Invitational Education Theory, Collaborative Change, and the Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice

            The development of systemic support when seeking to promote a school culture that drives sustained school improvement requires collaboration (Marzano & Waters, 2009).  Since “the public school establishment is one of the most stubbornly intransigent forces on the planet” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 2), a positive cultural change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear Learning for All mission.  The principal, teachers, and parents are all school leaders needing to be available to shape a school’s non-negotiable culture (Peterson & Deal, 1998). 

Effective collaborative change begins with recognition that although loosely coupled by design, schools can also be tightly coupled by adherence to non-negotiable goals and a culture that promotes student learning.  It is therefore essential to promote a “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 8) by communicating a clear vision to both internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change is slow or nonexistent (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  However, school leaders must effectively communicate to stakeholders the difference between a steady, sustained approach compared to resistance or unwillingness to change.

The effectiveness of school leadership acts remains contingent upon teacher acceptance (Matthews & Brown, 1976).  Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions influence positive or negative responses to initiatives (Rokeach, 1968).  Teachers’ perception of respect and trust exhibited by the principal correlates with both teachers’ and students’ morale, commitment, and achievement (Ellis, 1988; Riner, 2003).  However, when a school leader effectively communicates a vision for success, models positive expectations, and utilizes inviting leadership practices, teachers’ behaviors can be influenced (Asbill, 1994; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000). 

Invitational Education theory provides a needed collaborative and holistic framework for school transformation.  Rather than suggesting a quick-fix, the framework encourages a metamorphosis, requiring years of vigilance before affirming sustained change (Strahan & Purkey, 1992).  Vigilance is required because “transforming the way schools operate means transforming people” (Asbill, 1994, p. 42).  School reform requires systemic change, a metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps).  Such analysis discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Strahan & Purkey, 1992).

Invitational Education provides “a theory of practice that radiates into every relationship in the school setting” (Asbill, 1994, p. 43).  Actions and interactions can be perceived as either inviting or disinviting (Purkey & Novak, 2008).  Therefore, actions or interaction perceived as positive become “invitations that bid others to see themselves as capable, valuable, and responsible and to behave accordingly” (Asbill, 1994, p.43). 

Burns and Martin (2010) posit the Invitational Education theory creates a leadership model providing the collaborative structure needed to guide educational leaders through diverse and complex situations.  This leadership model is comprehensive in design (Burns & Martin, 2010; Egley, 2003).  It is also inclusive of many of the elements of transformational and servant leadership, considered essential for promoting success in educational organizations. 

Utilization of Invitational Education theory and practice can create and maintain safe and successful schools by addressing the total culture of the educational environment (Stanley, et al., 2004).  Leaders willing to explore key concepts of Invitational Education theory and practice increase opportunities for developing a school culture that drives sustained school improvement.  These key collaborative concepts include: Transformation of communication skills, ongoing assessment of the 5 Ps (people places policies, practices, and processes), and empowering group dynamics. 

The Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice (JITP) promotes the study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice.  As an online peer reviewed scholarly publication, the JITP presents articles to advance the theory.  As JITP editor, Dr. Chris James Anderson of Southwest Minnesota State University’s School of Education invites others to embrace the holistic and interdependent conditions that promote learning for all!  The JITP seeks to advance the tenets of Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices to optimize educational equity in quality.  While education is the endeavor that strengthens a mind, frees a spirit, and enriches a society, the JITP will not be limited to educational stakeholders.  Rather, the JITP  welcomes all opportunities to promote the study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP).  Authors must follow the specific guidelines when submitting manuscripts for JITP publication consideration.  Guidelines for Authors or Book Reviews can be accessed from: https://www.invitationaleducation.net/publications/journal/  

Submit manuscripts as email attachments to JITPeditor@invitationaleducation.net

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2017) Invitational education theory, collaborative change, and the

                Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice. [Web log post] Retrieved from

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

 

References:

Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting

                Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1), 16-27. Retrieved

                from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female

                educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of leadership.

                Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-24.

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

                Theory and Practice, 9, 57-70.

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

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action (first ed.).

                Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Tree Press

Purkey, W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and

                Practice, 1(1), 5-14.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching

                and learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

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

                professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

                http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

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

Leadership and School Climate Based on Invitational Education Theory

An educational leader, regardless if an administrator or teacher, needs to comprehend and understand the school’s climate.  This allows him or her to know how things get done and how these things are perceived by students and other stakeholders (Marzano, 2004).  While the school’s culture determines the tone of staff and students engagement, leaders establish the school’s climate (Goleman, 2006b).  One way a leader contributes to a positive school climate is to nourish trusting and caring relationships and practicing empathetic social interactions. 

Although transformational and servant leadership models have served educational leaders for several decades, invitational leadership (IL) provides a comprehensive model providing a positive and encouraging structure for today’s leaders during these complex times.  “The research on the effects of Invitational Education Theory in the educational administrative process is relatively new as compared to other theories pertaining to leadership” (Egley, 2003, p. 57).  As explicated by Purkey and Siegel (2013), IL is based on invitational theory.  “Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor” (Purkey, 1992, p. 5).  Therefore, the IL model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations (Purkey & Novak, 1996).  Burns and Martin (2010) found a statistically significant difference between the utilization of invitational leadership qualities in effective schools versus less effective schools.

 “Invitational leadership contributes to school effectiveness by the way in which it cares for and supports the efforts of others” (Halpin, 2003, p. 84).  Invitational leadership (IL) has a highly personal and ethical component included within the constructs of the model (Burns & Martin, 2010, p. 31).  Being based upon four basic tenets that exemplify invitational leaders, IL thereby expects exhibition of the four: optimism, respect, trust, and intentionality.  Researchers further defined these four tenets:

1.     Optimism–the belief that people have untapped potential for growth and development (Day et al., 2001, p. 34).

2.     Respect–the recognition that each person is an individual of worth (Day et al., 2001, p. 34).

3.     Trust–possessing “confidence in the abilities, integrity, and responsibilities of ourselves and others” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p. 12).

4.     Intention–“knowing what we intend to bring about as well as how we intend it to happen gives clarity and direction to our work”  (Stillion & Siegel, 2005, p. 15).  

Invitational Education (IE) Theory invites interested stakeholders to succeed (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001; Kelly et al., 1998; Purkey, 1992; Purkey & Novak, 1996; Purkey & Siegel, 2013).  Invitations are “messages communicated to people which inform them of their ability, responsiveness, and worth (Day, et al., 2001).  Invitational Education (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 & Strahan, 1995).  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 & Strahan, 1995; Schmidt, 2007). This framework will be further discussed within the forthcoming September 2014 post.

Invitational Education Theory (IET) can radiate into every relationship within the school environment (Asbill, 1994).  There are several ways to become more familiar with IET and its impact upon school leadership and school climate.  As a self-concept approach, IET helps stakeholders within an organization realize their full potential.  Since everyone and everything in one’s environment influences self-concept, the implementation of IET can influences beliefs and choices of behavior.  

Through Invitational Education, optimistic mindsets can be developed, thereby treating ourselves and others as capable, valuable, and responsible.  This is an alternative to today's control-oriented approaches.  Such controlling environments offer little choice, resulting in negative impact upon motivation, creativity, perseverance, and effort.  IET provides a much-needed balance, thereby optimizing the provision of a high challenge/low risk environment whereby we all can thrive.

The International Alliance for Invitational Education (IAIE) will hold its 32nd Annual World Conference in Nashville, TN from October 29-November 1, 2014.  This unique international gathering will focus upon how to use Invitational Theory as a framework for creating positive climates.  CLICK HERE to download the complete IAIE Conference Brochure and Registration Form.  CLICK HERE for Online Registration and additional information on the IAIE. 

References:

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

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the

               authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University

Press.

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female

               educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of leadership.

               Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56.

Cleveland, H. (2002, September/October). Leadership the get-it-all-together profession; the core

               issue of leadership is the paradox of participation: How do you get everybody in on the

               act and still get things done? The Futurist, 36, 42 -50.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, New York: Simon &

               Schuster.

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.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-

               24.

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

               Theory and Practice, 9, 57-70.

Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

               Pearson Education.

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

Halpin, D. (2003). Hope and education: The role of the utopian imagination. London: England:Routledge

               Falmer. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108053476

Hansen, J. (1998). Creating a school where people like to be. Educational Leadership, 56, 14-17.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance

organization. New York: NY, Harper Business Essentials.

Kelly, P., Brown, S., Butler, A., Gittens, P., Taylor, C., & Zeller, P. (1998). A place to hang our

               hats. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 62-64.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner centered classroom and school: Strategies

               for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Purkey, W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and

               Practice, 1(1), 5-14.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching

               and learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

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

               professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

               http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

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

Seokhwa, Y., Cox, J., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of

               leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 374-

               388. doi:10.1108/02683940610663141

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 4, 2014) Leadership and school climate based on invitational education theory

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

IMPROVING PARENTAL PARTNERSHIP TO OPTIMIZE STUDENT LEARNING

Like all seven correlates of Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011), the positive home-school relations correlate is deceptively simple to describe, but unusually complex to execute across the diverse student groups that comprise the typical school.  For example, when it comes to discipline, parents usually expect the school’s staff to treat their children as the parents would treat them at home.  In practice, the variability in parenting styles makes it nearly impossible for educators to know the types of action that individual parents prefer.  What is a teacher to do?

Reflecting upon the home-school correlate, Lezotte and Snyder (2011) believe the parent involvement is filled with paradox.  First, when the school has an open house, parents’ night or parent-teacher conferences, the parents whose children need such partnerships the least are usually among the first to come.  On the other hand, the parents whose children would benefit the most from a stronger home-school partnership often do not come at all.  Similarly, stay-at-home moms and dads can readily visit their children’s classroom during school hours, whereas parents who work outside the home are limited in their ability to visit school at such times.  These situations illustrate challenges educators encounter when seeking to build strong home-school relations, a necessary element in an effective school.  

Leaders of effective schools use a variety of strategies and provide many opportunities for parents and caregivers to be involved with their children’s schooling in order to create a strong partnership that makes student success more likely.  These leaders also recognize that the absence of desired parental support can not be used as an excuse to give up on those students.  Recognizing the importance of parent involvement in schooling, early Title I federal legislation in the United States established provisions for involving parents in their children’s learning.  No Child Left Behind took parent involvement a step further and specifically defined it as “the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities” (U.S. DoE, 2004).  Under this law, schools receiving Title I funding were required to adopt specific strategies for involving parents in their children’s schooling, including parents who traditionally had not participated with the schools due to cultural, language, socioeconomic, or other barriers. 

For example, schools and districts with large numbers of English language learners have been required to offer written school policies in the students’ home languages.  NCLB has made it clear that building the capacity of parents to be involved in their children’s education was a priority by requiring schools and districts to spend a significant portion of their Title I dollars on doing just that.  Such a school-parent compact exemplifies the importance attached to parent involvement in schools. 

While generalizations are always tricky, it is generally true that levels of parental support are stronger with elementary students (Sheldon & Van Voorhis, 2004).  As students’ progress to middle or high school, parental partnership in pursuit of the school mission is more difficult to achieve and maintain.  Schools with high concentrations of minority or low-income students, as well as those with a significant number of English language learners, also have lower levels of parental involvement, as well as lower educational expectations of their children (Lee & Bowen, 2006).  Many reasons account for the lack of parent involvement among these groups  Such parents may feel unwelcome because of their own educational experiences, feel culturally out of touch with the school staff, or have work schedules that prohibit active participation in school activities .  (Sanders, Allen-Jones, & Abel, 2002).  Because these parents struggle with their own educational deficits or difficulties with English, it is essential for schools to teach such parents about what to do to optimize the available help to promote their children’s learning. 

 

 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 7, 2013) Improving parental partnership to optimize student learning.  [Web log post] 
               Retrieved from  http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

Reference:

 Lee, J., and Bowen, N., (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school

children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193-218

Lezotte, L. W. (1991) Correlates of Effective Schools: The First and Second Generation.

               http://www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/escorrelates.pdf

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

Solution Tree Press.

 

Sanders, M. G., Allen-Jones, G. L. And Abel, Y. (2002), Involving Families and Communities in the Education of  

 

            Children and Youth Placed At Risk. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101: 171–188.

doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2002.tb00081.x

Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2006) Getting students to school: using family and community involvement to reduce

chronic absenteeism. The School Community Journal Retrieved from:

http://www.adi.org/journal/fw04/Sheldon%20&%20Epstein.pdf