Margaret A. Szabo, Grace Hoagland, Linda Lambert, Jose Lopez, Linda .... based professional community (Lieberman 1988, Little 1993, Newmann 1995, Darling- ..... Students will write and present a case story of a leadership project or of an ...
Developing Bold, Socially Responsible Leadership: Strategies for Administrative Preparation Programs
A Paper Presentation for the 2001 AERA Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington April, 2001 Division A: Administration—Leadership Preparation and Professional Development
by The Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership California State University Hayward Margaret A. Szabo Grace Hoagland Linda Lambert Jose Lopez Linda Starnes Jane Stern Barbara Storms Robert Vieth
Developing Bold, Socially Responsible Leadership: Strategies for Administrative Preparation Programs A Paper Presentation for the 2001 AERA Annual Meeting in Seattle Division A: Administration—Leadership Preparation and Professional Development By The Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership California State University, Hayward Margaret A. Szabo, Grace Hoagland, Linda Lambert, Jose Lopez, Linda Starnes, Jane Stern, Barbara Storms, and Robert Vieth
I.
The Problem
The decade’s barrage of policy bromides not withstanding—standards, testing, grade level retention, high school exit exams, holding principals accountable, monetary rewards for improved test scores, class size reduction, teacher peer review—schools are not working. Far, far too many children graduate public schools unprepared to survive—much less to thrive— intellectually, socially, emotionally and ethically in the world of the 21st century. Wave upon wave of national, statewide, and regional studies, testing data, accountability reports, and research results tell us so. Our own experience inside schools and classrooms tells us so. And most importantly, kids tell us so. They tell us in the most eloquent way they possibly could—by their pervasive boredom, minimal engagement, and grudging compliance to “how we do school.” Moreover, to our shame as citizens and educators, the traditional practices and institutional patterns of schooling produce particularly adverse results for students of color. African American, Asian American, Filipino, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander children disproportionately fail to acquire the knowledge and skills they will need to thrive in their contemporary society. Such results are unjust and unjustifiable. We know better. The moral commitments, theory, knowledge, practice, tools, experience, knowhow and expertise exist to educate each and every child to meet high standards—and to close the achievement gap for students of color. The example and results of thousands of skillful, inventive, persistent classroom teachers tell us so. Asa Hilliard, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Pedro Noguera, Edmundo Norte, Lisa Delpit, Louis Miron, Jeff Howard, Enid Lee, and myriad others tell us so. Yet school as we’ve always known it drones on, and on, and on. It’s not that teachers, administrators, districts, school boards, and communities don’t care or aren’t trying. It’s not about California’s under-funding of schools. Rather, it’s about overcoming inertia—the inertia and habits of our culture as a whole, the inertia of a system of schooling designed 130 years ago for wholly different purposes, and the inertia of unquestioned values, beliefs, ideas, and practices about school keeping. It’s about redefining educational leadership as building learning organizations. And—fundamentally—it’s about preparing leaders who are personally centered on core values and beliefs—and who align leadership behavior and school practice in ways that actualize these values in the daily lives of students and teachers.
II.
The Purpose of the Study
As Louis Miron observes, “leadership is the enactment of values” (Miron 1996). Effective leadership means the capacity to co-construct an explicit theory of action—a set of shared goals about students, learning, teaching, and schools; and a companion set of core values about what matters most in the individual and collective pursuit of those goals. Leaders need a compelling, internalized, informed, and defensible set of core values and beliefs about good schools and good school leadership: that is, about knowing each child and family well; about what children should know and be able to do; about educational equity and democracy; about authentic learning, teaching and assessment; and about building professional community, shared purpose, and collective responsibility for results. The central task of leadership preparation and development is supporting participants in the continuous construction, clarification, and alignment of behaviors and practices with passionately held core values. This study is designed to discover and describe approaches and strategies for administrative preparation programs to: 1. Help leaders develop and internalize core values and beliefs about good schools and good school leadership; 2. Support leaders to develop behaviors and practices of leadership consistent with these core values and beliefs; 3. Support leaders in the central task of “purposing”—continually asking and developing clarity about three questions: Who am I? Why am I doing this? and Why am I doing this this way? (Garmston and Wellman 1999)
III.
The Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework which serves as a context and reference point for the study is the formally articulated values, beliefs, and mission of the Department of Educational Leadership (DEL) at California State University Hayward (CSUH). Over the years the department faculty and the Advisory Board have shaped, affirmed, and reaffirmed a set of core values that is both the central goal and primary strategy of educational leadership. This set of values encompasses four dimensions: democratic collaboration; equity and diversity; bold, socially responsible leadership; and critical inquiry and continuous improvement. Drawing upon—and aiming toward—these values, the department’s programs in leadership development are framed around our mission: The mission of the Department of Educational Leadership is to prepare and influence bold, socially responsible leaders who will transform the world of schooling. Our central role is to ignite the leadership capacity needed to create vital, democratic and caring places for powerful teaching and learning. This conceptual framework integrates rich and varied research on the relationships among leadership behaviors, organizational development, constructivist learning theory and pedagogy, and equitable and rigorous learning results. The major strands of research and theory within the department framework begin with the reconception of leadership as constructivist and as grounded in the development of schoolwide leadership capacity. Constructivist leadership is the reciprocal processes that enable participants
in a community to construct meanings leading toward a shared purpose of schooling (Lambert et al. 1995). Leadership capacity is defined as broad-based, skillful participation in the work of leadership (Lambert 1998). This new perspective on leadership emerges from ideas and research findings about constructivist learning theory (Resnick 1987), democratic schools (Glickman 1998), and moral leadership (Sergiovanni 1992, West 1993, Meier 1995, Garmston and Wellman 1999, Fullan 1999). It is driven by a heightened understanding and commitment to educational equity, the value of diversity, and the importance of anti-racist leadership (Hilliard 1991, Howard 1991, Kozol 1992, Johnson 1996). It assumes the efficacy of constructivist pedagogy, authentic teaching, learning and assessment (Brooks 1993, Newmann 1995, Wiggins 1998) in achieving educational equity. And finally, such leadership involves understanding how to foster individual and organizational learning and change (Senge 1990, Fullan 1999) and how to build schoolbased professional community (Lieberman 1988, Little 1993, Newmann 1995, DarlingHammond 1995). These several traditions intertwine and connect as they support a shift away from hierarchical, trait-based conceptions of leadership and toward constructivist leadership and the importance of building leadership capacity within and across the school community. The values, beliefs and mission of the department are built on this fabric of research, theory, and best practice. From within this tradition, this collaborative study aims to discover and describe approaches to the preparation of leaders that: Enable participants to uncover, discover, clarify and alter basic beliefs and paradigms about good schools and good leadership; Support aspiring and practicing school leaders to align leadership behaviors and practice with their clarified and strengthened core values.
IV.
The Method of Inquiry
The design of our collaborative inquiry begins with the proposition that “leadership is the enactment of values” (Miron, 1996). If this is so, then leadership preparation programs must prominantly include approaches that enable participants to clarify and strengthen their values— and to work explicitly at aligning leadership behavior and school practice with these values. Yet most leadership development efforts focus on the transmission of traditional knowledge and skills about management, finance, law, curriculum, teaching, assessment, governance, personnel management, and so forth. Scant attention is given to the role that unexamined, implicit values, beliefs, norms, and patterns of behavior play in supporting the status quo and in obstructing fresh thinking and new approaches to making schools work better for all students. Accordingly, the overarching purpose behind this inquiry is to better define for ourselves and our students what our values are and how we see our values being played out in schools. This means we need a way to define the values that matter most—and we need ways to juxtapose, compare, and align actual, every-day leadership behaviors and school practices with our shared definition. To explore how to accomplish these two tasks, we have planned a three phase inquiry framed around one overarching question and three essential questions. The following table outlines these research questions and illustrates the design of this inquiry:
Department of Educational Leadership, California State University Hayward
Overarching Inquiry Question
How does bold, socially responsible leadership (BSRL) improve schools?
Essential Questions
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Fall 1999 – Fall 2001
Fall 2001 – Fall 2002
Fall 2002 – Fall 2003
What do we mean by BSRL?
Focusing Questions
How do students define BSRL? What actions do we see as defining BSRL? What theories, research, writing, and descriptions of best practices relate to defining BSRL? How does a definition of BSRL help students think about their leadership practice? How useful do students find the definition of BSRL (in the Rubric)
Data Collection Strategies
Individual student written responses Group student written responses Teachers’ written descriptions of activities used Teachers’ written reflections on using the Rubric
Data Analysis Strategies
Individual teachers’ written analysis of data from their own cohort Group reading of written data; discussion; chart consensus patterns, generalizations and reflections about the data.
How do we effectively teach BSRL?
What impact do BSRL skills have on the actions of leaders and schools related to school improvement?
In what ways do we directly connect to our definition of BSRL in our teaching? (readings, processes, actions, assignments, activities, syllabus, goals) How effective do we think our teaching is in relation to BSRL? (multiple measures) How effective do our students think our teaching of BSRL is? (multiple measures)
How do students translate the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind in BSRL into action in their everyday practice? How do students and the CSUH faculty think about school change in relation to BSRL? What links are there between BSRL, student actions, and school improvement?
Individual student written responses Group student written responses Other to be specified through collaboration
Individual student written responses Group student written responses Other to be specified through collaboration
To be specified through collaboration
To be specified through collaboration
From the outset we designed the inquiry to be exploratory, iterative, and collaborative—faculty with faculty, and faculty with students. During Phase I of our inquiry—the subject of this paper—we approached our development work and data collection around the focusing questions in three main segments: 1. The collaborative construction of a shared definition of BSRL in the format of a Rubric of descriptors on a developmental continuum (Fall ’99 to Fall ’00); 2. The use of the Rubric in learning activities with students in our cohorts; (January ’01 to March ’01) and 3. Dialogue, discussion, analysis, summarizing, and writing what were learning—and what we concluded we did learn—about the usefulness of the Rubric as a teaching and learning tool (Fall ’01 to March ’01). The remaining parts of this paper describe what we did and what results we got related to these three segments of inquiry activities. How We Collaboratively Constructed a Shared Definition of BSRL: The Rubric The process of collaborating to develop a definition of BSRL that is shared across all of our programs and cohorts took over a year. The inquiry began in the fall of 1999 with early exploratory efforts by seven cohort groups and their teachers—4 Tier 1 cohorts; 1 M.S. cohort; and 2 Tier 2 cohorts. Participants were asked to talk about what they thought the phrase “BSRL” means. Further, they were asked to describe stories about when they personally engaged in BSRL and additional stories about when they observed other leaders practicing BSRL. From these stories participants were asked to infer the qualities, behaviors and approaches that constitute BSRL. Between October ’99 and April ’00, shared their descriptors and discussed similarities, differences, and overlaps. They then collaborated to construct a single set of descriptors that paint an ideal picture of BSRL. Finally, they began to extrapolate from the ideal picture a sense of what “Emerging” and then “Practicing” BSRL links like. The result was an incomplete, rough continuum comprised of three distinct sets of descriptors of BSRL: Beginning, Emerging, and Integrating. During 1999-2000, each cohort (led by different faculty members) followed roughly the same process and methods; however, variations in the format of the lists and the completeness of the result arose from differences in how each class chose to proceed with the collaborative process. Some class sections wrote only a set of ideal descriptors, while others completed the ideal and beginning sets of descriptors. One cohort wrote the rough draft of the continuum—after reviewing the collected work of the other cohorts. In most cohorts, from November ’99 through the spring quarter of ’00, the language and concepts in the rough continuum became a touchstone and reference point in analyzing problems in real-life practice; in class discussion of readings, case studies, or current issues in leadership; and in learning activities such as site visits, practical, mentor interactions, and collaborative action research. By June of 2000, our analysis of the students’ work on—and response to—using a more concrete definition of BSRL led us to push our inquiry into a more methodical mode. We became explicit about our overarching question and about the Phase I essential question and focusing questions.
Our inquiry activities for the 2000-2001 academic year included: Iterative rounds of input from the new year’s students in Tier 2. A lead faculty member charged with writing successive drafts of a full continuum—a Rubric—of BSRL descriptors; Iterative rounds of faculty discussion, editing, and revision of drafts of the emerging Rubric; A thorough review of literature, research, and best practices related to defining BSRL; and Discussing, sharing, and making plans for each teacher to use the Rubric in their cohort teaching to explore its value and usefulness as a teaching tool. By January, 2001, the department printed a complete draft of the full BSRL Rubric (see Appendix A: A Developmental Rubric of Bold, Socially Responsible Leadership). The Rubric itself, then, is the collaboratively developed answer to the first three focusing questions of Phase I of our inquiry. That is, it includes student definitions of BSRL, draws from a rich tradition of research, writing and best practice (see Appendix B: Introduction to the BSRL Rubric), and describes the actions and behaviors of BSRL that emerged from collaborative work with students from both the ’99-00 and ’00-01 academic years. From January to March, teachers and cohorts used the Rubric as a part of cohort learning activities. How Students and Teachers Used the Rubric: Examples and Materials Individual faculty members made their own plans for using the Rubric with the cohort group they taught. Given that the full draft of the Rubric was not ready until January, 2001, we felt it was essential to introduce and use the Rubric not as an afterthought or add-on, but as a way to make connections to previous, current, and upcoming leadership topics, learning activities, and fieldwork projects. Since each cohort develops a unique pace and personality and tailors learning topics to the particular challenges, needs, and interests of its members, it would have made little sense to prescribe a uniform lesson plan or set of activities for using the Rubric. Accordingly, we agreed that from January to March ‘01, each in our appropriate way, we would: (1) Introduce the idea of a BSRL Rubric and explain the collaborative work the department is doing on it; (2) Create activities and discussion among students about the content of the Rubric, its clarity and substance, its format, and its potential uses; (3) Create one or more opportunities for students to self-assess and reflect on some aspect of their personal leadership as it related to descriptors in the Rubric; (4) Collect written reflections, responses, discussion notes, or worksheets from individuals and/or small groups; (5) Take notes to document student comments, responses and uses of the Rubric from class discussion and small group work. (6) Write a description of the activities used and of impressions and reflections emerging from using the Rubric with students. In accomplishing these general data collection tasks, faculty members took various activity paths and thus collected the agreed upon data in varied formats—ones appropriate to the specific activities and questions employed to engage students in working with the Rubric. At department meetings, faculty members shared their strategies and activities for using the Rubric and any
materials they had created and discussed possible adjustments, alternatives, or extension activities. Appendix C contains descriptions of how the three different programs—Tier 1, Tier 2, and M.S.—used the Rubric and examples of concomitant teaching materials. In early March, department members came together for a day to peruse and analyze the data for Phase I: individual student written responses; written responses from small groups of students; teacher descriptions of uses of the Rubric; teacher reflections and observations about using the Rubric; individual teacher analysis of data from their own cohort. We used the focusing questions from Phase I as initial data “bins”—categories in which to organize common experiences and observations emerging from the data. Through dialogue, discussion, and sharing, we constructed meaning, identified patterns (Yin 1994), and charted common trends (Huberman & Miles 1994) using the inductive approach (Patton 1980). The primary unit of analysis was within-program: Tier 1, Tier 2, M.S. As new patterns emerged, we also analyzed the data cross-program by level of experience of students and by amount of time devoted to using the rubric. The following section of this paper provides the findings about the usefulness of the Rubric as a teaching tool that emerged from this analysis of the data.
References Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993. The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E. and Klein, S. (1995). A License to Teach: Building a Teaching Profession for 21st Century Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York, NY: The New Press. Fullan, M. (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Garmston, R. and Wellman, B. (1999). The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing Collaborative Groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Glickman, C. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hilliard, A. (1991). Getting Smart: The Social Construction of Intelligence. Lexington, MA: Efficacy Institute. Huberman, A. & Miles, M. (1994). “Data Management and Analysis Methods.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Johnson, R. (1996). Setting Our Sights: Measuring Equity in School Change. Los Angeles, CA: The Achievement Council. Kozol, J. (1992). Savage Inequalities. New York: Harper Collins. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lambert, L. (1998). How to Build Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., Cooper, J., Lambert, M., Gardner, M., and Slack, P. (1995). The Constructivist Leader. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Little, J.W. and McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). Teachers’ Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and Contexts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A., ed. (1988). Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Meier, D. (1995). The Power of Their Ideas. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Miron, L. (1996). Resisting Discrimination: Affirmative Strategies for Principals and Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Newmann, F. and Wehlage, G. (1995) Successful School Restructuring. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. Sergiovanni, T. (1992) Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
West, C. (1993). Race Matters. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher. Weissglass, J. (1991). “Teachers Have Feelings: What Can We Do About It?” Journal of Staff Development. 12 (1): 28-33. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Appendix C-1 Descriptions of How Tier 2 Cohorts Used the Rubric and Examples of Class Activities and Supporting Materials Early in the Fall quarter 2000, Tier 2 students from both cohorts began with telling the story of a time when they or someone they observed had shown BSRL. From these stories, small groups of students extracted generalizations about “qualities or behaviors” typical of BSRL. Students then reviewed descriptors developed by last year’s cohorts and/or the draft Rubric emerging from last year’s work and from faculty research and writing this fall. Using their own experiences and a list of qualities from their personal stories—students edited and revised these early Rubric drafts. Their thinking and ideas were included in the January, 2001 first full draft of the Department’s BSRL Rubric. The Contra Costa Tier 2 cohort used the Rubric in January 2001 to do an in-depth selfassessment on each of the components, sharing this assessment with a class partner. Students used the self-assessment to help define areas for field work projects and for non-university learning experiences. In February, students examined the Rubric through the lens of equity and diversity and identified leadership actions and behaviors that promote progress on equitable learning results. The Hayward Tier 2 cohort reviewed the full draft of the Rubric in early February 2001 using individual, small group, and large group processes (see attached examples of T2 activities). In March, individuals used a worksheet chart to make connections between the Rubric Mindscapes and the individual case story of leadership they’re undertaking as part of their fieldwork this year. In areas of the strongest connections, students did a self-assessment by highlighting phrases in the Rubric and writing a reflection on insights gained. For both Tier 2 cohorts, the culminating performance in June 2001 is framed by in-depth reflection and self-assessment of leadership capacity using the five Mindscapes from the Rubric. Students will write and present a case story of a leadership project or of an inquiry. The written project is included in a leadership reflection portfolio organized around selfassessment and connections to the BSRL Rubric (see example). The notebook and case stories will be the focus of the Colloquium in June when individuals share their work and reflections with their mentor and class members, seek feedback, and engage in professional dialogue and critique about current leadership challenges and plans for further growth. See Attached Examples and Supporting Materials
Appendix C-2 Descriptions of How M.S. Cohorts Used the Rubric and Examples of Class Activities and Supporting Materials
The M.S. cohorts studied the five Mindscapes, the impact statements, and the aspects within each Mindscape (see examples of M.S. activities). They used a graphic organizer (attached) to identify and note the ways in which each person’s inquiry project related to each Mindscape. They did a preliminary self-assessment of their overall leadership using the complete Rubric, discussed these subsequently with classmates, and finally wrote an in-depth reflection about their leadership in their collaborative inquiry project. The assignment asked students to explore the ways that selected Mindscapes connected to their inquiry efforts and to their leadership of the inquiry (see example).
See Attached Examples and Supporting Materials
Appendix C-3 Descriptions of How Tier 1 Cohorts Used the Rubric and Examples of Class Activities and Supporting Materials The Leadership Academy Cohort The group used the Rubric for the first time in February ’01 when they took the Rubric home to read it in its entirety to get a feel for the contents. At the subsequent class meeting, individuals worked quietly and seriously for 45 minutes to respond to an individual worksheet. (see example). Then individuals joined a group to work together on a worksheet (see example) focused on one of the five Mindscapes. After 45 minutes of small group work, we had a general sharing session in which individuals reported on discussions and insights for each aspect in the Rubric. Finally, students reviewed the experience with the Rubric by responding to the following questions: Was this a valuable exercise? Which mindscape do you think we have focused on least? Made the most progress on? According to what evidence? Hayward Cohort Students read the Rubric outside of class with the expectation that they would be using the Rubric at the next meeting to help them make a self-assessment on Mindscape #1. At the beginning of the subsequent class, students were introduced to the structure of the Rubric using the same organizer from the M.S. cohort. Then students worked in 5 small groups as they read and discussed the different aspects within Mindscape #1. They circled anything that was unclear. They listed questions, terms or phrases that they didn’t understand, and used each other as resources for clarification. Then students used the Rubric to self-assess, looking for where they would place themselves on the Rubric in one of the aspects of Mindscape #1. In subsequent small group discussion, students addressed the following questions: How had fieldwork helped you progress? What have been some barriers? Examples? How do you see yourself developing further in this area? As a group, how can you best teach this aspect of the Mindscape to the rest of the group? The Contra Costa Cohort Students heard a brief introduction explaining the department’s work and interest in the Rubric and our need for their participation and insight. Brief discussion established the potential value for them as they assess their own progress and needs. For the first assignment, they were asked to read through Mindscape #1, focusing on the impact statement and the “shifts” you may observe as you read across the three columns. Individuals then identified items that correspond to a strength and items they see as an area of need in which to focus future growth and work. For a second assignment, they were asked to write a paragraph reflecting on whatever insights this exercise generated for them. New clarity of awareness or purpose? Surprises? Areas of concern? Be prepared to share your reflections with class colleagues. Did you find this Rubric useful? At the subsequent class, we spent about two hours discussing their responses. See Attached Examples and Supporting Materials
Appendices
Appendix A:
The Rubric for Bold Socially Responsible Leadership
Appendix B:
Introduction to the Rubric
Appendix C:
Description of How Cohorts from Different Programs Used the Rubric and Examples of Activities and Supporting Materials
