| Session | ||
26 SES 02 B: Navigating Challenge, Uncertainty, Urgency, Tension, and Complexity in School Leadership (Part 1)
Paper Session Part 1/3, to be continued in 26 SES 04 A
| ||
| Presentations | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Exploring Cooperation Amidst Challenges: A Study of Collaborative Dynamics within Schools in Challenging Circumstances Johannes Kepler University, Austria Presenting Author:This paper aims to gain longitudinal insights into the development of collaboration in school environments and asks which types of collaboration, collaborating stakeholders and effects of collaboration can be identified. Research has shown that collaboration in schools enhances school development and learning outcomes. While multiple quantitative studies already exist, this paper offers an in-depth qualitative approach through a large-scale longitudinal study at schools in challenging circumstances. Through conducting semi-structured interviews data was collected at various measurement points over a multiple-year period. 75 schools are currently participating in the study and since 2016, 659 interviews have been collected. Currently, the presented research project is at an early stage of qualitative content analysis. Therefore first, a theoretical framework will be presented that links cooperation with possible effects and school development. Second, the collaboration between principals, teachers, pedagogical staff, parents and students in the context of school environments will be outlined. In addition, collaboration with stakeholders outside of the school environment will be investigated. Third, a first typification of different forms of cooperation in school environments/between stakeholders will be reconstructed and discussed. Spieß (2004) defines collaboration from an organisational-psychological perspective as follows: "Collaboration is characterized by a reference to others, to goals or tasks to be achieved together. It is intentional, communicative, and requires trust. It presupposes a certain autonomy and is committed to the norm of reciprocity" (Spieß, 2004, p. 199). The greater independence of schools, shared goals of educational institutions, and general school development intensifies communication, making collaboration, contacts, and cooperative relationships with external stakeholders such as parents, school supervisors, school authorities, representatives of public life, the economy, public institutions, and the media more important. However, collaborative relationships become more intensive (quantitatively and qualitatively) not only outside the school but also within the school. It is essential to develop and improve collaboration within the school environment to ensure sustainable learning outcomes and school development (Huber, 2012). School management, as well as the teaching staff and the students, represent the school and thus help to strengthen the school's prestige, competitiveness and learning outcome. As part of school development, promoting collaboration among the teaching staff, the principal, the students and other pedagogical staff is crucial. Therefore, collaborative forms of work should be effectively organised. While studies about collaboration in schools already exist, this study focuses on an in-depth qualitative investigation of schools in challenging circumstances. Due to their location and the composition of their student body, these schools are exposed to difficult conditions and are particularly challenged. For example, schools in challenging circumstances have a high percentage of students from non-privileged family situations (often measured in terms of the educational and financial circumstances of the parents). These poorer socio-economic circumstances are associated with special compensatory services provided by the school. Some schools may be more challenged than others for very different reasons than other schools (Huber, 2012). These include for example low graduation rates or poorer learning outcomes (Holtappels et al., 2017). Furthermore, an accumulation of dysfunctional organisational characteristics (composition effect), which, among other things, leads to a significantly lower school quality and/or more difficult school development processes. Characterisation as a school in challenging circumstances is, however not always aligning with reduced school quality and output (Racherbäumer & van Ackeren, 2015). The central questions of the research project are:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The qualitative longitudinal study examines the development of collaboration among various stakeholders in the context of school environments in Germany (75 Schools). The schools were chosen systematically in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia based on their status as schools in challenging circumstances. A biannual collection of interviews with schools, teachers, pedagogical staff, parents and students addresses the above-mentioned research questions through the analysis of individual cases and cross-case comparison. The research project includes three cohort groups G1, G2, and G3 which started in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Overall, three longitudinal datasets (t1, t2, t3) were collected as following: G1: 2016 (t1), 2018 (t2), 2023 (t3); G2: 2017 (t1), 2020 (t2), 2023 (t3) and G3: 2018 (t1), 2023 (t2). Due to the pandemic, the second wave of data collection of the set G3 (t2) has been postponed leading to an estimated inquiry of G3 (t3) in 2024. The study is still ongoing, at present, the project consists of 659 interviews of different stakeholders: t1: 321 interviews; t2: 226 interviews and t3: 112 interviews. Using a quantitative co-study with the same cohort groups, the number of interviews/schools in t2 and t3 was reduced through a “most diverse” approach based on the quantitative data output. Due to the early stage of qualitative analysis in the project, this paper will discuss the “most diverse” longitudinal cases (approx. 90 interviews) out of the presented pool of 75 schools. Given the substantial volume of data in this study, we employ systematic content analysis following the methodology outlined by Kuckartz & Rädiger (2022). Drawing inspiration from Phillip Mayring's content analysis framework, this approach diverges in its methodology. While Mayring (2015) underscores a theoretical foundation guiding content analysis, Kuckartz & Rädiger (2022) prioritize the inductive nature of analysis. Their methodology provides a nuanced exploration utilizing advanced software techniques and a specific focus on typification—a methodical search for multidimensional patterns that enhances comprehension of complex subject areas or fields of action. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Building upon the findings of this early stage qualitative project, we aim to outline valuable insights that will contribute to the formulation of recommendations tailored for both national and international schools facing challenging circumstances. The theoretical framework initially presented will serve as the basis for our recommendations, as it establishes the foundational link between cooperation dynamics and their potential impacts on school development and leadership. In extending our exploration, this paper will delve into the intricacies of collaboration not only among principals, teachers, pedagogical staff, parents, and students within school environments but also examine the collaborative efforts with stakeholders external to the school setting. Our focus on typifications of cooperation within schools and between stakeholders will be instrumental in reconstructing and discussing initial findings. The unique context of schools in challenging circumstances will underscore the critical nature of our investigation, shedding light on how collaboration unfolds in the day-to-day operations of such environments and its potential implications for successful school development and leadership. Consequently, the synthesized knowledge will pave the way for tailored recommendations aimed at enhancing collaboration practices in schools facing adversity, both on a national and international scale. References Holtappels, H. G., Webs, T., Kamarianakis, E., & Ackeren, I. van (2017). Schulen in herausfordernden Problemlagen–Typologien, Forschungsstand und Schulentwicklungsstrategien. In V. Manitius & P. Dobbelstein (Ed./Hrsg.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen (S. 17 – 35). Waxmann. Huber, S.G. (Hrsg.). (2012). Failing Schools – besonders belastete Schulen. SchulVerwaltung spezial, 2. Wolters Kluwer Deutschland. Literaturverzeichnis Kuckartz, U. & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (Grundlagentexte Methoden, 5. Auflage). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (Beltz Pädagogik, 12., überarb. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz. Racherbäumer, K., & Ackeren, I. van (2015). Was ist eine (gute) Schule in schwieriger Lage? Befunde einer Studie im kontrastiven Fallstudiendesign an Schulen in der Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr. In L. Fölker, T. Hertel & N. Pfaff (Hrsg.), Brennpunkt(-) Schule. Zum Verhältnis von Schule, Bildung und urbaner Segregation (S. 189 – 20). Verlag Barbara Budrich. Spieß, E. (2004): Kooperation und Konflikt. In: H. Schuler (Hrsg.): Organisationspsy-chologie - Gruppe und Organisation. Göttingen: Hogrefe-Verlag (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie. Themenbereich D, Praxisgebiete, Bd. 4), S. 193–247. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Team Leadership for School Development: Navigating the Zone of Uncertainty NAU, United States of America Presenting Author:Topic In the U.S. and many other countries across the globe, we observe curriculum and evaluation policy trends toward commonality and evidence-based school reforms that suggest the need for “what works” tested with a particular set of research methods (i.e., randomized controlled trials). Yet many schools serve culturally diverse students due to global population migrations and internal demographic shifts. Additionally, educators across the globe have experienced increased effects from digitalization in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic that forced rapid shifts to virtual education spaces, revealed disparate access to technology and the internet, and renewed dialogue about education values as well as evidence in school development amidst what we term “a zone of uncertainty” (Authors, 2021). Educational leaders, including school principals and teachers, must navigate and mediate tensions between commonality and diversity in the “zone of uncertainty”. In 2020, the U.S. demographics are increasingly racially/ethnically diverse, including 60.1% Hispanic, 18.5% Black, 12.2% Asian, 5.6%., 2.8% Mixed Race, and 0.7% Native American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Currently, White people constitute the majority of the U.S. population (62%); however, the percentage is expected to fall below 50% by 2050 with Hispanic populations to experience the largest increase at 23% (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Since the 1960s, there has been a significant increase in the number and diversity of immigrants coming to the U.S. In recent years, we also observe global changes in educational policies and governance systems with increased curriculum centralization, the advent of externalized evaluation policies and the increasing scrutiny of educational organizations at all levels, particularly public schools. The most popular reason for using evidence as a basis for policymaking is that evidence provides an indicator of quality in terms of how much someone has learned or how much impact a certain educational technique has on students (Wiseman, 2010). This paper presents an historical and contemporary examination of educational tensions and dilemmas in the United States as well as findings from a school development project (Arizona Initiative for Leadership Development and Research or AZiLDR) aimed at building leadership capacity to mediate these tensions and support democratic values and outcomes for all students. Research Questions Research questions included:
Theoretical Framework: Leadership for Democratic Education and Cultural Diversity Dewey (1916, 1897) argued that the aim of education in democratic countries of the world should be the cultivation of democratic values in the minds of the children and individuals - faith in a democratic way of living, respect for the dignity of other persons, freedom, equality of opportunity, justice, faith in tolerance, faith in change, and peaceful methods and faith in cooperative living and above all fellow-feelingness. Education takes place through participation of the individual in social activities and relationships with his fellow human beings. Dewey holds that education is necessary for healthy living in the society. It gives the child social consciousness. The teachers and principal must recognize the background of the child as well as the social demands. In our school development project (AZiLDR), we recognize the importance of cultural diversity and values of democratic education. Here school members recognize conscious and unconscious biases that they bring to conversations, for example, around achievement gaps and racial inequities. In our model, therefore, we see education with (culturally responsive) pedagogical interactions and democratic interactions around evidence of outcomes as interrelated. Leadership of education so defined inspired our school development project. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology Methodology featured mixed methods, including analysis of surveys, student outcomes on state tests and school letter grades, and semi-structured interviews. Over a five-year span, seventy-one Arizona schools with high percentages of student diversity and challenges with student outcomes participated in the project. Data sources included a survey, state department data on school performance on state tests, and qualitative interviews. Participants took a survey (Bennett, 2012) modified by the authors as a pre-assessment prior to the beginning of the first training, and a post-assessment at the end of the project. Using this 181-item survey, the researchers examined principals’ and teachers’ leadership knowledge and practices essential for school development, including principal-specific knowledge, skills, and practices as well as capacity for progression through school development. Further, we used the Arizona letter grades to indicate changes in outcomes for schools with differing levels of participation (full participation, partial participation, and no participation). State assessments and data were used to analyze movement of lowest quartile students, within-school gaps, and graduation rate changes, all of which impacted the state letter grade designation. Quantitative results also informed semi-structured qualitative interviews (35-40 minutes) and observation settings in schools. Interview questions featured leadership practices in relation to the three stages of school development (Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010), including levels of capacity building, collaboration, community involvement, assessment literacy, curriculum, as well as democratic education values and aims. Interviews were designed to examine participants’ (principals and teachers) understandings of turnaround stages, conceptions of leadership, and capacities. Description of AZiLDR Project. The Arizona school development project (AZiLDR) was designed to provide district and school leaders with a sustained (18-36 months) process focused on democratic and culturally responsive education and pedagogical work. The project design focused on three interrelated processes: 1) interpersonal, democratic (team member) interaction and reflection, 2) time for planning for diffusion of activities specific to the needs of each school site and 3) a research-based delivery system that models inquiry and deliberative approaches to problems of practice. Participants featured school teams, including the principal, assistant principal, coach, teacher leaders and a district representative. Teams attended ten days of face-to-face institutes as well as bi-monthly regional network meetings. Content of the institutes and regional meetings featured education and pedagogy, evidence-based decision-making, leadership team capacity and collaboration. AZiLDR faculty provided summer institutes, virtual regional meetings, and school visits for coaching and feedback. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conclusions and Findings Project findings are promising in terms of improved academic outcomes and improved leadership capacity for democratic and culturally responsive education. In the paper, we share that 57 percent of schools showed significant improvement of student outcomes in the initial cohort, 87 percent of schools in the second cohort, and 73 percent in the third cohort. Further, qualitative findings indicated progress in leadership capacity for deliberative approaches to problems of practice and navigation of multiple influences and challenges in school development. Specifically, the paper presents findings in four main themes: 1) the importance of school culture to relationships, mediating tensions, navigating uncertainties, and democratic processes; 2) team leadership capacity for school development; 3) using data as a source of reflection and deliberative problem-solving; and 4) strengths-based approaches that support cultural diversity. As examples, one principal/superintendent of a small high school talked at length about the importance of school culture when she stated, “We really needed to work on our school culture, building trust among our team and among the faculty and then we really could see progress in our school development process.” Another principal made a representative comment about team leadership capacity, stating, “As a school team we developed focus and drive, improved teamwork, communication, and implemented strategies that delivered real improvement and growth which was seen and felt throughout our school.” The paper concludes with a discussion about implications research and leadership development amidst the zone of uncertainty. As student populations become increasingly diverse due to global population migrations and policies for curriculum and evaluation become increasingly common in addition to other rapid changes adding to uncertainty (e.g., pandemics, war), we argue that educational leaders need to be able to mediate and navigate tensions as they educate all students for an unknown future. References Authors (2021). Bennett, J. V. (2012). “Democratic” collaboration for school turnaround in Southern Arizona. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 442-451. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014 to 2060, Current Population Reports, P25-1143, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. In Curriculum Studies Reader Ed. 2. London, UK.: Routledge. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. John Wiley & Sons. U.S. Census Bureau (2020). https://www.census.gov. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of research in education, 34(1), 1-24. 127/400 words 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Environmental Crisis as an Opportunity for Change: Transforming Public School Routines and Introducing Change Following COVID-19 Pandemic. The Hebrew University, Israel Presenting Author:Theoretical framework Organizational systems strive to maintain stability assumed to decrease variance among organizational members' behaviors and promote organizational effectiveness (Liang & Fiorino, 2013). However, maintaining stability may not be an easy task when organizations encounter environmental turbulence. It creates a major source of threat to organizational stability and is considered influential on the relationship between external change, internal change, and organizational performance (Boyne & Meier, 2009). The larger the unpredictable change brought by environmental turbulence, the larger the negative effect on organizational performance (Power & Reid, 2005). Organizational routines are among the main measures organizations employ to promote stability. The repetitive nature of organizational routines allows organizational stability to develop while, at the same time, routines enable organizational members to introduce changes that increase the correspondence of their actions with the changing circumstances (Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002). When facing a turbulent and unpredictable environment, organizations may choose to stick to their existing structure and routines, hoping that this will enable them to maintain their internal stability and overcome environmental instability. Such a reaction is supported by the Structural Inertia Theory (Hannan & Freeman, 1984), arguing that maintaining existing routines is the best response to a dynamic and unpredictable environment. Alternatively, the Structural Contingency Theory advocates that organizational effectiveness may be maintained only if organizations change and adjust their routines and increase their fit to the newly created circumstances (Gordon et al., 2000). While routines guide and stabilize organizational behavior in all organizations, in some sectors, routines may have a more traditional and widespread nature. This seems to be the case of public schools, which have maintained their basic routines unchanged for decades. This feature seems to be related to the stability of schools' organizational environment characterized by state sponsorship regulations and laws (Mayer & Rowan, 1977). Consequently, domesticated organizations (Carlson, 1964) such as public schools face little pressure to change (Cuban, 2013). The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 created circumstances that forced schools to change their basic and traditional routines. Many considered his event an opportunity to alter school routines and introduce deep changes in schools' traditional processes. This study attempts to assess the impact of an environmental crisis on the routines characterizing traditional institutions such as public schools. Specifically, it attempts to answer two questions: (1). what were school leaders' preferred coping strategies while attempting to establish stability for their school communities during the pandemic, and (2). to what extent they considered the extreme conditions of uncertainty and turbulence as a catalyst for altering school future routines? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Method Eleven interviews were conducted with eight elementary and three high school principals leading schools in the Israeli centralized public educational system. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Some of the interviews were conducted virtually through Zoom software while others were conducted over the phone. Interviews were chosen as the major data collection method to enable large amounts of data about interviewees' perspectives to be collected relatively quickly and the immediate follow-up and clarification of equivocal issues to be accomplished (Taylor et al., 2015). The interviews were conducted as "in-depth," open conversations to "allow the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and new ideas on the topic" (Merriam, 2009, p. 90). At the beginning of each interview, school leaders were asked to talk about their daily reality during the pandemic and its impact on their thoughts and feelings. Towards the end of each interview, the researcher asked the interviewees two questions referring to the core issues of the current study: a) What measures did you take to maintain stability in your school; and b) Following your experiences during the pandemic, are you planning to introduce changes in school and, if so, what will be their nature? Data were analyzed based on the classification of various issues mentioned by the interviewees producing a set of themes. This stage was data-driven and not theory-driven to allow direct examination of the perspectives articulated by the interviewees (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results School leaders shared the notion that it is impossible to maintain their typical leadership patterns in these newly created circumstances. They introduced changes in their managerial orientation in five areas: (a). They changed school priorities making the safety and health of teachers and students their priority; (b). They took measures intending to reduce stress and pressure: (c). They decreased their centralized management (d). They supported and encouraged their teachers and created a criticism-free discourse; (e). And, they attempted to avoid rumors by establishing a clear and reliable source of information for teachers, students, and parents. When asked to reflect on the future, school leaders considered the pandemic an opportunity for change and innovation. Nevertheless, all of them shared the notion that future changes in schools are likely to be minor. They provided two main arguments for that: (a). the tendency to return to previous habits and, (b). the Ministry of Education's conservativeness evident in its tendency to maintain centralized control over schools and preserve patterns that existed before the pandemic. Conclusions Although many school leaders considered the unique circumstances brought by the pandemic an opportunity for change, they shared that it would not lead to dramatic changes in school practices and routines. Now, after the pandemic is over, it seems that they were right: schools seem to act according to the guiding assumptions of the structural inertia theory returning to their traditional routines. Hence, it appears that an environmental crisis is not sufficient to change the routines of traditional institutions such as public schools. It must be followed and reinforced by the system's support evident in legislation and a significant increase in the degrees of freedom granted to school-level educators. This will allow schools to alter traditional routines and design educational processes according to the changing circumstances and local needs. References References Boyne, G. A., & Meier, K. J. (2009). Environmental turbulence, organizational stability, and public service performance. Administration & Society, 40(8), 799-824. Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109-125. Carlson, R. O. (1964). Environmental constraints and organizational consequences: The public school and its clients. Teachers College Record, 65(10), 262-276. Feldman, M. S., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309-331. Gordon, S., Stewart, W., Sweo, R., & Luker, W. (2000). Convergence versus strategic reorientation: The antecedents of fast-paced organizational change. Journal of Management, 26(5), 911-945. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149-164. Liang, J., & Fiorino, D. J. (2013). The implications of policy stability for renewable energy innovation in the United States, 1974–2009. Policy Studies Journal 41(1), 97-118. Mayer, W. J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Power, B., & Reid, G. (2005). Flexibility, firm-specific turbulence, and the performance of the long-lived small firm. Review of Industrial Organization, 26(4), 415-443. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. | ||