An educational leader, regardless if an administrator
or teacher, needs to comprehend and understand the school’s climate. This allows him or her to know how things get
done and how these things are perceived by students and other stakeholders (Marzano,
2004). While the school’s culture
determines the tone of staff and students engagement, leaders establish the
school’s climate (Goleman,
2006b). One way a leader contributes
to a positive school climate is to nourish trusting and caring relationships
and practicing empathetic social interactions.
Although
transformational and servant
leadership models have served educational leaders for several decades, invitational
leadership (IL) provides a comprehensive model providing a positive and
encouraging structure for today’s leaders during these complex times. “The research on the effects of Invitational Education Theory in the
educational administrative process is relatively new as compared to other
theories pertaining to leadership” (Egley, 2003, p.
57). As explicated by Purkey and Siegel
(2013), IL is based on invitational theory.
“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,
1992, p. 5). Therefore, the IL model
provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many vital elements needed
for the success of today’s educational organizations (Purkey & Novak, 1996). Burns
and Martin (2010) found a statistically significant difference between the
utilization of invitational leadership qualities in effective schools versus
less effective schools.
“Invitational leadership contributes to school
effectiveness by the way in which it cares for and supports the efforts of
others” (Halpin,
2003, p. 84). Invitational
leadership (IL) has a highly personal and ethical component included within the
constructs of the model (Burns & Martin, 2010, p. 31). Being based upon four basic tenets that
exemplify invitational leaders, IL thereby expects exhibition of the four:
optimism, respect, trust, and intentionality.
Researchers further defined these four tenets:
1. Optimism–the belief that people
have untapped potential for growth and development (Day et al., 2001, p.
34).
2. Respect–the
recognition that each person is an individual of worth (Day et al., 2001, p.
34).
3. Trust–possessing “confidence
in the abilities, integrity, and responsibilities of ourselves and others”
(Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p. 12).
4. Intention–“knowing what we
intend to bring about as well as how we intend it to happen gives clarity and
direction to our work” (Stillion &
Siegel, 2005, p. 15).
Invitational
Education (IE) Theory invites interested stakeholders to succeed (Day, Harris
& Hadfield, 2001; Kelly
et al., 1998; Purkey,
1992; Purkey
& Novak, 1996; Purkey & Siegel,
2013). Invitations are “messages
communicated to people which inform them of their ability, responsiveness, and
worth (Day, et al., 2001). Invitational Education
(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 &
Strahan, 1995). 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 & Strahan, 1995; Schmidt,
2007). This framework will be further discussed within the forthcoming September
2014 post.
Invitational
Education Theory (IET) can radiate into every relationship within the
school environment (Asbill, 1994). There
are several ways to become more familiar with IET and its impact
upon school leadership and school climate. As a self-concept approach, IET helps
stakeholders within an organization realize their full potential. Since everyone and everything
in one’s environment influences self-concept, the implementation of IET can influences
beliefs and choices of behavior.
Through Invitational Education, optimistic mindsets can
be developed, thereby treating ourselves and others as capable, valuable, and responsible.
This is an alternative to today's control-oriented approaches. Such controlling environments offer little
choice, resulting in negative impact upon motivation, creativity, perseverance,
and effort. IET provides a much-needed
balance, thereby optimizing the provision of a high challenge/low risk environment whereby we all can thrive.
The
International Alliance for Invitational Education (IAIE) will hold its 32nd
Annual World Conference in Nashville, TN from October 29-November 1, 2014. This unique international gathering will focus
upon how to use Invitational Theory as a framework for creating positive
climates. CLICK HERE to
download the complete IAIE Conference Brochure and Registration Form. CLICK HERE for
Online Registration and additional information on the
IAIE.
References:
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
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative
learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the
authority of knowledge (2nd ed.).
Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University
Press.
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 and Practice, 16, 30-56.
Cleveland, H. (2002,
September/October). Leadership the get-it-all-together profession; the core
issue
of leadership is the paradox of participation: How do you get everybody in on
the
act
and still get things done? The Futurist, 36, 42 -50.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7
habits of highly effective people. New York, New York: Simon &
Schuster.
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.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective
schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-
24.
Egley, R. (2003). Invitational
leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational
Theory and Practice, 9, 57-70.
Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy
studies for educational leaders. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson
Education.
Goleman, D. (2006b).
The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 76–81.
Halpin, D. (2003). Hope and
education: The role of the utopian imagination. London: England:Routledge
Falmer.
Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108053476
Hansen, J. (1998). Creating a
school where people like to be. Educational Leadership, 56,
14-17.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith,
D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance
organization. New York: NY, Harper
Business Essentials.
Kelly, P., Brown, S., Butler, A.,
Gittens, P., Taylor, C., & Zeller, P. (1998). A place to hang our
hats.
Educational Leadership, 56(1), 62-64.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five
dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J.
S. (1997). The learner centered classroom and school: Strategies
for increasing student motivation
and achievement.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Purkey, W. (1992). An
introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 1(1),
5-14.
Purkey, W., & Novak, J.
(1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching
and learning (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B.
L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to
professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA:
Humanics. Retrieved from:
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
Seokhwa, Y., Cox, J., & Sims
Jr., H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of
leadership
and follower self-leadership. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 21(4),
374-
388.
doi:10.1108/02683940610663141
To
Cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (August 4, 2014) Leadership and school
climate based on invitational education theory
No comments:
Post a Comment