Demographic and Educational Influence of Our Leadership and Administration Practices Using Democratic Accountability

Jacqueline Delong, Grand Erie District School Board

Cheryl Black, Grand Erie District School Board

Jack Whitehead, University of Bath

An e-poster presentation to the AERA Annual Conference on Demography and Democracy in the Era of Accountability, 12 April 2005, Montreal.

http://www.jackwhitehead.com/aera05/cbjdjweposter.htm

Summary

a. purposes

In our research and theorising about leadership and administration practices we are drawn to the point that leaders need to help cause improvement in working conditions and development of the teaching profession because this is how great leadership is effected for the future. We will only get quality principals in numbers if we have quality teachers in numbers, because it is from teacher ranks that future leadership derives (1). We are also drawn to the point (2) that the capacity to reflect on and analyze one’s knowledge emerges only after considerable knowledge has been accumulated and embedded into practice. The reflections of skilled practitioners in any field deserve to be systematized so that personal knowledge can become publicly accessible and subject to analysis.

b. perspectives/theoretical framework

The contributions to the knowledge-base of education by the Self-study of Teacher Education Practices SIG of AERA have been collected in an International Handbook (3). The argument put forward in this paper is that a similar advance in knowledge of educational leadership and administration could be made from the self-studies of educational leaders and administrators. The paper seeks to extend the insights (4) from the ground of practitioner research in classroom teaching, into practitioner research into educational leadership and administration. In our research into educational leadership and administration we continue to be motivated by the (5) call for the development of a useful knowledge-base for educational leadership and administration. In setting out our answers to our question we draw on:

• the context of paradigm proliferation in educational research (6,7,8):

• the need for alignment of theory and practice in educational leadership and administration research (9,10)

• calls for new epistemologies of scholarship and practice (11,12).

The paper reports on the successfully completed doctoral action research of a Superintendent of Schools as she analyses her educational leadership and administration in a longitudinal study carried out between 1996-2002. The analysis examines the evolving knowledge-base of the educational administrator in relation to the creation of a culture of inquiry, reflection and scholarship within a school board. This includes a description of the demographics of the Board and the integration of a process of democratic accountability within the context of imposed forms of accountability from a Provincial Government. It also includes a review of the evidence on which the researcher received an award for leadership in action research from a Provincial Educational Research Council.

c. methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry;

The research methodology draws on the use of narrative (13, 14) and includes ideas on the shaping of professional identity through stories of educational practice (15). It also draws on ideas on the creation and testing of living educational theories in enquiries of the kind, ’How do I improve what I am doing?’ (16).

d. data sources/evidence;

The self-study of the principal's practice includes an analysis of her leadership and administration practices in her transition from vice-principal to principal and the transformation in her knowledge-creating activities as she moves from a masters programme into a doctoral research programme in studying her learning. Action research into her learning is focused on her educational administration in the school and her educational leadership in action research within the Board and within a Provincial Educational Research Council.

The self-study of the leadership of the Higher Education Tutor is focused on his accountability for his educative influence on students' learning. In agreeing that the consideration of ontology, of one's being in and toward the world, should be a central feature of the values of self-study research (3) the Higher Education Tutor clarifies, with the help of multi-media accounts of his educational relationships, the values that give meaning and purpose to his practice (16). Through this clarification the embodied values are transformed into living standards of judgement that form an epistemology of practice for evaluating the validity of the explanations of educational influence.

In researching her own practices the superintendent focuses her analysis of her responsibilities on her influence on the emergence of the meanings of the standards of practice and judgement which define the educational quality in what it means to be a superintendent. The Principal will show how she has shared responsibility with the Superintendent for her own professional learning in improving the quality of learning within a school. The Superintendent, Principal and Higher Education Tutor will examine the similarities and differences in the standards of educational quality they use to test the validity of their claims to educational knowledge about educational leadership and administration (17, 18, 19). The meanings of the standards of judgement for defining educational quality are clarified in the course of their emergence and clarification over 6 years of practical and theoretical activity by the superintendent in relationships with both the vice-principal and the Higher Education Tutor (20) . Unlike the linguistic lists of standards of practice published by professional bodies such as the Ontario College of Teachers in Ontario (21) and the Teacher Training Agency in England, the living epistemological standards of practice embodied in our leadership and administration practices, are grounded in and formed from the ontological values we use to give meaning and purpose to our professional activities.

These living standards are constituted by our values of humanity (22). One of these values involves democratic forms of evaluation and accountability within which we submit ourselves and our accounts of our learning to groups of principals, vice-principals and academics. The presentation will include video-clips of a process of democratic accountability to ’show’ the meanings of democratic accountability in the educative relations between the superintendent and the vice-principal and higher education tutor. We will show how we use an action research approach which includes action reflection cycles and the submission of our explanations, for our own learning, to the rational and democratic controls of a validation group (23,24,25). We will present our living educational theories (26,27,28) of our own learning in accounts of educational quality through shared responsibility for educational leadership, administration and supervision.

e. results/conclusions/point of view

The originality of the contribution of this paper to the academic and professional knowledge-base of educational leadership and administration is in the systematic way we transform our embodied ontological values into living epistemological standards of educational quality. In doing this we draw on processes of narrative enquiry (29) methodological inventiveness (30) and postmodern democratic educational leadership (31). We show how the standards of educational quality can be used critically to evaluate the effectiveness of a shared sense of accountability in improving the quality of education in particular research and workplace contexts and beyond (32, 33).

References

1) Fullan, M. (2003) Change Forces With a Vengence. London; RoutledgeFalmer.

2) Snow, C. E. (2001) Knowing What We Know: Children, Teachers, Researchers, Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No.7, pp. 3-9)

3) Bullough, R. V. Jr. & Pinnegar, S. E. (2004) Thinking about the thinking about self-study: An analysis of eight chapters. In Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K. & Russell, T. (2004) International Handbook of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht; Kluwer.

4) Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. & Stigler, W. (2002) A Knowledge Base for the Teaching Profession: What Would It Look Like and How Can We Get One? Educational Researcher, Vol.31, No.5, pp. 3-15.

5) Clark, D. (1997) The Search for Authentic Educational Leadership: In the Universities and in the Schools. Invited presentation to Division A at the Annual Meeting of AERA.

6) Anderson, G. & Herr, K. (1999) The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities? Educational Researcher 28 (5) (12-21)

7) Donmoyer, R. (1996) Educational Research in an Era of Paradigm Proliferation: What’s a Journal Editor to Do? Educational Researcher, 25 (2) (19-25)

8) Lather, P. (2000) The Possibilities Inherent in Paradigm Proliferation. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of AERA, New Orleans, April 2000.

9) Anderson, G. & Jones, F. (2000) Knowledge Generation in Educational Administration From the Inside Out: The Promise and Perils of Site-Based, Practitioner Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA in New Orleans, Louisiana.

10) Riehl, C., Larson, C., Short, P., & Reitzug, U. (2000) Reconceptualizing Research and Scholarship in Educational Administration: Learning to Know, Knowing to Do, Doing to Learn. Paper presentation for the annual meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, April, 2000.

11) Boyer, E. (1990) Scholarship Revisited. Princeton; Carnegie Foundation.

12) Schon, D. (1995) Knowing-In-Action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology in Change 27 (6) (27-34).

13) Carter, K. (1993) The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22 (1), 5-12.

14) Anderson, G. & Page, B. (1995) Narrative Knowledge and Educational Administration: The Stories that Guide Our Practice in Donmoyer R., Imber, M. & Scheurich, J. (1995) The Knowledge Base in Educational Administration: Multiple Perspectives. New York: SUNY.

15) Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1999) Shaping A Professional Identity: stories of educational practice. London: Althouse Press.

16) Whitehead, J. (1999) How do I improve my practice? Creating a discipline of education through educational enquiry. Ph.D. University of Bath. In the living theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net

17) Delong, J. & Wideman, R. (Eds.) (1998) Action Research: School Improvement Through Research-Based Professionalism. Toronto: OPSTF.

18) Delong, J & Wideman, R. (Eds.) (1998-2000) The Ontario Action Researcher. North Bay: Nipissing Univ. (http://www.unipissing.ca/oar).

19) Black, C. (1999) Valuing The Student Voice in Improving My Practice. Paper presented at OERC , Toronto, 3 December, 1999.

20) Delong, J. (2002) How can I improve my practice as a Superintendent of Schools and create my own living educational theory? Ph.D. University of Bath - http://www.actionresearch.net - living theory section.

21) Squire, F. (1998) Action Research and Standards of Practice: Creating Connections Within the Ontario Context. 2^nd International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practice. Herstmonceux Castle. August 16-20 1998. (http://educ.queensu.ca/~ar/sstep2/squire.htm). See also - Ontario College of Teachers (1999) Standards of Practice. Toronto: OCT.

22) Delong, J. & Whitehead, J. (1998) Continuously regenerating developmental standards of practice in teacher education; a cautionary note for the Ontario College of Teachers. Paper presented at the OERC 40^th Annual Conference, Toronto, 4 Dec. 1998. (98-99/webarc-98-99.html

23) Delong, J. (1997) The role of the superintendent in facilitating and supporting the action research process in Halsall & Hossack eds. Act Reflect Revise: Revitalize. Toronto: OPSTF.

24) McNiff, J. (1992) Action Research: Principles and Practices. London: Routledge

25) McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project, London; Routledge.

26) Hamilton, M. L. (1998) Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer.

27) Whitehead, J. (1993) The Growth of Educational Knowledge: Creating Your Own Living Educational Theories. Bournemouth: Hyde.

28) Whitehead, J. (2000) How Do I Improve My Practice? Creating and legitimating an epistemology of practice. Reflective Practice. 1 (91-104).

29) Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001) Doing Practitioner Research Differently, London; RoutledgeFalmer.

30) Starratt, R. (2001) Postmodern Democratic Leadership Theory For Educators: An Oxymoron or Ironic Possibility. Presented at AERA 2001: http://www.klick.org/2000aera/rbfiledisp.asp?sheadid=933

31) Serper, A. (2004) Alon Serper’s Webpages, http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pspas/ http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pspas/translides.htm

32) Whitehead, J. (2004) What counts as evidence in the self-studies of teacher education practices? In Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K. & Russell, T. (2004) International Handbook of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht; Kluwer.

33) Hartog, M. (2004) A Self Study Of A Higher Education Tutor: How Can I Improve My Practice. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath. Retrieved 19 July 2004 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/hartog.shtml