Leading with Love: Being Culturally Responsive Requires Addressing Systemic Racism

Considered by many to be the father of the common school movement, Horace Mann believed the public education system should be “common in the highest sense, as the air and light were common; because it was not  only the cheapest but the best, not only accessible to all, but as a general rule, enjoyed by all” (Reese, 2005, p. 11).  By satisfying every students’ basic needs an effective teacher leader addresses the need for intrinsic motivation.  Thereafter, the school’s core beliefs and core values can promote capitalization of interest and relevance, providing realistic choices among tasks, teaching skills necessary for success, focusing on mastery, helping students set appropriate goals, providing appropriate feedback, limiting use of external constraints in teaching, and fostering relatedness in the classroom.

This is a perfect rationale for promoting culturally responsive teaching practices.  Teacher leaders need to advocate for the currently unheard voices of their students. A social justice mindset recognizes social conditions creating an opportunity gap are leading indicators in education and must be addressed if we ever want to truly mitigate the trailing indicator known as the achievement gap. To various extent, teacher preparation standards implicitly encourage culturally responsive teaching practices. For instance, a teacher may be expected to:

·         Connect disciplinary knowledge to other subject areas and to everyday life;

·         Link new ideas to familiar ideas: making connections to a student's experiences;

·         Use a student's thinking and experiences as a resource in planning instructional activities;

·         Understand how a student's learning is influenced by individual experiences, talents, and prior learning, as well as language, culture, family, and community values;

·         Understand how to recognize and deal with dehumanizing biases, discrimination, prejudices, and institutional and personal racism and sexism;

·         Understand cultural and community diversity, knowing how to learn about and incorporate a student's experiences, cultures, and community resources into instruction;

·         Know about community and cultural norms

For this discussion, it is crucial to recognize  Bloom’s taxonomy (1949) rates understanding and remembering as lower-order thinking skills (LOTS).  It is time for teacher candidates and practicing teachers to be able to evaluate systemic racism and actively create lessons that name, claim, and eliminate systemic racism by synthesizing community dynamics and best practices for promoting social justice.  Evaluating, creating, and synthesizing require higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). To promote high expectations, develop critical thinking skills, and achieve the learning for all mission, teachers should plan more HOTS rather than LOTS.

 The teaching force in the United States is mostly white and female.  This is true even in minority-based communities.  Regardless of race or composition of the community, it is time to expect all teachers to explicitly describe how they plan to bring multiple perspectives to subject matter discussions, including how they will attend to diverse student's personal, family, and community experiences and cultural norms.

Systemic racism impacts opportunities for inclusive educational practices and the over-representation of minority-populations endemic in special education.  As life-long learners, teachers need to become competent in developing effective instruction that includes modeling, practice, feedback, and reinforcement (Joyce & Showers, 2002).  In relation to addressing systemic racism, administrators need to support development of professional learning communities (PLC) designed to help teachers transition from providing LOTS to planning for HOTS.   Through effective collaboration, the PLC not only can examine school climate using the Five P structure based on Invitational Education theory (Schmidt, 2007) but create direct teaching that will address inequality and systemic racism.

Systemic inequality based on racism, the original sin of these United States, will not be adequately addressed by having one-month a year dedicated to a race’s history.  The 240-years old systems of oppression and culture of hate that began with acceptance or compromise of slavery by many of the Constitution’s Founding Fathers needs to be honestly discussed and openly addressed. “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but by the silence over that by the good people” (M.L. King Jr., 1963).

Racism is grounded in hate.  Therefore, when a society fails to address systemic racism it encourages hatred.  Where can teachers and ALL stakeholders begin? Use your voice and advocacy to lead with love!

Accept the following challenge:

Begin each day by reflecting upon how you will treat others the way you expect to be treated: With love! Further reflect upon the tenets of love, for instance as described in 1 COR 13:4-7: Love is patient and kind. Love is NOT prone to jealousy, pettiness, or anger. Love does NOT enjoy bad things. It does NOT exhibit rudeness, selfishness, or resentment.
 Love seeks the good within people and the truth in things. Love willingly invites forgiveness, trust, hope, and the desire to endure...

Then, commit to exhibiting these tenets throughout the balance of the day.  As in all things, you will not exhibit perfection. However, intentional planning to exhibit love-based actions today adds a concrete plan to your perfect goal.  The result will be YOU being more ready to communicate based on love.

When leading with love we invite others to reach their human potential.  We communicate the antithesis to hate-based systemic racism. We thereby make better possible.

Stay safe. Stay healthy. Be well.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (May 31, 2020) Leading with love: Being culturally responsive requires addressing systemic racism.

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

References:

Joyce, B.R. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.

                Arlington, VA: ASCD. ISBN: 0871206749

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

                of Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from:

                https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ791537.pdf

Providing Accessibility in Virtual Education Requires a Process for Professional Development

Yes, we must respect the process.  Crucially though, we must allow the process to work through the functional dynamics of the other 4 Ps: people, places, policies, and programs.  The process begins to break down whenever the other four Ps act with dysfunction. To be effective, all five must be optimally understood and interdependently respected by all stakeholders. Filling any gaps in this systemic reality is the most efficient professional development and pathway to becoming an intentionally inviting Effective School.

Related to equity in education the term "accessible" has been prone to multiple meanings. When considering access for students with disabilities, it is often confused with related terms such as accommodation, adaptation, or assistive technology. For purposes of this discussion, it makes sense to understand and explore what are accessible educational materials (AEM) and Accessible Technologies? Thereafter, you are ready to further distinguish and clarify the meaning in the context of access for students with disabilities and accept the invitation to access the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials resource:  AEM and the Digital Shift. 

Returning to the discussion on providing accommodations and ensuring accessibility, ideally, everyone accepted last month’s invitation to bookmark and become familiar with the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials.  While its free course has ended, all materials including webinar recordings remain available for reviewing, referencing and sharing with colleagues and other stakeholders. Therefore, Making Everyday Curriculum Materials Accessible for All Learners, remains valuable professional development for achieving your goal to ensure accessibility in virtual education.  

If delayed in reviewing this resource, perhaps the following preview would be beneficial:  Due to their physical, sensory, or learning disabilities, many students with disabilities experience barriers to using curriculum materials. Yet, all students should have access to the same curriculum materials.  An intentionally inviting mindset acknowledges accessibility improves the quality of your curriculum and learning outcomes for all learners.

The National Center on Accessible Educational Materials selected five tropics for online modules related to providing accessible classroom materials. The five topics are directly relevant to the curricular materials educators use daily with their diverse students:

• Introduction to Accessible Educational Materials and Technologies
• How to Make Your Documents Accessible
• How to Locate Captioned Videos and Caption Your Own
• How to Find Specialized Formats of Print Materials 
• How to Select Accessible Digital Materials 

Each topic has varied options for independent practice. A Participant can select activities according to the time he or she has as well as the level of commitment desired.  Depending on those choices, the time commitment will range from approximately one to three hours per topic. 

In partnership with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Digital Promise recently released a new resource that aims to provide that guidance for designing, assessing, and implementing educator micro-credentials. The linked interactive map, created in partnership with the National Education Association and Center for Teaching Quality, explores micro-credential policies and implementation stories across the nation. Given states, districts, professional organizations, and other entities are revising their systems and policies to recognize micro-credentials for educators, it is worthwhile to note Making Everyday Curriculum Materials Accessible for All Learners is a pre-approved course for the IAAP Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC) credential. This provides a solid argument if your district or state has not already pre-approved your work with this course material for CEUs or professional development credits.  

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (April 30, 2020). Providing accessibility in virtual education requires a process for professional

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

Embracing Diversity in the Virtual Delivery of Educational Materials

           During this abrupt evolution in how we need to effectively teach, the National Center for Accessible Educational Materials should be considered an invaluable resource. The mini-course http://aem.cast.org/about/new-educator-training.html should be widely shared. You are intentionally invited to participate. 

      Administrators are encouraged to accept completion of the mini-course: “Making Everyday Curriculum Materials Accessible for All Learners” for CEU or professional development credit.  Such prudent acceptance would encourage many more teachers to participate.  Large scale access and learning would increase knowledge of what is available but also promote delivery of educational materials through diverse modalities that optimizes accessibility.  Participate can also increase the embrace of diversity as differences rather than deficits. 

      Many rural areas with poor connectivity and urban families living in poverty experience Internet access issues.  These families need flexibility and accommodation.  Yes, telephone communication, postal service, and campus drop-off/pick-up provides alternatives.  Combining locations for free breakfast and lunch programs with academic materials pick-up and delivery would help many families.    

      In this day and age, it is crucial to recognize each system is bound by Five Powerful Ps: people, places, policies, programs, and processes (Purkey, 1999).   The effective instructional leader's research-based instructional process CAN be trusted when seeking to align with people, places, programs, and policies that demand innovative delivery of instruction.  An educational process led by principles of effective teaching for all with help create a virtual learning environment approaching nirvana (LEAN) rather than exacerbating frustration, anxiety, and tension (FAT City).  In this regard, YOUR research-based process can be trusted.  

      The virtual delivery is what will require innovation, flexibility, and diligence. However, if a mindset grounded in intentionality, care, optimism, and trust (I-CORT) prevails in your instructional delivery then the FAT will more likely be cut out and a LEAN approach would advance the learning for all mission.  As intentionally inviting, effective educators, our goal should always be to invite every human to reach her or his full potential.  

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (March 30, 2020). Embracing diversity in the virtual delivery of educational materials.  [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Promoting Inclusive Educational Practices in the United States

Public Law (P.L.) 94-142 (1975), now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated a “free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all handicapped children.” Within this law was the concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting ranging from part to all of the school day.  Mandates within P.L. 94-142 were enormously important in providing students with disabilities access to public education. Unfortunately, far too many placement decisions still foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been created. The law’s mechanism for identifying the LRE was often misinterpreted or misused rather than being treated as a legal and valid option for placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner (1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates, activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.

Related to the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Lipsky and Gardner (1997) examined beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975.  They found mainstreaming practices typically assumed a student with a disability could cope with the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming practices were traditionally considered only “applicable to those students who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77).

By contrast, when highly qualified teachers and administrators willingly utilize available information and resources to promote best practices, inclusion rates are positively impacted.  Inclusive educational practices signify that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities were different from typically developing students. Historically, too often mainstreaming and inclusion were used interchangeably in the educational literature. However, they differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246).

Fortunately, the p,  eriod following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based assessment for all students as stated in the re-authorization of IDEA (1997, 2004) stressed increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997 increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helped ensure educators will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires each state to develop and submit annual reports, known as the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR).  The SPP/APR allows evaluation of each State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA and describes how the State will improve its implementation.  The Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division (MSIP) within the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is responsible for ensuring States' compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). MSIP uses data from the reports to ensure that States and other public agencies continue to implement programs designed to improve results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Based on collected and certified data, the 17 Indicators for Part B of the SPP/APR and 11 Indicators for Part C of the SPP/APR allows dis-aggregation of each State’s compliance with IDEA.

For instance, Part B Indicator 5 requires states collect data on educational environments for children ages 6-21, which allows the USDE to monitor inclusion rates.  This allows the USDE to identify, evaluate, and monitor each State’s attempt to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States also collect data on variables that may be influencing its districts’ practices related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by Indicator 5 measures, can therefore be further analyzed and help determine whether certain variables are more present in those States deemed highly inclusive. Indicator 9 examines the percentage of students ages 3–21 served by IDEA and the percentage distribution of children and youth receiving services for specific disabilities. This indicator also examines the rate at which students ages 14–21 served by IDEA exited school. 

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups examines the educational progress and challenges students face in the United States by race and ethnicity. Monitoring of the data may help the USDE and SEAs utilize leadership principles that promote inclusive practices.  Knowing how to interpret and utilize data allows administrators and teacher leaders to differentiate between what Stephen Covey (1992) metaphorically described as “…good managers (who) will take you through the forest, no matter what.  A leader will climb a tree and identify when, ‘This is the wrong forest.’”  

Traditionalist theorists led by Andrews, Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs (2000) long contended current teacher preparation standards were sufficient for promoting the education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment. By contrast, reformists or substantial re-conceptualists (Paul & Ward, 1996) advocated for explicit teacher competency standards to be requisite for ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment. Because of the historical problems in ethically and legally providing a student with a disability her or his LRE, it is prudent to review and adjust, as needed, to ensure each state’s teacher competency standards- as presented in its teacher preparation programs- will optimally promote inclusive educational practices.  Minimally, teacher preparation programs should ensure that teacher candidates review user guides to increase understand and competency related to the expectations of the 17 Indicators for Part B of the SPP/APR and the 11 Indicators for Part C of the SPP/APR.

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (February 28, 2020 Promoting inclusive educational practices in the United States  [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Education Review, 57 (4), 367-395.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA),

 P. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. sections 611–614.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999). Commentary: Today’s special education and its messages for

 tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32 (4), 244-254.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming

 America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 

Paul, P. V., & Ward, M. (1996). Inclusion paradigms in conflict. Theory Into Practice,

35 (1), 4-11.

Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to

mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.

Optimizing School-wide Climate Positively Impacts School Success

      Sustained school improvement processes rely upon a school-wide climate of high expectations for success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  Curriculum for teacher preparation or leadership programs should inspire exploration of leadership models influential upon sustained school success.  Models may include servant leadership, transformational leadership, and distributed leadership.  Exploration of the literature based on the variables and theoretical frameworks would find Winston and Hartsfield (2004) attributed high levels of emotional intelligence to leadership models.  Other research identified leaders’ demonstrated high emotional intelligence promoted empowerment (Page & Wong, 2000; Patterson, 2003), collaboration (Russell & Stone, 2002), and autonomy (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Winston’s SL Model, 2003).  The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership influence (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002; Dries & Pepermans, 2007) should be further examined as it may positively relate school climate created by a school leader to staff performance and student achievement (Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Stipek, 2006). 

Given the previously established positive link between school climate and student achievement, Johnson and Stevens (2006), suggested future studies test school climate using “other mediating variables” (p. 119).  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.  Climate-building behaviors also embrace teacher autonomy (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Winston’s SL Model, 2003).  Marzano and Waters (2009) also identified the importance of “defined autonomy” (p.8). 

      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).  Identifying the competencies that increase the conveyance and receipt of personal and professional development opportunities could optimize school climate for all stakeholders (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Invitations for personal and professional development need to be explicitly conveyed (Purkey & Novak, 2016) and recognized as an opportunity (Anderson, 2017). 

     Invitational Education theory seeks to promote trust, collaboration, and purposeful inclusion (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Purkey & Siegel, 2013).  However, “People cannot accept invitations they have never received” (Purkey & Novak, 1996, p.75).  To be dependably inviting, effective leaders need to check for receipt and seek acknowledgement of their invitations for personal and professional development.  What is the influence of the teachers’ emotional intelligence upon the ability to recognize the invitation as an opportunity?

      Sadri (2012) noted Samad’s research found dimensions of emotional intelligence explained 59% of the variance in effective leadership whereby the social skills dimension emerged as the most influential.  The awareness and management of emotions, as well as perception of emotions by others, provide critical elements for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2010).  Within this constantly and rapidly evolving society, Bumphus (2007) found that resilient leaders possessing high levels of emotional intelligence become increasingly important.  

      Therefore, to be more reliably inviting, school leaders need to have the skills to effectively convey and then check for receipt.  Only then does acceptance become a possibility.  While Curry (2009) found uncertainty of the influence of emotional intelligence upon school climate, Anderson (2019) found Emotional Self-Control and Emotional Management of Others predicted a strong relationship in the positive direction between four of the five Inviting School Survey-Revised (ISS-R) domains of school climate. 

       While educational research exists on emotional intelligence, school climate based on IE theory, and leadership influence upon school climate, the field would benefit from further examination of the interconnectedness of these variables.  Further empirical research on the relationship between a certified teacher’s rating of the leader’s demonstrated emotional intelligence and the teacher’s perception of the school climate based on structures aligned with Invitational Education theory s encouraged.  Related empirical data would thereby inform the curriculum of educator preparation programs and the professional development of educational leaders.

     Schools must be places where leaders gain credibility through self-regulated behaviors.  Invitational Education 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).  These behaviors include the ability to empathize, build trust, challenge and support others, serve as a visionary, promote teamwork, and share leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 2000).  This allows school climate to improve based on “relationships that flourish” (Weymes, 2003). 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2020) Optimizing school-wide climate positively impacts

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

References:

Anderson, C. J. (2019). A leader’s emotional self-control and management of others impacts a

          school’s climate. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 25, 39-57.

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions of

          inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61.

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

Bumphus, A., (2007). The emotional intelligence and resilience of school leaders: An

            investigation into leadership behaviors. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),

            University of Southern Mississippi.

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

Cohen, J., McCabe, E., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,

            policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-

            213. Retrieved from:

            http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/policy/School-Climate-Paper-TC-Record.pdf

Curry, C. C. (2009). Correlation of emotional intelligence of school leaders to

            perceptions of school climate as perceived by teachers. (Order No. 3387434,

            Indiana University of Pennsylvania). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 257.

            Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305061864?accountid=7374.

            (305061864).

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., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power

           of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

            doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1063

Greenleaf, R. K. 1997. The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Greenleaf Center.

Johnson, B., & Stevens, J.J. (2006). Student achievement and elementary teachers’

            perceptions of school climate. Learning Environment Research, 9, 111-122.

doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9007-7

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco:

            Jossey- Bass. doi: 10.1037/t05491-000

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

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

Porter, B. (2010). Managing with emotional intelligence. Library Leadership &

            Management, 24(4), 199–201. Retrieved from:

            https://journals.tdl.org/llm/index.php/llm/issue/view/120

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

Sadri, G. (2012). Emotional intelligence and leadership development. Public Personnel

            Management, 41(3), 535-548. doi.org/10.1177/009102601204100308

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and

            Personality, 9 (3), 185-211. doi.org/10.2190/dugg-p24e-52wk-6cdg

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

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

            application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

            9(2), 57-64. doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900205

Sergiovanni , T. J. (2007) Leadership as stewardship: ‘Who’s serving who?’. The Jossey-

            Bass Reader on Educational Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley

            and Sons, pp. 75 – 92. ISBN: 0470435666

Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant leadership. The

            Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 17(7), 33-35.

doi.org/10.1108/01437739610148367

Stipek, D. (2006). Relationships matter. Educational Leadership, 64 (1), 46–49.

            Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-            leadership/sept06/vol64/num01/toc.aspx

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