This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 27 October 2014, At: 08:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Refraining Leadership to CreateChangeMaria Susman Israel & Beverly Bell KasperPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Maria Susman Israel & Beverly Bell Kasper (2005) Refraining Leadership toCreate Change, The Educational Forum, 69:1, 16-26, DOI: 10.1080/00131720408984661

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984661

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reframing Leadershipto Create Changeby Marla Susman Israel and Beverly Bell Kasper

AbstractThis manuscript describes how two school administrators, now educa­

tionalleadership professors, successfully reJramed leadership to create change.

Bolman and Deal's (1984; 2003) reJraming of pedagogy provided the theory for

understanding this complex change process and the school administrator's role.

As a conceptual framework, reframing theory provides a research design for

examining educational leadership. By applying theory to practice, school leaders

can refine their craft, understand their schools, and enhance their role as change

agents.

Why study organizational theory? Isn't it enough to think and act? Isn 't each situa­tion unique and, therefore, no one theory is applicable to the realities and complexitiesof organizational life? In this article, Bolman and Deal 's (1984; 2003) reframing theory isapplied to real practice. Reframing theory provides schoo l leaders w ith a systema tic,expanded viewpoint for un derstand ing organizational life. Bolman and Deal (1984,3)stated that structural theorists emphasize organizational goals, roles, and technology;human resource theorists em phasize the interde pende nce betw een people and orga ni­zations; political theorists see pow er, conflict, and the di st ribution of scarce resources asthe central issue; and symbolic theorists focus on p robl ems of mean ing in organizations .The process of reframing us ing the four frames-structural, human resources, polit ical,and symbolic-provides the theoretical pedagogy to crea te consens us on purpose an dpractice during the change process. As a conceptual framework, reframing theory pro­vides a solid research design for exami ning positi ve lead ersh ip practices in schools. Byapplying theory to practice, school lead ers can refine their craft, understand their schools,and enhance their role as change agents .

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Essays

Change is a beginning, which, in turn, means that what was happening before mustnow come to an end. While this is the desired outcome of change, unless the leader givesrecognition and validation to past practices, the individuals involved will have diffi­culty developing the will and capacity for change. Bridges (1991, 3) spoke of this processas "recognizing the transition or psychological process that people go through to cometo terms with a new situation." He further postulated that without transition, change isnot possible. He said (1991,4), "There can be any number of changes, but unless thereare transitions, nothing will be different when the dust clears." Bolman and Deal (2003,370) spoke to this issue when the y discussed the leader 's need to understand that change"intru des upon deeply rooted symbolic forms, traditional wa ys, and ritual behavior."The y (2003) suggested that to accomplish organizational change, the leader must be cog­nizant of the barriers to change. Continual refinement and reflection by the school leaderas the change agent demystifies the reframing process. The result is increased success asleaders move schools through the transformation process.

The process of reframing-the switching of administrative perspectives during thechange process to uniquely observe and capture the moment-that enabled the authorsto preserve morale and build will and capacity while creating and sustaining learningcommunities, is detailed in this article. Positive portrayals of the often complex reframingprocess provide current and future leaders with concrete examples of artistry and skillwhen using reframing to chart a course for meaningful school reform.

The scenarios described came from the worlds of early childhood and middle schooleducation. The first scenario involved the need for diverse groups to embrace and createearly learning standards for school and community-based early childhood programs.The second scenario involved the need for middle school staff members to embrace newleadership and become a true middle school learning community. In both case studies,the reframing practices and the rationales each school leader used to choose the appro­priate frame to gain clarity, generate new options, and find strategies to move each groupforward are examined.

The Early Childhood Community's StoryThe convened group was diverse. Head Start, state-funded preschool, childcare pro­

viders, businesses, and the local school district were represented. Stakeholders were teach­ers, administrators, parents, and laypersons. They came together partially out of fear­fear that funding for their project might be in jeopardy, that their programs would befound wanting, or that their programs would have to undergo fundamental change. Yet,despite the fear, the diverse stakeholders gathered with a common commitment: to en­sure that every child within the community would be ready to succeed upon enteringkindergarten. The early childhood principal would have the job of uniting this group,not by their fears, but rather by their common goal. They were driven by their beliefs,knowledge, and desires to provide high-quality early learning environments (Danielson 2002).

In the 1990s, the demand for accountability within schools-even within early child­hood programs-was growing at the federal, state, and local levels (Bredekamp andRosegrant 1995; Bowman, Donovan, and Burns 2001; Hatch 2002; Hyun 2003; National

The EducationalForum • Volume 69 • Fall 2004 • 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Rejraming theoryprovides school leaders withasystematic, expandedviewpoint for understandingorganizational life.

Israel and Kasper

Education Goals Panel 1999; National Research Council 2000; National Association ofState Boards of Education 1988; U.S. Department of Education 2002). The standardsmo vement also had taken hold within K-12 and higher education (Danielson 2002; U.S.Department of Education 2002; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 2001;Wiggins and McTighe 1998) . Not surprising, therefore, was that the standards move­ment was beginning within early childhood education (Illinois State Board of Education2002; Head Start Bureau 2001) . This standards movement, coupled with accountabilitydemands, meant that early childhood educators needed to articulate the goals of a qual­ity early education program (National Association for the Education of Young Children2001; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and National Association for theEducation of Young Children 2002; Neuman, Copple, and Bredekamp 2002) .

The school district's early childhood principal convened the group to embark upona three-year process that would create early learning standards and accountability mea­sures to satisfy fed eral and state mandates, and that were acceptable to a diverse learn­ing community. The early childhood principal used the process of reframing, with art­istry and choice, to purposefully build will and capacity within and across multiplelocal organizations to create consensus and change.

The early childhood principal choseto frame her leadership style using astructural approach, as recommendedby Bolman and Deal (2003, 306); thisstyle is useful when a leader needs to"create strategies to set objectives andcoordinate resources." The school dis­trict was responsible not only for itsown early childhood programming, thelargest in the community, but also wasthe financial agent for four communitypreschools that provided state-fundedpreschool programs. Clearly defined

accountability measures were mandatory to qualify for state funding and funding drovethe stakeholders to cooperate. For the first six months, the leader and the group re­searched and reviewed the state-funded preschool mandates. The leader, as structuralarchitect, provided the blueprint for minimum compliance requirements and documentsthat needed to be completed during the first fiscal cycle to ensure funding for the year. Usinga structural, top-down method, the principal stated, "We have no choice or we will lose thisfunding." Bolman and Deal (2003,307) stated that when the leader must "keep the organiza­tion headed in the right direction while transmitting facts and information," a structuraltop-down leadership style is most appropriate.

This stance resulted in two outcomes. First, it created immediate awareness of thesituation by all involved. A sense of urgency was established. Second, and more impor­tantly, it mobilized diverse personnel from multiple organizations to recognize that whilea top-down directive for immediate monies was a sufficient process for the short-run,

18 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Fall 2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Essays

this type of decision-making could not continue indefinitely. A collaborative structurewas necessary to comply with future mandates and the subsequent implementation ofmeaningful programs for children (Firestone 1989).

Capitalizing on the passion of the group and its sense of accomplishment when theinitial compliance measures were met, the leader challenged the group to begin the pro­cess of real change and consensus building (Fullan 2001). She reframed the challenge byapplying a human resources focus on the change process and on her leadership style.

She knew that the group no longer needed an architect. Rather, the situation nowdemanded that the leader become the parent of a large blended family and recognize theexpertise and perspective that each stakeholder brought to the table (Bolman and Deal2003; Fullan 2001; Green 2001). She needed to facilitate conversations that allowed par­ticipants to express their legitimate fears and apprehensions about the required account­ability measures and early learning standards to be created. For these long conversa­tions, time and food were major prerequisites. A leader cannot underestimate the powerof breaking bread together among various stakeholders (Bolman and Deal 2003). Realtime was built into the process. Unlike the leader as architect who had an abbreviatedtimeline, the leader as parent provided ample time, without competing distractions, forreal conversation to occur. Firestone (1989) called this reflection time a necessary function.

By reframing the context and her leadership style, the leader lessened the complex­ity, surprise, deception, and ambiguity of the group's work (Bolman and Deal 2003). Shealso needed to ensure that all stakeholders were represented, and expand the group ifnecessary, to allow for all-inclusive and significant community conversations. Thoughthis was time-consuming, the expansion of the group ensured that necessary functions,linkages, and personnel mobilization between public and private sectors and preschooland kindergarten programs were established.

Once the family members were acknowledged and accounted for, the principal useda backward-design model (Wiggins and McTighe 1998), which begins with the end prod­uct to determine a curriculum plan. This question was posed: "What skills does an en­tering kindergarten child need to be successful in our community's kindergarten pro­gram?" This basic question generated a yearlong, heated debate. The clarity of thequestion and the family environment that had been established and nurtured providedthe will and capacity among the stakeholders to create and reach consensus on a set ofdesired skills for children entering kindergarten.

Eighteen months later, a community-wide kindergarten readiness report cardthat outlined the agreed-upon, desired skills for a child entering kindergarten wasproduced. This report card, which was designed for use by teachers and parents,delineated individual progress within each of these skill areas and provided an earlylearning assessment checklist to determine the child's progress toward these kinder­garten readiness skills. In 18 months, a well-functioning family of stakeholders, whohad built trust and a common vocabulary to discuss the important issues surround­ing early learning accountability and standards, had been formed .

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Fall 2004 • 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Israel and Kasper

But as with any famil y, disagreements occurred. Competing mandates and languageneed ed to be finessed on the first two documents that were created to accommodateinterests of multiple funding agents. As a result, the principal often needed to switchframes between being the leader as parent and the leader as politician. As Bolman andDeal (2003, 16) stated, "The ability to use multiple frames is associated with greatereffectiveness for managers and leaders. " The need to use multiple frames points out theten sion between context and reflection that a school leader continually must negotiate.

The political frame is often referred to as the jungle model of organizations (Bolmanand Deal 1984, 2003; Pullan 2001; Spring 1988). Weeding through the competing man­dates of Head Start, state-funded preschool, childcare, and the school district, the princi­pal often resembled a safari guide using a machete to detangle the vines within thepolicy jungle. The principal was responsible for helping the stakeholders, especially theteachers, put the newly created documents, mandates, and language into real practice.The principal often met separately with smaller program groups to reach a consensusbefore bringing everyone together to arrive at a larger group agreement concerning realclassroom practice and meaningful early learning standards. The principal as politicianhad to under stand each group's concerns and connect these concerns to the larger goalsand common good of the group and process (Bolman and Deal 2003). As politician, theprincipal had to be meticulous in note taking and paraphrasing each group's concernswhen conveying them to the larger group. The principal as politician needed to be hon­est and ethical when representing each constituency's concerns. This honesty cultivatedthe integrity of the process and enabled the group to negotiate a compromise that satis­fied all of the stakeholders' concerns. By enacting a moral political process for compro­mise, the leader also reenergized the participants, enabling them to finish creating earlylearning standards and aligning assessment measures to those standards (Sergiovanni 1994).

A Sustainable Learning CommunityAs the group's work neared completion, the principal had to reframe the process

once again using the symbolic frame. The principal became the celebrant and inspiredthe group to take ownership of its work and finish the project (Bolman and Deal 2003).Rather than be the one in the limelight, the principal inspired multiple members of thegroup to take their work to the public arena (Fullan 2001; Green 2001; Sergiovanni 1994).This inspiration was created by the principal doing a lot of behind-the-scenes labor­typing documents, scheduling events, and coaching stakeholders-so that the stake­holders could take their work effortlessly to the public arena. The principal coordinateda series of meetings at which the stakeholders made the actual presentations and, there­fore, reaped the rewards.

Through these presentations and celebrations, a community-wide consensus andvision were achieved. These actions established a common language for use by the learn­ing community as they continued to develop positive classroom practices for their young­est learners. Will and capacity were created by ensuring that all stakeholders were in­volved, that necessary linkages were established between and across programs, and thattim e and honest communications were honored and valued. The early childhood princi-

20 • The Educational Forum. Volume 69 • Fall 2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Essays

pal used artistry and choice to frame and reframe her administrative style to continuallymeet the needs of the group (Bolman and Deal 2003). This artistry and choice in leader­ship provided the tools necessary to create a shared vision, a learning community, andsustainability.

The Middle School StoryThe next example of reframing in action details the journey a middle school princi­

pal took with her staff members to create the will and capacity for systemic change. Thismiddle school principal recognized the internal transitions involved in the change pro­cess, addressed those issues, and facilitated a climate in which the will and capacity toimprove student learning was valued and supported.

Whenever a change in school leadership occurs-especially when a new principal ishired-all members of the school community-teachers, bus drivers, students, parents,and community members-experience angst. What will the relationships be like? Whatis going to change? Whose perspectives, needs, and situations will be recognized andvalued? How will needs be negotiated? The social architecture and political reality ofthe organization must be addressed before any change can occur (Bolman and Deal 2003).These issues are even more pronounced and produce even greater controversy when thedistrict leadership states that the principal has been hired as a change agent. Delivery ofthis message is a clear indication that the new leader has the power, authority, and ex­pectation for change. Any hope of the status quo diminishes, and jockeying for positionsof power and influence begin as the members of the organization move into a politicalframe of mind.

The leader and her staff members began their change journey with a brief, but for­mal, introductory meeting before the end of the school year and before the leader as­sumed the principalship. Using the human resources frame, the leader asked staff mem­bers to generate a list of descriptors that would characterize their expectations forleadership. Words such as consistent, fair, respectful, diplomatic, honest, compromis­ing, good listener, sense of humor, backbone, structured/ firm, and durable were indica­tors of what they were seeking in a new leader. Asking for input communicated to staffmembers that the new principal respected them as people, was a listener, and placedvalue on developing a relationship.

Fortunately, the superintendent shared the new principal's beliefs in the importanceof providing time for people to develop a common understanding of their organiza­tional framework and come together as a team. Both believed in providing professionaldevelopment time during the summer months. The superintendent authorized fundingto support an off-site, two-day retreat for the new principal and her staff members. Thisretreat addressed the human needs of the group and provided the opportunity to estab­lish relationships crucial to the success of a working team.

The leader understood that for this group to function effectively, the processesused would be as important as the tasks (Bolman and Deal 2003) . From the start, the

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Fall 2004 • 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Continual refinement andreflection by the schoolleader as the change agentdemystifies the reframingprocess.

Israel and Kasper

leader strived to exhibit the leadership descriptors that staff members had prescribedin their first encounter. She started with a simple grounding activity. Every memberused a metaphor to describe their past and what they hoped would happen in thefuture. This activity provided every participant with a "temperature check" on where

they were with respect to one an­other and the leader. Through theframe of human resources (Bolmanand Deal 2003, 174), the leader pro­vided group members with an op­portunity " to send implicit signalsabout the roles they preferred."This exercise was invaluable interms of getting a sense of thegroup, the group dynamics, indi­viduals within the group, and therole of various individuals withinthe group-all significant processissues.

Leaders lead b y listening to what their followers believe, want, and know(Danielson 2002) . Demonstrating respect for the traditions, practices, and policies ofthe past provide the leader with the opportunity to hear what is believed, what iswanted, and what is known (Bridges 1991). A tool for ascertaining this informationis a group activity called Best Hopes/Worst Fears. Embedded within the Best Hopesstatements are the beliefs and values of the participants. Within the Worst Fears state­ments are the psychological needs of the individuals with respect to the ability todevelop will and the capacity for change. Using this activity, the leader learned theissues that needed to be addressed, the traditions that were valued , and the prac­tices and policies that would be grieved. As Bridges (1991), Deal and Peterson (1999) ,and Fullan (2001) cautioned, people must be given time to grieve for what is lost­what once was the practice-to be receptive to change. By giving them time to voicetheir concerns, the leader demonstrated respect and modeled care for eachindividual's ideas and issues. Using the human resources frame, the leader recog­nized the interrelationship between human needs and the organization, with humanneeds given a priority over the needs of the organization (Bolman and Deal 2003) .The air became filled with the hopes of the participants, and the energy level trans­formed with an overwhelming sense of positive expectation for what was possible.Next, the leader channeled this energy into opportunities for faculty growth.

Reframing her style into a structural approach, the leader guided staff members todevelop strategies that would turn their hopes into realities. To do this, the leader as­signed staff members to small groups. Within the small groups, participants used brain­storming techniques to generate responses to the question: What needs to happen forthe Best Hopes to be realized? Participants were reminded that within the brainstorm­ing process, no idea was too silly or impossible to achieve. This freedom within a stru c­ture provided staff members the opportunity to delve into and envision change as a

22 • TIle Educational FOnl111 • Volume 69 • Fall 2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Essays

tangible reality. Their concepts of what a middle school should look like were soughtand heard. All ideas were recorded. Ideas from the smaller groups were taken back tothe whole group and shared orally.

Using a structured decision-making process with an end product in mind, the leaderfacilitated the categorization of the brainstorming results. Seven categories emerged:student programs, administrivia, social network, expectations /accountability, schoolspirit/PR/physical plant, discipline, and staff issues. These eventually became the foun­dation for the middle school's new goals.

Knowing that people are more committed to working in areas in which they feelcomfortable, the participants were asked to choose a category of particular interest tothem (Sergiovanni 1994). Each group was given the task of examining each item in thecategory and indicating what was already working and what needed to work better.Their responses were recorded on chart paper to provide a concrete visual representa­tion of the importance of the task. The discussions gave members the opportunity to tellstories confirming either the need for change or for honoring what was already in place,while clearly expressing a vision for the future (Green 2001).

Cognizant of the need to empower the group and allow all participants to have avoice in their future, the leader facilitated a gallery walk. Armed with different coloredmarkers, they walked around the room and read each category chart. Participants wereasked to add individual perspectives on what was already working and / or needed towork better. At the conclusion of the gallery walk, the chart papers colorfully displayedall staff members' perspectives.

Effective strategies for supporting change warn that trying to change everything at. once is a sure path to failure. A wise leader must channel the efforts of the organizationinto one or two specific goals (Evans 1996). To do this, the leader then moved into thepolitical frame to provide participants with an opportunity to rank the categories andidentify two goals that would become the primary focus for change within the organiza­tion during the next two years. Discipline emerged as the top priority, with staff issuessecond.

Through the process of creating goal statements for the top two priorities, the groupreached consensus and rephrased discipline into a positive code of expectations. Thiscommunicated to the entire learning community that the new direction for disciplinewould focus on the positive. While seemingly a small change, this was a significantsymbol for the group because it publicized a fundamental philosophical change andcelebrated a common vision for the future (Bolman and Deal 2003).

Working in small groups, participants brainstormed what they would see, hear,and feel if a positive code of expectations were implemented and working well atthe middle school. Results were brought back to the large group, one category at atime. Items brought forth reflected the changes the participants sought and the suc­cesses they anticipated. The large group then was divided into three subgroups and

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Fal/2004 • 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Israel and Kasper

given th e task of collapsing a category (see, hear, or feel ) into goals for a positivecode of expectations. Goals were presented to the entire gro up for reaction and re­view. The leader continually reframed from a symbolic to a political perspective andback ag ain, thereby providing participants opportunities to negotiate th e future ter­rain, w hile maintaining an environment that kept everyone in volved and ope n lycommunicating (Bolman and Deal 2003).

By continually reframing her leadership to fit the task and the needs of the group,the principal built the will and capacity for change within her staff members so thatthey, together, created five meaningful goals for their middle school. If change was tobecome a reality, however, the vision of the end product had to be clear to all involved .The barriers of confusion, uncertainty, and loss of meaning and purpose had to be re­moved. The leader needed to develop essential strategies to overcome the barriers. Us­ing Wiggins and McTighe's (1998) backward-design method, the leader had the groupreflect on the quest ion: How will we know when we get there? Using the structuralframe, the leader ret urned the participants to small groups to generate at least two indi­cators of success for each goal. Embedded within these indicators of success were thestrategies to create the necessary actions. As the final step in this phase, participantstook the indicators and de veloped implementation plans that included the time, people,and resources necessary for successful implementation (Firestone 1989). The leader inte­gra ted and employed the leadership images Bolman and Deal (2003, 16) delineated foreach of the frames: addressing the social architecture of the stru ctu ral frame, givingempo wermen t indicative of the human resources frame, demonstrating ad vocacy withinthe political frame, and providing inspiration in the symbolic frame.

When the retreat came to an end, staff members realized that they had participated in anew beginning; they had begun the transition between the old and the new reality (Bridges1991). They were energized and hopeful. In preparation for the weeks and months ahead,imp lementation committees were organized. Moving into a structu ral frame, the lead er al­located the summer's remaining professional development funds to two additional meetingda ys for each committee to continue their work. Each committee was charged with creatingthe nuts and bolts of implementing its goal, as well as deciding how to communicate itsprogress to the whole group during the school's institute days.

Another Sustainable Learning CommunityAt the beginning of a new school year, former routines can easily take over, so the

leader had to be sure to sus tain the momentum and keep staff members mo ving for­ward. She changed from the stru ctural frame to the symbolic frame and began the yearby communicating the progress made during the summer and celebrating the group'ssuccesses (Bolman and Deal 2003). Throughout the next several months and yea rs, cel­ebra tions were held and rituals created that were woven into the tapestry of the middleschool's learning community. Creating a positive code of expectations was the most vis­ible change and also the one with the greatest impact on studen ts, parents, and staffmembers. Members of that committee became the emissaries, experts, and cheerlead ersfor fellow staff members as everyone learned and implemented a problem-solving ap­proach to dealing with student behavior.

24 • The Educational Forum • Volum e 69 • Fall 2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Essays

The principal was the p rimary communicator with the extern al constitu encies, suchas schoo l board members, parents, central office personnel, and other district principals.She shared the vis ion and goa ls for the learning community via weekly newslett ers toparents and executive summa ries to the school board. Faculty members communicatedthe vision to stude nts and parents. As the school year and subsequent years progressed,commi ttees continued to meet regularly sharing their progress and presenting propos­als for additiona l steps to the who le group for proc essing and consensus. These di scu s­sions were healthy interchan ges that provided an arena in which faculty members airedconflicts and ironed out differences and glitches that often led to a realignment of coali­tions (Fullan 2001). The sha red vision of a learning community created during the sum­mer retrea t rem ained the bind ing force that guide d staff members as the school evolvedinto a middle school wh ere stude nts, teachers, suppo rt staff members, parents, and theprincipal believed in one ano ther and in a common commitment to the creation of aposit ive learning environment for middle schoo l students.

Will and capaci ty for cha nge we re created and sus tained by a lead er who under­stood the change process and used creat ivity and variety to continually fram e and refram eher lead ership style to meet the ever-evolving needs of the gro up. Her leadership gavestakeholders the inspiration, motivation , and suppo rt to embark upon the journey tocrea te a posit ive middle schoo l learning comm unity.

ConclusionIn both of these scenarios, reframing provided each schoo l lead er wi th the opportu­

nity to develop an appropriate diagn osis wi th positive strateg ies to move forward.Thou gh one might assume that refram ing is a linear process, these two portrayal s sug­ges t that the process is driven by a symbio tic tension between context and reflection bythe school leader. Bein g a cha nge age nt dem ands refram ing and reflection. Usingreframing ped agogy provides a br idge between theory and practice that is more sub­stantial than mere contingency theory. Additiona l research should focus on the success­ful implem entat ion of reframing theory as schoo l leaders tackle the chan ge process inthe current env ironment of accountability. The authors hope that futu re and practicingadministrators can learn from these expe riences. "Providing examples gives school lead­ers the opportunity to rev iew and reflect upon the skills to use in each frame, and thewis dom to match frames to situa tions," said Bolman and Deal (2003, 18). With practice,time, skill proficiency, and developing wisdo m, schoo l lead ers can be instrumental changeage nts for the bett erm ent of schools.

ReferencesBe lman, L. G., and T. E. Deal. 1984. Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francis co: [ossey­

Bass.Belman, L. G., and T E. Deal. 2003. Reframing organizations. San Fran cisco: [o ssey-Bass,Bowman, B. T , S. M. Donovan , and M. S. Burns, eds . 2001. Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: Na­

tion al Academy Press.Bredeka rnp, S., and T Rosegrant. 1995. Reaching potentials: Tran sforming early childhood ClI rriClllllln and assessment, Vol. 2.

Washing ton , DC: Na tiona l Associat ion for the Ed uca tion of Young Child ren .Bridg es, W. 1991. Managi"g transitions: Making the most of change. Ne w York: Addison -Wesle y.Dan ielson , C. 2002. Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexa nd ria, VA: Associa tion for Su­

pervision and Curriculum Development.Deal, T , and K. D. Peter son . 1999. Shaping school culture:The heart of leadership. San Fran cisco: [ossey-Bass.Evans, R. 1996. Thehuman side ofschool chang«:Reform, resistance, and the real-lifeproblemsof innovation. San Franci sco: Iossey­

Bass.

The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Fal/2004 • 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Israel and Kasper

Firestone, W. A. 1989. Using reform : Conceptualizing d istrict initiative. Educational Euaiuation and Policy Analysis 11(2): 151­64.

Pullan, M. G. 2001. Leading in a cllltllreof change. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass.Green, R. L. 2001. Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-basedapproach to implementing the ISLLCstandards. Upp er Saddle

River, N]: Merrill.Hatch, I. A. 2002. Accountabili ty shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in early childhood educat ion . Phi Delta

Kappan 83(6): 457-62.Head Start Burea u. 2001. Head Start child outcomes framework. Head Start Bulletin 70. Washington , DC: U.S. Dep artment of

Health and Human Services, Administration for Child ren and Famili es .Hyun, E. 2003. What does the No Child Left Beh ind Act mean to early childhood teacher educators? A call for a collective

profession al rejoind er. Early Childhood Education 10IlrnaI 31(2): 119-2 5.Illinois Sta te Board of Ed ucation. 2002. Illinois state team ing standards. Springfield : Illinois State Board of Edu cat ion .National Associa tion for the Ed uca tion of Young Child ren . 2001. NAEYC standardsfor early childhood professional preparation.

Washington, DC: NAEYC.Na tiona l Association of Sta te Boards of Ed ucation. 1988. Right f rom the start: The report of the NA SBE National Task Force on

Early Childhood Edllcation. Alexand ria , VA: NASBE.Nat iona l Board for Professional Teachin g Standards. 2001. Early childhood generalist standards for national board certification,

2nd ed , Southfield, MI: NBPTS.Nationa l Council of Teache rs of Math em atics and Na tional Asso cia tion for the Ed ucation of Young Chil d ren. 2002. Early

childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Washington , DC: NCTM and NAEYC.National Ed ucation Goa ls Pane l. 1999. Data volumefor the national education goals report, Vol. 2, National data. Wash ington ,

DC: NEG P.Nati onal Research Council. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: Nati on al Academy

Pres s.Neuman , S. 8., C. Copple, and S. Bred ekamp. 2002. Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for yOllng

children. Wash ington , DC: Na tiona l Associa tion for the Edu cat ion of Young Children.Sergiova nni, T. I. 1994. Building comnllmity in schools. San Franci sco: [ossey-Bass.Spring , J. H. 1988. Conflict of interests: The politics of American education. New York: Lon gman .u .s . Dep art ment of Ed uca tion. 2002. No Child Left Behind . Washington, DC: Ll.S, ED. Available at: wlVW.nochitdleftbehind.govl

next/ooeroieui/index.ntml.Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe . 1998. Understanding by design. Alexand ria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development .

Marla Susman Israel is Assistant Professor at Loyola University Chicago.She was a public school Administrator and Principal for a suburban Chicagoschool district that operated Head Start and State Pre-K. She teaches courses inSchool Administration, School Human Resources, and School Improvement. Herresearch interests include school reform leadership, human resources, and ethicsin education.

Beverly Bell Kasper is a Clinical Assistant Professor and Co-Graduate Pro­gram Director at Loyola University Chicago. She was a middle school teacher,Principal, and Dean. She teaches courses in School Supervision, Administra­tion of Special Education and Pupil Services, and the School AdministrativePracticum. Her research interests include school reform leadership, teacher su­pervision,and all-school pupil behavior intervention systems.

26 • The Educational Forum • Volume 69 • Fall 2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

8:41

27

Oct

ober

201

4