Moving from John Wayne to the Amorphous:
The evolution of the principal
Julia M. Williams
University of MinnesotaDuluth
If you listen closely with your imagination, you can almost hear the click-click-click of the principal’s heels as they tap across the shadows on the polished floors of the corridors. You may even hear the whispers of the students, and envision the fearful look of the teachers as they hush their classes in fear of the approaching doom. You may be able to imagine the scene, because, perhaps, you have lived it. It is possible that we could imagine scene after scene, starring the stereotypical principal. In one, the principal’s voice booms across a noisy lunchroom and everyone freezes in fear. In another, the stiffly suited principal watches an active, involved classroom, crosses arms over belly, and glowers at the teacher. In another, the curtly worded note appears in the teacher’s mailbox with the dreaded words, “See me.”
Stereotypes are, of course, merely that. The reality of the persona of a school principal is as individual as the person in the position. There may well be those in the field whose perception of the role includes the clicking heels, the booming voice, and the removal of individuality, active learning, and joy from classrooms. However, the increasing complexity of the job of leading schools, the evidence and direction produced through research on effective practices in school leadership, and even the zeitgeist of our times, have rendered the stereotypical image of the principal questionable at best; dangerous at worst.
The Authoritarian
A stereotypical principal often follows an authoritative path. The authoritarian leader traditionally makes decisions alone, and is alone responsible for the results. The authoritarian leader characteristically assesses a situation, based on experience, education, personal beliefs, and biases, and then acts, gives an order or edict, and punishes those who would disobey. The power wielded by the authoritarian principal is positional, and, by right of position and chain of command, he or she must be obeyed. The authoritarian principal believes that the right to lead has been earned, and the responsibility for the success of the school rests fully on the shoulders of the position. Therefore, tight control, manipulation for the good of the order, and monitoring of communications are often justifiably employed (Calabrese, 2002; Glickman, 2002; Kowalski, 2005).
Strong, charismatic, authoritarian principals have, indeed, led some schools to great feats, while others have led schools to sorry defeats. The magnificent authoritarian leaders are often lauded and applauded. Like John Wayne, and other mavericks that came, saw, and fixed everything, they have become the stuff of dreams and legends. However, legends are legends because of their scarcity, not because they proliferate (Glantz, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2003; Lambert, 2002, 2005). Their work is notable, indeed, and their heroics are worthy of emulation, but there are simply not enough to go around, and after they pass, pass on, or ride off into the sunset, the work of teaching children well must go on, carried on by those left behind. Because of our complex world’s need for complex answers to complex questions, and for sustainable solutions that are not dependent on the will and skill of one, the world of leadership is changing (Glantz, 2006; Lambert, 2002, 2005). It is moving from the generation of loyalty to the hero, to the generation of loyalty for the mission, the vision, and the shared belief. The world of leadership is changing from the command post, to a place of collaboration, to working with, not from a place far removed, and educational leadership is changing toward the maximum use of the capacity of many, as opposed to the reliance on the superhuman gifts of one.
Leading to the collaborative leader
Researchers and other sociological observers have labeled the age we live in as “Post Modern.” Defining this age, this philosophical framework surrounding our way of thinking, is movement away from the search for one simple truth, or proof of truth, through empirical, scientific method (Francis, 2004; Gall, et al, 2005; Merriam, 1998). This age is defined by an acceptance that there are several realities; reality being valid and relative to its perceivers. Living, working, and thinking in this age, therefore, offers opportunities to collect ideas, thoughts, and perceptions from various points of view, and to value each of them. Leading in this age allows, even applauds, the leader who seeks and values the complex, intricate, and rich picture that emerges when multiple stakeholders’ perceptions are used to create a big picture, to solve the big problems, to pose the big questions.
Leading in this age of postmodernism, in this age of acknowledging the complexities of reality in any situation, provides opportunities, in educational and other settings, to seek not only opinions from others, but also to seek solutions across stakeholder groups (Fullan, 2005). Postmodern leaders acknowledge the problem-solving abilities of all involved, and can lift the veil of the authoritarian illusion that the leader knows all, sees all, and solves all (Lambert, 2002). This lifting of the veil is emancipatory, in light of the increasing accountability and responsibility of today’s building principals. Carl Glickman (2002) stated, “Whenever one person defines himself or herself as the sole leader, provider, and catalyst for improved classroom learning, any school with more than 15 teaching faculty immediately confronts a lack of schoolwide instructional focus and assistance” (p. 2). According to Glickman, no individual can effectively take control and responsibility for moving a significant staff forward. His words are reinforced by Michael Fullan (2005), “Adoptive challenges require the deep participation of the people with the problem; that is why it is more complex and why it requires more sophisticated leadership” (p. 53).
Perhaps the authoritarian work assumed to be accomplished and sustained by those who accepted the position of principal was always impossible. Perhaps the stereotypical role of the omniscient school leader is a piece of our collective mythology. Some believe that our society has burdened the role of principal, over the years, to include so many accountabilities that leaders have been forced to analyze, and employ other means through which to get the job done. Fullan (2003) summarizes the situation by stating, “It cannot require superwomen and supermen or moral martyrs because, if it does, we will never get the numbers necessary to make a system difference” (p. xv). His thoughts are reinforced by Jeffrey Glanz (2006), “Principals by themselves cannot solve the complex problems confronting schools today” (p. 88). Perhaps they never could. Linda Lambert (2002) states, “The days of the principal as the lone instructional leader are over. We no longer believe that one administrator can serve as the instructional leader for an entire school without the substantial participation of other educators” (P. 37).
Research, and the capacities of this electronic information age, have helped educational leaders identify, evaluate, and share means and methods of leading schools that address the impossibilities of the work assigned to the principal, and how to overcome the obstacles. Kowalski (2005) explains, “Contrary to popular belief, the most effective principals are neither saviors nor dictators. Rather, they are individuals possessing a leadership style centered on collaboration, facilitation, and professionalism…. Their influence is often discernable in areas such as visions and goals” (p. 59). Researchers agree that vital to the continued progress of educational settings are aspects of direction setting, and supervision that rely on the defined purpose and shared mission of the work done in any school, and on the sustainability of any initiative or change (Allen & Cosby, 2000; Blankstein, 2004; Elmore, 2000, 2002; Fullan, 2003, 2005; Lambert, 2003; Marzano, 2003, Marzano, et al. 2005; Schmoker, 2005). Studies suggest that direction and sustainability can be informed, but not controlled, by any one individual for a number of reasons. One reason is that people like the iconoclastic John Wayne eventually retire, or leave by other means. Schools that depend on the vision of the authoritarian hero, and the will of the hero alone, will simply face sure chaos if the leader is removed for any reason. Richard Elmore (2000) states, “ The problem with this romanticized theory of leadership is that the supply of character traits we associate with ‘good’ leaders, is by definition, limited, or we wouldn’t envy and admire them so much…. De-romanticizing leadership would have a very positive effect on the quality of schools” (p. 14). Taking the romance out of the role of the mythical hero-leader places the responsibility for leadership across the entire building’s staff, and in pursuit of common purpose. Researchers studying effective schools, and the behaviors and responsibilities of effective principals who have developed and maintained focus and sustained progress, have found that common to success are the elements of shared leadership, shared mission and vision, and shared supervision responsibilities. Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) identify the responsibilities undertaken by leaders of effective schools as inclusive of the establishment of strong leadership teams, communications, involvement of teachers in “design and implementation of important decisions and policies…. shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation” (p. 42). In a previous study (2003), Marzano examined elements that have proven effective in schools, and identified three principles of leadership for effective change that include, “Leadership for change is most effective when carried out by a small group of educators with the principal functioning as a strong cohesive force” (p. 174). Other research supporting the efficacy of shared, collaborative leadership includes the work of Carl Glickman with supervision (2002). He states, “Successful schools stand in great contrast to mediocre and low-performing schools where faculty work apart from each other, without common purpose, and with self-centered beliefs that they are doing the best they can” (p. 6). Alan Blankstein (2004) states, “The relationships among adults in the school greatly influence the extent to which students in that school will succeed academically” (p. 59). He concludes his work, Failure is Not an Option: Six Principles that Guide Student Achievement in High Performing Schools by offering implications including: “School leadership is a system, a culture. Schools are places where principals, teachers, students, and parents all lead” (p. 210). Willard Daggett’s meta-analysis of effective schools identifies ten central findings to be used as a platform for reform, including, “Offer effective leadership development for administrators, teachers, parents and community” (2005, p. 14). Harvard’s Richard Elmore (2000) states, “Large scale improvement requires concerted action among people with different areas of expertise and a mutual respect that stems from an appreciation of the knowledge and skill requirements of different roles” (p. 35-36). The widespread and growing, research-based, belief in a form of school leadership that is not authoritarian and includes collaboration rather than the exercise of singular authority, is reflected in the official indicators of quality by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (2002), “Those with a stake in the school should have the opportunity to share in the decisions that affect them” (p. 3).
What is collaboration in school leadership?
Paradoxically, researchers and organizations reflect belief in the effectiveness of shared or collaborative leadership, yet its definition appears elusive and metamorphic. A review of current educational literature reveals a range of definitions, from vague references to a style of leadership, through situational descriptions of shared decision-making and responsibilities to plan and deliver evaluation of staff, enactment of initiatives, change in general, all the way to a formal structure of school governance, site-based management, with shared leadership as constitutional throughout all operations of the building. On one end of the scale, writers, such as Richard Dufour (2001), provide pathways to development of an accountable, collaborative, culture that promotes collective inquiry. Down the continuum, Glickman (2002) provides a structure for supervision that requires tenured teachers to define personal professional development goals and engage collaboratively with other teachers to reach them. He also identifies a progressive continuum of communication styles, from directive-control, through directive-informational, to collaborative; in order to define approaches to principal/teacher conferences regarding supervision issues (pp. 53-72). Yet others define collaborative planned change (Marzano, et al. 2005) and site-based management (Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003).
Writer Phillip Schlectly offers a definitional difference between delegating authority and sharing authority. As an analogy, he compares delegation to the relationship between landlord and tenants, and shared authority as the relationship between co-habitators (p. 69). Glanz (2006) provides a collaboration continuum from “Fragmented Individualism”, to “Balkanization,” through “Contrived Collegiality,” to “True Collaborative Cultures” (pp. 2-3). Common to these various definitions of collaborative leadership, are concepts regarding the identification and capitalization of knowledge, expertise, talents, skills, connections, and influence, wherever they may be found within an organization or community, in order to utilize them to produce results important to those involved.
No matter where the definition of collaboration falls, from the creation of a building culture of collaboration, to situational use of collaborations, to a formal structure, the positional leadership of the principal, even in the most team-managed schools studied, does not seem to become impotent, or redundant. Moving from an authoritarian to collaborative style of leadership does not seem to mean reduced power for the principal. Instead, it means a change in the focus of how power is used. Jeffrey Glanz (2006) bases his book, Collaborative Leadership, on ten assumptions; the first of which is, “You, as principal, play the most vital role in facilitating (i.e., establishing and sustaining) such a cultural milieu” (p. 3). The role and mode of successful direction provided by the position, however, does change along a range from initiation of collaboration, to participation in collaborative decision-making (Blankstein, 2004; Dufour, 2005; Glanz, 2006; Lambert, 2002, 2003; Marzano, et al, 2005). In addition, establishment of effective collaboration throughout a school building ultimately falls to the principal, who must walk a fine line between the uses of positional authority to establish expectations, provide opportunity, and maintain accountability, and the vision of shared power and responsibility that is the lifeblood of collaboration (Lambert, 2005). The shift from an authoritarian leadership style, to one that capitalizes on the wisdom, gifts and strengths of the entire school and community, seems not to be a story removal of power and prestige. It is, instead, a story of a sophistication of earned power to lead sustainable improvement effectively. It is a story of sheparding a shift from a culture of scarcity to a celebration of abundance, from leadership employing fear-based action, to the construction of a culture based on shared direction, powered by possibility.
So, what is a would-be collaborative leader to do?
The authoritarian leader, no matter how skilled in traditional leadership, will need to employ a separate set of methods, dispositions, and expanded understandings, to effectively lead an organization to employ collaborative processes. Foundational to leading a school to change is an analysis of the current state of collaboration in a building, and an understanding of the direction toward which to lead.
It could be argued that included in the list of capacities for successful leadership in schools in our times would be the capacity to objectively analyze. Researcher Linda Lambert (2003) provides a matrix for leaders to use to analyze readiness, purpose, and capacity of schools to engage and benefit from collaboration. Entering collaborative initiatives by first analyzing capacity, defined through research, could prove helpful to leaders seeking to establish a plan of action in schools. Lambert’s matrix combines levels of participation, high and low, with degrees of skill, high and low. Her low degree of skill/ low degree of participation quadrant identifies the principal as an “autocratic manager,” and the school as having little innovation, with norms of compliance and blame, and poor achievement” (p. 5). The matrix identifies schools with high degrees of skill and high degrees of participation as characterized by shared leadership, responsibility, and vision, skilled use of data and reflective practice, and value-added student achievement (p. 5). Lambert’s matrix describes schools with high participation and low skills as under-led, sporadic, fragmented, and unfocused. Schools defined as highly skilled, with low participation are purposeful, but polarized oligarchies lacking coherence (p 5). Student achievement is static or slipping in the schools that are not high participation/ highly skilled. Perhaps a good place to begin to implement collaboration in a building would be to analyze the existing situation, thus establishing a place on Dr. Lambert’s matrix as a starting point.
If the desired situation is to attain Lambert’s designation of highly skilled / high participation with the result of increased student achievement, or Michael Fullan’s correlating status of “effective culture” with “progressive interactions in which demanding processes produce both good ideas and social cohesion (2005, p. 58), or Marzano, Waters and McNulty’s similar “Purposeful Community,” where resides “the collective efficacy and capacity to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to all community members through agree-upon processes” (2005, p. 98), educational leadership literature suggests several strategic areas of knowledge, skills and dispositions, for schools leaders. Glanz (2006) suggests beginning with a self-analysis of the leader. If the leader does not see the possibility of better decisions being made by more minds, the efforts are going to have a difficult time becoming successful. The leader must be willing to give authoritarian power away, and that is not always so easily done. The second step in self-analysis is to clarify and articulate core values relative to teaching, learning, and schools. If leaders cannot align with the stated vision and mission of the organization, it is still possible that they can manage the building, but it may become problematic in leading innovation, change, or re-definition through collaboration (Calabrese, 2002; Fullan, 2003; Lambert, 2003; Marzano, et al. 2005).
Lambert suggests, once the principal has established and declared alignment with the idea of collaborative leadership and with the core mission and vision of the building, that the principal establishes a climate of collaboration through communication of values, and through true dialog and discussions, at faculty meetings and other venues, whereby issues and decisions are brought forward for comment and advisement. This type of principal-led, or facilitated, communication opens doors, and allows the principal to assess the leadership capacity and skills of the faculty in the building. It also provides a clear departure from authoritarian tradition. Lambert also suggests that the principal telescope the vision of more collaboration, and formally assess capacity, through the use of a survey of opportunities and inclinations for staff and other stakeholders. Other writers concur, as Glanz encourages leaders who would institute collaborative efforts to “establish mechanisms that encourage meaningful communication. Develop a people-oriented stance” (2006, p. xxv).
Blankstein (2004) suggests that leadership analyze the level of relational trust in schools. “In general,” he states, “the effective leader will create relational trust through showing a genuine regard for the professional role, interest in the concerns of others (respect), awareness of their personal interests (personal regard), and a willingness to act on those concerns (competence) toward an ethical outcome (integrity)” (p. 63). He advises that leaders begin with an understanding of current levels of relational trust in the building, and to address issues of communication and affinity before moving forward. Without setting the stage for collaborative leadership, initiatives risk failure, and valid assessment of the effectiveness of collaboration becomes problematic, as it becomes hard to ascertain whether the leadership or the concept was fallible.
Schools accustomed to authoritarian style leadership have established cultures correspondingly. They are characterized often by teacher isolation, and mistrust of leadership (Allen& Cosby, 2000; Kowalski, 2005). The leader who would move toward collaboration must be sensitive to the established norms of the building in order to lead carefully toward cooperation, open communication, and collaboration. Glanz (2006) warns that there should be no time-line for the establishment of collaborative initiatives. He believes that each building is unique, and has its own issues to work through before effective collaboration is possible. Setting timelines is an authoritarian move to control what is better achieved through a closed loop communication process, necessary to set the stage for risk and sharing.
No matter the extent or degree of collaboration implemented in a school, from integrated instruction, teacher-led evaluation, to formal site-based governance, the collaborative leader must take steps that the traditional, authoritarian leader may not choose to employ, in order to establish and maintain the success of the efforts. In sharp contrast to the authoritarian model of school leadership, studies suggest that the efficacious collaborative leader must accomplish four tasks without fail. The collaborative leader must facilitate the establishment of shared or common vision, mission, values and goals, establish leadership teams, create a culture of learning throughout the entire building, and maintain focus on increased student learning aligning with mission, vision and goals (Fullan, 2003, 2005; Glantz, 2006; Lambert, 2002; Lezotte, 2005; Marzano, et al. 2005).
The key to sustainable collaborations is the buy-in of the stakeholders. Respect, fear, or love of the authoritarian leader is the glue in some organizations. The charisma and drive of some authoritarian leaders motivates and engages the followers. Collaborative leaders, in contrast, do not bring the mission to the building. Collaborative leaders listen, provide access, and solicit the dreams, visions, goals and wishes of those they serve. The mission, vision, beliefs and goals of a collaboratively led institution are the reflection of all served by that institution. They are the cornerstones for the creation of policy and improvement plans. In a collaborative school, the work is tied to the mission and vision, not to the leader. Therefore, the collaborative leader must seek skills and processes by which to generate, articulate, and focus on a shared mission. Building a leadership team, which is the vehicle for shared decision-making, regardless of the purpose, requires leadership skills in team building, task delegation, charge statements, action planning and monitoring and evaluation. Traditionally, these are not the skills of an authoritative leader, but they can be learned through reading, workshops, and sharing with peers.
The work of the leadership team, and the work of the collaboratively led building, is to identify a vision, and work together to achieve it. All stakeholders actively engaged in determining the best path to take toward improvement, learning new skills, exploring new possibilities, best serve this work. Collaborative culture requires deliberative learning, research, reading, sharing, professional discussion, and understanding of theory and best practice in the field. In essence, this culture requires that the principal becomes the “Lead Learner” (King, 2002), and establishes precedent and expectations, as well as provides opportunities and rewards for continued learning (Barth, 2005; Schmoker, 2005; Sparks, 2005).
Finally, the on-going work of the successful collaborative leader is about focus. Successful collaborative leaders believe in the validity of the shared mission and goals over the interference of state mandate, school board whims, district-level edict, media frenzy, high stakes testing, and other urgent distractions. This is not to say that the principal ignores those items, but that the principal keeps the building focused on the pieces of student learning that have been identified as of most importance to the stakeholders, and works to minimize the effects of external reactions, and incomplete indicators. When moral focus is maintained, the process gains credibility, strength, and improvement happens (Fullan, 2003, 2005; Glanz, 2006; Glickman, 2005; Graseck, 2005; Lambert, 2003).
In addition to the establishment of clear common vision, functioning leadership teams, a culture of learning and maintaining unwavering moral focus, research indicates that principals in schools that have been successful in collaboration also exhibit some additional common characteristics. Marzano, (2003), identifies that honesty, optimism, accessibility, habits of affirmation of staff, and consideration are key. King (2003), Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005), Blankstein (2004), and others advocate strongly that principals leading collaborative schools become adept at the use of data to inform decision-making and in the use of assessment to monitor improvement processes (Lambert, 2002, 2003, 2005; Marzano, 2003). King (2003), Fullan (2003), Glanz (2006), Lambert (2003, 2005), believe that a responsibility of collaborative leadership is to deliberately develop leadership capacity in staff. Lambert (2002, 2005) and others advocate also that effective collaborative leaders personally engage, and promote engagement of others in self-reflection (York-Barre, et al. 2001).
What is a collaborative leader not to do?
Reliably identifying what works, and what does not work, in a system as complex as a school building is incredibly difficult to do. Research identifies schools that have seen incredible success, staff satisfaction, student achievement gains, and increased respect and involvement from their communities (Bowden, 2002; King, 2002; Glickman, 2002; Janney, et al. 2005; Lambert 2002, 2005). Studies also identify schools that have crashed and burned under structures of collaborative leadership. Since collaborative leadership is an emerging phenomenon in our age, research seems to indicate that it is a success and a failure, often contingent upon the activities of the positional leadership in the building (Calabrese, 2003; Glanz, 2006; Lambert, 2003; Marzano, et al., 2005).
Failure of collaborative efforts in schools appears to be a result of a “Fatal Four” – the vital tasks identified in the previous section (Arrowsmith, 2004; Kowalski, 2005; Glanz, 2006).. If the leadership allows or directs a diffusion of focus, fails to establish sustainable leadership teams, declines to establish common goals, or does not provide opportunities or accountability for continued learning, research and experience show that the initiatives will have trouble surviving (Arrowsmith, 2004; Briggs & Wohlsetter, 2003; Fullan, 2003; Glanz, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Marzano, et. al. 2005). In addition, researchers point to other reasons for failure, including what Fullan terms, “coblaboration,” when the leadership team declines into all talk and too little action (2005, p. 48). Other writers lay blame for failure on involvement, or lack of, throughout the entire system (Fullan, 2005; Glanz, 2006). Glanz (2006) states, “An organizational effort is necessary to ensure that pedagogical, curricular, and administrative strategies work in consonance with participatory management” (p. 85). He advises collaborative leaders to form alliances that work to support the development of shared leadership across systems. Blankstein (2004) attributes failure of some shared leadership initiatives to lack of common understanding of the definition of leadership, and reluctance of teachers to take on sustained responsibility for leadership. He advises principals to help teachers understand the potential impact for students, and provide support and encouragement (p. 192).
A result of the emerging understanding of best practices in leadership of collaborative efforts in schools, and the complicated communications and interactions between teachers, communities, expectations, students, administration, lawmakers, and all other stakeholders, is a lack of solid, non-contextual, definitions, and valid, reliable, and immediate measurements of the efficacy of shared decision-making and collaborative efforts. Case studies point to elements of successes and failure. Theorists point to case studies. Researchers have begun to collect qualitative and quantitative work, through which grounded theories are emerging via meta-analysis. Collaboration’s successes and failures are, by intent, dependent on the talents, skills, learning, values, beliefs, and leadership of each school. Perhaps evaluation of collaborative efforts may never be applicable in every case.
Conclusion
Research does certainly suggest that collaborative leadership has potential for increased student success and increased satisfaction for staff and administration. Blankstein (2004) refers to study after study that link teacher leadership and collaboration to increased achievement, teacher efficacy, retention of good teachers and increased accountability (p. 193). Lambert reports on the success of collaboration studied through the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative, and concludes saying, “Today, shared instructional leadership among professional staff is state-of-the-art practice (2002, p. 40). Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005), in a meta-analysis of over sixty-nine studies, followed by a factor analysis of a survey administered to 650 administrators, concluded that the development of “strong leadership teams” and the “crafting of a purposeful community,” are essential to sustained, successful, improvement efforts, and the “collective efficacy” of staff and students (p. 98).
In the end, however, it just seems to make sense. If leadership seeks to use the wisdom and gifts of those involved to move an organization forward, that seems to be simply economy of scale. If a teacher, or other stakeholder, can be part of the planning, deciding, identifying, prioritizing, and valuing of the work that is to be part of the driving toward a goal that is valued and shared by all constituencies, motivation and investment seem to be natural products of the process. As Glanz (2006) states, “The more individuals are committed to a project or goal, the greater the likelihood it will succeed” (p. 87). If a principal is to lead, in an age of increasing complexity and increasing information, then leadership would seem to be self-sustaining by becoming more inclusive, rather than trying to become even more responsible for herding even more Siamese cats.
Researcher Linda Lambert states, “This work requires skill and new understanding; it is much easier to tell or to manage than it is to perform as a collaborative instructional leader…Out of that changed culture will arise a new vision of professional practice linking leadership and learning” (2002, p.40). In developing this new vision, the future of educational leadership, could possibly even take note of nature itself. As the well known metaphor goes, one could observe that the last species on this planet that exhibited the structure of an authoritatively led school, a structure characterized by a small, (although perhaps gifted) singular brain, responsible for a huge and unwieldy body, was the dinosaur. Dinosaurs have been extinct for a long time. Their giant bones still poke through in various places on this earth, and some have become bleached white by the sun. They stand as striking reminders of what won’t work as we evolve.
References
Allen, D. & Cosby, W.H., Jr. (2000). American schools: The 100 billion dollar challenge. New York: iPublish/Time Warner.
Arrowsmith, T. (2004, July). Distributed leadership: three questions, two answers review of the Hay Group Education research.
Management in Education, 19(2), p30-33. Retrieved November 27, 2005, from Academic Search Premier.
Barth, R.S. (2005). Turning book burners into lifelong learners. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common
ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp.115-133). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bowden, A.G. (2002). Collaborative leadership in middle schools and teacher job satisfaction: A search for relationships.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(03) 822A. (AAT No. 3045935). Retrieved November 27, 2005 from Proquest
Briggs, K.L. & Wohlstetter, P.(2003, Sep). Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3). Retrieved November 27, 2005 from Academic Search Premier.
Calabrese, R. (2005). The leadership assignment: Creating change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Daggett, W.R. (2005, June). Successful schools: From research to action plans. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Model
Schools Conference of the International Center for Leadership in Education, Nashville, TN
DuFour, R. (2001, Winter).In the right context: The effective leader concentrates on a foundation of programs, procedures,
beliefs, expectations and habits. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1). Retrieved November 21, 2005, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/dufour221.cfm
Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R.F. (2002, May). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-21
Francis, J.B. (2004, October). The scholar-practitioner. Breakout session presented at the Capella University Colloquium
through the School of Education, Lansdowne, VA.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Glanz, J. (2006). Collaborative leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glickman, C.D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Graseck, P. (2005, Jan). Where’s the ministry in administration? Attending to the souls of our schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
86(5), pp 373-387.
Janney, K. Morris, N. & Stubbs, L. (2005, May/June). A culture of greatness. Leadership, (Pp. 8-10, 38). Retrieved
November 21, 2005, from Academic Search Premier
King, D. (2005, May). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), pp 61-63.
Kowalski, T.J. (2005). Case studies on educational administration. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lambert, L. (2002, May). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-4.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Lambert, L. (2005, February). Leadership for lasting reform. Educational Leadership, (62(5).
Lezotte, L.W. (2005). More effective schools: Professional learning communities in action. In R.DuFour, R Eaker &
R. DuFour, (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp.177-191). Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2002). Leading learning communities: NAESP standards for
what principals should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group.
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (2005). No turning back: The ironclad case for professional learning communities. In R.DuFour, R. Eaker,
& R. DuFour, (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp.135-153). Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for transformation in teaching, learning, and relationships. In R.DuFour, R. Eaker, &
R. DuFour, (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp.155-175). Bloomington, IN
: Solution Tree Press.
York-Barre, J., Sommers, W.A., Ghere, & G.S., Montie, J. (2001). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide
for educators. ThousandOak s, CA: Corwin Press.
|
