Fluent Essays

Article: Adolfsson & Alvunter (2017) explored how different subsystems of a school district must work together in order to improve student achievement. Address the interconnectedness of elements of the organization and the research-based leadership styles you would use to effect change.  Explore your own home school district’s website and identify how various links in the systems work together to focus on the improvement of students’ academic achievement. (https://www.pcpsb.net) Identify the strengths and the challenges that you found and how you would match an appropriate leadership style for each challenge. Discuss why you would select each leadership style and the theory that accompanies your selection. Reference -- Carefully read this article prior to completing your assignment. **The inclusion of this article is required. The inclusion of one of the additional articles is required.  Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2017). The nested systems of local school development: Understanding improved interaction and capacities in the different sub-systems of schools. Improving Schools, 20(3), 195–208. Review of Educational Research December 2016, Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 1272 –1311 DOI: 10.3102/0034654316630383 © 2016 AERA. http://rer.aera.net 1272 Culturally Responsive School Leadership: A Synthesis of the Literature Muhammad A. Khalifa University of Minnesota Mark Anthony Gooden University of Texas James Earl Davis Temple University Culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) has become important to research on culturally responsive education, reform, and social justice edu- cation. This comprehensive review provides a framework for the expanding body of literature that seeks to make not only teaching, but rather the entire school environment, responsive to the schooling needs of minoritized stu- dents. Based on the literature, we frame the discussion around clarifying strands—critical self-awareness, CRSL and teacher preparation, CRSL and school environments, and CRSL and community advocacy. We then outline specific CRSL behaviors that center inclusion, equity, advocacy, and social justice in school. Pulling from literature on leadership, social justice, cultur- ally relevant schooling, and students/communities of color, we describe five specific expressions of CRSL found in unique communities. Finally, we reflect on the continued promise and implications of CRSL. Keywords: antiracist, antioppressive, community-based leadership, culturally responsive education, Indigenous leadership, school leadership, social justice Nearly two decades ago, culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and cul- turally responsive pedagogies (Gay, 1994) entered and, arguably, would come to dominate discourses on education and reform. Following the effective schools research of earlier years, this corpus of work sought to unearth and explicitly describe ways in which classroom teachers could address the unique learning needs of minoritized students. Specific strategies were produced as a result of this 630383RERXXX10.3102/0034654316630383Khalifa et al.Culturally Responsive School Leadership research-article2016 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.3102%2F0034654316630383&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-12-01 Culturally Responsive School Leadership 1273 work, and it set education research on pedagogy in new, untapped directions. For example, teachers are encouraged to use cultural referents in both pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and classroom management (Weinstein, Tomlinson- Clarke, & Curran, 2004). And culturally responsive classrooms have been expanded to include multiple epistemologies as diverse as Indigenous (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008) and even hip-hop approaches (Khalifa, 2013). Gay (2010) made the point that culturally responsive teaching is important, but that it alone cannot solve the major challenges facing minoritized students. She amplified the importance of reforming and transforming all aspects of the educational enter- prise, such as funding, policymaking, and administration, so they too are culturally responsive. Indeed, such incisive transformations are yet to happen soundly and con- sistently in the field of educational leadership. Surely, if teachers should adjust their craft in ways that respond effectively to children’s cultural learning and social needs in the classroom, as Gay suggested, then school administrators must have a similar mandate regarding the entire school culture and climate. Although we agree with Gay that major changes are needed to reform society and address social, political, and economic inequities, our focus in this article is on reforming school leadership. Educational reformers have long claimed school leadership is a crucial compo- nent to any reform of education, secondary only to the very act of teaching (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). This same research suggests good teachers will eventually leave schools where there are ineffective school leaders, especially in urban educational environments. Therefore, developing effective leaders becomes a vital part of the process in recruiting and retaining the best teachers for children who have been marginalized. Effective leaders must be capable of promoting and sustaining an environment stable enough to attract, maintain, and support the further development of good teachers. Additionally, the right leader will hold an understanding of the need to recruit and sustain culturally responsive teachers who are better prepared to work with poor children of color. This goal is especially important given the high likelihood poor children of color will get mostly inexperienced teachers who are often teaching out of their content areas (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2006; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Office for Civil Rights, 2014). Thus, given this necessary and essential place of educational leadership in school reform, fundamental questions must be raised, such as what are the unique characteristics of a culturally responsive school leader? How can leaders respond to minoritized or culturally unique school contexts in similar ways as teachers respond to diverse students? What behaviors does such leadership entail? How must the effectiveness of a culturally responsive school leader be characterized and measured? In this article, we examine an emerging body of literature on cul- turally responsive school leadership (CRSL) as it relates to the work of principals. Much like the early work on culturally responsive teaching, we examine a phe- nomenon that has appeared in practice-centered settings and outline the contours of its existence in the principalship. However, unique to our scholarly endeavor is our engagement in a process that seeks to extract aspects from current research that exemplify notions of CRSL. Although the focus of this article is building-level leaders, or principals and assistant principals, we understand culturally responsive school leaders serve at Khalifa et al. 1274 multiple levels and in various contexts, from district-level (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008), to community leaders (Khalifa, 2012), to teacher-leaders (Villegas & Lucas, 2002), and all in between. For example, there has been an increasing body of knowledge on the impact of teacher-leaders (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Similarly, community-influenced—or even community-led—school leadership has also gained quite a bit of traction in recent years (Cooper, 2009; Ishimaru, 2013). Also, Leithwood (1995) and many others (Hannay, Jaafar, & Earl, 2013; Khalifa, Jennings, Briscoe, Oleszweski, & Abdi, 2014; Sergiovanni, 1992) have demonstrated the deep impact superintendents and other district-level administra- tors can have on education and school reform (Mattingly, 2003). We recognize the importance of these myriad forms of culturally responsive leadership; however, we focus on the school-level administrator (principalship) for a number of reasons. Prior research suggests school principals can have a pro- foundly deep impact on instruction and student learning (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013). Of all leadership expressions, the principal is most knowledgeable about resources, and he/she is best positioned to promote and support school-level reforms (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990). The principalship is also the most recogniz- able leadership position in a school, and the position most empowered by district, and even state, policy. It is also the one held most accountable for progress or lack thereof. Research suggests that unless promoted by the principal, implementation of cultural responsiveness can run the risk of being disjointed or short-lived in a school; and conversely, district-level mandates are only effective to the extent they are locally enforced. Finally, we agree with Gay (2010) that cultural responsiveness cannot be decontextualized or ahistorical; thus, the focus of our work is on urban schools, and the scope of this article is the urban school leader. In the following sections, we briefly discuss what we mean by CRSL but then discuss concerns raised about this term. We then explain the methodology we employed in our analysis of the literature. We describe how four clarifying strands of CRSL emerged in our study of the principalship. And finally, we identify three distinct roles for culturally responsive leaders. Definitions, Methodology, Terminology, and Guiding Leadership Framework In this article, we choose to describe CRSL behaviors. In other words, we highlight practices and actions, mannerisms, policies, and discourses that influ- ence school climate, school structure, teacher efficacy, or student outcomes. This literature review suggests culturally responsive leadership influences the school context and addresses the cultural needs of the students, parents, and teachers. For example, culturally responsive school leaders are responsible for promoting a school climate inclusive of minoritized students, particularly those marginalized within most school contexts. Such leaders also maintain a presence in, and rela- tionships with, community members they serve. They lead professional develop- ments to ensure their teachers and staff, and the curriculum, are continuously responsive to minoritized students. In other words, as population demographics continuously shift, so too must the leadership practices and school contexts that respond to the needs that accompany these shifts. It is the job of instructional Culturally Responsive School Leadership 1275 leaders to develop and improve teachers’ craft in ways that result in improved student outcomes, but this must be done with cultural responsiveness. Moreover, culturally responsive leaders develop and support the school staff and promote a climate that makes the whole school welcoming, inclusive, and accepting of minoritized students. Finally, we recognize that culturally responsive leadership is needed in all settings including those not dominated by minoritized students, and that not all students of color are minoritized. In this article, we address culturally responsive leadership of minoritized students. Here, we con- sider minoritized students individuals from racially oppressed communities that have been marginalized—both legally and discursively—because of their non- dominant race, ethnicity, religion, language, or citizenship. Indeed, all minoritized students also have rich histories of agency, appropriation, and resistance to oppression; yet, this term recognizes the histories of oppression minoritized stu- dents have faced and the need for schools to resist the continuing contexts of oppression. We further acknowledge that gender, sexuality, income, and other fac- tors lead to even further marginalization. Because minoritized students have been disadvantaged by historically oppressive structures, and because educators and schools have been—intentionally or unintentionally—complicit in reproducing this oppression, culturally responsive school leaders have a principled, moral responsibility to counter this oppression. Method Approach to Reviewing the Literature Like all other literature reviews, we employed a search methodology aimed at finding and including all of the articles on CRSL in Google, Google Scholar, and academic scholarly search engines (JSTOR, ProQuest, SAGE, ERIC). In the years spanning from 1989 to 2014, we found 37 journal articles and 8 books, and summarized each source, noted which were empirical, and noted best practices and strategies that authors reported, paying attention to the emerging common themes. This approach alone, we soon learned, was problematic because a great number of sources that did not include titles with either of the terms “culturally responsive” or “leadership” did contain a great deal of relevance to our topic. For example, Gardiner and Enomoto’s (2006) article “Urban School Principals and their Role as Multicultural Leaders” was highly informative in the ways they developed culture-specific programs to serve immigrant/refugee students. Similarly, Castagno and Brayboy (2008) described school-based practices and programs that are responsive to Indigenous youth needs, but had a title that, again, did not signal CRSL. Indeed, the implementation of school-based programs is often a function of school leadership. Likewise, a number of most data-rich studies (Alston, 2005; Benham, 1997; Gooden, 2005; Khalifa, 2012; Lomotey, 1989; López, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001; Morris, 1991; Tillman, 2006; Walker, 2009) were conducted on nuanced, school leadership approaches responsive to local cultures, but these scholars did not explicitly name their studies with terms including “culturally responsive.” Thus, we came to realize the need for a broader search. In addition to “culturally responsive leadership,” we used other search terms to gain a fuller understanding Khalifa et al. 1276 of this body of knowledge. For example, our search of particular groups and “leadership” (i.e., leadership and “African Americans,” “Indigenous,” “Latino,” “Africa,” “Asia,” and “urban”) was useful. We also looked at school leadership with the key words of “race,” “moral,” and “ethnicity,” and although these results were less helpful, another 13 sources were identified and incorporated into this review. Despite the depth of research contain- ing expressions of culturally responsive leadership in communities of color, we confined this particular article to research explicitly about aspects of schooling and education. Essentially, we were interested in the body of research that reflects the need for education—teaching and learning contexts, leadership, and commu- nities—to be more responsive and relevant to students. Although many scholars use culturally responsive pedagogy/teaching as a way to frame their discussions on culturally responsive leadership, we draw a distinc- tion between teaching and leadership. The recognition of culture is important to multiple disciplines in education (e.g., teacher education and curriculum and instruction), yet the differences between what happens in classrooms and schools are so vast that we felt it far more useful to focus on school culture and leadership practices. We also noted that the educational administration literature tends to conflate the use of the terms “culture” and “school culture.” Therefore, by includ- ing other terms, we were able to explore questions about school-level structures and programs, school culture, achievement (opportunity) gaps, discipline gaps, use of school funding, school and community overlap, curriculum development and monitoring, and teacher quality and training in ways that our peers have not. After reviewing all of the sources, it became useful for us to develop a frame- work that allowed us to discern which sources would be useful and would be incorporated in this review. First, despite the sources available on culturally responsive leadership, we only used those explicitly about education and school contexts. Then, we focused on sources that included empirical evidence. We also concentrated on and included sources with connections to areas of school leader- ship and uniqueness or difference—“culture,” “language,” “sexual orientation,” “national origin,” “gender,” “race,” “identity,” or “social class.” We conducted searches using each of these terms, but again, only included articles that were empirical. And finally, we narrowed these sources by selecting those that specifi- cally highlighted some type of unique or specific leadership behaviors used with students in any area of difference or with minoritized populations. These leader- ship behaviors were actual principal behaviors or school-level policies such as leveraging of school recourses or structures. We then collated all of the behaviors that were in the sources, and we compiled the leadership behaviors that had a direct impact on school climate, curriculum, policy, pedagogy, and student achievement. Table 1 demonstrates the process we used to narrow our search for this review. Terminology and Key Terms Here, we briefly give some attention to which terms best describe this work. Multicultural and critical multicultural education (Banks, 1993, 2008; Giroux, 1992; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997; Nieto, 1999) emphasized the knowledge of educators and school leaders, and the marginalization many people of color faced: Culturally Responsive School Leadership 1277 “The school, college and university curriculum marginalizes the experiences of people of color and of women” (Banks, 1993, p. 4). As Banks (1993) decon- structed earlier discourses around multicultural education, he noted that, essentially, Knowledge reflects the values and interests of its creators, and (the conflicting discourses) illustrates how the debate between multiculturalists and the Western traditionalists is rooted in their conflicting conceptions about the nature of knowledge and their divergent political and social interests. (p. 4) Thus, the emancipatory tone that would legitimize the voices, epistemologies, knowledges, and practices of marginalized educators—which was central to mul- ticulturalist and critical multiculturalist understandings—would come to also largely inform work around culturally relevant, responsive, and even sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012). Although terms like “culturally responsive” and “culturally relevant” are close in meaning and respond to the unique learning needs of marginalized students, even more recent terms like culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012) include elements of ongoing practices that address a continuing need and a changing demographic. In situating culturally responsive pedagogy, Cazden and Leggett (1976) suggested “all school systems should bring the invisible culture of the community into the school through parent participation, hiring and promotion of minority group personnel, and in-service training for the school staff” (p. 17). Other terms, such as “culturally compatible” (Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1987), “cul- tural collusion” (Beachum & McCray, 2004), “cultural synchronism” (Irvine, 2002), and “culturally proficient” (Lindsey, Roberts, & CampbellJones, 2004; Terrell & Lindsey, 2008) have also been used. Yet, in essence, they all share a common, central point: the need for children’s educators and educational contexts to understand, respond, incorporate, accommodate, and ultimately celebrate the TAbLE 1 Review of scholarly sources in literature review Sources Books Articles/chapters Total in initial review on CRSL 8 37 Additional sources found around school leadership and uniqueness or difference (e.g., race, culture, sexuality, gender, SES, language, etc.) 43 71 Total from two lines above 51 108 Number of empirical sources from the total 19 60 Empirical sources on school leadership behaviors directed specifically minoritized students 7 32 Note. SES = socioeconomic status; CRSL = culturally responsive school leadership. Khalifa et al. 1278 entirety of the children they serve—including their languages and literacies, spiri- tual universes, cultures, racial proclivities, behaviors, knowledges, critical thought, and appearances. We settled on the term “culturally responsive school leadership” for two rea- sons. First, in addition to culturally responsive being one of the earlier and more recognizable terms employed to describe this work, it has also been most consis- tently employed in educational leadership studies (Johnson, 2006; Merchant, Garza, & Ramalho, 2013; Webb-Johnson, 2006). Second, by emphasizing the word responsive, we capture an important action-based, and even urgent, aspect of the term: the ability of school leaders to create school contexts and curriculum that responds effectively to the educational, social, political, and cultural needs of students. Of course, culturally responsive leadership is also relevant to the con- text. In much the same spirit, this literature review responds to a rapidly expand- ing body of literature that often has unclear, if not conflicting, characterizations. Given the gravity of the topic—and the inequities that continue, despite the per- vasiveness of instructional, transformational, and other forms of school leader- ship—this one is timely. Finally, CRSL encompasses aspects of antioppressive/racist leadership (Gooden & Dantley, 2012; Kumashiro, 2000), transformative leadership (Dantley & Tillman, 2006; Shields, 2010), and social justice leadership (Bogotch, 2002; Theoharis, 2007), but pushes further. For example, although these forms of lead- ership all focus on liberatory practices that resist oppression or marginalization and minoritized students, CRSL is not only liberatory and antioppressive, it is also affirmative, and seeks to identify and institutionalize practices that affirm Indigenous and authentic cultural practices of students. So for instance, culturally responsive leaders—like antioppressive, transformative, social justice leaders— will challenge teaching and environments that marginalize students of color, and they will also identify, protect, institutionalize, and celebrate all cultural practices from these students. This affirmative behavior is a shift from imbuing only eman- cipatory leadership practices of resistance. Performing cultural work (Cooper, 2009) is much more involved and complex than advocating for it, for, although it does involve the advocacy, it also requires leaders to learn about each community they serve, and situate aspects of their schools so they celebrate all cultures. Guiding Leadership Framework We situate the leadership framework of this literature review at the school level, and more specifically, on the influence principals have on the school envi- ronment (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Leithwood, 1995). Most of this scholarship focuses on ways principals serve as instructional leaders, which affect student achievement. Researchers have found that principals can influence teachers’ own learning, instruction, and ultimately, student achievement (J. B. Anderson, 2008; Branch et al., 2013; Drago-Severson, 2012; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Griffith, 1999). In this sense, principals can “shape growth-enhancing climates that sup- port adult learning as they work to manage adaptive challenges” (Drago-Severson, 2012, p. 1). However, in addition to expressions of instructional leadership, prin- cipals have also served as transformational leaders, wherein they have success- fully promoted environments with strong relationships of trust, vision, goals, and Culturally Responsive School Leadership 1279 a sense of community (Giles, Johnson, Brooks, & Jacobson, 2005; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Similarly, we also consider the expanding bodies of literature that suggest prin- cipals can influence student success by having strong relationships with students and families (Ishimaru, 2014; Khalifa, 2013; Sanders & Harvey, 2002) by advo- cating for community-based interests (G. L. Anderson, 2009; Cooper, 2009; Khalifa, 2012) and by creating schools as spaces of inclusivity (J. E. Davis & Jordan, 1995; Ingram, 1997; Khalifa, 2010, 2013; Riehl, 2000). All of these expressions of leadership emphasize the central role of the principal in school reform, and it is with this framework that we examine CRSL. Understanding the Need for Culturally Responsive School Leadership For the past half-century, closing the racialized achievement (opportunity) gap has been one of the central issues in education research studies and debates, par- ticularly in the United States.1 It has driven several major legislative initiatives, and reform efforts have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions in tax dollars (Payne, 2008). Ironically, though, a viable solution to closing the opportunity gap has remained elusive. Hallinger and Leithwood (1998) realized culture plays a sig- nificant role in shaping the thinking, behaviors, and practices of students, teach- ers, administrators, parents, and other school stakeholders. Still, however, current research suggests students of historically oppressed groups are still marginalized in school. Schools will only become more racially and culturally diverse in the future, and by 2020, nearly half of all high school graduates will be minoritized students (Prescott & Bransberger, 2008). B. L. Young, Madsen, and Young (2010) indicated principals in their study were not only unprepared to lead in diverse schools and implement policy that would respond to diversity issues, but also they could not even articulate mean- ingful discourses around diversity. This is tragic given the centrality of principals who address “issues of meaning construction, promote inclusive school cultures and instructional practices, and work to position schools within community, orga- nizational, and service-related networks” (Riehl, 2000, p. 68). Unfortunately, most leadership reformers focus almost exclusively on instructional, transforma- tional, and transactional leadership models to address the cultural needs of stu- dents. It has become increasingly clear, however, that an intensification of these same leadership strategies will do little to address the needs of minoritized students. In fact, Black, Latino, and Indigenous students perform worse on nearly every educational measure valued by U.S. schools. And the discipline gap—which is often characterized by racialized disparities in disciplinary referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and court citations—is a direct indication that school cultures are hos- tile toward minoritized students. Scholars (Vavrus & Cole, 2002) found that when African American students violated White middle-class rules of interaction, such as speaking louder or questioning class rules or teacher authority, they were referred to the principal’s office more often than White students. And despite there being no evidence for behavioral differences, Blacks and Latinos are more likely than Whites to be referred to the office for such subjective offenses, such as defi- ance or noncompliance (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008). These responses create a Khalifa et al. 1280 hostile school environment and lead to student disengagement in school, as fre- quent suspensions appear to significantly contribute to the risk of academic under- performance (J. E. Davis, 1995; J. E. Davis & Jordan, 1995). Like other students, minoritized students struggle with a range of academic and personal issues, including low school performance, but they do so in a culture that disproportionately disciplines them and questions their intelligence, leading to discomfort in school. This situation indicates a strong need for CRSL to address the social culture in schools. Indeed, Black, Latino, and poor students face a hos- tile school climate and are often being pulled and pushed out of school (Bradley & Renzulli, 2011; Khalifa, 2010; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Okey & Cusick, 1995). Low school performance for students of color is directly related to the educators in the buildings that serve these students. Teacher expectations are often lower for minoritized students than for their White classmates (McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Students’ race, language, cultural behaviors, proclivities, and mannerisms all inform teachers’ expectations for students (Dusek & Joseph, 1983; S. L. Lightfoot, 1978; Rong, 1996; Terrill & Mark, 2000), despite scholarship that shows high achievement in all of these groups (Felice, 1981; Flores-González, 1999; Hébert & Reis, 1999; Hilliard, 2003; Lee, Winfield, & Wilson, 1991). If low expectations occur because teachers do not feel students are smart enough based on their behaviors or appearances, then the marginalization of stu- dents’ social and cultural capital occurs and perpetuates a cycle, indicating that educators either do not value or recognize the worth of these minoritized perspec- tives (Ginwright, 2007; Khalifa, 2010; Ream & Rumberger, 2008). Policies that require school leaders to address the academic and discipline disparities have not been enough to address the problems, and in a number of instances, racial gaps continue to worsen (Ford & Moore, 2013; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2006). CRSL addresses issues associated with the educational improvements for minoritized students. In the forthcoming section, we provide an overview for CRSL behaviors. Overview CRSL Behaviors In our synthesis of the literature, four major strands of CRSL emerged. But many of the terms we use have also been used in uniquely different ways. Moreover, scholars of curriculum or teacher preparation may understand and even use some of these terms differently from how school leadership scholars may use them. Therefore, we briefly define what we mean by each of the four more salient CRSL behaviors. Following this brief overview … he achievement gap has been a focus of educators’ concern since the Coleman Report (1966) first drew attention to it more than 50 years ago. All children can learn, but all students don’t—and which students don’t learn can too often be predicted by their race, gender, language, family income, and parents’ education. These trends persist in subgroup breakdowns of NAEP scores, state tests, district assessments, and classroom- based student work. But they are not inevitable. In fact, they have been averted in cases where school leaders—including teacher leaders, principals, and others—have worked together to support job- embedded, teacher-powered professional learning for advancing equity. The issue of inequitable outcomes is a seemingly intractable problem because its root causes are so embedded in our system: Our beliefs and uncon- scious biases determine our actions and practices, our actions and practices inform how our systems develop, and our systems reinforce the beliefs that shaped them, effectively constraining any efforts to change. An attempt to overturn inequities in schools must address change at all three levels (Berg & Gleason, 2018). In schools, teacher leaders, including all teachers who share concern for stu- dents beyond their own classroom, are uniquely positioned to help their colleagues explore uncon- scious biases, adopt new professional practices, and translate classroom wisdom into equitable student- centered policies. Principals are uniquely positioned to uphold the value of this work and to facilitate teachers to lead in these ways. Therefore, teacher leaders and principals must coordinate their efforts. Making It Worth the Risk To truly address inequity, we must commit to changes that carry some risk. Under what conditions would educators, who have significant investment in current beliefs, practices, and systems, agree to reconsider them? The content of the essential conversations that must happen among staff— which include difficult conversations about race—heightens the risk: What if I say the wrong thing? What if I offend someone and they chal- lenge me? Or worse, what if I offend someone and don’t realize I have done so? The conversations can only be authentically approached in a culture of psychological safety, which teacher leaders and principals together can cultivate. Psychological safety is described by researchers Amy Edmonson and Jeff Polzer as a “climate where people recognize their ability and respon- sibility to overcome fear and reluctance to speak up with potentially controversial ideas or ques- tions” (2016). It requires a culture in which staff members are willing to make themselves vulnerable and risk making mistakes. It also requires a culture Jill Harrison Berg L E A D I N G T O G E T H E R T Educating Ourselves for Equity Learning our way to more equitable schools. 84 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / n o v E m b E r 2 0 1 8 B E R O R /S H U T T E R S T O C K Berg.indd 84 10/2/18 2:07 PM in which members feel confident that the potential reward is such a strongly held and shared value that potential failure will not have negative consequences, but be lauded as worth the risk. Teacher leaders are well-positioned to support the first requirement, and principals the second. Reshaping Beliefs, Practices, and Policies Our current inequitable education system is virtually protected from change because it is shaped and con- tinually reinforced by our beliefs and unconscious biases. If educators were willing to examine their beliefs and confront the biases that they—and we all—have, change would be pos- sible. In context of a shared, explicit commitment to advancing equity, teacher leaders must foster deeper relationships with and among faculty, challenge their colleagues’ thinking, and initiate conversations that are dif- ficult but lead to increased trust. The nonhierarchical and nonevaluative relationships teacher leaders tend to have with their colleagues allow teachers to more readily hear their questions as expressions of curiosity, not blame. For their part, principals must not only commit to the hard work of re-examining beliefs and biases, but also elevate this work as a shared value and create conditions to support it. If systems are going to be transformed, teachers can’t elect to opt-in. Principals can engage all educators by allocating the time and space for necessary conversations, demonstrating that honest risk taking will be rewarded, and participating with authenticity in the dialogue themselves. As we interrogate our beliefs and biases, we can begin to reshape the actions and practices that are the result of them. Teacher leaders, working alongside their teacher col- leagues, can go first and be the lead learners as they question and alter aspects of their professional practice. If I really believed all students can learn, how would I approach our math goal? How can I adjust my practice so each student can achieve at a high level? To answer such questions, teacher leaders might, for example, engage in action research to critically examine the impact of their homework policies on stu- dents’ self-talk or solicit colleagues to join them in collaborative inquiry to hone formative assessment prac- tices capable of revealing each stu- dent’s needs. Teacher leaders can be models of courage and agency as they make their learning and reflec- tions visible to their peers. Leading in these ways positions teacher leaders to anticipate their colleagues’ ques- tions as they guide them in making parallel changes and foster a culture of collaborative professionalism (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018). Principals must ensure this work is not seen as an add-on, but a lens through which high and worthwhile goals are pursued. Our goal isn’t just “equity”; our goal is equitable reading outcomes, equitable gradu- ation rates, and so on. And, since principals see the big picture—the school’s goals in context of district goals, the school’s history, pending changes, and potential internal and external resources—they can meet their teacher leaders’ efforts on the ground with an equal effort to ensure coherence and support. Changed actions and practices inevitably will expose systems and policies that also need to change. Teacher leaders, with experience in their own classrooms as well as across them, are often able to see both the macro and micro view of a system. They are able understand the logic of a policy and anticipate imple- mentation concerns. They can bring an informed voice to the work of cre- ating more student-centered systems and policies. And, they are best able to do so when principals have used their unique authority to uphold teachers’ voices, to establish teams charged with collaborative decision making, and to share leadership. We have a lot of learning to do before we can realize the promise of educating all students to high levels, regardless of their zip code or demo- graphics. It begins with believing all educators can learn and leveraging all stakeholders as assets to ensure that learning can happen. By virtue of their respective roles, teacher leaders and principals each play an essential part in creating the conditions necessary to educate ourselves for equity. EL References Berg, J. H., & Gleason, S. C. (2018). Coming together for equity: Reworking beliefs, actions, and systems through professional learning. The Learning Professional, 38(5). Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (the Coleman report). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf Edmonson, A., & Polzer, J. (2016, September 6) Why psychological safety matters and what to do about it. Re:Work (online). Retrieved from https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/ how-to-foster-psychological-safety Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Jill Harrison Berg ([email protected]) is a leadership coach and school improvement consultant. She is the author of Leading in Sync: Teacher Leaders and Principals Working Together for Student Learning (ASCD, 2018). Follow her on Twitter @Teachers_Lead. A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 85 Berg.indd 85 10/2/18 2:07 PM Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480217710874 Improving Schools 2017, Vol. 20(3) 195 –208 © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1365480217710874 journals.sagepub.com/home/imp Improving Schools The nested systems of local school development: Understanding improved interaction and capacities in the different sub-systems of schools Carl-Henrik Adolfsson and Daniel Alvunger Linnaeus University, Sweden Abstract In school systems around the world, there is an increasing focus on students’ academic achievement. The challenge of how to improve schools is an important issue for all levels in the school system. However, a central question of both practical and theoretical relevance is how it is possible to understand why (or why not) school-development efforts are successful. The purpose of this article is to explore the ecology of local school development through the case of a medium-sized municipality in Sweden, based on empirical data from two follow-up research projects. The analytical framework draws from organisational theory and new institutional theory, where focus is directed towards how different sub-systems of the school organisation interact with and respond to aspects of development work and the implications for outcomes of school- development initiatives. Findings show that great investment of resources from the central level in the local school organisation necessarily does not lead to changes in teaching practice. School-development initiatives are unlikely to be successful unless they engage and re-couple the involved sub-systems. Finally, we discuss how the introduction of Expert Teachers as a new sub-system has the ability to work as a link between other sub-systems and to promote school development. Keywords Loose coupling, nested systems, school development, school organisation Introduction This article explores local school development from a perspective inspired by organisational the- ory and new institutional theory (Orton & Weick, 1990; Scott, 2008; Vanderstraeten, 2007; Weick, 1976). While the local is the empirical area of main concern, this study is discussed against the backdrop of current global developments in school systems which place stronger emphasis on Corresponding author: Carl-Henrik Adolfsson, Linnaeus University, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden. Email: [email protected] 710874 IMP0010.1177/1365480217710874Improving SchoolsAdolfsson and Alvunger research-article2017 Article https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/journals-permissions https://journals.sagepub.com/home/imp mailto:[email protected] http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1365480217710874&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-06-03 196 Improving Schools 20(3) academic achievement and performance and increasing demands on school decision-makers to gradually improve school results. Around the world, new policy spaces that transcend national borders are taking shape (Sassen, 2006). Transnational actors, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU), and soft policy agreements and educational standards put pressure on nation-states’ education systems (Grek et al., 2009; Ozga, Dahler-Larsen, Segerholm, & Simola, 2011). This emerging transnational educational policy space offers strong incentives for imposing change on schools (Levin, 1998; Storey, 2007). It is important to recall the global picture as educational policy makers generally see the local as the site where all the promises and aspirations of educational reform are to be accomplished and fulfilled. Many countries have recently undertaken reforms con- centrated on restructuring school systems, curriculum and resource allocation which nevertheless have little impact on classroom activities (Cuban, 1998; Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016). At the same time, it is important to notice that this is not a new phe- nomenon. In Fullan’s (2000) overview of implementations of large-scale educational reforms from the 1950s until the year 2000, he concludes that ‘putting ideas into practice’ (p. 6) seems to be an eternal challenge for policy makers and actors in the school system. Today, the significance and potential of the local and regional management of schools for school development and improved student achievement is a highly topical issue, especially considering the interactions of actors at dif- ferent levels in the school system. A major question, however, remains how major programmes of school-development solutions can be implemented when research has repeatedly shown that such efforts need to be context specific and sensitive to local conditions (Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris, Stoll, & Mackay, 2014). In recent years, Sweden has seen national policy initiatives in line with transnational policy trends that, in different ways, have triggered school-development initiatives in public and independ- ent schools: the establishment of new authorities, such as the School Inspectorate (2008); a new curriculum for compulsory and upper secondary schools (2011); a new education act (2010); and reform of career services for teachers (CST, 2013). The CST reform in July 2013 introduced ‘Expert Teacher’1 as a new category of teachers in Swedish public and independent schools (there are about 14,000 Expert Teachers in Sweden; Swedish National Agency for Education (NAE), 2014). The state authority allocates a number of positions for Expert Teachers based on the number of students, and funding is based on government grants (Promemoria from the Government, 2013). To be appointed, a teacher must be certified, have a minimum of 4 years of documented excellence in teaching and the ability to improve student achievement (Government Grant Ordinance, 2013, p. 70; NAE, 2013). With the appointment follows a quite substantial salary rise (about €540 per month). There is no strict government regulation for the duties of the Expert Teacher. They may be respon- sible for coaching colleagues, pedagogical discussions, subject development, teacher students on placement and so on. The reform itself is flexible, and due to a decentralised school system, munici- palities and independent schools are free to recruit and designate the duties of the Expert Teachers. Thus, there is a plethora of solutions and great variation in design between municipalities. The aim of the CST reform is to promote the status of teachers and offer career opportunities by appointing skilled teachers and engaging them in school development. To some extent, the idea of Expert Teachers resembles the National Board Certified Teachers in the United States (Bond, Smith, Baker, & Hattie, 2000; Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, & Berliner, 2004), the ‘Advanced Skills Teachers’ (AST) in England (Fuller, Goodwyn, & Francis-Brophy, 2013) and the Chartered Teacher Standard in Scotland. However, unlike these programmes and initiatives, there is no requirement for Expert Teachers to have a specific education, degree or accreditation. Research has shown that Expert Teachers can become an important support for school development and contin- ued professional development and reinforce distributed leadership throughout schools (Alvunger, Adolfsson and Alvunger 197 2016) but might, to some extent, challenge existing leadership relations and authorities, primarily principals (Alvunger, 2015b). Our aim in this article is not to highlight the enactment of the CST reform as such, but it is important to be aware of the particularities of this reform as we move on to the scope and research questions of this article. The research problem and questions School development is a dynamic research field. During the past decade, important empirical find- ings and theoretical models explaining and supporting successful school development and school leadership have emerged (Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hallinger, 2011; Harris, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2007), but there are no ready-made solutions or quick fixes for school develop- ment that can be rolled out. A central question of both practical and theoretical relevance is how it is possible to understand why (or why not) school-development efforts are successful. In this study, this general question serves as a point of departure for exploring the ecology of local school devel- opment through the case of a medium-sized municipality in Sweden. The following research ques- tions are investigated: •• How do school actors in the different sub-systems of the local school organisation interact with and respond to core aspects of development work? •• Based on the former question, what implications for the outcomes of local development work can be identified? •• How is it possible to strengthen the organisational capacity for reinforcing local school development? Background In this study, insights from classical organisational theory and new institutional theory are applied and related to empirical data collected from two ongoing evaluation projects conducted in the same medium-sized Swedish municipality between 2013 and 2016. As discussed, those years saw several educational reforms and national and local school-development initiatives. The first project, ‘Learning schools’ (LS), studied the processes and outcomes of development work at nine schools based on data collected from different levels of the local school system (2013–2015). The second project, ‘Implementation of Expert Teachers’ (FT), analysed the implementation of Expert Teachers, focusing on the local school organisation; formulation of the duties assigned to Expert Teachers; and relation- ships between different agents in school development and their challenges, needs and strategies (2014–2016). Although the two projects had somewhat different approaches and targeted different contexts, they shared a common interest in the factors that promote school development and capacity building. Together, these projects generated rich empirical materials from various contexts in a local school organisation that enable a thorough analysis of the school-development work at different lev- els in the same municipality. Therefore, it is appropriate to use these two projects together as a case study to better understand the processes and outcomes of local school-development work. Theoretical points of departure: the local school system as an open, nested and loosely coupled system School-development initiatives that accomplish change are embedded in practice. In this study, we understand school development as a capacity-building process, where individuals, groups and organisations develop capability not only by obtaining knowledge and skills but also by creating 198 Improving Schools 20(3) motivation and sometimes change attitudes, with the aim to improve conditions for students learn- ing (Resnick, 2010; Stoll, 2009). From this point of view, it becomes important to develop a theo- retical understanding of the local school system, its different parts and the relationships between them. The perspective on the local school organisation presented in this section consists of two pillars that together form a theoretical scaffold for focusing on (1) the relationship between the local school system and the surrounding environment and (2) the relationships between different levels and sub-systems of the local school system. School organisation as an open system The first pillar builds on the understanding of the local municipal school organisation as an open system (Scott, 1995, 2008). In contrast to a closed system, schools in an open system have perma- nent external interactions with the surrounding environment, for example, exchanging informa- tion, people and knowledge. This presents both opportunities and challenges: schools face constant pressure to change and conform to the prevailing rules and belief systems in order to maintain their legitimacy. Vanderstraeten (2002) described this as ‘the paradoxical conclusion that an open sys- tem has to change in order to maintain its equilibrium’ (p. 245; italics in original). In total, three dimensions are central to understanding the ‘how’ of external pressure and schools’ legitimacy: the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive/discursive dimensions. The regulative dimension emphasises rules and sanctions and gives institutions legal legitimacy. For a school, this means, for example, adhering to the Education Act, curriculum standards and being transparent to auditing authorities (e.g. the School Inspectorate). The normative dimension con- cerns evaluation and moral legitimacy. These external pressures may arise from work norms, expectations and attitudes towards how schools should work and take appropriate action even in the absence of any legal obligations. Such normative expectations can operate through soft regu- lations, such as voluntary rules with no formal legal sanctions attached. Finally, the cognitive- cultural/discursive dimension consists of the shared conceptions and frames through which meaning is understood. In this dimension, external impulses are translated and re-contextualised at the discursive level. For example, a school’s attempts to make sense of a curriculum or reform paves the way for action and inserts meanings and patterns into the institution’s cognitive struc- ture (Scott, 2008). School organisation as a nested and loosely coupled system Building on the concept of nested systems (Resnick, 2010), the second theoretical pillar conceptu- alises the internal structure of the local school system as consisted of a number of sub-systems on different organisational levels: the local school administration, school level and teacher/teaching level. Although internally related, these sub-systems each have their own logic, conditions and specific functions in relation to the others. In a school context, the sub-systems might be composed of teacher teams, school leadership teams, the local administration and classroom teachers. The function of the local administration is primarily linked to the organisation of resources (e.g. organi- sational, financial and human) at the municipal level, while school leaders’ function is similarly determined at the school level. In turn, the function of teachers derives primarily from the organisa- tion of learning environments in the classroom (Resnick, 2010). Nested sub-systems can be seen to have loosely coupled relationships (Orton & Weick, 1990; Weick, 1976). Thus, within an organisation, such as a school, various elements or sub-systems have weak relationships and couplings. Even if the sub-systems are connected to each other – belong to the same system with a common main function – they often possess knowledge bases and Adolfsson and Alvunger 199 functions specific to themselves. Although the sub-systems in local school organisations are dependent on each other, the complex structure of the organisation complicates their communica- tion and interaction and, from a systems theory perspective, forces sub-systems to reduce the com- plexity of different situations to enable meaningful communication (Vanderstraeten, 2002). In line with Davis, Sumara and D’Amour’s (2012) discussion about complex systems, the relationships between the sub-systems within a loosely coupled system is characterised by: ‘being not fixed. Rather, the components and their interrelationships are subject to ongoing co-evolution’ (p. 375). Unlike in more tightly coupled systems, this might result in multifaceted goals and means and vari- ances in problem definition and priorities between sub-systems. Such organisations become diffi- cult to centrally coordinate and control. Consequently, the actors in different sub-systems do not accord to central policy directives and intentions but rather their own knowledge base, experiences, priorities and needs (Lipsky, 2010). Although loose coupling between the sub-systems in organisations can create internal manage- ment and communication problems, loosely coupled organisations are by nature generally more open, which makes them more resistant to external pressures to change, such as political directives and public opinion. As Weick (1976) emphasised, these organisations ‘retain a greater number of mutations and novel solutions than would be the case with a tightly coupled system’ (p. 7). Loosely coupled organisations might not follow the intentions of policy makers but can better adapt to the surrounding environment. As well, as explained later, this comprehensive (semi-)autonomy of the sub-systems can affect the processes and outcomes of local school-development work. Research design The empirical data upon which this article is based come from two ongoing evaluation research projects (LS and FT) conducted in a compulsory school in a medium-sized municipality (popula- tion: 67,000) in south-eastern Sweden between 2013 and 2016. The projects had different designs. The LS was aimed at supporting the development work of nine compulsory schools. The processes and outcomes of the development work were studied and evaluated based on the collection of dif- ferent kinds of data. The results from the ongoing evaluation were continually communicated to the schools and used for the school-development work (Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2015). The FT project analysed the introduction of Expert Teachers in the local school organisation, investigating recruitment, principals’ and teachers’ expectations of Expert Teachers and the challenges and strat- egies on different levels. This project explored teachers’ views of the impact of Expert Teachers on teacher learning, teaching and assessment practices; the development and communication of teach- ing aims and goals; knowledge of teaching and the curriculum; and teachers’ ability to change and challenge their teaching practices (Alvunger, 2015a; Alvunger & Trulsson, 2016). Both projects closely followed and documented the progress of school-development work at all levels of the school organisation (local school management, administrators, principals and teach- ers) through document analysis, semi-structured interviews and surveys. Moreover, both projects had a mixed-method approach (Creswell, 2010) in which qualitative data and results were col- lected and analysed to inform semi-structured interviews and surveys gathering quantitative data to analyse the experienced effects and impacts of the school-development measures implemented. This design made it possible to obtain different but complementary types of data on the same phe- nomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Data on the case studied here from both projects include the following: •• Contextual analyses: Core documents on the local school organisation, policy and vision, leadership and management structure, evaluations, school-development strategies and 200 Improving Schools 20(3) Expert Teachers’ assignments and position within the organisation were collected and analysed. •• Teacher surveys (n = 250, n = 160, n = 157): In the first two surveys (LS), the teachers’ views of the central dimensions of local development work and their notions of changes due to that work were examined at the beginning and end of the project. The third survey (FT) was aimed at evaluating the impact of Expert Teachers on teaching and assessment practices, knowledge of teaching and ability to change and to initiate development work. •• Semi-structured focus-group interviews: These interviews were conducted with local school administrators (8 interviews), principals (12 interviews) and Expert Teachers (14 inter- views). In the FT project, the interviews focused on the experiences and notions of school- development work among local school administrators, principals and Expert Teachers. The aim of the principal interviews in the LS project was to investigate experiences of the cur- rent development work and its possible effects on and changes in teaching practices and student achievement. The collected data provide an overall picture of the local school-development organisation (sub- systems) that helps answer questions about the process and interactions between actors in different sub-systems and the results and outcomes of the local development work. The conditions for capacity building are discussed in an analysis of carefully selected empirical examples. The case Expert teachers and local organisation for school development The reform introducing Expert Teachers in July 2013 allowed the local school authorities (public and independent) to appoint Expert Teachers and decide their assignments within a framework established by the government. These authorities were responsible, for instance, for introducing newly employed teachers, coaching other teachers, initiating pedagogical discussions and leading projects to improve teaching or a subject (Government Grant Ordinance, 2013, p. 70). The munici- pality used as a case in this study assigned Expert Teachers at the school level, but they could also be selected to perform temporary assignments at the school network or municipal level. Such assignments were generally based on evaluations by the development unit of the local school administration. The school-development organisation differentiated three types of assignments based on their character (see figure 1 below). In some examples of assignments, Expert Teachers might lead development within a subject (e.g. STEM education, reading and social sciences) and instructional practices (e.g. classroom leadership, language- and knowledge-development strategies and learning assessments). They lead pedagogical discussions; develop new teaching and assessment materials; arrange reading pro- jects; model and design lessons; invite teachers to observe their teaching; share new research; and observe, assist and mentor teachers. Principals and representatives of local school administration considered Expert Teachers to be important resources in development processes, agents and cata- lysts for change and support for principals in school leadership. In the focus-group interviews, several challenges Expert Teachers faced in their assignments, principals and school-development organisation were identified: (1) the legitimacy and position of Expert Teachers in the collegial structure (including the ability to resist envy and suspicion); (2) the clarity, character and communication of assignments and duties; (3) endorsement from other teachers and preparedness to engage in development work; (4) support, commitment and mandate from principals; (5) preconditions such as time, resources and education; (6) a lack of Adolfsson and Alvunger 201 common arenas for collaboration, coordination and support, in other words ‘communicative gaps’; and (7) ‘project overload’ and ‘innovation fatigue’ or too many ongoing projects and a failure to find synergies. The absence of arenas or networks for Expert Teachers to communicate, coordinate and exchange ideas, experiences and good examples within and across different levels was problem- atic. Level 3 Expert Teachers met regularly and were affiliated with development managers in the local school administration but, unlike Level 1 and 2 Expert Teachers, had no formal links to other parts of the organisation – even if schools had several collaborative groups created by Expert Teachers. A couple of years after the introduction of Expert Teachers, though, informal arenas on subject development were formed for Level 1 and 2 Expert Teachers. More signifi- cantly, these arenas were later sanctioned by principals, who saw them as natural spaces for Expert Teachers to introduce ideas on school development. It is important to note that principals also clearly expressed a need for a common arena for the exchange of ideas and experiences. Two-and-a-half years after the introduction of Expert Teachers, the principals and Expert Teachers were interviewed about what they considered to be effects of Expert Teachers’ assign- ments. A survey was also administered to explore teachers’ (not Expert Teachers) experiences of the significance and impact of Expert Teachers’ work. The overall feedback was that it was dif- ficult to point to any clear impacts of school development on teacher and teaching level related to the introduction of Expert Teachers; rather, such impacts resulted from a combination of fac- tors. The principals emphasised that Expert Teachers were agents of change who could lead teacher teams and effect changes in classrooms. A convincing majority of the teachers denied seeing any effects, but one-third agreed that the introduction of Expert Teachers had increased their knowledge of instructional practices and classroom leadership and strengthened their abil- ity and willingness to change teaching practice. It is possible to speak about the influences of Expert Teachers’ work in two main areas: the visualisation of common goals to pursue, and the development of teachers’ subject matter knowledge and knowledge of the curriculum and instructional strategies (e.g. classroom leadership and language- and knowledge-development strategies). Figure 1. The local school organisation for school development. 202 Improving Schools 20(3) Schools’ capacity building for the sustainable development of teaching practices and student achievement The initiation of the LS project should be seen in the light of a general trend in Sweden of increased focus on students’ academic achievement and greater accountability for local authori- ties, schools and teachers. The municipality launched a 3-year school-development programme focusing on two school networks with low student achievement and large number of students with special needs. The schools were asked to collaborate with the local school administration in iden- tifying weaknesses and challenges in teaching practices. Almost immediately, it became clear that actors on different levels of the local school organisation could agree on two broad development areas: (1) the development of classroom management and (2) the development of language in all subjects. However, the need to further specify these development areas also gradually became obvious. As a result, the different schools began to work with more specific content in develop- ment work, including classroom questioning, formative assessment and instructional structure. In particular, the principals revealed that specification and differentiation of development areas were important ways to legitimise the development work and receive commitment and engagement from teachers. The school actors in the municipality had quite similar views on what needed to be developed in the schools and classrooms, but disagreement arose on strategies and methods for dealing with the challenges. These differences became obvious at the beginning of the project during the discus- sion on introducing two basic strategies to promote the development of teaching in every school: pedagogical discussions and peer observation of teaching. Local school administrators; principals; and, to some extent, Expert Teachers stressed peer observation, and a tremendous amount of finan- cial, time and educational resources was invested in implementing this strategy. However, princi- pals and Expert Teachers early noticed strong resistance to peer observation among teachers. One teacher in a teacher focus-group interview described the problems with the peer observation strat- egy she had experienced: Many of us feel that it takes too much time to do these observations . . . At the same time . . . sometimes . . . it was also hard to find the ‘right’ moment when to do these observations. In addition, when the observations were made in another classroom, many students were noticeably affected by a stranger sitting in the back of the classroom. (Teacher in Grade 6) The principals and Expert Teachers clearly recognised that teachers favoured pedagogical and research-informed discussions about their instructional practice: I would say that the pedagogical discussions have increased significantly at our school. All the teachers talk about pedagogy . . . The teacher teams have pedagogical discussions and reflect on teaching, everyone together. (Primary school principal) During the course of the school-development projects, Expert Teachers and cross-school subject groups engaged in pedagogical discussions based on the research literature and their practical experiences. This positive attitude towards pedagogical discussions was also indicated in the results from the teacher questionnaires at the end of the project: 66 percent of the teachers (n = 160) claimed that pedagogical discussions – despite almost no additional resource input – were an estab- lished method in the schools. Compared to peer observation of teaching, the difference in support was striking: only 16.5 percent of the teachers claimed that this strategy was an established method to improve teaching practice. Adolfsson and Alvunger 203 Discussion External pressures and the legitimacy … www.ecs.org | @EdCommission POLICY SNAPSHOT What Is the Issue and Why Does It Matter? In the era of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), there has been heightened attention on the role that effective school and district leaders play in a wide range of issues, including school improvement, quality classroom instruction and broader discussions of equity. At the same time, districts across the country continue to experience high turnover rates for leadership — with the average tenure of a school principal being less than five years — and similar numbers for district superintendents.1 ESSA’s inclusion of new funding sources for states to invest in leadership, coupled with decades of research identifying the important roles leaders play in student success, have motivated states to look at new ways to support superintendents, principals and other school leaders. In fact, at least 24 states indicate that they intend to use these new funds to strengthen leadership through a variety of efforts, including pre-service training and on-the-job support.2 State activities to support school and district leaders extend beyond state ESSA plans as policymakers look at ways to advance these priorities through legislation. In 2017, Education Commission of the States reviewed legislation related to school and district leadership and highlighted state examples, trends and key takeaways. Overall trends showed a strong interest in updating certification and licensure policies, with a particular focus on expanding non-traditional routes to certification. This Policy Snapshot summarizes 2018 legislative activities related to school and district leadership organized around the career continuum and includes legislation related to the following: J Preparation, certification and licensure. J Induction, mentoring and professional development. J Evaluation. J Compensation, incentives and contracts. NOV 2018 Similar to 2017, legislative activity in 2018 shows a continued interest in increasing the ability of school and district leaders to enter the field, perform their jobs and advance in their careers. School and District Leadership 2018 School and District Leadership Legislation This year, at least 36 states introduced legislation targeting superintendents, principals and other school leaders. INTRODUCED ENACTED http://www.ecs.org http://www.twitter.com/edcommission https://www.ecs.org/2017-state-policy-update-school-and-district-leadership/ www.ecs.org | @EdCommission 2 POLICY SNAPSHOT SCHOOL AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP Preparation, Certification and Licensure COMPARED WITH 2017 Modification to certification and licensing continues to serve as a key policy lever to help alleviate principal shortages. This year's focus is on expanding access to certain individuals, such as veterans or administrators previously licensed in another state. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP State Legislation Status State Legislation Status State Legislation Status Arizona H.B. 2534 Enacted Louisiana H.B. 796 Enacted Oregon S.B. 1520 Enacted Colorado S.B. 147 S.B. 160 Failed Enacted Missouri S.B. 1044 Failed Rhode Island H.B. 7296 Failed Mississippi H.B. 1401 H.B. 1402 S.B. 2063 S.B. 2397 Failed Failed Failed Failed Tennessee H.B. 1549/ S.B. 1804 H.B. 1764/ S.B. 1738 H.B. 2009/ S.B. 2011 Enacted Failed Enacted Florida H.B. 29 H.B. 1191 Enacted Failed Nebraska L.B. 803 EnactedIdaho H.B. 566 Vetoed Virginia H.B. 2/ S.B. 103 H.J. 56 Enacted Failed New Hampshire H.B. 1559 Failed Illinois H.B. 2898 H.B. 5170 S.B. 2439 Enacted Failed Enacted New York A. 3141/ S. 3815 A. 4004/ S. 3550 Failed Failed Wisconsin S.B. 825 Failed DISTRICT LEADERSHIP State Legislation Status State Legislation Status State Legislation Status Illinois H.B. 5627 Enacted New York A. 5755/ S. 4470 Failed Utah H.B. 46 Enacted Mississippi H.B. 753 Failed Examples of Enacted State Legislation Florida: H.B. 29 creates a pathway for veterans to become school principals. This bill requires the state department of education to issue a temporary certificate to an individual who served as a commissioned or noncommissioned military officer for three years, earned a passing score on the required leadership exam, currently works in a full-time position that requires a Florida educators’ certificate and is at a school with an approved district-level principal preparation program. Idaho: H.B. 566 creates a new charter school administrator certificate as an alternative to a traditional administrator certificate. To meet the eligibility requirements for this certificate, an administrator must: hold a bachelor's degree, pass a criminal background check, receive training on teacher evaluation and show that a charter school board of directors intends to hire them. As a result, charter school administrators could continue to hold a traditional administrator certificate or hold a charter school administrator certificate. Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter vetoed this bill. Tennessee: H.B. 1549/S.B. 1804 exempts certain supervisors and principals, along with other educators, from an assessment requirement to advance or renew a license if they: (1) hold an active professional license in a state with a reciprocal agreement, (2) are employed to serve in the area of endorsement in a public school in Tennessee and (3) earned an overall performance effectiveness level of above expectations or significantly above expectations in each of the first two years immediately following the issuance of their initial license. At least considered legislation. 17 STATES bills were introduced. 31 17 failed. 13 were enacted. 1 was vetoed. http://www.ecs.org http://www.twitter.com/edcommission https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/29/BillText/er/PDF https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0566.pdf https://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/Bills/2018-H566a.pdf http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB1549.pdf www.ecs.org | @EdCommission 3 POLICY SNAPSHOT SCHOOL AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP Induction, Mentoring and Professional Development At least considered legislation. 19 STATES bills were introduced. 32 17 failed. 14 were enacted. 1 was vetoed. Examples of Enacted State Legislation Alabama: H.B. 175 appropriates $438,907 to the Alabama Principal Mentoring Program. This two-year program supports new school leaders and provides mentorship by a leadership coach. Colorado: H.B. 1355 expands the existing School Turnaround Leaders Development program and renames it the School Transformation Grant program. This program provides grants for the development of school turnaround leaders and requires the state board to consider how the applying district will support educator professional development; provide services, support and materials to transform instruction; and implement one or more rigorous school redesign strategies. West Virginia: H.B. 4619 directs a percentage of funding (if available) to support district-level implementation of comprehensive systems for teacher and leader induction and professional growth. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP State Legislation Status State Legislation Status State Legislation Status Alabama H.B. 175 Enacted Hawaii H.B. 2562 Failed North Carolina H.B. 1068 Failed Arizona S.B. 1223 S.B. 1520 Failed Enacted Illinois S.B. 3466 S.B. 3579 S.B. 3600 Enacted Failed Failed Rhode Island H.B. 7007 Failed Arkansas S.B. 37 Enacted Indiana S.B. 230 Enacted Tennessee H.B. 1240/ S.B. 1386 Enacted California A.B. 2686 Failed Kentucky H.B. 30 Enacted Washington S.B. 6032 S.B. 6508 Enacted Failed Colorado H.B. 1159 H.B. 1355 H.B. 1367 Enacted Enacted Failed Michigan H.B. 4313 Enacted West Virginia H.B. 2031 H.B. 2524 H.B. 4006 H.B. 4619 Failed Failed Enacted EnactedMissouri H.B. 1363 Failed Florida H.B. 1135 H.B. 4503 H.B. 5001 S.B. 1334 S.B. 2500 Failed Vetoed Enacted Failed Failed New York A. 3673/ S. 3742 Failed Wisconsin S.B. 329 Failed COMPARED WITH 2017 States continue to invest in professional learning for principals, particularly in funding for development programs. http://www.ecs.org http://www.twitter.com/edcommission http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableinstruments/2018RS/bills/HB175.htm https://s3.amazonaws.com/fn-document-service/file-by-sha384/df1b72fb78d4a32b203fc072e78bd984f88ca14772fcad1160b6fd52cd80e15dfc88a119d19e76b4c1d196da30246e66 http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML/2018_SESSIONS/RS/bills/HB4619 SUB ENR.pdf www.ecs.org | @EdCommission 4 POLICY SNAPSHOT SCHOOL AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP Evaluation At least considered legislation. 9 STATES bills were introduced. 18 13 failed. 1 was enacted. 4 are pending. Example of Enacted State Legislation Rhode Island: H.B. 8341 extends privacy protections to all public employees — previously exclusive to teachers — to ensure that the public cannot access any individually identifiable performance evaluations. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP State Legislation Status State Legislation Status Arizona S.B. 1497 Failed New York (CONT'D) A. 4016 A. 10475/ S. 8301 S. 267 S. 8992 S. 9098 Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed California A.B. 2584 Failed Louisiana H.B. 651 Failed Ohio H.B. 540 S.B. 240 Pending Pending Michigan H.B. 5707 Pending Rhode Island H.B. 8341* Enacted Tennessee H.B. 2207/ S.B. 2564 H.B. 2727 Failed Failed New Jersey A. 675 Pending New York A. 2417 A. 2815 A. 3420 Failed Failed Failed * State also introduced companion bills. Compensation, Incentives and Contracts COMPARED WITH 2017 States saw a significant increase in legislation related to school and district leader compensation. At least considered legislation. 22 STATES bills were introduced. 51 1 was vetoed. 10 were enacted. 27 failed. 13 are pending. Examples of Enacted State Legislation Florida: H.B. 7055 permanently establishes the Principal Autonomy Program Initiative, which allows high-need districts the ability to exchange statutory and rule exemptions for an agreement to meet performance goals. COMPARED WITH 2017 States continue to consider moving away from utilizing measures of student growth in principal evaluations, with at least five states looking to do so in 2018. To date, no states have enacted such legislation this year; however, legislation is pending action in New Jersey and Michigan. http://www.ecs.org http://www.twitter.com/edcommission https://s3.amazonaws.com/fn-document-service/file-by-sha384/ef5d23e7743558a82b2c8316bae0eea0593d901963e2b2a3a0354e1e261a4b3e96ae64fd6de24e02d72bc981203db348 https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/7055/BillText/er/PDF www.ecs.org | @EdCommission 5 POLICY SNAPSHOT SCHOOL AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP Idaho: S. 1347 appropriates $2.7 million for a 3 percent base salary increase for administrative staff. Other states, such as Alabama and Oklahoma, also increased compensation for principals and other school employees. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP State Legislation Status State Legislation Status Alabama H.B. 154 H.B. 174* Failed Enacted Maryland S.B. 639 Enacted Michigan H.B. 5479 S.B. 778 Pending Pending California A.B. 45 Vetoed Minnesota H.F. 4255 Failed Florida H.B. 427 H.B. 7055* S.B. 1324 Failed Enacted Failed Missouri S.B. 810 Failed New Mexico S.B. 317 Failed Idaho S. 1347 Enacted Illinois H.B. 4777 S.B. 3183 Failed Failed Oklahoma H.B. 1023 H.B. 2009 S.B. 1191 Enacted Enacted Failed Indiana S.B. 267 Failed Washington S.B. 6362 EnactedIowa H.F. 2139 Failed DISTRICT LEADERSHIP State Legislation Status State Legislation Status Alabama H.B. 12/ S.B. 153 H.B. 389 Failed Failed New York A. 5157 A. 5532 A. 5534 A. 6310/ S. 4815 A. 7499/ S. 5474 A. 8108 S. 1148 Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Hawaii H.B. 2561 Failed Maryland H.B. 103 S.B. 1162 Failed Enacted Missouri S.B. 1054 Failed Nebraska L.B. 851 Failed New Jersey A. 501 A. 663 A. 2252 A. 3700 A. 3713 A. 3775/ S. 692 S. 1720 S. 1812 S. 1933 S. 2414 Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending North Carolina H.B. 611 Enacted Oklahoma S.B. 1232 S.B. 1286 Failed Failed Pennsylvania H.B. 2630 Pending Virginia H.B. 81 Enacted Wyoming H.B. 83 Failed * States also introduced companion bills. Additional Resources J 2017 State Policy Review: School and District Leadership J School Leadership: A Primer for Policymakers J 50-State Comparison: School Leader Certification and Preparation Programs http://www.ecs.org http://www.twitter.com/edcommission https://s3.amazonaws.com/fn-document-service/file-by-sha384/d93d4066ce369ad112a4fae2ee99569480e6d49a6a1d25b0717bccdb94faf715fd4d1605563297365dd7eba7960b6c10 https://s3.amazonaws.com/fn-document-service/file-by-sha384/ea55a91e6c780d8462d74dd4d16337a6926bbc45aadd163c04a092422e48673b794733002746a779507c529d2639942b http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2017-18%20ENR/hB/HB1023XX%20ENR.PDF https://www.ecs.org/2017-state-policy-update-school-and-district-leadership/ https://www.ecs.org/school-leadership-a-primer-for-state-policymakers/ https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-school-leader-certification-and-preparation-programs/ POLICY SNAPSHOT SCHOOL AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP About Education Commission of the States Legislative Tracking Education Commission of the States tracks legislation on education issues from early learning through postsecondary and workforce. The team follows the bill’s status from introduction through its final action, summarizes key provisions and assigns topics. The policy tracking helps keep an eye on trends, innovative policy approaches and the overall landscape of education-focused activity. This information is leveraged for several purposes, including Policy Snapshots that offer a brief background on a topic, a visual take on recent bills and summaries of selected state legislation. © 2018 by Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved. Education Commission of the States encourages its readers to share our information with others. To request permission to reprint or excerpt our material, please contact us at 303.299.3609 or email [email protected] Education Commission of the States | 700 Broadway Suite 810 Denver, CO 80203 ENDNOTES 1. National Teacher and Principal Survey, 2015-16, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, accessed September 28, 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/Table_6_042717.asp; and Thomas Glass and Louis A. Franceshchini, The 2006 Study of the State of the American School Superintendency (Alexandria: The School Superintendents Association, 2018), 51. 2. Prioritizing Leadership: Opportunities in the Every Student Success Act (New York: New Leaders, 2018), https://newleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018.NL_.ESSA-State-Plan-Policy-Brief-FINAL.pdf. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Education Commission of the States is grateful to The Wallace Foundation for its generous support and continued commitment to helping equip states and school districts with the resources to develop strong school leadership policies and practices. AUTHOR Deven Scott is a state relations associate at Education Commission of the States. She earned a bachelor’s degree in political science and history and a master’s degree in public administration, both from the University of South Dakota. In her spare time, she can be found hiking, watching true crime documentaries or cheering on the Minnesota Vikings. Contact Deven at [email protected] or 303.299.3622. About Education Commission of the States Legislative Tracking Education Commission of the States tracks legislation on education issues from early learning through postsecondary and workforce. The team follows the bill’s status from introduction through its final action, summarizes key provisions and assigns topics. The policy tracking helps keep an eye on trends, innovative policy approaches and the overall landscape of education-focused activity. This information is leveraged for several purposes, including Policy Snapshots that offer a brief background on a topic, a visual take on recent bills and summaries of selected state legislation. mailto:askinner%40ecs.org?subject= http://www.facebook.com/edcommission http://www.twitter.com/edcommission https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/Table_6_042717.asp https://newleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018.NL_.ESSA-State-Plan-Policy-Brief-FINAL.pdf mailto:dscott%40ecs.org?subject=