Leadership Styles in Schools - Assignment Example

Leadership styles in schools Principal leadership the undisputed requirement for achievement in the earlier studies was only based on a studyof responsibilities which were supposed to be important and never analysed in the essentialities context. As a result the rewards were not fruitful as expected by the analysts. Owing to this failure, the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab (Mc.Rel)., Aurora, CO. which has Tim Waters, Robert J. Marzano and Brian Mc Nulty as primary staff members supported by a staff of experienced educationalists published their analysis in 2003 which suggests a “Balanced Leadership Framework” to improve student achievement. The study was supported by 30 years of research in which more than 5000 studies were conducted and 70 of them met the standards of rigor of data, standardization, measure, perceptions etc. In this connection, it was attempted to develop a degree of correlation between the principals and the students pertaining to that school. Accordingly, it was proved that: 1. There is an empirical relationship between the Principal efficiency and the student achievement. 2. Through measurement, a one standard deviation efficiency in the Principal leads to a 10 point percentile higher achievement on the part of the student in an average. 3. This measurement is two sided. While a positive efficiency leads to improvement, a negative efficiency leads to failure to the same extent. Further, a measure of the magnitude of influence which the Principal exerts on the students is also considered to be important and measured in terms of correlation between them. This measure indicates that: If the former had a .50 correlation with the latter, a one degree change in the Principal leadership would result in 19% point increase in student achievement. A mean .25 correlation amounted to a 10% point increase in student achievement. A least correlation like 0.02 correlation between the former and the latter resulted in a 1-2% point negative student achievement. Accordingly, to achieve the desired results, the Principals should focus on the positive efficiency, and concentrate on the magnitude of practises and adjust according to the required levels. In this journey, the authors have identified terms of: a. First order: Change relates to extension of established/accepted practises. b. Second order: Change relates to new approaches which may have conflict existing values and norms Here, initiating change by implementing appropriate leadership practises was emphasized by putting emphasis on 21 practises which would result in successful leadership under the study of Taxonomy which comprises the other half of the study. These practises guide the Principals by giving a consistent approach and structure for schools and school systems. In this relation, a case study of - The College of Education at Winona State University, was put forth by Richard Bowman Jr. wherein the college was confronted with six major organizational transitions of Teacher Licensure, Minnesota Graduation Standards, a Laptop University Initiative, Semester Conversion, and NCATE Continuing Accreditation and a Public School University partnership. This case study was put forth in 1998 in the light of references from Conner D.R. who formulated a list of leadership styles viz. Anti-change, Rational, Panacea, Bolt-on, Integrated and Continuous representing perceptions, attitudes behaviours to address organizational disruption. Additionally, these styles must be viewed in relationship to two basic types of change namely: First order and Second order. In this case study, the first two organizational changes are of first order wherein the change is only an extension to the existing accepted patterns and as such are not argumentative in nature. Coming to the latter, each one change has to be discussed briefly to understand the styles as presented by Bowman: Semester Conversion: A change from Quarter Calendar to Semester was unproductive in the perception of the faculty and as such was adhering to the leadership style of “Anti-change” implying that the faculty was against such a change. But, owing to the unanticipated demands of Minnesota legislature and other authorities, the WSU campuses were forced to change to a leadership style of “Rational” to execute the change ‘in a logical and linear manner’ (Bowman,1998) that the faculty had to alter their stand knowing the discomfort they had to encounter. Accreditation: Though, re-accreditation was estimated to be “Rational” leadership style, the faculty across the universities joined hands to mirror an affirmation of intricacies of academic success to ensure a successful accreditation leading the style to “Panacea” which could be achieved through effective communication and motivational training. Laptop University Initiative: The conflict here faced was that of economic conditions of the various students pursuing their education in the university and they were unhappy that the administrative leaders could not grasp their cash trapped situation. The faculty on the other hand sensed that the Laptop initiative had its merits in exposing students to professional development opportunities and as such had to be dealt with a different leadership style i.e. Bolt-on in which problems are addressed only when they appear due to changes undertaken. Finally, this change had to be addressed on a continuous basis calling for an integrated and continuous type of leadership. University Partnership: At first, the leadership was perceived to Anti-change, then Rational but when, the pre-service teachers training was of an overarching sense, a Bolt-on approach was adhered to. In this way, challenge is to organize change while maintaining important resources to tide the next transition. Contrast between the analysis of Bowman and Mc.Rel study: While Bowman has analysed the leadership styles in his own words using the same first order and second order as put forth by Mc. Rel also, there is some diversion in both the theories: a. Bowman just explains the perceptions undergone during a change while Mc.Rel study also measures the perceptions through standard deviation and correlation. b. Bowman explains the leadership in connection to the faculty and the teachers while Mc. Rel establishes the study in connection to the Principal and the students leaving little for the teachers. They only emphasize that the perceptions of the faculty have to be taken care of by the Principal only. c. Bowman only puts forth the suggestive measures to deal with a problem. He does not specify the practises which may be useful in successful achievement as was done by Mc. Rel geniuses. However, it is not true to push away the Bowman’s theory as unproven because his findings are somewhat are crystallised by the 30 year research conducted by the Mc. Rel specialists. His analysis about the changes of first and second order and the problem dealing methodology put forth in both the cases is almost the same save the differences in terminology. He has just not measured the accuracy of the perceptions as done by the Mc. Rel experts. Conclusion: While several experts have tried to analyse the rewarding practises to be followed by the Principals and the administrators and also specified the best practises and the measurement of such practises through achievement of the success of their students, they have only overviewed one important point that – It is not necessary that all the students, though capable may not perform to their ultimate energy levels at all times. There are many other corners to this perception of student’s performance wherein the students may face different situations or just be lethargic, not interested in the job they are handling and also the pressures of the futures bosses wherein they are working after their education also count a lot. As such, their success measurement as a tool to measuring the practises undertaken by the school administrators would be somewhat biased. References: Tim Waters, Robert J. Marzano & Brian McNulty, 2003, Mc.Rel, Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement, Retrieved: 21st Feb, 2008, Website: www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf Tim Waters & Sally Grubb, 1995 – 2006, Mc.Rel, Leading Schools: Distinguishing the Essential from the Important, Retrieved: 21st Feb, 2008, Website: www.mcrel.org/PDF/Instruction/5982RR_Instruction Meta_Analysis.pdf Manasse, 1986, New Era of School reform, Characteristics of Leaders of Change, Retrieved: 21st Feb, 2008, Website: www.mcrel.org/PDF/SchoolImprovementReform/5002RR_NewEraSchoolReform.pdf. Richard Bowman Jr., 2000, Project Innovation, Examining six different leadership styles in relation to constrained change at Winona State University, Col.120, Pg.455, Abstract (Summary). Read More