Urban School Leadership - Article Example

Urban School Leadership History, characteristics and development of Urban Schools in UK The development of education in Britain has been traditionally related with that of residence. More specifically, Fitz et al. (2003, 109) has stated that ‘the geography of residential development in the UK has a particular history which makes it distinct to that of other European countries or even the US; the urban landscape has grown and changed via a blend of public and private residential development, resulting in a mosaic of housing markets within towns and cities varying in terms of cost and the nature of tenure; even within social housing there is a specifically British pattern of polarisation, so that the policies of public landlords have a noticeable effect on the nature of local schools (especially with regard to a small number of particularly disruptive children’. The above assumption can be explained by the fact that the development of education in UK – as in other countries around the world – is higher where the cost of living is also high. On the other hand, the study of Gardiner et al. (2000, 312) has proved that ‘until the late 1980s, state education until the age of 18 was governed by local councils acting as local education authorities or LEAs (except in central London, where a single ‘Inner London Education Authority’ covered a number of boroughs); councils provided schools, appointed teachers, determined educational policy and funded colleges of further education but from the late 1980s, parents were given the right to vote to ‘opt-out’ of local authority control and to see their children’s school funded directly by central government (this is known as Grant Maintained Status) and governed by its own board of governors, including some elected from among the parents’. In other words the participation of individuals in the formulation of the local educational schemes has been increased and so does their involvement in all the governmental decisions regarding all stages of education. However, the above participation is not equal in all areas of a particular country. More specifically, a report of the National College of School Leadership (2003, 1) has proved that ‘schools in urban and challenging circumstances serve communities with high levels of economic and social deprivation and low levels of parental education; these schools also face a range of school-related (or partly school-related) challenges, such as: a) poor management, b) budget deficit, c) unsatisfactory buildings, d) staffing problems, e) low levels of pupil attainment on entry, f) behaviour management problems, g) high rates of pupil exclusion and unauthorised absence, h) low levels of parental involvement, i) falling rolls and high pupil turnover, g) lack of public confidence in the school essential’. The above challenges that an urban school faces on a daily basis are the main elements of its differentiation from the schools that belong to a different ‘classification’ (like the private institutions). Specifically regarding the UK Hannaway et al. (2005, 1) found that ‘the 23,000 schools in England work with 150 Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and deliver a national curriculum, which defines the minimum educational entitlement for pupils of compulsory school age (5–16 years); by law, all state-funded schools must provide this curriculum —divided into four key stages, with assessments at the end of each stage; yet, any school can broaden the curriculum or apply to get certain requirements waived for the whole school or individual students; however English schools are equitably funded by the national government’. This financial participation of the British government in all the schools that operate under the control of the LEAs, increases the level of quality of the curriculum delivered – or at least such a prospect is to be awaited by the relevant initiative. Regarding specifically the role of local authorities in the operation of schools in UK, Blackman (1995, 21) stated that ‘although local authorities are still large organisations with major responsibilities, their importance in urban policy has declined due to the loss of powers and functions; this has been part of a shift away from elected local government towards unelected local administration in the UK while many activities previously carried out by local councils are now undertaken by housing associations, housing action trusts, funding bodies for schools, urban development corporations, and training and enterprise councils’. On the other hand, it has been noticed that ‘apart from the fee-paying boarding sector, schools typically serve local areas which vary in size; feepaying day schools, foundation schools, voluntary-aided church schools and specialist schools often take students from a larger catchment than community schools - but access to day schools is ultimately controlled by distance from home; consequently, schools tend to educate particular communities based around their location, and their intakes largely reflect the variety, nature and cost of local housing; this is most obvious where schools have formal catchment areas from which they draw students - a very typical situation in the UK between 1960 and 1988’ (Fitz et al., 2003, 110). In modern Britain, schools are still depended on the culture of the population of the area where they operate. This relationship with the residents of the surrounding location makes schools in UK possibly more effective as they will have the ability to understand the needs and the weaknesses of the pupils while offering the appropriate financial support (mostly through the voluntary funding) where this is considered as necessary. On the other hand, Duarte et al. (2004, 246) dealt especially with the problems that urban schools face on a constant basis throughout the UK and came to the result that ‘the challenge confronting urban schools results from a number of issues; urban settings are historically more economically disadvantaged than suburban districts and therefore do not have the ability to offer competitive compensation packages to teachers; urban schools also serve a student population that is characterized largely by poverty, and that is overwhelmingly minority (many non-English speaking) while one of every three school-age children is from a minority background (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000), yet most are taught by white classroom teachers (National Education Association, 1997)’. However, in UK it could be hardly claimed that there is a case of racism in school environment. In fact, it is more a differentiation of character among pupils that often leads to internal disputes and conflicts rather than a racist phenomenon. Towards this direction, Huw (2000, 2) supported that ‘the comparison between promoting good urban design and combating racial discrimination is not a useful one; for whereas it makes some sense to see the former as a discrete policy objective, as something which can be fenced off, as it were, from the rest of public or private life, the latter cannot be conceived in this way; the choices made, for example, in a school about its curriculum have no relevance to urban design, but both the manner in which decisions are made and the content of those decisions can promote or retard the eradication of racial discrimination’. In this context, any problem that possible arises within a school environment whether referring to racial discrimination or not will have to be handled very carefully in order to prevent the appearance of severe oppositions within the particular educational site. For this reason, the role of leaders in schools has been extensively studied and has been found that ‘leadership strategies adopted by effective headteachers included choosing appropriate strategies, involving and consulting staff in developing the vision, raising and maintaining staff morale and having high expectations for staff and pupils’ (National College for School Leadership, 2003) The development of education in Britain has been related with the urban growth that has characterized the country over the last 150 years. Specifically for this issue Fitz et al. (2003, 109) stated that ‘state investment in both areas has also tended to lead to developments at similar times meaning that their histories over the period are intertwined; therefore, differentiation in the urban geography of towns and cities is related to differentiation in the composition of school intakes’. On the other hand Blackman (1995, 14) supported that ‘demographic, economic and social changes have to be monitored and met by developing local strategies to meet future needs; in the UK, marked changes have occurred during the last ten years; the number of secondary school pupils, for example, has fallen by almost 25 per cent, while the number of people aged 85 or older has increased by more than 50 per cent; as a result, many schools have surplus places which need to be rationalised to make most effective use of public spending whilst taking into account any likely future increase in numbers’. The monitoring of initiatives taken within an educational environment cannot guarantee however the success of any policy applied by the specific institute. Such a success would be rather the result of a thorough examination of all issues involved before proceeding to the application of any particular plan. The development of urban school in UK has been criticized by Reynolds and Stoll (1996:102) who observed that: ‘In the UK we still have no in-depth, qualitative portrait of the effective school equivalent to Louis and Miles Improving the Urban High School [1990] which provides excellent case studies of process variables, although the National Commission on Education (1996) examination of eleven schools which were successful against the odds has encouraged a start in this area; the absence of rich case study explanations reduces the practitioner relevance of the effectiveness research and makes the transfer of knowledge to improvement programmes difficult’ (Maden, 2001, 340). The lack of sufficient data regarding the effectiveness of the measures taken within urban schools in UK can be possible be a significant obstacle towards the accurate evaluation of their role within the British society. On the other hand, the constant changing societal conditions can possible justify such a situation and even create the basis for a more innovative education plan referring especially to urban schools that currently operate in UK. International literature review of urban schools As in Britain, in the international area ‘public education has made a major contribution to the well-being of society and it continues to do so; indeed, the public school and systems of public education would have to be rated among the great successes of the last century while those nations that are at the forefront of economic and technological progress take pride in their public schools; many of their leaders have come from humble origins along paths that could not have been negotiated were it not for the commitment of teachers and the contributions of communities that ensured schooling was possible for all, even in the most remote and often soul-searing settings’(Caldwell et al., 1998, 1). However, the above assumptions could be criticized as of their accuracy since the role of the leader in an educational site although significant, it is still limited to the completion of specific tasks while all the activities of the specific site will still have to be monitored by the authorized governmental bodies as well as the individuals (parents) that are related with the operation of the particular institution. To a more analytical examination of ‘urban schools’ and their role in modern society Haberman (2000, 203 stated that ‘in common usage, the places children and youths who live in urban poverty are required to attend for 180 days each year are "schools"; we call them schools because the people who pay for them, work in them, and send their children to them assume them to be schools; it is certainly true that teaching and learning do occur there - for part of the day, for some of those involved; but using a part-time activity as the defining term for the institution would also support calling these places cafeterias, recreation centers, or community centers because eating, playing, and socializing also occur there for part of each day; indeed, in many urban "schools," more time is actually spent on these other activities than on teaching and learning’. From the same point of view, Theobald (2005, 120) notices that ‘the meaning we have attached to the term "urban" has changed quickly; at the midpoint of the 20th century, urban aspirations were practically synonymous with what was often called the "American dream"--a two-story house with a garage; today, half a century later, "urban," like "rural," carries negative connotations; the speed with which we have come to understand urban schools and urban life generally as trouble-filled, overcrowded, and uncontrollable is largely due to the media revolution of the last half of the 20th century’. It has been proved through both the above studies that the terms ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ can differentiate in each society; however these differences are usually minor. At a next level, it has been proved that one of the most significant reasons for the delay on the development of urban schools comparing other educational institutes of the same area can be related with their tendency to apply a series of complex bureaucratic procedures which can operate negatively towards the potential pupil. More specifically, Crosby (1999, 302) stated that ‘because the decision-making process is what drives the institution or the organization, the bureaucracy is quite powerful and adding the fact that it is an anonymous and faceless collective, it is difficult to control, sidestep, or subvert; because it seeks to perpetuate itself and its processes, it frequently serves as the brakes that bring innovation and change to a halt. How does this bear upon the urban schools? They are run by institutional bureaucracies that resist change; yet the urban schools must change in response to the growing complexities and demands of our society that have made the existing networks and organizational structures obsolete’. However, it is not explained by the above researcher which could be possibly the most appropriate way of reducing the bureaucracy applied in urban schools and increase their effectiveness. Specifically, regarding the structure of urban schools in US, it has been found that ‘the 100,000 U.S. schools work with 14,000 local school districts spread across 50 states. States control broad curricular decisions, credentialing of educators, means of financing schools, school choice programs, and the basic organization of educational delivery; Local school districts, usually governed by local school boards, retain control of day-to-day operating decisions’ (Hannaway et al., 2005, 1). At this point, a comparison made with the urban schools operating in UK leads to the assumption that the financial participation of the state in the operation of urban schools can be very helpful towards their development (an issue that is taken into account in Britain). More specifically, Hannaway et al. (2005, 1) state that ‘while nearly all U.K. school funding comes from national government, only 8 percent of funding for U.S. elementary and secondary education comes from national government, with states providing about 50 percent and localities the remainder’. There are no specific data however related with the differences in performance of urban schools in UK and in US. It can only be assumed that the former is participating more actively in the development of urban schools operating in its area while the latter could be possibly criticized as being ‘absent’ to the relevant initiatives. Towards that direction it has been supported that ‘in the United States colleges of education undergo severe criticism that too much time is spent on pedagogy, too little on content learning while serious discussion focuses on the elimination of the baccalaureate major in education; in contrast to these sentiments, it is most interesting to note that Germany, whose public school teachers are highly regarded as to their academic credentials, has extended the apprenticeship of classroom teachers from one and one-half to two years’ (Coker et al., 1986, 281). The comparison between US and Germany regarding the structure and the operation of urban schools could be characterized however as non feasible as the cultural and societal structures present significant differences among these two countries. With a more analytical reference to the educational system of US and the performance of the pupils a report of Monthly Labor Review (1993, 2) mentions that ‘the average achievement of students varies considerably across schools; for example, the average writing achievement of 11th-grade students in advantaged urban schools is significantly higher than that of 11th-grade students in disadvantaged urban schools; this is a reflection of many factors, including family background, conditions in the community, type and quantity of educational resources available, and how these resources are used’. Furthermore, the examination of other countries’ educational structures has led to the assumption that the operation of urban schools can differentiate at a high level among the particular countries around the world. In the case of Hong Kong it is noticed that this country ‘used a large data base to classify its schools, but the process was more complicated than generating achievement value-added scores; effectiveness criteria in Hong Kong were based on a survey of ninety schools using several criteria, including: student attitudes, student satisfaction with school, and student academic achievement, all criteria other than achievement’ (Creemers et al., 2002, 27). However, a recent evaluation over the country’s current educational system has not been available for study. On the other hand, the Republic of Ireland has been found to be depended (regarding the operation of urban schools) ‘upon the Inspectorate of the Department of Education to assist them in classifying their schools by effectiveness status while intervisitations and anecdotal evidence indicate that these classifications were accurate; Norway and Taiwan also use reputational criteria to initially select the sample of schools and determination of effectiveness status was made based on observations after ISERP started in Norway’ (Creemers et al., 2002, 27). However, the above characteristics of current educational structures of countries around the world are just indicative of the situation existed in this particular area. In fact, these characteristics have been possibly alternated in order to meet particular requirements as they have been imposed by emergent needs that may have appeared inside a specific country. As for the evaluation of the significance of the relevant situation, this is most commonly made by the authorized governmental authority, in other words the participation of the state may not be financial however it is in any case decisional. References Caldwell, B., Hayward, D. (1998) Lessons from the Reform of Public Education. London: Falmer Press Coker, D., Kolstad, R.A., Kolstad, R. K., (1996) Examining the Excellence of German Schools and Their Teacher Preparation Program. Education, 117(2): 280-285 Creemers, B., Reynolds, D., Schaffer, G., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C. (2002) World Class Schools: International Perspectives on School Effectiveness. London: RoutledgeFalmer Crosby, E. (1999) Urban Schools: Forced to Fail. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(4): 298-306 Gardiner, V., Matthews, H. (2000) The Changing Geography of the UK. London: Routledge Haberman, M. (2000) Urban Schools - Day Camps or Custodial Centers? Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3): 203-208 Hannaway, J., Murphy, M., Reed, J. (2005) Leave no City Behind. England/ United States dialogue on Urban Education Reform. The Urban Institute, 1-6 Huw, T. (2000) Race and Planning: The UK Experience. London: UCL Press Maden, M. (2001) Success against the Odds, Five Years on: Revisiting Effective Schools in Disadvantaged Areas. London: RoutledgeFalmer Monthly Labor Review (1993) The Condition of Education, 116(10): 2-4 National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office National College for School Leadership (2003) Successful Leadership of Schools in Urban and Challenging Contexts, available at http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/B80/0D/successful-leadership-in-urban-contexts-summary.pdf National Education Association. (1997). The status of American public school teachers, 1995-96. Washington, DC Reynolds, D. and Stoll, L. (1996) ‘Merging school effectiveness and school improvement: the knowledge bases’ In D. Reynolds et al. (eds) Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement, pp. 94-112, London: Routledge Theobald, P. (2005) Urban and Rural Schools: Overcoming Lingering Obstacles Rural and Urban Schools Face Many of the Same Challenges but, Mr. Theobald Argues, in Order to Join Forces to Solve Their Shared Problems, They Will Have to Bridge an Urban/rural Educational and Cultural Divide That Has Deep Roots in History. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2): 116-124 Read More