Education Leadership

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Education Leadership, Education News February 17, 2016

Are we getting closer to 1:1 iPad programs?

It’s been almost a half-decade since education communities started pushing for an iPad for each student in classrooms. The amount of individualized learning available on tablets that are equipped with Internet technology is virtually limitless, making customized learning more possible than ever. Many school districts are still trying to reach this standard, of course, but in the areas where the iPad-to-student ratio is 1:1, that connectivity is making a positive difference.

Recently, Carl Hooker, the creator of iPadpalooza and director of innovation and digital learning at Eanes ISD (TX), was honored as 2016’s Thought Leader of the Year by PR with Panache! Hooker was recognized for his district’s personalized learning initiative that has put iPads in the hands of 8,000 students. He’s also the founder of iPadpalooza – an event that brings together global education leaders to talk about the role of technology in classrooms and beyond. Hooker is the author of the Mobile Learning Mindset series that approaches the technology of learning from a positive place.

In 2014, Hooker was also named Leader of the Year by Tech & Learning.

What leaders like Hooker are getting right is this: technology can benefit teachers and students when it is implemented correctly. Screen time can never replace the benefit of one-on-one teacher contact — but in classrooms where individual attention is scarce (and that’s most of them), tapping technology for customized learning can be a complete game-changer. Finding ways to extend technology resources to the schools that need it the most should be a goal of any progressive education advocate because within technology is the capability to reach more students with more customized learning experiences.

You can learn more about Hooker’s award and work by clicking here.

Has your district implemented a 1:1 iPad program yet? What sort of changes has it made in your classroom, for better or for worse?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch February 14, 2016

Surveying the Modern Applications of Instructional Leadership

A revolution is taking place in school leadership. New policies call for higher academic standards and accountability. So-called “accountability systems” include a more methods to develop and monitor school change. Researchers have joined the fray, adding their opinions about the reinvention of instructional leadership in schools.

More focus on student results leads to local changes aligned with the performance goals of the educational system. The general presumption is that these changes will come automatically, since public reporting of school outcomes creates pressure for reform. The development of direct incentives that yield innovation, efficiency, and solutions to performance problems will also be a source of change.

Accountability systems force the development of standards required for improved instructional and assessment practices. They also act as incentives for participation in the process. This simple logic of an accountability system is compelling, providing an irresistible rationale for educational reform.

This new vigor in instructional leadership has been spurred by the No Child Left Behind Act. The recent debate in the U.S. on the legitimacy of using standardized tests to gauge student learning has led to new leadership efforts and spending to help schools achieve better test scores. These efforts have pressured new instructional leadership, characterized by school analysts, researchers, and school leaders focusing on data in their decision-making. This new instructional paradigm was envisioned earlier in research.

This new instructional style has also been referred to as “learning-centered” leadership. It began with a push by state education leaders to process student data from available achievement tests. Private companies enjoyed financial benefits, selling data reporting systems to schools to help them sort the data. State education leaders hired consultants, who created data analysis workshops and data retreats to instruct school leaders on effective data use. School leaders adopted new school reform plans and curricula coordinated with state learning standards, resulting in far-reaching changes in student learning. Positive results only happened when practitioners were willing to change their ways and conform to the new standards.

The biggest problem in data-driven decision-making is the implementation of new accountability practices. Most schools already had active, working internal accountability systems. Schools already made decisions based on data, such as class attendance, test scores, student discipline, available budgets, and teacher reputations. Administrative reliance on these old internal accountability systems has cased the most resistance to reforms in school instructional practice.

To use data to improve student performance, leaders need to factor in external accountability instead of traditional methods. This new model improves on traditional practices such as teacher evaluation, professional development, curriculum design, and building new cultures of learning. Older techniques will have to be changed to address the challenges of contemporary schools.

Practical systems rely on two-way information flow, connecting classroom practice with external accountability measures. This requires stronger links between teaching and leadership , teacher collaboration, learning matched with current instructional goals, and close monitoring of instructional outcomes. To succeed here, the leader must assist students in taking tests, avoid favoring test preparation over learning, and justify instructional practices changes to the community.

Data Acquisition

Data acquisition refers to the processes of seeking, collecting, and preparing useful information for teaching and learning activities. The data gathered and processed at this stage comes from student test scores. However, other fields of information are needed to inform teaching and learning.

Data storage is a vital element of data acquisition. There is a need to use local data systems, since the NCLB Act requires certain information on student performance. Schools have created a retail demand for data storage and data analysis products.

Data Reflection

Data reflection is the manipulation of student learning data toward improved teaching and learning practices. DDIS data reflection is a structured opportunity for both teachers and leaders to make useful sense of data, rather than guessing “what works.”

Data reflection can be done at a school-wide level, grade level, or even in subject-area meetings. Problem framing is a vital element of data reflection . This involves active thought on how data can improve outcomes, leading to a a plan of action.

Program Alignment

This involves matching the school’s instructional program to the content and performance standards in classrooms. Program alignment is an essential part of planning for instructional leadership, probably the most sensitive part of DDIS, in order to influence the outcome of the new policies.

Program Design

— It is through program design that the school’s policies, plans, and procedures are defined in such a manner that reported problems are addressed. Curricula, student service programs, and instructional strategies are modified to improve student learning. Program design also involves the inspection of the school’s access to budgets and grants, for starting and maintaining a new program.

Formative Feedback

Feedback is always a crucial in the adoption of new strategies. The DDIS model creates a continuous and timely flow of information, designed to improve student outcomes. This feedback is different from data acquisition and reflection. It applies to information gathered to measure the school’s progress measured in terms of student performance.

Test Preparation

This last part of the DDIS model consists of activities designed to assess, motivate, and develop student academic abilities, as well as strategies to improve performance on state and district assessment tests. Test preparation covers a wide range of issues, such as test formats, testing skills, and addressing weak areas, as well as test preparation.

“Teaching to the test” refers to study content, called “formulaic instruction.” It is teaching students topics that are tested, without regard to holistic learning. Leaders in schools across the U.S. have changed multiple aspects of school life to gear their instructional programs toward test content. Schools where the DDIS mode was put into action didn’t narrow their curriculum to the test content. The researchers noticed instead that, in schools with DDIS systems, there were rich instructional systems designed to help students meet state exam standards.

A DDIS system of instructional leadership is insightful, innovative, and results-oriented. It increases precision in predicting student outcomes and developing key areas of study relevant to academic improvement.

Improvements and changes in instructional leadership have kept it relevant, even in the face of other leadership styles. It is accepted that schools must practice some level of instructional leadership. Instructional leadership remains a crucial aspect of the school setting.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, list, Matthew Lynch, Teachers February 8, 2016

7 Elements All Top Schools Have

Diverse school models exist, but a fundamental question remains—how do we know how effective a school model is? How can effectiveness be judged? There are several research studies which focus on the characteristics of effective schools. However, there is debate over which attributes to consider when describing successful schools.

Some researchers assert that student performance should be the primary indicator of a successful school. That makes sense, since the sole purpose of schools is educating their students. Other researchers propose that students’ social characteristics, such as personal growth, should be included when determining effective schools. Another issue with school effectiveness research is that findings are predominantly based on research conducted in elementary schools or unique school settings in the inner city. These findings might not be generalizable for all schools.

In truth, there is no one factor that can accurately determine the effectiveness of K-12 schools. This is really a multi-faceted conversation that evolves with each generation of students. However, there are some qualities that seem to apply in nearly all school contexts. Here they are:

Quality leadership. In other words, students perform better where the principal provides strong leadership. Effective leaders are visible, able to successfully convey the school’s goals and visions, collaborate with teachers to enhance their skills, and are involved in the discovery of and solutions to problems
Having high expectations. This applies to students as well as teachers. High expectations of students have repeatedly been shown to have a positive impact on students’ performance. More attention should be paid to high expectations of teachers. In other words, teachers who are expected to teach at high levels of effectiveness are able to reach the level of expectations, particularly when teacher evaluations and teacher professional development is geared toward improving instructional quality.
Ongoing screening of student performance and development. Schools should use assessment data to compare their students with others from across the country. Effective use of assessment data allows schools to identify problematic areas of learning at the classroom and school levels, so that solutions can be generated as to how to best address the problems.
Goals and direction. Administration should actively construct goals and then effectively communicate them to appropriate individuals (i.e., students, teachers, community-at-large). School principals must also be open and willing to incorporate innovation into goals for school processes and practices. It is important to invite input from all stakeholders in the process of developing school goals. Student performance has been shown to improve in schools where all in the school community work toward goals that are communicated and shared among all in the learning environment.
A secure and organized school. More learning happens when students feel secure. Respect is promoted and is a fundamental aspect of a safe school. There are also a number of trained staff and programs, such as social workers, who work with problem students before situations get out of hand.
A smaller school. Research has found that the smaller the school, the better students perform, especially in the case of older students. This is the rationale behind the concept of schools-within-schools. Students in smaller learning environments feel more connected to their peers and teachers, pass classes more often, and have a higher probability of going to college.
Preschool education. A number of school districts view preschool education as a factor that will influence overall effectiveness across all schools located within the district. Evidence suggests that children with preschool experiences fare better academically and socially as they enter kindergarten and beyond. Experiences in literacy and numeracy among early learners not only prepares preschoolers for a kindergarten curriculum that has heightened expectations of prior knowledge, but also helps identify early learners who will need additional support to ensure they are able to have positive learning experiences later on.

Of course, we are not limited to these factors. Additional factors that influence effective schools include time to learn, teacher quality, and school and parental trust. There is no simple solution for labeling the effectiveness of a particular school – but it should certainly go beyond assessments alone.

What are some keys to school effectiveness in your opinion?

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch February 1, 2016

4 Ways School Administrators Can Discover Their Unique Leadership Style

Each administrator has his own unique personality traits. So as can be expected, some leadership styles will appeal more to some school administrators than others. The natural differences in personality among various leaders lead to preferences that run below the leader’s awareness.

What often happens due to these personality traits is that a leader develops judgments, and responds to his or her environment by focusing on certain leadership aspects more than others.

Variations caused by factors such as age, upbringing, and gender have been shown to affect the way personality is developed and expressed. Practices are also influenced by the interaction between personality and contextual aspects associated with the workplace. Examples of these contextual aspects include the perceived nature of work, the leadership experience, the school level, and the leader’s position.

So which is the best way forward? What can school administrators do to find the leadership style that simply clicks for them and leads to unbridled success? Here are a few tips.

1. School leaders and administrators should first acknowledge their inborn, natural tendencies toward some practices over others. They should then reflect on whether these preferences affect their leadership practices. Honesty and transparency in admitting personality differences would motivate the leaders to consider ways to satisfy the various needs of their schools. Self-awareness is a necessary step before leaders can really engage in effective team-building.

2. Delegate, delegate, delegate. Many researchers consider delegation vital for leadership success. Research has shown that delegation is dependent on personality preferences, which translate to foregone conclusions in leadership behavior and in competence. The leader’s preferences are heavily influenced by what is natural, comfortable, and enjoyable for the leader.
Delegation allows the leader and team members to do what they do best.

3. School leaders need to consider the administrator’s preferences when it comes to shaping school leadership responsibilities. They will end up attempting more modest efforts, which sounds counterintuitive—but the success of this practice is actually based on sound research. While this may be more supportive of a differentiated rather than instructional leadership style, the importance of including varying differences of opinion is vital for any leadership model.

4. School leaders should embrace their differences as assets when working together. As schools seek to redefine themselves as learning communities, its members must work together in a friendly, cooperative fashion, by challenging and engaging with each other. Jungian theory finds that diversity generates synergy and innovation. Most leadership researchers and theorists have noted that human differences provide the creative tension needed in the forward movement and growth of any institution. Models of leadership that ignore the nature of leaders tend to be far less effective.
As school principals work to close the achievement gap in learning, they should strive to build a conscious understanding of their own natural preferences, in relation to instructional leadership.

Human differences are often depicted as weaknesses, and are quickly pushed aside. Seeking to address them in a meaningful way, instead of dismissing them, can be a seed for success in educational leadership.

Do you think that leaders need to be aware of and develop their unique leadership qualities to be successful at school? Why (or why not)? Please leave a comment below and share your thoughts.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, list, Matthew Lynch January 26, 2016

3 Reasons to Consider Adopting an Emotional Leadership Style

When we look at all the data available on cognitive, intellectual, and philosophical views of leadership, and their combination with other frameworks, we see the power of emotions. Simply put, emotions generate knowledge, and emotionally acquired knowledge is strongly influenced by teachers’ and leaders’ understandings (or lack thereof) of their emotions. There is hope of a shift in school culture from one of emotional silence, to one of emotional engagement. Such a change would likely impact leader confidence, focus, well-being, and effectiveness, and could challenge leaders to redefine their schools. Let’s look at how adopting an emotional leadership style—where a leader taps into his or her own emotional center to lead—can affect you and the people around you.

Emotional leaders develop positive emotions in their followers. Emotional Intelligence (EI) in leaders enhances thoughtful choices and unselfishness in their followers. As a result, leaders who are able to identify and manage their emotions and those of others develop sincerity and helpfulness among their followers. The expression of emotions is a vital component of charismatic leadership, and is linked to the leader’s ability to inspire and motivate followers through the emotional contagion process; that is, shared feelings encourage cooperation among everyone involved.
Emotional leaders may be able to express a fuller range of emotions without negatively impacting their followers. It has also been shown that the expression of positive emotions has a positive impact on groups. However, there is a lack of research on how leaders express negative emotions such as disapproval, anger, and disappointment, and how this expression affects group performance.

One practical suggestion is that skilled and controlled expression of so-called negative emotions is important for leaders, so as to avoid decreasing workers’ motivation, or building up resentment and resistance.

Since practiced emotional expressiveness is necessary, effective expression of the leader’s negative emotions requires skills in expression, emotional control, and emotional sensitivity so as to gauge how these negative emotions are received by followers.

Emotional leadership gives insight into how your followers are feeling. There has recently been considerable interest in the role of emotional sensitivity, which is the ability to “decode” emotions in the work setting. In some of the research studies, measures of emotional decoding skills have been used as a substitute for emotional intelligence. Other studies have examined the notion of emotional “eavesdropping,” where leaders decode followers’ emotions even when they are not intending to convey them directly. Emotional eavesdropping involves an acute awareness of follower’s body language, tone of voice, and other unspoken indicators to understand their true feelings.

The reason there has been so much interest in emotional decoding is that there are a number of measures available for researchers to study. Also, it makes sense to study the ability to “read” others’ emotions in the workplace. Although effective leaders must possess good skills in emotional control, especially during crises, individuals who are particularly good at controlling and masking their emotional expressions usually seem distant and aloof.

Any imbalance in the possession of emotional and social skills is linked to poorer psychosocial adjustment in teams and, therefore, to poor leadership. In summary, we find that, across most of the research, emotional intelligence improves effectiveness in organizational settings. Effective leaders must make serious efforts to detect, analyze, and understand the feelings of their followers. As a part of this effort, leaders must also be careful of how they express their own emotions to their staff. A thoughtful leader will listen to their followers’ concerns, and speak with care and conviction about their own.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch January 25, 2016

How Leaders Indirectly Influence Teachers’ Emotions

The indirect influences leaders have on teacher emotions have much to do with teachers’ working conditions in the classroom and school. Leaders influence many of the working conditions in significant ways, leading to an indirect form of influence on teachers’ emotions through their efforts.

The amount and complexity of the teachers’ workloads have a significant effect on their emotions. Teachers overall attitude about the workload is dependent on their views of five features in their environments. When teachers perceive their workload as unfair, commitments to the school and morale decrease, and feelings of stress/burnout increase.

Excessive paperwork and other bothersome non-teaching demands, like hall monitoring, bus duty, and lunchroom supervision add to teachers’ feelings of stress. This increases likelihood of teachers moving on to other schools or other lines of work.

The intensity of teachers’ workloads also produces negative perceptions. Difficulties reduces job satisfaction, especially when teachers are ill-prepared, or students are uncooperative and achieve poor results. Complexity can become manageable when teachers are given freedom over classroom decisions so that they can do their best work. Creating an atmosphere that encourages learning throughout the school, where instructional resources are readily available, also increases manageability.

Teachers feel the pinch when they are given insufficient preparation time, unreasonably large classes, and complex class composition (e.g., grouping high-performing students with those with special needs). Disruptive students and unmet student needs add to teacher stress. Students’ aspirations, behavior, and readiness to learn are negatively influenced by dysfunctional family environments, which then influences teachers’ emotions.

Four sets of working conditions have a significant influence on the emotions of teachers – school cultures, structures, relations with the wider community, and operating procedures. School cultures have a significant effect on most teacher emotion sets. The goals and expectations for teachers’ work should be clear, explicit, shared, and meaningful. As a result, teachers are sure of their roles. In such cultures, teacher collaboration is encouraged and supported.

Management of student behavior is an important factor, having significant positive effects on the time required of teachers for instruction. It also has an impact on student performance, because more instructional time means better student performance.

Efforts to handle student misbehavior directly effect the teacher’s job satisfaction, stress, and attendance. Negative results are reduced when school leaders and teachers set and enforce rules for student behavior. Teachers often respond positively when their leaders value and support teacher and student safety, and where high standards are required of students.

When it comes to school structures, the main purpose is to enhance the development and maintenance of cultures that support teaching and learning. However, not all school structures can be altered easily or quickly. For example, positive teacher emotions are associated with relatively smaller schools in suburban areas.

All the other structural aspects of schools that affect teachers’ emotions are quite flexible and can easily outweigh the negatives of large school sizes and urban locations. These include positive contributions to teachers’ internal states of efficacy, satisfaction, and commitment, as well as reduced stress/burnout, morale, and engagement. Other overt practices that give teachers opportunities to work together, such as common planning times, work well. Positive effects are also associated with adequate lesson preparation time.

The school’s goals are a true source of direction for teachers’ professional learning. The students provide challenges that stimulate learning, and the school’s resources are the only limitations to learning. Forms of professional development that contribute most to sustained teacher learning are study groups, coaching, mentoring arrangements, networks linking teachers to explore challenges, and asking questions of students.

Empowerment and participation in school decision-making is also important for teachers. This enhances commitment in staff by making them the main causal agents of their own performance. There is also a need for physical facilities that allow teachers to use the instruction type they deem most effective, to increase their engagement in their schools and their desire to continue teaching.

Community relations form part of school conditions that influence the teachers’ job satisfaction, and the chance of school and professional commitment. Positive contributions only occur when the school’s reputation in the community is good, and its efforts are supported by parents and the extended community.

School operating procedures are the last condition that influence the teachers’ sense of individual efficacy, satisfaction, and school commitment. Under these procedures there are three sub-conditions. The first is the quality of communication in the school. Second are teachers’ opinions on school improvement planning, and third is whether the priorities fit.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch January 17, 2016

Invitational Leadership Juxtaposed with Other Leadership Models

Let’s look at invitational leadership, as it relates to various models of leadership. Invitational leadership has this is common with participative/distributed leadership: a belief in promoting active participation of all interested stakeholders, as well as the fundamentals of moral/ethical leadership. However, a closer look reveals that invitational leadership is more inclusive and complete, since it addresses the “total environment” in which leaders function. While invitational leadership believes in allowing active participation of all organizational members, it also seeks to achieve a balance of authority and influence throughout the organization.

The transformational and servant leadership styles have been among the best received and most highly praised over the last few decades. In both models, there are similar principles that call upon leaders to lead in an manner that sets an example for followers. As with invitational leadership, these models attempt to help leaders to support their followers in empowering ways.

Invitational leaders accept the basic tenet of servant leadership that those who lead must be ready and willing to serve, but they go beyond this idea in their attempt to describe the values and roles they must serve in their organizations.

Invitational leadership, in truth, holds many of the same beliefs that describe both transformational and servant leadership. One similarity is that of forming and sharing a vision. Invitational leaders seek to invite their associates to share in a vision of greatness, and offer them a vivid but powerful picture of human effort. The three leadership types also share the elements of trust and respect.

Another shared component between invitational leadership and the two models is that of morals and ethics. Invitational leadership is at the heart a moral activity, intentionally showing respect and trust in the leaders themselves and in others, both personally and professionally. In a similar manner, it seeks to empower followers by asking others in the organization to meet their goals in pursuit of their own success. In other words, encouraging others in their quest for self-fulfillment is a characteristic embedded in the invitational leadership model. The authors conclude that invitational leadership is a mutual commitment between colleagues, instead of a series of orders issued from the top down.

While we see many shared components between the invitational leadership model and participative, transformational, and servant leadership models, there are also a few inbuilt and crucial differences. The first of these are the twin elements of optimism and intentionality. Optimism and intentionality are viewed as important characteristics for effective leaders.

The focused effort on values and principles that apply to policies, programs, places, processes, and people are also important for effectiveness in leadership. We then find that these important and unique qualities make the invitational leadership model an excellent choice, especially in these times of critical student need and increased accountability for school leaders. In light of the problems facing today’s school systems, the invitational leadership model could lead to many positive outcomes. Encouraging everyone in the school setting to participate in goal achievement allows for new ideas and fresh perspectives, which are sorely needed in an educational system that is largely old-fashioned and out of date.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch January 17, 2016

Distributed Leadership as Task Distribution

In 2004, Spillane et al.’s theoretical description of distributed leadership was based on the performance of certain tasks, and the interactions between shifting combinations of leaders and followers, in the course of performing certain tasks.. Leadership is distributed across the three essential elements: leader, follower, and task.

Task distribution was the focus of a series of studies of distributed leadership in 2007, by Spillane et al. They analyzed patterns of distributed leadership by using the electronic logs of 52 school principals. Data was gathered by prompting the principals with electronic beeps, sounding at intervals throughout the day. They recorded whether they were engaged in leadership tasks, and if they were the ones leading/co-leading those tasks, or if others were doing it for them. The principals also indicated their intentions by choosing from a list, including increasing knowledge, monitoring teaching/curricula, developing common goals, motivating/developing others, or redesigning the teaching and learning.

In their 2003 study of distributed leadership, Camburn et al. also studied leadership as a task performance approach in a sample of schools. They studied distributed leadership by asking everyone in formal leadership roles to report the priority and/or the amount of time they spent on a variety of leadership activities. However, they did not explore the intended or actual influence of these leaders.

Leadership is clearly seen in the performance of certain functions or tasks. So, how do we establish what counts as a leadership task? Camburn et al. use organizational theories as their reference point, by following “A long line of research and theory that conceptualizes leadership in terms of organizational functions and then examines who within an organization performs these functions.” The problem with this approach is that the leadership tasks needed for this purpose may differ from those required to achieve specific goals in an organization. Most organizational theories cannot distinguish between the direct and indirect impact of leadership tasks on outcomes.

Existing evidence linking certain types of leadership to student outcomes is a better resource for determining educational impact. Research has shown instructional leadership tasks deliver more results for students. Robinson’s 2008 meta-analysis of 27 published studies of the impact of instructional leadership on student outcomes confirms this, by showing that the actual impact of instructional leadership was two to three times greater than that of transformational leadership.

The five different sets of leadership practices were measured to show different relative impacts. Relative effects were lower in the tasks of establishing goals, strategic resourcing, and establishing an orderly, supportive environment. The effects were average for planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum, but were huge in relation to promoting and participating in teacher learning and development.

Clearly, using evidence is better than using general organizational theory. We can relate student impact to distributed leadership. For example, teacher engagement during a learning opportunity is far more important that whether or not teachers volunteered for it. Researchers should go beyond measuring distribution of leadership activities. The leaders’ ability to shape professional development should also be assessed, assuring they have qualities associated with better outcomes for students.
After selecting built-in leadership tasks for distributed leadership, evidence must be collected on the patterns of responsibility for the tasks. Thoughtful analysis is needed regarding who is involved, and the degree of knowledge they posses about the tasks. The level of influence leaders have over task performance should also be noted.

The third step investigates the links of these tasks to student outcomes. The most complex and expensive part of the study, it involves modeling and measuring the impact of variables, such as student background, which could dilute the data. Valuable data comes from studying the leadership of teachers, and teacher learning practices, especially where there is prior evidence of improved student outcomes. Careful analysis of these studies, and their association with student impacts, shows us the distribution of leadership practices that is most likely to make a difference to students.

When we look at the influence process itself, we can see the shifts in school and teacher culture needed to support the wider distribution of leadership tasks. This sharing of authority is vital for sustained educational improvement. Literature on teacher influence is plentiful. If distributed leadership is to fulfill its objectives, then it should focus on how those in senior leadership positions can develop a more balanced leadership approach.

References

Distributed leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by Peter Gronn, and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of his work on distributed leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch January 14, 2016

The Case for Utilizing the Invitational Leadership Model

The current climate in the education system indicates a rising need for leadership that will surpass all previous models and theories. Many of the concerns raised include increased standards for accountability issues, the need for effective leadership that will live up to the demands of these progressively difficult times. Other concerns include the need for growth in organizational health, perception of the leader as someone who can create real change, and the creation and development of a positive school culture.

Many researchers are now calling for a more participatory approach to leadership in these difficult times in education. Several challenges (e.g., cost restraint, public accountability, globalization, integration of technology, and measurement of student outcomes) require more participatory forms of leadership than those exhibited in the past. The evidence available suggests that the existing theories of leadership don’t fully reflect or explain the current practices of effective leaders. The hope is that more participation on the part of school leaders will help to improve student outcomes.

Current theories of leadership are not good enough to meet the needs of current day leaders. We therefore find that, as public scrutiny and accountability standards increase, a change in leadership theory is likely warranted. In addition to the above challenges, there is growing demand for today’s schools to become institutions of academic excellence, and also for schools that are effective at serving the needs of all interested stakeholders. There is an increased need for caring school systems that serve the best interests of the institution and its various stakeholders. This implies a more profound and challenging responsibility for leaders to understand the growing concerns of those they serve.

The above challenges and concerns are uniquely answered by the invitational leadership model. Invitational leadership can step in to satisfy the need for a leadership model that consistently and completely addresses both the internal and external elements of an organization. Invitational leaders focus on creating organizations that are people-centered and success-oriented, while at the same time dealing with all the other necessary aspects of the organization.

Invitational leaders model school culture through the thousands of daily interactions by which common standards, relationships, visions, expectations, and definitions of what works were created, framed, supported, and tested. Invitational leadership also provides required guidelines and direction to support the organizational growth and success of the school. Invitational leadership contributes positively to the school, because it cares for and supports the efforts of others. The invitational leadership model will serve as a positive source to assist in the preparation of tomorrow’s school leaders.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch January 10, 2016

Distributed Leadership as Distributed Influence Processes

Leadership is an influence process that changes how others act or think. Therefore, one way of determining leadership is by investigation of its consequences. There are many ways of exercising influence that do not qualify as leadership. These include force, coercion, and manipulation, which are in no way related to leadership. The difference between all these influence processes is based one factor: the source of influence.

These sources of influence— positional authority, personal qualities, and rational persuasion—often separate leadership from any other form of power relationship. Distributed leadership is an influence process, since it embraces the social side of leadership. This is accomplished through an expansion of the specific influence processes that distinguish it from force, coercion, and manipulation. It uses influence processes that make use of the power of ideas, logical thinking, and evidence. This is particularly important in schools, since the professional culture of most schools typically makes it difficult to rely on the power of position alone.

There are some negative aspects of this concept. First, it lacks any educational content, and consequently, provides little or no guidance to the types of leadership practices that are likely to influence teachers, in ways that make a difference to students. Also, this leadership concept has been criticized for not identifying those particular leadership traits that are most likely to improve student outcomes. Instead, it focuses on distribution of leadership. Most of the available research shows that the knowledge needed to identify and define the types of leadership tasks that deliver these credible benefits are found in educational texts, and not in leadership literature.

Yet another limitation of this concept of distributed leadership is that it overlooks some of the ways leadership can be exercised indirectly. Not all interaction is through direct person to person communication. The three sources of leadership influence suggested—acceptance of orders from those in positions of power, response to essential personal characteristics, and acceptance of requests and ideas as reasonable—assume that all leadership influence is exercised through direct face-to-face interaction. This is simply not the case.

However, this conception ignores the most indirect ways in which educational leaders lend their talents to teaching and learning, such as the creation of the conditions that enable independent and unique patterns of thought and actions in others. This leadership practice is known as empowerment, and plays a huge role in the influence process.

A more powerful model is needed for measuring educational worth, if studies of distributed leadership are to give a greater understanding of how it can improve current teaching and learning processes. Recent research into distributed leadership has expanded the unit of analysis from that of leader-follower, to include the interactions among leader, follower, and other aspects of the situation, like the tools that guide and regulate teachers’ work. In summary, the concept of “distributed leadership as distributed influence” helps us distinguish between leader-follower interactions and how they produce change; this is a determining feature of what qualifies as leadership.