The
development of systemic support when seeking to promote a school culture that
drives sustained school improvement requires collaboration (Marzano
& Waters, 2009). Since “the public school establishment is one of the most
stubbornly intransigent forces on the planet” (Marzano
& Waters, 2009, p. 2), a positive cultural
change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a
collective vision grounded in a clear Learning
for All mission. The principal, teachers,
and parents are all school leaders needing to be available to shape a school’s
non-negotiable culture (Peterson
& Deal, 1998).
Effective collaborative change
begins with recognition that although loosely coupled by design, schools can
also be tightly coupled by adherence to non-negotiable goals and a culture that
promotes student learning. It is
therefore essential to promote a “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters,
2009, p. 8) by communicating a clear vision to both internal and external
stakeholders. Otherwise, change is slow
or nonexistent (Lezotte
& Snyder, 2011). However, 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
acts 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; Riner, 2003). However, when a school leader effectively
communicates a vision for success, models positive expectations, and utilizes
inviting leadership practices, teachers’ behaviors can be influenced (Asbill,
1994; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000).
Invitational Education theory provides a
needed collaborative and holistic framework for school transformation. Rather than suggesting a quick-fix, the
framework encourages a metamorphosis, requiring years of vigilance before
affirming sustained change (Strahan & Purkey, 1992). Vigilance is required because “transforming
the way schools operate means transforming people” (Asbill, 1994, p. 42). School reform requires systemic change, a
metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies,
programs, and processes (the Five Ps).
Such analysis discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting
(Strahan & Purkey, 1992).
Invitational Education provides “a theory
of practice that radiates into every relationship in the school setting”
(Asbill, 1994, p. 43). Actions and
interactions can be perceived as either inviting or disinviting (Purkey &
Novak, 2008). Therefore, actions or
interaction perceived as positive become “invitations that bid others to see
themselves as capable, valuable, and responsible and to behave accordingly”
(Asbill, 1994, p.43).
Burns
and Martin (2010) posit the Invitational Education theory
creates a leadership model providing the collaborative structure needed to
guide educational leaders through diverse and complex situations. This leadership model is comprehensive in design
(Burns & Martin, 2010; Egley, 2003). It is also inclusive of many of the elements
of transformational and servant leadership, considered essential for promoting
success in educational organizations.
Utilization of Invitational
Education theory and practice can create and maintain safe and successful
schools by addressing the total culture of the educational environment (Stanley,
et al., 2004). Leaders
willing to explore key concepts of Invitational Education theory and practice
increase opportunities for developing a school culture that drives
sustained school improvement. These key
collaborative concepts include: Transformation of
communication skills, ongoing assessment of the 5 Ps (people places policies,
practices, and processes), and empowering group dynamics.
The Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice (JITP)
promotes the study, application, and research of Invitational
Theory and Practice. As an online peer reviewed
scholarly publication, the JITP presents articles to advance the theory. As JITP editor, Dr. Chris James
Anderson of Southwest Minnesota State University’s School of Education
invites others to embrace the holistic and interdependent conditions that
promote learning for all! The JITP seeks
to advance the tenets of Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices to
optimize educational equity in quality. While
education is the endeavor that strengthens a mind, frees a spirit, and enriches
a society, the JITP will not be limited to educational stakeholders. Rather, the JITP welcomes all opportunities to promote the
study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice
(ITP). Authors must follow the specific guidelines when submitting manuscripts for JITP publication consideration. Guidelines for Authors or Book Reviews can be
accessed from: https://www.invitationaleducation.net/publications/journal/
Submit manuscripts as email attachments to JITPeditor@invitationaleducation.net
To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2017) Invitational education theory, collaborative change, and the
Journal
of Invitational Theory & Practice. [Web log post] Retrieved from
References:
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., &
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.
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.
Lezotte, L. W.,
& Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the
correlates.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools:
Translating research into action (first ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District
leadership that works. Bloomington, In: Solution
Tree Press
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
No comments:
Post a Comment