Discussion Post 2

• Which concepts strike you as most helpful in developing a critical understanding of educational leadership?

Human resources frame focuses on the educational learning gained from each experience and opportunity. This is essential for having a growth mindset as a school and individual (Bolman & Deal, 2008).  

Structural Bureaucratic is helpful to provide a framework for staff members to confidently take action in accordancewitho school beliefs and values (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

Symbolic Frame is important as all actions of the school and school personnel should align with the school’s mission and vision. Focus on what’s important to the school will get to the core of what the school values as their approach to discipline (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

• Which concepts assist you in describing your current approach to providing leadership in your professional setting?

I believe my current approach to leadership in my professional setting is human resources strategic frame. I believe every situation provides a learning opportunity - even the ones that don’t go according to plan. I also believe that the home-school connection should work together to support the student in both academic and pastoral care to ensure the student can grow and learn to the best of their ability in a way that works from them. I also agree with the idea that not only should students learn from their actions but staff should to. Using Cognitive Coaching for a  reflective conversation would also empower the teacher and assistant principal to reflect on their actions in a way that supports their own learning and how they need to move forward and modify their actions if necessary in the future. I prefer to be a facilitator in all situations rather than a dictator so that all parties feel heard and part of the solution.

• Identify aspects of your current approach to providing leadership in your professional setting which could be strengthened? What might theses aspects be? What concepts have led to or contribute to this conclusion?

In my current setting, there is inconsistency in approaches to procedures even with policies in place. The Primary leadership team has gone too much towards ‘every situation is unique’ to the point that it is unclear to teachers what they should be doing to be successful in certain scenarios with behaviour. A stronger structural bureaucratic to ensure all staff members are adequately trained and understood is needed through clear and consistent communication by the leadership team (Bolman & Deal, 2008). When staff know the expected protocol, who to contact for support and what steps they should take, then within those protocols the individuals situations can be looked at for unique situations. It is important that the students also have a clear understanding of expectations and consequences for their actions.

There could also be an increase in human resources so frame so that there could be more reflection in how to move forward in similar events to continually ensure best practice and strategies are implemented into the school (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

All of the approaches should be aligned through symbolic frame to ensure that our actions as individuals and as a school collective meet our mission and vision at all times (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Leadership. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (4th ed., pp. 341-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Case Study - Joey

• Which leadership response is likely to be most effective in resolving immediate issues? Why?

When an incident occurs, a structural bureaucratic thought frame may be used. This frame focuses on roles and structure (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Structural leaders focus on implementation according to Bolman & Deal (2008, p. 360). This would be useful as Joey needs to know the expectations of the school in terms of behaviour and the behavioural consequences. The teacher needs to clearly know the steps of action towards dealing with the behaviour. Most schools have a behavioural policy that has been reviewed by teachers and students have been made aware of it. This provides transparency and increases the illusion of ‘fairness’ when discipline issues occur. The judgement of the teacher is removed and a protocol is followed that has been approved by the board.

I think a human resources frame in conjunction with the bureaucratic approach would help support Joey better. The teacher Mr. Harris seemed to escalate the situation as he engaged with Joey more, instead of lowering the emotions so that the milk could be dealt with.

• Which leadership response is likely to be most effective in resolving longer term issues? Why?

A Human Resources approach to the situation would be a good choice of action as it supports both the staff, students and families. I appreciate that this is a team approach between the home and school of problem-solving and action-planning forward. This is an educational approach to the situation for the student and family. Human resources frame focuses on a sense of openness and caring where active listening and participation in the discussion is encouraged for a cohesive, supportive approach (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 360).

I also like that the principal would do some reflecting with the assistant principal and teacher to see what they learnt from the situation and how they could manage the situation differently if necessary. It is also a time for the principal to be reflective of the whole process as a school and see if there are key adjustments that can be made to support moving forward productively.

• From your viewpoint, what utility (if any) is there in analysing educational leadership from the strategic and from the tactical level? Why?

Analysing educational leadership from a strategic and tactical level is helpful as a way to understand the different perspectives and where the situation may be lacking in capacity. With an understanding of the two levels, it helps bring concrete understanding to the leader as they begin to unpack a situation. In some situations, long term and immediate might require different approaches and a well-rounded understanding of all the frames will help the leader adapt to the situation at hand.

• Is it realistic to expect that school leaders are or should be able to respond effectively to both immediate and longer term issues equally effectively? Why? If not, how might more effective responses be implemented. In your explanation – be sure to link your responses to leadership perspectives presented thus far in this subject?  

I believe that as a school leader it is important to be able to make the right decisions in the immediate present for the situation as it will greatly impact as a ripple effect long term issues. When a short-term issue has been mishandled, it can often lead to more complicated and escalated states later in the long-term issues. By developing a greater understanding of Bolman & Deal’s frames (2008), educational leaders can better read the situation from different perspectives and identify what the best course of action should be.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Leadership. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (4th ed., pp. 341-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reframing Leadership

Note your observations in your blog about Bolman & Deal.

This has been probably the most valuable of all readings so far. Two separate educators from other international schools happened to bring up this reading and engage in conversation about the article at a conference I was at this past week suggesting that it is extremely relevant and widely referred to by educators.  

The article begins with an overview of leadership to distinguish Leadership from management where leaders are focusing their energies on the purpose (mission/vision/values of the organisation) and management is much more about getting things done from planning to effective implementation (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 343). They continue to suggest leadership is not a solo act but rather it requires followers who support the idea of the leader.

A high-interest area of the article was the idea of gender and leadership with the ceiling effect for women in leadership. Unfortunately, I feel I am becoming more aware of the differences as I try to navigate a move in countries and seek more leadership opportunities. It is interesting how my current organisation and prospective schools feel as I begin to transition. This is also an area of interest as a group of international educators met in Hong Kong last month at the 21st Century Learning Conference with a session to discuss our ideas of #lead our initiative of supporting, discussing and sharing ideas about gender equality in education and leadership. I encourage anyone interested to please reach out or find us on Twitter or join our Facebook group as we begin to develop this idea.

I don’t believe there is one best way to be a good leader as I have had a few inspirational leaders that have led, motivated and inspired staff in very different ways. I know that I find certain aspects of the way leaders lead better for my style of learning and following but this may not be ‘better’ for everyone. I do believe the idea of leadership being somewhat situational. While leaders are more likely to have one approach to rely on most of the time, a good leader should be able to adapt to the needs of the situation and those involved to best support all participants.

The idea of the 4 frames of leadership are as follows:

1. Structural Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 356)

This type of leadership frame focused heavily on implementation with an effective leader designing approach choices for planning for implementation whereas an ineffective leader would be much more bureaucratic in their approach. Unfortunately, the structural framework often does not allow for anticipating resistance to change and misreading cues.

2. Human Resource Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 361)

Human resources frame focuses on the leader as a facilitator for change, a change agent. They have a very open approach as they support, coach and empower their followers through strong communication. There is a clear sense of people being put first through a partnership of all working towards goals.

3. Political Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 364)

The political frame approach is much more about being real with clarity. These types of leaders think about the different stakeholders and what their power and interests are and work towards building valuable relationships. Power is used to persuade, negotiate and coerce.

4. Symbolic Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p.

The symbolic frame approaches leadership through leading by example and looking for symbols to highlight a need for change. There is a clear vision with the focus on reaching the values level of the subordinates as they approach concerns with a bidirectional approach to leadership.  

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Leadership. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (4th ed., pp. 341-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Privilege and Labelling Leaders

Think about the titles that are used in your current workplace to describe formal leadership roles.

• What practices do such titles privilege and value?

Job labels help to support an understanding of role responsibility and provide clarity for the community (Gunter, 2004, p. 21). The higher your label, the more leadership responsibilities you are known to have. Formal leadership labels often provide a clear identity to a person in the role. Many of the more formal leadership labels are actually more managerial responsibilities associated with them. The labels of roles denote a sense of where a person lies within the school hierarchy. In my current setting, the hierarchy begins with the Head of School, the Head of Primary/Secondary, Assistant Heads, Division Coordinators, Year Level Coordinators, Teachers, Teaching Assistants. This seems like much quite a distance from the top to the bottom at times.

• Which practices are marginalised or less valued by these titles?

Teaching Assistants are often seen as ‘less valued’ in the Asian context as there is a large ‘helper’ culture. I don’t believe this is seen by the teachers or even the school. However, students and parents can expect the TAs to ‘pick up after their child’ more.

Another area of labelling that has seen a change is our single subject teachers. Previously they were labelled as ‘specialist teachers’ in Primary. While they have expertise in one area compared to the homeroom teacher who does general subjects, the label of ‘specialist’ was having a negative connotation. Therefore the change to single subject allowed for a more specific label to accurately reflect their roles.

• What sorts of identities are produced by these labels as ‘manager’, versus ‘leader’ versus ‘principal/head teacher/ director’ etcetera?

We don’t use the word ‘manager’ except in the business office suggesting a more business approach to the school’s resources and finances. ‘Leader’ suggests much more of an inspiring approach to change rather than a ‘manager’ as the person who implements clear tasks and paperwork.

The word Principal to me suggests the person with ultimate responsibility for the school. This person is responsible for outlining the school’s vision and finding effective ways of implementing positive change within the school. They also have a number of managerial tasks to do on a day-to-day basis. It can be hard to not get ‘bogged down’ with these tasks instead of being visible in the school at times which can affect the subordinates as followers.

At times labels may be oppressive to the person in how they want to be viewed within an orgnisation.

• What are the political/economic/local conditions that may have led to these labels being adopted in preference to others?

The local community often reinforces these labels even more so than the educators within the systems. Parents and other community members have their own ideas of what these roles mean based on their experiences in their own workplace. The labels will likely continue to change to reflect the image and ideals the school wants to project to the community.

• What are the ethical implications of these kinds of labels being adopted in preference to others?

There can be some tension between the idea of what your label is and what your role is.

In an international setting, culture plays a large role in the implications of labels (Gunter, 2004, p. 34). Each culture may have a different interpretation of the label. This can cause tension between schools and parent/ student communities. Culture may also reinforce hierarchies within the school.

References

Gunter, H. (2004). Labels and labelling in the field of educational leadership. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(1), 21-41.

MARKET IDEOLOGY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Both articles are critical of the impact that some of these changes have had on education and training.   Consider how market ideologies and notions of accountability, have impacted upon your workplaces and by implication, on the work of administrators and managers in these settings.

As an international school in Singapore, families have a number of schools to choose from when they arrive on the island. Thus, we need to market our school as a unique experience compared to other schools to attract clients. The school has even hired a marketing department this year in preparation of expanding the school and the need to attract more families to our school. It is evident that more time, energy and finances are being funnelled into the marketing department to enhance the image of the school and promote it in the international market (Apple, 2001, p. 187).

When I first arrived at the school, there was not a lot of accountability to parents in terms of standardised ways of assessments nor accountability of staff to leaders. This has been a huge improvement of our school over the last four years moving slightly towards the other end of the pendulum. With more reporting per year to parents, there has been an increase in teacher workload to ensure that parents continuous are getting feedback about their child.

The school has also increased accountability through internal and external assessments. Measures of Academic Progress (MAPs) testing is now done twice a year by all students year four and above to ensure that the school is compared using a standardised test to other international schools. The school has also increased the number of standardised internal assessments within the primary school to create more trackable data of student across the years.

The school is a profit school and therefore has many key aspects of a business approach to education compared to a government-funded school. One of the things that can be hard is the need to measure all key performance indicators. Our school’s key performance indicators are directly linked to our staff work plans and appraisals even when at times, some of the KPIs we do not have control over.

As I begin to prepare myself to transfer to the Australian school systems in August, I will be interested to see how the different market ideologies and notions of accountability differ in the Australian setting.

References

Apple, M. W. (2001). ‘Markets, standards, teaching and teacher education.’

Topic 1 Discussion

Consider your current professional setting and identify leadership practices which resemble or can be traced to one or more of the leadership perspectives traced in Topic One.

Hierarchical Leadership - There is a clear structural component to the system of people within the organisation and the roles and responsibilities within the hierarchy.

Management vs. Leadership - Many of the tasks that our senior leadership team is focused around the management of people and resources rather than moving people towards a common goal of change. These could include ensuring planning is executed, editing reports, leading meetings with updates, etc. There are also times when the leadership team is inspiring teachers to make transformational changes such as focusing on the mission when implementing new change to appeal to the values of the staff rather than just behaviour.

Role Theory - Teachers are given a very clear outline of their job description (as are all employees within the school). However, the role and responsibilities may be perceived differently depending on who the Head of Primary is (we’ve had some turnover in the last few years). The expectations of teachers by different stakeholders may at times come into conflict making it difficult to navigate to ensure everyone’s expectations can be met.

Is there one perspective which seems dominant?

I believe the hierarchical approach to the organisation is the dominant perspective. While there are growing opportunities for collaborative approaches within the system, the overarching focus remains a top-down approach to the final decision making.

What evidence is there for your conclusion?

While there is no government dictating curriculum etc, the teachers must still follow the directions of their superiors. All final decisions are signed off on by the Head of School. As I’ve mentioned in some of my blog posts, while there is teacher voice within some of the decision making processes to encourage buy in, teachers have limited influence on the final decisions. Policies and procedures are purely created by the senior leadership team and followed by staff. Through the hierarchy model, decision making can be more efficient and often higher quality, however, missing the important aspect of buy-in.

How does the evolution of leadership perspectives impact on current leadership practice in your professional setting?

I believe that the school is trying to move to a more collaborative approach to leadership. Change in mindset, culture and processes take time. It is optimistic that the school providing opportunities for more teacher input such as plus/deltas with events, policies and procedures. Knowing that the school would like to value teacher opinions more, I believe that in time and with an effective leadership team facilitating change management, we will see even more of a shift towards a collegial system.

Recent Constructions of Leadership

Recent Constructions of Leadership

“Much of the current debate about educational leadership . . . has its roots in the larger debate about whether organisations (e.g., your professional setting) are best understood as hierarchical, bureaucratic systems or as collegial, collaborative systems”. (Owens, 2001:55)

• Is it a simple either – or? What factors influence your conclusion?
• To what extent, if any, does the task at hand play a role in understanding organisational purpose and by association the nature of educational leadership?
• What other factors may, can or do influence the debate?
• To what extent do you think the debate is important or even necessary?

Owens suggests there is a debate around the type of system an organisation operates under. However, within most systems, a simple either - or approach is never the case. Education is no exception. In a traditional and historical perspective, the hierarchical systems were more predominant. However, as many schools move towards an inquiry and collaborative  model of teaching and learning, this also flows into the staff rooms in terms of planning and execution of different aspects of the organsiation. I believe that organisations tend to be more hierarchical or collaborative but will also have tendencies of the other type of system given certain situations or tasks.

I believe that my school still functions as a hierarchical system in most departments and overall systemic structure. In a number of our policies, the structural organisational flowchart diagram is evidence showing who reports to who and who holds what responsibilities at each level. This further perpetuates the idea that a hierarchy exists.

That being said, my education technology department operates much more as a collaborative team. When designing our digital citizenship curriculum, it began with a clear mission and vision from my supervisor. However, the creation and execution was collaborative not only between the department but also with parents, students and staff.

I also find many examples where something is implemented (for example report cards moving online only) and then feedback is asked for after and sometimes before. This feedback is used to continually refine the decisions of the senior leadership team in their vision and execution of ideas with the final say being made by those in higher power.

Factors that influence the debate include the government or governing body of the school. Some private schools have board members instead of a government dictating certain aspects of the school while other schools may have higher parent community say.

Our school does use a more collegial, collaborative approach for a number of initiatives. Our working groups in Primary are divided by interest (inquiry, mathematics, language). The groups meet about once a month to discuss what they would like to research in and how this impacts the school. Much of our curriculum programme developments have been explored through this avenue before being signed off on by the senior leadership team (which does perpetuate the hierarchy) but then the training and implementation is lead by the developing staff members. This helps to empower all staff members to be contributing members to the ongoing development of our school programmes with current teaching and learning strategies.

Readings

Owens, R. (2001). Mainstreams of organizational thought. In Organizational behavior in education : instructional leadership and school reform (7th ed.) (pp. 34-54). Boston : Allyn and Bacon.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational theory in the modern period. In Organizational behavior in education : adaptive leadership and school reform (8th ed.) (pp. 104- 150). Boston: Pearson/A and B.

Owens, Robert G. (2011) Organizational Behaviour in Education: Leadership and School Reform (pp 199-221). Boston: Pearson.