26. Educational Leadership
Paper
History and Hope: Learning from the Canvas of History
Carolyn Shields
Wayne State University, United States of America
Presenting Author: Shields, Carolyn
The world is replete with racism, xenophobia, divisions, tensions, and hate as evidence by the wars being waged in many countries over power, land, riches, as well as religious and ethnic rights. Moreover, the world of education is not immune, but reflects the strains and pressure of our wider societies. In the United States, three Muslim students on their way to dinner were shot by a stranger because they were wearing a traditional shawl or keffiyeh. In the last three months of 2023, approximately 75% of Jewish students reported incidents of anti-semitism; Black and brown students consistently report excessive and harsher disciplinary measures than their white peers. Educational leaders need to understand the persistence of these and similar incidents as well as how to address them.
In 1991, examining what they call the “period of confusion” of education, Quantz et al., argued that “traditional leadership theories are inadequate for meeting the challenge” and indicated that “only the concept of transformative leadership appears to provide an appropriate direction” (p. 96). Although transformative leadership comprises two major principles and eight tenets, it is the second tenet that seems relevant here, as it asserts the need to “deconstruct knowledge frameworks that perpetuate inequity and to reconstruct them in equitable ways” (Shields, 2018). And this is true whether the frameworks relate to ethnicity, sexuality, religions, ability, gender and so on. Johnson (2008) found that “what separates successful leaders from unsuccessful ones is their mental models or meaning structures, not their knowledge, information, training, or experience per se” (p. 85). In other words, the knowledge frameworks of leaders as well as of society will need to be addressed in order to create schools that are able to ensure inclusive and equitable education for all students.
Moreover, if we wish to deconstruct unacceptable knowledge frameworks, it is essential to identify and then understand them, their history, and their trajectory. This is particularly salient in that this year’s conference theme asserts the need to understand the history of the challenges we are living through in order to address them. And this is particularly relevant for this conference because of the centuries of history represented in Cyprus and because many current challenges have their roots in the European history of the Middle Ages. If one looks to the Crusades, beginning in the 11th century, one finds that the desire to rid Holy lands of Muslims, often then called “infidels” was the overriding motivation. Later, the Christian Church (first Roman Catholic and then others) sanctioned wars against both Jewish and Muslim rule, as well as the acquisition of lands and the condemnation of their inhabitants to perpetual enslavement in order to convert them to the “use and profit” of the Church. This history is nevertheless not straight forward in that it has been marked by alternate perspectives, tensions and contestation from the outset. Nevertheless, colonization, justified in part by the Doctrines of Discovery, has not only affected Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and US, but many countries in Africa and South America.
Although Pope Francis finally repudiated the Doctrines of Discovery in March 2023, there can be little doubt that centuries of entrenched discrimination in which peoples were villainized, believed to be animals, savage, or sub-human, must be understood in order to be eradicated. Further, this is true whether one is considering societal change or the transformation of our schools to be inclusive of and successful with, all students.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedPlato argued that “the life which is unexamined is not worth living” as others (see Southgate, 2003) would argue about history. Khalifa (2020) argues that to address the gaps in our education systems, we must “understand something of the origins and nature of oppression.” Further, Oakes and Rogers (2006) argue that “technical knowledge is insufficient to bring about equitable education, even when attention is paid to changing the school’s professional culture … [and that] equity reforms must engage issues of power by extending beyond the school” (p. 31).
Thus, this paper is conceptual, aimed at promoting understanding through historic and document analysis’ it draws inspiration from the numerous commentators who assert the need to understand history in order not to replicate its results (Khalifa, 2020; Tosh, 2015). It argues the need to transform education by extending beyond school, and it suggests educators need to develop beyond memory to knowledge of history, go beyond knowing facts, and understand their current impact. Thus, scholars like van Drie and van Boxel (2003) argue that one needs to go beyond historical facts to make meaning of them. Limon (2002) also points out that historical facts are ill-defined, i.e., they have a different meaning over time. Knowing, for example, about the events of the Crusades and reflecting on how they still might influence our thinking about Muslims are different. We need to ask evaluative questions about the past and its current impact.
It is important to note, however, that most theorists view “interpretation as the very soul of historiography” (White, 1973, p. 283) and yet acknowledge that interpretation itself is not objective and is guided by the epistemology and ontology of the interpreter. McCullagh (2000) asserted that bias may occur when only some of the facts are presented. However, he also insists that “the form of a history is indeed constrained by the events it describes.” (p. 59), and hence that one could not describe the death of Kennedy (or I would maintain the crusades and the papal bulls) as a comedy.
Thus, although I assert that there are multiple interpretations of history and each person enjoys the right to interpret history for themselves, my position is that the data I present support the argument of this paper that prejudice has been deeply entrenched in our societies and institutions and that to overcome it, requires a critical and thoughtful approach.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA biased history excludes some of the reasons for something to have happened, but omits others. Here I do not purport to explain, for example, all of the causes of exploration and settlement of foreign lands, which include, of course, local disruption, economics and so on. However, what I am arguing here is that when people are disregarded, or considered in undesirable ways, or explained with harmful epithets or assumptions, then long-standing negative impacts may be felt.
For example, one 1244 letter from Pope Innocent IV to King Louis IX of France, described Jewish people as “a flock of pagan sheep” and as a “perfidious race” –a term that remained in the Roman Catholic liturgy until 1962 (McDermott, 2022). My argument is that when such concepts are repeated, enshrined in formal tradition, ceremony, speech, or policy, they become normalized and generally accepted “truth.” Hence, we must take measures to counteract each of these occurrences. It is not enough to decry antisemitism, for example, but to counteract it, we must examine the role of the Christian Church as well as of policymakers throughout history.
We must acknowledge that antisemitism did not begin with the Holocaust, but was a major contributing factor, just as anti-Blackness did not begin with slavery, but from long before. Nevertheless, we must look to these origins to help explain world events like considering Australia “Terra Nullius” (land owned by no-one), or South African Apartheid, or more current events. Thus, the fact that a group of Black high school students in the United States were labelled “monkeys” in a facebook post, cannot be considered an isolated event, but must be addressed in context.
This paper is intended to provoke debate and reflection and in so doing help educators learn to fully address the persistent discrimination in today’s schools.
ReferencesJohnson, H. H. (2008). Mental models and transformative learning: The key to leadership development? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(1), 85-89
Khalifa, M. (2020), Culturally responsive school leadership, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Limon, M. (2002). Conceptual Change in History. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice (pp. 259-289).
McCullagh, C. B. (2000), Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation, History and Theory, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp. 39-66 (28 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2677997
McDermott, J. (2022), The Gospel of John has been used to justify anti-Semitism, America, The Jesuit Review, accessed December 2023 at https://www.americanmagazine.org/faith/2022/04/14/good-Friday-gospel-john-jews-242822
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Papal Bull, retrieved September, 2023, at https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/papal_bull
Quantz, R. A., Rogers, J. & Dantley, M. (1991). Rethinking transformative leadership: Toward democratic reform of schools. Journal of Education, 173(3), 96-118.
Shields, C. M. (2018), Transformative leadership in education, New York: Routledge.
Southgate, B. C. (2003), History, what and why? ancient, modern, and postmodern perspectives, New York: Routledge
Tosh, J. (2015). The pursuit of history: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of history. Routledge.
Van Boxtel, C., & Van Drie, J. (2004). Historical reasoning: A comparison of how experts and novices contextualise historical sources. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 4(2), 89-97
White, H. (1973), Interpretation in history, New Literary History, 4(2), pp. 281-314 , https://www.jstor.org/stable/468478
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Leadership and Assessment: Insights from Principals of Basic and Secondary schools
Diana Pereira
University of Minho, Portugal
Presenting Author: Pereira, Diana
Educational leadership plays a crucial role in the operation and effectiveness of educational institutions. At the core of this approach, educational leaders such as school principals stand out, whose decisions and practices have direct implications on the quality of students' learning and academic success (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016; Machado et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2021). The concept of the principals’ effect has surfaced as a key factor in improving student outcomes. This is particularly linked to perspectives on successful leadership (see, for instance, Leithwood et al., 2006), underscoring the idea that leadership plays a pivotal role (Eberts & Stone, 1988; Hallinger & Huber, 2012) in the development of collaborative organizational learning, structures, cultures and communities in creating a positive school environment and enhancing teaching quality (Hallinger, 2010). The literature in this field reiterates the need to investigate how leadership policies and practices are implemented in schools and their influence on learning and student results (Leithwood et al., 2006; Witziers et al., 2003). A study carried out by Flores (2022) shows that it is difficult to reconcile a culture of leadership oriented towards pedagogical issues and improving student results - which presupposes the assumption of flexibility, diversity and differentiation, both from an organizational, curricular and pedagogical point of view - with structures that are still rigid and uniform, showing the persistence of a school culture with traces of the tradition of bureaucratic centralism. Other studies conclude that in schools where principals' leadership practices are situated in the instructional and transformational perspective, there has been a positive evolution in student results (Day et al., 2011). The results of an international project on successful school principals also point to the importance of leadership values, qualities and strategies in explaining the variation found in student results (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Moos et al., 2012). Thus, this study is part of a larger research project “Assessment in Basic and Secondary Education: teachers´ practices and conceptions of internal and external assessment in Portuguese schools” funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (CEECIND/03157/2018) that has a strong empirical component in order to get to know the teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Basic and Secondary Education and to understand to what extent the external and internal assessment influences the quality of learning and how they relate to each other. In particular, the present study aims to explore school principals' perspectives on both internal and external assessment, to understand how school principals' implement the assessment process in their schools/school clusters and to analyse the principal's perceptions of the impact of educational policies on student outcomes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe main goal of this study is to analyse the school principals’ perceptions regarding assessment process in 16 schools/school clusters. Among these 16 schools, 4 are ranked among the 7 best public secondary schools in Portugal and 4 are ranked among the 7 secondary schools with the lowest academic results. Furthermore, the other 4 schools are classified among the 7 best basic schools in Portugal, while the remaining 4 are classified as basic schools with lower academic results. Data was collected through exploratory semi-structured interviews with 16 principals of school clusters/ schools. The interview covers six discussion topics, namely regarding the school, the leadership, conceptions of assessment, students results, educational policies, and assessment practices. The selected schools were contacted and permission was sought from the principals to conduct the interviews. The research project was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities of the University of Minho (CEICSH 134/2022) as well as authorization from the DGE to carry out the study in a school environment (Ref.ª 0803500001). Aspects related to the objectives of the study, as well as ethical issues, were clarified by the researcher before the interview took place. To analyse the data, content analysis was used in order to analyse the content of messages (Bardin, 1977), allowing to make inferences by systematically and objectively identifying the specific characteristics of a message (Esteves, 2006). Thus, analysis and coding were carried out based on the interpretation of messages through a comparison between the previous reference framework and the empirical material collected, including categories that emerged from the data. An individual analysis of each interview was carried out, followed by a cross-analysis to find response patterns and recurring themes (Huberman & Miles, 1994). For the purposes of intersubjective validation, the strategy of "checking" (Creswell, 1998) was used between the researchers involved in the analysis process to systematize the data and its interpretation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMost principals assert that their leadership is collaborative, cultivating strong connections with key staff, teachers, and students. Concerning assessment, there is a prevailing belief among principals that it should primarily be formative, emphasizing continuous feedback. However, despite holding this perspective, principals acknowledge challenges in consistently aligning their practices with these ideals due to the pressure to achieve positive results in external evaluations. They mention working towards the preparation for end-of-cycle exams and national exams that facilitate access to higher education. Regarding external tests, a significant number of principals do not attribute much importance to them, as they are considered external assessments but lack a formal grading system. These benchmark tests are viewed as tools solely for monitoring the learning process within continuous assessment rather than providing a graded evaluation. This discourse is particularly pronounced among principals leading schools that consistently rank high, whether they are secondary or elementary institutions.
In terms of educational policies, we inquired about the recent implementation of policies that have introduced more autonomy and curricular flexibility in the last five years. Principals admit they lack effective autonomy to promote increased curricular flexibility. From the principals' perspective, these changes are perceived as cosmetic and superficial, without bringing substantial benefits or alterations to the assessment process. Nevertheless, some principals have indicated having more autonomy to manage the learning and assessment process, particularly concerning the organization of time, areas of curricular autonomy, and articulation between different levels and subjects. However, principals believe that teachers are the ones who have the most influence on students' academic outcomes, in addition to their leadership practices.
ReferencesBardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications.
Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: How Successful School Leaders Use Transformational and Ins¬tructional Strategies to Make a Difference. Educational Administration Quarterly 52(2), 221-258.
Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful school principalship in times of change: An international perspective. Springer.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K. H., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., Brown, E, & Ahtaridou, E. (2011). Successful School Leadership: Linking with Learning. Open University Press.
Eberts, R. W. and Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299.
Esteves, M. (2006). Análise de conteúdo. In L. Lima & A. Pacheco (Orgs.), Fazer investigação. Contributos para a elaboração de dissertações e teses (pp. 105-126). Porto Editora.
Flores, M. A. (2022). Investigando os efeitos das lideranças escolares nos resultados dos alunos. De Facto.
Hallinger, P. (2010). Leadership for Learning: What We Have Learned from 30 Years of Empirical Research? Paper presented at the Hong Kong School Principals’ Conference. The Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Hallinger, P., & Huber, S. (2012). School leadership that makes a difference: inter¬national perspectives, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 359-367.
Huberman, A., & Miles, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Sucessful school leadership: what i tis and how it influences pupil learning. DfES Publications.
Machado, E. A., Flores, M. A., Pereira, D., Fernandes, E., & Costa, L. (2022). Políticas e práticas de avaliação externa dos alunos na perspetiva dos diretores: o caso das provas de aferição. Revista Portuguesa de Investigação Educacional, 23, 1-26.
Moos, L., Johannson, O., & Day, C., (Eds.). (2012). How school principals sustain success over time: International perspectives. Springer.
Pereira, D.., Flores, M. A., & Machado, E. (2021). Autonomia e flexibilidade curricular na perspetiva dos diretores: entre o ceticismo e a adesão. Indagatio Didactica, 13(2), 57-76.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Krueger, m. (2003). Educational leadership and students achievement: the elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
|
