Search results

The purpose of the study is to identify barriers to collaboration among female administrators at a Ghanaian technical university (TU), based on the social identity theory (SIT).

A mixed-method approach was adopted, integrating qualitative interviews of 15 female administrators and completing structured questionnaires from 117 randomly sampled female administrators. The SIT, as the analytical framework, identified themes emerging from the data on barriers to collaboration among female administrators. While exploratory factor analysis identified measures of factors hindering collaborations, the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) enabled the confirmation of relationships among the barriers to collaboration with female administrators.

There existed statistically significant relationships between four of the barriers: intergroup relations conflict, trust with stakeholders and among females and structural barriers (SBs). For the quantitative analysis, it was found that SBs, intergroup relations, conflict and trust were statistically significant except for weak cultures. For the qualitative, results showed that SBs, lack of trust with stakeholders and among females and intergroup conflict hinder collaboration.

The study has a limited scope in using only one TU and focusing on a particular gender. The implications of this research will enrich the literature on barriers to female administrative collaboration in technical education based on the SIT.

Promoting administrative collaborations in the TU will ensure sustainability and efficient administrative systems.

Institutional policies should include gender inclusivity and equality on networking opportunities and provide mentorship programs for efficient administrative systems.

We used the SIT to determine barriers to collaboration among female administrators in a technical education institution, and the mixed methodology added a unique dimension to the study.

Legislators continue to label Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other race-based concepts as divisive. Nevertheless, CRT, at its core, is committed to radical transformation and addressing issues of race and racism to understand how People of Color are oppressed. Through rhetoric and legislative bans, this current anti-CRT movement uses race-neutral policies and practices to limit and eliminate CRT scholars, especially faculty members, from teaching and researching critical pedagogies and other race-based topics.

Through semi-structured interviews using Critical Race Methodology (CRM), the authors sought to understand how 40 faculty members challenged the dominant narratives presented by administrators through their responses to CRT bans. Additionally, this work aimed to examine how administrators’ responses complicate how faculty make sense of CRT bans.

Findings describe three major themes: (1) how administrators failed to respond to CRT bans, which to faculty indicated their desire to present a neutral stance as the middle ground between faculty and legislators; (2) the type of rhetoric administrators engaged in exemplified authoritarian approaches that upheld status quo narratives about diversity, exposing their inability to stand against oppressive dominant narratives; and (3) institutional leaders’ refusal to address the true threats that faculty members faced reinforced the racialized harm that individuals engaging in CRT work must navigate individually.

This study is one of the few that provide empirical data on this current anti-CRT movement, including problematizing the CRT bans, and how it affects campus constituents such as faculty members.

The chapter examines school administrator responsibilities to special education students and their families from case scenarios based on conflicts between parents and districts regarding services provided by schools to special education students. From these case studies based on real case law, readers are exposed to situations intended to pose questions as to whether administrators met their responsibility to ensure the rights of the special education students. Principals, superintendents, and special education administrators committed to work together to make their school environment and optimal place for children to learn. An equally important role for school administrators is to create and maintain cultures where faculty understand their advocacy role for all children, but in particular, those children most in need of support. Effective administrators hold themselves and other professionals in their district to high standards related to knowledge of school law, particularly special education school law; communication with parents and other professionals; and collaborations based on the value of what is best for the student. This chapter concludes with a section on ethical leadership or the values underlying administrative actions affecting individualized education program students, their families, and all students who are different whether due to socioeconomic status, cultural differences, or race.

The standards movement, while new in the current NCLB iteration, has been a part of education for almost the last half century (Popham, 2001; Sirotnik, 2004). According to several researchers (e.g., DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Lashley & Boscardin, 2003; Marsh, 2000; Villa & Thousand, 2000), there have been significant changes in the roles that school leaders must fulfill to implement a standards-based educational accountability system. The requirements of NCLB will not be a “passing fad” and so will affect the manner in which special education administrators conduct their work (Hochschild, 2003). As it stands, districts and schools are viewed as an amalgam of complex relationships (Harry, Sturges, & Klinger, 2005) that come together as learning communities to meet accountability targets for all students. The requirements for building a learning community involve the skills of collaboration and empowerment of others. Apparently, developing productive partnerships will exceed the previously defined narrow interpretation of collaboration with families and other professionals (Crockett, 2002). Standards-based accountability practices which disaggregate data based on specific subgroups, one of which is students with disabilities, are a result of the concern that exclusion of students from testing distorts the efficacy of educational reform efforts (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997; Schulte & Villwock, 2004). However, concerns have also been raised regarding the validity of conclusions drawn from large-scale accountability data (Schulte & Villwock, 2004; Ysseldyke & Bielinski, 2002). Hargreaves (2003) concluded that “the rightful pursuit of higher standards has generated into a counter productive obsession with soulless standardization” (p. 82).

Librarians have traditionally looked to academic library directors (ALDs) to list those qualities that make them good at what they do. Little research has sought the input of institutional administrators (who are the ones who hire ALDs) about what they look for when hiring ALDs. This study presented a list of qualities that had been rated by ALDs as being important for the position to these senior institutional administrators and asked them to rate the relative importance of these qualities and to add to the list any qualities they felt should be there. Their ratings were then compared with those of the library directors to see how closely they correlated. The results showed not only that there was statistically significant agreement between the two groups, but also that there were important differences, with the hiring administrators placing more priority on ideological attributes (attributes based on professional orientations and ideals) while ALDs emphasized the need for experience. The hiring administrators also added several attributes to the original list, including managing multiple priorities, being learning/student oriented (especially toward low achievers), being self-directed with a good work ethic, being able to relate effectively to all constituencies, and experience in the same type of institution as the one the person was being hired to lead.

Recognizing the need for a pool of diverse future administrators, the Los Angeles Unified School District entered into a partnership with the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at California State University, Northridge to prepare the next generation of leaders. The process to develop the program and produce the cadre of candidates is a study in the facilitation of the transition of educators from teachers to administrators. This chapter examines the issues encountered and the processes established to create a rigorous, accessible master's degree/Administrative Credential Program that met the needs of the students and the school district.

This chapter presents a crosswalk of the International Society for Technology Standards for Administrators commonly referred to as NETS*A, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for Administrators and the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards. This crosswalk will serve as a framework for a discussion of how the administrative standards have evolved to their current state and how administrators can best shift dispositions and knowledge and skills to get the maximum impact of technology in their standards-based leadership activities. The chapter finishes with practical advice as to how administrators can proceed to assess their environment and use appropriate technology to facilitate meeting the requirements of the revised standards.

Although student evaluation of teaching (SET) is widely used, there has been a significant disparity between its potential benefits with the actual impact on improving educational quality. This study aims to inquire into the factors contributing to this discrepancy and the underlying mechanisms hindering the effective utilisation of SET.

This qualitative case study used problem-based methodology to investigate the theories of action of administrators involved in SET. The study uses SET documents and individual interviews with 18 administrators from six Vietnamese higher education institutions.

While the administrators monitored SET data and addressed SET problems, few used it for quality improvement. The participants’ SET approaches were influenced by various constraints, especially the intricate interaction between neoliberal agendas with professional and cultural values.

Despite a lack of statistical generalisability, this study contributes to analytical generalisation by vividly portraying the complexity of the SET practice in a higher education context.

This study suggests a more inclusive approach to quality improvement that prioritises multi-stakeholder engagement.

The constraint analysis offers invaluable insights into the challenges and dynamics of SET practice, which can be used to enhance SET effectiveness and overall educational quality.

This paper addresses the need to examine the theories of action of administrators involved in SET, emphasising the significance of a comprehensive understanding of the stakeholders’ underlying reasoning process for successful evaluation implementation.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the terms and conditions of teachers' employment (e.g. working conditions), leading school districts to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements with teachers' unions. However, limited research has examined how these negotiations occur in times of crisis. This study aims to analyze how school district and teachers' union administrators adapted workplace policies to meet staff and student needs during the COVID-19 pandemic by using a panel dataset of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) negotiated in 187 large US school districts.

The authors used the partial independence item response method to estimate MOU restrictiveness measures that captured the extent to which MOUs limited school administrator autonomy in setting the terms and conditions of teachers' employment. Descriptive analyses and ordinary least squares regression models showed how the scope of collective bargaining negotiations expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how restrictiveness varied across school districts based on district and union characteristics.

Results showed that school district and teachers' union administrators increased restrictions on school administrator autonomy in the spring of 2020, but these restrictions decreased by fall 2021. The level of restrictions agreed upon varied based on the strength of teachers' unions and political partisanship of school districts. The COVID-19 pandemic led to an expansion of collective bargaining negotiations to include previously unconsidered topics such as employee and student health and remote instruction.

This study is one of the first to examine the modifications made to collective bargaining agreements during times of crisis by school district and teachers' union administrators. The findings suggest that there were considerable changes to the terms and conditions of teachers' employment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the strength of teachers' unions and political partisanship were associated with negotiation outcomes.

A central question of public administration is how political principals secure the cooperation of administrators within organisational frames and contexts; increasingly, rational influences are being considered alongside bounded rationality and non-rational influences. This paper aims to explore the intent of New Zealand’s Public Service Act 2020 in managing administrative behaviour.

The methodology is primarily ethnographic, combining emic and etic perspectives. A mixed-methods approach comprises participant observer field notes and meeting documentation, substantiated by official documents; documents were analysed thematically and triangulated with other data sources.

The Public Service Act introduces new bounds on administrative behaviour. The stated rationale for these changes reveals an attempt to set limits on the principal–agent relationship between politicians and administrators and causes predictable deviations from rational behaviour by cultivating public service motivation and a unified public service identity.

As the legislation in question was only passed in 2020, it is too early to definitively assess the ultimate impact of legislation on administrative behaviour. This case study demonstrates that behavioural approaches to public administration are being applied intentionally by governments. The choice architecture created in the case study blends rational, bounded, and non-rational influences. Together, this produces a bricolage of semi-relevant theories from other disciplines, especially psychology, to explain administrative behaviour. Further refinement is needed to develop a cohesive and comprehensive theory of administrative behaviour that can account for contemporary practice.

Administrators act as agents of political principals, within ethical and rules-based limitations and influenced by public service motivation and social identity. Shifting from implicit to explicit choice architecture does not negate possible tensions between bounds and can signal them more explicitly. Shared symbols are sometimes intended to influence identity and therefore adherence to behavioural norms.

This paper explores the manipulation of choice architecture as a viable strategy for altering behaviour for the better and, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, is the first known instance of choice architecture being “legislated in” rather than merely “showing through”. This study illustrates the blending of rational, boundedly rational and non-rational factors into a choice architecture for public administrators that help mediate the biases and challenges of principal–agent relationships (which form a cascade in New Zealand’s public administration system).