Personal Leadership Platform

Gorton, R. (2022). School Leadership and Administration: Important Concepts, Case Studies, and Simulations (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US). https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781266172724

Page 12

It has been said, “The organization without effective leadership is in trouble.”1 Most

administrators recognize that providing leadership is a major expectation for their role. This

expectation is emphasized both in educational literature and at various professional meetings.

But what constitutes leadership? How does the administrator exercise leadership? In response

to these questions, literally hundreds of studies have been conducted, and thousands of articles

and many books have been written. Although these efforts have, in many instances, provided

insights into the subject of leadership, the concept remains elusive. In large part, this may be

because leadership involves the effective utilization of all the other concepts in this text, and it is

difficult to analyze as a distinct concept. This chapter reviews some of the relevant and seminal

research on literature in leadership as well as describes and analyzes particular concepts that

possess major relevance for the school administrator who wants to be an educational leader,

with particular emphasis on the notion of group leadership.

DEFINITIONS AND NEED FOR LEADERSHIP

Theorists, researchers, and practitioners have defined leadership in a variety of ways.2

Probably the most commonsensical definition was stated by Cowley in the 1920s: “The leader is

the one who succeeds in getting others to follow him [or her].”3 “Leadership is taking risks,

making mistakes and learning from those mistakes. Leadership provides the very foundation for

a sound educational program. When leadership is right, people are inspired to do their best.” 4

Individuals Can Lead; Groups Can Lead

As theorists and researchers began to analyze the term leadership, more elaborate and

sophisticated definitions evolved. Stogdill, a respected authority on the subject, defined

leadership as those activities engaged in by an individual or members of a group that contribute

significantly to the “development and maintenance of role structure and goal direction,

necessary for effective group performance.”5 Stogdill’s definition emphasizes that leadership

need not be limited to one individual, such as the school administrator, and that the focus of

leadership activities should be on increasing the performance effectiveness of the group.

Referring to Thomas Carlyle’s “Great Man” theory of history, Bennis suggests that perhaps

instead we should realize that to a great extent “our world has in fact been the product of ‘Great

Groups,’ teams of creative persons who banded together to achieve remarkable successes that

would not have been possible through a traditional hierarchical approach.”6 He emphasizes that

a shared dream is at the heart of each “Great Group” and that individual egos are put aside in

order to pursue the dream. Bennis writes that leadership is dispersed among Great Groups, not

necessarily by formal rotation rules but by different group members assuming different types of

leadership roles at different times and in different situations according to their individual abilities.

Thus the group itself can be a leader at the same time that various members are leaders within

the group. Certain traits characterize team or group leaders, according to Bennis: namely,

providing direction and meaning, generating and sustaining trust, displaying an eagerness to

take action, and spreading hope.7

Page 13

Empowerment

The concept of empowerment has increasingly dominated the research on group leadership and

group dynamics and has had an impact on the way leadership is defined. According to Taylor

and Rosenbach, “Leadership involves assisting everyone working with the organization to

collectively gain control over resources for the common good.”8 Conger and Kanungo define

empowerment as “a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational

members through identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their

removal by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy

information.”9

Conger stresses four ways in which effective leaders empower subordinates. First, they

structure tasks so that staff members have success and are rewarded. Second, they use verbal

persuasion to convince followers that they are able to successfully complete difficult tasks.

Third, effective leaders reduce tensions and build excitement and pride in the organization.

Finally, good leaders model empowerment through their own behavior, showing that they, too,

are empowered when interacting with their superiors and thereby demonstrating what

self-confidence can accomplish.10

Lilly, on the same subject of empowerment, writes that “power is the ability to get things done,

rather than the ability to get one’s way against resistance.”11 He distinguishes between

distributive power and collective power. The former is adversarial and controlling, whereas the

latter results from empowering all individuals involved. The use of collective power increases the

power of all people as they reach the goals together that may have eluded them independently.

According to Lilly, the powerful administrator is not independent but rather interdependent.

Evidence that a group is truly empowered may be seen in a situation in which (1) people feel

significant because everyone is making a contribution, (2) leaders model behavior that values

the learning and competence of people in the organization, and (3) the work is viewed as

exciting. Finally, leaders who empower their employees pull them, rather than push them, to a

goal by embodying the vision toward which the rest of the group strives.12 Effective leaders are

themselves empowered and seek to do the same for their staff. They are willing to take risks

and encourage their subordinates to be risk takers. To quote Morris, “Risk taking leaders do not

wait for the future to occur. They create the future by actively engaging in it.”13

Administrators, Managers, and Leaders

Another major contribution to the literature on leadership, one that the authors believe to hold

significant implications for the educational administrator, was developed by Lipham.14 Lipham

made an important distinction between the administrator and the leader. He defined the

administrator as “the individual who utilizes existing structures or procedures to achieve an

organizational goal or objective.”15 He went on to say, “The administrator is concerned primarily

with maintaining, rather than changing established structures, procedures, or goals.”16 Thus the

administrator, according to Lipham, must be viewed as a stabilizing force.

In contrast, the leader as defined by Lipham, “is concerned with initiating changes in established

structures, procedures or goals; he [or she] is a disrupter of the existing state of affairs.”

Leadership, to Lipham, is “the initiation of a new structure or procedure for accomplishing

organizational goals and objectives.”17 Consequently, an administrator can be a leader by

attempting to introduce change, but is not a leader simply because he or she happens to occupy

what has been referred to as a “leadership position.” It is not the position that determines

whether someone is a leader; it is the nature of that individual’s behavior while occupying that

position.

Page 14

WINDOW ON DIVERSITY

Leadership

CULTURALLY PROFICIENT LEADERSHIP CONTINUUM

1. Cultural destructiveness: See the difference, stomp it out—the elimination of other people’s cultures.

2. Cultural incapacity: See the difference, make it wrong—belief in the superiority of one’s culture and behavior that disempowers another’s culture.

3. Cultural blindness: See the difference, act like you don’t—acting as if the cultural differences you see do not matter, or not recognizing that there are differences among and between cultures.

4. Cultural precompetence: See the difference, respond inadequately—awareness of the limitations of one’s skills or an organization’s practices when interacting with other cultural groups.

5. Cultural competence: See the difference, understand the difference that difference makes—interacting with other cultural groups using the five essential elements of cultural proficiency as the standard for individual behavior and school practices.

6. Cultural proficiency: See the differences and respond positively and affirmingly—esteeming culture, knowing how to learn about individual and organizational culture, and interacting effectively in a variety of cultural environments.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

These elements provide the standards for individual behavior and organizational practices: ● Name the differences: Assess culture. ● Claim the differences: Value diversity. ● Reframe the differences: Manage the dynamics of difference. ● Train about the differences: Adapt to diversity. ● Change for differences: Institutionalize cultural knowledge.

Page 15

Kotter has written that “management is about coping with complexity,” a necessary response to

the complexity of modern organizations, whereas leadership “is about coping with change” and

is more necessary than ever before because of the vast changes taking place today; but he

stresses that both management and leadership are necessary and should be considered

“complementary systems of action.” Although Kotter’s discussion focused on the business

world, his point applies to education as well.18 Similarly, Conger and Kanungo also make a

distinction between leader and manager, contending that motivation is the “very essence” of true

leadership, coupled with the ability of leaders to build an emotional attachment with their

followers. Leaders also use intuition, which is “insight, judgment, and executive ESP.” Smith

writes that good followers can be easily identified by these qualities. For example, followers

listen, read the administrator’s memos, brag about their colleagues, are kind to others, do not

get involved in petty staff disputes, think in terms of “we” not “me,” adjust their personal and

school schedules to benefit others, think of themselves as part of a team or group, ask what

they can do to help, recognize that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” share everything,

and pitch in to help without being asked.19 The leader’s behavior, according to Conger and

Kanungo’s research, is characterized as charismatic and visionary. One important personality

trait is the leader’s understanding of the need for power and the approach to its use. The leader

must also have the organizational vision necessary to direct the organization into its future and

the ability to articulate this vision.20

As Lipham acknowledged, however, the administrator who adopts the role of leader will be

unable to spend time on leadership only. Adequate attention must also be devoted to

administering the school. There is considerable doubt whether an organization can successfully

maintain itself if the administrator spends all or most of the time in initiating new procedures or

goals. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that organizational improvement may suffer if the

administrator spends all of his or her time maintaining the status quo. As Bennis aptly observes,

“Managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right things,” and

good managers successfully handle the routine daily jobs, but seldom question whether these

jobs should be done in the first place.21 If the organization is to improve its effectiveness and

reach new heights, the administrator must initiate change in procedures and organizational

goals—and if these changes achieve the desired ends, then the administrator has not only

attempted to exercise leadership but also succeeded in exercising effective leadership, which

seems to be needed more than ever in education.

Why Leadership Has Become So Important

Although the professional literature on school administration has long emphasized that one of

the major responsibilities of the school administrator is to provide leadership, this emphasis has

taken on new urgency in recent years. Beginning in the 1970s with the “effective school”

research22 and continuing into the early years of the twenty-first century, with various national

and state reports recommending major changes in education,23 the school administrator has

frequently been cited as a pivotal figure in bringing about needed school reform and

improvement. While some may doubt whether all, or, for that matter, many school administrators

possess the necessary qualities for leadership,24 there is general agreement that administrative

leadership is needed if the schools are to improve significantly.25

New developments in leadership theory, for example, have focused on such matters as values

and beliefs frequently embedded in the mission of the school or school district;26 vision or

“aesthetic motivation”;27 and the role of symbols, culture, and purpose.28 Whether the focus is

on defining a clear school purpose and mission, developing a definite set of staff expectations

for improved student learning, providing an orderly school environment where serious learning

can take place, or one of the other elements that school effectiveness research has identified,29

some type of leadership contribution by the school administrator seems necessary.

Page 16

Parks and Barrett stress that future administrators must be leaders of leaders by demonstrating

the following abilities: recognizing, rewarding, and supporting the work of new leaders; coaching

the leaders on values, missions, and goals of the school and school system; supplying

necessary resources, such as release time, money, staff support, facilities, and equipment;

providing tools for review and reflection of their work; promoting opportunities for leadership skill

enhancement; giving credit to new leaders while maintaining responsibility; consulting often with

and delegating freely to new leaders; and supporting these leaders’ decisions.30

In the following sections, several theories of leadership containing the most useful ideas for the

school administrator will be presented, including an exploration of the administrator’s leadership

role in working with groups. Leadership in this 21st century must also be for and about social

justice. One major approach to leadership examines the behavior of effective leaders. Another

approach emphasizes the situation in which the leader functions.

SEMINAL STUDIES IN LEADERSHIP AND TYPES OF LEADERSHIP

Trait Studies

Some of the first theories regarding leadership revolved around the study of traits. These

studies attempted to identify traits that could be used to differentiate between leaders and those

who are not. A hierarchical organizational structure housed its leaders at or near the top with

trait theories, and the focus was on developing habits, approaches, viewpoints, or traits to

become successful. In 1948 Stogdill noted that even though leaders exhibited some general

managerial advantages over those who were not leaders relative to some traits, there were no

characteristics or traits exhibited by leaders that were clearly superior. Current literature

focusing on leadership traits include Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

and John Wareham’s The Anatomy of a Great Executive.31

Behavior Studies

From the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s come the well-known behavior studies conducted at major

midwestern research universities. In 1938, Lewin, Lippitt, and White, researchers at Iowa,

conducted a group of studies called the “Leadership and Group Life” (also known as “The Iowa

Studies”) on the productivity of subordinates using three styles: autocratic, democratic, and

laissez-faire.32 The autocratic leader was very direct and had strong decision-making skills, and

power resided with this individual. The leader who was identified as laissez-faire gave complete

decision-making power to the group. The researchers found a “democratic style” of leadership

to be superior to the more autocratic or laissez-faire styles. The new democratic style was

touted as more productive because this individual shared the decision making with the group. It

was later generalized from this study to corporate settings.33 The effective school leader in the

twenty-first century will also employ this democratic style of leader behavior to foster a

collaborative community of learners.

Page 17

Another series of studies on leadership was done at The Ohio State University, beginning in the

1950s.34 Researchers found two critical characteristics either of which could be high or low and

were independent of one another: Consideration is the degree to which a leader acts in a

friendly and supportive manner toward his or her subordinates; initiating structure is the degree

to which a leader defines and structures his or her role and the roles of the subordinates toward

achieving the goals of the group. The research was based on questionnaires to leaders and

subordinates. These are known as the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and

the Supervisor Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ).

The 1950s also found researchers at the University of Michigan conducting research on leader

behavior, wherein three critical characteristics of effective leadership were found: task-oriented

behavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and participative leadership. With task-oriented

behavior, effective managers did not do the same kind of work as their subordinates. Their tasks

were different, and included planning and scheduling work, coordinating activities, and providing

necessary resources. They also spent time guiding subordinates in setting task goals that were

both challenging and achievable. Those managers who displayed relationship-oriented behavior

concentrated not only on the task but also on their relationship with their subordinates. They

were more considerate, helpful, and supportive of subordinates, including helping them with

their career and personal problems. They recognized effort with intrinsic as well as extrinsic

reward, thanking people for effort. Overall, the effective managers preferred a general and

hands-off form of supervision rather than close control. They set goals and provided guidelines,

but then gave their subordinates plenty of leeway as to how the goals would be achieved.

Finally, those who practiced participative leadership managed both at the group level and at the

individual level, for example, using team meetings to share ideas and involve the team in group

decisions and problem solving. By their actions, such leaders model good team-oriented

behavior. The role of the manager is more facilitative than directive, guiding the conversation

and helping to resolve differences. The manager, however, is responsible for results and is not

absolved of responsibility. As such, the manager may make final decisions that take

recommendations from the team into account. The effect of participative leadership is to build a

cohesive team that works together rather than a set of individuals.35

Parallel to the university studies, in research conducted by Halpin, the behavior of aircraft

commanders and school superintendents was studied, and two sets of behavior were found to

be associated with effective leadership: initiating structure and consideration.36 The leader who

assumes an initiating structure leadership role will attempt to define the behavior expected from

each member of the organization and will emphasize the importance of “getting the job done.” In

a sense, this behavior is similar to that of a nomothetic leader, first conceptualized by Getzels, in

that work-related needs rather than the personal needs of the members of the group are

emphasized.37 The importance of this type of behavior has been documented in studies of

principals in effective schools. For example, one study observed, “[The principal] sets clear

expectations for the teachers, and all staff as professionals are accountable for the results of

their efforts.”38 Another study reported, “These [effective] principals set high academic

standards.”39 A related report on effective schools sees the principal framing and

communicating goals, setting expectations, monitoring instructional progress, coordinating the

curriculum, and supervising and evaluating the faculty.40

Page 18

The second leadership variable identified by Halpin was a factor termed consideration. Whereas

the “initiating structure” aspects of leadership are task-centered, the “consideration” aspects are

people-centered. The administrator who assumes the consideration leadership role will attempt

to develop a positive and satisfying relationship between leader and followers and will try to

promote a spirit of cooperation among the different members of the group being led. This type of

leadership has also been characterized by Getzels and his colleagues as idiographic

leadership, in that it stresses the personal and emotional needs of the members of the group.41

As emphasized by Finn, “Effective principals require the ability to work closely with others.”42

In sum, consideration behavior on the part of a leader represents an attempt to meet the

maintenance needs of a group, whereas initiating structure can be regarded as behavior

designed to help a group achieve its objectives.

Some administrators may feel that they are leaders if they either initiate structure or provide

consideration. Halpin emphasizes, however, that both types of behavior are important.43 That

is, the leader must initiate action and get things done; but in most situations, in order to achieve

these objectives successfully, the leader must meet the personal and emotional needs of people

to secure their continuing cooperation and commitment. This style of leadership has been

referred to by Getzels and colleagues as transactional leadership.

For example, if an administrator emphasizes the initiation of structure in order to facilitate

organizational achievement but neglects the needs of a group for consideration, cooperation in

achieving the goals of the organization may not be attained. If, on the other hand, an

administrator stresses the consideration dimension but pays insufficient attention to the initiation

of structure needed to promote organizational achievement, the administrator may succeed in

meeting a group’s needs for maintenance but may fail to meet fully the organization’s needs for

achievement.44

In the 1960s, Blake and Mouton introduced their Managerial Grid with two dimensions (axes) of

leadership orientation: concern for production (task) and concern for people (relationship). Here

five leadership styles were identified via the two axes of the grid:

1. Authoritarian leader (high task, low relationship): People who get this rating are very

much task-oriented and are hard on their workers (autocratic). There is little or no

allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Heavily task-oriented people display these

characteristics: They are very strong on schedules; they expect people to do what they

are told without question or debate; when something goes wrong they tend to focus on

who is to blame rather than concentrate on exactly what is wrong and how to prevent it;

and they are intolerant of what they see as dissent (it may just be someone’s creativity),

so it is difficult for their subordinates to contribute or develop.

2. Team leader (high task, high relationship): These people lead by positive example and

endeavor to foster a team environment in which all team members can reach their

highest potential, both as team members and as people. They encourage the team to

reach team goals as effectively as possible, while also working tirelessly to strengthen

the bonds among the various members. They normally form and lead some of the most

productive teams.

3. Country club leader (low task, high relationship): These people use predominantly

reward power to maintain discipline and to encourage the team to accomplish its goals.

Conversely, they are almost incapable of employing the more punitive coercive and

legitimate powers. This inability results from fear that using such powers could

jeopardize relationships with the other team members.

4. Page 19

5. Impoverished leader (low task, low relationship): Leaders who use a “delegate and

disappear” management style. Since they are not committed to either task

accomplishment or maintenance, they essentially allow their team to do whatever it

wishes and prefer to detach themselves from the team process by allowing the team to

suffer from a series of power struggles.

6. Organization non manager: A leader who maintains the status quo.

The team leader would be the most desirable place for a leader to be along the two axes and at

most times would be with a 9 on task and a 9 on people.45

Updated in 1991, the New Managerial Grid46 identifies seven new styles, which Blake and

McCanse found to be the most important differences among leaders:

1. Control and dominate (dictatorial)

2. Yield and support (accommodating)

3. Balance and compromise (status quo)

4. Evade and elude (indifferent)

5. Prescribe and guide (paternalistic)

6. Exploit and manipulate (opportunistic)

7. Contribute and commit (sound)

SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CONTINGENCY MODELS

In addition to the emphasis on the characteristics of leadership and the behaviors of effective

leaders, there is another major approach to leadership—an approach built less around the

person and more around the situation in which the person functions. The nature of a particular

situation is considered to be the most important variable determining how the leader operates.

This school of thought rejects the premise that one approach to leadership is preferable to

another. Instead, the proponents of situational leadership set forth two primary propositions that

(1) the leadership approach employed by an individual should be relative to the situation and (2)

different situations demand different kinds of behavior from the leader.47 Figure 1.1 presents

several major situational factors that could influence the type of leadership needed in a school

or school district.48

▪FIGURE 1.1 SITUATIONAL VARIABLES AND LEADERSHIP

Page 20

As a conference on effective schools sponsored by the National Institute of Education made

clear:

There are very important contextual factors such as composition of the teaching

staff, the student body, the community, the district situation, state mandates, and

the principal’s own past experience that seem to shape how the principals

accomplish their role.49

Although the empirical evidence is not conclusive,50 there is considerable observational

experience to support the situational theory of leadership. For example, persons who are

appointed or elected as leaders in one situation may not be chosen again when circumstances

change. Individuals who are successful in leading a group in a given situation may not be

successful with a different group or at another time.

The importance of situational leadership can easily be observed in educational administration.

The individual for any specific administrative position is usually selected primarily by criteria of

certain personal qualities and a style of leadership that meet the needs of the work situation.

School boards, for instance, do not all look for the same type of leader to fill the position of

superintendent. They want an individual who they feel will provide the type of leadership to meet

the unique needs of the school district. In one situation, a school board may look for a

superintendent who can successfully introduce basic changes in the schools, perhaps over the

strong opposition of a number of people. At another time the board may want a superintendent

who can play the role of harmonizer and who can ameliorate the conflicts between the school

and its constituencies. On each occasion, the school board will seek someone who possesses

the unique personal qualities and leadership style for a particular situation.

Circumstances change, and herein lies one of the fundamental problems of administration. The

administrator who has been appointed for one situation via certain leadership characteristics

may lack the necessary qualifications when a different set of circumstances arises. Perhaps a

principal is hired because of organizational ability and a background in curriculum. For several

years the principal operates a very efficient school and introduces several curricular innovations.

Gradually, the principal gains recognition as an outstanding educational leader in the district.

Things begin to change during the fifth year, however. Racial conflicts erupt; teachers become

more militant and demand a colleague-like relationship with the administration; the community

grows more critical of the school; and antagonism develops between teachers and parents.

Obviously, new characteristics and problems have been added to the situations in which this

principal functions. The reasons for these changes are not immediately evident, but it is clear

that a different set of personal qualities and a different leadership style are now required from

the principal. Whether or not the administrator in this situation can meet the new requirements is

undetermined. Success as an appointed leader, however, will greatly depend on the extent to

which a principal possesses or develops the attitudes, skills, and approaches necessary to

respond adequately to new circumstances.

In 1977, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership, originally called the “life cycle theory of

leadership,” became popular. Their theoretical model posits that the developmental levels of a

leader’s subordinates play the greatest role in determining which leadership styles are most

appropriate (leader behaviors). According to this conceptualization, leader behaviors fall along

two continua: (1) directive behavior and (2) supportive behavior. These two continua involve the

following styles:

Page 21

● Delegating style—allowing the group to take responsibility for task decisions; this is a

low-task, low-relationship style.

● Participating style—emphasizing shared ideas and participative decisions on task

directions; this is a low-task, high-relationship style.

● Selling style—explaining task directions in a supportive and persuasive way; this is a

high-task, high-relationship style.

● Telling style—giving specific task directions and closely supervising work; this is a

high-task, low-relationship style.

Hersey and Blanchard believed that leaders should be flexible and adjust their styles as

followers and situations change over time.51

The situational theory of leadership maintains that no particular style of leadership or personal

qualities of a leader is appropriate for every situation. The theory places a high premium on the

administrator’s adaptability and flexibility. A major problem with this theory, however, is that

many administrators are influenced in their choice of a leadership style and in the way they

behave as a leader by their own personality and need disposition, which tend to be rather

consistent and unchanging over time and in different situations. Therefore, although the nature

of the demands for leadership in education frequently changes, an administrator’s basic

personality may not make it possible to adapt individual leadership style to a new situation.

Badaracco and Ellsworth have addressed this problem. They stress that leaders have certain

personality traits that make it difficult to change styles to match the situation. They suggest

leaders use their own personal philosophies of management and leadership to solve situational

dilemmas or problems.52

One way to ameliorate this problem is for organizations and groups to select those

administrators who are, or who can become, flexible and adaptable in their leadership

responses to changing leadership demands. Another possibility is to select leaders who

possess the type of personality characteristics and leadership style for the leadership demands

of the situation, and then rotate these leaders to a new environment when the current situation

changes. This approach is suggested by the contingency model, which attempts to incorporate

the factors of personality, leadership style, and the nature of the situation by focusing on the

interactive dynamics of these three variables.53 A leading theorist of this school of thought is

Fred Fiedler, who has researched and written extensively on the topic.54 The approach is

termed the contingency model because it is based on the assumption that effective leadership is

contingent on a compatible relationship between the administrator’s personal qualities and style

and the demands of the situation.

Path-Goal Theory

The path-goal theory of leadership was developed to describe the way that leaders encourage

and support their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by making the path that

they should take clear and easy. In particular, leaders clarify the path so subordinates know

which way to go, how to remove roadblocks that are preventing them from going there and

increase the rewards along the route. Leaders can take a strong or limited approach in these. In

clarifying the path, they may be directive or give vague hints. In removing roadblocks, they may

scour the path or help the follower move the bigger blocks. In increasing rewards, they may give

occasional encouragement or pave the way with gold.

Page 22

This variation in approach will depend on the situation, including the follower’s capability and

motivation, as well as the difficulty of the job and other contextual factors.55

House and Mitchell (1974) describe four styles of leadership:56

● Supportive leadership: Considering the needs of the followers, showing concern for their

welfare, and creating a friendly working environment. This includes increasing the

followers’ self-esteem and making the job more interesting. This approach is best when

the work is stressful, boring, or hazardous.

● Directive leadership: Telling followers what needs to be done and giving appropriate

guidance along the way. This includes giving them schedules of specific work to be done

at specific times. Rewards may also be increased as needed and role ambiguity

decreased (by telling them what they should be doing). This may be used when the task

is unstructured and complex and the follower is inexperienced. This increases the

follower’s sense of security and control and hence is appropriate to the situation.

● Participative leadership: Consulting with followers and taking their ideas into account

when making decisions and taking particular actions. This approach is best when the

followers are expert and their advice is both needed and they expect to be able to give it.

● Achievement-oriented leadership: Setting challenging goals, both in work and in

self-improvement (and often together). High standards are demonstrated and expected.

The leader shows faith in the capabilities of the follower to succeed. This approach is

best when the task is complex.

Leaders who show the way and help followers along a path are effectively “leading.” This

approach assumes that there is one right way of achieving a goal and that the leader can see it

and the follower cannot. This casts the leader as the knowing person and the follower as

dependent.57 It also assumes that the follower is completely rational and that the appropriate

methods can be deterministically selected depending on the situation.

TODAY’s EFFECTIVE LEADERS

In their studies of more than 20,000 people on four continents, Kouzes and Posner identified the

top four qualities constituents expected in leaders. These researchers found that leaders

perceived as effective are honest, forward-looking, inspirational, and competent.58 In addition,

successful leaders keep their promises, align their actions to be consistent with the wishes of

the people they lead, believe in the inherent self-worth of others, are capable of making a

difference in the lives of others, admit their mistakes, arouse optimism about success, and

create a climate for learning that is characterized by trust and openness.

Page 23

In further research, Kouzes and Posner examined case studies and questionnaire surveys to

see what practices marked personal-best examples of leadership. They found five basic

practices that marked such leadership: challenging the process, inspiring in others a shared

vision, enlisting the support of others and enabling them to act, setting an example by their own

behavior, and encouraging the hearts of others to keep persevering in living out the shared

vision.59 Kouzes and Posner define leadership as “the art of mobilizing others to want to

struggle for shared aspirations.”60 They consider the words “want to” essential to the definition.

Ultimately the effective leader is one who employs what Randall Lindsey, Kikanza Nuri Robins,

and Raymond Terrell have successfully introduced into the literature, culturally proficient

leadership. Taking into consideration the leadership challenge, the culturally proficient leader is

one who esteems culture, knows how to learn about individual and organizational culture, and

interacts effectively in a variety of cultural environments (see “Window on Diversity-Leadership

on p. 13).61

Transformational and Transformative Leadership

In 1978 Bernard Bass coined the term “transformational leadership.” Known as the “Father of

Transformational Leadership,” Bass defined the phrase in terms of how the leader affects

followers, who are intended to trust, admire, and respect the transformational leader. He

identified three ways in which leaders transform followers:

● Increasing their awareness of task importance and value.

● Getting them to focus first on team or organizational goals, rather than their own

interests.

● Activating their higher-order needs.62

“Transformational leadership,” as described by Leithwood, “is a form of consensual or facilitative

power that is manifested through other people instead of over other people.” It is composed of

the following three elements: (1) a collaborative, shared decision-making approach; (2) an

emphasis on teacher professionalism and empowerment; and (3) an understanding of change,

including how to encourage change in others. Important skills necessary for transformational

leaders are the abilities to see the complete picture, to concentrate on continuing school

improvement, to foster a sense of ownership within the school community, and to create and

work in teams.63 Hoerr reveals that implementing the team approach is not an easy task. It

requires more time, a redefinition of roles, and a shift in accountability because everyone plays

an active part in deciding solutions.64 Scholtes offers several guidelines for consideration in

creating teams. The more complex an issue is, the more it will require several members or

subgroups to divide it into workable components. Various disciplines and areas of expertise can

be represented by different individuals. In addition, a group can better sustain the changes

produced by a task requiring prolonged effort.65 Poplin summarizes future effective leadership

by writing, “While our new role of administrator/servant places leaders at both the top and

bottom of the hierarchy, administrators of the future who can tolerate the ambiguity of the role

will spark the change that can only happen inside institutions where everyone is growing.”66

A contemporary view of transformational leadership is found in the research on spiritually based

leadership theories. Dantley notes that “spirituality is that component of our total selves and

community through which we make meaning and understanding of our world. It is our

foundation of values, principles, influences and ethics that we exhibit in our interactions with

others.”67 Here is found the linking of spirituality, transformational leadership, and leaders as

moral agents, which is explored via Cornel West’s notions of deep-seated moralism,

inescapable opportunism, and profound pessimism. For educational leadership, Dantley

expresses these notions as principled leadership, pragmatic leadership, and purposive

leadership:68

Page 24

1. Principled leadership: Based on idographic morality (leader’s reflective journey regarding

right and wrong) and nomothetic morality (using self-reflection for systemic

transformation), principled leadership begins with a careful and critical reflection of one’s

position on issues of justice, democracy, and fairness. It is initiated when an individual

questions the democratic efficacy of administrative decisions and procedures he or she

is demanded to implement.

2. Pragmatic leadership: These leaders view their leadership role as one that not only

promotes the acquisition of skills necessary for successful academic achievement but

also emphasizes using those skills to bring about social, educational, political, and

economic change. They understand that “schools can either reproduce or challenge the

constructions that have been traditionally promulgated through educational institutions.”

3. Purposive leadership: Purposive leadership is focused on “transforming school districts

or implementing change in local school sites.” This leadership becomes the impetus for

innovative change.

Aligned with the notion of spirituality and leadership is the literature on servant leadership.

Robert K. Greenleaf coined the term servant leadership in his 1978 essay,” The Servant as

Leader. “In this essay, he defines servant leadership as a way to serve and lead as a method of

expanding service to individuals and institutions.69 McClellan’s critical servant leadership is an

expansion of servant leadership by combining it with critical spirituality. It is the by-product of the

infusion of two radical perspectives, which are critical theory and Cornel West’s notion of

prophetic spirituality.70 Critical spirituality has three major components. The first component is a

prophetic spirituality, which is a combative spirituality and frames the urgency for institutional

and personal transformation. The second component is the impact of reflection on the leader(s).

The third and final component is a spirit-filled resistance that proposes a project or praxis for self

and institutional change.71 Critical servant leadership is more than a theory or theoretical

perspective. It is a way of being.

Moving transformational leadership to another level is Transformative Leadership. The concept

of transformative leadership has the potential to create learning environments that are

academically excellent, equitable, inclusive, and socially just, even in the face of the volatile,

uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world of education today.72 According to Weiner,

transformative leadership is an exercise of power and authority that begins with questions of

justice, democracy, and the dialectic between individual accountability and social

responsibility.73 It is an ethically-based leadership model that integrates a commitment to

values and outcomes by optimizing the long-term interests of stakeholders and society and

honoring the moral duties owed by organizations to their stakeholders.74 Transformative

leadership like critical servant leadership is a way of being, not just a way of doing.

Page 25

Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership centers around a different model within the school where the distinctions

between followers and leaders tend to blur.75 It incorporates the activities and efforts of multiple

groups in a school who work at guiding staff in the instructional change process.76 The

distributed leadership model involves distributing responsibility on all administrative levels,

working through teams, and engendering collective responsibility.77 In the distributed leadership

model, the principal shares authority and power; teachers take leading roles, assume

responsibility, and act independently as individuals or groups. However, the distributed

leadership model “does not necessarily imply that the entire faculty controls decisions related to

the school. Rather, principals create leadership positions that allow capable and willing teachers

to work in a more focused leadership capacity.”78 According to James Spillane, distributed

leadership is first and foremost about leadership practice rather than leaders or their roles,

functions, routines, and structures. Furthermore, distributed leadership is a perspective—a

conceptual or diagnostic tool for thinking about school leadership. It is neither a blueprint for

effective leadership nor a prescription for how school leadership should be practiced. It is

leadership in a system of practice comprised of a collection of interacting components: leaders,

followers, and situation. These interacting components must be understood together because

the system is more than the sum of the component parts or practices.79

In using a model of Distributed Leadership, the Massachusetts Department of Education makes

the following assumptions:

● The principal is the building administrator and the key leader in the building’s leadership

team, which may include assistant principals, department heads, guidance counselors,

teacher leaders, and others. At the district level, the principal participates in the

district-wide administrative team as a representative for their building and a steward of

the district’s mission, vision, and strategic goals.

● Leading is not the same as doing. The key assumption for effective distributed

leadership is not which functions or tasks can be delegated completely to an individual

or group of individuals, but what level of involvement in those functions or tasks is most

appropriate and strategic (e.g., most connected to core mission, greatest result for effort)

for the building administrator to fulfill. Distributed leadership requires large and

small-scale role changes across the district. Some changes will be harder to make than

others, and may require either negotiation or planning on a person-to-person level.

Certainly, the implementation of distributed leadership strategies will look different at

every school and district. To be effective, any of the distributed leadership strategies

must be integrated with existing systems and processes, rather than requiring new

teams, additional meetings, etc. The focus of these systems and processes will

necessarily reflect a deeper understanding and discussion of people, potential, and

results.

● Distributed leadership requires interdependence to work effectively. Those who lead,

have primary responsibility for, or coordinate major functions (such as Curriculum and

Instruction, or Operations) must connect their work with all important stakeholders,

including those with subject matter or content expertise, to fulfill their objectives. These

teams must collaborate and cooperate with full and shared knowledge of the goals,

activities, and resources of other teams.

● The Superintendent and Principal are responsible for establishing a high performance

team culture in the district and the schools, respectively. As leaders, they need to remain

involved in human resources development at the highest level (e.g., leading change,

promoting effective work environments, coaching and mentoring staff, engaging in

career development discussions, defining leadership development opportunities, hiring

key positions, etc.). However, the more routine aspects of human resources

management (e.g., benefits, policy implementation, coordinating HR activities with

Central Office) may be handled locally by a Business Manager and his/her administrative

support staff.

Page 26

● Distributed leadership focuses on maximizing underutilized resources both within and

outside the district. True change requires the combined efforts of administrators,

teachers, teacher-aides, support staff, parents, and even students to leverage all the

available skills, experience, interest, and knowledge toward the enhancement of student

achievement. This change must cascade from the district to the schools to the classroom

to ensure equitable realignment of tasks system-wide.

● Finally, there is not one model or one strategy that is a prerequisite for success. Each

district and school must evaluate its own situation to develop a plan for distributed

leadership that achieves the greatest return on investment.80

Four Key Aspects of Distributed Leadership (DL)¶

1. Within a school, DL often takes the form of an instructional leadership team. This team represents the larger school community, and each team member is involved because of their content and pedagogical expertise rather than their years of experience or formal leadership role in the school.

2. DL teams take on several important tasks in a school: ○ Supporting the development of high-quality teaching by leading

contentspecific, grade-level collaborative time; ○ Engaging teachers in cycles of observation, feedback, and reflection to adapt

and refine their instruction to meet their students’ needs; ○ Teaching and modeling how to apply a continuous improvement mindset to

teaching, learning, and leading; ○ Tracking and monitoring student level data to ensure school-wide student

progress; and ○ Providing other relevant job-embedded professional learning supports.

3. Principals and assistant principals are critical to enabling and sustaining the work of DL teams. They do this by building the leadership capacity in the school and by creating the conditions where expertise can be spread across the school so that everyone can work individually and collectively to improve outcomes for students.

4. Distributed leadership is not about dividing tasks and responsibilities among individuals. Instead, DL is concerned with the interactions among individuals (leaders and those whom they lead) to drive instructional improvement and improved student outcomes through the development of high-quality teaching and a culture where all students can thrive.

Page 27

GROUP LEADERSHIP

The Group Dynamics Approach

To exercise leadership, an administrator will need to try to influence the various groups that are

associated with the school or school district.81 In some of these situations, the administrator

may be heading a group, such as the faculty; in other circumstances, the administrator may be

acting as an adviser to a group, such as the Parent Teacher Association (PTA); and in still other

contexts, the administrator may be in an adversarial relationship with a group, as for example, a

community pressure group. Regardless of the nature of the group or the relationship the

administrator has to the group, to be an effective leader, the administrator must possess

knowledge and skills in utilizing group dynamics concepts. In addition, ideas discussed in other

concept chapters of this text must be well understood and properly applied. It is impossible to

provide in this chapter a comprehensive treatment of a topic on which entire books have been

written, but an attempt will be made to present important aspects of group dynamics that a

school administrator should know.

Recognizing Possible Group Problems

When an administrator initially becomes the head of a group, individual or group problems are

seldom considered. Usually there is a task or goal to be achieved, and although the

administrator may be cognizant of certain problems, there is probably a lack of awareness of

most difficulties that the group may encounter. Although not all groups experience problems, the

administrator needs to realize that most groups encounter one or more of the following major

types of difficulties:82

● Lack of understanding by certain individuals as to why they are members of a group, and

a consequent lack of commitment to the group.

● Lack of understanding and/or acceptance by members of the group of the goal or task

the group is supposed to address.

● Difficulty in developing a constructive atmosphere that minimizes conflicting loyalties,

competition, and individualistic needs, and promotes positive attitudes and collaborative

efforts among the members of the group.

● Difficulty in keeping people’s attention and efforts focused on the task or goal to be

achieved.

● Inadequate group leadership, organization, or communication.

● Lack of knowledge, skill, or resources from members of the group.

● Inadequate follow-through on group decisions or assignments.

Because of the involuntary nature of the membership of many groups the administrator heads,

certain members of a group may lack both commitment and understanding of how or why they

have become members. The administrator may also experience a lack of leadership acceptance

by the members of the group. As a consequence of their lack of understanding, commitment,

and acceptance, certain members may express apathy or hostility, or both. The administrator

may also find it difficult to develop among members the feelings of cohesiveness and

collaborative effort that facilitate productivity.83

Page 28

In most of these situations, because of bureaucratic restrictions, the administrator perhaps can

do very little to avoid the problems described. The administrator can, however, be more aware

of the involuntary nature of the membership of most of the group, the circumstances by which

the administrator became the head of the group, and the possible implications of these two

factors. More effort could also be devoted to developing an understanding on the part of the

members regarding the reason or reasons they were included in the group and their potential

contributions and roles. For example, the administrator can attempt to demonstrate the ability to

lead and show an appreciation of the participation and contribution of each member. These

steps may not eliminate all the problems a group could encounter, but they should be helpful in

preventing many problems and ameliorating others.

In the final analysis, whether a group is ultimately successful depends as much on what

happens to the group after it has been in operation as it does on the initial formation of the

group and the way the group’s head was selected.

Developing a Productive Group: The Importance of Cohesiveness and Trust

An essential priority for an administrator in working with most groups, especially newly formed

ones, is the development of cohesiveness and trust. Group cohesiveness is the degree to which

the members of a group are attracted to the group, are willing to take personal responsibility for

its tasks, and are willing to engage in cooperative actions to achieve its goals.84 Group trust is

the extent to which the members of a group feel secure with each other and are open toward

each other.85 Both factors are important contributors to the effective functioning of a group.

Group Members Must Feel Valued

In order to develop a high degree of group cohesiveness, the administrator should consider

several needs. First, the members of a group need to feel that their membership is valued and

that they can make an important contribution to its effectiveness.86 This is particularly important

for the members of an involuntary group, such as an appointed faculty committee, with the

administrator as the head. The members of this type of group may not necessarily have wanted

to join the group and may have mixed feelings about their identity and contribution. It is not

unusual, however, for the members of other types of groups also to wonder about the extent to

which they are valued. People generally possess needs for self-respect, affection, and

recognition;87 group interaction can either meet these needs or leave them largely unfulfilled.

The administrator should try, to the extent possible, to meet these needs by showing the

members of the group that their participation is necessary and valued and by encouraging group

members to recognize and reward each other’s contributions. It also should be emphasized that

this kind of recognition and encouragement by the administrator must be conveyed periodically,

rather than only occasionally, or its impact will be diminished over time.

Page 29

Group Members Must Share Goals

A second major condition that will influence the cohesiveness of a group is the extent to which

its members understand the goals of the group and the extent to which these goals are

compatible with members’ personal goals.88 For example, a group will have a difficult time

developing a very high degree of cohesiveness if members do not understand the goals of the

group and/or do not agree with those goals. Although the administrator who is heading a group

may feel that a particular goal is essential and that group members should understand and

accept it, the members, in fact, may neither understand nor accept the goal, and for that reason

may become apathetic or hostile in response to efforts to involve them in working toward the

goal. Until the administrator can develop a better understanding and acceptance of the goal on

the part of the members of this group, cooperative action and progress may be limited.

Group Members Must Have a Spirit of Cooperation and Teamwork

A third major condition that can influence the degree of a group’s cohesiveness is the extent to

which the leader and members can work cooperatively between and among themselves.89

Cooperation, because it encourages acceptance and a feeling of esprit de corps, is necessary

for the effective accomplishment of many tasks and goals. It does not result automatically with

the forming of a group. The head of the group needs to help its members work cooperatively

with each other. According to Johnson and Johnson, several understandings must occur in

order for a group to develop cooperative interaction among its members.90

1. Individual members must understand the total problem or task to be addressed.

2. Individual members must see how each can contribute toward solving the problem or

accomplishing the task.

3. Individual members must be aware of the potential contributions of the other group

members and the need for coordination.

4. Individual members must understand and be sensitive to the other members’ problems.

5. Individual members must be aware of and accept the need for cooperation in order to

achieve the group goal.

The Need for Mutual Trust

While these five elements are important, the key to developing cooperative interaction and

cohesiveness in a group, according to Johnson and Johnson, is the development and

maintenance of a high level of trust among the members.91 If a group has a high level of trust,

its members will more openly express their feelings, concerns, opinions, and thoughts. If the

trust level is low, then group members are more likely to be evasive, competitive, devious,

defensive, or uncertain in their interaction with the other members. Cooperation and a positive

identification with and commitment to a group are unlikely with a low level of trust among its

members. For cooperative interaction and a high level of group cohesiveness to exist, there

must be openness, sharing, and acceptance among the members of a group—all ingredients of

a trusting relationship.92

Page 30

The administrator has an important role to play in developing a high level of trust among the

members of a group. Above all, the administrator must be trusting and cooperative, modeling

such behavior if the members are to behave similarly. The administrator cannot expect them to

behave in a trusting manner if the administrator does not demonstrate the qualities of

acceptance, openness, sharing, and nondefensiveness. The administrator will also need to

emphasize the importance of openness and acceptance among the members of the group and

reward these qualities when they surface. By developing a high level of trust among the

members, the administrator should find it possible to obtain cooperative action, and the group

should function with a higher level of cohesiveness. Grazian and Bagin offer the following

suggestions for building a climate of trust:

1. Practice the two-way street of communication. Giving information is not the end;

receiving feedback is.

2. Utilize face-to-face communication as often as possible. Do not rely too heavily on

memos and e-mail.

3. Examine each instruction for clarity of understanding. Be as specific as possible.

4. Learn to listen. Ask questions to demonstrate interest in and respect for others when

they speak.

5. Practice an open-door policy by getting out and talking with employees, agreeing to

disagree, and listening to new ideas.

6. Concentrate on building credibility with the staff; trust is based on believing in

someone.93

Effects of Group Size

Two additional conditions that can influence a group’s cohesiveness are the size of the group

and the similarity of background and interests of group members. In general, the larger the

group, the less cohesive it is likely to be. As Tsouderos has observed, “With an increased

membership there is a corresponding heterogeneity of the groups in terms of sentiments,

interests, dedication to the ‘cause,’ etc., and a corresponding decline in a feeling of intimacy and

frequency of interaction.”94 Although the administrator may not always have much discretion in

deciding on the size of the group, frequently such discretion is possible. Therefore, the

administrator should consider the impact of size on group cohesiveness whenever forming a

group, such as a committee or task force, to address a particular problem or task.

Importance of Both Common and Diverse Backgrounds and Interests

The administrator should also consider, to the extent possible, the similarity of background and

interests of individuals who might be appointed to a group. For the most part, the more the

members of a group have similar backgrounds and interests, the more probable it is that they

will like each other and be willing to work cooperatively together. On the other hand, in forming a

group, the administrator should keep in mind that it is not always to the advantage of the group

if everyone thinks the same way. Different backgrounds, experiences, and interests can

generate ideas over and above those developed in situations in which all the members think the

same way.95 Therefore, while the administrator should select group members with a fairly high

degree of similarity of background and interests in order to develop cohesiveness, the

administrator should also provide sufficient diversity to stimulate new ideas. The administrator

should not, however, provide for so much diversity in interests and thinking that it will be difficult

for the members of the group to agree upon and become committed to the achievement of

organizational goals.

Page 31

Leadership in Group Meetings

Most groups are scheduled for periodic meetings of one kind or another. The role of the

administrator in regard to these meetings will depend on whether or not the administrator is the

head of the group. As the leader, responsibility for planning and conducting the meeting and for

implementing the outcomes must be assured. This does not mean that the administrator is the

only one who should perform these functions. It is the administrator’s responsibility, however, to

see to it that these functions are carried out in such a way that the meetings are productive and

satisfactory to a majority of the group’s members. While most administrators may believe that

their group meetings are productive and satisfactory to the members, the members themselves

may be perceiving these meetings differently. For example, in a survey of the principals and

teachers in 11 school systems, Gorton and Herman found that most principals felt their faculty

meetings were productive and satisfactory to the faculty, whereas a majority of teachers

indicated the opposite.96 In general, teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the planning of the

meetings, the nature of problem solving during the meetings, and the lack of follow-up after the

meetings.

The world of business has been giving a great deal of attention to what the Web site

www.effectivemeetings.com calls “the meeting mania” sweeping across all types of

organizations today. An emphasis on teamwork and shared leadership has resulted in efforts to

make sure that everyone is informed and involved, and it is thought that meetings are the way to

carry out this goal. However, some businesses are noticing a decline in productivity as the

number of meetings increases. Meetings can eat up valuable time that could be spent on getting

tasks done. On the other hand, meetings can be a valuable investment of time if they are

conducted effectively. This is as true in the world of education as it is in business.

For too long, faculty meetings have followed the same old routines. With the increased focus on

standards, accountability, and testing, there needs to be a change to the existing model.

Blanchet suggests the following New Approaches to the Faculty Meeting Model97:

1. When you’re working on a collaborative initiative, want to ensure that teachers are

driving the decision-making, or simply ensure all teachers have a chance to voice their

opinions . . .

TRY

a. The Micro Faculty Meeting: Monthly meetings held over the course of two days

where leadership meets with smaller groups of teachers throughout the school

day in lieu of one big meeting.

i. Benefits

● Inclusive—Easier for people to engage in discussions and get involved

with the decision-making process.

Page 32

● Collaborative—Eliminates hierarchy. Creates a greater sense of

community among staff.

● Works with teachers’ schedules.

ii. Drawbacks

■ Time consuming for administrators.

■ Less cohesive—Not everyone will be on the same page.

2. When you need a more practical way to disseminate information, but still allow for

teacher input . . .

TRY

a. The Flipped Faculty Meeting: Leadership sends out the staff meeting agenda

(e.g., PowerPoint) in advance so that staff can review prior and spend meeting

time working together.

i. Benefits

■ Efficient—Quick way to get the word out on initiatives and to share

information.

■ Time Saver—Meeting time can be used for staff input and collaboration.

ii. Drawbacks

■ Still hard to give voice to most folks in a full faculty meeting.

■ Teachers might still not be engaged during the actual faculty meeting.

3. When you want staff to have the opportunity to learn from one another . . .

TRY

a. The Edcamp Style Faculty Meeting: Faculty meeting time is broken up into

breakout sessions selected and led by colleagues.

i. Benefits

● Boosts staff engagement.

● Sparks collaborative initiatives.

● Personalized toward staffs’ interests.

ii. Setbacks:

● Required information/initiatives might not make it to everyone.

● Less cohesive—not everyone will be on the same page.

When teachers feel valued and respected, it improves job satisfaction. When they feel heard

and are able to contribute to the decision-making process, it can make them less likely to leave.

Faculty meetings provide the time and space for teachers to come together to address school

concerns—they just need a timely revamp to ensure that the meeting is relevant and meets its

potential.98

Page 33

A FINAL NOTE

In all, for effective leadership in twenty-first-century schooling, school administrators must be

attuned to the complexities of changing demographics as well as the needs of those persons

who have been traditionally excluded from the core of educational reform.99 School leadership

in this new millennium must understand and embrace that cultural, racial, economic, linguistic,

and other “borders” must be crossed to ensure that the ever-changing demographics of public

schools are considered in efforts to create effective centers of learning that facilitate the

academic success of all students. In order to have effective schools where all students achieve,

we must find ways to manage our crossings for a successful existence in the “borderlands”

between culture.100 Strong leadership by today’s school administrator is needed to understand

and address the educational structures in which prejudice and discrimination affect student

learning,101 that is, tracking, standardized testing, curriculum, pedagogy, physical structure of

the school, disciplinary policies, and limited roles of students, teachers, and parents and

families. Finally, strong and effective school leadership should also be culturally responsive so

that leaders can effectively serve minoritized and historically marginalized populations by

engaging students, parents, teachers, and communities to positively impact learning by

honoring indigenous heritages and cultural practices.102