. Greenfield (1979) asserts that formal theories make the mistake of treating the meanings of leaders as if they were the objective realities of the organization. Too frequently in the past, organisation and administrative theory has . . . taken sides in the ideological battles of social process and presented as theory (p. 103) , 19

the views of a dominating set of values, the views of rulers, elites, and their administrators. 4. Subjective models treat structure as a product of human interaction rather than something that is fixed or predetermined. The organization charts, which are characteristic of formal models, are regarded as fictions in that they cannot predict the behaviour of individuals. Subjective approaches move the emphasis away from structure towards a consideration of behaviour and process. Individual behaviour is thought to reflect the personal qualities and aspirations of the participants rather than the formal roles they occupy. Organisations exist to serve human needs, rather than the reverse (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 121). 5. Subjective approaches emphasize the significance of individual purposes and deny the existence of organizational goals. Greenfield (1973) asks What is an organisation that it can have such a thing as a goal? (p. 553). The view that organizations are simply the product of the interaction of their members leads naturally to the assumption that objectives are individual, not organizational (Bush, 2003, p. 114-118).

Subjective Models and Qualitative Research

The theoretical dialectic between formal and subjective models is reflected in the debate about positivism and interpretivism in educational research. Subjective models relate to a mode of research that is predominantly interpretive or qualitative. This approach to enquiry is based on the subjective experience of individuals. The main aim is to seek understanding of the ways in which individuals create, modify and interpret the social world which they inhabit. The main features of interpretive, or qualitative, research echo those of the subjective models: 1.They focus on the perceptions of individuals rather than the whole organisation. The subjects individual perspective is central to qualitative research (Morrison, 2002, p. 19). 2.Interpretive research is concerned with the meanings, or interpretations, placed on events by participants. All human life is experienced and constructed from a subjective perspective (Morrison, 2002, p. 19). 3.Research findings are interpreted using grounded theory. Theory is emergent and must arise from particular situations; it should be grounded on data generated by the research act. Theory should not proceed research but follow it (Cohen et al, 2000, p. 23).

Postmodern Leadership
Subjective theorists prefer to stress the personal qualities of individuals rather than their official positions in the organization. The subjective view is that leadership is a product of personal qualities and skills and not simply an automatic outcome of official authority. 20

The notion of post-modern leadership aligns closely with the principles of subjective models. Keough and Tobin (2001, p. 2) say that current postmodern culture celebrates the multiplicity of subjective truths as defined by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority. They identify several KEY FEATURES OF POSTMODERNISM (Keough & Tobin, 2001):

Language does not reflect reality. Reality does not exist; there are multiple realities. Any situation is open to multiple interpretations. Situations must be understood at local level with particular attention to diversity.

(p. 11-13) Sackney and Mitchell (2001) stress the centrality of individual interpretation of events while also criticising visionary leadership. Leaders must pay attention to the cultural and symbolic structure of meaning construed by individuals and groups . . . postmodern theories of leadership take the focus off vision and place it squarely on voice (p. 13-14). Instead of a compelling vision articulated by leaders, there are multiple voices, and diverse cultural meanings.

The Limitations of Subjective Models

Subjective models are prescriptive approaches in that they reflect beliefs about the nature of organizations. They can be regarded as anti-theories in that they emerged as a reaction to the perceived limitations of the formal models. Although subjective models introduce several important concepts into the theory of educational management, they have FOUR SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES, which serve to limit their validity: 1.Subjective models are strongly normative in that they reflect the attitudes and beliefs of their supporters. Willower (1980) goes further to describe them as ideological. [Phenomenological] perspectives feature major ideological components and their partisans tend to be true believers when promulgating their positions rather than offering them for critical examination and test (p. 7). Subjective models comprise a series of principles rather than a coherent body of theory: Greenfield sets out to destroy the central principles of conventional theory but consistently rejects the idea of proposing a precisely formulated alternative (Hughes & Bush, 1991, p. 241). 2.Subjective models seem to assume the existence of an organization within which individual behaviour and interpretation occur but there is no clear indication of the nature of the organization. Organizations are perceived to be nothing more than a product of the meanings of their participants. In emphasizing the interpretations of individuals, subjective theorists neglect the institutions within which individuals behave, interact and derive meanings. 3.Subjective theorists imply that meanings are so individual that there may be as many interpretations as people. In practice, though, these meanings tend to cluster into patterns, which do enable participants and 21

observers to make valid generalizations about organizations. By focussing exclusively on the individual as a theoretical . . . entity, [Greenfield] precludes analyses of collective enterprises. Social phenomena cannot be reduced solely to the individual (Ryan, 1988, p. 69-70). 4.Subjective models they provide few guidelines for managerial action. Leaders are expected to acknowledge the individual meanings placed on events by members of organizations. This stance is much less secure than the precepts of the formal model.

The Importance of the Individual

The subjective perspective offers some valuable insights, which act as a corrective to the more rigid features of formal models. The focus on individual interpretations of events is a useful antidote to the uniformity of systems and structural theories. Similarly, the emphasis on individual aims, rather than organizational objectives, is an important contribution to our understanding of schools and colleges. Subjective models have close links with the emerging, but still weakly defined, notion of post-modern leadership. Leaders need to attend to the multiple voices in their organisations and to develop a power to, not a power over, model of leadership. However, as Sackney and Mitchell (2001) note, we do not see how postmodern leadership . . . can be undertaken without the active engagement of the school principal (p. 19). In other words, the subjective approach works only if leaders wish it to work, a fragile basis for any approach to educational leadership. Greenfields work has broadened our understanding of educational institutions and exposed the weaknesses of the formal models. However, it is evident that subjective models have supplemented, rather than supplanted, the formal theories Greenfield set out to attack.

12.AMBIGUITY MODELS
Central Features of Ambiguity Models
Ambiguity models stress uncertainty and unpredictability in organizations. These theories assume that organizational objectives are problematic and that institutions experience difficulty in ordering their priorities. Sub-units are portrayed as relatively autonomous groups, which are connected only loosely with one another and with the institution itself. Decision-making occurs within formal and informal settings where participation is fluid. Ambiguity is a prevalent feature of complex organizations such as schools and is likely to be particularly acute during periods of rapid change (Bush, 2003): Ambiguity models assume that turbulence and unpredictability are dominant features of organizations. There is no clarity over the objectives of institutions and their processes are not properly understood. Participation in policy making is fluid as members opt in or out of decision opportunities. (p. 134)

22

Ambiguity models are associated with a group of theorists, mostly from the United States, who developed their ideas in the 1970s. They were dissatisfied with the formal models, which they regarded as inadequate for many organizations, particularly during phases of instability. The most celebrated of the ambiguity perspectives is the garbage can model developed by Cohen and March (1986). March (1982) points to the jumbled reality in certain kinds of organization: Theories of choice underestimate the confusion and complexity surrounding actual decision making. Many things are happening at once; technologies are changing and poorly understood; alliances, preferences, and perceptions are changing; problems, solutions, opportunities, ideas, people, and outcomes are mixed together in a way that makes their interpretation uncertain and their connections unclear. (p. 36) The data supporting ambiguity models have been drawn largely from educational settings, leading March and Olsen (1976) to assert that ambiguity is a major feature of decision making in most public and educational organizations (p. 12). Ambiguity models have the following major features: 1.There is a lack of clarity about the goals of the organization. Many institutions are thought to have inconsistent and opaque objectives. It may be argued that aims become clear only through the behaviour of members of the organization (Cohen & March, 1986): The organization appears to operate on a variety of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can be described better as a loose collection of changing ideas than as a coherent structure. It discovers preferences through action more often than it acts on the basis of preferences. (p. 3) Educational institutions are regarded as typical in having no clearly defined objectives. Because teachers work independently for much of their time, they may experience little difficulty in pursuing their own interests. As a result schools and colleges are thought to have no coherent pattern of aims. 2.Ambiguity models assume that organizations have a problematic technology in that their processes are not properly understood. In education it is not clear how students acquire knowledge and skills so the processes of teaching are clouded with doubt and uncertainty. Bell (1980) claims that ambiguity infuses the central functions of schools. 3.Ambiguity theorists argue that organizations are characterized by fragmentation. Schoolsare divided into groups which have internal coherence based on common values and goals. Links between the groups are more tenuous and unpredictable. Weick (1976) uses the term loose coupling to describe relationships between sub-units. Loose coupling . . . carries connotations of impermanence, dissolvability, and tacitness all of which are potentially crucial properties of the glue (p. 3) that holds organizations together. Client-serving bodies, such as schools, fit the loose coupling metaphor much better than, say, car assembly plants where operations are regimented and

23

predictable. The degree of integration required in education is markedly less than in many other settings, allowing fragmentation to develop and persist. 4.Within ambiguity models organizational structure is regarded as problematic. Committees and other formal bodies have rights and responsibilities, which overlap with each other and with the authority assigned to individual managers. The effective power of each element within the structure varies with the issue and according to the level of participation of committee members. 5.Ambiguity models tend to be particularly appropriate for professional client-serving organizations. The requirement that professionals make individual judgements, rather than acting in accordance with managerial prescriptions, leads to the view that the larger schools and colleges operate in a climate of ambiguity. 6.Ambiguity theorists emphasize that there is fluid participation in the management of organizations. The participants in the organization vary among themselves in the amount of time and effort they devote to the organization; individual participants vary from one time to another. As a result standard theories of power and choice seem to be inadequate. (Cohen & March, 1986, p. 3). 7.A further source of ambiguity is provided by the signals emanating from the organizations environment. In an era of rapid change, schools may experience difficulties in interpreting the various messages being transmitted from the environment and in dealing with conflicting signals. The uncertainty arising from the external context adds to the ambiguity of the decision-making process within the institution. 8.Ambiguity theorists emphasize the prevalence of unplanned decisions. The lack of agreed goals means that decisions have no clear focus. Problems, solutions and participants interact and choices somehow emerge from the confusion. The rational model is undermined by ambiguity, since it is so heavily dependent on the availability of information about relationships between inputs and outputs between means and ends. If ambiguity prevails, then it is not possible for organizations to have clear aims and objectives. (Levacic, 1995, p. 82) 9.Ambiguity models stress the advantages of decentralization. Given the complexity and unpredictability of organizations, it is thought that many decisions should be devolved to subunits and individuals. Weick (1976) argues that devolution enables organizations to survive while particular subunits are threatened (Bush, 2003): If there is a breakdown in one portion of a loosely coupled system then this breakdown is sealed off and does not affect other portions of the organization . . . A loosely coupled system can isolate its trouble spots and prevent the trouble from spreading. (p. 135-141) The major contribution of the ambiguity model is that it uncouples problems and choices. The notion of decision-making as a rational process for finding solutions 24

to problems is supplanted by an uneasy mix of problems, solutions and participants from which decisions may eventually emerge. In the garbage can model, there is no clear distinction between means and ends, no articulation of organizational goals, no evaluation of alternatives in relation to organizational goals and no selection of the best means (Levacic, 1995, p. 82).

Contingent Leadership
In a climate of ambiguity, traditional notions of leadership require modification. The contingent model provides an alternative approach, recognizing the diverse nature of school contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation, rather than adopting a one size fits all stance. Yukl (2002) claims that the managerial job is too complex and unpredictable to rely on a set of standardised responses to events. Effective leaders are continuously reading the situation and evaluating how to adapt their behaviour to it (p. 234). Contingent leadership depends on managers mastering a large repertoire of leadership practices (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999, p. 15).

The Limitations of Ambiguity Models

Ambiguity models add some important dimensions to the theory of educational management. The concepts of problematic goals, unclear technology and fluid participation are significant contributions to organizational analysis. Most schools and colleges possess these features to a greater or lesser extent, so ambiguity models should be regarded primarily as analytical or descriptive approaches rather than normative theories. The ambiguity model appears to be increasingly plausible but it does have FOUR SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES: 1.It is difficult to reconcile ambiguity perspectives with the customary structures and processes of schools and colleges. Participants may move in and out of decision-making situations but the policy framework remains intact and has a continuing influence on the outcome of discussions. Specific goals may be unclear but teachers usually understand and accept the broad aims of education. 2.Ambiguity models exaggerate the degree of uncertainty in educational institutions. Schools and colleges have a number of predictable features, which serve to clarify the responsibilities of their members. Students and staff are expected to behave in accordance with standard rules and procedures. The timetable regulates the location and movement of all participants. There are usually clear plans to guide the classroom activities of teachers and pupils. Staff are aware of the accountability patterns, with teachers responsible ultimately to principals who, in turn, are answerable to local or State government. Educational institutions are rather more stable and predictable than the ambiguity perspective suggests: The term organised anarchy may seem overly colourful, suggesting more confusion, disarray, and conflict than is really present (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28). 3.Ambiguity models are less appropriate for stable organizations or for any institutions during periods of stability. The degree of predictability in schools depends on the nature of relationships with the external environment. 25

Where institutions are able to maintain relatively impervious boundaries, they can exert strong control over their own processes. Popular schools, for example, may be able to insulate their activities from external pressures. 4.Ambiguity models offer little practical guidance to leaders in educational institutions. While formal models emphasize the heads leading role in policy-making and collegial models stress the importance of team-work, ambiguity models can offer nothing more tangible than contingent leadership.

Ambiguity or Rationality?
Ambiguity models make a valuable contribution to the theory of educational management. The emphasis on the unpredictability of organizations is a significant counter to the view that problems can be solved through a rational process. The notion of leaders making a considered choice from a range of alternatives depends crucially on their ability to predict the consequences of a particular action. The edifice of the formal models is shaken by the recognition that conditions in schools may be too uncertain to allow an informed choice among alternatives. In practice, however, educational institutions operate with a mix of rational and anarchic processes. The more unpredictable the internal and external environment, the more applicable is the ambiguity metaphor: Organizations . . . are probably more rational than they are adventitious and the quest for rational procedures is not misplaced. However, . . . rationalistic approaches will always be blown off course by the contingent, the unexpected and the irrational (Hoyle, 1986, p. 72).

13.Cultural Models
What Do We Mean By Culture?
Cultural models emphasize the informal aspects of organizations rather then their official elements. They focus on the values, beliefs and norms of individuals in the organization and how these individual perceptions coalesce into shared organizational meanings. Cultural models are manifested by symbols and rituals rather than through the formal structure of the organization (Bush, 2003): Cultural models assume that beliefs, values and ideology are at the heart of organizations. Individuals hold certain idea and vale-preferences, which influence how they behave and how they view the behaviour of other members. These norms become shared traditions, which are communicated within the group and are reinforced by symbols and ritual. (p. 156). Beare, Caldwell, and Millikan (1992) claim that culture serves to define the unique qualities of individual organizations: An increasing number of . . . writers . . . have adopted the term "culture" to define that social and phenomenological uniqueness of a particular organisational community . . . We have finally acknowledged publicly that uniqueness is a virtue, that values are important and that they should be fostered (p. 173).

Societal Culture
26

Most of the literature on culture in education relates to organizational culture and that is also the main focus of this section. However, there is also an emerging literature on the broader theme of national or societal culture. Walker and Dimmock (2002) refer to issues of context and stress the need to avoid decontextualized paradigms (p. 1) in researching and analyzing educational systems and institutions. Dimmock and Walker (2002) provide a helpful distinction between societal and organizational culture: Societal cultures differ mostly at the level of basic values, while organizational cultures differ mostly at the level of more superficial practices, as reflected in the recognition of particular symbols, heroes and rituals. This allows organizational cultures to be deliberately managed and changed, whereas societal or national cultures are more enduring and change only gradually over longer time periods. (p.71) Societal culture is one important aspect of the context within which school leaders must operate. They must also contend with organizational culture, which provides a more immediate framework for leadership action.

Central Features of Organizational Culture

1. It focuses on the values and beliefs of members of organizations. Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding, and shared sensemaking are all different ways of describing culture . . . These patterns of understanding also provide a basis for making ones own behaviour sensible and meaningful (Morgan, 1997, p. 138). 2. The cultural model focuses on the notion of a single or dominant culture in organizations but this does not necessarily mean that individual values are always in harmony with one another. There may be different and competing value systems that create a mosaic of organizational realities rather than a uniform corporate culture (Morgan, 1997, p. 137). Large, multipurpose organizations, in particular, are likely to have more than one culture (Schein, 1997, p. 14). 3. Organizational culture emphasizes the development of shared norms and meanings. The assumption is that interaction between members of the organization, or its subgroups, eventually leads to behavioural norms that gradually become cultural features of the school or college. 4. These group norms sometimes allow the development of a monoculture in a school with meanings shared throughout the staff - the way we do things around here. We have already noted, however, that there may be several subcultures based on the professional and personal interests of different groups. These typically have internal coherence but experience difficulty in relationships with other groups whose behavioural norms are different. 5. Culture is typically expressed through rituals and ceremonies, which are used to support and celebrate beliefs and norms. Schools are rich in such symbols as assemblies, prize-givings and corporate worship. Symbols are central to the process of constructing meanin. (Hoyle, 1986, p. 152).

27

6. Organizational culture assumes the existence of heroes and heroines who embody the values and beliefs of the organization. These honoured members typify the behaviours associated with the culture of the institution. Campbell-Evans (1993, p. 106) stresses that heroes or heroines are those whose achievements match the culture: Choice and recognition of heroes . . . occurs within the cultural boundaries identified through the value filter . . . The accomplishments of those individuals who come to be regarded as heroes are compatible with the cultural emphases (Bush, 2003, p. 160-162).

Moral Leadership
Leaders have the main responsibility for generating and sustaining culture and communicating core values and beliefs both within the organization and to external stakeholders (Bush, 1998, p. 43). Principals have their own values and beliefs arising from many years of successful professional practice. They are also expected to embody the culture of the school or college. Schein (1997) argues that cultures spring primarily from the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders of organizations. However, it should be noted that cultural change is difficult and problematic. Hargreaves (1999) claims that most peoples beliefs, attitudes and values are far more resistant to change than leaders typically allow (p. 59-60). The leadership model most closely linked to organizational culture is that of moral leadership. This model assumes that the critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values, beliefs and ethics of leaders themselves. Authority and influence are to be derived from defensible conceptions of what is right or good (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 10). Sergiovanni (1984) says that excellent schools have central zones composed of values and beliefs that take on sacred or cultural characteristics (p. 10). The moral dimension of leadership is based on normative rationality; rationality based on what we believe and what we consider to be good (Sergiovanni, 1991): Moral leadership is consistent with organizational culture in that it is based on the values, beliefs and attitudes of principals and other educational leaders. It focuses on the moral purpose of education and on the behaviours to be expected of leaders operating within the moral domain. It also assumes that these values and beliefs coalesce into shared norms and meanings that either shape or reinforce culture. The rituals and symbols associated with moral leadership support these values and underpin school culture. (p. 326)

Limitations of Organizational Culture

Cultural models add several useful elements to the analysis of school and college leadership and management. The focus on the informal dimension is a valuable counter to the rigid and official components of the formal models. By stressing the values and beliefs of participants, cultural models reinforce the human aspects of management rather than their structural elements. The emphasis on the symbols of the organization is also a valuable contribution to management 28

theory while the moral leadership model provides a useful way of understanding what constitutes a values-based approach to leadership. However, cultural models do have THREE SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES: 1.There may be ethical dilemmas because cultural leadership may be regarded as the imposition of a culture by leaders on other members of the organization. The search for a monoculture may mean subordinating the values and beliefs of some participants to those of leaders or the dominantgroup. Morgan (1997, p. 150-51) refers to a process of ideological control and warns of the risk of manipulation. 2.The cultural model may be unduly mechanistic, assuming that leaders can determine the culture of the organization (Morgan, 1997). While they have influence over the evolution of culture by espousing desired values, they cannot ensure the emergence of a monoculture. As we have seen, secondary schools and colleges may have several subcultures operating in departments and other sections. This is not necessarily dysfunctional because successful subunits are vital components of thriving institutions. 3.The cultural models focus on symbols such as rituals and ceremonies may mean that other elements of organizations are underestimated. The symbols may misrepresent the reality of the school or college. Hoyle (1986, p. 166) refers to innovation without change. Schools may go through the appearance of change but the reality continues as before.

Values and Action

The cultural model is a valuable addition to our understanding of organizations. The recognition that school and college development needs to be preceded by attitudinal change is salutary, and consistent with the maxim that teachers must feel ownership of change if it is to be implemented effectively. Since organization ultimately resides in the heads of the people involved, effective organizational change always implies cultural change (Morgan, 1997, p. 150). Cultural models also provide a focus for organizational action, a dimension that is largely absent from the subjective perspective. Leaders may adopt a moral approach and focus on influencing values so that they become closer to, if not identical with, their own beliefs. In this way, they hope to achieve widespread support for or ownership of new policies. By working through this informal domain, rather than imposing change through positional authority or political processes, heads and principals are more likely to gain support for innovation. An appreciation of organizational culture is an important element in the leadership and management of schools and colleges.

14.CONCLUSION
Comparing the Management Models
The six management models discussed in this chapter represent different ways of looking at educational institutions. Each screen offers valuable insights into the nature of management in education but none provides a complete picture. The six approaches are all valid analyses but their relevance varies according to 29

the context. Each event, situation or problem may be understood by using one or more of these models but no organization can be explained by using only a single approach. There is no single perspective capable of presenting a total framework for our understanding of educational institutions. The search for an all-encompassing model is simplistic, for no one model can delineate the intricacies of decision processes in complex organizations such as universities and colleges (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28). The formal models dominated the early stages of theory development in educational management. Formal structure, rational decision-making and topdown leadership were regarded as the central concepts of effective management and attention was given to refining these processes to increase efficiency. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a gradual realization that formal models are at best partial and at worst grossly deficient (Chapman, 1993, p. 215). The other five models featured in this volume all developed in response to the perceived weaknesses of what was then regarded as conventional theory. They have demonstrated the limitations of the formal models and put in place alternative conceptualizations of school management. While these more recent models are all valid, they are just as partial as the dominant perspective their advocates seek to replace. There is more theory and, by exploring different dimensions of management, its total explanatory power is greater than that provided by any single model. Collegial models are attractive because they advocate teacher participation in decision-making. Many principals aspire to collegiality, a claim that rarely survives rigorous scrutiny. The collegial framework all too often provides the setting for political activity or top-down decision-making (Bush, 2003). The cultural models stress on values and beliefs, and the subjective theorists emphasis on the significance of individual meanings, also appear to be both plausible and ethical. In practice, however, these may lead to manipulation as leaders seek to impose their own values on schools and colleges. The increasing complexity of the educational context may appear to lend support to the ambiguity model with its emphasis on turbulence and anarchy. However, this approach provides few guidelines for managerial action and leads to the view that there has to be a better way. The six models differ along crucial dimensions but taken together they do provide a comprehensive picture of the nature of management in educational institutions. Figure 2 compares the main features of the six models.

30

Attempts at Synthesis
Each of the models discussed in this volume offers valid insights into the nature of leadership and management in schools and colleges. Yet all the perspectives are limited in that they do not give a complete picture of educational institutions. Organizations are many things at once! They are complex and multifaceted. They are paradoxical. Thats why the challenges facing management are so difficult. In any given situation there may be many different tendencies and dimensions, all of which have an impact on effective management (Morgan, 1997, p. 347). 31

The inadequacies of each theory, taken singly, have led to a search for a comprehensive model that integrates concepts to provide a coherent analytical framework. Chapman (1993) stresses the need for leaders to develop this broader perspective in order to enhance organizational effectiveness: Visionary and creative leadership and effective management in education require a deliberate and conscious attempt at integration, enmeshment and coherence (p. 212). Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983), have developed integrative models incorporating ambiguity, political, collegial and formal perspectives. These syntheses are based on the assumption that policy formation proceeds through four distinct phases which all require adequate time if the decision is to be successful. These authors assume an initial period of high ambiguity as problems, solutions and participants interact at appropriate choice opportunities. This anarchic phase serves to identify the issues and acts as a preliminary sifting mechanism. If conducted properly it should lead to an initial coupling of problems with potential solutions. The output of the ambiguous period is regarded as the input to the political phase. This stage is characterized by bargaining and negotiations and usually involves relatively few participants in small, closed committees. The outcome is likely to be a broad measure of agreement on possible solutions. In the third collegial phase, the participants committed to the proposed solution attempt to persuade less active members to accept the compromise reached during the political stage. The solutions are tested against criteria of acceptability and feasibility and may result in minor changes. Eventually this process should lead to agreed policy outcomes and a degree of commitment to the decision. The final phase is the formal or bureaucratic stage during which agreed policy may be subject to modification in the light of administrative considerations. The outcome of this period is a policy which is both legitimate and operationally satisfactory (Bush, 2003, p. 193). Theodossin (1983, p. 88) links the subjective to the formal or systems model using an analytical continuum. He argues that a systems perspective is the most appropriate way of explaining national developments while individual and subunit activities may be understood best by utilizing the individual meanings of participants: Theodossins analysis is interesting and plausible. It helps to delineate the contribution of the formal and subjective models to educational management theory. In focusing on these two perspectives, however, it necessarily ignores the contribution of other approaches, including the cultural model, which has not been incorporated into any of the syntheses applied to education The Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983), models are valuable in suggesting a plausible sequential link between four of the major theories. However, it is certainly possible to postulate different sets of relationships between the models. For example, a collegial approach may become political as participants engage in conflict instead of seeking to achieve consensus. It is

32

perhaps significant that there have been few attempts to integrate the management models since the 1980s.

15.Using Theory to Improve Practice

The six models present different approaches to the management of education and the syntheses indicate a few of the possible relationships between them. However, the ultimate test of theory is whether it improves practice. There should be little doubt about the potential for theory to inform practice. School managers generally engage in a process of implicit theorising in deciding how to formulate policy or respond to events. Facts cannot be left to speak for themselves. They require the explanatory framework of theory in order to ascertain their real meaning. The multiplicity of competing models means that no single theory is sufficient to guide practice. Rather, managers need to develop conceptual pluralism (Bolman & Deal, 1984, p. 4) to be able to select the most appropriate approach to particular issues and avoid a unidimensional stance: Managers in all organizations . . . can increase their effectiveness and their freedom through the use of multiple vantage points. To be locked into a single path is likely to produce error and self-imprisonment (p. 4). Conceptual pluralism is similar to the notion of contingent leadership. Both recognize the diverse nature of educational contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation rather than adopting a one size fits all stance. Appreciation of the various models is the starting point for effective action. It provides a conceptual tool-kit for the manager to deploy as appropriate in addressing problems and developing strategy. Morgan (1997, p. 359) argues that organizational analysis based on these multiple perspectives comprises two elements: I. A DIAGNOSTIC READING OF THE SITUATION BEING INVESTIGATED, using different metaphors to identify or highlight key aspects of the situation. II. A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS resulting from the diagnosis. These skills are consistent with the concept of the reflective practitioner whose managerial approach incorporates both good experience and a distillation of theoretical models based on wide reading and discussion with both academics and fellow practitioners. This combination of theory and practice enables the leader to acquire the overview required for strategic management. While it is widely recognized that appreciation of theory is likely to enhance practice, there remain relatively few published accounts of how the various models have been tested in school or college-based research. More empirical work is needed to enable judgements on the validity of the models to be made with confidence. The objectives of such a research programme would be to test the validity of the models presented in this volume and to develop an overarching conceptual framework. It is a tough task but if awareness of theory helps to improve practice, as we have sought to demonstrate, then more rigorous theory should produce more effective practitioners and better schools.

33

REFERENCES
Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university. New York: John Wiley. Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G. L. (1978). Policymaking and effective leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Ball, S. (1987). The Micropolitics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen. Beare, H., Caldwell, B., & Millikan, R. (1992). Creating anexcellent school. London: Routledge. Bell, L. (1980). The school as an organisation: A re-appraisal. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 183-92. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco:Jossey Bass. Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991, 1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.San Francisco: Jossey Bass Brundrett, M. (1998). What lies behind collegiality, legitimation or control? Educational Management and Administration,26(3), 305-316. Bush, T. (1986). Theories of educational management. London: Harper and Row. Bush, T. (1995). Theories of educational management: Second edition. London: Paul Chapman. Bush, T. (1998). Organisational culture and strategic management. In D. Middlewood and J. Lumby (Eds.), Strategic Management in Schools and Colleges. London: Paul Chapman. Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or crossroads? The discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management and Administration, 27(3), 239 252. Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational management: Third Edition. London: Sage. Bush, T. (2006). The National College for School Leadership: A successful English innovation, Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 508-511. Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2002). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

34

Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective on school-based management. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school effectiveness. London: Routledge. Chapman, J. (1993). Leadership, school-based decision-making and school effectiveness. In C. Dimmock (Ed.). School-based management and school effectiveness. London: Routledge. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). RoutledgeFalmer: London. Cohen, M. D. & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. Boston: The Harvard Business School Press. Copland, M., Darling-Hammond, L., Knapp, M., McLaugghlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Leadership for teaching and learning: A framework for research and action. New Orleans: American Educational Research Association. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press Davies, J.L. & Morgan, A. W. (1983). Management of higher education in a period of contraction and uncertainty. In O. Body-Barrett, T. Bush, J. Goodey, J. McNay & M. Preedy (Eds.). Approaches to post school management. London: Harper and Row. Dimmock, C. (1999). Principals and school restructuring: Conceptualising challenges as dilemmas. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 441462. Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2002b). School leadership in context societal and organizational cultures. In T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.). The principles and practice of educational management. London: Paul Chapman. Dressler, B. (2001). Charter school leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 170-185. Enderud, H. (1980) Administrative leadership in organised anarchies, International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 4(3), 235-53. English, F. (2002). Cutting the Gordian Knot of educational administration: The theory-practice gap, The Review, XLIV (1), 1-3. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

35

Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organisations as social inventions: rethinking assumptions about change, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 9: 5, 551-74. Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about organisations: a new perspective and its implications for schools, in M. Hughes (Ed.) Administering Education: International Challenge, Athlone Press, London. Greenfield, T. B. (1979). Organisation theory is ideology, Curriculum Enquiry, 9: 2, 97-112. Griffiths, D. (1997). The case for theoretical pluralism, Educational Management and Administration, 25 (4), 371-380 Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organizations, Penguin, London. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age, Cassell, London. Hargreaves, D. (1999). Helping practitioners explore their schools culture, in J. Prosser (Ed.). School Culture, Paul Chapman, London. Hodgkinson, C. (1993). Foreword, in T. B. Greenfield and P. Ribbins (eds.). Greenfield on Educational Administration, Routledge, London. Hoyle, E. (1986). The Politics of School Management, Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks. Keough, T. and Tobin, B. (2001). Postmodern Leadership and the Policy Lexicon: From Theory, Proxy to Practice, Paper for the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec, May. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University Press. Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice, Open University Press, Buckingham. Levacic, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and Crawford, M. (1999). Modern headship for the rationally managed school: combining cerebral and insightful approaches, in T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.). The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, Paul Chapman,London. Lindle, J. (1999). What can the study of micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools, School Leadership and Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp.171-178.

36

Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues, in A. Lieberman (ed.). Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, The Falmer Press, Basingstoke. March, J. G. (1982). Theories of choice and making decisions, Society, Vol. 20, no. 1, copyright by Transaction Inc. Published by permission of Transaction Inc. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1976). Organisational choice under ambiguity, in J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organisations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen. Miller, T.W. and Miller, J.M. (2001). Educational leadership in the new millennium: a vision for 2020, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181 189. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, California. Morrison, M. (2002). What do we mean by educational research?, in M. Coleman and A. Briggs (Eds.). Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, Paul Chapman, London. Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1994). Going about our business? The managerialism of public services, in Clarke, J., Cochrane, A. and McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Managing School Policy, London, Sage. Owens, R. and Shakeshaft, C. (1992). The new revolution in administrative theory, Journal of Educational Management, 30: 9, 4-17. Ribbins, P. (1985). Organisation theory and the study of educational institutions, in M. Hughes, P. Ribbins and H. Thomas (eds.). Managing Education: The System and the Institution, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London. Ryan, J. (1988). Science in educational administration: a comment on the Holmes-Greenfield dialogue, Interchange, 19: 2, 68-70, Summer. Sackney, L. and Mitchell, C. (2001). Postmodern expressions of educational leadership, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.). The Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Samier, E. (2002), Weber on education and its administration: prospects for leadership in a rationalised World, Educational Management and Administration, 30(1), 27-45. Schein, E. (1997). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
37

Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1991). The Principalship: a reflective practice perspective, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon. Simkins, T. (1999). Values, power and instrumentality: theory and research in education management, Educational Management and Administration, 27 (3), 267-281. Theodossin, E. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on the management of planned educational change, British Education Research Journal, 9 (1),8190. Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2002). Introduction, in Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (Eds.). School Leadership and Administration: Adopting a Cultural Perspective,Routledge Falmer, London. Wallace, M. (1989). Towards a collegiate approach to curriculum management in primary and middle schools, in M. Preedy (ed.). Approaches to Curriculum Management, Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (1996). A deluge of directives: conflict between collegiality and managerialism in the post-ERA primary school, British Educational Research Journal,22 : 4, 441-458. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1, 1-19. Willower, D. J. (1980). Contemporary issues in theory in educational administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16: 3, 1-25. Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

STUDII PUBLICATE N

ERIC

1.The Strategies of a Leader

38

Publication Date: 1996-04-00 Author: Lashway, Larry Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR. Geologists tell us that every few hundred thousand years or so the earth's magnetic field flips over; compasses that today point north will some day point south. Something similar happens in school leadership, though the cycles are measured in mere decades. Ten years ago, principals were asked to become "instructional leaders," exercising firm control by setting goals, maintaining discipline, and evaluating results. Today they are encouraged to be "facilitative leaders" by building teams, creating networks, and "governing from the center." Lynn Beck and Joseph Murphy (1993) observe that the metaphors of school leadership have changed frequently over the years; no sooner have school leaders assimilated one recommended approach than they are seemingly urged to move in a different direction. WHAT STRATEGIES CAN LEADERS USE? Such rapid shifts in philosophy can be frustrating for practitioners, especially if they are searching for the "one best way" to lead. However, a different perspective emerges when contrasting approaches are viewed as complementary strategies rather than competing paradigms. As defined here, a strategy is a pattern of behavior designed to gain the cooperation of followers in accomplishing organizational goals. Each strategy views the school through a different lens, highlighting certain features and favoring certain actions. At present, school leaders can choose from at least three broad strategies: hierarchical, transformational, and facilitative. Each has important advantages; each has significant limitations. Together, they offer a versatile set of options. HOW DO LEADERS USE HIERARCHICAL STRATEGIES? Historically, schools have been run as bureaucracies, emphasizing authority and accountability. Hierarchical strategies rely on a top-down approach in which leaders use rational analysis to determine the best course of action and then assert their formal authority to carry it out. Terrence Deal and Kent Peterson (1994) refer to this as "technical leadership," in which the principal acts as planner, resource allocator, coordinator, supervisor, disseminator of information, and analyst.

39

Hierarchical strategies provide a straightforward, widely accepted way of managing organizations, offering the promise of efficiency, control, and predictable routines. However, Deal and Peterson also point out that hierarchy tends to diminish creativity and commitment, turning the employee-school relationship into a purely economic transaction. Moreover, the act of teaching doesn't march to administrative drums. Joseph Shedd and Samuel Bacharach (1991) note that teachers' roles are extraordinarily complex, requiring instruction, counseling, and supervision of students who are highly variable in their needs and capacities. Teaching involves great unpredictability, calling for sensitive professional judgment by the person on the scene rather than top-down direction by a distant authority. HOW DO LEADERS USE TRANSFORMATIONAL STRATEGIES? Transformational strategies rely on persuasion, idealism, and intellectual excitement, motivating employees through values, symbols, and shared vision. Principals shape school culture by listening carefully for "the deeper dreams that the school community holds for the future." In the process, they play the roles of historian, poet, healer, and "anthropological detective" (Deal and Peterson). Kenneth Leithwood (1993) adds that transformational leaders foster the acceptance of group goals; convey high performance expectations; create intellectual excitement; and offer appropriate models through their own behavior. Transformational strategies have the capacity to motivate and inspire followers, especially when the organization faces major change. They provide a sense of purpose and meaning that can unite people in a common cause. On the other hand, transformational strategies are difficult, since they require highly developed intellectual skills (Leithwood). Moreover, an exciting, emotionally satisfying workplace does not automatically result in the achievement of organizational goals (Deal and Peterson). HOW DO LEADERS USE FACILITATIVE STRATEGIES? David Conley and Paul Goldman (1994) define facilitative leadership as "the behaviors that enhance the collective ability of a school to adapt, solve problems, and improve performance." This is accomplished by actively engaging employees in the decision-making process; the leader's role is not to solve problems personally but to see that problems are solved. Like transformational leadership, facilitative strategies invite followers to commit effort and psychic energy to the common cause. But whereas transformational leaders sometimes operate in a top-down manner (Joseph Blase and colleagues 1995), facilitative strategies offer teachers a daily partnership in bringing the vision to life. The leader works in the background, not at the center of the stage. 40

Conley and Goldman say principals act facilitatively when they overcome resource constraints; build teams; provide feedback, coordination, and conflict management; create communication networks; practice collaborative politics; and model the school's vision. Facilitation creates a collaborative, changeoriented environment in which teachers can develop leadership skills by pursuing common goals, producing a democratic workplace that embodies the highest American ideals (Blase and colleagues). However, facilitative strategies may create ambiguity and discomfort, blurring accountability and forcing employees to adopt new roles and relationships. Facilitation takes time, frustrating administrators who are constantly being pressured to act immediately. It may create great excitement and high expectations, unleashing multiple initiatives that stretch resources, drain energy, and fragment the collective vision (Conley and Goldman). HOW SHOULD LEADERS CHOOSE STRATEGIES? Although much of the current literature seems to advocate transformational and facilitative approaches, the limited research evidence does not permit strong conclusions about which strategy is "best" (Edward Miller 1995). Some researchers urge leaders to use multiple strategies. Deal and Peterson argue that effective principals must be well-organized managers and artistic, passionate leaders. Robert Starratt (1995) says principals must wear two hats--leader and administrator. As leaders, principals nurture the vision that expresses the school's core values; as administrators, they develop the structures and policies that institutionalize the vision. We know relatively little about how principals make strategic choices, but some basic guidelines can be inferred from the literature. 1. Leaders should use strategies flexibly. Thomas Sergiovanni (1994) suggests that organizations, like people, exist at different developmental levels. A school that has traditionally operated with strong top-down decision-making may not be ready to jump into a full-blown facilitative environment. 2. Leaders should balance short-term and long-term needs. For example, Miller cites research suggesting that principals who act hierarchically can often implement major changes quickly but that shared decision-making, while time-consuming, is more likely to gain teacher acceptance. Conversely, he notes that teachers sometimes tire of shared decision-making and yearn for a responsive principal who will simply consult them and decide. The leader may have to choose between shortterm teacher satisfaction and long-term organizational development. 3. Strategic choices must serve institutional values. 41

At times, attractive ideas like empowerment must take a back seat to school goals. One usually democratic principal says, "My responsibility as a principal really is to the children, and if I see areas that are ineffective, I've got to say that we're not effective here and that we have got to change" (Blase and colleagues). 4. The same action can serve more than one strategy. Deal and Peterson urge principals to develop "bifocal vision" that imbues routine chores with transformational potential. Bus supervision, for example, serves an obvious hierarchical purpose, but it also presents an opportunity for greeting students, establishing visibility, assessing the social climate, and reinforcing key school values. In short, running a school does not seem to require all-or-nothing strategic choices. Effective leadership is multidimensional.

This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. OERI RR93002006. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. RESOURCES Beck, Lynn G., and Joseph Murphy. "Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes 1920s-1990s." New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. Blase, Joseph; Jo Blase; Gary L. Anderson; and Sherry Dungan. "Democratic Principals in Action: Eight Pioneers." Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1995. 193 pages. ED 380 890. Conley, David T., and Paul Goldman. "Facilitative Leadership: How Principals Lead Without Dominating." OSSC Bulletin Series. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, August 1994. 43 pages. ED 379 728. Deal, Terrence E., and Kent D. Peterson. "The Leadership Paradox: Balancing Logic and Artistry in Schools." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. 133 pages. ED 371 455. Leithwood, Kenneth. "Contributions of Transformational Leadership to School Restructuring." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Houston, October 29-31, 1993. 58 pages. ED 367 061. Miller, Edward. "Shared Decision-Making by Itself Doesn't Make for Better Decisions." The Harvard Education Letter 11, 6 (November/December 1995): 1-4. Shedd, Joseph B., and Samuel Bacharach. Tangled Hierarchies: Teachers as Professionals and the Management of School. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. 232 pages. ED 354 586.

42

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "Building Community in Schools." San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1994. 219 pages. ED 364 962. Starratt, Robert J. Leaders with Vision: The Quest for School Renewal. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1995. 219 pages. ED 354 962.

2.Transformational Leadership
Publication Date: 1992-08-00

Author: Liontos, Lynn Balster Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR. Description: This digest examines transformational leadership, which focuses on the importance of teamwork and comprehensive school improvement, as an alternative to other modes of leadership. Transformational leadership is contrasted with: (1) instructional leadership, which encompasses hierarchies and leader supervision and usually excludes teacher development; and (2) transactional leadership, which is based on an exchange of services for various kinds of rewards that the leader controls, at least in part. Views of school leadership are changing largely because of current restructuring initiatives and the demands of the 90s. Advocates for school reform also usually advocate altering power relationships. The problem, explain Douglas Mitchell and Sharon Tucker (1992), is that we have tended to think of leadership as the capacity to take charge and get things done. This view keeps us from focusing on the importance of teamwork and comprehensive school improvement. Perhaps it is time, they say, to stop thinking of leadership as aggressive action and more as a way of thinking--about ourselves, our jobs, and the nature of the educational process. Thus, "instructional leadership" is "out" and "transformational leadership" is "in." HOW HAS THE TERM "TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP" EVOLVED AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN? The idea of transformational leadership was first developed by James McGregor Burns in 1978 and later extended by Bernard Bass as well as others. Neither Burns nor Bass studied schools but rather based their work on political leaders, Army officers, or business executives. For example, there has been a shift in businesses away from Type A to Type Z organizations. Type Z organizations reduce differences in status between workers and managers, emphasize participative decision-making, and are based 43

on a form of "consensual" or "facilitative" power that is manifested through other people instead of over other people (Kenneth Leithwood 1992). Although there have been few studies of such leadership in schools and the definition of transformational leadership is still vague, evidence shows that there are similarities in transformational leadership whether it is in a school setting or a business environment (Nancy Hoover and others 1991, Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi 1990, Leithwood). "The issue is more than simply who makes which decisions," says Richard Sagor (1992). "Rather it is finding a way to be successful in collaboratively defining the essential purpose of teaching and learning and then empowering the entire school community to become energized and focused. In schools where such a focus has been achieved, we found that teaching and learning became transformative for everyone." HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM OTHER SCHOOL LEADERSHIP STYLES?

Instructional leadership Instructional leadership encompasses hierarchies and top-down leadership, where the leader is supposed to know the best form of instruction and closely monitors teachers' and students' work. One of the problems with this, says Mary Poplin (1992), is that great administrators aren't always great classroom leaders and vice versa. Another difficulty is that this form of leadership concentrates on the growth of students but rarely looks at the growth of teachers. Since she believes that education now calls on administrators to be "the servants of collective vision," as well as "editors, cheerleaders, problem solvers, and resource finders," instructional leadership, she declares, has outlived its usefulness.

Transactional leadership Transactional leadership is sometimes called bartering. It is based on an exchange of services (from a teacher, for instance) for various kinds of rewards (such as a salary) that the leader controls, at least in part. Transactional leadership is often viewed as being complementary with transformational leadership. Thomas Sergiovanni (1990) considers transformational leadership a first stage and central to getting day-to-day routines carried out. However, Leithwood says it doesn't stimulate improvement. Mitchell and Tucker add that transactional leadership works only when both leaders and followers understand and are in agreement about which tasks are important.

WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP? Leithwood finds that transformational leaders pursue three fundamental goals: 1. Helping staff develop and maintain a collaborative, professional school culture 44

This means staff members often talk, observe, critique, and plan together. Norms of collective responsibility and continuous improvement encourage them to teach each other how to teach better. Transformational leaders involve staff in collaborative goal setting, reduce teacher isolation, use bureaucratic mechanisms to support cultural changes, share leadership with others by delegating power, and actively communicate the school's norms and beliefs. 2. Fostering teacher development One of Leithwood's studies suggests that teachers' motivation for development is enhanced when they internalize goals for professional growth. This process, Leithwood found, is facilitated when they are strongly committed to a school mission. When leaders give staff a role in solving nonroutine school improvement problems, they should make sure goals are explicit and ambitious but not unrealistic. 3. Helping teachers solve problems more effectively Transformational leadership is valued by some, says Leithwood, because it stimulates teachers to engage in new activities and put forth that "extra effort" (see also Hoover and others, Sergiovanni, Sagor). Leithwood found that transformational leaders use practices primarily to help staff members work smarter, not harder. "These leaders shared a genuine belief that their staff members as a group could develop better solutions than the principal could alone," concludes Leithwood. WHAT STRATEGIES DO TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS USE? Here are specific ideas, culled from several sources on transformational leadership (Sagor, Leithwood, Leithwood and Jantzi, Poplin):

Visit each classroom every day; assist in classrooms; encourage teachers to visit one another's classes. Involve the whole staff in deliberating on school goals, beliefs, and visions at the beginning of the year. Help teachers work smarter by actively seeking different interpretations and checking out assumptions; place individual problems in the larger perspective of the whole school; avoid commitment to preconceived solutions; clarify and summarize at key points during meetings; and keep the group on task but do not impose your own perspective. Use action research teams or school improvement teams as a way of sharing power. Give everyone responsibilities and involve staff in governance functions. For those not participating, ask them to be in charge of a committee. Find the good things that are happening and publicly recognize the work of staff and students who have contributed to school improvement. Write private notes to teachers expressing appreciation for special efforts. 45

Survey the staff often about their wants and needs. Be receptive to teachers' attitudes and philosophies. Use active listening and show people you truly care about them. Let teachers experiment with new ideas. Share and discuss research with them. Propose questions for people to think about. Bring workshops to your school where it's comfortable for staff to participate. Get teachers to share their talents with one another. Give a workshop yourself and share information with staff on conferences that you attend. When hiring new staff, let them know you want them actively involved in school decision-making; hire teachers with a commitment to collaboration. Give teachers the option to transfer if they can't wholly commit themselves to the school's purposes. Have high expectations for teachers and students, but don't expect 100 percent if you aren't also willing to give the same. Tell teachers you want them to be the best teachers they possibly can be. Use bureaucratic mechanisms to support teachers, such as finding money for a project or providing time for collaborative planning during the workday. Protect teachers from the problems of limited time, excessive paperwork, and demands from other agencies. Let teachers know they are responsible for all students, not just their own classes.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THIS KIND OF LEADERSHIP? Evidence of the effects of transformational leadership, according to Leithwood, is "uniformly positive." He cites two findings from his own studies:

1. transformational leadership practices have a sizable influence on teacher collaboration, and 2. significant relationships exist between aspects of transformational leadership and teachers' own reports of changes in both attitudes toward school improvement and altered instructional behavior. Sergiovanni suggests that student achievement can be "remarkably improved" by such leadership. Finally, Sagor found that schools where teachers and students reported a culture conducive to school success had a transformational leader as its principal. However, Mitchell and Tucker conclude that transformational leadership should be seen as only one part of a balanced approach to creating high performance in schools. Leithwood agrees: "While most schools rely on both top-down and facilitative forms of power, 46

finding the right balance is the problem. For schools that are restructuring, moving closer to the facilitative end of the power continuum will usually solve the problem."

3.Facilitative Leadership

Publication Date: 1995-04-00 Author: Lashway, Larry Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR. When the concept of instructional leadership first emerged in the late 1970s, principals were perceived as effective if they took charge of a school by setting clear expectations, maintaining firm discipline, and implementing high standards. This view of leadership was implicitly hierarchical, dependent on administrators firmly exercising their authority to direct subordinates. Because schools are not easily changed by simple prescriptions, researchers began searching for more sophisticated conceptions of leadership. Influenced by developments in the private sector, they have increasingly focused their attention on "transformational" or "facilitative" models of leadership that emphasize collaboration and empowerment. WHAT IS FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP? Initially, the term TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP was viewed as a PERSONAL QUALITY, an ability to inspire employees to look beyond self-interest and focus on organizational goals. The concept has evolved over time; now it is often viewed as a broad STRATEGY that has been described as "facilitative." David Conley and Paul Goldman (1994) define facilitative leadership as "the behaviors that enhance the collective ability of a school to adapt, solve problems, and improve performance." The key word here is COLLECTIVE; the facilitative leader's role is to foster the involvement of employees at all levels. Several key strategies are used by facilitative leaders: overcoming resource constraints; building teams; providing feedback, coordination, and conflict management; creating communication networks; practicing collaborative politics; and modeling the school's vision (Conley and Goldman). HOW DO FACILITATIVE LEADERS USE POWER? Traditionally, power has been viewed as domination through formal authority, flowing from the top down and vesting decisions in a small number of people. 47

Facilitative power, in contrast, is based on mutuality and synergy, and it flows in multiple directions. The hierarchy remains intact, but leaders use their authority to support professional give-and-take (Diane Dunlap and Paul Goldman 1990). Schools may be especially appropriate arenas for this type of power because teaching requires autonomy and discretion, not standardized formulas. Teachers can't succeed just by imposing mandates on students; rather, they have to work indirectly, creating conditions under which students will learn. Principals control learning even less directly; they have to create environments in which teachers can work effectively. In short, facilitative power is power through, not power over (Dunlap and Goldman). Despite the emphasis on mutuality, facilitative power does not rely on voting or other formal mechanisms. Dunlap and Goldman emphasize that facilitation occurs within the existing structure, meaning that whoever normally has legal authority to ratify decisions continues to do so. Unlike delegation, where administrators unilaterally assign tasks to subordinates, in a facilitative environment, anyone can initiate a task and recruit anyone else to participate. The process thrives on informal negotiation and communication. WHAT DOES FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP REQUIRE OF ADMINISTRATORS? Facilitative environments are rich, complex, and unpredictable, demanding leadership skills that go beyond the merely technical. The act of leading through others is not easily reduced to simple formulas. Clearly, facilitative leaders behave differently than traditional leaders. They spend much of their time negotiating decisions they could unilaterally make; they encourage competitive views from subordinates; they make decisions on the fly, in corridors and classrooms. But successful facilitation may depend less on any particular set of behaviors than on the underlying belief system. Conley and Goldman emphasize the importance of trust, "a letting go of control and an increasing belief that others can and will function independently and successfully within a common framework of expectations and accountability." Achieving this trust is not a trivial task; Conley and Goldman warn that administrators may lapse into "pseudo-facilitative leadership," using the language of facilitation while covertly trying to lead employees to a preordained conclusion. Similarly, Andrew Hargreaves (1991) warns of "contrived collegiality," in which administrators attempt to mandate collaboration using hierarchical methods. Facilitative leadership may also require richer perceptions of organizational life. Lee Bolman and Terry Deal (1991) identify four "frames" for thinking about leadership. The RATIONAL frame focuses on the formal demands of the system, such as goals, policies, and constraints. The HUMAN RESOURCE frame considers 48

the human need of participants. The SYMBOLIC frame addresses the values, rites, and rituals that provide members with a sense of community. The POLITICAL frame considers the way that participants pursue their own interests. Bolman and Deal note that few leaders use more than two of these frames; yet in a facilitative environment, all are important. For example, a principal who is facilitating greater faculty involvement in teacher evaluation is more likely to succeed if he or she can recognize the anxiety that evaluation causes (human resource frame); anticipate teacher concerns about judging peers (political frame); create support by casting the issue in terms of shared expertise (symbolic frame); and judge whether the new procedures are fulfilling their intended purpose (rational frame). WHAT TENSIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP? The radically different assumptions of facilitative leadership are likely to create ambiguity and discomfort. Conley and Goldman characterize facilitation as "the management of tensions." Without question, the most serious issue is the blurring of accountability. Facilitative leadership creates a landscape of constantly shifting responsibilities and relationships, yet the formal system continues to turn to one person for results. Principals may wonder about the wisdom of entrusting so much to those who will not share the accountability; teachers may be nervous about being enveloped in schoolwide controversies from which they are normally buffered (Conley and Goldman; Mark Smylie and Jean Brownlee-Conyers 1992). Administrators also face a juggling act in accommodating the unpredictable pace of facilitation with the inflexible demands of the hierarchical system. While trying to create schoolwide involvement, the principal is continually being pressured to ACT on a host of issues. For example, a proposal to replace basal readers with a whole-language approach is likely to generate a wide-ranging debate that deserves a full airing, yet looming over the process is an arbitrary requisition deadline. In some instances, the principal must allow the issues to play themselves out; in other cases, he or she needs to say, "It's time to move on." The new approach may create great excitement and high expectations, unleashing multiple initiatives that stretch resources, drain energy, and fragment the collective vision. Somehow the principal must keep a hand on the reins without discouraging the innovators. At the same time, the risky business of change will intensify teachers' traditional demands for emotional support and protection from bureaucratic demands. The facilitative leader must know when to provide this support and when to challenge the comfortable status quo (Conley and Goldman). HOW CAN ADMINISTRATORS BECOME FACILITATIVE LEADERS? 49

Conley and Goldman urge would-be facilitative leaders to move slowly, assessing their own leadership styles and the school's culture before diving in. Not every school is ready to embrace collaborative leadership, and every organization goes through periods when highly directive leadership is more appropriate. Principals should clearly communicate their intentions and carefully choose the target for their initial efforts; ideally, the issue should be one that is important to teachers, yet safe enough that the principal can live with any outcome. Emerging facilitative leaders should also seek out like-minded colleagues to form a support network. Shirley Hord (1992) counsels patience, noting that "change is a process, not an event." She points out that individuals must change before the institution can, and that they do so in different ways and at different rates. Facilitators must adapt their strategies to these individual variations. Above all, Conley and Goldman caution administrators against becoming preoccupied with formal roles, structures, and procedures. Workplace democracy is not an end in itself but merely a way of enhancing teacher performance and student learning.

This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. OERI RR93002006. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

RESOURCES Bolman, Lee, and Terry Deal. REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONS: ARTISTRY, CHOICE, AND LEADERSHIP. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Conley, David T., and Paul Goldman. FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP: HOW PRINCIPALS LEAD WITHOUT DOMINATING. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, August 1994. Dunlap, Diane, and Paul Goldman. "Power as a 'System of Authority' vs. Power as a 'System of Facilitation'." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April 16-20, 1990. 25 pages. ED 325 943. Hargreaves, Andrew. "Contrived Collegiality: The Micropolitics of Teacher Collaboration." In THE POLITICS OF LIFE IN SCHOOLS: POWER, CONFLICT, AND COOPERATION, edited by Joseph Blase. 46-72. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1991. Hord, Shirley M. FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP: THE IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1992. ED 370 217. 50

Smylie, Mark A., and Jean Brownlee-Conyers. "Teacher Leaders and Their Principals: Exploring the Development of New Working Relationships." EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 28, 2 (May 1992): 150-84. EJ 442 832.

4.Visionary Leadership
Publication Date: 1997-01-00 Author: Lashway, Larry Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

When some future historian tallies up buzzwords of the 1990s, "vision" will be high on the list. Schools everywhere want leaders who have it, and even modest incremental plans are routinely billed as "visions for the 21st century." Unfortunately, the exaltation of vision often leaves one question unanswered: Once you're done praising it, what do you do about it? David Conley (1996) has found that many school leaders have become ambivalent--sometimes even cynical--about the usefulness of vision. Yet experts continue to regard it as a make-or-break task for the leader. WHAT'S IN A VISION? Conley says that vision exists when people in an organization share an explicit agreement on the values, beliefs, purposes, and goals that should guide their behavior. More simply, he calls it "an internal compass." Thomas Sergiovanni (1994) characterizes vision as an "educational platform" that incorporates the school's beliefs about the preferred aims, methods, and climate, thereby creating a "community of mind" that establishes behavioral norms. Kathryn Whitaker and Monte Moses (1994) call it "an inspiring declaration of a compelling dream, accompanied by a clear scenario of how it will be accomplished." A good vision not only has worthy goals, but also challenges and stretches everyone in the school. WHY DOES VISION MATTER? Robert Fritz (1996) says that organizations advance when a clear, widely understood vision creates tension between the real and the ideal, pushing people to work together to reduce the gap. This unifying effect is especially important in school settings known for their 51

"isolationist culture." Because teachers typically regard methodology as a matter of individual preference, empowerment strategies do not quickly lead to schoolwide changes in classroom practices (Carol Weiss 1995). By contrast, schools with a clear vision have a standard by which teachers can gauge their own efforts. According to one teacher in a school that had recently developed a vision, "People are speaking the same language, they have the same kinds of informal expectations for one another, more common ground" (Conley and colleagues 1992). David Mathews (1996) sees vision as a way of reconnecting schools to an increasingly alienated public. He says communities no longer see the schools as their schools. A vision that reflects the needs and purposes of the surrounding community not only improves education, it rebuilds the relationship between the school and its public. HOW DO VISIONS DEVELOP? Many leaders believe vision development is a straightforward task of articulating a statement of beliefs and then implementing it. However, some studies suggest that vision is more of an evolutionary process than a one-time event, a process that requires continuous reflection, action, and reevaluation. Laraine Hong (1996) describes it as "purposeful tinkering." Through dozens of little experiments, "each day is an opportunity to come closer to your perceived ideal." Written statements are a logical first step, but Fritz warns that they often turn into political compromises that trivialize the vision through "weak, watereddown, simplistic declarations." Moreover, the immediacy of student needs gives K-12 educators a strong bias toward action; extended discussions of philosophy create impatience. Conley and colleagues found a number of schools that began acting on their vision several years before articulating it in writing. Both talk and action are necessary. Marie Wincek describes a school where the vision faltered because of too little discussion. The experienced and competent staff eagerly jumped into the "nuts and bolts" of implementation without examining whether they interpreted the vision the same way. Thus, they were unprepared for the inevitable disagreements and ambiguities that arose. On the other hand, Conley says that some schools become mired in "analysis paralysis," recycling the same old discussions and hesitating to commit themselves to action. Not every detail and every anxiety can be resolved beforehand, and the vision can be modified as the school learns from experience. IS VISION TOP-DOWN OR BOTTOM-UP? Many people assume vision springs from the mind of a strong leader with the imagination, energy, and charisma to jump-start the organization into a major transformation. Others advocate a shared process in which everyone is a co52

author. However, "either/or" thinking may be counterproductive. Clearly, the principal plays a pivotal role in shaping the vision--sometimes singlehandedly. In the hands of an articulate, persuasive leader, a distinctive personal vision may be far more attractive than a something-for-everyone group product. As long as the vision is one that people in the organization can embrace, authorship is irrelevant (Fritz). However, principals with "heroic" inclinations must be willing to release personal ownership when the time comes for implementation, or teachers will not commit to it (Conley). There are also good reasons to involve teachers at the outset, since they are the ones who must ultimately translate abstract ideas into practical classroom applications, and they can do this better when they are actively involved in developing the vision (Conley and colleagues). No matter who creates the vision, the principal is its chief instigator, promoter, and guardian. In her study of shared decision-making, Weiss found that little changed unless the principal took the lead and actively pushed. Apparently, empowered teachers may act on individual visions, but they do not spontaneously create shared visions. In the end, many principals may follow the example of Hong's principal: "Anne had to know when to suggest, when to nudge, when to wait. She had to be assertive enough to push us a few steps forward, but indirect and patient enough to let us find our own way." HOW DO LEADERS FACILITATE VISION? Even in schools that are deeply committed to shared vision, principals remain the key players, both before and after the school adopts a new direction. Creating readiness is crucial. Conley notes that principals who have already adjusted to new ways of thinking often underestimate the time needed for others to do the same. He says that all participants must have the opportunity to examine their current thinking, develop a rationale for change, and entertain new models. This can be done by forming study groups, visiting schools or businesses that have already restructured, or collecting data that challenge comfortable assumptions (such as test scores or surveys of community satisfaction). Robert Starratt (1995) emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing the vision. No matter how inspiring it sounds on paper, the dream will wither unless it takes concrete form in policies, programs, and procedures. At some point, curriculum, staffing, evaluation, and budget must feel the imprint of the vision, or it will gradually lose credibility. At the same time, principals must remain focused on what the vision means in 53

classroom terms. Richard Elmore and colleagues, after an in-depth study of restructuring schools, concluded that enthusiasm for new visions does not automatically lead people to see the implications for teaching. They found that it was "extraordinarily difficult" for teachers to attain the deep, systematic knowledge of practice needed to make the vision a reality. Without unrelenting assessment, analysis, and professional development, the vision may remain a glossy facade rather than becoming a vital, living presence in the life of the school. Above all, principals must create a climate and a culture for change. They do this by speaking about the vision often and enthusiastically; by encouraging experiments; by celebrating successes and forgiving failures; and by remaining steadfast in the face of the inevitable problems and missteps. Experience has given advocates of vision a new appreciation for the difficulties involved, removing any illusions about a magic bullet. Yet they remain optimistic about its potential. As schools work through the challenges of vision, says Hong, "they discover that they perhaps can make the impossible possible."
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. RR93002006. The ideas and opinions in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

RESOURCES Conley, David T. "Are You Ready to Restructure? A Guidebook for Educators, Parents, and Community Members." Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1996. Conley, David T.; Diane M. Dunlap; and Paul Goldman. "The "Vision Thing" and School Restructuring." OSSC Report 32, 2 (Winter 1992): 1-8. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council. ED 343 246. Elmore, Richard F.; Penelope L. Peterson; and Sarah J. McCarthey. "Restructuring in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and School Organization." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Fritz, Robert. "Corporate Tides: The Inescapable Laws of Organizational Structure." San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1996. Hong, Laraine K. "Surviving School Reform: A Year in the Life of One School." New York: Teachers College Press, 1996. Mathews, David. "Is There a Public for Public Schools?" Dayton, Ohio: Kettering Foundation Press, 1996. 54

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "Building Community in Schools." San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1994. Starratt, Robert J. "Leaders With Vision: The Quest for School Renewal." Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1995. Weiss, Carol H. "The Four "I's" of School Reform: How Interests, Ideology, Information and Institution Affect Teachers and Principals." "Harvard Educational Review" 65, 4 (Winter 1995): 571-92. Whitaker, Kathryn S., and Monte C. Moses. "The Restructuring Handbook: A Guide to School Revitalization." Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994. Wincek, Jean. "Negotiating the Maze of School Reform: How Metaphor Shapes Culture in a New Magnet School." New York: Teachers College Press, 1995.

5.Ethical Leadership

Publication Date: 1996-06-00 Author: Lashway, Larry Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

"Real leaders concentrate on doing the right thing, not on doing things right." That advice from organizational consultants comes as no surprise to school leaders, whose lives are filled with difficult ethical dilemmas. Principals experience such dilemmas on a daily basis, says William Greenfield (1991). Having moral obligations to society, to the profession, to the school board, and to students, they find that "it often is not clear what is right or wrong, or what one ought to do, or which perspective is right in moral terms." Unfortunately, relatively few administrators have been trained to deal with these conflicts. Until very recently, ethical issues were given little attention in preparation programs (Lynn Beck and Joseph Murphy 1994). 55

WHAT ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES DO SCHOOL LEADERS HAVE? Greenfield notes that school leaders face a unique set of ethical demands. Schools are moral institutions, designed to promote social norms, and principals are moral agents who must often make decisions that favor one moral value over another. Moreover, although schools are dedicated to the well-being of children, students have virtually no voice in what happens there. For all these reasons, the leader's conduct "must be deliberately moral." Leader's moral duty expresses itself not only in the obvious day-to-day ethical dilemmas, but in the mundane policies and structures that may have hidden ethical implications. Robert Starratt (1991) notes that every social arrangement benefits some people at the expense of others; simply to assume that schools embody desirable standards is "ethically naive, if not culpable." Thus, the principal must not only behave responsibly as an individual, but must create an ethical institution. As leaders, principals have a special responsibility to exercise authority in an ethical way. Greenfield points out that much of a principal's authority is moral; that is, teachers must be convinced that the principal's point of view reflects values they support. Coercion through bureaucratic authority will seldom have a positive, lasting effect. WHAT ETHICAL DILEMMAS DO PRINCIPALS FACE? As defined by Rushworth Kidder (1995), an "ethical dilemma" is not a choice between right and wrong, but a choice between two rights. For example, considering a bribe would be a "moral temptation"; deciding whether scarce resources should go to a gifted curriculum or a dropout-prevention program would constitute a dilemma. Dilemmas arise when cherished values conflict. A principal who values both teacher autonomy and student achievement will face a dilemma when teachers want to enact a policy that lowers expectations. This kind of conflict is heightened because school leaders are public officials with obligations to many people who often have competing values or interests. Should parents be informed if a counselor learns that their daughter is considering an abortion? Should a student group be able to book an assembly speaker whose views will offend some in the community? Should the principal support a teacher who has made a questionable grading decision? Some studies suggest that obligations to superiors put special pressure on ethical decision-making. For instance, Peggy Kirby and colleagues (1990) asked principals to estimate how "a typical colleague" would respond to hypothetical dilemmas. Respondents usually indicated that colleagues would take "the path of 56

least resistance" by deferring to superiors or taking refuge in official policies. Kirby and her colleagues speculate that these hypothetical colleagues actually reflect the norm. HOW CAN LEADERS RESOLVE ETHICAL DILEMMAS? Moral philosophers generally agree there is no ethical "cookbook" that provides easy answers to complex dilemmas. But a number of thinkers have suggested some guidelines. 1. Leaders should have and be willing to act on a definite sense of ethical standards. Starratt argues that a fully informed ethical consciousness will contain themes of caring (What do our relationships demand of us?); justice (How can we govern ourselves fairly?); and critique (Where do we fall short of our own ideals?). 2. Leaders can examine dilemmas from different perspectives. Kidder describes three. One is to anticipate the consequences of each choice and attempt to identify who will be affected, and in what ways. Another approach uses moral rules, assuming that the world would be a better place if people always followed certain widely accepted standards (such as telling the truth). A third perspective emphasizes caring, which is similar to the Golden Rule: How would we like to be treated under similar circumstances? 3. Leaders can often reframe ethical issues. Kidder claims that many apparent dilemmas are actually "trilemmas," offering a third path that avoids the either-or thinking. For example, faced with a parent who objects to a particular homework assignment on religious grounds, a principal may be able to negotiate an alternative assignment, thereby preserving academic integrity without trampling on parental rights. 4. Finally, leaders should have the habit of conscious reflection, wherever it may lead them. HOW DO LEADERS CREATE ETHICAL INSTITUTIONS? By their nature, most schools do not encourage discussion of ethical issues; educators spend most of the day isolated from one another, and time is always at a premium. One means of raising ethical awareness is to form an ethics committee similar to those found in many hospitals. Such committees would not make formal rulings, but would raise awareness of ethical issues, formulate ethical codes, and advise educators grappling with ethical dilemmas (Betty Sichel 1993). Thomas Sergiovanni (1992) says that truly effective schools are those with a 57

shared covenant clearly articulating the school's core values and providing a standard by which actions will be judged. Leaders must not only take the lead in formulating the covenant but actively support and enforce it. When a vital standard is ignored, principals should "lead by outrage." WHAT VIRTUES MUST LEADERS PRACTICE? Students of ethics are unanimous on one point: moral leadership begins with moral leaders. Howard Gardner (1995) says of great leaders that they embody the message they advocate; they teach, not just through words, but through actions. What virtues are most important for school leaders? Some studies suggest that honesty is the quality most appreciated by subordinates (Michael Richardson and others 1992). And any principal who has launched a risky new program or has publicly shouldered the blame for someone else's mistake can testify to the importance of courage. Some who write about ethics argue that leaders must use their power with restraint, since it always holds the potential for treating others as less than fully human. Peter Block (1993) advocates stewardship, which is the willingness to accept accountability for results without always trying to impose control over others. In simplest terms, stewardship asks leaders to acknowledge their own human faults and limitations rather than hiding behind their status and power. Whatever virtue is desired, moral philosophers going back to Aristotle have emphasized that it must become a habit. Just as musicians develop musical ability by playing an instrument, people become virtuous by practicing virtue. Ethical behavior is not something that can be held in reserve for momentous issues; it must be a constant companion. To be an ethical school leader, then, is not a matter of following a few simple rules. The leader's responsibility is complex and multi-dimensional, rooted less in technical expertise than in simple human integrity.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. OERI RR93002006. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

RESOURCES Beck, Lynn G., and Joseph Murphy. "Ethics in Educational Leadership Programs: An Expanding Role." Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1994. Block, Peter. "Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest." San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993. 58

Gardner, Howard. "Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership." New York: Basic Books, 1995. Greenfield, William D., Jr. "Rationale and Methods To Articulate Ethics and Administrator Training." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1991. 32 pages. ED 332 379. Kidder, Rushworth M. "How Good People Make Tough Choices." New York: William Morrow, 1995. Kirby, Peggy C.; Louis V. Pardise; and Russell Protti. "The Ethical Reasoning of School Administrators: The Principled Principal." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1990. 11 pages. ED 320 253. Richardson, Michael D., and others. "Teacher Perception of Principal Behavior--A Study." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, Tennessee, November 1992. 15 pages. ED 352 710. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Leadership." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. Sichel, Betty A. "Ethics Committees and Teacher Ethics." In "Ethics for Professionals in Education: Perspectives for Preparation and Practice," edited by Kenneth Strike and P. Lance Ternasky. 162-75. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. Starratt, Robert J. "Building an Ethical School: A Theory for Practice in Educational Leadership." "Educational Administration Quarterly" 27, 2 (May 1991): 185-202. EJ 425 540.

6.Inducting School Leaders

Publication Date: 2003-08-00 Author: Lashway, Larry Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

If experienced principals find their jobs to be exhausting and stressful-and most surveys indicate they do-then what is it like for newcomers? Not surprisingly, words such as "lost," "overwhelmed," and "shell-shocked" pervade the literature on first-year principals.

59

Traditionally, rookie principals have been left to sink or swim. Having completed a university training program, they are presumed to be prepared, and get little direction beyond bland encouragement or an occasional practical tip. But that attitude is changing as schools realize that a scarcity of high-quality principals means promising leaders should not only be energetically recruited but carefully nurtured once they're on board. Formal induction programs are too new to have generated a significant body of empirical research, but there is a growing literature that articulates a rationale for such programs, describes the efforts of districts to nurture new leaders, and provides early testimony that induction efforts are well-received. This Digest examines the challenges faced by new administrators and the steps that districts can take to provide a smooth entry into the principalship. WHAT PROBLEMS DO FIRST-YEAR ADMINISTRATORS FACE? By all accounts, new administrators experience intense, unrelenting stress as they try to adjust their textbook understanding of leadership to the real world of practice. They have to master technical skills, learn to deal with a variety of constituents, and wrestle with doubts about personal adequacy, all in a fastpaced environment that leaves little time for reflection and thoughtfulness (Parkay and Rhodes 1992). They are frequently haunted by the fear that a moment of inattention will blossom into a crisis. In the words of one beginning assistant principal, "You can't turn your back on something, 'cause that might be the thing" (Hartzell and colleagues 1995). First-year stress comes not just from task overload, but from the need for quick assimilation into a new culture. Every school is a unique organization, with its own history, environment, and cast of characters. New principals not only have to learn "how things are done," but "how things are done here" (Crow and Mathews 1998). They must go from "stranger" to "insider," quickly discerning the unwritten rules and identifying the real movers and shakers (Aiken 2002). Many new administrators also find it disconcerting to deal with teachers as supervisors rather than peers. Operating for the first time from a schoolwide perspective, some are shocked to see the parochialism of some teachers' behavior (Hartzell and colleagues). Finally, many beginners report a strong sense of isolation. Unlike new teachers, who can usually find an empathetic colleague just down the hall, principals literally have no peers in their building. The isolation can be magnified when they receive little feedback from supervisors. WHY DOES INDUCTION MATTER? Given the stress faced by first-year leaders, simple compassion would be reason enough to ease their transition into the field. However, well-designed induction 60

programs can also enhance the well-being of the district. Sociologists have pointed out that the first year is a crucial period in administrators' socialization, the process by which they internalize the skills, values, and dispositions of the profession (Aiken; Crow and Mathews; Normore 2003). While newcomers will enter the job with both informal and formal preparation, they still face the crucial task of "organizational socialization," in which the simple abstractions learned in university classrooms must be adapted to the messy realities of real schools. During this period, beginning principals are strongly motivated to fit in to their new environment, and the norms of the organization are likely to outweigh the norms acquired during training. This offers districts a unique opportunity to influence the goals and behaviors of new leaders (Normore). In adapting to the school, newcomers often experience role conflict between the immediate demands of the job and the district's reform agenda. For example, early career principals interviewed by Aiken described a tension between the "custodial" and "innovative" dimensions of the job; they felt they had to effectively run the school as it was before taking it in a new direction. A welldesigned induction program can help novices articulate such dilemmas and find a way of achieving balance. Although direct empirical evidence is scarce, some researchers have speculated that formal induction programs improve retention. Linda Morford (2002), after interviewing ten new rural principals who had no access to any kind of induction program, found two years later that nine of them had either moved on to other positions or returned to teaching. HOW DOES MENTORING ASSIST INDUCTION? Induction has become almost synonymous with mentoring, and understandably so. Few newcomers will fail to benefit from having an empathetic, experienced colleague who can provide coaching in technical skills, guide them through the political minefields, and provide a perspective that encourages reflection. However, there are also pitfalls. Mentors may become too controlling or overprotective, may try to shape their protege into a clone of themselves, or may present only a narrow perspective on the newcomer's situation (Crow and Mathews). Nonetheless, mentoring programs are generally welcomed by beginners (Howley and colleagues 2002; Ricciardi 2000). Laura Dukess (2001), after interviews with mentors, proteges, and supervisors of mentoring programs in six New York City community districts, concluded that good mentors rendered three forms of assistance to new principals:

61

1. They provided instructional support by keeping newcomers' attention focused on learning issues and offering models of successful practice. 2. They provided administrative and managerial support not just by giving practical tips but by helping their proteges set priorities. 3. They provided emotional support by listening carefully and being present at particularly stressful moments. Dukess also concluded that good results did not automatically come just by putting a mentor and protege together. Key steps included careful matching of mentors and proteges, clear expectations and guidelines for participants, adequate time for the mentor, and selection of mentors who have a record of success and who are "reflective, compassionate, good listeners, good communicators, and able to speak the hard truth." WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD INDUCTION PROGRAMS? Increasingly, districts are taking a "grow your own" approach to provide newcomers with a smooth entry tailored to the context of the district. Although almost any assistance would be beneficial to new principals, early experience with induction programs suggests some basic principles that can guide district efforts. 1. Although new administrators often worry the most about technical skills, induction programs should help candidates stay focused on the big picture. Aiken recommends that induction should "support principals through paradox, help to demystify leadership practice, and provide opportunities for collaborative and reflective learning." At the same time, programs must respect the immediate needs of the new administrators. Howley and colleagues found that new principals in a leadership academy expressed a strong preference for focusing on what one called "practical, hands-on, get-me-through-the-first-year-so-I-cansurvive stuff." They were much less interested in reflective portfolio activities centered around the ISLLC standards. Striking the right balance is a key challenge. 2. Induction involves more than one-to-one mentoring. Districts can use a wide array of strategies, including portfolios, professional development plans, study groups, leadership academies, focus groups, peer coaching, workshops, and retreats (Peterson 2001). 3. Induction is especially powerful when it is embedded in the culture of the district, not just a one-shot "extra" activity for newcomers. For example, New York City's District Two incorporates day-long principal conferences on instructional topics, study groups, support groups, visits to other schools, and intensive "walkthroughs" by central-office supervisors (Elmore and Burney 2000). In their discussions with new principals, the researchers were struck by the degree to which new principals had internalized the district's culture of continuous learning and improvement.

62

WHAT EXTERNAL RESOURCES CAN SUPPORT DISTRICT INDUCTION PROGRAMS?

Many districts, especially those in rural areas, have difficulty finding the personnel or money to develop comprehensive induction programs. Fortunately, districts can leverage their efforts through partnerships with states or professional associations. More states are offering school leadership academies that sometimes include programs designed for new leaders. For example, Ohio has developed an entryyear leadership academy built around mentoring and portfolio development. As part of the initiative, the state has produced a curriculum for training mentors and contracted with Educational Testing Service to design reflective questions for the portfolio (Beebe and colleagues 2002). Some states have realigned their certification requirements to better support the developmental needs of leaders (Southern Regional Education Board 2002). For example, Kentucky and Louisiana use two-tiered licensure systems in which full certification comes only after successful experience as an administrator. School leaders are provided mentoring and other forms of assistance, leading to fullfledged certification after a successful first year. These programs provide a natural structure into which districts can integrate their local priorities. Universities offer another source of support. For example, the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz, provides trained coaches to give individualized guidance to new administrators. Participants meet every two weeks and also maintain contact by email and phone. Services include observation and coaching in authentic work dilemmas (Bloom 1999). Professional associations offer a variety of professional development resources. The National Association of Elementary School Principals conducts numerous workshops, assessments, and training opportunities. NAESP also partners with Nova Southeastern University to offer intensive mentor training and certification. The National Association of Secondary School Principals has long been a leader in using assessment center methods to promote principal development.

RESOURCES Aiken, Judith A. "The Socialization of New Principals: Another Perspective on Principal Retention." Education Leadership Review 3,1 (Winter 2002): 32-40. EJ 659 194. Beebe, Robert J.; Daniel Hoffman; Fred Lindley; and Carole Prestley. "The Ohio Principals' Leadership Academy: Entry Year Program." Paper presented at the Annual

63

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 2002. 43 pages. ED 468 677. Bloom, Gary. "One-on-One Support for New Principals: Sink or Swim No More" Thrust for Educational Leadership 29, 1 (September/October 1999): 14-17. EJ 592 964. Crow, Gary M., and L. Joseph Mathews. Finding One's Way: How Mentoring Can Lead to Dynamic Leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1998. Dukess, Laura F. Meeting the Leadership Challenge: Designing Effective Principal Mentor Programs: The Experiences of Six New York City Community School Districts. New York: New Visions for Public Schools, 2001. 33 pages. ED 464 392. Elmore, Richard F.; and Deanna Burney. Leadership and Learning: Principal Recruitment, Induction and Instructional Leadership in Community School District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, 2000. Hartzell, Gary N.; Richard C. Williams; and Kathleen T. Nelson. New Voices in the Field: The Work Lives of First-Year Assistant Principals. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1995. ED 385 914. Howley, Aimee; Kristine Chadwick; and Caitlin Howlee. Networking for the Nuts and Bolts: The Ironies of Professional Development for Rural Principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 2002. 27 pages. ED 463 908. Morford, Linda M. "Learning the Ropes or Being Hung: Organizational Socialization Influence on New Rural High School Principals." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 2002. 20 pages. ED 464 783. Normore, Anthony H. "Professional and Organizational Socialization Processes of School Administrators: A Literature Review." Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2003. Parkay, Forrest W., and John Rhodes. "Stress and the Beginning Principal." In Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning Leadership, edited by Forrest Parkay and Gene Hall. 103-22. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1992. Peterson, Kent. "The Professional Development of Principals: Innovations and Opportunities." Paper presented at the first meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, Wisconsin, 2001. 24 pages. ED 459 533. Ricciardi, Diane. "Experiences of Kentucky Principal Intern Program Participants: Job Assistance Provided in the Entry Year." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 2000. 29 pages. ED 451 597. Southern Regional Education Board. Are SREB States Making Progress? Taping,

64

Preparing, and Licensing School Leaders Who Can Influence Student Achievement. Atlanta: Author, 2002.

7.Leadership for School Culture

Publication Date: 1994-06-00 Author: Stolp, Stephen Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

Successful leaders have learned to view their organizations' environment in a holistic way. This wide-angle view is what the concept of school culture offers principals and other leaders. It gives them a broader framework for understanding difficult problems and complex relationships within the school. By deepening their understanding of school culture, these leaders will be better equipped to shape the values, beliefs, and attitudes necessary to promote a stable and nurturing learning environment. WHAT IS SCHOOL CULTURE? The field of education lacks a clear and consistent definition of SCHOOL CULTURE. The term has been used synonymously with a variety of concepts, including "climate," "ethos," and "saga" (Deal 1993). The concept of culture came to education from the corporate workplace with the notion that it would provide direction for a more efficient and stable learning environment. Scholars have argued about the meaning of CULTURE for centuries. Noted anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) has made a large contribution to our current understanding of the term. For Geertz, culture represents a "historically transmitted pattern of meaning." Those patterns of meaning are expressed both (explicitly) through symbols and (implicitly) in our taken-for-granted beliefs. A review of the literature on school culture reveals much of Geertz's perspective. Terrence E. Deal and Kent D. Peterson (1990) note that the definition of culture includes "deep patterns of values, beliefs, and traditions that have been formed over the course of [the school's] history." Paul E. Heckman (1993) reminds us that school culture lies in "the commonly held beliefs of teachers, students, and principals." These definitions go beyond the business of creating an efficient learning environment. They focus more on the core values necessary to teach and influence young minds. Thus, SCHOOL CULTURE can be defined as the historically transmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, values, beliefs, ceremonies, rituals, traditions, and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by members of the school community (Stolp and Smith 1994). This system of meaning often shapes 65

what people think and how they act. WHY IS SCHOOL CULTURE IMPORTANT? Researchers have compiled some impressive evidence on school culture. Healthy and sound school cultures correlate strongly with increased student achievement and motivation, and with teacher productivity and satisfaction. Consider several recent studies.

Leslie J. Fyans, Jr. and Martin L. Maehr (1990) looked at the effects of five dimensions of school culture: academic challenges, comparative achievement, recognition for achievement, school community, and perception of school goals. In a survey of 16,310 fourth-, sixth-, eighth-, and tenth-grade students from 820 public schools in Illinois, they found support for the proposition that students are more motivated to learn in schools with strong cultures. In a project directed at improving elementary student test scores, Jerry L. Thacker and William D. McInerney (1992) looked at the effects of school culture on student achievement. The project they studied focused on creating a new mission statement, goals based on outcomes for students, curriculum alignment corresponding with those goals, staff development, and building level decision-making. The results were significant. The number of students who failed an annual statewide test dropped by as much as 10 percent. These results are consistent with other findings that suggest the implementation of a clear mission statement, shared vision, and schoolwide goals promote increased student achievement.

School culture also correlates with teachers' attitudes toward their work. In a study that profiled effective and ineffective organizational cultures, Yin Cheong Cheng (1993) found stronger school cultures had better motivated teachers. In an environment with strong organizational ideology, shared participation, charismatic leadership, and intimacy, teachers experienced higher job satisfaction and increased productivity.

HOW IS IT BEST TO CHANGE A SCHOOL'S CULTURE? Leaders who are interested in changing their school's culture should first try to understand the existing culture. Cultural change by definition alters a wide variety of relationships. These relationships are at the very core of institutional stability. Reforms should be approached with dialogue, concern for others, and some hesitation. One strategy was outlined by Willis J. Furtwengler and Anita Micich (1991). At a retreat, students, teachers, and administrators from five schools were encouraged to draw visible representations of how they felt about their school culture. The idea was to "make thought visible" and highlight positive and negative aspects of their respective school cultures. Teachers, parents, and 66

administrators were able to identify several areas that would benefit from change. Likewise, school artifacts such as the routines, ceremonies, rituals, traditions, myths, or subtle difference in school language can provide clues for how to approach cultural change. School artifacts change over time. A principal may decide to shorten time between classes only later to find out that this time was important for teacher interaction and unity. Paying attention to such routines, before changing them, may provide valuable insights into how school cultures function. A formal and well-tested instrument for approaching cultural change is NASSP's Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments' Information Management System (CASE--IMS). This instrument focuses on leadership styles, organizational structure, beliefs and values, classroom satisfaction, and productivity. CASE--IMS offers a diagnostic assessment that focuses on the entire school environment (Keefe 1993). WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISION AND CULTURAL CHANGE? A coherent vision specifies the particular values and beliefs that will guide policy and practice within the school. Ideally, the school board and superintendent set a broad vision for all schools in the district, and, within that context, the principal coordinates the process of arriving at a particular vision for each school. The creation of a vision is not a static event, because the vision must change as culture changes. As Peter Senge (1990) notes, "At any one point there will be a particular image of the future that is predominant, but that image will evolve." The principal who is able to adapt a vision to new challenges will be more successful in building strong school cultures. A vision for creating a healthy school culture should be a collaborative activity among teachers, students, parents, staff, and the principal. Michael G. Fullan (1992) writes, "Whose vision is it?" "Principals," he says, "are blinded by their own vision when they must manipulate the teachers and the school culture to conform to it." A more useful approach is to create a shared vision that allows for collaborative school cultures. WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL'S ROLE? The most effective change in school culture happens when principals, teachers, and students model the values and beliefs important to the institution. The actions of the principal are noticed and interpreted by others as "what is important." A principal who acts with care and concern for others is more likely to develop a school culture with similar values. Likewise, the principal who has little time for others places an implicit stamp of approval on selfish behaviors and attitudes. Besides modeling, Deal and Peterson suggest that principals should work to develop shared visions--rooted in history, values, beliefs--of what the 67

school should be, hire compatible staff, face conflict rather than avoid it, and use story-telling to illustrate shared values. More practical advice comes from Jane Arkes, a principal interviewed by Stolp and Smith: work on team-building; put your agenda second; know that you don't have all the answers--everyone has limitations; learn from students and staff; put people before paper. Finally and most important, principals must nurture the traditions, ceremonies, rituals, and symbols that already express and reinforce positive school culture.

RESOURCES Cheng, Yin Cheong. "Profiles of Organizational Culture and Effective Schools." SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 4, 2 (1993): 85-110. Deal, Terrence E. "The Culture of Schools." In EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE edited by Marshall Sashkin and Herbert J. Walberg. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing, 1993. Deal, Terrence E., and Kent D. Peterson. THE PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN SHAPING SCHOOL CULTURE. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1990. 122 pages. ED 325 914. Fullan, Michael G. "Visions That Blind." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 49, 5 (February 1992): 19-22. EJ 439 278. Furtwengler, Willis J., and Anita Micich. "Seeing What We Think: Symbols of School Culture." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991. 16 pages. ED 335 754. Fyans, Leslie J., Jr., and Martin L. Maehr. "School Culture, Student Ethnicity, and Motivation." Urbana, Illinois: The National Center for School Leadership. 1990. 29 pages. ED 327 947. Geertz, Clifford. THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES. New York: Basic Books, 1973. 470 pages. Heckman, Paul E. "School Restructuring in Practice: Reckoning with the Culture of School." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM 2, 3 (July 1993): 263-71. Keefe, James W. "Leadership for School Restructuring--Redesigning Your School." HIGH SCHOOL MAGAZINE 1, 2 (December 1993): 4-9. Senge, Peter M. "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations." SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW (Fall 1990): 7-23. 68

Stolp, Stephen, and Stuart C. Smith. SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLIMATE: THE ROLE OF THE LEADER. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council, January 1994. 57 pages. Thacker, Jerry L., and William D. McInerney. "Changing Academic Culture To Improve Student Achievement in the Elementary Schools." ERS SPECTRUM 10, 4 (Fall 1992): 18-23. EJ 454 390.

8.Mistakes Educational Leaders Make

Publication Date: 1998-06-00 Author: Bulach, Clete - Pickett, Winston - Boothe, Diana Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

Most administrator training programs focus on what educational leaders "should" do rather than on mistakes or what they "should not" do. We believe knowing what not to do is as important if not more important than knowing what to do. This belief is based on the premise that the behaviors a person should avoid are far fewer than the behaviors a person should exhibit. It is also based on awareness that the negative fallout of one mistake may be farreaching, offsetting the beneficial effects of a number of positive actions. According to Davis (1997), approximately one in three principals leave their positions involuntarily. Most states provide limited due process protection for principals who are at risk of losing their positions. In the absence of administrative tenure, principals legally become "teachers on special assignment" who can be demoted without cause (Davis). Considering these factors, Davis asserts there is a need for understanding the kinds of leadership behaviors that create problems for principals and those they are responsible for leading. Hogan, Raskin, and Fazzini (1990) investigated three types of flawed leadership. They found individuals can possess well-developed social skills and an attractive interpersonal style yet still exhibit flawed leadership behaviors.

69

WHAT TYPES OF MISTAKES DO LEADERS TEND TO MAKE? Most of the shortcomings and mistakes school administrators make fall into the category of poor human relations. Bulach, Boothe, and Pickett (1997) asked 375 Georgia educators who were enrolled in graduate programs to list and rank the types of mistakes their administrators made. Fifteen categories of mistakes were identified:

poor human-relations skills, poor interpersonal-communication skills, a lack of vision, failure to lead, avoidance of conflict, lack of knowledge about instruction/curriculum, a control orientation, lack of ethics or character, forgetting what it is like to be a teacher, inconsistency, showing favoritism, failure to hold staff accountable, failure to follow through, snap judgments, and interrupting instruction with public-address-system announcements.

Mistakes that can be subsumed under the category of poor human-relations skills occurred most often, Bulach and his colleagues found. Lack of trust and an uncaring attitude were the two behaviors most frequently associated with this category of mistakes. These two behaviors tend to go together. That is, if a person perceives that the supervisor does not care, it is likely that trust will be absent. After all, why trust others when you believe they do not care about you? Other mistakes associated with caring and trust were failure to give "warm fuzzies," failure to circulate with staff, staying distant, not calling teachers by their names, failure to delegate, and failure to compliment staff. Generally, administrators who display these shortcomings have a very strong "task orientation" as opposed to a "people orientation." Principals who are abrasive, arrogant, aggressive, uncaring, and inattentive to the needs of others are far more likely to lose their jobs (Davis). Such characteristics impede the development of support among teachers, parents, and community agencies. These qualities are interpreted as a lack of savvy and people skills. Behavior of this nature leads to ineffective management of the diverse political demands of the job and failure to establish trust and confidence. One final mistake in this category dealt with the inability to motivate staff. 70

Teachers believe many administrators do not know how to motivate staff except through position, reward, and coercion. Leaders who attempt to motivate by exercising these forms of power tend to be task-oriented. This type of leadership behavior often results in low staff morale (Bulach and others). Martin (1990) focused on mistakes of unsuccessful principals in Oregon. Seventythree percent of responding superintendents had supervised a principal whom they had to release, transfer, or "counsel out" of the principalship. Reasons cited for a lack of success were avoidance of situations, lack of vision, poor administrative skills, and poor community relations. In DeLuca and others' (1997) study, which collected data from 507 superintendents in Ohio, respondents were asked to assess the impact of twentythree deficiencies. These areas were reduced by a factor analysis to a set of seven clusters. Significant negative relationships were found between maintaining one's position as a principal and deficiencies in the following clusters: "problem-solve/decision-making" and "delegating/monitoring." According to Davis, the second most frequent reason principals lose their jobs is failure to make decisions and judgments that reflect a thorough understanding of school issues and problems. WHAT ABOUT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS? In the study by Bulach and others, the second most frequently occurring mistake made by principals deals with a category of behavior labeled "poor interpersonal communication skills." The example most frequently given for this type of mistake was failure to listen. Doing paperwork in the presence of visitors and not maintaining eye contact were examples of behaviors illustrative of failure to listen. A perceived failure to listen is often interpreted by the speaker as a sign of not caring, whereas the perception that the receiver is listening is viewed by the speaker as a caring behavior. These findings are supported by Davis, who asked California superintendents to rank the top five reasons why principals lost their jobs. Given a list of twenty-one at-risk leadership behaviors, the most frequently cited response focused on failure to communicate in ways that build positive relationships with parents, teachers, students, and colleagues. IS GIVING FEEDBACK A PROBLEM? Bulach and colleagues found that ineffective principals had interpersonal communication problems in the areas of giving and receiving feedback. Examples offered by teachers were failure to provide feedback regarding the following: when supervisors visited teachers' rooms; how teachers handled a fight; how teachers handled a parent conference; and what type of discipline students received when sent to the office. 71

On the receiving end, some supervisors reprimand teachers in front of their colleagues instead of doing it privately. Just as it can be detrimental to reprimand students in front of the whole class, it is also unprofessional for supervisors to reprimand teachers in front of their peers. CAN LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS BE IMPROVED? Interpersonal communication and human-relations skills are closely associated. Listening, caring, and trust are interrelated. Listening conveys a caring attitude, and caring is a building block for trust (Bulach 1993). The ability to build trust is an essential human-relations skill that facilitates interpersonal communication. Little attention, however, is given to these two areas in leadership preparation programs. Leadership assessments conducted at the State University of West Georgia's Professional Development Center revealed that the curriculum in the administrator preparation program in the Department of Education Leadership and Foundations at the State University of West Georgia contained very little training in human-relations or interpersonal-relations skills. Since the assessment, a human-relations seminar has been developed to address this weakness in the training program (Bulach and others 1997). HOW CAN LEADERS AVOID CAREER-ENDING MISTAKES? Data provided by teachers who participated in the study by Bulach and others (1998) send a clear message that school administrators are making mistakes that could be avoided if they were aware of them. Also, this study provides evidence that the overall climate of a school is affected by the number of mistakes an administrator makes. As stated by Patterson (1993), "We need to learn from the pain and pitfalls encountered on the road to success." Hagemann and Varga (1993) caution against sweeping mistakes under the rug. Instead, they emphasize the importance of admitting one's mistakes and moving on. Although acknowledging a poor decision is tough, the sooner it is done the better. In closing, Davis offers six suggestions for avoiding career-ending mistakes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. evaluate and refine your interpersonal skills; understand how you perceive the world around you; don't let your past successes become failures; look for organizational indicators that your leadership may be faltering; be assertive in developing a professional growth plan; and recognize the handwriting on the wall by making the first move.

72

RESOURCES Bulach, C. R. "A Measure of Openness and Trust." PEOPLE IN EDUCATION 1, 4 (December 1993): 382-92. ED 506 570. Bulach, C.; D. Boothe; and W. Pickett. MISTAKES EDUCATIONAL LEADERS MAKE. 1997. 10 pages. ED 404 737. __________. "'Should Nots' for School Principals: Teachers Share Their Views." ERS SPECTRUM (Winter 1998): 16-20. Davis, S. H. "The Principal's Paradox: Remaining Secure in a Precarious Position." NASSP BULLETIN 81, 592 (November 1997): 73-80. Deluca, Joseph; J. Rogus; C. D. Raisch; and A. W. Place. "The Principal at Risk: Career Threatening Problems and their Avoidance." NASSP BULLETIN 81, 592 (November 1997): 105-10. Hagemann, B., and B. Varga. "Holding On." THE EXECUTIVE EDUCATOR 15, 2 (March 1993): 37-38. EJ 459 392. Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. "The Dark Side of Charisma." In MEASURES OF LEADERSHIP, edited by K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark. 343-54. New Jersey: Leadership Library of America, Inc., 1990. Martin, J. L. SUPERINTENDENTS AND UNSUCCESSFUL PRINCIPALS: A LIMITED STUDY IN THE STATE OF OREGON. 1990. ED 316 937. Patterson, Jerry L. LEADERSHIP FOR TOMORROW'S SCHOOLS. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993. 115 pages. ED 357 470.

9.Principal Mentoring

Publication Date: 2001-07-00 Author: Malone, Robert J. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

To help their new principals succeed, more school districts are capitalizing on the expertise of their senior administrators by adding mentor programs to the mix of practical training programs for beginning principals.

73

School boards and district officials recognize that formal preparation for the principalship must include a practical component that can impart real-life skills. This part of principal training is usually termed an apprenticeship or internship, and its success, or lack of success, resides in myriad factors. The effectiveness of this hands-on training has become more important as the growing shortage of school leaders threatens the quality of education in the United States. Ironically, education itself does not seem to be the limiting factor in the principal shortage, since nearly half of the nation's public school teachers have earned advanced degrees. But relatively few of these teachers-the natural pool for future leaders-have expressed interest in becoming principals. This lack of interest, combined with U.S. Department of Labor projections that 40 percent of the country's 93,200 principals are nearing retirement, highlights the need to call on the graying generation of school leaders to become mentors to those who will be entrusted with our schools (Blackman and Fenwick 2000). This Digest examines the nature of mentorships and discusses how these relationships can prepare principals for the next stage of their careers. WHAT IS MENTORING? Mentoring takes its name from Homer's Odyssey. Ulysseus, before departing for Troy, entrusts his son to a wise friend, Mentor. Mentor serves not only as a counselor to the prince during Ulysseus' twenty-year absence, but also as guardian and guide. Most important, Mentor does not replace Ulysseus in the parental role; rather, Mentor, with the help of the goddess Athena, helps the young prince to understand and embrace the difficulties that lie before him. The task of the mentor, then, is to define a unique relationship with his or her protege and fulfill a need unmet by any other relationship (Samier 2000). The best mentors are teacher/sages who act to the best of their ability within plain sight of the protege and who engage in a compassionate and mutual search for wisdom (Bell 1996). Although mentoring has existed for thousands of years, it is only in the last thirty years that mentor-protege relationships have received increasing academic and professional interest. Much of this research initially focused on "classical mentoring," in which a protege, more by chance than by merit, found a mentor willing to serve as guide and counselor. Although valuable in the relationships that it fostered and the leaders that it produced, such mentoring tended toward "like producing like," which meant that women and minorities frequently fell to the wayside. Formalized mentoring programs helped correct these inequities, but these artificial unions usually lacked organizational support and even engendered resentment among mentors who had little or no say in choosing their proteges (Samier 2000). Increasing evidence suggests that matching an intern to the appropriate school 74

and to the right mentor are critical components of the intern's education. Districts must therefore be ready to work closely with these programs to ensure that their schools benefit from an appropriate match (Cordeiro and Smith-Sloan 1995). Although advanced university education will continue to dominate preparatory requirements, such training must be combined with in situ practice-of the right length, at the right place, with the right mentor-to help new principals acquire the practical knowledge and characteristic behaviors that typify successful principals. WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF PRINCIPAL-MENTORING PROGRAMS? Numerous school systems have begun principal-preparation programs that produce effective leaders. For example, Albuquerque Public Schools' Extra Support for Principals (ESP) program originated in 1994 when a group of elementary, middle, and high school principals examined how best to develop a support system for new principals. The resulting program features a coordinator who examines beginning principals' backgrounds, asks them to supply a list of experienced principals with whom they would like to work, and then matches them with veteran leaders. Results indicate that new principals, as well as their mentors, benefit significantly from ESP (Weingartner 2001). Another program, established by the Southern Regional Education Board's Leadership Academy, focuses on developing effective leadership styles that will have a direct impact on schools. An important component of the academy is the mentoring program, which assigns an external peer coach to each district team. The coach, who is a skilled leader in education, provides technical assistance and collects information from participants to help them develop as leaders (Crews and Weakley 1996). Many school systems such as Albuquerque's have looked within to establish mentoring programs. The key to any approach is for educational leaders to recognize the uniqueness of their circumstances and to establish a program that reflects their community's needs. For example, the shortage of qualified candidates for school-leadership positions led Santa Cruz County to gather local experts to come up with a solution to this problem. These gatherings, entitled "Growing Our Own," arose in part from dissatisfaction over the traditional role played by assistant principals, who were usually assigned a narrow range of responsibilities. Santa Cruz educators decided to reinvent the principal/assistant-principal relationship by establishing a mentorapprentice agreement that committed the parties to shared outcomes. This program emphasizes teamwork while pursuing the stated goal of producing future school leaders who have the skills, attitudes, behaviors, and courage to lead public schools (Bloom and Krovetz 2001).

75

WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES IN FORMING MENTOR-PROTEGE RELATIONSHIPS? Artificially constructed mentor-protege relationships can create difficulties. Researchers have long recognized that not all persons make suitable mentors and that the best mentors display certain traits, such as their ability to coach, to sponsor, and to serve as a role model. But even the most accomplished mentors can fail to connect with a protege, resulting in a neutral-effect relationship, at best. Race and gender issues further complicate the formation of mentor-protege relationships. Ninety-six percent of the nation's public-school superintendents, over 80 percent of school-board presidents, and 60 percent of all principals are white males, whereas more than 73 percent of all teachers (and future leaders) are women (Blackman and Fenwick). Informal mentoring relationships could form easily when most school leaders were white and male. As recently as 1988, only 2 percent of principals were women, meaning that principals who sought a role model did not have to contend with the complications presented by race and gender (Blackman and Fenwick). In recent years, the composition of the principalship has changed dramatically, with 35 percent of all principals now being women. Many of these women are younger principals who need mentors but cannot rely on traditional avenues for forming such relationships. This same challenge faces the 13 percent of principals who belong to minority groups. Clearly, school boards, district officials, and universities must work together to help principals, those just beginning and those who have sat in the principal's chair for a number of years, to draw on the accumulated wisdom from which all can benefit. HOW SHOULD MENTORS AND PROTEGES BE PAIRED? To avoid unproductive mentor-protege assignments, various tools, such as the Mentor Identification Instrument, have been developed that identify those individuals who possess the needed skills and talents to nurture interns and proteges. By distinguishing those best qualified to mentor, school systems can create an effective mentoring program (Geismar and others 2000). The decision to pair a mentor with a protege should take into consideration the locations and characteristics of the schools in which the two principals are or will be assigned. All districts have suffered through incompatibilities between schools and principals, and since every district has distinct opportunities and leadership needs, mentorships must be arranged in such a way to meet these needs. Urban school districts with high-poverty rates, for example, face particular challenges, and it can be a daunting task to find the person best suited for such 76

positions. One tool that can help urban districts in both selection of new principals and subsequent pairing with mentors is the Haberman Urban Principal Selection Interview. This instrument operates on the belief that the most successful principals are doers and thinkers, and that their career objectives are built on core beliefs. The instrument therefore attempts to identify those who can bring a combination of ideology and action to the principalship. These individuals can then be paired with "Star Principals," those who have demonstrated success in their schools and who exhibit similar characteristics, so that the interns can observe these belief systems in operation (Haberman and Dill 1999). HOW LONG SHOULD A PRINCIPAL BE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH A MENTOR? Formal mentoring programs such as apprenticeships and internships vary widely in their duration. Some institutions require fewer than 165 hours, whereas others dictate in excess of 632 hours of internship (Cordeiro and Smith-Sloan 1995). Researchers are beginning to realize that mentor relationships should not be limited to the early stages of a principal's training. Even established school leaders can benefit from a mentor when trying to navigate the particularly difficult problems that all principals encounter. This ongoing relationship not only gives a leader an added perspective to any problem, it also prepares principals to become a mentor in their own right, thus deepening the pool of experienced persons who can advise future generations (Crow and Matthews 1998).
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. ED-99-C0-0011. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

RESOURCES Bell, Chip R. Managers as Mentors: Building Partnerships for Learning. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1996. Blackman, Mildred Collins, and Leslie T. Fenwick. "The Principalship." Education Week on the Web (March 29, 2000): 2 pages. Bloom, Gary, and Marty Krovetz. "A Step into the Principalship." Leadership (January/February 2001): 12-13. Cordeiro, Paula A., and Ellen Smith-Sloan. "Apprenticeships for Administrative Interns: Learning To Talk Like a Principal." Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 18-22, 1995. 36 pages. Crews, Alton C., and Sonya Weakley. Making Leadership Happen: The SREB Model for Leadership Development. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board, 1996. 77

Crow, Gary M., and L. Joseph Matthews. Finding One's Way: How Mentoring Can Lead to Dynamic Leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1998. Geismar, Thomas J.; John D. Morris; and Mary G. Lieberman. "Selecting Mentors as Principalship Interns." Journal of School Leadership 10 (May 2000): 233-47. Haberman, Martin, and Vicky Dill. "Selecting Star Principals for Schools Serving Children in Poverty." Instructional Leader 12, 1 (January 1999): 1-12. Samier, Eugene. "Public Administration Mentorship: Conceptual and Pragmatic Considerations." Journal of Educational Administration 38, 1 (2000): 83-101. Weingartner, Carl J. "Albuquerque Principals Have ESP," Principal. A Product of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-5207.

10.Collaborative Schools

Publication Date: 1987-00-00 Author: Scott, James J. - Smith, Stuart C. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

A growing number of educators are focusing their efforts on improving the work environment of teaching. In place of the typical school's norms and practices that isolate teachers from one another, some schools are initiating new norms and practices that encourage teachers to cooperate with one another and with administrators on school improvement. The primary goal of these "collaborative schools" is effective teaching and learning; other objectives are that teachers will be accorded respect as professionals and that staff harmony will increase. WHAT IS THE COLLABORATIVE SCHOOL? The collaborative school is one in which administrators and teachers routinely work together to promote effective teaching and learning. What Judith Warren Little (1982) calls the "critical practices of adaptability" characterize the collaborative school:

78

1. "Teachers engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practices" (as opposed to simply gossiping about other teachers, administrators, and students). 2. "Teachers are frequently observed and provided with useful (if potentially frightening) critiques of their teaching." 3. "Teachers plan, design, research, evaluate, and prepare teaching materials together." 4. "Teachers teach each other the practice of teaching." WHY HAVE EDUCATORS BECOME INTERESTED IN COLLABORATION? In most professions, practitioners work together for their mutual benefit-in a law firm, for example, junior partners take advantage of the expertise of senior partners, and senior partners look to the junior partners for fresh new ideas. In contrast, most teachers work in isolation, neither helping nor being helped by their colleagues. As John I. Goodlad (1984) says, "The classroom cells in which teachers spend much of their time appear... symbolic of their relative isolation from one another and from sources of ideas beyond their own background experience." In a sense, each teacher must "reinvent the lightbulb" on his or her own. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that educational leaders are calling for closer professional interaction among teachers and between teachers and administrators--in other words, a greater degree of collaboration in the schools. HOW CAN PRINCIPALS PROMOTE COLLABORATION IN THEIR SCHOOLS? Principals can promote collaboration by such simple expedients as involving faculty members in setting the agenda for faculty meetings, giving faculty committees a meaningful role in matters of curriculum and instruction, and helping teachers to coordinate their schedules so that they have time to observe each other teach and provide each other with feedback on their observations. Although formal structures and strategies can facilitate collaboration, collaboration ultimately depends on the development of norms of cooperation among the school's personnel. In this area the principal can lead by example. When teachers see the principal actively seeking their help and helping them to improve in their profession, they are likely to work with one another to improve their teaching.
79

HOW IMPORTANT IS THE PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP? Because the principal plays such a crucial role in promoting norms of collaboration, he or she must actually exercise stronger leadership than would be necessary where norms of isolation prevail. A number of studies have shown that principals in collaborative schools are more actively involved in observing and evaluating teachers and in working with teachers on curriculum and scheduling than are principals in schools where teachers traditionally are isolated in their classrooms. WHAT ROLE CAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS PLAY? School boards and district administrators can encourage collaboration by providing individual schools with the resources in time and money needed for collaborative activities. For example, the Pittsburgh Public Schools pay for replacement teachers so that teachers in the system can take several weeks away from their classroom activities to attend the Schenley High School Teaching Center where they improve their teaching skills in a collegial setting (Davis 1986). District officials cannot expect to successfully impose collaboration on a school. By its very nature collaboration is a school-site reform that depends for its success on the willing participation of personnel within the school. Collaboration is likely to work only when the principal and a significant number of teachers at a school become convinced that it will actually lead to improved teaching and learning.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under OERI contract. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department of Education. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

FOR MORE INFORMATION Ashton, Patricia T., and Rodman B. Webb. MAKING A DIFFERENCE: TEACHERS' SENSE OF EFFICACY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. New York: Longman, 1986. Bird, Tom, and Judith Warren Little. "How Schools Organize the Teaching Occupation." THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL 86 (1986): 493-511. EJ 337 995.

80

Davis, Lawrence E. "A Recipe for the Development of an Effective Teaching Clinic." Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, San Francisco, CA, March 1, 1986. ED 275 028. Furtwengler, Willis J. "Reaching Success through Involvement--Implementation Strategy for Creating and Maintaining Effective Schools." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 17, 1986. ED 274 085. Goodlad, John I. A PLACE CALLED SCHOOL: PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Lieberman, Ann, and Lynne Miller. TEACHERS, THEIR WORLD, AND THEIR WORK: IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984. ED 250 285. Little, Judith Warren. "Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of School Success." AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 19 (1982): 325-340. EJ 275 511. Rosenholtz, Susan J. TEACHERS' WORKPLACE: A STUDY OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. New York: Longman, forthcoming. Schmuck, Richard A., and others. HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN SCHOOLS. 3rd ed. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1985. Smith, Stuart C., and James J. Scott. THE COLLABORATIVE SCHOOL: A WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management; and Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, forthcoming.

11.Leadership for School Culture

Publication Date: 1994-06-00 Author: Stolp, Stephen Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

Successful leaders have learned to view their organizations' environment in a holistic way. This wide-angle view is what the concept of school culture offers 81

principals and other leaders. It gives them a broader framework for understanding difficult problems and complex relationships within the school. By deepening their understanding of school culture, these leaders will be better equipped to shape the values, beliefs, and attitudes necessary to promote a stable and nurturing learning environment. WHAT IS SCHOOL CULTURE? The field of education lacks a clear and consistent definition of SCHOOL CULTURE. The term has been used synonymously with a variety of concepts, including "climate," "ethos," and "saga" (Deal 1993). The concept of culture came to education from the corporate workplace with the notion that it would provide direction for a more efficient and stable learning environment. Scholars have argued about the meaning of CULTURE for centuries. Noted anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) has made a large contribution to our current understanding of the term. For Geertz, culture represents a "historically transmitted pattern of meaning." Those patterns of meaning are expressed both (explicitly) through symbols and (implicitly) in our taken-for-granted beliefs. A review of the literature on school culture reveals much of Geertz's perspective. Terrence E. Deal and Kent D. Peterson (1990) note that the definition of culture includes "deep patterns of values, beliefs, and traditions that have been formed over the course of [the school's] history." Paul E. Heckman (1993) reminds us that school culture lies in "the commonly held beliefs of teachers, students, and principals." These definitions go beyond the business of creating an efficient learning environment. They focus more on the core values necessary to teach and influence young minds. Thus, SCHOOL CULTURE can be defined as the historically transmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, values, beliefs, ceremonies, rituals, traditions, and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by members of the school community (Stolp and Smith 1994). This system of meaning often shapes what people think and how they act. WHY IS SCHOOL CULTURE IMPORTANT? Researchers have compiled some impressive evidence on school culture. Healthy and sound school cultures correlate strongly with increased student achievement and motivation, and with teacher productivity and satisfaction. Consider several recent studies.

Leslie J. Fyans, Jr. and Martin L. Maehr (1990) looked at the effects of five dimensions of school culture: academic challenges, comparative achievement, recognition for achievement, school community, and perception of school goals. In a survey of 16,310 fourth-, sixth-, eighth-, and tenth-grade students from 820 public schools in Illinois, they found

82

support for the proposition that students are more motivated to learn in schools with strong cultures.

In a project directed at improving elementary student test scores, Jerry L. Thacker and William D. McInerney (1992) looked at the effects of school culture on student achievement. The project they studied focused on creating a new mission statement, goals based on outcomes for students, curriculum alignment corresponding with those goals, staff development, and building level decision-making. The results were significant. The number of students who failed an annual statewide test dropped by as much as 10 percent. These results are consistent with other findings that suggest the implementation of a clear mission statement, shared vision, and schoolwide goals promote increased student achievement.

School culture also correlates with teachers' attitudes toward their work. In a study that profiled effective and ineffective organizational cultures, Yin Cheong Cheng (1993) found stronger school cultures had better motivated teachers. In an environment with strong organizational ideology, shared participation, charismatic leadership, and intimacy, teachers experienced higher job satisfaction and increased productivity.

HOW IS IT BEST TO CHANGE A SCHOOL'S CULTURE? Leaders who are interested in changing their school's culture should first try to understand the existing culture. Cultural change by definition alters a wide variety of relationships. These relationships are at the very core of institutional stability. Reforms should be approached with dialogue, concern for others, and some hesitation. One strategy was outlined by Willis J. Furtwengler and Anita Micich (1991). At a retreat, students, teachers, and administrators from five schools were encouraged to draw visible representations of how they felt about their school culture. The idea was to "make thought visible" and highlight positive and negative aspects of their respective school cultures. Teachers, parents, and administrators were able to identify several areas that would benefit from change. Likewise, school artifacts such as the routines, ceremonies, rituals, traditions, myths, or subtle difference in school language can provide clues for how to approach cultural change. School artifacts change over time. A principal may decide to shorten time between classes only later to find out that this time was important for teacher interaction and unity. Paying attention to such routines, before changing them, may provide valuable insights into how school cultures function. A formal and well-tested instrument for approaching cultural change is NASSP's Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments' Information Management System (CASE--IMS). This instrument focuses on leadership styles, organizational 83

structure, beliefs and values, classroom satisfaction, and productivity. CASE--IMS offers a diagnostic assessment that focuses on the entire school environment (Keefe 1993). WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISION AND CULTURAL CHANGE? A coherent vision specifies the particular values and beliefs that will guide policy and practice within the school. Ideally, the school board and superintendent set a broad vision for all schools in the district, and, within that context, the principal coordinates the process of arriving at a particular vision for each school. The creation of a vision is not a static event, because the vision must change as culture changes. As Peter Senge (1990) notes, "At any one point there will be a particular image of the future that is predominant, but that image will evolve." The principal who is able to adapt a vision to new challenges will be more successful in building strong school cultures. A vision for creating a healthy school culture should be a collaborative activity among teachers, students, parents, staff, and the principal. Michael G. Fullan (1992) writes, "Whose vision is it?" "Principals," he says, "are blinded by their own vision when they must manipulate the teachers and the school culture to conform to it." A more useful approach is to create a shared vision that allows for collaborative school cultures. WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL'S ROLE? The most effective change in school culture happens when principals, teachers, and students model the values and beliefs important to the institution. The actions of the principal are noticed and interpreted by others as "what is important." A principal who acts with care and concern for others is more likely to develop a school culture with similar values. Likewise, the principal who has little time for others places an implicit stamp of approval on selfish behaviors and attitudes. Besides modeling, Deal and Peterson suggest that principals should work to develop shared visions--rooted in history, values, beliefs--of what the school should be, hire compatible staff, face conflict rather than avoid it, and use story-telling to illustrate shared values. More practical advice comes from Jane Arkes, a principal interviewed by Stolp and Smith: work on team-building; put your agenda second; know that you don't have all the answers--everyone has limitations; learn from students and staff; put people before paper. Finally and most important, principals must nurture the traditions, ceremonies, rituals, and symbols that already express and reinforce positive school culture.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. RR93002006. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of

84

OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

RESOURCES Cheng, Yin Cheong. "Profiles of Organizational Culture and Effective Schools." SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 4, 2 (1993): 85-110. Deal, Terrence E. "The Culture of Schools." In EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE edited by Marshall Sashkin and Herbert J. Walberg. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing, 1993. Deal, Terrence E., and Kent D. Peterson. THE PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN SHAPING SCHOOL CULTURE. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1990. 122 pages. ED 325 914. Fullan, Michael G. "Visions That Blind." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 49, 5 (February 1992): 19-22. EJ 439 278. Furtwengler, Willis J., and Anita Micich. "Seeing What We Think: Symbols of School Culture." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991. 16 pages. ED 335 754. Fyans, Leslie J., Jr., and Martin L. Maehr. "School Culture, Student Ethnicity, and Motivation." Urbana, Illinois: The National Center for School Leadership. 1990. 29 pages. ED 327 947. Geertz, Clifford. THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES. New York: Basic Books, 1973. 470 pages. Heckman, Paul E. "School Restructuring in Practice: Reckoning with the Culture of School." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM 2, 3 (July 1993): 263-71. Keefe, James W. "Leadership for School Restructuring--Redesigning Your School." HIGH SCHOOL MAGAZINE 1, 2 (December 1993): 4-9. Senge, Peter M. "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations." SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW (Fall 1990): 7-23. Stolp, Stephen, and Stuart C. Smith. SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLIMATE: THE ROLE OF THE LEADER. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council, January 1994. 57 pages. Thacker, Jerry L., and William D. McInerney. "Changing Academic Culture To Improve Student Achievement in the Elementary Schools." ERS SPECTRUM 10, 4 (Fall 1992): 18-23. EJ 454 390. STUDII PUBLICATE N 85

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

October 1994 | Volume 52 | Number 2 Reporting What Students Are Learning

Pages 3-3

We Can Do Better
Ron Brandt
October 1994

Whenever adventurous educators try to change something about their schools, they find it connected to everything else. A good example is the current move to expand assessment beyond pencil-and-paper tests. In the three years I have been staff liaison to an ASCD-sponsored consortium on performance assessment, I've seen a change in consortium members' perspectives. I have noticed that many who thought their challenge was to devise good performance tasks and scoring procedures are now concerned with the relationship of assessment to curriculum and instruction. In the words of one teacher, You can't test performance unless you teach performance. Most consortium members now see themselves engaged in performance-based education, which includes defining what students should be able to do, planning ways for them to learn to do it, teaching them, andfrequently as a natural part of instructionassessing their performance. But even that is not all; once you've taught performance and assessed it, you have to keep a record of the performance, and be able to communicate the information to otherswhich requires changes in still other practices. That explains why educators trying to reform assessment have become interested in reporting. As Tom Guskey (p. 14) notes, reporting has always been troublesome for educators. What teachers think is important may not be what parents want to know. And every possible method of reporting has its advantages and disadvantages. Use of a few simple symbols is efficient and easy to administer, but not very informative. Providing more details takes time and, if not done well, may lead to misunderstandings. For many teachers and principals, the biggest concern is that the reporting system they are required to use violates their educational philosophy. When that is the problem, a good starting point, as Alfie Kohn (p. 38) reminds us, is to clarify purposes. Kohn argues that most of the commonly offered rationales for grading students are in fact questionable. Much as they might like to do away with some aspects of reporting, however, most educators probably can't avoid the process entirely. What we must do, for our own peace of mind and to serve others well, is design the best system we can. Some of the articles in this issue may help. For example, Grant Wiggins (p. 28) offers six guidelines that, if followed, would produce a very different system. It may surprise you to find that Wiggins does not propose getting rid of letter grades. For him, the issue is not what symbols to use but how to get greater specificity and clarity. What counts is that clear standards and criteria are used, in a consistent way, by each teacher.

86

In summary, educators are taking another look at the perennial topic of reporting because existing systems don't square with contemporary conceptions of instruction and assessment. As Marcia Seeley (p. 4) reports, schools are moving from a test culture to an assessment culture. It's not an easy move to make, because as usual it is much more complex than at first seems apparent. But, if they use sound judgment and consider helpful suggestions like those of Guskey and Wiggins, schools should be able to develop reporting systems that both satisfy their clients and reflect their professional values.

Copyright 1994 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Making Math Count Managing Leadership

Joanne Rooney I mentor Sue, a newly assigned principal. Before school began, I discovered Sue reviewing the to-do list dispatched from the central office. Four single-spaced pages catalogued a variety of tasks, ranging from specifics like review lunch procedures to sweeping, generalized orders like get to know the school community. Some itemssuch as write summer letters to staffhad a due date. Others such as read last year's bulletins, newsletters, staff evaluations, and files left by former principalwere ongoing responsibilities. Each member of the central office had included an item or two, ensuring that the new principal would not neglectanything! Sue was already gasping for breath, and school did not open for a month. Paper overflowed her desk, remnants of summer cleaning were in view, and parents were lining up outside the office. But, Sue groaned, I thought this job was about leadership! Experienced principals understand that keeping the school ship afloat can hijack more than 100 percent of the work day. Many are found at their desks late at night and on Saturdays getting rid of paperwork so that on Monday they can walk the building, visit classrooms, build relationships with teachers and staff and at least think about the noble concepts of school leadership. Beyond Leadership/Management Dualism How can we keep the ship afloat and also steer with vision? Some leadership theorists propose a two-principal arrangement in which one principal person focuses on management and the other deals more directly with instruction. Practitioners acknowledge that having a coprincipal would lighten their load, but they know that this thinking is unlikely to translate into reality. It also implies a leadership/management dualism unhealthy to a holistic approach to leadership. 87

November 2007 | Volume 65 | Number 3

Management and leadership resemble the body and spirit of the human organismhard to segment into separate enterprises. Yes, we manage schools. We also lead them. Good management is crucial for leadership to flourish. We really cannot lead a school until the buses are running on time, washrooms are operating, and schedules are set. However, a culture that envisions a well-oiled machine as the ultimate metaphor for a well-run school misses the point. Principals, I suggest that you note where you actually spend your time. This will tell you, more than all else, what you cherish. What is it that you take pride in when walking the school? If your feel good comes from quiet students, parental contentment, and cleanliness, perhaps you have put the management cart before the horse of excellence in teaching and learning. Eight Highly Effective Habits In my decades as a principal, I developed eight organizational habits that helped me manage a school yet left me free to leadto envision where we were headed and how the school culture could support our travels.

Develop a month-by-month filing system in which you put resources to help you be proactive with recurring managerial tasks. In my February folder, for example, were reminders to start thinking of staffing for the following year. Use a day-timer or some form of scheduling to set concrete goals for each day. I spent five minutes each morning prioritizing a to do list. The day rarely happened as I planned, but this road map gave me landmarks to watch for. Delegate. Delegate. Delegate. Every day, if at all possible, I met with my administrative assistant for 15 minutes. We went through each piece of paper on my desk, and most landed on hers. She made phone calls, scheduled meetings, and organized the parent-teacher bulletin. Often, she organized mereminding me of meetings and phone calls only I could make. Good school secretaries really run the school.

Delegate to teachers, too. Many discipline issues that land on the principal's desk like lunchroom violationsare more effectively handled by teachers. I ensured that only serious issues came to the office. When curriculum or instruction issues surfaced, I delegated to proven teacher teams, acknowledging that my teachers' classroom skills exceeded mine. Trusting others is hard. Many will not act in the way you would. If, however, you insist that things be done your way, plan on long days and busy weekends!

Practice the psychology of limits. Appointments have a beginning; designate an ending time as well, as in I think this meeting should take about 20 minutes. I have another after that. Most issues can be resolved efficiently in less than a half hour, and many in only a minute. Answer the dreaded question Are you busy? with I do have a couple of minutes, but then I have another appointment. When you fear a meeting will lock you up for hours, have your secretary phone you to remind you of your next appointmentreal or imagined. Periodically, roam the building with a notebook. As you meet staff or parents, take note of their requests, reminders, and concerns. This often keeps people out of your office for prolonged visits. Use this list when meeting with your secretary. 88

Whenever possible, avoid meetings. Make those you chair efficient, short, and to the point. Make some decisions unilaterally. For some other decisions, consult with a few reliable sources, but save consensus for fundamental decisions that affect everyone on staff. Separate what you like to do from what needs to be done. We all have occupational hobbies that can drain inordinate amounts of time.

I hope Sue will master these tricks of the trade. She has a deep commitment to children and a hopeful vision for her school's wonderful kidsmany of whom come from impoverished homes, struggle with English, or have special learning needs. These children deserve an excellent schoolmanaged with efficiency and led with care. Joanne Rooney is Codirector of the Midwest Principal's Center and Associate Professor, National-Louis University, 1000 Capital Dr., Wheeling, IL 60090; joanne7084@aol.com.

Copyright 2007 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

May 2005 | Volume 62 | Number 8

Supporting New Educators Supporting New Educators

Naomi Thiers Holding on to new teachers has proven to be one of the hardest tasks schools face in creating a good learning climate. Articles in this issue offer insight into why new teacher turnover is a persistent problemand how to remedy it. Exploring the Generation Gap Susan Moore Johnson and Susan M. Kardos (Bridging the Generation Gap, p. 8) discuss how hiring trends in recent decades have created two distinct groups of teachers in many schoolsthe confident old-timers and the stressed new recruits. Although fostering teacher collaboration is essential to creating a good teaching climate, principals may have trouble bridging the divide between independent, sometimes complacent, veteran teachers and inexperienced, often distressed, novice teachers.

To discover the extent to which teachers at your school fall into these two groups, survey the teachers and create a graph showing how many years 89

of overall teaching experience each individual teacher has. Is level of experience evenly distributed among your faculty, or does the group fall into two clumps? Discuss what you observe and how teachers' differing experience levels might affect faculty collaboration.

Invite teachers with more than 20 years of experience and those with fewer than 5 years of experience to meet together, breaking into small groups that mix veterans and newbies. Have participants share with one another what their first year of teaching was like: what was stressful, who or what helped them, and what kind of help they wish they had had. Have teachers brainstorm to come up with concrete ways in which the established teachers can help new teachers stay afloat. Have veteran teachers discuss how they've seen the realities of teaching evolve over the years. Have expectations of teachers changed significantly? Has teacher preparation kept pace?

Facing Hazing Head-On Invite a group of teachers and principals with varying levels of experience to read Mary Patterson's Hazed! (p. 20). Ask participants to write a few paragraphs describing the conditions they faced during their first year of teaching, answering these questions:

What kinds of courses were you assigned to teach, and what were your class sizes like? Were you given many large and/or entry-level classes? How many preps did you have? What kinds of extracurricular duties were you required or urged to take on? What kinds of classrooms and physical resources (or lack thereof) were you allotted?

Have the group meet to discuss the article and share their personal experiences. From their perspective, is the hazing of new teachers a significant problem? Providing Authentic Training for Principals Maggie Burdette and Kristen Schertzer's Cultivating Leaders from Within (p. 40) shows how classroom teachers in the Capistrano Unified School District's Teaching Assistant Principals program are given a chance to take on administrative duties and develop skills needed for the principalship. Elizabeth Chase Morrison (Trial By Fire, p. 66) advocates assigning students in education leadership programs to internships that expose them to the true challenges of leading a school: Schools are often hesitant to give control to those just learning the trade, claiming, There are kids' lives at stake; school management can't be handled by a rookie. I say let the rookie handle it with some support, and we will have a much better-prepared crop of administrators entering our schools. Examine the internship programs for aspiring principals in your school or district: What kinds of activities and challenges do these internships actually involve, and how well do they reflect the demands of leadership within your school? Discuss advantages and drawbacks of giving intern principals in your schoolor 90

classroom teachers who aspire to leadershipmore substantive responsibilities in running the school. Looking at the Capistrano model, brainstorm structural changes that your school could make to give leaders-in-training a taste of true leadership while still maintaining a safe and efficient school. Would such a program be feasible in your school district? Jump-Starting Teacher Collaboration Over and over, new teachers cite collaboration with colleagues as crucial to surviving their first years. Melody J. Shank (Common Space, Common Time, Common Work, p. 16) describes how Poland Regional High School fosters such collaboration through a physical environment that enables teachers to plan lessons in a shared open space rather than in separate classrooms. Without eliminating individual classrooms, what changes to physical space and scheduling in your school might help teachers break out of the isolating eggcrate model? Discuss the suggestions below, and any others you come up with.

To encourage sharing space and brainpower, reserve a teacher workroom for drop-in lesson planning and grading on specified afternoons each week, perhaps assigning regular days for specific disciplines or grade-level groupings. Ask willing seasoned teachers to take turns being present. Let new teachers know that the shared space and the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues working on similar tasks will be consistently available. According to the psychological theory of social facilitation, people work more efficiently at some tasks when other people are in the room, even when everyone is working independently. Invite teachers to come together monthly in a comfortable space (providing snacks) to tackle the paperwork and grading that can be so draining when done alone. Teachers can share grading ideas or shortcuts for handling paperwork.

November 2009 | Volume 67 | Number 3

Multiple Measures The New Teacher's Guide to Better Assessment

Mary Jo Grdina School leaders can improve their teachers' assessment practices by providing sound guidance along the way. Let's start with a simple assessment of your ability to evaluate some pieces of art. Below, you'll find photographs of three pieces of Steuben glass. Steuben has been designing luxury handcrafted crystal since 1903. Your task is to rank the three pieces in order of increasing market value.

91

Write down your value rankings before you check the answers at the end of this article. How well did you do? Was the task difficult? If so, perhaps it's because you had limited information about each piece. You were not given any dimensionsone piece could be much larger than the other twoand you were only given one view of the three-dimensional pieces. Your design taste could also have influenced your ranking. Some people like sleek lines (choice a, Quintessential Quail); others are attracted or drama (choice b, Sailfish) or to nature's symmetries (choice c, Nautilus Shell). Even if you had been given more information on each piece and had no preference for the objects depicted, you may have fallen short in this task because you have no experience evaluating artistic glass. The points I make in this simple exercise are analogous to important considerations in evaluating students. We have often heard that tests are only snapshots. I could hardly evaluate your skills at analyzing art on the basis of that exercise alone. In the same way, we need so much more information than tests can provide before we can judge whether a student is an analytical reader, a creative writer, or an advanced placementlevel mathematician. In addition, despite those well-constructed rubrics we use, are we truly objective in our student evaluationsor are we sometimes, as in this glass-ranking exercise, influenced by personal taste? School leaders can ensure that teachers avoid common pitfalls and hone their skills in using sound assessments by leading a schoolwide effort that focuses on improving assessment practices.

The Real Aim of Assessment

As a curriculum supervisor and college professor in a school of education, my job is to train future teachers. State certification and other standards require that in their portfolios, graduates demonstrate their ability to generate formative and summative assessments that address a variety of learning styles and accommodate the needs of special learners. Graduates often leave their teacher education programs with idealistic visions of the range of assessments they will use to evaluate their students. But what may really happen to these new teachers when they enter the workforce? Some may have a teacher like Harriet as a mentor. A well-respected veteran, Harriet teaches science to more than 100 high school students. When 92

progress reports are due and she needs more grades, she decides to give her biology students a test, an old one from last year. She realizes that she hasn't covered all the material on this test yet, but she's pressed for time. It's also multiple choice, so it will be easy to correct. The fact is, even seasoned teachers like Harriet, who put serious time and effort into their lesson designs, often resort to more efficient, rather than more effective, assessment instruments. So how can we preserve the ideals of new teachers when they enter the hectic real world of teaching? And how can we convince veteran teachers that the aim of assessment is to educate and improve, not merely to audit student performance (Wiggins, 1998)? School leaders can do this by taking three important steps.

Step 1: Start with Coaching Too often, administrators use a one-size-fits-all approach to professional development, which can lead to teacher annoyance and frustration. If we are going to encourage our teachers to be mindful of addressing the needs of diverse learners, then we should be mindful of the needs of diverse teachers. Once we have clarified where we want our teachers to be as effective evaluators of student performance, we must then determine where they are along the continuum. Do teachers willingly look for opportunities to improve? Are they open to constructive criticism? Do they realize what an awesome task student evaluation is? Identifying teachers' strengths and weaknesses is essential in designing successful mentoring and coaching strategies. Many factors contribute to a teacher's competence in assessment. The number of years that the teacher has spent in the classroom does not necessarily correlate directly with an ability to evaluate students. An experienced teacher who does not see a reason to change the way he or she has always graded students will need different guidance than the new teacher who has been trained in designing rubrics but lacks the organizational skills to do so efficiently. This individualized approach requires time. Administrators need to recognize and believe in coaching as a way to help teachers succeed. It's also an integral part of creating a community of intellectual and self-motivated educators. Step 2: Question Your Teachers

93

Once teachers have made a commitment to improve the assessment process, they need some support. Accountability is key to helping teachers growand asking questions is a crucial part of that process. For example, as teachers, we let our students know what we think is important by asking such questions as, Did you check your work for spelling errors? Have you looked at this problem from more than one angle? As school leaders, we also let our teachers know what we think is important by the questions we ask them. Ask your teachers to do the following: Include sample assessments with their lesson plans. Every school has a protocol for submitting weekly lesson plans. When I was a high school math teacher, for many years I submitted a plan book the week before I taught the lessons. I conscientiously filled in the boxes with lesson objectives, references to state standards, an outline of lesson activities, and a list of assignments. Often the words quiz or unit test would fill a box. Only once in my long career was I asked to submit a sample of a quiz or test; I was never asked to submit a grading rubric. Some teachers might react negatively to this request because they will understandably perceive it as yet another pointless thing to do. However, if you do not ask, how will they know it's important? If you collect and code these assessments for one month, you will get a better handle on how teachers evaluate the students in your school. In addition, teachers will more carefully examine their assessment practices. Highlight verbs in lesson objectives. Early in my teaching career, I was given a list of verbs from Bloom's taxonomy to assist me in working on a curriculum committee. This was the first time I became aware of a taxonomy of higher-order thinking skills. This document, now worn around the edges, is still an important reference on my desk. Highlighting the verbs used in the lesson objectives will help both new and seasoned teachers focus on goals that are higher than mere knowledge acquisition. Ask your teachers the following questions: Which levels of higherlevel thinking are you addressing in your lessons? What do you really mean by understand (Wiggins, 1998)? Do your assessments really provide "acceptable evidence" (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)? This last question is crucial to improving student evaluation. If a unit goal states that "the student will be able to show the relationships among the functions of different organelles in an animal cell," having students label the parts of a cell is not acceptable evidence that the students have mastered that goal. Carefully crafting good assessments and the accompanying rubrics takes time and talent. Teachers may need time and training to do this well. Training can begin at a faculty, department, or grade-level meeting. Teachers could share lesson plans and assessments that show correlation between the verbs in unit objectives and the questions asked on the unit test or the rubrics used for grading the unit project. Another simple and valuable exercise is to ask teachers to highlight the verbs in national and state standards. Many have looked at the content identified in standards; not all have looked at the level of critical thought involved.

94

Share best practices and help one another. If formalized peer mentoring and action research programs seem beyond what you can currently ask of your teachers, you can still use regularly scheduled faculty meeting time to let teachers talk. Too often details, such as homecoming issues or fire drill procedures, consume meeting times. There is an unspoken message here about what we value most. I have also witnessed poor teacher behavior during presentations made by outside experts, either during faculty meetings or special in-service programs. As administrators, we should ask, How can we keep teachers actively engaged in meetings? We preach against the "sage on the stage" model in the classroom and encourage "the guide on the side" approach. Could we also apply this approach to the way we run faculty, department, or grade-level meetings? Teachers can learn from one another. Experts in the group can lead collaborative growth by sharing their assessment strategies. We do not always need to bring someone in from outside. A simple think-pair-share activity at a faculty meeting can yield amazing results.

Step 3: Focus on Assessment Balance

Some new research-based programs offer helpful assessment tools. For example, Everyday Mathematics includes a tool called a quad that a teacher in any content area can use to develop an individualized assessment plan and chart assessment balance (Everyday Mathematics Assessment Handbooks, 2004). This circle graph, which shows the proportion of different assessment types, consists of four segments: outside tests, periodic assessments, product assessments, and ongoing assessments. Outside tests include district and state assessments and standardized achievement tests, periodic assessments include teacherconstructed quizzes and unit tests, performance assessments refer to portfoliotype items, and ongoing assessments include observations of students as they work on regular classroom activities. The size of each segment will vary with grade level and teacher. For example, ongoing assessment will be a large piece during a student's early years when teacher observation is most useful for monitoring student progress. Having teachers calculate and construct a quad to include in their teaching portfolios or annual assessment observations achieves two desirable goals: While preparing the diagrams, the teachers must quantitatively examine the importance they give to each type of assessment, and the final visual product gives the evaluator a clear graphic that shows patterns and changes in the way a teacher evaluates students. A Matter of Will Art critic and social thinker John Ruskin once said, "Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. There must be the will to produce a superior thing." School leaders are responsible for producing this "superior thing"and for making teachers aware what an awesome responsibility student evaluation is. They can do this by breaking assessment down into a series of measurable benchmarks. And they can start with these three steps.

95

References Everyday Mathematics Assessment Handbooks. (2004). Chicago: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Author's note: Current market prices for the pieces are: (a) Quintessential Quail: $1,500; (b) Sailfish: $3,100; (c) Nautilus Shell: $300. Mary Jo Grdina is Associate Clinical Professor of Education in the School of Education at Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104; maryjo.f.grdina@drexel.edu.

Copyright 2009 by ASCD

September 2007 | Volume 65 | Number 1 Teachers as Leaders Pages 54-59

Turning Good Teachers into Great Leaders

Terry Knecht Dozier Are teachers ready for their new leadership roles? School improvement will depend on it. Teachers of the Year, National Boardcertified teachers, Presidential Math and Science awardees, and Milken educatorsthe public generally considers these exemplary classroom teachers to be teacher leaders. In their schools, they mentor new teachers, lead school improvement efforts, develop curriculum, and provide professional development for their colleagues. Administrators tap them to serve on school, district, and state committees. But how do accomplished teachers view themselves? To what kinds of leadership roles do they aspire? And what skills do they need to be effective leaders? In February 2003, the Center for Teacher Leadership at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education set out to answer these questions by conducting an online survey of 300 of the most accomplished teachers in the United States.1 Sixty percent of those surveyed179 teachersresponded, representing 37 different states. Of the respondents, 102 were National Board certified teachers, and 92 were Teachers of the Year. Ninety-eight percent of respondents had received other awards for excellence in the classroom. What Teachers Think About Leadership 96

The survey results have several important implications for those who want to promote and support teacher leadership. Recognized teachers are confident about themselves as teacher leaders. Ninetyseven percent of respondents considered themselves teacher leaders, and 96 percent believed that others saw them as leaders. Recognized teachers engage in many leadership roles. Ninety-three percent have conducted professional development sessions for colleagues; 83 percent have engaged in curriculum development; 84 percent have served as department chairs, team leaders, or grade-level chairs; and 84 percent have mentored new teachers. Clearly, schools are already using accomplished teachers as leaders. Recognized teachers lack training in the new leadership roles they are asked to assume. Eighty-two percent reported that they have not received training for all the leadership roles they have been asked to take on. Most administrators apparently assume that an outstanding teacher of students will be a good teacher of teachers. However, working with colleagues requires a different skill set. Recognized teachers desire new leadership roles. When asked to identify the top three areas in which they have not served as leaders, but would like to serve, 95 percent of respondents chose (1) advisor to policymaking group, (2) teacher recruitment, and (3) education policy and issues. This mirrors national studies that report that teachers believe they have no input in decision making, even within their own schools (Marvel, Lyter, Strizek, & Morton, 2006). Moreover, this lack of input in decision making is a major reason teachers cite for leaving the profession (Ingersoll, 2003). Recognized teachers want training to help them become effective in the policy arena. Although accomplished teachers want to be engaged in policymaking, they recognize that they do not have the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective in this area. When asked to identify the top three aspects of teacher leadership for which they need additional training, respondents selected (1) understanding education policy and issues (65 percent); (2) working collaboratively with education policymakers (64 percent); and (3) interpreting education research (40 percent). Every respondent chose either understanding education policy and issues or working collaboratively with education policymakers as an area in which they needed training. Policy Lessons from Teacher Leaders There have long been calls for teacher leadership in education reform, among them the Institute for Educational Leadership's 2001 report Leadership for Student Learning: Redefining the Teacher as Leader. Nevertheless, teachers still have few opportunities to develop the skills they need to become effective leaders. The literature on teacher leadership documents a consistent absence of training for those asked to assume new leadership roles. Teachers are expected to have the necessary skills on entry into leadership positions or to develop those skills on the job (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; O'Hair & O'Dell, 1995). The success or failure of teacher leaders has most often depended on context and on the experience and personal characteristics of the teacher. Accomplished teachers realize that to be effective leaders in the policy arena, they must deepen their knowledge of education policy and sharpen their skills in influencing change. To provide the kind of policy training that teachers want and need, the Center for Teacher Leadership developed an online leadership course, 97

Teacher as Change Agent, with funding from the AT&T Foundation. The following teacher profilesdrawn from the course and from the Center's Virginia Teacher Leaders Networknot only illustrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that teacher leaders need to be effective, but also highlight the importance of promoting and supporting teacher leadership. Join with Others Pearl Quick, a middle school art teacher, believed that Virginia's art standards needed to be revised for clarity and for better alignment with the National Visual Art Standards. Using her position as president of the Virginia Art Education Association (VAEA), Pearl proposed that the board convene committees around the state to collect input from art teachers. A revision committee made up of representatives from the state's five VAEA regions considered the art teachers' feedback. At the end of a two-year process, the state Board of Education endorsed the suggested changes. Pearl noted that one important way to effect change, especially in specific content areas, is through active involvement in a professional organization. When it comes to teacher leadership, there is strength in numbers. Use Data to Fuel Reform Concerned about the effects of mandated testing on students in the Richmond Public Schoolsespecially kindergartners and 1st graders1st grade teacher Sarah Ford helped create the Richmond Education Association's Testing Committee. The group spent a year looking at research; developing and conducting a survey to capture the perspective of all teachers in the district; analyzing survey results; and meeting with district leaders, outside experts, and interested parents. The report lists main concerns, such as the effect of mandated testing on instruction and teacher morale, and includes recommendations, such as reducing the number and frequency of mandated assessments to allow teachers time for creative and enrichment activities. The final proposal was presented to the school board with the full support of Concerned Parents for Assessment Reform, a new advocacy group that parents formed as a result of Sarah's efforts. The school board has now created a task force that includes members of the testing committee, parents, and district administrators. The group has already agreed to eliminate the developmentally inappropriate test for kindergarten and 1st grade students and is working to implement additional changes. Sarah increased her chances of success by doing her homework, working with a team and other important stakeholders, and making sure that she had data to back up her recommendations. Communicate and Build Relationships Sharon Nelson, a high school chemistry teacher, believed that school districts in Wisconsin needed high-quality induction programs to support new teachers. Working with the New Teacher Center at the University of CaliforniaSanta Cruz and initial funding from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, she established the Wisconsin New Teacher Project, whose mission is to provide guidance, training, and support to school districts as they develop and implement new teacher induction programs. Sharon and Tom Howe, a high school social studies teacher, also launched the Dane County New Teacher Project, a pilot consortium site of 14 school districts. 98

Surprisingly, their initial efforts met with some resistance until Sharon and Tom focused on two essential skills: communication and building relationships. As Tom explained, Rather than dismissing those who couldn't see the long-term benefit of induction and mentoring, we talked about how we might communicate our project's goals, purposes, and importance in ways that resonated with our audience and touched them in ways important to their purpose and mission. We also connected with people inside the state teachers' union and the state Department of Education who shared our beliefs around education. Finding allies within institutions, building relationships with individuals, and communicating clearly were important to our success. Today the Wisconsin New Teacher Project is working in more than 40 districts. Use Your Spheres of Influence Gail Ritchie, a National Boardcertified teacher (NBCT) in Fairfax, Virginia, was inspired to use her new learning from the online teacher leadership course to revise the time-consuming and unwieldy process for soliciting, reviewing, and disseminating the results of leadership projects undertaken by NBCTs. In her role as the National Board program manager for her district, Gail met with the new assistant superintendent for professional learning and training to explain her plans for streamlining the process by eliminating redundant steps, such as having both curriculum specialists and a committee of NBCTs review projects. Gail invited a committee of National Board-certified teachers representing different grade levels, areas of expertise, and viewpoints to help refine the plan and create a fair process. On the basis of feedback from assistant superintendents and directors in her school system, Gail revised the proposal and presented it to the district superintendent and his leadership team, who approved the new process. Gail's understanding of the district's chain of command and her successful use of her spheres of influence resulted in a smoother, more efficient submission process that enabled students and teachers to quickly benefit from innovative projects. Seize the Moment Lori Nazareno, a National Boardcertified teacher in Miami-Dade County Public Schools in Florida, helped create a professional organization of the district's more than 600 NBCTs, whose primary purpose was to improve teaching and learning. Despite state funding for NBCTs to mentor new teachers and the group's repeated efforts to share its expertise, Lori knew that district leaders were not using these accomplished teachers effectively. When Miami-Dade hired Rudy Crew as the new superintendent, Lori wrote him a letter offering to explore ways in which NBCTs could participate in the many reforms that he planned for the district. Crew accepted Lori's offer. Lori and a colleague shared with him a list of recommendations on how the district could better position these accomplished teachers as leaders. These recommendations resulted in a school board policy that involved assigning NBCTs to provide professional development at schools identified as being at risk for low performance. School and district administrators are now seeking out these teachers to provide professional development and help reconfigure district professional development programs. 99

Lori's experience points out the importance of timing. She noted, I'm receiving phone calls and e-mails six and seven times a week from district personnel asking for our input, advice, and assistance on a growing number of initiatives. It's amazing what has happened because we seized an opportunity when it presented itself. Learn the Language Susan Graham, a middle school family and consumer science teacher, attended teacher forums sponsored by the Center for Teacher Leadership and the Virginia Department of Education. The experience of sharing her own views and listening to the perspectives of other stakeholders opened her eyes to the complexity of working in the policy arena. As Susan explained, Here, I began to learn the etiquette of policy discussionthat the language of policy debate and political debate differed, that consensus was not concession, and that changing policy for public education was complex and required great patience. I have discovered that to become a teacher leader requires great tenacity and a willingness to accept small successes. Follow Your Passion Dodie Magill Rodgers, a kindergarten teacher, used her celebrity as the South Carolina Teacher of the Year to plan a statewide celebration of the 25th anniversary of kindergarten education in her state. Seeing the need for full-day kindergarten, especially for disadvantaged students, Dodie decided to use the celebration as a way to push for change. Dodie organized all the kindergarten teachers in South Carolina to host birthday celebrations and invite their local legislators. At these celebrations, politicians (and the media who follow them) received buttons and bumper stickers displaying the slogan Half Day, Half the Way. Although it was a tough fight that took the careful nurturing of relationships between state legislators and teachers over several years, South Carolina now has full-day kindergarten, thanks to Dodie and her colleagues. Her advice to teacher leaders? Go for it if it is a cause in which you believe passionately. I could never have mustered the strength, determination, or courage to see this project to completion unless it had been a cause I believed in with all my heart. Supporting Teacher Leadership Because teachers know firsthand what is needed to improve student learning, promoting and supporting teacher leadership are crucial to the success of any education reform effort. But teacher leaders need specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be successful change agents. To strengthen teachers' leadership capacity, the Center for Teacher Leadership provides teachers with key resources: information on current issues that influence education and the teaching profession, National Boardcertification preparation courses, training in how to work with student teachers, and mentor and leadership training. But training alone is not enough. Teachers need opportunities to break out of their isolation and build professional networks of teachers who share a vision of education excellence. To this end, the Center for Teacher Leadership hosts 100

statewide teacher forums, the Virginia Teacher Leaders Network, and an online discussion group dedicated to connecting teacher leaders throughout the state. Teachers have a perspective that we can't get from anyone else. By helping good teachers become great leaders, we plant seeds that will enhance our profession and enable students to reap the reward they deservea high-quality education. References Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Redefining the teacher as leader. Washington, DC: Author. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Strizek, G. A., & Morton, B. A. (2006). Teacher attrition and mobility: 20042005 teacher follow-up survey (NCES 2007307). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. O'Hair, M., & O'Dell, S. (1995). Educating teachers for leadership and change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Endnote
1

The teachers surveyed were members of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Network Advisory Committee, the Southeastern Virginia NBCT Network, and the electronic mailing lists of the National Teacher Forum and the Virginia Teacher Forum. Terry Knecht Dozier is Director of the Center for Teacher Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education; tdozier@vcu.edu.

Copyright 2007 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

September 2009 | Volume 67 | Number 1 Teaching for the 21st Century Pages 85-86

Taking the Digital Plunge

Bill Ferriter Educational Leadership announces a new columnDigitally Speakingand a new columnist, Bill Ferriter. Bill is a 6th grade language arts and social studies teacher, writer of the blog The Tempered Radical, and an enthusiastic proponent of using digital technology in teaching. In this column, Bill will share how-tos 101

about using digital tools in the classroom. He'll highlight resources, suggest ways to get around problems, and showcase teachers who are using technology in innovative ways. For those who don't know me, I'm a teacher and digital junkie. I'm the Twitter groupie in the back of the teachers workroom who's constantly complaining about the district firewall and who's booked the computer lab for 16 straight weeks. But I make no apologies for my computer obsession. With little more than a highspeed Internet connection and a bit of moxie, I've built a network of innovative colearners with whom I collaborate regularly, although I've never met any of them in person. I consider experimenting fearlessly with digital connections to be part of my job as a teacher. One powerful aspect of 21st century learning is the fact that anyone with an Internet connection can find like-minded peers to learn from using such free tools as blogs and RSS feeds. What I like the best about my digital learning network is that it's spread across continents. Clay Burell is Korea's best kept secret, asking provocative questions about the changing nature of schooling. Jenny Luca is an Aussie dynamo, encouraging teachers to create meaningful service learning projects. Kevin Jarrett runs one of the most inventive elementary-level computer labs in New Jersey. Connecting with colleagues online has helped me explore skills and dispositions necessary for networked cooperationskills like finding partners beyond borders, making my own thinking transparent, revising positions on the basis of feedback, accessing valuable information from colearners, and creating shared content. It has profoundly changed the way I learn. Aren't these the kinds of skills our students must develop? Don't today's 12-yearolds need to recognize that future coworkers are just as likely to live on the other side of the world as on the other side of town? Wouldn't young adults truly prepared for the 21st century have experience using computers to learn with rather than simply aboutthe world? Sure they wouldand ironically, even our youngest students often have more knowledge about the logistics of electronic networking than we do. Consider these statistics about students ages 1217 from a 2007 report by the Pew Internet and American Life project1 :

59 percent share artistic creations online by creating videos, making Web pages, maintaining blogs, or remixing online content. 55 percent have created profiles on social networking sites like Facebook, and 47 percent have posted images on interactive photo-sharing sites.

Despite what they'll tell you, however, there's not a lot of thoughtful discourse going on among teenagers blasting their way through Halo on their PlayStations. And skimming through a sample of typical Facebook pages would leave most teachers convinced that electronic conversations are nothing more than mindless nonsense. To put it simply, our students have no trouble connecting, but no one has taught them about the power of these connections. Although tweens and teens may be comfortable using digital tools to build networks, few are using those networks to pursue meaningful personal growth. Our challenge as teachers is to identify ways that students can use these tools for learning.

102

Experiment! This is why I experiment with every new tool that bursts onto the teenage radar and show my students how these tools can translate into opportunities for learning. Consider the potential: Students from different countries can explore global challenges together. Small cohorts of motivated kids can conduct studies of topics with deep personal meaning to them. Experts can "visit" classrooms thousands of miles away. Recognizing the power in digital conversations, I began using discussion tools like VoiceThread (http://voicethread.com) to create electronic forums for my students to interact with peers around classroom contentwith extraordinary results. More than 85 percent of students in my classroom participate in our optional online discussions, logging thousands of page views and adding hundreds of comments. Whether we're working with other classes in our school or around the world, each conversation includes opportunities for students to ask questions and feel a push against their preconceived notions. As Christinaone of my former studentswrote, "I love it when someone disagrees with me online because it makes me think again." First Steps If this makes sense to you but you haven't created digital connections yourself, it's time to start building your own personal learning network. Begin by signing up for a Twitter account (www.twitter.com) and visiting the Twitter for Teachers wiki (http://twitter4teachers.pbworks.com) to find colleagues to follow. Through Twitter, you'll get short online messages from fellow practitioners that point you to resources or pose questions. Join an online community of educators discussing teaching and learning. My current favorites are Classroom 2.0 (www.classroom20.com) and the Teacher Leaders Network (www.teacherleaders.org), but new groups form every day. Not ready to cannonball into an ongoing digital relationship with a bunch of strangers yet? Then start by following some of the good education blogs written by teachers. Many of these are listed in the Support Blogging wiki (http://supportblogging.com) and on my list of resources (www.pageflakes.com/wferriter/16618841). Once you've taken your digital plunge, share with students how the digital connections you engage in enhance your skills and deepen your knowledge. Model learning transparently. The key to becoming an effective 21st century instructor is to become an efficient 21st century learner. Once you pair high-quality teaching with a meaningful understanding of today's tools for networked learning, you'll be prepared to support tomorrow's networked kid. Ready to take the first step? Endnote
1

Pew Research Center. (2007). Teens and Social Media. Washington, DC: Author. Available www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Socialmedia.aspx?r=1 Bill Ferriter teaches 6th grade language arts and social studies in Raleigh, North Carolina, and blogs about the teaching life at The Tempered Radical 103

(http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical). He is the coauthor of Building a Professional Learning Community at Work: A Guide to the First Year (Solution Tree, 2009); 919-363-1870; wferriter@hotmail.com.

Copyright 2009 by ASCD

September 2009 | Volume 67 | Number 1 Teaching for the 21st Century

Leading for Global Competency

Fernando M. Reimers Now more than ever, education should prepare students for global civility and peace. So what in the world are we waiting for? Good teachers and principals, in the United States and elsewhere, know that good education begins with clarity of purpose. The purpose of schooling is to prepare students for life in the real world in their communities and societies, both in the presentwhile students are in schooland in the futureafter they leave school behind. Good educators know that the real world is ever more interconnected and interdependent. We all share in facing such planetary challenges as climate change, health epidemics, global poverty, global economic recessions and trade imbalances, assaults on human rights, terrorism, political instability, and international conflicts. We also share opportunities for global collaboration in such areas as scientific and artistic creation, trade, and international cooperation. These challenges and opportunities define the contours of our lives, even in their most local dimensions. Yet in spite of growing awareness of the importance of developing global skills, few students around the world have the opportunity today to become globally competent. I define global competency as the knowledge and skills people need to understand today's flat world and to integrate across disciplines so that they can comprehend global events and create possibilities to address them. Global competencies are also the attitudinal and ethical dispositions that make it possible to interact peacefully, respectfully, and productively with fellow human beings from diverse geographies (Reimers, 2009). Making the Case In the United States, a number of groups have produced compelling studies and policy statements explaining the importance of developing global skills. Most recently, the Partnership for 21st Century Skillsan advocacy coalition of educators and business, community, and government leadershas identified global awareness as one of the six core skills that all students need to acquire (along with information and communication skills; thinking and problem-solving skills; interpersonal and self-direction skills; financial, economic, and business 104

literacy; and entrepreneurial and civic literacy). The partnership defines global awareness as the ability to understand global issues; learn from and work with people from diverse cultures; and understand the cultures of other nations, including the use of non-English languages. In 2007, the partnership administered a survey to a group of voters, asking them to rank the importance of 14 skills and indicate the extent to which schools were doing an adequate job of developing those skills. Two-thirds of the voters ranked global awareness as an important skill, but only 1 in 10 thought schools were doing an adequate job of teaching that skill. Several prominent organizationssuch as the National Research Council (2007), the Committee for Economic Development (2006), and the Asia Society (2008) have also made the case for global education. Concurrently, some teachers and education entrepreneurs have developed a wide range of practices that foster global competency, such as improved foreign language curriculums, programs that promote intercultural competency, and internationally themed schools and curriculums. Unfortunately, these practices remain the exception rather than the rule. So Why Don't Schools Promote Global Competency? If we know that global education is important and we understand the kinds of curricular and instructional practices that support it, why are most schools not developing global competencies? The challenge is not simply figuring out which specific activities contribute to fostering aspects of global competency, but also finding out how to integrate those activities into the regular work of schools and how to align them with existing curriculum, assessment, and opportunities for teacher professional development. Two obstacles typically stand in the way. Lack of Resources Not only do schools and communities have competing priorities, but school systems overburdened by demands also often have insufficient capacity and resources. In the 2007 survey conducted by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, although 66 percent of respondents considered global awareness a priority, far more respondents considered other skills more crucial, such as computer skills (87 percent); reading comprehension (85 percent)' and critical thinking and problem solving (80 percent). When resources are insufficient, these skills often take priority over developing global competency. An Obsolete Mind-Set Schools also have greater consensus on how to operationalize traditional competencies, such as literacy, numeracy, and scientific literacy. As a result, these are more likely to be reflected in standards and curriculum frameworks, assessment systems measuring the effectiveness of schools, and professional development initiatives. But what accounts for this pervasive focus on traditional competencies? Part of the reason is that schools have been at these competencies longerand schools are generally best at doing what they have already been doing for a long time. Also, these competencies are easier to tackle, particularly from a mind-set that reflects the logic of industrial production in which optimal productivity is achieved by high specialization and intensity in the use of resources. 105

This logic leads to the compartmentalization of the curriculum and the creation of subject specialists who are highly focused on developing a narrow set of competencies. This model is inherently at odds with interdisciplinary collaboration and leads to a zero-sum way of thinking about the use of education resources: If I do more global education, I must do less literacy or science instruction because resourceswhether teaching positions, resources for professional development, or resources for instructional materialscan only be allocated to serve one of multiple competing goals. This way of thinking makes developing traditional competencies like literacy particularly initial literacy or numeracya more tractable problem than developing competencies that sit across disciplinary boundaries. It may also lead to the fallacy that educators have to choose between developing academic excellence and developing character. The Reality in School A survey I recently administered to a group of 150 school principals confirms the limited opportunities in schools for promoting global learning (see fig. 1).1 Figure 1. Survey on Principals' Perceptions of Global Competency Offerings in Their Schools Question To what extent are there opportunities for students to develop global competency in your school? Are there opportunities to develop global competency infused throughout the curriculum in your school? Are there opportunities to learn foreign languages available in your school? Are there opportunities for students to participate in project based learning around global topics? Are there opportunities for students to travel abroad available to the students in your school? Are there opportunities for teachers to travel abroad available to the teachers in your school? Are there opportunities for teacher 106
12% 33% 46% 10%

To a great Extent

To some extent

Not much

Not at all

12%

41%

38%

9%

33%

25%

9%

33%

11%

35%

33%

21%

15%

8%

19%

57%

7%

19%

22%

52%

6%

21%

40%

32%

professional development to help teachers in your school develop skills and knowledge to develop global competency? Are there partnerships between your school and universities or non-profits to develop global competencies? Question In your school teachers agree on the definition of global competency In your school the development of global competency is a priority for teachers In your school there are sufficient opportunities for students to develop global competency In your school there is good alignment between the way in which we assess student learning and the purpose of developing of global competency
6% 13% 16% 65%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3%

29%

50%

18%

7%

17%

43%

32%

10%

25%

43%

22%

11%

23%

40%

26%

Source: Survey administered by the author to 150 participants in the seminar "The Art of Leadership" at the Harvard Graduate School of Education on July 7, 2009. Fewer than one-half of respondents reported that their schools offer opportunities to develop global competencies, with similar percentages reporting opportunities to infuse global competencies throughout the curriculum or participate in project-based learning. Although a somewhat higher percentage reported that their schools provide opportunities for foreign language learning to students and teachers, only one in four principals reported opportunities for students or teachers to travel abroad. Support in this area is also limited: Only one in four principals reported adequate opportunities for teacher professional development in global competency, and only one in five reported partnerships with universities or other organizations to support the development of global skills in their schools. The survey shows that constraints to developing global competency in the respondents' schools include a lack of agreement on the definition of global competency among teachers (68 percent reported insufficient agreement); the fact that this purpose is not a priority for teachers (75 percent); and insufficient opportunities for students to develop global competency (65 percent). Since Wars Begin in the Minds of Men To break free from the mental trap that sees the development of global competency as competing with other educational purposes, we need to think 107

anew about the relationships among the different goals of education, understanding that schools were created to achieve ambitious civic purposes and that reconnecting with those purposes can make education more relevant, engaging the imagination and energy of both students and teachers. Public schools were, after all, created to contribute to peace, not to teach students a limited set of skills. Nothing so undermines teacher and student engagement as a dull curriculum reflecting low expectations. The perception that a curriculum is irrelevant or boring leads some students to see education as irrelevant to their lives and to check out of school, psychologically and often physically as well. Educating for Peace Seventeenth-century Czech educator John Amos Comenius, who survived 30 years of civil violence that took the lives of his wife and two children, was the first to make the case for universal education. In 1636, in his Didactica Magna, he argued that political and social violence resulted from ignorance among large segments of the population. In the early 1800s, Swiss educator Johan Heinrich Pestalozzi proposed that the goal of education was the full development of the human personality (Biber, 1831). A hundred years later, American educator Isaac Kandel (1925) insisted on the importance of promoting international understanding in schoolnot by adding a new subject to the curriculum, but by infusing this purpose into the existing curriculum, teaching comparative history, geography, and current events. After World War II, Eleanor Roosevelt and other drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights included education as a basic human right in hopes this would contribute to creating the conditions for a lasting and sustainable peace. This purpose was also reflected in the preamble of the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). "Since wars begin in the minds of men," it reads, "it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be built." Needed: A New Mind-Set How, then, do we think anew about an old idea, that education should prepare students for global civility and peaceor, in today's parlance, for global competency? By moving away from the mind-set that considers schools factories and education a linear process in which the manager's task is to maximize efficiency to achieve a limited set of competing objectives. And by thinking about schools as systems of interdependent actors and processes, in which the most important outcomes, as in a symphony, are in the synergies that result from their interaction and collaboration. A curriculum that makes intercultural competency an asset, rather than a deficit, can powerfully motivate immigrant students who navigate cultural borders daily to engage, not just in further developing their global competency, but in all disciplines as well. Schools that find a way to tap the resources that culturally diverse communities of parents and teachers offer to the education of all students will engage these communities in positive ways, both in and out of school. From the Bottom Up

108

Abandoning the industrial approach to education also leads us to abandon the traditional command-and-control, hierarchical view of leadership. A synergistic conception of competencies leads to a different approach entirely. Here, leadership is distributive, collaborative, and participatory, and the central task is identifying and nurturing innovation. First Steps for Leaders Begin where people are. The main opportunity for leadership interested in identifying and nurturing innovation to advance global education is in establishing cross-disciplinary design teams that integrate teachers, district personnel, and scholars in defining global competency. By engaging in this collaborative work, participants will be able to identify existing practices in their schools that promote global competencylikely the work of individual pioneersand decide not only how to integrate these practices within the existing curriculum but also how to deepen and widen them, scale them up, and support them. For example, school personnel might network with similar groups in other schools or districts working to include this purpose in policies, standards, and curriculums or secure resources in support of global education initiatives. After developing a shared definition and purpose and identifying and supporting ongoing good practice, these innovation teams will be in a position to further develop their knowledge and capacity in global education. They could study the subject further and identify practices in other schools, ultimately designing plans to adopt those practices in their own schools. Scaling up this approach is about organizing a social movement of teachers and school leaders who are already interested in working in global education and empowering this movement to enlist other colleagues in the task of providing school opportunities to develop global competency. Listening to Those in the Know An organized, bottom-up, teacher-led movement can advance global education in ways that advocates have been unable to do so far. Rather than trying to dictate new practices using the education bureaucracy's traditional instruments of control, the most effective role for district leadership, government, or other policy actors is to support the organization and scaling-up of ongoing grassroots efforts. Parents, teachers, and those working in the frontlines of change know that good education is not about academic excellence or about character, but about both which makes these groups the best suited to lead this social movement. They understand that competency in the 21st century is not about global awareness, or problem-solving ability, or technological proficiency, or civic competencybut about all of themand they know this better than legislators or those involved in the industry of educational testing. Let us follow, recognize, and support teachers and students as they discover together how best to prepare the next generation for global civility and international understanding. Their shared work in the classroom is the most powerful driver we have in achieving these ambitious education goals. References 109

Asia Society. (2008). Going global: Preparing our students for an interconnected world. New York: Author. Biber, G. E. (1831). Henry Pestalozzi and his plan of education: Being an account of his life and writings. London: J. Souter. Committee for Economic Development. (2006). Education for global leadership: The importance of international studies and foreign language education for U.S. economic and national security. Washington, DC: Author. Kandel, I. (1930). International understanding and the schools. Address delivered before the National Association of Secondary School Principals. In I. Kandel, Essays in Comparative Education (pp. 228235). New York: Teachers College. National Research Council. (2007). International education and foreign languages: Keys to securing America's future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Beyond the three Rs: Voter attitudes toward 21st century skills. Tucson, AZ: Author. Reimers, F. (2009). Educating for Global Competency. In J. E. Cohen & M. B. Malin (Eds.), International perspectives on the goals of universal basic and secondary education. New York: Routledge.
Endnote
1

The principals surveyed were part of an advanced executive training program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. This sample is not representative of the general population of U.S. principals because all principals involved were self-selected to participate. This group included principals of both independent and public schools. Author's note: My colleagues Pamela Mason and Tom Payzant provided helpful feedback on a draft of this article. Fernando M. Reimers is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Education, Director of Global Education, and Director of the International Education Policy Program at Harvard University.

Copyright 2009 by ASCD

October 1993 | Volume 51 | Number 2 New Roles, New Relationships Pages 17-18

The Rule for Role Change: Show, Don't Tell

Edie L. Holcomb When decision making becomes a shared activity, it's up to administrators to demonstrate that the new roles are not just on paper. 110

Supposedly our district is officially into site-based management, but we can't see how things are different. It's still `business as usual.' This teacher's comment typifies common reactions to the trend away from hierarchical management toward participatory decision making at the school level. Usually a state mandate or central office initiative results in a written policy endorsing site-based management, with the assumption that defining new formal procedures and changes in roles and relationships will result in enthusiastic implementation. Little attention is paid to the development of skills needed to work as collegial teams, and even less time is spent planning strategies that will demonstrate a sincere commitment on the part of administrators. As Deal and Peterson have pointed out, the expectations and norms of an organization are communicated both technically and symbolically.1 Writing new policy and modifying job descriptions are technical necessities, but do not meet the need for symbolic actions called for when people comment on how things look and when they want to see that things are different. In order to develop new skills and build the trust level needed for new roles and responsibilities, administrators must consciously plan symbolic actions that will demonstrate the reality of the change. During the past three years, I've worked with school leadership teams struggling to implement models of shared decision making that range from school improvement processes based on the effective schools research, to site-based management, to total quality education. I have been impressed with the creative ways principals and superintendents have found to demonstrate role shifts through formal and informal changes in their own behavior. The Nonverbal Message One principal shared his frustration in this way: I've formed a leadership team, arranged for teamwork training, set regular meetings, developed the agendas jointly with my co-chair (who's a teacher), but the same thing keeps happening. When it gets right down to stating an opinion or reaching closure on a decision, the whole group becomes silent and looks at me. Then everybody's uncomfortable, and I end up taking over so we can move on. I know it's because I've been principal there for a long time, and they're used to waiting for me to decide. Maybe they're even afraid to really test whether they can make decisions themselves. How do I convince them that the days when I'm going to make all the decisions are out the door? As workshop participants reflected on his comment, they noted the importance of eye contact as a cue and focused on his expression out the door. What would happen, they asked, if you broke the eye contact by looking somewhere else, like literally out the door? They mentioned the value of silence and wait time in classroom questioning, and thought it might also apply to better team decision making. The principal decided to implement this nonverbal technique and let us know how it worked. Several months later, he mentioned how awkward it first felt to withhold his opinion and look away from the group. One team member had spotted the change immediately and asked, Why do you keep looking out the door? No one's there. The principal then explained that it was important to him to hold 111

back so that others in the group would participate more actively in reaching decisions. I've told you that the days when I make all the decisions are `out the door,' so I thought I'd try to demonstrate that I really meant it. After that exchange, his nonverbal message became a humorous routine that reminded team members of their collegial relationship. The Personal Reminder In another setting, the group consisted primarily of administrators who were discussing the central office role in support of school-based leadership. One principal complimented her superintendent on the changes he had made that year, noting that for the first time, I've really felt that my input was valued and used. When asked how he had been able to demonstrate that change, the superintendent shyly described that all it really took was two words. Above the inside of his office door, and on each page of his planner, he had placed the question Who else? That simple strategy had provided him with a constant reminder to consider who else should be involved, who else would be affected, who else had expertise, and who else's support would be needed to ensure success. The Visible Opportunity At the ASCD conference in Washington, a facilitator from Canada shared a variation of a graffiti wall, which had turned the staff lounge into a forum for input on decisions. The principal had installed a large wipe-off board titled Decisions PendingInput Requested. At least once a week, the principal listed some current items on her task list, and staff members jotted their suggestions. Another member of the group described a similar technique, which included columns headed Handle it yourself, Use the team, and Meet as a whole. In addition to their written comments, this visible device allowed staff members to indicate those topics that would merit time at a staff meeting. As a result, staff members became much more aware of how many decisions are involved in leading a school. A second benefit was that when staff members were the ones to recommend whole group discussion of an item, there was very little grumbling if the staff meeting went beyond the designated contract day. The Collective Strategy Since Texas is one of many states mandating site-based management, it was no surprise that knowing we really have district support was a high-priority concern among participants at a principals' conference there. The comment that since it's the state's idea, we don't really know whether our superintendent believes it or not generated nods and murmurs throughout the room. One of the few district administrators present added, But I have the same problem. I keep telling them I support site-based management, but they don't seem to believe me. What do I have to do to prove it? The question was turned back to the group in this form: What would central office support for SBM look like? Some of the desired evidence generated by the group included:

The superintendent and the board participate in training. The organizational chart is redrawn to show schools at the top. 112

Site team decision making is modeled by a district-level team. Funds are provided to support innovations. Time is provided for teams to work together. The central office doesn't red ink and revise our building improvement plans for us. Inquiries and complaint calls are referred back to the building so the community learns that we are the decision makers.

These indicators may not be appropriate for every setting, but the technique of asking What will you need to see for you to believe? can be adapted to many issues and contexts. As these accounts from successful and struggling practitioners indicate, saying that we're changing roles is not enough. Conscious modeling of new behaviors by the formal leader is required to demonstrate sincerity and faith in the leadership ability of those who have seen themselves as just followers and receivers. Endnote
1

T. E. Deal and K. D. Peterson, (1990), The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Edie L. Holcomb is Associate Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision at Wichita State University, Campus Box 142, Wichita, KS 67203. She recently served as Associate Director of the National Center for Effective Schools at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Copyright 1993 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

113