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 

Special Education Leadership and the Pursuit of Ethical Practice

            Special educators who serve students in inclusive educational settings as well as those serving students with severe disabilities are more likely to experience complex and fragmented work lives.  While special education has become a major concern for school leaders, too few studies have addressed the supervisory practices or the contributions and roles for teacher leadership in special education (York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke & Ghere., 2005; Bays and Crockett,2007; Billingsley, 2007; Bagley & Tang, 2018).  This lack of knowledge related to effective supervision and promotion of teacher leaders may be a contributing factor to why special educators are more likely to depart the educational profession (Ingersoll, 2001) or why students with special needs do not always receive optimal FAPE.

Bays and Crockett (2007) found principals attempting to balance management, administrative, and supervisory duties; monitoring legal compliance; and ensuring instructional quality exhibited minimal level of interactions with teachers regarding the improvement of teaching and learning for students with special needs.  Desiring to contribute knowledge and strategies that would result in improved support of special educators seeking inclusive, high quality educational experiences for students with disabilities, York-Barr et al’s well-grounded qualitative research (2005) aligned with and extended previous findings by the Council for Exceptional Children (2001) and yielded eight major findings organized into three clusters:

·         the nature of the work of special educators,

·         special educators demonstrating leadership functions, and

·         differentiated support realized from others. 

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).  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.

Whenever teachers are provided on-going opportunities to learn through experiences, experiment with new ideas, and then creatively implement new programs then 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.  Therefore, these new roles and opportunities to influence others serve as critical forms of renewal for special educators.

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).

Analyzed research, drawn conclusions, and provided implications for future practice or research by York-Barr, et al, (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. 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. 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 elementary 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 all crucial questions that beg for further research on effective teacher leadership in special education.            

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2020). Special education leadership and the pursuit of ethical

practice. [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

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

 

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

 

Building Towards Equitable Consensus While Handling Conflict

        The important question that groups should ask before entering into any kind of decision-making process is ‘how do we determine what constitutes agreement?’ The definition of agreement can vary widely so this is an important starting point.  Consensus building is a decision-making process that typically involves several stages whereby a group initially diverges in thinking then collectively converges to create a decision or solution that is satisfactory to all. The challenge with consensus building is that it takes time!

During a typical consensus-building process there are two distinct stages that the whole group will need to collaboratively work through.  This includes the diverging and converging stages. When diverging, there will be several steps seen as group activities.   These steps include sharing ideas, hearing out and paraphrasing back what each other states, asking succinct questions for further collaboration or elaboration, and of course brainstorming: An approach that needs to be non-judgmental.  The diverging stage should intentionally invite participation, so open-mindedness exhibits the better starting point.  

The steps in the converging stage of ideas often include merging similar ideas, sorting or ranking ideas based on level importance, challenging assumptions to create or elevate innovative solutions, testing for agreement and calmly dealing with disagreement, and ensuring everyone has a mutual understanding of the potential final idea under consideration.  Consensus-building therefore speaks to a process of collaboration and effective communication.   

As a process, consensus-building is different from what people refer to as “achieving consensus.” Achieving consensus refers to the quality of a decision or the degree of agreement.  A group reporting, “We have a consensus” should mean ‘I can live with the idea’ and ‘I am willing to defend it and commit to any necessary follow through.’ Anything less than that level of agreement and commitment means there REALLY isn't consensus.

Let's now focus on two specific skill areas that are crucial during the consensus-building process: Providing effective feedback and identifying your “natural” conflict handling mode. Positive feedback is more readily and accurately perceived than negative feedback.  However, when frustrated, anxious, or simply confused, it is easy for negativity to creep in and rule the discussion.  Mindfulness guided by intentionality, care, optimism, respect and trust helps keep a positive tone, elevates your leadership, and promotes your standing as a credible, effective self-advocate.  

•Positive feedback fits what most people wish to hear and already believe about themselves.

•Negative feedback is most likely to be accepted ONLY when it comes from a credible source and objective in form.

•Subjective impressions carry weight ONLY when they come from a person with high status and credibility.

        We each have our own conflict resolution style that shapes how we interact with people.  It is valuable for each of us to understand where our “natural” conflict handling mode lies, and to be aware of how others’ styles shape or influence our behavior.  We may have different styles for personal vs. professional situations, family relationships vs. professional relationships.  Conflict resolution is situational.  Rather than believing there is a right or wrong way to handle conflict, think of the options as a hand full of cards so you can select out what fits best for that situation.

Through the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, the researchers describe a person’s behavior along two basic dimensions:

·         Assertiveness, or the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns,

·         Cooperativeness, or the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns

By contrast, as noted by the Thomas-Kilmann chart above, consideration of relationship goals compared to personal goals determines the best mode for handling conflict as exhibited through specific behaviors: 

Avoiding: Behavior is based on low concern for personal and relationship goals.  Preference for avoiding conflict is often because one feels he or she doesn’t have the tools to deal with the issue or with others

Accommodating: Behavior sacrifices personal goals to accommodate relationship goals.  When do we typically engage in accommodating behavior?  With significant others.  It’s the relationship we care about.

Controlling:  Behavior is exhibited when there is very high concern for personal goals and low concern for relationship goals.  This is the “power” approach to addressing disputes.  You see this often in the for-profit world, whereby everything is seemingly driven by the bottom line.  Controlling behavior is also highly evident in the parent-child relationship – Most of the viewers here might agree controlling behavior to handle conflict doesn’t work very well with adolescents!

Collaborating:  Behavior exhibits high concern for both personal and relationship goals.  Collaborating takes a lot of time, commitment, facilitation and negotiation skills.  This set of skills are learned or mastered by most of us later in life.  When an agreement is worked out through collaborating behaviors the agreement usually lasts a long time or is seen as durable.

Compromising: Behavior accepts that if you would just give up something, the problem could get it resolved.  Be careful about using this word as typically our culture embraces negotiation or bargaining but compromise is often a trigger word.  It is also a less optimal approach to addressing disputes because if you go into a conflict ready to compromise, you are going to compromise.  In the continuum, compromise is an end-result that usually creates consensus.

Understanding the consensus-building process and the skills needed to reach agreement will empower you as an active leadership partner.  From an educational perspective, this knowledge helps to effectively participate in the pursuit of the learning for all mission.  Knowing how to build consensus through effective feedback and handling conflict optimizes your human potential. 

 

 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2020). Building towards equitable consensus while 

        handling conflict. [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. 

 Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education.

(2nd Ed). International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:  

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

Shapley, K.L. & Case, B.J. (2004) Building partnerships with parents. Retrieved

from: ​ http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/73E53CF9-64D8-4459-8B11-6BCE9E2668CB/0/Building_Partnerships_with_Parents.pdf ​

 Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R. H. (2010) Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

(TKI). Retrieved from https://www.skillsone.com/Pdfs/smp248248.pdf