Search results

Asks the question: what if the focus of educational supervision was to shift from inspecting individual teacher‐behaviour to examining and improving three sets of key organizational variables ‐ work processes, social architecture and environmental relationships? What if supervision could be transformed from performance evaluation into a process for designing high performing schools? Presents the paradigm of Knowledge Work Supervision, an innovative model of educational supervision designed to achieve what is alluded to in the above questions. It is a systemic and systematic model for redesigning the anatomy (structures), physiology (flow of information and webs of relationships) and psychology (beliefs, values) of an entire school system. Explains that the paradigm is cyclical, having four phases each with several activities, and it was constructed by reviewing real‐world practices in several interrelated areas: socio‐technical systems design, knowledge work, quality improvement, business process re‐engineering and organization development. Claims that Knowledge Work Supervision marks the leading edge of an emerging paradigm shift in the field of educational supervision.

Education is a key institution of modern society, long recognized for its central role in the reproduction of inequities and with the potential to challenge them. Schools behave as their systems are designed. Achieving equity and excellence is not possible through attempts to fix “the school” or educators. Principles of systemic design that incorporate equity and excellence are needed to increase the likelihood of desirable outcomes.

Using the social contract as a design principle, this paper systematically builds an empirical model of school provision aimed at equitable excellence.

Equitable excellence in school provision is possible if choice is available across geolocation and socio-educational (dis)advantage, schools have autonomy over fiscal, personnel and curricular matters, public accountability is linked to academic outcomes and social impact, all moderated by the quality of teaching.

Data-driven empirical modelling is particularly attractive to policy makers, systemic authorities and researchers when theory (of all varieties) does not yield the necessary insights to support the functionality and effectiveness of systems to deliver equitable outcomes at scale. Empirical examples can be used to test the explanatory power of the novel model – and refine it when necessary.

The empirical model and threshold question are the genesis of a common language for assessing relevant costs and benefits of initiatives for government and system designers. Significantly, establishing a threshold question and tests of legitimacy and strength to accompany the novel model provides a more principled way of prioritizing the competing demands on public investment in education.

Establishing a threshold question and tests for legitimacy and strength to accompany the novel model provides a more principled way of prioritizing the competing demands to accompany.

This paper proposes a new conception of school systems arising out of the collision of three forces: (1) a longstanding press to rationalize the technical work of schools in the service of educational excellence; (2) a growing democratic press to equitably engage community members in the process of defining educational excellence; which together are (3) heightening legacy uncertainties that pervade educational organizations. It then draws on paradox theory to explore how leaders might navigate the growing uncertainties that are central to the work of organizing for excellence and equity.

Integrating scholarship related to organizational institutionalism, paradox theory, learning sciences, social justice leadership and educational system building, this paper examines the changing organization of schools, the growing uncertainty facing educators and the implications for leaders and preparation programs.

This paper introduces two perspectives on how to navigate the growing uncertainty facing educators and educational leaders: one that centers on mitigating uncertainty, the other that prioritizes leveraging uncertainty. Both perspectives have affordances and limitations when considering the twin goals of educational excellence and equitable involvement in decision-making, and leaders should thus view uncertainty as a paradox—an interdependent, persistent, contradiction—that can never be fully resolved, but can be managed. A paradox perspective makes visible the complex work of effectively moving between mitigating and leveraging uncertainty, especially in a field where the latter garners more support and legitimacy.

This paper synthesizes recent educational and organizational scholarship to develop a new conception of educational organizations and a corresponding approach to educational leadership capable of navigating the growing complexity and uncertainty that pervades school systems.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the dialectical interplay between centralisation and decentralisation forces so as to understand how schools leverage on its autonomous pedagogical space, influence the diffusion of innovations in the educational landscape of Singapore and how a centralised-decentralised system supports (or impedes) pedagogical reform for twenty-first century learning.

The paper first outlines the evolutionary stance of Singapore’s decentralisation from its past to present trajectories, thus providing a broader social-historical interpretation to its tight-loose-tight coupling of the education system; followed by situating the context of reform within the national narrative of Ministry of Education’s (MOE) twenty-first century competencies framework. The authors examine how school autonomy should be accompanied by systemic enabling mechanisms, through two case illustrations of whole-school reforms.

There are four carryover effects that the authors have observed: structural, socio-cultural, economic and epistemic. Middle managers from the two schools act as a pedagogical, socio-technological and financial broker outside the formal collaborative structures organised by the MOE. Such a “middle-out” approach, complemented by centralised mechanisms for “coeval sensing mechanism”, has resulted in boundary-spanning linkages and multiplier effects in terms of knowledge spillovers.

Socio-cultural context matters; and what constitutes as co-learning between policymakers and practitioners in Singapore may be construed as policing that stifles innovations in other contexts.

In addition to the conceptualisation of how school autonomy may lead to school-based innovations, the paper provided some preliminary empirical evidence of how the co-production of knowledge has been engendered within, across and beyond individual Singapore schools through the mechanism of innovation diffusion. The unit of analysis is innovation ecosystem.

The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to the intersection of external and internal accountability systems within urban schools, and the role of school leadership, especially that of the principal, in managing this intersection. In particular, the paper explores how school leaders are able to strengthen and sustain the school's internal accountability system, in pursuit of school‐defined learning improvement agenda, and at the same time respond productively to external accountability demands. The paper also seeks to identify consequences of these leaders’ efforts to navigate an often problematic set of converging demands.

This paper draws on findings from a larger multi‐case study of learning‐focused leadership in 15 schools in four urban school districts in the USA. Schools were chosen to represent those that were “making progress” (by local measures). Data were collected over 18 months, spanning two school years, from Spring 2007 to Fall 2008. Data collection included multiple site visits, semi‐structured interviews and observations of leadership activity across school and district settings, and a variety of documentary evidence.

Though working in substantially different contexts, these leaders found remarkably similar ways of crafting tools and creating occasions, from the array of external accountability demands and resources, to serve internal accountability purposes. They did so by internalizing external expectations and developing accountable practice within the school, leading through data, and modelling what it meant to learn to lead in a fully accountable way. As they did so, they reshaped the scope of instruction and the instructional improvement conversation, and also made teaching and leadership practice more public.

This paper extends discussions of school‐level accountability in two ways. First, it updates scholarship on accountability by examining school‐level responses at a time five years into the new accountability context in the USA defined by strict system‐wide expectations and mechanisms. Second, the paper demonstrates ways in which the often onerous demands of external accountability systems can be treated as a resource by school leaders and used in ways that bolster the school's capacity for accountable professional practice.

Proposes a new model of teacher receptivity to system‐wide educational change, where the change is planned and implemented in a centrally controlled educational system involving teachers in their classrooms. Suggests a measure of teacher receptivity (based on the model) to help administrators plan a change and manage the implementation. Teacher receptivity is proposed to consist of four first‐order aspects, operationally defined by a number of second‐order aspects. These are: characteristics of the change (comparison with the previous system and practicality in my classroom), managing the change at school (alleviation of concerns, learning about the change and participation in decisions at my school), value for the teacher (personal cost appraisal, collaboration with other teachers and opportunities for teacher improvement) and teacher perceived value for students. Teacher receptivity is measured with three aspects for each of the 50 stem‐items and there is an ordered set of response categories relating to these aspects.

Entrepreneurship is one of the fundamental strategies of business organizations. However, the unique characteristics of entrepreneurship in education have not been fully examined. This study examines the concept of entrepreneurship in a centralized educational system, presents a tool for measuring educational entrepreneurship, and demonstrates its relevance by inquiring into the relationship between a school's geo‐social location and entrepreneurial profiles. The public school entrepreneurship inventory was tested on a representative sample of 1,395 elementary school teachers within the Israeli public school system. The results demonstrate high reliability and convergent validity of the instrument. The study explores the different entrepreneurial profiles existing within the Israeli educational system, and demonstrates the instrument's use in studying the degrees of freedom for school entrepreneurship in the same national expanse. The study has found that school entrepreneurship in the periphery is better able to exploit the freedom existing within the system than school entrepreneurship in the center. In all cases, however, this freedom is limited and schools’ entrepreneurship cannot go much beyond what is legitimized by the system. These findings are then explained by reference to the canonical mechanisms that serve as constant points of reference in a centralized educational system.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how effective school principals use systems thinking, aiming to present the systems school leadership (SSL) approach – an approach where principals lead schools through the systems thinking concept and procedures.

Participants were 28 Israeli school principals, selected as outstanding leaders by recommendations from their superintendents and according to their schools’ achievements. The study employed semi-structured interviews as well as focus groups. Generating themes was an inductive process, grounded in the various perspectives articulated by participants.

Data analysis generated four main characteristics of SSL: leading wholes; adopting a multidimensional view; influencing indirectly; and evaluating significance.

Further research that will explore to what extent and how often principals use systems thinking is required. In addition, replication in various educational contexts is important in order to substantiate the validity of the SSL's characteristics. Beyond principals’ perceptions, more objective measures like direct observations are needed to evaluate actual implementation of SSL in diverse school settings.

Identifying the SSL characteristics facilitates the development of practical processes for nurturing SSL in various stages of school leaders’ educational career.

This paper provides a useful conceptual and empirical framework to evaluate SSL as a managerial approach.

Research on principal supervisors (PSs) is an emerging field, and principal supervision for racial equity has not yet been studied or theorized. Conducted in partnership with practicing district leaders, the purpose of this paper is to examine current PS leadership in three districts at various points of engagement in equitable leadership practices and set forth a framework for conceptualizing systems equitable leadership practice.

This collaborative study emerged from an EdD course project in which groups of practitioner–scholars identified and collected qualitative interview, survey and artifact data about problems of practice in their districts. University researchers supported data collection and conducted analyses across settings, building on Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) equitable leadership practices framework.

Equitable PS leadership practices were variable. No district engaged with “proficiency” across all drivers of equitable leadership practice, but the district that engaged in equitable PS practices most deeply framed the work of schooling as a race-explicit endeavor, suggesting that framing is a fundamental driver.

This paper builds on PS and equity-focused leadership research by adding a systems-level equity focus.

Findings suggest that districts should focus on equity framing as the foundation for principal support and development.

This researcher/practitioner–scholar collaboration shows how practitioner–scholars provide focus and expertise to the field unavailable to traditional researchers.