Search results

The purpose of this paper is to argue that current ways school systems have addressed social mobility is misguided at best and, at worst, hurts social mobility. Instead, we call for a focus on investment in teachers' professional capital as a primary lever for enhancing the likelihood they can effectively prepare and develop all children to lead successful lives after school. These arguments have become even more pertinent with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using contemporary research, and grounded in our collective decades of research in these areas, we define social mobility and document how the aim of improving it has become a central tenet of our governments' stated ambitions and the yardstick by which school systems' success is measured. We then show how the application of market-based approaches to schools and teachers' work has hindered social mobility and offer a new path forward.

After 50 years of neoliberal policies incentivising individualistic and competitive behaviours, it is time to move towards policies that enhance professional capital and promote high quality collaboration between teachers. We call for a new path forward: a re-orientation to invest in teachers' capacity to realise the potential of education to improve the life prospects for all children, irrespective of their background.

As with so many issues, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone an intense light on the role of educators in society. There are credible concerns that economic and educational inequalities resulting from the crisis have the potential to trigger a fall in future social mobility levels. Yet this should also be seen as a new dawn for renewed thinking in which we seriously consider a shift away from neoliberal to professional capital policies to create an education system that nurtures teaching professionals, promotes collective behaviour and helps rather than hinders efforts to improve social mobility.

In this paper, we describe the impact of COVID-19 on principals and their work. Drawing on prior research undertaken prior to the onset of the pandemic, we describe how principals were already grappling with difficult tensions associated with their expertise, autonomy, normative orientation and rewards that may have real implications for their work moving forward and how, in the current context of uncertainty and change we believe the issue of principal professionalism requires our collective attention and action.

Over the last year, we undertook a multistate qualitative study of 17 school leaders to explore how principals working in traditional public schools conceptualize the principal profession and their role within it. Briefly, we found that the principalship is an “emergent profession” characterized by shared but individually determined knowledge and skills; a normative orientation of service; confused notions of external expectations and rewards and ongoing tensions among all of these elements.

Professionalism may be a surprising lever for improving the capacity of school leadership. Through our research, we identified that little is known about professionalism as it relates to the unique work of school leaders, but that understanding more about it could lead to greater knowledge of how to encourage and retain them. In the current context of uncertainty, chaos and change, the pressure on leaders to stay in the role and to succeed has never been greater. Thus, it is critical that principals have the capacity to exert professionalism over their work and to have greater say in elements of it, recognizing that some decisions must be made at district, state and federal levels.

While many studies investigate how teachers of various backgrounds and in different contexts think about teaching as a profession (e.g. Anderson and Cohen, 2015; Stone-Johnson, 2014b; Torres and Weiner, 2018; Hall and McGinty, 2015), we had difficulty identifying studies focused on principals and using frameworks of professionalism to understand how these activities reflect larger shifts in the profession itself. This is despite the changing nature of principals' work, which, like the work of teachers, has been and continues to be largely influenced by the increasing role of neoliberal principles and policies in education. The public nature of the work of school leadership and the potential to support students, families and the communities in which they live brings in sharp focus the necessity of greater understanding of it during the COVID-19 crisis.

While educational infrastructure is consistently identified as a key lever for educational change, it is often overlooked in research and practice and specifically in relation to technology in schools. By using educational infrastructure as a lens to examine a group of districts' implementation of 1:1 programs, this work provides opportunities for understanding and approaching technology programs in new, and potentially more effective, ways.

Using the concept of educational infrastructure (Mehta and Fine, 2015; Peurach and Neumerski, 2015), this multiple-case study explores the ways superintendents and district technology leaders understand and enact 1:1 technology initiatives to support educational change.

The authors find these leaders see 1:1 technology as both embedded in, and engaged in changing, the physical, cultural, instructional and leadership infrastructures. This suggests that 1:1 technology can act as an infrastructure itself and has the potential to support changes to teaching and learning across the system.

This study offers a new perspective to understand and enact the opportunities of 1:1 technology. Specifically, it helps to reframe technology programs away from discrete classroom or school-based interventions to consider and attend to the system-level resources they require and thus increase benefits they can produce. While always useful, such considerations are particularly important in the current context and the proliferation of online learning for so many.

The purpose of this paper is to gain insights into how a group of novice principals, all in schools that deployed principles of autonomy as mechanisms for improvement, conceptualized what the authors label “controlled autonomy” – a condition in which school leaders are expected to both make site-based decisions and be accountable to district oversight. The study aims to support more effective interactions between school and district leaders around controlled autonomy to increase performance.

Using schema as a framework to guide the inquiry, this paper uses qualitative methods and interviewing in particular to explore the questions of interest. Seven novice principals were each interviewed three times over the year each interview lasting approximately one hour (n=21). Data were analyzed thematically using both inductive and deductive coding techniques.

Findings show that principals tended to group potential district supports into four categories: operations, instruction, advocacy, and vision and their perceptions regarding the balance between their and the district’s control over activities in each category was dynamic, varied and dependent on views relating to issues as broad as values alignment to perceptions of bureaucratic efficiency.

Because of the small sample size and methodological approach, it may be inappropriate to generalize the findings across all controlled autonomy contexts. Further research in additional settings is encouraged to support the proposed findings.

This paper has a number of implications for districts and school leaders. Among these is the need for districts to better articulate the parameters of controlled autonomy and for school leaders to receive more and more effective training and support to effectively utilize autonomy as a mechanism for reform.

This work fills a gap in the research regarding on how principals conceptualize controlled autonomy or, more specifically, how they view what school autonomy should look like relative to district control and is this paper’s focus. It also provides insights into practice and potential means to enhance a growing, but so far unevenly implemented and under performing reform initiative (i.e. controlled autonomy).

In the context of US kidney disease care in 2020, this chapter highlights challenges of managing COVID-19–related acute pathology, sustaining safe chronic dialysis treatment for individuals with kidney failure during a pandemic, and identifying ways to effectively address intersections of race/ethnicity, SES, and health.

Medical literature and American Society of Nephrology (ASN) online member forum review, and Emory School of Medicine Renal Grand Rounds participant observation: April 2020–March 2021.

Among persons infected with COVID-19, especially persons of African descent, acute kidney injury (AKI) risk was elevated and associated with need for long-term dialysis. Dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients constituted a high-risk group for COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, due to underlying chronic conditions as well as required travel to clinics for multiple weekly dialysis treatments with exposure to possibly infected staff and other patients.

Findings that are discussed are based on a limited time frame. The longer-term impact of COVID-19 for patient outcomes and for the structure of kidney disease care is a fertile area for continued study, especially in relation to broad health equity goals.

Racial justice activism in 2020 highlighted the imperative to address socioeconomic and racially structured inequities in the United States, and health equity goals and strategies that target kidney disease care have been outlined. The acute/chronic continuum of kidney disease care is a fertile area for research that is informed by the COVID-19 experience and population health inequity challenges.