School Leader

"Districts of innovation" could be a good idea, but no substitute for charter schools

One interesting piece of legislation that successfully passed the Kentucky General Asssembly's recently-concluded session was House Bill 37.  Sponsored by House education committee chair Carl Rollins (D-Midway), HB 37 allows individual schools and entire districts to apply for "school or district of innovation" status.  Such schools would theoretically be free of many burdensome regulations and have more autonomy to innovate creative approaches to curriculum, instruction, and the structure of the school day.

Mr. Rollins believes HB 37 provides a useful alternative to public charter schools, which he has long opposed.  But while the districts of innovation law may have merits, it most certainly does not counter the argument or need for more school choice in Kentucky.

The Kentucky Department of Education must still issue administrative regulations that will govern how HB 37 is implemented.  How KDE  handles this task will greatly influence whether districts of innovation have as much autonomy as supporters of the law have suggested. 

HB 37 gives KDE broad leeway in determining the specific areas of regulation from which schools and districts of innovation will be exempt, with only a couple of important exceptions.  The law states that such schools may be approved to use capital outlay funds for operational costs (currently a forbidden practice), to implement a flexible school calendar, and to utilize more virtual learning opportunities for the delivery of required high school course credits, among other provisions.

Of most interest to me, the law also states that approved districts of innovation may be able to "employ teachers on extended employment contracts or extra duty contracts and compensate them on a salary schedule other than the single-salary schedule."

Changing the way we pay teachers would certainly constitute an innovation, but the wording of this provision makes it sound like this only applies to that portion of a teacher's contract beyond the regular school-year contract.  I plan to contact Mr. Rollins' office for clarification on what the legislature intended by this clause.

At any rate, the law requires a vote of 70 percent of the school's employees to adopt a district of innovation plan.  It is unlikely that substantial changes in teacher compensation would be approved by the faculty of most schools.

It's difficult to imagine the full range of innovations a school might attempt under the freedom allegedly granted by HB 37 until the associated administrative regulations are issued by KDE.  Generally, I am in favor of any proposals that might change the industrial approach to traditional education that is so relatively ineffective at addressing individual student needs. 

The most exciting possibilities under HB 37 might take place at the high school level where the tyrrany of seat-time and credits and rigid schedules makes changes in even basic teaching practices extraordinarily difficult.  Only time will tell if such sweeping innovations are really possible under this law.

But while HB 37 may hold promise for giving select schools greater flexibility, it completely fails to address the need for charter schools or other mechanisms of school choice. 

Charter schools are public schools of choice, meaning that parents choose to send their children to a charter school, or to leave it later on. 

Under the existing educational regime, which remains thoroughly intact under HB 37, parents who are unsatisfied with their child's school are essentially barred from exercising any such choice unless they have the financial means to send their child to a private school (if such an alternative is even available).

Kentucky needs charter schools, not simply because they have the kind of autonomy and flexibility schools might get under HB 37, but because they provide educational choices for parents who otherwise have none.  Choice in itself promotes innovation because schools must work to offer programs and learning environments that appeal to range of learners and meet diverse needs at high levels. 

Choice also works because it provides the ultimate form of accountability: schools of choice that fail will be closed down from lack of consumer interest.

No such accountability exists under HB 37, regardless of how innovative schools are allowed to become.

Dr. Putnam to offer second SLLA prep session (FREE)

The School Leader Licensure Assessment (SLLA) is a state-mandated assessment for any individual wanting to obtain principal certification in Kentucky.  The next test administration will be given online by ETS the week of July 10, 2012 at a cost of $375.

In a reprise of his successful SLLA prep session earlier this month, WKU's Dr. Mike Putnam, Associate Professor of Educaitonal Administration, Leadership, & Research, will offer another SLLA review session for potential test takers on June 25, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central time, in Gary Ransdell Hall Auditorium on the WKU main campus.  The preparation session is free, but participants are asked to report their eventual SLLA scores to Dr. Putnam (confidentially) as part of on-going research he is gathering to measure the efficacy of the review session process.

The prep session was created by Dr. Putnam and Dr. Dennis Bunch, Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Mississippi.  Kentucky currently has an overall pass rate of 86.94% of test takers (a qualifying score of 160 on the SLLA is required for passing).  Participants in Dr. Putnam's previous Kentucky prep session posted a 100% pass rate.  Both Dr. Bunch and Dr. Putnam have facilitated multiple SLLA review sessions in Missippi (which has a minimum passing score of 169) with an overal pass rate of 92%.

After taking the SLLA, one Kentucky review session participant shared the comment that, "All these things you shared in the test prep session -- I just wanted you to konw they were vital pieces of information" on the actual exam.

SLLA review session participants will

• Examine the six ISLLC Standards
• Participate in multipe choice and constructed response question training
• Participate in discussions
• Work hands-on, timed sample questions
• Provide, and be provided, real-time feedback.

If you are interested in participating in this preparatory session, contact Dr. Putnam via email at [email protected] no later than end of the day on June 17, 2012.  No late registrations are accepted.  In your email, provide your name, phone number(s), current district, school, and professional position.  If you cannot make the session after your seat has been reserved, inform Dr. Putnam immediately either by email or phone 270-745-4271.

WKU revised principal preparation program: Fall 2012 applications due June 1

Please help us spread the word that WKU's newly-revised principal preparation program will launch in Fall 2012.  The application deadline for the Fall cohort is June 1.  Click here to read more about the program, and pass this information along to all aspiring administrators who may be interested and eligible to apply.

The program revision came after a ten-year effort by the Kentucky Educational Professional Standards Board and certification-granting universities around the Commonwealth to improve the quality of principal training and better prepare aspiring school leaders for the demands of the 21st century education industry.  The program changes - which affect every university in the state, not just WKU - were approved last year and students currently enrolled in existing principal certification programs must complete all coursework (including classes required for Level II certificaiton) by December 2013.

The new program will require applicants to already hold a master's degree.  Thus, students can earn a Rank I by completing the new, 30-hour principal preparation program (or, if they already hold a Rank I, may pursue the program for certification only).  The coursework includes 18 hours of courses for Level I certification, and 12 hours for Level II certification.  Note, however, that in addition to a master's degree applicants to the program must also have completed 12 hours of pre-requisite courses, including EDAD 588 (Allocation and Use of Resources), EDAD 677 (Legal Issues for Professional Educators), EDAD  683 (Leading Teaching and Learning), and EDAD 684 (Instructional Leadership).  Applicants must also have completed three years of successful teaching experience and hold a 3.0 grade-point-average in all graduate coursework.

 The new program will be cohort based.  Students will take six credit hours per semester for three semesters for completion of Level I courses.  There will be a heavy emphasis on field-based experiences in all classes.  Level II courses will be somewhat flexible and allow students, in collaboration with their district-mentor and advisor, to design learning experiences that best meet the individual's growth areas. 

Many of the new features of the program - especially its requirement that applicants must already hold a Master's degree - may seem onerous to some students familiar with the old certification process.  While I have some mixed feelings about this myself, it seems the state's goal in mandating these changes was to ensure a more experienced, mature, and serious pool of principal candidates who fully intend to pursue work as school administrators in the future.  I am hopeful for these changes and the possibilities for our department and for the schools in which our students will serve.

Contact me if you have questions.

AERA reflections, Part III: Coaching and theories of practice

A consistent theme of my AERA 2012 experience was the challenge of building educator dispositions that can enhance teacher and leadership effectiveness.  These dispositions, like the ability to communicate, build positive relationships and collaborative processes, and reflect deeply on one's experience, have not traditionally been the focus of educator preparation programs and seem, at least on the surface, exceedingly difficult to teach.

In my first set of reflections, I suggested that such dispositions can only be fostered with structures of practice that encourage a deep level of self-awareness and self-reflection, and offered the Enneagram personality typing system, which Tom Stewart and I have often utilized in leadership development workshops, as an example.  Then on Saturday I heard Geoff Soloway share his research and experiences on using mindfulness practices for a similar purpose with pre-service teachers.

Yesterday I wrapped up my AERA experience with another set of great conversations centered on methods of fostering leadership dispositions, this time around two topics of great importance to my own scholarship: theories of practice and models of coaching. I shared results of my own work using theories of practice to investigate principal leadership in a roundtable session, and I was delighted to present alongside Deidre Le Fevre and Vivian Robinson of the University of Auckland. Dr. Robinson has made some foundational contributions to literature on instructional leadership, and to my happy surprise she is now using Argyris and Schon's theory of practice framework to study school principal communication.  

With Dr. Le Fevre, Dr. Robinson has developed a rubric and methodology for exploring the extent to which principals engage in reflective communication, especially in having "difficult" conversations that require both active listening and authentic, direct responses.  Unsurprisingly, they have found principals are relatively weak in these areas, but their rubric provides a powerful tool for illuminating principal strengths and weaknesses, and Robinson and Le Fevre are looking at various coaching models for utilizing this method for improving principal effectiveness.

This is, of course, also the next level of work for my own research, which revealed that even successful school principals struggle to be self-reflective about their practice.  In scholarship that has emerged from my dissertation, colleagues and I are now utilizing coaching protocols for actively assisting principals in articulating, and experimenting, with their own instructional leadership theories of practice.

My understanding of coaching processes was greatly enhanced in a symposium I attended later in the day, during which an array of researchers shared their own experiences using coaching for leadership development.  In particular, I am interested in exploring how Gary Bloom's blended coaching models support the approach we've tentatively mapped for our own work.  I was also happy to hear Megan Tschannen-Moran present her new work on "evocative coaching," which expands upon her ground-breaking research in trust and teacher self-efficacy.

This was my first AERA conference, and I was pleased with the sheer quantity of new information, ideas, and people I encountered.  In addition to new perspectives and resources for my own work, I came back with a host of ideas for potential dissertation ideas for doctoral studies.  I look forward to seeing where all these possible directions might take us.

AERA reflections, Part II: The potential power of mindfulness

At the end of my last post, I pondered how we can more effectively develop leadership dispositions in light of a radically different educational paradigm.  Leaders clearly need the technical and pedagogical knowledge that our preparation programs have long offered with a fair degree of effectiveness.  But they also need a wide array of dispositional capacities, including emotional intelligence.  Can such capacities be taught?

I concluded my last post with my conviction that such dispositions can certainly be developed (owing that some people are so emotionally broken they may be functionally incapable of growing much beyond their present state; but these cases are blessedly rare for the most part).  I suggested that various techniques for deepending individiual self-awareness and self-reflection might be useful tools for helping aspiring leaders identify their strengths and growth areas relative to such dispositons, and offered the Enneagram personality typing system as one example.

Another example I encountered in an AERA session yesterday afternoon, one that I've also written about previously, suggested another strategy, that of mindfulness practice.  Geoffrey Soloway, who offers mindfulness-based training programs for educators, described his doctoral research conducted through University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.  Geoff conducted an iterative action research project over a period of several years in which he trained preservice teachers in various practices of mindfulness, including meditation based on the secular stress-reduction and wellness methods pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn (read some of Geoff's work on this study here).

While teacher candidates in Geoff's study self-selected for participation and so might have already possessed certain positive dispositions, his research nevertheless found that mindfulness training led to higher levels of life satisfaction and, most notably, teaching efficacy than reported by aspiring teachers in a non-treatment control group.

 I would love to see Geoff's work repeated with practicing school administrators to gauge the effects of mindfulness on leadership dispositions.  It would also be interesting to explore the effects of mindfulness practice on whole faculty group processes for decision-making and conflict management, for example.  Possible applications are endless, and point toward yet another method for deepening the emotional capacities of educators.

AERA reflections, Part I: A seismic shift for the education industry

Yesterday the American Educational Research Association conference kicked off in Vancouver.  There are more interesting sessions available than I have time for in my schedule, but I did come away yesterday reflecting on some big ideas from the presentations I attended.

Perhaps the most compelling thing I heard was from Vanderbilt's Joseph Murphy, who gave an invited talk last night for the Leadership for School Improvement Special Interest Group.  With his typical wit and direct, cutting insights, Murphy described how education in America has only been through one seismic shift that completely changed the industry (more on his use of the word "industry" momentarily).  That shift occurred between 1880 and 1920 and marked the standardization and professionalization of schools and schooling, essentially giving us the schools we have known for the last century.

We are now living through the second seismic shift in the education industry, and we are not prepared for it.  Understanding school improvement requires reflecting deeply on the nature and implication of these changes.

The education paradigm that has reigned for a century now essentially reflected an early industrial, manufacturing model.  The purpose of schools was to rank and sort students for careers in a blended, agrarian-industrial economy. 

Schools delivered very effectively on that mission, Murphy explained.  In other words, schools gave us exactly what they were designed to deliver, and still do.  The problem is that, because of external political, social, and economic forces, the mission of education has changed, but the structures remain largely the same.  The new mission focuses on educating every student to a high level of cognitive skill and proficiency, but also involves a heavy focus on a market-oriented ("customer relations"), approach to educational policy.

Murphy offered no specific strategies or solutions for approaching school improvement in this new era, but rather emphasized that all school improvement efforts must take this new paradigm into account.  In spirited questions and comments that followed, various audience members noted that the test-score obsession of current educational policy, while meant to help address the goal of educating all children, actually contributes to a watering down of high-level curriculum that would actually prepare students with the critical thinking skills needed in the new century.  Others noted the dearth of real jobs of college graduates and the failure of an "educate everybody equally" mentality to prepare students for jobs in technical fields that might not require a university degree.  And yet, there was strong consensus that we do indeed bear a moral imperative to educate students better than we have in the past, especially those from vulnerable populations.

Two things occur to me in reflecting on Murphy's talk.  The first is a point I have often made in my educational administration courses: I am not at all sure that the structure of schools as we now have them can ever meet the goals of the new educational paradigm.  In fact, I'm fairly convinced they cannot.  Schooling as we know it might very well need to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.  In doing so, I think various market-based reforms might play a key role.  Genuine innovation in education will only come from the kind of competitive climate that provokes creativity, risk-taking and new technologies and structures in every other sector of the economy.  Schools that are run by the government, maintain a near total monopoly on educational services, and are designed for a past era will not be capable of meeting this new challenge.

This is partly why I really loved Murphy's use of the word "industry" to describe education.  Because we are, indeed, an industry.  It just happens to be a socialized industry with all the bloat and inefficiencies associated with socialized industries throughout recent history (for a great take on this, including a critique of education from this same perspective, see Kevin Williamson's Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism).  Just as I've been emphasizing that teachers and principals must begin to think of their work as practice, perhaps we also need to start acknowledging that we do, in fact, work in an industry).

The second insight that arises for me has to do with how we train and support school leaders in light of this vastly changed educational paradigm.   Yesterday I attended a research session on the professional development needs of principals, and this morning I participated in a research roundtable discussion on the roles and career paths of educational leaders.  A theme that emerged again and again was the inadequacy of current structures of professional support to assist principals in managing the diverse challenges presented by today's schools.

A persistent theme was how principals struggle with the human dimensions of their work: communicating, building teams, managing conflicts, and navigating the stormy seas of their own emotional and physical needs.  Principals have always had these needs, of course, but the stakes have never been higher for successfully developing these skill areas, both in terms of school outcomes and for the principals personally.  A question that arose in the roundtable session was whether these skills can actually be taught, given that they also reflect disp0sitions that arise from deep with each person's individual psychology.

I am not sure if "taught" is the right word, but I have come to believe that these capacities can be developed within most people.  I question, however, if the current structure of principal training and professional development is up to the task or is even designed to do so.  It seems to me that most people need structures that facilitate and foster the development of deep self-awareness and self-reflection, and the attendant growth that can emerge as a result.  We must first know ourselves in an authentic sort of way, and then employ tools for becoming more whole, effective versions of who we are.

My work with the Enneagram, which I employ with several of my educational administration classes and the leadership development work I do via Contemplative Learning Solutions, is one example, but remains a fairly unusual dimension of leadership training.  If our industry has indeed changed in a seismic way, and I believe it has, then we must find more ways to embed these kinds of tools into the daily growth and development of all educational leaders. 

AERA preview

Tomorrow I'll be traveling to Vancouver, British Columbia, for the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).  Twenty-thousand educational researchers from around the world will share their latest work on a wide variety of topics.  In addition to presenting my own research, I'm looking forward to attending sessions on instructional leadership, formative assessment, holistic education, charter schools, and more.

My own paper, which I will co-deliver with my mentor Dr. John Keedy of the University of Louisville, will highlight the results of my 2008 dissertation study exploring the instructional leadership of successful school principals.  Using a theory of practice framework first developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon in the 1970's, my study illuminated the core values, beliefs, and assumptions of successful principals, examined how those underlying beliefs influenced their action strategies with a host of positive effects on teachers (the main mechanism by which principals influence student achievement), and examined how and whether the principals actively reflected on and refined their basic assumptions and instructional leadership action strategies.

 This research has led to a series of on-going studies using the theory of practice framework to craft a coaching protocol designed to help principals improve their instructional leadership.  I shared initial results of this research at last year's Kentucky Association of School Administrators summer institute, and with the support of a WKU new faculty research support grant I'm continuing to advance this work with area school districts.

Watch for follow-up blog posts and tweets about my AERA experiences in coming days.

Info sessions for WKU's revised principal preparation program

WKU's Department of Educational Administration, Leadership, & Research will host two information sessions in coming weeks about the launch of its revised principal preparation program.

The department hopes to begin with two cohorts in the Fall of 2012.  If interest permits, one cohort will be based in the Owensboro area while a second will be based on WKU's main campus in Bowling Green.  Information sessions will be held at the Owensboro Public Schools Central Office on Wednesday, April 18, at 5:00 p.m. and in Gary Ransdell Hall Room 2064 on main campus, Monday, April 23, also at 5:00 p.m.

The revision comes after  a decade of development at the state and university levels to improve the quality of principal certification programs and the candidates they graduate.  The new program will be Rank I only (candidates must have completed a Master's degree already) and will be structured in a cohort format featuring two, six-hour courses per semester over a three-semester period for Level I certification.  No summer courses will be provided as the program will be heavily field-based and will require school to be in session while course activities are underway.  A new 12-hour Level II program, completed with five years of earning Level I certification, will round out the 30-hour Rank I coursework.

Read more about the revised principal program here.  Contact EALR department chair Dr. Bud Schlinker, [email protected], for more information or to apply for the fall cohort.

Please encourage aspiring administrators who have not begun their coursework to attend one of the information sessions or contact the department to learn more.  Also remember that for students currently pursuing principal certification, all Level I and Level II coursework must be completed by Fall 2013.

Doc students: Dr. Miller to offer qualitative research course

An announcement arrived today from my WKU colleague Dr. Steve Miller, who is teaching EDFN 603 this fall.  The course will focus on using qualitative research methods (my own favored approach) and is geared to both master's level and especially doctoral students.  Dr. Miller's message follows:

Does this sound familiar? 

• “I hate statistics.”
• “I’m verbal, not quantitative.”
• “I just don’t ‘think’ quantitatively!”
• “I just have a feel for qualitative thinking.”
• “I could never understand all that math.”

 Most doctoral students have either heard or maybe even said something very similar.  It is no surprise, then, that many of these students are considering a qualitative dissertation.

What is SHOCKING, however, is that any students would even contemplate this WITHOUT having taken a qualitative research methods course.  They know little or nothing about qualitative methods.  Yet, many try to do just this.

 DON’T!  It is YOUR dissertation, but if you have not had a qualitative class you will have to depend so much on your chair and/or methodologist to get you through your research that it will, in effect, be theirs. 

 So, how do you avoid that ignominious outcome?  TAKE EDFN 603 this fall.

 See you then!

Dr. Miller

I recommend this course for all doctoral students, regardless of which methodology you think you might use for your own dissertation research.  Practitioner-scholars such as WKU's Ed.D. program seeks to produce should be well-versed in a variety of research approaches.  Dr. Miller is a brilliant methodologist and will make qualitative research accessible to students willing to work hard and stretch their skills.  The course will also help many students get greater clarity for their own research studies.

Fall registration begins April 11.

Wikipedia's reliability: implications for educators

At last week's WKU Doctoral Symposium George Mehaffy of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities argued that in our globally-networked digital age, the whole notion of peer review and the meaning of what makes one an "authority" has shifted.  Mehaffy argued studies now indicate that Wikipedia, the open-source, anybody-edit encyclopedia is as reliable as the venerated Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Googling around on this topic, I found a fairly comprehensive discussion of studies on Wikipedia's reliability and potential for bias...on Wikipedia.  The article is heavily sourced and includes a description of Wikipedia's editing processes which help contribute to its reliability. The bottom line: Wikipedia does indeed rival other sources for its reliabilty and "authoritativeness."

So what are the implications for educators?  First, I think we can be encouraged about the potential power of shared information in this digital age.  Online publishing of Wikipedia's open nature allows for the instant correcting or clarification of information.  Every human is prone to error and bias, and while groups are no less prone to these weaknesses, groups that are not insulated by common ideologies are less susceptible.

One of Mehaffy's points last week was that the age-old tradition of academic peer review (in which I am currently deeply  immersed as a new university faculty member and researcher), wherein a small group of "experts" judges the quality of new research and ideas, is potentially outdated.  Perhaps a better system of peer review is to put a study out there on the web and let the entire world review it.  Would the feedback and quality of subsequent revisions be better?

I have no opinion on the matter right now, but I'm intrigued with the possibilies.

From a teaching perspective, the question that immediately arises is whether students should be permitted or encouraged to use Wikipedia as a source in their own research and writing.  Perhaps the answer is that it depends on how the student is using it.  In good academic practice, readers should use Wikipedia (and other reference tools) only as a starting point and ultimately visit the primary and secondary sources cited in quality Wikipedia articles for their own work (and uncited information on Wikipedia articles is usually clearly identified).

This makes sense to me and is, in fact, how I use Wikipedia myself.

Mostly, I'm thrilled with the idea that anyone still makes students do actual research...