Transformational leadership through collaborative models during economic crisis by dr hunt
Transformational LeadershipThrough Collaborative Models During Economic Crisis Dr. Christopher H. Hunt University of Redlands California 2012
Results Roger Temple Intermediate School Margaret Duff Elementary School Mary Putnam Henck Intermediate SchoolAdopted collaborative decision making models between 1990 and 2004 ALL THREE • Experienced significant reduction in funding • Increased Standardized Test Scores • Decreased student suspensions • Experienced reversals in student achievement when the collaborative decision making model was removed
Features• Binding shared governance with all stakeholder groups: teachers, classified, parents, community, students & administration• Vision-centered• Student achievement focus• Extensive training• Strong community partnerships• Community service• Administrative role: facilitator, trainer, district liaison & “leader of leaders”
Unique Features• Each Administrator taught his own class daily.• Teachers determined what the administrator would teach• Teachers evaluated the administrators’ teaching• Each teacher was “Principal’s Designee” two hours a week.• Teachers handled ALL the discipline.• Each teacher had a $1000 budget• Each teacher wrote an addendum to the School Plan• The principal’s resignation was in a frame on the staff lounge wall.
TimelineWeek SITE/Leadership Council #1 *Task ForcesWeek General Session #2Week Training/In-service #3Week Stakeholder Meetings #4
Meeting Specifics• 15 minutes were added to Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday– Wednesday for shorted by one hour to facilitate the weekly meetings.• Task Forces convened on an “as needed” basis on Thursdays before or after school• The Administrative team met after school on Mondays to mentor the assistant principals.• The Principal and Faculty President met after school on Tuesdays to develop the SITE/Council & General Session agendas.
Week #1 – Leadership/SITE Council• The SITE Council and Leadership Council were the same people, meeting concurrently• Composition: Reps from PTA, ASB, ELAC, Community, CSEA, ADMIN, GTA, Faculty Pres, Dept Chairs – Two teachers had “half votes” on the SITE Council and full votes on the Leadership Council to achieve Compensatory Education compliance on the SITE Council and Teacher equity on the Leadership Council. (SITE Council 6-6; Leadership Council 8-1-8 ---- the Principal and CSEA roles changed on the two bodies)• SITE/Leadership Council options: – Make recommendation to General Session – Remand to Task Force – Remand to Administration
Week # 2 – General Session• The General Session was composed of all teachers, classified staff and interested parents, students & members of the community. By agreement, 50% of the vote must be teachers; other stakeholders had full votes unless they outnumbered the teachers, in which case they cast fractional votes. The General Session was mandatory for teachers only.• The General Session was chaired by the Faculty President. The Faculty President and Principal met in advance to develop/review the agenda and prepare a “consent agenda” of routine matters. The agenda was distributed in advance with recommendations from the SITE/Leadership Council.• The General Session voted on SITE/Leadership Council recommendations• Approval resulted in policy Policy was added to the Faculty Handbook• Disapproval resulted in the issue being remanded to the appropriate Task Force
Week # 3 – Training/In-service• Monthly training was mandatory for teachers, and focused on curriculum, instruction and assessment.• Weekly training was voluntary, but paid at the contract rate from Title I.• It was often combined with CSULA classes.• 100% of the teachers attended, as did many classified, students, parents and business partners.
Week #4 – Stakeholder Meetings• The following groups met: –Departments (Language Arts, Math, Science, PE, History, Electives) –PTA –SAC/ELAC –ASB –Administrative Team• In addition to group-specific tasks, the Stakeholder Groups crafted recommendations for the SITE/Leadership Council
Task Forces• Teachers were required to serve on a Task Force• Classified, students, parents and community members were invited and usually came• Task Forces convened as needed when the SITE/Leadership Council could not come to a recommendation in the allotted time or when it felt expertise/research was necessary.• Task Forces also convened when the General Session did not approve the SITE/Leadership Council’s recommendation• There were four standing Task Forces: – Curriculum -- Finance – Programs/Student Activities -- Goverance
Exceptions• It was understood the Administration would act unilaterally in emergency situations.• When there was not time for the process, the Faculty President and Principal crafted “Executive Recommendations”• It was understood that the school governance system had to subordinate to federal, state, county, and school board policy & regulations.• Matters remanded to administration by the SITE/Leadership Council and/or mandated by the district were enforced unilaterally.
Community Involvement• Community organizations participated in the school governance.• Examples: – Business partners donated $1000s in school supplies, furniture and computers – Business partners tutored students & sponsored programs – USC & UCLA sponsored EL students and took them on field trips. Native language tutoring in 10 languages was offered on Saturdays. – A local restaurant hosted the SITE/Leadership Council and provided free food & beverages – Students fundraised to present over 1000 new Teddy Bears to people living with HIV, Cancer, Leukemia & abuse – Law Enforcement sponsored a club and numerous programs – Students “adopted grandparents” in the local retirement homes and convalescent hospitals – The school sponsored English Language, Citizenship and Parenting classes in a weekly Parent Institute. – A network television channel featured the school in nearly a dozen broadcasts. Similarly, local newspapers published articles, as did the Kappan.
Reflection+ Student achievement - The system was at timesimproved inefficient+ Student behavior improved - The system was vulnerable todramatically reversals+ The school culture was - Central office conflicts weresuperior – low turnover frequent*+ Parent/community - The Boards of Education feltinvolvement was excellent a loss of control*+The principal’s teaching - An unhealthy rivalry developedexpertise was utilized with other schools+ Extremely positive union - The system did not surviverelationship superintendent/board changes
Immediate Benefit• By eliminating the Assistant Principal position we were able to save two teacher positions.• Class size remained between 28-33 despite a $250,000 cut in the school’s budget• Mobilization of the expertise and experience of the staff
The Unexpected Benefits• Senior faculty expressed appreciation of the opportunity to exert leadership without having to leave the classroom.• An usually high percentage of the assistant principals became principals.• Younger faculty had the opportunity to try out school leadership before committing to a MA in Educational Administration (many, however, did !)• Very broad-based leadership--(the Faculty President only served for 1 quarter)• The classified staff felt unusually valued and their leadership contribution was valuable.• Faculty & staff expressed in surveys this helped them avoid “burn-out”• My blood pressure dropped 40 points• I’m still alive, with the same blood pressure I enjoyed when I was playing varsity sports in high school & college.