Jacqueline DelongÕs contribution to the e-poster presentation on Demographic and Educational Influence of Our Leadership and Administration Practices Using Democratic Accountability for a Division A (Administration) session at AERA 2005, Montreal, 12 April.

 

In 2002 I successfully completed my doctoral action research of a Superintendent of Schools as I analysed my educational leadership and administration in a longitudinal study carried out between 1996-2002 (Delong, 2002). The analysis examined the evolving knowledge-base of the educational administrator (Whitehead, 1989) in relation to the creation of a culture of inquiry, reflection and scholarship within a school board. This included 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 included a review of the evidence on which I received an award for leadership in action research from a Provincial Educational Research Council.

 

In researching my own practices I focused my analysis of my responsibilities on my 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.

 

In the three subsequent years, I have continued to examine my own practice as superintendent responsible for a family of schools and special education services for the entire district. I have had two overarching visions for the system: one was the continuance of emphasis on supporting practitioner action research in order to create a culture of reflection, inquiry and scholarship, ensuring sustainability of the culture and the supports for action research. The second is a vision of early human development that would bring children to school Òready to learnÓ. It seemed to me that the kindergarten teachers were up against too many obstacles in trying to teach 4-5 year olds the primary learning skills for life. When I read the work of Dr Fraser Mustard and Margaret McCain (1999) I recognized the solution lay outside of the school years and rested in the first 3-4 years of brain development – before they came to us in school years. The means I found that I believed could solve this problem has been the creation of Early Child Development and Parenting Centres, or as we call them locally, ÒLaunch PadsÓ, located in schools.

 

Succession and Sustainability for Inquiry

 

From the first year of learning about action research, 1994, I have been conscious of the essential need for a passionate leader to carry on the mission that I had started. While I believe there is clear and ample evidence that action research has been a catalyst for the developing culture of inquiry in the Grand Erie District School Board (Delong, 2002), its sustainability as a means of professional development continues to be overly reliant on me.

 

One of my strategies has been to work with groups outside of the school board so that it did not exist in isolation. These groups have included the Ontario Educational Research Council, the Ontario PrincipalsÕ Council and my international work with Kei Sawamoto, professor at Japan WomenÕs University. The influence in the Ontario Educational Research Council (OERC) has been sustained over 5 years so that it is an accepted part of that research community- a role it did not have prior to Lindy ZaretskyÕs and my Presidencies. The work that the presidents of OERC since 1998 - Lindy Zaretsky, Jackie Delong (2 years), Cheryl Black and Heather Knill-Griesser – has embedded the action research as a pillar of the organization. I conducted a conference session for the Ontario PrincipalsÕ Council in 2004 and Heather Knill-Griesser and I will working with a group of principals for a two-day Institute in August 16-17, 2005. In 2004, I worked with two groups in Japan sharing my experiences with implementing action research in a school system. I have connected with Kei and the ÒKounai-kenÓ in school in-service method

used in Japan and Jack Whitehead, Kei and I present our paper at the International Conference on Teacher Research, April 16, 2005 in Montreal (Sawamoto, Delong & Whitehead, 2005).

 

For many years, Cheryl Black and Heather Knill-Griesser have supported and encouraged action researchers in Grand Erie. Once she entered school administration, Cheryl has been preoccupied with the exigencies of being a school administrator (Black, 2005). Her influence has been felt in OERC and in the annual publication of ÒPassion In Professional Practice: Action Research in Grand ErieÓ.  Heather has continued in her role as school administrator conducting and supporting action research (Knill-Griesser, Misener, Bester and Brooks, 2004), in OERC and in the editing of Passion in Professional Practice. The program coordinators who had supported action research projects when they worked with me in my former responsibilities now have other priorities under a new superintendent. However, they have used what they learned to develop what are called ÒLearn TeamsÓ which use the collaborative learning aspect of action research but without the expectation of writing up what they have learned. Other action research leaders have moved into administration and carry their knowledge with them.

 

On the other side, two principals in my family of schools – Ruth Mills and Liz Whiton have large groups in their schools and I am supporting them through my family of schoolsÕ budget. Because of my Special Education portfolio, there are several projects and leaders in that field. Unexpected leaders come along as well. Fran MacLean, Vice Principal, who was involved in the first projects in 1996 has come forward to lead a group in her school and Tina VanKuren (Van Kuren in Delong et al., 2004), classroom teacher, who was involved in a project last year is leading a group in her school.

 

I have been most ineffective in convincing my peers on Executive Council to engage. Most unfortunate. I had hoped that when one of the support staff went into the superintendentÕs role that she would bring her personal experience and be supportive of action research. This was not to be. When the Classroom Research budget was on the budget chopping block in June, 2004, there was no one around the table except me to support its continuance. There were suggestions that it would be included in the new ÒSchool Innovation FundÓ. When the guidelines for this fund were shared at Strategic Planning Council on Dec 8, 2004 there was no mention of action research. While the guidelines do not prohibit it, they are not openly supportive. Requests for action research projects are currently under review for decision in April. Only then will the tale will be fully told.

 

The one issue that haunts me is that of dependence on a single leader. I have been conscious from day one that this movement must not be dependent on me. I thought I had solved this problem with the classroom research budget in 2003. Not to be. I am back to finding bits of money in internal and external budgets. One of my strategies has been to include Òexperience in action research an assetÓ as part of my job postings. Understanding how systems work and being able to effect the changes that you want by working inside the system is not a commonly-held skill, and more uncommon in unit-based managers like school administrators.

 

I am also aware of the capacity that I hold of inspiring people to write their stories. I have this impact on most of the groups or individuals with whom I have this dialogue. I know that part of it lies in my passionate belief in the transformatory effect of an action research study in the lives of educators and students. My faith in the sustainability of this culture of reflection, inquiry and scholarship lies in the continuing flow of projects that are part of the evidential base of practitioner knowledge in four volumes of Passion in Professional Practice (2002, 2003, 2004). And there appear to be ample projects to fill Volume 5.

 

New Vision, New Passion, New Research – Early Child Development & Parenting Centres

 

In terms of my own learning about how to improve educational, social, economic and health outcomes, I became familiar with the work of Dr Fraser Mustard (McCain & Mustard, 1999). I came to realize that I couldnÕt solve the low attainment problems that our children were experiencing without moving outside my mandate of ages 4-20, without engaging some community partners. I have been most fortunate that my Directors, Peter Moffatt and Wayne Joudrie, have given me that room to work outside my mandate. I worked on the development of a Ministry of Social Services program called ÒThe Ontario Early YearsÓ that opened an Early YearsÕ Centre in Brantford in 2002 only to realize that what I saw as the vision was not the same as that of other planning team members. I then set out to get early development centres in schools. Through the drive of a community partner, Sharon Brooks, Executive Officer for ÒKids Can FlyÓ, and an enlightened principal, Jane Goldspink, the first ÒLaunch PadÓ opened at Bellview School in September 2003.

 

What are ÒLaunch PadsÓ?

The key components to Launch Pad programs are:

 

They are successful because they we have many partners working together with one vision.  Contributions of space, in kind services, money, toys and equipment, expertise and staff are helping the children of our communities, and their parents, so that they will be Ôready to learnÕ when they start formal school.

 

Launch Pads are research-based . Our Launch Pad model replicates the successful programs which were opened in the Toronto District School Board, by Mary Gordon in the 1980Õs. They are based on the research of Dr. Fraser Mustard and the late Dr. Dan Offord who have long term documentation proving the success of children who participate. Dr. Mustard himself attended the opening of Bellview and has promoted our model.

 

Learning by doing is the approach:

 

Launch Pads are cost-effective. These programs can be run for under $30,000. per 12 month year.

á      This is based on a model that that operates Monday to Thursday, 4 hoursper day.

á      School boards provide the space and utilities and some start up funds.

á      A partner agency hires and manages the staff, insurance, administration.

á      Toys and equipment are not sophisticated, which encourages replication.

 

Maria Bountrogianni, Minister of Children and Youth Services visited the Launch Pad located at Branlyn Community School in October 2004 and found this model to be very much in keeping with the provincial governmentÕs vision for their ÒBest StartÓ Program.

 

This new initiative of the Provincial Governmentt has promised to choose three communities to act as pilots from September 2005.  The understanding is that it will impact Kindergarten children, initially, providing a seamless day with non parental child care and  a parenting center, on site, within the school.  The 10 year plan is to grow this around the province, with the age of the children gradually including down to 21/2 yrs.  It will be optional, universal and affordable.

 

Action Research and Early Child Development and Parenting Centres – The Connection

 

Whenever I am involved in a new initiative, I consistently want to know the means to know if it is effecting improvement. When the ÒRoots of EmpathyÓ Program (Gordon, 1999) was introduced, action research was conducted in Central School ((Knill-Griesser, Misener, Bester and Brooks, 2004). As well, with the introduction of the Early Child Development & Parenting Centres I saw an opportunity to engage the Early Childhood Educators and deepen the action research roots in another educational community. As with all the action research groups, I provide the text, ÒYou and Your Action Research ProjectÓ  (McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996) for the researchers to reference.

 

On December 10, 2004, I visited the group of 20 Early Childhood Educators (ECE) and managers working with Diane Morgan, Educational Consultant when they were working on articulating their research questions. I was on the run between meetings but felt it important that I spend even a short time with them. After they introduced themselves, I talked with them about the significance of demonstrating the effectiveness of their work with children and parents. I said that they were groundbreakers in that to my knowledge no one had done this before. You could almost visibly see them straighten up and recognize the potential impact of this work. I also said that if they didnÕt write this, someone who had no understanding of their lives as educators would be writing their stories.  The worker from Central School satellite thanked me for the talk and for my vision of Early Child Development and Parenting Centres in schools.

 

In April, 2005, there are nine Launch Pads in schools across Grand Erie Schools and three more in planning stages. The ECE staff are researching their practice through action research to be published in Volume 5 of Passion In Professional Practice, December 2005.

 

Significance of The Evidential Base of Action Research To Transform Systems.

 

Catherine Snow's Presidential Address to AERA in 2001 on 'Knowing What We Know: Children, Teachers, Researchers', draws attention to the importance of developing procedures for systematizing practitioners' knowledge of education:

ÒThe É. challenge is to enhance the value of personal knowledge and personal experience for practice. Good teachers possess a wealth of knowledge about teaching that cannot currently be drawn upon effectively in the preparation of novice teachers or in debates about practice. The challenge here is not to ignore or downplay this personal knowledge, but to elevate it. The knowledge resources of excellent teachers constitute a rich resource, but one that is largely untapped because we have no procedures for systematizing it. Systematizing would require procedures for accumulating such knowledge and making it public, for connecting it to bodies of knowledge established through other methods, and for vetting it for correctness and consistency. If we had agreed-upon procedures for transforming knowledge based on personal experiences of practice into ÔpublicÕ knowledge, analogous to the way a researcherÕs private knowledge is made public through peer-review and publication, the advantages would be great. For one, such knowledge might help us avoid drawing far-reaching conclusions about instructional practices from experimental studies carried out in rarified settings. Such systematized knowledge would certainly enrich the research-based knowledge being increasingly introduced into teacher preparation programs. And having standards for the systematization of personal knowledge would provide a basis for rejecting personal anecdotes as a basis for either policy or practice (Snow, 2001, p.9).Ó

 

My response to Catherine SnowÕs desire to systematize and provide Òprocedures for accumulating such knowledge and making it public, for connecting it to bodies of knowledge established through other methods, and for vetting it for correctness and consistencyÓ is embodied in the four volumes of Passion In Professional Practice. It is a contribution to the necessary evidential base of research by practising teacher and administrator researchers as I conducted my own research on my practice as a superintendent and supported others to do the same in an emerging culture of inquiry, reflection and scholarship.

 

References

 

Black, C. (2005) Issues Regarding the Facilitation of Teacher Research. Reflective Practice, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 107-122.

Delong, J. (2000) My Epistemology of Practice of the Superintendency, in McNiff, J. (2000) Action Research in Organisations. London; Routledge.

Delong, J. (Ed.) (2001) Passion in Professional Practice: Action Research in Grand Erie, Volume I. Brantford: Grand Erie District School Board.

Delong, J. (2002). How Can I Improve My Practice As A Superintendent of Schools and Creat My Own Living Educational Theory? Ph.D. awarded at  Bath University.

Black, C. & Delong, J. (Eds.) (2002a) Passion in Professional Practice: Action Research in Grand Erie, Volume II. Brantford: Grand Erie District School Board.

Delong, J., Black, C. & Knill-Griesser, H. (Eds.) (2003) Passion in Professional Practice: Action Research in Grand Erie, Volume III. Brantford: Grand Erie District School Board.

Gordon, Mary. "Learning From the Heart; Program Stimulates 'Roots of

Empathy' in the Classroom. Toronto Star October 1999.

McCain, M. & Mustard, F. (1999). Early Years Study: Final Report. Toronto: Publications Ontario.

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

Sawamoto, K. (2003). A Collaborative Research For TeachersÕ Development: A Comparative Study Between The Reflective Method and Action Research. Paper by Kei Sawamoto.

Sawamoto, K, Delong J., Whithead, J. (2005) ÒHow are we supporting the activation of Konaiken in the development of a culture of enquiry with living educational theories?Ó Paper presented at the International Conference on Teacher Research in Montreal April 16, 2005.

Snow, C. E. (2001) Knowing What We Know: Children, Teachers, Researchers. Presidential Address to AERA, 2001, in Seattle, in Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No.7, pp.3-9.

Whitehead, J. (1989) Creating A Living Educational Theory From Questions Of The Kind, ÔHow Do I Improve My Practice?Õ Cambridge Journal of Education. Vol. 19, No. 1.