edleadership

It’s no secret that technology implementation in P-12 schools comes with some serious red tape. While American colleges and universities tend to be at the forefront of innovative ways of learning, childhood education lags seriously behind. A recent PBS study found that while 90 percent of P-12 classrooms have at least one computer, only 35 percent have tablets or electronic readers. The amount of policy writing that goes into allowing “new” technology like tablets, let alone the budget for them, makes it prohibitive for most schools to implement the equipment in reasonable time frames.

But what about technology that already exists in P-12 classrooms, but in less flashy ways? Consider the database technology behind virtually every school system in the country. If you are not too familiar with it, here are a few facts you should know.

1. Schools have electronic storage of everything from basic address information of students to their in-class progress in an array of subjects. Schools often track other factors too like socioeconomic status and other defining features like racial background and family circumstances. This private data collection on students starts long before the traditional start of school. Early childhood programs in every state keep track of student information and progress too.
2. The problem with all of this data keeping is that the numbers are usually kept in isolation. Beginning with early childhood education, individual schools do not reach out to each other or across state lines when it comes to student progress and innovative teaching methods.
3. A recent study released by The Early Childhood Collaboration found that Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation with a system for linking student data across all education programs, from early childhood learning through grade 12. Progressive California has absolutely no data linking programs in place and no plans to start one. As the report points out:

“Comprehensive and connected data on children, programs, and the workforce are used to track progress over time, pinpoint problems, identify underserved groups, and allocate limited resources.”

4. It’s simply easier not to use the data collected. Despite such a treasure trove of data, student information seems to be recorded simply for posterity. It’s clearly not impossible to share the information (Pennsylvania does it) but states do not seem to be rushing to do it. Such an undertaking would certainly require an upfront cost which could be behind the hesitancy – but I wonder how much of the delay is simply the convenience of the status quo. Student data has always been collected for internal use, or to satisfy specific state requirements, so going above and beyond that is scary territory. How will schools find the manpower for the extra steps of sharing, and analyzing? Who will be in charge of storing the data? What about student privacy?
5. Using these databases can change how we create and implement policies. I understand the logic behind the questions listed in the last paragraph, but these are all minor impositions. It has never been easier to connect all of the nation’s student data sets in order to build a better picture of what America’s P-12 student body looks like today, and set goals for improvement based on actual statistics. Like these databases, many education policies are created in isolation. What if the people who wrote those policies had a complete data set to inform their choices? How quickly would education legislation transform from theory to actionable plans based on fact?

The ECDC report recommends that states strengthen their abilities to securely link to student data amongst their schools, and to expand the information that is screened and collected. Some less tangible advice would be for educators and policymakers to realize the value of interconnected student information and begin to consider the true possibilities of combining that knowledge.

Would you support greater sharing of student data across schools, systems and states?

When considering school reform, it’s often easy to think of factors such as who is responsible (teachers, parents, school systems, the government?), or of funding issues such as the fact that 23 states spend less on poor schools than on more affluent schools.

Of course all the obvious factors are important. But what about leadership? Not just who is leading the change, but how. Fortunately, when it comes to developing an ideal for effective leadership, there’s no need to invent the wheel. There are several leadership styles that prominent leaders in any school reform movement can choose to embody. Here are five of them:

1. Constructivist Leadership

The theory of social constructivism tells us that social worlds develop out of individuals’ interactions with their culture and society. Putting it simply, every interaction between people is an opportunity to expand one’s knowledge base.

Any educator who wants to apply social constructivism theories to education needs to reframe his point of view. He is no longer a “person who teaches” but is rather a “facilitator of learning.” A good constructivist teacher questions students’ answers, without regard to whether they are right or wrong, to make sure the student has a good grasp of the concept. Additionally, instructors should have their students explain the answers they give and not allow students to use words or equations without explanations. They should also encourage students to reflect on their answers.

Constructivism is by nature a shared experience. Constructivist learning attaches as much meaning to the process of learning as it does to the acquisition of new knowledge. In other words, the journey is just as important as the destination.

2. Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is all about perception. It only works if it is able to influence the follower’s feelings. But when it works, it really works! Charismatic and inspiring, transformational leaders are well versed in the power of language and imagery.

The positive connection between transformational leadership and job satisfaction is so strong, we should almost expect an opposite result in organizations that do not take advantage of this unique leadership style. A leader, such as a principal or dean, who switches to a transformational style needs to understand how she can influence how tasks are perceived among her followers.

Transformational leadership is so powerful that research has shown that transformational leaders are appreciated around the world. Research has also shown that transformational leaders inspire their followers by making them feel like they are autonomous and important to the larger cause.

Although transformational leadership is considered superior, there is one big drawback: a lot of people have a hard time embody the charismatic individual this style requires. No need to worry, though—there are other effective leadership models to consider.

3. Distributed Leadership

Unlike other leadership styles, this model places its focus on tasks rather than on the qualities of the individual leader.

Two are two reasons distributed leadership came into prominence in the first place. First is the highly delicate nature of the “charismatic hero” that is the symbol of transformational leadership. Second of all, school leaders now have to handle tasks of greater complexity. The heroic leader is overrated—it’s the mundane, everyday activities that make the difference.

The interesting thing about distributed leadership is that it already works with how most public entities handle their affairs. Government does, after all, construct a goal that would require both school and non-school actors to distribute their efforts so that they can achieve this goal. This leadership models also works well when different organizations need to cooperate in their work-related goals.

There are a few leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, that are a part of a cultural movement toward considering the role of emotions in motivating people. However, the present focus on distributed leadership has a slightly different focus, one that is geared toward the weakening of traditional logic. Organized social structure, as a result, has given way to a “network culture.”

These new changes also indicate a change in the knowledge economy. We have begun to see a form of “socialism” in education, proven by the use of terms such as “universal education” to symbolize the trend toward viewing education as something other than a market commodity in this age. Governments around the world are set on creating a policy that ensures that literacy is achieved by all. The role of the school leader is therefore shifting from economic management to social management.

4. Invitational Leadership

Created by William Purkey and Betty Siegel, invitational leadership blends several leadership qualities, values, and principles. They described the model as shifting from emphasizing control and dominance to focusing on connectedness, cooperation, and communication.

Invitational leadership aims at “inviting” all interested stakeholders to succeed. It involves sending positive messages to people, making them feel are valued, able, responsible, and worthwhile. The messages are often delivered through the institution’s policies, programs, practices, and physical environments. These are referred to as the five Ps of invitational leadership.

When implemented in the educational setting, the elements of invitational leadership combine to create an environment that is cohesive, efficient, and conducive to learning. Invitational leaders “invite” everyone who has a stake in the success of the school to participate, and synergy is generated as all work toward a common goal.

5. Strategic Leadership

Strategy involves decision-making aimed at shaping the direction of the organization. In a school, creating strategy takes time, three to five years and beyond. Strategy also includes considering broader core issues and themes for development in the school, instead of day-to-day issues.
Strategic leadership defines the vision and moral purpose of the school and translates them into the desired action. In their analysis of data from interviews with leaders possessing high-level strategic skills, Davies, Davies, and Ellison (2005) found that strategic leaders participate in five main activities.

They set the direction of the school and translate their plans into action. They also align the people, the organization, and the strategy. They execute their planned changes at the right time, and they develop strategic capabilities in the school.

If leaders develop strategic abilities, they would achieve more, in the form of a reflective-learning culture in teaching staff, a no-blame problem-solving approach, and a deeper understanding of learning.

What do you think of these five leadership models? Are there better ones? Do you believe we should place an emphasis on leadership style as an important tool in education reform?

References

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by James Burns (1978), and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of James Burns’ work on transformational leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

Just when it seems like most trends are predictable, you find a few that just run against common knowledge and intuition.

Read on to discover five study results that might shock you.

1. Too much homework makes students poor.

Seriously.

This is a finding from Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Gerald K. LeTendre, an education professor at Pennsylvania State University, explains how homework can be economically stressful.

“If we step back from the heated debates about homework and look at how homework is used around the world, we find the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher social inequality.”

The study also found that homework has no correlation to “high academic success.” So just because a teacher assigns it, and the students follow the assignment through to completion, does not automatically indicate that a student will do well.

Staying with that theme, the study shows that if kids receive too much homework, they become sleep deprived and stressed out.

What makes that information worse is that many of the students who may fall under that umbrella are just in elementary school.

2. More college students are getting high—every day.

A new survey released by the University of Michigan shows that marijuana use with college students is on the rise.

“Daily or near-daily marijuana use was reported by 5.9 percent of college students in 2014 — the highest rate since 1980, the first year that complete data was available in the study. This rate of use is up from 3.5 percent in 2007.”

Even for students who only use it socially or just occasionally, there has been an uptick in the numbers.

“The percent of students using marijuana once or more in the prior 30 days rose from 17 percent in 2006 to 21 percent in 2014.”

If this seems like bad news, there is a silver lining attached. College students no longer smoke as many cigarettes as they used to. Just 13 percent of college students said that they smoked a cigarette in the last thirty days.

3. For-profit institutions are the major offender when it comes to student loan debt.

A new report by the Brookings Institute asserts that a good chunk of student loan debt is held by students who attend for-profit institutions.

“The so-called student loan crisis in the U.S. is largely concentrated among non-traditional borrowers attending for-profit schools and other non-selective institutions, who have relatively weak educational outcomes and difficulty finding jobs after starting to repay their loans.”

That’s a fairly significant finding.

Students who attend non-profit private schools or public universities do not face the same debt issue because their job prospects are much higher upon graduation.

“[T]the median borrower from a for-profit institution who left school in 2011 and found a job in 2013 earned about $20,900—but over one in five (21 percent) were not employed; comparable community college borrowers earned $23,900 and almost one in six (17 percent) were not employed.”

The report also finds that students who attend the University of Phoenix hold the most debt. In 2014, students there held over $35 billion dollars in student loan debt.

4. 11 states spend more on prisons than on higher education

According to a new report  by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 11 states spend more money on correctional facilities than public research universities.

Higher education spending didn’t start to fall once the recession started. Funding for higher education in many states begin toppling back in 1990 from 14.6 percent to just 9.4 percent in 2014.

Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Connecticut all failed to make the cut. Each state has a higher budget for jails and prisons than public research universities.

Adjusted for inflation, spending on corrections increased over 140 percent between 1986 and 2013.

Oregon seems to be the worst offender. Less than 5 percent of general fund expenditures are dedicated to higher education but the state spends nearly 15 percent of that money on correctional facilities.

5. Teaching observations performed by submitting a video might be as effective as the traditional in-person observations.

An interesting study released by the Best Foot Forward Project, a part of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University, examines how effective classroom observations may be if conducted by video.

400 teachers from California, Colorado, Delaware, and Georgia participated in a two-year project to analyze if “video technology can make the classroom observation process easier to implement, less costly, and more valid and reliable.”

This has had positive results. After reviewing the video, teachers were more “self-critical” and “rated their own instruction lower than comparison teachers, particularly in terms of time management and their ability to assess student mastery during class.”

But maybe two of the biggest wins from the study were found in the interaction between teachers and their supervisors as well as teachers finding ways to improve.

The study found that “63 percent [of teachers] reported that video was ‘quite helpful’ or ‘extremely helpful’ in identifying areas where they need to improve.”

Regarding teachers and supervisor interaction, the project found that there were “fewer disagreements on the ratings they received and were more likely to describe a specific change in their practice resulting from their post-observation conference.”

Overall, this study was loaded with good and useful information regarding how teachers are observed and the wins received when video is used instead of an in-person observation.

Did any of these results surprise you? What do you think these findings mean for the state of education in our country?

Our society is giving more and more attention to improving student learning.

This expectation has resulted in a growing expectation in some states and districts for principals to be effective instructional leaders. Consider these statistics: nearly 7,000 students drop out of U.S. high schools every day and, every year approximately 1.2 million teenagers leave the public school system without a diploma or an adequate education. There are 2,000 high schools in America in which less than 60% of students graduate within four years after entering ninth grade.

The situation is not much brighter for students who do earn a high school diploma, and enter a two –year or four-year institutions. In community colleges, approximately 40% of freshmen (and approximately 20% in public, four-year institutions) are in need of basic instruction in reading, writing, or mathematics before they can perform in college-level courses.

Principals must advocate for these students and provide leadership to reverse this appalling educational outcome. However, the odds are sometimes stacked against them. Let’s look at some issues principals face in trying to create change, and the solutions that will help them accomplish just that.

1. Many public schools have unworkable school environments.

The failure of many public school districts to provide the working conditions that well-trained principals need to prosper is often a central reason for these ongoing graduation and future preparation issues. By having access to resources and being committed to school reform, principals are able to work with teachers to create school environments that facilitate excellence in learning.

The issues that principals need to work on with teachers include aligning instruction with a standards-based curriculum to provide a good measure of achievement, and improving both student learning and classroom instruction by effectively organizing resources. Principals must use sound hiring practices, ensure professional development is available at their schools, and keep abreast of issues that may influence the quality of teaching in schools.

2. Some school districts don’t have a cohesive agenda for the principal to follow.

While having good leaders in place is crucial, it is not always enough. If principals don’t have supportive work environments for their improvement efforts, then even the most talented and best-trained individuals may be discouraged by the challenges they face on a daily basis. Districts where no major high school improvements have been made don’t have a cohesive agenda for improvement. Such an agenda would specify clear goals, research-based practices, improvement-focused accountability, and strategies to support implementation. In practice, schools without such an agenda can often be characterized by disjointed actions. Many of the principals in such schools report that they are not involved in defining existing instructional issues in their schools.

3. District-level decisions can disempower principals.

The district (or state) makes these decisions, meaning that principals have little ownership of their problems or the proposed solutions to them. They also report having little support or motivation to find solutions, and that they do not feel there is a well-designed system of improvement. Rather, they feel that “improvements” are undertaken in a series of random acts.

When decision-making is shared, leadership roles are redefined at all levels. Principals are supported by district staff members, not blocked by them. District staff members make frequent visits to schools to provide coaching, technical assistance, and staff development. Teachers benefit from continuous professional development; principals have sufficient autonomy and resources to engage and develop staff. Professional development may target groups or individual teachers, and the teachers are given opportunities to work together on curriculum and instruction.

In contrast, many districts focus on educational management instead of educational leadership. The support provided to improve instruction in these districts is not grounded in research on effective teaching. In addition, these districts lack a systemic approach to improvement and fail to provide principals with the guidance and support they require to reform processes and put effective instructional practices into place.

Many principals spend much of their time finding ways to work around the district office, rather than with them. To obtain the support they need, they often decide to avoid hiring protocols and develop “underground” relationships with individual staff in the district office. Supportive district leaders understand the challenging work principals must do, as in many cases they have been successful principals themselves.

4. The best district leaders understand a principal’s challenge and will do what they can to help principals be successful school leaders.

These district leaders support principals’ focus on instruction and acknowledge that priority by publicly focusing on curriculum and instruction in school board and superintendents’ meetings. Rather than micromanaging staff, they routinely involve school and teacher-leaders in developing and using tools such as walk-throughs, pacing guides, and research-based instructional practices.

The best districts have developed a collaborative “lattice” approach between the central office and the school. This entails districts providing good principals with the support they need to enable their schools to succeed. When given the space by the district to focus on improving their schools, principals can then support their teachers to do the same. The focus of districts must be on raising standards and achievement, and improving instruction by supporting and enabling principals to develop their ability as instructional leaders.

What do you think are some challenges principals might face when trying to improve their schools?