Leadership Development and School Improvement Strategies

Introduction: Rethinking the Principal's Role

Effective schools are the key to America's future and to its ability to maintain a competitive advantage. The future of the nation depends on maximizing students' ability to learn, and improving schools is an important goal that concerns everyone. School administration plays a critical role in providing a learning environment that maximizes the learning potential of every student. The principal is often viewed as the most important individual in achieving this goal.

When a school succeeds, the principal is frequently credited with leading it to a successful outcome. When a school fails, the principal is often the one blamed. One cannot underestimate the importance of the principal in shaping school outcomes. Principals set the policies and tone that drive staff in their daily routines, establish school vision and objectives, and oversee the implementation of plans to help schools achieve their goals. Older learning models placed primary emphasis on the school principal as the singular driver of success in the school environment.

Recent research diverges from these traditional views. New paradigms recognize that, although one cannot minimize the role of the principal in building an effective school system, the principal is not the only important member of the team. Recent studies focus on the role of the principal as a facilitator of leadership among all members of the staff, recognizing the importance of the teacher as a leader in the classroom. The effective principal uses the talents of the entire staff to reach maximum potential.

This paper explores current research into the ability of principals to build effective school leadership by utilizing the talents of other staff members. It examines the most recent studies in this changing paradigm and supports the thesis that effective leadership involves more than one's own skills — it involves the ability to make the most of others' talents as well. It examines ways in which principals and other school administrators can improve the leadership abilities of staff members by focusing on a team approach to leadership, rather than focusing solely on the leadership potential of administrative staff.

Building School Capacity for Learning

The purpose of this research is to help find ways to build more effective schools by increasing students' learning potential. It focuses on how principals can create an environment that will maximize the school's capacity to help students achieve their learning goals.

Leadership is the key to building effective schools. Research has long focused on the principal as the key school leader; however, there are others whose leadership ability also determines the effectiveness of the school system (Spillane, 2004). Leadership in schools goes beyond theory and is represented in the daily practice of the school setting (Spillane, 2004). It is an active, rather than a passive, force.

Teachers interact with students far more than principals and administrators do. They play an active leadership role in curriculum development. While it is often the principal or administrator who sets the curriculum, teacher interaction can enhance the principal's perspective so that lessons become meaningful to students (Spillane, 2004). Listening to the ideas and perspectives of teachers is therefore an important leadership task for principals. This type of interaction highlights the importance of staff members beyond the principal in terms of leadership duties. In practice, while the principal and other administrators form the vision, teachers provide the practical feedback that makes that vision a reality in the classroom (Spillane, 2004). Leadership is, in practice, distributed among various levels of staff.

Many principals are defined by their managerial abilities rather than by their work in instructional improvement (Supovitz, 2000). The principal does far more than manage the budget. Over the course of a day, they serve as servant-leader, organizational and social architect, educator, morale officer, moral advocate, child advocate, social worker, community activist, and crisis negotiator (Spillane, 2004). They must do all this while striving to raise student test scores and enhance the school's effectiveness in academic achievement.

Schools are beginning to adopt the idea of team leadership in response to these demands. Under this model, leadership responsibilities and tasks are divided among staff, with each person responsible for a portion of the overall work — all under administrative guidance to ensure consistency with the school's goals and vision. This approach makes teachers and other staff members part of the team, giving them ownership in the overall functioning of the school. Under this model, the principal acts as a shepherd ensuring that everyone stays on track (Spillane, 2004).

Competent teachers are necessary for effective classroom settings (Youngs & King, 2002). Every teacher adds to the school's capacity to produce an effective learning environment. This capacity encompasses several aspects: the teachers' individual knowledge, skills, and personalities that they bring to the classroom; the existence of adequate resources and an organized school atmosphere; and coherent learning goals directed toward achievement. School learning capacity is reduced when there is a lack of coherence among staff (Youngs & King, 2002). Everyone must work toward the same goals consistently in order to achieve maximum school capacity, and Youngs and King emphasize the importance of staff development in helping to achieve these goals.

Role Definition in Team Building

Within any social organization, every member must seek to define his or her own role and place within the structure of the organization. In the school setting, roles have long been viewed as predefined by long-standing traditions in the educational system — based on a hierarchical, authoritarian model in which the teacher is subordinate to the principal, the principal is subordinate to the superintendent, and so on. Under this model, each level of the organizational hierarchy submits to the level above, leaving little room for self-determination or meaningful contribution to the overall structure. Mandates and changes are passed from the top down. This model of school leadership survived well into the 1990s (Clabaugh & Rozycki, 1990). It created an inefficient system that made poor use of school resources and talent.

Until the 1990s, research focused on how to improve the leadership skills of principals and other school administrators. During that decade, the focus began to shift from the individual to the school as an organizational system, emphasizing social interactions and hierarchical relationships. It became accepted that the school system was not fundamentally different from any other organization that produces a product. Researchers began to apply corporate leadership principles to the school system, advancing the idea that the same leadership principles that apply to any goal-oriented organization also apply to schools.

It is now recognized that a school culture in which learning potential is maximized consists of several key elements. These include an inspired, clear, and challenging school vision; instruction, learning opportunities, and assessments linked to that vision; adequate time for teachers and students to do their work well; close relationships among teachers, students, and other staff; data-driven decision-making systems; and district-level flexibility and support (Brown, 2004). These elements are considered most important for building strong schools that provide an excellent learning environment.

These key elements make clear that the school is a learning organization — not only from the student's perspective, but also in terms of continually learning and refining educational techniques at all levels. Brandt (2003) offers ten ways to determine whether a school meets the criteria of a learning organization. Such an organization encourages adaptive behavior in response to differing circumstances; has challenging but achievable objectives; allows members to accurately identify the organization's stages of development; can collect, process, and act upon relevant information; and has the knowledge base for creating new ideas.

Learning organizations are dynamic and in a constant process of evolution. They frequently exchange information with external sources — through educational workshops, in-services, and conferences. They seek feedback on their products and services, which in the school context means gathering detailed feedback from teachers, students, and parents rather than relying solely on standardized test scores. They continually refine their basic processes and integrate information obtained from various resources (Brandt, 2003). Learning organizations also create a supportive, rather than a restrictive, organizational culture where people are allowed to grow and express their ideas.

The final characteristic of a learning organization is that it represents an open, rather than a closed, system (Brandt, 2003). Old paradigms viewed the school as a closed system where tradition often determined policy and impeded the integration of new information — creating followers rather than leaders. The new learning organization emphasizes the development of leadership potential in every individual within the system. Every staff member is seen as an important part of the learning team with valuable experience and input to share. This new paradigm is the basis for team leadership development in school systems.

Under older educational paradigms, students were viewed as recipients of a curriculum handed down from above. The new school model views the student as an important part of the learning team (McLeod, 2003). Diversity is valued rather than discouraged, and the diverse attitudes and views of students are taken into consideration in curriculum development and teaching methods. Messages from popular culture affect students and the way in which they learn — including concerns about social injustice and cultural relevance (Gause, 2004). Including students as part of the learning team means developing a curriculum that is relevant to the student population and reflects their interests, making them far more likely to engage with the material.

Conclusion

The role of the principal has changed significantly from that of a hierarchical, authoritarian power figure. Schools have begun to borrow leadership skills and theories from the corporate world and to incorporate them into policies and practices. One of the most significant changes in school administration is the recognition that leadership extends beyond administrative staff. The current paradigm views administration as an integral part of a broader school community — one that extends to other staff members and to the student population.

Students are no longer mere recipients of policy and curriculum handed down from above. Students and teachers now play an important role in the development of school policy and curriculum. This results in greater application of research-based theory in the classroom. Research into new leadership perspectives reveals that applying these principles leads to teachers who are motivated, have high morale, and feel a sense of ownership in the educational process. It also leads to higher staff retention rates, providing students the benefit of experienced teaching staff. Collaborative leadership approaches have been demonstrated to improve student outcomes as well.

Collaborative leadership involves participation from a number of key stakeholders. The new school model functions more like a corporate board than the hierarchical system of the past, and research indicates that this new paradigm has many benefits over the old system. However, one of the key challenges remains how to implement structural changes so that they become part of daily practice. Organizational knowledge only becomes useful when it is embedded in organizational policy and practice.

In the case of collaborative leadership, putting theory into practice means changing organizational culture to one that promotes open communication at all levels of the school system, and shedding old notions about the roles of students, teachers, and principals. Principals can use a variety of methods to institute the necessary changes — evaluations, workshops, and practical examples of how these principles work in the classroom. Technology may also play a role in providing applications for this new knowledge. Regardless of the method chosen, school principals and administrators must acknowledge one essential truth: school administration has changed for the better, and will continue to do so in the future.

Anderson, J. (2008). Principals' role and public primary schools' effectiveness in four Latin American cities. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 36–60.

Beasley, E. (2008). New leadership model for business fits schools too. Statesman Journal, August 26, 2008.

Berenstein, L. (2006). Team teaching with academic core curricula teachers: Using aviation concepts. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(2), 1–19.

Brandt, R. (2003). Is this school a learning organization? 10 ways to tell. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1).

Brown, R. (2004). School culture and organization: Lessons from research and experience. Denver Public Schools / The Denver Commission on Secondary School Reform.

Bryant, S., & Terborg, J. (2008). Impact of peer mentor training on creating and sharing organizational knowledge. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 11.

Carpenter, D., Crawford, L., & Walden, R. (2007). Testing the efficacy of team teaching. Learning Environments Research, 10(1), 53–65.

Clabaugh, G., & Rozycki, E. (1990). The school as an organization. In Understanding schools: The foundations of education (Chapter 8). New York: Harper & Row.

Gamage, D., & San Antonio, D. (2006). Effective participatory school administration, leadership, and management: Does it affect the trust levels of stakeholders? Connections, National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.

Gause, C. (2004). "Edutainment," popular culture, schooling, and leadership. Special theme issue of the Journal of School Leadership.

Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(37).

Halverson, R. (2004). Accessing, documenting and communicating the phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education.

Halverson, R. (2005a). A distributed leadership perspective on how leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Conference of the University Council of Educational Administration, Nashville, TN.

Halverson, R. (2005b). What can K–12 school leaders learn from video games and gaming? Innovate, 1(6).

Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Kimball, S. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Research and theory in educational administration (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

Halverson, R., Linnekin, B., Spillane, J., & Gomez, L. (2004). Multimedia cases of practice: Online learning opportunities for school leaders. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 7(1).

Leavitt, M. (2006). Team teaching: Benefits and challenges. Speaking of Teaching: Newsletter of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Stanford University, 16(1), 1–4.

McLeod, B. (2003). Educating students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, US Department of Education.

Moos, L., & Huber, S. (2007). School leadership, school effectiveness and school improvement: Democratic and integrative leadership. In International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (Vol. 17, pp. 579–596). Springer Netherlands.

Shaffer, D., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (2004). Video games and the future of learning. Games and Professional Practice Simulations White Paper.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.

Supovitz, J. (2000). Manage less, lead more. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.), 1(3), 14–19.

Youngs, P., & King, B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643.