ReviewTHE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

Located on the campus of The Pennsylvania State University

Volume XXXVII Number 2 Spring 1996

IN THIS ISSUE . . .

Convention '96Louisville, KentuckyOctober 25-27, 1996

Hotel Reservation—see page 4

Advance Registration—see page 8

NEW EAQ EDITORGail T. Schneider ................... 1

BRIDGING AND BUFFERINGRELATIONS BETWEENPARENTS AND SCHOOLSRodney T. Ogawa .................. 2

CONVENTION '96Louisville Attractions ............. 4

DAVIS AWARD WINNERS ..... 5

INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENTPaula M. Short ....................... 6

CONVENTION '96Invited Speakers .................... 7

GRADUATE STUDENTRESEARCH SEMINARHIGHLIGHTS ......................... 9

UCEA EXCELLENCE INEDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIPAWARD ............................... 10

GRADUATE STUDENTSYMPOSIUM ....................... 11

PROGRAM CENTERUPDATE .............................. 12

Effective January 1, 1996, Gail T. Schneider became the eleventh editor of EducationalAdministration Quarterly, moving up from senior associate editor, a post she has held since1992. She says her major goal for EAQ is continuing to publish manuscripts that advancethe understanding of the field of educational administration and represent the best we haveto offer in research and scholarship.

Schneider is professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, havingjust completed three years as interim dean of the School of Education. She is currentlyDivision A vice president for the American Education Research Association. In 1980,Schneider was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where shestudied with the distinguished scholar James M. Lipham. While at Madison, she alsoworked as a project specialist in the Wisconsin Research and Development Center forIndividualized Schooling. Her own research is focused on such teacher related issues as jobsatisfaction, involvement, decision making, school based leadership, merit pay andprofessional development schools. Schneider was also UCEA president in 1990-91.

Schneider’s name is the newest on a long list of distinguished scholars to serve as EAQeditor: Roald F. Campbell, Van Miller, F. Don Carver, Daniel E. Griffiths, Glen L.Immegart, Jerome P. Lysaught, Cecil G. Miskel, Steven T. Bossert, Ann Weaver Hart, and,most recently, James G. Cibulka (1992-1996).

Current senior associate editors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee areWilliam J. Kritek, Ulrich C. Reitzug, and Jean A. Madsen. Kritek is associate professorspecializing in community relations, the principalship, and supervision of instruction.Reitzug is associate professor specializing in organizational theory, the principalship, andleadership in education. Madsen is assistant professor specializing in minority recruitment,school privatization, and politics of state agencies. Senior associate editors monitor theprogress of manuscripts, meeting with the editor weekly.

Currently in its 32nd volume, EAQ is owned by the University Council for EducationalAdministration and published in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukeeby Corwin Press. Submissions to the journal are welcome and should be sent in triplicateto EAQ, Gail T. Schneider, Enderis Hall, P.O. Box 413, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, 53201. EAQ submission guidelines and editorial policystatement are printed in the front of each issue or can be obtained by calling (805) 499-0721.

SCHNEIDERNAMEDEAQ EDITOR

UCEA Review2

building bridges to parents under some conditions and buffersagainst them in others. Adopting this theoretical orientation pro-vides the additional advantage of focusing on the organizationalcharacteristics of schools: a dimension that is largely ignored byresearch on family-school relations (Corwin & Wagenaar, 1976).

Why and how organizations bridge and bufferRecently, scholars in the field of educational administration haveencouraged the adoption of perspectives that emphasize the sym-bolic or interpretive dimension of organizations (Deal & Peterson,1990; Sergiovanni, 1994). In embracing perspectives that high-light culture, community and institution, many scholars haveignored and even criticized perspectives that emphasize organiza-tions’ technical cores as the bases for developing structure. How-ever, pronouncements of the technical perspective’s demise maybe premature, because it continues to shed conceptual light onimportant educational issues.

Briefly, the technical perspective contends that organizationsdevelop formal structures to enhance the effectiveness and effi-ciency of their core technologies, especially where technologiesare relatively routinized. This includes developing structures tomanage organizations’ relations with the technical dimension oftheir external environment (Aldrich, 1979; Thompson, 1967).Organizations manage their relations with the technical environ-ment in two basic ways: 1) they bridge between their core technolo-gies and the environment and 2) they buffer their core technologiesfrom the environment.

Organizations bridge when they depend on their environmentsfor resources to fuel their core technologies (Scott, 1992; Thomp-son, 1967). The following conditions affect the level of organiza-tions’ dependencies: degree of scarcity of resources, degree of theconcentration of resources, and the degree to which sources ofinputs are coordinated. Organizations employ several bridgingstrategies, including bargaining, contracting and cooptation.

Organizations buffer to protect their core technologies fromuncertainty that the environment can introduce (Thompson, 1967).Uncertainty can undermine the effectiveness and efficiency oforganizations’ technologies. Environmental uncertainty can resultfrom several conditions (Scott, 1992), including heterogeneity and

BackgroundIn the search for factors that affect the academic performance ofstudents, educational research has provided few clearcut answers.One, however, that echoes across a considerable body of researchis “the family.” Families, most notably parents, exert a crucialinfluence on important student outcomes, including grades andstandardized achievement test scores. Consequently, parents, policymakers and educators have moved to adopt and implement pro-grams aimed at bolstering the involvement of parents in schools,while researchers continue to study the relationship between parentinvolvement and student achievement.

Research on family-school relations clearly has made impor-tant advances. Researchers, however, typically have adopted arather narrow view. They tend to approach parent involvement asif it were an unmixed blessing: more always being better. Thisassumption is apparent in the issues on which researchers haveconcentrated. For example, Epstein (1995), in her recent synthesisof the literature on parent involvement, identifies the six types ofparental involvement, the practices that schools presently employto encourage each type of involvement, the challenges posed byeach type of involvement and then redefines each type with an eyeto broadening the scope of parental involvement. Her focus isclearly on enhancing and even expanding parental involvement inschools.

It is surprising that this assumption—that more parental in-volvement of all types is always better—has gone largely unchal-lenged. After all, this is true of few things in life. Even excessiveamounts of oxygen or water can be toxic. Moreover, anyone whohas spent much time in schools knows that not all teachers,administrators or staff members share this view.

To address this limitation we adopt a theoretical perspectivedrawn from organizations theory. This perspective, which is famil-iar to students of educational administration, suggests that effec-tive organizations create both bridges and buffers between theircore technologies and external environments. If teaching andlearning are assumed to constitute the core technology of schoolsand if parents of students are assumed to be crucial and immediateelements of the external environments of schools, then schoolswould be expected to seek to enhance their effectiveness by

BRIDGING AND BUFFERING RELATIONSBETWEEN PARENTS AND SCHOOLSRodney T. OgawaUniversity of California, Riverside

Spring 1996 3

instability. To manage uncertainty organizations develop manybuffering strategies, including simply blocking or limiting accessand coding. Coding involves the classification of inputs prior totheir introduction to the technical core.

Evidence regarding bridging and buffering in schoolsSo, is there evidence that this framework applies to schools? Doschools face the environmental conditions that lead organizationsto build bridges and buffers? If so, do schools employ bridging andbuffering strategies? The answer these questions is a tentative“yes.” Research indicates that the conditions of interdependenceand uncertainty exist in schools’ environments and that schoolsemploy both bridging and buffering strategies in response. How-ever, the evidence is indirect because researchers have not explic-itly focused on bridging and buffering in school organizations.

The Technical CorePrevious studies, while not guided by the theoretical frameworkadopted here, have produced findings that are consistent with manyof the framework’s elements. Since Cohen, March and Olsen(1972) coined the concept of “organized anarchy,” it has becomealmost axiomatic among scholars of educational administrationthat school organizations do not have clear technologies.

However, research now suggests that school organizations dopossess a core technology. For example, Rowan, Raudenbush andCheong (1993) report that some teachers perceive their work to befairly routinized. Thus, schools, like other organizations, can beexpected to employ bridges and buffers to manage relations be-tween their core technologies and external environments.

BridgingThe findings of research on parental involvement in schools reflectthe use of bridging strategies by school organizations to managerelations with parents. It is clear that schools confront conditionsthat give rise to the use of bridging. Schools are dependent onparents to provide resources that affect the academic performanceof students. For example, research indicates that parent involve-ment in school activities is a significant predictor of the grades thatstudents receive in school; other research demonstrates that par-ents’ involvement in education-related activities at home is asignificant predictor of students’ performance on standardizedachievement tests (Schneider & Coleman, 1993).

Given this dependency, we would expect to find that schoolsregularly construct bridges to parents. In fact, research documentsthe use of several types of bridging strategies by educators (Becker& Epstein, 1982; Epstein, 1990; Epstein, 1995). In some cases,these strategies take the form of organized programs in districts andschools that seek to enhance communications between schools andfamilies, involve parents on school-based management councils,provide parent effectiveness workshops and dispense health andsocial services. While, in many other instances, individual teachersemploy bridging strategies to encourage parents to read to theirchildren, discuss school with their children, monitor their children’scompletion of homework assignments, engage in education-re-lated activities such as visiting the local library and the like.

BufferingResearch on school-family relations does not directly addresswhether or how schools buffer their core technology from uncer-tainties that parents might introduce. However, research on avariety of other educational topics is a bit more instructive. Re-search suggests that families are, indeed, a source of uncertainty inschool organizations’ environments. The uncertainty takes twogeneral forms. First, there is the uncertainty that can be introducedwhen parents directly interfere with the professional discretion ofteachers and principals. Studies suggest that well educated, middle-class parents are sometimes perceived by educational profession-als as intruding into their domain by insisting on or questioningparticular practices or programs (Chavkin & Williams, 1987;Davies, 1987; Epstein & Becker, 1982). Second, families canpresent schools with uncertainties in the form of both heterogeneityand instability. For example, research documents the increasingethnic and linguistic diversity of families served by schools inmany sections of the United States (Coleman, 1987). Other studiesrecord the high mobility rates of families served by many of thenation’s schools and the changing composition of families (Hoffer,1990). Faced with increasing uncertainty, schools would be ex-pected to buffer their core technology.

Although research has not focused on the use of bufferingstrategies, some evidence exists. For example, research consis-tently demonstrates that teachers expect principals to shield themfrom undue parental influence and that principals do perform thisfunction. We are all familiar with the sign placed on the front ofevery public school that directs all visitors, including parents, tocheck-in at the principal’s office. Moreover, a large body ofresearch documents the use of grouping strategies by schools and

continued on page 12

Every School A Community: The Academic Value of StrongSocial Bonds Among Staff and Students, by Stephen Stolp.Available from the Oregon School Study Council, 1787 AgateStreet, Eugene, OR 97403. $7.00/copy plus $4.00 shipping andhandling.

Priority on Learning: How School Districts are Concentrating ontheir Scarce Rsouces on Academics, by Lori Jo Oswald. Availablefrom the Oregon School Study Council, 1787 Agate Street,Eugene, OR 97403. $7.00/copy plus $4.00 shipping and handling.

School-Based Management: Rationale and ImplementationGuidelines, by Lori Jo Oswald. Available from the Oregon SchoolStudy Council, 1787 Agate Street, Eugene, OR 97403. $7.00/copy plus $4.00 shipping and handling.

Violence in Schools: How to Build a Prevention Program from theGround Up, by Dean Walker. Available from the Oregon SchoolStudy Council, 1787 Agate Street, Eugene, OR 97403. $8.00/copy plus $4.00 shipping and handling.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

UCEA will hold its 10th annual conven-tion in Louisville, October 25-27, 1996, atthe city’s historic Galt House. This year’stheme, Reinventing Education: Retrospectand Prospect, provides the opportunity toexamine emerging issues in educationalpractice and policy in the light of what wehave learned from the recent experienceswith educational reform. The conventionwill include traditional paper sessions, de-bates and conversations, as well as twonew formats, poster sessions and “Voicesfrom the Field.” Program co-chairs for thisyear’s get together are Bruce G. Barnett(U. of Northern Colorado) and Mary E.Driscoll (New York U.).

The convention Planning Committeemet at the Galt House in December todiscuss Convention ‘96 details. The facil-ity offers 1300 rooms, with over 600 suites,and 180,000 square feet of meeting space.Conveniently located on the Ohio River,and less than 15 minutes from the airport,it is a short walk or quick trolley ride tomany attractions.

Louisville’s selection of rich culturalattractions are unlike those found any-where else in the world. Tourist favoritessuch as Louisville Science Center, theLouisville Slugger plant, Kentucky Centerfor the Arts, and the Actor’s Theatre ofLouisville line the streets. Providing aglimpse of life on the river during MarkTwain’s time as well as a spectacular viewof the Louisville skyline, is the Belle ofLouisville, the oldest operating Mississippi-style sternwheeler in existence today. TheFalls of the Ohio Interpretive Center, andthe 220 acres of naturally exposed fossilbeds it overlooks, offer a rare look back atlife more than 400 million years ago. TheCathedral of the Assumption, the thirdoldest Cathedral in the United States, fea-tures one of America’s few remaining hand-painted stained glass windows. The Ken-tucky Derby and Churchill Downs con-tains the largest equine museum in theworld. And with more than 2,500 restau-rants ranging from fine to funky, it’s nowonder that it’s been said that, per capita,more Louisvillians eat out than any othercity in the world.

Plans Underwayfor Convention ‘96

Spring 1996 see page 8 for advance registration

UCEA C O NVENT I O N ‘96October 25-27 • Louisville, Kentucky

Hotel Reservation RequestAll reservations must be received by September 23, 1996.

Mail this form directly to the Galt House Hotel,4th Avenue at the River, Louisville, KY 40202

All accommodations are for the Galt House in historicLouisville. You MUST enclose the first night’s deposit($98) to guarantee your reservation; this deposit isrefundable providing cancellation is received 48 hoursprior to arrival. CHECKS MUST BE MADE PAYABLE TO:Galt House Hotel. Fill in the space below if you preferto use a credit card. All room charges are subject toapplicable taxes. Check-in time at the Galt House is3:00 p.m. and check-out is 1:00 p.m. Any otherquestions should be directed to the Galt House Hotel(502-589-5200).

Name______________________________________

Affiliation ___________________________________

Address ____________________________________

City ________________ State______ Zip ______

Telephone ( )___________________________

Arrival Date _________________________________month day time

Departure Date ______________________________month day time

Type of accommodations (circle one): double single

_________ Number of individuals sharing your room

Credit Card Holder’s Name _____________________

Signature___________________________________

Credit Card Type (circle one): American Express Carte Blanche Diners Club Discover Mastercard Visa

Card Number

Credit Card Expiration Date ____________________

DO NOT MAIL FORM TO UCEA

UCEA Review5

Diana G. Pounder, Rodney T. Ogawa,and E. Ann Adams have been awarded the17th annual William J. Davis MemorialAward for their article "Leadership as anOrganization-Wide Phenomenon: It's Im-pact on School Performance," published inEducational Administration Quarterly,Vol. 31 (Nov. 1995). Using path analysis,the researchers examined the relationshipbetween the leadership exerted by princi-pals, teachers, secretaries, and parents; fourfunctions of effective organizations; andmeasures of school effectiveness.

Pounder and her colleagues found thatthe total amount of leadership in schoolswas associated with two organizationalfunctions. Their work also showed thatprincipals' leadership and teachers' leader-ship were positively related to organiza-tional latency. Finally, they found that theleadership of parents was positively asso-ciated with student achievement.

Pounder is professor and associatechair at the University of Utah's Depart-ment of Educational Administration, whereshe also serves as director of graduatestudies. Her area of teaching and researchspecialization is human resource adminis-tration in education. Pounder's recent pub-lications include “Recruitment and Selec-tion of Educational Administrators: Pri-orities for Today's Schools,” (InternationalHandbook for Educational Leadership andAdministration, 1996), and “TeacherTeams: Promoting Teacher Involvementand Leadership in Secondary Schools,”

(The High School Journal, 1997).Ogawa is professor of education and

associate director of the California Educa-tional Research Cooperative at the Univer-sity of California-Riverside. His researchcenters on theories of organizational leader-ship to the study of schools. Recent publica-tions include “The Case of School-BasedManagement,” (American Educational Re-search Journal, 1995) and “Leadership asan Organizational Quality,” (EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 1995).

Currently Adams is both liaison be-tween the University of Utah's EducationalStudies Department and Salt Lake City'sGranite School District, and adjunct profes-sor at the University of Utah. Previous pub-lications include an article she coauthoredwith Ogawa, “The Role of Professors inShaping the Institutional Bases of an Edu-cational Reform: The Case of School-BasedManagement,” (The Changing Profession-als in Administration, UCEA monographseries,1993).

Presented this year at April’s AERADivision A business meeting in New York,the Davis Award is given annually to theauthor(s) of the most outstanding articlepublished in the Educational Administra-tion Quarterly (EAQ) during the precedingvolume year. Article selection is made by athree-member panel chosen from EAQ edi-torial board members who have not pub-lished in the volume being reviewed.

Past recipients of the Davis award in-clude Donald J. Willower (Penn State),

1996 William J. DavisAward Winners

Cecil G. Miskel (U. of Michigan),Robert A. Cooke (Institute for Social Re-search), Denise M. Rousseau (U. of Michi-gan), David L. Clark (U. of North Caro-lina), Linda S. Lotto (deceased), Terry A.Astuto (New York U.), Tim L. Mazzoni(U. of Minnesota), Betty Malen (U. ofMaryland), David P. Crandall (NET-WORK), Jeffrey W. Eiseman (U. of Mas-sachusetts), Karen Seashore Louis (U. ofMinnesota), James G. Cibulka (U. ofMaryland), Joseph J. Blase (U. of Geor-gia), Kenneth A. Leithwood (OISE), MaryStagen (U. of Toronto), Ronald H. Heck(U. of Hawaii), George A. Marcoulides(California State U.-Fullerton), Terry J.Larsen (Alhambra School District), Rob-ert J. Starratt (Fordham U.), JenniferElser Reeves (U. of Central Florida, andUlrich C. Reitzug (U. of Wisconsin-Mil-waukee) Brian Rowan (U. of Michigan),Stephen W. Raudenbush (Michigan StateU.), Yuk Fai Cheong (Michigan State U.),Mark A. Smylie (U, of Illinois-Chicago),Robert L. Crowson, Jr. (Peabody Col-lege, Vanderbilt U.), Victoria Chou (U. ofIllinois-Chicago), and Rebekah Levin (U.of Illinois-Chicago).

The Davis award was established withcontributions in honor of the lateWilliam J. Davis, former associate direc-tor of UCEA and assistant professor at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison. Contri-butions to the award fund are welcome, andshould be sent to UCEA, 212 Rackley Build-ing, University Park, PA 16802-3200.

From left:Diana G. Pounder,Rodney T. Ogawa,and E. Ann Adams.

UCEA Review6

An Interview with UCEA President Paula M. Short

How did you become involved withUCEA?When I joined the faculty at Auburn Uni-versity in 1988, I learned that Auburn haddropped its membership in UCEA. TrumanPierce, former dean of Auburn’s College ofEducation, had served as UCEA presidentfrom 1960-1962, and Auburn had enjoyeda long tradition in UCEA. I began a drive togain membership and, with the hard workof the faculty, Auburn was readmitted toUCEA. I served as PSR for Auburn andattended my first UCEA convention inScottsdale, Arizona. At Penn State, I againserved as PSR and as faculty associate(formally called associate director) from1992-1995.

Discuss your current goals for UCEA.My tasks as current UCEA president are (1)to ensure the smooth transition of UCEA toMissouri; (2) to complete the strategic plan-ning process by identifying goals and ac-tivities for the work of UCEA for the nextfive years; and (3) to provide leadership forthe implementation of a ctivities associatedwith newly identified UCEA goals andincrease faculty involvement in this sig-nificant work. UCEA is entering a new erawith the move to the University of Mis-souri-Columbia and the formation of a truepartnership with its new host. This partner-ship symbolizes my platform for UCEA:Partnerships for Research, Learning, andLeading. The UCEA-MU partnership willensure support and resources to UCEAfrom the University of Missouri-Columbiaand the smooth transition to a new location.This commitment of support for the workof UCEA is necessary for the new initia-tives evolving from the strategic planningprocess now being completed. With theinvolvement of the UCEA Plenum, fivegoals have been identified:

Paula Short is professor and chair of theDepartment of Educational Leadership andPolicy Analysis, and the director of graduatestudies at the University of Missouri-Columbia.Previously she was associate professor ofeducational administration at The PennsylvaniaState University.

1. Collaboratively identify and address vexingproblems (problems of purpose, of practice,and technical problems) and a national re-search agenda related to those problems.

2. Provide professional development opportu-nities for all professors of educational admin-istration.

3. Facilitate communication and outreach amonguniversities, professors, and organizations.

4. Develop and disseminate best teaching prac-tices and materials.

5. Influence educational policy making at thenational, state, and local levels.The successful implementation of activi-ties under our goals will require partner-ships with UCEA faculty in member insti-tutions. Goals adopted for the work ofUCEA over the next five years include amajor collaborative effort to identify “vex-ing” problems of purpose, problems of prac-tice, and technical problems. From thiseffort, UCEA will develop a national re-search agenda providing opportunities forinquiry and partnerships to solve toughproblems. More than 60 faculty in 30 UCEAinstitutions already have volunteered towork on this very important activity. Wewill come to the convention with this workwell underway. The formation of regionalUCEA networks and cooperative seminarswith other professional organizations willprovide exciting opportunities for collabo-ration. Focusing on best teaching practices

and use of technology is another worthyUCEA activity already underway.

What are some of your professionalgoals and research interests?A major professional goal focuses on mynew position. As department chair of Edu-cational Leadership and Policy Analysis atMU, I have, in collaboration with the fac-ulty, initiated fairly ambitious program re-design efforts that are exciting and chal-lenging. One of my goals is to provide thedepartmental leadership necessary to imple-ment those changes. The faculty at MUhave committed enormous time and energyin the redesign of all programs (educationaladministration, higher and adult education,and policy studies). This redesign includesan Executive Ed.D. which will be deliveredin collaboration with the regional universi-ties in Missouri. In addition, we are estab-lishing the Center for Educational PolicyAnalysis. My hope is that our work here atMU will be useful to programs nationwidewho are looking to provide cutting edgeleader preparation and development. Ourcollaborative with the regional universitiesalso may become a model for statewidepartnerships in leader preparation.

I continue my long-term research onempowerment. Much of my interest inempowerment comes from the communitypsychology and action anthropology litera-ture. My forthcoming book, Leadership inEmpowered Schools: Themes from Innova-tive Efforts, co-authored with John T. Greer(Georgia State U.), reports the results of ourresearch conducted in 26 schools workingto increase participant empowerment. Pub-lished by Prentice Hall, the book is due outthis June. I am busy with a number ofresearch projects looking at principal lead-ership, organizational change, and othervariables in relation to empowerment. Ialso am looking at contextual variables andstudent outcomes. My overarching goal isto understand better how participant em-powerment affects school effectiveness.Since the research base on empowerment isso new, it will take some time to accomplishthe inquiry needed in this area.

Spring 1996 7

Terry A. Astuto (New York U.), EdmundW. Gordon (City U. of New York), andDavid C. Berliner (Arizona State U.) haveaccepted invitations to speak at UCEAConvention ‘96, to be held October 25-27at the Galt House Hotel in Louisville, Ken-tucky. Astuto will speak at the Convention’sopening general assembly on Friday, Octo-ber 25. Gordon is The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Mitstifer lecturer and will beSaturday’s banquet speaker. Berliner willaddress the closing general session on Sun-day, October 27.

Astuto is professor in Educational Ad-ministration program at New York Univer-sity. Her recent publications include “Acti-vators and Impediments to Learner Cen-tered Schools” (with D. L. Clark), Roots ofReform: Challenging the Assumptions thatControl Change in Education, “Redirect-ing Reform: Challenges to Popular As-sumptions about Teachers and Students”(with D. L. Clark), and Educational Admin-istration: The UCEA Document Base (withW. Hoy and P. B. Forsyth).

The sixth Penn State Mitstifer lecturewill again be given following the banqueton Saturday evening. The past five yearshave featured Herbert A. Simon, the lateJames S. Coleman, Charles E. Lindblom,Dan C. Lortie, and Karl E. Weick. TheConvention ‘96 address will be given byEdmund W. Gordon, who is the John M.Musser Professor of Psychology, Emeri-tus, Yale University; the Distinguished Pro-fessor of Educational Psychology at CityUniversity of New York; and director of theInstitute for Research in the African

Diaspora in the Americas and the Carib-bean (IRADAC). Gordon has authored nu-merous articles and books, including Edu-cational Resilience: Challenges and Pros-pect (ed. with Margaret Y. Wang, 1994),Where is Home? Living Through FosterCare (with E. P. Jones, 1990). Recent

articles include "Putting them in Their Place:A Review of The Bell Curve" (1995), “Com-mentary: Renewing Familial and Demo-cratic Commitments” in School Commu-nity Connections: Exploring Issues forResearch and Practice (1995), and “Cul-ture and the Sciences of Pedagogy” (1995).

Berliner will give the closing addresson Sunday morning. He is the RegentsProfessor of Educational Leadership andPolicy Studies and of Psychology in Edu-cation at Arizona State University, as wellas past president of both AERA and theDivision of Educational Psychology of theAmerican Psychological Association. Heis also a fellow of the Center for AdvancedSudy in the Behavioral Sciences. Berlinerco-authored Educational Psychology (withN. L. Gage, 5th edition, 1992); The Manu-factured Crisis (with B. J. Biddle, 1995),and was co-editor of the Handbook of Edu-cational Psychology (with R. C. Calfee).

Terry A. Astutoand David C. Berliner

Astuto, Gordon, Berliner—Invited Speakers forConvention ‘96

Advance Registration (may be photocopied)

UCEA CONVENTION ‘96Reinventing Education: Retrospect and Prospect

October 25-27 • Louisville, Kentucky

see page 4 for hotel reservation request

BA

DG

E IN

FO

PLEASE FILL IN COMPLETELY

middle initial

Affiliation ___________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City ______________________________ State _____ Zip _______________

Phone ____________________________ FAX ____________________________

Name______________________________________________________________

ARRIVAL TIMES

Executive Committee by noon, Wednesday, October 23Plenum Representatives by noon, Thursday, October 24Graduate Students by 11 a.m., Friday, October 25Pre-session Participants by 11 a.m., Friday, October 25Convention Participants by 1 p.m., Friday, October 25

Return check and completed registration form to: UCEA Convention ‘96, 212 Rackley Building,University Park, PA 16802-3200. Refund requests will not be considered after October 7, 1996.

The first convention session begins at 3:00 p.m., Friday, October 25, with an invited address byTerry A. Astuto of New York University. The convention ends on Sunday, October 27.

RE

GIS

TR

AT

ION

PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE REGISTRATION FEE

OT

HE

R

PLEASE FILL IN APPROPRIATE SELECTIONS

_____ # of Banquet Tickets needed @ $30(NOTE: Banquet Tickets may not be available on site.)

Voluntary contribution to National Graduate Research Seminar (held at AERA)

.................... $ __________________Registration Total

.................... $ __________________Banquet Tickets Total

.................... $ __________________Contribution Total

.................... $ __________________TOTAL ENCLOSED

CHECKS SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO “UCEA CONVENTION”

Participants are responsible for own transportation/housing.

______Check here if you would like your name on a list ofindividuals interested in sharing hotel accommodations. Youmust register prior to September 30, 1996, to be included.

HOUSING & TRANSPORTATION

before October 9 after October 9

UCEA Member University• Faculty Registration ................................. $55 .................. $65• Graduate Student Registration ................. $20 .................. $25

Non-UCEA Member University• Faculty Registration ................................. $70 .................. $80• Graduate Student Registration ................. $20 .................. $25• One-day Registration ............................... $40 .................. $45

— — — —

—

UCEA Review9

On April 12-13, 40 top graduate studentsgathered in New York to attend the 17thAnnual National Graduate Student Re-search Seminar in Educational Adminis-tration (NGSRSEA). Seminar participantsare chosen from a pool of candidatesnominated by universities offering ad-vanced degrees in educational adminis-tration. Selection is based on the qualityand relevance of the students’ researchproposals and their readiness to contrib-ute to the seminar.

The theme of this year’s seminar wasInterdisciplinary Perspectives on UrbanSchooling: The Case of New York City.Four distinguished faculty presenters gavetalks and led group discussions, includingBruce S. Cooper (Fordham U.), WilliamA. Firestone (Rutgers U.), Michele L.Foster (Claremont Graduate School), andGary J. Natriello (Columbia TeachersCollege). Invited guest Diane Ravitch(New York U.) gave a special presenta-tion. Two sessions of the seminar weredevoted to student participants present-ing some aspect of their own research to asmall group.

Held the same week each year as theAERA annual convention, the NGSRSEAoffers graduate students a unique oppor-tunity to test their research ideas with agroup of experienced faculty and form anetwork with junior colleagues fromacross North America. This years’s stu-dent participants included: CarrieAusbrooks (U. of North Texas), Timo-thy Austin (New York U.), BeatriceBaaden (Hofstra U.), Bruce D. Baker(Columbia U.), Lisa A. Bell (U. of Vir-ginia), Thomas Carroll (U. of NewHampshire), George Coffin (OISE),Madelaine M. Cosgrove (U. of NorthFlorida), Jean B. Crockett (U. of Vir-ginia), Sandra J. Dickinson (The OhioState U.), Wynanne Downer (OISE),

Janet C. Fairman (Rutgers U.), ScottFleming (U. of New Orleans), RosemaryFoster (U. of Alberta), Kathy K. Franklin(East Tennssee State U.), ChariFuerstenau (Cornell U.), Cynthia Gerstl-Pepin (U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill),Mark Kelly (U. of Kansas), Susan Kochan(Louisana State U.), Gerry Kresowaty(U. of Calgary), Mary Anne Linden (U.of Oregon), Ina Claire Lister (U. of Kan-sas), Siri A. Loescher (Stanford U.), BelooS. Mehra (U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Miguel A. Navarro (The U.of New Mexico), G. Michaele O'Brien(Temple U.), John Pijanowski (CornellU.), Ellen H. Reames (Auburn U.), An-thony Rolle (Indiana U.), James O. Rose(U. of Wyoming), Carter J. Savage(Vanderbilt U.), James A. Scott (IowaState U.), Angela Smithmier (U. of Wis-consin-Madison), Eric C. Stricker (U. ofArkansas-Fayetteville), Susan Studer (U.of California-Riverside), Scott Sweetland(SUNY-Buffalo), Danny Talbot (U. ofUtah), Glenn E. Thompson (Penn State),Benjamin Villarruel (U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), and Angél Wonycott (U. ofNew Orleans).

The University Council for Educa-tional Administration coordinates theNGSRSEA annually, with help from aPlanning Committee formed by the three

sponsoring institutions. This year’s commit-tee members were James R. Bliss (Rutgers),Susan H. Fuhrman (U. of Pennsylvania),Karen S. Gallagher (U. of Kansas), PatrickB. Forsyth (UCEA), Hunter N. Moorman(U. S. Department of Education, OERI), Jo-seph F. Murphy (Division A Vice President,AERA), Paula M. Short (U. of Missouri-Columbia/UCEA), and C. John Tarter (St.John’s U.).

Financial support for the event was pro-vided by UCEA, AERA (Division A), CorwinPress, interested professors of educationaladministration, and past participants. Becausefunding has been problematic for severalyears, AERA Vice President Joseph Murphy(Vanderbilt U.) and UCEA Director PatrickForsyth have appointed a joint committee,chaired by David L. Clark (U. of NorthCarolina-Chapel Hill), to seek a permanentsolution to the funding difficulties. The com-mittee has adopted several strategies to ad-dress both short-term and long-term funding.AERA generously raised its contribution to$5,000 a year. Some publishers have beenapproached to act as sponsors. The commit-tee will undertake a general solicitation ofprofessors of educational administration toraise funds. Moreover, the committee willseek matching funds from private sources toestablish an endowment in support of theseminar.

17th Annual Graduate Student ResearchSeminar Held in New York City

From left:Bruce S. Cooper andMichele L. Foster.

UCEA Review10

Twenty-three distinguished school admin-istrators have been named to receive the firstUCEA Excellence in Educational Leader-ship Awards. The award, one of nationalrecognition, recognizes practicing schooladministrators who have made significantcontributions to the improvement of admin-istrator preparation and who have demon-strated an exemplary records of supportingschool administrator preparation efforts.

The leadership awards are being pre-sented at upcoming ceremonies by nomi-nating member institutions (indicated be-low in parentheses). This year’s inauguralwinners include:• Anthony J. Alvarado (New York U.):Superintendent of Community School Dis-trict Two, New York, New York, and ad-junct professor and lecturer at several insti-tutions. Helped develop linkage betweenNew York University and CSD Two forpreparation of school leaders in the field andin the classroom, a partnership that hasprovided practical models of collaborative,intellectual leadership for university facultyand students.• Dale R. Baker (U. of Utah): Director ofpersonnel, Granite School District, Salt LakeCity, Utah, clinical professor at the Univer-sity of Utah, and adjunct professor,Westminister College. Has provided con-sistent and significant contribution of ad-ministrator preparation, in cooperation withthe University of Utah, including member-ship on program advisory committee andnumerous dissertation committees. Frequentpresenter at district and state conferences onsubject of employee relations and correc-tive discipline.• R. Jerry Barber (New Mexico State U.):Superintendent, Socorro Independent SchoolDistrict, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Districtis involved in comprehensive internshipprogram, including monthly seminars andworkshops and an open-door policy for edu-cational administration graduate students;provides modified work schedules to help

employees pursue graduate studies in ad-ministration.• Dorothy E. Battle (Miami U.): Principal,Bloom Middle School, Cincinnati, Ohio.Invited to work with faculty at Miami Uni-versity in 1994-94 as Distinguished SchoolLeader, team teaching in field-based semi-nars and assisting in developing case studyand simulation activities for engaging stu-dents in learning about school leadership.• Carl A. Bonuso (Hofstra U.): Assistantsuperintendent for instruction and person-nel, Wantagh Union Free School District,East Setauket, New York, and adjunct pro-fessor, Hofstra University. His supportive,insightful, energetic presence is felt in allaspects of the university’s to sustain andimprove the preparation of administrators,including creation and coordination ofHofstra Summer Institute on Middle-LevelEducation.• Robert Brasco (St. John’s U.): Deputysuperintendent, Community School Dis-trict #32 in Brooklyn, New York, and ad-junct professor at St. John’s University.Helped establish a consortium between St.John’s and CSD 32 to provide in-servicetraining for tenured and untenured supervi-sors.• Svea M. Cooke (U. of Toledo): Principal,Door Elementary School, Springfield Lo-cal District, Toledo Ohio. Served as cata-lyst to move staff forward toward schoolimprovement, improve school image, andprovide quality instruction for student popu-lation of predominantly low income. Part-nership with the University of Toledo’sDepartment of Educational Leadership hasbeen invaluable.• T. Larry Davis (Auburn U.): Superinten-dent, Phenix City School System, PhenixCity, Alabama, and adjunct professor andactive member of Educational LeadershipProgram Advisory Council at Auburn Uni-versity. A leader in creation of an evalua-tion system for Alabama superintendents;implemented a strategic planning process

that has positively impacted student achieve-ment, especially those “at risk.”• Patrick DiCaprio (SUNY-Albany): Su-perintendent of Scotia-Glenville CentralSchool District and adjunct professor at theUniversity at Albany. Consistent commit-ment to mission of university’s Departmentof Educational Administration, includingpresident of School of Education AlumniAssociation, service on the Practitioner’sAdvisory Board.• Barbara J. Hammel (U. of Cincinnati):Assistant superintendent of Winton WoodsCity Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio, and adjunctfaculty member and guest lecturer at theUniversity of Cincinnati. Has made signifi-cant contributions to the improvement ofadministrator preparation programs, locally,statewide, and nationally, as member ofboth the Educational Administration Pro-gram Advisory Committee and theuniversity’s Cincinnati Initiative in TeacherEducation’s Professional DevelopmentSchools Task Force.• John E. Helfrich (SUNY-Buffalo): Con-sultant to the Graduate School of Educationat the State University at Buffalo, Buffalo,New York. Worked with a selected groupof superintendents from across the state todesign and implement the Leadership Ini-tiative for Tomorrow’s Schools (LIFTS)program, a field-based, problem-orientedapproach to the preparation of future schoolleaders; went on to become one of theuniversity’s key faculty members duringthe first few years of the program’s execu-tion.• Sharon D. Hennessy (Boston U.): Princi-pal, Wayland High School, Scarborough,Maine, adjunct professor at Boston Univer-sity, and mentor for Harvard School Lead-ership Academy. Committed to insuringbest and most comprehensive practicum/internship experience possible for graduatestudents at Boston University’s School ofEducation.• Rita S. Jones (Penn State): Superinten-dent, Great Valley School District, Devault,Pennsylvania. Founding member and chairof the Board of Sponsors of the Pennsylva-nia Leadership Development Center, which,in one-year’s time, has obtained a substan-tial grant to implement the program at nomi-nal cost to participants, trained 30 assessor/developers, and conducted three SLDP

TWENTY-THREE ADMINISTRATORSRECEIVE FIRST UCEAEXCELLENCE IN EDUCATIONALLEADERSHIP AWARD

Spring 1996 11

Schools, Oregon. His research has contrib-uted significantly to the further develop-ment and implementation of an innovativebasic administrator program at the Univer-sity of Oregon’s Department of EducationalLeadership, Technology, and Administra-tion.• Neal D. Stiegelmeyer (U. of Kentucky):Superintendent of Kenton County SchoolDistrict, Lexington, Kentucky. InstitutedAdministrative Academy for teachers seek-ing administrative certification or unem-ployed certified teachers, and a LeadershipProgram for administrators and guidancecounselors. Also serves as trainer for Ken-tucky Department of Education.• Shirley Underwood (U. of Tennessee).Administrative assistant to the superinten-dent and Middle Schools coordinator, KnoxCounty Schools, Knoxville, Tennessee.Leadership has been instrumental in bring-ing about the Scholars in the School Pro-gram, which provides an opportunity forUniversity of Tennessee faculty to work ina K-12 school on a regular basis for an entireyear, bringing expertise, resources, and ser-vices to students, staff, and parents.• Lyle O. Young (Oklahoma State U.):Deputy superintendent of Stillwater PublicSchools, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Instrumental intapping into networks and accessing infor-

“centers” for practicing superintendents andassistant superintendents.• Larry K. Kelly (Arizona State U.): Direc-tor of staff development, Arizona SchoolAdministrators, Inc., and director of Ari-zona Assessment and Development Center,both in Phoenix, Arizona, and faculty asso-ciate at Arizona State University. Instru-mental in providing assessment for the firststudents in the university’s doctoral cohortprogram, pivotal leader in Peer AssistedLeadership Program, as well as leading avariety of professional workshops and pre-sentations.• Caesar Previdi (Fordham U.): Director,Urban Schools Institute, New York, NewYork. Contributes significantly to improve-ment of administrator preparation, throughcollaboration with Fordham University,developing programs and offering presen-tations in leadership, supervision, restruc-turing, planning and team building.• George Ann Rice (U. of Nevada LasVegas): Assistant superintendent, HumanResources Division, Clark County SchoolDistrict, Las Vegas, Nevada. Has been adriving force in establishing a collaborativeand collegial working relationship with theDepartment of Educational Leadership atthe University of Nevada-Las Vegas(UNLV), the outcome of which has been thedevelopment of a joint UNLV/CCSD col-laborative Cohort Master’s degree programin Educational Leadership.• Sharon N. Richardson (Temple U.): Su-perintendent, Pottsgrove School District,Pottstown, Pennsylvania, and adjunct pro-fessor and guest lecturer at Temple Univer-sity. Service to university includes mentoringgraduate students, sponsoring field experi-ence opportunities, collaborating on re-search, fostering network between studentsand alumni as president of Alumni Associa-tion.• Sally Elizabeth Riley (U. of Oklahoma):Assistant principal, Norman High School,Norman, Oklahoma. Dedicated professionalas career administrator and valuable con-tributing member to programs at the Uni-versity of Oklahoma’s Educational Admin-istration, Curriculum, and Supervision pro-gram, a valuable link in applying theory topractice in the field of administration.• Charles J. Sharps (U. of Oregon): Princi-pal at Sunset Middle School, Coos Bay

UCEA to sponsor 7th AnnualGraduate Student Symposium

The 7th annual Graduate Student Symposium will be held in conjunction with theUCEA Convention at the Galt House Hotel in Louisville, KY. The usual four-hoursession will be divided into a pair of two-hour sessions, one on Friday, October25, and the other on Sunday, October 27. ,

This year's symposium will be organized around the topic Reinventing Education:Retrospect and Prospect. More specifically, the focus will be on examiningemerging issues in educational practice and policy in light of what has beenlearned from recent experiences with educational reform. More information willbe forthcoming as the symposium draws near.

The Graduate Student Symposium provides an opportunity for students to workclosely with symposium faculty and discuss important, contemporary educationalissues with colleagues from other institutions. The symposium is always one ofthe highlights of the UCEA Convention and it promises to be an exciting opportu-nity for graduate students once again this year.

Each UCEA institution is invited send as many students as they wish to partici-pate in the symposium. Program co-chairs for this year's seminar are Bruce G.Barnett (U. of Northern Colorado ) and Mary E. Driscoll (New York U.).

mation on candidates for departmentalsearch committees at the University of Okla-homa; committed to professional develop-ment initiatives and their impact on studentsin the university’s educational administra-tive program.• Dan C. Yunk (Kansas State U.): Superin-tendent, United School District #383, Man-hattan, Kansas. Has worked extensively withKansas State University of establish part-nerships for the improvement of profes-sional development of all school personnel;during his principalship, Northview Elemen-tary School was featured by MacNeil/LehrerProductions on a nationally televised docu-mentary, Learning in America: Schools thatWork.

The UCEA Excellence in EducationalLeadership Award, sponsored jointly by theUniversity Council for Educational Admin-istration (UCEA) and member institutionswho submitted nominations, provides amechanism for UCEA universities to buildgood will and recognize the contributions ofpractitioners to the preparation of juniorprofessionals. Funds to support the awardwere donated to UCEA by the Network ofUniversity Community School Districts, aconsortium of school districts in universitytowns. The call for nominations for the1997 award will be made in mid-January.

UCEA Review12

bridging and buffering, from page 2classroom teachers, which bear a striking resemblance to codingas an approach to buffering. While such groupings are usually andarguably based on student ability or interest, they also reflectdifferences in family background. For example, research showsthat, beginning as early as kindergarten, teachers place students ingroups that correspond closely to students’ socioeconomic back-grounds (Rist, 1970). Research also demonstrates that educationaltracks correlate with social class and that curriculum contentvaries across tracks and, thus, across class (Oakes, 1985). Inaddition, programs that provide students with breakfast andhealthcare and their families with social services are aimed atbuffering schools from conditions that can undermine their effortsto instruct students by minimizing uncertainties posed by hunger,poor health and dysfunctional family situations.

ConclusionsExisting research documents that school organizations, indeed,confront environmental conditions to which bridging and buffer-ing are appropriate responses. Moreover, it reveals that schoolorganizations implement programs and individual educators em-ploy practices that correspond to bridging and buffering. Thus,research seems to demonstrate that the dominant conceptualizationof family-school relations, which treats parental involvement as anunmixed blessing, is conceptually blind to half of the picture.

The theoretical perspective advanced here holds the promiseof extending the study of parental involvement by providing amore balanced and, thus, complete view. The proposed approachwould build on existing research, which highlights positive formsof parental involvement, by adding research that examines theways in which schools buffer their core technologies from disrup-tive forms of parental involvement. Ultimately, the frameworkleads to considering how a combination, or balance, of bridgingand buffering contributes to the effectiveness of school organiza-tions and, hence, to the academic performance of students.

However, the research cited here is merely suggestive, notconfirmatory. The evidence is largely indirect; that is, it arose fromstudies that were not intended to examine bridging and bufferingin school organizations. As a consequence, the research did notaddress several potentially important issues. For instance, re-search has yet to do the basic work of describing strategies thatschool organizations use to buffer uncertainties introduced byparents. Nor has research addressed the issue noted in the previousparagraph: assessing the impact of various combinations of buff-ering and bridging strategies on the effectiveness of schools.

More complex conceptual issues also remain. For example,existing evidence on the use of bridging and buffering by educa-tors suggests that the theoretical framework does not adequatelydepict the structure of these practices in school organizations.Theory emphasizes the role of managers in controlling the rela-tions between their organizations and their external environments.However research on schools suggests that administrators alonedo not bridge and buffer. Rather, teachers, staff members as wellas principals buffer and bridge through both formal and informalmeans, some of which are not reflected in existing theoreticaltreatments.

Spring 1996 13

Nor does the theoretical framework adequately explain rela-tions between bridging and buffering. The examples cited heresuggest that the line distinguishing bridging from buffering maynot be all that clear. For example, increasing numbers of schools areworking with public health and social service agencies to provideassistance to families of students. The bridging and bufferinginvolved in these programs is complex and occurs at several levels.The schools must bridge with the agencies on whom they mustdepend for services that they, themselves, do not provide. Theymust also build bridges to parents in order to gain their participa-tion. However, all of this is done in order to buffer schools from theuncertainties that can be introduced by parents who do not providetheir children with adequate health care or stable home environ-ments. These and other issues await the attention of scholars. And,while the applicability of the concepts of bridging and bufferinghas not been established empirically, that they can bring attentionto previously unacknowledged theoretical and empirical issues ispromising in and of itself.

ReferencesAldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.Becker, H. J. & Epstein, J. L. (1982). “Parent involvement: A survey of teacher

practices.” The Elementary School Journal, 83, 85-102.Chavkin, N. & Williams, D. (1987). “Enhancing parent involvement: Guidelines

for access to an important resource for school administrators.” Education andUrban Society, 19, 164-184.

Coleman, J. (1987). “Families and schools.” Educational Researcher, 16, 32-38.Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972). “A garbage can model of

organizational choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.Corwin, R. G. & Wagenaar, T. C. (1976). “Boundary interaction between service

organizations and their publics: A study of teacher-parent relationships.” SocialForces, 55, 471-492.

Davies, D. (1987). “Parent involvement in the public schools: Opportunities foradministrators.” Education and Urban Society, 19, 147-163.

Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. (1990). Symbolic leadership and the school principalship:Shaping school cultures in different contexts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

Epstein, J. L. (1990). “School and family connections: Theory, research, andimplications for integrating sociologies of education and family.” in D. G. Unger& M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Families in community settings: Interdisciplinaryperspectives (pp. 99-126). New York: The Haworth Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). “School-family-community partnerships: Caring for thechildren we share.” Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L. & Becker, H. (1982). “Teachers’ reported practices of parentinvolvement: Problems and possibilities.” The Elementary School Journal, 83,103-113.

Hoffer, T. & Coleman, J. (1990). “Changing families and communities: Implica-tions for schools.” In B. Mitchell & L. Cunningham (Eds.), Educationalleadership and changing contexts of families, communities, and schools. Eighty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Rist, R. C. (1970). “Student social class and teacher expectation: The self-fulfilling

prophecy in ghetto education.” Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411-450.Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W. & Cheong, Y. K. (1993). “Teaching as a nonroutine

task: Implications for the management of schools.” Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 29, 479-500.

Schneider, B. & Coleman, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Parents, their children, and schools.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). “Organizations or communities: Changing the metaphorchanges the theory.” Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 214-226.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

PATHWAYS TO THEHUMANITIES INADMINISTRATIVELEADERSHIP

Samuel H. Popper

Fourth Edition • 275 pages© 1994 by UCEAISBN 1-55996-144-9

The cost for the volume is $26.95, plus $2.50 shipping/handling. Sendcheck to UCEA at 212 Rackley Building/ University Park, PA 16802-3200,or call (814) 863-7916.

This fourth, and final, edition of Pathways has been enlargedwith a section in which the sociology of sanctions inadministative leadership is connected with accounts of rhetoricalskill in the humanities.

BUILDING BRIDGESUCEA's first two decades

Jack Culbertson

© 1995 by UCEA • 353 pagesISBN 1-55996-159-7

“UCEA’s formation and early programs were influenced by Americanand European ideas. Views expressed in the late 1940s by officers of theW. K. Kellogg Foundation and by members of the American Associa-tion of School Administrators (AASA), for example, helped shapeUCEA’s mission statement. On the other hand, adapted versions ofideas generated by a group of scholars in Vienna, Austria, providedessential content for UCEA’s first Career Development Seminar. Theseminar’s content in turn influenced some of UCEA’s future programs.”(from Chapter 2: Roots)

The cost of the volume is $22.95, plus $2.50 shipping/handling. Ifadopted for class (more than 8 copies), the cost of the desk copywill be refunded. Order direct for a class and avoid bookstoreoverhead; student copies are $12.00, plus $2.50 shipping/han-dling. Send check to UCEA at 212 Rackley Building, UniversityPark, PA 16802-3200 or call (814) 863-7916

UCEA Review14

With nearly 80 percent of universities’ administrative decisionsmade at the department level, the time of amateur administrationis over. In 1989, UCEA established the Center for the Study of theDepartment Chair (CSDC) at Washington State University. Sincethen, the CSDC has engaged in a half dozen national and interna-tional studies investigating department chair roles, duties, careerpaths, transitions from professor to chair, commitment, motiva-tion, stress, time usage, job satisfaction and productivity. Cur-rently, CSDC associates are also: (1) engaged in a year-longethnographic study of beginning department chairs in severallocations in the United States, and (2) just completing a study ofAustralian heads with James Sarros of Monash University inMelbourne, Australia. Funding has just been secured to continueour study of academic leadership in Australia and America with agrant to investigate the deanship.

Australian Heads and American ChairsComplete comparative results of the 1995 study of 1,600 Austra-lian heads with the 1992 study of 800 American department chairswill be forthcoming in a CSDC publication. However, the initialresults show striking similarity. For example, the number onemotivation for serving as heads or chairs is for personal develop-ment, and almost half of them are willing to serve again. However,only one quarter of the chairs/heads would be willing to accept ahigher position in administration, perceiving themselves as facultyfirst and administrators second. They claim their most stressfulexperience is from “having insufficient time to keep up with myacademic field.” Not surprisingly, stress on both continents is bestpredicted by job dissatisfaction and role conflict and ambiguity.Finally, both chairs and heads define their roles as faculty devel-oper, leader, manager and scholar, although the leader role isperceived as most important in Australia and faculty developer inAmerica.

How to Work with Your DeanIn addition to survey analysis, dozens of American and Australianchairs were interviewed and provided insight into strategies theyused to work with deans.(1) Communicate, communicate. Department chairs vowed to

“keep the dean informed, with no surprises.” When it came to

good or bad news, chairs suggested: “Give all the good newsyou can find as often as possible, but especially warn the deanin advance of bad news when you see it coming.” Departmentchairs also spoke about having a sense of timing: when to“keep in touch” with the dean. Since deans seldom have thetime to seek out chairs for regular consultation, departmentchairs felt more of the burden to build the relationship with thedean. Most chairs possessed an intuitive sense to initiateinformal contact at least once a week. They did not rely onmemos or electronic mail to communicate critical problemsneeding personal conversation.

(2) Develop a mutually supportive relationship. Obviously,open communication to keep each other fully informed buildsa trusting relationship. Department chairs also added thequalifier that “being truthful, honest and forthright” builds aprofessional relationship based on personal respect. One de-partment chair commented: “I need to be straight forward, besupportive on key issues, but also tell her when I agree andwhere I disagree.” Overall, most department chairs believed“we have a very accepting and supportive relationship.”

(3) Be prepared, well-documented, and accountable. Eventhrough a department chair may have developed a mutuallysupportive relationship with the dean, even a personal one,most recognized that the dean’s time is valuable and resourcesare limited. One department chair flatly stated: “Deans don’tlike anything wishy washy. I’m pretty straight forward and thedean appreciates that.” Chairs also expressed their need todevelop a vision for “what they want” and document theirrequests for “how to get there” with facts and figures. Finally,one chair reflected on the importance of respecting the chainof command. “The buck stops with the dean and there is nosense in going any further than that until the dean has tried toresolve things. Be up front, honest, and present the facts.”

(4) Balance administrative support and faculty advocacy—daily! The department chair rests at the heart of tensionbetween two systems in the university: the academic andadministrative. They must employ a facilitative leadershipstyle while working with the faculty in the academic core, anda more traditional line-authority style with the dean in the

by Walter H. Gmelch, Center DirectorCollege of Education. Washington State University

UCEA CENTER FOR THE STUDYOF THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR—GOES DOWN UNDER

Spring 1996 15

taking courses as a cohort for the first year and then taking coursework individually thereafter or taking core courses as a cohort andthen completing courses in areas of specialization and research onan individual basis.

Specific semester hour requirements for master’s degree anddoctoral degree cohorts and the criteria utilized to select studentsfor cohort programs were quite typical of such requirementsassociated with “traditional” programs in educational administra-tion. For example, the use of references/recommendation, Gradu-ate Record Examination scores, evidence of writing skill, grade-point-average minimums, Miller Analogies Test scores, and per-sonal interviews were common selection evidence utilized by mostinstitutions.

Dissertation and comprehensive examination requirementsfor student cohorts also paralleled the requirements of “traditional”preparation programs. For example, 12 of the 15 master’s degreecohort programs and 23 of the 24 doctoral cohorts required awritten comprehensive examination. The dissertation was requiredby all but one UCEA institution with doctoral cohorts. Differencesbetween cohort programs and previous preparation programs weredescribed by respondents in terms such as more support forlearners, greater sense of community, quicker program comple-tion, greater course continuity, more student/faculty interaction,better theory and practice linkages, and so forth.

In regard to cohort program outcomes, respondents represent-ing the UCEA institutions presented a highly positive view. Of the30 institutions with student cohort programs, 27 described theirprograms as “highly successful” or “successful.”

Only one respondent was of the opinion that the program was“not particularly successful.” For the most part, the majority ofinstitutions viewed cohort programs as having a better quality ofstudents than previous programs, revealing a higher quality ofstudent scholarship in course work, resulting in greater studentcommitment to the program and program completion, bringingabout a higher level of student, faculty, and institutional socializa-tion, and as resulting in higher levels of student enthusiasm towardcourse work and the preparation program in general.

The primary troublesome areas in student cohort programscentered on such problems as the stringency of time commitmentsfor students, burdens related to faculty workloads, the lack offaculty interest and involvement in some cases, the “homogeniza-tion” of student grading, the limitations placed upon intellectual“expansions” due to excessive student togetherness, the domi-nance of a few cohort members in class activities, and the tendencyin some cases for a few members “to carry” the group.

In a final study question, respondents overwhelmingly viewedthe future outlook for student cohort programs in their institutionsas “very bright” or as being “somewhat optimistic.”

administrative core. As a result, they find themselves swivel-ing between their faculty colleagues and the dean’s adminis-tration. In essence, they are caught in the god-like role ofJanus, a Roman god with two faces looking in differentdirections at the same time. However, department chairs inAustralia and America tried to “keep the balance of champi-oning faculty values, but at the same time carrying the line ofcommand messages.”

Maybe these are lessons we can all practice when workingwith faculty, chairs and deans. From these and other studies, theCenter produces three CSDC Newsletters yearly free to UCEAmembers, in addition to numerous articles and two recent books onLeadership Skills for Department Chairs (1993) and Chairing theAcademic Department (1995), as well as professional develop-ment workshops for chairs. For further information, please contactthe Center through e-mail at gmelch@mail.wsu.edu or write:Center for the Study of the Department Chair, College of Educa-tion, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2114.

The UCEA Center on Patterns of Professional Preparation inEducational Administration was organized in 1984. Since thatdate, the Center has completed studies in such areas as the reorga-nization of departments of educational administration, doctoralstudies of students in educational administration, the departmentchair in educational administration, student recruitment and selec-tion practices in educational administration programs, departmentorganization and faculty status in educational administration, andthe status of students cohorts in administration preparation pro-grams.

The last mentioned study, the status of student cohorts, wascompleted in the spring of 1995. The primary purpose of this studywas to determine the nature and status of student cohort programsin UCEA educational administration preparation programs. Eightypercent of UCEA member institutions answered the study ques-tionnaire; 30 of the 43 institutions that responded had studentcohort programs in operation. And, of the 30 institutions withcohorts, 24 were operating doctoral cohorts and 15 had master’sdegree cohorts.

The study focused on four general areas: (1) The Status ofStudent Cohorts in Educational Administration, (2) Student Selec-tion for Cohort Participation, (3) Dissertation and ExaminationRequirements, and (4) Student Cohort Program Results.

In regard to the status of student cohorts, such arrangementshad been in operation in UCEA institutions from less than one yearto more than eight years. In all, 22 of the 30 programs had studentcohorts in operation for more than 4 years. In all but one case,cohort students began the program at the same time. However,practices varied concerning the course work that cohort memberstook together. In regard to the amount of course work that cohortmembers completed together, responses ranged from “90-100%”to “less than 40%.” Overall, 17 of the institutions reported thatcohort members did complete some course work independentlyand some programs allowed students to accelerate the completionof the program through various independent pursuits.

Independent study pursuits commonly included the practice of

... see you in Louisville!

UCEA Review16

May 25 .................. Deadline for Culbertson Award nominationsDeadline for Campbell Award nominations

May 31-June 2 ...... UCEA Executive Committee(Louisville, Kentucky: Galt House Hotel)

October 23-24 ....... UCEA Executive Committee(Louisville, Kentucky: Galt House Hotel)

October 24-25 ....... UCEA Plenum(Louisville, Kentucky: Galt House Hotel)

October 25, 27 ...... Graduate Student Symposium(Louisville, Kentucky: Galt House Hotel)

October 25-27 ....... UCEA Convention '96(Louisville, Kentucky: Galt House Hotel)

SCHEDULE OF COMING EVENTS

Published three times a year—winter, spring, fall—bythe University Council for Educational Administration.Address changes and other corrections should be sentto the UCEA Review at the above address.Patrick B. Forsyth .................... Executive DirectorDiana G. Pounder ......................... Feature EditorLInda L. Smith ................ Administrative AssistantJudy A. Alston ........................ Graduate AssistantKenneth H. Brinson, Jnr. ........ Graduate Assistant

SUBMITTING ARTICLES

FOR THE UCEA REVIEW

Diana G. Pounder (U. of Utah) isfeature editor for the UCEAReview. If you have suggestionsfor the Review, or ideas forsubstantive feature articles, shewould be happy to hear from you.

Diana G. PounderUniversity of Utah

339 Milton Bennion HallSalt Lake City, UT 84112

e-mail: pounder@gse.utah.eduFAX: 801-585-6756

THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL FOREDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION212 Rackley BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802-3200(814) 863-7916 • FAX (814) 863-7918

Non-ProfitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDState College, PAPermit No. 123

NEW ADDRESS, effective June 15

UCEA205 Hill HallColumbia, MO 65211(573-884-8300) • FAX (573-884-8302)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○