Invitational Education Theory and a Framework for Effective Collaboration

         Last month’s post focused upon Schmidt’s (2007) exploration of the elements of Invitational Education (IE) theory that holistically evaluates school climate.  Schmidt’s meta-analysis identified three sets of structure.  The September 2014 post explored how the first set formed a framework for evaluating inviting practices.  The Five Ps include “five powerful factors–people, places, policies, programs, and processes…highly significant for their separate and combined influence on Invitational Leadership” (Purkey & Siegel, 2013, p. 104).  In combination, “these five P’s offers an almost limitless number of opportunities for the Invitational Leader, for they address the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (p. 104).  Through inclusion of the Five P’s the invitational leadership model becomes a unique and holistic model of leadership (Stillion & Siegel, 2005).

            This month we explore how the remaining two sets work in concert with the Five Ps to create a framework for effective collaboration among stakeholders.  The second set includes empowerment, encouragement, enlistment, enjoyment, equity, and expectation-the Six E’s.  Elements of this set guide the investigation of the Five Ps in relation to different stakeholder groups.  The third set identifies four areas of invitation: “Inviting Oneself Personally, Inviting Oneself Professionally, Inviting Others Personally, and Inviting Others Professionally” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 16).  Through holistic utilization, Schmidt posits these three sets of structure provide an understandable language based on useable concepts that explains school climate based on Invitational Education Theory.  Understandable language promotes the clear communication essential for effectivecollaboration.

            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 schools can be loosely coupled by design, they can also be tightly coupled regarding 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.  Researchers believe 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 an Invitational Education theory of practice can create and maintain safe and successful schools by addressing the total culture of the educational environment (Stanley, et al., 2004).  Exploration of key concepts, such as the transformation of communication skills, assessing the 5 Ps, and empowering group dynamics, will optimize the establishment of benchmarks and action plans for achieving school goals.  Purkey and Novak (2008) offered the starfish analogy as a mental model for the intentionally inviting school culture:  “Like the actions of a starfish, steady and continuous pressure from a number of points can work to overcome the toughest school challenges” (p. 19).

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., & 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

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 17, 2014) Invitational education theory and a framework for effective collaboration.  

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

Invitational Education Theory, Invitational Leadership, and the "Five P" Framework

          To evaluate elements of Invitational Education (IE) Theory when investigating school climate, Schmidt (2007) considered structures for applying and measuring the IE Theory’s principles and concepts.  Schmidt’s meta-analysis identified three sets of structure.  The first set: people, places, policies, programs, and processes- the Five Ps- provides the factors forming a framework for evaluating inviting practices.  The structural framework comprising the Five Ps will be the focus of this month’s post. 

       Purkey and Siegel (2003, 2013) reinforced the specific framework for schools to become “invitational” by concentrating on five areas contributing to school success or failure.  These “five powerful factors–people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the five P’s)–are highly significant for their separate and combined influence on Invitational Leadership” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p. 104).  In combination, “these five P’s offers an almost limitless number of opportunities for the Invitational Leader, for they address the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (p. 104).  Through inclusion of the five P’s the invitational leadership model becomes a unique and holistic model of leadership (Stillion & Siegel, 2005).

The five P’s contribute to the creation of a positive school climate and ultimately a healthy and successful organization (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).  In the invitational leadership model, people provide the most important element for leaders developing a successful school (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).  “Investment in people results in effective change” (Hansen, 1998, p.17)   Involving and empowering people “help individuals become part of an effective team” (Burns & Martin, 2010, p, 34).  “In the new organization the worker is no longer a cog…but is an intelligent part of the overall process.” (Gates, 1999, p. 289).  “Empowering leadership had a stronger positive effect on followers who were high on the need for autonomy, and directive leadership had a stronger negative effect on followers who were high on the need for autonomy (Seokhwa, Cox, & Sims, 2006, p. 374).  People within a success-minded organization need relationships (Bruffee, 1999; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Lencioni, 2002).  “The overall ambiance of the school and quality of instruction are enhanced as the school develops a 'concordant relationship' among the students, parents, teachers, and administrators” (Kelly et al. (1998, p. 62).  Therefore, the formation of positive relationships and relationship management becomes an essential element of creating and sustaining school success 

In the invitational leadership model, perceptions of a place contributes to school success or failure.  Observers can almost immediately notice the personality of a place, differentiating between a sterile, empty, and lifeless environment compared to a place seen as “warm, exciting, and filled with the personalities of all those who inhabit that space” (Burns & Martin, 2010, p, 33).  As the most visible element within an environment, “Places are the easiest to change” (Purkey, 1992, p. 7).  Therefore, in the invitational leadership model, places, and the perceptions of those that come into them, contribute to the school’s success or failure

In the invitational leadership model, policies also contribute to school success or failure.  Policies of successful schools create a positive school culture that seeks win/win results, which advances a mindset that seeks to provide mutual benefits in all human interactions (Covey, 1989).  An organization’s policies either restricts, confines, and squelches individuality or, by contrast, they empower positive and productive opportunities within the organization, thereby creating a cooperative, rather than a competitive environment (Fowler, 2004).

In the invitational leadership model, attractive programs contribute to school success or failure.  Because they always perceive themselves as overlooked, students often feel “disinvited in school” (Hansen, 1998, p.14).  In such situations, “these students suffered from a caring disability; not enough educators cared to invite them to participate in school life” (Hansen, 1998, p. 16).  By contrast, a school with a positive culture provides creative and attractive programs (Witcher, 1993) whereby academic courses taught by outstanding faculty increase the effectiveness of the curriculum while raising the standards for academic achievement and rigor (Edmonds, 1979; McCombs & Whisler, 1997).

In the invitational leadership model, processes contribute to school success or failure (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001; Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Stillion & Siegel, 2005).  To the detriment of an inviting environment, many school leaders establish the presumption that they are “in charge” (Cleveland, 2002, p.1).  By contrast, leaders can establish a successful school culture through “awareness of the need to include all stakeholders in as many of the decision making processes as possible” (Burns & Martin, 2010, p, 33).  When schools possess a positive school climate, they exhibit an environment that encourages “decision making characterized by participation, cooperation, and collaboration (Hansen, 1998, p. 17). 

Subsequent posts will explore the other two sets of structure identified by Schmidt’s (2007) meta-analysis.  The second set: empowerment, encouragement, enlistment, enjoyment, equity, and expectation-the Six E’s-guides the investigation of the Five Ps in relation to different stakeholder groups.  The third set identifies four areas of invitation: “Inviting Oneself Personally, Inviting Oneself Professionally, Inviting Others Personally, and Inviting Others Professionally” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 16).  Considered holistically, Schmidt posits the three sets of structure provide an understandable language with useable concepts to explain school climate based on Invitational Education Theory. 

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., & 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.

Gates, W. (1999) Business @ the speed of thought. NYC: Grand Central Publishing

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

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. (September 8, 2014) Invitational education theory, invitational leadership, and the five P

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