Transcription
EducationLeadershipReviewVolume 21Fall 2020An internationally refereed journal sponsoredand published by the International Councilof Professors of Educational Leadership
ICPELEducation Leadership ReviewFall 2020Volume 21, Number 1ISSN 1532-0723Kenneth Young, EditorLamar UniversityCasey Graham Brown, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas ArlingtonSandra Harris, Associate EditorLamar UniversityICPEL Publications Director, Brad BizzellRadford UniversityICPEL’s Education Leadership Review is an internationally refereed journal publishedannually in the Fall by the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership.Authors may reproduce their work for professional use but others must acquire written ororal permission to photocopy or print any material for any purpose.
ContentsFrom the EditorsKenneth Young, Casey Graham Brown, and Sandra HarrisvGrowing Evidence of the Value of School Board TrainingDaniel W. Eadens, Frank D. Davidson, and Danielle M. Eadens1University First-Time-in-College Students’ Mathematics Placementand Outcomes: Leadership Response to Local DataJenifer J. Hartman, Radford Janssens, and Karina K. R. Hensberry14A Review of Research: To Develop a Conceptual Framework forEducational PartnershipsDana M. Griggs28“What about Your Kids and Your Husband?”: Gender-Blind Sexismin Women Higher Education Administrators’ NarrativesJill Channing41The Need for a Broader Understanding of Data Under the ProfessionalStandards for Educational LeadersEd Bengtson, Kara Lasater, and Waheeb Albiladi57Increasing Elementary and Middle School Teacher Retention ThroughMeaningful Distributive Leadership PracticesAimee Sulit and Frank D. Davidson72Navigating the In-Between: Defining the Third Space for EducationalLeadership ProgramsJames A. Zoll, Sheri Hardee, and Catherine Rosa99EdD Educational Leadership Admission Policy: Program Access,Equity, and DiversityValerie Storey114Crisis Leadership and the Impact of Opioids on Schools andStudents: Perspectives of School Leaders in Rural AppalachiaMichael E. Hess and Charles L. Lowery126Equity-Minded Leadership: How School Leaders Make Meaning ofBuilding Mindsets and PracticesJennifer Clayton, Michelle K. Porter, Melissa A. Oliver, and Leslie R.Wiggins142
When Technology Works: A Case Study Using InstructionalRounds and the SAMR ModelGregory D. Warsen and Richard M. Vandermolen163Constructive Destabilization within the Liminal Space: Doing,Debriefing and Deliberating in Mixed Reality SimulationsJody S. Piro and Catherine O’Callaghan178Class Size: Perceptions of K-3 Teachers, Principals, andSuperintendents in a Rural, Midwest StateChad Conaway, David De Jong, Susan Curtin, Gabrielle Strouse, andDustin Degen209School Administrator Support of Teachers: A Systematic Review(2000-2019)James Martinez and Sydney McAbee230A Proposed Model for Transformational EducationG.T. Freeman, Jared Blackstone, and MaryJo Burchard255Student Perceptions of Superintendent Internship Topics/ActivitiesAssociated with National Educational Leadership (NELP) StandardsRobert E. Nicks, Gary E. Martin, Thomas W. Harvey, MichaelSchwanenberger, and Jimmy Creel273Public School District Needs at the Crossroads of ProfessionalDevelopment and Public University Partnerships: SuperintendentsPerceptions and the Potential Alliance Between PK-12 and Institutionsof Higher EducationGregg Dionne, Kaleb Patrick, Mark E. Deschaine, and Raymond Frances293Adult Bias and Bullying in Education: Coping with Both an Epidemicand a PandemicPamela R. Rockwood319An Evaluation of Virginia’s Standards of Accreditation: Factors thatFoster and Impede Local-Level Discretion in ImplementationJay Paredes Scribner and Karen L. Sanzo332Living Legend SpeechBetty Alford347These manuscripts have been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the InternationalCouncil of Professors of Educational Leadership as a significant contribution to thescholarship and practice of school leadership and K-12 education.
From the EditorsAs you all are well aware, this year has been full of unprecedented challenges for educators around theworld, as well as the organizations that serve them. At Educational Leadership Review, some of thosechallenges have resulted in the delay of our Fall 2020 issue. Now technically, it is still Fall, but we knowthat many of you are used to it being available by the end of October or early November. We also knowthat some of our contributors were notified several months ago of their manuscript’s acceptance and havebeen patiently waiting for this issue to finally get published. So, on behalf of the editorial staff, thank youto all our faithful readers and your enduring patience, and to all the authors for your vitally importantcontributions. We also want to thank you for your patience as we worked diligently to get your manuscriptsreviewed and this issue published.While we are expressing gratitude, we would be remiss to not thank our reviewers who, in addition to thenumerous, unanticipated changes they were experiencing in their workflow due to COVID, gavesacrificially of their time and talents to serve ELR. We had several calls for new reviewers throughout theyear and greatly appreciate all who responded. Likewise, we are indebted to those of you who havefaithfully served as reviewers throughout the years, often accepting requests to serve as a reviewer onmultiple manuscripts or for multiple ICPEL journals. No doubt, you are essential to the success of thisjournal.Another individual who deserves our gratitude is Dr. Brad Bizzell, the ICPEL director of publications. Inaddition to his fulltime job leading an educational leadership program, he also does an outstanding job inpublishing books for ICPEL, as well as handling all the final formatting aspects of ELR and getting the finalproduct published online.Last, but certainly not least, I (Ken) want to thank my invaluable assistant editors, without whom you wouldbe waiting until sometime in the middle of 2022 to see this issue get published. Dr. Sandra Harris and Dr.Casey Brown have served this journal faithfully for several years, and their commitment to you and to thisjournal are unmatched. They dedicated countless hours to relentlessly securing reviewers and trackingmanuscripts through the reviewing and revision process, to get us to this point. What an incredible gift theyare to our authors and all who enjoy reading ELR.Despite the global pandemic, we had a banner year for submissions to ELR and we know you, our readers,will find the research included in this issue well worth the wait! We hope you enjoy it and the ongoingconversations about educational leadership that the articles in this issue are sure to evoke.In closing, we want those of you who are already preparing to submit manuscripts for the Fall 2021 issueto please make sure to adhere to the 7th edition of the APA manual. Thank you for considering us and welook forward to reading your work!Sincerely,J. Kenneth Young, Sandra Harris, & Casey Graham BrownEditors, Educational Leadership Reviewv
Growing Evidence of the Value of School BoardTrainingDaniel W. EadensUniversity of Central FloridaFrank D. DavidsonNorthern Arizona UniversityDanielle M. EadensUniversity of Central FloridaThe last three decades of board research has embarked on various aspects of school boards(Alsbury, 2008b; Delagardelle, 2008; Resnick & Bryant, 2010; Strauss, 2018)including characteristics of effective boards (Alsbury & Gore, 2015; Dervarics & O’Brien,2016), importance of targeted school board trainings (Cook, 2014; Gann, 2015; Hess & Meeks,2010; Plough, 2014; Pollard, 2012; Reimer, 2015; Weiss, Templeton, Thompson, & Tremont,2014; Wilkins, 2015), boards and student achievement (Blasko, 2016; Brenner, Sullivan, &Dalton, 2002; Ikejiaku, 2000; Lorentzen, 2013; Peterson, 2000; Saatcioglu & Sargut, 2014;Shelton, 2010), board behaviors (Bradley, 2013; Choi, 2013; Gates, 2013; Gomez, 2013; Murray,2013; Nava, 2013; Richter, 2013; Turley, 2013), and board professional development and grades(Gates, 2013; Lee & Eadens, 2014; Roberts & Sampson, 2011; Turley, 2013). Eadens,Schwanenberger, Clement, and Eadens (2015) found a positive relationship between participationin Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) trainings and state rankings of school districtperformance/grades. The current study furthers that previous research three years later. Resultsindicated a statistically significant relationship between district (n 203) performancescores/grades and number of trainings governance team members attended during the 2017-18school year. Essentially, higher attendance at ASBA trainings again was correlated with highergrades (Performance Ranked [4.0 to 0.0 / A to F]). Once again, the districts that had lowertraining attendance tended to have statistically significantly lower grades, r s .168, p .017. Given this repeated relationship between training participation rates and performancescores/grade rankings, it is evident that Arizona districts’ which desire to improve studentacademic achievement should commit to ensuring regular participation in trainings. While someICPEL Education Leadership Review, Vol. 21, No. 1– December, 2020ISSN: 1532-0723 2020 International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership1
districts may argue against devoting the financial resources to pay for conference registrationfees, lodging, and travel, in even the smallest of districts, this expense would represent a fractionof a percent of the district’s operating budget. Given the payoff of higher student achievementpotential, it appears that the benefits would far outweigh the minimal cost in time andfunding. Recommendations included school boards schedule annual planning meetings, calendarof trainings available, engage members in committing to meaningful participation in school boardtrainings, establishing a practice of assigning a mentor to each new board member to accompanyto their first training events. Future research recommendations included developing a deeperunderstanding of the differences in board training and actions in districts that are makingachievement gains versus those that are not. Such research could provide rich insights into thecomplex and vast dynamics of the superintendent-board governance relationship and the outcomesof participation in trainings.Keywords: Governance, School Board, District Grades, Leadership, Education.2
Ford and Ihrke (2016) operationalized U.S. school board best practices, The Key Works of SchoolBoards, originated by the National School Boards Association, and found more support for theideas that “school board governance behaviors are linked to district-level academic outcomes” (p.87) and “school board governance does affect district performance” (p. 93). This growing bodyof evidence continues to offer measurable value to school board member training. The currentstudy is a continuation of research previously completed by Eadens, Schwanenberger, Clement,and Eadens (2015). That study also found a significant positive relationship between participationin Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) training opportunities and state rankings of schooldistrict performance. In short, school districts in Arizona that sent board members to ASBAsponsored training sessions in 2014 received higher effectiveness ratings, grades, as determinedby the Arizona Department of Education. This current study updates prior research and providescurrent data that further substantiates findings from the original 2015 study.Background, Literature, and TheoryAnsell and Torfing (2016) professed in their Handbook on theories of governance, that “there isno single theory of governance, but rather many overlapping theoretical discussions and debates”(p. 2). They well defined governance and discussed “the governance debate in Western liberaldemocracies” and claimed “governance theory is also a particularly interdisciplinary endeavorwith roots in political science, public administration, sociology, economics and law and withbranches that extent into many applied fields” (p. 2). Their ideas of theories of governance seemto indicate that a new paradigm has arisen in governance and has reoriented practitioners (Ansell& Torfing, 2016). The myriad of governance theories, philosophies, concepts, and approachestoday are diverse, but we can all agree that there is much more work needed to better prepare boardmembers to be highly effective at school governance. While theories help us to try toconceptualize, reality may be different in each case depending on political and social structures ofeach district.In fact, many of the efforts to reform U.S. public schools over the last three decades havefocused on issues related to governance of schools. Some reflected an effort to push authoritydown to individual schools through site-based management (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998), andsome reflected a desire to eliminate the middleman (Finn, 1991) and undermine the public’s abilityto govern its schools (Strauss, 2018). Lashway (2002) studies schools and also “suggest that boardactions are a key part of a culture of improvement” (p, 3). At that same time, Land (2002) assertedthat “some critics of current educational governance have charged that school boards areanachronistic and/or chronically ineffective and have advocated for their demise” (p. 245). Whilethere can be little doubt that state and federal governments today heavily influence the directionof public education, local school boards continue to play a significant role in linking schools tolocal communities. Resnick and Bryant (2010) argued that “the responsibility for drawingcommunity and business leaders, parents, civic groups, and the public into the schools fallssquarely on the shoulders of the local school board” (p. 14). In fact, some characteristics ofdistricts influences student achievement (Leithwood & Azah, 2017).While many opinions based on experience and observation have been offered regardingthe characteristics of effective school boards, there has been insufficient consistent empiricalresearch on school board effectiveness as it relates to student achievement. Board’s very distancefrom the classroom calls into question the influence that they might have over teaching and3
learning. It is important to recognize, however, that “While by their nature school boards areremoved from the day-to-day work of teaching and learning, they control the conditions allowingsuccessful teaching and learning to occur throughout the system” (Delagardelle, 2008, p.192). Politically-motivated actions of board members impacting turnover of key leaders has beenestablished as a factor in student achievement (Alsbury, 2008b).Although the lists of characteristics of effective boards can vary, the qualities articulatedby Dervarics and O’Brien (2016), citing Delagardelle (2008), capture the overarchingresponsibilities:1. Effective school boards commit to a vision of high expectations for studentachievement and quality instruction and define clear goals toward that vision.2. Effective boards have strong shared beliefs and values about what is possible forstudents and their ability to learn, and about the system and its ability to teach allchildren at high levels.3. Effective school boards are accountability driven, spending less time on operationalissues and more focused on policies to improve student achievement.4. Effective boards have a collaborative relationship with staff and the community andestablish a strong communications structure to inform and engage internal and externalstakeholders in setting and achieving district goals.5. Effective school boards are data savvy: They embrace and monitor data, even when theinformation is negative, and use it to drive continuous improvement.6. Effective school boards align and sustain resources, such as professional development,to meet district goals (pp. 10–12).These characteristics may set unreasonably high expectations for board members who mayhave little or no training to perform these tasks. In an extensive review of school board meetings,Lee and Eadens (2014) found that boards in low-performing districts were prone to exhibitpractices including disorderliness, spending less time on issues related to student achievement, notlistening respectfully, and being focused on personal agendas rather than the policies of thedistrict. It is reasonable to conclude that shortcomings such as these may be diminished throughtraining and support for board members and through the influence of school board presidents andschool superintendents. This furthers the importance and benefits of targeted school boardtrainings (Gann, 2015; Hess & Meeks, 2010; Plough, 2014; Reimer, 2015; Weiss, Templeton,Thompson, & Tremont, 2014; Wilkins, 2015). Brenner and colleagues concluded correctly whenthey stated that, “Board members cannot monitor what they do not understand” (Brenner et al.,2002, p. iv).Walser’s (2009) descriptions of sixteen school boards across the U.S. identified as highfunctioning help to illustrate the characteristics that distinguish boards that are perceived aseffective. Walser noted,On the most basic level, members have to keep up with continually changing state andfederal mandates and laws They also need to keep up with promising initiatives to raisestudent achievement in and outside their district as well as continually evolving systemsfor monitoring data and engaging the community in school improvement. New boardmembers especially need training in their roles and responsibilities and in laws pertainingto ethics and conflicts of interest (p. 73).According to the National School Boards Association (Cook, 2014; Pollard, 2012), at leasttwenty U.S. states require some type of training for individuals elected to school boards. Likemost states, Arizona imposes no training requirements for school board members, and mandates4
minimal requirements for those who wish to serve on a school board. In order to serve on a schooldistrict governing board, board members must only be a resident for at least one year immediatelyprior to election, and be registered to vote. Some charter boards do not even require that much. Inmany cases, these minimum requirements could not be lower.Both the National School Boards Association and state associations across the U.S. offertrainings to school board members. In some cases, superintendents undertake the responsibility toprovide training and orientation to new board members. Such training generally encompassestopics such as board member responsibilities, governance, ethics, school finance, open meetinglaws, communication with staff and members of the public, school law, and the law-makingprocess.It is important to note that individual board members have no legal authority when actingalone. Therefore, they carry out their duties as a board member only when acting in concert withtheir fellow elected members and professional staff. This implies that training should include asignificant emphasis on strategies and behaviors to improve interpersonal relations and to increaseopen communication and collaboration.As noted above, the relationship between board effectiveness and district performance hasnot been extensively examined. In fact, a team from the University of Texas at El Paso concludeda decade and a half ago that “Empirical evidence linking school board practices with high levelsof student achievement is so scant that it is virtually non-existent” (Brenner, Sullivan, & Dalton,2002, p. ii).A study of 258 districts in New York revealed a statistically significant positiverelationship between boards that use a professional policy-making style (as opposed to a politicalstyle) and student performance (Ikejiaku, 2000). Young found that board members saw norelationship between training intended to improve achievement and any discussions among theboard members regarding student achievement (2011), even though other research hasdemonstrated that board
Lamar University ICPEL Publications Director, Brad Bizzell Radford University ICPEL’s Education Leadership Review is an internationally refereed journal published . EdD Educational Leadership Admission Policy: Program Access, Equity, and Diversity Valerie Storey 114
