Leading for Effective Learning: IV & V

Part IV & V

Part IV
Leadership and Learning/Instruction:

The school reform agenda has created new initiatives which require the consideration of alternative views of learning and reframed views of leadership. The role of the school leader has begun to be framed, as Murphy & Louis (see reference) suggest, to include multiple components: servant, person in the community, moral agent, organizational architect, social advocate, and educator. “As we move toward the 21st century, principals must be able to forge partnerships and build strategic alliances with parents, with businesses, and with social service agencies. They must lead in the efforts to coordinate the energy and work of all stake holders so that all the children in their schools are well served”. This dynamic role challenges a school leader to leave the top of the management structure of the school organization and become the center attraction in the newly defined “network of human relationships and function as a change agent and resource” (Murphy & Louis quoted in Chapman, 1990, p.227). A primary responsibility of this “change agent” is to promote growth and development of student learning and teacher beliefs about instruction strategies and practices. One of my most favorite educational philosophers, Maxine Greene suggests in her book Releasing the Imagination that “...classrooms ought to be nurturing and thoughtful and just all at once...[and] ought to resound with the voices of young people in dialogues always incomplete because there is always more to be discussed...”. The school leader must channel teacher discussion and focus on the core issue of children learning while recognizing that children must interact during the learning process. This not only provides oral language experiences but also improves the child’s overall retention and understanding of what is being learned. W.S. Carlson tells us to recognize that “the meaning of classroom talk is context dependent and ...contexts are constructed and modified by speakers in the give and take of conversations”.

I had occasion to observe a school leader engaged in dialogue with another teaching team; they explored the traditional classroom where the focus was on books, teachers “teaching”, and other unilateral sources for learning. It became apparent to this collaborative team that successful learning occurred when children were engaged in their learning activities in ways that would be useful to them. During a two week period recently, at random moments, the school leader and this team engaged in some “talk time” as it became available. Cooperatively made goals, group problem solving, students accountable individually and collectively, became the topics they considered for the development of an interactive learning classroom where the atmosphere would be nurturing and supporting for all. Teachers and students would engage in dialogue that established a process for learning with joint responsibilities and mutual growth. They understood it was crucial for children to be part of the development of their learning by engaging in dialogues with adults about common interests. This would allow the child to express personal beliefs and begin to comprehend the adult perspective. Engaging children in their learning, making them the designers of, rather than objects of instruction, and connecting their personal experiences to their needs, would create relevant learning.

This, however, flies in the face of current NCLB guidance. With the school leader assuming a coaching role by guiding and facilitating discourse, this team began to recognize, through reflective dialogue, that children needed to become developers of their education. They no longer would be the object of a lesson taught or information imparted but rather learners who were decision makers, problem solvers, and communicators in their own right. They discussed further that student interactions were the means to enfranchise the learner. Conversations occurring between students provided opportunities for all members of a heterogeneous classroom, having varied abilities and interests, to sparkle in their own right. Like collaborative teaching, collaborative learning, unlocking the capacities of the group, is always more powerful and has greater potential than individual learning. Their discussions incorporated interactive learning approaches: “increase student achievement, improve student self-esteem, improve student understanding and retention of material, and enhance the student’s desire to learn now, and throughout the students life…” as Lyman & Foyle tell us, became a primary concern of this teaching team through the guidance and encouragement of the school leader. Here

I’m reminded of Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Successful People. He tell us that in leadership, as in life, to be successful we must move trough the levels of ‘dependency’ and ‘independency’ to the level of ‘interdependency’ where, embracing collaborative effort and trusting members of our collaborative partnerships we are able to achieve far more than we might striving independently. Would that not also be true of student learning? Yet where is the school leader or district administrator who would empower and enable that culture to thrive in a high stakes assessment driven world?

Part V
Conclusion:

Seymour Sarason asks if it is necessary for each school to have a principal. After gathering many responses the only commonality he was able to discern was that the question itself was an open and interesting one. His single question resulted in the development of many other questions relating to school leaders, their practices, roles, and responsibilities. It is consistently reported that school leaders are critical to the development of a school culture, student learning, and professional growth. Journals and books are filled with the when’s, the how’s, and the why’s of school leadership. Some journals are devoted exclusively to school leaders and their practice; the do’s and don’ts of staff development, instruction, management, and community involvement.
Who the school leader is and what she or he does has direct implication for the growth and improvement of any school. So, the quest of addressing the re-culturing of schools through leadership should always be at the center of any student outcome discussion. As suggested at the onset of this monograph, there seem to be more questions raised than answered. Maybe that’s simply the way it is with school leadership. A role in the middle with much demanded of it, much expected, but little realized! One wonders....