An Organization That Makes a Difference: The International Alliance for Invitational Education®

During the last few monthly blog posts, we have examined Elements 1-4 of the Coherence Lab framework.   Element 1 of the framework emphasizes the need for Building Focus and Coordination. Element 2 examines the need to Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Element 3 sets the expectations for stakeholders to Change Behavior at Scale. Element 4 of the Coherence Framework encourages Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working.

Advocates of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Purkey, Novak & Fretz, 2020), readily see the correlation between the Coherence Lab’s framework and Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices. This correlation simply proves again that IE is not something more to add to one’s pedagogical plate. Invitational Education (IE) theory IS the plate!  As evidenced by its lack of attribution to any theoretical foundation, the Coherence Lab might suggest its framework is innovative. 

Yet, for over 40 years proponents of IE theory believed that through intentional invitations for vibrant and active interactions an intentionally, caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) educational leader can systemically address institutional needs through an inventory of the entire network: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps), which influences the potential for success.

Although uncited, the Coherence Lab’s Framework readily integrates tenets of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey, 1992; Purkey & Novak, 2016). Frankly, this blog post can focus entirely on organizations that take an established theoretical foundation and repackage or rebrand previous tenets and assumptions as something new.  Although capitalism may be driven by greed, academia should always embrace ethics and integrity.

So, let’s discuss solutions. How can someone stand up for ethical practices and demand integrity?  Leaders can begin by intentionally invite stakeholders to become more knowledgeable.  Then encourage direct support for the institutions, alliances, or groups that exhibit research-based practices and theoretical foundations that make better possible. 

My journey as an educational leader led me to Invitational Education theory and practice, which then brought me to my first International Alliance for Invitational Education®(IAIE) World Conference in 2013. You will find the IAIE is a not-for-profit group of educators and allied professionals from throughout the world, dedicated to the development of positive school, work, and home environments as well as being opposed to those forces that demean and defeat human potential. Through IAIE membership, you are invited to learn how to intentionally create climates based on care, optimism, respect, and trust while networking with IAIE members internationally.  By joining the IAIE, you will receive: 

·         “Fundamentals of Invitational Education” (Purkey & Novak, 2016), 

·         The monthly Alliance newsletter,

·         Access to the Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice and the IAIE Abstracts.

·         Free participation in IE-themed webinars,

·         Discounted rates for the IAIE World Conference,

·         Information for how your school can earn an Inviting School Award,

·         A network of members engaging in Invitational Education research and practice.  

 An annual individual IAIE membership is $35.00.  Here are ways to join the Alliance:

·         MEMBERSHIP | IAIE (invitationaleducation.org) You can join with credit card or PayPal.

·         If you prefer to pay by check, make it payable to IAIE and mail to:

Tammy Baker, IAIE Manager;  PO Box 594.  Nicholasville, KY  40340. 

Email: tammy.baker@invitationaleducation.org

To learn more about Invitational Education theory and practice or the IAIE, please visit: ABOUT | IAIE (invitationaleducation.org)

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). IE research and documented practices exhibit how IE theory addresses “the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (Purkey and Siegel, 2013, p. 104). While there is no quick fix for educational problems, the IE 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).

During 2023, be resolute in your endeavor to model and nurture an intentionally inviting stance.  We must intentionally promote IE theory and practice in our demonstrated efforts to encourage the learning for all mission (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). We must lead others in the “direction and purpose for all Invitational thought and action” (Purkey & Novak, 2016, p 11).

Crucially, we must willingly teach others to extend intentional invitations. As proponents of IE theory, we know others are better served through empowering opportunities for achieving one’s human potential.  Therefore, encourage dialogue that promotes critical thinking and open-mindedness.  Willingly reject any exhibition of contempt, which merely destroys motivation and incites further division.  As champions of IE theory and practices we must always promote intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (I-CORT) in all our educational, leadership, and interpersonal opportunities. 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2022). An Organization That Makes a Difference: The

            International Alliance for Invitational Education®. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal

            practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management,

            New Mexico State University.

 Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

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

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Purkey, W.W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational theory and Practice 1(1), 5-15.

Purkey, W.W.., & Novak, J.M. (2016). An introduction to invitational theory. https://www.invitationaleducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/art_intro_to_invitational_theory-1.pdf

Purkey, W.W., Novak, J.M., & Fretz, J.R. (2020). Developing inviting schools: A beneficial framework for teaching. Teachers College Press.

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach   

            to professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from:             http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

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

            Education. The International Alliance for Invitational Education.

Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working

           Last month you were invited to reflect upon your teacher education or leadership programs. A guiding question in this regard asked you to consider how effectively did (does) your preparation programs concretely develop intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT)-driven educators capable (and willing) to embrace systemic models, promote cooperative learning, exhibit high expectations, utilize HOTS, and analyze data to monitor and adjust as needed? This month we examine Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

Reference the Coherence Lab framework chart (below) to review the first three elements needed to promote effective advocacy and systems change. Initially we emphasized Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. Last month we then examined Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Advocates of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016) appreciate Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale.  Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices believe that through intentional invitations for vibrant and active interactions an ICORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the entire network: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success.

As proponents of the Coherence Framework move practitioners to Element 4, IE theory and practices is reinforced by the need to align our beliefs and values around equity through our mindsets and our actions. To encourage equitable ways of thinking, stakeholders need to reflect on their individual identity, acknowledge and address biases, and design at the margins resulting in a constellation of solutions that ultimately work for all stakeholders.

Equitable ways of working require framing the problem as a defined tool for equity rather than a statement that perpetuates inequity. Subsequent exploration of solutions can then intentionally invite people who most deeply experience the problem so their expertise can drive the solution finding process. Through a circular rather than a linear process, focus is placed upon what is learned as a measure of an initiative’s success.  Equitable systems, tools and culture can be developed despite the potential for risk or fear of failure.

However, when dysfunctional institutional inertia prevails and is consistently exhibited an organization either fails or refuses to take accept where the institution is compared to where its organizational mission states it should be heading. For instance, dysfunctional inertia continues to blame disengaged parents for student failure and poor school climate.  By contrast, strong and effective leadership humbly poises the question: “Is it reasonable to suggest many parents in low SES, urban school districts were previously students in that school district?”  Therefore, the culture of the community is that schools are a place of failure.  Education failed to free them of the bondage of poverty--as promised!  As a result, the opportunity gap chained these parents to the achievement gap.  When that becomes the prevailing cultural reality, then the potential for equity loses to systemic injustice.

The Coherence Framework (below) readily integrates tenets of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Likewise, Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011) readily integrates with Continuous Improvement Theory as a sustainable school improvement framework.  The continuous improvement management approach reinforces Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM) system, comprised of 14 points posited as “essential for business success” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 33). 

A skillful educational leader begins developing an effective collaborative culture by understanding the interdependency of the improvement process rather than merely undertaking elemental processes for change. Leaders interested in promoting an equitable and truly collaborative learning culture must embrace this reality: It is not enough to want to change or need to change, to become enculturated within an organization, stakeholders must experience positive change. a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates non-negotiable goals to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2021). Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable ways

            of thinking and working. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. APQC.

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

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

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

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

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

Effective Advocacy for Change: Progress rather than perfection

          As we continue examining how to effectively advocate for inclusive education and the Learning for All Mission, reflect upon your previous efforts to establish non-negotiable goals (NNG) (Marzano & Waters, 2009). As requested last month, how did you rate your efforts to model effective collaboration?  What has been most difficult in removing identified obstacles to needed change? 

An effective leader recognizes when and how staff can work autonomously and collaboratively, thereby developing or removing staff as necessary, which promotes the culture of high expectations within the school (Eck & Goodwin, 2010).  Establishment of non-negotiable goals (NNGs) are a product of earlier collaboration.  Intentional invitations promote staff empowerment (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Determination to collaborate, time to meet, willingness to ask serious questions, creation of an action plan, and always meeting with an agenda, promotes collaborative communication aligned to the established NNGs. 

Positive change can be the outcome of innovative thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clearly-defined mission.  Unintended consequences, which often fall into the pool labeled “negative change,” typically ignore the characteristics connected with positive change.  In conclusion, leaders interested in promoting a collaborative learning culture must embrace this reality: It is not enough to want to change or need to change, to become enculturated within an organization, stakeholders must experience positive change.

Let’s return to the Coherence Lab framework chart (below) for envisioning effective advocacy and systems change. Previously we observed that the framework is divided into four elements.   Last month we emphasized Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. This month we will further examine Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships and Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale.

While building focus and coordination is an initial step toward coherence, lets agree that cultivating trusting relationships strengthens coherence by empowering everyone through choice and decision-making.  This requires profession development.  There are three core sub-elements of Cultivating Trusting relationships:

1.      Engage Authentically: Inviting leaders in education involve local stakeholders with varied experiences, perspectives and beliefs. When engaging with stakeholders, it's important to be transparent about the role and decision- making responsibility of stakeholders. It’s also important to approach each engagement with empathy. Engaging stakeholders with transparency and empathy exhibits intentional understanding of stakeholders’ needs, motivations and interests.

2.      Recognize and Address Power Dynamics: Intentional, empathic listening exhibits understanding when addressing individual identities and power dynamics, This is a key sub-element for building trusting relationships. Effective leaders recognize that power dynamics impact the way we engage with one another and make decisions. Rather than authority alone, power is often attributed due to cultural identity. It is therefore prudent to confront issues of identity and power to comfortably cede power in favor of more equitable and authentic engagements.

3.       Support Inclusion: Intentionally inviting leaders embrace the experiences of stakeholders and honor their expertise resulting from being in proximity to issues or problems needing to be addressed.

When seeking to apply Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale, intentionally inviting leaders believe greater student success is possible when educators utilize an intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) mindset. Through intentional invitations for vibrant discussions and active interactions an ICORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the networks: People. places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success. This intentional desire promotes collaboration,  exhibits critical, higher order thinking skills (HOTS), that appeals to emotions.  Well-defined ley outcomes allow valid analyzes through accessible, reliable data.  

Reflect upon your teacher education or leadership programs. How effectively did (does) your preparation programs concretely develop ICORT-driven educators capable (and willing) to embrace systemic models, promote cooperative learning, exhibit high expectations, utilize HOTS, and analyze data to monitor and adjust as needed? Let’s explore these points next month when we examine Element 4 of Coherence: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2021). Effective advocacy for change: Progress rather than

    perfection. [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.

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

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

 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

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