defining principals as leaders of learning and learners: a

CASTL Technical Report No. 4-05

Defining Principals as Leaders of Learning and Learners: A Journey of Conceptual Change

Connie M. Moss Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning

Department of Foundations and Leadership School of Education Duquesne University

Copyright 2005. Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning, Department of Foundations and Leadership, School of Education, Duquesne University.

CASTL TR 4-05

About CASTL ___________________________________________________________________

The Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) was established in 1998 in the Department of Foundations and Leadership at Duquesne University School of Education. CASTL engages in research programs dedicated to understanding, advancing and disseminating evidence-based study of the teaching-learning process. Mission and Goals The Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning promotes systematic and intentional inquiry into the teaching-learning process and, through careful and collegial study of learning-centered environments, seeks to advance the understanding and dissemination of evidence-based study of the teaching-learning process in service of all learners. To promote its mission, CASTL intentionally pursues the following goals:

• Promote socially just, learning-centered environments that bring excellence and equity to all learners;

• Foster systematic and intentional inquiry into the beliefs that educators hold about educational theory and research and effective practice;

• Honor research, theory, and practice as legitimate and complementary sources of knowledge regarding the teaching-learning process;

• Elevate professional learning and educational practice to the level of scholarship;

• Advance the conceptual framework of leadership as learning;

• Develop a knowledge network fueled by researchers, theorists and practitioners who contribute to advancing the study of the teaching-learning process;

• Establish and perpetuate an international community of teacher-scholars representing a variety of teaching and learning environments;

• Promote and coordinate communication within a network of educational institutions and organizations that collaborate in the recruitment and education of teacher-scholars;

• Create a culture of professional learning based on research situated in schools and in other learning environments;

• Examine and develop methodologies by which the teaching-learning process is studied;

• Advocate for the enhancement of the teaching-learning process in service of all learners; and

• Share what is learned about the teaching-learning process.

Copyright 2005. Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning, Department of Foundations and Leadership, School of Education, Duquesne University. 3

CASTL TR 4-05

Contact Information ___________________________________________________________________

This report is one of a series from our ongoing research effort to advance the study of teaching and learning. If you have any questions or comments on this report, or if you would like to find out more about the activities of CASTL, contact:

The Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning 406 Canevin Hall School of Education Duquesne University Pittsburgh, PA 15282 (412) 396-4778 [email protected] http://www.castl.duq.edu


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.castl.duq.edu

CASTL TR 4-05

Abstract ___________________________________________________________________

The paper describes the theoretical framework of a principal preparation program, explains how the framework emerged, describes the core values and research that ground it and provides selected examples from the program to illustrate the parts within as well as the coherence of the framework. Central to the discussion is the theme that university faculty must first change the ways that they lead and conceive leadership before attempting to develop leadership in others.


CASTL TR 4-05

Defining Principals as Leaders of Learning and Learners: A Journey of Conceptual Change

A principal walking into a school this year will find little that resembles the educational landscape from five years ago. Today, state and federal governments demand increased evidence of student achievement and hold individual schools directly responsible for student progress1. In this age of accountability, schools have a renewed interest in attracting and retaining high quality teachers since student achievement strongly correlates with high quality teachers2. Just as importantly, explorations show that teacher quality highly relates to the quality of the principal3 . Though findings are mixed, principals can have a positive effect on student achievement when they properly identify a specific focus for improving the school and when they monitor and adjust their leadership practices to promote the changes they are leading4. It is not surprising then, that the debate over how best to prepare principal is escalating.

At the heart of the debate is the argument that university preparation programs lack relevance. Specifically, critics charge that universities fail to prepare graduates for the real life of schools, a life where principals face shifting and evolving challenges5 as well as mounting pressures for accountability6. What’s more, critics cast university faculty as outmoded outsiders who, for a variety of reasons, are neither willing nor able to change.

It is clear that universities must change their approach, but plotting the course of that change is not easy. Potential choices harbor both peril and promise. For instance, if universities expand the academic knowledge base in their programs, they would still scratch the surface of the ever-growing foundation of what principals need to know. If universities look to the school districts to offer increased field-based experiences, they run the risk that candidates will only witness and learn existing practices, even the best of which will not equip them for future reforms7. Another strategy is for universities to connect their program designs to high quality standards. While there are

1 Lashway, L. (2003). Transforming Principal Preparation. ERIC Digest 165. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management,. ED 457 535. http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest165.html 2 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, May-June). Teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education. 51(3), 66-73; Haycock, K. (2001, March). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership.58(6), 6-11. 3 Bloom, R. (1998). Summary of research on effective school characteristics. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR.; Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., Foleno, T., & Foley, P. (2001). Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game: Superintendents and Principals Talk About School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: Public Agenda; Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 9(2), 157-191; Marzano, R.J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with the dimensions of learning. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 4 Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. 5 Daresh, J.C., Ganter, M.W., Dunlap, K., & Hvizdak, M. (2000). Words from “the trenches”: Principals’ perspectives on effective school leadership characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 69-83. 6 Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; Sebring, P.B., & Bryk, A.S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan,81(6), 440-443. 7 Daresh, J (2002). U.S. School Administrator Development: Issues and a Plan for Improvement. In W. Lin (Ed) Proceedings of International Conference on School Leader Preparation, Licensure/Certification, Selection, Evaluation, and Professional Development.Taipei, Taiwan: National Taipei Teachers College.


CASTL TR 4-05

obvious benefits to adopting quality standards, mere adoption does not insure program quality. Programs can link courses to new standards and still deliver the same content, with the same methods, and measure progress using the same performances and the assessments8.

Changing direction might have to start at a more seminal place—in the minds of those who beg the questions. Perhaps those who wish to transform how aspiring principals learn and grow should embrace a more relevant definition of the contemporary principal—one that characterizes the principal as a leader who leads learning and learners. Would that conceptual change encourage universities to re-think, re-conceptualize and re-culture their programs and, perhaps most importantly, their roles within them? Would they approach partnerships with school districts in ways that are more meaningful?

Genuinely Changing Ourselves

Tolstoy eloquently reminds us that "Everyone thinks of changing humanity; no one thinks of changing himself. Our world is hungry for genuinely changed people". Five years ago, the leadership team at [insert identification information here] embarked on a journey of self-learning and self-transformation. We began with the intent to genuinely change ourselves by viewing leaders as learners and leadership as a learning process9. We distilled that intention into a vision of placing ourselves, and our program, in service of principals who lead learners and learning as the leading learners in their schools, districts, and communities.

We reasoned that, as a university principal preparation program, we had an obligation to define leadership in terms learning, cultivate that kind of leadership in ourselves, and nurture that kind of leadership in our aspiring principals. To that end, we set out to research and recreate a program that would prepare principals to lead learners and learning.

Forming Partnerships: An Affirmation of Mutual Learning

Immediately, we identified partners from school districts that surrounded our university—a diverse group representing urban, suburban, rural, affluent, disadvantaged, and private schools. The design team included acting and retired expert principals, curriculum directors, superintendents, and representatives of educational agencies and organizations. We invited them to join us in a journey of mutual learning to vision a new kind of principal preparation program and learn with us as we engaged in an ongoing process of research and development. Each aspect of the program resulted from mutual learning that continues to this day. Our reciprocal relationships are instrumental to the quality of every facet of the program, from the content of the problem-based learning that promotes inquiry, to the field-based experiences woven throughout the program, to those who serve the program as adjunct faculty, mentors, and advisors.

The program promotes learning that articulates and distributes across contexts: on campus, in the field, and online. We support an integrated cohort model, concentrated campus residency experiences, on site action labs, mentor-guided field experiences, regular visits to aspiring principals

8 Norton, J. (2002). Preparing School Leaders: It's Time to Face the Facts. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board. 9 Institute for Educational Leadership (2000, October). Leadership for student learning: reinventing the principalship. Washington, DC: Author.


CASTL TR 4-05

from critical friends, and a theoretically grounded and specifically designed online learning environment that connects minds and learning across time and distance.

We continuously work with our partners to infuse the program with “systematic intentional inquiry” learning10. We purposely align learning goals to focused field-based experiences that foster the systematic and intentional testing of assumptions within the context of data-driven decision-making. We design meaningful learning experiences that are full of authentic ambiguities and variations to engage us, and our aspiring principals, in ill-defined problems that foster the disposition to reveal and challenge our existing beliefs and assumptions about learning and leadership. Moreover, we create and maintain learning networks that engage our graduates in ongoing learning and mentoring as they assume positions of leadership. To put it simply, we consciously design learning environments and experiences that are as complex and dynamic as the daily life of schools, where events rapidly unfold, where new problems continually arise and where numerous stakeholders have a voice.

A Goal of Conceptual Change: The Anchors and Targets of [insert program name here]

Charting a course toward conceptual change, we drew on recent cognitive research that emphasizes the role of the learner’s intentions in knowledge change11 and recognizes that the impetus for transformation is within the learner’s control12. Conceptual change requires mindfulness on the part of the learner and “reflects a voluntary state of mind, [that] connects…motivation, cognition, and learning”13. Therefore, we committed to the vigorous self-referential work essential to reach for what Jim Collins14 terms “Level 5 Leadership”: a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. Level 5 Leaders have ambition, but their ambitions are primarily for the learning community and not for themselves. Before we could foster this type of leadership in others, we had to pledge to develop it in ourselves.

To stimulate our transformation and to guide us in transforming our program, we identified eight conceptual anchors to ground our learning. The conceptual anchors served as achievement targets for our program and the aspiring principals within it, against which we could gauge progress and toward which we could plot our direction. The conceptual anchors are neither finite nor all-inclusive. Rather they reflect a starting point and continuously grow with our learning.

The wording of each conceptual anchor intentionally casts us as “becoming” rather than “being” the kind of leaders that we hope to develop. The wording reminds us that it takes both courage and humility to make tough decisions, to stretch our thinking, and stay the course. The eight statements follow.

First, we will focus on learning rather than on instruction. Second, we will model the kind of learning organization that we expect our graduates to create. Third, we will embed leadership learning in real-

10 Moss, C.M. (2002b). In the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Educational Psychology in Teacher Inquiry. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. 11 Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003).Intentional Conceptual Change. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum 12 Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199 13 Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill is not enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, .623-637, p.623. 14 Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.


CASTL TR 4-05

life leadership experiences and challenges. Fourth, we will nurture shared norms, values, and goals focused on respect, caring, and compassion. Fifth, we will cultivate informed skeptics who question the status quo and who bring evidence to bear on their beliefs and assumptions about learning and leadership. Sixth, we will create lifelong networks of interdependency and knowledge sharing. Seventh, we will foster understandings of leadership as contributed and distributed. Eighth, we will develop leaders who see the ethical implications of their decisions and the moral obligation to serve the learning of all learners15.

We distilled these conceptual anchors into a theoretical framework with three facets. The facets fuse systematic and intentional inquiry16 to communal elements of leadership that bestow leaders with the moral and ethical obligation to work for social justice.

Each facet is discussed in turn noting the research-base for the facet and providing selected examples from the program.

Facet One: Systematic and Intentional Inquiry Fueled by Cognition that is Situated, Distributed and Hot.

The [insert program identification here] is

“deeply rooted in the belief that inquiry is at the heart of all learning and connects theorizing and practicing in the person of the [leader] within the [leader's] own workplace context while aiming to create context-specific and relevant knowledge (rather than general). That is because inquiry, in direct opposition to the absolute answer mindset perpetrated by best practice forms of professional development, encourages educators to become informed skeptics. Moreover, inquiry encourages them to collaboratively construct knowledge that is organic, always unfinished, deriving from judgment and belief and revealed though action— through doing and making” 17.

Effective leaders work at the boundary between the known and the unknown, constantly adding to their cache of knowledge, ability to think in critical, creative, and self-regulatory ways, and disposition toward inquiry. Effective leaders possess and continuously develop the essential elements of effective inquiry that include seeing patterns and meanings not apparent to others and having in-depth knowledge organized and structured in ways that are most useful. Their knowledge base is not a linear set of acquired facts, but rather a relational, sophisticated, transferable knowledge network applicable to a variety of situations. In other words, effective leaders develop intentional level cognitive processes—thinking dispositions—that are under their conscious control and that they can internally initiate18 to retrieve their knowledge and learn new information in their fields with little effort19. Effective leaders engage in strategic thinking, crisp visioning and clear decision-making.

15 Identifying Program Citation to be inserted here. 16 Author, 2002b 17 Author, 2002b, pp 4-5. 18 Perkins, D.N., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 269-293. 19 Adapted from Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.


CASTL TR 4-05

Therefore, the [program name] consciously cultivates certain productive habits of mind to cultivate leaders who lead learning and learners through “systematic and intentional inquiry”20.

For inquiry to be powerful, it must be intentional. "Intentional learning"21 emphasizes the importance of intent, purpose, and intensity in the learning process and refers to cognitive processes that have learning as a goal rather than an incidental outcome. Intentional learners use knowledge and beliefs to engage in internally initiated, goal-directed, and self-regulated action to acquire knowledge or skills. Both denotatively and connotatively, intentional learning demands a conscious commitment to leading as learning—a hallmark of Level 5 leaders.

There are many ways that we promote systematic and intentional inquiry throughout the program. One way is to design authentic performances that happen across contexts—on campus, on site or online—and tie them to analytical rubrics. We share all rubrics before the performances. Specifically designed rubrics guide and assess specific performances, (i.e., creating a professional staff development plan), and rubrics for general performances (i.e., writing, oral presentation, working in leaderless groups). We publish all rubrics in the program’s extensive online learning environment. What’s more, we tie rubrics to interactive online tutorials and guides that encourage individuals to design professional learning agendas that enhance their progress or address a specific gap in understanding or performance.

A great example of how this plays out over time and across contexts, lies in the program’s commitment to clear and cogent professional writing. Each aspiring principal receives a detailed analysis of his or her first piece of professional writing—a performance that occurs in the first week of the program. We tie this writing profile to the writing rubric that guides all written performances. The comprehensive written feedback and individual writing conference include suggested entry points for engaging the program’s interactive online writing tutor. In this way, the analytical rubrics guide authentic performance design, assessment, timely and critical feedback, and encourage goal-driven, self-directed, and systematic intentional inquiry.

Pivotal to the influence of systematic and intentional inquiry on leadership is the role that cognition—situated, distributed, and hot—plays in learning and meaning-making. Situated learning happens when we work on real problems—authentic and realistic tasks that reflect the real world—and grapple with those problems in a community of practice22. A community of practice involves a collection of individuals sharing mutually defined practices, beliefs and understandings over an extended time-frame in the pursuit of a shared enterprise23. Thus, to function as a member of a 20 Author, 2002b. 21 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 361-392 Author. (2002a).; Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, G. M. & Jetton, T. L. (1996). View of Knowledge Acquisition and Representation: A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational Psychologist, 31 (2), 93-104. 22 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.l (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42; Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge; Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press; Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 43-58. 23 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.


CASTL TR 4-05

community, an individual develops an identity as a member of that community, becomes knowledgeably skillful as part of the same process, and in the process gives meaning and purpose to the learning community24.

Humans have an innate capacity for collective intelligence. They can learn and think together, and this connection of minds can lead to extraordinary learning communities. Learning communities distribute cognition across individuals, the learning community, and the learning environment25. We intentionally commit to situated and distributed learning through authentic and collaborative problem-based experiences throughout the program and in all contexts—on site, on campus, and online—in large and small groups. What’s more, the design and function of our online learning environment enable the community to generate knowledge legacies that enrich learning across time and distance26 throughout a person’s engagement in the program and into his or her first years as a practicing administrator. For instance, our online learning environment archives real life dilemmas, organized to promote a decision-making heuristic. Practicing principals contribute descriptions of the issues in real time. And expert panel publishes a suggested course of actions. These archived cases form a knowledge legacy that distributes learning in powerful ways.

Acknowledging the power of shared learning requires that we consider how much the course of a leader’s life is controlled by cognitive processes, how much is controlled by affective ones, and how much each influences the other. Affective phenomena, as they relate to reason, deserve far more attention than they currently receive in leadership preparation. Leaders interpret and govern the meaning of events by what they feel and by the expressive options available to them. Their language continually projects their opinions, preferences, and evaluations. Affective phenomena make us human, and humans do not leave matters of life and death to the slower working cognitive structures. A parent, for example, does not jump into raging water to save a drowning child based on a detailed analysis of the pros and cons. While this example is extreme, it provides an illustration of “hot cognition”27 where motivation, directional goals, mindsets (views of what is “right”), and the roles of outcome dependency, arousal, and self-affirmation affect reasoning and judgments. Hot cognition can both enhance and cloud thinking and learning. Recognizing and channeling it is an important part of learning to lead. Effective leaders intentionally harness the workings of their own minds and are not less “emotional than other people… they deploy a different suite of emotions in their work from what is appropriate both in personal life and in other vocational settings”28.

[Program name] intentionally builds awareness and respect for hot cognition. We engage learners in decisions that require consideration of emotionally-laden value judgments and reflection on reasoning processes. For example, aspiring principals regularly face “in-basket activities”—random problems

24 Lave, 1993, p. 65. 25 Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press; Nickerson, R. S. (1993). On the distribution of cognition: Some reflections. In G. Salomon (Ed.). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. (pp. 229-261), New York: Cambridge University Press; Salomon, G.(Ed.) (1993). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. 26 Author, 2000). 27 Abelson, R. P. (1963). “Computer simulation of “hot cognitions.” In S. Tomkins & S. Messick (Eds.), Computer simulation and personality: Frontier of psychological theory. New York: Wiley.; Kunda, Z. (1999). Social Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 28 Posner, R. A. (1999). Emotion versus emotionalism in law. In S. A. Blandes (Ed.), The passions of law . New York: New York University Press, p.325.


CASTL TR 4-05

that occur in our virtual school district without warning and that they must address as principal of that building. Instantly, aspiring principals face decisions and actions that they must make in the heat of the moment. One in-basket problem asks aspiring principals to deal with their morning mail, a set of letters and memos, one of which is request from a teacher to have a student removed from her classroom for personal reasons. Once the candidate makes all decisions, writes responses, assigns issues to others, files important documents in appropriate places, makes a tickler file entry, or tosses unnecessary mail, he or she receives immediate feedback that compares decisions just made to the decisions of a panel of expert principals. The feedback notes the “heat” attached to certain issues and the pitfalls/advantages associated with it.

Facet Two: Unswerving Commitment to Learners, Learning, and Learning Communities.

One of the leader’s most important actions, taking a stand that can endure the forces that present themselves, requires the leader stand for something that is authentically important to him or her. Martin Luther King describes this authentic stance as the point where destiny and freedom merge: “Here I stand. I can do no other.” Authentic leaders lead through congruent example, developing core strengths through their congruence and becoming intimately aware of their full impact on the learning organization. Because members of the learning community know where the leader stands, it becomes easier to establish cooperation and rapport, distribute leadership, and create a learning-centered culture in a community of practice where group dynamics foster loyalty, creativity, vision, security, and achievement with the conscious intent of advancing excellence at every level.

Our framework promotes ideas of distributed, contributed, and servant leadership. Since we expect our graduates to serve others, we strive to model servant leadership in all that we do and each person—professor, adjunct professor, field site mentor, critical friend, technical and clerical staff—knowingly shares that responsibility. We unpack our thinking and explain our decisions of practice, to model that decisions are based on effective research and practices, not on personal opinion or fads, and that decisions are tied to an ethical and moral code of conduct.

Communities of practice are fueled by individuals who accept the “moral obligation to share knowledge through knowledge legacies [and to engage in]…knowledge-building activities…focused on conceptualizing an in-depth understanding of a situation [and] promoting an open knowledge environment for collective understanding”29. By engaging in learning that increases understanding of our identity, we begin to grasp not only how we think but also how we interact with the world. We cannot separate knowledge from the communities that create it, use it, and transform it. Powerful learning communities are exemplified by distributed leadership30 and recognize that all members are experts in their own right—uniquely important sources of knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

29 Author, 2002a. 30 (c.f.; Kahne, J. & Westheimer, J. (2000). A pedagogy of collective action and reflection: Preparing teachers for collective school leadership. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (5), 372-383; Lambert, Lambert, L., Collay, M., Dietz, M. E., Kent, K., & Richert, A. E. (1996). Who will save our schools? Teachers as constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; Senge, P.M. & McLagan, P.A. (1993). Transforming the practice of management [and] invited reaction: Intellectualizing should not relieve the need to act. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4 (1), 5-37; Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001) ‘Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective’, Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research Working Article; among others).


CASTL TR 4-05

The most effective educational leaders promote crucial conversations over time that multiply the original act of leadership. In other words, a leader can promote a common language, and through common experiences and shared goals, the leader can weave leadership and knowledge through the fabric of the educational community in the pursuit of a shared vision. This is the ancient meaning of dialogue (dia•logos) "flow of meaning". Since essential knowledge is distributed across many individuals, it makes sense for leadership to be distributed as well. For distributed leadership to function—to have a group of individuals working and thriving as a group of leaders—leadership must be organized by unifying values that drive shared responsibilities31.

Systematic and intentional inquiry is instrumental to promoting those unifying values and is essential to the success of distributed leadership environments. Inquiry requires involvement at all levels and fuses the learning community through the essential leadership functions of vision, planning, and accountability. Leadership then becomes distributed across collective inquiry, rather than centered in the actions of one leader32. We encourage collaborative inquiry, data-driven decision-making and problem-solving to fuel shared learning processes and shared responsibility for continuous improvement. For example, aspiring teachers take part in Action Labs that occur throughout the program. Some happen in the districts, others occur on campus. In small learning teams, they prepare to address a complex issue by developing different individual expertise, collecting data, drafting action plans and sharing insights. When they meet for the Action Lab, they are prepared to address the issue as a team of experts who are ready to share the learning and the accountability. Learning to maximize excellence at all levels, they appreciate the contributions they make and the contributions of others are essential.

In this way, aspiring principals begin to understand that leadership is an earned relationship that requires elective contribution33. Vivian Williams posits that leadership is a process that rests on three important assumptions that he distills into three stages. First, “Leaders Have Followers” notes that leaders earn their roles as leaders from those who are willing to follow them. Simply put, if no one is following you, then no matter what your title suggests, you are not the leader. Second, "Followers Make Contributions". Williams34 explains that members of a learning community in general, and a school in particular, choose to follow or not follow based on the nature and dynamics of their contributions to the life and work of their organization. Feeling a part of something important, having a say, and feeling that one’s actions make a difference encourages community members to work toward a common vision. Finally, "Contributions Make the Difference". Through the contributions that we make and the acknowledgements of those contributions that we extend, we individually and collectively shape the culture of our communities of practice.

31 Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute, 2000. 40 pages. EJ 602 758. Available online at http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html [Date of access: April 29, 2005]. 32 Copeland, M. (August, 2003) Distributed Leadership for Instructional Improvement: The Principal's Role. The LSS Review,2, (4), , p. 22-23. Mid-Atlantic Regional Education Laboratory. 33 Williams, V. (1989). Schools and their communities: Issues in external relations. In J. Sayer & V. Williams (Eds.), Schools and external relations: Managing the new partnerships. London: Cassell; Williams, V. (1995). Towards 2000--organization and relationships. In V. Williams (Ed.), Towards self-managing schools. London: Cassell. 34 Williams, 1995)


http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html

CASTL TR 4-05

Conceptualizing leadership as contributorship places the leader in service of learners and learning and assumes that all members of a learning community will earn and contribute leadership. Following, leading, choosing to follow, and choosing to lead become outcomes of the experiences and goals that motivate the community, and that in turn shape the identities of its members as earned leaders and elective contributors. Each in turn contributes to the other, and all serve the goals of the community. One way that we instill the notion of contributed leadership is to encourage conscious awareness of the contributions—those we make and the contributions others. We nurture this disposition through reflective experiences woven throughout the program that encourage mindfulness of the contributions of others and the role that our own contributions play in serving others and the good of the community. Like a football team analyzing and learning from a game film, we debrief each learning experience to note individual contributions, team contributions, and where a contribution would have helped had someone elected to contribute. Engaging in these reflective scrimmages allows us to try on productive roles and thinking processes in a safe and supportive atmosphere and fosters a desire to serve one another and serve something beyond ourselves.

Servant leaders35 intentionally place themselves in service of others. They promote and are governed by behaviors that arise authentically and spontaneously from principle-centered desires and commitments—an intention to serve a higher purpose. Because of this, servant leadership is more likely sustained than leadership orientations that focus on compliance to external expectations, whatever their source. The servant leader naturally promotes the interests of the learning community because they become the interests of the leader as well. When leaders make it clear in their words and in their actions that they do not seek power over members of the community, the community sees itself in the leader and chooses to follow and share the leadership. We constantly monitor and mentor the language that we use in speaking with and writing to others. We work to build awareness of the kinds of words and actions that communicate the assumption of “power over” people and events. We also model servant leadership in actions, big and small, from waiting on tables during summer residencies, to establishing a special branch of the “Make-A-Wish” Foundation known as “Teachers Making Wishes Come True36.

With steadfast commitment to working for a higher purpose, servant leaders can become incorruptible. They are in complete identification with those they serve and believe the needs of the community to be their own. They draw on the their commitment to guide their moral compass and steel their resolve. This then, becomes a source of courage.

Facet Three: Courageously Promoting Social Justice Through Integrity, Ethics, and Moral-Decision-Making.

Living a principled life—fueled by beliefs that are bone deep—requires that leaders courageously serve the moral health and social justice of the learning community. That is why the third facet of our framework cultivates a leader’s moral compass and ethical center. We intentionally fosters dispositions toward discernment of consequences, including ethical consequences, of decisions and actions. What’s more, we firmly believe that this discernment must include respect for the complex identities of others, their histories and their cultures, and a deep understanding of ourselves and our

35 Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The Servant as Leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert K.Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. 36Identifying citation here.


CASTL TR 4-05

multiple identities. In this way, we pass moral leadership along through the bond that occurs between leaders and followers, as well as the personal ethics of moral leaders37.

According to Thomas Sergiovanni 38"[Educators] are generally driven by what they believe to be right or good, and by how they feel about things, by morality, emotion, and social bonds". Educational leaders, therefore, have a responsibility to question the status quo, to examine practices and definitions of teaching and learning, to promote and assess research-based learning processes and, where necessary, to pursue and manage change in both the process and the structure of the learning environment.

The research continues to show case a principal’s influence on the formal operations of a school39 as well as a principal’s influence as a living model of moral development40. Based on our beliefs about moral leadership, we intentionally call attention to the behaviors that dramatically and insidiously obstruct the ability of the community to achieve its goals. We deliberately cultivate experiences that highlight values and immoral behaviors that do unavoidable harm to others and often to leaders themselves. To put it simply, we believe that leaders learn to act in morally sound ways on large issues only when they understand what it means to act that way on all issues, even small ones.

How we relate to and deal with each other, and the respect that we model and share at all levels, with all people, and across all contexts displays our moral compass. Moral leaders develop clear standards and hold themselves constructively accountable. Not doing so, for whatever reason, is a form of immoral leadership and is a breakdown of moral courage.

Moral leadership, therefore, absolutely requires that leaders model coherence. They must not only act upon and but also constantly challenge the validity of their own moral beliefs. Arguably, schools may be the most important places where coherent models of moral leadership can affect cultural change. Studies of a school leader’s role in fostering moral development often highlight the core beliefs that school leaders treasure as integral to their practice and their being. What is troubling, though, is that studies also reveal that the leader’s beliefs about morality remain mostly tacit and only modestly articulated within the public education sector41. If tacit beliefs often drive schoolhouse behavior, then it is critical that principals learn to explicitly model and articulate moral maturity. Truly effective schools are those with a shared covenant clearly articulating the school's core values

37 Coles, R. (2000). Lives of Moral Leadership. New York: Random House 38 Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 39 Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York: Basic Books; Wolcott, H. F. (1984). The man in the principal’s office. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. 40 Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Siretnik, K. A. (Eds.) (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 41 Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers, their world, and their work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Supervision Development; Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman; Schuttloffel, M.J. (1999, July5-6). Reflective practice for principal professional development. Paper presented at the retreat sponsored by National Association of Secondary School Principals for Middle School Principals of Corpus Christi, Texas and Jefferson County, Kentucky. Las Vegas Nevada; Sergiovanni, 1992; Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building and ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. London : The Falmer Press


CASTL TR 4-05

and providing a standard by which we judge actions. Basic moral values that fused into a shared covenant are critical to effective leadership, since leadership always involves the use of power both within the group and in relation to the surrounding environment. Principals must not only take the lead in formulating the covenant but they must also actively support and enforce it. When a vital standard is ignored, principals should "lead by outrage."42

Almost anything that we now deplore in our personal and social lives was somewhere, and at some time, acceptable. Many of those who we now consider as the world’s greatest leaders embodied customs and cultures, that by today’s standards, are discriminatory, prejudicial and socially unjust. It is crucial, therefore, that we constantly hold our actions up to scrutiny and ask how the future will judge our moral compass. Do we strive to become acutely aware of the prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination that obstruct meaningful and morally grounded change?

Key to moral leadership is the recognition that in efforts to avoid change, even leaders with the best intentions may be addicted to keeping things as they are and therefore unable to see the flaws in their own thinking and actions. To addressing issues of power and privilege, we should work to make social justice experiences integral to leadership development. Shields puts it this way, “educational leaders must address issues of power, control and inequity…they must engage in dialogue, examine current practice, and create pedagogical conversations and communities that critically build on, and do not devalue, students’ lived experiences” 43.

Throughout our program, in matters big and small, we intentionally engage in dilemmas that encourage us to reveal, challenge, and understand our personal value and belief systems as they pertain to issues of social justice. For example, one learning experience that unfolds in our virtual school district engages individuals in applying knowledge of statistical processes—test scores, correlation, and sampling—to a real world problem in real time. The problem is grade inflation and the lack of confidence that some business members in the virtual community have in the high school’s grades. Aspiring principals problem-solve individually and in small learning teams. They are encouraged not to make assumptions, to write complete and analytical explanations, and to prepare a report individually and combine the individual responses into a response from their small leadership team. The team reports must not only note the statistical implications of the data, but also note the moral and ethical decisions of the leader and the political pressures that can cloud thinking and deter ethical decision-making.

Charting the Future

Robert Greenleaf wrote: “The future can be radically altered by the kinds of people now being prepared for the future. Somebody needs to paint the big dream, to give our age a goal that will lift the eyes of young people off the ground and make them want to stretch their horizons”44. Five years into our journey of learning and conceptual change, we feel radically altered. For each decision that we make, we ask the questions: Is this learning centered? Does it promote leadership as learning?

42 Sergiovanni,1992. 43 Shields, C.M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly (40) 1, pp. 109-132. 44 Greenleaf, R.K. (1996). On Becoming a Servant Leader. D.M. Frick & L.C. Spears (Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 79-80.


CASTL TR 4-05

The journey has been exciting and unnerving. Fundamental change, even self-imposed change, stirs things up45. We continue to learn together, folding our graduates into our learning teams, and tapping into reflexive learning. Presently, we are developing an interview protocol tied to our program’s dispositions to will help us increase the quality of our candidates and help us better enhance their strengths and meet their needs. We are constantly noticing and filling gaps in our thinking and our program. For instance, we are infusing more learning experiences centered on interactions with school boards, community members, educational agencies, and political organizations. We are surprised by what we now consider to be glaring omissions, and we are retroactively embarrassed that we did not infuse the program with these ideas in the first place. But then again, until we worked to change ourselves and learned from that process, many things that we now see clearly, were invisible to our old eyes. But what still lies beyond our sight? We know that there is more to discover, more to recreate, and more to learn. An African proverb sums up our thinking as we continue to create a preferred future and learn in the process: “The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today”.

45 Shields, C.M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly (40) 1, pp. 109-132. 45 Greenleaf, R.K. (1996). On Becoming a Servant Leader. D.M. Frick & L.C. Spears (Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 79-80. 45 Collins, 2001.


defining principals as leaders of learning and learners: a

Documents