| Session | ||
26 SES 02 C: Transformational and Aspiring Leadership in School Organizations
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Investigating the Effect of Transformational Leadership on Educational Outcomes: Evidence from Cyprus 1University of Cyprus, Cyprus; 2Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth Presenting Author:The effect of school leadership on educational outcomes has long attracted the attention of scholars. However, the measurement of the effects of leadership on specific educational and school outcomes has proven to be a challenge, mainly due to conceptual and methodological issues. Nevertheless, research on the topic is necessary in order to facilitate the informed adoption of leadership models and/or practices in education in that policy makers often lack the evidence that can serve as the basis for the promotion of specific approaches to leadership. Several criticisms have emerged regarding the extent to which popular leadership models are backed by sufficient evidence. Moreover, research is necessary in order to ensure that leadership models are timely and relevant to educational policy and practice as opposed to “dead ideas” still walking among us (Haslam, Alvesson & Reicher, 2024). Transformational leadership is a leadership style closely linked to a process of change, transformation, motivation and innovation in individuals and organisations. It is characterised by an explicit focus on the role of the leaders in the development of followers. Transformational leaders manage to motivate others to achieve more than originally planned or intended; they create a supportive organisational climate where individual needs and differences are acknowledged and respected (Bass, 1998). The building of trust and respect motivates followers to work for the accomplishment of shared goals. Thus, transformational leaders motivate followers to focus on the common good, through commitment to the mission and vision of the organisation. Since its emergence, transformational leadership has been investigated in fields such as psychology, business administration, sociology and education. Studies in education have examined the link between transformational leadership and specific educational outcomes (see, for example, Kilinç et al., 2022; Li & Karanxha, 2022; Polatcan, Arslan & Balci, 2021). In this context, we present the findings of two studies on the effect of transformational leadership on educational outcomes. Both studies were conducted in Cyprus using the theoretical framework of the full range model of leadership proposed by Bass and his colleagues (see, for example, Bass, & Avolio, 1994; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The first study investigates the link between transformational/transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviours, teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction (Menon, 2014). Data collected from teachers provide evidence on the extent to which transformational school leadership is linked to teacher job satisfaction. The latter is an important indicator of teacher motivation and commitment to the profession. Moreover, data on teacher perceptions can provide a more objective way of assessing school leader effectiveness in comparison to self-reported measures. The second study investigates the link between transformational and transactional school leadership, on the one hand, and teacher self-efficacy, on the other. Self-efficacy is an important variable in that, individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are more motivated and more likely to succeed as a result. Self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be stronger than the actual abilities of individuals in determining motivation, action and accomplishment (Bandura, 1986). The findings of the two studies are linked to implications and recommendations for educational policy and practice. Moreover, the paper discusses future directions for research on transformational leadership, with reference to the limitations of transformational leadership both in terms of theoretical underpinnings and research approaches to its study. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used For both studies, primary data were collected through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) from public secondary school teachers in Cyprus. The MLQ was developed by Bass (1985) in order to measure transformational and transactional leader behaviour. It has been widely used to assess the component factors of the model proposed by Avolio and Bass (2004) and to investigate the nature of the relationship between transactional/transformational leadership styles and other variables. Despite several criticisms, the current version of the MLQ (Form 5X) remains the most popular instrument in research on transformational and transactional leadership. In the first study, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was adapted to the context of Cyprus and administered to a sample of secondary school teachers. Several questions were added to the instrument in order to measure job satisfaction and perceived school leader effectiveness. The sample consisted of 438 secondary education teachers employed at 10 secondary schools in Cyprus. The 10 schools were selected to represent different regional and socioeconomic background characteristics. Thus, urban, suburban and rural schools were included in the sample. Within each school, all teachers were instructed to fill the questionnaire. In the second study, the MLQ was administered to 683 secondary education teachers employed in 32 upper secondary schools in Cyprus. Teacher self-efficacy was measured through Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006), which examines the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers regarding the following: “self-efficacy to influence decision making; instructional self-efficacy; disciplinary self-efficacy; efficacy to enlist parental involvement; efficacy to enlist community involvement; efficacy to create a positive school climate.” The instrument was adapted to the educational system of Cyprus, in relation to the roles and responsibilities of school teachers. Urban, suburban and rural schools were included in the sample in an attempt to arrive at a representative sample in terms of student residence and/or socioeconomic background. Advanced methods of statistical analysis were used in both studies. These included confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. MPLUS was used for model fitting testing in the two studies. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The main findings are presented separately for each study. In relation to the first study, the results provide support for a three-factor structure model consisting of transformational, transactional and passive-avoidant forms of leadership, representing three distinct components of leadership behaviour. Teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness and teachers’ overall job satisfaction were found to be significantly linked to the leadership behaviours included in the full range model of leadership. As regards the second study, the results show that transformational and transactional leadership can be combined in a second-order factor and that this factor is a strong predictor of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Consequently, this study provides evidence in support of a strong link between transformational/transactional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. Moreover, based on the findings, transformational and transactional leadership appear to be interconnected. The findings are discussed in the context of previous research on the topic and implications for educational theory and practice are drawn. The significance of the findings for educational policy and practice is highlighted, while acknowledging the need for revisiting the conceptualisation and operationalisation framework associated with transformational school leadership. Overall, our findings point to the fact that transformational and transactional school leadership should be further investigated in studies of factors influencing teacher job satisfaction and teacher self-efficacy as well as additional educational variables and outcomes. Studies conducted in Cyprus can inform the European and international literature on the topic in that unlike many Western and/or European countries, Cyprus is a small country with a highly centralised education system References Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual and sampler set. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage. Haslam, A.S., Alvesson, M. & Reicher, S.D. (2024). Zombie leadership: Dead ideas that still walk among us. Leadership Quarterly 1048-9843: 101770 doi:/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101770 Kilinç A. C., Polatcan M., Savaş G., & Er E. (2022). How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership. doi: /10.1177/17411432221082803 Li Y., & Karanxha Z. (2022). Literature review of transformational school leadership: Models and effects on student achievement (2006-2019). Educational Management Administration & Leadership. doi: 10.1177/17411432221077157 Menon Eliophotou, M. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 509-528. doi: /10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014 Polatcan, M., Arslan, P., & Balci, A. (2021). The mediating effect of teacher self-efficacy regarding the relationship between transformational school leadership and teacher agency. Educational Studies. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1894549 26. Educational Leadership
Paper The Principals’ Capability to Initiate and Implement Innovation and Change for School Improvement- Findings from ISSPP Case Studies in Australia. Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia Presenting Author:This proposal focuses on principals’ capability to successfully initiate and implement innovation and change within the context of their schools. It draws on findings from 20 years of research from Australian case studies that focus on successful school leadership as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and follows ISSPP methodology protocols. Twenty years of research have produced many key findings that show how successful principals lead and manage their schools. In this proposal we will focus on one key finding- strategies for leading innovation and change. The OECD (2019) defines innovation in education as a significant change in selected educational practice. Innovation and change are interrelated concepts (Barsh, et al., 2008). Innovation is the idea, vision, strategy that prompts change while change is the action of brings that innovation to life. Both innovation and change are essential for organizations to adapt and thrive. Overall principals struggle to implement change effectively. McKinsey surveys show that up to 70% of change programs fail in some way (Bucy et al., 2021). An underlying difficulty is that change is a process and not an event. Sometimes the process is non-linear. Human factors that are barriers include lack of buy-in, resistance to change, poor communication, lack of commitment, unclear goals, inadequate planning and resources, poor collaborative culture, and external factors beyond the leader’s control (Fullan, 2005; Hallinger, 2010; Hall and Horde, 2006, Wise. 2015). The literature includes various strategies to promote change: skills in communicating a clear and compelling vision (Erickson, 2015); morale purpose (Fullan, 2001); engagement and empowerment (Moss Kanter, 2015); providing resources, time and space, (DuFour & Marzano, 2009); building capacity (Seashore-Lewis, 2009); systematic planning for change (Kotter, 2007); addressing individual concerns (Hall, & Hord, 2006), and monitoring and evaluating the innovation through data and evidence. For our study we have explored different types of innovation as a guide to categorization of our case studies. This was to evaluate the kinds of strategies used by principals depending on the kind of change. Porter (1985) identified continuous (incremental) and discontinuous (radical) innovation as typologies. Tushman and Anderson (1986) referred to incremental and breakthrough innovation. Henderson and Clark (1990) defined four types of innovation as incremental, radical, architectural and disruptive. Christensen et al. (2018) showed the difference between sustaining and disruptive innovation. McKinsey initiated the 3-Horizons framework which outlined three growth patterns, each building on the other: core innovation, adjacent innovation (seeking opportunities for growth) and transformational innovation (Coley, 2009). Dodgson et al. (2008) conceived four types of innovation as proactive, active, reactive, and passive. Kalback (2012) distinguished four types of innovation based on levels of technology progress and market impact. These were incremental, disruptive, breakthrough and game changer. Satell (2015) categorized four types of innovation as basic research, disruptive, breakthrough and sustaining innovation. Each of these previous frameworks influenced our classification of innovation. We identified three categories: incremental, transformational, and disruptive. We based this on the framework of Mayo and Nohria [2005) who identified three archetypes of leadership: (1) entrepreneurs, who were ahead of their time and were not constrained by their environment and often able to overcome almost impossible barriers and challenges to find or do something new; (2) managers, who were skilled at understanding and exploiting their context and grew their business accordingly; (3) leaders, who confronted change and saw potential in their business that others failed to see. Entrepreneurs create new businesses, managers grow and optimize them, and leaders transform them at critical inflection points. The entrepreneurs closely align with the disruptive leaders, the leaders with the transformative leaders, and the managers with the incremental leaders. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research question was to identify the principals’ capability to successfully initiate and implement innovation and change based on the context and type of change in their schools. The Australian research covered over 20 years of research. It included cases Australian case studies that focus on successful school leadership as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and follows ISSPP methodology protocols. Schools and principals chosen for this study had to be able to show that the school had been successful during the period of the current principal and that the principal was acknowledged as being successful. Whenever possible, selection was based on evidence of student achievement beyond expectations on state/national tests, principals' exemplary reputations in the community and/or school system, and other indicators of success that were site-specific (such as favourable school review reports). For this research proposal we draw on eighteen Victorian multiple perspective case studies of successful primary, secondary and special school principals. At each school, data collected included interviews with the principal, senior teachers, teachers, students, parents and school council members and document analysis. The case studies cover government, Catholic and independent schools. The research focused on successful school leadership rather than effective schools. Successful school leadership includes a wide range of student and school outcomes rather than a narrow range of student academic achievements. We explored the eighteen principals’ capacity to initiate and implement change by classifying our case studies into three levels of innovation. Principals were identified as either using incremental, transformational, or disruptive practices to lead innovation. Principals that attempted to consolidate school improvement through incremental change and embedding the change into teaching and learning were categorised as ‘incremental’. Leaders in the schools in the ‘transformational’ change category used leadership practices that were mildly disruptive. The change was strategic and focused on individual, professional, organisational, and community capacity building strategies. School improvement interventions were centred on school and community needs and priorities. They were able to build professional development and appraisal; set priorities based on data about performance; and communicate purpose, process and performance. Schools in the disruptive category witnessed a dynamic change. Principals in this category transformed almost every aspect of the school. Six schools had principals who illustrated incremental innovative practices, three schools demonstrated transformational practices, and five schools where leadership practices were disruptive. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The research findings demonstrated that successful principals demonstrated a range of leadership styles, key behaviours and strategic interventions that helped them initiate and implement innovation and change for school improvement. The case study principals in were able to understand and effectively work within a complex set of contextual layers that encompassed their work environment. We found that our successful principals were less constrained by context and able to work within and across constraints. All the principals were able to lead change by innovating for school improvement. We identified seven disruptive practices that characterise these principals’ relentless orientation to change. We found that leaders in the disruptive category challenged the status quo and existing patterns; changed the direction of the school; transformed all aspects of the school including philosophy, policies, structures, processes and roles; took a long-term perspective but were keen to get short-term results; challenged current pedagogical practices and championed a preferred model; influenced change of behaviour, values and assumptions, and shifted the organisational culture; and, were prepared to change staff to suit school directions. Leaders in the transformation category used many of these seven practices but not all the practices. They were strategic in their approach and focused on capacity building. Leaders in the incremental category used some of these practices. An important outcome is that all these principals were successful. There was no best approach to initiating and implementing change. Context was certainly a major factor in determining the approach and change strategy. In challenging circumstances more disruptive practices appeared to work well. However, there was circumstances that ensured that the principal work more incrementally toward improvement. Another factor was that successful principals bring their own leadership style, qualities and dispositions that help determine their success. The findings are supportive of the conference theme on innovation and hope. References Barsh, J. Capozzi, M. M Davidson, J. (2008) Leadership and Innovation McKinsey Quarterly Jan 2008. Bucy, M, Schaninger, Van Akin, K., Weddle, B. (2021)) Losing from day one, McKinsey Quarterly Christensen, C.M., McDonald, R., Altman, E.J. and Palmer, J.E. (2018), Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management. Studies, 55: 1043-1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12349 Coley, S. (2009) Enduring Ideas: The three horizons of growth, McKinsey Quarterly Dec AUTHORS (2017) Rebuilding schools through disruptive innovation and leadership. In Proceedings of the University Colleges of Educational Administration Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 15–19 November 2017 DuFour, R., & Marzano, R.J. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62-67 Erickson III, L T, (2015) Principals' Experiences Initiating, Implementing, and Sustaining Change Within Their School, Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 1495. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/1495 Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Fullan. M (Ed.), (2009) The challenge of school change (pp. 235-254). Arlington Heights, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hallinger, P. (2010). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leaders. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352. Henderson, R & Clark, K. (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure to Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393549 Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96-103 Mayo, A.; Nohria, N. (2005) Zeitgeist Leadership. Harvard. Business. Review. 83, 45–60. Moss Kanter, R (2016) Principals as Innovators: Identifying Fundamental Skill for Leadership for Change in Public Schools, Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University OECD (2019) (Measuring innovation in education OECD) Porter, M. E. (1985)The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. NY: Free Press, (Republished with a new introduction, 1998.) Seashore, K. R. (2009). Leadership and change in schools: Personal reflections over the last 30 years. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 129-140 Tushman, Michael, and Philip Anderson. (1986) Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3) 439–465. Wise, D (2015) Emerging Challenges Facing School Principals, Education Leadership Review, (16(2) National Council of Professors of Educational Administration 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Reimagining the Future: Transformative and Inclusive Leadership Imperatives for Indigenous Education University of Queensland Presenting Author:Educational success is critical to accessing life opportunities. In Australia, the educational success rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young peoples are significantly lower compared to their non-Indigenous peers. Research within academic literature and policy of ‘Indigenous Education’ and ‘excellence’ in education (Shay, et.al, 2020) are terms that are emerging from Indigenous communities across Australia as mechanism to redress the deficit thinking towards Indigenous education. On the other hand, whilst current strategies in Indigenous education in Australia have replaced past policies, the education system continues to fail Indigenous young peoples with culturally relevant education and continues to position such disadvantage as part of Indigeneity in Australia (Morrison et al., 2019). The continued educational achievement gap confronting Indigenous learners in Australia spotlights the pressing need to cultivate school leaders who can champion systemic change through visionary, transformative, and culturally inclusive leadership. The challenge of catering to a diversified population with the example of Indigenous students in Australia, has application not only to the European context, but diversified populations more broadly across the globe. With mass migration, global pandemics, and war the ability for different groups to maintain their identity and co-exist with different groups in a diversified population continues to be a challenge for educators, but more-so educational leaders leading their school communities. Likewise in the European context, and more globally it is critical to address the contexts and conditions that results in segregation and discriminatory attitudes, which inevitably leads to inequitable educational opportunities and unfair outcomes for marginalised groups. There is a critical need to emphasize the key leadership capabilities (transformation, vision, cultural inclusion) required to address equity issues in schools, particularly leaders who can drive systemic reform to improve Indigenous education in Australia. It is vital for educational leaders to create school environments that harness strengths- based approaches (Perso, 2012) and are built into existing school policies and practices, that will make an intentional difference to the outcomes of Indigenous students (Hameed et al., 2021; Netolicky & Golledge, 2021). Culturally responsive leaders build their communities to value students’ existing strengths and accomplishments, supporting students and developing them further in learning and most importantly respecting and valuing the unique identity of each child (Gay, 2000). This paper explores inclusive school leadership approaches that constitute excellence in Indigenous education (Shay et, al, 2021). Using an Indigenist lens, it discusses culturally responsive practices in school leadership that create safe learning environments in Indigenous education. It explores the practical application of inclusive school leadership approaches that harness culturally responsive pedagogical practices and values all students and the contributions and attributes that they bring to their schooling experience (Hameed et al., 2021). As we interrogated the concept of inclusive leadership in Indigenous education, the following research questions were used to study participants’ conceptualization and enactment of inclusivity at school level: How do school leaders and administrators within Indigenous educational contexts conceptualize and enact inclusive leadership excellence? Sub-questions: How do participants define “inclusive leadership” and its connection to ideals of excellence in Indigenous education settings? What overlaps or divergence exist between Western notions of inclusive leadership and Indigenous paradigms? What leadership practices, policies, and relationships do participants identify as exemplifying inclusive leadership excellence aligned to community values? How are families and community members positioned? An integral aspect of the study is in examining the systemic and institutional barriers that perpetuate inequities within Indigenous educational leadership. This includes analyzing how leaders evaluate effectiveness and success of inclusion efforts given systemic constraints. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The theoretical lens underpinning this study is based on the principles of Rigney’s (2001) Indigenous Standpoint Theory (IST) of political integrity, resistance as the emancipatory imperative, and privileging Indigenous voices in the research. The study is conceptually framed to ensure the perspective and voices of Indigenous participants to understand what inclusive leadership that uses culturally responsive practices to share what excellence is or what it could be. The analysis foregrounds the voices of Indigenous people and perspectives in the research design using Indigenist research principles of IST. The study adopts a qualitative approach using case study methodology. Qualitative data was collected using various means: Story-telling ground in Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing that enables the capacity to include all actors within the story, including non-Indigenous participants (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). Semi-structured interviews or yarning using questions to direct the yarning (defining excellence; examples of excellence, factors that support excellence) Story boarding method as collaborative yarning methodology that aligns with the principles of ethical research in Indigenous contexts (Shay, 2017). It uses semi-structured interviews or yarning and storyboarding as a method to engage the voices and lived experiences of participants to better understand the role of culturally responsive pedagogies in inclusive school leadership practices in defining, examples and factors that support excellence. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Inclusive leadership that used culturally responsive pedagogical practice emerged through three common themes. These common themes emerged across the collaborative yarning sessions were the need for schools to nurture and affirm culture and identity, building up young people through celebrating successes; and, building a culture of inclusivity and belonging. It was also noted that school leaders that enable these culturally responsive practices are more likely to shift whole school cultures. A key finding in the study also highlights the important role that school leaders play in ensuring inclusive leadership practices. Findings from the literature and the empirical research conducted, conclude that there is a need for school leaders to be cognisant in the provision of conducive school environments that respect and value the richness of Indigenous knowledges, having high expectations of Indigenous students and their achievements, and utilise culturally responsive pedagogical practices that builds the school culture and enhances learning not only for Indigenous students, but for all students. Realizing inclusive leadership excellence requires actively addressing historic and present marginalization. The study centers participants’ perspectives on navigating systemic injustice as well as their visions for liberation through transformational, equity-driven leadership praxis within their schools. Overall, centering systemic equity within inclusive leadership research helps strengthen both theoretical insight and leadership competence towards socially just schools. References Bolman, L. G., Johnson, S. M., Murphy, J. T. & Weiss, C. H. (1990). Re-thinking School Leadership: An Agenda for Research and Reform. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Educational Leadership. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 5. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive schooling: theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press, N.Y. Hameed, S., Shay, M., & Miller, J. (2021). 'Deadly leadership' in the pursuit of Indigenous education excellence. In Future Alternatives for Educational Leadership: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and Democracy (pp. 93-110). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003131496-10 Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven Strong Claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 Lester, J., & Munns, G. (2011). Closing the gap. In Craven, R. G. (2011). Why teach Aboriginal studies. Teaching Aboriginal studies: A practical resource for primary and secondary teaching, 1-21. Morrison, A., Rigney, L.-I., Hattam, R., & Diplock, A. (2019). Toward an Australian culturally responsive pedagogy: A narrative review of the literature. University of South Australia. Netolicky, D. M., & Golledge, C. (2021). Future Alternatives for Educational Leadership: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and Democracy. In (pp. 38-53). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003131496-5 Perso, T. (2012). Cultural responsiveness and school education with particular focus on Australia's first peoples: a review & synthesis of the literature. Menzies School of Health Research. Rigney, L. I. (2001). A first perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in science: Framing Indigenous research towards Indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty Shay, M. (2017). Counter stories: Developing Indigenist research methodologies to capture the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff in flexi school contexts Queensland University of Technology]. Shay, M. (2018). Leadership in Flexi schools: issues of race and racism in Australia. Shay, M. (2021). Extending the yarning yarn: Collaborative Yarning Methodology for ethical Indigenist education research. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 50(1), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2018.25 Shay, M., Armour, D., Miller, J., & Abdul Hameed, S. (2022). ‘Once students knew their identity, they excelled’: how to talk about excellence in Indigenous education. Shay, M., Sarra, G., & Woods, A. (2021). Strong identities, strong futures: Indigenous identities and wellbeing in schools. In Indigenous Education in Australia (pp. 63-75). Routledge. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Testimonios for Transformative Learning: Developing Equity-Centered Leaders for Schools University of Texas at San Ant, United States of America Presenting Author:The USLC at the University of Texas-San Antonio is a unique principal preparation program that focuses on preparing aspiring school principals to become transformational leaders who can work in diverse, ambiguous and challenging school contexts (Garza & Merchant, 2009; Merchant & Garza, 2015). Originating in a partnership with San Antonio Independent School District, now in its 11th cohort, the USLC model established new partnerships. This new program, USLC-South Bexar (USLC-SB), is in its fourth cohort, working to prepare school leaders for small districts in urban settings. A vital feature of the USLC is the leadership from its core faculty, former school principals, and district administrators who bring heuristic knowledge in preparing and developing school leaders for social justice. This collaborative and collective partnership was significantly enhanced with the recent award of a multi-million-dollar grant from the Wallace Foundation, the Equity-Centered Principal Initiative. The collaborative has been nurtured, sustained, and studied for the past twenty years with unconditional support from the former and present district superintendents as well as the dean of the college of education and human development (Murakami-Ramalho, Garza, & Merchant, 2009). A constructivist theoretical approach drives teaching and learning in this program. In a constructivist classroom, students and faculty engage in critical reflection, individually and collectively (Merchant & Garza, 2015). Coupled with constructivist learning theory, the Pedagogy of Collective Critical Consciousness (Garza, 2015) engages masters students deeply in collective learning activities, including shared critical reflection, written autoethnographies, digital life stories, community engagement projects, equity audits, and ultimately, the implementation of praxis (Freire, 2000). As co-constructors of knowledge, students, and faculty are both teachers and learners.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Embracing a bricolage approach, we grounded this study following Anzaldúa’s (1990) words, “by bringing in our own approaches and methodologies, we transform that theorizing space (p. xxv) to better understand how the program has influenced the students and professors in this innovative program. As such, in order to seek the insights from the experiences of our alumni and current students of this innovative program, several theoretical approaches were considered to highlight the collaborative lived experiences to include, social justice (Marshall & Oliva, 2006), and critical theory (Freire, 1993; Santamaria, 2013). Using testimonios (Anzaldúa, 2002) as a methodological approach, will help create salient depictions of experiences, identities, and new ways of knowing that center of culture and identity. A testimonio is viewed as a verbal journey (authentic narrative) of one’s life with a focus on the effect of injustice (Reyes & Rodriguez, 2012). As such, the testimonios of 36 students will offer a language of hope and insights into the ability of schools to promote equity, consciousness, and agency. During this session, we will engage in a presentation of testimonios about their lived experiences in the program. A theory in the flesh means one where the physical realities of our lives; our skin color, the land or concrete we grew up on, our sexual longings all fuse to create a politic born out of necessity. Here, we attempt to bridge the contradictions of our experience. (Moraga & Anzaldúa, 1981, p. 23) This study focuses on twenty students from a large urban school district in South Texas, and the faculty from the preparation program. Through their stories, they share how their lived experiences translated and influenced to the strategies necessary to meet the needs of highly diverse inner-city communities. These testimonios served as the leadership development to better understand how lived experiences influence and shape leadership identity. As such, the paper aims to highlight how a “different” model of leadership development advances interactive transformation for students to practice in urban schools where the student population is diverse, but predominantly Latino. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is important because we offer an alternative model to leadership preparation that aligns with the conference theme of, Education in an Age of Uncertainty: Memory and Hope for the Future, as it voices the lives of aspiring leaders. The ULSC preparation program adds depth and richness about how leaders learn best and apply their learning to their school settings. For instance, using their own voices and means for expressing their learning, this paper acknowledges one of the often-overlooked “faces” in our field —learners who have themselves experienced racial and human rights injustices. Furthermore, their concerns with equity and social justice, especially for underserved groups of children, are an absolute commitment and concern of the school leaders. Leadership preparation programs can make a difference in the lives of all school children. In that case, exploring the issues that will emerge in this study is another step toward preparing leaders with a social conscience and a passion for justice. References Anzaldúa, G. (2002). Now let us shift…the path of conocimiento…inner work, public acts. In G. E. Anzaldúa & A. Keating (Eds.), This bridge we call home: Radical visions for transformation (pp. 540-578). New York, NY: Routledge. Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Educating school leaders for social justice. Educational Policy, 19(1), 201-222. Garza, E. (2015, in progress). The Pedagogy of Collective Critical Consciousness: The Praxis of Preparing Leaders for Social Justice. Paper presented at UCEA Conference, 2015. Denver, CO. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: NY. Continuum International Publishing Group. Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum. McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601-632. Merchant, B., & Garza, E. (2015). The Urban School Leaders Collaborative: Twelve Years of Promoting Leadership for Social Justice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(1), 39-62. Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. New York, NY: Kitchen Table Women of Press. Ng, E. S. W. (2014). Relative deprivation, self-interest and social justice: why I do research on in- equality. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(5), 429-441. doi: 10.1108/edi-07-2013-0055 Rusch, E. A. (2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: A constrained discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 14-46. | ||