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).
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
56(1), 14-17. Retrieved from:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational
leadership/sept98/vol56/num01/toc.aspx
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. (2nd 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
