Educational Leadership Issues Leadership and

Educational Leadership Issues Leadership and Management in Education; That schools in the United States in particular have generally experienced a decline in standards, in performance and in personnel commitment is evidenced throughout the field. To many theorists in the last decade, this is indicative of a core problem relating to the orientation and distribution of leadership. Overly centralized ways of designing curriculum, of engaging students and of evaluating performance of teachers and students, some will argue has had the impact of disassociating school leadership from the environment which it impacts.

This is why "in the view of many analysts, the task of transforming a school is too complex for one person to accomplish alone. Consequently, a new model of leadership is developing." (Lashway, 6) The leadership of the school administration or principalship is often looked upon as the sole determining factoring the curricular standardization and approach which pervades a learning institution.

As the Davies & Davies text reveals, the perceived singularity of this leadership is both a product of a fundamental misapprehension of the opportunities for in-school leadership and may be a contributor to a negative educational experience all around. At the heart of this primary text on educational leadership is the notion that too much vested authority in this position will tend to create what he refers to as a 'wall,' which reinforces an improper notion that administration exists above principalship and teaching on a hierarchical scale.

A perception which may be shared by all parties, it is likely to cause an improperly aloof administrative approach to leadership which is more dominated by bureaucracy than a true and inquiring interest in the improvement of education. Equally as destructive, such an attitude imperils the security of the teaching faculty, which tends to respond to being undervalued with resentment, occupational antipathy and diminished morale.

This is why it has become increasingly imperative for the discussion on educational leadership to revolve on both distinguishing from one another and finding balance between the concepts of management and leadership. To the point, according to the Davies & Davies text, there is a critical shortcoming in many educational contexts where the emphasis appears to be on test scores and other such quantitative indicators of effectiveness.

This is because the demand to refine leadership approaches at the administrative, principal and educator levels is often left unrealized in this scenario, meaning that many intended curricular and logistical improvements are not critically sustainable. Accordingly, the text argues "that renewed attention needs to be paid to the strategic dimension of leadership to ensure this sustainability." (Davies & Davies, 10) it is within the framework of this understanding that we are given a clearer impression of that which is meant by differentiating leadership and management.

Where school administration or oversight is concerned, the primary text makes a refined argument in favor of an approach which combines significant elements of both concepts. In terms of both the structural importance of one's role as a leader in whom accountability, decision-making and organizational stewardship are placed and one's role as a manager, in whom the tasks of daily oversight, responsibility delegation and implementation of vision are vested, we find that these are complimentary rather than identical concepts.

To the point, Davies & Davies identify the value in integrating the two forms in some balance, telling that "much of the orthodox perspective of leadership development suggests that new leaders tend first to address current administrative and managerial issues to build confidence and organizational ability before moving to a more strategic and futures activity..

what is needed is a concurrent or parallel view of leadership development in which leaders not only improve on the 'now' of school improvement but concurrently build strategic capability within the school." (Davies & Davies, 10) This is to denote a focus on extending the reach of leadership in such a manner as to promote consistency and clarity of mission.

To paraphrase that which is proposed by Davies & Davies, leadership should be understood at its most basic as descending from a leader who provides a vision and offers positive example in guiding the organization and its members thereto. Management is the more concretely defined assumption of authority and administrative delegation in the operational aspects of an organization. In a school, there must be many individuals who meet the implications of both.

This means that many of the traditional emphases on highly centralized leadership and hierarchical structuring are being supplanted by more organizationally sound approaches. To this end, the underlying theoretical presumption that renewed approaches to leadership will ultimately produce positive performance outcomes for a school is underscored by heretofore existent positive evidence as to the impact of effective leadership overall as a determinant of student outcomes.

According to Spillane (2003), "over the past few decades researchers have consistently reported that school leadership, principal leadership in particular, is critical in developing and sustaining those school-level conditions believed essential for instructional improvement." (Spillane, 343) In the context where I work, this has proven true, as we have worked collectively to approach education from a standpoint of shared responsibility. The private all-girls school is a uniquely advantageous context insofar as we often have the resource and curricular freedom to be more flexible in making structural changes.

Indeed, this is a counterpart to the circumstance which is described by the primary text.

Here, it is denoted that "the confluence of forces pressing on schools during this period resulted in a combination of heightened expectations for improved student performance, highly aggressive state and national policies for holding schools much more publicly accountable for such improvement, and diminished financial resources." (Davies & Davies, 34) This means that the ability of a leader, from any position within the school, will hinge considerably on this person's wherewithal to choose with pragmatism and flexibility the appropriate form which leadership strategy should take.

At our school, this has been the case, and to the advantage of students. The administration and principal work closely with one another to define procedures, policies, limitations and latitudes as they will effect teachers, faculty, students and the leaders themselves. Once defined, responsibilities to this structure and delegated and various leadership roles are filled in different ways at every level of the school.

Teachers are not considered lower in a hierarchy but are considered leaders in shaping the use of curriculum and classroom time in ways that achieve core educational goals. This speaks to the concept of our leaders serving as managers, for whom sustainable success is only possible through the best possible training, coordination and independent skill of organizational members, in this case the teachers.

Both within and without the context of our school, there are myriad political aspects of teaching which tend also to differentiate these practical managerial functions from leadership roles which are quite often shaped by larger systemic forces. This points to the distinction in leadership accountability implied by those at positions with the greatest range of responsibilities.

Such is to say that a core reality impacting educational leadership at the superintendent and administration level, and to a real extent the principalship as well, is the impingement of the political upon the fulfillment of one's practical responsibilities, making it often challenging to work in an environment where one's hands are tied both by the challenges inherent to improvement of troubled school districts and the requirement to answer to various stakeholders such as teachers, parents, communities and local public officials.

With the difficulties of resolving budget controversies, contending with myriad resource shortfalls and enduring a federal economic perspective toward education that has been inconsistent at best, criminally negligent at worst, in recent years, the educational leader must sometimes make decisions which are responsible but reprehensible to those without a full appreciation for the centricity required of the position.

It is therefore incumbent upon the effective educational leader to outwardly pursue a leadership role that is politically savvy while remaining steadfast in the managerial soundness of the approach taken to maintaining and improving the school district or state system in its day-to-day operational practicalities. This means that a truly effective approach to leadership in a school such as ours is one which employs pragmatism in selecting strategic orientation.

The intercession of sound leadership and managerial principals will help to promote a system which is both stable and sustainable, with the intended outcome being the better achievement of educational goals and the improvement teaching strategies. Forms of Leadership As the nature of education changes and evolves, so too does the role of leadership and that which is implied by it. In many ways though, there remains a great philosophical divide on how educational leadership is to be pursued.

To the perspective of this discussion, this divide is based on varying conceptions of how leadership and education might best be integrated for practical roles. In this regard, we will consider the role of the principal as the chief leader in the context of the individual school, particularly as this is the case with the school where I work. Through the role of the principal, we can consider a number of differing approaches to educational leadership and how they manifest in light of today's most pressing challenges.

Considering Transformational Leadership, Political Leadership and Strategic Leadership, we will establish a greater understanding of the value in this diversity of perspective. Such diversity is necessary because of the principal's unique role in both the lives of teachers and students, serving simultaneously as a figure of authority and as an advocate in the face of administrative and political demands. This makes the principalship a deeply complex position, imposed upon by the challenges of organizational stewardship, economic constraint and political imposition.

The experience of developing into and serving in the position of the principal is of importance to those aspiring to evolve to the role. Strategic Leadership is an approach which seeks to achieve a critical balance amongst these responsibilities through a carefully measured integration of both persona and product oriented emphases. The effectiveness of leadership is largely observable in the success with which this leadership motivates, encourages and maintains the competency of personnel.

This is something which can only be achieved through the application of sound interpersonal relationships between leaders or members of an organization such that responsibilities are clear but oversight is neither oppressive or authoritative. As Robbins et al.

(1998) would report, "leaders high in concern for task lead to greater grievance, absenteeism and turnover, and lower levels of job satisfaction." (studies found that high concern for people negatively related to performance ratings of the leader by his or her superior." (Robbins et al., 403) We can see in this part of the discussion that the salient features of strategic leadership are its room for flexibility and its focus on using leadership as a way to optimize strategies of motivating teachers.

In my school, this is an approach which is perhaps best demonstrated by the manner in which teachers are given relative freedom within the parameters of the curriculum. There is modest dictation over teaching styles and strategies, with instructors being allowed a degree of latitude in how they meet specific demands which are articulated by the curriculum. This is a strategically heeled orientation that denotes a certain faith that leadership at the principal level has been sufficient to effect the qualifications of teachers to take this initiative.

Still, in many ways, our private school is deeply political as are most public schools. The interest of the school community which encompasses parents, faculty and other invested parties from the area is highly diversified and imposes a real and pressing set of pressures upon its leadership.

This experience of our principal in seeking to balance these various demands from often divergent party perspectives indicates that the responsibilities of the principal as a leader in various capacities must be heavily considered, particularly in light of such issues as the heightened demanded for leadership in the face of new and permeating political realities.

Issues such as the need to answer to various sectors of the community, the demand to establish a rapport with faculty that induces support and the overarching presence of all-encompassing standardized testing frameworks as those implied by federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy all have the effect of shaping the leadership responsibilities and experiences of the principal.

According to a 2003 article on the subject of the imposition of politics on school leadership, with a focus on the role of the superintendent, there are compelling reasons for many in the relatively specialized field to avoid those school systems which are known to apply undue pressures and inappropriately expansive public burdens on this position of educational leadership.

To this extent, the research finds "that some districts have a history of 'churning' superintendents, which contributes disproportionately to these districts having high turnover rates and a relatively small number of qualified applicants." (Glass et al., 264) This is not to dissuade us from the view that there is a relationship between the political realities of the position and the consequences as they have manifested in some districts.

Quite to the contrary, it reinforces the notion that it remains a challenge for many educational leaders to properly balance the notion of an effective and accountable structural authority with the presence of a sound educational orientation, with a host of political consequences resulting from a failure to achieve this equation.

Such is to say that a core reality impacting educational leaders is the impingement of the political upon the fulfillment of one's practical responsibilities, making it very frustrating to work in an environment where one's hands are tied both by the challenges inherent to improvement of troubled school districts and the requirement to answer to.