Symposium Proposal - Bridging Theory and Praxis: A ...



Symposium Summary - Bridging Theory and Praxis through Professional Development for School Administrators: A University and School District Collaboration

Chair – Dr. Arnold Danzig, Arizona State University

The Learner-Centered Leadership (LCL) Program promotes educational leadership and focuses on the professional development of school leaders in urban settings. Currently, the LCL Program is a collaboration among Arizona State University’s Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, the Southwest Center for Educational Equity and Language Diversity, and four Phoenix school districts.

The LCL Program is in the final year of a three-year, $1.8 million U.S. Department of Education study on the effectiveness of leadership development. This proposed symposium provides five papers that consider the impact of the collaboration on both district and university participants.

Arizona State University (2004). Learner-Centered Leadership Professional Statement: Core Beliefs, Guiding Principals, and Strategic Actions. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.

Paper #1 – Learner Centered Leadership for Language Diverse Schools in High Needs Urban Settings: Findings from a University and Multi-District Partnership

Dr. Arnold Danzig, Arizona State University

Gary Kiltz, Arizona State University

Azadeh Osanloo, Arizona State University

This paper describes the purpose of the partnership between the university and four urban school districts. The primary function of the union is to help aspiring principals, newly hired, and beginning principals in their first years on the job as they negotiate the role of principal. This paper provides insight regarding some of the overall successes and challenges in the Grant collaboration and co-construction of a curriculum for the training and professional development of school administrators within a learner centered leadership framework (Lieberman et al., 1995; Danzig, 1999; Louis et al., 1999; DuFour, 2002; Murphy 2002a, 2002b; Danzig et al., 2004).

The Grant draws from a knowledge base that combines abstract and theoretical knowledge on educational leadership with the applied expertise of the four participating school districts by: (1) recruiting and training new candidates for school leadership positions, (2) enhancing expertise of beginning principals and assistant principals based on new knowledge and new understandings of the commitments required of educational leaders, and (3) encouraging the retention of expert school principals through participation in mentoring and coaching activities.

The combined efforts of university professors and school administrators in the planning and delivery of educational and professional development experiences are presented. Working as a team, principals, assistant principals, university faculty, experienced school administrators, and support staff collectively created courses, workshops and experiences that focused on the multiple issues that must be addressed on the job daily. These professional development activities have focused specifically on the roles of educational leaders in urban, language and culturally diverse schools. The paper illustrates the need for and benefit of collaborative structures within educational settings and why collaboration is a necessary ingredient of school reform.

Descriptive data are presented from participants’ evaluation of professional development activities with respect to how these activities affected their practice. Descriptive and causal-comparative data will be presented to shed light on the effectiveness of partnership activities and support services for participants in the leadership project before and during the implementation of project benchmarks.

Arizona State University (2002). Learner-centered leadership for language and culturally diverse schools in high needs urban settings. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.

Danzig, A., Kiltz, G., Szescy, E., Wiley, T., Osanloo, A., Boyle, C., González, Hunnicutt, K., and Macey, D. (2004). Creating an Environment for Learner Centered Leadership: An Emerging Model of Professional Development for School Administrators. 2004 Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Danzig, A. (1999b). The use of stories in the preparation of educational leaders. International Studies in Educational Administration 27(1), 11-19.

Du Four, R. (2002, May). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59 (8), 12-15.

Lieberman, A., Falk, B., & Alexander, A. (1995). A culture in the making: Leadership in learner-centered schools. In J. Oakes & K. H. Quartz (Eds.), Creating new educational communities (Ninety-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, pp. 108-129). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K.S., Toole, J., & Hargreaves, A. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In J. Murphy. & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 251-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, J. (2002a, April). A design paper for the Ohio Principals Leadership Academy: A discussion draft. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Murphy, J. (2002b). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 2, 176-191.

United States Department of Education. (2002). Application for grants under the school leadership program. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

Paper #2 – Language and Literacy Issue from a University Perspective

Dr. Elsie Szecsy, Arizona State University

Dr. Terrence Wiley, Arizona State University

Dr. Josué González, Arizona State University

This paper will synthesize historical patterns that led to various language and education policies in place in Arizona regarding English Language Learners (ELLs). The synthesis will provide perspective on the current situation for learner centered leaders in Arizona schools with respect to relationship between educational leadership and developing students’ language and literacy skills in a standards-based, data-driven educational policy context.

The Learner Centered Leadership project coincided with a number of historic milestones in 2004: the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, and the 30th anniversary of Lau v. Nichols. Though the three relate to each other and the Civil Rights Act, and Lau v. Nichols are dependent on Brown for setting the stage for them, Lau v. Nichols is perhaps the most important policy document addressing the civil rights of language minority students and their families to equitable educational opportunity in U.S. schools (González & Lam, 2004). Lau v. Nichols ruled that if students do not receive instruction in a language that they can understand, they are receiving disparate services from the school district, and the school district has denied them equal educational opportunity, regardless of the district’s intent.

Also important to Arizona educators is the standards-based movement promulgated at the national level through the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and in Arizona through Arizona LEARNS, Arizona’s response to NCLB. High-stakes testing requirements associated with these education policies are on a collision course with the Flores v. State of Arizona (1992) decision that decreed that the state did not adequately finance educational programs for English Language Learners (ELL) and the NCLB’s requirement that all subgroups of students participate effectively and equitably in the benefits of schools (González & Szecsy, 2004). The consequent Flores Consent Order (2000) required new procedures for reassessment of ELLs and greater monitoring by the state of school districts’ compliance with the Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA) and other pertinent federal and state laws.

The paper is of interest to school administrators who are attempting to be responsive to the ethnolinguistic diversity of their schools in the face of current federal education policy which no longer mandates, nor even encourages, neither bilingual education nor developmental English as a second language! Although NCLB does not directly outlaw bilingual education, its accountability provisions are likely to discourage bilingual education programs and encourage English-only programs without developmental ESL. Moreover, given the psychometric problems of obtaining reliable and valid test scores of language minority students and the lack of any conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of various accommodation strategies, school administrators will have great difficulty in demonstrating “annual yearly progress” with their LEP students on “annual measurable achievement objectives” (Wiley & Wright, 2004).

Thus, school administrators in Arizona and several other states, which have imposed English-only policies simultaneously with high states testing and school accountability measures, are situated between the proverbial rock (policy) and a hard place (the classroom)—in a dilemma attempting to lead their schools consistently with divergent policies. This paper will explore problems of practice in school leadership preparation and mentorship for this volatile educational policy environment and make recommendations for culturally competent educational leadership.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+). Retrieved January 28, 2004, from .

The Equal Opportunities Act of 1974. (20 USC Sec. 1703). Retrieved July 13, 2004, from .

Flores v. State of Arizona, United States District Court for the District of Arizona 160 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (2000).

González, J. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New Concepts for New Challenges: Professional Development for Teachers of Immigrant Youth. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

González, J. & Lam, H. (2004, April 23 and 24). Lau v Nichols at Age Thirty: Legacy, Current Status, and Future Prospects. Paper presented at the Language Minority Education Research Roundtable of Arizona, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

González, J. & Szecsy, E. (2004). The Condition of Minority Access and Participation in Education: 2004. In Arizona Education Policy Initiative, The Condition of Pre-K-12 Education in Arizona: 2004. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 56 (1974) Retrieved July 13, 2004, from .

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from .

Wiley, T. & Wright, W. (2004, April 23 and 24). Convergence of Language and Assessment Policies in Arizona: A Policy Analysis of NCLB, AZ Learns, and Proposition 203. Paper presented at the Language Minority Education Research Roundtable of Arizona, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Paper #3 – Purposeful Mentoring as the Foundation of Administrator Professional Development

Gary Kiltz, Arizona State University

Dr. Arnold Danzig, Arizona State University

Dr. Kay Hunnicutt, Arizona State University

Betsy Hargrove, Alhambra Elementary School District

Sean Hannafin, Creighton Elementary School District

The Learner Centered Leadership program (LCL) was established as a way to organize administrator professional development for four urban districts and, through a collaborative effort, provide opportunities for intimate dialogue and learning (Danzig, Kiltz, Szescy, Wiley, Osanloo, Boyle, González, Hunnicutt, & Macey, in press). A purposeful mentoring model has emerged as the process of sharing knowledge and resources across districts and between the university and district. Research has shown the importance of mentoring for prospective administrators who are in the process of doing an internship (Crow & Matthews, 1998; Daresh & Playko, 1992) as well as rising administrators who may be in their first couple of years in administration (Daresh, 2001; Daresh & Playko, 1997). The project team used a four-stage process to create mentoring capacity (Bess, 2000; Daresh, 2001; Zachary, 2002). These stages include initiation and preparation, negotiation, immersion, and reflection. What has developed from this process is an individualized experience that has become embedded into the daily activities of the participants and that focuses on specific professional goals and needs for those who are being mentored. In order to analyze the impact the purposeful mentoring process is having on the professional development and growth of those administrators involved, this paper will provide descriptive data that have been collected from evaluations of professional development activities as well as from specific interviews conducted with four mentoring pairs. The interviews provide data related to the experience of administrators as they have engaged in the purposeful mentoring process. Each pair consists of a mentor who is an accomplished administrator and a new administrator who is being mentored. Their perceptions of personal growth that have occurred as a result of the mentoring process provide insight into the value of using mentoring as a foundation of professional development for school administrators.

Bess, J. (2000). Teaching along, teaching together: Transforming the structure of teams for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crow, G. & Matthews, L.J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Danzig, A., Kiltz, G., Szescy, E., Wiley T., Osanloo, A., Boyle, C., González, J., Hunnicutt, K., and Macey, D. (in press). Creating an Environment for Learner Centered Leadership: An Emerging Model of Professional Development for School Administrators. In the 2004 NCPEA Yearbook. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Daresh, J. (2001). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Daresh, J. & Playko, M. (1997). Beginning the principalship: A practical guide for new school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Daresh, J. & Playko, M. (1992). The professional development of school administrators: Preservice, induction, and inservice applications. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Zachary, L. (2002). The role of teacher as mentor. In Ross Gordon (Ed.) Contemporary viewpoints on teaching adults effectively (pp. 27-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paper #4 – Professional Development for School Administrators: A Preliminary Analysis of How People Learn on the Job

Trisha Fritz, Arizona State University

Dr. Arnold Danzig, Arizona State University

Art Lebowitz, Phoenix Union High School District

Dr. James McElroy, Phoenix Union High School District

Nancy Kloss, Phoenix Union High School District

The roles that educational leaders fill are challenging. Superintendents and principals across the nation report that it is difficult to attract and retain talented leaders for schools and that better designed professional development opportunities need to be developed (Public Agenda, October, 2001). The National Staff Development Council (2002) recommended dialogue with principals to understand both the professional development opportunities given to them, and the types of professional development that would be helpful to them.

This paper considers the continuum of professional development provided to administrators in one urban high school district located in Phoenix, Arizona; all schools had a majority of Hispanic students and 20% of the students were English Language Learners. Given current conditions related to accountability and the pressure to raise test scores, there is a new priority on professional development and learning for practicing school administrators.

The research is based on a constructivist perspective, and grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Data sources included historical professional development documents, interviews with the principals, professional development training for the district, and direct observation of principals. Professional development in this school district included team building of principals, goal setting with specific timelines to accomplish these goals, and weekly team meetings. Some of the research findings include how administrators: 1) create an environment where strengths are recognized and used to set up successful experiences; 2) delegate responsibilities to other team members; 3) cultivate an environment in which people are motivated to exceed expectations. Based upon the research, the paper provides suggestions on the types of professional development activities that are helpful to practicing school administrators and includes ways that professional development activities can be improved.

Beck, L. G. & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes 1920s-1990s. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.

Council, National Staff Development. (2002). Principals and Professional Development Opportunities. Oxford, Ohio: National Staff Development Council.

Council, National Staff Development. (2004). Learning To Lead, Leading To Learn: Improving School Quality Through Principal Professional Development. Oxford, Ohio: National Development Council.

Crow, G. M. & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding One’s Way: How Mentoring Can Lead to Dynamic Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Daresh, J. C. (2001). Leaders Helping Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J. (ed.) (2002). The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sparks, D. (2002). Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. Oxford, Ohio: National Staff Development Council.

Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (1999). Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Institute for Policy Research Working Paper. Available: papers2.htm.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedural Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Paper #5 – Reconfiguring Master’s and Administrative Certification by Combining Theoretical, Craft, and Personal Knowledge

Dr. Anne-Marie Read, Arizona State University

Dr. Arnold Danzig, Arizona State University

Dr. Donna Macey, Arizona State University

Dr. James Jurs, Arizona State University

Dr. James Rice, Alhambra Elementary School District

Dr. Charlotte Boyle, Creighton Elementary School District

Dr. Lynne Spiller, Creighton Elementary School District

There is a growing effort to involve the researched in the process of inquiry through such approaches as action research, participatory action research, and action science (Argyris & Schön, 1991). A recurring theme of debate within these models of inquiry is the dilemma of ensuring rigor without sacrificing relevance (Elden & Levin, 1991). The challenge is even greater in praxis-oriented research (Lather, 1986), where the goal of the research is to move beyond description and explanation to that of transforming conditions of practice. Such is the case in leadership preparation programs, where reflection, action research, and self-study are utilized to foster the development and evaluation of critically reflective leaders (Bell, 1996; Shapiro, 1994; Zigler, 1994). Though the rigor of self-study research may be enhanced by the obligation to monitor one's own performance (Munby, 1995), the establishment of trustworthiness is also predicated on a readiness to make aspects of the study problematic and subject to the scrutiny of others (Northfield, 1996; Polkinghorne, 1983). This requires a willingness on the part of leaders (and teachers of leaders) "to make themselves vulnerable and to put their own reasoning and actions on the line, subjecting them to the same scrutiny to which they subject the reasoning and actions" of others (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985, p. 269).

This paper explores multiple ways in which university faculty and school district administrators collaborated in the development and delivery of courses in a master’s/certification program in educational administration. The impetus for the collaboration was the Learner Centered Leadership Grant. Preliminary conversations between faculty and administrators led to a revised set of course titles to be delivered in the program and resulted in the co-development and co-teaching of courses among university professors and school district administrators including 3 superintendents and director of research from participating school districts. This paper describes some of the content revisions that were made, some of the experiences of practitioners in co-teaching courses, and some implications for future course development bridging research, theory, and practice. After completing their first internship, participant data were collected concerning course content, usefulness and applicability. Summary recommendations for additional knowledge/experiences that would be beneficial prior to starting a second internship were described using descriptive statistics including bar charts and histograms.

The paper also describes, and analyzes the processes and outcomes of action-oriented and self-reflective capstone experience at Arizona State University. Serving as a culminating experience in educational leadership programs, the capstone course involved graduate students in an action-oriented and critically self-reflective investigation of their leadership development while enrolled in their respective program. Within the context of the capstone experience, students analyzed artifacts and documents from previous courses to demonstrate how they had grown and developed as leaders. They conducted an action research project within the context of their year-long internship to ascertain how others perceived their development as leaders, comparing their findings to internal and external expectations of effective leaders (e.g., professional standards). The results of each student's investigation formed the basis of a summative narrative that: 1) described his or her developmental journey as a leader; 2) assessed the status of that development; and 3) outlined plans for future growth and development. A major goal of the capstone experience in both programs was to facilitate for these aspiring leaders the internalization of strategies for life-long learning and development as well as the capacity to monitor and evaluate the efficacy of that development.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared. (pp. 85-96). In W. F. Whyte (Ed.) Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bell, E. D. (1996). To create self-renewing schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan-U.S. Teacher Education Consortium (JUSTEC) (Naruto City, Shikoku, Japan, July 15-18, 1996). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 657).

Elden, M. & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. (pp. 127-142). In W. F. Whyte (Ed.) Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lather, P. (August, 1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-274.

Munby, H. (1995). Gazing in the mirror: Asking questions about validity in self-study research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA. April 18-22, 1995). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 726).

Noffke, S. E. (1995). Action research and democratic schooling: Problematics and potentials. In S. E. Noffke & R. B. Steven (Eds.) Educational action research: becoming practically critical (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Northfield, J. (1996). Quality and the self-study perspective on research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (New York, NY. April 8-12, 1996). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 034).

Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Shapiro, J. P. (1994). Towards the preparation of ethical educational administrators for divers communities: Exploring "Self," Content and Pedagogy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration (Philadelphia, PA. October 28-30, 1994) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 876).

Smyth, J. (1992). Teachers' Work and the Politics of Reflection. American Educational Research Journal,29 (2) 267-300.

Zigler, T. A. (1994). A case study evaluation of the reflective process in a preparation program for educational administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-western Educational Research Association. (Chicago, IL. Oct. 12-15, 1994). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 005).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download