Like a Hand in a Glove: Invitational Education Theory and Implementation of the Effective Schools’ Correlates

 February 28, 2021

Implementing Effective Schools Research has proven successful for promoting and sustaining optimal opportunities to learn for all students. Effective Schools Research (Lezotte, 1991) identified the following correlates as being present in all cases of an effective school:

1. Clear and focused mission

2. Climate of high expectations

3. Instructional leadership

4. Opportunity to learn/student time on task

5. Frequently monitoring student progress

6. Safe and orderly environment

7. Home-school relations 

 An Effective School’s mission, grounded in the seven correlates for reform, would expect success regardless of socioeconomic status (SES) of its students. Stakeholders would therefore need to make the interconnected seven correlates more powerful within its mission than the power of the low SES to deny opportunity. “Effective indicates that a school, teacher, or district is doing the right job. Based on our definition of an effective school, this term specifies that the school must attend to the twin policy pillars of quality and equity. Effective schools research has shown that the practices among effective schools have consistently been found to be more alike than different” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p 17).

Given the need to inter-dependently implement the seven correlates, educational leaders and all stakeholders would benefit from utilization of Invitational Education theory, which provides a framework for assessing and monitoring school climate. Rather than suggesting a quick fix, the Invitational Education framework encourages ongoing vigilance before affirming sustained change (Purkey & Novak, 2015; Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Strahan & Purkey, 1992). Vigilance is required because changing how a school operates requires transforming its people (Asbill, 1994). School reform requires systemic change, a metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps). This structural analysis of school climate discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).

School climate plays an important role in how stakeholders perceive the school (Anderson, 2016; Curry, 2009).  Evaluation of school climate reflects stakeholder perceptions of the social, emotional, and academic experiences of school life.  Stakeholders need to include students, administrators, teachers, parents, and support staff (Smith 2012).

The literature suggests leaders high in emotional intelligence may be more competent to influence, inspire, intellectually stimulate, and develop their staff to promote a culture of sustained educational success (George, 2000; Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005; Leithwood, Louis, et al, 2004; Moore, 2009; Ross, 2000; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Sanders, 2010; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002).  Inviting behaviors exhibited by the leader optimizes the school climate (Asbill, 1994; Purkey & Siegel, 2008; Schmidt, 2007; Smith, 2015).  A positive school climate results from relationships that flourish (Weymes, 2003). For increased function, the culture must be perceived as correct and valid. When perceived as functional, newcomers must then be taught the culture (Schein, 2009). Identifying the competencies that increase the conveyance and receipt of personal and professional development opportunities could optimize school climate for all stakeholders because people can only accept invitations that have been received (Purkey & Novak, 1996; 2016).

The effectiveness of school leadership remains contingent upon teacher acceptance (Matthews & Brown, 1976). Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions influence positive or negative responses to initiatives (Rokeach, 1968). Teachers’ perception of respect and trust exhibited by the principal correlates with both teachers’ and students’ morale, commitment, and achievement (Ellis, 1988). When a school leader effectively communicates a vision for success, models positive expectations, exhibits optimism, and utilizes inviting leadership practices, the teachers’ behaviors become positively influenced (Asbill, 1994; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000; Burns & Martin, 2010).

It is now assumed that intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (ICORT) exemplify the invitational leader’s mindfulness (Anderson, 2017).  Integrating the five ICORT assumptions into a system’s people, places, policies, programs, and processes, which Purkey and Siegel (2013) called the “five P’s” (p. 104) provide limitless opportunities to impact the total culture of nearly every organization. For a school system seeking to sustained success towards the learning for all mission, Invitational Education theory will facilitate interdependent application of all seven correlates of Effective Schools Research.

To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (February 28, 2021). Like a hand in a glove: Invitational education theory

    and implementation of the effective schools’ correlates. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

    http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Anderson, C.J. (2016). A correlational study examining demonstrated emotional
            intelligence and perceptions of school climate. (Doctoral dissertation).
            Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 10027119
 
Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and
            perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,
            23, 35-61. 
 
Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal
            practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management,
            New Mexico State University.
 
Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of
            inviting Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1),
            16-27. Retrieved from:
            http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf
 
Burns, G. J., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and

           female educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of
            leadership. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56. Retrieved
            from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv162010.pdf
 
Curry, C. C. (2009). Correlation of emotional intelligence of school leaders to
            perceptions of school climate as perceived by teachers. (Order No. 3387434,
            Indiana University of Pennsylvania). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 257.
            Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305061864?accountid=7374.
            (305061864).
 
Ellis, T. (1988). School climate. Research Roundup, 4 (2), 1. Retrieved from:
            http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED291154.pdf
 
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional leadership. Human
            Relations, 53 (8), 1027-1055 doi.org/10.1177/0018726700538001
 
Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the
            correlate: Solution Tree Press.
 
Matthews, K. M., & Brown, C. L. (1976). The principal’s influence on student
            achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 67, 11. doi.org/10.1177/019263657606040201
 
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
            From   research to results. Association for Supervision and
            Curriculum Development. Retrieved from:
            http://marzanoresearch.com/products/catalog.aspx?product=13
 
Moore, B. (2009). Emotional intelligence for school administrators: A priority for school
            reform? American Secondary Education, 37(3), 20-28. Retrieved from
            http://www.eiconsortium.org/members/moore.htm
 
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach
            to teaching, learning, and democratic practice (3rd ed.). Wadsworth
            Publishing Company. Retrieved from: http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html
 
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)
            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:
http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books
 
Purkey, W. W., Schmidt, J. J., & Novak, J. M. (2010). From conflict to conciliation: How
            to defuse difficult situations. Corwin Press. ISBN:
            9787452212104
 
Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach
 to professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from:
http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html
 
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: Theory of organization and change.
            Jossey-Bass, Inc. ISBN 087589013X
 
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
            Personality, 9 (3), 185-211. doi.org/10.2190/dugg-p24e-52wk-6cdg
 
Schein, E. H. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide. Jossey-Bass.
ISBN: 0470293713
 
Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal
        of Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from:
            http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv13.pdf
 
Smith, K. H. (2012, 2015). The History and Development of the Inviting School Survey: 1995-
      2012. Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice, 18, 57-64. Retrieved from:
http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv182011.pdf
 
Strahan, D., & Purkey, W. W. (1992). Celebrating diversity through invitational
            education. The International Alliance for Invitational Education
 
Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations.
        Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 319-331. doi.org/10.1080/714023844
 

Planning, Implementing, and Mentoring for Successful Co-Teaching

As a service delivery option, co-teaching utilizes a general education teacher and a special education teacher through shared instructional responsibility and accountability for a diverse group of students, including some with disabilities.  The goal of co-teaching is improved outcomes, reduced gap in achievement gap, and optimized success for ALL students. Co-teaching is premised on each educator bringing clearly identified and different types of expertise to the classroom, thereby blending their skills to create a classroom that is instructionally appropriate for each student whereby specially designed instruction is integrated into implementation of the general education curriculum. 

However, even when professionals are committed to co-teaching and prepared to implement it, barriers often arise related to the logistics of implementation as a sustainable service delivery option. The most frequently mentioned concern pertains to scheduling. This includes scheduling students into co-taught sections, populating co- taught sections with other students, assigning special educators and general educators to co-taught classes, and arranging for common planning time (Friend & Barron, 2014). 

In relation to planning and scheduling for effective co-teaching, Friend & Barron (2014) suggest a few universal principles must be heeded. When foundational concepts are either not understood or inappropriately reflected in district and school policies and practices, then scheduling for effective inclusive practices will suffer.  Specifically, stakeholders need to accept that co-teaching is not a cure-all.  Co-teaching should not be the only type of special education service offered within a school. Realistically, some students with disabilities benefit greatly from supplemental instruction in a separate setting while others might need extensive services in separate classes. 

Not all students with disabilities within general education classes need co-teaching as a service delivery model. Depending on needs based on the content area than a diagnostic label, some students with disabilities might succeed in general education without co-teaching. A student with disabilities should be assigned to classes accordingly to his or her present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), assessed needs, and IEP goals.  These diverse areas should form the basis for determining a student’s service delivery and schedule. 

Therefore, while some students with disabilities should have co-teaching on their IEPs for an entire class period or subject area, other students may need only partial support. Not all secondary students need co-teaching in all core academic areas.  Neither should elementary students with disabilities have co-teaching prescribed all-day as a matter of course. By being fully aware of the students’ needs and appropriate service options, stakeholders can then determine the most effective amount of co-teaching.

While grouping students with disabilities in co-taught classes is usually required to make service delivery feasible, when many students with disabilities are grouped into a single class then curriculum momentum can be compromised. Recommended proportions range from 20-40 percent of a class being comprised of students with disabilities. Of course, natural proportions are closer to 20 percent.  However, any model should be based on the assumption that the remainder of the students within the class exhibit a range of abilities and needs. Crucially, no classroom should be comprised of only struggling students (Friend & Barron, 2014).  

Co-teaching requires three components: co-planning, co-instructing, and co-assessing (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). Without all three, co-teaching as an effective service model is not occurring. Given teachers and administrators often question what constitutes a shared lesson an observational checklist may be beneficial. Is it sufficient for teachers to agree on a lesson one teacher has already taught before? Can teachers agree to take care of “their own” students, provided diverse students are in the same class- room? The following clarifies what is required of each of the three components to ensure that teachers and observers know how to optimize effectiveness in a co-taught inclusive classroom: 

Without sufficient co-planning, at best teachers are working together in a parallel or reactive manner. exemplify a special educator entering the classroom and asking, “So, what are we doing today?” When special educators are not expected to be content experts, they are placed at a disadvantage, and too often spend the class time catching up, figuring out the instruction, and later remediating when students are not able to access the instruction as originally presented. Another situation has the general and special educator taking a typical lesson plan and determining which teacher will do which part. This can often result in both teachers’ simply splitting up a lesson and delivering it exactly as the general educator would have if working solo, thereby resulting in the question, “What is special about special education?” (Murawski and Lochner, 2010).

The purpose of co-planning is for the special educator to have proactive input into the instructional process. By using his or her expertise in differentiation, accommodations, positive behavior support, and pedagogy, a lesson can be created that will enable more of the students to access and learn the curriculum the first time it is presented (Murawski, 2015). Students with disabilities can be more successful with the general education curriculum when their specific areas of need are proactively addressed by both teachers (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). 

As the in-classroom element of co-teaching, effective co-instruction is possible when two teachers with varying areas of expertise collaborate to provide quality instruction.  The results can be and should be inspiring. On the contrary, when two adults who do not believe in co-teaching or who do not respect one another as professionals are physically in the same classroom and do not interact, the result is often dis-heartening, discouraging, and ultimately a complete waste of time for the teachers and the students. Although it is fairly easy to determine when teachers are dynamic together compared to those who are apathetic together, a large continuum looms between for the teachers who are unclear as to how to successfully share the classroom. 

Teachers who co-teach well together are those who take advantage of the fact that there are two adults in the room. They engage students actively, use a variety of co-teaching approaches to regroup students, collect and share assessment information to better individualize for students’ needs, are open-minded and willing to be innovative. These teachers communicate with one another during instruction and provide classroom structure that is supportive of students.  They are also flexible to meet ALL students’ changing needs. It is clear that the classroom, as well as all the students in it, belong to them both and that they are both willing and capable of providing substantive instruction that utilizes their areas of expertise. Co-instruction does not look the same as in any general class. The input of the special educator is clear, resulting in strategies, mnemonics, and differentiated instruction. In a perfectly co-taught classroom, one would see two teachers enjoying each other and all students, who are clearly learning and benefiting from the positive instructional environment (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). 

Co-teachers view ALL students as “their kids” and consciously avoid “my kids” compared to “your kids” situations. This mindfulness extends to assessment, evaluation, and grading as well. General and special educators may have different frames of reference that will affect the way each views assessments. Often, a general educator more initially be more versed in curricula standards and whole-class assessments.  By contrast, the special education counterpart may be more familiar with individualized or alternative assessments. From the perspective of students with disabilities, this combination of specialization becomes beneficial given the standards-based focus of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2010) and need for individualized instruction and assessment mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Working together, effective co-teachers ensure that they are able to assess what students actually know as well as what they are able to demonstrate on formative, summative, standardized, or high-stakes assessment. 

There are many choices co-teachers can utilize to validly and reliably assess.  Being aware and open to each option is crucial. Co-teachers should become fully capable to describe or demonstrate how they plan to accommodate needs through diverse assessments that treat students as individuals in determining their mastery of content standards and curriculum. How can administrators assess the effectiveness of co-teachers in this regard? Certainly, looking at student grades is an indicator of co-teaching effectiveness.  For instance, do students with disabilities fail at a greater rate than typical students?  A single measurement should not be the only method of assessing students. Student improvement can be exhibited and documented in a variety of formative processes. Just as co-teachers need to be open to various methods of assessment, observers likewise need to know the variables that determine the collaborative effectiveness of the two teachers in an inclusive classroom. 

            When seeking to provide mentorship or professional development related to co-teaching dynamics, the role of an observer needs to be clearly understood and presented in advance.  Before walking into a co-taught classroom, an administrator or other observers need to know the goal of the observation and therefore be empowered to clearly describe what they want to collect, see, and hear (Peterson & Petersen, 2006). Observation literature indicates that to maximize feedback provided by observers, data need to be descriptive rather than evaluative (Cook & Friend, 2017).

Students with disabilities, those with English language needs, those who are gifted, and the typical learners in any classroom deserve to be instructed based on their individual learning needs. There is a wide variety of literature available on diverse learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the value of brain-based instruction. Effective teachers recognize that each student presents a unique learning profile and therefore every student benefits when education matches his or her profile (Lavoie, 2007; Levine, 2002). When alone, addressing the various learning profiles exhibited within the classroom can be daunting.  By contrast, working with a partner can be truly exciting and beneficial to all stakeholders. Co-teaching enables two teachers to collaborate in an effort to effectively plan, implement, and assess differentiated instruction.  For those teachers that may be new to co-teaching, an administrator needs to serve the role of supervisor, mentor, and support provider.  Confounding the needs of the teachers that may be struggling with their collaborative role in the inclusive classroom could be administrators that themselves do not feel sufficiently instructed on what they should be seeing in an effectively co-taught classroom and collaborative relationship.  The ability to observe, document, give feedback, and be an instructional leader for co-teachers requires time and experience (Murawski & Lochner, 2010).  

By utilizing the Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist (Murawski & Lochner, 2015) the administrator and co-teachers understand the specific items that should be asked for, looked for, and listened for during the observation of the co-teachers’ lesson and collaborative activities.  Crucially, the Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist helps guide the administrator or observers in their effort to shape and improve the co-teaching. When providing constructive feedback to the co-teachers working collaboratively within the inclusive classroom, the ultimate goal is to improve the learning of students with and without disabilities. 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 31, 2019) Planning, implementing, and mentoring for successful co-teaching.

[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Collaborative teaching: The co-teaching model. (2002). PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e522152004-001

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2017). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3). doi:10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Friend, M. (2008) Co-Teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.joci.ecu.edu/index.php/JoCI/article/view/17/26

Friend, M., & Barron, T. (2014.). Chapter 25: co-teaching: inclusion and increased student achievement. proven programs in education: classroom management & assessment, 121–125. Proven Programs in Education: Classroom Management & Assessment; R.E. Slavin (Ed). doi:10.4135/9781483365633.n25

Lavoie, R. (2007). Richard Lavoie: The Motivation Breakthrough. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e576212010-001

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Murawski, W. W (2015). Wendy Murawski Discusses Co-Teaching. SAGE Video. doi:10.4135/9781473930667

Murawski, W. W. (2015). Chapter 13: Creative Co-Teaching. What Really Works in Elementary Education, 203–216. Murawski & Scott (Eds). doi:10.4135/9781483390161.n14

Murawski, W. W., & Goodwirt, V. A. (2014). Chapter 21: Effective Inclusive Schools and the Co-teaching Conundrum. Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools. doi:10.4324/9780203102930.ch21

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2010). Observing Co-Teaching: What to Ask For, Look For, and Listen For. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183. doi:10.1177/1053451210378165

Peterson, K.D. & Peterson, C.A. (2006). How Principals Promote Effective Teacher Evaluation. (n.d.). Effective Teacher Evaluation, 16–23. doi:10.4135/9781412990219.d7

    There are myriad factors potentially influencing educational leaders and their potential effectiveness.  Effective leaders of sustainable learning organizations recognize certain factors are more influential than others for creating sustained success.  Effective leaders optimize the learning organization’s sustained success by:

·     Sharing common values to guide the organization’s collaborative vision (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011; Sheppard & Brown, 2009),

·      Inspiring stakeholders’ emotions toward innovation and right action rather than triggering fear-based immovability (Reason, 2010; Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007), and

·      Using institutional memory and symbolic language to influence cultural change (DuFour, et al.,2008; ). 

       Let’s examine and evaluate the influence of these factors upon the creation of a sustainable learning organization.  Effective Schools Research examines sustainable learning organizations and consistently finds “effective schools have strong and effective leadership” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 51).  A hallmark of effective leadership in schools is the ability to communicate the mission to all stakeholders, understand the principles and values needed to optimize learning, and possess the knowledge to manage the organization’s programs.  Therefore, knowledge of key factors influencing the creation and sustainability of the learning organization is essential. 

An effective school reaches clarity and consensus on the mission, core values, and beliefs.  It is then important to develop ongoing processes to avoid mission drift.  Effective schools strategically stave off mission drift when it periodically reviews and renews “the organization’s mission, values, and beliefs” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 67).  Educators benefit in many ways from working to develop a clear, shared vision (Dufour et al., 2008). 

It is effective practice for an organizational leader to assure the presence of a clear mission, shared vision, and non-negotiable values.  The purpose of this effective practice is to optimize the collective commitment to reinforcing the foundation of the learning organization’s culture.  Approaches for promoting this practice have been available to learning organizations for decades.  For instance, Anderson and Pigford (1987) cited earlier work by Rutherford to explicate the following five effective leadership qualities:

1.      Have a vision:  Work toward a shared understanding of the goals, progress toward their achievement and coordinate curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

2.      Translate the vision into action:  Work as a team, emphasize school wide goals and expectations.

3.     Create a supportive environment:  Promote an academically-oriented, orderly, and purposeful school climate.

4.    Know what's going on in the school:  Find out what teachers and students are doing and how well.

5.  Act on knowledge:  Intervene as necessary accommodating different teacher personalities, styles, and teaching strategies (pp. 67-68).

     A consistent exhibition of vision toward a clear mission, commitment to learning for all, and shared responsibility for success certainly appears to be the minimal ethos of an effective school.  Citing Jenkins, Louis, Walberg, and Keefe (1994, p. 72), Lezotte and Snyder (2011) posit the most significant feature common to world-class schools is the ongoing effort to become “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67).  A learning organization’s culture promotes collaboration, which is profound because the ethos of a school either promotes or suppresses collaboration between teachers and stakeholders. 

     Leaders must find a balance between motivating their learners and minimizing negative emotions.  While self-destructive schools gravitate toward fear and stress, institutions making a difference consistently exhibit love, courage, and hope (Reason, 2010).  Therefore, this range of emotions either positively or negatively affects organizational learning. 

     Diverse emotions can result in either ruminating or sagging emotions.  An effective leader does not leave the emotional tenor of a school to chance.  Rather, he or she promotes an emotional climate that focuses attention to optimize conditions for learning. 

Regardless if the perception is the need to accept or the need to overcome, change will be the result.  The greatest concern is the impact of such change upon the learning organization.  A trusting relationship between a leader and her or his followers is often based on how, when, where, and why the leader uses power (Bartram, 2007).  The ability to influence others to do something defines power.  Often the success or failure of a leader results from how and when she or he accesses and utilizes power through various mechanisms of rewards or punishments.  

     Leadership behavior affects stakeholder perceptions of trustworthiness.  This is important to researchers and managers interested in how leadership behaviors influence other areas of the organization (Caldwell & Hayes, 2007).  Key characteristics associated with most leadership theories include the ability to quickly assess situations, move accordingly for the benefit of the group, and to engender trust from followers (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007).  Quickly assessing situations and moving accordingly for the benefit of the group is what Roach et al (1999) called “wisdom in spontaneity” (p. 17).  Emotional Intelligence theorists call this social awareness and relationship management (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009).

     Ceremony and other structured memory construction activities exhibit the ability to form traditions within learning organizations that provide thoughtful reconstruction of historic events, thereby reinforcing particular values or beliefs.  The understanding of organizational events culturally frames the shared beliefs, values, and norms.  In this way, culture affects organizations at several levels.  Just as within society as a whole, an organization will also seek to preserve its own culture.  Thus, the creation of an effective learning organization requires the establishment of an organizational culture open to possibilities of what the institution can become. 

    Sustained improvement results when leaders of learning organizations structure time so institutional teams are empowered to meet regularly.  Effective leaders recognize goal achievement is necessary to sustain the improvement effort.  This commitment embraces the truth that teams outperform individual efforts because "learning not only occurs in teams but endures" (Schmoker, 1999, p. 12).

      Derived from personal experience and research, Reason (2010) posits a nine-step protocol for creating an organizational vision, reinforced by effective mental representations. 

Step One: Evaluating Personal Belief Systems

Step Two: Evaluating Context

Step Three: Evaluating Existing Mental Representations

Step Four: Evaluating Current Degree of Intention

Step Five: Establishing New Degrees of Intention

Step Six: Evaluating Current Belief Systems

Step Seven: Establishing New Actions to Support a New Vision

Step Eight: Reviewing the Learning Context

Step Nine: Continuously Reexamining the Vision (pp. 64-69)

         For instance; based on his or her own K-12 experience, virtually every adult has a mental model or mindset of a real school (Tyack & Cuban (1995).  This mental representation becomes omnipresent for him or her.  Such an internalized mental representation, relative to schools, is typically associated with strict rules about how a school actually works.  Therefore, to promote educational reform or institutional change, the negative mental representations held by stakeholders require reformation. 

        The quest to optimize learning at the highest levels is contingent upon perception, memory, and learning.  By rethinking or replacing older, less functional traditions, metaphors, or symbols, a learning organization can identify and promote new stories to create different mental representations capable of moving the organization toward positive change.  Perceived relevance affects attention.  Attention affects how effectively and efficiently learning occurs.  “The emotional tenor of a school is up to those who work in it” (Reason, 2010, p. 5).  Emotional states can affect individuals as well as organizations.

      As an organizational change strategy, storytelling is an integral tool because stories have the potential to create experiences; whereby a strategy is comprehended more diversely and personally (Adamson, Pine, Tom & Kroupa, 2006).  Therefore, “storytelling builds stronger teams and a stronger sense of community” (p. 36).  Images created through metaphorical language influence thought processes.  For instance, Jung (1964) wrote extensively on the instinctive nature of symbolic thought, suggesting symbols transcend cultures. 

        Identifying existing metaphors that are actually constructive and then replicating or expanding their scope optimizes the relationship between the learning organization and the organization’s culture.  Collective efficacy allows identification of the most positive aspects of an organization’s culture (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).  Thereafter, developing and perpetuating these messages could create effective, sustained change.

     Effective leadership produces collective, energized, collaborative commitment to the clear mission, shared vision, and non-negotiable values of an organization.  This alignment will deepen sustained, trustworthy, and emotionally fulfilling organizational learning.  By contrast, ineffective leadership exacerbates negative emotions and suppresses collaboration among stakeholders, which hinders organizational learning. 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 30, 2019) Sustaining organizational learning. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Adamson, G., Pine, J., Tom, V. S., & Kroupa, J. (2006). How storytelling can drive strategic change. Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), 36-41

Anderson, L., & Pigford, A. (1987). Removing administrative impediments to instructional improvement efforts. Theory Into Practice, 26(1), 67-71.

Bartram, T. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader.  The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 28(1), 4-19.

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J., (2009) Emotional intelligence 2.0.  San Diego, CA: TalentSmart

Caldwell, C., & Hayes, L. A. (2007). Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens. Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 261-281.:

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3),  3–13.

Immordino-Yang, M.H., & Damasio, A.R (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Retrieved from:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x/abstract

Jung, C. G. (1964) Man and his symbols London, England: Aldus Books in association with W.H. Allen

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Schmoker, J, (1999) The key to continuous school improvement (2nd edition). Alexandria, VA. ASCD

Sheppard, B., & Brown, J. (2009). Developing and implementing a shared vision of teaching and learning at the district level. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37(2), 41-59.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Applied Emotional Intelligence Behaviors Influence Teachers’ Perceptions of School Climate

        Despite the presence of difficult circumstances, effective schools sustain improvement through capacity building and equipping teachers to lead development and innovation initiatives (Harris & Chapman, 2002). Socialization provides a strategic process for studying the current culture and determining how it might need to change (Schein, 1984). Teacher and leadership development programs must provide high quality learning and teaching in schools. Ideally, quality results from leadership approaches that embrace “the principles of professional collaboration, development, and growth” (Muijs & Harris, 2007, p. 40).

      Effective Schools Researchers examined sustainable learning organizations and consistently found “effective schools have strong and effective leadership” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 51). Leader charisma, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation characterize a leaders’ ability to transform subordinate motivation and group performance (Bass, 1999; Northouse, 2010). In contrast to models of transformational leadership, which too often depend upon the charisma of the leader, distributed leadership approaches emphasize concepts such as democracy, empowerment, and autonomy, thereby providing a powerful tool for transforming educational leadership practice (Spillane, Camburn, Pustejovsky, Pareja, & Lewis, 2007). Yet, Storey (2004) found distributed leadership merely exhibits “an exercise in re-labeling” (p. 398). Sustained school improvement must rely upon a school-wide climate of high expectations for success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). Leaders promoting personally and professionally inviting opportunities for development provide an optimal model for success within today’s schools (Burns & Martin, 2010; Purkey & Siegel, 2013).

     It is essential that teacher preparation programs effectively and efficiently develop teacher leadership because research demonstrates clear correlation between student academic achievement and teacher quality (Whitehurst, 2002). As noted by Purkey and Novak (2008), invitations for personal and professional development must be conveyed and recognized as an explicit opportunity. Therefore, to be dependably inviting, school leaders need to have the skills to effectively convey and then check for receipt. Only then does acceptance become a possibility. The influence of emotional intelligence upon school climate has been researched (Anderson, 2016; Abdulkarim, 2013; Curry, 2009; Juma, 2013). However, the impact of demonstrated or applied EI upon one’s ability to extend, monitor, or receive the invitation as an opportunity remains unclear and will benefit from further empirical research.

      Previous studies (Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Burns & Martin, 2010) posited leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory encourages people to tap into their unlimited potential. IE theory includes vital elements needed for success within today’s educational organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). Graduate programs intending to develop highly qualified teacher leaders must seek to optimize the identification and development of correlates optimizing educational leadership (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2019). Such correlates promote sustained school success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).

      Winston and Hartsfield (2004) identified correlations between three of the four sub-skills of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and leadership behaviors that promote positive school climate. These behaviors include empowerment (Patterson, 2003; Wong & Page, 2003) and collaboration (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004). Climate-building behaviors also embrace teacher autonomy (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Winston & Hartsfield, 2004). Marzano and Waters (2009) identify the importance of “defined autonomy” (p.8).

       The empirical study by Anderson, 2016 increased understanding of how demonstrated or applied emotional intelligence behaviors correlate with the teacher’s perceptions of school and whether certain emotional intelligence (EI) sub-skills more or less influence perceptions of school climate related to IE theory. The findings can inform a university’s graduate-level programming, identify leadership factors that influence school climate, and guide future research on the impact of demonstrated emotional intelligence behaviors upon perceptions of school climate.

     Research by Momeni (2009) found dimensions of emotional intelligence explained 70% of employees' perceptions of organizational climate result directly from a manager's morale and behavior.  The awareness and management of emotions, as well as perception of emotions by others, provide critical elements for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2010).  However, as noted above, additional research is needed to examine the impact of demonstrated EI upon a teacher’s ability to receive, monitor, or extend an intentional invitation as an opportunity to optimize human potential. 

      Educators trained to develop their emotional intelligence as part of their professional leadership repertoire can proactively utilize both their cognitive and metacognitive skills (Brackett & Katulak, 2007). Invitational Education (IE) theory contributes to school effectiveness by the way that its leaders demonstrate care for, and support of, the efforts of others (Halpin, 2003; Purkey & Siegel, 2013). The basic tenets of IE theory exhibited by the inviting leader include intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (ICORT). Implementation of IE theory promotes ICORT (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Anderson 2017) and thereby provides a means of summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all worthwhile human endeavors (Burns & Martin, 2010).    

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (May 31, 2019) Applied emotional intelligence behaviors influence teachers’ 

             perceptions of school climate. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

             http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Abdulkarim, R. M. (2013). The relationship between a leader's self-perceived level of emotional

intelligence and organizational climate, as perceived by organizational members.

(Order No. 3587854, Grand Canyon University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 169.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1427344508?accountid=7374. (1427344508).

Anderson, C.J. (2016). A correlational study examining demonstrated emotional

                intelligence and perceptions of school climate. (Doctoral dissertation).

                Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 10027119

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions 

              of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61.

Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal

                practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management,

                New Mexico State University.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational

                culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.

                doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524907

Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-

                based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.),

                Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner's guide, 1-27. New York, NY:

                Psychology Press.

Burns, G. J., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female

                educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of

                leadership. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56. Retrieved

                from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv162010.pdf

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 3, 110–126. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2019). CAEP Accreditation

             Standards. Retrieved from

              http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-standards-and-report-forms

Curry, C. C. (2009). Correlation of emotional intelligence of school leaders to

                perceptions of school climate as perceived by teachers. (Order No. 3387434,

                Indiana University of          Pennsylvania). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 257.

                Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305061864?accountid=7374.

                (305061864).

Halpin, D. (2003). Hope and Education. eBook ISBN: 9780203468012 doi:10.4324/9780203468012

Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Leadership in schools facing challenging 

                    circumstances. Management in Education, 16(1), 10–13. 

                    doi:10.1177/0892020602016001030

Juma, D. S. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence of principals and the

                overall organizational climate of public elementary schools. (Order No. 3564904,

                Grand     Canyon University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 185. Retrieved from           http://search.proquest.com/docview/1411930824?accountid=7374. (1411930824).

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the correlates. 

             Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Loukas, A. (2007). What is school climate? Leadership Compass, 5(1). Retrieved from:

                https://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2007/LC2007v5n1a4.pdf

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington, In:

                Solution Tree Press

Matthews, K. M., & Brown, C. L. (1976). The principal’s influence on student

                achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 67, 11. doi.org/10.1177/019263657606040201

Maulding, W. S., Townsend, A., Leonard, E., Sparkman, L., Styron, J., & Styron, R. A.

                (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence of principals and student

                performance in Mississippi public schools. Academic Leadership (15337812),

                8(4), 67.

Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.

                Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications

                for educators. 3-31. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from:

              http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Reprints/EIreprints%20home.htm

Momeni, N. (2009). The relation between managers' emotional intelligence and the

                organizational climate they create. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 35-48.

                doi: 10.1177/009102600903800203

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (in)action: three case studies of 

                 contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 

                35(1), 111–134. doi:10.1177/1741143207071387

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

                Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-4129-7488-2.

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

                International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

                http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to

               professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

               http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., Pustejovsky, J., Pareja, A. S., & Lewis, G. (2007). 

                    Taking a distributed perspective in studying school leadership and management:

                    The challenge of study operations. Distributed Leadership, 47–80. 

                    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_4

Winston, B.E., & Hartsfield, M. (2004). Similarities between emotional intelligence and servant

                leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.

                Retrieved from 

                http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2004SLRoundtable/winston-       2004SL.pdf

Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T., & Druskat, V. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis

                of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly,

                13(5), 505-522.

Wong, P. T. P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model

                and the revised servant leadership profile. Paper presented at the Servant

                Leadership Roundtable at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. October 13.