Download - Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking Education Leaders (Studies in Educational Leadership)

INTELLIGENT LEADERSHIP

STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

VOLUME 6

Series EditorKenneth Leithwood, OISE, University of Toronto, Canada

Editorial BoardChristopher Day, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Stephen Jacobson, Graduate School of Education, Buffalo, U.S.A.Bill Mulford, University of Tasmania, Hobart, AustraliaPeter Sleegers, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

SCOPE OF THE SERIES

Leadership we know makes all the difference in success or failures of organizations. Thisseries will bring together in a highly readable way the most recent insights in successfulleadership. Emphasis will be placed on research focused on pre-collegiate educationalorganizations. Volumes should address issues related to leadership at all levels ofthe educational system and be written in a style accessible to scholars, educationalpractitioners and policy makers throughout the world.The volumes – monographs and edited volumes – should represent work from differentparts in the world.

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.

INTELLIGENT LEADERSHIP

Constructs for Thinking EducationLeaders

Edited by

John M. BurgerMinistry of Education

Alberta, Canada

Charles F. WebberUniversity of Calgary, Canada

and

Patricia KlinckKeyLinks International

Consulting Ltd., Canada

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-1-4020-6021-2 (HB)ISBN 978-1-4020-6022-9 (e-book)

Published by Springer,P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

www.springer.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved© 2007 Springer

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or

otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of anymaterial supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer

system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Authors vii

Preface xi

Acknowledgments xiii

1. In Search of the Elusive General Theory 1John Burger

2. Observations on Leadership: Linking Theory, Practice and LivedExperience 13Patricia Klinck

3. Change Theory as a Force for School Improvement 27Michael Fullan

4. What We Know About Educational Leadership 41Kenneth Leithwood

5. Contemporary Learning Theories, Instructional Design andLeadership 67Larry Sackney and Brenda Mergel

6. Democratic School Leadership in Canada’s Public School Systems:Professional Value and Social Ethic 99Paul T. Begley and Lindy Zaretsky

7. School and Community 119Charles F. Webber and Bill Mulford

8. Using Resources Effectively in Education 143Ben Levin and Nancy Naylor

v

vi Table of Contents

9. Leading Towards Learning and Achievement: The Role of QualityClassroom Assessment 159Anne Davies

10. A Survey of Existing School Leadership Preparation andDevelopment Programs 183Janice Wallace, Rosemary Foster and Jose da Costa

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Paul T. Begley is a Professor of Educational Leadership at the PennsylvaniaState University, and Executive Director of the Willower Center for the Studyof Leadership and Ethics, a University Council for Educational AdministrationProgram Center.Dr. John Burger is a Senior Manager in the Accountability and Reporting Divisionof Alberta Education in Edmonton Alberta, Canada. John also holds AdjunctAssociate Professor appointments at the University of Calgary, where he has taughtcourses in Classroom Assessment and Educational Leadership, and the University ofAlberta.Dr. José (Joe) L. da Costa is a professor and chair of the Department of Educa-tional Policy Studies in the Faculty of Education, University of Alberta. Joe’sresearch focuses on how educational programming and administrative structuresimpact student success in school. His research program has included work on pre-kindergarten, full-day kindergarten, small class-size at the grade one level, in-schoolmentoring, and teacher and administrator professional development.Dr. Anne Davies is a researcher/writer in the area of classroom assessment. Sheworks with educators at all levels in support of student learning using qualityassessment practices. Author and co-author of more than 24 books and multi-media resources; Anne works with educators internationally. Find out more athttp://www.connect2learning.com/anne_davies/media/pdf/anne_davies_cv.pdfDr. Rosemary Foster is currently an associate professor of educational adminis-tration and leadership as well as associate dean, teacher education at the Universityof Alberta. Rosemary’s research interests and academic writing are in the area ofschool leadership, teacher education and northern and aboriginal education.Dr. Michael Fullan is the former Dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation of the University of Toronto. Recognized as an international authorityon educational reform, Michael is engaged in training, consulting, and evaluatingchange projects around the world. His ideas for managing change are used inmany countries, and his books have been published in many languages. Michaelled the evaluation team which conducted the four-year assessment of the NationalLiteracy and Numeracy Strategy in England from 1998–2003. In April 2004 he wasappointed Special Advisor to the Premier and Minister of Education in Ontario.Dr. Patricia Klinck began her career as an advocate for bilingualism in publiceducation in Western Canada. From these experiences she undertook a wide variety

vii

viii About the Authors

of senior educational leadership positions at both the system and provincial level.Her work in designing programs to develop leaders brought her an invitation fromEdith Cowan University (Perth) to design and coordinate their first Women inLeadership program. Since then her company, KeyLinks International ConsultingLtd, http://www.keylinks.ab.ca conducts seminars and public lectures on a varietyof organizational issues.Dr. Kenneth Leithwood is Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy atOISE/University of Toronto. His research and writing concerns school leadership,educational policy and organizational change. Dr. Leithwood has published morethan 70 referred journal articles, and authored or edited more than two dozen books.For example, he is the senior editor of both the first and second InternationalHandbooks on Educational Leadership and Administration (Kluwer Publishers,1996, 2003).Dr. Ben Levin is the former Deputy Minister of Education in the Ontario Ministryof Education, and also holds a Canada Research Chair in Education Policy andLeadership at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. His most recent bookis Governing Education (University of Toronto Press, 2005).Brenda Mergel, M.Ed., is the Webmaster and Instructional Materials DevelopmentCoordinator for the College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. Prior toher current position, Brenda taught high school Mathematics, Science and PhysicalEducation and was an Adult Educator in Northern Saskatchewan.Dr. Bill Mulford is Professor and Director of the Leadership for Learning ResearchGroup in the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania. He is an inter-nationally recognised educator with a deep interest in the areas of educationalleadership, effective implementation of educational change and school effectivenessand improvement. His awards include the Australian Council for EducationalAdministration Gold Medal for academic attainment, successful practice and anoutstanding record of contributing to the field.Nancy Naylor is Assistant Deputy Minister for the School Business and FinanceDivision of the Ontario Ministry of Education. She has held a variety of seniorpositions in the Ontario government, and has contributed papers to a number ofconferences on education and social policy.Dr. Larry Sackney is a professor of Educational Administration at the Universityof Saskatchewan. Larry’s research interests are learning communities, knowledgemanagement, school improvement, leadership, and systemic reform. He has doneconsultancies at the provincial, national and international levels.Dr. Janice Wallace is an Associate Professor at the University of Alberta whereshe teaches courses on administrative theory and practice. Her research focuses onequity issues in educational organizations and the effects of globalization on thework of administrators in restructured education systems. She is currently exploringthe effects of gender in education career choices with a focus on theories ofmasculinityDr. Charles F. Webber is Professor and Associate Dean in the Graduate Divisionof Educational Research in the Faculty of Education at the University of Calgary

About the Authors ix

in Canada. His current research focuses on cross-cultural leadership development,including technology-mediated leadership development. During his career as aneducator he has served as a classroom teacher, curriculum consultant, principal,and professor. He was the founding editor of the International Electronic Journalfor Leadership in Learning www.ucalgary.ca/∼iejll published by the Universityof Calgary Press, and he is the past academic editor of the Educational Forum,a scholarly journal published by the American educational honor society KappaDelta Pi based in Indianapolis.Dr. Lindy Zaretsky is Superintendent of Student Services and Leadership and StaffDevelopment in the Simcoe County District School Board, Ontario Canada. Shehas been a teacher, consultant, and administrator in a variety of school settings for17 years in the Greater Toronto Area. Her research focuses on parent advocacyand special education, values and educational leadership, and social justice. Shehas authored publications in the areas of advocacy, social justice, and educationalleadership.

PREFACE

The idea for this book grew out of a research conference held at the Universityof Calgary in the summer of 2003. At the conclusion of the conference the inter-connectivity of a number of research topics discussed seemed worth exploring. Theobservation of this inter-connectivity led to some extended collegial speculationand follow-up discussion in Calgary and at subsequent AERA conferences in SanDiego in 2004 and Montreal in 2005 on whether a general theory of what works ineducation was possible. Such a general theory would need to link what we knowabout creating and sustaining effective schools with what we know about creatingand sustaining effective educational leadership. And this became the challenge forthe authors as they accepted and took up the challenge of considering if a searchfor a unified or general theory of what works in education could have merit.

Through networking, both in person and electronically, the book’s conceptualscheme was shared with a group of both leading and emerging education researchers,primarily in Canada, but also in Australia and the United States. However,the experience of the researchers is quite international in scope. As chapterswere submitted they were shared with the authors’ group to support the inter-connectedness of the books key theme.

The chapters were completed at a differential rate, one after another with someoverlap in time, and as they were completed a key question slowly emerged; i.e.it is one thing to read about and to construct an understanding of effective schoolsand effective leadership research, but how do you incorporate the knowledge andskill sets into a more integrated self, able to make the theory to practice leap inconsistently compelling ways?

The answer to this question started to become apparent upon reading all of thechapters and considering them together, and perhaps not too surprisingly, involvedthinking about this question as part of a mode of being, a type of world view, if youwill. There was once an episode in Star Trek, where the spaceship, the Enterprise,came into contact with an entity that was best described as “pure intelligence.”Such an entity might well be considered to have deified characteristics such asomnipotence, and in theory would be able to consider all of the variables thatoperate in the present in such a way as to be able to consistently and perfectlypredict the future outcomes of any decision. Such ability might be considered akind of cosmic general theory.

xi

xii Preface

As educators, we probably have never had the opportunity of coming into practicalcontact with an entity we could describe as “pure intelligence”, although we canall think of leaders who display varying amounts of this quality. So, we do thebest we can under the circumstances of the human condition and search for generaltheories that connect what we do know in more compelling ways than to considerknowledge in discrete and disconnected constructs. And, we try to seek out peoplewho can stimulate our thinking and help us inform our own emerging general theoryof what works in education.

It is our hope that this book helps you the reader as you engage in your ownsearch for ideas, knowledge and insights that contribute to effective educationalleadership.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book would not have been possible if it were not for a number of individualswho offered support and encouragement to pursue the idea that a loose coalition ofwidely geographically separated educational researchers could be brought togetherto pursue an exploration of the off the wall concept that a unified theory of whatworks in education would even be worth exploring. Dr. Patricia Klinck was thefirst to provide this encouragement, followed shortly thereafter by Dr. CharlesWebber. Dr. Kenneth Leithwood also expressed early encouragement and provideda vital link to the publisher, Springer, who offered a book contract on the basisof the exploratory opening chapter. All of the authors who joined this venture asmembers of the writing team are of course fundamental to this book coming intobeing. Special thanks also are extended to Kathy Fast of Alberta Education whoprovided editing and formatting support. Lastly, I want to recognize my wife,Nancy, whose support, encouragement and patience was manifested as much ofthe writing occurred while on our various vacations in Comox, British Columbia.

John Burger, Ph.D.

xiii

CHAPTER 1

IN SEARCH OF THE ELUSIVE GENERAL THEORY

JOHN BURGERAlberta Education

The basic premise of this book is that the definition and explication of a generaltheory of what works in education, based on a solid base of educational research,has the potential to lead schools and school systems to excellence. Extensivechange and development in many national and provincial education systems in thepast 20 years have occurred to the extent that a general theory of what worksin education is possible. However, even armed with a general theory, the mecha-nisms for translating theory to practice are handicapped by insufficiently developedleadership networks capable of effecting truly collaborative models focused oneffective reform. Schmoker, (2004: 431) in his recent critique of overly complexapproaches to educational reform disconnected from practitioners, concludes,

We can no longer afford to be innocent of the fact that ‘collaboration’ improves performance…. Forthis [collaboration] to happen, we have to reach a ‘tipping point’ the moment when – sometimes quitequickly – people’s actions and attitudes change dramatically…. Such a tipping point – from reform totrue collaboration – could represent the most productive shift in the history of educational practice.

If we extend Schmoker’s argument to the premise of this book, we are led to theconclusion that it is the absence of more systemic models of collaborative leadershipthat has inhibited education from becoming a more research-based profession witha clear, theoretical framework of what makes schools successful.

Attempts have been made in Canada in the past to develop more systemicmodels of leadership development, but these attempts have had limited success.In November 1988, a group of Canadian educators gathered in Vancouver tobegin discussions on the potential of developing a Canadian network focused onenhancing educational leadership in Canada. The discussion at the initial meeting inVancouver was based partially on Marilyn Ferguson’s theory of dissipative struc-tures, which explores the theory that the potential for building and maintaininga social structure is dependent on the dynamic tension between the forces that

1

J.M. Burger, C. Webber and P. Klinck (eds.), Intelligent Leadership, 1–12.© 2007 Springer.

2 Burger

hold it together vs. the forces that can pull it apart (Ferguson, 1980:162–170). Thethinking that emerged at the end of the meeting concluded that there were strongerforces compelling the creation of an educational leadership network than the forcesworking against such a structure. Ultimately the foundation for the Canadian Educa-tional Leadership Network (CELN) was successfully laid. Connections were estab-lished with a wide range of organizations such as the B.C. Principals Association,the Alberta Department of Education, the University of Saskatchewan, the OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education, and others.

Concurrent with the creation of the CELN, in Alberta, Canada, a provincialorganization called the Alberta Consortium for the Development of Leadershipin Education (ACDLE) was formed on May 5, 1988 which connected all of thekey provincial stakeholders to focus on the need to develop educational leadershipcapacity. The ACDLE contracted researchers at the University of Alberta to conducta needs assessment of educational leadership in the province (Montgomerie, Petersand Ward: 1991). This report identified five key issues that effectively limited thepotential for educational leadership to stimulate educational change in Alberta:

1) leadership was characterized as “safe” and “lacking in vision or creativity”and devoid of collaborative networking;

2) a lack of “social consensus” and common vision to guide educational leadersin understanding what is appropriate to expect of schools was identified;

3) an absence of risk-taking behavior was identified and attributed to the essen-tially political nature of educational leadership;

4) a lack of balance between theoretical content and field-based experience wasattributed to leadership development programs at Alberta universities; and,

5) effective leadership was deemed less a function of funding leadership devel-opment programs (especially in times of fiscal restraint) and more a matterof developing collaborative cultures and cooperation between agencies.

These five issues individually would present a critique of education, but theyhave functioned interactively and have had the effect in their totality of reinforcingan education system that can be slow to adapt, or react to, or to capitalize onexternal change stimuli.

Following the creation of the ACDLE and CELN, several years of effort atlocal, provincial and national levels transpired and culminated in an applicationto the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to providefunding support to a pan-Canadian educational leadership network. Unfortunatelythe SSHRC application was not successful. In Alberta, the absence of the SSHRCsupport, coupled with some degree of inter-stakeholder doubts about the efficacyof more collaborative leadership models, stimulated the dissipative forces workingagainst the ACDLE and a national leadership development network. Instead of anational - provincial vision of educational leadership development, regional modelswithin the province began to be seen as more sustainable, particularly in relationshipto traditional catchments areas and role responsibilities for leadership developmentof Alberta universities. When the Alberta Department of Education withdrew its

In Search of the Elusive General Theory 3

membership in the ACDLE due to the perception of increasing political riskassociated with the ACDLE, a few stakeholders tried to keep it alive, but eventuallyit dissipated, with the result that educational leadership development in Albertaremains a largely atomized and disconnected process.

Despite this story of failed efforts to create a pan-Canadian or even a provincialleadership development network, this book is dedicated to testing the hypothesisthat the “universe” of education has changed significantly in the past 18 years sincethe initial efforts to create the ACDLE and CELN, and that the epistemological andontological forces supportive of educational leadership networks now are strongerthan forces opposing development of more systemic models of leadership.

This is not to say that the forces supportive of educational leadership haveoverwhelmed the dissipative forces, only that the balance is tipping in favor ofmore systemic models of educational leadership. Among the first prerequisites forthe supportive forces to advance is simply recognizing the possibility that what weknow about leading educational organizations to excellence is coming together inmore integrated and holistic ways, similar to Stephen Hawking and others searchfor a unifying theory of the forces that explain the creation and expansion ofthe universe. In his Foreward to A Brief History of Time, Hawkings (1996: viii)describes,

…the progress that has been made recently in finding ‘dualities’ or correspondences between apparentlydifferent theories of physics. These correspondences are a strong indication that there is a completeunified theory of physics, but they also suggest that it may not be possible to express this theory ina single fundamental formulation. Instead, we may have to use different reflections of the underlyingtheory in different situations.

The possibilities that may accrue when we apply Hawking’s thinking from physicsto education are intriguing. For example, evolving conceptions of childhood andyouth underscore the importance of policy frameworks to be responsive to theunique needs, identity formation and social-economic contexts of youth (Hebertand Hartley, 2004). These evolving conceptualizations hold promise for connectingtheories of curriculum, instruction, assessment and pedagogy, as is evidenced bythe growing literature on understanding by design (McTighe, Seif and Wiggins,2004). Such theoretical linkages can transcend traditional organizational boundariesbetween schools/classroom and ministries of education or faculties of education, andcan help to ensure that education systems are more able to personalize learning infundamentally important ways to better respond to and meet the needs of students.

Technology also is playing a significant role in changing how people networkand share insights, ideas and strategies for stimulating change. The idea for thisbook would never have been launched without the networking power of email andthe research potential of the internet. Technology allows more to be done withless effort than ever before, while breaking down barriers of time and distance.Collaboration and sharing, two fundamental properties of more effective leadership,are greatly facilitated by information and communications technology.

Another contributing force to a unifying theory supportive of excellence ineducation is the emerging alignment of research methods and epistemological

4 Burger

foundations for understanding educational research. Old debates that raged inthe 1980’s and 1990’s between quantitative, logical positivistic vs. qualitative,naturalistic inquiry methods for knowing and understanding what works in educa-tional contexts are giving way to more holistic and unified approaches to inquiry(Wolstenholme, 1999). Furthermore, in his recent discussion of the role of educa-tional research in transforming schools, Slavin (2003:24) sees educational leaders,“…becoming increasingly sophisticated in judging the adequacy of research, and,as a result the quality and usefulness of research will grow.” While lamenting thateducation (in the United States but perhaps more universally) has been too muchinfluenced by ideology than knowledge-based reform, Slavin (2003:24) concludes,“Evidence-based reform honors the best traditions of our profession and promisesto transform schooling for all students.”

This unification of inquiry is occurring simultaneously with evolutionarygrowth in systems of educational accountability. Educational theorists such asStiggins (2001) and Reeves (2004) are building the case for much more compre-hensive approaches to assessing student achievement. Emphasis by govern-ments on standardized testing as the only way of assessing education systemperformance, while still the primary foundation for accountability systems inthe U.S. under the No Child Left Behind legislation, is being supplementedin other areas (Alberta Learning, 2004) by broader and deeper approaches toevaluating program effectiveness based on teachers’ daily assessment work -quantitative, qualitative and intuitive – as a basis for judging levels of studentachievement.

Government sanctioned policy has the potential to provide an environmentsupportive of reform-oriented educational leadership, although this potential hasbeen muted by the negative tone or connotation of reform oriented policies thathave been prominent since the mid-90’s. Levin (2003: 3) has identified two specificproblems with contemporary education policy;

“First, the overall policy approach has been excessively negative in tone, which has itself had importantand unfortunate effects. Second, we have not focused on those variables that are most likely to yieldreal and lasting improvement.”

The policy mix clearly has not been optimally balanced to generate strong, broad-spectrum political support, particularly from the key people responsible for policyimplementation - classroom teachers (Burger, et.al., 2000), (Lynn, 1998). Some ofthis imbalance may indeed be due to the possibility that policy has not been targetedappropriately. As Levin (2003:3) has noted, reform-oriented policies have tended toconcentrate ineffectually on structural changes targeting such areas as jurisdictionboundaries, the financing of education, the role of school councils, school-baseddecision-making etc. As a consequence, these reform-oriented policies have notreached down to the fundamentally important components that educational researchhas shown to effect student achievement. Schmoker (2004:424) sums this situationup as follows;


But here’s the problem. Such ‘learning communities’ – rightly defined – are still extremely rare. Foryears, they have been supplanted and obscured by hugely popular, but patently discredited, reform andimprovement models. The record is clear that these failed, unnecessarily complex reforms have hadonly the most negligible impact on what should be our core concern: the quality of teaching studentsreceive.

In addition to the hypothesis of misdirected policy, it is absolutely crucial to considerthe hypothesis that the absence of integrated, systemic leadership developmentserves to ensure that reform-oriented policies will not be adopted by the policyimplementers because the prerequisite inter-organization visioning process is conse-quently absent. In essence, systemic reform cannot be successfully implementedwithout mechanisms supportive of systemic leadership.

Reflecting on the importance of leadership, Leithwood, et. al. (2004:5) recentlyhave concluded that “Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among allschool-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school.” Effectiveleadership, however, casts its shadow well beyond school-related factors and is akey element in a general or unified theory of what works in education. It followsthen that a key opportunity lies in identifying how to create effective leadershipnetworks necessary for achieving the system-level supports required for excellenceand optimizing learning for students. In their discussion of contemporary policycontexts in relation to effective leadership, Leithwood, et.al. (2004:11) comment,

At the moment, large-scale, accountability-oriented policy contexts are pervasive for educational leadersacross the country. States are key actors in the enactment of educational leadership. Currently, the focuson state standards and accountability systems is driving local decisions and policies in ways that areunprecedented.

Although Leithwood, et. al. (2004: 12) observe that research about successfulleadership practices in accountability driven contexts is “in its infancy”, they areable to infer broad level goals that would characterize emerging models of effectiveeducational leadership. These goals would include:

1) creating and sustaining competitive schools;2) empowering others, especially via data-informed decision-making3) providing instructional guidance, setting professional standards; and,4) effecting strategic school improvement planning.

Interestingly, it can be argued these four goals should be inherent components ofany state-mandated accountability model, and that the policy framework underlyingan accountability model needs to support the articulation among and between theseleadership goals. But even if such interconnected and well-informed accountabilitypolicy frameworks exist, they represent necessary, but not sufficient conditions forsuccessful and effective leadership.

Perhaps the biggest challenge and opportunity in this context for leaders isbuilding a consensus around what data-informed decision-making should look like.The literature on classroom assessment is characterized by considerable debatearound the appropriate uses and applications of state-mandated achievement testsand how test data should be used to inform decision-making at the school and

6 Burger

jurisdiction levels (Burger and Krueger, 2002). Certainly, over-reliance on state-mandated achievement tests may be just as problematic as ignoring such data, andyet more inclusive and balanced models of data that can inform decision-makingaround what works best for student learning are relatively rare.

More than 20 years ago, Bloom (1980) wrote about the power of formative studentassessment as one of a few “alterable variables” that are well within the purviewof teachers to wield as a direct determinant of improved student learning. Morerecently, Stiggins (2001) has linked the power of formative assessment with studentinvolvement in classroom assessment as an approach that has been demonstrated tocontribute dramatically to student success. The Alberta Assessment Consortium haswitnessed continuing growth over the past ten years of teacher and administratorinterest in formative classroom assessment (Alberta Assessment Consortium: 2003).Focusing on formative classroom assessment is a promising practice for individualstudents and teachers. However, its potential for stimulating growth in studentsuccess is exponentially increased when formative assessment becomes part ofthe “data-informed decision making” Leithwood, et.al. (2004) discuss as a meansfor giving greater voice to community stakeholders, especially the community ofstudents and their parents. Formative assessment linked to student involvement inclassroom assessment is one of the more effective drivers of improvement in studentlearning that is ultimately visible in summative assessments (Stiggins, 2001).

In Alberta, a pilot project (Alberta Learning, 2002) is exploring ways in whichthe provincial student achievement database of standardized, criterion-referencedachievement test results can be supplemented with teacher’s judgment of theirstudents grade level of achievement anchored in the learning outcomes in theprovincially mandated curricula. This project demonstrates one of the powerfulevolutionary changes that is permeating the provincial education system and willsupport more collaborative models of leadership, as it stimulates wider under-standing of what works best for students. Questions around data quality and thevalidity and reliability of teacher-based assessment have been examined (AlbertaLearning, 2005) and early indications are that teacher-based data demonstrates satis-factory concurrent and predictive validity relative to groupings of students basedon classification of special learning needs.

More importantly, however, is the parallel message that questions around programeffectiveness can be answered just as well and perhaps better when standardizedtest data is supplemented by teacher-generated data on student achievement. Itwould seem to be almost a truism that the richer the data and related informationinforming matters of student achievement, the greater is the empowerment possiblethrough shared data and multiple ways of knowing for more effective educationalleadership.

As important as classroom assessment and a broader range of data are forinforming decisions around what works in maximizing student achievement, thereform agenda of governments tend to go well beyond assessment matters. Albertainitiated its first in-depth examination of its education system in more than 30 yearswith the Alberta Commission On Learning in June 2002. The Alberta Commission


on Learning noted its key objective was to, “…examine not just short-term issuesand pressures in the system but to look beyond the hot buttons of the day andconsider where our province and our society are headed and how we can make sureour education system is as responsive as possible.” Alberta Learning, 2003: 20).Following a review process that was, “…comprehensive, involving an extensiveconsultation process, public meetings, submissions and presentations, meetingswith education stakeholders and experts, discussions with students, meetings withAboriginal leaders, visits to schools, and a comprehensive research program….”(Alberta Learning, 2003: 21) the Alberta Commission on Learning published itsfinal report in October 2003.

At roughly the same time, halfway across the country in Ontario, a similar reviewprocess was underway under the leadership of a investigative team from OISE/UT(Leithwood, Fullan and Watson, 2003). This team was commissioned to prepare aposition paper on the future of education in Ontario. The purpose of The SchoolsWe Need report was described as;

Following the most tumultuous decade in Ontario educational history, and seven years after the releaseof the report of the Royal Commission on Learning, it seemed time to examine where Ontario educationis now and where the province should be headed in the future. The Schools We Need provided an auditof current education policy in Ontario with suggestions on how to improve our schools (Leithwood,Fullan and Watson, 2003: 1).

The Ontario review was grounded in similar ways to the Alberta review andincluded public opinion studies, analysis of student achievement data, analysis ofprovincial funding formulas, research about policies and practices for improvingteaching and learning, and reflected the authors’ experience in reform initiativesin Canada and internationally, and feedback to the authors from a wide range ofrespondents to an early draft of the report.

Given the proximity in time, but considerable geographic distance, it is acompelling observation to see how similar the two reports are, both of which set theagenda for future leadership challenges for governments and their stakeholders ineducation delivery. The Ontario report presented 17 recommendations within fiveconstructs whereas the Alberta report presented 95 recommendations within nineconstructs. When these constructs are compared (Table 1) we can see there is ahigh degree of general level similarity in the conceptual framework (related recom-mendations are noted in parentheses) that emerged from these critical frameworks.While the general organizing categories in these two reports suggest a degree ofcomparability, when we drill down and consider the specific recommendations inthese reports, an even higher degree of parallelism is apparent. As Table 2 demon-strates, almost all 17 of the Ontario report recommendations have a counterpart inthe Alberta report. This parallelism tends to suggest the future reform agenda inthese two provinces, and perhaps much more broadly given the universality seen ineducational reforms of the past decade, are remarkably similar.What forces are at work or underway in education to prompt such similar reports?The similarities in these two reports might be explained in several ways. Theenvironmental context manifested through the political and economic agendas in

8 Burger

Table 1. Organizing Constructs in Ontario and Alberta Reform Reports (Correspondingrecommendations in parentheses)

The Schools We Need - Ontario Every Child Learns… - Alberta

Vision (1–6) Ready to Learn (1–4)What Children Learn (5–12)The Schools We Need (13–26)Success for Every Child (27–52)

Governance (7–8), Good Governance (81–86)Evidence (9–10), Making the Grade (53–60)Support for Teachers (11–14) Technology Plus (61–68)

Excellent Teachers and School Leaders (69–80)Adequate and Flexible Funding (15–17); Investing in our Children’s Future (87–95

Ontario and Alberta, as in much of the western world in the 1990’s, was charac-terized by a drive for efficiency, reduced public spending and increased account-ability. These common agendas may have created similar reactionary patterns andtherefore similar solution sets to make things right again.

Alternatively, it may be that educational research has reached a stage of evolu-tionary development such that distinct and considered applications of this research-based knowledge have emerged and are being applied consistently to the same,targeted areas. It is also possible that both explanations are operating in an inter-active and synergistic way.

If the political and research agendas are merging, and this would seem to be aplausible explanation, then it is of critical importance to explore what the similar-ities in the reform agenda and related strategies mean for governments and theirstakeholders. An emerging general theory of what works in education has thepotential to make the critical connections in a matrix of political and epistemologicalmeaning.

Canadian researchers’ contributions to such an emerging theory supportive ofexcellence in schools have been significant in explaining these forces and providethe foundation for this book. In the following chapters, Klinck takes us on ajourney reflecting how professional and life experiences interact to constantly shapeconceptualizations of self as educational leader. Fullan’s discussion of change theoryas a force for system level improvement goes beyond defining what the componentsof change theory are to a consideration of how leadership networks are also anecessary condition of successful system level change. Leithwood’s description ofeffective leadership processes brings additional clarity to what effective educationalleadership looks like in context. For example, Leithwood presents a very sensitiveand realistic treatment of teachers’ emotional states as a closely related functionof effective educational leadership networks. Both Fullan and Leithwood help todefine what components would be required if a general theory of what works increating effective schools were to emerge in a way that helps to transcend whatis known about leadership with how it is enacted. These opening chapters set


Table 2. Comparison of Specific Recommendations in Ontario and Alberta Reform Reports


Commitment to strengthening the publicschool system (1).

Provide high quality choices while preservingand enhancing public schools (25).

Ensure strong foundational skills of literacyand numeracy, citizenship and ethicalbehaviour (2).

Ensure that all schools encourage positiveattitudes, good behaviour and respect forothers (24).

Increase the range of choices within thepublic system (3).

Provide high quality choices (25).

Provide full-day junior and senior kindergartenprograms (4).

Establish parenting centres, junior kindergartenprograms, full day kindergarten programs andensure better coordination of programs forchildren (1–4).

Invest in non-school policies such as prenatalhealth, high quality early childhood learningand housing supports to reduce studentmobility (5).

Ensure that adequate support is in place forcoordinated services with health centres, Childand Family Services Authorities, communityorganizations and parenting centres (42).

Improve achievement in literacy andmathematics (6).

Create provincial proficiency standards for …students who are not proficient in English…and provide funding until students reach thestandard (52)

Maintain central responsibility for settingcurriculum, providing resources andmonitoring progress (7).

Maintain and continuously improve Alberta’scomprehensive and balanced curriculum (6).

Provide more discretion to schools and schooldistricts in the implementation of provincialpriorities (8).

Maintain a balance between centralized anddecentralized responsibilities for the provincialgovernment and school boards (82).

Develop education policies that aresystematically “evidence-informed” (9).

Support research and innovative approachesfor improving student outcomes (54).

Data collection for monitoring theimplementation and the effects of provincialpolicy (10).

Results from provincial achievement testsare used along with ongoing classroomassessments to guide and inform plans forimproving students’ achievement (55).

Review and revise, as needed, the exitstandards and means of assessing thosestandards in teacher training programs (11).

Review and improve current pre-serviceprograms for teachers (69).

Stimulate professional learning over the entirecycle of a teacher’s professional life (12).

Develop and implement comprehensiveprofessional development and require allteachers to have targeted annual professionaldevelopment plans (72–73).

Foster recruitment, retention and developmentof high caliber candidates (13).

Require school jurisdictions to adapt thefirst-year experience and provide effectivecoaching for beginning teachers (71).

(continued)

10 Burger

Table 2. continued


Support leadership development for principals,district administrators and teachers throughrevised standards for leadership developmentand the establishment of a fund supportinghigh quality programs (14).

Develop a quality practice standard requiredfor principles; establish a program to prepareand certify principles; establish a Council ofEducation Executives to provide certification,support and professional development forprinciples; develop a program for preparingsuperintendents and to provide professionaldevelopment and support to them (76–79).

Restore sufficient funding (15). Address the current shortfall in funds as soonas possible (87).

Alter the funding formula such that a portionis reserved as a non-restricted block grant thatcan be used flexibly by school districts (16).

Allow school boards to requisition their localresidents for up to 10% of the amount raisedthrough provincial education property taxes(94).

Establish a central fund to which schooldistricts could apply for support to focus onspecific areas known to have a positive impacton student learning (17).

Phase in funding for new initiativesrecommended by the Commission on a prioritybasis (93).

the context for more specific treatments of other factors that help to define whateffective educational leadership looks like.

Sackney and Mergel’s contextually rich review of the nexus between learningtheory and effective leadership is compelling, especially when conceptualizedas one of Leithwood’s key leadership components of “managing instruction.”Begley and Zaretsky’s insights into democratic leadership in schools demon-strates the complexities of value articulation, rationality, cultural dynamics anddialogue as highly interactive components that can be structured to supportschool improvement. Webber and Mulford extend the thinking in the Begleyand Zaretsky chapter as they explore the linkages between schools and proximaland distal communities. Through this analysis they identify issues that arefundamentally linked to how what works in school-community relations andnetworking can contribute to our quest for a more general theory of what worksin education.

Levin and Naylor discuss how resources allocated to education might be usedmore effectively. They illuminate how what we know from educational research canbe reified through more effective decision-making by education leaders in a contextof more effective education planning. Davies’ extensive review of emerging modelsof classroom assessment includes a discussion of specific leadership strategies forsupporting assessment for learning.

The book concludes with DaCosta, Foster and Wallace’s review of educa-tional leadership development programs in Canada. One potential application of


this book is its potential contribution to informing what educational leadershipdevelopment programs should be. This survey provides a useful context for thisapplication.

The above chapter authors, in their collective wisdom and synergy, begin to fleshout what a general theory of what works in education would look like within a newreform context. This book, it is hoped, will make a small contribution to definingthe framework for a renaissance in education leadership at a critical juncture in thehistory of western education, for to paraphrase Hawking (1996: viii), it may wellbe that the “universe” [of education] is governed by a set of rational laws and/orprocesses that we can discover and understand.

REFERENCES

Alberta Assessment Consortium. 2003. Refocus: Looking at Assessment for Learning. Edmonton, AB.Author. www.aac.ab.ca

Alberta Learning. 2002. Beyond MIRS: New Directions for Program Evaluation - Pilot ProjectBackgrounder. Edmonton, AB. Author.

Alberta Learning. 2003. Every Child Learns. Every Child Succeeds. Report and recommendations onLearning. Edmonton, AB. Author.

Alberta Learning. 2004. Beyond MIRS Pilot Project Assessment – Final Report. Edmonton, AB. Author.Alberta Learning. 2005. Beyond MIRS Data Technical Report – Summary. Edmonton. AB. Author.Bloom, B.. 1980. “The New Direction in Educational Research: Alterable Variables.” Phi Delta Kappan.

Vol. 61. No. 6.Burger, et. al. 2000. Implementation of the Alberta Accountability Framework. Canadian Journal of

Educational Administration and Policy. University of Manitoba. Issue 17. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/issuesOnline.html

Burger, J.M. and Krueger, M. 2001. “A Balanced Approach to High Stakes Testing: An Analysis ofthe Literature with Policy Implications.” International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning.University of Calgary. Vol. Xx. No. s. http://www.ucalgary.ca/∼iejll/

Ferguson, M. 1980. The Aquarian Conspiracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston.Hawkings, S. 1996. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. New York.Hebert, Y. and Hartley, W.J. 2004. “Conceptions of Childhood and Youth as Social Representations of

Economic and Political Ideologies in Canada.” University of Calgary. Calgary, AB.Leithwood, K., Fullan, M. and Watson, N. 2003. The Schools We Need. A New Blueprint for Ontario –

Final Report. OISE/UT. Toronto, ON.Leithwood, K., et. al. 2004. How Leadership Influences Student Learning. OISE/UT. Toronto, ON.Levin, B. 2003. “Better Education: The Role of Canadian Governments.” CEA-Whitworth Award Talk.

University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, Manitoba.Lynn, D. 1998. Breaking Through the Ceiling. Paper delivered to the College of Alberta School

Superintendents, Edmonton. AB.McTighe, J., Seif, E.and Wiggins, G. 2004. “You Can Teach for Meaning,” Educational Leadership.

Vol. 62., No. 1.Montgomerie, C., Peters, F. and Ward, K. 1991. Educational Leadership in Alberta. University of

Alberta. Edmonton. AB.Reeves, D.B. 2004. Accountability for Learning: How Teachers and School Leaders Can Take Charge.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.Schmoker, M. 2004. “Tipping Point: From Feckless Reform to Substantive Instructional Improvement,”

Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 85. No. 6.Slavin, R.E. 2003. “A Reader’s Guide to Scientifically Based Research.” Educational Leadership.

Vol. 60. No. 5.

12 Burger

Stiggins, R. 2001. Student Involved Classroom Assessment. Merrill Publishing. Columbus, OH.Townsend, D., Adams, P. and Howe, S. 2003. The Spirit of Educational Leadership in Alberta: Final

Report. College of Alberta School Superintendents. Edmonton, AB.Wolstenholme, E.F. 1999. “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Modelling: the Evolving Balance.” Journal of

the Operational Research Society. Vol. 50. No. 4.

CHAPTER 2

OBSERVATIONS ON LEADERSHIP: LINKINGTHEORY, PRACTICE AND LIVED EXPERIENCE

PATRICIA KLINCKKeyLinks International Consulting Ltd.

I walked out of the leadership course late that afternoon in September. I still recallthe warmth on my face, the noises and smells of peak hour traffic, but mostly Iremember how exhilarated I was! I had just finished my first leadership course.That June, I had been appointed supervisor of second language programs for 65secondary schools of the Calgary Board of Education. I was leaving the classroom,where I had taught French to senior high school students, and was terrified ofthe personal challenges ahead. I had proposed to my new director that I take aleadership course. “After all, I’m just a classroom teacher,” I explained. “I don’tknow anything about leadership. I need help. I need a course.” He agreed. Therewas no money left in the budget, but he offered me three days’ leave if I paid myown tuition. The only course available was on business leadership—I couldn’t findone for educators. So there I was in the City of Calgary—the only educator, theonly woman, and certainly the only one to pay her own way in a group of businessmen. Three days earlier, the barriers seemed insurmountable. However, once theprogram began, I found I could hold my own and contribute to the discussions.

Although the course focused on business contexts, the concepts applied to my rolein the classroom. I discovered that, like business leaders, I had a vision and mission,goals, strategies and a deep sense of service. As a teacher, I did HR planning,used communication strategies, handled difficult personalities, created a productiveworking environment, and annually evaluated and demonstrated accountability. Theleadership inventory identified me as being a Promoter, i.e., a leader who sees the bigpicture, likes innovation, and is not good with details. What I knew about leadership,I had learned teaching French senior high school students. I was overwhelmed bythis insight. Furthermore, I knew intuitively that we had not touched on all aspectsof leadership that educators would have included. I left wondering about the role

13


14 Klinck

of the teacher in the classroom. If my insight was valid, our work as educatorswas seriously underestimated and unexamined. Had I missed some key educationalresearch, or was current business research on leadership applicable to the classroomand the school? What, if anything, was unique about educational leadership? Whyweren’t my colleagues and I talking about it?

I began to search for the answers to those questions. It was soon apparent that thereal leadership positions (i.e., where research was done) were in business, politics,world economy, and occasionally educational systems. I turned to educationalresearch. The research done on the leadership role of teachers applied to teacherswho had taken responsibilities and titles beyond the classroom. Without denyingthe importance of those contributions, the silence around the teacher as leader in theclassroom was deep and complete. It was the silence that served as a springboardfor me. I was convinced that educational leadership per se was embedded in thatsilence and was likely subsumed under other categories: business, military, politics,and such.

I had been a convert to education. Like so many teachers, leadership positionshad not interested me, but the world of the classroom and leadership came togetherin the leadership course. In those three days I had crossed a threshold which somecall a liminal space1. Those are the spaces which separate us from the world wetake for granted. They create doubt, ambivalence and confusion and compel us tolook beyond the fields we know. Like the knight in the Seventh Seal (Bergman,1957), we cannot turn our backs on this new reality. At the very moment that theold reality shatters, the quest for new realities begins.

In a recent article Sinclair (2002), foundation professor of the Faculty ofManagement (Diversity and Change) in The University of Melbourne, issuedchallenges to those who lead and to those who research leaders. She called on usto see leadership within the personal histories of leaders. She then insisted thatwe bring back history into the study of management and leadership. Without thishistory, we lack necessary reference points. We cannot see the connections betweenhow societies and cultures interpret and give meaning to the tasks of leadership.

Sinclair (2002) continued:

I hold to the unfashionable view that leaders can’t be separated from their history and their stories.Leaders don’t just step out of the briefcases each morning. What makes them leaders is what they dowhen they are off-duty, on the couch, in the day-to-day interactions not the great deeds. Who they areand where they come from, how they have got there are all critical parts of their leadership. (p. 2)

When this private inner world is open to us, we can see how individuals create andlive the role of leadership. It is stating the obvious, but there is no one way to lead.Leaders need to find and tell their stories just as their role models have.

1 “Liminal space” should allow active exchanges of ideologies, concepts and methods of working. Inthis time of transition there is an on-going search for answers yet the end point might not or need notbe defined. Some say that the liminal space is a metaphorical realm where ideas and concepts; artistic,political, cultural social or otherwise are in constant states of contestation and negotiation”. See Turner,V.W. Drama, Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Societies. Cornell University Press,Ithaca 1974

Observations on Leadership 15

In this personal professional reflection2, following Sinclair’s (2002) call, I intendto use my own experiences and explorations of leadership and to review key textsfrom business, education, and feminist scholarship. I do so in order to track howdiscussions concerning leadership have evolved over the last 30 years. This periodwas rich and diverse with many layers of complexity. I believe the issues raisedthen are relevant and critical to understanding the concept today. For many ofmy peers, this will be a familiar journey and will perhaps serve as not only arecollection of time well-spent, but also a reminder of how far we’ve come. Forthose whose experiences of educational leadership are more recent, I hope bysharing my journey, you will gain greater insights into the complexity and history ofthe field. For those who are about to begin their own lived leadership experiences,perhaps my account will provide you with the support and encouragement to thinkoutside the box. As part of this retrospective, I want to spend time on how theideas were tested, new questions shaped, and how they worked in the real worldof classrooms, schools, and systems. In the first section of this chapter, I willwork with three broad topics in leadership: first, business leadership, organizationalculture, and empowerment; second, educational leadership perspectives; and third,feminist writings. My purpose is to show how these different perspectives informour current ideas on educational leadership.

BUSINESS LEADERSHIP

It would be an exaggeration to say that leadership and business have beensynonymous nonetheless the overlap has been extensive. When In Search of Excel-lence (Waterman & Peters, 1982) came out, it was an instant success. Waterman andPeters inspired a new interest in the dynamic between leader and organizations. Areleaders made or born? How do they accomplish fundamental organizational changein the interest of better results? These questions and others were dealt with in The Artof Japanese Management: Applications for American Executives (Tanner, Athos,& Pascale, 1981), which came out at about the same time. This research probedthe changes in Japanese business from “not worthy of mention” to the Japaneseexample of excellence presented to the world of the 80s. The authors presented whatanother culture did, as it created a new social norm based on leadership. These wereamong the first of many writers and researchers who wrote about the challenges ofleadership in organizations. Although the context was primarily business, the rangeof approaches and the methods of study became eclectic and freed writers fromthe data-collection and fact-finding missions of the past. For example, The Tao ofLeadership (Heider, 1986) and The Art of War (Tzu, 1981) were widely read. Theywere reminders that there have been leaders of exceptional capacity and strategiesin other times and cultures. They provided evidence to show that how present day

2 Such a practice [reflection] combines the ability both to engage and to distance – to identify with anenterprise as well as to view it in context, with the eyes of an outsider …it also allows us to includehistory in our sense of the present and to explore possible futures”. See Wenger, E. Communities ofPractice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity The Cambridge University Press 1998 p. 217

16 Klinck

leaders learn to think, act and know themselves can come from historical writings.They linked the quality of wisdom to leadership and, in a time of fragmentation,identified the quest for the nameless, united whole—the Tao—as a constant.

Argyris and Schon (1995) blurred the lines between business and education byintroducing concepts about how organizations learn, what affects the learning, andwhat needs to be pushed to a higher level of function. Their focus on how they saworganisations learn meant that professional development took on new meaning.

Schon (1982) also taught how to work through stages of reflection and howreflection enhances professionalism. He challenged all professions to move awayfrom the sterile study of techniques and facts. His metaphors from the fine arts wereunique at that time. He advocated learning as one does in an orchestra, in a craft.Learning this way is a form of artistry that lives well in difficult and indeterminatesituations where leaders often find themselves.

The first words in Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge (Bennis & Nanus,1985) echoed the truth about that era: “‘Leadership’ is a word on everyone’s lips”(p. 1). In 1985 when the book appeared, Bennis and Nanus identified four outcomesthat leaders work toward: meaning through communication, deployment of self,attention through vision, and trust through positioning. They were probably amongthe first contemporary writers to underline the relationship of communication andmeaning. Thus they are among the first to signal the importance of big conversations,ones which push back the boundaries and dare to create new ways of thinking andrelating. The conversations of the organization become enlivened as speakers searchintuitively for new metaphors to describe the new realities. Much of leadershipwriting had been—and still was—dominated by data collection. They supportedtheir call for leaders to know themselves by using a qualitative approach whichexamined ideas through interviews and similar interaction tools.

In the search for unique approaches and examples of leadership, Greenleaf ’s(1983) book on servant leadership came back to the public attention. As a Quaker,Greenleaf ’s belief was that leaders serve their public. Leaders are primus interpares, first among equals. Leaders have every reason to know themselves, to knowtheir ego, and to be ready to serve with humility and gratitude. They are challengedto produce authentic change from this position. When their time is finished, theywill return as peers to their original position. There are no clouds of glory.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Although it is difficult to select among the many writers and the approaches toleadership in those early years, at least two others deserve attention. Deal andKennedy (1982) recounted how they met haphazardly at a cocktail party. What doesan educator have in common with an anthropologist? “Nothing,” many would reply.As in the good fortune of all cocktail parties, they ended up talking about peoplein groups and how they manage. The conversation culminated in an agreementto write a book about the culture of corporations. As the base of their research,they used schools and businesses. Their study led them to open up the concept of


culture so that the subtext in organizations could be appreciated. They unveiled theroles and rituals that are taken for granted and unexamined. Although a relativelylight-hearted study, it showed the impact of organizational culture on leadership.When the leader co-opts and works with culture, the interaction is a valuableand powerful resource. On a far more serious note, Schein (1983) studied theassumptions underlying culture in organizations and the visual and ritual aspectsrepresenting the assumptions in everyday life. He showed how small companiesbuild the culture on their founders’ assumptions. The change-over to a new leaderis critical, as he or she will have to be able to read how the history has been shapedby the company’s assumptions. The company also has to work at adapting to anew reality as presented by the new leader. These times of transition challenge theloyalty to the departing leaders and call forth courage and sensibility on the partof the new leader. These and many other writers filled the decades of the 80s and90s, with their analysis of leaders and their commitment to exploring the complexrelationships.

EMPOWERMENT

Empowerment was a critical aspect of culture in the 80s and 90s. Kanter (1977)dealt with empowerment and its impact for both men and women in corporations.She defined the differences between power and empowerment:

when more people are empowered—that is, allowed to have control over the conditions that make theiractions possible-then more is accomplished, more gets done. Thus, the meaning of power here is closerto “mastery” or “autonomy” than to domination or control over others. (p. 166)

The 90s were ushered in by Senge’s (1990) seminal book on leadership. He proposedsystems thinking, so that each corporation would become a learning organization.Of the five requisite disciplines, personal mastery: knowledge of and deploymentof one’s capacities, is central.

This short retrospective shows how the borders become blurred between businessand education through the emphasis on learning. Over the two-and-a-half decades,organizational learning has gained in importance. As well, the idea of artistry,imagination, and innovation in business has taken on a stronger position. Writershave reflected the awareness, which was growing stronger in the concept thatlearning is central to humanity. We are all learners. As well, there has been agrowing awareness that learning, emotion, and morale go together.

As different writers developed and revealed their criteria of what makes a goodleader, more referenced the idea of self-knowledge. Initially this was the sense ofknowing yourself, your weakness, your strength, and how you react in differentsituations. This knowledge accumulated so that communication was better andmeaning was clearer. As time has passed, however, there has been a growing interestin two age-old questions. First, “Who am I?” In Communities of Practice, Wenger(1998) noted that building identity and learning go hand-in-hand and are a partof individual life style, group work, and organizations. Leaders intent on knowingthemselves act, think, reflect, and acquire more self knowledge.

18 Klinck

The other question is “What is knowledge?” Each system of knowledgelegitimates certain forms of knowledge as its evidence. In our era, the evidence toanswer this question is logic, facts, and data. However, Polanyi (1966/1983) clearlydemonstrated that there is also tacit knowledge, as he stated clearly “we can knowmore than we can tell” (p. 5). He further stated that “most of this knowledge cannotbe put into words” (p. 5).

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Before the time of the 80s and 90s, the world of educational writing was dividedinto two camps: (a) university-based research, which had little to offer the busyday-to-day world of schools; and (b) writings by practioners, which had moreto offer but lacked the bigger theoretical picture. I remember the sense of hopeas I first read works from the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education. Hereat last were researchers who shared the passion and the reality of curriculumand leadership, a reality that educators recognized. I still have the earmarkedcopies of The Meaning of Educational Change (Fullan, 1982), Improving PrincipalEffectiveness: The Principal Profile (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1986), What’sWorth Fighting for in the Principalship? (Fullan, 1997), and the later volume,What’s Worth Fighting for in Education? (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998) There wasalso interest in other leadership roles in educational systems. For example, Colemanand Laroque (1990) studied ten school districts. They were able to contrast theimpact of the systems on schools.

As the debate spread through Canadian education, an international communityof writers and researchers became better known. I recall those leaders whose workeducators followed so closely. Place Called School (Goodlad, 1984) was a bestseller by educational standards. Goodlad named and claimed issues in educationthat were well-known internally, but which had not been open for public debate. Inhis later works, for example, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (Goodlad, Soder,& Sirotnik, 1993), he broadened our understanding of what it means to be a leaderin schools and school systems.

About the same time in Great Britain, Peter Mortimore joined a team ofresearchers under the direction of Michael Rutter at the University of London. In1979 they published Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effectson Children (Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, & Ouston). It challenged the thinking ofthe day, by showing that social and economic backgrounds were powerful factors indeciding academic results, but not the whole story. Schools could make a differenceusing certain strategies. The study still challenges us today. Change in education isnot easily accomplished. In the United States, Sizer’s (2002) Coalition of EssentialSchools was giving the same message. We followed the debate with intensity.How could these ideas be incorporated? What were the current strategies? Whatwas the status of these approaches? Where were Canadian educators making adifference? What differences did cultural norms and history make to implementationplans? What priorities formed the basis for choosing between alternatives? Given


the outcomes in the United States and Britain, what could Canadians do to makeschools better? What did these ideas mean in the daily lives of schools, students,and teachers?

As the search continued, for those who knew the patterns of the history ofeducation, it became obvious that we had known for many years what schoolsneeded to do and how they could increase the outcomes for students and society.The Eight Year Study (Aikin, 2000) is a recent prime example. Begun in the 30s bya group of 200 educators, the curriculum ran in approximately 30 schools. Whenthe report and its success were published in 1942, the United States was heavilyinvolved in WWII. The report and its findings were lost in the crisis; it is onlyrecently that a group has tried to make the report available through the Internet. Itjust happened!

FEMINIST WRITINGS ON LEADERSHIP

Finally, I turned to my last arena of leadership—feminist writings. It was also duringthis time that I became one of the first—and at that time—the only woman in thesenior executive group of a large, urban school district. I had paid little attention tofeminism. So it was the years in the executive group that opened my eyes. Systemdata and working within the system context shifted my reality. I had just completedmy PhD thesis on the role of talk in the construction of meaning. In particular, Ihad studied how groups pay attention to and validate topics, how one gets a turn attalking, and how much time speakers are allowed. The patterns of dominance I sawin our group were repeated in school and system-based meetings. The exclusion ofwomen was backed up by the data on leadership positions. Women were politicaland economic minorities. They did not have enough formal leadership positions tobe important politically, and as a consequence, they were rarely present at budgetdebates and financial decision-making. These are the spheres where leadershipis determined. Furthermore, it was a crucial time of severe cut backs in AlbertaEducation. I soon became a feminist. As a late bloomer, I knew that the currentsituation lacked equity in at least two arenas: opportunities for advancement andaccess to resources. So it was that the writings of feminists—in education and otherstations in life—became a vital part of my search on leadership.

One of the first feminist articles on leadership was by Lewis and Simon (1986),Canadian academics. The article “A Discourse not Intended for Her: Teaching andLearning within Patriarchy” followed the principles of discourse analysis I hadused in my PhD thesis. After the work I had done in tracking topics, time, andturns to talk within the executive meetings, this read like an affirmation. Others hadexperienced the same sense of exclusion. I was heartened by this. It was a socialnorm. Men were dominant in conversations, and they were more readily listenedto. No doubt from practice, I concluded!

I felt a profound sense of doubt nonetheless in these meetings. If others do notlisten to you, you must bear some of the responsibility. It seemed to me that weshared a deep commitment to education, so where did the imbalance come from? It

20 Klinck

was in the writings of Regan and Brooks (1995) that I began to understand differentperspectives. Although men and women share mutual commitment to education, asthey said,

Gender is a category of experience. Men and women experience and interpret the world differently.…If one accepts gender as a category of experience, then one must also accept that women and men mayexperience and interpret the role of school leadership differently. (p. 17)

Difference in perception means that gender is an ontological question, which hasenormous implications for pedagogy and the construction of knowledge. If genderis a category of experience and feminist writers understand experience as text, thenwomen’s experiences take on a new significance. Their unique perspectives couldnot be subsumed by the current models of teaching and learning or leadership.Their voices needed to be heard. They had significant contributions to make tothe understandings of school leadership. Regan (1990) gave an example of thisdifference. In reflecting on her experiences as a leader, she began a re-visioningof leadership. For a period of time she knew that she worked beneath the lineof the broken pyramid. Above the line were those who held leadership positions.The bottom rung was for teachers who were not in positions of leadership—inother words for most women and some men. Initially this image was her lensto understanding how leadership was constructed. However, as she worked withher leadership style, i.e., balancing task-oriented or hard decisions and soft ornurturing approaches, Regan realized that the diagram distorted her understanding.As a former chemist she then chose the double helix—two strands of DND thatare in continuous movement and connected to each other by bridges. For her, thisdemonstrated the relational nature of leadership. Further it showed how the dynamicof personal and professional interacted on any given moment. She maintained thatthese images and perceptions can and ought to be shared between men and women.

Helgeson (1995) interviewed a group of women leaders as background materialfor her book on leadership. The chapter on Frances Hesselbein, CEO of theYWCA, told a similar story about the visual representation of leadership. Hesselbeinexplained leadership in an organization by drawing a web. Unlike the commonly-used graphs or pyramids, where aspirants moved up a ladder, she described a highlyinterconnected world on a flat playing field. Women did not move up and downthe ladder, but rather into the centre or away from it. As CEO, she saw herselfin the centre, accessible to all the branches of the web. The branches of the webwere both slender and responsive to the slightest pressure. The similarities betweenHesselbein’s concept of a flat playing field (as cited in Helgeson) and Regan’spyramid are partly in the underlying values of inclusion, responsiveness, and trans-parency. Hesselbein and Regan have something in common with Greenleaf ’s (1983)idea of servant leadership in the openness and responsiveness of communications.

EXPLORATION OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

The system positions I held in the Calgary Board of Education during this timeframeopened the door to trying out new ideas in workplace-based laboratories, i.e., schoolsand the system. My first position was as new director of the Staff Development


Department, whose mandate was to do system professional development and, inparticular, to work with principals. There was a plethora of ideas on leadership inboth education and business. We began working closely with senior executives todesign a series of summer institutes for principals, which continued for nearly tenyears.

As the new director, I was excited by the possibilities. The term being usedfor principals at that time was instructional leader. Great confusion and ambiguitysurrounded the idea. After all instruction—teaching—was the private domain ofteachers. What did it mean for principals? How could a principal influence teaching?Because it focused so clearly on the connections between instruction, i.e., teachingin the classroom, and the principalship, the term instructional leader was a gift tothe new Staff Development Department.

At that time, there was a vast range of readings on leadership and changein business and education. We spent many hours of heated debate on questionssuch as: What could we meld together? What did business focus on that weneeded to examine in education? What did the two bodies of knowledge hold incommon? Dr. Jim LaPlant, from the I/D/E/A (Charles Kettering Institute) was acoach and mentor for us. He helped us implement the Principals’ In-service Program(Bahner & LaPlant, 1980), a collegial support group of principals. In the programdesign, leadership concepts from business, religion, and education existed in a fluidenvironment. Using the framework principles of I/D/E/A, we were able to considerdifferent elements of educational leadership and incorporate them within the designof many programs. As one of our concerns was the nature of curriculum in ourschools, we incorporated ideas from the works of Connelly and Clandinin (1988),Egan (1992), Eisner (1985), and Grumet (1988) to mention a few.

Those were heady times! We had a language in common, a deep sense of purpose,and so many fellow travelers in schools and in universities. As well, the CalgaryBoard of Education was committed to staying up with avant garde ideas—providedthey produced results for students. Our search for ideas that were relevant, unique,and crossed boundaries took us to new places and concepts. One such study wasdone by McNeil (1986). She showed us the tangled realities of school structuresand the knowledge they form and impart. By using her case studies, we encouragedprincipals to examine their school structures, timetables, and such. We opened up amuch-needed conversation. Encouraged and sustained by the exchange of strategiesand the emotions of the debate, principals made significant steps towards change.

In the early nineties, I presented, along with several colleagues, a proposal toAlberta Education for researching the concept of curriculum leadership and howit related to the principalship (Clifford et al., 1992). Our methodology was tointerview principals about their impact on how curriculum was understood andtaught, as they worked in the everyday world of their schools. Our definitions ofcurriculum varied among ourselves but we agreed that it was “less as a body of pre-established facts-to-be-known, skills-to-be-mastered, values-to-inculcated, etcetera,in favour of seeing curriculum as the term used to describe an entire set of experi-ences and web relationships which have as their object the pedagogic good ofthe child” (p. 125). We concluded that the problems of curriculum are problems

22 Klinck

of “fundamental purpose” (p. 125). The principals in the study helped us to under-stand the tough questions which bedevilled them: What does this curriculum standfor? What do I stand for?” We saw that this kind of leadership calls for the “moralcourage to hold a vision of education open for dialogue and probing questions”(p. 127). It was clear that these questions and the dialogue which could emergefrom the discussion had to be a system dialogue. Just like the talk in collaborativeschools that Judith Warren Little (1982) identified, systems had also to be deeplyengaged in the questions of purpose and collaboration.

Still two of the deeper questions had not been answered: What is unique abouteducation? How does the uniqueness inform educational leadership? One day aconversation with a colleague lead me to the works of Palmer (1993), a Quakereducator and thinker. In his introduction he asked the question, “What is uniqueabout the educational community?” He acknowledged that we are often comparedwith the therapeutic community, and we do share the importance of nurturing withthem, but it is not enough. Education is regularly included in discussions about thecivic community, and again, he talked about the overlap, but said that this is notsufficient. In conclusion he stated that education is about the community of themind, which has always focused on epistemology, pedagogy, ontology, and ethics.Given the depth and breadth of the search in which we educators were involved, wecould now look back and see how we had struggled to find an appropriate frameworkfor the leadership and how implicitly we had worked with those concepts. It wasobvious that educators had pursued ideas on pedagogy and curriculum, but assumedimplicitly that different epistemologies and ontology didn’t need to or couldn’t benamed. Now we could ask clear questions that addressed the framework. Where didprincipals base their authority—in their position? What kind of knowledge led themto influence the curricula in their schools? How could they influence the teachingand learning—and the knowledge that has occurred in their schools? How does thepedagogical framework, which principals use as classroom teachers, influence theirleadership role? In other words, what do they bring from the classroom to their roleas principal?

Palmer’s (1993) idea of ethics was based on unity across the curriculum, whichpromoted a healthy understanding of the world. A fragmented curriculum, as heshowed, fragments lives. Thus the challenge for adults in the school was to designthe bridges, connections, and melding of different disciplines by asking the “big”questions of the curriculum.

Palmer (1993) showed the interactions for learning in a diagram that placesstudents and teachers as knowers intimately connected one to the other. Thus,ontologically speaking, they all work to make sense of the subject. Like Regan(1990) and Hesselbein (as cited in Helgeson, 1995), Palmer envisaged students andteachers all on the same flat playing field, constructing knowledge, teaching eachother, and learning together.

In hierarchical or bureaucratic system students learn under the tutelage of anexpert without interactions or a working relationship.


Over the years I have worked and visited many schools; each has its own uniqueculture as already discussed. Almost as soon as you walk in, you can sense thedifference. It happens when students come up to you to see if you need help,when you hear the sounds of laughter, and sense the deep engagement as you passopen classroom doors. The ideas of school culture referred to earlier had beenwell explored and had served to increase understanding of leadership and howa learning environment is built. However, there was space for more work to bedone and possibly from another perspective. An article by Judith Warren Little(1982) opened the concept for further consideration. She talked about collaborativeschools as ones who were open to “critical practices of adaptability” (p. 1). Whatwere remarkable were the language and the patterns of talk she identified. In thoseschools, teachers talked between classes, over coffee, or grabbed moments in hallways. The image that came to mind was sitting in a café in Paris watching andlistening to people. Images of other cultures are different. Some crowds can besilent and stolid. What Little observed as part of collaborative school culture wereteachers who:

1. engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talkabout teaching practices (as opposed to simply gossiping about other teachers,administrators, and students);

2. are frequently observed and provided with useful (if potentially frightening)critiques of their teaching;

3. plan, design, research, evaluate, and prepare teaching materials together; and4. teach each other the practice of teaching. (p. 1)

As I think about the research done in business and how we have adapted it toeducation, I am struck by how relevant it is—especially in the beginning. We cantake the business concepts and apply them to our education world. However, astime passes we know intuitively that the research is incomplete and awkward tohandle. Often over time, similar research is done within the context of educationand it fits naturally. The research now belongs in the educational framework. Wehave made it ours. The development of the concept of organizational culture is anexample, and it opens the possibility that education and the values it imparts willshape the cultures of business in the future.

In writing a personal, professional reflection, the richness and diversity of recol-lections and the re-appearance of passion for the vision remains as vital andimmediate as always. It appears that Husserl (as cited in Abram, 1997) knewhow powerful the life-world—that world of immediate, lived experience—is inconstructing everyday reality. The life-world influences us before we begin ourtheoretical discussions and analysis. It is the lens through which actions, issues, andinterpretations are seen. Theory, philosophy, and practice can be shaped consciously,but it is the life-world that has impact in its immediacy and shapes the imperativeto consistently reflect on these inter-relationships to effect leadership – regardlessof our role and position.

24 Klinck

REFERENCES

Abram, D. (1997). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world(pp. 40–43). New York: Vintage Books.

Aikin, W. M. (2000). The story of the eight year study. New York: Harper and Brothers.Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1995). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bahner, J., & LaPlant, J. C. (1980). Principals’ in-service program. Dayton, OH: Charles

Kettering Institute.Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. Toronto, ON, Canada:

HarperCollins.Bergman, I. (1957). The seventh seal [Motion picture]. United States: Criterion Collection.Clifford, P., Ditchburn, S., Evans, R., Klinck, P., Partridge, L., & Washburn, W. (1992). Curriculum

leadership and the principalship: A final status report. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Education.Coleman, P., & Laroque, L. (1990). Struggling to be ‘good enough’: Administrative practices and school

district ethos. London: Falmer Press.Connelly, E. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience.

New York: OISE Press.Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.

New York: Perseus Books.Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The middle school years. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.Eisner, E. (1985). Learning and Teaching the Ways of Knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto, ON, Canada: OISE Press.Fullan, M. G. (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship? Strategies for taking charge in the

elementary school principalship. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Primary School Teachers’ Federation.Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. Toronto, ON, Canada: McGraw-Hill.Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.). (1993). The moral dimensions of teaching. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Greenleaf, R. K. (1983). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.

Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts

Press.Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1998). What’s worth fighting for in education? Maidenhead, UK:

Open University Press.Heider, J. (1986). The Tao of leadership: Lao Tzu’s Tao te ching adapted for a new age. Lake Worth,

FL: Humanics Books.Helgeson, S. (1995). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Currency

Doubleday.Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic BooksLeithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: The principal profile.

Toronto, ON, Canada: OISE Press.Lewis, M. G., & Simon, R. I. (1986, November). A discourse not intended for her: Teaching and learning

within patriarchy. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 457–472.Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success.

American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–340.McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York:

Routledge.Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper.Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith. (Reprinted from The tacit

dimension, M Polanyi, 1966, New York: Doubleday)Regan, H. B. (1990, Summer). Not for women only: School administration as a feminist activity.

Teachers College Record, 91(4), 565–577.


Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. W. (1995). Out of women’s experience: Creating a relational leadership.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Corwin Press.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schoolsand their effects on children. London: Open Books.

Schein, E. H. (1983, Summer). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. OrganizationalDynamics, 12, 13–28.

Schmidt, M. (2002). Emotion in educational administration: An unorthodox examination of teachers’career decisions. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educationalleadership and administration (pp. 1102–131). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Schon, D. A. (1982). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learningin the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sizer, T. R. (2002). Coalition of essential schools: Home page. Retrieved September 1, 2006, fromhttp://www.essentialschools.org

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:Currency Doubleday Books.

Sinclair, A. (2002, August 9). Leadership. Australian Financial Review. Retrieved September 1, 2006,from the Australian Financial Review database.

Tanner, R., Athos, G., & Pascale, A. (1981). The art of Japanese management: Applications for Americanexecutives. New York: Warner Books.

Turner, V.W. (1974). Drama, fields and metaphors: Symbolic action in human societies. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Tzu, S. (1981). The art of war: The oldest military treatise in the world (J. Clavell, Trans.). London:Hodder & Stoughton.

Waterman R. H., Jr., & Peters, T. J. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best runcompanies. New York: Warner Books.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

CHAPTER 3

CHANGE THEORY AS A FORCE FOR SCHOOLIMPROVEMENT

MICHAEL FULLANOISE/University of Toronto

Change theory or change knowledge can be very powerful in informing educationreform strategies, and in turn getting results, but only in the hands (and minds,and hearts) of people who have a deep knowledge of the dynamics of how thefactors in question operate to get particular results. Ever since Chris Argyris madethe distinction between espoused theories and theories-in-use we have been alertto the problem of identifying what strategies are actually in use (see Argyris,2000, although he made this distinction much earlier). In this chapter I want totake this question a step further and ask what ‘theories of action’ get results ineducation reform. And why once identified do they not become widely embraced?In other words having a theory in use is not good enough; people also mustpush to the next level to make explicit their theory of action as it relates tothe specific assumptions and linkages which connect the strategy to the desiredoutcomes.

The chapter is organized in three sections. First, I take up change theories thatlook on the surface to have great merit, but upon closer inspection are seriouslyflawed. In other words, I will take the more advanced, apparently sound theoriesof action, instead of weaker, more obviously inadequate ones and show why theyare found wanting. It is not that the strategies in question are wrong; it is more thatthey are incomplete relative to what is needed for reform to work. Second, I willconsider what theories of action appear to have more merit, i.e. theories that aregetting results and why. In the final section of the chapter I take up the prospectsfor using change knowledge more fully in the future including barriers to movingto a deeper set of strategies.

27


28 Fullan

FLAWED CHANGE THEORIES

Let us take three current examples, all of which appear strong, and all of which arebased on what their proponents would consider state-of-the-art change knowledge.These are: standards based district-wide reform initiatives; professional learningcommunities; and qualifications’ frameworks that focus on the development andretention of quality leaders.

A district receives a large grant from a foundation to improve literacy andmathematics across all 150 or so schools in the district. Their change theory leadsdistrict leaders to include the following components in the strategy: identification ofworld class standards in literacy and math, development of curriculum that is basedon the standards, a system of assessments mapped onto the standards, and a seriousinvestment in ongoing professional development for school leaders and teachers.What is wrong with this theory of action? First, what is the theory? It assumesthat by aligning key components and driving them forward with lots of pressureand support good things on a large scale will happen. What is missing from thestrategy is any notion about school or district culture. If theories of action do notinclude the harder questions of under what conditions will continuous improvementhappen, and correspondingly how do we change cultures, they are bound to fail.Richard Elmore (2004) whom we will visit later emphasizes that educators mustlearn to do new things in ‘the setting in which they work’. Standards based reformby itself does not address changing the setting in which people work.

To illustrate further we can take the heavily funded and supported reform initia-tives in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Seattle as described in the detailed case studiesfrom the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform (2005). All three schoolsystems had the attention of political leaders at all levels of the system, focusedon many of the “right things,” such as literacy and math; all of the systems usedobvious choice strategies including concentration on “assessment for learning”data, invested heavily in professional development, developed new leadership, andfocused on system wide change.

And they had money—Seattle had $35 million in external funds, Milwaukeehad extra resources and flexibility, and Chicago had multimillions. There was hugepressure, but success was not expected overnight. Decision makers and the publicwould have been content to see growing success over a five- or even ten-yearperiod. The upfront conclusion of the case study evaluators was: “the unfortunatereality for the many principals and teachers we interviewed is that the districts wereunable to change and improve practice on a large scale” (Cross City Campaign,2005, p. 4).

The issues in the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Seattle reforms help to identify themissing ingredient, even though they appear to get most components right. Chicago,for example, appeared to have an impressive strategy: academic standards andinstructional frameworks, assessment and accountability systems, and professionaldevelopment for standards-based instruction are among the tools of systemic reformthat are used to change classroom instruction. (Cross City Campaign, 2005, p. 23)

Change Theory as a Force for School Improvement 29

Here is a “standards-based” system wide reform that sounds like it should work.The failure I think is that the strategy lacks a focus on what needs to changein instructional practice, and equally important, what it will take to bring aboutthese changes in classrooms across the districts. In Chicago, teachers did focuson standards and coverage, but in interviews, they “did not articulate any deepchanges in teaching practice that may have been under way” (p. 23). Furthermore,instructional goals were more often articulated in terms of student outcomes orachievement levels rather than in terms of instructional quality, that is, what theschools do to help students achieve. (p. 29, italics in original)

Milwaukee reveals similar problems in achieving instructional improvementswhile using greater decentralization in the context of system support and compet-itive choice. The focus was on literacy; a literacy coach was housed in everyschool in the district; considerable professional development and technical supportservices were available. Education plans for each school were to focus on literacystandards through (1) data analysis and assessment and (2) subject-area achievementtargets, including literacy across the curriculum. Sounds like a convincing strategy.However, what is missing again is the black box of instructional practice in theclassroom. The case writers observe: “we placed the Education Plan in the indirectcategory due to its non-specificity regarding regular or desired instructional contentand practices (Cross City Campaign, 2005, p. 49)

More generally, the report concludes that while these serious district widereform initiatives “appeared” to prioritize instruction, they did so indirectly (throughstandards, assessment, leadership responsibilities). In the experience of principalsand teachers, the net effect was that “policies and signals were non-specificregarding intended effects on classroom teaching and learning” (p. 65).

Our third case, Seattle, is a variation on the same theme. The game planlooks good. Standards defined the direction while the district’s TransformationalAcademic Achievement Planning Process “was designed as a vehicle for helpingschools develop their own strategy for (1) helping all students meet standards, and(2) eliminating the achievement gap between white students and students of color”(p. 66). Like Milwaukee, the district reorganized to support site-based management,including the allocation of considerable resources to schools. The case writersobserve:

The recent effort to become a standards-based district was one of the first sustained instructional effortswith direct attention to teaching and learning. However, the conversations district leaders had aboutstandards were rarely connected to changes in instruction. (Cross City Campaign, 2005, p. 69, myitalics)

The report continues:

At the school level, finding teachers who understood the implications of standards for their teachingwas difficult. (p. 72).

To be clear, I am not saying that standards, assessment, curriculum, and professionaldevelopment are wrong things to do. I am saying that they are seriously incompletetheories of action because they do not get close to what happens in classrooms and

30 Fullan

school cultures. The latter is not easy to alter and this is indeed why people havefailed to tackle it. It is easier to go to the formal definable elements which, althoughthey are not ‘quick fixes’ (Chicago et al would have been thrilled to see successafter five years) are comparatively easier to define and manipulate.

A second example, which appears to be on the right track concerns the prolifer-ation of ‘professional learning communities’ (PLCs). In critiquing PLCs I will endup warning that we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water, but in the short runwill say that because the theory of action underpinning PLCs is not deeply enoughspecified by those adopting PLCs, they will again fall short of getting results. PLCsinvolve developing communities of learners in which teachers and school leaderswork together to improve the learning conditions and results of students in givenschools. The Dufours et al (2006) handbook represents the most advanced exampleof the PLC framework which consists of six components: a focus on learning, acollaborative culture stressing learning for all, collective inquiry into best practice,an action orientation (learning by doing), a commitment to continuous improvement,and a focus on results. Here the theory of change is quite good. It does focus onthe school, and involves the right components. But let’s consider what happens onthe way to the theory of action.

There are three reasons to be worried about the spread of PLCs. First, theterm travels faster and better that the concept. Thus we have many examplesof superficial PLCs—people calling what they are doing, professional learningcommunities without going very deep into learning, and without realizing thatthey are not going deep. This is a kind of you don’t know what you don’t knowphenomenon. So problem one is the danger and likelihood of superficiality.

Second, people make the mistake of treating PLCs as the latest innovation. Ofcourse in a technical sense it is an innovation to the people first using it, butthe moment you treat it as a program innovation, you run two risks. One is thatpeople will see it as one innovation among many-perhaps the flavor of the year,which means it can be easily discarded once the going gets rough and that otherinnovations come along next year. The other risk is that once you see it as aninnovation “to be implemented” you proceed in a fashion that fails to appreciateits deeper, more permanent meaning. Professional learning communities are in factabout establishing new collaborative cultures. Collaborative cultures, ones that focuson building the capacity for continuous improvement, are meant to be a new wayof working and learning. They are meant so to speak to be enduring capacities, notjust another program innovation.

Third, PLCs also can be miscast as changing the cultures of individual schools,rather than their deeper meaning that PLCs need to be part and parcel of creatingnew multiple- school district cultures. I know of more than one superintendent whowoes the fact that this or that school has a wonderful internal PLC, but eschewsworking with other schools. The work of transforming schools means all or mostschools and this means that it is a system change. For system change to occur ona larger scale we need schools learning from each other and districts learning fromeach other. We call this “lateral capacity building “and see it as absolutely crucial


for system reform (Fullan, Hill and Crevola, 2006; Fullan, 2006). Put another way,individual, isolated PLC schools are verboten in any deep scheme of reform andPLC as an innovation can easily slip into this trap. The third problem then is howPLCs can unwittingly represent tunnel vision reinforcing the notion of the schoolas an autonomous unit, not as part and parcel of a wider system change.

I am not concluding that PLCs are bad to do. I am in effect arguing that we mustuse our change knowledge in order to identify weak elements in the approach sothat we can keep our eye on the more basic purpose to which PLCs are presumablya solution. The basic purpose in my view is to change the culture of schoolsystems, not to produce a series of atomistic schools however collaborative theymight be internally (not to mention the fact that many PLCs as I have said donot result in within school cultural change either). Without a deeper concern fortransforming school cultures on a large scale, the three problems just described—superficiality, PLC as a program innovation, and focus on individual schools—caneasily marginalize the value of PLCs as part of the movement to transform schoolsystem cultures.

The third, popular theory of change currently in vogue involves establishingincentives and various standards and qualifications requirements (along with corre-sponding professional development) to attract and retain people to the teachingprofession, and to leadership positions. The theory here is that if we can get thebest possible people in the classroom and in the principalship we can change thesystem for the better. A good recent example is the final report of The TeachingCommission (2006). This high profile group layed out recommendations in fourmain areas: transforming teacher compensation; reinventing teacher preparation;overhauling licensing and certification; and strengthening leadership and support.The report contains good recommendations, and a number of concrete examplesaround the U.S. of quality initiatives that address the ideas in the report.

Similarly, large urban districts having recognized the key role of principalshave established their own leadership academies in partnership with universitiesor other agencies to provide job embedded leadership development. For example,the Education Leadership Development Academy in San Diego prepares aspiringprincipals for positions in the district, and pairs novice principals with mentorprincipals who serve as ongoing coaches (see Hubbard et al 2006). New York hasjust established a Leadership Academy to cultivate and place aspiring principals whoare carefully prepared for the realities of being a school leader amidst the reformaspirations of the district. In all these cases the goal is to develop school leaderswho can focus on instruction, coach others and generally lead the transformationof schools into continuous improvement.

These initiatives obviously can do some good but our change theory of action tellsus that they have one fatal flaw. They base all the possibilities on producing moreand better individuals as the route to changing the system. This individualistic bias isunderstandable—let’s get a high quality principal in every school—but nonethelessincomplete. This strategy can at best in my estimation contribute about 30% ofthe solution. The other 70% depends on the culture or conditions under which

32 Fullan

people work. Thus, our theory of action informs us that any strategy of changemust simultaneously focus on changing individuals and the culture or system withinwhich they work.

In effect what I have done in this section is to use at least implicitly my theory ofaction in order to critique existing seemingly state of the art large-scale improvementstrategies. I contend that as leaders hone their theory of action it will become moreeasily evident what represents good, bad and incomplete theories. In the next sectionI make more explicit our own theories of action that inform our current strategiesof reform.

THEORIES OF ACTION WITH MERIT

We have been using and refining our change knowledge over the past decade inparticular in order to design strategies that get results. In these cases the changeknowledge at work is being used deliberately and in a self-and-group-reflectivemanner. When I say we I mean some academic colleagues and key practitionersat all levels of the system who are actively leading the use of change knowledge.I refer to the latter as ‘system thinkers in action’ (Fullan, 2005). In this sectionI set out the core underlying premises of our theory of action, and furnish twoexamples to illustrate how the basic premises translate into concrete strategies andactions.

There are seven core premises that underpin our use of change knowledge. (Trueto the theory of action itself it should be noted that the seven premises havebeen ‘discovered’ via reflective action especially over the past decade). The sevenpremises are:

1. A focus on motivation2. Capacity building with a focus on results3. Learning in context4. Changing context5. A bias for reflective action6. Tri-level engagement7. Persistence and flexibility in staying the course

If you take any 100 books on change, it all boils down to one word: motivation.If one’s theory of action does not motivate people to put in the effort, individuallyand collectively, necessary to get results, improvement is not possible. Two points.One is that the other six core premises are all about motivation and engagementi.e. they are about accomplishing the first premise. The other point, as we shallsee, is that motivation cannot be achieved in the short run. In fact the beginning ofall eventual successes is unavoidably bumpy. However, if your strategy does notgain on the motivation question over time (e.g. end of year one, year two etc) itwill fail. Certainly moral purpose is a great potential motivator, but by itself won’tgo anywhere unless other conditions conspire to mobilize several key aspects of


motivation—moral purpose, capacity, resources, peer and leadership support andidentity and so on. It is the combination that makes the motivational difference.

Second, “capacity building with a focus on results” is crucial. Here is an exampleof where our theory of action has become more refined over time. Around 1995 wecoined the phrase that for large-scale reform we need a combination of pressure andsupport. This was on the right track but not precise enough. For one thing manypolicy makers overdosed on the side of pressure. When they did attend to supportit was segmented from pressure and was not specific enough to have an impact.Now the integrated phrase of ‘capacity building with a focus on results’ capturesboth aspects well. Capacity building is defined as any strategy that increases thecollective effectiveness of a group to raise the bar and close the gap of studentlearning. For us it involves helping to develop individual and collective i) knowledgeand competencies ii) resources, and iii) motivation. These capacities are specificallyabout getting results (raise the bar, close the gap). Our theory of action says thatnothing will count unless people develop new capacities, and that indeed, newcapacities are a route to motivation (as I said all our premises contribute to increasedmotivation). Most theories of change are weak on capacity building and that isone of the key reasons why they fall short. As Elmore (2004) advised, no externalaccountability scheme can be successful in the absence of internal accountability—the latter is none other than capacity building with a focus on results. A key part ofthe focus on results is what I call the evolution of positive pressure. An emphasis onaccountability by itself produces negative pressure. Pressure that doesn’t motivate,and that doesn’t’ get to capacity building. Positive pressure is pressure that doesmotivate, that is palpably fair and reasonable and does come accompanied byresources for capacity building. The more one invests in capacity building, the moreone has the right to expect greater performance. The more one focuses on resultsfairly—comparing like schools, using data over multiple years, providing targetedsupport for improvement—the more that motivational leverage can be exerted.In our change theory, it is capacity building first, judgment of reasons for poorperformance second, because that is what is most motivational.

The third basic premise is that strategies for reform must build in many opportu-nities for ‘learning in context’. In fact, creating cultures where learning in context isendemic is the point. Again Elmore (2004) has pinpointed the issue: “Improvementis more a function of learning to do the right things in the settings where youwork” (p.73, his emphasis for ‘learning to do the right things’; mine for ‘in thesettings,where you work’).

He proceeds to say:

The problem [is that] there is almost no opportunity for teachers to engage in continuous and sustainedlearning about their practice in the settings in which they actually work, observing and being observed bytheir colleagues in their own classrooms and classrooms of other teachers in other schools confrontingsimilar problems.

And then puts forward the positive implication (it is no accident that he uses theexact phrase- theory of action):

34 Fullan

“The theory of action behind [this process of examining practice] might be stated as follows: Thedevelopment of systematic knowledge about, and related to, large–scale instructional improvementrequires a change in the prevailing culture of administration and teaching in schools. Cultures donot change by mandate; they change by the specific displacement of existing norms, structures, andprocesses by others; the process of cultural change depends fundamentally on modeling the new valuesand behavior that you expect to displace the existing ones”(p.11).

In this way learning in context actually changes the very context itself. Contextsdo improve.

Fourth, theories of action must also have the capacity to change the largercontext. Let me put this both positively and negatively. We assume that the largerinfrastructure must change if success is to occur. That is the bigger context in whichone works must incorporate the other premises such as promoting capacity buildingand being motivating. This leads on to establishing ‘lateral capacity building’ inwhich schools and districts learn from each other. When this happens two changeforces are unleashed, namely, knowledge (best ideas flow), and motivation (peopleidentify with larger parts of the system). For example, when principals interactacross schools in this way, they become almost as concerned about the success ofother schools in their network as their own school. This is an example of changingfor the better the larger context within which they work.

The negative aspect of getting at the larger context concerns what we call ‘proac-tively addressing the distractors’. There are many things occurring in the systemthat favor the status quo by diverting energy to maintenance activities which are atthe expense of devoting resources and attention to continuous improvement. Thus itis necessary to address these issues explicitly. Distractor issues that we have takenup include: collective bargaining conflicts and strikes, unnecessary bureaucracy,and finding efficient ways to address managerial issues.

For the previous four components to move forward in concert they must befueled by a bias for reflective action. Here our change knowledge is quite specific,and any leader must know this. There are several aspects to the reflective actionpremise. First, shared vision and ownership is more an outcome of a quality processthan it is a precondition. This is important to know because it causes one to actdifferently in order to create ownership. Second, and related, behavior changes toa certain extent before beliefs. And third, the size and prettiness of the planningdocument is inversely related to the amount and quality of action, and in turn to theimpact on student learning (Reeves, 2006). Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) emphasizeour action theme in their book on the knowing-doing gap such as the first barrierthey identify: when planning substitutes for action. All three of these insights withrespect to ownership, behaviors before beliefs, and planning documents have a biasfor action, and this is what makes effective change happen.

We need to dig a bit deeper to understand the theory of action underpinning thebias for reflective action. The refection part is crucial. This goes back to Deweywho offered that it is not that we learn by doing but that we learn by thinking aboutwhat we are doing. It is the purposeful thinking part that counts not the mere doing.Mintzberg (2005) makes the same point when he says we need “programs designedto educate practicing managers in context;[such leadership] has to be learned, not


just by doing it but by being able to gain conceptual insight while doing it” (p. 200).All the current emphasis about evidence based and evidence informed leadership isbased on this same premise (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006). People learn best throughdoing, refection, inquiry, evidence, more doing and so on.

Sixth, we have concluded that tri-level engagement is essential for system reform.Tri level is school and community, district, and state. It is not so much that we

must align these levels which is a static unachievable goal, but rather that we mustfoster ‘permeable connectivity’—a bit of a mouthful but basically means pursuingstrategies that promote mutual interaction and influence within and across the threelevels. If enough leaders across the same system engage in permeable connectivity,they change the system itself (Fullan, 2005).

Lastly, because the above six premises are complex to manage and must becultivated over time including bumpy cycles, a strong resolve is necessary to staythe course. It takes what I would call resilience—-persistence plus flexibility. Rigidpersistence begets push back in equal or greater measure. Failure to keep going inthe face of inevitable barriers gets nothing. Being flexible in fact is built into theaction theory. Because the theory is reflective and inquiry based, and because it iscultivated in the minds and actions of key players operating with a similar theoryof action (the 7 premises), there is plenty of self-correction and refinement built-in.

In the seven premises of change knowledge I have attempted to capture theunderlying thinking of effective change strategies—the theory of action if you like.It is essential to deeply understand this thinking, intuitively and through experience,rather than just the concrete strategies. If you do understand the thinking youspontaneously get the strategies right, and self-correct as you experience themunfolding. If you don’t understand the thinking you are more likely to use eventhe best strategies (such as capacity building) superficially or in a piecemeal ornon-integrated fashion.

We can now put some meat on the theory of action by referring to two examplesof how they translate in a specific set of strategies in concrete situations (see Fullan,Hill and Crevola,2006, and Fullan, 2006 for more elaboration on these and otherexamples). One example refers to district-wide reform in a large urban district; theother to a state-wide reform.

District-wide Reform

York Region District School Board just outside Toronto, Ontario is a multiculturaldistrict with a growing and diverse population with over 100 different languagesspoken in the schools. There are 140 elementary schools and 27 secondary schools.We have been working in partnership with York for the past five years includingmonitoring the processes and results as we go (see for example Sharratt and Fullan,2006). The focus is on literacy in an initiative called the Literacy Collaborative(LC). The basic approach is designed to shape and reshape district-wide continuousimprovement. What I called above capacity building with a focus on results. Keyfeatures of the approach include:

36 Fullan

• A clearly articulated vision and commitment to a system of literacy for allstudents which is continually the subject of communication in the district.

• A system-wide comprehensive plan and framework for continuousimprovement.

• Using data to inform instruction and determine resources.• Building administrator and teacher capacity to teach literacy for all students.• Establishing professional learning communities at all levels of the system and

beyond the district.

All schools, including all secondary schools joined the LC in a phased in fashion,with school–based teams being the focal point for capacity building. At theelementary level teams consisted of the principal (always the principal), the leadliteracy teacher (a leadership role within the school of a teacher released for .50 to1.0 time to work with principals and teachers), and the special education resourceteacher. High school teams were slightly larger and focused on literacy especially ingrades 9 and 10. The LC model has evolved to contain 13 parameters which I willnot list here but includes such components as embedded literacy teachers, timetabledliteracy blocks, case management approach which focuses on each student, cross-curricular literacy connections and so on (See Sharratt and Fullan, 2006). There isconstant interaction, action research and capacity building through formal monthlysessions, and many learning in context interactions carried out daily by school anddistrict leaders within and across schools.

The results as measured by province wide assessments were significant aftera three-year period (2001 to 2004), but not as substantial as district leaders hadhoped. On a closer examination of the initial cohort of 17 schools it was foundthat 9 of the schools had implemented the 13 parameters more deeply comparedto the other 8. When these schools were separated it showed that the 9 schoolsdespite starting below the York Region and Ontario provincial average in 2001 hadrisen above both averages by 2004. In the meantime the district was working withall 167 schools. Province wide results in 2005 showed that York Region increasedby a full 5% on the average in literacy across its 140 elementary schools. Highschools also did well for the first time on the grade 10 literacy test. Reflectingour theory of action the district identified in 2005, 27 elementary schools and sixhigh schools that were still underperforming and designed an intensive capacitybuilding interaction for the 2005–2006 school year (as they continued to work withall schools).

We can consider the theory of action reflected in the approach in YorkRegion. First, we have many of the elements we have seen previously—standards,assessment of and for learning, instructional leadership etc, but we also see two newsignificant emphases. One is that the leaders have taken a long-term perspective.They realize that it takes a while for change to kick in. They frequently speakof “stay the course”, “persistence but flexibility.” The pace is steady, even pushybut not overwhelming. They expect results, not overnight, but also not open-endedtime-wise. The other new aspect is that leaders are careful not to judge slowor limited progress in given schools. They take what I called earlier a ‘capacity


building first, judgment second’ stance as they have with the 33 lower performingschools. Large-scale change is all about moving the whole system in which moreand more leaders permeate the system, and take daily actions that build capacityand ownership to put in the effort with colleagues in order to get results.

State-wide Reform

We have had the opportunity since October, 2003 in Ontario to implement a morefully developed version of using change knowledge to influence an entire state.In this case starting with literacy and numeracy up to the age of 12 and workingwith all 72 districts and all 4000 elementary schools which constitute the publicschool system of the province. We do not have the space here to elaborate thestrategy in detail (see Fullan, 2006, chapter 4). Suffice it to say that the overallstrategy is based on the seven premises above, and is pursued by having leadersat all levels of the system, become more aware of the strategies as a tri-levelpartnership.

There are eight interlocking strategies that we are putting into place. As I listthem briefly here, recall from the earlier discussion that the main measure ofan overall strategy is whether it is motivational, mobilizing a large number ofpeople to put in their energy and otherwise invest in what will be required toreap and sustain major improvements. The key in large-scale reform is whetherthe strategy can get a large number of leaders (change agents) within and acrossthe three levels to jointly own the enterprise. There are eight components to thestrategy:

1. A guiding coalition constantly in communication2. Peace and stability and other “distractors”3. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat4. Negotiating aspirational targets5. Capacity building in relation to the targets6. Growing the financial investment7. Evolving positive pressure8. Connecting the dots with key complementary components

The seven basic premises will be recognized across the 8 components. The guidingcoalition consists of leaders at the top who cultivate the use of change knowledge,and thus are a) more likely to be in sync, and b) more likely to make the rightdecisions at the outset and as they go. Peace and stability refers to establishinga four year set of collective agreements with the teachers unions, which providea frame of minimizing distractors. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat is anewly created body of some 60 people who are in the business of capacity buildingwith a focus on results (specific annually adjusted targets and related capacitybuilding vis-à-vis the 72 districts and 4000 schools). Evolving positive pressureconsists of using data, and supportive action for schools and districts doing lesswell than there statistical peers (comparing apples with apples). Growing financial

38 Fullan

investment means additional money, which keeps flowing as long as there is anupward trend. Connecting the dots refers to coordinating other policy and strategysets necessary for overall continuing success such as: early childhood, preserviceand continuing teacher education, leadership development, secondary school reform,and so on.

The point of the two concrete examples is to show that the theory of actiontranslates powerfully into specific, interrelated strategies that get results. It is usingchange knowledge for school and system improvement. Both York and Ontarioare getting improved results despite a previous period of flat lined performance.Change knowledge does matter. Ignore it at your peril.

PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE USE OF CHANGE KNOWLEDGE

The chances for the increased use of change knowledge are mixed, although Iperceive an upward trend in the number of leaders gravitating to its use. Theinhibiting factors are threefold. First, the use of change knowledge does not representa quick fix, which is what many politicians seek. Second, not only is the knowledgedifficult to grasp, but many leaders must possess it simultaneously (our guidingcoalition) for its use to spread and be consistent. This is a tall order given theturnover in leaders. Third, it does represent deep cultural change which many peopleresist tacitly or otherwise. Take the de-privatization of teaching—observing andimproving classroom teaching. This has proven to be one of the most intractableaspects of getting at continuous improvement.

On the positive side there are three things going for the increased use of changeknowledge. First, after 50 years of trying everything else we are still not gettinganywhere. More and more policy makers and the public know that what is beingdone does not work. This makes people generally more receptive to alternativestrategies if they can become clear and promising. Second, change knowledge andits specific strategic manifestations are indeed becoming more and more clear. Howit works and why it works are more evident. And while not a quick fix, it is alsonot open ended. We are now able to claim that by using this knowledge you shouldget discernible valuable results within one election period so to speak. Third, andcritical we now have more leaders—what I called system thinkers in action—whoare actively using and refining the knowledge. The reason that this is so crucial isbuilt in to our seven premises. The change knowledge is not a disembodied set offacts, but rather a deeply applied phenomenon in the minds of people. Moreoverfor this knowledge to have an impact it must be actively shared by many peopleengaged in using the knowledge. There are more examples of such shared use inevidence, and if it continues to spread we may have the breakthrough required forchange knowledge to have an enduring place in the field of education reform. Asalways the route to achieving such a critical mass is not to wait for it to happenbut to be among those promoting its use even if those around us seem disinterestedor against it. Large scale successful reform occurs in a thousand small ways during


the journey. Don’t go on this journey without being equipped with an active andopen ended grasp of change knowledge.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap. New York: Oxford University Press.Cross City Campaign for Urban Reform (2005). A delicate balance: district policies and classroom

practice. Chicago: Author.Dufour,R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional

learning communities at work. Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree.Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Fullan. M. (2006) Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Fullan, M., Hill, P. & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; Toronto:

Ontario Principal’s Council.Hubbard, L., Mehan,H.,& Stein, M.K. (2006). Reform as learning. London: Routledge.Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Pfeffer,J. & Sutton,R. (2006) Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader. Alexandria, Virginia. Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.Sharratt, L., & Fullan. M. (2006). Accomplishing district wide reform. Journal of School

Leadership.V.15, No. 5, 583–595The Teaching Commission. (2006). Teaching at risk: progress & potholes. Washington, D.C. : Author.

CHAPTER 4

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT EDUCATIONALLEADERSHIP1

KENNETH LEITHWOODOISE/University of Toronto

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is a hot-button issue these days. Reformers depend on it. The publicbelieves that it is what schools need more of. And private sector CEOs think theyknow exactly what it is and are anxious to share that knowledge with the “poorunwashed masses” of educational leaders. It is not surprising, then, that so manypeople are trying to make a living peddling their latest insights about effectiveeducational leadership.

Indeed leadership by adjective is a growth industry. We have instructionalleadership, transformational leadership, moral leadership, constructivist leadership,servant leadership, cultural leadership—we even have primal leadership (Goleman,Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). A few of these qualify as leadership theories and severalare actually tested leadership theories. But most are actually just slogans. Consider,for example, the term “instructional leadership”: it typically serves as a synonymfor whatever the speaker means by “good” leadership—with almost no reference tomodels of instructional leadership that have some conceptual coherence and a bodyof evidence testing their effects on organizations and students.

With all this confusion about the concept of leadership in our environment,we might be persuaded to think that hard evidence about what is good orsuccessful or effective leadership in education organizations is lacking—or at leastcontradictory—but we would be wrong. We actually know a great deal about theleadership behaviors, practices, or actions that are helpful in improving the impactof districts and schools on the student outcomes that we value. As one example,

1 This chapter is an edited version of a paper to appear in Leadership and Policy In Schools (winter,2007).

41


42 Leithwood

the review of educational leadership effects on student learning reported almost10 years ago by Phil Hallinger and Ron Heck (1996) included about 40 studies.And many more have been reported since then.

One source of confusion in sorting out what we know about successful leadershipis that much of the educational leadership literature is not about actual leadershippractices at all. It is about leaders’ values, beliefs, skills or knowledge that someonethinks leaders need in order to act in an effective manner. For example, much ofthe popular leadership literature has been influenced by Daniel Goleman’s (1994)idea of “emotional intelligence.” But this is an internal state, rather than an overtbehavior, not to mention that it is one we have known to be important for leadersfor over a half century under the label of good communication skills. While leaders’internal states are interesting and obviously important—what leaders do depends onwhat they think and feel—no one experiences or knows the internal states of othersexcept as they manifest themselves in some kind of external act. Furthermore, thereis a dearth of empirical evidence linking any leader’s internal state to their use ofeffective leadership practice.

The most visible examples of making unwarranted assumptions or links betweeninternal states and overt leadership practices are leadership standards: the ISSLCstandards in the United States (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996); thestandards driving leadership development in England (Teacher Training Agency,1998) and others developed in Queensland, Australia, and New Zealand, forexample. Almost all of these standards, in addition to identifying leadershippractices, spell out long lists of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that leadersshould have or acquire on the assumption that they are needed for effectiveleadership practice. But the accumulated body of research on successful educationalleadership has very little to say about the matter.

In contrast, the accumulated empirical evidence has a great deal to say abouteffective leadership practice. By far the largest amount of this evidence is aboutthe leadership of school principals. A much smaller but still significant proportionis about the leadership of senior district administrators. In addition, there is arapidly growing body of evidence about teacher leadership (e.g., Murphy, 2005)and distributed leadership (e.g., Spillane, Sherer & Coldren, 2005), sometimesconsidered closely related. But so far this evidence is mostly descriptive, primarilygenerated through small qualitative studies. And the results of these studies areactually quite disappointing. The most recent and comprehensive review of theteacher leadership literature (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) was able to locate only fiveempirical studies of teacher leadership effects on students (two of these studieswere mine) and none reported significant effects.

This illustrates another key point about how leadership is conceived these days.Both teacher leadership and distributed leadership qualify as movements drivenmuch more by philosophy and democratic values than by evidence that kids actuallylearn more if a larger proportion of district and school leadership comes from non-traditional sources. Some advocates claim that the more leadership the better—thatthe capacities of the organization are realized more fully as the sources of leadership

What We Know About Educational Leadership 43

expand and that we should, as Tom Sergiovanni (1999) has recommended, aspireto “leaderful” organizations—everyone should be a leader. But this argument hasthree flaws:

• It asserts an empirical claim—that more of this stuff is better. And so far thisclaim has received no support from the small amount of relevant empiricalresearch that has been reported, assuming “better” has some reference tostudent learning. One of my own recent studies examined the effects of manydifferent sources of leadership on student engagement in school and found that“total leadership”—the sum of the leadership provided from all sources—wasunrelated to such engagement, whereas the leadership of the principal wassignificantly related (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).

• It begs the question, what do we mean by leadership? Much of the teacherleadership literature either describes teacher leaders engaged in administrativetasks or engaged in what most professions would agree are the normal respon-sibilities expected of a collection of professionals. Shared decision making andcollaboration, for example, are really quite important to the success of schools.But why do we need to call them “distributed leadership”? These are activitiesthat most of us value highly, but they should not be confused with leadership.Otherwise, the concept loses all unique meaning and significance.

• It also begs the question, if everyone is a leader, who are the followers? Wehave lionized the person of the leader but in so doing, we seem to imply thatthe person of the follower is secondary. In one of their most recent bookson professional learning communities, DuFour, Eaker & DuFour (2005) callon principals to view themselves as “leaders of leaders”. What could thispossibly mean? Leaders and followers must be viewed as equally important—as two sides of the same coin—since the concepts depend on one anotherfor any meaning at all. And much recent leadership research takes followersas a central variable. Charismatic leadership theory, for example, most oftenviews charisma as something bestowed on leaders by followers who predictthat the person will be able to meet some of their important needs. In sum, afollowerless organization is the same as a leaderless organization.

Let me turn now to the meaning of leadership and the evidence about effectiveleadership practices.

THE MEANING OF LEADERSHIP

Stability and change have a synergistic relationship. While stability is oftenassociated with resistance and maintenance of the status quo, it is difficult toleap forward from a wobbly foundation. To be more precise, it is stability andimprovement that have this synergistic relationship. Leaping forward from a wobblyfoundation does produce change, just not the kind most of us think of as good—falling flat on your face is the image that comes to mind. This is why the blizzard

44 Leithwood

of changes that have been adopted by schools over the past half century have hadso little effect on the success of our students.

School reform efforts have been most successful in those schools that need themleast (Elmore, 1995). These are schools with already well-established processes andcapacities in place on which to build, in contrast to those schools most often ofconcern to reformers with little of this essential infrastructure. How is this relevantfor leadership, you ask?

Leadership is all about organizational improvement; more specifically, it is allabout establishing widely agreed upon and worthwhile directions for the organi-zation and doing whatever it takes to prod and support people to move in thosedirections. My generic definition of leadership—not just effective leadership—isvery simple, then; it is all about direction and influence. Stability is the goal ofwhat is often called “management.” Improvement is the goal of leadership. It isclear that both are very important. Indeed, instability is one of the most powerfulexplanations for the failure of most school improvement initiatives. It takes manyforms. One of the most obvious—and arguably the most frequent—is instability ofleadership in the form of frequent principal and vice principal movement. This formof instability, at the school level, is often a failure of management at the districtlevel.

To be clear, however, the focus of this paper is on leadership and change. Imention management and stability only to emphasize that they are exceedinglyimportant.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT LEADERSHIP?

While the answer to this question will seem self-evident to most readers (someversion of, “schools will become more effective and students will learn more”), thereare those who argue that our confidence in leadership as a pillar of organizationaleffectiveness is misplaced. Meindl (1995) has referred to this as the “romanceof leadership.” It is important to ask whether the value typically attributed toeducational leadership is actually warranted by the evidence. Five types of empiricalevidence speak to this question.

One type is primarily qualitative case study evidence. Studies providing this typeof evidence typically are conducted in exceptional school settings (e.g., Gezi, 1990;Reitzug and Patterson, 1998). These are settings believed to be contributing tostudent learning significantly above or below normal expectations as, for example,effective schools research based on “outlier” designs. Studies of this type usuallyreport very large leadership effects not only on student learning but on an arrayof school conditions, as well (e.g., Mortimore, 1993; Scheurich, 1998). What islacking from this evidence, however, is “external validity” or generalizability.

The second type of research evidence about leadership effects is large-scalequantitative studies of overall leader effects. Evidence of this type reported between1980 and 1998 (approximately four dozen studies across all types of schools) hasbeen reviewed in several different papers by Hallinger and Heck, as mentioned


earlier (1996a, 1996b, 1998). These reviews conclude that the combined direct andindirect effects of school leadership on pupil outcomes are small but educationallysignificant. While leadership explains only 5 to 7 percent of the variation in studentlearning across schools (not to be confused with the very large within-schooleffects that are likely), this is actually about one-quarter of the total across-schoolvariation (12 to 20 percent) explained by all school-level variables, after controllingfor student intake or background factors (Townsend, 1994; Creemers & Reetzig,1996). The quantitative school effectiveness studies providing much of these dataindicate that classroom factors explain more than a third of the variation in studentachievement.

A third type of research about leadership effects, like the second type, alsois large-scale and quantitative in nature. Instead of examining overall leadershipeffects, it inquires about the effects of specific leadership practices. Evidence ofthis sort can be found sporadically in the research alluded to above. But a recentmeta-analysis by Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003) has significantly extendedthis type of research. This study identifies 21 leadership “responsibilities” andcalculates an average correlation between each and whatever measures of studentachievement were used in the original studies.

From these data, estimates are calculated of the effects on student test scores(e.g., the authors conclude that there would be a 10 percentile point increase instudent test scores resulting from the work of an average principal who improved her“demonstrated abilities in all 21 responsibilities by one standard deviation” (p. 3).

A fourth source of research on leadership effects has explored such effectson student engagement. In addition to being an important variable in its ownright, some evidence suggests that school engagement is a strong predictor ofstudent achievement (see Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004, for a review,especially p. 70). At least 10, mostly recent, large-scale, quantitative, similarlydesigned, studies have assessed the effects of transformational leadership on studentengagement in school (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002; Silins & Mulford, 2002;Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a,b; Leithwood et al., 2003); all have reported significantpositive effects.

Finally, the leadership succession research provides an interesting sourceof evidence about school and district leadership effects. Unplanned principalsuccession is one of the most common sources of schools failing to progress,in spite of what teachers might do. Studies by Macmillan (2000) and morerecently by Fink & Brayman (2006), for example, demonstrate the devastatingeffects of principal succession, especially on initiatives intended to increase studentachievement. And it is very common. My colleagues and I recently conducted athree-year study of school improvement processes in the province of Ontario. Onecomponent of this study involved tracking the progress of 10 schools located ina comparable number of districts over that period. In the course of three years,seven of the original ten principals moved on, for one reason or another. And theschool improvement initiatives they had underway—with one exception—witheredand died (Leithwood, McHeloran-Hopkins & Jantzi, in press).

46 Leithwood

My conclusion from this evidence, as a whole, is that leadership has very signif-icant effects on the quality of the school organization and on student learning. As faras I am aware, there is not a single documented case of a school successfully turningaround its student achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership. Oneexplanation for this is that leadership serves as a catalyst for unleashing the potentialcapacities that already exist in the organization. Those in leadership roles have atremendous responsibility to “get it right.” Fortunately, we know a great deal aboutwhat getting it right means. Indeed, our knowledge about successful leadership ismuch firmer than many commentators would have us believe.

HOW SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP INFLUENCESSTUDENT LEARNING

Mostly leaders contribute to student learning indirectly, through their influence onother people or features of their organizations. We can think of this as a chainof variables effectively joining the actions of leaders to the learning of students.This indirect influence of leaders on students should be self-evident by simplyreminding ourselves about how leaders of all but the smallest districts and schoolsspend the bulk of their time and who they spend it with—whether successful or not.But a considerable amount of quantitative research concerning leadership effectson students has tried to measure direct effects; rarely does this form of researchfind any effects at all (e.g., Alig-Mielcarek & Hoy, 2005). It is only when researchdesigns start with a more sophisticated view of the chain of variables linkingleadership practices to student learning that the effects of leaders become evident.These chains of variables typically get longer the larger the organization. And, onthe whole, these chains of variables are typically much longer for district leadersthan for school leaders, as mentioned earlier.

Leaders’ contributions to student learning, then, depend a great deal on theirjudicious choice of what parts of their organization on which to spend high-prioritytime and attention. Some choices (illustrated below) will pay off much more thanothers.

The existing evidence, reviewed recently in Leithwood and Steinbach (2003)provides very good clues about who or what educational leaders should pay themost attention to within their organizations, for example:

• At the classroom level, substantial evidence suggests that student learningvaries as a consequence of class size, student grouping practices, the instruc-tional practices of teachers, effective use of instructional time, and the carewith which student progress is monitored.

• At the school level, evidence is quite strong in its identification of schoolmission and goals, collaborative cultures and strong professional learningcommunities, teachers’ participation in decision making, and relationships withparents and the wider community about student learning.

• District conditions that are known to influence student learning includedistrict culture, the provision of professional development opportunities for


teachers aligned with school and district priorities, and policies governingleadership succession. Districts also contribute to student learning by ensuringalignment among goals, programs, policies, and professional development (e.g.,Togneri & Anderson, 2005).

The clear implication here is that these are links in the chain on which leaderswould do well to focus their high-priority attention. But there are other importantlinks, too. At the moment, I want to “narrowly” focus on—or drill down into—aset of teachers’ internal states which seem to be key links in the chain; evidencefor this “drilling down” comes from a review of research undertaken for Ontario’selementary teachers’ union (Leithwood, 2005). While recent reform efforts havepaid quite a lot of attention to teachers’ internal cognitive states (their knowledgeand skill)—and the professional development required to improve such knowledgeand skill—they have essentially ignored teachers’ emotional states. My review of theevidence indicates that these emotional states need to be nurtured, in combinationwith teachers’ knowledge and skills. In the absence of relatively positive emotionalstates, teachers are unlikely to make anything close to full use of their knowledgeand skill.

For a theoretical understanding of why that is the case, one need look nofurther than Albert Bandura’s well-known socio-psychological theory of motivation(e.g., Bandura, 1986). “Emotional arousal” processes are one of four sources ofmotivation, according to this theory. The emotional states touched on below areall central to a teachers’ emotional arousal—and, so, central to their motivationto continue to improve their own instructional practices. Fortunately, however, wedon’t have to take Bandura’s word for this. My review (2005) found importanteffects for seven emotional states on both teachers’ performance and studentlearning. All seven states are, without doubt, worth explicit attention by thoseperforming leadership functions in schools and districts. But two are particularlykey: individual teacher efficacy, because evidence indicates that it likely has thelargest positive effect on teacher performance and student learning, and teacherstress and burnout, because it has the largest negative effects. The evidence aboutboth of these internal states is extensive and the results are quite consistent.

INDIVIDUAL TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

This emotional state has been defined as “the extent to which the teacher believeshe or she has the capacity to affect student performance” (Berman et al., citedin Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). It is a belief about one’s ability to perform atask or achieve a goal. Such efficacy may be relatively general, as in the teacher’sbelief about her instructional capacities with all children and all curricula, or morespecific, as in the teacher’s belief about her ability to teach a specific concept(e.g., evolution) to a specific type of student (e.g., Grade 6 students). To be clear,self-efficacy is a belief about one’s ability or capacity—not one’s actual ability orcapacity.

48 Leithwood

Individual self-efficacy beliefs are associated with other thoughts and feelings.For example, Mathieu and Zajac’s (1990) meta-analysis of research on organiza-tional commitment in non-school contexts found strong positive relationships betweenself-efficacy beliefs (conceptualized and measured as “perceived personal compe-tence”) and employees’ organizational commitment; similar results have been foundamong teachers (Tschannen-Morin,Wolfolk,Hoy&Hoy,1998).Lowlevelsof teacherself-efficacy have also been associated with feelings of stress (Parkay et al.,1988).Bandura’s theory of teacher motivation indicates that, in addition to emotional arousalprocesses, beliefs in one’s ability to perform either a specific task or a more generaldomain of tasks has a strong influence on the amount of effort one expends, how longone persists in trying to accomplish a task, how resilient one is in the face of failure,and how well one is likely to cope with stress under demanding circumstances.

Evidence associates higher levels of teacher efficacy with a number of quitepositive teacher behaviors including, for example, the promotion of fundamentalexpectations for student learning, stimulating and innovative forms of instruction,an openness to external reforms, and the fuller participation of parents in theschool. Higher levels of teacher self-efficacy also are associated with higher levelsof achievement, lower dropout rates, and more positive attitudes toward school.Teacher and student self-efficacy also seem to be closely associated, meaning astrong effect on student motivation.

By way of example, in a recent two-year study, Ross and his colleagues (Ross,Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001) examined the effects of a specific form ofteacher efficacy (computer confidence) on students’ computer skills and students’self-efficacy. Evidence for the study came from 387 students aged 6 to 9 in 97classrooms in 46 schools. Ross and his colleagues found that students who movedfrom a teacher with low computer confidence to a teacher with high computer confi-dence benefited significantly more from an infusion of technology than studentswho had moved from having a teacher with high computer confidence to one withlow computer confidence. The benefits included improved student self efficacy aswell as greater acquisition of computer skills.

The most practical part of this body of evidence, however, is what it has to sayabout the conditions which foster high levels of teacher efficacy. At the school level,such conditions include positive school atmosphere, academic press among staff,sense of community, and teacher participation in decisions affecting their work.Schools also foster teacher efficacy when they are without barriers to effectiveinstruction, hold high expectations for students and stimulate collaboration amongteachers. All of these school-level conditions support the efforts of teachers to dogood work with students.

District conditions fostering teacher efficacy include, for example, well designeddistrict in-service experiences which are differentiated for individual teachers anddistributed throughout the implementation period, and that leads to the establishmentof in-school networks and provides support for instruction.

Finally, principals’ leadership emerges in most studies as a strong influence onteachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Morin, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998).


Most of the specific practices associated with teacher efficacy are subsumed withinthe “core leadership practices” described below. A small handful of studies havetested the effects of this approach to leadership on individual teacher efficacy withpromising results (e.g., Hipp, 1996; Hipp and Bredeson, 1995; Mascall, 2003).

TEACHER STRESS AND BURNOUT

Burnout is a term used to define the stress experienced by those who work ininterpersonally intense occupations, human services for the most part, which aresubject to chronic tension, like teaching. The term signifies the inability of peopleto function effectively in their jobs as a consequence of prolonged and extensivestress related to those jobs (Byrne, 1991). Maslach and Jackson (1981), authors ofa widely used tool for diagnosing burnout, claim that it is a three-dimensional stateof mind including:

• Feelings of emotional exhaustion or wearing out: teachers no longer feel ableto devote themselves to their students to the same extent they had earlier intheir careers.

• Depersonalization: teachers develop negative, cynical, and callous attitudestoward students, parents, and their teaching colleagues.

• Reduced sense of personal accomplishment and esteem: teachers no longerbelieve themselves to be effective in helping their students to learn and inaccomplishing their other duties.

Estimates of the prevalence of burnout or excessive feelings of stress across theteaching population are actually quite alarming, ranging from 15 to 45 percent(Leach, 1984; Schlansker, 1987; Friedman & Faber, 1992; Dworkin, 1997). Burnouthas significant negative effects on teachers themselves, their schools, and theirstudents. Teachers suffering from excessive stress or burnout tend to demonstrateincreased absenteeism, a decline in classroom performance, as well as poor inter-personal relations with colleagues and students. These teachers are less sympathetictoward students, less committed to, and involved in, their jobs. They have a lowertolerance for classroom disruption, are less apt to prepare adequately for class, andare generally less productive (Blase & Greenfield, 1985; Farber & Miller, 1981).Burned out teachers can have a chilling effect on the morale of new teachers.Teachers experiencing burnout also tend to be more dogmatic about their practicesand resist changes to those practices. They are also inclined to treat students in adepersonalized way and resort to victim blaming for low achievement or failure.

Dworkin’s (1987) review of evidence about the consequences of teacher burnoutfor students concluded that high achieving students placed with teachers sufferingfrom burnout are likely to achieve 20% less, over the course of a year, than arestudents placed with other teachers. Burnout also is associated with higher rates ofstudent dropout (1997, p. 473).

Empirical studies of teacher burnout and the factors which give rise to it indicatethat “intensification” of the role and the stresses that accompany such intensification

50 Leithwood

are the causes of excessive stress and burnout. The roots of this intensification canbe found: in the classroom with students (discipline, behavior, numbers of students,diversity of students); in the school (course loads, lack of recognition, excessivepaperwork) and; outside the school from the district or state, constantly changingcurricula to be implemented.

Only some of these sources of stress and burnout can be altered by local leaders.But conditions known to ameliorate burnout are very much under their control. Andthey can have very significant effects. All of these conditions—providing support,allowing for decision influence, and keeping down the distractions—are things overwhich leaders have a great deal of control.

To sum up this explanation of how leaders influence students, I have not tried tobe comprehensive in my treatment of the school and classroom conditions whichmediate the effects of successful leadership on student learning. Rather, I havepointed to a group of such factors that are typically ignored by those outside theschool—the emotional states of teachers. My point is not that these emotional statesare more important than, for example, teachers’ cognitive states—the knowledge andskills that are so much a part of our professional development planning. Rather, mypoint is that leaders need to be sensitive to the whole person and the circumstancesof their work if they are to be successful as leaders in improving student learning.The conditions needed to nurture teachers’ affective states are key qualities ofeffective schools.

Furthermore, the bits and pieces of evidence alluded to in this section aboutleadership practices that reduce burnout and build individual teacher efficacy arepart of a more comprehensive model of leadership practices to which I now turn.

WHAT ALL LEADERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO

The extent to which educational policies and other reform efforts improve whatstudents learn finally depends on their consequences for what teachers do. Andwhat teachers do, according to a particularly useful model for explaining workplaceperformance (O’Day, 1996; Rowan, 1996), is a function of their motivations,abilities, and the situations in which they work. The relationship among thesevariables can be represented in this deceptively simple formula, no less,

P = �M�A�S�

in which

• P stands for a teacher’s performance,• M stands for the teacher’s motivation,• A stands for the teacher’s abilities, professional knowledge, and skills, and• S represents their work settings, the features of their school, and classroom

The relationships among the variables in this model are considered to beinterdependent. This means two things. It means that each variable has an effect


on the remaining two (for example, aspects of teachers’ work environments aresignificant influences on their motivations). It also means that changes in all threevariables need to happen in concert or performance will not change much. Forexample, neither high ability and low motivation, nor high motivation and lowability foster high levels of teacher performance; neither does high ability and highmotivation in a dysfunctional work environment. Furthermore, a dysfunctional worksetting will likely depress initially high levels of both ability and motivation.

While the interdependencies highlighted by this model may seem too obvious towarrant much attention here, just think about all of the substantial efforts to improveschools that have focused on only one, or only one at a time. The currently popular“teaching standards” movement, for example, assumes teacher performance willimprove if only A changes. High stakes accountability policies, especially thosewith a market orientation, assume performance will change if only M changes. Infact, both of these reform efforts often have been pursued within a “more is less”financial framework, the consequences of which have been substantial negativeeffects on S. It will be helpful to try to keep this formula in mind as we turn, below,to an examination of successful leadership practices. We hear a lot about how goodleadership depends on being sensitive to “context.” But what could this possiblymean?

Could it mean that 1) every school or district is so unique that a different setof leadership practices are required for each? This would be absurd because whileevery school and district is different in some respects, every school and district isalso the same as all others. In fact, some have argued, convincingly in my mind, thatno other institution has the same look and feel about it, no matter where you findit, as does a school. The basic “grammar” of schools and classrooms is remarkablyalike wherever you look.

Could it mean that 2) the same set of leadership practices get adapted in theiruse to suit the context? This is a plausible answer, at least. Or 3) could it also meanthat there is a core set of leadership practices which all leaders need but which theyhave to add to in recognition of their organization’s uniqueness? This also seemsplausible.

My initial interpretation of the evidence on this matter persuaded me that theanswer was the last of these alternatives. But the plausibility of the second answer(adaptation of the same basic practices) has been increasing lately as I look at recentdata from studies carried out across organizational sectors and countries. There is,in any event, a very strong case to be made for a core set of leadership practicesnecessary for success in almost all contexts, although there always will be andshould be variations in the way they are enacted (or style). And there may be aneed to add to these basics in some circumstances.

The four categories of leadership practices which, I will argue, deserve to becalled “core” include: 1) setting directions, 2) developing people, 3) redesigningthe organization and 4) managing the instructional program (Leithwood & Riehl,2005). These sets of practices likely to be needed by leaders whether working inan elementary or secondary school, a school or a school district, a school in the

52 Leithwood

U.S. or one in The Netherlands. For that matter, they could apply to a businessor military organization, with the exception of the fourth category which is clearlyunique to schools, but could easily be modified for other organizations if it read“managing the organization’s core technology.”

Many of the practices included in these categories had their genesis in severaldifferent models of transformational leadership—the early work of Burns (1978) andthe follow-up empirical work of both Podsakoff et al., (1992) and Bass (1985). Butconsiderable work with this approach to leadership in district and school contextshas led to the current formulation. I recently counted in excess of 40 publishedstudies and some 140 unpublished studies focused on these leadership practicesin school and district contexts since about 1990. The considerable evidence nowavailable for many of these core practices tells us a good deal about their relativecontribution to organizational improvement and student learning, as well. It shouldbe clear that the core leadership practices are not all that people providing leadershipin schools do. But they are especially critical practices known to have significantinfluence on organizational goals. Their value lies in the focus they bring to whatleaders attend to.

As a way of illustrating just how comprehensive these four sets of leadershippractices, my subsequent description of them also includes a comparison with threeother well-known efforts to capture key educational leadership practices:

• The ISLLC standards (Council of Chief School State Officers, 1996) nowubiquitous in the majority of states and serving as central goals for a greatmany leadership development programs;

• Hallinger’s (1985; 2003) model of instructional leadership, by far the mostfully specified and widely researched conception of instructional leadershipavailable; and

• A meta-analysis of specific leadership practices influencing student learningproduced by Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003).

SETTING DIRECTIONS

As a category of practices, setting directions explains the largest proportion ofleadership effect. Table 1 summarizes three more specific sets of practices in thiscategory, all of which are aimed at bringing a focus to both the individual andcollective work of staff in the school or district. Done skillfully, these practices areone of the main sources of motivation and inspiration for the work of staff.Building a shared vision. Building exciting visions is a fundamental task of charis-matic leadership models. Bass’s (1985) “inspirational motivation” is encompassedin this practice, a dimension that Podsakoff defines as leadership behavior “aimedat identifying new opportunities for his or her unit…and developing, articulating,and inspiring others with his or her vision of the future” (1990, p. 112).

Fostering the acceptance of group goals. While visions can be inspiring, actiontypically requires some agreement on the more immediate goals to be accomplished


Table 1. Setting Directions

Core LeadershipPractices(FromLeithwood & Riehl,2005; Leithwood &Jantzi, 2005)

ISLLCStandards

InstructionalLeadership(FromHallinger, 2003)

21 Leadership Respon-sibilities(From Waters,Marzano, McNulty,2003)

Building a sharedvision

Shared Vision Developing a clearmission focused onstudents’ academicprogress

Optimizer(inspires andleads newchallenges)

Setting goals toguide action

(many“performances”related to this)

Framing theschool’s goalsCommunicatingthe school’s goals

Focus (establishes cleargoals…)

Holding highperformanceexpectations

Culture of highexpectationsfor all

Change agent (activelychallenges the status quo)

in order to move toward the vision. I have alluded to Bandura’s theory of humanmotivation which identifies four sources of such motivation, one of which hasalready been discussed (emotional arousal processes). A second is goals. Mosttheories of motivation, not just Bandura’s, argue that people are motivated toaccomplish personally important goals for themselves.

Building on such theory, this set of practices aims not only to identify importantgoals for the organization, but to do so in such a way that individual memberscome to include the organization’s goals among their own. Unless this happens, theorganization’s goals have no motivational value. So leaders can productively spenda lot of time on this set of practices. Giving short shrift misses the point entirely.So this practice includes leader behaviors “aimed at promoting cooperation amongemployees and getting them to work together toward a common goal” (Podsokoffet al., 1990, p. 112). In district and school settings, strategic and improvementplanning processes are among the more explicit contexts in which these behaviorsare manifest.

High performance expectations. This set of leadership practices is included as partof direction setting because it is closely aligned with goals. While high performanceexpectations do not define the substance of organizational goals, they demon-strate, as Podsakoff explains, “the leader’s expectations of excellence, quality,and/or high performance” (Podsokoff et al., 1990, p. 112) in the achievement ofthose goals.

As Table 1 indicates, these practices have much in common with our threecomparators. All touch on one or more of the three sets of practices. Although notexplicit in the table, the 16 performances included in the first ISSLC standard do agood job of detailing what one might do that would build a shared sense of purpose.The instructional leadership model is primarily focused on the school’s mission,

54 Leithwood

as well as goals. In addition, Waters’ et al., analysis includes an inspirationalcomponent labelled “Optimizer” (inspires and leads new challenges).

DEVELOPING PEOPLE

The three sets of practices in this category make some contribution to motivationthrough their primary function of developing the knowledge and skills of staff(see Table 2).Practices aimed at developing people explain the second largest amount of variationin leadership effects. These practices aim at capacity building, not only theknowledge and skill staff need to accomplish organizational goals but also the dispo-sition to persist in applying that knowledge and skill. Individual teacher efficacywas an emotion discussed above. It is yet a third source of motivation in Bandura’smodel. People are motivated by what they are good at. And mastery experiencesare the most powerful in building a sense of efficacy. So building capacity leadingto a sense of mastery is highly motivational, as well.

Providing individualized support/consideration. Bass and Avolio include, as partof this dimension, “knowing your followers’ needs and raising them to more maturelevels…[sometimes through] the use of delegation to provide opportunities for eachfollower to self-actualize and to attain higher standards of moral development”(1994, p.64). This set of behaviors, claims Podsakoff et al., (1990), should commu-nicate the leader’s respect for his or her colleagues and concerns about their personalfeelings and needs. This is a set of practices common to earlier, two-dimensional,models of contingent leadership—task orientation and consideration forpeople.

Table 2. Developing People

Core LeadershipPractices(FromLeithwood & Riehl,2004; Leithwood &Jantzi, 2005)

ISLLC Standards InstructionalLeadership(FromHallinger, 2003)

21 LeadershipResponsibilities(FromWaters, Marzano,McNulty, 2003)

Intellectual stimulation Staff’s professionalgrowth

Promoting professionaldevelopment

Intellectual stimulation

Individual consideration Individuals treatedwith fairness,dignity, and respectAccomplishmentsrecognized andcelebrated.

Providing incentives forteachers

Contingent rewardsAffirmation (recognizesand celebrates…)Relationships (awarenessof personal aspects ofstaff)

Modelling values andpractices

High visibilitywith the communityServes as role model

Maintaining highvisibility

Visibility (qualityinteractions withteachers and students)


Intellectual stimulation. Behaviors included in this dimension include encour-aging colleagues to take intellectual risks, re-examine assumptions, look at theirwork from different perspectives, rethink how it can be performed (Avolio, 1994;Podsakoff et al., 1990), and otherwise “induc[e]…employees to appreciate, dissect,ponder and discover what they would not otherwise discern…” (Lowe et al., 1996,p. 415–416). This is where the leader’s role in professional development is to befound. But it recognizes the many informal, as well as formal, ways such devel-opment occurs. It also reflects our current understandings of learning (teacher aswell as student learning) as constructed, social and situated.

Providing an appropriate model. Encompassed by this dimension is Bass’s“idealized influence,” a partial replacement for his original “charisma” dimension.Avolio (1994) claims that leaders exercise idealized influence when they serveas role models with the appropriate behaviors and attitudes that are required tobuild trust and respect in followers. Such modeling on the part of leaders “…setsan example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values the leaderespouses” (Podsakoff et al, 1990, p. 112). This set of practices entails “leading byexample,” a general set of practices associated with models of “authentic leadership”(Avolio & Gardner, 2005)—demonstrating transparent decision making, confidence,optimism, hope, resiliency and consistency between their words and deeds.

As the comparators summarized in Table 2 indicate, attention is devoted to thesepractices in Hallinger’s model of instructional leadership and the Waters et al meta-analysis. The overall statement of the second ISSLC standard seems a bit muddledon this, but the detailed performances include many designed to “help people” aswe conceive of it here.

REDESIGNING THE ORGANIZATION

This set of practices rank third in their ability to explain variation in leaders’effects. This is the “S” or situation or working conditions variable in the equationfor predicting levels of performance outlined above. There is little to be gained byincreasing peoples’ motivation and capacity if working conditions will not allowtheir effective application. In Bandura’s (1986) model, beliefs about the situationis a fourth source of motivation; people are motivated when they believe thecircumstances in which they find themselves are conducive to their accomplishingthe goals they hold to be personally important.

The three practices included in this category (Table 3) are about establishing theconditions of work which will allow staff to make the most of their motivations andcapacities. These categories of conditions encompass, for example, those workingconditions we discussed earlier that contribute to individual teacher efficacy andthe amelioration of teacher burnout, among other things.Building collaborative cultures. A large body of evidence has accumulated sinceLittle’s (1982) early research which unambiguously supports the importance ofcollaborative cultures in schools as central to school improvement, the developmentof professional learning communities and the improvement of student learning

56 Leithwood

Table 3. Redesigning the Organization

Core LeadershipPractices: (FromLeithwood & Riehl,2004; Leithwood &Jantzi, 2005)

ISLLCStandards

InstructionalLeadership(FromHallinger, 2003)

21 LeadershipResponsibilities(FromWaters, Marzano,McNulty, 2003)

Building collaborativecultures

School culture Culture (fosters sharedbeliefs, senseof community,cooperation)Input (involves Tsin decision making)

Creating andmaintaining structures

Community involvedin SIPSchool organized andaligned for successTime carefullymanaged

Providingincentives forlearning

Productiverelationships withparents and largercommunity

Collaborationwith families andcommunitiesPartnerships

Outreach (advocate andspokesperson for school)

(e.g., Louis & Kruse, 1998; Rosenholtz, 1989). Additional evidence clearly indicatesthat leaders are able to create more collaborative cultures and suggests practicesthat accomplish this goal (e.g., Leithwood, Jantzi, & Dart, 1990).

Restructuring. Organizational culture and structure are two sides of the samecoin. Developing and sustaining collaborative cultures depends on putting inplace complementary structures, typically something requiring leadership initiative.Practices associated with such initiatives include creating common planning timesfor teachers and establishing team and group structures for problem solving (e.g.,Hadfield, 2003).

Building productive relationships with families and communities. Shifting theattention of school staffs from an exclusively inside-the-school focus to one whichembraces a meaningful role for parents and a close relationship with the largercommunity was identified during the 1990s as the biggest change in expectations forthose in formal school leadership roles (e.g., Goldring & Rallis, 1993). Attention tothis focus has been encouraged by evidence of the contribution of family educationalcultures to student achievement in schools (e.g., Coleman, et al., 1966; Finn, 1989),the increase in public accountability of schools to their communities through thewidespread implementation of school-based management (Murphy and Beck, 1995),and the growing need for schools to actively manage public perceptions of theirlegitimacy (e.g., Mintrop, 2004).

As we can see by looking across the three comparators summarized in Table 3,the ISSLC standards touch on all three sets of practices. Hallinger’s instructional


leadership model has nothing to say about building collaborative cultures (althoughHallinger has done quite a bit of work on this aside from his leadership model).And the Waters et al., meta-analysis includes attention to two of the categories ofpractice but has nothing to say about structures

MANAGING THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM

There is some potential confusion about the effects of this set of practices.Surprisingly, those management practices which involve close association with theclassroom and supervision of what happens in the classroom appear to have theleast effect, according to Hallinger’s (2003) recent review. On the other hand, whenmanagerial behaviors have been included in my own research on leadership effects,they have explained almost as much as did leadership behaviors (e.g., Leithwood &Jantzi, 1999). So they are important, as a class, especially those that create stabilityand strengthen the infrastructure. But those of a more supervisory nature seem notto be in most cases.

The four sets of leadership practices in this category provide the glue andcoordination for initiatives stimulated by the other leadership practices we havediscussed. They help provide the stability so necessary for improvement to occur.Of the four sets of practices, three attract the attention of all three comparators.Staffing does not, and yet it is a very critical leadership function on which much ofthe school’s or district’s success depends. This may be accounted for by the schoolversus district bias of the comparators with schools often having little discretionabout staffing decisions.

Table 4. Managing the Instructional Program

Core LeadershipPractices (FromLeithwood & Riehl,2004: Leithwood &Jantzi, 2005)

ISLLCStandards

InstructionalLeadership (FromHallinger, 2003)

21 LeadershipResponsibilities (FromWaters, Marzano, &McNulty, 2003)

Staffing the program

Providing instructionalsupport

Instructionalprograms

Supervising & evaluatinginstructionCoordinating thecurriculum

Order, Resources,Curriculum, instructionand assessment

Monitoring schoolactivity

Safe and efficientmanagement of theorganization

Monitoring studentprogress

Monitors/evaluates

Buffering staff fromdistractions to theirwork

Protecting instructionaltime

Discipline

58 Leithwood

SUMMARY OF CORE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

Not all of the core practices were touched on by the three other views of leadershipto which they were compared, but most were. Some features included in ourcomparators were not part of the core practices; in almost all cases, these were essen-tially “internal states” (for example, ISSLC’s fifth standard: Acting with integrity,fairness, and in an ethical manner).

In sum, then, the four broad categories of leadership practices—and the 13 morespecific categories—capture my reading of the evidence about what effective leadersdo. They do not do all of these things all of the time, of course; you don’t have tocreate a shared vision every day. And the way you go about each set of practiceswill certainly vary by context. If your school is in danger of reconstitution, youlikely do more selling of your vision to staff than developing it collaboratively—soyou can get on with your turnaround mission.

So what is contingent about leadership, from this perspective, is not the basicpractices but they way they are enacted. It is the enactment that must be sensitiveto context, not the core practices themselves. The core practices provide a powerfulsource of guidance for practicing leaders, as well as a framework for the initial andcontinuing development of leaders.

APPLICATIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Example 1: Distributed Leadership

This section briefly illustrates how broadly applicable the core leadership practicesare using, as examples, evidence from a small handful of recent studies. The firstillustration is from a study carried out by my colleagues and me (Leithwood et al,2004) about “distributed leadership” on a large scale. Although evidence about thevalue of distributed leadership is extremely thin.

The extent and nature of coordination in the exercise of influence across membersof the organization is a critical challenge from a holistic perspective. But it ispossible and some recent evidence provides one demonstration. My colleaguesLorna Earl and Michael Fullan and I were involved from 2000 to 2004 as theexternal evaluators of England’s national literacy and numeracy strategies. Thesestrategies were aimed at improving math and literacy skills among elementary schoolstudents across England as a whole. New roles were created to implement the projectincluding some new national roles and an all-new regional director role largely forthe purpose of supporting capacity development at the district Location EducationAuthority (LEA) and school levels. Our evaluation served many purposes, one ofwhich was to test the assumptions about holistic forms of distributed leadershipoutlined above. At the end of the project, we sifted through our data to determinethe extent to which the core leadership practices described what central, regionaland local leaders did in this context and who exercised which of the core practices.

When Tony Blair was elected, he now famously declared that the government’sfirst three priorities were “education, education, and education.” All those in central,


formal, leadership roles were involved in both creating and communicating thevision to the school system as a whole, as you might anticipate, as well as the otheractivities—setting direction. But they were also involved in building cultures andstructures to support implementation of the strategies.

For leaders at the regional level, the focus was very much about building thecapacities to implement the vision (helping people) and creating the organizationalcircumstances to allow the use of those capacities. Local leaders included principalsor heads and teachers appointed to coordinator roles in their own schools—a teacherleadership role. The pattern of leadership practices at this level looked a lot likeit did at the regional level. But efforts by heads to set goals that reflected localpriorities were within an overall focus on literacy and numeracy. The remainder oftheir leadership, along with the “coordinators”, focused on developing capacity andensuring the design of the organization allowed for the use of such capacity.

So this is one empirical view of how leadership ended up being distributed“holistically” across an entire country. Not everyone did the same thing and therewas some “planfulness” to who did what. But most of what was done can be foundamong the core leadership practices we have described in earlier sections of thispaper.

Example 2: Turning Around Failing Schools

Especially challenging schools and those in need of being turned around requireadaptations of the “core” leadership practices, as well as judicious additions to thosepractices. Many of the specific adaptations described here are drawn from Riehl (inpress), Leithwood & Steinbach (2003), and Jacobson (2004). There appear to befour common tasks facing leaders of challenging or turn-around schools emergingfrom the evidence at this point: creating stability, clarifying the academic mission,building commitment and capacity, and sustaining an upward trajectory.

Creating stability. As I argued earlier, change is possible without stability butimprovement is not. Indeed, by definition, unstable schools are in a constant stateof change. But much of that change is unanticipated and often quite dysfunctional.Improvement, in contrast, requires a foundation which allows for the effects of aseries of typically modest but successful interventions to accumulate over time untilthey amount to noticeable gains in students’ learning. Stable school leadership is acrucial ingredient in such accumulation and this requires coherent district transferpolicies and practices.

For many schools that have been successfully turned around, another key elementof stability is the creation of environments in which both teachers and students feelphysically and psychologically safe. This can be done, for example, by:

• Establishing routines to monitor and control access to the school by outsiders,• Reconstructing the physical space in the school to make it harder for non-

members of the school community to get into the building, and• Closely monitoring the common spaces in the school by being a visible

presence in those spaces at strategic times during the day.

60 Leithwood

With security comes a willingness to attend to the core purposes of the school,teaching and learning. This is part of what “redesigning the organization” entails inunstable organizations.

Clarifying the academic mission. With the security of students and teacherslooked after, successful leaders turn to the academic mission of the school, drawingheavily on the core leadership practices of “direction-setting”. Although “all kidscan learn” has become a common mantra for policy makers these days, it is a beliefthat is more difficult to actually internalize the closer you are to being the person,usually the teacher, accountable for seeing that it happens. But the internalization ofthis belief is quite central to the mission that most struggling schools need to adopt.Successful leaders provide their more skeptical colleagues with ample evidencethat students, typically at-risk, can experience substantial success under the rightconditions. Through advocacy for appropriate programs, for example, leaders canhelp their colleagues understand the more specific goals they will need to worktoward, in the short term, if their long term vision for the school is to be achieved.These leaders also “hold high expectations” for themselves, their teacher-colleagues,as well as students and parents; they insist that everyone be held accountable fortheir part of what needs to be done if student learning is to improve.

Building commitment and capacity. Commitment or motivation and capacityare qualities of staff and students to be pursued in tandem. Few people becomehighly motivated to do things they are not good at. Conversely, it is amazinghow motivated people can become to do things at which they are skilled. But atleast minimal commitment is needed to get started. And this is why knowing yourindividual colleagues well, understanding their own work-related motivations, beingempathetic to their aspirations and generally displaying a modicum of emotionalintelligence are important leadership qualities. They are part of “developing people”by providing them with “individualized support”.

We know that a rich curriculum and top notch instruction is critical if strugglingstudents are to succeed. To that end, providing “intellectual stimulation” formallythrough professional development opportunities and informally by modeling appro-priate values and practices are key leadership practices. Having staff members visitother challenging schools whose students are achieving beyond expectation can be apowerful source of motivation, as well as a useful experience for building capacity.

Sustaining an upward trajectory. Rare indeed, for leaders, is an especiallychallenging school in which everyone agrees with the initial direction to be takenfor improvement.

Such schools with an improvement agenda are in a hurry—and resistance arisesbecause the speed with which decisions and actions must be taken constrainsopportunities for wide participation and prolonged consultation. Resistance also canbe expected from staff members who view improvement initiatives as an affrontto their sense of professional efficacy. Good leaders first try to understand andrespond to the concerns of those who resist. But if this is unsuccessful, they helpreluctant staff find other schools in which to work. Done much more frequentlythan is commonly thought, this is a quite fundamental redesign of the organization.


An upward trajectory also depends on continuing learning and problem solvingby staff. Redesigning the organization so that such learning is encouraged andsupported means building a collaborative professional culture in the school andcreating structures to allow for such collaboration. Professional learning is alsofostered by building relationships with families and communities that result in betterinformation about students for staff to work with and better information aboutschool curricula for parents to work with.

In sum, the leadership required for especially challenging schools calls liberallyon the core leadership practices which we have been examining. Some circum-stances may demand more of leaders, so more than the basics may turn out to benecessary for success. But not less.

ARE LEADERS MADE OR BORN?

I conclude with some observations about an old but still interesting question,Are leaders’ made or born? This is just a very specific version of the age-oldnature/nurture question applied to leaders. Of course, the answer to dichotomousquestions such as these usual turns out to be “a bit of both.” It should be clearfrom what I have described as core leadership practices that successful leadershipis something everyone can get better at. Most leaders can get better, for exampleat using a more comprehensive set of core leadership practices, remembering torecognize people for doing a good job and more frequently organizing their workaround the key goals and priorities established with staffs. There is no reason thatleaders should not be able to improve the consistency between their words and theiractions or to infuse expressions of high expectations in the way they talk to theirstudents, parent, board members, and staffs.

Of course, some people learn these things quicker than others. Some peoplebecome more skilled in doing these things than others. But everyone can get betterat doing all of these things. From this point of view, then, leadership is a highlylearnable set of functions. Just the same, some people seem “natural leaders” andothers become better at the job much quicker than others. Why? At least part ofthe answer is to be found in personal traits, those relatively stable psychologicalcharacteristics or dispositions that make each of us unique.

During the early years of formal leadership research, leaders’ traits were a bigpart of the research agenda. This focus was largely abandoned in the 1950s, buthas been experiencing something of a resurgence more recently (e.g., Antonakis,2005). And to make a long story short, results of that research provide consistentsupport for the value of three traits: open mindedness, flexibility, and persistenceand optimism which I see as being closely linked. Most successful leaders possessthese three traits and they likely account for why some people learn how to besuccessful leaders much quicker than do others.

Open mindedness may be the “core” trait in this suite of three. Leaders whoare open minded are predisposed, for example, to listen to others, consider a widerrange of options before making a decision, establish structures which ensure the

62 Leithwood

participation in decisions of all those likely to have something to contribute, treatothers more respectfully, and learn from their mistakes. These behaviors aloneaccount for much of the impact of successful leaders.

Related to the second trait, flexibility, I often think that school-level leadership, inparticular, is like playing tennis. While you get to serve some of the time, about halfof the time you are returning someone else’s serve. So being good at the leadershipgame means learning how to place your serve in a way that gives you some modestcontrol over the direction of the game (think: framing your school’s priorities inlanguage that seems consistent with your district’s strategic goals) and adapting tothe unexpected return of your serve (think: your board’s surprising reaction to yoursuggestion for a budget referendum); it also means responding to the initiatives ofothers (think: district or state reform initiatives) in a way that allows you still toaccomplish something useful in your own district or school.

Productive flexibility depends most fundamentally on having very clear anddefensible goals along with a sophisticated understanding of what will and won’taccomplish those goals. Productively flexible leaders also have a perspective ontheir plans as just a place to start, and a willingness to adjust their actions, so longas they still fit within the range of things they know will accomplish their goals.This is what flexible means for successful leaders.

Persistence and optimism are the third set of especially important leadershiptraits. Those who have been in the leadership business for a while will have learnedthat bringing about change across a whole school or district—never mind a stateor country—is a painfully slow business. And it sometimes feels like you take twosteps back for every step forward. But just think of the complexity. These leadersare trying to establish agreement about goals and priorities among a more or lesslarge group of adults with considerable variation in their motivations, dispositions,capacities, and aspirations for themselves. They are also helping each of themremain motivated to accomplish those goals and supporting their efforts to developany new skills they might need to accomplish those goals. The work of leaders alsoincludes making sure the structures and culture of the organization actually assistthe work of their colleagues, rather than getting in their way as is so often the case.

It would be easy to give up in the face of such complexity and leaders unwillingto persist, in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, do give up. Successfulleaders have high levels of self-efficacy. They persist. They are optimistic whenthey really have no right to be. The glass is always half full. As evidence wetouched on earlier tells us, persisting allows the time to learn the way forward. Thatis the way we get better at what we do.

My final observation is that although open-mindedness, flexibility, and persis-tence are often thought of as unalterable features of the human psyche, there is clearevidence that these too can be developed. This would be among the goals for ourown personal reflections as leaders. After a meeting with colleagues, we might takea few moments to ask ourselves, Was I reasonably open minded? Was I as flexibleas I should have been? Did I insist that we persist at the things that matter? Thisanswer to the question of how leaders acquire the core leadership practices is not


intended to rule out such obvious strategies as formal training. But it does suggestthat practicing leadership with the right frame of mind (open-minded, flexible, andpersistent) will be at least as productive to a leader’s development as such formalstrategies. The right frame of mind positions a leader to learn from the circum-stances in which she finds herself and her experiences in those circumstances. Thewrong frame of mind cuts her off from such learning.

REFERENCES

Alig-Mielcarek, J., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Instructional Leadership: Its nature, meaning, and influence. InW. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational leadership and reform (pp. 29–51). Greenwich: InformationAge Publishing.

Arvey, R., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadershiprole occupancy:genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 1–20.

Avolio, B., J. (1994). The alliance of total quality and the full range of leadership. In B. M. Bass &B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership(pp. 121–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B., J., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positiveforms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Blase, J. J., & Greenfield, W. (1985). How teachers cope with stress: How administrators can help. The

Canadian Administrator, 25(2), 1–5.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Byrne, B. M. (1991). Burnout: Investigating the impact of background variables for elementary, inter-

mediate, secondary and university educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 197–209.Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (pp. 21).

Washington, DC.Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of

instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement(7), 197–228.DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground. Bloomington, Indiana: National

Educational Service.Dworkin, A. G. (1987). Teacher burnout in the public schools: Structural causes and consequences for

children. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Dworkin, A. (1997). Coping with reform: The intermix of teacher morale, teacher burnout, and teacher

accountability. In B. Biddle, T. Good & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers andteaching (pp. 459–498). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Elmore, R. (1995). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1),1–26.

Farber, B., & Miller, J. (1981). Teacher burnout: A psycho-educational perspective. Teachers CollegeRecord, 83(2), 235–243.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–143.Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenge of change. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 42(1).Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,

state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

64 Leithwood

Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. (1972). Professional self-concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journalof Educational Administration, 86(1), 28–35.

Gezi, K. (1990). The role of leadership in inner-city schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 12(4),4–11.

Giles, C., Johnson, L., Brooks, J. S., & Jacobson, S. (2005). Building bridges, building community:Transformational leadership in challenging urban contexts. Journal of School Leaderhship, 15(5),519–545.

Goldring, E., & Rallis, S. (1993). Principals of dynamic schools. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Goleman, D. (1994). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.Hadfield, M. (2003). Building capacity versus growing schools. In A. Harris, C. Day, D. Hopkins, M.

Hadfield, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for school improvement(pp. 107–120). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals.Elementary School Journal(86), 217–247.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment ofmethodological progress, 1980–1995. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), International handbookof educational leadership and administration (pp. 723–783). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review ofempirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement(9), 157–191

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional andtransformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351.

Hipp, K., & Bredeson, P. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals’leadership behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 136–150.

Hipp, K. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behaviour. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Dart, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can helpreform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249–280.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 451–479.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership onstudent engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(Supplement), 679–706.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of different sources of leadership on student engagementin school. In K. Riley & K. Louis (Eds.), Leadership For Change and School Reform (pp. 50–66).London: Routledge.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (2003). Successful leadership for especially challenging schools.In B. Davies & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management(pp. 25–43). London: Pearson Publishers.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic leadershipfor large-scale reform: The case of England’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Journal ofSchool Leadership and Management, 24(1), 57–80.

Leithwood, K. (2005). Teacher working conditions that matter. Toronto, ON: Elementary Teachers’Federation of Ontario.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In W. Firestone &C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22–47). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005).A review of transformational school literature research 1996–2005.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Montreal, QC.


Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (in press). Parent roles in school improvementplanning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (in press). The development and testing of a schoolimprovement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.

Leach, D. J. (1984). A model of teacher stress and its implications for management. Journal of Educa-tional Administration, 22(2), 157–172.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success.American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.

Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1998). Creating community in reform: Images of organizational learningin inner-city schools. In K. Leithwood & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Organizational learning in schools(pp. 17–45). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformationaland transactional leadership: A meta-analytical review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly,7(3), 385–425.

MacMillan, R. (2000). Leadership succession: Cultures of teaching and educational change. In N. Bascia& A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading and the realitiesof reform (pp. 52–71). London: Routledge/Falmer Press.

Mascall, B. (2003). Leaders helping teachers helping students: The role of transformational leadershipin building teacher efficacy to improve student achievement to University of Toronto.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). A scale measure to assess experienced burnout: The Maslachburnout inventory. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113.

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionistapproach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-342.

Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn’t work). New York:Teachers College Press.

Mortimore, P. (1993). School effectiveness and the management of effective learning and teaching.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(4), 290–310.

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Chapter7. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

O’Day, J. (1996). Incentives and student performance. In S. Fuhrman & J. O’Day (Eds.), Rewards andreform: Creating educational incentives that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parkay, F., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1998). A study of the relationship among teacherefficacy, locus of control and stress. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(4),13–22.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors andtheir effects on followers’ trust in leader satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. TheLeadership Quarterly, 1(2), 329–351.

Reitzug, U., & Patterson, J. (1998). “I’m not going to lose you!” Empowerment through caring in anurban principal’s practice with pupils. Urban Education, 33(2), 150–181.

Ross, J., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer skills andcomputer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K-3. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2),141–162.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In S. Fuhrman & J. O’Day (Eds.),

Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly by

low-SES children of color: Core beliefs and cultural characteristics. Urban Education, 33(4), 451–491.Schlansker, B. (1987). A principal’s guide to teacher stress. Principal, 66(5), 32–34.Sergiovanni, T. (1999). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Arlington Heights, Illinois:

Skylight Professional Development.

66 Leithwood

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organizations: The case for system, teacher andstudent learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 425–446.

Silins, H. C., Mulford, R. M., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school change. Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613–642.

Spillane, J., Sherer, J., & Coldren, A. (2005). Distributed Leadership: Leadership Practice andthe Situation. In Educational leadership and reform (pp. 149–167). Greenwich: Information AgePublishing.

Townsend, T. (1994). Goals for effective schools: the view from the filed. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, 5(2), 127–148.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tellsus about the effect of leadership on pupil achievement. A working paper. Aurora, CO: Mid-continentResearch for Education and Learning.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from twodecades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

CHAPTER 5

CONTEMPORARY LEARNING THEORIES,INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND LEADERSHIP

LARRY SACKNEY AND BRENDA MERGELUniversity of Saskatchewan

For teachers and educational leaders the sorting out of the various learning theoriesand the associated instructional design and leadership strategies can be somewhatconfusing. Why does it seem so difficult to differentiate among the various learningtheories and why do the terms and strategies of each theory overlap? This chapterattempts to sort out some of this confusion. We have restricted our discussion tobehaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, recognizing we could have discussedtheories such as connoisseurship, semiotics and contextualism. We have delimitedour elaboration to the basic learning theories, since they are the ones that have thegreatest impact on teaching, learning and leading.

In this chapter we briefly describe what is meant by theories and models, thebasic elements of the three learning theories, the history of learning theories ininstructional design and leadership, as well as learning theories and the practice ofinstructional design and leadership. We conclude the chapter by trying to answerthe question as to whether there is a one best theory for instructional designand leadership. In large part, this chapter provides a retrospective analysis of theevolution of theories of learning, designing and leading within the context of recenthistory, recognizing that extensive analysis is not possible within the limits of onechapter. This chapter is based in part on the work that one of the authors, Mergel(1998), had done on instructional design and learning theory.

THEORIES AND MODELS

Theory is not a collection of facts; it is a way of thinking about organizationallife. Theories in educational organizations provide a way of seeing and analyzingteaching, leading and learning more accurately and deeply than one otherwise could.

67


68 Sackney and Mergel

The way to see and think about teaching, leading and learning is based upon patternsand regularities.

Theories are a systematic body of knowledge that allows us to understand,explain, and predict phenomena within a given area. The alternative to usingtheoretical knowledge is to scurry through a maze of practices mindlessly hopingto guess the right actions. It is fair to say that we know considerably more aboutteaching, leading and learning than we have in the past (Sackney, in press).

Theories are useful because they provide a basis for thinking systematically aboutcomplex problems, such as what is the best way to teach children in different subjectareas or what is the best way to lead for a learning community. Theories allow usto do useful things: (1) describe what is going on; (2) explain and predict behavior;(3) predict future behavior under given circumstances; and (4) exercise control overevents (Owens, 2001, p. 21). However, a theory can never be established beyond alldoubt and a theory may be modified because of further insights. Further, a theory isseldom thrown out completely if thoroughly tested, but sometimes a theory may bewidely accepted for a long period of time and later disproved (Dorin, Demmin &Gabel, 1990). Whether a theory is maintained, revised, or abandoned is determinedby the outcome of research generated by the theory.

A model, on the other hand, is a simple representation of social reality. Unliketheory, a model is typically not used to explain a complicated process; rather,“it [model] is used to simplify the process and make it more understandable”(Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993, p. 23). Models are generally used to show howsomething is like something else. For example, reinforcement theory is an attemptto explain why learning occurs. It is not an attempt to explain what learning is like,as would be the case with a model. Dorin et al. (1990) contend that a model is amental picture that helps us to understand something we cannot see or experiencedirectly. As such, a model helps us to make sense of a given construct.

BEHAVIORISM, COGNITIVISM AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

In this section we discuss the basics of behaviorism, cognitivism and construc-tivism. Behaviorism is based on observable changes in behavior. It focuses on newbehavioral patterns being repeated until the behavior becomes automatic. Cogni-tivism is based on the thought process behind the behavior. Changes in behaviorare observed and used as indicators as to what happens inside the learner’s mind(Schuman, 1996). Constructivism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that weall construct our own perspective of the world through individual experiences andschema. Learning is a process that engages the learner in sense-making activitiesthat are shaped by prior knowledge (Piaget, 1976).

The Basics of Behaviorism

Behaviorist theory, dating back to Aristotle, focuses on the study of overt behaviorsthat can be observed and measured (Good & Brophy, 1990). Although most

Design and Leadership 69

behaviourists did not deny the existence of mental activity, they chose to focus onobservable behaviour in their studies. (Smith and Ragan, 2005) Some of the majorbehavior theorists were Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike and Skinner. Each theorist’scontributions are briefly discussed in the following sections.

Pavlov (1849–1936) For most people, the name ‘Pavlov’ rings a bell (punintended). The Russian physiologist is best known for his work in classical condi-tioning or stimulus substitution. His famous experiment involved ringing a bellprior to presenting food to the dog. Before conditioning, ringing of a bell causedno response from the dog. However, placing food in front of the dog initiatedsalivation. During the conditioning phase, the bell was rung a few seconds beforethe dog was presented with food. After conditioning, the ringing of the bell alonecaused the dog to salivate (Dembo, 1994). Table 1 summarizes the elements ofPavlov’s experiment.Pavlov made a number of other observations from his experiments.

– Stimulus generalization: Once the dog has learned to salivate at the sound ofthe bell, it will salivate at other similar sounds.

– Extinction: If you stop pairing the bell with the food, salivation will eventuallycease in response to the bell.

– Spontaneous recovery: Extinguished responses can be ‘recovered’ after anelapsed time, but will extinguish again if the dog is not presented with food.

– Discrimination: The dog could learn to discriminate between similar bells(stimuli) and discern which bell would result in the presentation of food andwhich would not.

– Higher-order conditioning: Once the dog has been conditioned to associate thebell with food, another unconditioned stimulus, such as a light may be flashedat the same time that the bell is rung. Eventually the dog will salivate at theflash of light without the sound of the bell.

Pavlov’s work became the foundation of behavioral inquiry in the U.S. and U.S.S.R.

Thorndike (1874–1949) Thorndike, like Pavlov, did his research on animalbehavior before becoming interested in human psychology. He set out to applythe methods of ‘exact science’ to educational problems by emphasizing “accuratetreatment of information.” He concluded that “anything that exists, exists in a certainquantity and can be measured” (Johcich, as cited in Rizo, 1991). His connectionisttheory espoused that learning was the formation of a connection between a stimulus

Table 1. Stimulus and Response Items of Pavlov’s Experiment

Food Unconditioned StimulusSalivation Unconditioned Response (natural, not learned)Bell Conditioned StimulusSalivation Conditioned Response (to bell)


and a response. According to the ‘law of effect’, when a connection between astimulus and response is practiced, the connection will become stronger. He alsofound that practice without feedback did not necessarily enhance performance.

Thorndike’s theories were based on the stimulus-response notion. He believedthat a neural bond would be established between stimulus and response whenthe response was positive. Learning takes place when the bonds form patternsof behavior (Saettler, 1990). Though Thorndike’s law of effect has been largelyrejected, the principle of reinforcement it embodied became increasingly importantto behavioral psychology.

Watson (1878–1958) Watson was the first American psychologist to use Pavlov’sideas. Like Thorndike, he was originally involved in animal research, but latershifted to human behavior. He believed that humans are born with a few reflexesand the emotional reactions of love and rage. All other behavior is establishedthrough a stimulus-response (classic) conditioning.

Watson demonstrated classical conditioning in an experiment involving a youngchild (Albert) and a white rat. Originally, Albert was unafraid of the rat, but Watsoncreated a sudden loud sound whenever Albert touched the rat. Because Albert wasfrightened by the loud noise, he soon became conditioned to fear and avoidedthe rat. This fear was generalized to other small animals. Certainly his researchmethods would be questioned today; however, his work does demonstrate the roleof conditioning in the development of emotional responses to certain stimuli. Hiswork has been used to help explain certain fears, phobias and prejudices that peopledevelop.

Skinner (1904–1990) Like Pavlov, Watson and Thorndike, Skinner believed in thestimulus-response pattern of conditioned behavior. His theory dealt with changes inobservable behavior, but did not consider the possibility of any processes occurringin the mind. His 1948 book, Walden Two, describes a utopian society based onoperant conditioning. He also wrote Science and Human Behavior(1953) in which hepointed out how the principles of operant conditioning functions in social institutionssuch as government, law, religion, economics and education (Dembo, 1994).

Skinner’s work differs from that of his predecessors (classical conditioning),in that he studied operant behavior (voluntary behaviors used in operating in theenvironment). Operant behavior differs from respondent behavior in that it operatesupon the environment. Figure 1 shows the difference between the two approaches.Based on his experiments on operant conditioning, Skinner found:

– Positive reinforcement – responses that are rewarded are likely to be repeated.(Good grades reinforce careful study).

– Negative reinforcement – responses that allow escape from painful orundesirable situations are likely to be repeated. (Being excused from writinga final exam because of good term work can motivate a student to do goodwork).


Figure 1. Difference between Classical and Operant Conditioning

– Extinction or non-reinforcement – responses that are not reinforced are notlikely to be repeated. (Ignoring student misbehavior should extinguish thatbehavior.)

– Punishment – responses that bring painful or undesirable consequences will besuppressed, but may reappear if reinforcement contingencies change. (Penal-izing late students by withdrawing privileges should stop their lateness.) (Good& Brophy, 1990).

One of Skinner’s best-known techniques is a program of behavior modificationcalled ‘shaping’. In shaping the experimenter starts by observing the whole operantrepertoire of the subject and then, by rewarding some responses and ignoring others,creates a pattern of behavior that is basically new. In this way, Skinner taughtpigeons how to play a form of ping pong. To accomplish such behavior successiveapproximations of the behavior are rewarded until the pigeon learns the associationbetween the lever and the food reward. To begin the shaping, the animal may berewarded for simply turning in the direction of the lever, then for moving towardthe lever, for brushing against the lever and finally for pawing the lever.

Once the desired behavioral response is achieved, reinforcement does not have tobe 100%; in fact, it can be maintained more successfully through what Skinner calls‘partial reinforcement schedules’. Partial reinforcement schedules include ‘intervalschedules’ and ‘ratio schedules’. In ‘fixed interval schedules’, the target response isreinforced after a fixed amount of time has passed since the last reinforcement. In‘variable interval schedules’, the amount of time that passes between reinforcementvaries. Whereas in ‘fixed ratio schedules’, a number of correct responses must occurbefore reinforcement can be varied. And finally, under variable ratio schedules,the number of correct repetitions of the correct response for reinforcement varies.


Variable interval and variable ratio schedules produce steadier and more persistentrates of response because the learners cannot predict when the reinforcement willcome although they know that they will eventually succeed. An example of this typeof reinforcement is the slot machines found in casinos, or the purchasing of lotterytickets. Shaping has proved valuable in regularizing and bringing under control thebehavior of severe schizophrenics (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993).

Conclusion

Our discussion of behaviorism has focused on classical and radical behaviorism.Skinner, a radical behaviorist, argued for the thesis that all behavior, public orprivate, is governed by the laws of classical conditioning (as articulated by Pavlovand Watson) or operant conditioning (as articulated by Thorndike and himself).Skinner claimed that thinking, choosing, and deciding could be analyzed as privatebehaviors with characteristic causal relations to overt behavior and subject to theprinciples of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1974). Skinner was critical of cognitivepsychology thinking it lacked epistemic discipline and was ignorant of behaviorism.

Watson, according to Hergenhahn and Olson (1993), had two lasting effectson psychology. First, he changed psychology from attempting to understandconsciousness to the prediction and control of behavior. Second, he made behaviorthe focus of psychology subject matter. Ever since Watson all psychologists essen-tially study behavior. Even cognitive psychologists use behavior to index postulatedcognitive events.

The Basics of Cognitivism

Researchers began to find limitations in the behaviorist approach to understandinglearning as early as the 1920s. Tolman (1932), for example, found that rats usedin an experiment appeared to have a mental map of the maze he was using. Whenhe closed off a certain portion of the maze, the rats did not bother to try a certainpath because they knew that it led to the blocked path. Even though visually therats could not see that the path would result in failure, they chose to take a longerroute that they knew would be successful.

In part, behaviorists were unable to explain certain social behaviors. For example,children do not imitate all behavior that has been reinforced. Furthermore, they maymodel new behavior days or weeks after their first observation without having beenreinforced for the behavior. Because of these observations, Bandura (1986) departedfrom the traditional operant conditioning explanation that the child must performand receive reinforcement before being able to learn. As a result, he stated in hisbook, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, thatan individual could model behavior by observing the behavior of another person.This, according to Dembo (1994) led Bandura to formulate his Social CognitiveTheory.


What is cognitivism? Instead of explaining human activities by means of stimulusand response, intellectual capacities are to be explained by postulating innermental states which combine semantic content and causal power to affect behavior.Cognitive scientists’ ambition in developing a naturalistic theory of mind is toprovide a unifying and satisfactory treatment of these two properties for the vastrange of our cognitive states (Davies, 1990). Good and Brophy (1990) in writingabout cognitivism state,

Cognitive theorists recognize that much learning involves associations established through contiguityand repetition. They acknowledge the importance of reinforcement, although they stress its role inproviding feedback about the correctness of responses over its role as a motivator. However, even whileaccepting such behavioristic concepts, cognitive theorists view learning as involving the acquisition orreorganization of the cognitive structures through which humans process and store information. (p. 187)

Similarly to behaviorism, cognitive psychology can be traced back to the ancientGreeks, Plato and Aristotle. According to Saettler (1990), cognitive revolutionbecame evident in American psychology during the 1950’s. One of the majortheorists in the development of cognitivism was Jean Piaget, who developed themain components of his theory as early as the 1920s. His ideas did not impactNorth America until the 1960s after Miller and Bruner founded the Harvard Centerfor Cognitive Studies.

Key concepts of cognitive theory Mergel (1998), using Good and Brophy’s (1990)work, summarized the key concepts of cognitive theory as follows:

– Schema – Schema is an internal knowledge structure whereby new infor-mation is compared to existing cognitive structures. Schema may be combined,extended or altered to accommodate new information.

– Three-stage information processing model – Input is first entered into a sensoryregister, then processed into short-term memory, and then transferred to long-term memory for storage and retrieval.

– Sensory register – The sensory register receives input from the senses whichlast from less than a second to four seconds and then disappears through decayor replacement. Much of the information is monitored at some level and actedupon if necessary.

– Short-term memory (STM) – Sensory input that is important or interesting istransferred from the sensory register to the STM. Memory can be retained herefor up to 20 seconds or more if rehearsed repeatedly. Short-term memory canhold up to 7 plus or minus 2 items. STM capacity can be increased if materialis chunked into meaningful parts.

– Long-term memory and storage (LTM) – LTM stores information from theSTM for long term use. Long-term memory has unlimited capacity and someinformation can be forced into LTM by rote memorization and over learning.Deeper levels of processing such as generating linkages between old and newinformation are much better for successful retention of material.


– Meaningful effects – Meaningful information is easier to learn and remember.If a learner links relatively meaningless information with prior schema it willbe easier to retain it.

– Serial position effects – It is easier to remember items from the beginningor end of a list rather than those in the middle, unless that item is distinctlydifferent.

– Practice effects – Practicing or rehearsing improves retention especially whenit is distributed practice. By distributing practices the learner associates thematerial with many different contexts rather than the one context afforded bymass practice.

– Transfer effects – The effects of prior learning on learning new tasks or materialhas a transfer effect.

– Interference effects – This occurs when prior learning interferes with thelearning of new material.

– Organization effects – When a learner categorizes inputs such as a grocerylist, it is easier to remember.

– Levels of processing effects – Words may be processed at a low-level sensoryanalysis of their physical characteristics to high-level semantic analysis oftheir meaning. The more deeply a word is processed the easier it will be toremember.

– State dependent effects – If learning takes place within a certain context it willbe easier to remember within that context rather than a new context.

– Mnemonic effects – Mnemonics are strategies used by learners to organizerelatively meaningless input into more meaningful images or semantic contexts.For example, the notes of a musical scale (EGBDF) can be remembered bythe rhyme: Every Good Boy Deserves Fruit.

– Schema effects – If information does not fit a person’s schema, it may be moredifficult for them to remember, and what they remember or how they conceiveof it, may also be affected by their prior schema.

– Advanced organizers – Ausebels advance organizers prepare the learner for thematerial they are about to learn. They are not simply outlines of the material,but are material that will enable the student to make sense out of the lesson.

Most information-processing psychologists equate input with information.According to Hergenhahn and Olson (1993), “Through experience, we learn whatevents have in common, how some events are related to other events, what eventsare to be approached, what events are to be avoided, what activities work in solvingproblems, and in general what to expect in a given situation” (p. 353). For infor-mation processing psychologists, the output or behavior is determined by the inputprovided by the situation and by an assessment of the situation, based partly onsimilar experiences.

Conclusion

Of all of the approaches to cognitive psychology, Piaget’s approach has mostinfluenced information-processing psychology (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993). His


concept of schema has been widely adapted by information-processing psychologistsand is viewed as an information-processing mechanism. Piaget and those using histheory assume that information from the environment is acted upon, organized,simplified, transformed, and used for further analysis or ignored by one’s cognitivestructures before it is acted upon.

The Basics of Constructivism

Good & Brophy (1990) claim that Bartlett, as early as 1932, pioneered what becamethe constructivist approach. Constructivism is best understood through such theoristsas Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky. Constructivists believe that learners construct theirown reality based upon previous experiences, mental structures and beliefs thatare used to interpret social reality. What a person knows is grounded in his/herperceptions of the physical and social experiences as comprehended by the mind(Jonasson, 1991). Constructivism has become a theory of learning that has emergedfrom the theory of knowing. Its epistemology draws from fields such as philosophy,psychology, and physical science.

What is constructivism? Constructivists view the learner as being more activelyinvolved in knowledge creation. “Constructivist theory views learning not assequential and linear, but as integrated and complex” (Foote, Vermette & Battaglia,2001, p. 24). Thus, from a constructivist perspective, learning involves the learner insense-making activities that are shaped by prior knowledge and experiences (Piaget,1974), that occur through social interaction (Bruner, 1990) and that are contextuallysituated (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). According to constructivist learningtheory, activities are structured so learners create and control the development oftheir own learning.

Fosnot (1989, p. 19) defines constructivism based on four principles. First,knowledge is based on past constructions. Constructivists assert that we can notknow the world in a true objective sense, “separate from ourselves and ourexperiences” (p. 19). That is, we can only know the world through our frame-works that helps us to organize and interpret our perceptions. Second, construc-tions arise through assimilation and accommodation. Knowledge is not static; ourprevious learning affects our new learning. Third, learning is an organic process ofinvention, rather than a mechanical process of accumulation. The learner activelycreates knowledge and does not passively receive it from the environment. Fourth,meaningful learning occurs through reflection and resolution of cognitive conflict.Constructivists’ believe that deep learning occurs during periods of confusion, novelsituations and over an extended period of time. In essence, cognitive dissonanceis important in instigating thinking. For it is by understanding such circumstancesthat our mind becomes active.

Moll (1990) asserted that constructivist theory is not a modern approach. Heargued that knowledge is always a construction, inevitably reflecting the jointcontribution of subject and object. This idea can be traced to the Kantian resolutionof idealist (all knowledge is mental construction) and empiricist (all knowledge


is a copy of an existing external world) interpretations of how we come to knowthe world.

In the next section we address some of the key theorists that developed the rootsof constructivism. These include Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky.

John Dewey Dewey challenged traditional educational practices and launched acampaign for the “continuous reconstruction of education.” Organized in 1919, TheProgressive Education Association pushed for educational reforms that promotedcreative learning activities in classrooms, use of real life activities, and experimen-tation in curriculum design and evaluation, and that pushed for closer relations withthe community.

Dewey (1910) was particularly concerned about the nature of knowledge, the roleof the teacher, and the context for learning. Dewey was critical of logical positivismwhich dominated education at the time. He felt that by viewing knowledge ascomplete and immutable was a sure recipe for boredom. He believed that educationshould mirror the complexities of life. “Instruction in subject-matter that does notfit into any problem already stirring in the student’s own experience or that is notpresented in such a way as to arouse a problem, is worse than useless for intellectualpurposes” (p. 199).

Dewey saw education being inextricably linked to life itself, and thereforeeducation needed to be linked to personal experience. Foote et al. (2001) in analyzingDewey’s views on education stated, “His strongest argument was that schoolingwas not preparation for life, it was life itself [emphasis in original] and, therefore,education shared an organic and inseparable connection with personal experience”(p. 15).

For Dewey, knowledge production resides within the learner and therefore theaim of education was to provide the means for connecting learning with personalexperience. He believed that the role of the teacher was to enable the studentto function as an autonomous, creative and empowered learner. Consequently theteacher’s role was to be a facilitator and pathfinder.

Dewey’s (1938) position about the learning environment was critical. Hisprogressive philosophy did not allow for chaotic classroom environments, rather itwas the duty of teachers to see “what direction an experience is heading and tosupport environments where creativity could flourish” (p. 38).

Jean Piaget Piaget, like Dewey, theorized that “learning occurs when new infor-mation becomes intimately connected with experience and prior knowledge” (Footeet al., 2001, p. 17). For him, all humans are born with cognitive structures thatallow the person to organize and process information. He called this informationprocessing structures schema, which we had described previously under cognition.Three elements of his theory are important for understanding constructivism: assim-ilation, accommodation and equilibrium. Assimilation occurs when new informationis incorporated into an existing scheme. A three year old can, for example, differ-entiate different breeds of dog from a cat. Accommodation occurs when an existingschema has to be modified. For example, our conceptions of a male nurse or female


welder may result in some cognitive dissonance because we have not thoughtof these people in those roles. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individualexperiences incongruence between current schema and the new information. Thisdisequilibrium causes the learner to seek new understanding either through assimi-lation or accommodation in an attempt to establish equilibrium. According to Footeet al. (2001), learning is “a constant cycle of editing and revising, crafting andreformulating theories about how the world functions” (p. 20).

The theory of knowing, as first articulated by Piaget, was essentially biological innature. As the organism encounters new events or experiences it tries to assimilatethese into existing cognitive structures or adjusts the structures to accommodatethe new information. The schema are reformed or formed based on experiences,beliefs, values, socio-cultural histories, and prior perceptions.

Lev Vygotsky Vygotsky was a Russian psychologist whose theories pertaining toconstructivism were not known in North America and Europe until much later.Vygotsky, who benefited from the work of Piaget, studied human thought processes.He made two important additions to Piaget’s work: the notions of ‘zone of proximaldevelopment’ and ‘scaffolding’. Vygotsky’s theory of learning, known as thecultural-historical theory of human development, is seen as his principal scientificachievement. Crucial to his vision was the centrality of interaction among adultsand children for humane personal development. His zone of proximal developmentis the distance between the actual development level as determined by independentproblem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers(Moll, 1990, p. 139).

Vygotsky contends there are three levels of knowing. At the first level are tasksthat one knows and can do without assistance. At the middle level are tasks onedoes not fully comprehend, but with assistance can master. At highest level aretasks the individual cannot master at the present time. Vygotsky claims that a personlearns best when the work is at the middle level, just above what is presently under-stood. This level is called the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Foote et al., 2001,p. 22).

His second theoretical construct, scaffolding, refers to the assistance we receivefrom someone in an attempt to learn something new. According to Vygotsky, thenew information must be “connected in some way to what we already know” (p. 23).In other words, new knowledge cannot just be transferred unless it is connected toprevious learning.

Assumptions and contribution of constructivism Constructivist theory claims that:

– Learning is constructed from experience;– Learning is a personal interpretation of the world;– Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of

experience;


– Conceptual growth comes from the negotiation of meaning, the sharing ofmultiple perspectives and the changing of our internal representations throughcollaborative learning; and

– Learning should be situated in realistic settings and testing should be integratedwith the task and not used as a separate activity (Merrill, 1991).

Conclusion

Constructivist theory has had a considerable impact on teaching, leading andlearning. Our work on learning communities (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000), forexample, is based upon constructivist ideology and quantum physics. School staffusing constructivism attempt to change the context within which students learn.In such schools students are provided authentic learning experiences in a collab-orative environment and reflection and experimentation are encouraged. In theseenvironments learning is at the heart of teaching and leading. In the process ofencountering new experiences and through reflective interpretation, the individuallearns and comes to know.

EVOLUTION OF LEARNING THEORIES

While reading about learning theories, you may have noticed that it is difficultto pin down what theory a certain theorist belongs to. For example, a name youoriginally thought was in the cognitivist category shows up in the constructivistcategory (e.g., Piaget). This problem is often the result of theorists and their ideasevolving over a period of time. Davidson (1998) provides the following example:

Considered by most to be representative of behaviourist learning paradigm, Gagne’s theory of learningand events of instruction have evolved progressively to approach a more cognitive theory. His discussionof relating present information and past knowledge (event #3) and the inclusion of learning transfer(event # 9) are indicative of his shift toward constructivism.

Mergel (1998), in her analysis of the development of learning theories, comparedthe evolution of learning theories to the evolution of atomic theory. In the next twosections, we examine this analogy.

Atomic Theory

Since the beginning of history, people have theorized about the nature of matter.The ancient Greeks thought that matter was composed of fire, water, earth and air.Subsequently, continuous theory claimed that matter could be subdivided infinitelyinto smaller and smaller pieces without change. Later Greek philosophers came upwith the idea that matter was made up of particles so small they could not be viewed.This theory was referred to as the orbital model and the quantum-mechanical model(Dorin, Demmin & Gabel, 1990).


Quantum Theory

Because we cannot see an electron or learning with our eyes, we use modelsto depict what actually constitutes the construct. In knowledge construction ourlearning models are mental pictures that enable us to understand that which wecan never see. In Figure 2 we depict the growth of two constructs, atomic theorydevelopment and learning theory development, to demonstrate how our theorieshave evolved over time.

Learning theories, like the study of matter, can be traced back to the ancientGreeks. In the 18th century, with the onset of scientific inquiry, people began tostudy and develop models of learning. The behaviorist learning theory centeredon what was observable. Behaviorism can be compared to Dalton’s atom, whichwas simply a particle. Using overt behavior, people began to realize that therewas something happening inside the organism that needed to be considered, sinceit affected overt behavior. And thus, cognitivism was born. Similar developmentsoccurred in the physical sciences when scientists such as Bohr realized that theatom was more complex than originally observed. Theorists soon realized that theatom was not stable. Similarly, the constructivist learning theory tells us that eachorganism is constantly in flux, and although the old models work to a certain degree,other factors need to be considered. Can we consider the constructivist approachto be the quantum theory of learning? Quantum theory is derived from previousatomic theories. Constructivism builds upon behaviorism and cognitivism in thesense that it accepts multiple perspectives and maintains that learning is a personalinterpretation of the world. We argue that behavioral strategies can be part of aconstructivist learning situation, if the learner chooses and finds that type of learningsuitable to their experiences and learning styles. Cognitive approaches have a placein constructivism since constructivism recognizes the concept of schema and buildsupon prior knowledge and experience. The greatest differences among the theories

Figure 2. Comparison of Atomic They Development to learning Theory Development


may occur in regards to evaluation. In behaviorism and cognitivism, evaluationis based on meeting specific objectives, whereas in constructivsm evaluation ismore subjective. Perhaps the learning theory used is dependent upon the learningsituation, just as the Bohr atom is often used to introduce the concept of protons,neutrons and electrons.

Distinguishing One Learning Theory from Another

Ertmer and Newby (1993) use Schunk’s five definitive questions plus two of theirown in evaluating instructional design to distinguish among the various learningtheories:

1. How does learning occur?2. Which factors influence learning?3. What is the role of memory?4. How does transfer occur?5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?6. What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to instructional

design?7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

This schema serves as a useful model for differentiating the various learningtheories. By responding to these questions we are better able to differentiate themajor differences between theories; however, are theories necessarily mutuallyexclusive from one another? A model to integrate objectivism and constructivismwas suggested by Johannes Cronje (2000). If objectivism and constructivism areindeed opposites, then any given learning experience would be either objectivist orconstructivist in nature, or somewhere in between, but certainly, as one goes up theother would have to come down. Cronje’s model places objectivism and construc-tivism at right angles to each other so that they are complementary to each other.In doing so, four quadrants can be considered, Chaos, Instruction, Construction andIntegration. If you consider serendipitous and incidental learning to be low in bothobjectivism and constructivism, (Chaos) then is it possible to have learning eventsthat are appropriately high in both instruction and construction (Integration)?

LEARNING THEORIES AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

In this section we analyze each of the learning theories and their implications forinstructional design using Mergel’s (1998) framework.

Behaviorism and Instructional Design

Saettler (1990) in his book, The History of American Educational Technology,indicates that behaviorism did not have an impact on educational technology until


the 1960s, which was about the time that behaviorism began to decline in popularityin American psychology. He identified six areas that demonstrated the impact ofbehaviorism on educational technology: the behavioral objectives movement; theteaching machine phase; the programmed instruction movement; individualizedinstructional approaches, computer-assisted learning and the systems approach toinstruction.

Behavioral objectives movement A behavioral objective requires that learningobjectives be stated in specified, quantifiable and measurable terms. To developbehavioral objectives, a learning task must be broken down into specific measurabletasks. Learning success is then assessed using tests to measure each learningobjective.

According to Saettler (1990), Franklin Bobbitt developed the modern conceptof behavioral objectives in the early 1900s; however, other sources state thatbehaviourism may have been erroneously attributed as being the source of thepractice of writing explicit objectives. Herbert Spencer, a curriculum developerfrom the mid nineteenth century gave rise to the idea of specific behavioural objec-tives that include evidence of cognitive processes (Smith & Ragan 2005). Thus,the term “behavioural objectives” may be somewhat of a misleading term, sincethe following paragraph discusses behavioural objectives that include the cognitiveelement.

Numerous taxonomic analyses of learning behaviors have been developed.Perhaps the best known are Bloom’s ‘Cognitive Taxonomy’ and Gagne’s‘Taxonomy of Learning’. In 1956 Bloom and his colleagues began their devel-opment of a taxonomy in the cognitive, attitudinal (affective) and psychomotordomains. Their six domains were: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,synthesis, and evaluation. Robert Gagne who developed his taxonomy of learningin 1972 has five categories: verbal information, intellectual skill, cognitive strategy,attitude and motor skill. These taxonomies have been used extensively in educationto enhance learning. In Bloom’s taxonomy, synthesis and evaluation are consideredto be the highest level of student learning.

Behavioral objectives were first popularized in military and industrial training.Mager (1962) who wrote, Preparing Instructional Objectives, prompted interest inthe use of behavioral objectives among educators. Gagne and Briggs who also hadbackgrounds in military and industrial psychology developed a set of instructionsfor writing objectives based on Mager’s work. Their model included the elementsof action, object, situation, tools and constraints, and capability to be learned. Bythe late 1960s most teachers were writing and using behavioral objectives (Saettler,1990).

Bloom extended his work on learning to include mastery learning. His formulafor mastery learning was to pretest, teach, test the result, adapt the procedure, teachand test again to the point of actual learning (Saettler, 1990). Mastery learningassumes that all students can master the materials given appropriate instruction andtime.


Teaching machines and programmed instruction movement B. F. Skinner isprobably the best known advocate of teaching machines and programmed learning.Other contributors included the following:

– Pressey – introduced a multiple-choice machine at the 1925 American Psycho-logical Association meeting.

– Peterson – a former student of Pressey’s who developed “chemosheets” inwhich the learner checked his/her answers with a chemical-dipped swab.

– Crowder – designed a branched style of programming for the US Air Force inthe 1950s to train troubleshooters to find malfunctions in electronic equipment.

– Skinner – using operant conditioning Skinner’s teaching machine required thelearner to complete or answer a question and then receive feedback on thecorrectness of the response (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993).

Individualized approaches to instruction Similar to programmed learning andteaching machines, individualized instruction began in the early 1900s and wasrevived in the 1960s. The Keller Plan, Individually Prescribed Instruction, Programfor Learning in Accordance with Needs, and Individually Guided Education wereall examples of individualized instruction (Saettler, 1990).

The Keller Plan (1963) was developed by F. S. Keller, a colleague of Skinner,and used in university-college classes. The main features of the plan includedindividually paced learning, mastery learning, lectures and demonstrations that weremotivational rather than critical information, and that used proctors which permittedtesting, immediate scoring, tutoring, and personal-social aspects of the educationalprocess.

Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) (1964) was developed by the LearningResearch and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh. The mainfeatures of IPI were prepared units; behavioral objectives and planned instructionalsequences which were used for reading, math and science. The units included apre-test and post-test for each unit and the material was continually evaluated andupgraded to meet behavioral objectives.

Program for Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN) (1967) headed byJon C. Flanagan, PLAN was developed under the sponsorship of the AmericanInstitute for Research (AIR). Initially, Westinghouse Learning Corporation and 14school districts were involved. The project was abandoned in the 1970s becauseof the expensive upgrading costs. The main features of PLAN were that schoolsselected items from about 6,000 behavioral objectives to be used in instructionalmodules. Each instructional module took about two weeks instruction and consistedof approximately five objectives. Emphasis was on mastery learning and includedremedial learning plus retesting (Saettler, 1990).

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) Computer-assisted instruction was first usedin education and training during the early 1950s. Early work was done byIBM and grew rapidly in the 1960s when federal funding for research anddevelopment in educational and industrial laboratories was provided. In an


attempt to assess the effectiveness of CAI, the federal government developedtwo competing companies (Control Data Corporation and Mitre Corporation)who designed Program Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations (PLATO) andTime Shared, Interactive, Computer-Controlled Information Television (TICCIT)projects. Despite the money and research efforts, by the mid-seventies it wasapparent that CAI was not going to be the success that people had anticipated. CAIwas very much drill and practice controlled by the program developer rather thanthe learner. Minimal branching of instruction was implemented, although TICCITdid allow the learner to determine the sequence of instruction or to skip certaintopics (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993).

Systems approach to instruction The systems approach developed in the 1950sand 1960s focused on language laboratories, teaching machines, programmedinstruction, multimedia presentations and the use of computer mediated instruction.Most systems approaches were similar to computer flow charts with steps thatthe designer moves through during the development of instruction (See Figure 3).Rooted in the military and business world, the systems approach involvedsetting goals and objectives, analyzing resources, devising a plan of action andcontinuous evaluation and modification of the instructional program (Saettler,1990).

Cognitivism and Instructional Design

Although cognitive psychology emerged in the late 1950s, it was not until the late1970s that cognitive science began to have its influence on instructional design.Cognitive science shifted the emphasis from external behavior to a concern with the

Figure 3. Standard Systems View of Instructional Systems Design


internal mental processes of the mind and how effective learning can be promoted.The design models that had been developed in the behaviorist tradition were notsimply thrown out, instead the ‘task analysis’ and ‘learner analysis’ elements ofthe model were embellished. The new models addressed component processes oflearning such as knowledge coding and representation, information storage andretrieval, as well as the incorporation and integration of new knowledge withprevious information (Saettler, 1990). Because cognitivism and behaviorism areboth governed by an objectivist view of knowledge, the transition from behavioralinstructional design principles to those of a cognitive style was not difficult. Thegoal of instruction remained the communication or transfer of knowledge to learnersin the most efficient, effective manner possible (Bednar, et al., 1995). For example,the breaking down of a task into smaller steps works for a behaviorist who is tryingto find the most efficient method of shaping a learner’s behavior. The cognitivescientist, on the other hand, would analyze a task, break it down into smaller stepsor chunks and use that information to develop instruction that moves from simpleto more complex building blocks based on prior schema.

The influence of cognitive science in instructional design is evidenced by the useof advance organizers, mnemonic devices, metaphors, chunking into meaningfulparts and the careful organization of instructional materials from simple to complex.

Cognitivism and computer-based instruction Computers process information ina similar fashion to how cognitive scientists think humans process information:receive the information, store the information and retrieve the information. Thisanalogy makes the possibility of programming a computer to think like a personconceivable.

Artificial intelligence (AI) involves the computer working to supply appro-priate responses to student input from the computer’s data base. A trouble-shooting program is one example of these programs. Other programs such asPLATO (encourages mathematical skill development), LOGOS (designed to helpchildren program a computer), BUGGY (diagnoses student mathematical error), andSCHOLAR (teaches facts about South American geography in a Socratic method)are examples of programs that were developed within a cognitive science paradigm.

Constructivism and Instructional Design

The shift of the instructional design practice from behaviorism to cognitivism doesnot seem as dramatic as the move toward constructivism, since behaviorism andcognitivism are both objective in nature. Behaviorism and cognitivism both supportthe practice of analyzing a task and breaking it down into component chunks,establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives. Onthe other hand, constructivism, promotes a more open-ended learning experiencewhere the methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may, in fact,not be the same for each learner.

Because they both conceive of learning as a mental activity (Ertmer & Newby,1993), constructivism is considered to be a branch of cognitivism, however,


the objective side of cognitivism supports the use of systems approach modelsto instructional design, while constructivism does not. Jonassen (1994) pointsout that instructional design based on objectivism has a predetermined outcomeand intervenes in the learning process to map a pre-determined concept ofreality into the learner’s mind. Designing from a constructivist viewpoint recog-nizes that because learning outcomes are not always predictable, instructionshould foster, not control, learning. With this in mind, Jonassen (1994) suggeststhe following:

a constructivist design process should be concerned with designing environments which support theconstruction of knowledge, which:

– is based on internal negotiation (a process of articulating mental models, using those models toexplain, predict, and infer, and reflecting on their utility – known to Piaget as accommodationand to Norman and Rumelhart as tuning and restructuring).

– is based on social negotiation (a process of sharing a reality with others using the same or similarprocesses to those used in internal negotiation)

– is facilitated by exploration of real world environments and invention of new environments,processes that are regulated by each individual’s intentions, needs, and/or expectations

– results in mental models, and provides meaningful, authentic contexts for learning and using theknowledge they construct, which should be supported by case based problems which have beenderived from and situated in the real world with all of its uncertainty and complexity and basedupon authentic tasks (those likely to be encountered in real life practice)

– requires an understanding of its own thinking processes and problem solving methods becauseproblems in that context are different than problems in other contexts.

– is modeled for learners by skilled performers but not necessarily expert performers.– requires collaboration among learners and with the teacher, who is more of a coach or mentor

and not a purveyor of knowledge– engages and facilitates social negotiation– provides an intellectual toolkit to facilitate an internal negotiation which is necessary for building

mental models (pp. 37–38).

Technological advances since the 1980s have enabled designers to move toward amore constructivist approach to the development of instruction. One of the mostuseful tools for the constructivist design is hypertext and hypermedia because itallows for a branched design rather than a linear instructional format. Hyperlinkallows for learner control, which is important for constructivist learning; however,there are some concerns over the novice learner becoming lost in a sea of hyper-media. To address this concern, Jonassen, Mayes and McAlleese (1993) suggestthat each phase of knowledge acquisition requires different types of learning andthat initial knowledge acquisition is perhaps best served by classical instruction withpredetermined learning outcomes, sequenced instructional interaction and criterion-referenced evaluation while the more advanced second phase of knowledge acqui-sition is more suited to a constructivist environment.

Much of the literature on constructivist design suggests that learners should notsimply be “set loose” in a hypermedia or hypertext environment, but that a mixof old and new (objective and constructive) instruction/learning design be imple-mented. Not all theorists advocate a mix and match strategy for instructional design.


Bednar et al. (1995) challenge the eclectic approach to instructional design systemsby pointing out that “…abstracting concepts and strategies from the theoreticalposition that spawned them strip them of their meaning” (p.101).

Despite the fact that instructional design from a constructivist viewpoint isdifferent from the historical systems-based design strategies, current literaturesuggests that there has been a cultural shift toward learning environments andapproaches based on social constructivism where learning is situated in contextand knowledge is constructed in communities of practice through social interaction.(Campbell, Schwier & Kenny, 2005)

Application of Learning Theories to the Practiceof Instructional Design

How are learning theories applied to the practice of instructional design (ID)? Isone theoretical approach more easily used compared to another? As previouslydiscussed, it is generally accepted that ID was rooted in behaviorist theory andthat after some time cognitive theory became dominant. The move from behavioralto cognitive theory was not a giant leap since many of the instructional strategiesadvocated and utilized by behaviorists were also used by cognitivists, but fordifferent reasons. Behaviorists assess learners to determine the starting point forinstruction, while cognitivists look at the learner to determine their predispositionto learning (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). In recent years, several ID Models based onconstructivist learning theory have been developed, but it is not certain as to whatdegree these or in fact, any ID models , are being used exactly as prescribed in thepractice of instructional design. (Kenny, et al., 2005)

When designing from a behaviorist/cognitivist perspective, the designer analyzesthe situation and sets a goal. Individual tasks are broken down and learning objec-tives are developed. Evaluation consists of determining whether the criteria for theobjectives have been met. In this way, the designer decides what is important forthe learner to know and attempts to transfer that knowledge to the learner. Thelearning package resembles more of a closed system, and although it may allow forsome branching and remediation, the learner is still constrained by the designer’sframework.

Designing from a constructivist perspective requires that the designers producea product that is more facilitative in nature. The content is not pre-specified andthe direction of learning is determined by the learner. Assessment is much moresubjective because it does not depend on specific quantitative criteria, but ratherthe process and self-evaluation of the learner. Instead of the standard pencil andpaper tests of mastery learning, assessment in a constructivist environment may bemore performance-based and include portfolios or projects.

Because of the divergent, subjective nature of constructive learning, it is easier forthe designer to work from the systems perspective. That is not to say that classicalinstructional design techniques are better than constructive design techniques, butit is easier, less time consuming and most likely less expensive to design a ‘closed


system’ rather than an ‘open system’. It is probable that different theories areappropriate for certain audiences and learning tasks. For example, informationprocessing models may be best suited for training, while constructivist models formore dynamic educational situations. (Bichelmeyer et al., 2002)

IS THERE ONE BEST LEARNING THEORY FOR INSTRUCTIONALDESIGN?

Shiffman (1995) contends that a good foundation in learning theory is essentialfor the preparation of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) professionals because itpermeates all dimensions of ISD. Knowledge of the various learning theories isuseful because it opens our eyes to other possibilities and ways of viewing theworld. Different learners and situations require the application of different learningtheories.

The function of the Instructional Designer is to apply the theory. Tying ID to onetheory may not be the best way of designing learning materials. Thus, ISD profes-sionals need to be pragmatic in their ID work. They need to understand the strengthsand weaknesses of each learning theory to optimize their use in appropriate instruc-tional design strategy. According to Schwier (1995), we must allow the circum-stances surrounding the learning situation dictate which approach is most appro-priate. We need to realize that some situations require highly prescriptive solutionsand others may be better suited to the learner controlling his/her environment.

Jonnassen, Mays and McAleese (1993) identified different learning needs andmatched them to what they believe are appropriate learning theory approaches.For introductory learning, learners usually have little directly transferable priorknowledge about the particular skill or knowledge. As a result, this stage of IDclassical instructional design is most suitable because the learning is predeter-mined, constrained, sequential and criterion-referenced. At this stage the learner candevelop some anchors for further exploration. For advanced knowledge acquisition,constructivist approaches may be introduced, since, at the expert stage of learning,the learner is able to make intelligent decisions within the learning environment.Recognizing that there are different learning levels, Jonassen, Mays and McAleesestress that it is important that the context be considered before recommending aspecific methodology.

In accordance with the above discussion, Ertmer and Newby (1993), aftercomparing behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, concluded that the instruc-tional approach used for novice learners may not be sufficiently stimulatingfor learners who are familiar with the learning content. Consequently, they donot indicate one single learning theory, but stress that instructional strategy andcontent being addressed is dependent on the learners’ level. They claim that abehavioral approach can facilitate mastery of content of a profession (knowingwhat); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics wheredefined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and


constructivist strategies are best suited to dealing with ill-defined and complexproblems using reflection-in-action.

They further elaborate that behavioral tasks require a low amount ofprocessing such as rote memorization and require strategies most frequentlyassociated with behavioral design (e.g., stimulus-response type). Cognitivetasks (e.g., classifications) are primarily associated with strategies having astrong cognitive emphasis (e.g., schematic organization, analogical reasoning,algorithmic problem-solving). Constructivist tasks, on the other hand, requirehigh levels of processing (e.g., heuristic problem-solving) and are frequentlybest learned using the constructivist perspective (e.g., situated learning, socialnegotiation).

Ertmer and Newby believe that the strategies promoted by different learningtheories overlap and that learning theory strategies are concentrated along differentpoints of a continuum depending on the level of cognitive processing required.Figure 4 depicts this comparison. Based on their suggestions, the designer can drawfrom a large number of learning strategies to meet the diverse learning situations.It appears that there is not one best learning theory for the practice of instruc-tional design, but rather informed application of theory for the appropriate leaning

Figure 4. Level of Cognitive Processing Required by Task Based on Level of Learner’s Task Knowledge


situation. It is also interesting, that although ID models derived from learningtheory are valuable, recent research suggests that ‘ID models are useful to designersand inform practice, but few if any designers actually use models to confine theirpractice’ (Kenny et al., 2005).

LEARNING THEORIES AND LEADING: PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTS

There is a considerable amount of literature on the influences of learning theory oneducational leadership. Leadership as a field of study has been influenced by thevarious movements in learning and leading during the various eras and each viewcontinues to exert some influence on schools today.

Behavioral Approaches to Learning and Leading

Behavioral theories of learning and leading are based on the view that humanphenomena can be measured and predicted. Newtonian science and social andpsychological theories advanced the view that the world is predictable, static, andclocklike. Using empirical methods the view was that behavior could be predicted.In the behavioral view of leading and learning, consequences of behavior will to agreat extent determine whether behavior will be repeated.

In the classroom, behavioral psychology meant that teachers breakdown largeconcepts into smaller parts and discrete skills. Teaching is viewed as an isolatedactivity where drill and practice and large group instruction dominate. It was also anera of behavioral objectives as espoused by Mager (1962). Interestingly, behavioralobjectives are still very much alive, especially in special education and learningcommunity programs.

Initially scientific management based on Taylor’s work influenced organizationalbehavior. This view saw organizations as machines. For Taylor, what managersneeded to do was to study human motion through work study analysis of perfor-mance. Hoy and Miskel (1991) claimed that Chester Barnard originated much of thebehavioral science approach with his organizational analysis. Later systems theoryevolved which saw organizations as inputs, throughputs and outputs. In educationsystems models included such programs as Performance Evaluation and ReviewTechniques (PERT), and Planning, Programming and Budgeting Systems (PPBS). Inthe early studies of organizations using systems methodology, environment, bound-aries, feedback, and other elements were treated as a set of scientific variables. Thefocus of behaviorist management was to constrain uncertainty in the organization.

Behaviorist models of leadership can be traced back to Watson and Skinner. Themodel was based on two simple assumptions. First, behavior is essentially deter-mined by the environment through basic reinforcement processes: environmentalstimuli, behavioral responses, and outcomes. Second, behavior is subject to certainlaws. Human behavior can be modified through reinforcement.


For behaviorists, people are motivated by external events called reinforcers andthrough positive and negative reinforcement processes (Skinner, 1974). The appli-cation of behaviorist models by management assumes that employees desire rewardsof positive reinforcement and recognition, which will motive them to work harder.Leadership according to this model requires the leader to (1) inform subordinatesabout desirable behaviors that will be rewarded and which behaviors will not berewarded; (2) provide continuous feedback to employees regarding the nature andquality of their work; (3) recognize employees for good work; and (4) rewarddifferently depending on the performance level.

Using behavioral theory, numerous studies were done to identify the effectsthat leaders’ behavior had on subordinate work productivity and work satisfaction.Numerous leadership studies were conducted using the theory including the OhioState University leadership studies, the Michigan State University studies and theBlake and Mouton Managerial Grid (Razik & Swanson, 2001). Burns (1976) modelof transactional leadership which saw leaders guiding or motivating their followersin the direction of established goals by clarifying roles and task requirements, wouldalso fit into behaviorist theory.

Hoy and Miskel (2001) in summarizing behavioral teaching, and by implicationsleading, suggested a number of guiding principles:

– Provide clear and systematic praise, but only if it is deserved.– Recognize genuine accomplishments.– Attribute success to effort and ability to build confidence.– Recognize positive behavior in ways that individuals’ value.– Set clear goals and expectations so that reinforcement is clear.– Use a variety of reinforcers and let individuals choose among these.– Adapt the punishment to fit the misbehavior (pp. 45–46).

Suffice it to say that behaviorist theories of leadership are still evident in mostschools and districts today.

Cognitive Perspective to Learning and Leading

Cognitive research emerged with the developments of the computer and the desireto understand language development. With the growing recognition that learningis an active mental process, educational psychologists became intrigued with howknowledge was represented and recalled. Recent cognitive approaches suggest thatwhat we bring to the learning situation determines in large part what we payattention to, learn, forget and remember (Alexander, 1996). Our existing knowledgebase serves as a scaffold for future learning

The information-processing model is based on the analogy of the mind and thecomputer and views three storage systems: the sensory, short-term memory andlong-term memory. Sensory memory is a holding system that retains stimuli brieflyso that perceptual analysis can occur. Short-term memory holds from five to ninepieces of information for about 20 seconds. Information is encoded and perceptions


determine what aspects will be retained in short-term memory. Long-term memorycan store large amounts of information for long periods of time. Information isencoded visually or verbally or both. Activation can bring back what is stored inlong-term memory (Razik & Swanson, 2001; Hoy & Miskel, 2001).

Hoy and Miskel (2001) summarize some of the guiding principles for teachingand leading using cognitivist theory:

– Perception and attention are guided by previous knowledge.– Help learners focus on the most important aspects of knowledge.– Provide review and repetition of information.– Make sure that individuals have the prerequisite knowledge to understand new

information.

Cognitive motivation theories have been used extensively in organizations. The basicpremise of these theories is that the major determinant of human behavior is thebeliefs, expectations, and anticipations individuals have about future events. Cognitivetheories view behavior as being purposeful, goal-directed, and based on consciousintentions (Hoy & Miskel, 1991). Three cognitive models have received considerableattention in organizations: need theory, expectancy theory, and goal theory.

Needs hierarchy theory Perhaps Maslow’s (1970) needs hierarchy theory is thebest known of the three. According to this theory, there exists a hierarchy of humanneeds. At the basic levels are the physiological needs which are the biologicalfunctions. At the second level, are the need for safety and security. On the thirdlevel, are belonging, love and social needs. The need for esteem or the sense ofaccomplishment exists at the fourth level. Finally, at the fifth and highest level isthe need for self-actualization.

Maslow would argue that schools’ should provide for the highest level of needsatisfaction and that individuals operating at the highest level of need satisfactionare the best performers. Consequently, it is the leader’s responsibility to ensure thatthe need satisfaction of all staff and students is taken care of.

Another example of needs theory is the two-factor theory of human motivationas outlined by Herzberg and his colleagues (1959). His motivation-hygiene theoryclaimed that one set of factors contribute to job satisfaction and a separate set offactors contribute to job dissatisfaction. The motivating factors were advancement,responsibility, work itself, recognition and achievement. The hygiene factors wereinterpersonal relations with subordinates and peers, supervision, working conditionsand personal life. While Herzberg’s theory has been found lacking, it neverthelesscontributes to our understanding of job design based on responsibility, achievementand recognition.

Expectancy theory During the late 1960s through the early 1980s expectancytheory (also called valence-instrumentality-expectancy) achieved considerableuse. Expectancy theory has had considerable use in psychology basedon Tolman’s (1932) work, but its use in organizations was popularized by Vroom(1964) and Porter and Lawler (1968).


Expectancy theory is based on two premises. First, individuals subjectivelyevaluate the expected value of outcomes based on their actions, and they choosehow they behave. Second, forces in the individual and the environment combine todetermine behavior.

The concepts of expectancy, instrumentality and valence are important parts ofexpectancy theory. Expectancy (E) is the subjective probability or degree of certaintythat a given effort will yield a specified performance level. Instrumentality (i) refersto the perceived probability that an incentive will be provided after a given level ofperformance. Valence (V) is the perceived positive or negative value that an individualascribes to potential goals, outcomes, rewards or incentive for working in an organi-zation. When expectancy and instrumentality is high and the valence is positive, thenit is likely that the individual will be motivated to work hard.

GOAL THEORY Goal theory is premised on the belief that the intention to achievea goal is a primary motivating force for behavior. Locke and Latham (1990), whoare generally recognized for the development of goal theory, identify four goalmechanisms. First, goals increase attention to the immediate task. Second, goalsincrease the effort expanded on activities. Third, goals increase persistence. Finally,goal setting increases motivation and performance by encouraging the developmentof specific task strategies. Research has substantiated that goals are a major sourceof work motivation but the theory does have a number of weaknesses according toHoy & Miskel (1991).

Goal theory is applied in various school practices. For example, many supervisorysystems for teachers and administrators are based on cognitive processes (Glatthorn,1990; Costa & Garmston, 1984). Total Quality Management (TQM) processes arealso based on goal-setting and improvement. More recently, SMART goals (specificand strategic, measurable, achievable, realistic and targeted) are also cognitivelybased (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2001).

Organizational learning An area that has received considerable attention inorganizations is the notion of organizational learning (Senge, 1990). The literatureon organizational learning is closely allied to that of cognitive science. Robinson(2002), in analyzing organizational learning, problem solving and models of mind,states, “When organizational learning is embedded in the work environment, thecognitive loads on individuals is reduced, for they do not have to notice andverbalize all the relevant perceptual inputs, nor do they have to imagine or designall the ouputs, for their own responses are scaffolded by the responses of other andsalient features of the environment” (p. 785). She quotes Clark in explaining thelearning that occurs,

We use intelligence to structure our environment so that we can succeed with less intelligence…it isthe human brain plus these chunks of external scaffolding that finally constitutes the smart, rationalinference engine that we call mind (p. 785).

Coherentist theory Recently, Evers and Lakomski (2000) have developed anaturalistic-coherentist theory of leadership. They contend that neural networkmodels of cognition hold the promise of allowing us to understand a “wider set of


decision considerations that influence decision-makers” (p. 18). They view cognitionas situated action and symbol processing. Based on assumptions about humancognition, they use the notion of organizational learning as the vehicle for buildingstrong organizational cultures. They contend that effective practice depends on theactivation of appropriate neuronal patterns of leaders and followers. They argue thatsince these neuronal patterns do not follow hierarchical structures, “the potentialfor effective practice resides throughout the organization” (p. 58). Consequently,organizational learning is the key to effective leader practice with “the consequenceof creating appropriate web-like organizational structures which maximize the localproduction of knowledge and facilitate the correction of error through feedbackmechanisms” (p. 58).

In summary, Sergiovanni (2003) in outlining a cognitive approach to leadershipidentifies a number of principles for implementing what he calls ‘idea-basedleadership’:

– The task of leadership is to provide purposing to the school.– Idea-based leadership can help to create the motivating conditions.– Seek to serve rather than be served.– Pay attention to the grammar of leadership.– Humility is a leadership virtue.

He contends that cognitive leadership is better than personality based or rules basedleadership. “Cognitive leadership works because it has more to do with purposes,values and frameworks that obligate us morally….” (p. 24).

CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEADING

Constructivist theories are grounded in the educational philosophy of Dewey and theresearch of Piaget and Vygotsky, to mention a few. There is no one constructivisttheory of learning and leading. Hoy and Miskel (2001) identify three differentapproaches: rational, radical, and dialectical constructivism. The constructivist doesnot believe in universal reality, but instead, “in multiple social and experience-based mental constructions that depend on the person holding them for form andcontent” (Razik & Swanson, 2001, p. 358). The epistemology of constructivismis subjectivist; reality is social and constructed in the minds of the constructor.Learning is situated; the idea is that much of what is learned is specific to thesituation in which it occurs. For constructivists, leading and learning are intertwinedbecause to learn is to construct meaning and knowledge about the world.

Recently constructivism is being played out in the metaphor of the ‘school as alearning community’. Considerable research and practice is being centered on thisconcept. We have defined a learning community (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000) asa “group of people who take an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-orientedand growth-promoting approach toward the mysteries, problems and perplexitiesof teaching and learning” (p. 5). This definition asks people to build capacity forlearning and represents a fundamental shift in how learning is perceived. This shiftviews knowledge gaps as problems to be overcome rather than seeing learners from


a deficit perspective. Learning is viewed as being intellectual, social and emotional,and “it happens by design and by chance” (Stoll, Fink, & Earl, 2003, p. 24). Thisapproach places learning at the centre of school discourse and teachers cannot thinkof teaching without thinking about learning.

In a recent paper (Sackney & Mitchell, in press), based on their research oflearning communities, outlined that principal leadership unfolds through the perfor-mance of four functions: (a) serving as the center, (b) holder of the vision, (c) builder,and (d) role model. First, the centering function places the school principal at thehub of school operations. Second, the holder of the vision function sees the handof the principal guiding the vision-building process. Third, the builder functionrequires the principal to build structures that brings staff together for planning anddecision making, and the establishment of professional learning teams connectedto curriculum and instruction. Fourth, those principals who served as role modelswith respect to good teaching strategies, effective collegial processes, respectfultreatment of students, and systemic approaches to practice were most successful increating learning communities.

Similarly, Fullan’s (2001) leadership model has five basic dimensions: moralpurpose, understanding change, building relationships, knowledge creation andsharing, and coherence making. Collarbone (2003) contends that leaders must firstand foremost be learners themselves and their job is to create a culture where peopleare not afraid to make mistakes because they know that they can learn throughmistakes.

Constructivist leadership is concerned with the need for sense-making, forcoherence, and for seeing learning communities as growth-oriented entities. Conse-quently, the function of leadership is to ensure that the conditions are such thatlearning occurs and that leads to improved teaching and learning. Leadership ensuresthat learning communities are based on ecological principles and shared values.

Lambert (2002) contends that leaders need to foster dialogue and narrativeconstruction and thereby improve the meaning making systems in schools. Bylistening and supporting the telling of stories leaders are better able to formvisions of the future. Narratives or stories serve a number of functions in theconstructive process. First, they create connections across differences. Second,they provide structure for the ways in which individuals think, feel, perceiveand make moral choices. Third, narratives help to elicit tacit knowledge (Cooper,2002, p. 116).

Leaders serve as the steward of the vision, values and purposes of the school,and the designer of the enabling structures and processes that support learning.In essence, the leadership role is to build capacity within the organization so thatindividuals can solve their own problems.

Summary

Table 2 provides a summary of the learning theories as well as the assumptions andresulting leadership strategies.


Table 2. Theoretical Assumptions and Leadership Strategies

Theoretical Assumptions and Leadership Strategies

Theory Assumptions Leadership Strategies

Behaviorist • Human • Systembehavior can be measured andpredicted.

approaches

• Use of • Specify andreinforcement processes will leadto appropriate behavior

reward for desirable behavior

• Usetransactional leadership

• Set clear goalsand expectations

Cognitivist • Behavior is • Providepurposeful, goal-directed andbased on conscious intentions

training in prerequisite knowledge

• Situated • Set specificaction and symbol processing goals (e.g., SMART goals)

• Perceptions • Organizationaland attention are guided byprevious knowledge

learning key to effectiveleadership

• Pay attentionto the grammar of leadership

Constructivist • Multiple • Serve as thesocial and experience-basedmental constructions

steward of vision, values andpurposes

• Reality and • Foster sense-learning is situated in context making coherence and learning

community culture

• Learning is • Build capacityto construct meaning at the individual, interpersonal

and organizational levels.

CONCLUSION

The teaching-learning function is at the heart of schooling. In this chapter we haveexplored three theories of learning and their implications for teaching, instructionaldesign and leadership.

Behavioral theories of learning emphasize the role of external events—antecedents and consequences—in changing observable behavior. The use oflearning objectives was emphasized as a way of improving learning and leadingoutcomes.

Cognitive theories of learning focus on the human mind’s active attempts tomake sense of the world. Knowledge is the emphasis of cognitive perspectives. In


this chapter we particularly focused on the theory of information processing and itsimplications for learning.

Constructivist theories on learning and leading emphasize the situated learning ofthe individual. In general constructivists assume that individuals create and constructknowledge rather than internalize it from the external environment.

What is interesting about examining the various theories and their implicationsfor learning, instructional design and leading is that each of these theories makescontributions to our knowledge about teaching and leading. For example, cognitivetheories of leadership make contributions to constructivist theories of leading andvice versa. Behaviourist theories are evident in constructivist theories of leading.The boundaries are not so clear. Perhaps Burrell and Morgan (1979) were correct inusing fuzzy clouds to demonstrate the various organizational paradigms. Hopefully,this chapter also demonstrates the need to understand the various philosophicalunderpinnings of our instructional and leading models and frameworks. A betterunderstanding of these theories will lead to a clearer conceptualization of ourpractices of instructional design, teaching, and leadership. Each theory contributesto our understanding of how teaching, leading and learning occur. It appears thatat present constructivist theories are embedding themselves within the patterns oflearning relationships in schools and leadership. Whose turn will be next or whathybrid theory emerges is difficult to predict.

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past, the present, and future of knowledge research: A reexamination ofthe role of knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 31, 89–92.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.P. (1995). Theory into practice: How do welink? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (2nd ed.) (pp. 100–111).Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., Gibbons, A., Grabowski, B. Hill, J., Osguthorpe, R., Schwier, R.A., &Wager, W. (2002). Assessing the field of instructional technology: What is the state of the field?Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology, Dallas, Texas, November 14.

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18 (1), 32–42.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Burrell, A. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants, England:

Ashgate.Campbell, K., Schwier, R.A., & Kenny, R. (2005). Using narrative inquiry to explore ID as conver-

sation. Selected proceedings of the Research and Theory Division of the Association for EducationalCommunications and Technology, Orlando, Florida.

Collarbone, P. (2003). Leading the learning community. In B. Davies & J. West- Burnham(eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 375–380). New York: Pearson/Longman.

Conzemius, A. & O’Neill, J. (2001). Building shared responsibility for student learning. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.


Cooper, J. (2002). Constructivist leadership: Its evolving narrative. In Lambert et al. (eds.), Theconstructivist leader (2nd ed.) (pp. 112–126). New York: Teachers College Press.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1984). The art of cognitive coaching: Supervision intelligent teaching.Sacramento, CA: California State University.

Cronje, J. (2000). Paradigms lost – Towards integrating objectivism and constructivism. Retrieved,November 2005. http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper48/paper48.htm

Davidson, K. (1998). Education in the internet–linking theory to reality. Retrieved April 1998.http://www.oise.on.ca/˜kdavidson/cons.html

Davies, M. (1990). Thinking persons and cognitive science. AI and Society, 4, 41–53.Dembo, M. H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman

Publishing Group.Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath & Co.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Dorin, H., Demmin, P. E., & Gabel, D. (1990). Chemistry: The study matter (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical

features from a design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly 6(4), 50–72.Evers, C., & Lakomski, G. (2000). Doing educational administration. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

Pergammon.Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Foote, C. J., Vermette, C. F., & Battaglia, C. F. (2001). Constructivist strategies: Meeting standards

and engaging adolescent minds. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New

York: Teachers College Press.Glatthorn, A. (1990). Supervisory leadership. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Brown.Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.).White

Plains, NY: Longman.Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (1993). An introduction to theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs,

N. J.: Prentice Hall.Herzberg, F., Mausener, B., & Synderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.Honderick, T. (Ed.) (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research and (6th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice (4th ed).

New York: McGraw-Hill.Jonassen, D. H. (1991) Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?

Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5–14.Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational

Technology, 34 (4), 34–37.Jonassen, D. H., Mayes, J. T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to

technology in higher education. In T. Duffy, D. Jonassen & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Designing constructivistlearning environments. Heidelberg, FRG: Springer-Verlag.

Kenny, R. F., Shang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K., (2005), A Review of What InstructionalDesigners Do: Questions Answered and Questions Not Asked. Canadian Journal of Learning andTechnology, 31 (1), 9–16.

Lambert et al. (2002). The constructivist leader (2nd ed).New York: Teachers College Press.Locke, E., & Latham, G., (1990) Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Mager, R. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Paulo Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.Maslow, A. (1965). Eupsychian management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.


Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved January 2006.http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/ 802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, May, 45–53.Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community.

Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical

psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Owens, R. (2001). Organizational behavior in education (7th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Razik, T. A., & Swanson, A. D. (2001). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership. Upper Saddle

River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Rizo, F. M. (1991). The controversy about quantification in social research: An extension of Gage’s

“historical sketch.” Educational Researcher, 20 (12), 9–12Robinson, V. M. (2002). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In

K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp. 775–812). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sackney, L., & Mitchell, C. (in press). Building schools, building people: The school principal’s role inleading a learning community. Journal of School Leadership.

Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: LibrariesUnlimited, Inc.

Schiffman, S. S. (1995). Instructional systems design: Five views of the field. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present and future. 2nd ed., (pp. 131–142)., Englewood, CO: LibrariesUnlimited, Inc.

Schwier, R. A. (1995). Issues in emerging interactive technologies. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructionaltechnology: Past, present and future (2nd ed) (pp. 119–127). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Schuman, L. & Ritchie, D. (1996). Perspectives on Instruction. Retrieved January 2006.http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (2003). A cognitive approach to leadership. In B. Davies & J. West-Burham (Eds.),Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 12–16). New York: Pearson/Longman.

Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd. ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Stoll, L., Fink, D.& Earle, L. (2003). It’s about learning [and it’s about time]. London: Routledge/Falmer.Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Naiburg.Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

CHAPTER 6

DEMOCRATIC SCHOOL LEADERSHIPIN CANADA’S PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS:

PROFESSIONAL VALUE AND SOCIAL ETHIC

PAUL T. BEGLEY AND LINDY ZARETSKYDepartment of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University and Simcoe County District

School Board, Midhurst, Ontario

Three purposes are generally acknowledged for public school education in Canada.One is aesthetic, becoming all that you can be, and the classic liberal notions ofwhat it is to be a well-rounded educated person. The second purpose is economic,learning to earn, acquiring the skills and knowledge to be a contributing member ofsociety. The third is ideological, encompassing both the socialization of learners ascitizens and the perpetuation of a society’s cultural norms and values (Hodgkinson,1991). Given the theme of this book, one might naturally conclude that this chapterwould focus on the contribution of school leaders to the ideological purposes ofinculcating and promoting democracy as a fundamental social value and an ethicalguide to proper citizenship. As much as this may be an important dimension ofeducation, our approach is to make the case for democratic leadership in schoolsfor rationalized professional reasons.1

Democratic leadership is desirable for schools because it reflects sociallymandated ethical commitments to collective process and is professionally justifiedas necessary to lead schools effectively in increasingly culturally diverse commu-nities and a world transformed by the effects of technology and the forces ofglobalization. Our rational professional justifications for democratic leadership inschools are grounded in the nature of the school leadership role, the social contextsof our communities, as well as an ideological social mandate. Existing theoryand research illustrates that rational processes prevail as the primary influenceson decision making by educational leaders. The appropriateness of rationalizeddemocratic processes for schools is demonstrated by recent research on school-based

99


100 Begley and Zaretsky

interactions between school principals and parent advocates engaged in negoti-ating the educational needs of students with exceptionalities. This particular studyinvestigated how principals and parent advocates understand and respond to theirperceptions of the roles, values, transactional practices and processes associatedwith resolving highly complex issues in special education. A particular emphasiswas put on exploring the ways in which parent advocates use democratic process topromote value confrontations and conflicts as a deliberate strategy aimed at trans-forming attitudes and practices in school administration specific to special educationprocesses.

THE CHALLENGE OF RESPONDING ETHICALLYAS WELL AS DEMOCRATICALLY

Given the conditions of social ferment and diversity characteristic of many commu-nities, the achievement of democratic consensus on educational issues among eventraditional educational stakeholders has become more difficult, confounding anynotion that a prescriptive guide to ethical or value-added leadership – a catalogueof correct values which school administrators ought to adopt without question – canbe developed. This will disappoint those who might hope that ethics can be usedas a silver bullet solution for the dilemmas of administration in complex environ-ments. Unfortunately, the processes of valuation in school leadership situationsare much too context-bound to permit this kind of quick fix. It is not enoughfor school leaders to emulate the values of expert principals. Leaders in schoolsmust become reflective practitioners and authentic in their leadership practices.The first step towards achieving this state is to engage in personal reflection (seeCoombs, 2004). The adoption of a values perspective on school leadership canassist school administrators; however, once a degree of improved self-knowledgehas been achieved through personal reflection, administrators need to take the nextstep towards authentic leadership. That is, they develop sensitivity to the valuesorientations of others in order to give meaning to the actions of the students,teachers, parents and community members with whom they interact. The pay-offoccurs when understanding the value orientations of others provides leaders withinformation on how they might best influence the practices of others towards theachievement of broadly justifiable social objectives.

Ethics as Cultural Isomorphs

School administrators in the United States, Sweden, Canada and Hong Kong aremuch inclined to profess a belief and commitment to democratic processes anddemocracy in general. Yet the nature of democracy in each country is clearly basedon sharply contrasting notions of what constitutes free speech, social consensus, andappropriate political participation by the citizenry. A comparison of the acceptablestandards of free speech in the United States and Belarus or China is a clearexample. However, isomorphs can occur even within a single nation or culture, not

Democratic School Leadership in Canada’s Public School Systems 101

just between nations. Trans-rational values (Hodgkinson, 1996) of any sort, andethics and principles in particular, are rather vulnerable to multiple interpretationsin application from one social context to another. When unexamined values areapplied in arbitrary ways justified in the name of democratic process, they can beanything but democratic. The essential, and often absent, component that wouldmake adherence to a value genuinely democratic is dialogue.

For these reasons ethics represent a particular category of social / collective valuesof a trans-rational nature that may not be consistent with democratic leadershipprocess. Furthermore, the press for accountability in decision making affects howand when principals will employ ethics as guides to professional decision making.Because ethics are often interpreted in culturally exclusive ways, they can be avery troublesome category of values to employ as guides to action in culturallydiverse schools and communities. As a practical consequence school adminis-trators naturally gravitate towards values grounded in rational consequences andconsensus as guides to action and decision making whenever that is possible (Begleyand Johansson, 1998). As democratic as this may appear on the surface, there issuch a pronounced inclination towards these rationalized processes that one coulddescribe it as ritualized rationality. Even when a situation evokes an ethical orpersonal preference response on the part of the principal, what gets articulated tothe stakeholders will be usually grounded in the rhetoric of rational consequencesor consensus. The way to ensure that consensus and consequence oriented decisionsremain democratic, and not merely ritualized, is through the dialogic component ofdeliberation among educational stake-holders.

Sources of Values and Value Conflicts

Much of the traditional leadership literature is fundamentally organizational incontext and emphasis. However, the full environment of administration is morecomplex. Any school administrator who attempts to lead and manage withoutreference to the broader environmental context will quickly encounter difficulty.The values of profession, organization, community and society are not necessarilyconsistent or compatible with each other. An onion figure (see Figure 1) can be usedto illustrate what can be termed the arenas of valuation. These are the interactiveenvironments within which valuation processes and administration occur. There arealso important dynamics that occur among these arenas. Seven or more arenas canbe identified to conceptualize the environment of administration.

Within the figure, the individual is represented within the center ring as self. Theindividual can also be thought of as extending through all the rings, a formativeamalgam of influences from multiple arenas. In a practical sense, this central arenahighlights the potential role of the individual as an entity with a unique influencewithin a social or organizational enterprise. It also conveys the notion of theintensified influence of one individual when he or she is a leader. This highlights‘the power of one’ – the capability of one person to have impact as a leader withor without vested authority.


Self

Group

Profession

Organization

Culture

Transcendental

Figure 1. Arenas of Influence (Begley 2004)

The second ring from the center represents the arena of groups, and othercollective entities. This arena acts as a place-holder for collectives such as family,peers, friends and acquaintances. The third ring, profession, represents a moreformal arena of administration that is closely related to the second ring, but isgiven special emphasis here because of its relevance to school leadership. Researchconducted by several scholars (e.g. Begley and Campbell-Evans, 1992; Normore,2001; Johansson-Fua, 2003; Duquette, 2003) highlights the distinctions which canoccur at particular career stages between personal and professional, as well asorganizational socialization.

The fourth ring represents the arena of most concern to academics and practi-tioners in the field of educational administration, the organization. Much ofthe traditional literature of educational administration and most of the corporateliterature are grounded within the organizational perspective, adopting it as aprimary reference point for administrative activity. As such, a degree of “over-weighting vividness” (Leithwood and Steinbach, 1995, p. 202) is often attributed tothis arena.

Moving further outwards in the figure, additional rings represent the arenas ofcommunity, society, and culture. Within the last decade, school leaders have learnedthat it is necessary to pay a lot more attention to the community as a relevantadministrative arena and source of influence on school leadership (Leithwood,


Begley, and Cousins, 1992). The increasing diversity of our societies and a generaltrend towards globalization has highlighted society and culture as relevant arenasof administrative activity.

A final, seventh ring is included to accommodate notions of the transcendental –God, faith, spirituality, even extra-sensory perception. Spirituality is of considerableimportance to the lives of many individuals, even though it does not get a lot ofattention in the literature of school leadership.

Thinking in terms of the arenas of administration serves two important functions.It suggests the various sources of values, conveying how values can be derivedfrom multiple external and internal environmental sources in dynamic ways. Thenotion of arenas also conveys the potential sources of value conflicts. For example,although value conflicts can certainly occur within a single arena of adminis-tration, consider how the personal values of the individual might conflict withthose of the community, or professional values might conflict with organizationalvalues.

Valuation Processes of Individuals

To understand the relationship between values and motivation, and between valuesand leadership actions, it is helpful to conceptually situate values within the broadercontext of one person’s being. One of the simplest ways to illustrate the relationshipsamong these terms is through the use of a second figure that illustrates a syntax ofvalues terminology. Figure 2 (Begley 1999) is another adaptation of Hodgkinson’swork (e.g., 1991, 1996). When considering the figure, it is important to keep inmind that one person is portrayed – one individual, not a group or organization orcollective social context.

Beginning from the outside, the first ring represents the observable actions andspeech of the individual. Most people intuitively rely on the clues provided bythe actions and attitudes of others to make predictive insights into the nature ofvalues they hold. This is a generally sound strategy, but it has the same limitsto its reliability in day-to-day life as it does in a research context. As politicalleaders, principals, teachers, parents and children regularly demonstrate throughtheir speech and actions, the observable actions they manifest may or may notbe accurate indicators of the person’s underlying values. This is particularly thecase when individuals articulate or posture certain values, for example democraticprocess, while actually being committed to quite different values.

The next ring or layer of the figure represents attitudes. Attitudes can be thoughtof as the thin membrane between values and the observable actions or speech ofan individual, or the permeable boundary of personality that acts as the interfacebetween the psychological and physical world. Attitudes can be formally defined asthe predisposition to act specifically as a result of values or value systems acquiredpreviously and elsewhere (Begley 2001). For example, a school principal’s attitudestowards the children in the school may change when he or she becomes a parentwith young children of his or her own. The strength of this extended influence


Figure 2. A Values Syntax (Begley 2004)

can be residual in nature, a significant spillover of effect, or intrude to such anextent that it overrides or neutralizes the influence of a second value or valuesystem. Attitudes can also be reflected in the body language of posture, gait, orunconscious muscular tensions. They are outward and visible signs of inward andinvisible inclinations.

The next layer represents a domain, or conceptual placeholder, for the actualvalues held or manifested by an individual. If the individual is an educator, he orshe might value phonics over the ‘whole language’ approach. A principal mightgravitate towards relatively controlled approaches to delegating authority over moreopen styles of distributed leadership. A teacher might prefer computer mediatedinstruction over workbook exercises, or instruction individualized to students’ needsas opposed to a teacher-centered curriculum. However, it is important to emphasizethat identifying these values is one thing, while knowing why they are held is quiteanother.

Between the values layer and motivational base layer of the figure is a categorylabeled ‘available knowledge’ or ‘understandings.’ The kinds of knowledge refer-enced here are acquired through life experiences, training, and reflection, andprovide the linkage between the basic motivational bases and the specific valuesadopted and manifested by the individual. The contention here is that as a result ofexperience, training and/or reflection, an individual responds to basic motivationsby adopting particular value positions that will support the fulfillment of that basicmotivation in a specific way. These responses are manifested through actions orspeech selected by the individual to achieve the valued objective. People vary, ofcourse, in terms of the skills and sophistication they can bring to bear on achievingtheir objectives.


The motivational base layer of Figure 2 provides the key to understandingthe nature and function of values. This is the motivating force dimension behindthe adoption of a particular value which, working out through the layers of thefigure, shapes attitudes and potentially the subsequent actions. For the purposesof this chapter, and consistent with Hodgkinson’s original value framework, fourbasic motivational bases can be identified. These are: personal preference or self-interest; an inclination towards consensus; an inclination towards or concern forconsequences; and an inclination towards trans-rational ethics or principles. Thesefour motivational bases are relatively broad and arbitrary distinctions. In appli-cation, individuals can manifest a predisposition towards one motivational baseover another, or adopt more than one motivational base when responding to a givensituation. Recent research, conducted in several countries, on the valuation processesof school administrators (Begley and Johansson, 1998) suggests that the normativemotivational bases for administrative decision-making are the rational domains ofconsequences and consensus. As suggested earlier, this is also the usual territoryof democratic leadership processes. Self-interest is infrequently acknowledged as amotivation, possibly because professional activity is publicly accountable. And, asdiscussed earlier, ethics and principles tend to be employed under special circum-stances.

The final layer at the centre of the figure is the self, or essence of the individual –the biological self as well as the existential or transcendent self. There is not a greatdeal known or that can be said about this inner core of the individual. Some woulddescribe it as the soul, the life-force or spark of life.

NEGOTIATING VALUES AND TRUTHS WITHIN DEMOCRATIC PROCESSIN SCHOOLS

Findings from a recently completed qualitative study conducted by Zaretsky (2004)reveals how principals and parent advocates come to know, understand and strate-gically respond to intents associated with interactions in the parent-school arena. Aparticular emphasis was put on exploring the ways in which parent advocacy aboutspecial education issues intentionally promotes value confrontations and interper-sonal conflicts as a deliberate strategy aimed at transforming practices in schoolleadership. The balance of this chapter is devoted to discussing the implicationsof these strategic interactions for ethical and successful resolution of contentiousspecial education issues.

Six experienced elementary school principals and seven parent advocates partic-ipated in this study. The principals were selected from several school districts inOntario, Canada to generate a sample not solely reflective of any one district’sprograms, practices and policies in special education. The parent advocates wereaffiliated with various special education advocacy organizations found throughoutOntario, Canada. These advocates had a minimum of two years experience in anadvocacy role and had their own children with special needs enrolled in a districtschool board within Ontario either presently or in the past.


When parent advocates decide to challenge deep-seated beliefs and perceived‘truths’ about disability and special education, their interactions with schoolpersonnel often become confrontational, conflicted, and tense (Ballard, 1999;Brown, 1999; Ware, 1999; Vincent, 2000). Parent advocates gradually become morepolitically aware as they struggle to achieve what they consider to be their ownchildren’s rights to the same educational opportunities afforded to children withoutspecial needs. Central to the development of this heightened political awareness isthe networking in which parent advocates connecting with other parents of disabledchildren, work collectively to achieve mutual goals in effecting change in specialeducation practices in schools. Through their compiling of contacts and poolingof information, parents are able to, not only extend their knowledge of specialeducation, but also enhance their advocacy competencies in asserting what they feelis their right to be heard in political settings and the educational policy and practicearenas (Alper, Schloss and Schloss, 1995; Fiedler, 2000; Nachsen and Jamieson,2000; Zaretsky, 2003).

Parents of children with disabilities generally enter the special education arenawith initial hopes of working alongside school staff to achieve a sense of belongingand acceptance as partners in a shared commitment. They hope to gain somefreedom of choice among the options available for their child, acquire some powerand influence by having school staff value their input, and lastly, enjoy a senseof comfort in knowing that special education processes need not be protracted andarduous (Weishaar and Borsa, 2001). If one or more of these expectations go unmetin the parent-school arena, conflict is likely to occur. To be sure, conflict can arisewhenever there is an inability to achieve mutually compatible goals between twoor more parties. Among the more common flashpoints for conflict are adminis-trative decisions on student programming and placement being made unilaterallywithout consultation or input from parents (Jordan, 2001; Zaretsky, 2003). Thepotential sources of conflict are many, though some appear to be more prevalentthan others.

Sources of Conflicted Interactions between Principals and Parents

The persisting conflicts between parent advocates and school administrators arerooted in differing perspectives on disability, special education, and inclusivepractice. Concepts such as disability and inclusion remain extremely controversialespecially because they relate to core educational and social values. Like all disci-plines, special education embodies particular sets of values and broadly sharedassumptions emerging from the social context.

Holding to a Unitary Conception of Special Education

The dominant discourse in special education remains a medical one that linksdisability exclusively with biological factors. Students who are thought to bedisabled are deemed to have different physiological attributes not considered to besocial constructs. This type of discourse serves particular interests and has been


very influential in shaping special education (Tomlinson, 1995; Van Rooyen, LeGrange, & Newmark, 2002). It has given us the prevailing medical perspective inschools that attribute pathology to students with disabilities. As Slee (2001) pointsout, special education knowledge in schools continues to emphasize deficit-drivenunderstandings of exceptionalities most often associated with professional scientificknowledge. There is little consideration of the perspective of the other—the onewho does not hold the power derived from participation in the dominant discourse(Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005). Yet a single perspective is plainly inadequatefor developing a more sophisticated understanding of the many interpretations ofinclusion, disability, and what might constitute valid knowledge and expertise inspecial education.

As many scholars in disability studies point out (Gallagher, Heshusius, Iano &Skrtic, 2004) disability is the product of both biological and social factors. Factsshould not be seen as separate from values, as truths can only be relative to theindividuals who hold them. All scientific knowledge must be viewed as sociallyconstructed through interactions where meanings are constantly in negotiation.Many parent advocates in this study also claim that disability is socially constructed.It is not an inevitable result of just biology, but contingent on many socio-culturalprocesses as well.

Parent advocates identify the de-valuing or dismissal of their knowledge contri-butions to problem-solving processes as the most common source of conflictin their interactions with principals. In those situations they felt that they werenot considered knowledgeable about their own children’s disabilities and specialeducation needs. Many spoke of some principals’ refusal to negotiate or compromiseon apparent solutions for some special education dilemmas. Parent advocatescommonly attributed this indifference to a perception that the administrators fearsharing their power in decision-making processes.

They also claimed that principals’ unwillingness to listen to (or heed) differentperspectives further exacerbated tensions and conflicts in their interactions.Parent advocates felt that principals would then label them as overly aggressive,demanding, and emotional in their interactions thereby intensifying the conflictednature of interactions. Most parent advocates and principals in this study perceivedthis as one of the potentially harmful effects on practice that often arises wheneither party rigidly holds to a particular conception of special education. Accordingto Zaretsky (2005) these constructed understandings of special education anddisability dichotomize special education into conceptual opposites creating adver-sarial stances among practitioners and parents, who for the most part, are unawareof the theoretical orientations in which their beliefs, values, attitudes and practicesare embedded.

Environmental/Structural Barriers

Parent advocates indicated that another main source of conflict is principals’ insis-tence that economic structures and resource factors beyond their local control are theforces producing inequities among services and programs for students. Advocates,


in contrast, felt that inequalities were largely manifest in organizational ideologiesthat principals could influence if they chose to. Parent advocates wanted adminis-trators to begin paying far greater attention to the inequities embedded in the waysthat schools are organized and operated. They felt that little attention in specialeducation meetings is ever drawn to organizational features and barriers that maybe impeding the learning of students with disabilities. The focus remains on strate-gizing curative and remedial approaches to improving the individual rather than theenvironment in which the individual is located (Barton, 1998; Thomas & Loxley,2001). The implication for inclusion as constituted by the medical discourse neces-sitates exclusion for those identified or assessed as having needs that transcendwhat the regular education classroom can offer. As suggested by Burrello, Lashley,& Beatty (2001) constructs of difference could replace constructs of deviance,allowing a greater focus on changing disabling structures and not the individualhimself or herself.

Principals viewed dwindling financial resources as the key roadblock to moreinclusive educational practices. Advocates felt that principals believed that childrenwith disabilities and their parents used up valuable and limited resources, not leastof which was the principal’s time. Though parent advocates acknowledged theexternally imposed pressures on principals, they felt that school administrators couldbring about positive changes through the collaborative sharing with advocates ofnew ideas and innovative solutions to problems with advocates. To succeed withdiverse populations within a context of standards-based reforms, parent advocatesare asking teachers and administrators to model for others how it is possible to viewdifferent forms of socio-cultural capital as valued resources rather than deficits.The education of students with disabilities has been traditionally associated withlowered expectations and far less of a focus on educational outcomes (Thurlow &Johnson, 2000; Starratt, 2003).

Coercive Practices

Many principals reported that one key source of conflict in their interactions wasderived from parent advocates’ attempts to impose their individual or politicalagendas on the schools. They attributed these actions to a lack of trust in schoolpersonnel, including the principal, to make informed decisions in the best interestsof their children with disabilities.These principals provided examples where parentadvocates had apparently afforded them very little consideration of their contribu-tions. They also reported that parent advocates displayed unprofessional behaviorsthat included: demands and threats, verbal abuse, and refusal to negotiate orcompromise on possible solutions to problems. Principals maintained that theprimary professional responsibility of any advocate is to provide enough space forall participants to voice their perspectives during interactions.

Likewise, many of the parent advocates expressed similar views about some ofthe principals with whom they had interacted. They reported that principals hadbeen coercive in their efforts to persuade parents to agree with solutions proposed by


school personnel. One common tactic reported by parent advocates was informingparents during meetings that they needed to commit immediately to placements inspecial classes as space was very limited. The implication was that if parents choseto delay their decision, the schools could not guarantee that appropriate supportsand services would be available to their children in general education classrooms.Parent advocates did acknowledge the use of coercion in dialogue as a means ofcorrecting the perceived power imbalance in decision-making about their children’seducation.

In general, advocates and administrators emphasized a greater need to attend to themeanings they assign to special education terms and the ways in which these termsare used and sometimes abused. Many of the participants encouraged the seeking outof agreements through negotiation and compromise as opposed to forcing solutionsupon one another (Ryan, 2003; Shields, 2004). Bringing individuals together whohave shared concerns and issues, yet very different values, roles, and identities canpromote more reflection and thinking about coercion and conflict and proposedstrategies for addressing and managing them (Benhabib, 1996; Mansbridge, 1996;Young, 1990).

Characteristic Responses to Conflicted Interaction

The findings from this study indicate that the interactions between parent advocatesand principals could be characterized according to a variety of features and classifiedas 1) aggressive, 2) avoidance, and 3) problem-solving responses. These threebroad categories of strategic responses correspond very closely to Fisher, Ury, andPatton’s (1991) research findings on individual responses to conflict in schools.

Aggressive responses An aggressive response was one characterized by threats,aggression, and/or anger, where the ultimate goal was to win. This was considereda reactive approach to conflict, which often resulted in an increase in anger andfrustration. These specific emotions tend to further escalate a conflict (Bodine,Crawford and Schrumpf, 1994). The participants who described this type of conflictperceived that their needs were not going to be met. They tended to view theconflict as a win-lose situation where some individuals would have their needs metand others would not. As one parent advocate described it:

Parents don’t have enough power so when they try to equalize it, then they’re accused of being aggressiveor confrontational, or overly emotional, because anger and frustration set in. Yet you have to be everynow and again. You have to win one. Winning and losing has to be the start sometimes.

The aggressive responses employed by parent advocates included: persevering intheir argument, building of coalitions and alliances to further support their argument,and resorting to rights talk to achieve desired outcomes.

One parent advocate stressed this notion of perseverance in her ongoing struggleevery school year to have her son integrated into general education classrooms.

I had to fight and scream so many times for integration for my son…but I got it…not always as muchor the kind I wanted, but I didn‘t stop until I got it. School administrators saw me as losing it. They


sort of sat back and raised their eyebrows and thought, Hmmm…she’s out of control. The anger andfrustration you feel when you know no one is hearing you. I’m sure the anger I feel had a lot to do withgetting in the way of a good working relationship. There are just so many times when, as a parent, youfeel that you’re getting left with things.

Other parent advocates referred to the collective emotional strength and sustenancederived from alliances and coalitions they formed, and how these generated organi-zational supports for them and other parents in their struggles to achieve their goals.This is illustrated in one parent advocate’s comment:

In order to level the playing field in these cases, we bring along our supporters who at different timesand for different purposes might include lawyers, private psychologists, social workers, other advocates,family and friends. Otherwise all too often, individuals’ contributions get dismissed or ignored. We willcontinue to fight for what we believe to be right and just for our children. Just because some principalsrefuse to listen, doesn’t mean we’re going away and giving up. We bring our allies.

Another parent advocate talked about the need to engage in rights talk whenprincipals begin to rely on more aggressive tactics in the more heated discussions.

You don’t want to immediately begin with your rights, your child’s rights. You hope that others arelistening to you out of empathy and a sense of doing what is right for kids. However, if the administratorchooses to get confrontational, then it might necessitate me quoting legislation that I know he or sheisn’t aware of.

Principals were able to acknowledge their own sense of frustration and feelings ofanger and sadness that resulted from some of their interactions, yet they did notperceive any use of aggressive responses on their part in response to conflict. Fromtheir perspective they employed strategies that included: acknowledging parentalemotions, halting interactions in which parents seemed overly emotional and askingparents to move beyond their self-interests to think about the collective needs ofall students in the school. The principals claimed that they made several attemptsto communicate to parents that they understood the parents’ sense of urgency inwanting to resolve issues pertaining to their children.

As one principal described it:

Empathetic listening involves recognizing the emotions and feelings of the person speaking, and thentrying to reflect those feelings in your own responses by perhaps restating what you think the otherperson is trying to say. This includes recognizing their frustrations and anger, and sadness at beingtold they can do this but they can’t do that. Sometimes this increases the tensions and emotions whenwe can’t meet each other’s needs or at least right then and there.

Most principals recounted at least one story that involved ending a meeting withparents who had become, in their opinion, hostile and abusive towards them orother school personnel involved in meetings. Most principals pointed out that anyattempts they made to discuss their leadership responsibilities towards meeting theneeds of all students usually elicited frustrated and angry responses from someparents.

One principal expressed it in the following way:

I have trouble battling with some members of the community who see themselves as a community ofprivilege. The rules don‘t apply to me. I have trouble when there’s no equity and when it gets bumped


over my head by board personnel and parents. I understand why they are doing it. In the end it protectsme. I don‘t like it. It undermines me, but it also protects me from the headaches and allows me to protectmyself and my staff. I can sleep at night because I didn‘t cave to their demands. I said no.

Avoidance responses A typical avoidance response to conflict employed by parentadvocates was purposeful withdrawal from a situation. Many who used this kindof strategic response tended to position themselves as victims in the conflict. Thistype of conflict also tended to be viewed as a win-lose where principals, who wereperceived as avoiding the issues, ended up the winners.

Avoidance responses were sometimes used when parent advocates felt they didnot have the emotional energy to continue fighting for what they perceived wasin the best interests of students. The fatigue and frustration overwhelmed themand they needed time to renew themselves. Most of the stories they recounted hadthematic elements of struggle and resistance in them. The parent advocates alsosaid that their knowledge input was often met with much resistance from schooladministrators who they claim, had already made decisions they firmly believedwould best meet the needs of their children.

One parent advocate offered this perspective:

There were many times when school administrators felt threatened by me and the knowledge I broughtto the table. One principal could never hear me. He had this way of dividing and conquering. They needother knowledge too to change how to assess strengths and needs, progress and how to set expectations.Just because I’m not a teacher doesn’t mean I don’t understand what needs doing or how to go aboutdoing it.

Principals did not regard their own responses to conflict situations as avoidancestrategies, although they conceded that certain responses may have been perceivedas such by some of the parent advocates with whom they interacted. The key strategydescribed by all principals was demonstrating to parents the disproportionate amountof time and energy they devoted to issues in special education despite externalfactors (e.g., lack of funding) that they could not control.

Situations where aggressive and avoidance responses were common involvedemotional dimensions. All principals and parent advocates expressed levels ofdiscomfort with their own and other’s emotions evoked during less successfulengagements in the parent-school arena. Many reported being left with intensefeelings of anxiety, fear, dejection, and anger. In particular, participants oftennoted an increase in emotional intensity when faced with the ambiguity anduncertainty of having no sense of shared purpose with other parties involved ininteractions.

Problem-solving responses All participants, both principals and parent advocates,claimed that they much preferred to use a problem-solving framework in theirinteractions. Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) refer to this method as a principledresponse or principled negotiation. Principals and parent advocates emphasized theapplication of a problem-solving framework that included empathizing with others,clarifying responses, explaining their agendas in an open and honest manner, andproviding the necessary time to the interactive process.


One parent advocate provided this comprehensive description.

Maintaining eye contact, facing the person speaking, smiling, and nodding all acknowledge yourauthentic listening. Empathy is different from sympathy. If you can empathize and say, you know, I can’twalk in your shoes. I haven’t been there, or yes, I can walk in your shoes because I happen to have abrother or sister or whatever. Given that personal little bit, that you can say, o.k. then you really dounderstand. And maybe you can meet halfway. Being adversarial, and yelling and threatening, endlessthreats, and being rude, isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Many principals and parent advocates placed much emphasis on the importance ofasking for clarification about a response in order to prevent miscommunication andmisinterpretation in the problem-solving process. As one parent advocate stated:

It is important that you are putting forth the effort to understand the other person’s perspective. Theysay you gain more information by asking non-threatening kinds of questions that might include ‘what isyour understanding of the problem’? and ‘what might I be able to do for you’?

Most of the principals prefaced the introduction of their stories involving conflict byreferring to the training they had received in conflict resolution. They all maintainedthat this training prepared them to manage conflict in much more effective ways.The principals were able to identify some common understanding of negotiationthrough their training. They reported the need to separate people from the problemin interactions. Their training and subsequent experiences in the field taught themto remain focused on the interests of the child and not on one’s position. Manyof these principals were quick to add that, despite their best efforts to resist, theconflicted interactions did involve this shift in focus to a position that often leddiscussion away from the child.

All parent advocates and principals stressed the importance of honesty and trans-parency in their interactions. They claimed that many conflicted interactions were adirect result of others’ efforts to hide their real agenda. They reported that their ownexperiences had informed them of the ways in which this only served to underminetrust in relationships. As one parent advocate described it:

It’s very important to be upfront with your purpose and aim and get all the information on the table.Only then can you really get down to business of exploring your options and what can be seen as mutualgain in the process.

One of the principal’s explained her view on agendas in a similar fashion:

It’s not hard to figure out someone’s agenda. It doesn’t stay hidden very long in the dialogue. But it’sso much better for everyone, when they are honest about what they want, even if opinions differ greatly.Better to be honest and open about how you feel then to conceal it or mask it under another name.

As one principal noted:

In my experiences, they enter with an agenda and impose it on the school, leaving no room to heareach other’s opinions on the matter. It’s not dialogue and it’s certainly not showing any willingness toconsider other options. They just start with what their rights are and have no real interest in talkingabout anything else than getting their demands met.


Other parent advocates acknowledged their understanding of the tensions experi-enced by principals in terms of the amount of time it takes to resolve a complexissue in special education. Two principals emphasized the time they needed todevote to the process if more successful interactions were to occur.

For example, one principal remarked:

Giving the necessary time to the process is also essential if we really want successful outcomes for all.It takes time in this process to get to know the other individuals who have a stake in this, to try tounderstand their perspectives, and to try to have them understand yours.

Implications for Democratic Educational Leadership

The findings of the study reported in this chapter suggest that both principalsand parent advocates are beginning to adopt a broadened perspective on whatconstitutes acceptable democratic practice in schools. Participants in the studyacknowledged the benefits of engagement in continuous and substantive discussionsabout the political dimensions of special education processes. Bolman and Deal(2000) write that attention to the political dimensions of leadership can help achieveperceived ethical goals. They claim that individuals who critically reflect upon thepolitical aspects involved in resolving a dilemma have a greater opportunity to assesswhich situations demand strategic responses that are more open and collaborativeand which situations demand more aggressive and adversarial responses. Theyquite concisely explain that all participants in democratic oriented problem solvingprocesses ‘need to consider the potential for collaboration, the importance of long-term relationships, and most importantly the values and ethical principles that theyendorse’ (p. 181).

The overall findings from this study demonstrate the importance of addressingissues of tension and conflict when attempting to foster democratic dialogue that isresponsive to the diverse needs of the individuals who make up a school community.In order to promote a more innovative, collaborative and inclusive decision-makingarena, parent advocates and principals need to engage alternative perspectives thatmay help to clarify mutual purposes and how to achieve collectively desirable ends,even when this process leads to escalating tensions and conflicts. Bolman and Deal(2000) point out, ‘leaders and managers need to confront the realities of diversity,scarcity, and self-interest, and still channel human action in cooperative and sociallyvaluable directions’ (p.164).

Further exploration of administrative and parental roles in support of a democraticculture of inclusion in decision-making processes may be beneficial to the devel-opment of more broadly shared understandings of professional roles, identities,and partnerships in the parent-school arena. The inclusion of parental voice, sooften marginalized or excluded in special education theory and practice, may alsoengender new directions for principals and parents engaged in the difficult inter-active processes of problem-solving in special education. As Bottery (2001) andJordan (2001) point out, despite the best of intentions, the ideology of marketforces, competition, performance, and a traditional balance of power make it highly


challenging to live out the values embedded in democratic practices in schools. Inorder to work towards congruency of values, collaborative action, and shared powerin decision making, other researchers have also discovered that uncertainty needsto be accepted, ambiguity embraced, and critical and reflective inquiry welcomed(Begley, 2001; Goeppinger, 2002; Gross, 2004; Ryan, 2003)

Dialogical interaction that includes heated debate and deliberation may verywell be the best way to stimulate critical questions about the means and ends ofspecial education. Notwithstanding these differing perspectives, parent advocates andprincipals in this study generally agreed on one thing – that schools do not necessarilyserve all children equally well.

A Democratic Ethical Response: Extending the Boundaries of Study and Practice

Without question, the fields of science and medicine have contributed to thedevelopment of a large body of research on teaching and learning that underpinhighly effective instructional practices and have produced highly innovativetechnologies that allow students in both regular and special education classes tomaximize their learning and achievement. However, an institutional inclinationand perhaps an over-reliance on medical discourses persist. It is worth recog-nizing that an expansion of the clinical scientific research base to incorporatea broader range of perspectives on disability and impairment might provide uswith more inclusive theories and practices in special education. Clinical, scien-tific descriptions of disability continue to carry greater weight in making decisionsabout programs and placements in special education than the identification ofsystemic environmental barriers encountered by students with disabilities in schools(Barton, 1998; Danforth & Rhodes, 1997; Gallagher, Heshusius, Iano & Skrtic,2004).

As debates continue, and as new scientific advances lead to new understandingsof disability, scholars, practitioners, and parent advocates are being asked to engagein more interdisciplinary efforts and inclusive practices when resolving ethicaldilemmas of practice in special education (Begley & Zaretsky, 2004; Zaretsky,2005). They are being asked to re-conceptualize their perceptions of disability aspart of the overall diversity of the school. The fundamental point here is that amore flexible approach to examining the value conflicts in special education mustbe adopted in order to be more responsive and inclusive when considering theprofessional needs of practitioners and the educational needs of students and theirfamilies.

Scholars, practitioners, and parent advocates who are attempting to introduce asocial constructivist model of disability into their deliberations are not necessarilyrejecting existing scientific literature in special education or empirical researchbased on accepted scientific methodology and design. Rather, they are challengingthe interpretations associated with this research when such interpretations areconsidered the objective truth with little consideration for the inclusion of other


truths (Zaretsky, 2006). Decisions appear to be driven by scientific and objectiveanalyses, yet when translated into instructional and decision-making practices,appear inescapably subjective in nature. It is not about subordinating science – itis about critically examining a claim, its plausibility, and the values attached tothe claim during the deliberations and potentially conflicted interactions. A morein-depth examination and deconstruction of both assumed objective truths andperceived subjective truths relating to special education needs to be promoted in andacross scholars’ and practitioners’ debates. Most optimistically, we might hope itcan also provide the impetus for extending the traditional boundaries of knowledgeand expertise to include multiple and varied value orientations toward disabilityand special education (Zaretsky, 2005).

CONCLUSION

We conclude by proposing that administrators develop a values-informed sophisti-cation in their practices in order to move beyond what Greenfield (1999) describesas the rhetoric of ‘moral leadership.’ The new reality of school leadership isresponding to value conflicts. This has become the defining characteristic ofschool leadership much like instructional leadership was the dominant metaphorof school leadership duing the 1980’s. Examples of value conflicts and ethicaldilemmas were provided through a qualitative research study to illustrate thecontested nature of educational problem-solving. A number of implications wereoutlined.

These include: the problem of value articulation by individuals as opposed toactual value commitment; the tendency towards ‘ritual rationality’ in administration;the cultural isomorphs that are apparent in leadership practices; and finally thecritical role dialogue plays in deepening an individual’s understanding of valuepositions and motivational intentions, as well as ensuring genuinely democraticpractice. School practitioners are in the best position to model a genuine appreciationfor the contributions others can bring to the social process of knowledge construction(Begley & Zaretsky, 2004; Bredeson, 2003; Gross, 2004; Ryan, 2003; Shields,2004). At the very least, dialogical interactions have the potential to promote thethoughtful critique of current practices and allow for school leaders and parentleaders’ interactions to better support the equitable and ethical resolution of valueconflicts in education.

NOTES

1. This chapter is based on an article previously published as, Begley, P.T. Zaretsky, L.(2004) Democratic school leadership in Canada’s public school systems: Professionalvalue and social ethic. Journal of Educational Administration. 42,(6) 640–655, and isreproduced with the permission of The Emerald Press as part of their standing agreementfor publishing articles in the Journal of Educational Administration.


REFERENCES

Alper, S.K., Schloss, P.J. and Schloss, C.N. (1994), Families of Students with Disabilities: Consultationand Advocacy, Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.

Ballard, K. (1999), “International voices: an introduction”, in Ballard, K. (Ed.), Inclusive Education:International Voices on Disability and Justice, Falmer Press: Philadelphia, PA, pp. i–iv.

Barton, L. (1998). The Politics of Special Education Needs. London: Falmer Press.Begley, P.T. (1999), (Ed) Values and Educational Leadership. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.Begley, P.T. (2001), “In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices”. International Journal of

Leadership in Education. 4(4), pp. 353–366.Begley, P.T. (2004) Understanding valuation processes: Exploring the linkage between motivation and

action. International Studies in Educational Administration. 32(2), pp. 4–17Begley, P.T. and Campbell-Evans G.H. (1992), ‘’socializing experiences of aspiring principals”, The

Alberta Journal of Educational Research. Vol.38 No.4, pp.1–15.Begley, P.T. Johansson, O. (1998), “The values of school administration: preferences, ethics and

conflicts”, The Journal of School Leadership, Vol.8 No.4, pp.399–422.Begley, P.T. & Zaretsky, L. (2004). Democratic school leadership in Canada’s public school

systems: Professional Value and Social Ethic. The Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6),pp. 640–655.

Bredeson, P.V. (2003). Designs for Learning: A New Architecture for Professional Development inSchools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Benhabib, S. (1996), “Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy”, in Benhabib, S. (Ed.),Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press:Princeton, NJ, pp. 67–94.

Bodine, R., Crawford, D., and Schrumpf, F. (1994), Creating the Peaceable School, Research Press:Champaign, Ill.

Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (2000), “The manager as politician”, in The Jossey-Bass Reader onEducational Leadership, Jossey-Bass Inc.: San Francisco, CA, pp.164–181.

Bottery, M. (2001), “Globalisation and the UK competition state: no room for transformational leadershipin education?”, School Leadership and Management, Vol.21 No.2, pp.199–218.

Brown, C. (1999), “Parent voices on advocacy, education, disability and justice”, in Ballard, K. (Ed.),Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice, Falmer Press: Philadelphia, PA,pp. 66–84.

Burello, L.C., Lashley, C. & Beatty, E.E. (2001) Educating All Students Together: How School LeadersCreate Unified Systems (Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.).

Coombs, C. P. (2004), “Developing reflective habits of mind”, Values and Ethics in EducationalAdministration, Vol.1 No.4, pp.1–8

Danforth, S. & Rhodes, W.C. (1997). Deconstructing disability. Remedial and Special Education, 18,pp. 357–366.

Duquette, L. (2003), “The effect of a formal educational process on the formation of professional ethics,paper presented at the 8th Annual Values and Leadership Conference, University Park, PA, October.

Fiedler, C.R. (2000), Making a Difference: Advocacy Competencies for Special Education Professionals,Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. (1991), Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving(2nd ed.), Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.

Gallagher, D.J., Heshusius, L., Iano, R.P., & Skrtic, T.M. (2004). Challenging Orthodoxy in SpecialEducation: Dissenting Voices. CO: Love Publishing Company.

Goeppinger, A. (2002), “The fallacies of our reality: a deconstructive look at community and leadership”,International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol.5 No.1, pp.77–83.

Greenfield, W. (1999), “Moral leadership in schools; fact or fancy?”, paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, P.Quebec, April.

Gross, S. J. (2004). Promises Kept: Sustaining School and District Leadership in a Turbulent Era.Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, Virginia.


Hodgkinson, C. (1991), Educational Leadership: The Moral Art. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.Hodgkinson, C. (1996), Administrative Philosophy, Elsevier-Pergamon: Oxford, UK.Johansson-Fua, S. (2003), “Puleako: educational leadership in Tonga”, unpublished doctoral thesis,

University of Toronto, Toronto.Jordan, A. (2001), ‘’special education in Ontario, Canada: a case study of market-based Reforms”,

Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol.31 No.3, pp.349–371.Leithwood, K.A., Begley, P.T., and Cousins, J.B. (1992), Developing Expert Leadership for Future

Schools, Falmer Press: London.Leithwood, K.A., and Steinbach, R. (1995), Expert Problem Solving. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.Mansbridge, J. (1996), “Using power/fighting power: the polity”, in Benhabib, S. (Ed.), Democracy and

Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton UniversityPress, pp.120–135.

Nachshen, J.S. and Jamieson, J. (2000), “Advocacy, stress, and quality of life in parents of children withdevelopmental disabilities”, Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, Vol.28 No.2, pp.39–55.

Normore, A. (2001), “Recruitment, socialization, and accountability of administrators in two schooldistricts”, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Ryan, J. (2003),Leading Diverse Schools, Kluwer Press: Dordrecht, NL.Shields, C. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silenced voices.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 111–134.Shields, C. M., Bishop, R., Mazawi, A.E. (2005). Pathologizing Practices: The Impact of Deficit Thinking

in Education. New York: Peter Lang.Slee, R. (2001). Driven to the margins: disabled students, inclusive schooling and the politics of

possibility. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 385 – 397.Starratt, R.J. (2003). Centering Educational Administration: Cultivating Meaning, Community, Respon-

sibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Thomas, g. & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion.

Buckingham: Open University Press.Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). The Differentiated Classroom. Montreal: Cheneliere/ McGraw-Hill.Tomlinson, S. (1995). The radical structuralist view of special education and disability: Unpopular

perspectives on their origins and development. In Skrtic, T.M. (ED.), Disability and Democracy:Reconstructing [Special] Education for Postmodernity. New York, New York: Teachers CollegePress, pp. 92–111.

Thurlow, M. & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High stakes testing for students with disabilities. Journal ofTeacher Education, 51, pp. 289–298.

Van Rooyen, B., Le Grange, L., & Newmark, R. (2002). (De)constructions of functionalist discoursesin South Africa’s education white paper 6: special needs education, International Journal of SpecialEducation,17(2), pp. 1–24.

Vincent, C. (2000), Including Parents? Education, Citizenship and Parental Agency, Open UniversityPress: Buckingham,UK.

Ware, L. (1999), “My kid, and kids kinda like him”, in Ballard, K. (Ed.), Inclusive Education: Interna-tional Voices on Disability and Justice, Falmer Press:Philadelphia, PA., pp. 86–116.

Weishaar, M.K., and Borsa, J.C. (2001),Inclusive Educational Administration: A Case Study Approach,McGraw-Hill Companies Inc: New York, NY.

Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ.: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Young, I.M. (1996), “Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy”, in Benhabib, S.(Ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton UniversityPress: Princeton, NJ, pp.120–135.

Zaretsky, L. (2003), “Principals’ and parent advocates’ perceptions of their interactions in specialeducation, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Zaretsky, L. (2004), “Advocacy and administration: from conflict to collaboration”, Journal of Educa-tional Administration. Vol.32 No.2, pp.270–286


Zaretsky, L. (2004) Responding ethically to complex school-based issues in special education. Interna-tional Studies in Educational Administration, Journal of the Commonwealth Council for EducationalAdministration & Management, 32(2), pp. 63–72.

Zaretsky, L. (2005). From practice to theory: Inclusive models require inclusive theories. AmericanSecondary Education, 33(3), pp. 65–86.

Zaretsky, L. (2005) Parent advocates’ and principals’ perceptions of professional knowledgeand identity in special education. The Journal of Special Educational Leadership, 17(2),pp. 32–48.

Zaretsky, L. (2006). Flipping the special education coin: The heads and tails of administering schoolsfor students with different needs. In Armstrong, D. & McMahon, B. (Eds.). Inclusion in UrbanEducational Environments: Addressing Issues of Diversity, Equity, and Social Justice. Greenwich,CT: Information Age Publishing.

CHAPTER 7

SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY

CHARLES F. WEBBER AND BILL MULFORDUniversity of Calgary and University of Tasmania

THE GROWING SOCIETAL RELIANCE ON, AND ATTENTIONTO SCHOOLS

Our societal context is one of rapid growth in scientific and medical discoveries,technology, including information communications technology (ICT), and theworld’s population. But it is also a context of growing unevenness in such devel-opments in different parts of the world and/or within individual countries. Theconsequences of this situation include a blurring of boundaries; growing gapsamong people, groups and countries; and a diminution of credibility of traditionalknowledge and authority of expertise, especially in professions such as education(Mulford, 2003b).

This context and its consequences are forcing particular issues onto national andinternational agendas. Foremost among these issues are economic competitivenessand market share, sustainability, identity within globalisation (including of infor-mation, commerce and people and their cultures), equity, and the role of publicinstitutions, including educational institutions, in helping society make the most ofthe concomitant challenges. In fact there can be little doubt that “Education hasmoved up the political agenda … [and] is seen as the key to unlocking not justsocial but also economic problems” (OECD, 2001b: 48).

The society we have, including the identity and cohesion of that society andits understanding and acceptance of other societies, is seen to be largely createdin our schools. Schools are one of the few remaining institutions to offer familiesopportunities to thrive within the larger culture. School education helps people makesense of, and fosters sustainability of, societal changes. The creation, acquisition,communication and wise use of knowledge are of particular importance. In brief,society’s most important investment is increasingly seen to be in the education of

119


120 Webber and Mulford

its people. In a knowledge society we are seen to suffer in the absence of goodeducation; we are seen to prosper in its presence.

The high expectations for each country’s educational system place enormousresponsibility on those in schools, especially those charged with leading andmanaging them. Evidence suggests that in trying to meet these expectations schoolleaders are taking on more and more roles. For example, Leithwood et al’s (2002)review of the empirical literature on effective leadership in accountable schoolcontexts identified 121 school leadership practices. Competency lists for schoolleader professional development programmes or school leader standards can be justas long (Huber & West, 2002). These ever-growing lists of practices, competencies,or standards prompt a concern that school leaders are not only being pulled inmany different directions simultaneously, but that they are being asked to do toomuch. In fact, Tyack and Cuban (1995, p. 14) pointed out that those responsiblefor schools need to be careful because education can easily shift “from panaceato scapegoat,” if societal expectations are not met Indeed, Mulford (2003a, 2003b,2003c) cautioned that the cumulative demands on schools and resulting fragmen-tation and incoherence could undermine the capacity of schools and their leaders.When considered en masse rather than separately, a myriad of expectations may,for example, create unintended consequences that fuel the current problems ofsupply and quality in the principalship. The result can be a largely unattainableideal of mythological proportions - ‘the superprincipal.’ However, there seems littledoubt that social pressures on schools will continue, fuelled by increasing expec-tations, growing international interdependencies, and improved communications,which make global diffusion of perceived ‘best practices’ increasingly likely (forexample, the OECD’s ongoing PISA exercise – OECD 2001a). In this context,strong local support for schools, and vice versa, is essential.

As well as these increased, complex, and possibly conflicting expectations onvarious countries’ education systems and their leaders, there are added pressuresfrom governments seeking to ensure ongoing educational reform. As the approachesoutlined in the OECD’s schooling for tomorrow scenarios (OECD, 2001c) makeclear, a particular policy direction can have an enormous impact on an educationsystem. A government’s approach, whether or not it is based on or informed byresearch evidence, can result in continuation of the status quo (the bureaucraticsystem continues), re-schooling (with schools as social centers and/or learningorganizations), and/or de-schooling (with ICT used to develop networks and/orschools becoming privatized in an extended market model).

Government approaches to the provision of education, as well as inconsistencieswithin and among these approaches, can create their own pressures on schools andtheir leaders. For example, public management (the OECD de-schooling marketmodel), with its emphasis on decentralization, markets, and accountability, hasemerged as the dominant approach in educational governance, taking over frompublic administration (the OECD status quo bureaucracy model), yet recent researchquestions its effectiveness in terms of improved student outcomes. It has beensuggested (Mulford, 2003b) that a closer examination be made of a third approach,

School and Community 121

organizational learning (the OECD re-schooling learning organization model). Inorder to meet the heightened, multiple expectations now placed on schools as theyservice knowledge societies (Hargreaves, 2003) and to increase teacher engagement,it can be argued that schools and their communities need to become learningorganizations, consciously and continuously pursuing quality improvement. Newtypes of relationships among students, teachers and leaders evolve within schoolsthat are learning organizations. These new types of relationships are based arounda common set of characteristics that include a trusting and collaborative climate,a shared and monitored mission, taking initiatives and risks, and ongoing, relevantprofessional development (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood,2004; Silins & Mulford, 2002a, 2002b, 2004).

In this context, new types of relationships between those in schools and theircommunities also evolve. These relationships are the focus of this chapter. Wefirst review some of the literature in the area, especially a recent review of educa-tional leadership literature by respected North American researchers in the field.We then provide examples of research in the area from Canada and Australia.Complementing the growing societal pressures, this literature review and researchreinforces the growing need to focus on the school and its community, as well asproviding evidence of what works. We conclude the chapter by raising a number ofissues arising from this literature and research in continuing our quest for a generaltheory of what works in school-community relationships.

REVIEWING SOME SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY LITERATURE

Schools play a vital role in strengthening linkages within their communities,by providing opportunities for interaction and networking, which contribute tothe community’s well-being and social cohesion. The close links between thesurvival and development of schools and their communities are demonstrated bya number of researchers (Bowie 1994; Jolly & Deloney 1996), who providedevidence that many rural communities have failed to remain viable after losingtheir schools.

Of the many factors which influence the success of the school-communitypartnership, leadership plays a central role. Schools’ contributions to commu-nities are enhanced by a leadership process which emphasizes active involvementand empowerment of youth at both the school and community level, broad-basedschool and community support for community change, and a common school andcommunity vision for the future (Miller, 1991, 1995). Effective leadership for the21st century, whether in communities, schools or other organizations, is shared andparticipatory, and is based on the quality of relationships within and external tothe community (Dyer & Williams 1987; Lane & Dorfman 1997; Peirce & Johnson1997). The nature of school leadership is central to the school-community alliance.Such partnerships are enhanced by school leaders who have multiple linkages withinthe community, are skilled in harnessing community resources, and who have the


vision to connect the school and wider community through curriculum programs(Rotary Club of Heirisson, 1998).

However, some studies (for example, Mulford, Silins & Leithwood, 2004) havequestioned any link between the school having a community focus and studentoutcomes. If a choice needs to be made between working with and being sensitive to thecommunity and improving home educational environments, then these studies arguedthat the latter will have more direct and immediate ‘payoff ’ for student outcomes.

Nevertheless, these studies also argued that having a strong community focusmay be important for other reasons, such as for the development of social capital inthe community, especially in poor inner city and rural communities. Underscoringa strong community is the importance of collective learning activities, includingteamwork and network building (OECD, 2001a). The World Bank’s recent interestin the area has also identified the importance of teamwork and networks. In itsattempts to measure social capital, the World Bank (Grootaert, et al, 2004) identifiedsix dimensions. These dimensions of social capital are groups and networks, trustand solidarity, collective action and cooperation, information and communication,social cohesion and inclusion, and empowerment and political action. The WorldBank argued that these six dimensions can capture the multidimensional nature ofsocial capital, including ‘bonding’ social capital (ties with people who are similarin terms of their demographic characteristics, such as family members, neighbors,close friends and work colleagues), ‘bridging’ social capital (ties to people whodo not share the same demographic similarities as in bonding social capital butit continues to be essentially horizontal, linking people with more or less equalsocial standing), and ‘linking’ social capital (more vertical, connecting people acrosspower differentials to key political and other resources and economic institutions).

Studies such the above imply that there is an urgent need to broaden what countsfor effective education beyond academic achievement. Self-concept is another casein point. Even though researchers (for example: Mulford, Silins & Leithwood, 2004;Silins & Murray-Harvey, 2000) have found that academic self-concept does notlink to other student outcomes, including academic achievement, it does not followthat academic self-concept is not an important student outcome. For example, pupilself-concept has been shown to be related to later life successes such as employmentand earnings (Feinstein, 2000). Data from this British cohort study followed allchildren born in UK in the first week of April 1970 and surveyed them againin 1975, 1980, 1986, 1991 and 1996. At age 10 in 1980 over 12,000 childrenwere tested for mathematics and reading ability and the psychological attributesof self-esteem and locus of control. The children’s teachers were questioned abouttheir behavioral attributes of conduct disorder, peer relations, attentiveness, andextroversion. In 1996, when the young people were aged 26, information wascollected on highest qualification attained, earnings, and periods of unemployment.The author, an economist, summarized his findings as follows:

… attentiveness in school has been shown to be a key aspect of human capital production, alsoinfluencing female wages even conditioning on qualifications. Boys with high levels of conduct disorderare much more likely to experience unemployment but higher self-esteem will both reduce the likelihoodof that unemployment lasting more than a year and, for all males, increase wages. The locus of control


measure … is an important predictor of female wages. … Good peer relations are important in thelabor market, particularly for girls, reducing the probability of unemployment and increasing femalewages. (p.22)

[These results] suggest strongly that more attention might be paid to the non-academic behavior anddevelopment of children as a means of identifying future difficulties and labor market opportunities. Italso suggests that schooling ought not to be assessed solely on the basis of the production of readingand maths ability. (p. 20)

A recent U.K. government White Paper provided hope that a broadening of theoutcomes of schooling argument may be occurring at the policy level in education.The White Paper (DfES, 2001, no page numbers) makes comments such as: “Criticalthough effective academic education is to children’s life chances, it is not the onlyimportant part of schooling;” “we want schools to play their part in developingrounded individuals who are prepared well for adult life;” we want to “encouragechildren’s active participation in decisions that affect them;” and, we want theintroduction of citizenship into the National Curriculum to promote not just politicalliteracy but also “social and moral responsibility and community involvement.”Such developments may be timely, for other research in U.K. (for example, Fielding,1999) has encountered students expressing doubts about the genuineness of theirschool’s interest in their progress and well being as persons, as distinct from theircontributions to their school’s league table position. The result has seen contractreplacing community as the bond of human association.

Returning to the earlier emphasis on leadership in the relationship between theschool and its community, papers prepared for the American Educational ResearchAssociation Division A’s recent Task Force for the Development of an Agenda forFuture Research on Educational Leadership (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003) identifiedthe changing contexts faced by schools and education systems. These changingcontexts included: at the societal level, increasing pluralism and multiculturalism,plus growing achievement, economic and social gaps; at the governmental level,growing and multiple accountabilities, especially standards-based reform, the needto prepare for democracy and sense of place, and the increased focus on communitydevelopment and social capital; and at the professional level, the importance ofbasing improvement on the existing knowledge base and understandings of ‘deep’democracy, and on the new science of teaching and learning.

Leithwood and Riehl’s (2003) task force paper provided a comprehensive reviewof knowledge about successful school leadership based upon academically soundquantitative research studies, multiple case studies, and systematic single casestudies. Employing a production function model situated in a rationalist paradigm,they described a number of claims that they believed could be defended by theresearch evidence, that can be generalized to most school contexts, and from whichfuture research in the area should be developed. These claims included the statementthat, in addition to principals and teachers, leadership is and ought to be distributedto others in the school and school community. They also concluded a claim thatsuccessful leaders must act in ways that acknowledge the accountability-orientedpolicy context in which almost all work.

These themes, as well as others, are picked up in other task force papers.For example, Driscoll and Goldring (2003) examined schools and communities


as contexts for learning. Seeing the current era of educational reform as one inwhich those outside the hierarchy of schools attempt to change those inside, andemploying the literature on the ‘new science’ of learning, social capital and schooland community development, and a sense of place, they identified critical questionsrelevant to research on school leadership. These questions included:

• How do leaders create bridges between the professional communities in theirschools and the network of broader community interests in ways that improvestudent learning?

• Is more parent and community involvement always better?• How can school leaders maximize the social capital already available in

the community and co-create the kinds of networks that support educationalsuccess with the community?

• What evidence do we have that community development initiatives in whichschools play a central part can be linked to better models for student learning?

• What kinds of professional knowledge and school leadership arrangements areneeded to develop civic capacity?

Furman and Shields’ (2003) task force paper argued that the concepts of socialjustice and democratic community have become major concerns for educationalresearchers and practitioners at the beginning of the 21st century (also supportedby the Reyes & Wagstaff, 2003, paper for the task force, as well as by others,such as Murphy, 1999). This is because of the increasing pluralism of westernindustrialized societies, an ongoing awareness of the achievement and economicgaps between mainstream and minority children, the increasingly sophisticatedanalyses of social injustice as played out in schools, and a sense of the needto prepare children to participate in democratic processes within an increasinglymulticultural society. Furman and Shields (2003 went on to argue the centralityof learning within this ‘moral landscape’. Their model suggested that leadershipgrounded in the moral purposes of democratic community and social justice inschools is, first and foremost, about pedagogy, a socially just pedagogy that isboth created and sustained in the context of the processes of ‘deep’ democracy. Inbrief, those recently reviewing the educational leadership literature in the field inNorth America have argued for the growing importance of, and need to focus ourresearch efforts on, the school and its community. But what has recent research onthese relationships found? In what follows, we provide examples of recent schoolcommunity research from two countries, Canada and Australia.

RECENT CANADIAN AND AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH ON SCHOOLAND COMMUNITY

Canadian Research

In what follows, several recent Canadian theoretical and empirical reports aresummarized. The summary highlights globalization as the most commonly cited


influence on current and emergent understandings in Canada of schools and theircommunities. This section begins with a description of globalization, followedby a brief outline of various responses to globalization, including new identityallegiances and new assumptions about schools and communities. Several unantici-pated results of globalization are presented and then implications for school leadersare articulated.

Discussions of globalization and education usually profile the extension ofcapitalism within an integrated global economy along with a widespread ideology ofconsumerism (Fenwick, 2004; Ghosh, 2004; Robertson, 1999). However, Willinsky(2000) provided a broader perspective of globalization by describing it as a set offorces that “connect the world in a virtual and literal sense that pays little attentionto national borders” (p. 38). A similar broad consideration of globalization wasoffered by Davies and Guppy (1997, p. 436) when they referred to “social processesthat transcend national borders,” prior to suggesting that globalization has led to theconvergence of school systems in Western nations. While the positive and negativeinfluences of globalization on schools and communities will continue to be debated,Ghosh (2004) noted that globalization is almost certainly irreversible. Further, it canbe argued that globalization—with its accompanying massive changes in studentdemographics, reliance on technology, links to the knowledge economy, shifts incultural allegiances, challenges to the concept of the common school, and unantic-ipated consequences—may be the single most significant influence on schools andtheir communities in the history of Canada.

The Canadian educational community has responded in various ways to theimpact of globalization. Some, such as Robertson (1999), have described their beliefthat schooling in Canada has shifted from being perceived as a public service toa private good, resulting in educators adopting the language of private businessand competing with one another for students, teaching and support staff, finances,and prestige. Robertson ( 1999) and also Davies and Guppy ( 1997) described theneo-Marxist perspective that big business wants to restructure schools for its ownpurposes and that is what has driven school reform and school choice initiatives.Davies and Guppy also observed that neo-liberals, who argue that schools mustprepare students for participation in the knowledge economy, share with neo-Marxists the view that business interests are driving educational agendas in Canadaand elsewhere, although the two groups differ in their opinions of how educationalleaders ought to respond to the influence of business. Ghosh (2004) observed thata positive impact of globalization on education is its dependence upon politicaldemocracy and stability which require a well informed citizenry and, therefore, aneed for education.

An interesting outcome of globalization for Canadian schools and the commu-nities they serve is a new set of local, regional, and national allegiances for studentsand their families. Corbett (2005) reported his observations of members of an eastcoast community and noted that community members’ shifted from a relativelyisolated village life to experience a wider community that provided them with anexpanded set of goods and services. At the same time, he observed a change in the


educational attainment of community members that varied by gender and by desireto migrate to larger Canadian centres. These observations paralleled Ghosh’s (2004)claim that individuals now have identities that are concurrently local, regional, andglobal, due to globalization’s creation of political boundaries through which culturalinfluences move easily. They also complemented (Willinsky’s 2000) suggestionthat our identity need no longer be tied to a particular nation and, further, that weneed not choose between our national and global allegiances. Willinsky went on todescribe the transnational connections and support systems enjoyed by many.

The influences of globalization on Canadian schools include a relatively newset of assumptions that guide community members’ actions and may challenge,at least in part, Ghosh’s (2004) statement that mass schooling is fundamentalto the promotion of “national development, economic progress, and socialintegration” (p.441). The new assumptions reflect O’Reilly and Bosetti’s (2000)suggestion that the notion of the common school may no longer be viable within apluralistic Canadian society in which individual choice has permeated virtually allaspects of life. O’Reilly and Bosetti noted the already highly differentiated natureof Canadian schooling and pointed to the increasing range of options available tostudents and their parents, for example, Catholic, Protestant, francophone, public,charter, and private schools. Mawhinney (1998) underscored this diversity amongschools with her observation that ethnically diverse communities also demandcross-cultural communication skills of teachers, just one component of the skillset required of educators who are expected to promote community involvement inschools while also increasing teacher professionalism. Osterhuis (2002) providedyet another example of the range of educational assumptions that exists in Canadiancommunities with her description of how Christian-school parents see themselvesas directly accountable to God and not the school or state, while they believethat Christian schools are accountable to God, parents, and then the state. Charterschools that cater to a multitude of academic expectations, as da Costa and Peters(2002) reported, also reinforce community assumptions that educational choiceswill be available to families and complement O’Reilly and Bosetti’s claim that “notall students have similar needs and that not all parents have similar values andbeliefs regarding the appropriate goals of education (p.33).

Globalization and its impact on education have led to a number of outcomes thateducators may not have anticipated. One example can be observed in the relation-ships among gender, educational achievement, and migration from home commu-nities. Corbett (2005) reported that women in a small community on Canada’seast coast were more likely than men to leave their home community and tosettle a bit further afield than their male counterparts, although men were morelikely than women to migrate to quite distant communities. Both men and womenwho migrated outside of a 50 km radius of their home community were “fourto eight times more likely to have post-secondary credentials” (p. 59). Corbett(2005) noted that women’s relatively strong educational success may be a resultof their coastal community’s precarious economic circumstances and the fact thateducational credentials increase their mobility and access to expanded economic


and social opportunities. Corbett (2004) previously observed that school in thecoastal community even seemed to be thought of a woman’s place, suitable forwomen because they had less direct access to participation in the east coast fishery.Nonetheless, motivation for both men and women to move and the need for formaleducation has been created, according to Corbett (2005), by the same global forcesthat influence urban Canadians and may jeopardize the sustainability of isolatedcommunities, resulting in more than 70 percent of the native-born populating leavinghome (Corbett, 2004). Unfortunately, those who stay in the east coast communitystudied by Corbett tended not to realize significant economic benefits from theeducation they did attain due to the relatively limited and low paying economicopportunities available to them.

Researchers studying other small and relatively isolated Canadian communitiesshould consider that, in addition to the family and social connections that Corbett(2004, 2005) reported, the views of First Nations peoples also must be considered.For instance, Agbo (2005), Davis, Anderson, and Jamal (2001) and Goddardand Foster (2002) reported that schools in First Nations communities routinelyexperience culture clash resulting from their exposure to mainstream teachers andcurricula that conflict with local languages and cultures. This culture clash is exacer-bated by the fact that, despite geographic isolation, most small communities areconnected to the larger Canadian and global societies by information and commu-nications technology. As Ghosh (2004) has highlighted, this may result in the sametechnologies being experienced differently by individuals in different communities.Thus, members of a First Nations community may experience culture clash as aresult of schooling and technologies that originate in the larger community, whilemembers of mainstream schools and communities may perceive the same curriculaand technologies as reflective of their culture.

Another unanticipated impact of globalization on education relates further totechnology. Jacobsen, Clifford, and Friesen (2002) stated that global interdepen-dencies require educators to be flexible, responsive, and imaginative. Indeed, theyargued that “our human survival depends on an ability to learn new things, imaginecreative possibilities and design useful solutions in deeply ambiguous and confusingsituations” (p. 2). However, Sheppard (2000) reported that, although many educatorssay they understand that schools must change to remain relevant in an era of global-ization, large numbers of teachers and principals actually resist integrating techno-logical advancements into their teaching practices. It seems that Willinsky’s (2000)questions remain relevant: “How …[can] technology … further expand the publicsphere, providing opportunities for greater awareness, understanding, and partici-pation, on a national and global level?” “How, then, are students being preparedto take advantage of greater public access to government documents, and relatedresearch and policy analysis? How ready are they to utilize these new informationsources to foster greater public deliberation and participation?” (p. 48). Similarly,Shariff (2005) cautions that educators even struggle to address the phenomenonof cyber-bullying that is usually anonymous, often sexual in nature, and open toinvolvement by large numbers of young people. Clearly, much remains to be done


to educate teachers, principals, and community members about the need to addressthe challenges posed by information and communications technology.

Webber and Robertson (1998) proposed a leadership development model intendedto address the pressures of internationalization, information and communicationtechnologies, and competition. That model, described in detail elsewhere (Robertson& Webber, 2002), included a set of leadership attributes and observable practicesthat contribute to four leadership outcomes: emotional engagement with learning,development of a critical perspective, movement beyond self, and development ofagency. The model, which includes international perspectives and the integrationof technology, was used to frame a series of leadership initiatives (Robertson& Webber, 2000, 2004; Webber & Robertson, 2003, 2004) that resulted in thefollowing suggestions for educational leaders:

• Seek cognitive dissonance that comes from challenging traditional educationalpractices.

• Strive to create schools that are flexible, creative, inclusive, and responsive tostudent and community needs.

• Go outside the boundaries of school and communities to seek linkages withrelevant organizations and individuals world-wide.

• Move beyond the notion that ‘they’—government, superintendents, schoolboards—block achievement of educational goals, and cultivate a belief inpersonal capacity to promote positive learning and teaching.

• Take responsibility for life-long participation in professional, academic, andcommunity networks.

• Make professional practices visible and transparent.• Attend to pastoral care and the quality of human relationships in schools and

their communities.• Nurture a counter culture with the school community to help identify and avoid

unanticipated consequences of decisions.• Engage parents and community members in discussion forums and decision

groups.• Seek students’ views when making significant school decisions.• Engage colleagues in basic (teacher-made and external assessments) and rich

accountability (learning portfolios, relationship building).• Involve community members in work placement programs and as expert

instructors in specific curricular areas.• Question standardized practices and seek variance in institutional form and

function.• Challenge policy guidelines held dear by other stakeholders.• Strive for a balance of local, regional, national, and international educational

considerations.• Create time to engage teachers, students, parents, and members of local and

broader educational communities.


Other researchers, such as Slater (2004) and O’Reilly and Bosetti (2000) havemade similar recommendations for educational leaders to promote collaborativerelationships with other stakeholders, facilitate individually appropriate teaching,and support risk taking. Of course, engaging community members in school decisionmaking is, as Mawhinney (1998) noted, “one of the most potentially conflictingdomains of parent and community involvement” (p. 47), with the strong possibilitythat community members and parents will fall into acceptance of the idea thatthey should defer to the professional expertise of principals and teachers (Goddard& Foster, 2002; Mawhinney, 1998). Educational leaders also ought to take thelead in ensuring that students’ experiences with information and communicationtechnologies are positive and productive (Agbo, 2005). To this end, Webber (2003)proposed that educational leaders use technology to create educative networks thatpromote learning among all members of school communities. Such an educativenetwork would focus on: possibilities for learning rather than technology per se;challenging standardization; layered participation, so that individuals can participatein a variety of formal and informal roles; flexible use of time and space; and local andinternational perspective. Webber (2003) reported that responsible use of technologyto facilitate educative networks would plan for and accept the emotions that oftenresults from engaged learning, e.g. passion, creativity, competition, sensitivity, trust,curiosity, compassion, and caring.

Attention to diversity is another key focus for educational leaders. Workingeffectively within the multicultural communities found across Canada involvespromoting students,’ teachers,’ and parents,’ abilities to understand and operateacross cultures (Ghosh, 2004) with the aim of cultivating what Davies and Guppy(1997) called “cosmopolitan world citizens” (p. 444). As challenging as multi-cultural issues are for educational leaders, it is important to underscore Jacobsen,Clifford, and Friesen’s (2002) statement that “multiple and conflicting perspectivesare not problems to be fixed, ignored or eliminated; they are the way the worldworks” (p. 2).

Australian Research

In what follows, two recent Australian research projects are summarised, the firstfocussing on successful school principalship and the other on leadership for ruralschool-community partnerships.

The first research project has resulted in the development of a model of successfulschool principalship based on the evidence from qualitative in-depth case studiesof five Australian schools that constitute part of an eight country explorationof successful school leadership (the International Successful School LeadershipProject – see http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/research/schoolleadership/ssl.html and arecent edition of the Journal of Educational Administration devoted to the casestudy results from the eight countries). Details of the samples, methodologies,related literature reviews, and so on, for this project can be found elsewhere (Gurr,Drysdale & Mulford, 2005; Mulford & Johns, 2004).


Context Understandings/Requirements of, and Support from, Community (Local to Global) and Employer

PrincipalValues

. Good/Passionate. Equity/Social justice. Other-centered. Hard working. Sense of humour

IndividualSupport

. Acknowledge

. Encourage

. Feel valued

& Capacity&Commitment. Responsibilityfor leadership and PD

Vision/Mission. Child focus. Caringenvironment. Clear/highexpectations.Wide scope. Celebration

SchoolCapacity

Culture. Trust. Collaborationand support . Risk taking andlearning

Structure. Shared decisionmaking. Distributiveleadership . Professionallearning

Teachingand

LearningOutcomes

. Constructivistapproach. Studentinvolvement,choice andresponsibility. Meaningfultasks . Collaborationin heterogeneousgrouping

StudentOutcomes

Academic. Literacy. Numeracy

Non-academic

. Confident,self-motivated, engaged learners . Sense ofidentity, self-worth and belonging

CommunitySocial

CapitalOutcomes

. Identity

. Empowered,active andengaged citizens . Lifelonglearning

Evidence Based Monitoring and Critical Reflection (on WHY, HOW and WHAT, and the relationships among them) leading to possible

Change/Transformation

HOW DO WE KNOW and DO WE NEED TO CHANGE?

WHY HOW WHAT

Figure 1. Successful school principalship (SSP)

To summarise (see Figure 1), the findings from case studies of five Australianschools suggested that successful school principalship is an interactive, recip-rocal and evolving process involving many players, which is influenced by and,in turn, influences, the context in which it occurs. Further, the findings demon-strated that a successful principalship is underpinned by the core values and beliefsof the principal. These values and beliefs inform the principals’ decisions andactions regarding the provision of individual support and capacity building, andcapacity building at the school level, including school culture and structure. Theprincipal’s core values and beliefs, together with the values and capacities of othermembers of the school community, feed directly into the development of a sharedschool vision, which shapes the teaching and learning, student and social capitaloutcomes of schooling. To complete the proposed model is a process of evidencebased monitoring and critical reflection, which can lead to change and/or transfor-mation. The context and the successful school principal’s values form the ‘why’of the model, the individual support and capacity, school capacity and schoolvision/mission the ‘how’, and the teaching and learning, student and communityoutcomes the ‘what’. The evidence based monitoring and critical reflection on the


‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what’ and the relationship among them forms the final sectionof the model, the ‘how do we know’ and ‘do we need to change’ element.The case study research confirmed claims that a successful school principal makesimportant contributions to school outcomes and that these effects are indirect.However, the research suggested that contribution occurs in a more complex wayand with a wider range of outcomes than suggested by much of the previous research.Leadership in each of the five case study schools was strongly influenced by theprincipals’ core personal values, and by the development of a shared organizationalvalues base. Although these core values were similar across school sites, the internaland external school context influenced the way in which they were translated intoschool practices and procedures.

Successful principals also displayed a core set of basic leadership skills regardlessof school context, including developing a shared vision, individual capacity building,and organizational redesign. All principals, but particularly those from low SESschools, promoted equity and social justice through the creation of strong schoolcommunities and socially just pedagogical practices, and by focusing on the devel-opment/reinforcement of a strong learning culture within the school community. Oneof the most powerful emerging concepts here is that of ‘deep’ democracy: respectfor the worth and dignity of individuals and their cultural traditions, reverencefor and proactive facilitation of free and open inquiry and critique, recognition ofinterdependence in working for the common good, the responsibility of individualsto participate in free and open inquiry, and the importance of collective choices andactions in the interest of the common good (Furman & Shields, 2003).

The model of successful school principalship highlights the:

• Embedded/contextual nature of principal values, individual and organizationalcapacity, and school mission and outcomes;

• Interactive nature of principal values, individual and organizational capacity,and mission on the one hand and outcomes on the other;

• Broad interpretation of outcomes, and their interactions with each other, toinclude teaching and learning, student academic and non-academic outcomesand community social capital; and,

• Separateness of evidence-based monitoring, implying that professionaleducators have a responsibility to not just accept, for example, what anemployer and/or community may expect but to reflect critically and if necessaryact on all aspects of the model, including the context, and their interrelation-ships.

Of particular importance for this chapter, and consistent with the literature reviewedearlier, is the emphasis in the research findings regarding the need to broadenthe interpretation of the outcomes of good schools and good leadership to includecommunity social capital. The second Australian research project (Kilpatrick et al.,2001) also confirmed the importance of school community partnerships and recom-mended a set of successful implementation strategies. The three project objectiveswere to examine the extent and nature of the contribution of rural schools to


their communities’ development beyond traditional forms of education of youngpeople, investigate the ways in which the modes of leadership of the schooland community leaders influence the extent and nature of the school’s contri-bution to the community, and consider the constraints to schools being put toother uses.The project comprised case studies of five very different rural communities indifferent Australian States. The communities were selected on the advice of expertinformants as examples of good practice, and to reflect diversity in terms ofpopulation size, industry base, school provision (primary only, area schools, separatehigh schools, private schools), geographic isolation, and level of maturity of theschool community partnership.

Rural school community partnerships were found to deliver a variety of positiveoutcomes for youth and for the community, including the provision of training thatmeets both student and community needs, improved school retention, increasedretention of youth in rural communities, positive environmental outcomes, culturaland recreational benefits from sharing physical and human school resources, andeconomic outcomes in terms of the school as a key employer and consumer of localgoods and services. Whilst these tangible outcomes are important to the sustain-ability of many small rural communities, the potentially more valuable outcomesfrom school community partnerships are increased individual and communitycapacity to influence their own futures. In particular, the development of VET(Vocational Education and Training)-in-schools programs in rural communities, andthe community-wide benefits that flow from such programs, represents an importantvehicle for building community capacity.

Rural schools help to build individual and community capacity by facili-tating interactions which build social capital. Social capital comprises knowledgeresources and identity resources. Knowledge resources refer to knowledge of who,when and where to go for advice or resources, and knowledge of how to getthings done. They include internal and external community networks, availabilityof skills and knowledge, knowledge of community procedures and rules for gettingthings done, the existence of communication sites or interactional infrastructure,and knowledge of the values and attitudes of others in the community. Rural schoolcommunity partnerships build knowledge resources by: creating new networks orstrengthening existing networks within the community; utilizing and making othersaware of the skills and knowledge available within the community; establishingclear and widely understood rules and procedures for getting things done; facili-tating communication within the community; and providing opportunities for peoplewith differing values and attitudes to come to appreciate each other’s viewpointsand work on shared projects.

Identity resources refer to the ability and commitment of individuals to act forthe benefit of the community and its members. They include resources such as self-confidence and self-esteem, sharing of values and attitudes, the development of ashared vision, trust, and engendering a commitment to the community. Rural schoolcommunity partnerships build identity resources by: building the self-confidence


and self-esteem of youth and community members as they work on shared projects;facilitating some sharing of values and attitudes and building trust, particularlybetween young people and other community members; building on a foundationof shared values to develop a shared vision for the youth of the community andthe community more broadly; and engendering community pride, commitment andself-efficacy by publicizing successful school community partnerships.

Effective leadership for school–community partnerships is a collective processthrough which school and community together develop and enact shared visions thatreflect their collective needs and collective future. The process consists of five stages(see Figure 2): trigger, initiation, development, maintenance, and sustainability. Oneor several individuals are usually responsible for triggering the school communitypartnership by identifying a shared problem or opportunity. However, as the processenters the initiation stage, informal processes such as a community meeting comeinto play in order to mobilize school and community resources to address theproblem or opportunity.

At the development stage, formal processes are implemented to involve schooland community, such as the formation of a management committee comprisingschool and community stakeholders. The fourth stage is maintenance, in whicheffective management of the partnership is facilitated by processes and resourcesthat have been put in place. Finally, sustainability refers to the stage during whichschool and community review and renew their vision and goals, and scan for newopportunities and problems in relation to the partnership. The process is cyclical,in that the sustainability stage feeds back either to the trigger stage (where a newpartnership begins) or to the initiation stage (where changes are made to the existingpartnership).Although leadership for effective school community partnerships is a collectiveprocess involving all stakeholders, there are key individuals who facilitate theleadership process. School Principals legitimize the partnership and provide initialand ongoing support in terms of promoting within their schools an atmosphere ofcaring, respect and trust, and providing a school structure that promotes partic-ipative decision making. Other key players in school community partnershipsinclude school staff (particularly project coordinators such as coordinators of VET-in-schools programs), and community opinion leaders. Project coordinators oftenundertake the role of boundary crossers, in that they are well-known and respectedcommunity members who speak the language of both school and community‘cultures’. Community opinion leaders include representatives from key communitysectors such as local government, business and industry, service clubs, the schoolparent body, and Indigenous groups. These people tend to assume importance atthe development, maintenance and sustainability stages of the partnership as theinitiative gradually comes to be ‘owned’ by the community.

The study found that there are 12 indicators of effective school communitypartnerships and effective leadership. The indicators are largely sequential in thatlater indicators build on earlier ones:


TRIGGERSchool or communityidentified problem or

opportunity

OR

Trigger for newlinkage identified from

leadership process

INITIATION

Transfer to informalcollective leadership process � build support base� identify resources

� public relations

SUSTAINABILITY

Review/renew vision andgoals � evaluate� seek feedback� scan for opportunities� risk taking

and/or

Identifynew linkage

Changeexisting linkage

DEVELOPMENT

Formalising collective leadership process� widen support base� develop shared vision� risk taking� ensure match between school and community leadership

MAINTENANCE

Process and resourcesin place

� Manage linkage (doing it well)

Figure 2. Implementing school-community partnerships: Stages of the leadership process

• School principals are committed to fostering increased integration betweenschool and community;

• School has in-depth knowledge of the community and resources available;• School actively seeks opportunities to involve all sectors of the community,

including boundary crossers, and those who would not normally have contactwith the school;


• School has a high level of awareness of the value and importance to school–community partnerships of good public relations;

• School Principals display a transformational leadership style which empowersothers within the school and community and facilitates collective visioning;

• School and community have access to and utilise extensive internal and externalnetworks;

• School and community share a vision for the future, centred on their youth;• School and community are open to new ideas, willing to take risks and willing

to mould opportunities to match their vision;• School and community together play an active, meaningful and purposeful role

in school decision making;• School and community value the skills of all in contributing to the learning of all;• Leadership for school–community partnerships is seen as the collective respon-

sibility of school and community; and,• School and community both view the school as a learning centre for the

whole community, which brings together physical, human and social capitalresources.

Underscoring these indicators is the importance of collective learning activitiesincluding teamwork and network building, which were identified in the earlierliterature review as key social capital building activities.

Synthesising these indicators further, Figure 3 collapses the levels of maturityof the school-community partnership into three broad levels (early, middle andlate), and presents a generic model of the relationships between seven indicatorsof effective school-community partnerships and the level of maturity of thosepartnerships. For example, at an early level of maturity ideas for school-communitypartnership originate in the school. With greater maturity the source of ideas shiftsto the school and community and then the community itself.Implications for schools and communities and recommendations for policy fromthe study include:

For schools and communities

• Value youth - communities in which all sectors value, share responsibilityfor, and are committed to the provision of opportunities for their youth, andactively seek linkages with their local schools.

• Scan the horizon for new opportunities - schools and communities need toconstantly scan the horizon for new opportunities, both within and outsidethe community that will allow them to realise their shared vision, particularlythose that will involve multiple community sectors working together. Schoolsand communities need to be prepared to mould opportunities to fit with theirvision.

• Good school public relations are crucial - school public relations are abouttwo-way communication between school and community, ensuring the schoolis in tune with community concerns and aspirations. Public relations is an


Valued as learning

resources

School andcommunity

Extensive planned publicity

School developscommunity capacity

Vision sharedby school

and community

High risktakingand

opportunity moulding

Community

Community membersproactive in learning, supplemented by external resources

Ongoing andresponsive to community;

two-way communication

Weighted towardscommunity

Communityempowered

School is partof community’s

vision

Opportunitymoulding: Reaping benefits of past risk taking

Level of Maturity ofPartnership

Early

Middle

Late

Buildknowledge

base

School

Event basedpublicity

Weightedtowards school

School-directed

Low

School’svision

Sharedbetween

school and community

RIS

K T

AK

ING

DE

CISIO

N M

AK

ING

PUBLIC RELATIO

NS

CO

MM

UN

ITY

RESO

URCES

SHARED VISIONCOMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT M

ATCH

Figure 3. Relationship between indicators and levels of maturity of the school community partnership

ongoing and shared activity involving all school staff and students, as well asthe community.

• Provide opportunities and support for everyone to contribute - provide multipleopportunities for people to be involved in school and community activities,depending on their skills, abilities and self-confidence. In particular, ensurethose new to the school and community are welcomed into the community.

• Encourage broad-based participation in school leadership processes - commu-nities in which people from multiple sectors are encouraged to participate activelyin (inclusive) school governance and school council bodies lay the foundation forongoing and mutually beneficial school–community partnerships.


• Get community leaders on side - identify and develop relationships betweenschool and key community opinion leaders from all community sectors, partic-ularly those sectors that have had little previous involvement with the school.In particular, target business and industry, local government, service and othervoluntary groups, churches, Indigenous, and ethnic groups.

• Nurture boundary crossers - boundary crossers play an important role inbuilding and maintaining school–community partnerships, and also providea sense of continuity that is so important to the sustainability of school–community partnerships. Identify and support existing and potential newboundary crossers in the community, and develop strong relationships betweenthem and the school.

• Do not try to short circuit the process when developing school–community links- realise that building shared vision and commitment to school–communitypartnerships is developmental and, therefore, takes time and requires carefulplanning. Time spent at the beginning of the process is more likely to ensurethe sustainability of linkages and the availability of capacity or social capitaldown the track.

• Involve external stakeholders from the beginning - involve external stake-holders, such as Departments of Education and other funding bodies, earlyin the process, and ensure two-way communication with them throughout. Atthe same time, schools and communities need to be proactive in shaping orchanging policy in order to achieve school– community vision.

• Be flexible but maintain a degree of continuity - be flexible in changing struc-tures within school and community to facilitate school–community partner-ships (e.g. flexibility in school operating hours, flexibility in appointingstaff to coordinate linkages, flexibility in terms of venues and timesof meetings relating to school–community partnerships). At the sametime, however, a degree of continuity in terms of resources is importantto the development and sustainability of effective school–communitypartnerships.

Recommendations for policy

• Provide for continuity - seeding grants for the development of large-scaleschool–community partnerships should have a five-year lifecycle, in keepingwith commercial business practice and current levels of funding for thedevelopment, maintenance and sustainability of large-scale school–communitypartnerships should be reviewed, and increased levels of funding allocated(or redistributed from the ‘start-up’ stages) to allow for the maintenance andsustainability of school–community partnerships.

• Support school entrepreneurship by better facilitating the seeking out andwriting of funding applications - additional financial resources should beprovided to rural schools to allow them to seek opportunities and develop grantapplications for external sources of funding.

Table 1. Key influences on schools and their communities

Influence Desired Attributes Challenges Proactive Behaviors

ProfessionalLeadership

Shared, participatory,transformational, distributive,reciprocal, reflective,evidence-based, trust, collaboration,multiple linkages, positive studentoutcomes, socially just pedagogy,sense of agency, accountable,entrepreneurial

Decentralization without support,difficult relationships, student andparent participation in decisionmaking, involving communityleaders, sufficient pastoral care,narrow definition of studentoutcomes

Bonding, bridging, linking, seekingcognitive dissonance, makingprofessional practices visible andtransparent, supporting risk taking,molding opportunities, involvingexternal stakeholders

Pluralism andmulticulturalism

Deep democracy, varietyof educational settings andopportunities, social capital,interdependency, social cohesion,political literacy, individuallyappropriate learning and teaching,community capacity

Schools as scapegoats,contradictory expectations,achievement gaps, faltering supportfor the common school, gender andcultural disparities, culturalhomogenization

Communicating across cultures,including, responding, nurturing acounter culture, nurturing boundarycrossers

Globalization Mobility, economic opportunity,multiple and complementaryallegiances

Priority of business interests,culture clash, sustainability of ruraland isolated communities,dominance of the English language

Questioning standardization,seeking variance, challengingpolicies, balancing local and widerinterests

Information andcommunicationtechnology

Public deliberation andparticipation, layered use, flexibleuse of time and space, criticalperspective, access to information

Pedagogical relevance, ambiguity,confusion, educational change,cyber-bullying

Providing access, creatingpossibilities, obtaining resources


• Facilitate the appointment of school–community liaison officers - the positionof school–community liaison officer should be created in each rural localgovernment area or equivalent, to service schools and communities in that area.This position should be funded appropriately by various levels of governmentand by schools. The role of the community liaison officer will be to facilitateschool–community partnerships, including sourcing and accessing funding forschool– community initiatives.

• Ensure policy flexibility - policy makers need to build flexibility into policies,to take into account the particular problems faced by rural schools and commu-nities, and to allow rural schools and communities to maximise on theirstrengths and available resources.

• Ensure appropriate support is provided for all rural schools to establish andmaintain community linkages - both government and independent schools inrural areas should be encouraged and supported to develop further linkageswith each other, with rural and other industry, and with community groups.

• Facilitate transformational and distributive leadership - rural leadership andprofessional development programs should consider the value and potentialcontribution of rural schools. Programs should explore and develop personalvalues in order to facilitate participation in the leadership process, andshould develop skills in communicating, compromising and negotiating. Parentbodies, with appropriate financial support, should provide leadership trainingto support parental participation in school decision making.

CONCLUSION

Table 1 provides an overview of some of the significant influences, attributes,challenges, and proactive behaviors presented in this chapter that shape the relation-ships between schools and their communities.School-community relations have always been politicized and complex. However,the cultural, global, and technological shifts of recent decades have underscoredgreatly the importance of educational leaders who are capable of building andsustaining strong, positive, and reciprocal school-community linkages. It is ofcourse up to individual educational leaders to increase their capacity to attendto school-community issues and school leaders must take up this challenge morethan they have. However, it also is incumbent upon those who deliver leadershipdevelopment and continuing professional development programs to ensure thatprincipals and teachers learn to work more than they have to date with and forthe members of their school communities. School districts, universities, and profes-sional associations should collaborate far more than they do to plan and deliverprogramming germane to schools and their relationships with their communities.Working closely with school communities should not be a threat to teacher profes-sionalism or a denigration of the obvious successes achieved by educators in Canada,Australia, and other Western nations; it is a major responsibility for educationalprofessionals.


REFERENCES

Agbo, M. (2005). Perspectives on local control of education with a future orientation: A view from FirstNations. Journal of Educational Thought, 39(3), 287–321.

Bowie, B. (1994). The impact of current policy trends in education on rural communities and their smallschool. In Issues Affecting Rural Communities. Proceedings of the international conference on issuesaffecting rural communities sponsored by The Rural Education Research and Development Centre,10–15 July, Townsville, Queensland, pp. 169–174. Ed 390 606

Corbett, M. (2005). Rural education and out-migration: The case of a coastal community. CanadianJournal of Education, 29(1/2), 52–72.

Corbett, M. (2004). It was fine, if you wanted to leave: Educational ambivalence in a Nova Scotiancoastal community 1963–1998. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(4), 451–471.

Da Costa, J., & Peters, F. (2002). Achievement in Alberta’s charter schools: A longitudinal study.Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. ED 481 624.

Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (1997). Globalization and educational reforms and Anglo -American democ-racies. Comparative Education Review, 41(4), 435–459.

Davis, J., Anderson, K., & Jamal, S. (2001). Culture and community in Canada’s isolated schools.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for the Study of EducationalAdministration, Québec, Canada. ED 461 463

DfES. (2001). Schools - Achieving success. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/achievingsuccess/

Driscoll, M., & Goldring, E. (2003, April) Schools and communities as contexts for student learning:New directions for research in educational leadership. Paper presented to the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Dyer, D., & Williams, O. (1987). Developing local community leaders. Blacksburg, VA: Center forVolunteer Development, Virginia Tech.

Feinstein, L. (2000) The relative economic importance of academic, psychological and behaviouralattributes developed in childhood. London: Centre for Economic Performance, Universityof London.

Fenwick, T. (2004). What happens to the girls? Gender, work and learning in Canada’s ‘new economy.Gender and education, 16(2), 169–185.

Fielding, M. (1999) Target setting, policy pathology and student perspectives: Learning to labor in newtimes, Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 277–287.

Furman, G., and Shields, C. (2003, April) How can leaders promote and support social justice anddemocratic community in schools? Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, IL.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. New York: Teachers College Press.Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002, June). New ways of preparing teachers for technology

integration. Paper presented to the Ed-MEDIA World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyper-media, and Telecommunications, Denver, Colorado. ED 477 032

Ghosh, R. (2004). Globalization in the North American region: Toward renegotiation of cultural space.McGill Journal of Education, 39(1), 87–101.

Goddard, J.T., & Foster, R. (2002). Adapting to diversity: Where cultures collide- educational issues innorthern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Education, 27 (1), 1–20.

Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Nyhan Jones, V., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring social capital.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Gurr, D., Drysdale L., & Mulford, B. (2005). Successful principal leadership: Australian case studies.Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 539–551

Huber, S.m & West, M. (2002). Developing school leaders: a critical review of current practices,approaches and issues, and some directions for the future. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger, (Eds.),Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 1071–1101).Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.


Jolly, D.m & Deloney, P. (1996, October). Integrating rural school and community development:An initial examination. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Rural EducationAssociation, San Antonio, Texas.

Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Mulford, B., Falk, I., & Prescott, L. (2001). More than education: Leadershipfor rural school-community partnerships. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation. Retrieved October 19, 2006 from http://rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/02–055sum.html

Lane, B. & Dorfman, D. (1997). Strengthening community networks: The basis for sustainable communityrenewal. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 19, 2006 fromhttp://www.nwrel.org/ruraled/strengthening.html

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003, April) What do we already know about successful school leadership?Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,IL.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (2002) Leadership practices for accountable schools. In K.Leithwood and P. Hallinger. (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership andAdministration (pp. 849–879). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Mawhinney, H. (1998). School wars or school transformation: Professionalizing teaching and involvingcommunities. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(1), 36–55.

Miller, B. (1991). Rural distress and survival: The school and the importance of community. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 9(2), 84–103.

Miller, B. (1995). The role of rural schools in community development. Portland, OR: NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1996–1/rural.htm

Mulford, B. (2003a). Balance and learning: Crucial elements in leadership for democratic schools,Leadership and Policy in School, 2(2), 109–124.

Mulford, B. (2003b) School leaders: Challenging roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness.Paris: OECD. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/61/2635399.pdf

Mulford, B. (2003c) The role of school leadership in attracting and retaining teachers and promotinginnovative schools and students. Canberra: Review of Teaching and Teacher Education, Common-wealth Department of Education Science and Training.

Mulford, B., & Johns, S. (2004). Successful school principalship, Leading & Managing, 10(1), 45–76.Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003) Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes,

Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2): 175–195.Mulford, B., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. (2004). Leadership for organisational learning and student

outcomes: A problem-based learning approach, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Murphy, J. (1999) A quest for a centre: Notes on the state of the profession of educational leadership.

Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.OECD. (2001a) Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: author.OECD. (2001b, December) Report on Hungary/OECD seminar on managing education for lifelong

learning. Budapest, Hungary.OECD. (2001c) What Future Schools? Paris: author.O’Reilly, R.R., & Bosetti, L. (2000). Charter schools: The search for community. Peabody Journal of

Education, 75(4), 19–36.Oosterhuis, A. (2002). The development of a Christian ideology of inclusive education. Journal of

Research on Christian Education, 11(1), 5–31.Peirce, N. & Johnson, C. (1997). Boundary Crossers: Community leadership for a global age. College

Park, MD: The Academy of Leadership Press.Reyes, P., & Wagstaff, L. (2003, April). Leadership, diverse students, and successful teaching and

learning. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL.

Robertson, H.J. (1999). Shall we dance? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), 728–736.Robertson, J.M., & Webber, C.F. (2000). Cross-cultural leadership development. International Journal

of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 315–330


Robertson, J.M., & Webber, C.F. (2002). Boundary-breaking leadership: A must for tomorrow’s learningcommunities. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.) Second International Handbook of EducationalLeadership and Administration (pp. 519 – 556). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Robertson, J.M., & Webber, C.F. (2004). International leadership development through web-basedlearning. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, (8)12. Retrieved October 19,2006 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/˜iejll/volume8/robertson_webber12.html

Rotary Club of Heirisson. (1998). Principal of the year nomination. East Perth, Western Australia.Shariff, S. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: School obligations to provide student safety

in a virtual school environment. McGill Journal of Education, 40(3), 467–487.Sheppard, B. (2000, April). Organizational learning and the integration of information and communi-

cation technology in teaching and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. ED 442 460

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002a). Organisational learning and school change’, Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly, 38(5), 613–642.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002b). Schools as learning organisations: The case for system, teacher andstudent learning, Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 425–446.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organisations: Effects on teacher leadership andstudent outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3–4), 443–466.

Silins, H. & Murray-Harvey, R. (2000). Students as the central concern, Journal of Educational Admin-istration, 28(3), 230–246.

Slater, L. (2004). Relationship-driven teaching cultivates collaboration and inclusion. Kappa Delta PiRecord, 40(2), 58–59.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Webber, C.F., & Robertson, J. (1998). Boundary breaking: An emergent model for leadershipdevelopment. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 6(21). Retrieved November 15, 2004, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n21.html

Webber, C.F. (2003). Technology-mediated leadership development networks: Expanding educativepossibilities. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 201–218.

Webber, C.F. & Robertson, J.M. (2003). Developing an international partnership for tomorrow’s educa-tional leaders. International Studies in Educational Administration, 31(1), 15–32.

Webber, C.F., & Robertson, J.M. (2004). Internationalization and educators’ understanding of issues ineducational leadership. Educational Forum, 68(3), 264–275

Willinsky, J. (2000). The nation-state after globalism. Educational Studies, 33(1), 35–53.

CHAPTER 8

USING RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY IN EDUCATION

BEN LEVIN AND NANCY NAYLOROntario Ministry of Education/OISE and Ontario Ministry of Education

INTRODUCTION – DOES MONEY MATTER?

Our argument in this chapter is that the resources devoted to education in Canadacould be used more effectively than they are at present. We point out various waysin which current resource allocation processes are less than optimal based on currentknowledge. We outline the barriers to more effective allocation of resources andmake suggestions as to steps that could be taken to support improvement. Giventhe scope of the issue, this discussion should be seen as introductory.

In 2002 – the most recent year for which we have good national data - Canadiangovernments spent about $39 billion on pre-primary, elementary and secondaryeducation, or about 3.5% of our gross domestic product (Canadian EducationStatistics Council 2006). There is, of course, considerable argument as to whether$39 billion is the right amount to spend on schools. There is no unambiguous wayto settle this question, although a range of comparisons can be brought into playthat shed light on the issue.

As one way of thinking about the issue, $39 billion is about $8000 per studentper year, or about $40 per student per day based on 200 school days per year, orabout $8 per student per hour based on a 5 hour day – which is about what a parentmight pay a babysitter. Taking another approach, $39 billion is about $1200 peryear for each Canadian, or about $5000 for a family of four - about what a familymight spend on a week’s holiday in the sun, or about the annual cost of operating acar. Carrying the car analogy further, in 2004 General Motors of Canada reportedrevenue for the year of $37 billion – close to the same as total Canadian spendingon elementary and secondary schools.

Canada does not report expenditures as part of the OECD ‘Education at a Glance’annual report. However by using the figures above and comparing them with dataon other countries in the OECD document (OECD, 2005), it appears that Canada

143


144 Levin and Naylor

ranks about in the middle in our public investment in elementary and secondaryeducation. Our reputation as a high public spender on education internationally isdue largely to our high public investment in post-secondary education. It is also thecase that public spending on elementary and secondary education as a proportionof total government spending has fallen over the last twenty years, a change drivenlargely by rapid increases in spending on health care (Canadian Education StatisticsCouncil, 2006, 181).

These various comparisons suggest that spending in Canada on elementary andsecondary education is moderate – neither particularly low nor particularly high.This conclusion is supported by data showing that the return on investment foradditional years of education remains high in Canada both for the individualsinvolved and for society as a whole. Recent Canadian evidence indicates that auniversity graduate can expect a return of about 10 to 15 percent in earningsabove what she or he would have earned with only a high school diploma (HumanResources Development Canada, 2000).

Much of the public debate over education in Canada is about spending. Theclaim is sometimes made that more spending does not improve education or, to putit more crassly, that ‘throwing money at schools’ is not a good strategy. Of coursemoney does matter; one has only to think about trying to operate a school systemwith no funding at all to see immediately that at least some amount of money iscritical. Few people, even in the richest countries, and including those most criticalof our current system, suggest that North American or European countries shouldmove to the funding levels of third world countries with classes of 60 to 100students, untrained teachers and no textbooks. Elite private schools spend more perstudent than do public schools, further indicating that those able to do so preferto have more spent on their children rather than less. That is why governmentstypically connect their education policy announcements to additional spending. Itis also why, one presumes, per pupil spending on education in Canada has onceagain risen in the last few years, continuing a fifty year trend that was interruptedonly briefly in the late 1990s at the height of the public policy focus on cuttingdeficits and debt. Although many Canadian provinces cut spending on educationin the 1990s – most in real terms, but some in absolute terms as well – these cutsproved to be politically unsustainable and have now largely been reversed.

A substantial empirical literature (see Burtless, 1996, for a good discussion) hasexamined the question of whether and when money matters. At the risk of greatlyoversimplifying a complex issue, the emerging conclusion seems to be that morespending in and of itself is not linked to outcomes, but that money does affectoutcomes if it is spent on the right things. An OECD report concluded that “asmuch as spending on educational institutions is a necessary prerequisite [sic] forthe provision of high-quality education, spending alone is not sufficient to achievehigh levels of outcomes” (2001, 93). When stated so baldly, the conclusion seemsblindingly obvious. But how and when do resources matter, and what are theimplications for education policy?

Efforts to describe education in terms of a production function – a standardeconomic tool for matching inputs to outcomes – have been largely unsuccessful.

Using Resources Effectively in Education 145

As King, Swanson and Sweetland (2003) put it in reviewing this literature, “Weare growing in our understanding of the relationships between educational inputsand outputs, but the causal relationships between school inputs and processes andpupil achievement are still largely unknown (362).” The same is true of particularschool programs and policies; it is exceedingly difficult to show consistent andlasting impacts from particular instructional approaches, whether these are curricula(such as new approaches to teaching mathematics), patterns of teaching (such asdirect instruction or cooperative learning), forms of school organization (such assmaller class sizes or longer school years), or the use of information technology. Themost sophisticated analyses of educational outcomes still assign the largest singlecomponent of variance to student background and to unknowns in the schoolingprocess (Mayer, 2002; Ma & Klinger, 2000).

The reasons for the lack of success of production function research are many andtoo complex to describe here in any detail (see Burtless, 1996 or King, Swanson& Sweetland, 2003 for a fuller discussion). Briefly, the difficulties are due to thenature of education as a human enterprise as well as to problems of measurementand analysis. Among the former can be mentioned the enormous variability instudents’ interests and aptitudes (so that students may learn in quite different ways),the large effects of non-school variables such as family background (which makesit hard to sort out the independent effect of various school practices), and thechallenge of achieving consistent and effective implementation of new practices ona large scale (which makes it hard to know if a ‘treatment’ or program has actuallybeen applied). Problems of measurement include the difficulty in measuring theoutcomes of education given the many different outcomes that are important (fromliteracy and numeracy to citizenship, prosocial behaviour and employment skills)and the fact that one can only assess the important outcomes of education overmany years, creating huge methodological problems for research.

This means that one cannot readily speak of applying educational practices ina uniform way. Learning is not a production process (Levin, 1994), despite thefrequent use of factory metaphors such as “producing capable students”. Rather,education is a process of development. Cars or houses are produced by people doingthings to raw materials such as metal or wood. But becoming educated is somethingstudents must do themselves, although many other people may help them along inthe process. The same is true of teachers, whose daily practice is deeply affectedby their individual ideas about themselves, the students, their subjects and theeducational process. Thus, while there are agreed-upon ways of making products,ways of becoming educated are likely to vary as much as people vary. We can‘tsay that if we just did a, b, and c, every student would become educated; indeed,such a claim is antithetical to the meaning of education. The impact of resources oneducational outcomes, then, is likely to be a difficult subject on which to producefirm evidence.

This argument should not be read too pessimistically. The research effort ineducation has been and remains very small in Canada and worldwide. Comparedwith fields such as health or technology we have not invested much in trying to


learn more about effective practice. Yet despite the small investment our knowledgeabout effective practice has grown significantly in the last couple of decades. Forexample, we know much more than we used to about effective practices in earlyliteracy instruction (McCardle & Chhabra, 2004), or about motivating students(Stefanou et al., 2004), or about good assessment practices (Earl, 2003), or aboutengaging parents effectively in their children’s education (Epstein & Salinas, 2004).However existing knowledge still falls short in many areas, and even where it ismost developed is not an infallible guide to policy or practice because conditionsvary so widely from school to school and community to community.

Although the context for schooling is highly variable, school systems everywhereuse a remarkably common model of education provision. With rare exceptions,school systems are organized on the basis of individual teachers working withgroups or classes of children of approximately the same age. Younger childrentend to have the same teacher for all or most of their instruction while teachersof older children are more likely to specialize in particular subjects. Differencesin spending across jurisdictions and over time are driven primarily by variancesin the numbers of staff and in pay levels. Class sizes, which are the greatestsingle determinant of costs, are shaped primarily by standard patterns of programprovision. Students spend most of their time in groups of 20–30, though childrenwith higher levels of need may be placed in smaller groups. Secondary schoolstypically spend more per student than elementary schools because the greater rangeof course offerings seen as necessary to provide for different future destinationsmeans that more classes have to be offered relative to the number of students,hence smaller average class sizes. The provision of what is usually called ‘regularinstruction’ accounts for about 60% of overall spending on schools. Over the lasttwo decades a growing proportion of total spending – now typically above 10% - isspent on provision of special education for students considered to require somethingother than the ‘regular’ classroom. Other main areas of spending include costsof buildings (about 10% of total spending overall, but treated as capital ratherthan operating in some provinces), administration, transportation of students, andvarious other minor categories. Some areas that might be shown as significantareas of activity in other economic sectors – such as research and development, orinformation systems – do not have distinct appropriations in the education sector.

These spending patterns are quite consistent across provinces and countries.Differences among provinces and across jurisdictions are driven primarily by pupil-teacher ratios and by wages, although also in part by differences in definitions ofwhat ‘counts’ as education spending.

Education is a labour intensive enterprise; in Canada in 2000 more than 75%of total spending was for salaries – about 60% for educators and about 15% forother salaries. These patterns are similar, though not identical from province toprovince and between Canada and other G7 countries (Canadian Education StatisticsCouncil 2006). Odden & Busch (1998) cite a variety of studies showing similar andconsistent patterns of spending in United States education system. Education has notwitnessed the substitution of capital (equipment) for labour that has characterized


many other economic sectors as they have matured. Agriculture and other industrieshave over time been able to increase production while dramatically reducing thesize of the workforce; such a transformation has not occurred in human servicessuch as education and there is, as already discussed, uncertainty as to whether itis possible even in principle. Information technology has not yet demonstrated anysignificant effect on educational outcomes (Ungerleider & Burns, 2002).

The division of labour in education has remained largely unchanged over manyyears. Despite many efforts to introduce new categories of teachers or assistantteachers, schools remain staffed primarily by certified teachers almost always paidon a common scale, by uncertified teaching assistants, and by ancillary staff suchas caretakers, secretaries and bus drivers. Recent years have seen a significantgrowth in the number of teaching assistants – untrained staff many of whom areassigned to support students in special education. School administrators are drawnfrom the ranks of the teaching profession. Efforts over many years to introducevarious forms of merit pay into education have largely failed (Mohrman, Mohrman& Odden, 1996), partly because of resistance from educators but even more becausethe determination of merit in teaching is fraught with difficulty for the same reasonsthat education production cannot readily be determined.

A further point about education resources is that economies of scale play outquite differently than they do in many other economic activities because educationis not a standard production enterprise but depends fundamentally on the quality ofinterpersonal relationships. Although the issue remains contentious, current thinkingis that beyond a certain size both schools and school districts become less efficientrather than more. The research on school size, for example, suggests that elementaryschools of 400–500 and secondary schools of 1000 or so are as large as neededto provide a full range of programs (Andrews, Duncombe, & Yinger, 2002). Someanalysts (e.g. Raywid, 1998) go even further, arguing that to be effective schoolsshould be of a size in which everyone can know everyone else – suggestingsecondary schools significantly smaller than 1000, and making the claim that evenvery small schools – say with 50 elementary and 150 or so secondary students – areevery bit as productive as larger schools. The Gates Foundation in the UnitedStates is investing very large amounts of money in reducing effective school size,especially in secondary schools, through a variety of strategies. Canadian schoolstend to be smaller on average in any case. For example, elementary schools inOntario average about 300 students across K-8 while secondary schools averageless than 1000. Other provinces have even smaller average school sizes.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BETTER USE OF RESOURCES

Changing the use of resources is never an easy task. In the main part of this chapterwe make a series of suggestions about potential improvements, but we do so in thefull knowledge that these are much easier to propose than to carry out. Moreover,there are other important areas that we do not address here for reasons of space – forexample, reducing the cost of staff turnover and absenteeism (Guarino, Santibañez


& Daley, 2006). We return at the end of the chapter to the barriers to better resourceallocation and what might be done about them.

BETTER VS. MORE

The usual response of education systems to suggestions about new practices is thatthese require new resources. Our discussion does not presume that different meansmore. We have already stated our view that schools in Canada today are funded at areasonable, though not excessive, level. No doubt schools could make good use ofadditional resources. This may be particularly an issue, as noted later, in high needcommunities. But we start with the position that resource ought to follow priorities,and that this will often require reallocation from existing, lower yield purposes tonew, higher yield activities.

THE BALANCE AMONG LEVELS OF PROVISION

An important question to pose about resource allocation in education concerns thebalance of investment among different levels of provision. At present in Canada,and in most other countries, the most money per student is spent on post-secondary(college and university), followed by secondary schools, then elementary schools(OECD 2005). Pre-school provision and adult education lag far behind. The mostmoney in absolute terms goes to elementary and secondary schools, however,because the participation rate is close to 100%, much higher than any otherlevel.

The available data on return on investment raises questions about these alloca-tions. In particular there is strong evidence that greater investment in early childhooddevelopment, especially for the first two years of life, has excellent payoffs(Karolyi et al., 2001), suggesting that more support for very young children andtheir parents would be an excellent use of public funds. Although this idea isgaining national and international support, even those countries that focus on earlychildhood tend to concentrate on 3 and 4 year olds much more than on the criticalprenatal to age 2 period. We do not have enough evidence to be confident aboutwhat forms of supports and programming in the very early years would be mostuseful, but we do know that experimentation with various strategies would be animportant step.

Within compulsory schooling, we have already noted that elementary schoolstypically spend less per student and have larger average class sizes than do secondaryschools. Here, too, the available evidence raises questions about this balance; thereare grounds for thinking that more intensive provision in the first years of schoolingis a better strategy. A number of jurisdictions are moving in this direction by takingsteps to limit class sizes in the primary grades. The substantial research on class sizecan be helpful in these efforts, in particular in showing that class size reductionsneed to be accompanied by changes in teaching and learning practices if they areto have the desired impact (Blatchford, 2003).


ALLOCATING RESOURCES IN SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Our proposed approach to thinking about resource allocation in schools is drivenby three principles:

1. Resource allocation should be based as much as possible on evidence aboutthe drivers of educational outcomes.

2. Prevention is a better strategy than remediation, although the latter will alwaysrequire some attention also

3. Resource allocation should explicitly support efficiency in operation.

DRIVERS

Evidence on the drivers of educational outcomes suggests several areas of attention.First, insofar as family background is the single most powerful influence on alleducational outcomes, our investment in schools should pay more attention to thisfactor. Second, because education is fundamentally a matter of the skills of theparticipants, efforts to support and improve educators’ skills and knowledge shouldbe given a place of prominence. Third, standard models of allocating students toclasses and time to subjects require rethinking.

Family Background

What are the things that schools can do that are most likely to reduce the impacts offamily and community poverty and disadvantage? Some of these will be discussedunder our second principle – prevention rather than remediation. Here we identifythree strategies that seem to have good supporting evidence.

Ensure that high need schools are allocated talented teachers and administrators.Because teaching and leading are harder in high need schools and communities,teacher turnover also tends to be higher and the neediest schools may have dispro-portionate numbers of very new teachers or teachers who are otherwise unable tochange schools (Thrupp, 1999). Policies and practices should encourage deploymentand retention of the best educators to the neediest schools. As yet we know littleabout how to do this.

Bring role models into the school. Many schools with poor performance enrollhigh numbers of students from minority backgrounds who may see the school as analienating place. Various steps can be taken to increase the degree to which schoolstaff – teaching and support – reflects the community being served, including hiringlocal people in support roles, recruiting and training more visible minority teachers,and building connections with other community resources.

Engage parents and the broader community. Children who come to school withsignificant deficits are usually living in challenged families where parents alsomay have limited education and face many daily stresses. There is evidence thatschools can work effectively with parents even in very high need communitiesgiven appropriate efforts (Corter & Pelletier, 2005; Desforges, 2003), with goodresults for students. In most schools parent engagement is seen as important but


also something to be done after many more important things have been attendedto. Parent engagement tends to be an add-on activity for teachers, or somethingsupported by project funds. In high challenge schools parent engagement needs tomove up the priority list and requires dedicated resources.

Skills of Educators

The skill level of educators is among the most central factors related to studentoutcomes (Odden, Borman & Fermanich, 2003). It is vital to ensure that the newknowledge developing around effective teaching and learning practices is under-stood and used by educators. All the literature on school improvement emphasizesthe importance of teachers’ knowledge and the role of school leaders in supportingthe development of this knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Yet professionaldevelopment in schools is almost universally regarded as inadequate and ineffective,particularly because it is so often insufficiently embedded in the ongoing workof the school (Fullan, 2001). It seems evident that efforts to improve on-the-joblearning for educators, including support staff such as teaching assistants, shouldhave a higher priority than they do currently, and that this professional learningmust be grounded in the best empirical knowledge as well as integrated into ongoingschool practices. Recent ideas about capacity building in education (Fullan, 2004,Elmore, 2004) provide a useful way of thinking about this challenge. Professionaldevelopment in schools also tends to be equated to designated days, but a growingbody of work shows how professional development can become part of the routineof schooling and also how resources to support professional development can befound within current budgets (Odden & Archibald, 2001).

Allocating Pupils and Time

As already noted, schools tend to operate on standard timetables and class organi-zation. However different skills and subject areas may actually lend themselves todifferent forms of organization and time allocations. Experiments a few decadesago with team teaching and differentiated instruction foundered because they weretoo different from what was regarded as normal practice. However various otherpractices could be considered that might use staff and time more effectively. Oddenand Archibald (2001) describe a number of these, such as using within-schoolregrouping to put elementary students in small groups for reading each day by usingall certified staff for this period of time. They also discuss reallocating staffingfrom non-teaching to teaching roles and using support staff differently. Miles &Darling-Hammond described the potential benefits of reallocating resources fromnon-teaching purposes and withdrawal programs to regular classroom instruction(Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998). The allocation of school time to varioussubjects is based primarily on priorization of the subjects, not on any evidenceas to the relationship between allocated time and outcomes. As another example,secondary schools could make more use of various forms of independent learning


to reduce effective class sizes or to free teachers’ time for collaborative work. Wehave so far little evidence on these ideas because few substantive efforts have beenmade, but intuitively it would seem that there could be merit in different forms ofgrouping and time allocation.

From Remediation to Prevention

The proportion of education spending devoted to special education has beenincreasing steadily almost everywhere for the last two decades. Some elementsof special education have clearly been enormous success stories. For example theeducational situation of students with various physical disabilities is vastly betterthan it was thirty or forty years ago. The largest growth in special educationprovision, however, has been in what might be called ‘soft’ disabilities, especiallylearning disabilities and behavioural issues.

The additional cost of special education is significant. Identified special educationstudents are typically being funded at double or triple the rate of other students.Often there is not much evidence that these additional resources are actuallyproducing better outcomes. Assessing the results of special education remains alargely unexplored area, but students who are placed in such programs rarelyleave them. We are gradually learning more about the kinds of early interven-tions that might eliminate the requirement for such expensive provision (Levin,2003), and there is at least some evidence that appropriate programming canreduce the need for expensive alternatives (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006).For example, tutoring, as already noted, does seem to be effective in dimin-ishing later reading problems. Other forms of early intervention might be equallyeffective at lower cost. Ensuring that classroom teachers are knowledgeable abouteffective techniques for improving early literacy and managing behaviour effec-tively could also be highly cost-effective strategies. Parent and family engagement,discussed earlier, also has obvious connections to efforts to prevent achievementproblems.

Efficiency Measures

School systems are not necessarily oriented towards more cost-effective practices.For example, retention in grade is known to be an ineffective practice (Shepard& Smith, 1999) yet significant numbers of students continue to take extra yearsto complete their education. When school systems are funded on the basis ofenrolment, they have no incentive to try to move students along more quickly.While retention in grade in elementary systems is often higher than people think(Manitoba, 2002), and therefore represents significant wasted resources, it is insecondary school that a real issue emerges where large numbers of students maytake an additional and unnecessary year for reasons that have little to do with


the real purposes of education. The fact that many schools and school boards donot know how many students are failing courses or taking extra years is itself anunsettling indicator.

A good example of this kind of efficiency is the idea of dual credits, in whichsecondary students can take college or university courses for high school credit andcount the courses again when they enter post-secondary. Dual credit is increasinglycommon in the United States and Canada (Hoffman, 2005) and has the potential bothto motivate students by allowing them to reach higher and advance more quickly,and also to improve efficiency by providing opportunities for students to compressthe number of years of education they need and by reducing away-from-home costsfor rural or isolated students.

The whole idea of increasing student motivation and engagement opens anotherarea of potential efficiency. Student motivation is a powerful predictor of success(OECD, 2001), yet receives little explicit attention in most school systems beyondthe threat of penalties for poor performance. We do know quite a bit about whatmotivates students (Corno & Mandinach, 2004; McCombs & Whistler, 1997). Forthe most part these are the same motivators that work for adults – meaningfulwork, some autonomy in how the work is done, good colleagues with whom towork, useful feedback and the chance to improve. Schools would benefit fromexplicit attention to how such motivators could be built into classrooms at all ages;as Nicholls and Hazzard show compellingly (1995), even primary students canbe powerfully affected by deliberate efforts to increase their motivation levels bymeans other than threats and penalties.

Self-directed learning presents another opportunity to increase efficiency andbuild on motivation. Self-directed learning is not a panacea in that it requiresstudents to have a significant level of skill and motivation. However these attributescan be developed with explicit attention, and they are very important skills forworkplace success. The idea that all students should undertake at least some signif-icant self-directed work during their school careers is an appealing one that is alsocentral to some of the most impressive experiments in student success, such as thefamous District 2 in New York (Meier, 1995).

An example of a practice that is effective and motivating for students is cross-agetutoring – the idea that students should work with other younger students as a way ofhelping theyoungerstudentswhilealso improving theirownskillsandself-confidence.Tutoring does have a substantial body of empirical support (Elbaum et al., 2000) andis relatively easy to implement, yet not widely used in schools.

Finally, it is important to consider ways in which the efficiency of non-academicexpenditures could be improved. Schools and school districts are involved in awide range of non-academic activities, from constructing and managing buildingsto maintaining information systems to operating transportation services. Schoolsystems are run and governed, as they should be, by people whose dominant interestand experience is in education rather than in management. Many districts are toosmall to have the expertise to operate these multiple services well, and in manyparts of the country there are few or weak standards for common business practices.


It seems likely that considerable efficiencies could be realized if the practices of allschool districts were brought to the standards of the highest in these areas. Someschool districts build one school in a decade; others build several schools a year. Itseems reasonable that the latter will be better equipped to build schools efficiently.There are also many areas in which school districts could achieve efficienciesby collaborating on administrative functions. It is well known that costs for staffbenefits can be decreased by operating in larger units, for example, yet typicallyeach school district runs its own benefits plan. As another example, school districtsin Ontario have saved themselves a considerable amount of money by operatingtheir own insurance cooperative, and by pooling capital borrowing requirements. Onthe whole, neither districts nor provinces have put very much energy into improvingmanagement systems and practices, yet such effort could yield noticeable savings.

These examples are only that – examples. In almost every case there needs to befurther research and evaluation to determine the relative merits of these practices.What they do suggest, however is that there is significant room in schools to makebetter use of resources than we currently do.

ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

The allocation of funding can have an enormous influence on how the funding isused-and can also have significant effects on the efficiency with which resourcesare applied.

First and foremost, allocation formulas can support efficiency by directingresources to effective instructional practice. Individual schools and school boardsrarely have the capacity to develop and maintain rigorous research and evaluationpractices. Jurisdictions have the responsibility to identify effective instructionalstrategies, through collaboration with educators and the academic community, andensure that allocation formulas support these. This may mean explicit funding tiedto smaller class size, literacy coaches, or turnaround school strategies. Although itis well understood that a charismatic principal or teacher can help students succeeddespite context and resources, it is also understood that school based initiativesled by such talented individuals are not always replicable. The scale of the publiccommitment in education is such that investments to support student achievementhave to be directed to proven strategies-ideally with enough flexibility left to allowboards to also support and incubate the ideas of talented educators at a school level.

Educators and policy-makers have long debated the degree to which schoolswith high levels of need should receive extra funding. Most education financingsystems give some modest extra funding to schools with the highest levels of need.For example, in Ontario in 2004 about 2% of total funding was allocated by theprovince based on demographic indicators such as poverty or immigration status.Within school districts there are also usually only marginal extra allocations to highneed schools – in the order of a few % of budget. As one set of commentators put it,


The fact is that there is virtually no evidence of the consequences of colossal increases in the educa-tional resources to which disadvantaged children are exposed, because this strategy has never beensystematically adopted. (Natriello. McDill & Pallas, 1990, p.192)

However simply talking about additional amounts of money is not the point; thequestion, as indicated at the start of this chapter, is what uses additional fundsshould have. The challenge is to use resources more effectively for schools withhigher need levels and for students with particular challenges. Most districts havesome proportion of funding available to invest in programs for schools and studentswith exceptional needs. This can include special education programming, literacyand numeracy supports based on academic results or socio-economic circumstancesor a variety of other programs. Few if any districts undertake a robust programevaluation of their choices and investments, and it is not uncommon for boardsto have dozens or hundreds of school specific initiatives that attempt to enhancestudent achievement. The extent to which these investments are guided by researchinto instructional effectiveness can mean the difference between a high achievingjurisdiction and a jurisdiction with moderate or underachieving schools and students.

We are gradually learning more (Levin, 2004a) about such allocations, but thatknowledge is not necessarily widely available in schools and districts (Levin &Riffel, 2000). Districts vary widely in their capacity to undertake and apply thisresearch, and to evaluate properly the outcome from these crucial investments.Where senior level governments can undertake or sponsor this research, and usefunding levers to direct support to effective intervention programs, the efficacy ofthis portion of school board budgets can be broadly enhanced.

The issue of high need schools is one example of why simplicity is overrated withrespect to allocation formulas. For reasons of ease of public communication there isoften a desire to simplify allocation formulas to the level of dollars per student, orto use averages for key variables such as teacher salaries. For example, allocationformulas based on average teacher salaries are surprisingly common even thoughthey ignore the wide variance in salaries for teachers at the minimum and maximumexperience levels recognized in most salary grids or the differences among districtsin the experience and qualification profile of teachers. This simplification canresult in an inefficient allocation of resources to boards and schools and resultin both windfalls and shortfalls. It can ignore the real differences in costs acrossjurisdictions. It can also create perverse incentives – for example, to hire teacherswith less experience or fewer qualifications.

More sophisticated, data intensive allocation formulas allow more customizedfunding for school boards, reflecting more closely their actual cost structure. A dataintensive formula can also reinforce for school boards and schools the importanceof having appropriate data embedded in their planning and operation. For example,allocation formulas that reflect the distribution of teachers across an experience gridprovide a customized fit for the funding of teacher salaries-and also ensure thatdistricts keep an eye on the trends in their teacher population. Allocation formulaswhich require boards to report on, for example, school enrolment, school utilizationand facility condition will require boards to collect and provide this data, but also


ensures that boards can identify declining utilization or space pressures as trendsrather than crises. Although the data submissions required from boards to supportallocation formulas require resources to collect and maintain, if the data are clearlyneeded to support good management it is productive to ensure they are collected.Such data are also conducive to benchmarking across boards, which can also supportefficiency.

Well designed allocation formulas often incorporate benchmarks for key unitprices in education, such as teacher salaries, funding per pupil for textbooks, fundingper square foot of school operations or construction or funding per pupil or perbus for student transportation. Incorporating benchmarks into allocation formulascan often have the effect of price setting, as some suppliers (such as textbookpublishers or school bus companies) sell primarily to the educational market. Wellresearched benchmarks, incorporated into funding allocations and kept current andcredible, can represent powerful and efficient market signals to administrators intheir procurement decisions, and to suppliers selling to the education market.

There are significant efficiency opportunities available as a result of multi-yearfunding allocations. School boards can negotiate multi-year labour agreements,saving enormous time and focus for the classroom. Given a multi-year fundinghorizon, boards can also manage staffing changes through attrition or developmentdepending on their enrolment and program forecast. Contracts with suppliers cansometimes be negotiated on more favourable terms if the contract covers two ormore school years.

The definition of a school district’s fiscal year is also a potential efficiencyopportunity. Virtually all governments operate on a fiscal year running from April1 to March 31, a business cycle that obviously is not aligned with the academicprogram year. In many jurisdictions, funding is issued to school boards on thisbasis, forcing boards to cobble together their annual allocations through projections,or to begin school years without full funding data. A further complication is thatschool boards are sometimes dependant on a municipal fiscal year for property taxrevenue, which can be a calendar year.

Establishing a fiscal year for school boards that is based on the academic yearis ideal for linking funding with business planning. Jurisdictions that budget on anApril 1 to March 31 fiscal year can release allocations to school boards by March31, for a fiscal year that begins the following September. This creates an idealplanning cycle that allows boards to staff schools and establish budgets before thebeginning of their own fiscal year, and before key staff leave for the summer.

Finally, a key aspect of inefficiency that can be identified in the education sectoris the typical mismatch between the professional preparation of its senior managersand the day to day responsibilities of these managers once they are appointed asdirectors of school boards. School board senior managers are almost always teacherswho have spent their careers in education. However, although their day to dayresponsibilities certainly encompass education leadership, they are also required todevote significant amounts of time to managing large public sector budgets, labourrelations, facility management and of course advocacy.


To the greatest extent possible, educational leaders should be focused oneducation. This may mean that professional managers can play a more significantrole in managing finance, labour relations and property. For example, the extentto which school boards function as real estate companies is not well understood-infact, education is easily the most land and property intensive aspect of the publicsector. Most school boards are responsible for real estate portfolios that would rivalprivate sector firms. Yet trustees and senior staff are rarely real estate experts nordo they have such expertise on staff. Although most boards are well resourced tooperate and maintain their schools, boards should have the opportunity to draw oncentral or pooled resources to construct schools or engage in complex real estatetransactions to ensure that these initiatives are well managed and do not significantlydetract from the “time on task” educational focus of the board’s management team.Allocation formulas, or capital funding approaches that encourage or mandate theuse of expert resources to manage capital projects for school boards can supportthis form of efficiency.

BARRIERS TO IMPROVEMENT AND NEXT STEPS

The kinds of changes we propose in the allocation of educational resources areunlikely to occur quickly for a variety of reasons. Big shifts in current arrangementsare always hard to make. Governments will make significant changes where there ispublic support or at least acceptance, but as Machiavelli pointed out centuries ago,there is often stronger opposition by those who will suffer from a change than thereis support from those who will gain. In education large changes are more difficultbecause the existing structure and operation of schools are familiar to everyoneand constitute a taken for granted convention. Education is also a highly organizedsector among workers as well as parents, so there are existing lobbies opposed toany significant change. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, knowing what onewants to do is quite different from knowing how to get it done. Just as teachers wantto teach every child to read but may not know how to do so, so many educatorswho would like to implement more effective practices may not see clearly how thechanges can be brought about or sustained.

That is why one critical strategy for development of the education sector mustbe a stronger approach to experimentation and learning, so that we can accumulatemore evidence about good policy and practice. Education is a field that is crying outfor more research and development generally (Levin, 2004b), but studies around theeffective use of resources would seem to be a particularly important area of work.The kinds of proposals made in this paper are all amenable to empirical study, andsuch study would help us ensure that the public money entrusted to us is used forthe greatest benefit of students.

A second important requisite is to improve the understanding of resourceallocation issues among school leaders, whether these be trustees, superintendents orprincipals, as well as among stakeholder groups such as parents. Very few managersin education have much background or education in economics. Their knowledge


of resource issues is almost entirely acquired through experience, and tends to focuson how to expand the overall resource base, not on how best to allocate limitedresources to achieve goals. New tasks are typically seen as requiring additionalresources rather than new use of existing resources. In the literature on leadership,the focus is often on vision and on instruction. Issues of resource allocation tendto get short shrift even though they are fundamental to being able to bring aboutimprovement. As the authors of one study of resource allocation practices note:

… the research suggests that school administrators who participate in data-driven, student-centered,and results-oriented budget processes may be able to make more effective use of resources thanadministrators who follow more rigid allocation formulas for distributing resources to campuses andprograms (Alexander, et al., 2000, p 34).

And that must be our goal.

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Alexander, C., Boyer, H., Brownson, A., Clark, C., Jennings, J., & Patrick, E. (2000). Resource allocationpractices and student achievement: An examination of district expenditures by performance level withinterviews from twenty-one districts. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Andrews, M., Duncombe, W. & Yinger, J. (2002). Revisiting economies of size in American education:are we any closer to a consensus? Economics of Education Review 21(3) 245–262

Blatchford, P. (2003). The class size debate. Buckingham: Open University Press.Burtless, G. (1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and

adult success. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Canadian Education Statistics Council (2006). Education indicators in Canada. Report of the

Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program 2005. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Corno, L. & Mandinach, E. (2004). What we have learned about student engagement in the past twenty

years. In D. McInerney and S. Van Etten (eds.) Big theories revisited. Volume 4 in: Research onsociocultural influences on motivation and learning. (297–326).

Corter, C. & Pelletier, J. (2005). Parent and community involvement in schools: Policy panacea orpandemic? In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwoodo and D. Livinstone (Eds.) Interna-tional handbook of education policy. (295–327). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lesssons fromhigh-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 20(1), 9–29.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policyevidence. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Desforges, C. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education onpupil achievement and adjustment: A review of the literature. London: Department for Education andSkills. Research Report RR433.

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring

programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of theintervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619

Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Epstein, J. & Salinas, K. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership

61(8), 12–18Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College.Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


Guarino, C., Santibañez, L. & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of therecent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208.

Hoffman, N. (2005). Add and subtract: Dual enrollment as a state strategy to increase postsecondarysuccess for underrepresented students. Boston: Jobs for the Future.

Human Resources Development Canada (2000, Winter/Spring). Does it always pay to invest in apostsecondary diploma? Applied Research Bulletin 6(1), 19–23.

Karoly, L.A., Kilburn, M.R., Bigelow, J.H., Caulkins, J.P., Cannon, J.,& Chiesa, J.R. (2001). Assessingcosts and benefits of early childhood intervention programs. Santa Monica,CA: RAND. www.rand.org

King, R., Swanson, A., & Sweetland, S. (2003). School finance, 3rd edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Levin, B. (1994). Students and educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(10), 758–760.Levin, B. (2003). Approaches to policy for equity in lifelong learning. Paper prepared for the OECD, Paris.Levin, B. (2004a). Students at risk: A review of research. Report to The Learning Partnership. Available

at www.thelearningpartnership.ca.Levin, B. (2004b). Making research matter more. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 12(56), issue.

Available at Epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56.Levin, B. & Riffel, J. (2000). Current and potential school system responses to poverty. Canadian Public

Policy 26(2), 183–196.Ma, X. and Klinger, D. (2000) Hierarchical linear modelling of student and school effects on academic

achievement. Canadian Journal of Education 25(1), 41–55.Manitoba Department of Education (2002). A profile of student learning: Outcomes in Manitoba.

Winnipeg: Department of Education.Mayer, S. (2002). The impact of parental income on children’s outcomes. Wellington: New Zealand

Ministry of Social Development. Available at www.msd.govt.nz.McCardle, P & Chhabra, V. (eds). (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Paul

H Brookes.McCombs, B. & Whistler, J. (1997). The learner-centred classroom and school: Strategies for increasing

student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston:

Beacon Press.Mohrman, A., Mohrman, S., & Odden, A (1996). Aligning teacher compensation with systemic school

reform: Skill-based pay and group-based performance rewards. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis 18(1) 51–71.

Natriello, G.; McDill, E. & Pallas, A. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catas-trophe. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nicholls, J. & Hazzard, S. (1995). Education as adventure: Lessons from the second grade. New York:Teachers’ College Press.

Odden, A. & Archibald, S. (2001). Reallocating resources: How to boost student achievement withoutasking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Odden, A. & Busch, C. (1998). Financing schools for high performance: Strategies for improving theuse of educational resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Odden, A., Borman, G. & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessing teacher, classroom, and school effects,including fiscal effects. Peabody Journal of Education 79(4) 4–32

OECD (2005). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD.OECD (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.Raywid, M. (1998). Small schools: A reform that works. Educational Leadership v55(4) 34–39.Shepard, L. & Smith, M. (1999). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership,

56(8), 84–88.Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy

in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. EducationalPsychologist, 39, 97–110.

Ungerleider, C. & Burns, T. (2002) Information and communication technologies in elementary andsecondary education: A state of the art review. Paper presented to the Pan-Canadian EducationResearch Symposium, Montreal, April/May.

CHAPTER 9

LEADING TOWARDS LEARNINGAND ACHIEVEMENT: THE ROLE OF QUALITY

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT

ANNE DAVIESClassroom Connections International

We used to think assessment meant tests and evidence of learning as simply thetally of test results. Now we know more. Assessment occurs continuously and hasmany different looks. Sometimes we engage in assessment for learning (formativeassessment with the deep involvement of students in the assessment and learningprocess). Sometimes we engage in assessment of learning (summative assessmentor evaluation) which requires educators make professional judgement, comparingwhat has been learned by students to what needed to be learned.

With students attaining high standards as the current overriding goal in education,evidence or proof of learning must be far more than test scores if learning andinformation needs of students and the parents are to be met. Learning is no longermainly memorization and basic practical knowledge such as how to listen, followdirection and be a good citizen. Now our list of what needs to be learned – thestandards or learning outcomes - are more complex. We also need students to learnhow to learn, how to work with others, and how to assess their way to success. Infact, evidence of learning is everything a student says, does, or creates.

An example? Think about a young person going to get her driver’s license. Thefirst assessment is a simple written test. That permit allows her to learn how to drivewith an adult present at all times. Then, when she’s ready she returns and takes amore extensive test (a product), drives with an evaluator observing (observation)and responds to questions as she drives (articulation of her understanding). In manyjurisdictions even this isn’t enough evidence. In a growing number of jurisdictions,a graduated driving license permits her to drive under certain conditions and thenthe summative assessment (test, drive in front of a witness, interview) is repeated. Ifsuccessful, she will then receive the rights and responsibilities of a driver’s license.

159


160 Davies

In order to confer a driver’s license, the evidence had to be valid and reliable – thatis, evidence needed to be collected from multiple sources over time. This is a simpleexample of collecting a range of data over time. Of course a written test is notenough evidence for something as complex as driving, so how could it be enoughfor something as complex as the learning expected for high school graduation?

We have been learning that we need to change the conversation by expandingthe evidence, involving different participants, and exploring and aligning the beliefsthat underlie our vision. Some of you are reading this and thinking, ‘But what aboutmy reality?’ The majority of jurisdictions in public education in North Americahave to pay attention to test data. For example, consider the tests that meet therequirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in the United States. Or, considerthe provincial assessments in Alberta. Did you know that as a senior – a grade 12student in Alberta – centrally-marked grade 12 examinations are worth 50% of yourfinal grade in selected subject areas? What about the United Kingdom? Studentshave to write a variety of externally marked exams that have very high stakesattached to the outcome. And don’t forget those students pursuing scholarships andentrance into the post-secondary school of their dreams. Currently, they requirethose test results also. While it is true we can’t write the laws, we can change theconversation.

For example, in education, like in business, there is always a push to “the bottomline.” However, educators sometimes make the mistake of taking only “part of thestory” when it borrows from business. Educational leaders need to take the entirelesson from business. For example, it is true that the “bottom line” is the shortanswer but is it enough to really get you to commit your investment funds? I suspectnot. If you want the rest of the story, look at financial managers. Sure, they checkthe bottom line, but they go further. They unpack the bottom line and look at arange of leading and lagging indicators. They need to tell the whole story. Wheneducational leaders like you tell the ‘whole story,’ you can change the conversationabout your schools and your students.

We all know that business and community leaders as well as researchers aresaying that the challenges of our future demand that today’s students be problemsolvers, able to work as part of a team, create knowledge from information, andapply ideas in new ways to design solutions to emerging problems. Think about it.What part of this skill set can be tested in simple, quick ways? Educators knowit isn’t enough to write about how to work as a team, or to solve uncomplicatedproblems or analyze information in a limited context such as paper and pencil oreven online tests that merely asks students to represent their learning in simpleways. These skills need to be utilized in ways that require students to show thatthey know the important stuff and also know how to apply it – how to do it well –in front of witnesses.

There is no shortage of evidence that students with fair or poor test results arenot only capable of learning – they have learned—and their test results fail to showit adequately. As one 16 year-old said, “Tests don’t show what I know – they onlyshow what I don’t know.” So while tests are providing some useful information,they are also limiting because they provide an imbalanced, and therefore faulty,

Leading Towards Learning and Achievement 161

portrayal of the true learning of students in relation to complex and powerfulknowledge, skills and habits of mind. Achieving a balance doesn’t mean endingthe role of evaluation or tests – although they can certainly be improved – it meansincreasing the quality of classroom assessment so students learn more and can showproof of a greater, more complete range of learning to an audience beyond theirclassroom teacher, as well as exploring ways to increase the quality of summativeassessment.

Quality classroom assessment has two parts: assessment for learning andassessment of learning. These terms have specific meanings. Assessment forlearning is more than formative assessment. Assessment for learning includesinvolving students in examining their work in progress, checking to decide what hasbeen learned and what needs to be learned next. It includes setting and using criteria,having students self-assess, being engaged in peer coaching, receiving feedbackabout their work, collecting and organizing evidence, and presenting evidence oflearning to others. It is designed to assist students to learn more. It identifies whathas been accomplished, what needs to be done, and notes specific next steps forteaching and learning.Assessment of learning is the process of evaluating whether or not studentshave achieved the standards – the learning expected in each subject area orcourse. Assessment of learning usually involves summarizing students’ learning intocomments, marks or grades and reporting it to parents and others. It also includesthe kind of external evaluations used to help system-level decision-makers knowwhether the system is on track, such as provincial examinations, TIMSS, or any othertest that is created and analyzed external to the classroom. Assessment informationgathered external to the classroom is useful in terms of helping educators understandtrends in the learning of groups of students. And, while information about individualstudents is available to classroom teachers, the information is often received toolate to impact teaching and learning or in isolation is too limited in terms of allthat must be assessed. Assessment of learning is also referred to as evaluation orsummative assessment.

School leaders are in a unique position to use assessment information frommultiple sources and help classroom teachers make use of both assessment forlearning and assessment of learning at the classroom, school, and district-levels.When school leaders take advantage of their role as principal teachers and useassessment for learning practices and strategies with their learners – the people

Figure 1. Defining Terms: Assessment for and Assessment of Learning

162 Davies

who they supervise – they build capacity while teaching how to use assessment forlearning. When leaders set criteria around effective faculty meetings, self-assess,give feedback that is specific and descriptive, and keep their own professionalportfolio they “walk the talk” in ways that profoundly change school and districtclimates (e.g. Fullan, 2001, Chock, 2006). Further, when leaders understand howto analyze and use the range of available data to support the learning of faculty andstudents, they build capacity across the faculty to reflect and learn from all data –qualitative and quantitative.

STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSESSMENT

The more involved the learner – the stronger the learning. Research shows that themore students are involved in the classroom assessment process – in terms of settingcriteria, giving and receiving feedback, and providing evidence of learning – themore engaged they are, the more they learn, and the more likely it is that they willbe able to provide quality evidence of their learning in relation to standards (Blackand Wiliam, 1998; Butler, 1987; 1988; Harlen and Deakin Crick, 2003; Meiselset al, 2003; Rodriguez, 2004).

Most of us don’t have to take tests to stay on the job – our work does getassessed but in a great variety of ways because our jobs are complex. Consider thedriver’s license example used earlier – a written test is not enough. What about adoctor seeking a new credential? Taking a written test is not enough. Think aboutany complex activity done anywhere. Would taking a written test be enough todetermine competency? Likely not.

Notice that outside of school when learning matters – when it really counts –assessment is more than a written test. Assessment of learning – a time whenevaluative judgements are made as to the overall quality of learning - is somethingthat happens when individual learners believe they are ready and can do well, orwhen credentials are needed to do something. Then, people’s work – evidence of theskills, understandings, and habits of mind – is assessed individually and the evidencereliably evaluated by “expert witnesses.” It is understood that it is what the learnerdoes that provides the foundation for excellence. Potentially everything a studentsays, does, or creates is evidence of learning. When students are engaged in theassessment process, they can collect and provide proof of their learning in relationto standards. If classrooms are going to be places where assessment for learningsupports all learners, school leaders need to not only understand and appreciateassessment for learning, they also need to support faculty as they implement newstrategies and be mindful to remove barriers that emerge during implementation.

RESEARCH MATTERS

Why involve students? Why consider revisiting classroom assessment and the roleof summative assessment? Recent research in this area is clearly pointing towardsneeded changes. What is the key classroom assessment research that every school


leader needs to know about? There are seven important research studies focusedon assessment that have often been missed by those planning to measure studentachievement and set policies to encourage best teaching and assessment practices.

First, Butler (1987; 1988) conducted experimental design studies and found thatstudent work receiving marks and grades (with or without feedback) was clearlyassociated with decreasing student achievement, while specific feedback withoutmarks and grades was clearly associated with increasing achievement.

Second, Black and Wiliam (1998) summarized classroom assessment researchconducted internationally over a ten-year period. Their findings explain thepower of classroom assessment and its role in improving learning. They detailedthe significant learning achievements students experience – especially strugglingstudents – when assessment for learning techniques are employed. Key strategiesinclude: setting clear success criteria; increasing specific, descriptive feedback; anddecreasing summarized, evaluative feedback such as marks and letter grades.

Third, Harlen and Deakin-Crick (2003) studying the role of tests and motivationto learn found that students who do less well on tests and evaluations of any kindtend to be less motivated and, as a result, do even less well on subsequent testsand evaluations. Based on their research, they strongly recommend that studentsbe engaged in assessment for learning activities – such as setting criteria, givingand receiving feedback, and collecting evidence of learning – in order to increaseachievement levels, as well as motivation to learn.

Fourth, Meisels et al.’s (2003) study examined the impact of curriculum-embedded performance assessment on students’ subsequent performance on theIowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). Students were found to far exceed demograph-ically matched contrast groups in reading and had greater gains in math. Theresearchers note that obtaining continuous information about students during thelearning and engaging students as active participants in the classroom assessmentprocess, “appears to enhance teaching and improve learning” (p. 11). They go onto say, “When well-constructed, normative assessments of accountability are linkedto well-designed, curriculum-embedded instructional assessments, children performbetter on accountability exams, but they do this not because instruction has beennarrowed to the specific content of the test. They do better on the high stakes testsbecause instruction can be targeted to the skills and needs of the learning usingstandards-based information the teacher gains from ongoing assessment and shareswith the learner” (p. 12).

Fifth, Rodriguez (2004) “evaluated the relationship between assessment practicesand achievement and the mediated roles of students’ self-efficacy and effort.”TIMSS is an international mathematical and science assessment. For this studythe United States portion was used to estimate the relationships. Rodriguez foundthat teachers’ classroom assessment practices have a significant relationship toclassroom performance. Classroom assessment practices include writing assign-ments, data collection activities, long and short-term individual projects, oralreports, worksheets, homework, journal writing, quizzes, tests, observations, studentresponses in class, and externally created exams that were used to give feedback,

164 Davies

group students, diagnose learning problems, and plan future lessons. While acknowl-edging the complexity of considering the role of classroom assessment, Rodriguez’sfindings do raise important questions regarding the relationship between classroomassessment practices, student self-efficacy and effort and achievement on externalassessments such as TIMSS.

Sixth, the Assessment Reform Group in the UK has commissioned a series ofstudies examining summative assessment. Working Papers 1, 2, and 3 are available(ARG-ASF Project, 2005: http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/tlrp/arg/ASF.html). Some of their mainfindings include:

• Top-down approaches to teachers’ assessment are not as effective as areapproaches involving teachers in working together and developing necessaryprocedures using their professional expertise.

• When teachers work with each other and review evidence of student learningto determine whether or not students are meeting the standards with sufficientquality, teachers become more confident and better able to make independentjudgements.

• The accuracy, or reliability, of teachers’ assessment for external reportingpurposes can be increased by increasing the degree of specification of the taskand/or the criteria used in judging the process or outcome.

• When teachers use clearly specified criteria that describes progressive levels ofcompetence they are more able to reliably assess a greater range of classroomwork. Looking at a greater range of student work increases validity. Further,learning to use clearly specified criteria has a positive impact on studentlearning.

• The reliability of teachers’ assessment increases when teachers participate indeveloping criteria, have some ownership of them and understand the languageused. Further, teachers who learn to assess student work as part of externalsummative assessment processes using clearly specified criteria, improve thequality of their classroom assessment.

• The way teachers assess and grade student work impacts students’ motivationfor learning, particularly their goal orientation, when grades are used as rewardsor punishments. The negative impact can be alleviated by ensuring that studentshave a firm understanding of assessment processes and criteria.

Seventh, Formative Assessment – Improving Student Learning in Secondary Class-rooms, (2005) a report based on research findings and classroom-level observa-tions in 8 countries (Australia [Queensland], Denmark, England, Finland, Italy,New Zealand, Scotland, and some provinces in Canada) concluded that classroomassessment that supports student learning:

• Establishes a classroom culture that encourages interaction and the use ofassessment tools.

• Establishes learning goals, and tracks individual student progress toward thosegoals.


• Uses varied instruction methods to meet diverse student needs.• Uses varied approaches to assessing student understanding.• Provides feedback on student performance and adaptation of instruction to

meet identified needs.• Involves students actively in the learning and assessment process.

The research is compelling. School leaders intending to make a difference forstudents need to focus on classroom assessment.

TIME TO LEARN

Preparation is important - it takes time to learn. It seems cheating is rampant in our“winning is everything” culture. Whether it is yet another athlete, top performingcompany or leading executive caught cheating – the drive to success “at all costs” iscosting everyone. Nowhere is this more true than in schools today. When pressure forimmediate success drives day-to-day classroom life learners have no time to practiceand learn. The pressure of our “winning is everything” culture is causing schools tolose sight of their mission – to prepare students for success in the long term.

One cannot prepare to succeed by treating every run as a race and every taskas a “once only” opportunity. We get better – we learn – by practicing. Learnerspracticing to achieve ever-increasing “personal bests” are building the foundationthat will permit them to be successful in the world outside of school – after schoollearning is complete and their credentials earned. Competing with others withoutpreparation can sour future successes – and hold those successes forever out ofreach.

How do students learn? How do they get enough practice? How do they achievetheir ever-increasing “personal bests?” Quality classroom assessment is key. Thereare three parts to a classroom assessment process that works. Teachers work withstudents so they…

1. understand the learning destination,2. are partners in the assessment and learning process, and3. provide proof of their learning.

UNDERSTANDING THE LEARNING DESTINATION

If you don’t know where you are going, how can you possibly get there? Thereare many official documents that describe what students are to learn at every gradelevel in different jurisdictions. When teachers talk with students about the learningdestination for the unit of work, the course, and the term, students have a chance toengage, to bring prior knowledge to the learning, to feel a sense of ownership, andare better able to be partners in the learning-assessment process. Descriptions ofsuccess tell students in simple yet powerful ways what they need to know and beable to do and these descriptions of the learning destination become a guide for the

166 Davies

collection of evidence of learning. Figure 2 shows a sample Learning Destinationready to be shared with students and their parents.School leaders, in assuring that teachers are provided opportunities to learn and worktogether, put powerful assessment for learning practices into place. Teachers often

Learning Destinationfor Language Arts

Reads and views a wide varietyof materials in different genres.

Writes/represents responsesthat show an understanding of what they’ve read.

Writes on or represents a rangeof topics in different forms for a variety of audiences.

Shows an understanding ofthe rules and conventions of writing (spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure)

Work successfully on theirown and in groups.

Ada

pted

from

Con

fere

ncin

g an

d R

epor

ting

by G

rego

ry C

amer

on a

nd D

avie

s p

42 C

onne

ctio

ns P

ublis

hing

200

1

Figure 2. Learning Destination


spend time with colleagues examining student work so they understand what highquality work looks like – what is it that students need to know and do. This process givesthem mental images of success. When success is described in terms of what it lookslike, sounds like, and feels like rather than by the number of pages finished or taskscompleted, students can come to know what success looks like. Samples help studentsunderstand the learning destination. Collections of samples also enable students to self-monitor, self-assess and improve the quality of their work. For example, samples ofoutstanding quality can bring criteria to life by showing students what to aim towards.A collection of samples that shows a range of work illustrating development over timecan provide all students with a possible road map to success that helps them chart theirprogress. Students who struggle have the opportunity to use these samples to keep ontrack. This often results in more learning.Samples may be found in the classroom, in online collections, within portfoliosposted online by professionals, or in samples emailed from other students. Studentsfind that different types of samples help at different times. Sometimes teachers andstudents examine:

• a range of samples that illustrate development over time,• a collection of samples that show a range of quality, and/or• samples that illustrate excellent work.

Seeing different samples of excellent work around the same topic/theme helps tobring home the understanding that there are, as Dennie Palmer-Wolfe said, “manyfaces of excellence.”

As students use samples and teachers’ descriptions of the learning destination,they begin to build a picture of success and become ready to learn a commonlanguage - the language of assessment.

STUDENTS AS PARTNERS: USING THE LANGUAGE OF ASSESSMENT

Once students understand the learning destination, the next step is helping thembecome active partners in a quality classroom assessment process: setting criteria,feedback–feed forward, and setting learning goals.

SETTING CRITERIA

Knowing the learning destination is important and seeing examples of success isinformative, but neither is sufficient. Teachers need to go further and ask studentsto work with them to brainstorm a list of the qualities and characteristics thatare essential to show achievement of the learning destination. Criteria may be setaround products, processes or demonstrations. This process of listing many possibleindicators of success helps students begin to visualize and learn a common languageto describe it.

Setting success criteria in this way ensures that even struggling learners under-stand more fully what needs to be learned and what they need to show in their

168 Davies

Figure 3. Using Samples

work. When students are involved in setting criteria, the expected learning to beshown becomes more explicit. The secret of success is no longer secret – availableonly to those who “get it” without being told. This is crucial for many learners,especially for those who struggle to be successful at school.


The process of setting criteria does more than merely illustrate success. It alsohelps students confirm and consolidate what they already know and prepares themto learn something new. It helps students understand what they already know, whatthey need to learn and do, and what quality looks like as well as what teachers will“value” when they e-valu-ate. Setting criteria with students provides an importantreference for student self-assessment and feedback from peers and others during,as well as after, the learning. Teacher after teacher report how the quality of theirstudents’ engagement in learning and the products that result from that engagementincrease – as one high school science teacher explained to me, ‘In my scienceclasses students are required to do a major project worth 40% of the final grade.Usually 40 – 60 percent of the students don’t even bother to hand it in. This yearI set criteria with every class around the major project. It was the only thing I diddifferently. Every class took it so seriously. They were so respectful. Last week themajor projects were due. Every student in every class handed it in.’

FEEDBACK TO FEED THE LEARNING FORWARD

Feedback is essential for learning. As mentioned earlier, the more feedback studentsreceive during their learning, the more likely they are to learn. Recall shootingbaskets, diving or dancing when you were growing up? Did you know when youwere successful or not? Did you know if you needed more practice to make acertain kind of shot or move? Of course you did. You might not have known whatto do differently – but you did know some change was needed.

When students know the learning destination and when they have been involvedin setting criteria then the conditions for focused feedback to improve learning arein place. When students give themselves feedback in relation to criteria they havea better chance of knowing what they need to do differently and they have anopportunity to take stock of where they are in relation to where they need to be. RitaShelton Deverell, a Canadian journalist, speaking on a CBC program, said, “Anexpert is someone who has a deep understanding of his or her own experience.”Feedback in relation to criteria gives students the tools they need to figure out forthemselves what they know and what they need to learn next.

Engaging in this kind of feedback helps students find their way to success. Whenstudents self-assess in relation to criteria, their self-assessments are more realisticand accurate. They can explain which criteria have been met and what next stepsare needed because they and everyone else in the class share a common language.When feedback merely tells students how well they have done, not what they havedone well, students fail to receive the information they need to learn.

COACHING

Preparation and practice do matter. Why do people choose to practice and learnwith selected others? Because it is fun and sometimes when you are stuck and notgetting better, other people can help. They give you feedback that helps you move

170 Davies

Figure 4. Setting Criteria with Students

forward. Sometimes learning is ready to go ‘public.’ Learners who are shaky anduncertain tend to choose their ‘public’ very carefully. As a learner I am going to goto someone who can help me. Who do you go to? It is probably someone differenteach time because the feedback you seek at various points in your learning changes.What do these different people have in common? They have your respect, you likethem, and you trust them to be honest about your work and to give you what youneed in the way you need it to keep learning. Relationships are important.


Figure 5. Peer Feedback

It is the same in classrooms. When students have set criteria together and lookedat samples of what quality looks like, they have more capacity to be coaches andgive quality feedback. Peer coaching often needs to be taught to be successful. Itcan be a negative experience if students don’t know what counts or if they have alimited or narrow understanding of success. Part of being successful requires thatstudents appreciate that there are many routes to success and success can havedifferent looks. Peer coaching works best in classrooms where learners are respectedfor their “kind of minds” (Levine, 1993).

Peer coaching that contributes to learning has these components:

• Criteria for success are established.• Giving specific, descriptive feedback is modeled.• Shared criteria for coaching are developed.• Students seek their own coach.• Students apply only useful feedback.

Students learn from seeing feedback given in helpful ways and from listening tohow the language of learning and assessment is used to give feedback. Practice isimportant. Role-playing positive and negative coaching experiences can be powerfulpreparation for effective coaching. Having students practice how to redirect a

172 Davies

potentially negative coaching experience helps ensure their learning safety duringcoaching – while giving them valuable life skills. It is important that shared criteriafor coaching be developed so everyone is clear concerning the characteristics ofsuccess. For example, one teacher asked students to brainstorm a list of the kindsof feedback that helped them learn: what it looked like, sounded like and felt like.Then, once the list was complete, the class posted it to act as ground rules foroffering feedback. This helped all students understand more about feedback thatsupports learning.

Students need to be invited to seek coaches to improve their work. You are morelikely to learn from a coach you like and respect. Who students choose as a coach isoften best left up to them although it is possible to build relations between studentsthat make the successful giving and receiving of feedback more possible.

Not all feedback is useful. Invite students to consider using only the feedback theydeem useful for improving the quality of their work. If they are uncertain, studentscan always check in with a teacher to confirm their best next steps for practiceand improvement. Providing a structure for feedback that encourages success willincrease the usefulness and the positive impact of the feedback given. An exampleused effectively in many classrooms is simply two compliments and one question.

In addition to feedback being helpful for the people receiving it, research showsthat giving feedback based on shared criteria using a common language helps toconsolidate new learning and extend previous learning. Also, as students view awider range of work as part of the coaching process, they also come to understandmore fully what quality is and the different forms it can take.

FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS

Teachers have a unique role to play in giving feedback to students. They knowbetter than anyone what the expectations for quality are and the varied ways studentscan reach towards success. It is important that teachers provide feedback duringthe learning that enables more learning and save evaluative feedback for the end ofthe learning. Be careful. As Butler’s 1988 research showed, if the wrong type offeedback is received in the midst of the learning process – less learning may occurand barriers to learning erected. What kind of feedback gets in the way of learningduring the learning time? Any feedback that is summarized into grades or markssuch as percentages, letter grades or 6/10 as such feedback tends to de-motivatestudents, particularly those who struggle and need time to learn. Once the markappears, students may stop learning or trying to improve their work.

Timely feedback is essential for learning. In classrooms where teachers are themain source of feedback, many students do not receive quality feedback when theyneed it. As long as the right kind of feedback is used at the right time, learningcan continue. The more specific and descriptive the feedback, the more studentsare likely to learn.

In order to provide more feedback without more grading, teachers are providingdifferent kinds of feedback – feedback that shows students not only what they are


doing that is working but also what they specifically need to do to improve it. Thisprocess gives anyone who needs to learn how to do something better the time andspecific direction they need to learn more.

There is a role for evaluation – judgements or marks and grades – once theopportunity to practice, improve and learn is over. When the end of a unit of studyor the end of term arrives, the type of feedback given changes. At that point teachersare responsible for evaluating what students have learned. Evaluating – placing avalue on the work – often means placing a mark or a grade. Different kinds offeedback are defined in Figure 6.

SETTING GOALS

When we know what we want, we mentally prepare ourselves to seek opportunitiesto get it. Goal setting helps students engage more of their brain. Brain research isindicating that closing in on a goal triggers a part of the brain linked to motivation.Students involved in feedback and goal setting in relation to criteria learn more.Involving students in setting meaningful goals isn’t complex when criteria are

Descriptive feedbackSpecific information in the form of written comments or conversations that help the learner understandwhat she or he needs to do in order to improve.

Evaluative feedbackA summary for the student of how well she or he has performed on a particular task or during a term. Oftenin the form of letter grades, numbers, check marks, words such as good, excellent, well done, or othercoded symbols.

Understanding Feedback

Defining Feedback

• Often comes at the end of the learning

• Tells the learner how she or he has performedcompared to others (norm-referenced assessment) or what was to be learned (criterion-referenced assessment)

• Is communicated using letters, numbers, checks, or other symbols; it is encode

• Students usually understand whether or not they need to improve

• Students do not have enough information to understand what they need to do differently in order to improve

• Comes during as well as after the learning

• Is easily understood and relates directly to the learning

• Is specific, so performance can improve

• Involves choice on the part of the learner as to the type of feedback and how to receive it

• Is part of an on-going conversation about the learning

• Is in comparison to models, exemplars, samples, or descriptions

• Is about the performance or the work - not the person

Evaluative FeedbackDescriptive Feedback

Figure 6. Defining Feedback

174 Davies

present. Students simply review the criteria, consider their successes, and select oneor two areas needing attention and improvement.

PREPARING AND ORGANIZING PROOF OF LEARNING

When it comes to determining whether students have reached the learning desti-nation, education policy makers often fail to think big enough. While limitingassessment to testing might have made sense in the last century, it is no longersufficient. Test results simply do not tell the whole story.

Students have to show proof that their work is meeting all the standards – notjust those easily tested. They need to provide proof to people whose opinionsmatter – that means showing their proof of learning to peers, to teachers, to parents,to community members, to education officials and, at times, to business leaders.

How does this work? Students collect a range of evidence to show theirlearning. They collect products such as projects, assignments, quizzes, constructions,notebooks, assignments, writing drafts, animations, digital slideshows – anythingthey do that shows clear evidence of their learning. They also reflect on theirlearning. They attach comments that explain how the work is proof of their learning.They may explain how they think they have met the criteria and what they will dodifferently next time.

Teachers and students both collect evidence of learning. Together the collectionof evidence is more complete than either collection on its own. When teachersmake a summative judgement, they examine the evidence gathered from multiplesources. Using a process of triangulation, they look for patterns and trends. Typicallyevidence of learning includes:

• Products including tests, assignments, students’ writings, projects, notebooks,constructions, demonstrations, photographs, images, video, audiotapes, anima-tions, slideshows, web pages and so on.

• Observations on the process of learning, including notes regarding hands-on,minds-on learning activities, as well as learning journals, video, audio, andperformances of various kinds across all subject areas.

• Records of talking and listening to students about their learning, includingconferences, reading written self-assessments, emails, and interviews.

During the term, students are asked to select evidence to show they are workingtowards the standards for that subject area. As students collect and select work toprovide proof of learning, the collection of evidence becomes more focused andrefined, and some evidence can go home when it is no longer needed. At the end ofterm when it is time to show learning to others for evaluation, students gather andorganize their evidence for presentation to others. Learning is more complex thansymbols can communicate. Access to the real proof of learning means classroomassessment can be more valid and reliable. Also, it means that the actual evidenceof learning is available for everyone to examine whenever and wherever needed.Classroom teachers can help students build powerful collections of evidence of


learning. When students understand the learning destination, learn to apply clearcriteria to assess their way to success, collect evidence that shows evidence oflearning, and present that evidence for summative assessment, the assessment oflearning is more likely to be reliable and valid. Figure 7 shows one student’scollection of evidence in relation to course goals.

SHOWING PROOF OF LEARNING

The presence of an audience can shape how we communicate. An audience cancause us to step back and reflect, to think about and assess what we are doing. Whenstudents present evidence of learning, the audience reviews and gives feedback,and everyone seeks to understand how best to support future learning. This processresults in students coming to understand the value of their learning and possible

Learning Destination forLanguage Arts

My Evidence includes…

Reads and views a wide varietyof materials in different genres.

-my reader response notebook-my list of books read and videosviewed -my completed genre web

Writes/represents responsesthat show an understanding of what they’ve read.

-my top three best responses-two self-assessments from thisterm -dialogue journal with entriesfrom Rahim and Jamile marked

Writes on or represents a rangeof topics in different forms for a variety of audiences.

Shows an understanding of therules and conventions of writing (spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure)

Work successfully on their ownand in groups.

-my writing portfolio-the list of topics I focused onthis term -storyboards for my iMovie-checklist of genres

-test scores-three sets of first and finaldrafts from my portfolio

-a rubric from my iMovie group-three top individualassignments

As you look at my evidence, please notice... that I have reallyimproved since the beginning. I think my work is of good quality.

Ada

pted

from

Con

fere

ncin

g an

d R

epor

ting

by G

rego

ry C

amer

on a

nd D

avie

s p

42 C

onne

ctio

ns P

ublis

hing

200

1

Figure 7. Student Collection of Evidence

176 Davies

next steps in the learning process while the audience has an opportunity to witnessthe growth and development. The audience might be family members, businessleaders, experts in the field – both people present, and others available via theInternet. This is the students’ time to shine. Students see progress themselves in thequality of their evidence and learning over time.

Students share evidence of learning at different points depending on the purposeof the learning and the needs of the audience. Sometimes the evidence of learninghas been designed to inform the community about a current issue or to help thecommunity inform the wider world. In this way student work is put to use in theworld outside of school, giving students experience with communicating thought-fully with a broad audience.

Other times, usually towards the end of term when report cards are due, studentsengage in more formal discussions of their learning in relation to the learningoutcomes. They select evidence from their collection of work completed during theterm to show they have achieved success by meeting the learning outcomes. Theyexplain, usually in writing, why they think the evidence is proof of their learning.When ready, they submit their proof to be evaluated by the teacher and others.Then, based on evidence provided by the student and collected by the teacher,a decision is made – usually by the teacher – regarding how much the studenthas learned in relation to the standards for that grade level and subject area. Thisis typically recorded in a report card, using either symbols such as letter grades,comments, a combination of symbols and comments, or a developmental continuumdescribing growth towards standards. Report card symbols are being defined interms of qualitative and quantitative evidence. See Figure 8.In a growing number of jurisdictions, requirements for graduation include havingstudents show evidence they have met the standards by participation in an exhibitionof student work. At this time they present their evidence – much like a graduatestudent presenting a thesis or an employee presenting evidence at a performancereview – to a panel comprised of significant adults including teachers, familymembers, and community and business leaders. In this way the community beyondthe school is part of certifying that student work demonstrates achievement levelsthat are indeed deserving of a high school diploma. Evidence in digital formprovides opportunities to collect a greater volume of evidence, of greater variety,and it allows for students to show evidence to people in other locations – both nearand far.

In summary, the teacher’s assessment role in classrooms is changing in positiveand powerful ways. Teachers are responsible for providing the learning destinationin clear terms students can understand. They help students learn the language ofassessment as they involve them in setting criteria and looking at samples. Theyteach students to coach themselves and others to success. They prepare students touse the common language of assessment to present proof of their learning to others.Lastly, as gatekeepers for quality, teachers review the evidence students submit,review their own collection of evidence for the students and formally evaluate thelearning, using criteria-based judgements. Do students know what they need to


Reading Workshop

Student consistently andindependently…

COMMON ASSESSMENT SCORE = 4 or ME COMMON ASSESSMENT SCORE = 3 or MP COMMON ASSESSMENT SCORE = 2 or N

Student…

• writes high-quality entries in his/her response notebook (i.e. exceeds/uses criteria)• selects reading material that is appropriate for his/her accomplished level of reading skill• is a self-directed reader (evidence shown in a number of quality reader responses and reading logs which have been done both in class time and at home)• demonstrates ability to ask and answer thoughtful questions to analyze literature skillfully• reflects on learning and is able to articulate learning and comprehension of what is read• writes responses that are complete. It indicates a very good understanding of the story and provides more than three accurate and relevant details, information and supportive reasoning from text

• writes quality entries in his/her response notebook (i.e. meets/uses criteria)• selects reading material that is appropriate for his/her accomplished level of reading skill with some support • is usually a self-directed reader (evidence shown in a number of reader responses and reading logs which have been done both in class time and at home)• usually demonstrates ability to ask and answer thoughtful questions to analyze literature skillfully• reflects on learning and needs some support to articulate learning and comprehension of what is read• writes responses that are complete and indicate a fairly good understanding of the story. Although the information selected includes mostly accurate details and ideas, some may be irrelevant or unrelated to the story’s problem

• writes partial entries in his/her response notebook (i.e. attempts to use criteria)• selects reading material that is appropriate for their accomplished level of reading skill with much support• is sometimes a self-directed reader (evidence shown in a number of reader responses and reading logs which have been done both in class time and at home)• sometimes demonstrates ability to ask and answer thoughtful questions to analyze literature skillfully • reflects on learning, although partial, and needs much support to articulate learning and comprehension of what is read• writes responses that are fragmentary and indicate only a minimal understanding of the story. It includes mainly random details and irrelevant information

What is the Trend? What is the Pattern?

Student…

Wit

h th

anks

to C

rest

a M

cInt

osh–

Ma’

ema’

e E

lem

enta

ry fo

r th

is e

xam

ple

Figure 8. Report Card Symbol Description

know? Can they do what they need to do? Have they presented sufficient proof ofquality given their age and the subject area in which they are learning?

Is this hard? Much less difficult than trying to do the impossible – showing studentlearning only through evaluations – report cards, test scores, marks or grades. Is itreally worth the effort? Yes – students are working harder, learning more. Teachersare working differently and reporting that teaching is more about learning thanmanagement and discipline. Recognizing themselves and their faculty as learnerswho also need opportunities to master assessment for learning, school leaders arebusy supporting this work in a variety of ways. Seven common strategies include:

Strategy #1: Building a learning environment that has purpose and promotesrisk-taking for learning while providing the necessary tools forsuccess.The environments that support learning hold certain characteristicsin common:

• Teachers and their colleagues are part of a community oflearners who learn together and who extend their communitybeyond their classroom.

• Making mistakes is viewed as part of the learning process.

178 Davies

• Everyone acknowledges that there are many ways to be“smart.” Diversity of all kinds is celebrated among faculty andamong students.

Strategy #2: Involving all faculty members in setting criteria together andbuilding a common language for classroom assessment by usingassessment for learning tools with your learners – the facultymembers themselves.There are three reasons why involving faculty in setting criteriafor their own important learning destinations, such as effectiveclassroom assessment, effective teaching, and ways to engagestudents in communicating evidence of learning, is essential. Firstof all, setting criteria together leads to success together because weshare the vision, we have a common language, and we know ourcolleagues are working towards the same goals as the rest of us.When a faculty helps shape what success looks like they have agreater sense of ownership over the learning and are more likelyto engage and be motivated. When they describe student success intheir own words and show samples of what it might look like, theyare more likely to be confident. When it is acknowledged that thereare multiple ways to work with students successfully, teachers havethe opportunity to use their own strengths, compensate for personalweaknesses, and communicate ways they are teaching more effec-tively.

Strategy #3: Working with faculty members to gather exemplars that showpossible routes to success.A golfer knows where the green is and aims for the flag. The ship’scaptain aims for the destination port. A pilot files a flight plan andflies to the destination. When we begin with the end in mind, weare more likely to be successful. Education is an “end in mind”undertaking in these days of clearly articulated standards. Knowingthe learning destination and helping to define what success canlook like helps learners engage, bring prior knowledge, and becomepartners in their own learning. When the learning destination isexpressed in more than words – and accompanied by samples andclear criteria that illustrate quality and success – everyone is morelikely to go in the right direction. When the learning destinationis articulated across a community of learners, then everyone canwork together to ensure their own success as well as the success ofothers.Just like when students examine exemplars of success, when facultymembers collect and share examples, they build a common under-standing of what success might look like. When they share studentsamples of growth towards standards, they build a common under-


standing of progress towards the learning destination over time.This in turns helps them help students be more successful.

Strategy #4: Increasing sources of quality feedback by using shared criteria toguide adult learning.Feedback for learning occurs when expectations are clearly definedfor all. Feedback for learning occurs at the speed of learning – thatis, it is available when the learner needs it – during the learning.Faculty members are learners too. When we set criteria together as afaculty they can guide our day-to day-work. Using shared criteria asthe basis for feedback during walk throughs or formal observationsensures feedback is understandable and able to be transformed tofurther the learning.We can also go further - as school leaders or principal teachers wecan ensure that multiple sources of feedback are present at all timesand available in ways faculty members can use. For example, whenfaculty collect samples of students’ work across the school andanalyze them for quality, everyone learns more about what studentscan be expected to know and be able to do over time. Such conver-sations provide individual faculty members with a clear pictureof success while giving them tools to communicate with others,such as students and parents. It also builds a shared understandingamongst the school faculty that supports more quality feedback thatcan further our learning as a school.

Strategy #5: Helping faculty members find ways to prove they are on their wayto supporting learning through classroom assessment.In schools we get feedback from a variety of sources includingquantitative data from external assessments (lagging indicators),qualitative and quantitative data from in-school assessments(leading and lagging indicators) as well as from all sortsof informal classroom assessments and school-wide indicators.Lagging indicators – such as external test results – provide a currentsnapshot of progress. Leading indicators are those activities thatdon’t show instant results, but when done well, build capacity andhave positive impact on lagging indicators.For example, involving students in the assessment process isstrongly correlated with students’ success. A school that systemat-ically increases assessment for learning might not see results rightaway but if the focus continues it will impact lagging indicatorsover time. When we focus on improving those things that lead tosuccess (leading indicators) we end up with better results.

Strategy #6: Planning for continued capacity building.Assessment for learning works for all learners. What is a leader? Alead teacher. Lead teachers have learners. Who are your learners?How can you ensure they know the learning destination? How can

180 Davies

you provide models and samples that show success? How can youbuild in on-going feedback that is specific and helps your learnerssee ways to improve and learn? How can you invite your learnersto take the risks needed to learn? How can your learners provideevidence of learning? Learning more about assessment for learningand using strategies that cause more learning with all faculty helpyou continue to build capacity. What does this look like? There area growing number of examples.For example, one family of schools called the Roosevelt Complex,Honolulu, Hawai’i (five elementary schools, two middle schools,one high school, and one K-12 Hawai’ian Immersion school) begana project focused on assessment for learning. School leadershipteams (principal or vice-principal and teachers) met three timesa year to learn more about classroom assessment. Twice eachyear they came together to learn about assessment, experience afacilitated professional learning conversation intended to deepentheir learning about assessment, and then plan ways to deepen thelearning of their colleagues upon return to their school building.The third meeting of each year was a time to show the progresseach school had made towards quality classroom assessment thatinvolved students deeply in the process of assessment for learning.What can you do if your jurisdiction isn’t ready for a comprehensiveassessment for learning project? Consider these successful provenfirst steps:

• Engaging faculty members in providing proof of learningthrough action research projects as a vehicle for professionallearning.

• Using protocols for professional learning conversations as anon-going part of monthly faculty meetings.

• Having professional learning conversations focused onclassroom assessment to deepen the knowledge of all faculty.

• Focusing classroom walk-throughs by having classroomteachers self-assess and ask for specific feedback can make adifference. Classroom teachers help make walk-throughs moresupportive of their learning by posting signs, “As you walkthrough my classroom, please notice …” and people walkingthrough gave specific feedback that teachers could use toimprove their practice.

Strategy #7: Taking time to play and to rest so you can be the leader you needto be.Lastly, if you haven’t figured out how to take care of yourself andyour family, you will never be able to be the kind of leader youneed to be in today’s schools. Some people take every Sunday off,


others fish or dream of fishing regularly, some golf, some paint ormeditate, others run – it doesn’t matter how you burn off stress andrevitalize yourself, it just matters that you do it and do it regularly.Tom Peters is right when he says we all need to keep a ‘Don’t Do’list. What is it you need to do? What is it you need to stop doing?

CONCLUSION

Educators know transforming education isn’t about the “latest great idea.” It is aboutimagining the best possible future for our students and putting our hearts into ourwork so we can take the next steps on the path. It is about building on the researchand finding ways to make the seemingly impossible both possible and practical.Step-by-step leaders make the journey to success by using assessment for learningto propel us toward success. Not sure you have the time for another initiative? Thinkagain. Researchers in the field of classroom assessment and practice in classroomsall reach the same conclusion – assessment for learning has the greatest impact onstudent learning and achievement ever documented. How can you not find time?

REFERENCES

Assessment Reform Group. ARG-ASF Project, Working Papers 1–4. Assessment systems for the future:the place of assessment by teachers, 2005. http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/tlrp/arg/ASF.html#Papers.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Vol5(1), pp. 7–75.

Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of differentfeedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of EducationalPsychology, Vol 29(4), pp. 474–482.

Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving andego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology,Vol 58, pp. 1–14.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2005). Formative Assessment – Improving Learningin Secondary Classrooms. London, UK: OECD Publishing.

Chock, R. Personal communication. April 27, 2006.Davies, A. (2000). Making Classroom Assessment Work. Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.Davies, A. (2005). Facilitator’s Guide to Classroom Assessment K-12 (Multi-media Resource).

Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.Gregory, K., Cameron, C., and A. Davies. (1997). Setting and Using Criteria. Courtenay, BC: Connec-

tions Publishing.Gregory, K., Cameron, C., and A. Davies. (2000). Conferencing and Reporting. Courtenay, BC: Connec-

tions Publishing.Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Harlen, W. (2006). The role of teachers in the assessment of learning. Pamphlet produced

by the Assessment Systems for the Future project (ASF). Assessment Reform Group, UK.http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/tlrp/arg/images/Pamphlet%20-%20role%20of%20teachers.pdf

Harlen, W. and Deakin Crick, R. (2002). Testing, Motivation and Learning. Bookletpublished by Assessment Reform Group at University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/tlrp/arg/TML%BOOKLET%20complete.pdf

Levine, M. (1993). All Kinds of Minds. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

182 Davies

Meisels, S.J., Atkins-Burnett, S., Xue, Y., Nicholson, J., Bickel, D.D., and Son, S-H. (2003). Creating asystem of accountability: The impact of instructional assessment on elementary children’s achievementtest scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol 11(9). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n9/

Rodriguez, M.C. (2004). The role of classroom assessment in student performance on TIMSS. AppliedMeasurement in Education. Vol 17(1), pp. 1–24.

CHAPTER 10

A SURVEY OF EXISTING SCHOOL LEADERSHIPPREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

JANICE WALLACE, ROSEMARY FOSTER AND JOSE DA COSTAUniversity of Alberta

For more than a decade, education reform has been a major focus of governmentpolicy in industrialized nations (Levin, 2000) with proponents arguing schools coulddo better in preparing children and youth for citizenship and the job market (Levin,2005). In addition, educational reformers often claim leadership to be the criticalfactor in the improvement of public schooling. Jerome Murphy, dean emeritus ofthe Harvard Graduate School of Education recently emphasized:

Expectations for schools to perform – and the belief in the centrality of leadership to reform – have neverbeen higher. Consequently, the pressure on administrator preparation programs to turn out principalsand superintendents who can ensure results has never been greater. (2006, p. 490)

Given the current education environment, it is timely to examine school leadershippreparation and development programs. We begin the chapter with a review ofthe organizational and school leadership literatures to provide a context for ourexamination. In the second section of the chapter we look at how governmentlegislation and policy have shaped school administrator preparation programs inuniversities in Canada. We conclude with a discussion of what we believe arechallenges and necessary future directions in the preparation of school leaders.

LEADERSHIP

The study of school leadership shares research traditions, theories, and issues withthe broad field of organizational leadership. From our review of the organizationaland educational leadership literatures we constructed four themes that contextu-alize the evolution and current state of school leadership preparation and devel-opment programs. We discuss these themes under the headings: loss of confidence

183


184 Wallace et al.

in leadership, definitional diversity, competing theories, and the intersection ofcompeting theories and school effectiveness and improvement research.

LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP

“Leadership gap” (Zaleznik, 1989) and “leadership crisis” (Bennis & Nanus, 1985),are contemporary terms often used to describe the loss of confidence in leadershipin the public as well as private sectors. Some scholars point to pervasive socialchange that has become the current reality (Razik & Swanson, 1995), and theimpact of increasing globalization (Harrison & Kachur, 1999) to explain this loss ofconfidence. Others (Bass, 1985; Rost, 1991; Schön, 1982) highlight the ambiguityand confusion caused by increased usage and popularization of the word itself. Rost(1991) argued:

Leadership is a word that has come to mean all things to all people. Even worse, leadership hasincreasingly become a very “hot” word since about 1960, with an ability to produce a passionatereaction that draws people to it through an emotional attraction. Leadership helps Americans findsignificance in their search for the meaning of life, and helps them reconcile the harsh realities oflife. The lack of leadership helps them explain ineffectiveness and concomitantly allows them to blamecertain people for that ineffectiveness. (pp.7–8)

Similarly, education suffers from a “confidence crisis” and the tendency on the partof the public to blame school and school district leaders for alleged inadequacies ofthe education system (Lewington & Orpwood, 1993). With a growing acceptancethat education cannot be left to the experts (p. 163), governments in many provincesand nations have assumed the educational leadership role by implementing reformpolicies aimed at controlling school curricula, standardizing academic assessment,and quantifying school outcomes (Levin, 2000; Taylor, 2001, Wallace, 2005). Thesense of crisis over the current state of leadership is further complicated by themultiple definitions and competing theories found in the literature that informspolicy development and practice.

DEFINITIONAL DIVERSITY

Bennis and Nanus (1985), in their extensive review of the literature, identifiedover 350 unique definitions of the term leadership. In a similar vein, Bass (1990)concluded there were almost as many definitions of the term leadership as therewere people who had attempted to define the concept. Ironically, in the literaturethere are almost no arguments about the lack of agreed upon definition of leadership(Rost, 1991). Despite a lack of consensus concerning what is meant by leadership,there is general agreement that most definitions assume leadership to be a processwhereby influence is exerted by one person (or group) over other people (or groups)to structure and facilitate activities and relationships within organizations (Yukl,1998, p. 3). Where definitions differ, it is argued, is in (a.) “who exerts influence,how influence is exerted, the purpose for the exercise of influence, and its outcomes”

Survey of School Leadership Preparation 185

(Leithwood & Duke, 1999, p. 46), and (b.) whether leadership should be viewed asa specialized role or as a shared influence process (Yukl, 1998, p. 3).

The tendency to accept definitional diversity, however, points to numerous andpotentially conflicting assumptions regarding the leadership phenomenon. Arguably,the diverse underlying assumptions have given rise to on-going issues in leadershipstudy that include a lack of distinction between: (a.) leadership, management,and administration; (b.) leadership and leader; (c.) influence and power in leader-follower relationships; and (d.) popular and scholarly notions of the phenomenon.Within the field, there are those who contend the issue of defining leadership iscentral to the problems both scholars and practitioners have had with conceptualizingand practicing leadership (Deal & Peterson, 1994; Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Rost,1991). In addition, definitional diversity has had a significant impact on the historyof leadership study that includes a proliferation of competing theories.

COMPETING THEORIES

Bass (1990) claims that the study of history has been the study of leaders (Bass,1990); empirical research on leadership as distinct from the study of leaders did notbegin until the twentieth century. Since then, there have been literally thousandsof empirical investigations of leadership, but no one theory of the leadershipphenomenon has dominated the study or practice of leadership for any length oftime (Bass, 1990). Through their examination of the research, Razik and Swanson(1995) found that “theories of leadership endure for about twenty years. Whenthe research uncovers deficiencies in the theories, new perspectives for studyingleadership are identified” (p. 37). Adding to the confusion caused by the rapidsuccession of new perspectives is the tendency to retain deficient theories. Rost(1991) explained the effect:

The facts are that any one theory did not unduly dominate any decade to the exclusion of other theories.Once theories gained a certain currency, they remained in the literature and they continue to remainthere. The theories also remained in the behavioral habits of practitioners who continued to put thetheories into practice long after they were discredited by researchers. (p. 28)

Foster (1998) categorized the competing theories that have endured under theheadings: leadership style theories, contingency/situational leadership theories,transformational leadership theories, and the new generation of leadership theories.The first two, she argued, have a longer history than the last two and reflectrational-technical assumptions about organization. Management principles based onproductivity are incorporated into these views and leadership is associated withhierarchical position within the social structure of the organization. Traits andbehaviours of designated leaders within the hierarchy are central to theories inboth of these categories. The third category, transformational leadership theory,was called the “new paradigm” when it appeared in the late 1970s (Burns, 1978)and as it evolved in the 1980s and 1990s. Transformational leadership theoryadopts a human resource orientation rather than rational-technical assumptions.The fourth category, which Foster referred to as the new generation of leadership

186 Wallace et al.

theories, probes the under-girding values and philosophical beliefs guiding leadersand leadership activity.

In the field of education, the brief but prolific history of leadership studypoints to a similar trend of competing theories. From their review of all articlesdealing with school leadership in four major educational administration journalsfrom 1985 to 1995, for example, Leithwood and Duke (1999) identified sixdominant theories that continue to compete, continue to be studied, and continueto inform practice. These scholars used the following terms to describe thedifferent conceptions of leadership: instructional, transformational, moral, partici-pative, managerial/strategic, and contingency/styles.

INTERSECTION OF COMPETING THEORIES AND SCHOOLEFFECTIVENESS AND IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH

Changes in the social policy context in recent years have affected confidence inpublic education and its leadership. Levin (2000) describes this impact:

The collision between an education system used to growth and governments committed to the oppositeled to a period of ferment [sic] in education policy in many countries during the 1980s. A long periodof rapid growth in the provision of education, fueled by a rapidly expanding economy and great faiththat education could be the means of resolving many enduring social and economic problems came toan end. In its place, we entered a period marked by stagnant or declining funding and considerabledissatisfaction, at least among elites, with what schools were seen to have achieved. Governmentsstruggled to develop new education policies that would be both less costly and more effective. (pp. 10–11)

To address the alleged inadequacies of the school system and increase account-ability, policy-makers in several Canadian provinces and elsewhere have adoptedthe effective schooling research in conjunction with its operational branch, theschool improvement movement (Slee, Weiner & Tomlinson, 1998). Following theirextensive review of the early effective schools literature, Wilson and Corcoran(1988) concluded that studies linking school effects to student achievement hadprovided the basis for an ideology adopted by government reformers intent onschool improvement.

The belief that principal leadership has an impact on school effectiveness andimprovement is not new in the folk wisdom of educational history, but research onthe effects of school leadership began in earnest in the 1980s as part of the schooleffectiveness research and school improvement movements (Heck & Hallinger,1999). Their review of the research focused on the principal’s contribution toschool effectiveness and prompted Heck and Hallinger to conclude that “principalleadership does have indirect effects on student outcomes via a variety of in-schoolprocesses” (p. 141) and that there was an “increasing conceptual and method-ological sophistication” within the school effectiveness and improvement research(p. 141). In their efforts to provide an organizing structure for the study of contem-porary school leadership and future research, these theorists provided an analysisand overview of the competing theoretical frameworks and methodologies scholars


have used and continue to use to study school leadership (Heck & Hallinger,1999, pp. 142–156). To illustrate their findings, they organized empirical studiesand theoretical writing according to broad conceptualizations of knowledge, philo-sophical frame, research orientation, leadership theory, and method. They explained:

Broadly speaking, positivist, interpretive, and critical theories of knowledge have characterized socialresearch [including leadership study] during the 20th century (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Soltis, 1984).Each has spawned various theoretical approaches to investigating social phenomena (such as structural-functionalism, political conflict, constructivism, feminism, postmodernism). (p. 143)

The following is a brief explanation of each approach.

STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM AND RATIONAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Most research on leadership and school improvement has adopted a structural-functional orientation where managers play an important role in coordinatingand controlling the organization’s work and achievement of goals. Leadership isinfluence that designated individuals exert by virtue of a combination of personaltraits and position in the bureaucratic hierarchy. Ogawa and Bossert (1995)noted the following assumptions underpinning this technical-rational perspectiveof leadership: (a.) leaders function to influence organizational performance andmaintain stability; (b.) leadership is aligned with organizational roles; and (c.)leaders are individuals who possess certain attributes and act in certain observableways.

Studies of school leadership conducted within a structural-functional frame werethe norm from the 1960s to 1980s (Immegart, 1988). Although scholars in the latetwentieth and early twenty-first century have called for great flexibility (Anderson,1991; Greenfield, 1980), structural-functional studies continue to be the status quoin educational administration (Heck & Hallinger, 1999).

POLITICAL-CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE ON LEADERSHIP

Research adopting a political-conflict perspective begins with the assumption thatschools are characterized by multiple goals and relatively high levels of teacherautonomy. They then proceed to examine how leaders function under such condi-tions and view power relations between teachers and administrators as complexand multidirectional (Ball, 1987). Heck and Hallinger claim that this perspectiveholds the potential for illuminating the sources of leadership and notions of schooleffectiveness that would sustain school improvement (1999, p. 146).

CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

The constructivist research orientation examines how leaders and others in theorganization create shared understandings about their role and participation inschool. According to Heck and Hallinger (1999), the constructivist approach

188 Wallace et al.

Reveals how leadership unfolds within schools settings as a shared, constructed phenomenon. It forcesus to accept that our educational organizations are constructed realities as opposed to systems orstructures that operate independently of the individuals in them. (p. 148)

CRITICAL, FEMINIST, AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

The critical research orientation problematizes the legitimating role that schoolleaders play in endorsing and reinforcing existing social arrangements withinsociety. This orientation encompasses both feminism and Marxism (Heck &Hallinger, 1999). Critical scholars argue that traditional models of school leadershipoffer incomplete explanations of the practical realities of schools (Anderson, 1991;Marshall, 1993; Maxcy, 1995) and urge researchers in educational administrationto find ways to study the “invisible and unobtrusive forms of control exercisedin schools” (p. 148). In particular, these scholars critique the dominant structural-functional leadership research tradition that most often adopts a Western culturalperspective and assumes theories apply across cultures and societies.

POSTMODERNISM

Postmodern and post-structural theories are relatively new approaches to leadershipstudy that “deconstruct the knowledge base of traditional theory” (Heck & Hallinger,1999, p. 150). These perspectives have led scholars to examine the research processand the role of the researcher. To date, the few studies of leadership conductedwithin this paradigm shift attention away from notions of leadership bound tohierarchical position and focus on contextual constraints. Research attempts tounderstand social phenomena like leadership are filtered through lenses of gender,class, and ethnicity.

In this chapter, we use the terms as defined by Heck and Hallinger (1999) toframe our analysis and argument that school leadership preparation and devel-opment programs incorporate and represent competing theories. Further, based onthese arguments, we make our recommendations for future research and policydevelopment. Before doing so, however, we will examine the school leadershippreparation programs that exist across Canada in order to identify the underlyingtheoretical assumptions that inform them.

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR PRE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICE PROGRAMSACROSS CANADA

Programs aimed at meeting the pre-service and in-service needs of school anddistrict school leaders across Canada have been shaped to a large extent bygovernment policies in individual provinces as well as by a multitude of other factorsranging from individual school district needs to faculty member interests withineducational leadership preparation programs at universities across the country. Notwo programs, either existing within school jurisdictions or within university depart-ments or faculties, are exactly alike. Differences become even more stark when thecomparatives are drawn across provinces.


LEGISLATION REGULATING PRINCIPAL CERTIFICATION ACROSSCANADA

We begin our overview by first examining provincial legislation pertaining to theemployment of school administrators (see table 1). At present, only two provincesand two territories require principals to be certified as a condition of employment:Ontario, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Both of theprovinces also require 5 years, as a minimum, of successful teaching experiencebefore a teacher is eligible for qualification as a principal. Certification requirementsare similar in terms of requiring various combinations of practical short-courses anduniversity coursework to achieve the certificate. At the present time, the remainingeight provinces and the Yukon do not require school principals to be certificatedfor the administrative role. Manitoba stands out as a province that provides schooladministrators with the opportunity to achieve certification; however, the provincedoes not mandate this as a condition of employment. Quebec is currently the onlyprovince that does not require school administrators to be certificated teachers,leaving the criteria for appointment of school principals up to individual schoolboards who must consult with their respective and appropriate governing boards.Alberta and British Columbia are provinces that are actively working towards thedevelopment of principal certification processes, although they do not presentlyhave any requirements in this area. Although eight provinces and one territory donot require principal certification as a condition of employment, consistently, schoolboards across the country give preference to candidates with graduate degrees andoften seek promises of those not possessing advanced degrees that they will worktowards earning them.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PREPARATION PROGRAMS

Berry and Beach (2006) assert that the formative development of educational admin-istration grew out of three constructs which continue to shape preparation programsfor school administrators:

1. Educational administration evolved out of the need to operate schools undera set of practical and applied administrative skills.

2. The bureaucratization of educational organizations during the 19th and 20thcenturies required specialized professional knowledge in order to become andto succeed as an educational leader.

3. The academic, scientific, and theory basis for educational administrationprovided educational leaders with advanced tools, conceptual frameworks,and contemporary and theoretical knowledge required to lead educationalorganizations. (lines 49–56)

Many programs today continue to exist, at least partially, on the basis of needsexpressed in these three constructs.

In preparation for writing this chapter we selected at least one university-basedand one practice-based program from each province. The practice-based programs

190W

al

la

ce

et

al

.

Table 1. Overview of school administrator licensure requirements across the Canadian provinces.

Province Relevant legislation Possess a ValidTeaching Certificatein the Province ofEmployment

Administrator Certification Min. yearsteaching exp.

British Columbia s.19 School Act, EmployeeQualifications

Yes Not required, butunder consideration

Alberta s.93 School Act, Qualifications reSupervisory position

yes Not required, butunder consideration

Saskatchewan s.198 Education Act, Certificate ofQualification Required

yes Not required

Manitoba Manitoba Reg. 515/88, TheEducation Administration Act

yes 2 levels recognized,but not required

Ontario s.44 Ontario College of Teachers Act,1996 Regulations

yes Required 5

Quebec s.96.8 – 96.10 School Act, PrincipalAppointments

Not mandatory, criteriaare determined by schoolboard after consultingwith governing board

Not required

New Brunswick s.57 Education Act – Teacher Certi-fication Regulation Sec 15 &16

yes Required- Interim

Principal’s Cert.- Principal’s Cert.

5

Nova Scotia c.1,s.28 Education Act yes Not requiredNewfoundland & Labrador s.24(1) Schools Act yes Not requiredPrince Edward Island s.3(1) School Act yes Not requiredNorthwest Territories s.65 Education Act & N.W.T. Reg

128–96 Principal Certificationyes Required

- min. 240 hours of instruction &2 practicum projects- must complete within2 years

Su

rv

ey

of

Sc

ho

ol

Le

ad

er

sh

ip

Pr

epa

ra

tio

n191

Nunavut s.65 Education Act (adopted 1999)&Reg 128–96 Principal Certification(adopted 1999)

yes Required- min. 240 hours of instruction &

2 practicum projects- must complete within 2 years

Yukon S170(1) Education Act Not specified – section simplyidentifies The Minister’s duty to“appoint a principal for eachschool…” although s.169(i)identifies teaching as requiredas a duty of the principal ands.166 requires teachers to hold avalid certificate

192 Wallace et al.

had (a) a written philosophy statement, (b) practicing educational leaders providinginstruction, (c) descriptions of the elements of the program, and (d) opportunityfor both aspiring leaders and practicing leaders to participate (when more thanone program met these criteria, a program chosen randomly from those availablewas selected for inclusion). The university programs we selected had (a) a writtenphilosophy statement, (b) course offerings for both full-time and part-time students,(c) full-time tenure-track faculty members involved, and (d) current course outlineslinked to an on-line public web page (when more than one program met thesecriteria, the program from the largest institution was selected). Our list of programs isfar from exhaustive; it is provided only as a sampling of the possibilities available toschool leaders as they engage in pre-service and in-service educational opportunities.

The results of our data collection can be classified in a variety of ways,however using Berry and Beach’s (2006) second and third constructs yields auseful, although far from perfect, dichotomy: those programs whose purposes areprimarily: (a) instrumental and address the day-to-day needs of school adminis-trators working in schools and jurisdictions (i.e., programs sponsored by schooljurisdictions and professional associations), and (b) academic/scientific/theoreticalprograms that address and challenge the conceptualizations of the practices ofschool administrators (i.e., university based programs). The dichotomy is far fromperfect because, to a certain extent, many of the programs in both categories drawon and contribute to both theory and practice. What enables us to persist with thisclassification system is the purported primary focus of the programs.

MEETING THE INSTRUMENTAL NEEDS OF SCHOOL LEADERS

Individual school jurisdictions and even individual schools will, because of theirunique contexts, always need to provide system specific and system generic schoolleader induction and professional development programs. Many of the larger schooljurisdictions are able to provide their personnel with the needed induction andprofessional development programs in-house (e.g., Edmonton Catholic Schools,see table 2). Smaller jurisdictions often cannot justify the resources required todevelop their own programs and either rely on individual teachers and schoolleaders to obtain their own pre-service and in-service programs (including turningto universities for graduate degrees and diplomas) or they may contract with alarge school division to provide services as required. Less formal in-service andpre-service opportunities include district support for: (a) conference attendance,(b) school-based release, (c) individual and small group mentoring, (d) centrallyorganized professional development sessions staffed by experienced school-based or central office administrators, and (e) school-based school improvementinitiatives.

In Table 2, below, we outline the program focus and underlying elementsof practice based programs in various kinds of principal induction and trainingprograms across Canada.

Su

rv

ey

of

Sc

ho

ol

Le

ad

er

sh

ip

Pr

epa

ra

tio

n193

Table 2. Examples of field-based administrator induction and preparation programs in some provinces across Canada.

Province Organization Program focus (as obtained fromorganization websites)

Specific training programs Underpinning elementsof programs

British Columbia B.C. Principals’andVice-Principals’Association

The association co-operates withthe Ministry of Education,superintendents, teachers, parents,and universities to create programsaimed at helping its membersdevelop their leadership skills andprofessional knowledge.

Leadership LearningAcademyAdditional courses &workshops in conflict resolution,management of change andstrategies to develop supportivelearning environments and healthyschools.

Alberta EdmontonCatholic Schools

Leadership Services strives toenhance the leadership capacity ofstaff in Edmonton Catholic Schoolsthrough the following initiatives:- Succession Planning.- LeadershipDevelopment Programs.- Role of Principal as CatholicEducational Leader in a ChristCentred ProfessionalLearning Community.- Selection and Assignment ofAdministrators.

Leadership Formationand Training Program- school based leadership.Principal Training Program- Assist Principals preparingfor the principalship.New Principals’ Training Program- training and support andmentorship to first year principals.New Assistant Principals’Training Program- encouragement and collegialsupport for first year assistantprincipals.

- Critical Self Examination.- Professional Dialogue.- Professional Literature.- Reflective Journaling.

(continued)

194W

al

la

ce

et

al

.

Table 2. (continued)



Saskatchewan Saskatchewan SchoolBased Administrators(specialist council ofSTF)

- To promote awareness of the roleof school based administrators.- To promote professionaldevelopment of schoolbased administrators.- To provide a forum foreffective communication.- To provide a forum for examiningissues and directions in Education.- To co-operate with otherorganizations having similarobjectives.

Module 1 - Working with People(prerequisite for other modules).Module 2 - Leadership forTeaching and Learning.Module 3 - Nurturinga Learning Environment.Module 4 - The Law.Module 5 - Connections,Roles and Supports.Module 6 - Beginning with the End(must complete Modules 1 to 5 tobe eligible).

The modules are facilitated bya team of in-schooladministrators and STF staff.Content is practical and applicableto persons in leadership roles in theprovince.

Manitoba Manitoba Councilfor Leadership inEducation

- Focus is on developing andenhancing educational leaders’skills and competencies

- History and future directionsof educational leadership.- Classroom assessment.- Legal issues.- Schools as learning organizations.- Significance of leadership.

- This program can be appliedtoward principal certificationat level I or II.

Su

rv

ey

of

Sc

ho

ol

Le

ad

er

sh

ip

Pr

epa

ra

tio

n195

Ontario Various (e.g.,universities,principals’ councils)

– Principal’sQualification Service

– Focus on cognitive andintra/interpersonal domains ofprofessional development a keycomponent of the program.- The integration of theory andpractice, reflective practice andnetworking with colleagues areimportant aspects of leadershipdevelopment.

Part 1 Leadership and SchoolOperations Modules- The Principal as a Lead Teacher.- The Principal as a Problem Solver.- The Principal as aSpecial Educator.- The Principal as an Employer.- The Principal’s Responsibilitywith Legal Issues.- The Principal as a Manager.Part 2 Leadership andChange: Modules- The Principal as a System Leader.- The Principal as anAgent of Change.- The Principal as aProgram Leader.- The Principal as an Employer.- The Principal as anAgent of Accountability.- The Principal as a CommunityLeader.

- Principal’s QualificationProgram develops futureprincipals and vice-principals.-Instructors are allpracticing principals.-Instruction seeks to strike abalance between technical andadaptive skill development.

(continued)

196W

al

la

ce

et

al

.Table 2. (continued)



Quebec Graduate diploma (30credits) with specializationin school administrationoffered through universities.

Diplôme d¹études supérieuresspecializes en gestion scolaire(D.E.S.S.) (e.g., Université Laval)- Focus on developing practicalskills and expertise inschool-basedmanagement tasks andfunctions

Components focus onacquiring or developing:- Competencies to lead staff ineducational innovation.- Skills to build consensus aroundgoals for student learning andcollaboration among parents,teachers, and the community inthe attainment of the goals.- Knowledge and skills to plan,manage and evaluate allocation ofresources within the school.- Leadership capacities in multipledomains including instruction,policy and administrationand community leadership.- Skills as building culture andcommunity within the school.

Content is practical and focusedon developing needs to manage theday-to-day challenges of a schooladministrator.

New Brunswick District 6 Beginners AdministratorsProgram for new principals andvice-principals

Program providesin-service in the areas of:- School Improvement Plans.- Professional Growth Plans.- Walk-throughs.Communication.- Time Management,- Discipline,- Human Relations,- Finance andAdministration Issues, and- other areas as identified by thegroup of administrators.

New school administratorsare paired with a mentoradministrator for the purposes of:- job shadowing, and- communicating on a regular basisfor support and advice.

Su

rv

ey

of

Sc

ho

ol

Le

ad

er

sh

ip

Pr

epa

ra

tio

n197

Nova Scotia School Admin. Assoc.(Specialist Council of theNSTU)

Provides in-service opportunitiesto school administratorsthrough various modules andconferences.

Modules:- Consensus-building /Decision-making.- School Improvement Plans.- Conflict Resolution.- The Legal Framework ofSchool Advisory Councils.

Focus on meeting schooladministrator needs.

Newfoundland &Labrador

Newfoundland andLabrador Teachers’Association

To engage “participants in problemsolving, professional growth,individual and collaborativelearning, and community building”(B. Park, personal communication).

- Leadership in alearning organization.- Team building.- Managing conflict.- Setting and reachingpersonal goals.- Legal issues around instruction.- How to influence teachingand learning.Empowerment.- Shared decision-making.- Time management.

- Support to school-based leaders.- Build stronglearning organizations.- Examine leadership roleswithin learning organizations.- Establish leadership networks.- Reflect and improve onleadership practices.- Create more effective schools andmore collaborative school cultures.- Use and disseminate effectiveleadership practices.

Prince Edward Island Prince Edward IslandTeachers’ Federation(e.g., PEI Association ofSchool Administrators)

Canada CanadianAssociation ofPrincipals

Seeks to provide anational voice oneducational issues.

- Journal (3 issues per year).- monthly newsletter.- annual conference.- is negotiating to provide on-lineprofessional development.

198 Wallace et al.

MEETING THE CONCEPTUAL NEEDS OF SCHOOL LEADERS

University programs in educational administration and leadership are usuallystructured to address the conceptual understandings of the students who enroll.Programs range from 18 credits of coursework and a thesis to 36 credits ofcoursework. Programs tend to fall into two categories: (a) those that are course-based (i.e., often requiring completion of a capping-stone course with a synthe-sizing paper, or a comprehensive examination, or a research project); and (b) thosethat are research-based (i.e., those requiring the student to engage in extensiveoriginal research culminating in a thesis defended in a public or semi-publicforum). Most universities across Canada offer two emphases in their master’sprograms: (a) course-based for those students who wish to work in the K – 12systems or in other educational systems, but not in academia; and (b) a research-based masters for those who wish to pursue doctoral studies with the goal ofentering the academy (see table 3). Most university programs purport to addressthe needs of students both theoretically and practically but, unless instructorswith current experience in schools as school leaders serve, in some capacity, asinstructors of the courses offered, it is not likely that students’ practical needswill be served adequately without supplemental instruction tailored specificallyfor district needs. Master’s programs with field-experience components (e.g.,administrator shadowing experiences, field-based projects at the school or districtlevel, or field-based projects with provincial teaching associations or ministries ofeducation) offer the most promise for school leaders wishing to gain practicalexpertise.

On the whole, university programs are particularly strong in encouraging partic-ipants to conceptualize and question their practices from alternate points ofview. This is especially true of the research-based Masters and Doctoral degrees.That this stance has been adopted widely is not surprising given the attritionin numbers of faculty across Canada in the area of educational administrationand leadership. Due to widespread loss of faculty positions in the 1990s, depart-ments and faculties offering leadership programs often find themselves withoutspecific expertise and, consequently, are forced to create programs with fewer and,often, more generic course offerings. One approach, used by the University ofBritish Columbia and others, is to hire field-based experts to teach or co-teachuniversity courses. Doing so enables courses to reflect both theory and practice.A drawback of this approach lies in the fact that the practice may be too contextspecific thus enabling some student-practitioners to benefit directly while othersmay still find the content of the course not directly relevant to their work context.Further confounding the picture for university educational administration programsis the need to address a broad constituency’s academic needs including: highereducation, international educational leadership, aboriginal educational leadership,and educational leadership conceived more broadly to include public sectororganizations.

Very few universities offer doctoral degrees focused on meeting the advancedpractical needs of principals and superintendents: for example, the University of

Su

rv

ey

of

Sc

ho

ol

Le

ad

er

sh

ip

Pr

epa

ra

tio

n199

Table 3. Examples of university programs in educational administration and leadership across Canada.

Province University Program focus (asobtained from departmentand faculty websites)

Doctorate(minimum)

Masters (thesis route –min. no. of creditsrequired)

Masters(non-thesis route –min. no. of credits required)

BritishColumbia

U. of BritishColumbia

to engage students inlearning that will help themto understand, critique, andthereby improve theirpractice to better servechildren, communities, andthe wider society.

PhD: 2 seminars +appropriate coursework +comprehensive exam +thesis (2 yr residency) EdD(advanced preparation forpractitioners): 6 seminars +2 elective courses +comprehensive exam +thesis

MA:24 cr + thesis MEd:30 cr (including3 cr capstone)

Alberta U. ofAlberta

prepare Canadian and internationalcandidates for a broad range ofadministrative, supervisory, andleadership positions in schools,school systems, postsecondaryinstitutions, departments ofeducation, other governmentagencies, professional associations,and similar organizations.

PhD: 24 cr + thesis(2 yr residency)EdD: 24 cr + thesis(1 yr residency)

MEd: 24 cr +thesis(1 yrresidency)

MEd:36 cr (including3 cr capstone)

Saskatchewan U. ofSaskatchewan

prepare and develop educationalpractitioners and scholars throughteaching, research, dissemination ofresearch, and service in thedisciplines of educationalleadership.

PhD: 18 cr + 2 seminarcourses + thesis (2 yearresidency)

MEd:21 cr + thesis MEd:33 credits

(continued)

200W

al

la

ce

et

al

.Table 3. continued

Province University Program focus (asobtained from departmentand faculty websites)

Doctorate(minimum)

Masters (thesis route – min.no. of credits required)

Masters(non-thesis route –min. no. of credits required)

Manitoba U. ofManitoba

Designed to develop leadership forthe province’s school systems, andto provide an in-depth andtheoretical understanding ofeducational administration as both amoral and technical endeavour.

PhD: 24 cr + comprehensiveexams + thesis.

MEd:18 cr + thesis(program leads tolevel 2 provincialcertification)

MEd:30 cr + comprehensiveexam (program leads tolevel 2 provincialcertification)

Ontario O.I.S.E./U.of Toronto

MA & PhD programs are intendedparticularly for those who are interestedin educational administration as anacademic field of study. The MEd&EdDprograms are designed to preparepractitioners for leadership careers.

PhD:18 cr +comprehensiveexam +thesisEdD: 24 cr+ comprehensiveexam + thesis

MA:24 cr + thesis MEd:24 cr + majorresearch paper or18 cr +thesis or30 cr (Note:Principal’s QualificationProgram may also beoffered)

Quebec McGill U. MEd: The LeadershipConcentration aims to prepare …education leaders of broad vision,committed to personal andinstitutional improvement inschools and other centres of formalor informal learning.

Not offered specifically inEduc Administration &Leadership, althougha program can becustom tailoredAd Hoc PhD: coursework asrequired + comprehensiveexam + thesis (2 yearresidency)

MA:24 cr + thesis(3 full terms forresidence)

MA:45 cr (Note:also offer two 15 crgraduate certificateprograms in Educ.Leadership)

NewBrunswick

U. of NewBrunswick

MEd prepares students to adoptadministrative and leadershiproles within the public schoolsystem.PhD assists individuals tostudy, design and conduct researchat an advanced level, to develop thecompetence and expertise needed toassume positions of educationalleadership.

Not offered specifically inEduc Administration &Leadership, although aprogram can be customtailored PhD: 6 cr seminar +coursework & reading asrequired + comprehensiveexam + dissertation (1 yearresidency)

MEd:15 cr + thesis MEd:24 cr +research project or 36 cr

Su

rv

ey

of

Sc

ho

ol

Le

ad

er

sh

ip

Pr

epa

ra

tio

n201

NovaScotia

Acadia U. In addition to the concepts ofleadership and organization, theconcepts of social justice,democratic action, equity,empowerment and change pervadethe program.

Not offered MEd:21 cr + thesis MEd:30 cr

Newfoundland& Labrador

Memorial U. EducationalLeadership Studies isdesigned to preparecandidates forleadership inEducation.

Not offeredspecifically in EducAdministration &Leadership, althougha program can becustom tailored PhD:6 cr min (12 cr max)+ comprehensiveexam + thesis

MEd:18 cr + thesis MEd:24 cr + Internship, or24 cr + paper folio, or 24 cr+ project, or 30 cr

Prince EdwardIsland

U. of PrinceEdwardIsland

The aim ofthe programis to promote andsupport educationalscholarship, researchand practice.

Not offered MEd:18 cr + thesis MEd:30 cr + thesis

202 Wallace et al.

British Columbia and O.I.S.E/University of Toronto’s Doctor of Education degrees.Although the University of Alberta offers an Ed.D., the distinction between it andthe Ph.D. lies only in the residency period; students are expected to completeexactly the same requirements and to the same standards in both programs. Mostuniversity Ph.D. programs focus on preparing research leadership in educationaladministration and leadership. It is up to the practitioners whose goals includereturning to educational leadership to determine how best to span the theory/practicedivide. Table 3, outlines our findings with regard to university programs in educa-tional administration and leadership programs in representative universities acrossCanada.

RECONSIDERING PREPARATION FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

In many ways, what we have outlined thus far is encouraging. Educational leadershipprograms, whether practice or theory based, are available across Canada. However,a careful reading of the goals for and purposes of these programs suggests that mostare investing a great deal of time in preparing school leaders for “what is” – i.e.,serving the instrumental needs of programs and practices that already exist. Bhola(2002) suggests that it is essential for educational leaders to be prepared to lookbeyond what is and enabled to apply a social imagination to “what might be” inschools within democratic societies. To do otherwise is to perpetuate policies andpractices that lead to “change without difference” (Goodman, 1995). Providing suchprograms, however, requires that those responsible for implementing programs thatprepare school leaders, whether practice-based or university-based, need to applya social imagination to what might be as well. Yet, as Stack, Coulter, Grosjean,Mazawi, and Smith (2006) argue, principal preparation programs too often relyon propositional knowledge that leads to the somewhat naïve belief that there is“one best way” for school leaders to do their work in a complex, multi-valentsociety. In addition, programs often define leadership in strictly instrumental wayswith little, if any, attention paid to the moral imperatives of complex and evenconflicting educational goals in a democratic society (see also, Starratt, 1991, andLabaree, 1997).

In other words, the push to narrow the focus of principal preparation programsto managerial competency – as important as that is (Hodgkinson, 1991) –will not effectively serve the broader human interests of our students, or thesociety for which we are preparing them. Instead, we argue that to address notonly present contingencies but also future challenges, a willingness to recon-sider the epistemological grounds and ethical commitments upon which schoolleadership programs are predominantly constructed is required. In what follows,we will examine the possibilities of opening up educational leadership programsto broader theoretical possibilities and consider ways in which doing so mightaddress some of the current loss of confidence in leadership while providing moreequitable learning opportunities for all students within caring and effective learningenvironments.


REVISITING THE THEORETICAL GROUNDS FOR LEADERSHIPPREPARATION PROGRAMS

First, as noted earlier in this chapter, structural-functionalist theory is historicallypredominant in leadership literature and preparation programs, while constructivismhas gained wider favour in the last decade (e.g., Foster, 2005; Foster & St. Hilaire,2004; Lambert & Walker, 2002) – particularly in relation to the effective schoolsliterature and transformational leadership. Constructivism has offered a helpfulway forward in providing leadership theory that recognizes the relational nature ofschooling and the contingent nature of leadership. Its broad philosophical groundingand its disengagement of educational leadership from bureaucratic position holdsstrong possibilities for revitalizing school leadership. However, the partial captureof its transformational possibilities by instrumental organizational imperatives andits lack of explicit attention to educational goals require cautious optimism for itspotential to transform educational opportunities for all students.

As the organizing framework for this chapter suggests, however, there are broad,and we will argue, essential theoretical grounds upon which to build a leadershipprogram that moves beyond structural-functionalism and constructivism. Politicalconflict theory (which will be discussed as related to critical theory more directlythan Heck and Hallinger (1999) suggest), feminism and cultural theory, as well aspostmodernism offer a useful and necessary range of lenses through which to viewand understand the work of school leadership. However, these latter three lensesare largely ignored in many principal preparation programs. This is not neces-sarily surprising, given the influence of theories that emphasize predictability andcontrol in educational administration scholarship. After all, political conflict theory,feminism and cultural theory, and postmodernism call into question foundationalassumptions in the field of educational administration that predictability and controlare possible or even desirable, challenge fundamental arrangements of privilegeorganized around race, gender, and capitalism, and are premised on a politicalcommitment to social change.

Bhola (2002) argues, for example, that theories which inform the study of educa-tional leadership have significant implications for the ideology that shapes practice(p. 189). Arguably, then, the predominance of structural-functionalism is not simplyan innocent preference but has material implications for the lives of students,teachers, administrators, and the communities that they serve. Indeed a closer exami-nation of the three educational goals that have been predominant in public educationhistorically, as outlined by Labaree (1997), suggests that there is a discernible linkbetween the theories that inform leadership practice and the goals that are servedin educational organizations (Wallace, 2005). Structural-functionalism is closelyallied with the perpetuation of dominant instrumental norms (Wallace, 2002), whichhave served the educational goals of social efficiency (i.e., schools should focuson training workers and provide an education that stratifies educational opportu-nities to prepare students for hierarchically arranged corporate opportunities) andsocial mobility (i.e., schools should prepare individuals for social positions basedon class privilege and, if possible, increased status) (Labaree, 1997). Certainly

204 Wallace et al.

social efficiency and social mobility are worthy educational goals and are infusedthroughout current educational policy in Canada but need to be balanced by the thirdgoal, democratic equality (i.e., the preparation of citizens who are equally preparedfor active engagement in a democratic society). Unfortunately, the educational goalof democratic equality is often constrained in deference to social efficiency and,increasingly, social mobility, which has resulted in a threat to education as a publicgood.

A school leader whose perspective is limited to a structural-functionalist or evena constructivist perspective may not bring critical attention to the threats to andpossibilities for educational goals, policies, and practices in Canadian schools.To do so requires leadership that is informed by the theoretical perspectivesbeyond structural-functionalism and constructivism that were introduced earlierin this chapter if principal preparation programs are to reach their full potential.In the discussion that follows, we will examine what political conflict/critical,feminist/cultural, and postmodern perspectives might offer to enrich principal prepa-ration programs.

REVISITING THE POLITICAL CONFLICT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Critical theorists who have drawn our attention to the political conflict perspectivein educational administration (e.g., Apple, 2004; Blackmore, 1996; Bates, 1995;Foster, 1989, etc.) have argued that the goals of social efficiency and socialmobility for public education are not enough and that, instead, school leadersshould be seeking to challenge the reproduction of dominant social arrangementsand encourage “strong” (Barber, 1996) engagement in a democratic society. Infact, as Foster (1989) argues, to do otherwise is to engage in something otherthan leadership; leadership in democratic societies requires more than “legitimationof a managerial philosophy” (p. 50), but “is concerned [instead] with the trans-formation of values, and here school leaders can address basic social end valuessuch as democracy, justice, and liberty” (p. 61). Political conflict theory offersschool leaders a lens that reveals the ways in which the basic social end values ofdemocracy, justice, and liberty are enacted and/or compromised in school policiesand practices through the interrelationship of the micro-politics of everyday inter-actions in schools and the macro-politics of broader governance structures.

For example, a school leader who is able to apply a political conflict lens mightask questions such as:

1. How do my interactions with community members encourage or inhibit theirparticipation in school decision-making?

2. In what ways does the curriculum reflect the needs of our community?3. How might my supervision practices encourage democratic engagement in

school governance?4. In what ways do standardized tests serve the learning needs of the diverse

learners in this school community?


Through knowledgeable reflective and reflexive practice that is informed by politicalconflict theory, school leaders will be encouraged to move beyond simply managingthe required school tasks to envisioning democratic practices in schools that providebroader possibilities for both the present and future of democratic societies.

REVISITING FEMINISM AND CULTURAL THEORY IN EDUCATIONALLEADERSHIP

While in some danger of oversimplifying, given the range and complexity offeminist and cultural theories, both perspectives provide a particular focus forcritical/political conflict theory. Feminist theories explore the particular ways inwhich gender acts to shape policies and practices in educational organizations insubtle, yet powerful ways. For example, feminist theories enable school adminis-trators to better understand the gendered division of work in schools, deal moreeffectively with sexual harassment, provide curriculum support that recognizes theeffects of gender norms on student results, and so on. Cultural theory is an interdis-ciplinary perspective that examines “that area of social life where people struggleover understandings” (Marshall & Anderson, 1994, p. 173, citing Quantz, 1992).Drawing on critical, feminist, postmodern, queer, and race theory, cultural theorieshelp school practitioners understand the ways in which all of the various stake-holders struggle within unequal relations of power to have their voices heard, toform their identities, to resist oppression, and to live with dignity and respect.Cultural theories help school administrators understand various phenomena in muchmore nuanced and potentially helpful ways, such as: the organization of students’social interactions around cultural formations such as race or musical tastes; thesilent resistance of cultural communities to school involvement; and the persis-tently and unacceptably high “drop out” rates of particular cultural groups, such asAboriginal youth.

Both feminist and cultural theory illuminate the intersection between the personaland political, reveal the ways in which power is organized around class, race,gender, and sexual orientation, and take up these questions in actively politicalways (Marshall & Anderson, 1994). In other words, both move beyond theory toaction. Often feminist theories are included in leadership preparation syllabi as an“add-on” or with the briefest nod to “women’s ways of leading” and cultural theoryis seldom considered at all. Despite the centrality of action to each theory, theyare often dismissed as impractical and of interest only to “special interest” groups.We would argue that such a view is shortsighted for at least two reasons. First,we are all gendered, classed, raced, and identify ourselves with a particular sexualorientation. Because we may represent a dominant norm on any or all of thesedimensions of our identity does not negate our responsibility to become aware ofits effects in our everyday lives and that of others. Arguably, school leaders have aneven greater moral responsibility to understand the effects of gender and the variousdimensions of culture and to act on the knowledge they acquire. Second, currentpolicy initiatives, such as those that encourage more men to enter the teaching

206 Wallace et al.

profession and more women to take on school leadership roles, often representa naïve lack of awareness of the ways in which gender is performed (Connell,2002) through the complex economic, social, political, and cultural arrangements insociety. As a result, school leaders often do not question their own gendered/culturalpractices or those embedded in institutional arrangements and so these policies failto achieve their stated goals. Instead, we argue that school leaders need to havean awareness of the effects of gender, race, class, and sexual orientation on schoolpractices so that all learners and educators needs may be met and the broader goalsof education might be served more effectively.

REVISITING POSTMODERNISM

Perhaps the most puzzling theoretical omission in educational leadership programsis attention to postmodern and post-structural theories, given their importance inthe social sciences (Harvey, 1990). This may be because both postmodernism andpost-structuralism (hereafter referred to, for simplicity, as postmodernism), as philo-sophical positions and cultural conditions, defy succinct definition. Furthermore,postmodernism’s perceived tendency to nihilism, anti-foundationalism, and anaversion to definitive declarations of “truth”, has engendered considerable concern– both practical and theoretical (see, for example, McLaren, 1999). However, asschool leadership programs are called upon to address the leadership needs ofincreasingly diverse schools and communities, postmodernism’s ability to decentrean administrator’s subject position and to work across multiple differences in values,beliefs, and cultural complexities is an important requirement in the school leaders’repertoire.

Capper (1998) points out that postmodern theories offer much to educationaladministration because they call into question and work towards reconceptual-izing fundamental concepts in both traditional and critical theories, such as power,decision making, and change. Furthermore, postmodern theories have been particu-larly powerful in conjunction with feminist, cultural, and critical theories in recon-sidering the ways in which multiple signifiers of difference, such as race, language,ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and so on, work together in complex ways. Forexample, Ferguson’s (1984) book, Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy, uses post-structural analysis to explore the ways in which bureaucratic discourses organizeinequality and construct the particular identities of both the managers and clients ofbureaucracies in ways that mirror patriarchal relations. Postmodernism also opensalternative spaces for re/considering the possibilities of school leadership – forexample, the arts and aesthetics (Greene, 1995; Spehler & Slattery, 1999) – as wellas directing attention to the multiple ways in which globalization acts as both aboundary and a bridge to more equitable opportunities.

Of course, all of the above also demonstrates the ways in which postmod-ernism unsettles much of what we know – or believe we know – about educa-tional leadership. However, it also offers the possibility of asking practice-orientedquestions that are immensely helpful but often overlooked, such as: How does the


school architecture organize social interactions in the school? In what ways dothe discourses of the school shape professional identities? How comfortable am Iwith the messiness – the dissensus, resistance and conflict – of change? (adaptedfrom Capper, 1998, p. 367). As these questions reveal, a postmodern perspectiveacknowledges the complexity of schools and offers hopeful alternatives for practicethat both work with the possibilities and move outside the limitations of moretraditional theories of leadership.

FINDING A WAY FORWARD BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE

By this point in our discussion, practitioners may be asking, “What does theoreticalcomplexity have to do with balancing my budget or raising standardized test scores?Theory is fine for the “ivory tower” but I’m working “in the trenches” every day andneed some practical direction.” We would agree. However, we would also argue thateven the most mundane decisions of school leaders are embedded in a theoreticalperspective – most often structural-functionalism. As a result, if school leadersare not able to recognize, articulate, and critique the theoretical lens informingtheir practice, systems may be “restructured,” schools may be “improved,” but thetheoretical underpinnings that might offer deeply transformative opportunities willremain as elusive as improving educational opportunities continues to be for studentsand communities – particularly those students and communities that experience“durable inequalities” (Tilly, 1998). Instead, by opening up the theoretical terrain,school leaders, whether by position or influence, will have a more complete reper-toire for conceptualizing and implementing policies and practices that will meet theneeds of students preparing for engagement in a highly complex globalized world.Thus, we argue that a broader theoretical repertoire is not only highly practical butthe only way in which policies and practices in schools will be transformed. In orderto move forward more productively with school leadership preparation programs,therefore, we offer the following three suggestions.

First, we urge university-based programs to ensure a theoretical richness that willenable students to recognize and critique the theoretical paradigm in which theymay have been unconsciously operating and to learn about and explore the practicalimplications of other theoretical paradigms for their practice. In doing so, it wouldbe highly useful to ensure that just as practice needs to be informed by theory, so toodoes theory need to respond to the urgent demands of practice. For example, usingcase studies, arts-based inquiry, practice-oriented assignments, guest lectures fromlocal practitioners, and so on will ensure that the broader theoretical perspectivesexplored in university-based programs are informing the every-day dilemmas aswell as the larger philosophical demands of school leadership.

Second, we appeal to practitioner-based programs to resist the desire to providepropositional knowledge – so-called “silver bullets” – for complex educationalissues. Rather, it would be helpful for practitioners to explore the complexities oflocal concerns and develop strategies together to respond with shared knowledgeand good will. Further, as it is possible to do so, it would be useful to provide

208 Wallace et al.

opportunities for students in preparation programs, their instructors, and academicsin educational administration to share that conversation in order to encourage well-informed decision-making.

Third, it is likely time for practitioner-based program leaders and university-based academics to develop a more fully developed picture of those areas of theirwork that overlap and are mutually beneficial and to recognize and respect thoseareas that do not.

We hope that this chapter will provide the impetus for such an examination as wellas encourage those responsible for Administrator/Leader preparation programs todraw more deeply on the expertise provided by both practitioners and academics inproviding leadership that enables excellent and equitable educational opportunitiesfor students and communities in a rapidly changing world

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. (1990). Toward a critical constructivist approach to school administration. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 26(1), 38–59.

Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics ofeducational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from EBSCOhost.

Ball, S. 1987. The micro-politics of the school. London: Methuen.Barber, B. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books.Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press.Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press.Bates, R.J. (1995). Critical theory of educational administration. In C. W. Evers & J. Chapman

(Eds.),Educational administration: An Australian perspective (pp. 49–59). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, N.Y.: Harper

and Row.Berry, J. E. & Beach, R. (2006). K-12 leadership and the educational administration curriculum:

A theory of preparation. National Council of the Professors of Educational Administration, Flagstaff,AZ. Accessed September 15, 2006 from: http://cnx.org/content/m13772/latest/

Bhola, H. (2002). A discourse on educational leadership: Global themes, postmodern perspectives.Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21 (2), 181–202.

Blackmore, J. (1996). “Doing emotional labour” in the education marketplace. Discourse: Studies in thecultural politics of education, 17(3), 337–349.

Burns, J. Leadership. New York, N.Y.: Harper and Row.Capper, C. (1998). Critically oriented and postmodern perspectives: Sorting out the differences and

applications for practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 354–379.Connell, R. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Harrison, T., & Kachur, J. (Eds.). (1999). Contested classrooms: Education, globalization, and

democracy in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage

Publications.Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts and social change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA.: Temple University Press.Foster, R. (1998). Leadership and secondary school improvement: Case studies of tensions and

possibilities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(1), 22–34.


Foster, R. , & St. Hilaire, B. (2004). The who, how, why, and what of leadership for school improvement:Lessons learned in England. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 354–369.

Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives oneducational leadership, (pp. 39–62). London: Falmer Press.

Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective. HarvardEducational Review, 65(1), 1–29.

Greenfield, T. (1991). Reforming and re-valuing educational administration: Whence and when comeththe phoenix? Educational Management and Administration. 19(4), 200–217.

Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change.Cambridge, MA. and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership and schoolimprovement. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educationaladministration (2nd ed.), (pp. 141–162). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany N.Y.: SUNY Press.Immegart, G. (1988). Leadership and leader behaviour. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook on educational

administration (pp. 259–277). New York, N.Y.: Longman.Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American

Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.Lambert, L. & Walker D. (Eds.). (2002). The constructivist leader (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers

College Press.Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy &

K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed.), (pp. 45–72).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Levin, B. (2000). Education reform. New York: Routledge-Falmer.Levin, B. (2005). Governing education. Toronto, ON.: University of Toronto Press.Lewington, J., & Orpwood, G. (1993). Overdue assignment: Taking responsibility for Canada’s schools.

Toronto, ON: John Wiley & Sons.Marshall, C. (1993). The politics of denial: Gender and race issues in administration. In C. Marshall

(Ed.). The new politics of race and gender (pp. 168–175). London: Falmer.Marshall, C. & Anderson, G. (1994). Rethinking the public and private spheres: Feminist and cultural

studies perspectives on the politics of education. Journal of Educational Policy, 9(5/6), 169–182.Maxcy, S. (1995). Democracy, chaos, and the new school order. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.McLaren, P. (1999). Rejoinder – Postmodernism and the eclipse of political agency: A response to

Spencer Maxcy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(3), 301–305.Murphy, J. (2006). Dancing lessons for elephants: Reforming ed school leadership programs. Phi Delta

Kappan, 87(7), 488–491.Ogawa, R., & Bossert, S. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 3(2), 224–243.Quantz, R. (1992). On critical ethnography (with some postmodern considerations). In M. LeCompte,

W. Millroy & J. Preissle, (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 447–505).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Razik, T., & Swanson, A. (1995). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership and management.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Rost, J. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, N.Y.: Praeger.Slee, R., Weiner, G., & Tomlinson, S. (1998). School effectiveness for whom? Challenges to the school

effectiveness and school improvement movements. London: Falmer Press.Spehler, R. & Slattery, P. (1999). Voices of imagination: The artist as prophet in the process of social

change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(1), 1–12.Starrat, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185–202.Taylor, A. (2001). The politics of educational reform in Alberta. Toronto, ON: University of

Toronto Press.

210 Wallace et al.

Schön, D. (1982). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, N.Y.:Basic Books.

Stack, M., Coulter, D., Garnet, G., Mazawi, A. E., & Smith, G. (2006). Fostering tomorrow’s educationalleaders: A survey of educational administration and leadership programs in British Columbia. BritishColumbia: The Association of BC Deans of Education and the BC Educational Leadership Council.

Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequalities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Wallace, J. (2002).An equitable organization: Imagining what is ‘not yet’. Educational Management

Administration Leadership, 30(1), 83–100.Wallace, J. (2005). Educational purposes economicus: Globalization and the reshaping of educational

purpose in three Canadian provinces. [Special edition on globalization]. Canadian and InternationalEducation, 33 (1), 99–117

Wallace, J. (2005). Running the race: The work of principals in restructured educational systems. InH. Armstrong (Ed.), Examining the practice of school administration in Canada (pp. 309–329).Calgary, AB.: Detselig.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle N.J.: Prentice Hall.Zaleznik, A. (1989). The managerial mystique: Restoring leadership in business. New York, NY:

Harper Row.

STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

1. P.T. Begley and O. Johansson (eds.): The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership. 2003ISBN Hb 1-4020-1159-8; Pb 1-4020-1160-1

2. J. Ryan: Leading Diverse Schools. 2003ISBN Hb 1-4020-1243-8; Pb 1-4020-1253-5

3. W. Mulford, H. Silins and K. Leithwood: Educational Leadership for OrganisationalLearning and Improved Student Outcomes. 2004 ISBN 1-4020-1987-4

4. D. Armstrong: Administrative Passages – Navigating the Transition from Teacher toAssistant Principal. 2007 ISBN 1-4020-5268-5

5. C. Day and K. Leithwood (eds.): Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change.An International Perspective. 2007 ISBN 978-1-4020-5515-7

6. J.M. Burger, C. F. Webber and P. Klinck (eds.): Intelligent Leadership. Contructs forThinking Education Leaders. 2007 ISBN 978-1-4020-6021-2

Download - Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking Education Leaders (Studies in Educational Leadership)

Top Related