Current Issues in School Leadership

Larry W. Hughes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781135612580
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Current Issues in School Leadership examines controversies about, and affecting, school practices. Focusing on two essential questions--what is important to today's school leaders? and what is interfering with schooling processes?--it includes chapters by a broad range of authors, with expertise on their specific topic. The text is organized in three sections:
*Social and Political Issues;
*Curriculum and Learning Issues; and
*Organization and Management Issues. The goal of this text--designed for school leadership, educational administration, and foundations of education courses--is to challenge readers to think carefully and critically about each of the issues presented, leading to positive action and leadership.

Part I

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES

Six chapters comprise part I. The focus is on society and the political framework within which society functions. Although each chapter is independent and the authors present diverse viewpoints, there is a common framework and a common organization to the chapters. Moreover violence and social justice are closely related. Can one be studied without considering the other? What are students learning in schools that are disrupted, in schools with “zero tolerance,” in schools that fail to express common decency? And, what has been the effect of religious practices and belief systems on the environment of the schools? All of this occurs within communities that are impacted by cultural pluralism and political pressures from a variety of sources.

Readers will be challenged about their own positions on educational matters that are curricular as these are manifest in beliefs about social and political issues.

Chapter 1

Politics, Pressure Groups, and School Change

Larry W.Hughes
University of Houston

“Slippery and scheming politicos” goes the charge. Schools are a public business and fair game, the response may be. And, so? How did it all start? And why?

There is a national, state, and local interest in the operation of the schools. All three scenes are locales for pressures and enactments that influence how children get schooled and how teachers teach.

This chapter begins with an historical examination of the national interest in schooling and then develops a state and local thesis with an emphasis on school operation in the local setting. An analysis is made of the nature of communities and of the nature of pressures and protest. The good, the bad, and the ugly are examined.

There is a discussion of the nature of informal power structure in communities and the way it gets manifested. Informal power is distinguished from the formal power that occurs when individuals hold particular offices.

The chapter concludes with some propositions for strategies for doing business with pressure groups and ways school leaders can utilize community resources and mitigate negative influences on schooling and the organization of schools.

THE NATIONAL INTEREST

This chapter is about community pressures and influence but it is appropri-ate to begin by briefly presenting the historic nature of federal influences on local decision making and local school practices. Even though schools in the United States are conceived and held to be “local” and state creatures, there has long been a federal interest. From the beginnings of nationhood, schools have not been free of controls and acts at local, state, and federal levels. More formal, perhaps, than the pressures and politics at the school community level, the effect of federal governmental actions—legislative and court—has been markedly pronounced.

In May 1795, the federal government established its interest in public education. Under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the Northwest Ordinance was enacted by the Congress, and although at the moment there was no thought about it, the federal government became a partner in public education in the United States. What happened to do this?

The Ordinance provided for land surveys for that part of the country known as the Northwest. Thirty-six square miles became a township and land was surveyed accordingly. There were 640 sections in a township. One section—a square mile—was given to each state. The money from the sale of this section provided for the establishment of state universities. The influence of the federal government on education began quietly but because of court actions and congressional enactments throughout the years has been continuous and, most often, for greater social good. So then, the federal role in school practice is historic and pervasive—and both specialized and general.

Federal legislators have often passed into law efforts to mitigate social and economic problems that they thought the schools might help solve. The Smith- Hughes Act in the early 1900s, really was to address labor issues; the federal lunch programs began in the 1930s at least partially in an effort to address the problem of farm surpluses; and, leaping ahead historically, what of the National Defense Education Acts in 1958? This latter was to help schools improve what was perceived to be a deficiency in science and language instruction that had placed the nation behind the former USSR. The way to get a “man on the moon” was to improve the teaching of science. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) brought equity to a million children who had been excluded from proper schooling because of the nature of their handicapping condition. Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 1990) provided equity in employment for adults. These are but examples in a rich array of legislative acts.

More recently, in 2002, President George W.Bush signed into law (PL 107– 110) legislative enactments that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This enactment, labeled the No Child Left Behind Act, redefined the federal role in K-12 schooling. It included school options for parents as well as a focus on teaching methods, among other reforms. And it included rewards and punishments for schools based on student performance on statewide approved tests that would determine such things as whether children were at “grade level.” The tests would focus on literacy and mathematics.

This has provided much controversy among teachers and administrators and a tremendous press on test taking, the use of classroom time, and curriculum adaptation. Fine arts persons are distressed and so are those who favor a broadened curriculum that is focused on needs less subject matter oriented and directed instead on the needs of children. Yet some are quite supportive of the move to more stringent testing, claiming that it sets standards higher and will result ultimately in programs that enhance the learning of all children irrespective of ethnicity and economic place.¹

The federal courts, too, have played a significant role in influencing the operation of the schools. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established that school attendance by race was constitutional (the separate but equal doctrine); Brown v. Topeka, some 58 years later, established that it was not. West Virginia v. Barnett in 1943, Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969, and Goss v. Lopez in 1975 among many other cases decided by the Supreme Court clearly circumscribed the powers of local school officials and boards of education.

But this chapter mostly is not about official governmental influence on schooling, as omnipresent as that is. It is about the political and social influences that exist and within which all school systems—particularly public schools— operate. I opened this chapter with some comments about the governmental scene to highlight the historical influences the federal governments has had on schooling.

Schools are local and state functions, as well. State governments and state courts have had great impact on schooling and so have school boards on the local practices and policies of the school. And the relationship with the publics is often strained at all levels of government.

The remainder of the chapter is about the informal structures that exist, sometimes latent, sometimes highly visible, and frequently very loud. The influence of these groups and individuals within groups is also pervasive and has been responsible for change of great magnitude, often for great good, sometimes not, but always at the price of controversy and much discussion.

LOCAL POLITICS AND PRESSURE

Multiethnicity and cultural pluralism characterize society and the many groups and individuals that comprise a community, a neighborhood, a city reflect widely varying points of view and hold diverse opinions about the several agencies that are established to deliver services to them.

Interfering with it all are the actions and interactions of vox populi. Specialinterest groups, old-time conservatives, wild-eyed fanatics, concerns of the commercial enterprises, shifty-eyed politicos, moms with axes to grind, and the rights and interests of all—the good and the bad—are the issues that clarify extralegal intrusions on the operation of the school. What happens on the national, state, and local scene is the product of organized efforts of unified groups of people arguing for this cause or against that school policy.

Schools are the closest community agency, geographically, psychologically, and economically. Geographically, the school is “just around the corner.” Psychologically, everyone has gone to a school and may have children who are or have gone to a school, and all pay taxes to support the school. Opinions about what schools should look like, should do, and how much they should cost are wide and rampant.

There are many local groups and individuals whose attitudes and opinions influence the nature of school approaches and practices. The focus is on the informal political dimensions of school policy development. In this chapter, I address the nature of pressure groups and the nature of political pressure. And I establish some guidelines about how to deal positively with these pressures.

POWER AND INFLUENCE

Power and influence in a community are not haphazard. The exercise of power and influence requires organized and patterned relationships of groups and of individuals. But individuals and groups vary widely in the amount of influence they are able to exert on schools and other public services.

In many communities only a few persons may participate to any great extent in local issues and actions other than voting in formal elections, but on any given issue there may be broader participation depending on the nature of the issue and the psychological press the issue causes. Consider, for example, issues of school prayer or location of schools, or alleged racism, or creating barrier-free learning environments. Issues such as these often cause a great outpouring of community opinions and significant influence placed on school board members or legislators. These issues affect the children of the community and the pocketbooks of the citizens of the community.

Control of Resources. Having large resources at hand is a determinate of how much influence an individual or group may possess. Certainly high income or access to income, occupational standing, social standing, and so on are measures of how much influence a person may have. (Although some groups or individuals may not be wealthy, they often do have access to wealth.) This is a visible and acknowledgeable indication of potential for control, but potential for control is not control.

Potential for Unity. A high potential for control must be coupled with a high potential for unity for there to be power. Power is a function of a group’s potential for control plus its potential for unity. Being able to unify a group about a single issue may overcome, in fact, the lack of material resources that the group has as it seeks to do or to undo a perceived right or wrong.

Generalized or Specialized? One can distinguish between members of the power structure by examining the nature of a member’s influence. In some communities or on certain issues the ability to influence the opinions of others or the direction a particular public policy takes may be “specialized,” that is, restricted to the issue or policy itself. For example, those members who are effective when trying to bring a professional athletic franchise to town or the members who are effective when attempting to establish a new public transportation system or the members whose interest is in locating a school in a particular area may differ widely, depending on the issue. Or, those who are powerful may influence decision making in all of those areas and most others of a community nature and thus would be “generalist” in their influence.

School leaders need to know this because it helps determine strategies for working within the community to get done what needs to get done.

Formal Political Power. The discussion to this point has been on informal power—the power individuals and groups have who have not been elected to anything or who do not hold any kind of public office. But aren’t mayors important? Aren’t police chiefs important? Aren’t directors of public health important? Aren’t school superintendents important? Aren’t board members of various policy-making bodies important? Of course, and the powers of these respective offices are many. This is “official power,” formal power. The question is often, though, what have been the characteristics of the nomination and selection process? How did these folks get those jobs and who might have been influential in that process?

But, I write in this chapter mostly about informal power at the local level. That’s where the intensity and emotion so often manifest themselves. And, that’s what causes the most intense headaches in school personnel.

The task confronting school leaders when confronted with groups or individuals who are interested in fomenting a change or addressing a perceived wrong is a complex one.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

What generally describes our society and most of the communities within our society—certainly, all well-populated areas—is gesselschaft. Gesselschaft, what on Earth is that? It is possible to distinguish communities by the nature of interactions that occur within that community. In the gesselschaft community, people are unified largely by civil units rather than by kinship ties. There is a proliferation of organizations—some for social reasons, some for political reasons. There is a general lack of knowledge about one’s fellows and general anonymity. Formalized social controls—laws—are established to keep order.² Some have labeled this the “secular community.” So, the people are many indeed and have multiple memberships and a plethora of beliefs and attitudes. Ideological unity does not describe our society.

Even within a specific issue, differences of opinion exist and complicate arriving at a just solution. It is common for one to hear the phrase: “Let’s look at both sides of the issue.” Okay, that’s a start, but the reality is that many issues have more than two sides and that’s where it begins to get complicated. The harried school person when faced with a conflict in the community that involves or revolves about the school often wishes there were only two sides—one side or another to choose from—but that isn’t often the case.

For example, one might examine the issue of equity. What does achieving equity mean? Does it mean fair employment or equal opportunity? Does it mean affirmative action? Does it mean, simply, barrier-free schools and help for the disadvantaged? One gets answers on that issue that will be along a spectrum. Think of the statement “Yes, I’m for ‘equity,’ but that simply means a fair chance; but I’m not for giving some individuals an unequal shot at a job just because of their race or ethnicity.” And, at this point, the arguments may really intensify. Similarly, the implementation of PL 94–142 presented a multitude of dilemmas. Educating all children irrespective of the nature of the handicap presents a host of conflict situations, from the development of an individual education plan to specific compensation for attendance at specially developed educational institutions.

Or, issues of what shall be taught, and the way it shall be taught, and when it should be taught present continuing problems not only within the education profession but also within communities. Are fine arts programs and physical education really necessary, especially when there is a budget crunch? Of what real value are such programs? And the selection of educational materials, including textbooks, creates situations that imperil good relations between the school and this or that community group. Is phonics the best way to teach children to read? When should books that discuss sex education be available? Should books that teach about sex education be available? Are the textbooks “Godless”? Should the textbooks be “Godless”? If not, would that mean no adequate presentation and discussion of the evolution of humankind? Or, does that mean “Creationism” must be taught? Or, does that mean neither of those but that the schools are simply too secular? And, what is “Godless” anyway? And on, and on. How many positions might one face about these issues? Clearly, many.

Official State Influence

Some states imbue official bodies such as an elected state board of education with broad powers; others imbue a regulatory agency such as a state education agency headed by an appointed commissioner or someone of like title. (Some states do both, but the respective powers and charters differ.) There are problems of influence whichever way is employed. The following is but an example.

Ivins and Dubose (2000) point out some problems that confront Texas schools, problems created by its elected state school board. For some years, the state board of education in Texas has been the target of candidates who, to quote Ivins and Dubose are from the “Christian right.”

Seven of the fifteen members are now Christian right, and they are sometimes joined by one or another of the “secular members” to do odd things. Not just predictable things like pushing phonics and school prayer; the Christian-right board members forced the state to dump its stock in the Walt Disney Company, which had been paying extremely handsome returns to the state school fund, on grounds that they didn’t like the company’s allowing a gay pride day at Disneyland.” (p. 127)

Ivins and Dubose go on:

For years the Bo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Author Biographies
• Part I: Social and Political Issues
• Part II: Curriculum and Learning Issues
• Part III: Organization and Management Issues