Connecting the practitioner and the professor: Establishing a strong professional organization

Pauline M. Sampson

Associate Professor

Superintendent Program Coordinator, IRB Chair

Stephen F. Austin State University

A strong organization such as NCPEA could further its identity by more recruitment of preK-12 educational leaders to join NCPEA. Educational leadership preparation programs strive to develop scholar-practitioners where leaders constantly use current research and best practices to form their decisions.  At the university level, professors develop their own research agendas and these research agendas may be connected to current needs of schools.  Additionally, NCPEA strives to be a forum to guide policy for educational leadership while providing its members opportunities to network.  This helps them keep current on research in educational leadership and publish their research.  This increases the accessibility of their research to both practitioners and other professors.

One way to ensure the success of an organization is to continue increasing its membership. This leads to increased revenue that could be used to conduct the mission of the organization as well as network with people in the same field. Organizations that network and engage their members have a greater chance of continuity.  Organizations also continue to change and evolve to meet the needs of its members for the recruitment of future members.

 

Another way to increase recruitment of new members is to examine the network of current school leaders, who are the practitioners, and involves them with the professors.  Suddaby and Viale (2011) identified one purpose for professionals to network was that they have an understanding of the field and are able to bring along new members to the field that help create new identities for the field. 

Many practitioners may desire to move into the professorate. Networking practicing school administrators with professors to compete research projects can benefit both groups. This combined work helps the school leaders to become stronger scholar-practitioners by providing a better understanding of the need for scholarship at the university level with service, as well as honing their skills as researchers with professors.  The professors are helped by having relevant research while working to develop future potential professors. 

Additionally, this collaboration could assist practitioners to learn more about the career of a professor so they could have a smoother transition should they decide to work at a university (Coleman, Christie, Culver, Erickson, Hunt, Williams, Kinsey, Smith, & Tareilo, 2007; Johnson & De Spain, 2004; Karanovich, 2010; Searby, Ivanlova, & Shores, 2010).  Exposure for practitioners to the expectations of higher education, especially for service and scholarship, could be helped with an early collaboration between school leaders and university faculty (Marshall, Karanovich, & Sampson, 2010).  Holberg and Taylor (2004) focused on the concerns of publications for the profession of English professors with lower opportunities to publish because of fewer book publishers.  Further Holberg and Taylor (2004) suggested the professorate must have a focus on teaching.  I would suggest that reconsideration is also needed for the connection to service.  This service can lead to research published by the professors and their colleagues who may desire movement to the professorate.  This type of connection would continue NCPEA’s engagement with practitioners while increasing a focus on the use of research by practitioners.

References

Coleman, J. C., Christie, E., Culver, M. K., Erickson, D. E., Hunt, J. W., Williams, F. K., Kinsey, G. W., Smith, S. J., & Tareilo, J. (2007). The transition from practitioner to professor: The struggle of new faculty to find their place in the world of academia.  NCPEA Educational Leadership Review, 8(2), 65-76.

Holberg, J. L ., & Taylor, M. (2004). Editors’ introduction: Getting the profession we want, or a few thoughts on the crisis in scholarly publishing.  Pedagogy, 4(1), 1-7.

Johnson, J. A., & DeSpain, B. C. (2004). Mentoring the reluctant writer. The Professional Educator, 26(2), 45-55.

Karanovich, F. (2010). Transitioning from the Superintendent’s Chair to the Professor’s Podium: A Narrative of Personal Reflections. In Michael Afolayan (Ed.), Multiculturalism in the Age of the Mosaic: Essays in Honor of Rudolph G. Wilson. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 

Marshall, R. L., Karanovich, F. A., & Sampson, P. M. (2010).  From practitioner to professor: The impact of mentor programs on the success of PK-12 practitioners entering higher education.  Paper presented at the National Council for Professor of Educational Administration in Washington, D. C.  August 2-6, 2010.

Searby, L. J., Ivankova, N. V., & Shores, M. L. (2009). Capable, contributing, and connected: New professors find support through a peer learning community. Learning Communities Journal, 1(2), 97-119.

Suddaby, R., &Viale, T. (2011). Professionals and field level change: Institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59(4), 423-442.

Departments of Educational Leadership- a Natural Home for the Development of Teacher Leadership Programs

Caryn Wells

Associate Professor

Education Specialist Program Coordinator

Oakland University

         Executive Board members of the NCPEA are drafting a position paper that has as its foundation, the belief that departments of Educational Leadership are uniquely positioned to offer programs in Teacher Leadership to benefit teachers as well as aspiring and practicing administrators. We take this stand for several important reasons, illustrated here in the April Talking Points blog. I write on behalf of my colleagues who are working with me to develop the paper that will be delivered at the annual meeting in Kansas City in August of 2012. This blog contains some preliminary considerations, generated to initiate conversation and reflection among the members of our organization in advance of our meeting.

     Why teacher leadership, why now, and why Educational Leadership departments?

      In schools across America, principals are faced with mounting pressure to develop instructional programs that will increase student achievement for every student during periods of diminished funding and increased visibility in the public eye (Hess & Kelly, 2007; Kafka, 2009; Louis, et al., 2010; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The job of educational leaders has described as being “a job too big for one,” as Grubb and Flessa (2006) reported in the title of their study (p.518).  Opportunities for partnership in the leadership of schools are within the buildings of the school- the obvious insights, expertise, and skills of the teachers. Teacher leadership is associated with the possibility of improving student achievement and a sense of change in the culture of the schools to promote teaching learning and collaboration (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Mujis & Harris, 2003: York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

     University preparation programs are faced with challenge and opportunity to prepare aspiring and practicing leaders to fulfill the expectations that will transform educational environments for social justice, where every student achieves and thrives. Calls for pedagogic leadership in the training of principals are emerging in the literature (NCPEA, in press). The pedagogic leadership that is the foundation for administrative leadership training has a natural home in the preparation of teacher leaders. For example:

·         

           Departments of Educational Leadership have, at their foundation, instructional leadership constructs that teach the theoretical underpinnings of teaching and learning;

·         Teacher Leadership programs demand skill development in principles of leadership- professors of Educational Leadership programs teach how the political, structural, symbolic, and human resource frames intersect in a school (Bolman & Deal, 2004);

·              Professors of Educational Leadership programs are able to teach the process of the changes inherent in the transformation to include teachers as leaders, including teaching skills that respond to conflict and resistance; these skills are often taught by professors who have been practitioners in educational leadership roles;

·            Teacher leadership preparation must move beyond concepts of efficiency, research, collaboration, and study of school culture to include social justice as a foundation for improving schools for every student, concepts taught by Ed Leadership departments; and

·             The deliberate naming of teacher leadership programs suggests that it is about leadership, concepts for which professors of Educational Leadership have been trained, and are involved in as leaders in scholarship, teaching, and service.

     I invite your feedback about the development of Teacher Leadership programs as part of the Educational Leadership departments in universities. We are preparing principals and central office administrators who will be the partners with teachers in new leadership structures.

      We are at a crossroads with regard to program development and implementation of Teacher Leadership programs. Along with colleagues from the Executive Board of NCPEA, I submit that is time for us to take an important lead in conversation, implementation, and research concerning Teacher Leadership. We look forward to your feedback for the same.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4^th Ed. ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468- 503. doi: 10.1177/0013161X03255561

Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518-550. doi: 10.1177/0013161x06290641

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. K. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-174.

Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 318-320. Doi: 10.1080101619560902973506

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009) Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders, (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Louis, K. S., Wahlstom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M. Thomas, E., Leithwood, K., Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report to the Wallace Foundation. The University of Minnesota.

Mujis, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership- improvement through empowerment?: An overview of the literature. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 31(4), 437-448. doi: 10.1177/0263211030314007

Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21^st century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 4(3), 255-316. 

NCPEA Policy Brief

Principal and Superintendent Advice Improving Educational Leadership Programs: Will It Improve or Hinder Increased Student Achievement?

Thomas A. Kersten

Professor Emeritus

Roosevelt University

Chicago/Schaumburg, Illinois

            One of the greatest challenges principals and superintendents face is increasing student achievement. Today, educational stakeholders demand that school leaders demonstrate the requisite knowledge and skills necessary to improve teaching and learning. No longer is it sufficient for administrators to merely talk a good game. School leaders must show results.

            At the same time, educational administration professors are themselves under increased scrutiny regarding the effectiveness of their principal and superintendent preparation programs. Even some of our nation's most well known educational leaders have questioned the effectiveness of administrative preparation programs in preparing administrators to lead school improvement and increase student achievement (Darling-Hammond, et. al., 2007; Levine, 2005). These criticisms, though, raise an important question that both school administrators and professors of educational administration cannot ignore. Are our educational leadership programs truly providing school leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve schools and increase student achievement?   

            An answer to this question may be partially embedded in recent studies of principals' and superintendents' perceptions of the efficacy of educational leadership preparation programs. When asked how they would improve educational leadership programs, a substantial number of principals and superintendents were quick to offer the advice. They recommended that professors focus more pragmatic concerns and real school experiences, especially related to improving student performance. They suggested that professors place less emphasis on theory, which is not clearly linked to helping administrators improve their schools. In addition, they encouraged professors to spend more time in schools to develop a deeper understanding of how successful principals and superintendents make a difference. They cautioned them to resist the temptation to isolate themselves from the day-to-day realities of school leadership by becoming university-bound (Hunt, Watkins, Kersten & Tripses, 2011; Kersten, Trybus & White, 2010).

            This advice raises important issues that educational administration professors should consider if they truly want to partner with school administrators and contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning. Professors must ask themselves if they have the knowledge necessary to advise administrators on how to improve student achievement. If not, they must become achievement experts not only at the theoretical but also implementation level. If they do not, administrators will choose to look elsewhere for this expertise. Second, professors must focus on developing a true understanding of what educational leadership means at the building and district levels, especially if they have never administered schools or have not done so recently. This will require them to place a priority on connecting with administrators and teachers onsite rather than merely as part of research studies or course instruction. Once they heed this advice, educational leadership professors will open the doors to true partnerships with school administrators. They will then be in a position to work collaboratively to improve our nation's schools and increase student achievement.

References

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPoint, M., Meyerson, D., Orr., M, & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Available from http://seli.stanford.edu

Hunt, J., Watkins, S., Kersten, T., & Tripses, J. (2011). Restructuring (retooling) superintendent leadership programs to enhance district leadership. Educational Leadership Review Special Issue: Portland Conference, 12(3), 43-48.

Kersten, T., Trybus, M., & White, D. (2010). Administrative internships: Considering principals’ voice from the field. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. 5(1). Retrieved February 8, 2010 from http://ijelp.expressacademic.org

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.

White, D. L., & Kersten., T. A. (2010). Improving administrative internship programs:Recommendations from secondary school principals. School Leadership Review, 6(1), 133-126.

PRESIDENTIAL WELCOME: 21^ST Century Leadership Challenges

to be Unveiled In Kansas City

JOIN US! UPLOAD YOUR PROPOSALS BY MARCH 30, 2012

            Over 300 professors and educators will convene at NCPEA’s annual summer conference in Kansas City, Missouri, August 7-10, 2012. Kansas City is a cosmopolitan, vibrant, creative, down-to-earth place. Did you know that the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts is now open?—this new center in the downtown area is already heralded for its music, opera, theater, and dance. In this inspiring setting we will gather to work and play, and to discuss 21^st century leadership challenges that span such important topics as social justice and competition.

We are excited to spend time with you in deeply important dialogue about such crucial issues as the neoliberal assault on public education and what Diane Ravitch has called the “Billionaire Boys Club” comprised of Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and John Walton who are pursuing an agenda that de-professionalizes educational leadership, privatizes the public trust, and imposes an anti-democratic corporate agenda for America’s public schools using test scores as leverage to point to the alleged “failure” of current structures and leaders to deliver quality education.

            The Kansas City conference promises to lift the veil on the neoliberal platform and to expose such political dynamics that hold us back. We will seek new ways forward as an academic group of practical pedagogues and activists that wants to see beyond the veil to what is possible and good as a future-minded social justice community.

            If you are interested in learning more, my article in NCPEA’s Education Leadership Review of October 2010 is available at the NCPEA’s Connexions website as well. Check it out and join us in Kansas City to continue the conversation and share what’s on your mind. See you there!

Fenwick W. English, NCPEA President

R. Wendell Eaves Senior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership

School of Education

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

Teacher Unions: Dying dinosaurs or co-drivers of Democratic Decision Making?

A.    William Place

Director of Doctoral Studies and Associate Professor 

Department of Educational Leadership

The University of Dayton

Ohio’s governor and state legislators believed the time had come to move past employee unions, signing legislation which would have effectively done away with unions for teachers, police, firefighters and other public employees in the state.  However, the voters signed a petition to have the law placed on the ballot and it was defeated 61 percent to only 39 percent. While many administrators felt Ohio’s law is too favorable to unions and was in need of some revisions, the attempt to totally do away with unions went too far.  New Jersey also has moved to limit the unions in terms of pensions and healthcare benefits.  Other states appear to be taking similar steps Olson (2011) notes “many states have taken swift action to limit the power of organized labor in public schools.  Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Idaho and Michigan were the first, and Tennessee added itself to the list” (para. 3). 

Personally, I find this to be incongruent with concepts of empowerment and democratic leadership that many educational leadership programs espouse.  Murphy (2002) proposed reculturing the field using “three key concepts that provide new anchors for the profession—school improvement, democratic community, and social justice” (p. 66).  Furman and Starratt (2002) place even more emphasis on the concept when they note,

In considering democratic community as the center for educational leadership, we make these claims:

·         Democratic community is not a “marginalizing center for the field because it is based on acceptance and appreciation of difference.

·         Democratic community “recultures the profession” by focusing on what leadership is for—serving the common good in a multicultural society and world.

·         Democratic community is the most appropriate focus for school leadership in the “postmodern” world of diversity, fragmentation and cross-nationalism.  p. 129

Furman and Sheilds (2005) caution that “democratic community is an ideal, a moral purpose toward which educators strive, one that is never fully realized; thus, democratic community is not a specific structure to be reified, defined, reduced, observed, and replicated” (p. 120).  These conceptualizations of democratic community would move educational leadership far from the traditional authoritarian approach used in schools for most of the 20^th century (the approach which these movements to kill teacher unions seem to be reverting).

While these scholars of educational leadership do not address the role of teacher unions, I find it hard to imagine a real democratic community without an important formal structure involving unions.  Employees must have a voice in the work place.  I believe there is an important place for unions as we forge a new way for education in the twenty first century.  Some have suggested that the role of unions should evolve.  For example, Barnett Berry (2011) states “unions must be transformed into results-oriented guilds in which teaching and learning are paramount” (p. xiv).

Teachers have a long history of caring deeply about students and the teacher unions, despite what their critics claim have often, but not always demonstrated that they are focused on improving education for all children.  Administrators get frustrated when traditional negations seem to move us away from improving education for all children, but that, I argue, would be a reason to push for alternatives to traditional barraging, rather than doing away with teacher associations altogether.

References

Berry, B. & the TeacherSolutions 2030 Team.  (2011).  Teaching 2030.  New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Furman, G. C., & Shields, C. M. (2003, April). How can educational leaders promote and support social justice and democratic community in schools? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Furman, G. C. & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools. In J. Murphy (Ed.),  The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21^st Century (pp. 105-133).  Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.   

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.  In J. Murphy (Ed.),  The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21^st Century (pp. 65-82).  Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

K Olson.  (2011, June 5).  Tennessee trumps Wisconsin:  Kills teacher collective

bargaining. Dead. [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2011/06/05/tennessee-trumps-

wisconsin-kills-teacher-collective-bargaining-dead/

Please share your thoughts on how educational leaders might best support democratic communities and should there be a structured role for teacher unions.* Please participate in the poll below. Thank you!
Are teachers unions*

Increasing Professors' Voice in Policy Debate