“Leadership is a word on everyone’s list said Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus…. The young attack it and the old grow wistful for it. Parents have lost
it and Police seek it. Experts claim it and artists spurn it, while scholars
want it. Philosophers reconcile it (as authority) with liberty and theologians demonstrate its compatibility with conscience. If bureaucrats pretend they have it, politicians wish they did. And everybody agrees there is less of it than there use to be.”
( Abigail Adams in a Letter to Thomas Jefferson, Quoted in:
Finger. J. 1993. Managing your school: No-nonsense strategies for today’s
school leaders-Vol.1. Kenmore: Ferfawn Publications. p. 88).
In the journey from the pre-service course
to the classroom, the teacher regularly encounters terminology that is used so
often, in many cases, words that summarize the key issues in education. These
are encountered with such repetition and frequency, that they risk being
overshadowed or made redundant. It would seem that “Student Engagement” or
simply “Engagement” may be such a word.
At issue here is the critical questions of Leadership, Pedagogy and Engagement.
The word Education derives from the Latin word Educaré (pronounced Edu-Car-A). It literally means to ‘draw out of’ or
to ‘lead out of’. By its very nature, education and thus a true educator is a
leader.
“Leadership can
be understood as a process of influence based on clear values and beliefs,
leading to a ‘vision’ for the school. The vision is articulated by
leaders who seek to gain the commitment of staff and stakeholders to the
dream of a better future for the school, its students and
stakeholders” (Bush, Glover. 2003, p12).
"To view and see knowledge in this integrated manner is both
sophisticated and the hallmark of the mature student."
They lead in a myriad of ways. They lead their colleagues by example,
demonstrating best practice in the classroom. They lead parents by embracing
their confidence and, to an extent, educate them also, as to why education in
the twenty-first century, is so different to when they were at school, most
likely last century. Finally, it means leading the students to a full and
robust knowledge of the subject at hand and the requisite skills needed to be
successful at the study of that particular subject. In leading, a true educator
would highlight the fact that knowledge is not discrete. Science can inform
Business Studies, Business Studies might well inform the Creative Arts, the
Creative Arts might well inform English or History or Geography or even the
Design subjects. However to view and see knowledge in this integrated manner is
both sophisticated and the hallmark of the mature student. At its essence then,
Leadership for
learning is defined as “leadership to
create a culture and values system focused on the learning of the individual
student” (West-Burnham, 2008, p24).
Sergiovanni pinpoints the indicators of success in
schooling, additional to external testing. “Pushed a bit further, parents and
teachers provide a more expansive view of excellence, which includes developing
a love of learning, critical thinking and problem solving skills, aesthetic
appreciation, curiosity and creativity, interpersonal competence and so on.
Parents want a complete education for their children” (Sergiovanni, 1999, p6).
Whilst it is hard to disagree with Sergiovanni’s list, indeed it demonstrates
learning but how do you assess areas such as aesthetic appreciation?
James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2002) in their seminal work ‘The Leadership
Challenge’, highlight the fact that leadership is both relational and
contextual. They propose a five-part model of exemplary leadership. In their
mind, the exemplar leader (or team):
Table 1: The Five Part Model
of Exemplary Leadership (See Kouzes, Posner, 2002, p13).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(See Kouzes, Posner, 2002, p13).
|
It is when leadership is shared and best practice
laid bare, that an approximation of what leadership for learning might look
like in the praxis of the classroom occurs.
Distributed leadership and the notion of teachers as leaders of learning is an
issue mooted by Smylie, Conley and Marks (2002). “The literature stressed the
importance to school improvement of leadership that was distributed and
performed across roles.” (Smylie, Conley, Marks, 2002, p172). They highlight
three models of distributed leadership.
Table 2: Three Models of
Distributed Leadership. (Smylie, Conley, Marks, 2002, p172-176).
Model One
|
Model Two
|
Model Three
|
Based on the work
of William Firestone.
|
Based on the work of Ogawa and Colleagues
|
Based on the work of Spillane and Colleagues.
|
‘Leadership is the performance of key tasks. Key
tasks are distributed.’
|
‘Leadership occurs through interactions with
others, not through actions. Leadership is unidirectional.’
|
‘Leadership is distributed in the dynamic web of
people, interactions, and situations.’
|
It would therefore seem reasonable to conclude, even on elementary grounds,
that the Pedagogy that a teacher adopts in the classroom, is reflective of
their preferred leadership style. Given that the four traditional styles are:
Authoritarian, Collegial, Democratic and Laissez-Faire, it is possible to see
the nexus between Leadership and Pedagogy. Think of the Laissez-Faire, classroom,
in which anything is allowed (except maybe learning!). A preference towards a
distributed leadership, in which the web of learning is seen as dynamic, is
more likely to give rise to a constructivist approach to Pedagogy, than a
belief that Leadership (and ipso-facto pedagogy / learning) is merely a set of
tasks to be achieved.
Linda Lambert (2003) focused her attention on the role of teacher leader and
linked this to teacher and leadership capacity within the school. “A high
leadership capacity school is one in which teachers choose to lead because
their environment has allowed them to do so” (Lambert, 2003, p36). An effective
way to build capacity amongst teachers, is through the formation of specific
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Based on the notion of ‘Quality
Circles’, the Professional Learning Community is more than just a forum for
talking about ‘company’ issues. They are, if conducted properly, forums in
which the professional knowledge, thinking and overall ability of the teacher
is both challenged and if open to it, simultaneously expanded.
"PLCs are forums in which the professional knowledge, thinking and
overall ability of the teacher is both challenged and if open to it,
simultaneously expanded."
|
West – Burnham (2008) has also noted the positive impact that distributed
leadership can have on learning. “The impact on pupil’s learning is far greater
if leadership is seen as a collective capacity across the school rather than as
the personal status of a few individuals....One of the most powerful potential
benefits of distributed leadership is to increase a sense of personal
responsibility and accountability – to remove dependence on school leaders and
so create a culture of interdependent learning” (West-Burnham, 2008, p27).
If leadership is known to have such a significant impact on student learning,
then it is incumbent upon System Leaders, School Leadership teams and indeed
the Teachers themselves, to create the opportunities in which this form of
leadership can be developed.
The formation of the Australian Institute for Teachers and School Leaders
(AITSL), goes some way towards addressing this. It is a question of time, as to
whether the AITSL standards for teachers and the AITSL standard for Principal,
set a minimum standard or encourage further discourse. ( see www.aitsl.edu.au ).
The dialogue between AITSL and the profession at present is very encouraging. What
is needed, is the refinement and rethinking of Pedagogy and the various
pedagogical models currently in play. A new paradigm for the twenty-first
century. In forming the leaders of tomorrow, we are also forming the
educational communities of the future. At the very essence of that, is how our
students learn.
Reference List:
Finger. J. 1993. Managing your school: No-nonsense
strategies for today’s school leaders-Vol.1. Kenmore: Ferfawn Publications. p.
88).
Kouzes, J. M., Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass.
Lambert,
L. (2003). Leadership capacity for
lasting school improvement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni,
T. J. (1999). Rethinking leadership. Glenview:
Lesson Lab Skylight.
Smylie,
M. A., Conley, S., Marks, H. (2002). “Building leadership into the role of
teachers” in Murphy, J. (Ed). (2002). The
educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st
century. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
West-Burnham, J. (2008). Leadership for personalising learning. Retrieved
2 April 2010 From: http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/docinfo?id=17239&filename=leadership-for-personalising-learning.pdf
© Copyright 2013. David John Ivers. Sydney
(Metropolitan) Australia | Twitter: @edu_ivers
Permission is given to reproduce this work for study, research or professional
development purposes, as long as correct and proper attribution is given. For
all other purposes initial contact with the author is via the Twitter Address listed above.
