Successfully reported this slideshow.
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                     1NCPEA 2012 Kansas City, Ideas...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                              2                    ...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                             3       It is our atte...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                             4   2. Coauthors’ inde...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                            5       The blog was di...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                            6conceptually and refin...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                          7   4. Who are midcentury...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                             8   4. accountability ...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                              9much of this concern...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                             10or not there is evid...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                             11preparation faculty ...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                             12       program. Now,...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                           13       I predict that ...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                               14      This data-ba...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                            15to which we can try t...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                               16knowledge sources”...
THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT                                                                           17preparation is heading...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It

429 views

Published on

Link to NCPEA Presentation: http://prezi.com/6k0zxh8vdfly/the-future-as-we-see-it-junior-facultys-envisioning-of-mid-century-leadership/

The Future as We See it: Junior Faculty’s Envisioning of Mid-Century Leadership

Dr. Carol A. Mullen, Dr. Rosemary Papa, Dr. Kimberly Kappler Hewitt, Dr. Daniel Eadens,
Dr. Michael Schwanenberger, Dr. Brad Bizzell, & Dr. Scarlet Chopin

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NCPEA 2012 The Future As We See It

  1. 1. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 1NCPEA 2012 Kansas City, Ideas-based Paper The Future as We See it: Junior Faculty’s Envisioning of Mid-Century Leadership Dr. Carol A. Mullen, Dr. Rosemary Papa, Dr. Kimberly Kappler Hewitt, Dr. Daniel Eadens, Dr. Michael Schwanenberger, Dr. Brad Bizzell, & Dr. Scarlet Chopin Carol A. Mullen, PhD Professor and Chair The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Department of Educational Leadership & Cultural Foundations School of Education Building, Rm. 366A 1300 Spring Garden St. Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 Email: camullen@uncg.edu Office Phone: (336) 334-9865 Office Fax: (336) 334-4737 Rosemary Papa, EdD The Del and Jewell Lewis Endowed Chair, Learning Centered Leadership Professor, Educational Leadership Northern Arizona University PO Box 5774 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5774 Email: rosemary.papa@nau.edu Office Phone: (928) 523-8741 Office Fax: (928) 523-1929Kimberly Kappler Hewitt, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, kkhewitt@uncg.edu Daniel Eadens, University of Southern Mississippi, daniel.eadens@usm.edu Scarlet Lilian Chopin, Northern Arizona University, scarlet.chopin@nau.edu Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech, bbizzell@vt.edu Michael Schwanenberger, Northern Arizona University, michael.schwanenberger@nau.edu
  2. 2. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 2 AbstractSeven professors—five junior faculty, guided by senior faculty—reflect on what schools anduniversities might look like mid-century. The junior faculty who are from Arizona, Mississippi,North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia have in common their transition from school leadershiproles to higher education and strong identity as school leaders. We offer a reflective spin-off onanother group’s conceptual platform that projects the future of the educational leadership field,backed by data-based trends (i.e., English, Papa, Mullen, & Creighton, 2012). Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explore what schools and universities might look likemidcentury to inform educational leadership and leadership preparation. The future of educationis an extremely important subject, whether for rational deliberation or imaginativecontemplation. We are future-minded collaborators in educational leadership programs in highereducation institutions seeking to create momentum around discussion of the future of schoolsand universities. Our qualitative study focuses on the institutional contexts of teaching andlearning with respect to educational leadership and, specifically, emergent ideas about the futureof education, however tentative and partial, as well as debatable and changeable. Conceptual Undergirding Encouragement for researching trends in education and, by way of extension, the futureof schools and universities is supported by Hackmann and McCarthy’s (2011) groundbreakingempirical study of educational leadership programs and faculty members’ concerns. Theirconclusions can be interpreted as a call for professors to take back the education profession,which is being increasingly taken over by such external entities as alternative licensingproviders, and to assume a new, dynamic role of leadership.
  3. 3. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 3 It is our attempt to think reflexively and theoretically, with multiple perspectivesgrounded in scholar-practitioners’ understandings, about the future as a subject of inquiry. Ourposition is that schooling midcentury is not only a legitimate but also a substantive topic. Westretch to reach outward to the professional world of schools and universities. This attention onthe practical ironically helps us better imagine midcentury leadership and envision possibilitiesfor education in the future. In this vein, we are purposefully initiating scholarship that is informative about strongpossibilities that may (or may not) emerge for school leaders and preparation programs. It is ourhope that this work will benefit the educational leadership field, school communities, andsociety. We consider generative ideas that scholar-practitioners from educational leadershipprograms expressed about the future of education and schools. Building on perspectives fromEducational Leadership at 2050 (English, Papa, Mullen, & Creighton, 2012), we continue theconversation by bringing into play the worldviews of emergent leaders: junior faculty. Our framing of the future is deliberately open ended and contemplative, not reductionisticor conclusive. We also endeavor “to take the future and roll it back to the present” (English et al.,2012, p. 4). As collaborators on this project, we know that we must be intentional in our thinkingabout, and preparing for, the future of education at midcentury for prospective leaders, as well asfor new faculty who will be spearheading this complex work. Study Methods Used and Data Selected For this study context, we probed what schools and universities might look likemidcentury and, for this purpose, generated seven types of data: 1. Original blog responses (6,477 words) to the first author’s blog post about midcentury leadership (387 words)
  4. 4. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 4 2. Coauthors’ independent and interdependent analyses of the blog responses 3. Annotated reactions in the margins of the English et al. (2012) book using real-time collaborative software 4. Situated autobiographical sketches of respondents as background context to blog responses 5. Electronically generated dialogic data about the original blog posts, book, and other artifacts 6. Reflective memo written by the five junior faculty authors about their analyses and intergroup reflections on the raw blog data (11,643 words) 7. A group reflection conceived by the seven researchers on the data analyzed about implications for the leadership field, preparation programs, and schools (11,976 words)Social Justice Action Learning Methods Our focus is geared toward the issues of the future of education and leadership atmidcentury identified from the original blog commentaries and our ensuing dialogiccommentaries (data source numbers 1, 6, and 7). Seven professors forged technological and dialogic methods reflecting on what schoolsand universities might look like midcentury. Senior faculty invited junior faculty to engagereflectively and conversationally among themselves within a quasi-structured, immersive e-learning context. In a highly intentional collaborative approach, the junior faculty examined thetopic of the future of education, aspiring to think deeply and meaningfully. The coauthoringgroup responded to English et al. (2012) as a way to introduce to them a recent treatment of data-based trends impacting education and educational leadership, in addition to the data generatedfrom the first author’s blog post about the future.
  5. 5. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 5 The blog was disseminated in 2011 via the open-access website of a professionaleducational association. In response to the blog invitation, educational leaders who are juniorfaculty working in educational leadership programs from across the U.S. (seven total)—referredto henceforth as the “blog respondents”—posted extensive commentaries. These lengthyresponses were put into table form. The seven researchers analyzed the complete data using anincreasingly refined team approach (first the junior faculty coauthors analyzed the dataindependently and then collaboratively, and then the senior faculty conducted their own analysis,comparing their results to the former’s results). More specifically, in this process of extended and refined analysis, the senior researchersfirst consolidated the 12 broad categories generated by the coauthors. Then the senior researchersdevised eight (instead of 12) overarching themes, seeking connections among them and toeducation and educational leadership. They also sought to make the social justice orientationreflective in the data analysis more explicit and compelling. Engaging in data analysis withsocial justice lenses is supportive of Charmaz’s (2005) view that because data do not speak forthemselves researchers should not suppress making sociopolitical interpretations or openlyadvocating for issues they believe need serious attention. Deliberative democratic agendas suchas these assume a stance toward “democratic decision making” (Howe & Ashcraft, 2005, p.2275) and the participation of stakeholders, which stimulates decisions at different levels thatinclude key representatives, which in our case involves junior faculty and educational leaders. In the second phase, which transpired 2 months later in the year 2012, we scheduled areintroduction of the senior faculty in their direct work with the coauthors, conversing with themvia Wimba and helping shape better connections among the data sets. In the third phase, wedecided when to work alone as senior researchers, shaping the preliminary work, undergirding it
  6. 6. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 6conceptually and refining the data analysis and ideas. All of these phases were group-baseddecisions formulated as intentional events. For the analysis of the data and subsequent response, we used software designed for textupload, response, and response tracking (Crocodoc) that offers real-time spaces in which torespond to documents online. Digital tools spawned by Web 2.0 allow for collaboratingworldwide through document access and live interchanges. Reciprocity is spawned with a digitalpresence and commitment. As responders to each other’s reactions, we highlighted our ownresponses (e.g., by using different colors) to a selected text (e.g., blog posts).Blog Analysis and Original Post The Crocodoc team collaborated in the context of these overarching prompts: 1. What do you think schools and universities might look like midcentury? 2. What trends and forces currently impacting preparation and practice will be strongly influential by 2050? (Examples include globalization; the decline in the reality of a major war; a worldwide fresh water crisis amid global warming; the crucial bilateral relationship—China and the U.S.; the technological transformation of the world; and continued threats of global terrorism.) 3. What warning signs do we need to heed in the educational leadership field? (Examples include the resegregation and marketization of the nation’s public schools; the demonization of teacher unions; the deprofessionalization of educational leadership preparation; continuing the achievement gap debate, which ignores social inequalities; the debasement of education degrees and preparation by online diploma mills; the escalating culture of numbers and continuing cheating scandals; and the erosion of full- time tenure track faculty positions in leadership preparation programs.)
  7. 7. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 7 4. Who are midcentury leaders? (Some salient ideas include leading adult learners; developing human agency; acknowledging intended skills; encouraging curiosity; understanding futurity; and exploring imaginativeness.) 5. What sociopolitical conditions will midcentury leaders face? (Examples include the digital Net Generation; social justice as fairness; consciousness with respect to appreciating diversity; and the rejection of the Industrial Age teaching model.) 6. What technology zeitgeist will prevail midcentury? (Influencing factors include the new mood and literacy; proficient technology use; virtual organization as an instrument of reform; schools empowered with a technology zeitgeist; and the “Learning in Technology” era.) 7. What are the implications of any such changes for educational leadership preparation, democratic schooling, and the ethic of public service? (The role and influence of educational leadership standards and accountability midcentury; breakthroughs in understanding about leadership, scholarship, and practice; and collaboration and partnership with schools, school districts, communities, and other entities and countries). Findings: Frames of Midcentury Issues Data results tagged to implications for social justice thought and action subsequentlyemerged from the Crocodoc team’s analysis of the blog communication. Based on our completeteam’s analysis, seven major frames for thinking about midcentury leadership were identified: 1. sociopolitical–economic nexus with education (categorical subtopics: equity and democratic principles and sustainability) 2. technology nexus with education 3. 21st-century skills nexus with education (categorical subtopic: innovation)
  8. 8. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 8 4. accountability nexus with education (categorical subtopic: health and wellness) 5. globalization nexus with education (categorical subtopic: partnership and collaboration) 6. change nexus with education (categorical subtopic: leadership preparation) 7. leadership preparation nexus with education While the identified categories overlap, the nexus of sociopolitical–economic issues,technology, and leadership preparation dominated the majority of blog responses. Due to spaceconstraints, we discuss only the first two themes (a longer paper is in preparation).Sociopolitical–Economic Nexus With Education A sociopolitical–economic nexus with education was the most robust and unwieldytheme emerging from the blog data. Myriad political, economic, and social issues that directlyand indirectly affect PK–12 and higher education were alluded to or identified. All prompts,except #5 (technology zeitgeist), elicited responses about the sociopolitical–economic nexusconstruct, and all respondents commented on this thought-provoking, combustible issue. External political forces have a palpable impact on PK–12 schooling and highereducation. The blog respondents believed that leaders must not only recognize this fact but alsobe concerned by it. The first decade of the new millennium has been marked by “sweepingchanges” in education as a function of federal legislation, particularly the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) act. One respondent lamented a negative political climate described as the “great dividecurrently existing in the U.S. political system” and yearned for a “more moderate climate thatwould allow educational leaders to engage with the community and school boards aroundlegitimate educational issues rather than ideology and dogma.” Another expressed a similarconcern, believing that “too much of our professional policy and practice is based on traditionand politics rather than reflective decision making.” While PK–12 education is the source of
  9. 9. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 9much of this concern, there is a sense that “federal and state regulations, along with pay forperformance, are coming to higher education” and that such initiatives are riddled with politics. The corporate discourse of education is a prevailing and disconcerting issue incontemporary America that was framed as misguided, threatening, self-serving, and bankrupt.One respondent declared that “the marketization of education” is responsible for posing “threesignificant threats to education in the first half of the 21st century: the decline and potentialdemise of public schooling; overly narrow and unresponsive accountability systems; and theunethical and inappropriate use of data.” Another respondent framed the government’seducational initiatives as a function of the “tremendous sociopolitical pressure” being exerted.One source of that pressure is the corporate sector. This corporate discourse was viewed by all of the respondents as self-serving and not inthe best interests of children and youth in public schools: With the sly guise of benefitting our students arise corporate education reformers with self-interest in hand, but the harvest doesn’t benefit the students. They advocate policies that aid big corporations with profits from public education while diverting attention from antipoverty economics and breaking teacher unions that prevent their agenda. This is the biggest warning sign of today. Fuelling this trend, as one stated, is the “increasing influence and prominence ofmultinational corporations” and the “power and influence exercised by corporations andlobbyists, especially from the financial sector, over government.” While there is recognition of“education’s direct link to the economy,” resistance is called for in direct response to thecounterproductive “trend demanding a business model responsive to market forces” in leadershippreparation programs, as well as to provide “programming convenient to the consumer whether
  10. 10. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 10or not there is evidence of effectiveness.” Market-driven, corporate pressures are forcing manyprincipals and other leaders to “market themselves and their schools” without concern forrelevance or need. On a more neutral level, this “marketing” was viewed as a potential form ofadvocacy that has an increasingly important role for educational leaders, as described later. Threats to and assaults on public education are commonplace and disconcerting. Oneindividual indicted corporate reformers for promoting a sense of crisis and attacking publiceducation to promote their own agenda: “Under the guise of a national education crisis, thelegitimacy and utility of public schooling will continue to be challenged, and public schoolingitself will be threatened.” Another decried the “public relations assault on public education.”Attempts to destroy teachers unions and significant budget cuts also threaten the very integrity ofpublic education, let alone its sustainability. These trends require that educational leaders, enmasse, become advocates for education and “articulate to the public the value and critical role ofpublic education in maintaining democratic ideals.” Leaders must be more active in the political arena and as articulate advocates of publiceducation. Gone are the days when educational leaders’ concerns lay entirely within theircampus. Instead, the role of educational leaders “will continue to seep into more sociopoliticalresponsibilities, expanding their scope beyond the school building.” With greater and force,“educational leaders must be actively engaged, expert participants in national policy debates”and stand up for what they believe is just and appropriate. Midcentury educators must positionthemselves to impact educational legislation and policy and transform leaders into contributors toand collaborators on the policy they believe needs to shape their contexts. The requirement that future leaders be “politically active and knowledgeable about thepolitical arena” has deep implications for leadership preparation programs. Leadership
  11. 11. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 11preparation faculty must reposition ourselves (not be repositioned) toward “cultivating—in ourstudents and ourselves—an activist orientation.” This theme has strong links to globalization. Globalization, as a trend, is a powerfulsociopolitical–economic issue affecting American education. At the same time, Americansociopolitical–economic issues tend to be global in scope, not particular to the U.S. Thinkingabout issues as “American” is a provincial stance that excludes non-U.S. citizens and culturesfrom equal opportunities in life. Globalization as a category is discussed later in this section.Technology Nexus With Education Not surprisingly, all respondents identified technology as a common aspect of change inleadership by midcentury. However, they did not make explicit connections to the sociopolitical–economic domain, although all respondents provided lengthy responses to both prompts. Notunlike the education literature itself, it is as though educational leaders may still be struggling toforge deep connections between sociocultural and technology issues, at least at the level ofcritical consciousness. To provoke thought on this disconnect, we placed technology here,juxtaposed to the sociopolitical–economic theme. Some respondents seemed nostalgic about the relatively fast evolution of technology intheir lifetimes, recalling episodic changes leading to the digitization of their work: There is no doubt that computers have revolutionized education. I remember when computers were introduced in my high school back in the 1980s—they were novelty items. I used my first computer to complete a typing tutorial and a typewriter to complete my term papers. By the end of college, around 1990, I had advanced to using my computer rather than my typewriter for word-processing. I remember my first email account, established in 1997, because it was required for enrollment in my doctoral
  12. 12. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 12 program. Now, in 2011, I am an education research analyst and a distance-learning faculty member who virtually lives on the computer, pun intended. As we progress toward the year 2050, technology will proliferate in some unexpectedforms as new markets and ways of thinking evolve (see Tareilo & Bizzell, 2012). Therespondents believe that they are witnessing online and virtual learning as one of the fastestgrowing fields in education. By midcentury, online learning as currently known will be outdatedand virtual learning will have greater presence and a new definition. In higher education as well as in many PK–12 school districts, students “in” our classesmay be located in other parts of the nation or world. Our students will desire immediacy and usethree-dimensional learning tools and hologram technology. They will be able to “meet” with oneanother and interact as if they were in the same room. Sophisticated translation technology willallow students to be taught in their native tongues, for Spanish as a primary language in the U.S.to gain wide acceptance, and for English-only speakers to fully participate in such activities asSpanish-speaking podcasts. The influence of technology on classrooms will become moreprevalent, allowing students and teachers to view each other via webcast. All information will beaccessible and available for use through some type of electronic device. As technology advances, the types of curriculum offered will be drastically changed,along with instructional strategies and modalities. “Metaverses, such as Second Life [softwarethat allows users to create virtual objects and digitally interact within an online world], will growin sophistication. Educators will develop ways to incorporate the potential of the virtualdimension to provide currently unimaginable opportunities” for learning. Leadership preparationand professional development interventions will need to prepare faculties for significantadaptation as high-quality teacher practitioners. As one respondent shared,
  13. 13. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 13 I predict that by 2050, successful educators, especially school leaders, will be highly skilled research-practitioners. Our leadership preparation and practice must emphasize research-based, innovative, cost-effective educational approaches. Our preparation programs should offer more coursework in relevant 2011–2050 topics, such as assessment and data systems, information technology, qualitative and quantitative inquiry, economics, finance, and program evaluation. Courses centered on these topics should explore the philosophy and ideology reflected in professional policy and practice. Respondents referred to the “many trends and forces currently impacting preparation andpractice” that they think will be strongly influential by 2050. One drew particular attention to the“the revolutionary effects of the information age as the most dramatic because they undergirdmost of these trends in education,” predicting continuation of these effects as “a catalyst forchange in educational policy and practice.” Examples given by the respondent pool included “thegreen movement, STEM, evidence-based practice, response to intervention, differentiatedinstruction, and technology-based education.” The blog respondents and the coauthors all expressed concern that while education hasbeen transformed in many ways since the first computer, much of the U.S. schooling system wasdesigned during the industrial period. Perhaps consequently, too much of the nation’s professional policy and practice is based on tradition or politics rather than reflective, data-based decision making. Examples of outdated practices abound, such as the agrarian school calendar, the continued chronological grouping of learners, and the emphasis on traditional lecture methodologies. … Discussion
  14. 14. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 14 This data-based analysis leads us to ask, how might leadership preparation better integratethe pressing priorities among the prevalent issues previously raised? We are more aware that aswe prepare leaders of tomorrow, these priorities will need to be much better addressed andconnections among them sought and made. We recognize that these issues need to be integratedmore thoughtfully into how we prepare leaders and how future professors might developprospective leaders. Thus a question we are posing to the field is, how might faculty leadersbetter integrate sociopolitical issues, in particular, with other prevalent changes, such as in thedomains of technology and accountability, with positive momentum for leadership preparation? We think that our leadership preparation programs are overly course based, as opposed tohaving a larger program vision. The overuse of temporary staff (e.g., adjuncts) is only part of thisproblem. Full-time faculty generally have much more investment in a total-program approach topreparing school leaders, so we are advocating for more full-time faculty hires of scholar-practitioners in programs. To illustrate the problem, one of us teaches a course on theorganization and management of schools that is not integrated as part of a coherent program. Infact, it is treated as a large bushel that can be stuffed with content—it contains all the schoolpersonnel and school finance topics to be taught in the program, in addition to all the content andstandards required of higher education accrediting bodies in terms of what skills andcompetencies must be demonstrated in courses. A major challenge that lies ahead is how toaccomplish this curricular goal with fewer full-time instructional faculty covering more of thecore course content and under the duress of reduced resources and budgets. Full-time faculty must be at the helm to help ensure that students have a high-quality,coherent education. Frequently in higher education, we write and talk about collaboration andshared planning and coteaching, but in reality, we tend to work in fiefdoms and silos. The degree
  15. 15. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 15to which we can try to overcome our professional isolation is crucial for the future of leadershippreparation. For example, two of us belong to a faculty professional learning community that isthe first one in our higher education department’s 35-plus-year history. We have been wonderingwhy it has taken so long to come together collaboratively and work on our practice even thoughthis is the kind of community-building we constantly encourage principals and teachers to do. Inthe future, faculty will want to avoid living out such ironies by acting on our own messages. Another tension we see is that while many educational leadership students are seekingonline learning options and entire programs delivered at a distance, leaders, including some statesuperintendents, think that quality in higher education requires being face-to-face (f2f).Consequently, many programs across the U.S. function as hybrid systems to accommodate, inparticular, f2f contact during summer months. Such gains enable part-time students who workfull time in schools and districts to make sociopolitical connections and career-based politicalconnections. This hybrid form may continue, with much more emphasis on technology use,alternative scheduling, and creative options for f2f learning. A goal will be to make courses moreeffective online with vastly improved tools amenable to transcontinental online platforms. Sociopolitical conditions of inclusiveness also lead us to examine leadership preparationin terms of nontraditional leadership candidates. Tapping broader pools, notably indigenouspopulations who do not look the part or act in ways consistent with status quo expectations, willneed to occur for equitable education to be modeled. Shah (2010) writes of her contextualizedwork with colleges in Pakistan that “there is a need to recognize that people from diversephilosophical, ideological and faith backgrounds conceive and perceive educational leadershipdifferently, particularly across the gender divide, drawing upon their beliefs, values and
  16. 16. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 16knowledge sources” (p. 28). We will need to turn to leaders who are ideologically diverse,approach our field differently, and can infuse new ideas. Conclusion Canoeing is a metaphor for articulating a vision of the future. Reflecting on learning towhitewater paddle, a veteran paddler gave these instructions for approaching a Class 4 rapidcalled Lesser Wesser on the Nantahala River: “Head for the V to the right of that rock, then thinkleft. Don’t paddle left or turn left. Just think left.” The instructor explained that if you turn left orpaddle left, you would undoubtedly hit the rapid wrong and end up “in the drink.” However,when you think left on the river, your body shifts and nudges the canoe just enough to slip intothe rapids in the correct spot. When we think left, we can hit the rapid just right. Just by thinking toward something, we unconsciously move in that direction, whether wedesire to or not. This is fundamentally the case for leadership and change as well. Whether weintentionally and consciously work toward a certain future by thinking about it—by expecting tohead in that direction—we do so in subtle but perhaps profound ways. From this perspective, thefuture is what we think it will be. Santayana’s (1905/1998) adage, “Those who cannot rememberthe past are condemned to repeat it” (p. 406) becomes “those who do not critically analyze theirsense of the future will be condemned to produce it.” We believe that we can influence our futures as junior and senior collaborators in highereducation. We believe that the ideas we have described are crucial for the future of leadershippreparation, and we recognize that we may be unintentionally heading in these directions forbetter or worse. This, for us, is a call to be reflective, aware, and intentional about where webelieve educational leadership preparation is heading and where we believe it should be heading.It might very well be the case that we do not endorse where we think that educational leadership
  17. 17. THE FUTURE AS WE SEE IT 17preparation is heading but are nevertheless acting in ways that promote the very future that weeschew. We encourage our readers to envision midcentury leadership on their own terms and intheir own way. We have dialogued about the personal and professional benefits that haveoccurred for us in taking on this challenge and end by sharing these. ReferencesCharmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050: Conjectures, challenges and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Hackmann, D. G., & McCarthy, M. M. (2011). At a crossroads: The educational leadership professoriate in the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Howe, K. R., & Ashcraft, C. (2005). Deliberative democratic evaluation: Successes and limitations of an evaluation of school choice. Teachers College Record, 107(10), 2274– 2297.Santayana, G. (1905/1998). The life of reason (Vol. I). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Second Life. [Online Metaverse software]. San Francisco, CA: Linden Research.Shah, S. J. A. (2010). Re-thinking educational leadership: Exploring the impact of cultural and belief systems. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 27–44.Tareilo, J., & Bizzell, B. (Eds.). (2012). NCPEA handbook of online instruction and programs in education leadership. Rice University Connexions collections: NCPEA Press. Retrieved from http://my.qoop.com

×