Leaders as Agents of Socialization - Term Paper Example

Leaders as Agents of Socialization Introduction The immediate environment that children find themselves in are important determinants of their cognitive processes. For instance, Austin (2006) emphasized the implications that growing up in a poor neighborhood has on a child, including inability to get adequate exposure to skill development tools and poor social networking skills. Needless to say, the environment continues to shape the cognitive ability and perceptions of a growing child even as they develop to more advanced ages. The net impact of these changing, acquired perceptions is felt when the child is exposed to an academically competitive environment. That is, the gradual shift from an unfavorable environment to a more favorable one has the likelihood to reshape the initial cognitive cycle of the child, thereby emphasizing the role that conscious educational environments could create for the child. Essentially, inequality in educational achievement has been attributed majorly to the physical environment that the child grows in. The cultural capital theory helps to explain disparities in educational attainment based on the environmental setup that children grow in (Meyer, 2007). Intellectual ability is assessed through educational attainment of individuals. However, the interaction between such achievement and the socialization has prompted wide research into the impacts of social structures on the individual’s ability to socialize (loosely translated into the ability to interact freely and intelligently with other members of a social setup). Socialization is a key factor in the determination of the skill development in young children. Consequently, a great deal of attention has been concentrated to understanding how cultures create a social structure, and how such structures affect the ability to socialize (Turner, 2006). From the dimension of a school leader, the above argument presents a state to redefine the way children socialize. That is, irrespective of their cultural background. The leader aims at creating a supportive environment that recognizes the existence of each member of a society, and attempts to genuinely offer them equal opportunity to develop their social skills. In order to address the disparities between various members of a community, it is essential to create a transformative environment that will enable convergence of interests and encourage those who are seen to be underprivileged to come out more boldly and confront their past misgivings. The transformation environment created by a school leader cannot be complete without the extensive inclusion of persons who take charge of other affairs of the child. As such, the role of the parent as an integral part of the leadership’s reference cannot be ignored. Arguably, parents intend to give equal attention to the affairs of their children. However, a combination of sociocultural and socioeconomic factors combine to rob children of the relatively poor the attention they need from their parents. Hypothetically, it can be argued that poorer parents tend to spend more time concentrating on more serious activities, such as working for extra pay to help sustain their families better at the expense of attending to their children’s seeming secondary needs (Mayer, 2002; Boethel, 2003). It is, therefore, relatively more difficult bringing this class of parents on board to appreciate and effectively participate in the activities that the school leader devises to address disparities in the ability to socialize. In the following sections, the writer argues out the position of a leader as an agent of socialization within a school environment, responding to the research question: With respect to the differences (socioeconomic, ethnicity, attainment, etc.) among individual students and how they relate with their schools, how does a leader become an agent of socialization to serve their schools, especially in an ever more ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population? Three theories are majorly used to explain the position of the leader in the above context. These are Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory, and Collin’s interaction ritual theory. Explanation The Cultural Explanation Several environments make up the general setup that defines a child’s sociability. These mainly comprise the home, school, and community within which they live. Considering the earlier note that the ability to socialize marks is a function of a child’s intellectual ability, the cultural setup that defines a child’s intellectual ability can be explained based on a general theoretical framework constructed from the three theories above. The ecological systems theory provides a framework within which to assess an individual’s relationship with both the immediate community and the wider societies that they are based (Johnson, 2008). It features five environmental systems that form the interactive field of an individual. The most immediate of these is the microsystem, which is a combination of the persons, groups and institutions that directly surround and impact the child. These could include the family, the school, age mates/ classmates, the neighborhood, and places of worship. Next, the mesosystem comprises the interlinking between the components of the microsystems, such as those between the family and the teachers, and family-peers interactions. The third environmental system that matters to the child is the exosystem. It basically involves the link between the child’s immediate context and a further external social setting that they play no active role in shaping (Johnson, 2008). For instance, a parent may decide to make some changes in his home based on some external advice obtained from a workmate who is parenting as well. Equally significant is a situation where the child’s parent may be engaged in a conflict with another, eventually altering the form of interaction. The cultural context within which the individual lives, such as the poverty level, ethnic diversity and background, and the socioeconomic setup is captured within the fourth environmental system; the macrosystem. Essentially, the social context from which a child is drawn marks an identity-bearing setup from which members derive their values and identity (Neal & Neal, 2013). The macrosystem is prone to unique, generational reshaping and modifications, which means that certain changes may take root within one generation and affect the way the group has been doing things, including how they interact among themselves and with other members of society (Johnson, 2008). It is important for the leader to note that despite being an outsider within the home and community setting of the child, they are presented with an effective way to influence the evolution of the macrosystem, particularly in a manner that promotes the value of socialization. Essentially, each of these levels present the school leader with a different role to play, with a focus to altering the ability of the children to socialize. The fifth environmental system is the chronosystem. It is the patterned emergence of sociohistorical events within a social setting that triggers transitions in the lives of the community. For instance, the emergence of a war may trigger separation between men and women, as most men go to war, thereby affecting family interactions. The immediate scene may be characterized by chaotic relationships between mothers and their children as both parties struggle to come to terms with the reality of the new occurrence, but will eventually settle and tend to live more harmoniously afterwards (Neal & Neal, 2013). Having established the level of each of these environmental systems, the role of evaluating the position of the leader at each, and in line with a mix of any set of the systems can be initiated. The school leader forms one of the microsystem relations of the child. Being an active participant in school affairs, the leader is tasked with the role of establishing a working social relationship among members of the immediate community. They need to advise the teachers and other school staff about their vision of a sociable community, and lay down the guidelines for achieving this vision in line with best practice and the immediate needs of the target population. Without a doubt, the leader has to set out to identify, alongside other school staff, the immediate needs of the school population. Some of the basic factors to consider include the extent of racial diversity among the students, and the socioeconomic statuses of the parents. Based on the findings, a suitable approach can be developed, one that is perfectly aligned with the educational standards and government’s guidelines. Among the possible approaches is the option to involve parents more in the envisioned transformation of the child through such means as offering educational forums and counselling services where certain situations are deemed to be adversely affecting certain families. Similarly, the leader will be keen to create a respect-guided environment where racial dominance is least likely to appear. This is in line with empirical findings that most learners from the socioeconomically weaker setups, which are predominantly minority racial groups, have higher likelihood of being bullied by colleagues from the majority racial groups (Johnson, 2008). An equally unsettling precedent that the leader has top guard against is the tendency to form groups based on racial background, which adversely increases the likelihood of one group seeing and identifying the other as a threat. The Role of the School Leader in Creating a Working Model for Effective Socialization Leadership is at times viewed as a personal or institutional challenge. The challenge remains personal to the extent that the leader does not have adequate institutional infrastructure to aid them in providing leadership to the school community. On the institutional front, the leader is tasked with operationalizing a working environment that respects the existence and roles of other members of the community, such that each of the members is accorded the respect and recognition they deserve. Governance or leadership offered at the institutional level significantly spreads power and privileges to other members of the same community. While making such a move, the leader needs to take the bold step of drafting a working community vision alongside the other members (also referred to as stakeholders). The leader needs to be aware of the weakest and strongest points when visualizing a winning situation. This is indeed a basic requirement to consider when taking charge of a community that is racially diverse. Some primary and often forgotten elements of racial discrimination could be evident in the society, yet many will fail to notice them. This creates the need to involve every member of the teaching and non-teaching staff to help draft an approach that is sensitive, realistic and results-oriented. In coming up with such an approach, it is important to put into consideration a theoretical model that can be translated into practical guide for the process. One important theoretical framework is the cultural capital theory. The theory encompasses the forms of knowledge, skills and education that reinforce the position of an individual in society. The default assumption is that persons who hold the prestigious advantages get better recognition in society, since they are capable of maneuvering through tough situations intelligently and with the hindsight associated with the qualities they hold (Turner, 2006). For instance, during a difficult financial turmoil, people with any or some of the mentioned advantages will less likely experience it to the extent that the lesser educated, lowly skilled persons will. However, the cultural capital theory prompts us to focus on sources of skills, education and knowledge that are hardly recognized within the mainstream system. Without such awareness, the leader will likely join up with other members of the school community to condemn the poor performance of the largely poor-performing minority learners. This prompts us to investigate the role of the three subtypes of cultural capital; embodied, institutionalized, and objectified. Embodied cultural capital comprises the actively and passively acquired properties of oneself, basically through the process of socialization. Again, like observed in the discussion on the ecological systems theory, the cultural capital theory appears to revert to the need to alter cultural aspects of the affected members of society so that they can be culturally at par with the more dominant members (Turner, 2006; Ole Koissaba, 2013). However, a challenge on how to handle or effect this without hurting the sociocultural setup of the minority communities remains a challenge. It calls for consensus among community members to devise a working strategy to employ without appearing to negatively impact the harmony existing among members. Embodied cultural capital is usually derived from a child’s interaction with family members. This emphasizes why the leader must have, either directly or indirectly, a working relationship with members of the child’s family. This could help trigger better understanding of the goals that the leadership envisages, as well as closely communicating the government’s strategy in line with the local approach. Furthermore, the leader gets the opportunity to get better knowledge of what is happening on the ground, prompting a suitable and timely approach. In order to reach this milestone, the leader needs to understand the concept of embodied cultural capital, and figure out how it can be operationalized to yield positive results for the institution. Institutionalized cultural capital denotes the institutionalized recognition attributable to an individual. Just like the exosystem, the child does not always relate directly with this aspect. For instance, since the child is not expected to have made significant academic progress up to the time they join a learning institution, they always have the chances to interact with many members of society, who may have come from institutions that have succeeded in creating a worthy reputation. Such persons are perceived to have an edge over their colleagues who have only derived their embodied cultural capital from less reputable institutions (Leithwood, 1999). Unavoidably, most parents from the perennially poor communities do not have the advantage to learn in these highly reputable institutions. They are marginally sidelined when awarding opportunities to join such institutions, while many drop off the system much earlier due to financial troubles and little or no follow up from state authorities. The net situation at home leaves the child with little inspiration to perform well at school. The leader needs to identify such potential problems through a thorough and vigorous data management system that involves the accurate classification of demographic data so as to identify potential sources of trouble. This way, the school leadership will have played a crucial role in ensuring that the students who cannot get enough supervision and impacting of skills outside the school environment gets the important lessons from within the school. This can be done through follow-up strategies such as the Call Me mister program. Indeed, ensuring that such mentors as those provided through the program are integrated into the mainstream educational system helps to breed a socially-conscious community (Leithwood, 2008; Neal & Neal, 2013). The final subtype of cultural capital, objectified, combines both the general notion of the cultural capital theory and the chronosystem tenet of the ecological systems theory. Objectified cultural capital relies on the ability to relate with one’s history to understand the present socioeconomic setup they exist in. The school leader needs to be privy to this socioeconomic reality and its historical background in order to make significant impact on the students’ socialization. For instance, they need to understand how being brought up in a poor background makes them vulnerable to inferiority complex, which could in turn prohibit them from displaying any considerable characteristics (such as their true ability to understand incidents and content) in school. Due to their disadvantaged background, they may tend to feel like they do not fully fit into the social setting provided by the institution. When reacting to situations that call for their participation in the midst of children from the seemingly better financial backgrounds, such children may appear timid and inconsistent, which eventually erodes their esteem. The situation becomes more difficult dealing with multiple cases of low self-esteem (Vogler, Crivello & Woodhead, 2008). In order to avoid such situations, the leader needs to participate in the creation of an environment where each student is allowed to express themselves without regard to what their peers could be perceiving of them. Generally, based on the possible model created from the cultural capital theory, participation of the leader is called to a greater extent, including establishing working relationships that will promote the ability of the child to socialize outside the school environment. While the ecological systems theory and the cultural capital theory have a large basis for interaction, their tenets complement each other independently to produce a suitable model for the school leader to employ so as to enhance socialization. The Human Capital Dimension Unlike the cultural capital, the human capital dimension focuses upon the role of knowledge, skills, personal attributes and habits in creating economic value for an enterprise. It creates an opportunity for the leader to challenge some conventionally held perceptions, some of which have been addressed for centuries without reaching a viable solution. For instance, the disparities in educational standards among the majority and minority ethnic groups have been attributed to a chain of socio-economic discrimination that has been unconsciously passed down generations. As noted earlier, African Americans are the most affected group, with consecutive surveys and censuses showing a clear pattern of discrimination. The systematic nature that these misgivings have caused the group as a general have been a subject of speculation. For instance, the mere fact that most African Americans from past generations have approached the need to school is controversially argued with respect to those supporting a self-induced lack of need and those supporting the notion of the existence of a technically and systematically induced method of inhibiting their acquisition of many of the privileges accorded the general society. This rift in views is heavily bound in the cultural heritages of each of the groups represented within the argument. Yet both sides of the argument draw to the conclusion that the method of approach suitable for Whites may not be practically viable for African American children within the educational system (Turner, 2006). Development and the Psychology of the Child Understanding the way the psychology of the child develops is important in enhancing their ability to socialize, with the ultimate goal of enhancing their performance in class. At a tender age, the child slowly takes note of every aspect of interaction between members of their community, and tends to develop their own relationship within parameters witnessed or experienced from such tender age. However, each phase of their development presents an opportunity to help them change from their initial way of handling relationships, until such a time when they cannot viably change significantly. The development and growth process, then, presents an avenue through which the people in the life of a child can help shape them for the better. The school leader comes up as one of the important persons within this chain, being bestowed the role of challenging the inadequacies that affect children’s ability to socialize, and, by extension perform well academically (Zahran, 2005; Robeyns, 2006). The interaction ritual theory is one tool that could shed light on the process of interaction between African American students (representing equally disadvantaged minority groups) and the White students in learning institutions. The theory is developed along the assertions that when persons from different cultural backgrounds meet, they attempt to make interactions rituals. The success or failure of these ritual chains determines whether the interacting individuals will likely create symbols of group membership or result in emotional energy drain respectively. The emergence of group membership signifies actual emotional convergence, making it possible for individuals to interact. This is the main result of good social networks between members of different racial backgrounds. As a school leader, the position holder is constantly looking forward to creating an environment where such relationships take off seamlessly. However, the leader still bears both the individual and institutional burden to make this happen. As noted earlier, the existence of staff members from each of the racial groups represented by the student body serves to give them role models and encourages them to work towards specific goals. The school leader can use such role models as proxies to instill certain values. For instance, the students may be encourages on best ways to approach peers, with the advantage of getting the information from a teacher who has good knowledge and understanding of the other members that the particular student needs to socialize with. Conclusion Socialization plays an important role in contributing to the success of students. Similarly, the school leader plays a vital role in ensuring that the school environment cultivates a culture of socialization, thereby promoting other aspects of personal development that reinforce class performance and the ability to express oneself, which are both important parts of the education curriculum. The ecological systems theory provides a five-point approach to enhancing socialization. Internalizing these factors is essential in enhancing the role played by the leader. The most immediate point of reference comprises the people who are literally most impactful on the life of the learner. These mainly comprise the family, the teachers/ school staff and peers. The next level includes persons who have no direct contact with the child but indirectly impact their ability to socialize. Other factors that the leader needs to consider when deciding on an effective approach are the socioeconomic and sociohistoric aspects of the child’s upbringing. Fortunately, through active participation, focused and effective leadership, the leader is capable of initiating remedial processes that could encourage uniform socialization regardless of backgrounds. The cultural capital theory complements the role of the ecological systems theory and provides a suitable theoretical framework that could enhance the leader’s understanding of the situation and effectively work towards the target. The success of the socialization project is established through the interaction ritual theory, which is specifically tailored to focus upon the success or failure of the socialization model. The challenge that comes with leading a culturally diverse community is broken down into various segments that can be understood, such as the socioeconomic and historic background, hence enabling a focused approach in dealing with how each of these segments affects socialization. References Austin, M. J. (Ed.). (2006). Understanding poverty from multiple social science perspectives. California, CA: Bay Area Social services Consortium. Boethel, M. (2003). Diversity – School, family, & community connections. Texas, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Johnson, E. S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of accountability. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education. 5(1): 1-10. Leithwood, K. & Duke, D. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership (Chapter 3). Leithwood, K., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management. 28(1): 27-42. Meyer, J. W. (2007). Reflections on institutional theories of organizations. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Neal, J. W. & Neal, Z. P. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development. 22(4): 722-737. Ole Koissaba, B. R. (2013). Effects of globalization in the Maasai family. Clemson University. Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education. 4(1): 69-84. Turner, J. H. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of sociological theories. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. Vogler, P., Crivello, G. & Woodhead, M. (2008). Early childhood transitions research: A review of concepts, theory, and practice. The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Zahran, H. (2005). Psychology of childhood and adolescence growth. Translated. Read More