How to Advocate for Inclusive Education and the Learning for All Mission

Before beginning this month's discussion, please reflect upon your commitment to welcoming and successfully educating all students. All means regardless of the students’ current abilities, gender, or socio-economic status. In this endeavor, consider the extent to which you empower your colleagues to develop high quality inclusive educational environments? What do you consistently model to promote professional learning communities in your school to develop inclusive opportunities, resources, school-based guidance and access to local and national best practices or experts? 

 Researching the most significant feature common to world-class schools, Lezotte and Snyder (2011) found a continual effort toward becoming “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67). This was evidenced by a consistent exhibition of a clear vision leading toward the desired mission, commitment by all to learning for all, and sharing the responsibility for success of the mission.  These certainly appear to be the minimal culture exhibited by an effective school.

As we begin considering the power of effective advocacy, let’s agree that effective leaders exhibit the ability to inspire change despite facing complex bureaucracies, competing interests, lack of funds, and a range of stakeholder priorities. The ability to effectively advocate for focused change is increased through additional training or utilization of research-based action models.  While most action research approaches utilize a similar circular model, there are approaches designed to advocate for specific challenges.  For instance, the Coherence Lab's theory of action addresses the needs of historically marginalized people by: 

• Supporting educational leaders to coherently focus and collaborate on key priorities, cultivating trust amongst diverse stakeholders, and build intentional focus on equity within policy-making and decision-making processes.
• Developing teams of education systems leaders to develop solutions for complex problems and to scale or sustain inspiring and empowering change that support educator
• Identifying school leaders and teachers who share priorities and policies and are equipped to champion school-based continuous improvement and optimal student experiences and learning outcomes, especially for those who have been historically marginalized.

The Coherence Framework illustrated below exhibits the collective and interdependent elements supporting coherence-building.  Note, that as with most action-research approaches, the framework intentionally circular.  Coherence work is deeply interconnected and never ending.

As a tool for effective advocacy and systems change, observe that the framework is divided into four elements.  Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale. Element 4: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

 

In the endeavor to “Build Focus and Coordination” effective advocates and systems change leaders should seek to establish (a few) priorities, model desired collaboration and remove obvious obstacles.

Effective advocates and systems change leaders seek to build a shared vision.  They identify, plan, model, the pursuit of clearly-defined priorities. They identify how attainment would be measured. They identify distractors, inefficiencies, or redundancies related to these priorities. They help others to know when to say no to these obstacles or barriers to clear alignment with to the identified priorities. Beginning with district leadership, a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates NNG to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

Effective advocates and systems change leaders create a culture of collaboration.  While difficult, collaboration must be more than aspirational.  By promoting a culture rooted in collaboration, effectiveness in this area is exhibited in the ability to differentiate between instances when communication or coordination are more powerful and necessary than collaboration. The development of an effective collaborative culture results from understanding and embracing the interdependency of the improvement process rather than merely undertaking elemental processes for change. 

Effective advocates and systems change leaders can identify and willingly address the systemic barriers, inertia, outdated tools and unresponsive processes that allow fragmentation to persist. Doing anything for the sake of compliance is seen as part of the problem.  Rather, effectiveness is exhibited by management that focuses upon the implementation and attainment of core priorities.

Educators benefit in a number of ways from working together to identify a clear, shared vision, developing a collaborative culture focusing on learning, engaging in collective inquiry, remaining action oriented, committing to continuous improvement, and being results oriented (Dufour et al., 2008).  The six elements of an effective PLC promote learning by doing.  As with many action-based processes developed for sustaining success, the six elements work most effectively if treated as an interdependent, cyclical process. 

So, as we continue examining how to exhibit advocacy for inclusive education and the Learning for All Mission, reflect upon what you have already done in relation to these needs.  Consider your efforts to establish your school’s (or class’s) non-negotiable goals (NNG) (Marzano & Waters, 2009). How would you rate your efforts to model effective collaboration?  What has been most difficult in seeking to remove obstacles to desired change? 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2022). How to advocate for inclusive education and the

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

 

 

References

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

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

 

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

           correlates. Solution Tree Press.

 

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press

 

Explicit Development of Emotional Intelligence Skills to Improve Special Education Teacher Leadership

As a general construct, emotional intelligence encompasses emotional, personal, and social abilities influential upon one’s overall capability to effectively deal with environmental demands and pressures (McCallum & Piper, 2000). Emotional intelligence was further defined by Schutte, Malouff, Bobik, Coston, Greeson, & Jedlicka (2001) as the ability to adaptively recognize, express, regulate, and harness emotions. Diverse cognitive or emotional intelligence skills vary by age, gender, and developmental level (Gardner, 1995), which thereby impacts one’s level of competency or FLOW (Csikszentmihaly, 2013).

Accountability of teacher preparation and graduate leadership programs remain an ongoing process. Both the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2019) and the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP, 2022) provide standards that expect teacher preparation and graduate leadership program curriculum to address leadership skill development. Emotional intelligence has been linked to effective leadership (Goleman, 2002, 2008b). Unfortunately, within too many accredited programs, emotional intelligence behaviors are implicitly presented rather than explicitly taught and thereby reliably assessed. However, a study by Anderson (2017) indicated a direct correlation between a leader’s demonstrated emotional intelligence behaviors in the workplace and stakeholders’ perceptions of optimal school climate,

Outcomes of Anderson’s (2017) research noted it is not yet known if and to what degree public schools that are led by leaders exhibiting high emotional intelligence (EQ) would have teachers exhibiting high EQ.  Furthermore, would such schools be more likely to then be perceived as intentionally inviting, having students with higher socio-emotional skills, or have comparatively more diverse learners receiving education in an inclusive setting?  These questions invite further research on the impact of typically demonstrated emotional intelligence and effective teacher leadership within special education settings.

 A study by Byron (2001) found institutes of higher education (IHE) that focus upon emotional intelligence behaviors produced successful outcomes. However, Cobb and Meyer (2000) cautioned that any program seeking to develop emotional intelligence skills “should be empirically defensible, measurable, and clear enough to serve as a basis for curriculum development" (18).  For instance, Sanders’ (2010) quantitative study examined the perceptions of professors that focus upon educational leadership in their work within IHE. Specifically, Sanders sought to identify the professors’ understanding of competencies related to emotional intelligence and the extent to which these competencies were being included within their IHE teacher leadership programs. Left unanswered was whether or to what extent the teacher leaders’ demonstrated emotional intelligence related to stakeholders’ perceptions of optimal school climate

Given teaching is considered one of the most stressful occupations (Palomera, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2008), increasing the importance of emotional intelligence skills training is crucial because professional development in emotional intelligence skills can support teachers’ coping skills within a stressful environment. Teacher burnout becomes more predictable in relation to stress. By contrast, teachers exhibiting high emotional intelligence use more positive, well-adapted, coping strategies to deal with different sources of stress at school, thereby feeling greater job satisfaction (Palomera et al., 2008).

Teacher leadership can be present in different forms for varied purposes, including management, instruction, and school reform. Teacher leadership may be structured either formally or informally as it evolves through presented opportunities and explicit needs within schools. Leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory encourages people to tap into their unlimited potential (Purkey & Novak, 2016). Based on her meta-analysis, Billingsley (2007) found support in the literature for the expectation that serving the needs of students with disabilities requires multiple layers of leadership across school-wide and district-wide levels. Therefore, it makes sense that an intentionally inviting leader’s increased ability to effectively interact with diverse stakeholders would mitigate barriers that confront teacher leaders and their ability to support diverse learners.

To leverage the social, structural, and fiscal, resources beneficial for students with disabilities York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke, and Ghere (2005) suggested teacher leaders should provide the vision, direction, and plans for special education and encouraged prospective teacher leaders to collaborate and advocate across multiple levels within their educational systems.  As a result, prospective teacher leaders would learn to project a concrete understanding of the correlation between the degree to which they are connected to stakeholders within the school and the degree to which they can influence diverse learners’ ability to be connected, feel supported, and optimally succeed within the culture of that school.

Through their educator and leadership preparation programs, every IHE can benefit from encouraging teaching practices that require increased competence in emotional awareness as well as cognition. The results of a study by Rojas (2012) asserted three needs for optimal emotional intelligence development among prospective teachers:

1.  Development of emotional intelligence begins with a commitment to change.
2. Application of emotional intelligence learning is optimized within environments favorable to emotional intelligence development.
3. Pursuit of an ideal allows interdependent application of all other emotional intelligence competencies.

Within the context of emotional intelligence, at least two perspectives are possible: maximal emotional intelligence performance and typical emotional intelligence performance (Gignac, 2010). Typical performance is a more reliable indicator of actual behavior (Sackett, Zadeck & Fogli, 1988). Gignac (2010) and Palmer, Stough, Harmer & Gignac (2009) suggest typical emotional intelligence is purely relevant to the actual demonstration of emotional intelligence skills. Therefore, typical emotional intelligence performance perspective grounds the Genos Emotional Intelligence inventories (Palmer et al., 2009).

Five factors that can be influenced by every leader’s demonstrated emotional intelligence provide a specific framework that contributes to school success or failure. The five powerful factors: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five P’s) become highly significant due to their separate and combined influence (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). Interdependently, the Five P’s provide limitless opportunities for evaluation and development of organizational climate. Grounded in Invitational Education theory, the Five P’s “address the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p. 104). Therefore, the Five P’s contribute to the creation of a positive school climate and ultimately a healthy and successful organization (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).

As noted above, various elements produce an effective educational leader. Clearly, emotional intelligence competencies have been correlated with leadership potential (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002; Dries & Pepermans, 2007). Yet, further examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective educational leadership remains an ongoing need. Increased understanding of emotional intelligence as a concept and development of participants' emotional intelligence will further enhance any IHE’s leadership development programs (Sadri, 2012).

The field of education would benefit from further understanding the correlation between themes such as emotional intelligence, perception of school climate, and effective leadership capable of monitoring and adjusting indicators of success that optimize and sustain educational reform. The awareness and management of emotions, as well as perception of emotions by others, provide critical elements for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2010). Ideally, this article positively influenced your acceptance that our constantly and rapidly evolving society, will benefit from resilient leaders that possess and demonstrate high levels of emotional intelligence.  Therefore, you are intentionally invited to become an advocate for explicit development of emotional development skills as part of every IHE’s teacher preparation and graduate leadership programs.

 

 

To Cite:

Anderson, C. J. (July 30, 2022). Explicit development of emotional intelligence skills to improve special education teacher leadership. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61.

 

Billingsley, B. S. (2007). Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special

            education leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 163-176. doi:10.1080/09362830701503503

 

Byron, C. M. (2001). The effects of emotional knowledge education in the training of             novice teachers. (Order No. 3014883, Columbia University Teachers College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 103-103 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/251642822?accountid=7374. (251642822).

 Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1101–1113 doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00216-1

 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

 Cobb, C.D., & Mayer, J.D. (2000). Emotional Intelligence: What the research says. Educational Leadership. 58(3). 14-18. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov00/vol58/num03/toc.aspx

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2019). CAEP Accreditation Standards.           Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-standards-and-report-forms

 

Csikszentmihaly, M. (2013). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention (Reprint edition.). New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 9780062283252.

 

Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to identify high potential: A metacompetency perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(8), 749–770. doi:10.1108/01437730710835470

 

Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi

            Delta Kappan. 4. 200- 209. Retrieved from:

https://learnweb.harvard.edu/WIDE/courses/files/Reflections.pdf

 

Gignac, G. E. (2010). Seven-Factor model of emotional intelligence as measured by

            Genos EI: A confirmatory factor analytic investigation based on self- and rater-

            report data. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 309-316

doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000041

 

Goleman, D. (2006a). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

 

Goleman, D. (2006b). The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 76–

            81. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept06/vol64/num01/toc.aspx

 

McCallum, M., & Piper, W. (2000). Psychological mindedness and emotional

            intelligence. In R.Bar-On & J. Parker (Ed.), The Handbook of Emotional

            Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home,

            School, and in the Workplace (pp. 118-135). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  ISBN:   0-7879-4984-1

 

Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Harmer, R., & Gignac, G. E. (2009). The Genos Emotional

            Intelligence Inventory: A measure designed specifically for the workplace. In C.

            Stough, D. Saklofske, & J. Parker (Ed.), Assessing emotional intelligence:

            Theory, research & applications (pp. 103-118). New York: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_6

 

Palomera, R., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Brackett, M. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence

            as a basic competency in pre-service teacher training: some 135 evidence.

            Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(2), 437-454.

            Retrieved from: http://www.investigacion-            psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/15/english/Art_15_276.pdf

 

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J.M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (2^nd ed). The International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from: https://www.invitationaleducation.net/product-category/books/

Rojas, M. (2012). The missing link: Emotional intelligence in teacher preparation. (Order

No. 3495309, Arizona State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 220.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/923616326?accountid=7374.

(923616326).

 

Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and

maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 482–486.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.482

 

Sadri, G. (2012). Emotional intelligence and leadership development. Public Personnel

 Management, 41(3), 535-548. doi.org/10.1177/009102601204100308

 

Sanders, S.C. (2010) Emotional intelligence, a necessary component of educational

            leadership programs, as perceived by professors of educational leadership

            (Doctoral Dissertation).

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Bobik, C., Coston, T.D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., et al.

            (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social

            Psychology, 141(4), 523-536. doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600569

 

York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive

            education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal

            of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. doi:10.1080/1360311042000339374

  

Demonstrated Leadership and the Pursuit of Ethics in Special Education

When teachers are provided on-going opportunities to learn through experiences, experiment with new ideas, and then creatively implement new programs; they are more likely to become teacher leaders in both their schools and communities.  These opportunities are beneficial by allowing prospective teacher leaders to develop broader perspectives related to the identified needs within schools and across the district.  This encourages reflection about their own practices and provides variety in their work and recognition of their expertise.  These roles and opportunities thereby influence others and serve as critical forms of ethical renewal for the field of special education.

The great divide in education may not be between general and special educators but rather between community ethics compared to professional ethics.  Although values and ethics are frequently used interchangeably, the two terms are not identical. Values pertains to beliefs and attitudes that provide direction to everyday living, whereas ethics pertains to the beliefs we hold about what constitutes right conduct. Ethics are moral principles adopted by an individual or group to provide rules for right conduct. As noted by Remley and Herlihy (2016), ethics are aspirational goals representing the maximum or ideal standards set by the profession, practiced through your professional behavior and interactions.

If you agree that it is essential to place principles before personalities, then as an ethical professional you would seek to integrate virtue ethics and principled ethics to reach better ethical decisions and policies. Let's take this moment to differentiate between principled ethics and virtue ethics. Principled ethics are a set of obligations and a method that focuses on moral issues with the goals of solving a particular dilemma or set of dilemmas and establishing a framework to guide future ethical thinking and behavior (Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996). By contrast, virtue ethics focus upon the professional's character traits and nonobligatory ideals to which she or he aspires rather than on solving specific ethical dilemmas.

Reflecting upon principled ethics we tend to ask, ‘Is this unethical?’ By contrast, in the pursuit of virtue ethics we might reflect upon whether one is doing what is best for his or her followers, clients, or students. Crucially, virtue ethics requires consciousness of ethical behavior. Therefore, the virtuous professional would deem it unethical to use approaches or techniques that might not result in the greatest benefit to her or his followers, clients, or students or to use any techniques to which he or she has not been thoroughly trained, even if their use might not be prohibited in practice.

Therefore, virtue ethics focus upon ideals rather than obligations and on the character of the professional rather than on the action itself. Thus, the intentional demonstration of principles before personalities.  Five characteristics of virtuous professionals were described by Meara et al (1996).  These were:

·       Virtuous agents are motivated to do what is right because they judge it to be right, not just because they feel obligated or fear the consequences.

·    Virtuous agents rely on vision and discernment, which involve sensitivity, judgment, and understanding that lead to decisive action.

·      Virtuous agents have compassion and are sensitive to the suffering of others. They are able to take actions to reduce their clients’ pain.

· Virtuous agents are self-aware. They know how their assumptions, convictions, and biases are likely to affect their interactions with others.

·  Virtuous agents are connected with and understand the mores of their community and the importance of community in moral decision making, policy setting, and character development. They understand the ideals and expectations of their community.

So, how can special educators become empowered to always demonstrate principles before personalities? Finding few references to the leadership roles of special educators, Billingsley (2007) explored potential contributions of teacher leadership for special education by reviewing select teacher literature from general education-- including the “emergence of new teacher roles in schools, the roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and potential benefits of teacher leadership” (p. 164).  Analyzed research, drawn conclusions, and provided implications for future practice or research by York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke, and Ghere, (2005); Bays and Crockett (2007); as well as Billingsley (2007) were each grounded within the conceptual framework of special education leadership and the ethical treatment of students with special needs.  While each study’s limited sample certainly restricts the ability to generalize results, the shared references amongst and between the collective researchers served to narrow the focus of each study while expanding the implications of individual results to the field of special education and educational leadership.

Conducting a meta-analysis of nearly 50 articles and studies was conducted in addition to a case-study interview with a special education teacher who possessed nearly thirty- years of experience during which time she reviewed the professional literature to develop the Supports with Imagination and Meaning (SWIM) program, Billingsley (2007) selected and reviewed teacher leadership literature in general education, including the emergence of new teacher roles in schools, roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and possible benefits of teachers as leaders.  After reviewing several examples of teacher leadership in special education, Billingsley investigated barriers to teacher leadership and ways of supporting the work of teacher leaders.  As a result, Billingsley found support in the literature for the belief that serving the needs of students with disabilities requires multiple leaders across school-wide and district-wide levels.  Teacher leadership can be present in different forms for varied purposes, including management, instruction, and school reform.  Therefore, teacher leadership may be structured either formally or informally as it evolves through presented opportunities and explicit needs within schools.

Special educators become leaders by adeptly confronting barriers to the education of students who have disabilities, rather than accepting the norms and values of the status quo (Billingsley, 2007, p. 166).  Through focus group interviews with special educators selected based on documented effectiveness serving students with low-incidence disabilities York-Barr et al. (2005) found it is better to “understand their realities of practice in inclusive education and to identify supports for such practice” (p. 193). Although York-Barr et al did not specifically focus upon teacher leadership, they did discuss how special educators served as “informal leaders” (p. 200) by articulating “a sophisticated understanding of how their schools and districts functioned organizationally and politically” (p. 193). They also suggested that teacher leaders provided the vision, direction, and plans for special education and encouraged prospective teacher leaders to collaborate and advocate across multiple levels within their educational systems, thereby leveraging the social, structural and fiscal resources beneficial for students with disabilities.  In doing so, prospective teacher leaders project a concrete understanding that the degree to which they are connected in a school influences the degree to which students with disabilities are connected, supported, and provided opportunities for success within the culture of the school (p. 211).

The invitational leadership model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations. As cited by Burns and Martin (2010, “Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor” (Purkey, 2016, p.5).  Studies by Purkey & Siegel (2013) as well as Burns and Martin (2010), posited leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory would encourage people to tap into their unlimited potential. IE theory includes vital elements needed for success within today’s educational organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). Therefore, teacher preparation and graduate programs intending to develop highly qualified teacher leaders are ethically obligated to seek to identify and optimize professional development based on correlates addressing educational leadership (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2022). Optimal educational leadership has been identified as a correlate that promotes sustained school success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).

Clearly further research on teacher leadership in special education is required to promote the opportunities for teacher leaders in schools and optimize student learning in the least restrictive environment, which is the clearest indicator of professional ethics. Possible research questions suggested by Billingsley include:

• What is the nature of teacher leaders’ roles at the school (e.g., elementary, secondary) and district levels?
• What factors (e.g., personal, organizational, preparation) influence the exercise of special education leadership by both special and general educators?

o   How does the culture of the district and school influence teacher leaders’ work?

o   How do special education leaders learn to work within the social organization of their schools?” (173)

Additionally, related to previous research by Anderson (2017), it is not yet known if and to what degree public schools that are led by leaders exhibiting high emotional intelligence (EQ) would have teachers exhibiting high EQ.  Are such schools more likely to have students receiving education in an inclusive setting?  These are crucial questions that invite further research on effective teacher leadership in special education.   

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 30, 2022). Demonstrated leadership and the pursuit of ethics in special education. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61. 

 

Bagley, S. & Tang, K. (2018) Teacher leadership in special education: Exploring skills, roles,

and perceptions. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) 2  (1) Dec

 

Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special

            education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143-161. doi:10.1080/09362830701503495

 

Billingsley, B. S. (2007). Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special

            education leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 163-176. doi:10.1080/09362830701503503

 

Burns, G., & 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 & Practice, 1629-55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

 Crockett, J. B. (2007). INTRODUCTION: The Changing Landscape of Special Education             Administration. Exceptionality, 15(3), 139-142. doi:10.1080/09362830701503487

 

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework.

            Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187. doi:10.1080/09362830701503511

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

Meara, N.S. Schmidt, L.D., & Day, J.D. (1996) Principles and virtues: A foundation of ethical decisions, policies, and character; The Counseling Psychologist, 24 (1), 24-31.

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J.M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (2^nd ed). The International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

https://www.invitationaleducation.net/product-category/books/

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach yo professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from: 

http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Remley, T.P. & Herlihy, B. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (5th ed.). Pearson

 

Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J. (2000). Ethical leadership and decision making in education :

            Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

            Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 

York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive

            education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal

            of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. doi:10.1080/1360311042000339374

Invitational Education Theory and Intentionally Building a Positive School Climate

         School climate plays an important role in how stakeholders perceive the school (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; 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).

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).  Intentionally advancing the competencies that increase the conveyance and receipt of personal and professional development opportunities could optimize school climate for all stakeholders (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Invitations for personal and professional development need to be explicitly intentional and recognized by the recipient as an opportunity (Anderson, 2016; Purkey & Novak, 2016).

An organization’s overall culture is exhibited on three levels: artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2009). An individual’s perception of school climate is formed by his or her attitudes, behaviors, and group norms (Loukas, 2007). Since attitudes will vary, there will be differences with how stakeholders perceive their schools. The school climate, which a school leader has the potential to shape, can positively influence staff performance and student achievement (Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Stipek, 2006).

Collaboration is essential for developing systemic support when seeking to promote a school climate that drives sustained school improvement (Marzano & Waters, 2009). The public school establishment was described as one of the world’s most stubbornly intransigent forces (Marzano & Waters, 2009). Seeking to shape the school’s climate requires new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear mission.

Effective change begins with recognition that schools can be loosely coupled by design but tightly coupled regarding non-negotiable goals. Defined autonomy (Marzano & Waters, 2009) promotes the communication of a clear vision to both internal and external stakeholders. Without the leader conveying a clear vision, change is slow or nonexistent (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). Through the school climate, school leaders must effectively communicate to stakeholders the difference between a steady, sustained approach compared to resistance or unwillingness to change.

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).

Invitational Education (IE) theory invites interested stakeholders to succeed (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001; Kelly et al., 1998; Purkey, 1992; Purkey & Novak, 2008; Purkey & Siegel, 2013). Invitations are “messages communicated to people which inform them of their ability, responsiveness, and worth (Day et al., 2001). IE theory exhibits a highly personal and ethical structure for evaluating school climate (Schmidt, 2007).

Invitational Education theory provides a framework for assessing and monitoring school climate. Rather than suggesting a quick fix, the framework encourages ongoing vigilance before affirming sustained change (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).

     Invitational Education theory can radiate into every relationship within the school environment (Asbill, 1994). Actions and interactions can be perceived as either inviting or disinviting (Purkey & Novak, 2016). Actions or interactions perceived as positive serve as the invitations for others to see their own capabilities, value, and responsiveness. As a result, individuals behave according to these positive attributes (Asbill, 1994).

The Five P’s contribute to the creation of a positive school climate and ultimately a healthy and successful organization (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). People provide the most important element for leaders developing a successful school (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). Investment in people produces effective change (Hansen, 1998). Involving and empowering people encourage individuals to become part of the effective team (Burns & Martin, 2010).

Utilization of Invitational Education theory can create and maintain safe and successful schools by addressing the total climate of the educational environment (Purkey, Schmidt, & Novak, 2010; Stanley et al., 2004). Purkey and Novak (2008) offered the starfish analogy as a graphic model for the intentionally inviting school climate. Educators can effectively utilize the powerful Five P’s found within every school to apply pressure to overcome any challenge. “Like the actions of a starfish, steady and continuous pressure from a number of points can work to overcome the toughest school challenges” (Purkey & Novak, 2008, p. 19).

 

 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2020). Invitational Education theory and intentionally

building a positive school climate. [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. 

 Anderson, C.S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of research. Review of

            Educational Research, 52, 368-420. doi.org/10.3102/00346543052003368

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

 Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher

            relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 406–434.

            doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03261742

 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).

 Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Grounding knowledge of schools in

            stakeholder realities: A multi-perspective study of effective school leaders. School

            Leadership &Management, 21(1), 19- 42. doi.org/10.1080/13632430120033027

 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

 Hansen, J. (1998). Creating a school where people like to be. Educational Leadership,

            56(1), 14-17. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational             leadership/sept98/vol56/num01/toc.aspx

 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

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

            Solution Tree Press

 Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

            From   research to results. Alexandria, VA: 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

 Pashiardis, P., (2009).Educational leadership and management: Blending Greek

            philosophy, myth and current thinking', International Journal of Leadership in

            Education, 12 (1), 1-12. doi.org/10.1080/13603120802357269

 Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach

            to teaching, learning, and democratic practice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: 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. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN:

            9787452212104

 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

 Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: Theory of organization and change.

            San Francisco, CA: 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. San Francisco: 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). 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

 

Stanley, P. H., Juhnke, G. A., & Purkey, W. W. (2004). Using an invitational theory of

        practice to create safe and successful schools. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(3), 302-309. doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00314.x

 Stipek, D. (2006). Relationships matter. Educational Leadership, 64 (1), 46–49.

            Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept06/vol64/num01/toc.aspx

 Strahan, D., & Purkey, W. W. (1992). Celebrating diversity through invitational

            education. Greensboro, NC: 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