Planning, Implementing, and Mentoring for Successful Co-Teaching

As a service delivery option, co-teaching utilizes a general education teacher and a special education teacher through shared instructional responsibility and accountability for a diverse group of students, including some with disabilities.  The goal of co-teaching is improved outcomes, reduced gap in achievement gap, and optimized success for ALL students. Co-teaching is premised on each educator bringing clearly identified and different types of expertise to the classroom, thereby blending their skills to create a classroom that is instructionally appropriate for each student whereby specially designed instruction is integrated into implementation of the general education curriculum. 

However, even when professionals are committed to co-teaching and prepared to implement it, barriers often arise related to the logistics of implementation as a sustainable service delivery option. The most frequently mentioned concern pertains to scheduling. This includes scheduling students into co-taught sections, populating co- taught sections with other students, assigning special educators and general educators to co-taught classes, and arranging for common planning time (Friend & Barron, 2014). 

In relation to planning and scheduling for effective co-teaching, Friend & Barron (2014) suggest a few universal principles must be heeded. When foundational concepts are either not understood or inappropriately reflected in district and school policies and practices, then scheduling for effective inclusive practices will suffer.  Specifically, stakeholders need to accept that co-teaching is not a cure-all.  Co-teaching should not be the only type of special education service offered within a school. Realistically, some students with disabilities benefit greatly from supplemental instruction in a separate setting while others might need extensive services in separate classes. 

Not all students with disabilities within general education classes need co-teaching as a service delivery model. Depending on needs based on the content area than a diagnostic label, some students with disabilities might succeed in general education without co-teaching. A student with disabilities should be assigned to classes accordingly to his or her present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), assessed needs, and IEP goals.  These diverse areas should form the basis for determining a student’s service delivery and schedule. 

Therefore, while some students with disabilities should have co-teaching on their IEPs for an entire class period or subject area, other students may need only partial support. Not all secondary students need co-teaching in all core academic areas.  Neither should elementary students with disabilities have co-teaching prescribed all-day as a matter of course. By being fully aware of the students’ needs and appropriate service options, stakeholders can then determine the most effective amount of co-teaching.

While grouping students with disabilities in co-taught classes is usually required to make service delivery feasible, when many students with disabilities are grouped into a single class then curriculum momentum can be compromised. Recommended proportions range from 20-40 percent of a class being comprised of students with disabilities. Of course, natural proportions are closer to 20 percent.  However, any model should be based on the assumption that the remainder of the students within the class exhibit a range of abilities and needs. Crucially, no classroom should be comprised of only struggling students (Friend & Barron, 2014).  

Co-teaching requires three components: co-planning, co-instructing, and co-assessing (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). Without all three, co-teaching as an effective service model is not occurring. Given teachers and administrators often question what constitutes a shared lesson an observational checklist may be beneficial. Is it sufficient for teachers to agree on a lesson one teacher has already taught before? Can teachers agree to take care of “their own” students, provided diverse students are in the same class- room? The following clarifies what is required of each of the three components to ensure that teachers and observers know how to optimize effectiveness in a co-taught inclusive classroom: 

Without sufficient co-planning, at best teachers are working together in a parallel or reactive manner. exemplify a special educator entering the classroom and asking, “So, what are we doing today?” When special educators are not expected to be content experts, they are placed at a disadvantage, and too often spend the class time catching up, figuring out the instruction, and later remediating when students are not able to access the instruction as originally presented. Another situation has the general and special educator taking a typical lesson plan and determining which teacher will do which part. This can often result in both teachers’ simply splitting up a lesson and delivering it exactly as the general educator would have if working solo, thereby resulting in the question, “What is special about special education?” (Murawski and Lochner, 2010).

The purpose of co-planning is for the special educator to have proactive input into the instructional process. By using his or her expertise in differentiation, accommodations, positive behavior support, and pedagogy, a lesson can be created that will enable more of the students to access and learn the curriculum the first time it is presented (Murawski, 2015). Students with disabilities can be more successful with the general education curriculum when their specific areas of need are proactively addressed by both teachers (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). 

As the in-classroom element of co-teaching, effective co-instruction is possible when two teachers with varying areas of expertise collaborate to provide quality instruction.  The results can be and should be inspiring. On the contrary, when two adults who do not believe in co-teaching or who do not respect one another as professionals are physically in the same classroom and do not interact, the result is often dis-heartening, discouraging, and ultimately a complete waste of time for the teachers and the students. Although it is fairly easy to determine when teachers are dynamic together compared to those who are apathetic together, a large continuum looms between for the teachers who are unclear as to how to successfully share the classroom. 

Teachers who co-teach well together are those who take advantage of the fact that there are two adults in the room. They engage students actively, use a variety of co-teaching approaches to regroup students, collect and share assessment information to better individualize for students’ needs, are open-minded and willing to be innovative. These teachers communicate with one another during instruction and provide classroom structure that is supportive of students.  They are also flexible to meet ALL students’ changing needs. It is clear that the classroom, as well as all the students in it, belong to them both and that they are both willing and capable of providing substantive instruction that utilizes their areas of expertise. Co-instruction does not look the same as in any general class. The input of the special educator is clear, resulting in strategies, mnemonics, and differentiated instruction. In a perfectly co-taught classroom, one would see two teachers enjoying each other and all students, who are clearly learning and benefiting from the positive instructional environment (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). 

Co-teachers view ALL students as “their kids” and consciously avoid “my kids” compared to “your kids” situations. This mindfulness extends to assessment, evaluation, and grading as well. General and special educators may have different frames of reference that will affect the way each views assessments. Often, a general educator more initially be more versed in curricula standards and whole-class assessments.  By contrast, the special education counterpart may be more familiar with individualized or alternative assessments. From the perspective of students with disabilities, this combination of specialization becomes beneficial given the standards-based focus of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2010) and need for individualized instruction and assessment mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Working together, effective co-teachers ensure that they are able to assess what students actually know as well as what they are able to demonstrate on formative, summative, standardized, or high-stakes assessment. 

There are many choices co-teachers can utilize to validly and reliably assess.  Being aware and open to each option is crucial. Co-teachers should become fully capable to describe or demonstrate how they plan to accommodate needs through diverse assessments that treat students as individuals in determining their mastery of content standards and curriculum. How can administrators assess the effectiveness of co-teachers in this regard? Certainly, looking at student grades is an indicator of co-teaching effectiveness.  For instance, do students with disabilities fail at a greater rate than typical students?  A single measurement should not be the only method of assessing students. Student improvement can be exhibited and documented in a variety of formative processes. Just as co-teachers need to be open to various methods of assessment, observers likewise need to know the variables that determine the collaborative effectiveness of the two teachers in an inclusive classroom. 

            When seeking to provide mentorship or professional development related to co-teaching dynamics, the role of an observer needs to be clearly understood and presented in advance.  Before walking into a co-taught classroom, an administrator or other observers need to know the goal of the observation and therefore be empowered to clearly describe what they want to collect, see, and hear (Peterson & Petersen, 2006). Observation literature indicates that to maximize feedback provided by observers, data need to be descriptive rather than evaluative (Cook & Friend, 2017).

Students with disabilities, those with English language needs, those who are gifted, and the typical learners in any classroom deserve to be instructed based on their individual learning needs. There is a wide variety of literature available on diverse learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the value of brain-based instruction. Effective teachers recognize that each student presents a unique learning profile and therefore every student benefits when education matches his or her profile (Lavoie, 2007; Levine, 2002). When alone, addressing the various learning profiles exhibited within the classroom can be daunting.  By contrast, working with a partner can be truly exciting and beneficial to all stakeholders. Co-teaching enables two teachers to collaborate in an effort to effectively plan, implement, and assess differentiated instruction.  For those teachers that may be new to co-teaching, an administrator needs to serve the role of supervisor, mentor, and support provider.  Confounding the needs of the teachers that may be struggling with their collaborative role in the inclusive classroom could be administrators that themselves do not feel sufficiently instructed on what they should be seeing in an effectively co-taught classroom and collaborative relationship.  The ability to observe, document, give feedback, and be an instructional leader for co-teachers requires time and experience (Murawski & Lochner, 2010).  

By utilizing the Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist (Murawski & Lochner, 2015) the administrator and co-teachers understand the specific items that should be asked for, looked for, and listened for during the observation of the co-teachers’ lesson and collaborative activities.  Crucially, the Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist helps guide the administrator or observers in their effort to shape and improve the co-teaching. When providing constructive feedback to the co-teachers working collaboratively within the inclusive classroom, the ultimate goal is to improve the learning of students with and without disabilities. 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 31, 2019) Planning, implementing, and mentoring for successful co-teaching.

[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Collaborative teaching: The co-teaching model. (2002). PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e522152004-001

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2017). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3). doi:10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852

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

            work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Friend, M. (2008) Co-Teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.joci.ecu.edu/index.php/JoCI/article/view/17/26

Friend, M., & Barron, T. (2014.). Chapter 25: co-teaching: inclusion and increased student achievement. proven programs in education: classroom management & assessment, 121–125. Proven Programs in Education: Classroom Management & Assessment; R.E. Slavin (Ed). doi:10.4135/9781483365633.n25

Lavoie, R. (2007). Richard Lavoie: The Motivation Breakthrough. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e576212010-001

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

            correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Murawski, W. W (2015). Wendy Murawski Discusses Co-Teaching. SAGE Video. doi:10.4135/9781473930667

Murawski, W. W. (2015). Chapter 13: Creative Co-Teaching. What Really Works in Elementary Education, 203–216. Murawski & Scott (Eds). doi:10.4135/9781483390161.n14

Murawski, W. W., & Goodwirt, V. A. (2014). Chapter 21: Effective Inclusive Schools and the Co-teaching Conundrum. Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools. doi:10.4324/9780203102930.ch21

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2010). Observing Co-Teaching: What to Ask For, Look For, and Listen For. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183. doi:10.1177/1053451210378165

Peterson, K.D. & Peterson, C.A. (2006). How Principals Promote Effective Teacher Evaluation. (n.d.). Effective Teacher Evaluation, 16–23. doi:10.4135/9781412990219.d7

Developing and Sustaining a Collaborative Learning Culture

As a follow to the June 2019 discussion, when endeavoring to develop and sustain a learning culture, effective leaders must mitigate learning overload.  The following discussion seeks to provide strategic protocols for promoting collaborative teams.  These include a professional learning community, which can reduce stress and fear while optimizing organizational learning. 

An effective school collaboratively reaches consensus on the mission, core values, and beliefs (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  Thereafter, collective inquiry is effective for building shared knowledge.  This process, “in turn, allows them to make more informed (and therefore better) decisions, and increases the likelihood they will arrive at consensus” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker,  2008, p. 17).  Given the identified benefits of a collaborative professional learning community (PLC), Dufour et al were “convinced educators would benefit from both greater clarity regarding the PLC concept and specific strategies for implementing the concept” (p. 15).

Effective communication promotes collaboration, thereby optimizing the learning organization’s ability to reach consensus.  Schmoker (1999) posits teams outperform individual efforts, therefore, "learning not only occurs in teams but endures" (p. 12).  An effective learning organization utilizes the following three beliefs to optimize teams and the PLC concept:

1.   the team believes strongly in each member's capacity to develop practical solutions to everyday teaching and learning problems;

2.  there is a belief that regardless of a school's social or economic circumstances, improvement can and will occur;

3.     the team arrives at each meeting anticipating that informed trial and error will inevitably lead to better teaching and hence to higher learning (Schmoker, 1999, p.20).

Utilizing six elements of an effective PLC helps educators benefit in a number of ways from working together.  These include developing a clear, shared vision.  This element optimizes the group’s ability to develop a collaborative culture focusing on learning, engage in collective inquiry, remain action oriented, commit to continuous improvement, and adjust further based on results (Dufour et al., 2008).  Thus, the six elements of an effective PLC promote learning by doing.  As with many processes developed for sustaining success, the six elements work most effectively when treated as an interdependent, cyclical process. 

To be successful, the PLC requires “reculturing the traditional culture of schools and districts” (Dufour et al., 2008, p. 6).  Crucially, the shift needs to be cultural and not merely structural, thereby embedding sustained improvements in “the assumptions, beliefs, values, expectations, and habits that constitute the norm for that organization” (p. 90).  A skillful educational leader begins developing an effective collaborative culture by understanding the improvement process rather than merely the systemic change process.  A skillful educational leader and empowered educators trust in established and agreed upon non-negotiable goals (NNGs) and values while embracing both school-based and teacher autonomy. 

An instructional leader can create a defined learning culture to optimize structured organizational learning by utilizing strategies that encourage high levels of effectiveness.  The first pursuit in this endeavor is to mitigate learning overload.  Learning overload prevents effective educational leaders from realizing progress and achievement of stated goals (Reason, 2010).  Citing Kennedy (2006) and Franklin (2005), Reason (2010) notes, “We can’t alter the brain to hold more information, but we can change our approach to learning in ways that reduce overwhelm and prepare us to deal with institutional challenges more effectively” (p. 99).  Every stakeholder’s reticular activating system (RAS) impacts his or her attention and motivation.  Therefore, the RAS influences how efficiently staff addresses the organizational focal points.  The effective leader recognizes this and seeks to “clearly identify the learning focal points that matter” (p. 100) as a way to mitigate stressors that overwhelms one’s perception and attention to organizational focal points. 

Learning organizations attend to what Vygotsky called scientific concepts (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003).  Scientific concepts are psychological tools such as language, formulas, memory techniques, concepts, rules, symbols, and signs.  Properly designed class instruction utilizes and learns through these psychological tools, which reduces learning overload by optimizing metacognition (Bohlin et al., 2008)

In the pursuit of defining a learning culture, effective leaders also seek to optimize structured organizational learning by utilizing a system proven effective for promoting change.  The following eight-step protocol (Reason, 2010), promotes success while reducing learning overload:

Step One: Acknowledging Learning Limits

Step Two: Lightening the Learning Load

Step Three: Identifying Learning Focal Points

Step Four: Establishing Emotional Relevance

Step Five: Establishing Inquiry

Step Six: Identifying Essential Goals and Outcomes

Step Seven: Making the Focal Points Public

Step Eight: Funneling New Ideas Into Current Focal Points (pp. 103-112)

Reason (2010) posits, “The identification of learning focal points, empowering questions, and must-have outcomes won’t reduce all the confusion in an organization” (p. 112).  However, the eight-step protocol noted above optimizes the learning organization’s ability to prioritize elements essential for promoting student learning and sustaining reform.  Clarity and focus mitigates fear and stress, thereby improving the organization’s culture of learning while reducing learning overload. 

The improvement to the collaborative culture begins with recognizing promotion of student learning in schools that are loosely coupled by design requires a tightly coupled system in relation to the established non-negotiable goals (NNGs).  Beginning with district leadership, a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates NNGs to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow or nonexistent.

An effective educational leader confidently handles more autonomy or increased degrees of freedom.  By contrast, novice principals or leaders at struggling schools need more guidance and direction from district-level leaders.  An effective leader recognizes when and how staff can work autonomously and collaboratively, thereby developing or removing staff as necessary and promoting a culture of high expectations within the school (Eck & Goodwin, 2010).

Purpose driven inquiry (Reason, 2010) can be utilized with either small groups or the entire school community.  Reason presented a six-step protocol useful for small and systemic projects alike:

Step One: Identifying the Question and Knowing Why We Ask It

Step Two: Igniting Collective Curiosity

Step Three: Defining Strategic Action

Step Four: Defining Accountability

Step Five: Making the Agenda Public

Step Six: Maintaining Engagement (pp. 78-86)

Establishment of non-negotiable goals (NNGs) are a product of earlier collaboration, which promoted staff empowerment.  Determination to collaborate, time to meet, willingness to ask serious questions, creating an action plan, and always meeting with an agenda, promotes communication aligned to those established NNGs.  Therefore, Reason’s (2010) six-step protocol for purpose driven inquiry mitigates learning overload while encouraging communication directed at sustained improvement and organizational learning. 

Effective accountability requirements hastened the emergence of professional learning communities (PLC).  Marzano and Waters (2009) believe, a PLC “suggests a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth-promoting way; operating as a collective enterprise” (p. 56).  The PLC and any potential action research must address the need to develop and sustain a systemic culture of continuous improvement that promotes learning (DuFour, et al, 2008). 

Positive change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear mission.  Unintended consequences, which often fall into the pool labeled “negative change,” typically ignore those characteristics connected with positive change.  Ideally, this discussion successfully emphasized it is not enough to want to change or need to change, for to effectively change, an organization must experience positive change.

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (July 30, 2019) Developing and sustaining a collaborative learning culture.

              [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2008). Ed psych: Modules. NY: McGraw-Hill.

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

            work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

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

24-27.

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

            correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution

            Tree Press

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Schmoker, J, (1999) The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd ed.) Arlington, VA: ASCD

Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical,

            interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman &

D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions

(pp. 207–228) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Applied Emotional Intelligence Behaviors Influence Teachers’ Perceptions of School Climate

        Despite the presence of difficult circumstances, effective schools sustain improvement through capacity building and equipping teachers to lead development and innovation initiatives (Harris & Chapman, 2002). Socialization provides a strategic process for studying the current culture and determining how it might need to change (Schein, 1984). Teacher and leadership development programs must provide high quality learning and teaching in schools. Ideally, quality results from leadership approaches that embrace “the principles of professional collaboration, development, and growth” (Muijs & Harris, 2007, p. 40).

      Effective Schools Researchers examined sustainable learning organizations and consistently found “effective schools have strong and effective leadership” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 51). Leader charisma, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation characterize a leaders’ ability to transform subordinate motivation and group performance (Bass, 1999; Northouse, 2010). In contrast to models of transformational leadership, which too often depend upon the charisma of the leader, distributed leadership approaches emphasize concepts such as democracy, empowerment, and autonomy, thereby providing a powerful tool for transforming educational leadership practice (Spillane, Camburn, Pustejovsky, Pareja, & Lewis, 2007). Yet, Storey (2004) found distributed leadership merely exhibits “an exercise in re-labeling” (p. 398). Sustained school improvement must rely upon a school-wide climate of high expectations for success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). 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).

     It is essential that teacher preparation programs effectively and efficiently develop teacher leadership because research demonstrates clear correlation between student academic achievement and teacher quality (Whitehurst, 2002). As noted by Purkey and Novak (2008), invitations for personal and professional development must be conveyed and recognized as an explicit opportunity. Therefore, to be dependably inviting, school leaders need to have the skills to effectively convey and then check for receipt. Only then does acceptance become a possibility. The influence of emotional intelligence upon school climate has been researched (Anderson, 2016; Abdulkarim, 2013; Curry, 2009; Juma, 2013). However, the impact of demonstrated or applied EI upon one’s ability to extend, monitor, or receive the invitation as an opportunity remains unclear and will benefit from further empirical research.

      Previous studies (Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Burns & Martin, 2010) posited leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory encourages people to tap into their unlimited potential. IE theory includes vital elements needed for success within today’s educational organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). Graduate programs intending to develop highly qualified teacher leaders must seek to optimize the identification and development of correlates optimizing educational leadership (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2019). Such correlates promote sustained school success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).

      Winston and Hartsfield (2004) identified correlations between three of the four sub-skills of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and leadership behaviors that promote positive school climate. These behaviors include empowerment (Patterson, 2003; Wong & Page, 2003) and collaboration (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004). Climate-building behaviors also embrace teacher autonomy (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Winston & Hartsfield, 2004). Marzano and Waters (2009) identify the importance of “defined autonomy” (p.8).

       The empirical study by Anderson, 2016 increased understanding of how demonstrated or applied emotional intelligence behaviors correlate with the teacher’s perceptions of school and whether certain emotional intelligence (EI) sub-skills more or less influence perceptions of school climate related to IE theory. The findings can inform a university’s graduate-level programming, identify leadership factors that influence school climate, and guide future research on the impact of demonstrated emotional intelligence behaviors upon perceptions of school climate.

     Research by Momeni (2009) found dimensions of emotional intelligence explained 70% of employees' perceptions of organizational climate result directly from a manager's morale and behavior.  The awareness and management of emotions, as well as perception of emotions by others, provide critical elements for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2010).  However, as noted above, additional research is needed to examine the impact of demonstrated EI upon a teacher’s ability to receive, monitor, or extend an intentional invitation as an opportunity to optimize human potential. 

      Educators trained to develop their emotional intelligence as part of their professional leadership repertoire can proactively utilize both their cognitive and metacognitive skills (Brackett & Katulak, 2007). Invitational Education (IE) theory contributes to school effectiveness by the way that its leaders demonstrate care for, and support of, the efforts of others (Halpin, 2003; Purkey & Siegel, 2013). The basic tenets of IE theory exhibited by the inviting leader include intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (ICORT). Implementation of IE theory promotes ICORT (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Anderson 2017) and thereby provides a means of summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all worthwhile human endeavors (Burns & Martin, 2010).    

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (May 31, 2019) Applied emotional intelligence behaviors influence teachers’ 

             perceptions of school climate. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

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

References

Abdulkarim, R. M. (2013). The relationship between a leader's self-perceived level of emotional

intelligence and organizational climate, as perceived by organizational members.

(Order No. 3587854, Grand Canyon University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 169.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1427344508?accountid=7374. (1427344508).

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.

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

                practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management,

                New Mexico State University.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational

                culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.

                doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524907

Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-

                based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.),

                Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner's guide, 1-27. New York, NY:

                Psychology Press.

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

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

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2019). CAEP Accreditation

             Standards. Retrieved from

              http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-standards-and-report-forms

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).

Halpin, D. (2003). Hope and Education. eBook ISBN: 9780203468012 doi:10.4324/9780203468012

Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Leadership in schools facing challenging 

                    circumstances. Management in Education, 16(1), 10–13. 

                    doi:10.1177/0892020602016001030

Juma, D. S. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence of principals and the

                overall organizational climate of public elementary schools. (Order No. 3564904,

                Grand     Canyon University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 185. Retrieved from           http://search.proquest.com/docview/1411930824?accountid=7374. (1411930824).

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

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington, In:

                Solution Tree Press

Matthews, K. M., & Brown, C. L. (1976). The principal’s influence on student

                achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 67, 11. doi.org/10.1177/019263657606040201

Maulding, W. S., Townsend, A., Leonard, E., Sparkman, L., Styron, J., & Styron, R. A.

                (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence of principals and student

                performance in Mississippi public schools. Academic Leadership (15337812),

                8(4), 67.

Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.

                Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications

                for educators. 3-31. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from:

              http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Reprints/EIreprints%20home.htm

Momeni, N. (2009). The relation between managers' emotional intelligence and the

                organizational climate they create. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 35-48.

                doi: 10.1177/009102600903800203

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (in)action: three case studies of 

                 contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 

                35(1), 111–134. doi:10.1177/1741143207071387

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

                Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-4129-7488-2.

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., & 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

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., Pustejovsky, J., Pareja, A. S., & Lewis, G. (2007). 

                    Taking a distributed perspective in studying school leadership and management:

                    The challenge of study operations. Distributed Leadership, 47–80. 

                    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_4

Winston, B.E., & Hartsfield, M. (2004). Similarities between emotional intelligence and servant

                leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.

                Retrieved from 

                http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2004SLRoundtable/winston-       2004SL.pdf

Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T., & Druskat, V. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis

                of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly,

                13(5), 505-522.

Wong, P. T. P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model

                and the revised servant leadership profile. Paper presented at the Servant

                Leadership Roundtable at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. October 13. 

Servant Leadership and Invitational Theory and Practice

Servant-leaders are value-led and character-driven.  These qualities are typically exhibited by "increased service to others; a holistic approach to work; promoting a sense of community; and the sharing of power in decision making" (Greenleaf, 1997, p. 4).  Proponents of servant leadership emphasize collaboration and integrity, whereby communication and persuasion skills become extremely important (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004).  These skills are certainly the result of intellectual skills and experiential opportunities.

Since a servant leader invests himself or herself in enabling others, in helping them be and do their best (Hall, 1991), then decision-making processes involving most of the stakeholders will typically result in consensus-building.  As a result, a servant leader's motivation can be directed more at the personal growth of the follower.  The servant leader's success can then be determined by the extent to which the follower moves toward self-actualization (Maslow, 1970).  Therefore, what differentiates servant-leaders is their deep desire to pursue a preferred future from “the basis of humility, empathy, compassion, and commitment to ethical behavior” (Lad & Luechauer, 1998, p. 64).  This would not be possible without the intellectual and experiential components of leadership being evident.

The three basic assumptions of servant leadership are the servant leader is responsible for the followers, is responsible towards society and the disadvantaged, and the person who wants to help others does this best by leading them.  Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people, and building community are essential attributes of the servant leader (Spear, 2002). 

Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) found the conceptual relationships and complementary roles between servant-hood and leadership had been studied from the perspectives of scholars and practitioners (Bass, 1999; Bowman, 1997; Buchen, 1998; Chappel, 2000; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998; De Pree, 1989; Fading, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Graham, 1991; Pollard, 1997; Russel, 2000; Senge, 1990, 1995; Spears, 1995).  The primary motivation for the servant-leader is to serve first rather than to lead (Greenleaf, 1977).  In most organizations, leadership is ascribed to people who hold management positions and are capable of giving orders to other members of the organization (Senge, 1990).  As a result of the primary desire to serve, the servant-leader wants to help his or her followers "grow healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants" (Greenleaf, 1977, pp 13-14).  While the desire to serve is the primary motivation of the servant-leader, the aspiration to lead is based on conscious choice to ensure other people's highest-priority needs are being served (Greenleaf, 1977).

Servant leaders do not find service and leadership to be dichotomous.  Rather, they believe the concepts are so intertwined that they can be used interchangeably because, to them, leadership is about providing a service (Koshal, 2005).  Since leadership does not exist in the absence of service then, according to Koshal, service delivery is only possible through leaders that model it.  Therefore, from the perspective of the servant leader the tenet of service adheres to key principles of servant leadership.  Leaders who lead an organization by focusing on their followers are servants first, whereby his or her followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral.  Servant leaders serve and lead with “(a) altruism, (b) empower followers, (c) act with humility, (d) exhibit love, (e) lead with service, (f) are trusting, and (g) are visionary to their followers” (Patterson, 2003, p. 5).

Based on previous research, conceptual and empirical gaps exist between servant leadership and charismatic leadership theory (Tucker, 1968).  While charismatic leadership has been systematically studied and developed into a rigorously tested theory, at the dawn of the 21^st century servant leadership continued to be considered a movement rather than a tested theory.  Therefore, empirical studies on servant leadership and related models continue to be needed Bass (1999).

Spencer (2006) proposed a hybrid model of servant-leadership oriented toward empowerment for achieving the organization's objectives (para. 22).  Spencer believed trust and emotional intelligence must play a major role.  Invitational education, as explicated by Purkey and Siegel (2013), is a model based on, a collection of assumptions seeking to explain phenomena by providing a means.  Invitational Theory and Practice provides the structure to guide today’s leaders through complex times (Burns & Martin, 2010). 

Invitational Theory and Practice, which is grounded in social justice and high emotional intelligence (EI), should be reflected in school leaders that focus upon issues of social inclusion, mutual respect, care, equity, and justice.  Leaders exhibiting such transformative social justice would consider the impact of race, class, gender, and disability.  Thus, invitational leaders promoting social justice would address historically marginalized groups and conditions within schools that impact student learning.

The four areas of inviting: “Inviting Oneself Personally, Inviting Oneself Professionally, Inviting Others Personally, and Inviting Others Professionally” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 16) provide useful structures for explaining Invitational Theory and Practice through understandable language with useable concepts (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Purkey, Schmidt, & Novak, 2010; Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Steyn, 2005).  As noted by research throughout the Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, servant leaders would feel Invitational Theory and Practice naturally aligns with their mindset.  The result would be inviting practices in all areas of school functioning that thereby encourages people, practices, policies, and processes to be intentional, caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (I-CORT) in any place where optimal teaching and learning is desired (Anderson, 2017).

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (February 27, 2019) Servant leadership and invitational theory and 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.

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 & Practice, 16, 29-55.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational

Theory & Practice, 9, 57-70.

Egley, R. J., & Jones, B. D. (2005). Can accountability be inviting? an assessment of

administrators' professionally and personally inviting behaviors. Journal of Invitational

Theory & Practice, 11, 71-84.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power 

           and  greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist PressGreenleaf, R. K. 1997. The servant as leader.

Indianapolis, IN: The Greenleaf Center (30).

Koshal, J.O., (2005). Servant leadership theory: Application of the construct of service in the

            context of Kenyan leaders and managers. Regent University: Servant Leadership

            Research Roundtable. Retrieved February 27, 2019 from

http://gradworks.umi.com/31/88/3188226.html

Lad, L. J. & Luechauer, D. 1998. "On the path to servant-leadership." In L. Spears Insights on

            leadership: Service, spirit, and servant leadership. New York, NY: John Wiley

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

Schmidt, J. J. (2004). Diversity and invitational theory and practice. Journal of Invitational

        Theory & Practice, 10, 27-46.

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of

        Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application

            in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-64.

Senge, P. M. (1990, Fall). The leader's new work: building learning organizations, Sloan

            Management Review, 32(1), 7-24.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence , M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the

            21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spencer, J. L. (2007). The new frontier of servant leadership. Paper presented at the Servant

Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, School of Leadership Studies.

Retrieved May 5, 2012 from

http://regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/spencer.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.

Steyn, G. M. (2005). Exploring factors that influence the effective implementation of

        professional development programmes on invitational education. Journal of Invitational

        Theory & Practice, 11, 7-34.