What is school-based management?

- Book Launch: School-Based Management:

Concepts and Evidence
School-based management (SBM) is the - What is School-Based Management? (pdf,
849KB). 2007
decentralization of levels of authority to the school What Do We Know About School-Based
-
level.  Responsibility and decision-making over Management? (pdf, 797KB). 2007
- Impact Evaluation for School-Based
school operations is transferred to principals, teachers, Management Reform
parents, sometimes students, and other school - Toolkit: Guiding Principles for Implementing
School-based Management Programs
community members.  The school-level actors,
however, have to conform to, or operate, within a set
of centrally determined policies.

SBM programs take on many different forms, both in

terms of who has the power to make decisions as well as the degree of decision-making
devolved to the school level.  While some programs transfer authority to principals or
teachers only, others encourage or mandate parental and community participation, often in
school committees (sometimes known as school councils).  In general, SBM programs
transfer authority over one or more of the following activities: budget allocation, hiring and
firing of teachers and other school staff, curriculum development, textbook and other
educational material procurement, infrastructure improvement, setting the school calendar to
better meet the specific needs of the local community, and monitoring and evaluation of
teacher performance and student learning outcomes.  SBM also includes school-development
plans, school grants, and sometimes information dissemination of educational results
(otherwise known as ‘report cards’).

Starting in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, SBM programs
have been implemented and are currently being developed in a number of countries,
including Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Kenya, Kyrgyz
Republic, Nepal and Paraguay.  The programs lay along a continuum of the degree to which
decision-making is devolved to the local level.

The goals of programs vary, though they typically include:

(i) increasing the participation of parents and communities in schools,

(ii) empowering principals and teachers,
(iii) building local level capacity, and, perhaps the most importantly,
(iv) improving quality and efficiency of schooling, thus raising student achievement levels. 

Why is school-based management important?

Advocates of SBM assert that it should improve educational outcomes for a number of
reasons.  First, it improves accountability of principals and teachers to students, parents and
teachers.  Accountability mechanisms that put people at the center of service provision can go
a long way in making services work and improving outcomes by facilitating participation in
service delivery, as noted in the World Bank’s 2004 World Development Report, Making
Services Work for Poor People.  Second, it allows local decision-makers to determine the
appropriate mix of inputs and education policies adapted to local realities and needs.

Impact of school-based management

Evaluations of SBM programs offer mixed evidence of impacts.  El Salvador’s Educo
program gives parent associations the responsibility for hiring, monitoring and dismissing
teachers.  In addition, the parents are also trained in school management, as well as on how to
help their children with school work.  Despite rapid expansion of Educo schools, education
quality was comparable to traditional schools.  In fact, parental participation was considered
the principal reason for Educo’s success (Jimenez and Sawada 1999).  Nicaragua’s
Autonomous School Program gives school-site councils – comprised of teachers, students
and a voting majority of parents – authority to determine how 100 percent of school resources
are allocated and authority to hire and fire principals, a privilege that few other school
councils in Latin America enjoy.  Two evaluations found that the number of decisions made
at the school level contributed to better test scores (King and Ozler 1998; Ozler 2001). 
Mexico’s compensatory education program provides extra resources to disadvantaged rural
primary schools and all indigenous schools, thus increasing the supply of education. 
However, the compensatory package has several components.  If one breaks the intervention
up in its multiple components, then it is shown that empowering parent associations seems to
have a substantial effect in improving educational outcomes, even when controlling for the
presence of beneficiaries of Mexico’s large and successful conditional cash transfer program
(Oportunidades, formerly Progresa).  This is strong evidence of the positive effects of
decentralizing education to the lower levels (Gertler, Patrinos and Rubio forthcoming). 
Various evaluations of SBM programs in the United States have found evidence of decreased
dropout and student suspension rates but no impact on test scores.

References

 Jimenez, E. and Y. Sawada. 1999.  “Do Community-Managed Schools Work?  An

Evaluation of El Salvador’s EDUCO Program.”  The World Bank Economic Review
13 (3): 415-41.
 King, E. and B. Ozler. 1998.  “What’s Decentralization Got to do with
Learning?  The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.”  Working Paper on
Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.
 Ozler, B. 2001.  “Decentralization and Student Achievement: The Case of
Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.”  Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of
Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.
 Gertler, P.,   H.A. Patrinos and M. Rubio-Codina.  Forthcoming.  “Do Supply-Side-
Oriented and Demand-Side-Oriented Education Programs Generate Synergies? The
Case of CONAFE Compensatory Program and .”OPORTUNIDADES Scholarships
in Rural Mexico

NCBE Program Information Guide Series, Number 5, Summer 1991

SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT: WHAT

BILINGUAL AND ESL PROGRAM DIRECTORS
SHOULD KNOW
Denise McKeon; Lynn Malarz
INTRODUCTION

This paper outlines the forces which have influenced the school based management
movement as it stands today, examines the process of change as a key factor in the
implementation of school based management, discusses how the roles (and changes in roles)
of key personnel and key players shape the design and implementation of school based
management, and describes the steps that bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL)
project directors must take to ensure the continued viability of instructional programs that
serve limited English proficient (LEP) students in contexts where school based management
is practiced.

Significant educational improvement of schooling, not mere tinkering, requires that we focus
on entire schools, not just teachers or principals or curricula or organizations or school-
community relations but all of these and more." (Goodlad, 1984, p. xvi)

With these words, Goodlad and others concerned with the quality of American schooling
(Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986; Marburger, 1985; Sizer, 1984)
signaled the beginning of the school based management movement. It should be noted that
school based management is not a new idea. Its antecedents may be found in the demands for
decentralization and community control of schools in the 1960s (Cunningham, 1971) and the
school-site budgeting plans of the 1970s (David, 1989). In 1990, however, school based
management has emerged in response to evidence that our educational system is not working,
and that strong central control contributes greatly to this fact. The definition of school based
management revolves around the central theme of moving the decision-making process closer
to those educators the decisions will ultimately affect. Marburger (1985, p. xi) sees school
based management as a "decentralized form of organization, in which decisions are made by
those who know and care most about the quality of education students receive-the principal,
teachers, parents and citizens, and the students themselves."

Lindelow (1981) defines school based management as a system of educational administration

in which the school is the primary unit of educational decision-making. David (1989, p. 3)
states that "the backbone of school based management is the delegation of authority from
district to schools." Clune and White (1988) report that school based management appears to
be a superior blend of autonomy and accountability characterized by increased school
decentralization, flexibility, and shared decision-making.

These general definitions represent a broad theme which runs throughout the implementation
of school based management, but they do not convey the breadth and depth of diversity seen
in various school based management designs.

SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT IN THE 1990S: HOW DID WE GET HERE?

The report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, issued in 1983, was the
first of a series of critical reports on public schooling in the United States. A Nation At Risk:
The Imperative for Educational Reform contained an open letter to the American people
which described the educational foundations of this country as being "eroded by a rising tide
of mediocrity." In an attempt to discover ways to stem that tide, policymakers began
examining the research which described schools that seemed to be operating effectively. This
effective schools research (Brookover and Lezotte, 1979; Purkey and Smith, 1982) was
generally characterized by listings of features that all effective schools seemed to exhibit (i.e.,
strong leadership on the part of the principal, high expectations for all students). Many
schools planned and began to carry out reform efforts using the effective schools research to
guide them. This move toward school improvement began at the single school level, largely
ignoring the central office and bypassing the local school board (Lieberman and Miller, 1981;
Neale, Bailey and Ross, 1981). School improvement tended to be seen as a series of
"prescriptions" which if administered in correct doses would result in more effective schools
(D'Amico, 1982). As school improvement efforts became more seasoned, both researchers
and policymakers began to realize that creating an effective school requires the leadership,
collaboration, and support of the school board and the central office, as well as change at the
whole-school level (Lezotte, 1989). School based management appears to be a marriage of
the findings of effective schools research and the lessons learned from the early school
improvement movement. Today, school based management requires that school improvement
begin with whole-system change. This is generally characterized by three elements: a
restructuring of personnel roles, the decentralization of three critical elements of schooling
(the budget, the curriculum, and the selection of staff), and shared decision-making. Changes
in any of these three elements will ultimately affect the implementation of ESL and bilingual
programs as well.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DISTRICT MOVES TO SCHOOL BASED

MANAGEMENT?

The successful restructuring of a school district to a school based management system has, in
general, been initiated through a careful examination of the notion of such a change and its
potential impact. Some of the most frequently used change models are presented below.

Most school districts begin by restructuring key personnel roles such as those of the
superintendent, central office staff, the principal, and the faculty. The role played by parents
and community members in making critical decisions is also modified and, in most cases,
greatly enhanced (Clune and White, 1988).

Increased parental and community involvement is often accomplished through the

establishment of school site councils (also known as school based management councils).
These councils operate on a school campus level. Their membership, which may vary from
district to district, generally consists of the principal, faculty representatives, parent
representatives, community members, and support staff representatives. Many school site
councils also include student members. Membership on a school site council is determined by
either election; appointment by the principal, faculty council, or other existing groups such as
the PTA; or volunteerism.

The function of the school site council is to govern the school; it determines program
priorities and allocates the school's budget accordingly. Responsibilities of the school council
may also include development of a school improvement plan, assessment of the effectiveness
of the school, negotiation with teachers on the goals of the school's educational plan, and
personnel selection (Clune and White, 1988).

Because these "mainstream" role changes have a significant impact on school governance, in
general, and may have a significant impact on the implementation of bilingual and ESL
programs, it is important to understand the ways in which roles change. Some general
characteristics of key role changes will also be discussed in this section.

Initiating School Based Management: The Process of Change

The ultimate power to change is-and always has been-in the heads, hands, and hearts of the
educators who work in the schools...Decisions must be made where the action is (Sirotnik
and Clark, 1988, p. 33)

Over the last few years a plethora of research has emerged on the topic of change in
education and its linkage to school based management (Fullan, 1982; Hord, Rutherford,
Huling-Austin and Hall, 1987). We now know a great deal about how schools can be
changed, how ownership can be shifted, and how those responsible for decision-making can
be made part of the process of change.

Authors on planned change in education point to a variety of considerations seen to be

important for change to be successful. These are expressed in several different models of
change. School districts considering a shift to school based management generally explore
these models, adapting them to meet local standards and conditions.

One of the best known strategies for change is Organizational Development (OD). OD had its
beginnings in business settings and, in the late 1960s, was adapted for use in schools
(Schmuck, Runkel, Arends and Arends, 1977). The focus of change for OD is the group(s),
not the individual. OD views schools as systems of people working interdependently,
eventually moving into collaboration with other sets of individuals. Successful
implementation of OD is dependent on strong support from top management and building
principals, the guidance of trained and skilled OD consultants and the dedication of sufficient
time by school staff to OD work (about 160 hours would be an appropriate amount of time
for the first year in a moderately large school) (Schmuck, et al., 1977).

A second model of change is presented in the Rand Change Agent Study (Berman and
McLaughlin, 1977). The Rand study examined four federally-funded "change agent
programs" between 1973 and 1977. The first phase of the study examined initiation and
implementation of the projects; the second phase focused on incorporation and continuation
of innovative educational practices. Successful implementation efforts were characterized by
constant planning to adapt a change to a local setting, extensive staff training, and a "critical
mass" of innovators who provided support for the project and for one another (Hall and Hord,
1987). Implementation outcomes depended on such internal factors as organizational climate,
motivation of participants, implementation strategies, and the scope of the change. In terms of
organizational climate, the active support of the principal was central. In addition, the Rand
study suggested that the process of adapting an innovation to local conditions was critical to
the successful implementation of the change (Berman and McLaughlin, 1977).

A third highly regarded and frequently used model of change is the Concerns Based Adoption
Model (CBAM) (Hord and Loucks, 1980). The CBAM was designed to provide an
understanding of the dynamics of the target audience's perceptions of change. This
understanding helps change facilitators (i.e., persons trying to effect change) adjust the form
and function of their interventions so that the audience receives timely information and
assistance that they perceive to be relevant and useful (Hall and Hord, 1987). Specific
conclusions emerged from an initial study of the CBAM which form the basis of this change
model (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin and Hall, 1987, pp. 5-6):

1. Change is a process, not an event;

2. Change is accomplished by individuals;
3. Change is a highly personal experience;
4. Change involves developmental growth;
5. Change is best understood in operational terms; and
6. The focus of change facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and the context
in which change will take place.

Finally, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), cited in Hall and Hood(1987), suggest that the
perceived attributes of the innovation itself affect its adoption; it is defined from the adopters'
point of view and is organized into five categories:

1. Relative Advantage. If the innovation is perceived as having a relative advantage over

present practice it is more likely to be adopted.
2. Compatibility. Innovations that are compatible with current practice are more likely to
be adopted.
3. Complexity. Innovations that are perceived as complex or difficult tend to be adopted
at a slower rate.
4. Trialability. If one or more components of an innovation can be tried out, the
innovation is seen as less risky; trialability, therefore, produces higher adoption rates.
5. Observability. The more observable features and benefits of an innovation are, the
more likely the innovation is to be adopted.

From the literature on change and innovation, it is clear that any attempt to implement school
based management must carefully consider its introduction, adoption, and eventual
institutionalization. School based management not only proposes change which concentrates
on such visible forms of innovation as instruction or school climate, but also proposes change
which affects deep patterns of school culture and the mind-sets which underlie everyday
behavior and functioning in many school systems. Cuban (1984) refers to these more
complex changes as "second order" changes which require the transformation of the basic
character or identity of public education as it functions today. Second order changes require a
"fundamental renegotiation of cherished myths and sacred rituals by multiple constituencies":
parents, citizens, local politicians, teachers, staff, administrators, and students. "The entire
community must reweave or reshape the symbolic tapestry that gives meaning to the
educational process, and this takes time" (Deal, 1990). For school districts to avoid initial
failure in their restructuring efforts, they must manage change by offering intervention
strategies. The first step in offering such strategies requires that districts remember that
individuals will be in charge of making the switch to school based management. Because of
this individual involvement, all terms and end results must be explicitly defined. (What is
meant by school improvement, restructuring, and site-based management? Do some staff
members see school based management as school improvement?) Since these terms will
influence important decisions about the quality of education within schools, individuals
involved in school restructuring (including ESL and bilingual program directors) must insist
that all terms be clearly defined.

Shifts in Key Personnel Roles

In addition to examining and implementing various models of change, school districts often
begin the restructuring process by modifying many "classic" personnel roles. From the
superintendent down, roles are inevitably altered to provide those closest to the students with
a stronger voice in the decision-making process. While this modification is certainly the most
characteristic change of school based management, it is also one of the most problematic.
Key players must substitute new skills, attitudes, and behaviors for those to which they have
grown accustomed. Changes in roles do not come easily; yet school based management
cannot succeed without them.

The Superintendent

...a superintendent cannot embrace this more democratic form of leadership without
undergoing significant role changes. (Ingwerson, 1990, p. 11)

In this time of innovation in education as districts move toward school based management,
the job of the superintendent is an especially difficult one. In most cases, however, it is the
superintendent who initiates school based management.

Currently most school systems operate under highly centralized forms of management. The
superintendent serves as the chief executive officer of the Board of Education with
responsibility for executing board policy. Under school based management, the "top-down"
hierarchical authority of the superintendent and central office staff is replaced with a
"bottom-up" approach built on shared decision-making (Curran, et al., 1990). For a district to
successfully initiate and maintain school based management, the superintendent must support
the innovation, develop mechanisms which facilitate implementation (such as school based
budgeting), and provide the leadership needed for change.

Superintendents in this new era must become good listeners. They must learn not only to give
up some power, but also to cope with the notion of shared decision-making in which
principals, teachers, and parents assume decision-making responsibility and control. They
must also learn to collaborate with other district leaders.

Central Office Staff

"The changes have required me to be a creative problem solver, a coalition builder, and an
entrepreneur." (Delehant, 1990, p .16)

Depending on the size of the district, a varying number of central office staff members hold
assorted titles and perform more or less specialized functions: curriculum specialists, special
project directors (such as bilingual or ESL program directors), special services personnel
such as Speech and Language Specialists and Special Education personnel, the Personnel
Department, and the Business Office staff. Traditionally, central office has controlled a large
number of decisions made on behalf of those in any given system.

Decisions on budgeting and the allocation of funds have usually been placed in the hands of a
business manager whose role has become solely that of a fiscal agent. The business manager
has been described as a "money manager.., a protector of district funds with a ready negative
response to every request" (Prasch, 1990). Functions most likely to be centralized are usually
assigned to the business manager. For this reason, the business manager tends to gather
power and have the most difficulty playing the power-sharing role required under school
based management. The role of the business manager in a school based management system
shifts to that of enabler, one who shares fiscal data so that school site managers can stretch
their dollar resources.

The personnel director must also play a role that enables others to take part in the decision-
making process of staff recruitment and selection. Under a centralized school system, the
personnel director had a strong hand in hiring staff at the school site. In a school based
management system, however, some of this responsibility for hiring shifts to the school site
manager, while the personnel director must assume a larger role in creating better selection
and interviewing procedures throughout the district. The personnel director becomes a
resource for those sites in need of personnel by maintaining a comprehensive list of qualified
applicants, current vacancies and results of exit interviews conducted with staff and faculty
members leaving the school district. The Personnel Department becomes a storehouse of
current research on effective personnel management practices, thus allowing managers of
individual school sites to access the information they need to perform effectively in personnel
matters.

Subject matter specialists and special program personnel (like ESL and bilingual program
personnel) have long operated out of a centrally-based office. Frequently, teachers in such
programs who work in one or more schools report to a central office director. Central office
programs have been seen as a way of providing highly specialized instructional assistance to
small numbers of students in a cost-effective way. They have also been seen as a way of
providing specialized subject-matter resources to the general population of teachers and
students. Frequently, principals of schools where specialized programs are placed have
neither the desire nor the ability to provide instructional direction or control to either the
teachers or the programs. Therefore, central office placement of the program has been seen as
a way of providing support and leadership to teachers working in highly specialized areas of
instruction.

However, this central office placement of instructional programs often created problems. In
the worst of scenarios, small "instructional islands" sprang up. These instructional islands had
the effect of separating the program, the teachers, and the students from the rest of the
instruction occurring in the school. Principals, feeling that they had no control over the
programs, often abandoned them. This often had the effect of creating a "we vs. they" outlook
throughout the school. Vital programs specifically designed to remedy highly specialized
instructional problems faced by the schools often languished without the principal's support.

In school based management, central office programs and instructional specialists can play a
unique role in the life of a school. By encouraging the principal to serve as an instructional
leader and facilitator for all students, and by holding him/her accountable for doing so, school
based management offers central office instructional staff the opportunity to become sought-
after resources. Since the perceived need for central office instructional programs and the
perceived expertise of central office instructional personnel influence the degree of leverage
achieved in any given school, central office-based program staff must work hard to integrate
their programs into a whole-school setting.

The Principal

... "sharing the role of change agent within the school was downright frightening, counter to
my ego, and extremely uncomfortable." (Daniels, 1990, p. 23)
The traditional role of the principal has included supervising instruction, ensuring the safety
and productivity of students and staff, maintaining the building, and promoting positive
school and community relations (Marburger, 1985). Principals set the tone for the educational
climate in the school, the school's openness to the community, and the quality of teaching. In
this, they functioned autonomously. They made the most of the critical decisions affecting the
operation of their school and were not accountable to others (Curran, et al., 1990).

The growing centralization of many school systems resulted in principals becoming part of a
long chain of command which included the superintendent, assistant superintendents, area
superintendents, business managers, and central office program directors and specialists such
as bilingual and ESL program personnel. As Marburger (1985) points out, principals no
longer had significant input in collective bargaining negotiations. They were often presented
with a budget under which they had to operate with little or no flexibility. They often had
little discretion in the selection of personnel. They were frequently required to go through
formidable channels in order to obtain building repairs and services. Curriculum may have
been dictated to them.

Principals who have gone through the change to school based management seem to agree that
the move to shared decision-making is a process, not an event. As Daniels (1990, p. 23)
points out, it is "not a quick fix for all of public education's ills." However, school based
management does offer many positive benefits, giving principals the necessary vehicle for
improving education at the school site.

In school based management, the principal's new role is that of change facilitator. The
principal creates a climate that conveys participatory management in which other
stakeholders (teachers, custodians, food workers, parents, etc.) feel that they share
responsibility for all aspects of school life, including budget, discipline, textbook adoption,
and cafeteria food.

The principal serves on a school council which includes parents, teachers, and often students.
These individuals are no longer seen as representatives of groups that have nothing more to
offer than advice. They are viewed as essential resources, colleagues, and fellow decision-
makers. The principal provides information to the school site council regarding current issues
affecting the school, as well as information on federal, state, and district regulations. While
decisions made by the council offer strong direction, the principal, who is ultimately
accountable and legally responsible for such decisions, may vote on or veto decisions made
by the council, taking care not to undermine the general authority granted to such councils
(Marburger, 1985).

Shared decision-making does not imply that the principal loses power under school based
management. Rather, it implies that the principal works in an indirect manner to increase
his/her sphere of influence. Initiative is extended by the principal to the greatest number of
people possible. A principal who succeeds in extending this initiative gains a different sort of
power-the power gained through consensus building.

The Teacher

With empowerment, the role of the teacher requires a redefinition from the custodial job of
dispensing information to the more sophisticated one of facilitating growth. (Moses and
Whitaker, 1990, p. 32)
Schools have been organized and run in the same way as long as many teachers can
remember; a teacher's place is traditionally within the walls of the classroom. Teachers
implement programs and practices mandated by the central office. They very often have little
say in textbook selection and adoption, no say in budget allocation, staff selection, and hiring.
Teachers work with students; they rarely work with other teachers.

In school based management, teachers gain a greater voice in decisions that affect the school.
They begin to work collaboratively with administrators, other teachers, parents, and
community members in the selection of goals and objectives for the school. Teachers also
take on new responsibilities as instructional specialists, serving as mentors, coaches and
evaluators. They assist in determining staffing needs and may play a major role in defining
positions and selecting staff.

Initially many teachers may be suspect of the change to school based management. They may
view their new "empowerment" as a burden: as more duties imposed upon already busy
schedules. However, as teachers observe the changes taking place and understand that they
have clout in determining the future directions of their school, most come to accept the
challenge willingly.

Parents and Community Members

...if parents are to be involved, they must shift from the narrow concern, 'What's good for my
child?' to the broader concern, 'What's good for all children?' " (Prasch, 1990, p. 26)

The role of parents in schools is one which has been generally restricted, although research
consistently points to increased parental involvement on a number of levels as a necessary
component of school success. Parents have held the traditional roles of PTA member, field
trip chaperone, class "mother," and, sometimes, vocal advocate or opponent of school
programs or policies. But in every case, the role of parent is that of an outsider who has been
invited in briefly to serve some limited purpose.

The most evident change in the role of parents and other community members under school
based management is increased communication and school involvement. The involvement of
community members per se, as suggested by advocates of school based management, is due
to demographic changes associated with lower birth rates, employment outside the home of
both parents, single parent families, and the increased emphasis on school partnerships with
business. Parents and other community members become involved in establishing the
school's vision, mission, and programs through their role on the school council. In some
schools, parents and community members, through their roles on the council, make decisions
on how the budget is spent and who is hired (David, 1989). While parents understandably
respond to the idea of having a greater influence in determining school policies that better
meet the needs of their children, the success of school based management depends on
whether parents play a more selfless role. Although school councils are formed for the
specific purpose of promoting a given school, their activities should not promote one school
at the expense or detriment of other schools in the district (Prasch, 1990).

The fact that school based management requires such comprehensive changes in the roles and
responsibilities of so many key people opens the way for possible large-scale confusion. The
risks of misunderstanding are great; there is the potential for personal insecurity and feuding
among staff. Therefore, districts opting for school based management should ensure that each
personnel role is carefully spelled out. Responsibilities should be clearly defined well in
advance of any initial change. Districts must also accept the fact that preparation for new
roles and responsibilities requires extensive training and retraining: Initial training will be
required to launch school based management, and ongoing staff development and support for
school councils will be required to sustain it.

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT ON BILINGUAL\ESL

PROGRAMS

Just as school based management has an overall effect on school district organization and
school site functioning, it also promises to affect the way in which specialized instructional
programs, such as bilingual and ESL programs, are structured and operate. The changes that
school based management brings will vary greatly from district to district, and may vary from
school to school within a district. These changes will, in turn, affect the roles of bilingual and
ESL program personnel as well as the roles of parents and community members. School
based management may also have an impact on the administration and conduct of
bilingual/ESL programs, and may result in certain curricular changes.

This section will therefore describe possible changes in the roles that bilingual/ESL program
personnel have traditionally played, administrative changes that may occur in the
bilingual/ESL program and curricular changes that may result from a move to school based
management.

ESL and bilingual program directors should recognize that when school based management
comes to a district, it will touch their lives and the lives of the students they serve. In order to
cope effectively with these changes, program directors should understand what generally
happens in school based management; they should recognize that individual district
differences will affect how school based management is implemented; they should anticipate
the form that school based management might take in their district in order to ensure that LEP
students receive the benefits that school based management may offer.

Role Changes in Bilingual/ESL Programs

While the previous section described role changes for mainstream personnel, changes in the
roles and functions of the superintendent, central office programs, the principal, teachers, and
parents and community members will also have a dramatic impact on the roles and functions
of those who work closely with bilingual and ESL programs: the program director or
coordinator, bilingual and ESL teachers, parents of LEP children, and members of the
ethnolinguistic communities from which LEP students come.

The Program Director/Coordinator

Bilingual and ESL program directors/coordinators currently function in a variety of different

roles. Some are classified as administrators with the ability to hire staff and control their own
budgets. Others are classified as "specialists" or "teachers on special assignment," with
administrative duties, but without administrative authority. This difference is due, in large, to
the placement of the program within the larger district organization. The ESL/bilingual
program director may report directly to the superintendent, to an assistant superintendent for
curriculum, to a director of federal programs, to a director of special education, to a director
of compensatory education or to a district-level English or foreign language curriculum
specialist. While most ESL and bilingual program directors operate out of a central office
location, their staff is placed in schools throughout the district. The bilingual/ESL program
staff may consist of resource teachers, classroom teachers, aides or instructional assistants,
community liaisons, psychologists, counselors, and social workers. The number and kind of
staff found in any bilingual/ESL program varies greatly. The authority of the bilingual/ESL
program director with regard to the staff also varies greatly. Some program directors are
responsible for supervising and evaluating staff members, others are not. Some are solely
responsible for recommending staff to be hired; some share that responsibility with either the
principal of the school where the staff member will be placed or some other member of the
central office.

Many bilingual and ESL program directors, particularly those who have federal or state
funding, have ultimate responsibility for the instruction to be implemented under the
program. They make recommendations on curriculum and textbooks, and are responsible for
student testing and assessment, as well as program evaluation. Most ESL and bilingual
program directors also assume ultimate authority for communication with the parents of
students served within the program. While individual schools send out parent notices, letters,
and newsletters, it is often the ESL/bilingual program director who is charged with the
responsibility of seeing that such notices are translated into the home language of the children
served by their program.

Under school based management, many of the responsibilities of the bilingual/ESL program
director will be modified. Program directors, therefore, must insist on receiving a
comprehensive description of their newly defined roles. Since many central office program
functions may shift to the individual school level, the bilingual/ESL program director should
request that the new role description contain a clear listing of all tasks for which he/she will
retain responsibility. The program director may then decide to share this list of tasks with
school principals in whose buildings the program operates so that there are no
misunderstandings about the division of tasks. The program director should also carefully
examine restructuring plans to assure that district plans do not conflict with any legal
obligations the district must meet with regard to providing a program for LEP students.

Bilingual/ESL program directors must be prepared to share decision- making with those in
the mainstream-primarily, principals. The bilingual/ESL program director may be asked to
serve in an advisory role to the principal and the school site management council as the
council makes decisions about the instructional program for LEP students in a given school.
The bilingual/ESL program director, like the principal, must be a change facilitator. He/she
must offer education, information and instruction to all those who will make decisions for
LEP students. As he/she advises the principal and the school-site management council, he/she
must help to ensure that legal requirements regarding the education of LEP students are
understood and acted upon. He/she must challenge mainstream decision-makers to see the
LEP students served by the program as he/she sees them-full of potential and capable of great
things.

Since the principal, under school based management, is held accountable for the success of
all students, the bilingual/ESL program director may find a more willing ally than in the past.
He/she must assist the principal in building bridges to the "instructional islands" which may
have developed by continuing to promote the idea that good ESL/bilingual education is
simply good education. The ESL/bilingual program director can facilitate this change by
emphasizing commonalities as well as differences among LEP and mainstream students. In
doing so, he/she helps de-mystify the LEP student, allowing those in the mainstream to
become more confident in their ability to serve the student well.

The Bilingual/ESL Teacher

The role of the bilingual/ESL teacher, like that of the mainstream teacher, is a greatly
expanded one under school based management. ESL/bilingual teachers have traditionally
played an unusually large part in the education of LEP students, serving as counselor,
translator and advocate in the larger school community. They assist the school in reaching
parents and identifying special education needs and serve as a resource for mainstream
classroom teachers.

Under school based management, however, the role of the bilingual/ESL teacher takes on
even greater dimensions. Participation as a member of the school site management council
offers the bilingual/ESL teacher a new opportunity to mediate the context of schooling for the
LEP students he/she serves. Since the school site management council serves as the decision-
making authority for the school, the involvement of the bilingual/ESL teacher helps ensure
that the needs of LEP students will be considered. In addition, by serving on the council, the
ESL/bilingual teacher begins to build coalitions with other members of the council and the
school staff. In doing so he/she can encourage mainstream staff members to take on greater
responsibilities for the education of LEP students.

The ESL/bilingual teacher can advise the council as it considers the adoption of various
instructional programs, curricula, and materials by indicating which programs and products
are more likely to provide effective instruction for LEP students. By informing council
members and colleagues about the features of instructional programs that are especially
effective for LEP students, the ESL/bilingual teacher provides essential peer training that
permits the whole school to sustain more effective instruction for LEP students.

Since the school site council often has a hand in recommending staffing patterns and making
hiring decisions, the ESL/bilingual teacher can help the council see that traditional staffing
patterns may need to be revised to include bilingual aides or instructional assistants. In school
sites where the LEP population is growing, the ESL/bilingual teacher can point out to the
council that it also makes good sense to hire teachers who are bilingual or who possess
additional ESL endorsements when openings occur in regular classroom positions. Such
hiring practices give the school greater flexibility in dealing with changing student
populations without diminishing cost-effectiveness.

In districts where the LEP population is not sufficiently large to result in each school having
an ESL/bilingual teacher who can serve on the council, the ESL/bilingual teacher must seek
out representation through other council members. In this case the ESL/bilingual teacher
must work to stay informed of the actions the council is preparing to take and to offer
opinions and advice to all council members on the effects of such actions on the education of
LEP students. Through this gradual process, the ESL/bilingual teacher can build support and
understanding for LEP students in council members, ensuring that students' needs are
considered.

Parents and Community Members

While parents of monolingual, English speaking students have typically been afforded a
rather limited role in the life and governance of schools, parents of linguistic minority
students have often faced even more severe limitations. The linguistic and cultural
differences that exist between home and school have often been difficult for schools to
accommodate. Parents of language minority students are frequently precluded from
participation in school functions because of language, cultural traditions, or the demands of
living and surviving in the United States.

In school based management, however, the role that parents or community members must
play necessitates that parents are able and willing to participate in the decision-making
process. The expanded role of parents hinges on their ability to commit the time necessary to
consider educational, budget, and staffing issues. Even though a basic tenet of school based
management is that parents and others close to students (such as teachers) know what is best
for the students, it remains to be seen if most parents have the time and desire to rise to the
task. Parents must find ways to have their views represented on the school site council. In
cases where linguistic minority parents feel uncomfortable with English, they may need to
encourage the school to provide translators, or to find a community member who will agree
to serve on their behalf. In other cases, parents, like ESL/bilingual teachers, will need to build
coalitions with other parents who are on the council to serve as their voice. In any event,
parents of linguistic minority students should insist that the school find some way of seeing
that their views are systematically sought and considered.

An additional way that schools may choose to elicit opinions which are sensitive to the needs
of LEP students is by including formerly or currently (in the case of secondary schools)
enrolled linguistic minority students on the school site council. These students often provide
great insight into instructional and curricular decision- making; their first-hand experience
with the school conveys a brand of expertise which is hard to match.

Administrative/Programmatic Changes

As programs shift from the central office to the individual school level, functions that have
been carried out by centrally located bilingual/ESL program staff may also shift. Centrally
based intake and assessment centers may move to the schools; ESL/bilingual programs and
curricula may vary from school to school, and parental involvement may center around
individual school sites rather than emanate from one central location.

An important detail for ESL/bilingual program directors to remember is that any changes to
the structure and goals of the program must be reflected in equivalent changes in the design
of program evaluation (J.M. O'Malley, personal communication, 1991). Evaluation of
ESL/bilingual programs that operate in school based management settings should develop
strong "process" components which reveal and examine not only the nature of the programs,
but also the degree to which shared-decision making has influenced the implementation of
instruction. The formative nature of such evaluation components allows bilingual/ESL
program directors to make needed programmatic adjustments on an ongoing basis.

Curricular Changes

As schools take over decisions regarding instructional programs, bilingual/ESL programs

may also face curricular changes. It may become increasingly difficult to maintain an
instructional program which is philosophically different from the one selected by the school
site council for schoolwide implementation. Although ESL and bilingual students may, in
some settings, function independently of the mainstream classroom curriculum, in the
majority of cases students interact with the mainstream philosophy and approach on a daily
basis.

Take, for example, a school that teaches reading using a whole language approach. Now
imagine a structurally-based ESL program which also operates in the school. Picture a
beginning first grade ESL student being pulled out for ESL instruction, then being sent back
to the mainstream classroom for the rest of the day. Such divergent instruction may create
problems for students and friction between ESL/bilingual and mainstream teachers. The
notion of whole-school approaches to instruction, particularly to the instruction of LEP
students, affords students valuable reinforcement of concepts. In addition, sharing curricular
approaches among ESL/bilingual and mainstream teachers (especially those like whole
language, which are beneficial to LEP students) provides a common ground for coordinating
instructional efforts.

The bilingual/ESL program may also undergo a restyling that emphasizes curricular diversity,
as school based programs select from among several viable instructional approaches.
Therefore, ESL may be taught in one school using a whole language approach, and in another
using a content-based approach. This curricular diversity offers the advantage of providing
students and teachers alike with a wide range of educational choices that may be "tried on"
for the best possible fit.

When a district chooses to implement school based management, curricular,

administrative/programmatic, and role changes may all interact to produce a bilingual/ESL
program which appears very different from those that have operated previously. While no
two districts will perform identically under a school based management system, preparation
and planning will afford the bilingual/ESL program an opportunity to integrate instruction
and build its capacity to serve students in a more meaningful way than before.

WHAT BILINGUAL\ESL PROGRAM DIRECTORS CAN DO TO PREPARE FOR

SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT

Clune and White (1988) conducted a study of over thirty school based management programs
examining not only the structure of school based management and changes in roles
experienced by each of the programs, but also the implementation difficulties faced by each
of the programs. Almost all the implementation problems experienced by personnel revolved
around changes in roles. Survey respondents indicated that "one of the most serious problems
in implementation is the apprehension on the part of principals, teachers, and others who are
fearful of what might be required of them." They also indicated that they "had not been given
an adequate orientation to the program; not enough time was allotted to create an
environment of change" (Clune and White, 1988, pp. 27-28).

Bilingual/ESL programs in the midst of a change to school based management should

consider these comments carefully. The bilingual/ESL program must insist that the district
provide comprehensive training for its own staff and parent and community members, and
that the district offer extensive training to mainstream personnel on issues affecting the
education of LEP students.
Bilingual/ESL program directors can request the opportunity to participate in training or
workshops that help prepare them for new roles. They can ensure that training is furnished to
staff, parents, and community members. This training must provide a complete understanding
of what school based management involves and how it will operate on the district or
individual school level. Bilingual/ESL program directors may also want to provide staff and
community members with somewhat more specialized training that spans those cultural and
linguistic differences that make school based management a difficult proposition for those
uncomfortable with participatory school management. All training provided should be
frequent and ongoing, since real change takes time.

Since training will take place for mainstream personnel as well, bilingual/ESL program
directors can take advantage of this opportunity to provide comprehensive information on the
socioeducational needs and characteristics of LEP and linguistic minority students. Program
directors and staff members can create linkages with principals and mainstream teachers that
facilitate the provision of information on LEP students needed by school site councils to
make decisions about instructional programs, budget allocations and hiring. Such linkages
allow training to occur gradually.

ESL/bilingual programs can also ease the transition to school based management by creating
broad-based advocacy for LEP and linguistic minority children. This means reaching out not
only to parents of children in the program, but also to mainstream parents and community
members. As members of school site councils, these parents and community members have
the chance to influence programs and policies. By educating and informing these new key
players in school decision-making, the ESL/bilingual program can create an unprecedented
base of support for LEP students.

SUMMARY

Bilingual/ESL program directors facing restructuring efforts within their school district
clearly have their work cut out for them. The challenge of adjusting to substantially altered
roles and responsibilities places a burden not only on directors, but on all program personnel.
The challenge of responding to program adjustments, whether administrative or curricular,
places an additional burden on program staff and directors alike. What follows, then, is a
summary of key actions that may be initiated by bilingual/ESL program directors to ease the
burdens which may be caused by a move to school based management.

School Based Management Checklist For ESL/Bilingual Program Directors

1. I understand what is meant by school based management in my school district (terms

have been operationalized).
2. I have had input into my new role and job description under school based
management.
3. This new role and job description has been shared with principals with whom I will be
expected to coordinate, and with staff whom I will supervise.
4. I understand the process of change and how it may affect the reorganization of the
district; I understand how the process of change may affect my program within the
structure of the district.
5. I understand which functions of the bilingual/ESL program will be restructured or
decentralized, and I have had input into this process.
 6. I have established formal coordination linkages with all principals in whose schools
bilingual/ESL programs will operate.
7. I have briefed principals about any legal or programmatic obligations which existing
or new bilingual/ESL programs must meet.
8. Bilingual/ESL staff (teachers, aides, community liaisons, etc.) have been made aware
of coming changes, and have been informed how those changes may affect their roles
and instructional programs.
9. Bilingual/ESL staff have been trained on the nature and operation of school site
councils.
10. Bilingual/ESL staff have been provided with necessary training and resources to serve
as consultants to school site councils on educational issues which affect LEP students.
11. I have informed parents and community members of the coming changes in the
organization of schools and the bilingual/ESL program.
12. Parents and community members have had a formal opportunity to provide input on
these changes.
13. Parents and community members have received training on the nature and operation
of school site councils.
14. A system for soliciting regular feedback from parents has been developed and
implemented.
15. The design and implementation of bilingual/ESL program evaluation has been
modified to reflect administrative and programmatic changes.
16. Mainstream personnel have been trained on the characteristics and needs of LEP
learners; practices whih enhance the academic achievement of LEP students have
been incorporated into the instructional and administrative repertoires of mainstream
personnel.

CONCLUSION

School based management began as a way of making schools more accountable to society.
For bilingual/ESL programs to take advantage of this new philosophy of schooling, several
conditions must be met. Bilingual and ESL program directors must anticipate and prepare for
the changes that school based management will bring by understanding the nature of the
change itself. They must ask the district for clear descriptions of how central office programs
such as bilingual and ESL programs will operate in the face of such changes. They must
secure adequate representation on school site councils, either through the placement of
program staff members and parents, or through the creation of linkages to mainstream
advocates. They must prepare their themselves, staffs, parents, and community members for
the changes in roles that accompany a move to shared decision-making. Above all,
bilingual/ESL program directors must ensure that LEP students can reap the benefits that
school based management may bring: the increased accountability of the school for all
students; an increased responsiveness to the desires of parents and teachers who know the
students best; and a dramatically transformed and improved educational system.

REFERENCES

Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M.W. (1977). Rand Change Agent Study- Federal Programs
Supporting Educational Change: Vol. Vii. Factors Affecting Implementation and
Continuation. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Brookover, W.B., and Lezotte, L.W. (1979). Changes in School Characteristics Coincident
with Changes in Student Achievement. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the
21st Century. Report of the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. Washington,
DC: Author.

Clune, W.H., and White, P.A. (1988). School-Based Management: Institutional Variation,
Implementation and Issues for Further Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy
Research in Education.

Cuban, L. (1984). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms,
1890-1980. New York: Longman.

Cunningham, L.L. (1971). Governing Schools: New Approaches to Old Issues. Columbus,
OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing.

Curran, J., Juster, B., Lister, B., McKeon, D., Pugh, E., and Torrence, V. (1990). School
Based Management. Unpublished manuscript. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.

D'Amico, J. (1982). Using Effective School Studies to Create Effective Schools: No Recipes
Yet. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 60-63.

Daniels, C. (September, 1990). A Principal's View: Giving Up My Traditional Ship. The

School Administrator, 22-24.

David, J.L. (1989). Synthesis of Research on School-based Management. Educational

Leadership, 46(8), 45-53.

Deal, T.E. (1990). Reframing Reform. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 6-12.

Delehant, A. (September, 1990). A Central Office Point of View: Charting a Course When
Pulled in All Directions. The School Administrator, 16-19.

Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hall, G.E., and Hord,
S.M. (1987). Change in Schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hall, G.E., and Loucks, S. (1980). A Concerns-Based Model for the Delivery of Inservice.
Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education.

Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., and Hall, G. (1987). Taking Charge of Change.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ingwerson, D. (September, 1990). A Superintendent's Point of View: Learning to Listen and

Trust Each School Faculty. The School Administrator, 8-11.
Lezotte, L. (1989, August). Base School Improvement on What We Know about Effective
Schools. American School Board Journal, 18-20.

Lieberman, A., and Miller, L. (1981). Synthesis of Research on Improving Schools.

Educational Leadership, 39(7), 583-586.

Lindelow, L. (1981). School-Based Management. In S.C. Smith, J. Mazzarella, and P.K.

Piele (Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for survival. Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse on
Educational Management.

Marburger, C.L. (1985). One School at a Time. School Based Management: A Process for
Change. Columbia, MD: The National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Moses, M., and Whitaker, K. (September, 1990). Ten Components for Restructuring Schools.
The School Administrator, 32-34.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative

for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Author.

Neale, D.C., Bailey, W.J., and Ross, B.E. (1981). Strategies for School Improvement.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Prasch, J. (1990). How to Organize for School-Based Management. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Purkey, S.C., and Smith, M.S. (1982). Synthesis of Research on Effective Schools.
Educational Leadership. 40(3), 64-69.

Schmuck, R.A., Runkel, P.J., Arends, J.H., and Arends, R.I. (1977). The Second Handbook
Of Organizational Development In Schools. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and
Management.

Sirotnik, K., and Clark, R. (1988). School-Centered Decision Making and Renewal. Phi Delta
Kappan, 3, 33-38.

Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American School. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Denise McKeon is a Research Associate with the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education. A former ESL/bilingual teacher, her areas of specialization include program
design, teacher training, and effective instructional strategies. She is a doctoral candidate in
Curriculum and Instruction at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Lynn Malarz is the senior program specialist at the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development in Alexandria, Virginia, and a former director of bilingual
programs in California. Her research interests include school change, assessment, and how
restructuring schools will affect the education of language minority students. She received
her Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Southern California.
 The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) and is operated under contract No.
289004001 by The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. The
contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Education, nor
does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government. This material is located in the public domain and is freely reproducible. NCBE requests that
proper credit be given in the event of reproduction.

go to HOME PAGE
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu

Book Launch - School-Based Management: Concepts and Evidence

Sponsor: Human Development Network

Presenters: Harry Patrinos, Lead Education Economist, World Bank

Tazeen Fasih, Human Development Economist, World Bank
Felipe Barrera, Senior Education Economist, World Bank

Presentation: School-Based Management (ppt) 
 Video
 
Discussant: Shantayanan Devarajan, Chief Economist, South Asia, World Bank
Luis Crouch, Vice President, RTI International
Ariel Fiszbein, Adviser, Development Economics, World Bank

Chair: Ruth Kagia, Director, Education, World Bank

Date/Time/Location: Thursday, February 28, 2008 / 3:00- 4:30 pm / J1-050

Description: 
School-based management (SBM) has become a very popular movement over the past
decade.  New publications attempt to define the concept more clearly and review the
evidence base.  There are numerous ways to combine different degrees of autonomy,
participation, and accountability to create a particular reform. Each variation has to be
appropriate for the particular culture and politics of the country in question. Most countries
have adopted school-based management to increase the participation of parents and
communities in schools, or to empower principals and teachers, or to raise student
achievement levels, or, by devolution of authority, to create accountability mechanisms to
make the decision-making process more transparent. In any case, the hope is that giving
power to the people who are close to the core of the service will increase the efficiency and
improve the quality of the service.  Despite its popularity, there are only a small number of
rigorous studies of the impact of School-Based Management.  In fact, only 13 studies make a
clear attempt to correct for problems of endogeneity.  Among the most rigorous studies, some
found that policies actually changed the dynamics of the school, either because parents got
more involved or because teachers’ actions changed.  Several studies presented evidence that
school-based management led to reductions in repetition rates, failure rates, and, to a lesser
degree, dropout rates, but those studies that had access to standardized test scores presented
mixed evidence.

The team continues to support country initiatives through several impact evaluations.  An
online toolkit provides users with guidance on designing school-based management
programs.  This event presents an overview of the concept of school-based management and
a brief review of our findings.

Why is school-based management important?

Advocates of SBM assert that it should improve educational outcomes for a number of
reasons.  First, it improves accountability of principals and teachers to students, parents and
teachers.  Accountability mechanisms that put people at the center of service provision can go
a long way in making services work and improving outcomes by facilitating participation in
service delivery, as noted in the World Bank’s 2004 World Development Report, Making
Services Work for Poor People.  Second, it allows local decision-makers to determine the
appropriate mix of inputs and education policies adapted to local realities and needs.

Impact of school-based management

Evaluations of SBM programs offer mixed evidence of impacts.  El Salvador’s Educo

program gives parent associations the responsibility for hiring, monitoring and dismissing
teachers.  In addition, the parents are also trained in school management, as well as on how to
help their children with school work.  Despite rapid expansion of Educo schools, education
quality was comparable to traditional schools.  In fact, parental participation was considered
the principal reason for Educo’s success (Jimenez and Sawada 1999).  Nicaragua’s
Autonomous School Program gives school-site councils – comprised of teachers, students
and a voting majority of parents – authority to determine how 100 percent of school resources
are allocated and authority to hire and fire principals, a privilege that few other school
councils in Latin America enjoy.  Two evaluations found that the number of decisions made
at the school level contributed to better test scores (King and Ozler 1998; Ozler 2001). 
Mexico’s compensatory education program provides extra resources to disadvantaged rural
primary schools and all indigenous schools, thus increasing the supply of education. 
However, the compensatory package has several components.  If one breaks the intervention
up in its multiple components, then it is shown that empowering parent associations seems to
have a substantial effect in improving educational outcomes, even when controlling for the
presence of beneficiaries of Mexico’s large and successful conditional cash transfer program
(Oportunidades, formerly Progresa).  This is strong evidence of the positive effects of
decentralizing education to the lower levels (Gertler, Patrinos and Rubio forthcoming). 
Various evaluations of SBM programs in the United States have found evidence of decreased
dropout and student suspension rates but no impact on test scores.
The Art of Successful School-Based Management

Module by: Zach Kelehear

Summary: In this monograph the author offers the reader a new perspective on an important,
dynamic, and sometimes daunting issue: managing successful school-based leadership. Organized
around the seven elements of art criticism, the author uses an arts-based approach to weave
together notions of research-based leadership skills for successful school-based management with
standards of professional competence as represented by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders.

logo.gif

Note:

This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base
in educational administration.

The Art of Successful School-Based Management

1
In this monograph the author offers the reader

a new perspective on an important, dynamic, and sometimes daunting

issue: managing successful school-based leadership. Organized

around the seven elements of art criticism, the author uses an

arts-based approach to weave together notions of research-based

leadership skills for successful school-based management with

standards of professional competence as represented by the

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards

for School Leaders. More particularly, in each section of this

monograph the author presents a brief introduction of the

leadership construct as represented in the art metaphor more fully

described below. Then, the author suggests some possible

applications of the theoretical element to the real-world realities

of school leadership. Using a common-sense discussion on leadership

coupled with theory and research within an arts-based perspective,

the author encourages the reader to engage in the seemingly

persistent problems and old trials of school management from a new

perspective resulting in some refreshing possibilities for

supporting student achievement in schools. It is also the goal of

this arts-based approach that the reader might avoid the tendency

to reduce school-based management to formula and instead recognize

the complexity of leading and managing students and teachers within

the constantly evolving culture of today’s schools. As a result of

this qualitative inquiry into the nature of leadership for today’s

schools, the author invites a new vision for old assumptions in

schools, for teacher leadership, and for student learning. The

eventual product of such an investigation might be a new vision for

school leadership that is “more diversified and equitable” and one

that “can expand our conception of human cognition and help us

develop new forms of pedagogical practice” (Eisner, 1998, p.

245).

Leadership in the school building is at the

heart of school leadership. It is in the school building, the

halls, and classrooms that principals most directly impact teacher

behavior. The question that arises from a study leadership in the

school building is not about if principals can affect teaching

behavior but rather in what manner and to what extent principals

might affect teaching behavior, school environment, and ultimately

student learning (Stronge, 2002). And there is growing consensus in

the literature, most recently reported in the “School Leadership

Study” out of Stanford University (Davis, et al. 2005) that

successful school leaders can influence student achievement in at

least two important ways: (1) By selecting, supporting, and

developing effective teachers; (2) By managing, implementing, and

adjusting effective organizational environments. Other authors in

this book will devote more time to the first element of effective

leadership. In this monograph the author will focus on how

school-based leaders can effectively manage the competing, and

sometimes conflicting, demands of leading in today’s schools so as

to provide an organizational environment that encourages growth and

development on the part of students, teachers, and administrators.

The responsibility of managing a successful learning environment is

one shared by all stakeholders. If doing it alone is the plan for

the school principal, then research suggests that the leader is

less likely to maintain and support learning environments and is

more likely to “burn out” under the broadening responsibilities of

today’s accountability environment (Hargreaves, 2006). In light of

this harsh reality, in sections of this monograph the author will

offer school leaders ideas and possibilities for sharing the

awesome responsibility of managing effective schools.

In distributed leadership contexts, school

based leaders find ways for multiple stakeholders to participate in

the leadership, and thus successful management, of schools. This

notion of distributed leadership is most recently articulated by

Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink (2006) in their book, Sustainable

Leadership. The principal, as school building leader, interacts

with teachers and students. It is at the school building where

teachers also provide leadership in the daily interactions with

their peers, with their students, and with their parents and other

stakeholders. And, it is in the daily interactions with students

that teachers and principals can encourage students to take on

leadership. The literature regarding successful school based

management continues to grow both in breadth and depth and if my

graduate students are any indicator of today’s leaders, school

based stakeholders yearn for specific and guiding principles for

how to manage today’s learning environments. In very obvious ways

it is at school building level where the tug between theory and

practice is most powerful and most often confrontational

(Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Although establishing theoretical

context is essential in framing a theory of leadership, principals

often consider such discussions meaningless in helping them make

sense of daily pressures and demands of schooling. What principals

want is a theory of school building leadership that can speak

honestly and directly to the challenges of helping teachers and

students achieve in an atmosphere of standards and accountability

(Stronge, 2002).

A Way of Thinking

Over the past few years the author has

investigated leadership in the schools from an arts-based research

methodology. Based on his own experiences, conversations with

leaders, and research, he grew to be suspicious that leading was in

fact more than just good management. Indeed, it was management but

also much more. There was this sense of art, not just craft, among

the very best leaders. For example, the author began to discover

that traditional assessment methods for instructional leadership

were often quite effective in addressing narrowing teaching

functions but failed to grasp the nuances, subtleties, and totality

of successful classrooms (Blumberg, 1989; Pajak, 2003). From a very

different point of departure, Stronge (2002) also concludes that

school leader practice has little to no effect on teacher behavior

and subsequently student learning. According to Stronge, principals

managed to do the craft of observations and provide some evidence

of what they saw. They often completed this task with short,

drop-in visits. But what was missing from this type of management

was the fact that little change in teacher or student behavior came

about as a result of the observation. In some ways, according to

Stronge, principals failed to address the complexity of the teacher

function. Indeed, leading schools and supporting teachers required

school principals to do much more than managing. Successful schools

were places where craft and art were practiced.

At this point, the author needs to ask the

reader to consider a slight shift in thinking. Instead of trying to

compete with the reader’s assumptions and practices regarding

school leadership, assumptions that emerge from powerful and

successful experience no doubt, and instead of trying to convince

the reader that the answer is “this” instead of “that,” the author

wants to encourage the reader to engage in “and” thinking. Recently

when working with a high school principal, the author had this

exchange: “I noticed that your teachers did not feel you visited

their classrooms often enough. How might you respond to them?” The

principal, in obvious frustration, responded “Yes, I know I need to

do more than I have been doing but I cannot find time because of

all the discipline referrals.” The principal was doing what the

author affectionately calls “Yes . . . but” thinking. How many

times might one say in a day’s time “Yes, I could get to that job

but I cannot find time” or “Yes, I need to be in halls greeting

students but I just cannot get out of the office and all the

paperwork.” This type of thinking tends to be defeatist in nature

as it builds obstacles instead of possibilities. A different way to

consider our thinking is what the author calls “and” thinking. For

example, “Yes, I need to be in the halls more often and I will

distribute some of the paperwork so that I can find time to do it.”

In reality, individuals tend to find time for those things that

matter most. If being in the halls greeting students was really

important, then they would create a world where that could happen.

The shift from “yes. . . but” thinking to “and” thinking is a

subtle but powerful change. Such a shift represents a change in

values and priorities, indeed a paradigmatic change. In like

fashion, when considering the work in this monograph the author

wants to challenge the reader to engage in “and” thinking and not

“yes. . . but” thinking. Instead of looking for the absolute answer

in this work, consider the possibility that the content offers

another way to be successful; not the only one. Now let the reader

put that type of thinking to work as he or she prepares for the

more specific discussion of successful management of

schools.

Arts-Based Research as a Way of Seeing

Is quantitative research the best choice for

discovering truth? Or, is qualitative research the best

methodology? In some traditional debates, the argument might follow

something like this: “Yes, qualitative research offers some answers

to questions on teacher performance but the real answers are in

quantitative analyses.” Or, “Yes, quantitative research has been

around a long time but it is qualitative research that most clearly

offers the best picture of teaching.” Both examples tend to create

obstacles and not possibilities. The alternative conversation might

flow something like this: “Quantitative research has certainly

withstood the test of time with its rigor and analysis and

qualitative research provides another perspective and level of

analysis on the same behaviors.” This type of thinking encourages

possibilities, not obstacles.

A similar dichotomy emerges regarding the

nature of effective teaching. The debate over whether effective

leadership is art or craft, or if effective teaching is technical

in nature or aesthetic, is important and often lively. Indeed,

there is growing research that supports the notion that teaching,

when done well, is both art and craft, technical and aesthetic,

personal and clinical (Lewis, 2004; Newmann et al., 1996; Blumberg,

1989; Eisner, 1983). When individuals begin coupling their thinking

that teaching is both art and craft with a growing presence of

arts-based research that seeks to extend the notion of what is

meaningful, then they can begin to see the value of “and” thinking.

In fact, teacher effectiveness research findings support the notion

that students learn best from teachers who can be characterized as

managing both the craft and the artistic dimensions of effective

teaching. So as the reader engages in the journey of what makes for

successful school based management, the author wants to implore him

or her to engage in “and” thinking so that he or she can begin

building power bridges for successful schooling and fewer

walls.

Toward defining, evaluating, and thus

understanding the leadership function in the school building the

author will ground the following discussion in an arts-based

research theoretical approach (Eisner, 1998; Barone & Eisner,

1997). The arts-based research format seemed appropriate for this

investigation because as a form of qualitative research, arts-based

investigations can more readily gain “a firm foothold” on the

nature of human interactions embedded in school cultures (Eisner,

1998). The function of successful leadership is characterized as

practice that acknowledges, embraces, and develops the relational

nature of schooling. That relation may be student to student,

student to teacher, student to subject, teacher to teacher, teacher

to leader, leader to community, community to school, and on and on.

At some level, all successful schooling is relational in nature. In

addition, qualitative thought is always a component of interaction

between individuals (Eisner, 1998) and coming to terms with the

nature of relationships is central to the human experience. So, as

readers come to terms with the fact that leadership encompasses

both technical and aesthetic dimensions, craft and art, then they

can begin to understand that an arts-based approach is entirely

appropriate as one way to understand effective school leadership

and management of schools.

As the author begins the work from a

qualitative theory perspective (Eisner, 1998; Barone, 1998) that

leadership may be viewed as an art form and that it can be

described as interactive and relational, a sort of choreography of

human understanding, then the reader might do well to develop a

mechanism for “seeing” it as an artist might view a painting or a

choreographer a dance (Kelehear, 2006). For the purposes of this

investigation, that mechanism comes in the form of the elements of

art and it is the goal of this monograph to help the reader begin

developing some facility with aesthetic dimensions of leadership in

the school building. Specifically, the author will use the elements

of art to help frame the discussion of school-based leadership in

this monograph. Just as the elements of art can assist a viewer of

art describe, analyze, interpret, or evaluate a work, those same

elements can help a viewer of leadership art describe, analyze,

interpret, or evaluate the management of schools. When individuals

continue to view leadership narrowly, as a function of management

and formula, then they narrow their view of leadership from an art

of human experience and understanding to a strategy for control and

manipulation of personnel. By applying the language of art

individuals can construct a lens through which the nature of one’s

humanity begins to become clearer.

Elements of Art as a Way of

Understanding

The elements of art are line, value, shape,

form, space, color, and texture. In the first part of each section

the author will offer an artist’s definition of each element. In an

attempt to help the reader connect the arts-based frame to the

leadership frame, in the second part of each discussion the author

will briefly describe the leadership themes and possible

implications. In the third part of each section, and indeed a key

part of the entire discussion, the author will highlight key

research initiatives and findings relative to that particular

function. In the final analysis, the reader can have a helpful and

grounded overview of what makes for successful school-based

leadership in today’s schools.

Because the author is framing the leadership

discussion in an arts-based theoretical approach, some additional

consideration about that approach is necessary. Similarly, as the

author organizes the leadership discussion with a corresponding and

appropriate language of art, in the form of elements of art, then

that format can help the reader to understand the nature of the

form. Eisner (1985) has explored the implications of this challenge

of leadership as art most fully in his work, The Educational

Imagination. A few of the more notable scholars who also looked to

the arts to provide useful models to better understand and improve

educational practice include S. L. Lightfoot (1983; 1997), P.

Jackson (1998), T. Barone (1988), and A. Blumberg (1989). Within

art, the author suggests that disciplines of aesthetics and

criticism in general provide us a structure for

understanding.

Dewey (1934) conceived aesthetics as the

branch of philosophy that allows one to analyze the way he or she

looks at the qualities of the world and assign value to

experiences. Dewey’s aesthetics provides a theoretical construct

for thinking about leadership. Individuals are engaging in

aesthetic thinking when they use their perceptions, sensations, and

imagination to gain insight into what they might feel and

understand about the world (Greene, 2001). Furthermore, Dewey

(1934) implies that aesthetic refers to one’s first critical

reflection on objects he or she experiences. What is especially

important is that experiences stem from attention to qualitative

relationships. Through these reflections one’s world and the wonder

of life begin to take on deeper meaning. Priorities become clear.

Important events assume an appropriate relationship with daily

challenges. As these experiences first occur outside of language

and the expected constructions of the world, by reflecting on them

they offer individuals opportunities for understanding. This type

of reflective analysis of experience is an integral part of

critical theory through which one examines his or her own practice

and habits of mind.

In cultivating this sensitivity one begins

taking on an aesthetic task. One begins answering the questions:

What is of value? What is meaningful? What is moving about a given

situation? It is through attending to the smallest nuances of art

or life that one begins to transcend to a more attentive form of

existence. He or she moves to a plane of existence that releases

imagination, passions, curiosity, and extraordinary circumstances.

It is Dewey’s view of reflection that leads one to the notion of

critical theory as a vehicle for understanding and valuing. Dewey

was adamant that this form of aesthetic experience as antithetical

to the appreciation of beauty. Dewey’s aesthetics is an active form

or mental engagement with the world – not a detached, coldly

objective appraisal.

When one begins to recognize that leadership

is inseparable from human interaction, then one begins to

understand that leadership is more about listening to and

understanding each other rather than devising a checklist of

behaviors. Leadership is engagement, not detachment or mere

observation. The benefit is that one begins to appreciate the

nuances and subtleties that come with managing and leading people.

Being able to engage in this critique of human interaction and

motivation allows one to view leadership as an art rather than a

formula. It is interpretative, relative, and sophisticated. As

such, it requires a comparable methodology for understanding:

aesthetics, critical theory, and leadership as art. Following the

guidance of aesthetics and critical theory, one can begin to view

the art of leadership through the lenses of the elements of art.

Just as the elements provide art observers with a language for

critique, those same elements can help frame the critique of

leadership.

Borrowing this notion from the world of art,

the author will use the elements to describe specific, observable

attributes of the art of leadership. As mentioned above, the

elements are line, shape, form, space, color, value, and texture.

In terms of understanding leadership, the author suggests that the

elements will offer building blocks for understanding basic

leadership skills. The author takes each of the elements as

discrete parts of the leadership function. As the reader becomes

more skilled at describing leadership, then he or she will also

notice that it is difficult and artificial to see the elements as

“stand alone” skills of leadership. Rather, the reality is more

about one element playing a primary role while other elements

function in a supportive capacity. Together, they support the

leader’s ability to work through a given situation.

As one begins to rely on elements, one begins

to come to terms with what is seen, felt, and sensed. Understanding

leadership becomes an aesthetic process. One not only knows it

cognitively and conceptually, but also emotionally and personally.

And leadership is skill, emotion, and personal. Leadership, when it

is done well, is an art and applying the standards of the seven

elements of art might help one to begin to know what leadership

does, what it looks like, what it feels like, what makes it work.

Just as with art, school leadership is not about finding a “magic

formula.” Given the complexity of people and situations that

leaders confront, it is no small wonder that no prescription

exists. But, when one sees something work at this school or that

system, one may often try to assign the success to a single

strategy or individual. The reality is, however, that the success

comes from the interdependence and interaction of several

leadership functions in much the same way that the elements might

contribute to the interpretation of an artwork.

Effective School Building Management: A Way

for Learning

The elements of art are the basic visual

symbols in the language of art. They provide a specific, and often

concrete, vocabulary for describing art. The elements are line,

shape, form, space, color, and texture. The elements of art help

create a view, a perception and a vision of effective management in

the school building. Within each school, all seven elements may be

present. The relative perceptivity of the various elements in a

school, however, can be very different depending on changing needs,

varying times of the year, or changes within the district. The

constant, however, is that in effective schools, and by association

in effective leadership, the seven elements provide a specific

mechanism for reflecting on practice and for navigating the often

difficult choices that come with educating our children for

successful citizenship.

In the table below [See Table #1], the author

offers an alignment of the ISLLC to the Elements of Art and the

particular Leadership Dimension embedded in each element. In the

discussion to follow, the author will offer each element, an artist

definition, a leadership perspective, and then relevant research as

a way to frame the key research and best practices for successful

school building leadership.

table1.GIF

Element # 1:

Line: A long narrow mark or stroke made on or

in a surface

The Artist’s View:

Artists recognize the important contribution

line brings to a holistic understanding of a given work. Lines can

be vertical, horizontal, diagonal, curvilinear, and zigzagged. When

artists vary the line’s length, width, texture, direction, and

degree of curve they can multiply the visual impact of a work of

art. For example, vertical lines convey height and inactivity.

Vertical lines also express stability, dignity, poise, stiffness,

and formality. Imagine how vertical lines on the side of a building

will make the building look taller, more stable. By contrast

horizontal lines are static. They express peace, rest, quiet, and

stability. Horizontal lines can help make one feel content,

relaxed, and calm. Diagonal and zigzag lines suggest activity. They

communicate action, movement, and tension. Diagonal lines also seem

to work against gravity and create a pull and tension that can be

uncomfortable. Curved lines also express activity. Spiral curves

around a central point are hypnotic and tend to draw the eye to the

center. Zigzag lines in an artwork help to create a feeling of

confusion. Clearly an element as simple as line can have a powerful

affect on the message of an artwork.

ISLLC Standard #1: A school administrator is

an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and

stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by

the school community.

A Leadership Perspective:

For school leaders, line means to be clear

about boundaries and parameters. Successful school leaders

communicate expectations for students and staff. They are

consistent with the application of that understanding. Few things

are as demoralizing to a staff as to see the leader apply rules

inconsistently. The school draws stability, dignity, and poise from

the consistent and fair application of rules and

expectations.

Line also serves to remind leadership of the

important role of mission and vision. When teachers are clear about

where the school is going and how they are going to get there, then

they begin to understand their role in the process. Conversely,

when the direction of the school seems flat, or horizontal, then

the learning atmosphere becomes stagnant and unproductive.

Finally, line informs leadership about the

delineating negotiable and non-negotiable boundaries. If a school

committee is to decide a particular issue, then effective

leadership is clear about what is open to conversation and what is

not. For a committee to work at an issue and submit a solution only

to discover that the answer was not one of the options can

frustrate good intentions.

In a recent article regarding organizational

culture, Patterson and Kelehear (2003) assert: “Even with the best

of intentions, organizations can’t devote equal attention to all of

the important culture values. Something’s got to give when various

culture values compete for your organization’s time and energy” (p.

35). Without attending to the assumptions and beliefs in managing

the school, leaders run the risk of developing “organizational

blind spots [that] represent undetected misalignment between what

the organization says it values vs. what it really values, what it

says it does vs. what it really does, or what it really does vs.

what it actually values” (p. 35). Although there continues to be

some debate over the relationship between culture and leadership,

the debate is not that the two do not impact each other but the

degree to which one has influence over the other. In the NASA

article referenced above, the conclusion of the investigating

committee on the Columbia disaster was that leadership absolutely

effects organization culture. In fact, the committee asserted

unequivocally that leaders create culture and leaders alter

cultures. When what is valued, what is said to be of value, and

what is valued in practice are not consistent, then leadership has

created a dysfunctional organizational culture destined for

failure.

Bolman and Deal (2003) assert that leadership

plays a key role in providing symbolism for what the organizational

culture values. Whether in terms of providing symbols (e.g.,

clothing, school cultures, trophy cases), providing vision and

mission statements (e.g., in writing, on walls, in shared

language), sharing organizational stories and myths (e.g.,

founders’ day, past heroes), maintaining rituals (e.g., pep

rallies, senior lunch rooms, seasonal concerts), or in other

symbolic ways, leaders help craft a shared perspective on what

matters most in the school and help build a culture that supports

those articulated values.

Starratt (1991; 1994; 2003; 2004), Sergiovanni

(1992; 2005), Strike, et al. (1998), Fullan (2003), Buzzelli &

Johnston (2002), Cooper (1998), and others have articulated that

school leadership has a responsibility of not only establishing a

shared vision but that they are to create a shared ethical vision

of behavior among all constituents in the learning community. That

is to say that an effective leader helps others know how

interaction among teachers, parents, and students is to occur,

helps others know what to do in moments of confrontation and

crisis, and helps others know how to engage each other in matters

relevant to student concerns whether academic, emotional, or

physical in nature.

When the rules of interaction and roles are

clear, then individuals reduce the chances for misunderstanding

that otherwise might infect healthy organizational environments.

Sometimes leaders like to refer to their schools as families, a

comfortable analogy upon first view. There is, however, something

dysfunctional about such a comparison. In a family environment,

there are often very clear distinctions between what parents may do

and what children can do. When we apply the family metaphor to

schooling, then we run the risk of establishing very clear

expectations for the parent (i.e., principal) and the children

(i.e., teachers and students) and there is something very unhealthy

about such an organizational culture. Thus, making expectations

clear is only part of the challenge. Treating each other fairly, so

as to encourage a shared stewardship of learning and a shared

responsibility for what happens during a school day, is an

important part of establishing the element of line in an

effectively managed school environment. An element closely related

to that of line in effective school management is that of value

where the leadership creates a culture of mutual growth among

students and teachers alike.

Element #2:
Value: The lightness or darkness of a color or

object

The Artist’s View:

Value is the art element that describes the

relative darkness or lightness of an object in a drawing or

painting. How much value a surface has is dependent on how much

light is reflected. If there is an absence of light, the surface

will be dark; and if there is much light, the surface becomes

lighter. There are many ways that artists create value. For

example, when one looks at a dollar bill, one may see an entire

artwork that is composed of tiny lines. The artist or the engraver

uses lines to create value. The closer and more plentiful the line

appears in a space, the darker the value. In turn the less line in

a given space there is less value, and the space appears lighter.

In fact, value is related to all the elements and is often

understood best in association with other elements.

ISLLC Standard #1 and #2: A school

administrator facilitates a vision and promotes success of all

students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture

and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff

professional growth.

A Leadership Perspective:
For school leadership, value represents the

“light” that emerges from daily activities that reflects attention

to what matters most. Often times in schools individuals can fail

to recognize, or to remember, what is most important. They

earnestly engage in any number of activities that seem important,

for the moment, but cast little light on the picture of what or who

they are. In other words, their actions do not adequately support

their most central, core values.

Core values are not observations, perceptions,

or operating rules. They are things individuals believe to be

extremely important. They are characterized by descriptors such as

fundamental, guiding, philosophical, and pointing the way. Core

values help answer such questions as: Who are we? What do we stand

for? What business are we really in? What is important to us? Where

do we want to go in our preferred future?

Accompanying core values are “we will”

statements. “We will” statements are specific, concrete,

observable, measurable actions that support the philosophy that

emerges from core values. In many instances, the “we will”

statements are single efforts such as special events or activities.

In other cases, however, “we will” statements involve multi-year

approaches to complex and systemic issues.

When individuals consider leading a school, it

is important to note the relative importance of the many activities

that come in a school day. Value in leadership means defining what

matters most so that all can begin to understand what the business

of school is. As individuals articulate the core values, the

guiding and philosophical principles, then all decisions can emerge

from a shared belief. The synergistic effect is that they can begin

putting their energy toward specific values, avoiding the ad hoc

decisions characteristic of many schools. What the student,

teacher, leader, and community see reflected in the activities of

the school is a value-driven institution with a vision for where it

is going rather than an event-driven body. Just as with value in

art, core values speak to all other elements of leadership. When

done well, core values become the guiding principles for all

decisions and help create school space characterized as a place for

authentic learning and caring.

In watching the students and teacher work

together one trait consistently emerges as essential to a caring

and authentic school: Empathy. Empathy can become value in that it

represents a guiding principle for the school culture. Empathy is

that interpersonal quality that allows one to know the feelings of

another (Kelehear, 2001; 2002). As students work with each other,

as teachers work with the students, and as the principal assists

the teacher, the level of empathy present defines the qualitative

relationship. And at the same time, the participants cultivate a

sense of caring in the relationship as they began to understand the

commitment in working together toward shared goals. In as much as

caring becomes a part of the school climate, the relationships

become more substantive and paying attention to each other becomes

the order of the day. A process by which we can begin to shape a

positive school culture might begin as school based leaders realign

the role of four key players in the school day: the student, the

teacher, the leader, and the curriculum.

Given the powerful influence on standardized

assessments, federal mandates, and state-level oversight, it is

easy to reduce students to input/output items rather than see them

in their humanity. In his book Schools Without Failure, William

Glasser (1969) emphasizes that allowing grades to create an

incentive for learning has, in fact, a contracting effect on what

is learned. The more that grades, and by extension standardized

tests, are emphasized the more that students want to know what is

exactly on the test, and only those items on the test. Students

come to believe that any other information can become an obstacle

or a distraction to getting the grade, and thus should be ignored

(p. 65). Effective school leadership will recognize that there is a

role for grades and standardized testing. Indeed, they can help

provide accountability for learning certain bits of information.

But to rely solely on grades and traditional assessments is

painfully shortsighted.

School based leaders can build a school

culture that shines light on authentic student learning and staff

professional growth. One way to construct such a climate is to

place emphasis on what Ted Sizer (1992), in his book Horace's

School, calls exhibitions. This type of assessment helps encourage

students to bring together facts and basic learning to create a new

understanding– what Mortimer Adler (p. 29) called maieutic

expression. A word of Greek origin, maieutic is loosely translated

as "giving birth." Just as an artist might be able to use the

elements of art to paint a still life, it is the artist's use of

those "skills" and the simultaneous interpretation of that object

through experience and feelings that can give birth to a new

perspective, a new understanding, a deeper cognition (Eisner,

2001). Similarly, other aspects of the curriculum could have the

same consequence.

School leaders and teachers must help students

come to command facts and information, the kind of information that

is readily assessed through pencil and paper tests and standardized

assessments. Quickly, however, students begin to use the newly

acquired information in applications of the concepts through

repeated practice and coaching; just as the artist begins to

command the elements of art. Although many very good teachers might

guide students to this level of mastery, this is not enough.

Through demonstrations, exhibitions, or other public forums,

teachers should encourage students to create a new, deeper

understanding, a maieutic expression. The student's knowledge and

understanding takes on what Eisner (1994) calls "a social dimension

in human experience" (p.39). But teachers and students will only be

able to do such authentic practice when the environment in general,

and school leadership in particular, supports such practice.

In a recent study of an arts magnet school

(Bender-Slack, Miller, & Burroughs, 2006)researchers observed

teaching practice in the standard curricular areas such as

mathematics, English, social studies, and science. The researchers

also followed the students to the classrooms for visual and

performing arts. The purpose of their observations was to ascertain

the degree to which an arts-infused curriculum was being

implemented. The observation and data collection were conducted in

an art magnet school; the same type of place that one might think

that arts-infused practice would be the norm, not the exception. To

the surprise of the researchers, teaching practice among the core

subjects areas remained traditional (i.e., teacher centered,

lecture formats, seat work) and void of arts-infused practices.

Similarly, the art teachers rarely embraced the standard curriculum

in their delivery of instruction. Keeping in mind that the mission

statement of the school emphasized an arts-based,

multi-disciplinary approach to learning, the researchers discovered

that the school had changed leadership several times in the

previous five years. The message for the researchers was clear,

where leadership fails to support innovative practice for teachers

and authentic performances for students then leadership could not

expect for the school to be any different than one that might be

characterized as unimaginative and traditional (Bender-Slack,

Miller, & Burroughs, 2006).

Understanding the teacher's role in developing

authentic learning experiences is essential to supporting a school

culture focused on teacher and student learning. The traditional

view that the teacher is the conveyor of knowledge and truth is

only partially correct. Newmann and Wehlage (1995) and Newmann,

Marks and Gamoran (1996) assert that students learn best when

teachers are engaged in authentic pedagogy design and provide

learning experiences that: 1) encourage students to build new

knowledge, 2) embrace and support disciplined inquiry, and 3) have

value beyond the school setting. Creating such authentic pedagogy

supports knowledge that students believe is more meaningful and

relevant than what might be expressed in traditional pencil and

paper tests that seek rote answers to prescribed questions. This

position is not to suggest that knowledge memorized is always an

undesirable product of schooling. The practice alone, however, is

wholly insufficient. Rather, and in keeping with a position

supported by Dewey (1934) and more recently embraced by

constructivist philosophy (e.g., Lambert et al., 2003), when

students begin to engage subject matter in meaningful ways, then

they begin to construct meaning of and establish value in the

school curriculum. The ownership of problems in the curriculum

moves from teacher to student. In other words, instead of a teacher

presenting problems to students to be addressed, students move to

engage problems (i.e., sources of dissonance) that compel them to

resolve apparent inconsistencies in their previous understanding.

An important part of this authentic perspective posited by Newmann

and Wehlage (1995) and Newmann, Marks and Gamoran (1996) is that

authentic pedagogy supports meaningful, personal, and private

reflection on the part of students and teachers alike. In essence,

they are addressing qualitative relationships and fine grained

distinctions (Eisner, 2002) between what they knew to be true

before the learning experience compared to what they are coming to

know based on the personal construction of new knowledge. This

intrapersonal reflection then becomes part of a classroom that

embraces the aesthetics of learning. As students continue to seek

meaning and purpose in the new knowledge, then they move to open

discourse with their peers and teachers.

In order for teachers to encourage authentic

expression from student and for teachers themselves to experiment

with what works for different types of students, there will need to

be a special type of leadership. The role of the principal is to

protect jealously the learning environment, to guard the classroom

as a safe place where teachers and students may take risks, and to

promote an atmosphere of openness and authentic communication.

Embedded throughout this vision for leadership is the pivotal role

of trust (Kelehear, 2001).

Through open communication, shared decision

making, and mutual respect, the school will model the

characteristics of a pluralistic, democratic society. There will be

many teaching styles; ideally, as many as there are different

learning needs. The leadership will celebrate those differences

while maintaining high expectations for student learning. Allowing

teachers to utilize different techniques does not free them from

responsibility for student learning. In fact, the opposite is true.

In as much as the principal allows for teachers to choose

strategies for student learning, then the principal can hold those

teachers responsible for what happens in the classroom. The

question to the teacher will not be "Did you teach well today?" but

rather, "Did the students learn today?" As Sizer (1984; 1992)

reminds us, if the answer to the second question is “yes,” then the

answer to the first question is “yes.” Said differently, one cannot

have taught well in the absence of student learning!

Authentic leadership would seek to construct a

context where the teachers and principal work together to form a

school culture that is focused on student achievement and engaged

citizenship. The teachers and principal would be clear about

student achievement and teaching excellence as essential core

values. They would attend only to those activities that support and

foster student and, as an extension, teacher successes (Patterson,

1993, p. 37-52).

The nature of leadership would be such that it

too is not a prescription. Rather, leadership in the authentic

school would celebrate children's uniqueness and the art of

teaching. Similarly, teachers and principal alike would understand

that leadership is in itself an artwork under construction. Just as

the principal celebrates and promotes the uniqueness of teachers,

the teachers would likewise support and challenge the principal to

be open, authentic, and a risk-taker in making decisions that

support the core values of the school.

Authentic learning spaces emerge when leaders

create opportunities for teachers and students to reflect on

experiences in qualitative ways. Central to the construction of

such a space requires leadership to design a curriculum in which

all the disciplines are embraced as complementary and supportive

and not in competition for space and budget. In essence, successful

school management becomes a process of providing opportunities for

meaning-making for teachers and student alike. The final assessment

of our schools might be as Eisner (2001) states, “It’s what

students do with what they learn when they can do what they want to

do that is the real measure of educational achievement” (p. 370).

If our students do not continue after school the things about which

we talk in school, then we may have failed them.

In today’s schools, leaders are confronted

with the harsh reality that effective teaching and leadership

involve experiment, reflection, and refinement and that effective

school based leadership supports such practices. Today’s school

cultures must be places that allow teachers and leaders to

recognize their own humanity and that of their students (Palmer,

1998). Both teachers and students ought to be allowed to fail and

leaders must provide for them support in their mistakes. School

leadership can begin, thus, to acknowledge that out of the

diversity of ideas, great wonders can emerge. Indeed, Steinbeck

(1955) reminds us, "teaching might even be the greatest of the arts
since the medium is the human mind and spirit” (p.7). Today’s

school building leader must have the strength of will and the

commitment to doing what matters most: attending to the needs of

the children. The best way to achieve this goal is for school

leadership to allow for the art that is teaching where authentic

learning and caring for each other carry the day. Being clear about

value and the light it sheds on practice is indeed a crucial part

of successful school based management.

Element #3:

Shape: Two-dimensional area

The Artist’s View:

A shape is a two-dimensional area that is

defined in some certain way. By drawing an outline of a circle on a

piece of paper, one has created a shape. By painting a solid red

square, one has also created a shape. Shapes may be either

free-formed or geometric. Free-form shapes are uneven and irregular

and usually promote a pleasant and soothing feeling. Geometric

shapes on the other hand are stiff and uniform and generally

suggest organization and management with little or no emotion.

Shape tends to appeal more to viewers’ minds rather than to their

emotions.

ISLLC Standard #3: A school administrator is

an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources

for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

A Leadership Perspective:

Schools have a shape, a smell, a look, a feel.

As we imagine our elementary school days, we create physical images

that capture our learning experiences. Similarly, as we walk into

the elementary school just before lunch to smell the bread cooking

in the dining hall, we are taken back to some of our favorite (or

maybe not so favorite) memories of schooling. Whatever the quality

of those memories, they are certainly vivid. We watch the big

yellow school bus traveling down the road and wonder about the

children in that lovely “monster” of a vehicle. These images are

not about instruction. They are about the other things that inform

our memories and have deeply affected our lives. Even though they

are not instruction, they are important to the successful school.

They are the shape of schooling.

Management is the shape of schools. We manage

budgets, discipline, community relations, and personnel. These are

not the things that should be our focus in schools but they are

exactly the matters with which we must deal so that we might teach

children. And, the degree to which a leader can handle aspects of

time management, scheduling, random but daily details, personnel

management, parent conferencing, and community relations will

determine the level of success for the students at that school. Of

the management details, supervision of personnel is the most

rewarding, demanding, and exhausting. Successful leaders find ways

to be instructional leaders by offering supervision, staff

development, remediation, and when necessary termination. But

during the whole process of management, leaders struggle to balance

being compassionate and supportive with being clinical and direct

with personnel. Both sets of skills are necessary, but it is the

rare leader who can do them both well. Effective leaders understand

how to shape the modes of management to support the business of

student learning.

Recently, while involved in staff development

for assistant principals, it became clear to the author that the

systemic configuration in the schools inhibited, or prohibited, the

proper application of leadership functions. Put bluntly, school

leadership has assumed so many different roles in the building that

some leaders felt they were not doing any of the jobs very well. In

fact, based on recent research with practicing assistant principals

(Kelehear, 2005) the author and participants reconstructed the

leadership position so that myriad responsibilities might be

separated into two categories, for two different positions. Instead

of one position in charge of both management and leadership, there

would be the Manager of Programs (MP) for administration and the

Instructional Leader (IL) for instructional supervision. Being in

charge in today’s schools continues to be a daunting task. Given

the competing demands of federal mandates, state assessments,

standardized-testing schedules, shrinking revenue streams, and the

like, it is no small wonder that children and teaching somehow get

lost in the shuffle.

It is clear from the literature (Sergiovanni,

1999; Smith & Piele, 1989; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon,

2004; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Starratt,

2004; Robbins & Alvy, 2003) that principals are called upon to

do a myriad of jobs. It is a challenging task for principals to

offer instructional leadership and also manage the other competing

responsibilities. In much the same way as a teacher must be a

successful manager of classroom behavior in order to be able to

teach, the school leader must be able to manage the school so that

instruction can take place. But to ask one person to manage all the

business of schooling and also to conduct instructional supervision

might be an unrealistic expectation. In working with 14

administrators, the author began to imagine that by separating the

instructional supervision function from the principal’s

responsibility, then maybe another teacher leader could more fully

supervise instruction in our schools (Kelehear, 2005). The role of

instructional supervision would rest with someone whose primary

responsibility was instructional development. Managing all other

affairs of schooling such as budgets, parent conferences, and

discipline would reside with the principal’s position. The Manager

of Programs (MP) was responsible for all matters of school

governance and management with the exception of instructional

leadership.
The Instructional Leader (IL) would conduct

all instructional programs relative to evaluation, supervision,

induction, remediation, and instructional staff development. This

job would carry with it a supervisory supplement that would

recognize the lead teacher’s supervisory responsibilities. The

school would have an instructional committee whose responsibility

it would be to select an IL who may or may not be a member of the

committee. The IL’s appointment would be 3 years. The IL would

function as a part of the instructional committee but leadership

within the committee would reside with a different person. One way

to imagine the organization is to imagine an elected school board

with an appointed superintendent. The committee will have

representatives from grade levels for elementary schools or from

subject areas for high schools. Middle schools would have

instructional committees drawn from teams.

For matters relative to evaluation, the IL

would have the primary responsibility for making “judgments

concerning the overall quality of the teacher’s performance and the

teacher’s competence in carrying out assigned duties as well as

provide a picture of the quality of teaching performances across

the professional staff” (Nolan, 2003). These data will be collected

as part of the teacher’s overall evaluation in terms of retention,

tenure, and promotion. The actual process for making employment

decisions is described later in this paper.

Within the context of supervision, the goal of

the IL is to offer instructional support for teachers throughout

their professional career paths. Novice teachers might receive

close-ordered coaching to help through the stresses of being new to

the profession. Tenured teachers might receive support in the form

of instructional development and experimentation. End-of-career

teachers might receive requests from the IL to share expertise with

others or to take on staff development responsibilities. At

whatever the career stage, the nature of the instructional support

will be in the form of developmental supervision or

mentoring.

Research on mentoring emphasizes that the

direction and content of instructional development is a shared

responsibility of both the novice teacher and mentor teacher

(Glickman, 2002; Reiman, 1999; Reiman & Theis-Sprinthall,

1993). Through collaboration and coaching the pair of teachers

observe each other, share reflections on experiences, and develop

professional development plans. Although during the early stages of

the professional relationship, the mentor will likely assume a

dominate role; over time the nature of the relationship will shift

responsibilities from the mentor to novice (Gray & Gray,

1985).

A key function of the IL is to identify,

develop, and supervise a cadre of successful teachers who are

trained in developmental supervision and mentoring. The IL will be

the lead mentor and will offer support and guidance to the cadre

and will also substitute in cadre classes when the mentor is

conducting observations or conferences. Each mentor will provide

reports to the IL regarding dates of mentor contacts, the nature of

the observation, and any issues that the IL might need to address.

Because of the need for confidentiality and trust in the mentoring

relationship, care will be given not to offer specific details of

the mentor’s contacts. The mentor’s contacts will be formative in

nature. Differently, the IL will conduct summative observations and

evaluations of teachers for employment decisions. The IL will offer

summary reports and recommendations to the MP and those reports

would become a part of the teacher’s personnel file. The MP will

also make recommendations, again for inclusion in the personnel

file, for employment based on teachers’ performances of

non-instructional responsibilities (e.g., bus duty, lunchroom

supervision, committee participation, attendance). The

instructional committee will receive recommendations and will offer

its recommendation for employment as well. In effect, employment

decisions then come upon a three-vote decision: one vote from the

IL, one vote from the MP and one vote from the instructional

committee. Based on the three reports, the MP will construct a

letter to the Director of Personnel that summarizes the findings

and will offer a recommendation regarding the continuing employment

status of the teacher. Both the MP and the IL will sign the letter.

Any disputes or dissenting opinions will also be submitted, as

attachment, to the Director of Personnel for inclusion in the

personnel file.
Although the IL would be responsible for the

personnel evaluation component, the instructional committee and

mentors would engage in supervision exclusively. The group based

the distinctions of what constitutes evaluation vs. supervision on

Nolan’s (2003) work. According to Nolan, the natures of evaluation

and supervision are fundamentally and critically distinct within

various functions of the teaching experience [See Table 2]. Given a

particular dimension, the distinctions between evaluation and

supervision become clear.

table2.GIF

It is in the form of mentoring as a

supervisory practice that some of the more powerful benefits for

teacher growth and development seem to emerge (Reiman 1999;

Glickman, 2002; Pajak, 2002). Individuals who have a trained mentor

are more likely to realize professional and personal growth than

those who work alone (Vygotsky, 1986). This benefit is especially

noticeable when teachers are in new assignments or in new settings.

Whether we are speaking about new doctors, new teachers, new

administrators, or new professors, a supportive colleague can help

a novice move to higher levels of effectiveness. Writing about

medical school novices, Rabatin et al. (2004) noted that a

“mentoring model stressing safety, intimacy, honesty, setting of

high standards, praxis, and detailed planning and feedback was

associated with mentee excitement, personal and professional growth

and development, concrete accomplishments, and a commitment to

teaching” (p. 569).

For public school teachers having a mentor is

associated with professional growth and a sense of self-efficacy

for both novices and experienced teachers. In working with veteran

teachers, Reiman and Peace (2002) sought to “encourage new social

role-taking, support new learning in effective teaching, encourage

new complex performances in coaching and support conferences, and

promote gains in moral and conceptual reasoning. Significant

positive gains in learning, performance, and moral judgment

reasoning were achieved” (p. 597). Mentoring had a bidirectional

benefit for both novice and mentor. The best plan for supporting

instruction will require a position that is wholly, and singularly,

focused on the processes of teacher development.

As a benefit to school cultures, mentoring in

a developmental supervision model encourages conversation among

teachers. In conversation we begin creating a school community

characterized by sharing, supporting, and caring. It has become

clear through research of Noddings (2002), Palmer (1998), Starratt

(1997), and others that when teachers and students work in a caring

and supportive atmosphere, they are more likely to take risks,

experiment, and attend to each other’s needs. It is just this type

of collaboration that the process of mentoring can

encourage.
Form: Three-dimensional structure or shape; geometric or free

form.

The Artist’s View:

Forms are shapes that are three-dimensional

and are either geometric or free form. In two-dimensional works of

art (that is, artworks that hang on a wall), artists use value on a

shape to create a form. In other words when artists add value to

the shape of a circle, the shape becomes a sphere and takes on the

illusion of something that is three-dimensional -- a form. Today

artists refer to light and dark areas of a work of art as modeling

or shading. Very dark areas of forms tend to recede into the

artwork where very light areas appear closest to the viewer. In

three-dimensional art works such as sculpture, all shapes are forms

because they take up space in three dimensions. True forms occupy

height, width, and depth in space.

ISLLC Standard #5: A school administrator is

an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

A Leadership Perspective:

The difference in management and leadership is

the movement from shape to form, from two-dimensional perspective

to a three-dimensional one. Leadership in many cases is a matter of

perspective. Effective leaders find ways to recognize different

perspectives in general through effective communication and more

specifically through active listening. Truly gifted communicators

can discern surface messages and distinguish them from the very

important, but embedded, messages. What is the speaker saying? What

is the speaker communicating? What is the speaker feeling? The

answers are often wide-ranging.

The form for effective school-based management

comes as effective communication. In other words, effective

management requires one to be able to see individuals, events, and

cultures from three dimensional perspectives. Communication has as

its prerequisite trust. Without a sense of trust between two

people, both in terms of content and confidentiality, there is

little hope of meaningful conversation. An obvious example might be

that if teachers trust their colleagues to work with them and not

reveal their weak teaching areas to the general public, and

certainly not to supervisors, then they might be more inclined to

share deficiencies with colleagues. In so doing, teachers might be

able to find help toward improving pedagogical gaps. If, on the

other hand, teachers do not have the confidence in others' genuine

concern for their professional development, they will certainly not

engage in conversation with people about any professional areas of

need. It is through active listening that principals can

communicate trust and genuine interest that might lead to collegial

interaction and growth.

Fortunately, active listening is a skill that

can be developed. Though many people might think they are good

listeners, in fact, without concentrated and frequent practice, and

perhaps training, few people are effective listeners. It is only

through intentional practice that one can develop into an effective

listener. And the truly good listener recognizes that communication

comes in verbal and nonverbal forms.

Effective leaders also recognize that through

empathic writing, a sort of active listening through writing, the

content of a message can begin to have depth along with breadth

(Kelehear, 2002). In other words, leaders see the message from the

front, from the side, from the inside. In so doing, the effective

leaders recognize the multi-dimensional dynamic, the

three-dimensional reality that comes with effective

communication.

Research on the role of effective

communication and the role it plays in successful leadership

proclaims that that there can be no leadership without

communication. In fact, it is communication that helps school

leaders build trust and integrity in organizational cultures.

Robbins & Alvy (1998) assert that today’s principals are

expected to be much more than simply instructional leaders. Among

the multiple roles principals assume beyond instructional

leadership are chief financial officer for the school building,

student and teacher counselor for both professional and personal

matters, and community contact for topics ranging from dress codes

to the bus schedule. Embedded in all the principals'

responsibilities, both the de jure and de facto assignments, is the

requirement that they be clear and accurate communicators (Cousins,

1996). In fact, one might easily make the case that, above all

else, effective principals must be skilled communicators (Stevan

& Blumberg, 1986; Zigler, 1994; Tauer, 1996; Cousins, 1996;

Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998; Reiman, 1999).

In the spirit of skilled communicator,

effective school leaders are able to articulate the vision and

mission of the school and school system, establish norms of

behavior for both teachers and students, and communicate high

expectations for teaching and learning. There can be no effective

leadership, it would appear, without effective communication

(Persell & Cookson, 1982; Buffie, 1989; Barth, 1990; Prestine,

1993; Blase & Blase, 1994; Stolp & Smith, 1995).

Particularly fascinating for today’s

principals is the possible role that technology, and in particular

e-mail, might play in contributing to successful communication.

With the infusion of technology into schools, computers and e-mail

have become part of the daily routine for principals and teachers.

In interviews with twelve principals representing elementary,

middle, and high schools, it became clear that both teachers and

principals relied heavily on e-mail to communicate with each other

(Kelehear, 2001). One principal commented that she no longer used

the intercom, but depended on e-mail to reach teachers and

students. She reduced faculty meetings from once a week to once a

month and disseminated all daily and weekly information by

e-mail.

Several principals also found that face to

face contact with some teachers seemed to diminish through the use

of e-mail, if not in qualitative terms, certainly in quantitative

ways. Two principals had actually removed the sign-in sheet and had

teachers sign in from their rooms via e-mail. They commented that

by moving the sign-in sheet they inadvertently lost contact with

half of the staff. Several other principals commented that if it

were not for the mail boxes in the front office, they would likely

not see many of their teachers. Or, as another principal lamented,

"I was talking with a teacher I had not seen in a few days when he

told me that he had been absent for two days. I did not even know

he was not there!"

And finally, there emerged the expectation on

the part of principals and teachers alike that an immediate

response to e-mail was not only preferred, rather it was expected.

When teachers and principals sent messages, they became annoyed

when the response was not returned quickly. When pressed by what

was meant by "quickly," the teachers expected the principal to

respond within three or four hours. Principals were more exacting.

They anticipated a response from teachers within the hour! Several

of the schools conducted faculty meetings whose agenda items

focused on establishing norms and expectations regarding

e-mail.

Given that e-mail has so completely become

interwoven into the fabric of the school culture, it is interesting

to note the reaction of staff when “the system” goes down or

crashes. One principal recounted her and her staff’s reaction to

such an event:

Last week the system stopped working. I sought

out our technology specialist in an attempt to find the source of

the problem. Almost simultaneously, teachers began drifting by my

office to tell of the problem and find when it might be fixed. When

I discovered that the system might be down for several days,

immediately my daily routine began to change. I traveled the halls

listening to teachers teaching and I talked with students as they

moved on to their next class. During the transition to classes, I

sensed that teachers were more likely to come to their doors and

visit with each other and with students than they were when the

system was working. For certain, I was in the halls more frequently

doing the things I think a principal should be doing.

It is far from certain whether e-mail alone

has encapsulated many teachers, but it is interesting to ask if a

reliance on technological communication necessarily detracts from

interpersonal conversation. Let it be clear, however, that not all

schools with e-mail become cloistered communities. In almost

countless ways, student academic achievement is augmented through

the proper application of technology. Nevertheless, there is a

possibility, as seen in the example above, that e-mail might reduce

the important informal contacts between principals, teachers, and

students.

Several studies support active listening as an

important set of skills for authentic and accurate communication,

especially for people in supervisory roles (Tauer, 1996; Cousins,

1996; Reiman & Theis-Sprinthall, 1998; Reiman,1999). This

research applied active listening concepts to the medium of e-mail

correspondence, thus creating the notion of empathic writing. Once

principals recognize the pervasiveness of e-mail, they are left to

grapple with establishing effective communication habits through

that medium. Empathic writing might speak to this need.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when the

principals paraphrased content or feelings with empathic writing,

teachers frequently responded with additional information, thus

developing the original message more fully. Teachers commented that

they appreciated the principals’ taking their comments seriously

and seeming to care about what the teachers were trying to say.

Interestingly, it became immediately clear that empathic writing

was rarely responded to in any substantive way if there did not

already exist a significant relationship of trust and open

communication between the principal and teacher. One possible

conclusion of this condition is that empathic writing is rarely

successful without a preexisting basis of interpersonal

communication. But, where that relationship was present already,

empathic writing by e-mail tended to enhance and affirm the

communicative relationship. Where that empathic precondition did

exist, teachers commented that the principals’ willingness to

respond to e-mail in an obviously meaningful way did indeed

engender trust and collegiality.

Some real limitations to empathic writing by

electronic communication emerged. With the loss of nonverbal

signals inherent in face-to-face communication, some of the power

of the principals' message was lost. More specifically, some

messages sent by principals were misunderstood because the teacher

was not sure of the principals’ actual intent. One principal noted

that many times silence or pauses communicated important, albeit

subtle, messages and that component was lost in e-mail. There was

just no way to display the “thoughtful pause” that might come in a

genuine, caring conversation.

Another principal acknowledged some benefit to

empathic writing, but was not willing to take the time, and risk,

that this type of electronic engagement required. With this

revelation as a backdrop, the writer stumbled upon a shocking

finding. Principals were literally overwhelmed by the volume of

e-mail messages that arrived daily. On the average, these fourteen

principals received 63 e-mails within a 24-hour period. If the

principals responded to every message utilizing empathic writing

skills, there would be little time to do anything else. Two

principals went on to say that they were reluctant to miss school

for professional travel because they so disliked the many messages

awaiting them upon their return. One principal put it very

directly:

This e-mail is killing me. When I arrived in

the morning there were always several messages from teachers,

parents, and central office personnel waiting on my computer. I

found myself arriving at work earlier and earlier each day so that

I could deal with these messages before teachers and students began

to arrive. Additionally, I stayed later in the day to catch up on

e-mails and other business that should have been handled during the

day when I was managing other e-mails. As a last resort, I began

taking my laptop home to respond to e-mails and found that there

was little time for me to be away from the affairs of schooling.

Managing these e-mails was burning me out. I was working fourteen

and fifteen-hour days.

As in many jobs today, it is interesting to

note that technology aimed to helping people work more efficiently

and therefore have more time for themselves has achieved the

opposite effect. The principals’ work is following them everywhere

and they feel overwhelmed. Today, there is a severe shortage of

prepared leaders to fill the leadership positions in schools across

the nation. There is the real chance that the very technology that

intended to make lives better is, in fact, draining the energy of

principals, and thus creating an increased leadership vacuum in our

schools. It would be important for further research to examine the

relationship of principal resiliency to e-mail management.

In the interviews conducted in this study,

another area of possible inquiry became clear. Do principals who

communicate well with personnel on an interpersonal basis find it

easier to engage in empathic writing than those principals who do

not relate well to staff members? From these few interviews, there

appeared to be a positive correlation between principals who

engaged in successful active listening and those who were

comfortable with empathic writing. Principals who had previous

training in active listening seemed comfortable translating those

skills to the writing medium. This is an area where closer study

needs to be conducted before any conclusions might be drawn,

however.

In reviewing material for establishing e-mail

messages, a potentially disturbing trend appeared. Under the

perceived urgency to respond to e-mail immediately, many teachers

found their lessons being interrupted by the frequent "beep" of the

computer, notifying the teacher of a new e-mail. As one teacher put

it, "We have replaced the intercom interruptions with computer

ones." Several teachers and principals set their computers to check

for new e-mail every two or three minutes, also saying something to

researchers about the school culture and technology. Have we

exacerbated an already fractionated, episodic school day with the

inclusion of e-mail technology in schools? It would be very

important, also, to examine to what extent teachers are responding

to e-mail during instructional time. Finally, how much time are

principals spending responding to e-mail versus their time

conducting instructional supervision?

Another area of concern for schools and

technology emerged from these interviews. Several principals

related that they believed that contact with central office staff

was decreased because of a heavy dependence on e-mail. Instead of

seeing the personnel director, or the superintendent, or the

curriculum coordinator, the principals and teachers received

memoranda via e-mail “almost exclusively” and the e-mail technology

actually did little to remove barriers or psychological distances

between central offices and schools. Several principals commented

that this separation might seem just the opposite of what ought to

happen with e-mail. Principals believed that the schools' morale

suffered from this exclusive reliance on technological

communication. Central offices often are accused of being

disconnected from students and teachers. There is a need to examine

this possible separation broadened by technology. Further study is

underway to clarify this apparent “entrapment” of central office

personnel by e-mail technology.

In conclusion, communicating by e-mail is not

likely to replace qualitative, interpersonal contacts. In many

ways, words without physical context can be hollow. Empathic

writing, however, can have many of the same benefits that effective

interpersonal communication has. It can provide another means for

principals to paraphrase teachers’ feelings and content and, in so

doing, enhance a sense of efficacy and trust among their

instructional staff. Empathic writing tells teachers that

principals care in significant ways about what is going on in the

teachers’ lives. Teachers can never have too many messages like

that from principals. It would seem prudent that principals work to

communicate well and often with their staffs through both personal

and technological contacts. Given that effective communication is

central to the form of effective building management and given

email continues to be an important technology for communication, it

stands to reason that building capacity for empathic communication,

either electronically or in person, is an important part of

successful leadership in today’s schools.

Space: Area around, between, above, below, or within an

object

The Artist’s View:

All the area that exists around, between,

above, below, and within an object is considered to be space. Forms

and shapes are considered to be positive space and space that

occupies the area in and around the form and shape is called

negative space. Artists that utilize large negative spaces may

express loneliness or freedom. Crowding together positive space

reflects tension or togetherness. Depending on each other, positive

and negative spaces interact with one another to create meaning.

Space in three-dimension is considered to be the area that is over,

under, around, behind, and through. Sculpture, jewelry,

architecture, weaving, and ceramics are three-dimensional art

forms. They are artworks that take up real space.

ISLLC Standard #2: A school administrator is

an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and

instructional program conducive to student learning and staff

professional growth.

A Leadership Perspective:

When a teacher works alone he often has fewer

skills for problem solving than when he works with an older or more

experienced person (e.g., mentor). The mentor can help the teacher

explore different, and often new, ways to solve problems through

trial and error or through approximations of existing schema. For

example, if new learning is conceptually close to what the new

teacher already knows and understands, then he can more readily

internalize the information. If, however, the new learning is

significantly different from what is already known, then the

teacher will likely encounter more difficulty in capturing the new

information. In this case, a mentor can assist the teacher in

identifying new pathways of understanding. Mentors can enhance the

ability to internalize new and difficult material. The simultaneous

effort of support and challenge on the part of a mentor offers a

productive model for learning. For example, the mentor might

support learning by first presenting material that the teacher

already understands and then challenge him with information that is

an extension of that understanding. Put more directly, a teacher

learns best when learning is connected to existing understanding;

teacher learning is social in nature.

Understanding the role of space can help

leaders create learning places that are at once challenging and

supporting. Teaching assignments and the pedagogy that come with

them help create challenge. Leaders help teachers grow and stretch

by challenging them to take on different subjects, different age

groups of students, different roles. Additionally, leaders create

positive moments as they encourage teachers to use a wide range of

pedagogical techniques in order to reach more students. Left alone,

these challenges can create negative working conditions as teachers

feel stretched but not appreciated. Effective leaders find a way to

balance challenge with support. Much as space in art is constructed

with positive and negative dimensions, successful learning space is

constructed with a balance of support and challenge. The

appropriate balance might include new teaching methods, but at the

same time might include opportunities for team planning or for

coaching. Through sustained, long-term, coaching, and support,

leaders can offer teachers a safe environment where risks are

valued and mistakes are acknowledged as part of the growing

process.

School-based management, in part, is

successful to the degree to which that learning, amidst an

environment of support and challenge, is present for both students

and teachers. But bringing individuals and organizations to higher

levels of effectiveness is a daunting task. It is the position of

the author that organizational change can not happen without

individual change, and vise versa. A first step in making such

significant changes is to begin seeing teachers in a new way. That

new way is a view rooted in an arts-based perspective and

methodology.

The notion that school-based leaders can

assist teachers improve their effectiveness in supporting student

achievement is central to schooling. One of the most specific ways

that leaders can support teaching is through instructional

leadership and supervision. The author develops some of this

discussion in an earlier part of this monograph under shape. But

more needs to be addressed in terms of the possibility of leaders

capturing successful teaching and stretching growth of teaching

from an arts-based approach. Specifically, the author offers a

mechanism for applying the conversation of art to the art of

teacher development. Put differently, one might ask “How might a

leader build the art of reflective practice into the daily practice

of schooling?”
Reflection as a method for making meaning out

of the teaching experience remains an important part of

instructional supervision (Glickman, 2002; Pajak, 2003; Rucinski,

2005; Sullivan & Glanz, 2005). Reflection as a method of making

meaning out of experience remains an important part of art

criticism (Feldman, 1995). Reflection as conversation is central to

making meaning out of the art of teaching. In as much as the

supervision of teaching becomes art, then some understanding of the

language of art is in order. In so doing, instructional supervisors

can begin to utilize reflection, as in art criticism, as a

mechanism for reflecting on teaching in a much broader and possibly

more profound way.

Focusing specifically on how teachers and

supervisors can reflect and discuss teaching behaviors, scholars

have readily acknowledged the role that reflection and feedback can

play in supporting teacher growth (Beebe & Masterson, 2000;

Bennis, 1989; Bolman & Deal, 2002; Dewey, 1938; Glanz, 2002;

Good & Brophy, 1997; Kelehear, 2002; Lambert, et al., 2003;

Nolan & Hoover, 2004; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Schon,

1987; Sullivan & Glanz, 2005, 2006; Wenger, McDermott &

Snyder, 2002; Woolfolk & Hoy, 2003; Zepeda, 2000). The manner

in which supervisor and teacher talk to each other reflects the

capacity of both parties to recognize that teaching is about

supervisor and teacher as well as teacher and student. The

relationship that emerges from the conversation is beneficial to

both the teacher and the supervisor. In other words there is a

bidirectional benefit (Kelehear & Heid, 2002; Reiman, 1999;

Reiman & Theis-Sprinthall, 1993). But in order to understand

this bi-directionality, some consideration must be given to the

nature of conversation and how it can move from concern about self

to concern about others. The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

provides such a theoretical understanding.

For several years, emerging in large part from

Fuller’s (1969) original study published in the American

Educational Research Journal, researchers in staff development have

provided an important mechanism for framing and supporting

organizational change through the CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1978;

Hord, et al., 1978; Hall & Rutherford, 1990). The stages of

CBAM are Awareness, Information, Personal, Management, Consequence,

Collaboration, and Refocusing [See Table 3].

table3.GIF

This theory recognizes that when individuals

come into contact with innovations, they necessarily travel through

the levels of concern (i.e., starting with awareness and moving up

the scale) based heavily on how “new” the innovation is. A

profoundly important distinction between the first four stages and

the last three is that the focus of the individuals moves away from

themselves and more toward the effect an innovation has on others.

Art conversation has some interesting parallels as well.

Edmund Feldman (1995) provides a paradigm for

discussing art publicly, i.e., art criticism. His four-step,

(description, analysis, interpretation, judgment) approach offers

students a specific process for undertaking aesthetics or critical

theory. When an observer engages an artwork using the Feldman

Method, that individual will first describe the piece. The goal in

this step is to describe objectively what one sees. An essential

part of this step is to delay any judgments or conclusions. The

second step in the Feldman Method involves analysis. In the process

of analysis one begins to describe different elements of the art,

like the use of color, or line, or value. The third step in the

Feldman Method calls for interpretation. The goal is to try to find

meaning in what one sees. The final step in the Feldman Method is

for the observer to begin making judgments about the artwork. This

step is the first one that calls for evaluation on the part of the

observer. Thus, if there is an art of reflection for teachers and

an art of reflection for artists, then there clearly is a message

for instructional supervision rooted in an arts-based

theory.

If an instructional leader begins to describe

teaching behaviors as art, one can observe that the same movement

from concern about self to concern about others also happens. To

put it differently, initially the conversation focuses on the

technical dimensions and afterwards addresses the aesthetic

elements of the lesson. In the first two steps the instructional

supervisor observes the lesson in its technical dimensions. The

observer describes and analyzes the lesson and these pieces are

very important. In fact, without first establishing that the

learner outcomes are met and that classroom management supports

that achievement it is premature to consider any other portion of

the instruction. If, on the other hand, the supervisor describes

and analyzes the lesson with a teacher, and they both feel

comfortable with those steps, then they can begin discussing the

instruction in qualitative or aesthetic ways. As in the description

of the Feldman Method above, teachers and instructional leaders can

readily engage in “describing” and “analyzing” a lesson but it is

quite a different story to “interpret” and “evaluate” the lesson.

The final two steps require the instructor and observer to attend

more carefully to the feelings, the consequences and the subtleties

of the lesson (Heid, 2005). But the final two steps are the essence

of beginning to observe teaching as an art and supervision of such

teaching as also an art. To ignore those steps is to continue

reducing class observations to inspection and “fact finding” rather

than enlarging the observation to the aesthetic possibilities of

excellent teaching. Given the important role that all four steps

play in promoting the art of teaching and the art of discussing

teaching, it is instructive to observe how using the Feldman Method

makes sense [See Table #4].

table4.GIF

Applying the Feldman Method to artwork was new

for the instructional leaders and that newness helped remind them
of the power, intimidating power, of innovations. Applying the

Feldman Method in teacher observations was also challenging as it

was innovative for the administrators and for the teachers. The

author asked the same eight students to take their new knowledge of

the Feldman Method and apply it to teacher observations. Using the

chart above (See Table 4), the students began to be comfortable

with the different steps in the method. In pre-observation

conferences at their schools, they discussed with teachers the

specific points for observation and the structure of the

observation instrument. After each lesson, the observed teachers

were asked to apply the Feldman Method as they reflected on their

own lessons. In the post-observation conference, the instructional

leader asked the teacher to lead the conference by moving through

the Feldman Method. One of the instructional leaders came to class

one week and remarked: “I can not get my teacher to do the last two

steps. All the teacher wants to know is if he passed or not! We

just have nothing to talk about after we finish the technical

part.” Other participants also reflected similar concerns. In a

culture of high stakes assessment, of both students and teachers,

it is easy to lose sight of the aesthetics that impact learning and

to reduce learning to the technical or immediately observable

elements of a lesson. Toward the end of the term several of the

instructional leaders commented that their teachers, after they

began to trust the leader’s intentions, were becoming more

comfortable with discussing the aesthetic steps (i.e., steps three

and four) in the Feldman Method.

With each attempt to apply the Feldman Method

to instructional supervision, the students became more comfortable

applying the conversation of art in conferences. An especially

exciting part of this growing confidence and in keeping with the

CBAM stages of consequence, collaboration, and refocusing, the

students began considering different approaches to using art

language in observing teaching. As the students became comfortable

with the innovation later in the term, the author and students

began discussing the consequence the Feldman Method might have on

student learning and teacher growth. Their concern moved from

concern about self to concern about the innovation’s impact on

others. They also moved quickly to collaborate on possible

alternatives to the standard format the author proposed. And

finally, as a final project in the class, they were asked to

refocus the Feldman Method and formulate a new format for critique

so that they could make the assessment instrument meet the needs of

teachers and students at their schools.

Introducing school leaders to the language of

art, and in this case the Feldman Method, reminded the author and

students that innovation can be overwhelming. In order to come to

terms with innovation, school leaders must also recognize the

teaching the CBAM theory offers. A particularly exciting connection

for the participants and authors, and an unanticipated one, was the

link they made between concern for self and concern for others in

both the CBAM and Feldman Method. The message was clear: when

school leaders and teachers, in parallel fashion, begin attending

to the art of teaching, then they necessarily begin to move beyond

the important and necessary technical dimensions of teaching to the

crucial and essential aesthetic considerations that make a

classroom a place for academic achievement and personal

development. And in this context, creating learning space for

teachers invited experimentation, risk-taking, and a culture built

on teacher professional growth and student learning.

Color: Property of objects coming from reflected light

The Artist’s View:

Color is the most dynamic and exciting element

of art. It is also the hardest element to describe. Color comes

from reflected light. When light reflects off of an object such as

a red ball, the red ball absorbs all light waves except the red

light waves. The red light waves reflect into our eyes and are

interpreted by our brain as the color red. Often, we represent

colors along a spectrum– primary (red, yellow, and blue), secondary

(violet, green, and orange) and tertiary or intermediate (red

orange, red violet, blue violet, blue green, yellow green, and

yellow orange). When these spectral colors are bent into a circle,

we form a color wheel. White and black are not considered colors at

all. Black is the absence of color and white is considered to be

all colors.

ISLLC Standard #6: A school administrator is

an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political,

social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

A Leadership Perspective:

As different colors contribute to the whole

beauty of the art and people’s different styles, different gifts

support successful schools. One of the ways leaders can celebrate

differences is by first acknowledging that diversity is valued.

This diversity can be in terms of gender or ethnicity, of course.

What might also be noted is that the diversity of ideas, teaching

styles, or perspectives is important to the successful school.

Successful leaders consider learning styles and personality types

as they seek out teachers’ help. Building a successful committee is

as much about “who decides who decides” as it is about who is in

the group. In other words, successful leaders help bring together

individuals with acknowledged differences so that a true exchange

of ideas can begin. The negative approach might be leaders who

select the “right” ones for committees knowing before the work

begins what the conclusions will be. Where leadership is successful

there are shared values and goals coupled with an appreciation for

the different paths one might take to reach those goals. One of the

more notable examples of these shared values amidst diverse

approaches can be in a principal’s role as instructional leader at

a local school high school. Specifically, how might the principal

support a shared value through staff development initiatives that

also celebrates diverse approaches to effective instruction?

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), for better or for

worse, has school leaders across the nation looking carefully at

staff development, especially as staff development affects the

notion of “highly qualified teachers” and “school improvement.” Two

questions that continue to arise among many school leaders are,

“How can we be sure that our money spent on staff development has

measurable results?” and “How can we sustain any benefits so that

our good intentions might last longer than just to the end of the

training session?”

Historically, leaders have created mission

statements and vision statements to help provide organizations a

means to articulate what they value most. As noted earlier in this

monograph regarding “space,” some schools have adopted a core

values approach school leadership. Core values help schools

communicate to the community, students, teachers and administrators

what is most important. It would stand to reason that the daily

activities within the school would support those values as well.

Principals have an especially important role in making certain that

what the teachers are doing is supportive and consistent with the

articulated core values. Additionally, in a time when much staff

development is being eliminated because of diminishing budgets,

initiatives must be able to communicate to various audiences their

value with specific and understandable assessments. And as leaders

begin to “justify” their expenditures for staff development in

light of NCLB, then they might return to what matters most, helping

children learn.

Even when a staff development program adopts a

core values approach, it will continue to find challenges to

implementing successful professional development. If on the other

hand school leaders couple core values with an intentional,

on-going reflection process, then they can greatly improve the

chances for successful staff development. One way that professional

development efforts can achieve desired results is by the

principal, teacher-leaders, and teachers answering affirmatively

the following seven questions about the staff development

initiative:

Given the core values of the school, have we

done the following successfully?

1. Have we made all involved aware of the initiative?

2. Have we provided information about the initiative and how it

supports the core values of the district?

3. Have we communicated the personal impact the initiative has

on people affected?

4. Have we provided strategies for managing the initiative

within the current realities?

5. Have we communicated what consequence the initiative will

have on student achievement?

6. Have we provided opportunities for collaboration among those

 affected?

7. Are we willing to provide opportunities for the affected

parties to work together to further extend and refocus the

initiative beyond its present form?

In order to achieve desired results of a given

staff development initiative, principals will answer, in order, all

the questions above. Only after one is answered adequately can the

next question be asked. Skipping or avoiding a question will

prevent the successful implementation of the initiative.

At a local high school, the principal was

considering various scheduling initiatives to support improved

standardized test scores. Early in the school year, before students

arrived, the principal and teachers agree upon the following core

value: “We value knowledgeable, reflective, and thoughtful

students.” At the school a committee, facilitated by the staff

development leader, then examined various scheduling models that

would support the articulated value. With district-level support,

the high school team committed to team teaching for math-science

and English-social studies.

The first order of business was for the

principal, with the collaboration of the high school committee, to

make the entire staff aware of team teaching. The leader then

provided information that clarified in what ways team teaching

supported the core value. Once the faculty had the team teaching
information, it began asking questions like, “What does this have

to do with me?” Individuals quickly moved to decide if the idea

affected them personally. Again, the leader shared with the faculty

how team teaching affected them. The faculty then imagined how it,

collectively and individually, would absorb or adopt team teaching

into its existing schedule. In other words, how would each teacher

manage team teaching? Up to this point, questions focused on the

teachers. When the faculty began to consider the impact of team

teaching on student achievement, however, then their concern about

the initiative moved from inward looking to outward looking. The

discussion about team teaching moved to the consequence on student

scheduling or student achievement. The phase revealed a significant

shift in the focus of the faculty. The faculty (principal and

teachers) ceased to think primarily of itself and more towards the

students. It is important to note that the faculty could not be

asked to consider the needs of the students until the first four

phases were addressed.

An especially exciting moment was when the

faculty moved to the next phase of concern and began asking

questions about how it might collaborate to further enhance the

positive benefits of team teaching. This level of concern

represented the best elements of site-based management and shared

decision-making. This level, however, served to remind reformers

that systems change is a multi-year challenge and that there are

few shortcuts. Finally, in very rare instance, this faculty began

to imagine how team teaching could be refocused or reconstructed to

be an even better strategy for enhancing the quality and quantity

of student learning.

For school leaders the message from the

example above was that as schools engaged in professional

development, they must attend to the needs of those caught in the

change in specific and intentional ways. And only after individuals

began to understand how they would manage the change could the

staff development move to its most important point . . . student

achievement. Understanding this process could help reduce

frustration and ambiguity amidst the storm of change. As NCLB

begins to disappear on the political horizon and the next “miracle

plan” arises, then school systems can be confident that they are

already attending to what matters most, helping children be

productive, reflective, and knowledgeable citizens in a global

society. Indeed, staff development can support high standards while

also supporting a range of approaches. When staff development, as

well as other school-based decisions, allows for shared values and

diverse approaches, then those efforts support the diversity of

ideas . . . the color of successful schools.

Element #7

Texture: Feel or appearance of an object or surface

The Artist’s View:

Texture is the art element that refers to how

things feel or look as if they might feel. Touch and vision are how

we perceive texture. One can use tactile sensitivity by using skin

receptors to feel texture but one can also experience visual

texture by looking at the illusion of a three dimensional surface.

Once again the element of value comes to the forefront. Without the

relative lightness and darkness of the surface arrangement, the

illusion of a surface texture could not be seen. Texture is

important to every art medium.

ISLLC Standard #4: A school administrator is

an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

collaborating with families and community members, responding to

diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community

resources.

A Leadership Perspective:

Successful school leaders recognize that

schools are a tapestry of people, interests and communities.

Weaving those very different, and very important, stakeholders is a

delicate and intricate process and will almost always result in

some degree of stress and anxiety for all concerned. When bringing

the various constituencies together, the school can become a

seamless fabric of diverse perspectives that agree to celebrate

student achievement. Or, if leadership does not effectively connect

the various stakeholders, the school can begin to unravel into

patches of angry parents, frustrated teachers, and misbehaving

students. Successful leaders take the time to invite participation

by all stakeholders. This invitation, then, would be offered to

parents, community leaders, students, teachers, administrators, and

support staffs. To the level that these constituencies are included

then there would be more commitment by all concerned and less

opportunity for subterfuge and negative energy. The notion that we

are all in this together would serve to elevate the commitment for

all and help create a fabric that embraces and supports rather than

a blanket that smothers creativity and individuality. In many ways,

the effectiveness with which leadership brings together the many

constituencies that comprise the school can be measured by the

safety and care that students feel in the day-to-day activities. In

other words, when we can imagine a school environment that

celebrates diversity of thought, perspective, and pedigree, then we

can draw comfort that the stress of expectations (e.g.,

standardized tests, NCLB, AYP) will not tear at the texture of the

school.

Watch a child enter a classroom for the first

time and one can see real stress. Observe a middle school student

“fumble” with the combination on a locker and one will see

frustration and sadness. Consider the novice teacher after his

first day teaching and one will see exhaustion. And then watch a

new principal conduct her first conference with angry parents of a

special needs child. She looks all over the desk for the child’s

folder (that is right in front of her) and then becomes embarrassed

when the parents point it out to her! Signs of stress again!

Everything we do involves some level of

stress. We wake up with it. We live with it during the day. And

then we try to sleep in spite of it. About the only way we can

avoid stress is to do nothing, engage no one, and think of no new

ideas. But it is Mark Twain who reminds us that the most tiring

thing to do is nothing because we can never stop to rest!

If we can assume for a moment that stress is a

necessary part of the school leader’s life, that it is in fact a

central fabric of the schooling process then we can begin the

process of embracing the energy that comes with stress and

thereupon help students learn, teachers teach, and principals lead.

Addressing stress for leaders in schools today, let us consider

three questions:

1. What are the possible consequences of stress on leadership

style?

2. In what ways can stress affect morale and productivity among

principals and teachers?

3. What are some possible strategies for helping principals and

teachers manage change, and its accompanying stress, so that they

can support learning amidst difficult times?

In a recent article, Jerry Patterson and

Kelehear (2003) acknowledged that leaders create culture and that

they have a responsibility to change it. When leaders are in a high

state of stress, their leadership styles necessarily create a

culture that is under stress as well. Schools that function in an

atmosphere of unmanaged stress regularly begin to be dysfunctional

and unhealthy. Teacher attitude and morale deteriorate. Leadership

and teachers cease communicating. Students feel ignored and unsafe.

The whole place becomes “tired,” filled with frustrated and angry

teachers and students.

School cultures in tough times, like the

people in them, lose the ability to reflect and self-evaluate. The

negative energy associated with stress creates “blind spots” so

that what is clear to an outsider is ignored, or at least not

noticed, by those inside the culture. When the leadership’s stress

begins to change, however, then the school culture reflects that

shift. People are more open to critique. They communicate more

often and more accurately. Teachers and principals pay attention to

student needs more easily. Leadership absolutely affects a school’s

sense of wellbeing and efficacy.

It does not take us long to recognize the

source of much of the stress that many principals and teachers

face. Given the various calls to address safety, overcrowding,

drugs, gangs, low teacher pay, teacher retention, schools’

personnel can feel overwhelmed. Add to that stress the competing

demands of increasing assessments and reporting in a world of

decreasing funding, and we begin to see a prescription for

emotional, professional, and economic collapse. Specifically,

consider the pressure many principals and teachers are under as

they try to come to terms with being “highly qualified” and

achieving “adequate yearly progress ” (AYP) coming from the federal

mandate, “NCLB.” These are not easy times for schools. Leadership

style, school culture, teacher morale, and student performance all

suffer in a community where tensions are high and emotional support

is low. Uncontrolled, unidentified stress can drain the life-blood

of even the best schools.

When one walks into schools, the stress level

reveals itself almost immediately. One can watch a principal and

teachers and see that the way they interact with each other and

with students communicates the cultural undercurrent. Specifically,

the leadership style this author finds most often amidst stress

begins to be more about:

* Fixed and authoritarian vs. flexible and democratic

* Narrow and uninviting vs. original and embracing

* Vertically focused vs. collaboratively aligned

* Concrete and objective vs. abstract and subjective

* Judgmental vs. encouraging

* “My way” vs. “Our way”

* “Hurry up and do” vs. “slow down and think”

* Talking vs. listening

When the author examined morale in effective

schools, he quickly found the same sort of indicators in the

research literature as in anecdotal observations in the

neighborhood schools. The teachers talked to students and to each

other. Students felt safe and adults knew their names. The

principal was in the halls, talking to students and teachers. One

of my favorite places to visit had a principal who walked about

with an index card in his shirt pocket. As teachers and students

offered comments or ask questions, the principal took notes and the

next day, without exception, returned to the person with a

response.

As an instructional leader, another principal

engendered trust and understanding when she gave all her teachers a

“wild card.” The wild card was a small, colored index card that

stated: “This card entitles me to a day, free from observation,

without reasons or rationale.” The principal knew that there were

some days that, for reasons beyond the teacher’s comprehension and

control, things were not going well. When the principal appeared

for an observation, the teacher had the option of presenting the

card and the principal “turned on a dime” and departed the room.

All teachers received one wild card for the year. They appreciated

her realistic understanding and her support for their

teaching.

In coming to terms with the attributes of good

places to work, Buckingham and Coffman (1999) identify 12 questions

that receive a strong “yes” in organizations where employees have

high morale:

* Do I know what is expected of me?

* Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work

right?

* Do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every

day?

* In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise

for good work?

* Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me

as a person?

* Is there someone at work who encourages my

development?

* Does my opinion seem to count?

* Does the mission of my company make me feel like my work is

important?

* Are my coworkers committed to doing quality work?

* Do I have a best friend at work?

* In the last six months, have I talked with someone about my

progress?

* Have I had opportunities to learn and grow?

The message is clear: people want to work

where their humanity is acknowledged and celebrated. Likewise,

teachers perform better and feel more nearly positive about

students in schools where the principal takes a personal interest

in their professional development. And, when tough times come

along, then the principal, teachers and students draw strength from

relationships built on trust and empathy.

As leadership and teachers begin coming to

terms with stress and its related, albeit often unanticipated,

consequences they first notice that stress can destroy morale and

enthusiasm in the schoolhouse. In other words, unmanaged stress

debilitates teachers, students, families and dismantles their

learning communities. Leadership can, however, create and sustain a

school culture where student and teacher learning is the heart of

the matter. There are two, very specific elements for building

community within the varied texture of schools: Trusting

Relationship and Caring Communities.

Over and again, when I asked teachers what

they wanted in a principal they responded that they needed someone

whom they could trust. Leadership can build trust in a variety of

ways. Through effective and authentic communication, principals

engender trust by paying attention to the needs of teachers. One

principal with whom I visited recently devoted one half-hour of the

monthly faculty meeting to conversation. In that part of the

agenda, teachers discussed their needs, celebrated successes, and

then outlined goals for the coming month. The principal verbally

paraphrased the teachers’ comments and feelings, and in so doing,

checked his own perceptions of what was being said. Later that

night, he sent his notes in an email to the staff making sure he

had captured accurately what was said. Within two days, the
teachers delivered an email to the principal outlining one goal for

the month and the accompanying plan for achieving that goal. Also,

the teachers suggested one strategy that they would request of the

principal so that he could support their pursuit of the goal. One

caveat, and this was the really exciting part in the author’s

estimation, the principal encouraged teachers to include personal

goals in their plans. Although strategies for student achievement

and teacher effectiveness were always part of the discussion, the

principal also encouraged private or personal goals. The message

from the principal to the teachers: I value you as a professional

and as a person. In the end, a relationship built on trust emerged

and the morale and enthusiasm of principal and teacher alike were

bolstered.

Not unlike trusting relationships, schools

that are caring communities also support diversity and achievement.

Anyone who has taught in middle school recognizes the folly of

thinking that putting people into teams, alone, creates a

community. Even scheduling shared planning, although necessary, is

not sufficient for bringing teachers together. Creating a community

requires intentional acts in an atmosphere of caring amidst shared

needs and concerns. Leadership that provides teacher ownership of

the schooling process invites the cultivation of community.

Specifically, when teachers are given significant and real

responsibilities for running the school, when they are expected to

be aware of each other’s needs and to support each other, then they

begin to share needs and concerns. At one elementary school,

teachers began a process of deciding what mattered most to them as

a staff and then committed to supporting that belief in an

atmosphere of collaboration. It became clear, however, that

collaboration was not an option for everyone as some teachers were

working just to “stay afloat.” Recognizing this harsh reality, the

staff met again and reflected on what it was, specifically, that

got in the way of their being able to collaborate. In teams of

three, an individual teacher identified one obstacle and then two

other teachers committed to help address that obstacle. The

teachers took time to listen to each other. They, in their teams of

three, committed to helping each other address challenges each

month. Much of the conversation and support during the month came

in the way of emails and “accidental” contact during the normal

schedule of the school day. The threesomes did agree, however, that

some sort of contact was necessary at least three times a week. At

the end of each month, the threesomes gathered to assess their

status and to make plans for the next month. And all these monthly

meetings occurred as part of the regularly scheduled faculty

meetings. Although there were different levels of success in

becoming a school of collaborators, a sense of community and caring

clearly became the most important product of the initiative.

Leading is a lonely and stressful job. Given

that school leaders are daily handed increased accountability

amidst decreasing resources, it is no wonder that many are managing

stress that is compromising their personal and professional health.

The schooling we are doing today is far too demanding to go it

alone. When we can create school cultures that emphasize trust and

caring, places where teachers and principals see a shared

responsibility for what is going on in the school building, then we

can begin to survive the many harsh realities. Ultimately, it comes

down to celebrating a place where everything is about relationships

. . . about our individual “threads” of life that contribute to the

fabric of the school. If we as principals, teachers, and students

can tend to each other in a trusting and caring atmosphere, then we

can begin to attend to what matters most, the children in our

schools. And when that middle school child fumbles with the

combination on her locker, she will look to the adults in her

school as trusting and caring people who will help her through this

tough time

Conclusion on the Elements of School

Leadership

The elements of art juxtaposed to leadership

provide us with symbolic language for understanding what makes for

successful school leadership. As might be perceived in viewing

different art forms, some of the elements are more obvious or more

significant in one instance versus at another moment or place. Such

is the case with the elements of school leadership. Line, value,

shape, form, space, color, and texture all contribute to quality

schooling. Given one school with a certain set of needs, we might

find that shape is the leading element. At another school with very

different needs, however, we might find that texture is a focus.

But just as in playing a piano or singing in harmony, there are

individual strikes of the keys or notes of the harmony but it is

the collective, simultaneous action that elicits an effect that is

full, coherent, and complete. The successful school leader has all

seven elements at her command, albeit at different levels. Because

she understands the interrelated nature of the elements, she is

able to orchestrate a successful learning and teaching experience

for her students and teachers.

Using an arts-based approach to understand the

nature of successful school-based leadership helps craft an

enlarged view of what schooling might look like. It is not so much

that this approach is the answer to understanding all schools, but

such an approach offers one the capacity to view typical schooling

in a new and exciting light. When one continues to see the world

through the same metaphorical lenses, then one is likely to

continue seeing the same things in the same light. When, however,

one considers seeing schools from an arts-based approach then that

observer may very well gain a new insight into perplexing and

persistent problems. And in the final analysis, just as effective

teachers learn to see different students from different

perspectives effective leaders can see different teachers in light

of their different contributions. Maybe by considering the use of

line, shape, form, space, value, color, and texture one can open

his/her eyes to a new reality.

References
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1980).

Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers.

White Plains, NY: Longman.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R.

(Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,

and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy

of educational objectives. New

York: Longman.

Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2005). Standard for

reflective practice. In S. Gordon (Ed.),

Standards for instructional supervision:

Enhancing teaching and learning. West

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Barone, T. E. (1998). Aesthetic dimensions of

supervision. In G. R. Firth & E. F. Pajak

(Eds.), Handbook of research on school

supervision (pp. 1104-1122). New York: Simon

& Schuster Macmillan.

Barone, T. E., & Eisner, E. W. (1997).

Arts-based educational research. In R. M. Jaeger

(Ed.), Complementary methods for research in

education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 73-99).

Washington, D. C.: American Educational

Research Association.

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2000).

Communicating in small groups (6th ed.). New

York: Longman.

Bender-Slack, D., Miller, A., & Burroughs,

R. (2006, April). Interdisciplinary curricular

conversations examining arts and academics:

Teacher implementation and student

outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of

the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bolin, F. (1987). Perspectives and

imperatives: On defining supervision. Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, 2 (4), pp.

368-380.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995).

Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T. E. (2003).

Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blumberg, A. (1974). Supervisors and teachers:

A private cold war. Berkeley, CA:

McCutchan.

Blumberg, A. (1989). School administration as

a craft: Foundations of practice. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002).

The moral dimension of teaching: Language,

power, and culture in the classroom

interaction. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of

change. New York: Villard Books.

Cooper, T. L. (1998). The responsible

administrator: An approach to ethics for the

administrative role (4th ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994).

Cognitive coaching: A foundation for

renaissance schools. Norwood, MA:

Christopher-Gordon.
Council of Chief State School Officers.

(1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure

Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School

Leaders. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of

highly effective people. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M.,

& Meyerson, D. (2005). School

leadership study: Developing successful

principals. Stanford University.

Retrieved from

http://www.seli.stanford.edu.

Dewey, J. (1934/1958). Art as experience. New

York: Capricorn Books.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education.

New York: Macmillan.

Dow, A. W. (1899). Composition: A series of

exercises selected from a new system of art

education. Boston: J. M. Bowles.

Dow, A. W. (1997). Composition: A series of

exercises in art structure for the use of

students and teachers. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1982). An artistic approach to

supervision. In T. J. Sergiovanni

(Ed.).Supervision of teaching (1982 Yearbook)

pp. 35-52. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Eisner, E. W. (1983) The art and craft of

teaching. Educational Leadership, 40 (4) 4-13.

Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational

imagination: On the design and evaluation of

school programs (2nd ed.). New York:

Macmillan.

Eisner, E. W. (1997). Educating artistic

vision. New York: Macmillan.

Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye:

Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of

educational practice. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the

creation of mind. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Eye, G. G. & Netzer, L. A. (1965).

Supervision of instruction: A phase of administration.

New York: Harper & Row.

Feldman, E. B. (1995). Philosophy of art

education. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Fish, S. (2004). Minimalism. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 50 (42), C1, C4.

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of

school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A

developmental conceptualization. American

Educational Research Journal, 6 (2),

207-226.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New

York: Free Press.

Garman, N. B. (1986). Reflection, the heart of

clinical supervision: A modern rationale

for practice. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 2 (1), 1-24.

Glanz, J. (2002). Finding your leadership

style: A guide for educators. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.
Glanz, J. (1998). Histories, antecedents, and

legacies of school supervision. In G. R. Firth

& E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research

on school supervision (pp. 1104

1122). New York: Simon & Schuster

Macmillan.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., &

Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2004). SuperVision and

Instructional leadership: A developmental

approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for

learning: How to help teachers succeed.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision:

Special methods for the supervision of

teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.
Good, T. L, & Brophy, J. E. (1997).

Looking in classrooms (7th ed.). New York:

Addison-Wesley.

Gordon, S. P. (1997). Has the field of

supervision evolved to a point that it should be

called something else? Yes. In J. Glanz and R.

F. Neville (Eds.), Educational

supervision: Perspectives, issues, and

controversies, pp. 114-123. Norwood, MA:

Christopher-Gordon.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue

guitar. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher

concerns as a basis for facilitating and

personalizing staff development. Teacher

College Record, 80, 36-53.

Hall, G., & Rutherford, S. (1990, April).

A preliminary review of research related to

stages of concern. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Boston,

MA.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006).

Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harris, B. M. (1998). Paradigms and parameters

of supervision in education. In G. R.

Firth & E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of

research on school supervision (pp.

1104-1122). New York: Simon & Schuster

Macmillan.

Heid, K. A. (Sept, 2005). Aesthetic

development: A cognitive experience. Art Education

58(5), 48-53.
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin,

L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of

change. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Howard, V. (1982). Artistry: The work of

artists. Indianapolis, MN: Hackett.

Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and

supervising. In P. L. Hofford (Ed.), Using

what we know about teaching. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Jackson, P. W. (1998). John Dewey and the

lessons of art. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Kelehear, Z. (2005, Fall). Mentoring and

managing: A new paradigm for instructional

leadership. Journal of Scholarship and

Practice 2(3), 5-15.

Kelehear, Z. (2002, Fall). Tell me what went

well with your lesson, Sam: E-mail with

empathy helps new teachers to grow. Journal of

Staff Development, 23(4), 33-36.

Kelehear, Z. (2001, Fall). Empathic writing as

a function of effective leadership: E-mail

and the principal as leader. American

Association of Behavioral and Social

Sciences Journal, 39-46.

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for

lasting school improvement. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Curriculum and Curriculum

Development.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P.,

Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M.

E., & Szabo, M. (2003). The constructivist

leader (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high

school: Portraits of character and culture.

New York: Basic Books.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H.

(1997). The art and science of portraiture. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis, A. C. (2004, March). Schools that

engage children. Phi Delta Kappan 85(7), 483.

Martorella, P. H. (1985). Elementary social

studies: Developing reflective, competent,

and concerned citizens. Boston: Little,

Brown.

Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws

of leadership. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson.
Maxwell, J. C. (2002). Leadership 101.

Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran,

A. (1996). Authentic Pedagogy and student

performance. American Journal of Education 104

(4) 280-312.

Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. A. (2004). Teacher

supervision and evaluation. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Oliva, P. F., & Pawlas, G. E. (2004).

Supervision for today's schools. Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Osterman, K. E., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004).

Reflective practice for educators:

Professional development to improve student

learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin.
Pajak, Edward. (2003). Honoring diverse

teaching styles: A guide for supervisors.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach:

Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's

life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patterson, J. (1998, March). Harsh realities

about decentralized decision making. The

School Administrator 55(3), 6-10, 12.

Patterson, J., & Kelehear, Z. (2003,

Dec.). Lessons about culture from NASA's

experience. The School Administrator 6(11),

35.

Ragans, R. (1995). Art talk. Boston:

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Reiman, A. J. (August, 1999). The evolution of

the social roletaking and guided

reflection framework in teacher education:

Recent theory and quantitative

synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher

Education 15(6) 597-612.

Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L.

(1993). Promoting the development of mentor

teachers: Theory and research programs using

guided reflection. Journal of

Research and Development, 26(3),

179-185.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective

practitioner: Toward a new design for

thinking and learning in the professional. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership:

Getting to the heart of school improvement.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). Leadership as

stewardship: “Who's serving who?” In The

Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the

heartbeat: Leading and learning together in

Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J.

(2002). Supervision: A redefinition. 7th ed. Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

Smyth, J. W. (1985). Developing a critical

practice of clinical supervision. Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, 17

(January-March), 1-15.

Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical

school: A practical response to the moral crisis

in schools. London: Falmer Press.

Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering educational

administration: Cultivating meaning,

community, and responsibility. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steinbeck, J. (1955, November). . . . Like

captured fireflies. California Teachers

Association Journal, 51 (8), 7.

Strike, K. A., Haller, E. J., & Soltis, J.

F. (1998). The ethics of school administration (2nd

ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective

teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Curriculum and Curriculum Development.

Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005).

Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and

techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.

Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2006). Building

effective learning communities: Strategies for

leadership, learning, and collaboration.

Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press.

Taylor, P. (Ed). (2002). Amazing grace: The

lithographs of Joseph Norman. Boston:

Museum of the National Center of Afro-American

Artists.

Waite, D. (1995). Rethinking instructional

supervision: Notes on its language and

culture. Washington, DC: Falmer.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.

(2002). Cultivating communities of practice.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. K. (2003).

Instructional leadership: A learning-centered guide.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996).

Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zepeda, S. (2000). Instructional supervision:

Applying tools and concepts. Larchmont,

NY: Eye on Education.

Footnotes

1. 1Much of this monog

FULL JOURNAL ISSUE: Excellence in the Classroom

ARTICLE: Teacher Labor Markets in Developing Countries

School-Based Management
(6 of 8)
Some developing countries have tried devolving directly to schools the authority to make
decisions regarding teacher hiring and other administrative matters that are usually made by
local, regional, or central governments. The idea behind such decentralization is to bring
these decisions closer to the school, and thus to parents and students, to generate incentives
and conditions to improve teaching quality and student outcomes and make teachers and
schools more accountable to the community.

Several countries in Central America have introduced such school-based management

reforms. In El Salvador, a retrospective evaluation found that the Programa de Educación con
Participación de la Comunidad (Education with Community Participation Program, or
EDUCO) has affected management practices, teacher behavior, and student outcomes.30 A
few important powers, most notably the ability to hire and fire teachers, have been transferred
to the school, but many other decisions continue to be made primarily by central authorities.
Most of the local decisionmaking power has been given to parents rather than principals. The
study also finds important behavioral differences: EDUCO schools have fewer school
closings, less teacher absenteeism, more meetings between teachers and parents, and longer
teacher work hours than control schools. These changes in teacher behavior, in turn, are
related to higher achievement in Spanish in EDUCO schools.

Another retrospective evaluation finds similar effects in Honduras’s Proyecto Hondureño de

Educación Comunitaria (Honduran Community Education Project, or PROHECO).31 Like
EDUCO, PROHECO is a school-based management reform for rural primary schools.
Comparing PROHECO schools to similar schools in rural areas (using propensity score
matching methods to construct a credible comparison group), the study finds that PROHECO
teachers are less frequently absent because of union participation, although they are more
frequently absent because of teacher professional development. Teachers in PROHECO are
paid less and have fewer years of experience than comparison teachers. And, as in El
Salvador’s EDUCO program, teachers in PROHECO teach more hours in an average week
than comparison teachers; they also have smaller classes and assign more homework. In these
examples, at least, decentralized schools appear to encourage greater efficiency and teacher
effort.

Although the studies found little evidence that teachers in community-managed schools differ
from their colleagues in conventional schools in terms of their classroom processes, planning,
or motivation, PROHECO students score higher on math, science, and Spanish exams than
students in similar non-PROHECO schools. This higher student achievement is, in part,
explained by unique qualities and characteristics of PROHECO schools. Specifically, the
more hours a week a teacher works, the higher is the mean student achievement in all three
subjects. The frequency of homework is associated with higher achievement in Spanish and
math. Finally, smaller classes and fewer school closings are related to higher student
achievement in science.

In contrast to PROHECO and EDUCO, Nicaragua’s School Autonomy program (Autonomía

Escolar) was aimed initially at urban secondary schools, in particular those with higher-than-
average resources. Unlike their peers in neighboring El Salvador and Honduras, parent
associations and teachers in Nicaragua’s autonomous schools report little decisionmaking
power. A decade after the reform began, autonomous and nonautonomous schools continue to
differ in much the same ways as before reform. Differences in student socioeconomic
background continue to explain most differences in student achievement. The reform appears
to have had no systematic effect on student learning. Although on average students in
autonomous schools outscore students in traditional schools in mathematics in third grade, by
sixth grade they score lower on both Spanish and mathematics tests. There is little evidence
that differences between autonomous and traditional schools are responsible for these
differences in test scores.32

Abstract  Since 2000, all schools in the public sector in Hong Kong have implemented school-based
management. However, it is only recently that the government has passed a new bill to enforce the
setting up of a mandated structure of the school-based council in schools. Many school sponsoring
bodies are worried about a possible diminution of their control as a result of the new management
committee structure. At individual school level, the readiness of school principals, teachers and
parents seems to be the core of the question. Principals’ transformational and curriculum leadership
in local schools seems to be weak. As a result, policy-makers attempt to work out ways to enhance
the implementation of school-based management by providing training for school managers,
promoting home–school relations and encouraging the professional development for principals. In
addition, there is a need to enhance leadership development for supervisors and middle managers.
Future challenges to schools include carrying out a smooth transformation of the present school
management structure to the required incorporated management committees, effective
implementation of school-based management under the new bill and quality training for other
stakeholders.

Abstract  Since 2000, all schools in the public sector in Hong Kong have implemented school-based
management. However, it is only recently that the government has passed a new bill to enforce the
setting up of a mandated structure of the school-based council in schools. Many school sponsoring
bodies are worried about a possible diminution of their control as a result of the new management
committee structure. At individual school level, the readiness of school principals, teachers and
parents seems to be the core of the question. Principals’ transformational and curriculum leadership
in local schools seems to be weak. As a result, policy-makers attempt to work out ways to enhance
the implementation of school-based management by providing training for school managers,
promoting home–school relations and encouraging the professional development for principals. In
addition, there is a need to enhance leadership development for supervisors and middle managers.
Future challenges to schools include carrying out a smooth transformation of the present school
management structure to the required incorporated management committees, effective
implementation of school-based management under the new bill and quality training for other
stakeholders.