Ethics Education - 1
Running head: ETHICS EDUCATION
Ethics Education
in Educational Administration Preparation Programs:
International Perspectives
Paper Presented to the Annual Conference of
Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management
Nicosia, Cyprus, October 12-17, 2006
Keith Walker, Ph.D.
Department of Educational Administration
University of Saskatchewan
Keith.Walker@Usask.ca
and
James Green, Ph.D.
Department of Doctoral Studies in Education
Azusa Pacific University
jegreen@apu.edu
2
Introduction
In this paper we present our preliminary findings from two on-line surveys of graduatelevel ethics education in educational leadership programs. The first survey, Ethics Education
Survey, was intended for directors, heads, and chairs of educational administration and
leadership programs in a number of countries. The second, Graduate Ethics Education Survey,
invited instructors of courses providing ethics education to participate. Despite the
disappointingly low response to the two surveys, we believe the data are valuable as a stimulus
to dialogue on ethics education in graduate programs of educational administration and
leadership. After a brief orientation to historic and contemporary perspectives on ethics
education, we outline our methodology and present the responses to each survey, in turn.
Finally, we provide a short discussion of our preliminary findings and introduce our next steps in
this project.
Perspectives on Ethics in Preparation Programs
The idea that leaders of educational institutions should be ethical is not new. Historically
we have assumed that leaders of educational institutions represented the highest moral standards
of our society (Beck & Murphy, 1997). Moreover, the notion that ethics should be incorporated
into the curriculum for preparing leaders in education dates to the earliest programs in
educational administration (Elias, 1989). However, recent scandals occurring in some of
society’s leading institutions have raised awareness for the importance of professional ethics; and
increasingly graduate education programs worldwide are responding with more explicit
instruction in ethical standards. For example, in the USA state standards for programs that
prepare educational administrators typically include provisions for education in ethics.
Historical perspectives on ethics in educational administration programs.
Administrators in public education during the 19th Century were responsible for establishing and
3
nurturing the moral climate of the school community (Tyack & Hansot, 1982). At the heart of
administrator preparation programs was the expectation that leaders would embrace the values
and ideals of their culture, and formal efforts to prepare administrators for their roles of moral
leadership were influenced by two scholar-practitioners of the day, William Howard Payne and
William Torrey Harris (Culbertson, 1988.) Payne and Harris developed a set of “ethical
maxims” that were intended to guide administrators. In addition, these maxims were grounded
in religious beliefs clearly Judeo-Christian in origin.
Early in the 20th Century the social sciences began to replace religion as the foundation
for educational thought, and decision-making skills needed by school administrators began to be
defined by efficiency, rather than morality (Campbell, Fleming, Newell, & Bennion, 1987).
Preparation programs began to emphasize the management of economical, productive, and
efficient institutions. In the 1930’s a convergence of social forces and political issues became
the impetus for another shift in the philosophy of administrator preparation programs, giving rise
to a “human relations” movement (Campbell et. al., p. 51). As a consequence, the ethics
education that was grounded in moral absolutes during the late 19th Century and the cult of
efficiency during the early 20th Century, focused on social norms during the 1930’s and 40’s. In
the 1950’s and 1960’s another pattern began to evolve as scholars deliberately attempted to
define the field of educational administration built upon the idea that theories derived from
value-free inquiry could produce a scientifically supported professional knowledge base
(Crowson & McPherson, 1987). This conscious attempt to distance the professional education of
administrators from social philosophy was viewed as a way to elevate the status of educational
administration to that of the other historic professions, such as medicine and law.
4
During the 1970’s and 1980’s several studies on the curriculum of programs in
educational administration were conducted, and conclusions uniformly revealed that ethics
education was given little, if any attention by this time (Silver & Spuck, 1978; Farquhar, 1981;
Norton & Levan, 1987).
Contemporary perspectives on ethics in educational administration programs. Beck
and Murphy (1997) observed a revival of interest in ethics education among programs for
preparing educational administrators. Although, they reported that only 60% of the institutions
responding (N=42) characterized their programs as giving “somewhat” or “a great deal” of
attention to ethics. The other 40% of the participants indicated that the attention they gave to
ethics education was “very little” or none. Beck and Murphy further reported several themes on
ethics education that emerged from their analysis. First, professors of educational administration
viewed ethics as an aid to problem solving. Second, ethics was a distinct part of the knowledge
base of educational administration. And third, professors of educational administration viewed
leadership as a fundamentally ethical endeavor.
Recognition of the moral dimension of leadership (Willower, 1988; Shapiro & SmithRosenberg, 1989; Hodgkinson, 1991; Slater, 1991; and Sergiovanni, 1992) continues to give
impetus to ethics education in the preparation of school administrators. Consequently, we felt
another update on prevailing methods for implementing ethics education in administrator
preparation programs was warranted.
Heightened interest in ethics education has resulted in a wide range of approaches.
Therefore, the purpose of our larger project is tri-fold. First, we seek to describe the state of
ethics education in graduate programs that prepare educational administrators. And thirdly, the
investigation seeks to provide professors in educational administration programs with a much
5
needed map of the ethical theories that are utilized worldwide in the decision of instruction in
ethical decision-making. The focus of this paper is on the preliminary investigation of the first of
these three purposes.
Our Methods and Data Sources
The project investigation utilizes mixed methods that combined two surveys of education
administration programs from a number of English-speaking nations with content analysis of
course syllabi from those responding. The survey yielded descriptive data on the nature and
extent of ethics education, as reported in this paper and the content analysis will yield further
information on the theoretical frameworks used in design and delivery of the courses. A mixed
method approach was selected because it allows simultaneous analysis of quantitative data on the
frequency and type of instructional delivery along with qualitative data on the theoretical
frameworks that are represented. Content analysis is particularly well suited to the examination
of curriculum materials, including course syllabi.
The sample. A convenience sample was utilized. Six strategies were used to invite
participation in these two surveys. (See Appendix A). Electronic mail addresses listed in public
directories maintained by professional organizations for colleges and universities and professors
of educational leadership were used to identify participants (this was limited to Canada and the
United States). Due to the difficult access to electronic mail addresses for directors, heads, and
chairs outside of Canada and the United States of America, we conducted web searches, countryby-country. These searches yielded e-addresses for colleagues in eight nations: Australia, New
Zealand, England, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Hong Kong, Israel, and South Africa. Third,
we contacted the executive officers of a number of national and international educational
organizations (BELMAS, ACEL, NZEAS, and ATEE) to solicit help in obtaining addresses,
6
contacts, and posting invitations on their web sites or including our invitation on their listserv to
members. Fourth, we directly invited members of the Division A (AERA) listserv to consider
participation in one of two surveys. Fifth, for the second survey (instructors), we invited heads,
directors and chairs to directly nominate or refer persons who would be able participants. We
did this through items on the Ethics Education Survey. Finally, the public directories (limited to
Canada and the United States) were used to identify professors of educational leadership who
might provide ethics education, as indicated by their recognized areas of interest. We estimate
that approximately 1000 persons received our invitation to participate (in one form or another).
We suspect that some of our participant may have responded to both surveys. We have
confirmed participation from the United Kingdom, Israel, Hong Kong, Canada and the United
States. Figure 1 decpicts the distribution of respondents by their national and international
professional affiliations.
Figure 1
Distribution of Respondents’ Professional Affiliations
NCPEA (32.91%)
UCEA (29.11%)
CCEAM 10.13%)
BELMAS (5.06%)
AELA (3.8%)
CASEA (2.53%)
Other (3.8%)
No affiliation (12.66%)
Data gathering procedures. E-mail messages explaining the investigation, with the
URLs for two on-line questionnaires, were sent to the participants. Questionnaires were returned
7
to the investigators via on-line responses. Face validity for the questionnaires were established
in a beta test during the spring, 2005.
Data analysis. The data were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics for the survey
items. These frequency and percentage statistics were tabulated to determine the extent that
ethics education is incorporated into programs for the preparation of school administrators, as
well as the prevailing curriculum models and instructional methods that are utilized.
Comment on limitations of methodology. As indicated, our experiment with international
on-line surveys was somewhat disappointing (perhaps 10% response rate). While we were
pleased to receive the responses we did, the effectiveness of our methodology was limited. We
were hoping to broaden the reach of our inquiry beyond Canada and the United States but failed
to do so in meaningful ways. Our experience provokes us to wish for a more global data base of
professors of educational administration and leadership, including an inventory of graduate
programs.
Presentation of Data: Survey of Program Administrators
This segment of our paper reports the responses of 58 participants to the Ethics Education
Survey which was provided to Department Chairs or Heads in Educational Administration and
Leadership preparation programs. The survey contained three major sections with each section
having sub-questions. The first section centered on the provision of curriculum and instruction in
administrative ethics. The second section focused on research and writing on administrativeleadership ethics. The third section centered on personnel-related questions.
Ethics learning opportunities. The extent to which the reporting departments offered
learning opportunities concerned with ethics is expressed in Table 1, with 3.5% of the
participants specifying that their departments did not offer learning opportunities relating to
8
ethics at all. About 12% indicated that their departments offered very little, while 37.9% of the
participants maintained that they somewhat offered these opportunities. The highest percentage
of the participants, 46.6%, responded that their departments offer a great deal of learning
opportunities concerned with ethics.
Table 1
Extent of Learning Opportunities Concerned with Ethics
Not at all
Very little
Somewhat
A great deal
Total Respondents
2
7
22
27
58
3.5%
12.1%
37.9%
46.6%
Satisfaction level for ethics education. Table 2 shows the extent to which participants
were satisfied with the degree to which their departments offer learning opportunities in ethics.
About 22.4% were very satisfied, 41.4% were satisfied, 20.7% were neutral, 12% were
dissatisfied, and 3.5% were very dissatisfied.
Some of those who do not offer ethics as a course in their departments responded that the
subject has been interwoven into the curriculum of some other courses such as educational
leadership, organization of public schools, finance, and school law. As a respondent said, “In the
past year, we have infused issues of character and ethics more purposefully throughout our
preparation program.” Some participants also identified lack of expertise, and financial
limitations which hindered the offering of ethics as a separate subject in their department.
Table 2
Participants’ Satisfaction with Ethics Learning Opportunities
9
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Total Respondents
13
24
12
7
2
58
22.4%
41.4%
20.7%
12.1%
3.5%
Availability of ethics education by programs. Table 3 shows the availability of specific
courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in participants’
programs. About 17% of the participants reported that there were no specific courses or modules
on administrative/leadership ethics in their certificate program, 32.1% responded “not
applicable,” while 50.9% responded there were specific courses or modules in their certificate
programs. Excluding the population of those who responded that the question was not applicable
to them (those who have no certificate programs in their departments), the percentage of those
who said there were specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership
ethics in their certificate programs was 75%, while about 25% said there were no specific
courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in the certificate
programs.
In the case of post-graduate diploma programs, about 19.6% of the participants answered
that there were no specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership
ethics in their programs. On the other hand, 56.5% responded that they have no post-graduate
programs, while the remaining 23.9% responded that there were specific courses or modules on
the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their post-graduate diploma programs.
Excluding the participants who have no post-graduate diploma programs, the percentage of who
indicated that there were specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or
leadership ethics in their post-graduate diploma programs was 55%.
10
The participants maintained (about 77%) that there were specific courses or modules on
the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their masters’ programs; 17.9% held the
opposite view, while the remaining 5.4% marked “not applicable.” Excluding the non-applicable
participants, the percentage of those who responded that there were specific courses or modules
on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their master’s programs came to 81.1%.
In the Doctor of Education (Ed. D.) programs, 14.6% responded that there were no
specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their program,
33.3% responded “non-applicable,” while the remaining 52.1% responded that there were
specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their Ed. D.
programs. Excluding the “Non-applicable” participants, the percentage of those who have
specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their Ed. D.
programs to those who do not have was 78.1% to 21.9%.
Table 3 also shows that 18.4% of the participants reported that there were no specific
courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their Ph.D. programs.
About 53% responded “Non-applicable,” while the remaining 28.6% responded that there were
specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their Ph.D.
programs. Excluding the participants who reported that the question was not applicable to them,
the percentage of those who claimed that their departments have specific courses or modules on
the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their Ph.D. programs to those who claimed
opposite was 60.9% to 39.1%.
Table 3
Availability of Specific Courses or Modules on Ethics
11
No
Non-applicable
Yes
Total Respondents
Certificate
N
%
9
17.0%
17 32.1%
27 50.9%
53
Post Graduate
Diploma
N
%
9
19.6%
26
56.5%
11
23.9%
46
Masters
N
%
10 17.9%
3
5.4%
43 76.8%
56
Ed.D
N
7
16
25
48
%
14.6%
33.3%
52.1%
Ph.D.
N
%
9
18.4%
26 53.1%
14 28.6%
49
Manner of inclusion of ethics in curriculum. Table 4 shows how participants described
the inclusion of administrative or leadership ethics in their programs. There were repetitions in
the responses, as participants ticked more than one response. About 3.0% reported “distinctive or
specific half course.” An ever smaller percentage (2.5%) reported “distinctive half course,” while
1.0% reported “distinctive or specific full course.” About 3.5% of the responses indicated that
ethics was offered as a distinctive or specific but elective course, while 7.4% of the responses
illustrated that ethics is offered as a distinctive or specific but mandatory course. The remaining
71.8% of the responses claimed that ethics is integrated into other courses. The percentages of
the responses in terms of course integration are as follows: policy courses (11.39%), law courses
(14.9%), leadership courses (18.8%), politics courses (5.5%), organizational behavior courses
(10.9%), and educational philosophy courses (7.9%).
The responses suggest that ethics was more integrated into leadership courses than other
courses, followed by law, policy, and organizational behavior courses.
Table 4
Method of Including Ethics in Educational Administration Programs
12
Not Applicable
Distinctive or specific learning module
Distinctive or specific HALF course
Distinctive or specific FULL course
Distinctive or specific but ELECTIVE course
Distinctive or specific but MANDATORY course
Integrated into policy courses
Integrated into law courses
Integrated into leadership courses
Integrated into politics courses
Integrated into organizational behavior courses
Integrated into educational philosophy courses
Other
Total Responses (more than one permitted)
4
6
5
20
7
15
23
30
38
11
22
16
5
202
2.0%
3.0%
2.5%
9.9%
3.5%
7.4%
11.4%
14.9%
18.8%
5.5%
10.9%
7.9%
2.5%
Estimates of number of students (by program) enrolled in courses providing ethics
education. Table 5 shows the percentage of graduate students from the last twelve months who
had been enrolled in courses containing specific teaching and learning on the subject of ethics.
From Table 5, it may be observed that the highest percentage of the participants reported that
100% of their certificate graduate students have been enrolled in courses containing specific
teaching and learning on the subject of ethics. Excluding the “non-applicable” responses in
certificate programs, 73.1% of the responses confirmed that about 75% and more of their
certificate graduate students has been enrolled in courses containing specific teaching and
learning on the subject of ethics.
The responses on post-graduate diploma graduates shows about 50% or less of the
students who had been enrolled in courses containing specific teaching and learning on the
subject of ethics. Excluding the “Non-applicable” responses which form about 73.8% of the
responses, 54.5% of the responses indicate that 50% or less of the students have been enrolled in
courses containing specific teaching and learning on the subject of ethics, while the remaining
45.5% shows that about 75% and above have been enrolled. Excluding the “Non applicable”
13
responses, about 75% and more of the graduate students, at the master level, have been enrolled
in such courses.
The responses on Doctor of Education programs indicate that about 75% and more of the
Ed.D. graduate students have been enrolled in courses containing specific teaching and learning
on the subject of ethics.
The responses on Ph.D. graduates show that for two-thirds of the participants, such
courses were non-applicable, about 10% suggested 25% or fewer Ph.D. students were taught
ethics and about 16% said 100% of students had been enrolled in such courses.
Participants were asked to indicate the title of the specific course(s) or modules they offer
in ethics, participants gave different course titles which include “Values and Ethics for School
Leaders,” “An Exploration of Ethics as Relates to the Modern School Administrator,” “Law and
Ethics,” “Ethics in Educational Leadership,” “Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational
Administration” “Ethical leadership Politics of Education” “Philosophy and Ethics of Education”
and “Ethics, law, and Finance.” Most of the course titles given by the participants showed that
Ethics as a subject is often integrated with other courses such as law, policy, politics, philosophy,
and finance.
Table 5
Percentage of Enrollment in Courses Containing Specific Instruction on Ethics
14
Certificate
N
%
21 44.7%
3 6.4%
4 8.5%
4 8.5%
15 31.9%
Non Applicable
25% or less
About 50%
About 75%
About 100%
Total
Respondents 47
Post graduate
Diploma
N
%
31 73.8%
3 7.1%
3 7.1%
2 4.8%
3 7.1%
Masters
N
%
6 10.9%
10 18.2%
2 3.6%
16 29.1%
21 38.2%
Ed.D
N
%
20 41.7%
5 10.4%
4 8.3%
5 10.4%
14 29.2%
Ph.D.
N
%
29 64.4%
5 11.1%
3 6.7%
1 2.2%
7 15.6%
42
55
48
45
Reasons for excluding ethics education. Table 6 shows the reasons given by participants
for excluding administrative or leadership ethics as a specific subject offered in graduate
programs. None of the participants indicated that the “subject is inappropriate.” About 15.7% of
the participants indicated that the course has already been integrated with other courses, and
12.1% of the responses showed that the curriculum was too full.
Table 6
Reasons for Excluding Ethics as a Subject in Education Administration Programs
Subject is inappropriate
Ethics can not be taught
Curriculum is too full
Lack of professional interest
Insufficient student interest
Lack of qualified professor in the subject
Inadequate teaching and learning material
Insufficient demand from the field
Financial limitations
Already integrated with courses
Provided as an elective by another department on campus
Other
Not applicable
Total Responses (more than one permitted)
0
2
10
5
4
6
1
4
2
13
1
1
34
83
0
2.4%
12.1%
6.0%
4.8%
7.2%
1.2%
4.8%
2.4%
15.7%
1.2%
1.2%
41.0%
Connections with other university departments. As indicated in Table 7, 79.3% of the
participants indicated that their students were not encouraged to take ethics courses from other
university departments.
15
Table 7
Graduate Advisors Who Encourage Students to Enroll in Ethics Course(s) from
Other University Departments
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
12
46
20.7%
79.3%
58
Requirement of ethics education by an external authority. Table 8 shows the responses
on whether participants’ departments are required by an authority (i.e., state and/or professional
group) to offer ethics course(s) or module(s). As this table indicates, 34.5% of the participants
stated that they were not required by an authority to offer ethics courses or modules, while 65.5%
responded that they were not required by an authority to offer ethics courses or modules. Most
of the participants indicated that their departments were required to offer ethics course(s) or
module(s) by the Department of Education and National Council of Accreditation of Teachers’
Education.
Table 8
Departments are Required to Offer Ethics Course(s) or Module(s)
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
20
38
34.5%
65.5%
58
Level of importance ascribed to providing ethics education for students. Table 9 shows
the extent to which administrative or leadership ethics was considered as an important subject for
students. About 3.5% of the participants indicated that ethics is not a very important subject for
16
the students, while approximately 62% signified that ethics is a very important subject for the
students. About 91.4% of the participants rated ethics in the two top-most scales of importance.
Table 9
Extent that Ethics is Considered an Important Subject for Students
(Not very important) 1
2
3
4
(Very Important) 5
Total Respondents
2
0
3
17
36
58
3.5%
0.0%
5.2%
29.3%
62.1%
Graduate student scholarship in ethics. In Table 10 we see that 53.5% of the
participants claimed that they knew of students who had undertaken major papers, projects,
theses, or dissertations related to ethics in the last three years.
Table 10
Participants Who Knew Students Who Had Undertaken Major Papers, Theses, or
Dissertations Related to Ethics in the Last Three Years
Yes
No
Total
31
27
58
53.5%
46.5%
Faculty scholarship in ethics. As indicated in Table 11, 74.1% of the participants
claimed that they or their faculty colleagues have been directly engaged in scholarly activity
related to ethics and educational leadership in the last three years.
Table 11
Participants or Colleagues Who Had Engaged in Scholarly Activity Related to
Ethics and Educational Leadership in the Last Three Years
17
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
43
15
74.1%
25.9%
58
Nature of faculty scholarship in ethics. From Table 12 it is observed that 25.6% of
participants indicated that their engagements were in articles, 34.4% in conference papers,
13.33% in books, 22.2% in form of workshops, and 4.4% were categorized as “other.” Those
who categorized their engagement as “others” identified their participation in Human Research
Ethics Committee, organization of study-day on ethics, and doing book reviews or dissertation
studies in the area.
Table 12
Type of Scholarly Activity Related to Ethics and Educational Leadership that
Participants and/or Colleagues Had Directly Engaged in the Past Three Years
Article(s)
Conference papers
Books
Workshops
Other
Total Responses
23
31
12
20
4
90
25.6%
34.4%
13.3%
22.2%
4.4%
Relative importance of qualifications needed to teach ethics. Table 13 shows the
relative importance of qualifications for teaching ethics, according to Heads or Chairs of in a
typical educational administration and leadership programs. Table 13 displays that about 24.1%
of the participants rated formal study of ethics as very important, while 20.7% of the participants
placed it on the two least important levels. Table 13 also depicts that a greater percentage of the
participants (53.5%) indicated that professional administrative experience was a very important
18
qualification, whereas only 10.4% placed professional experience in the bottom two categories of
importance. About 29.3% of the participants indicated that professional development for
teachers of ethics education was very important, while 12.1% reported that it was not very
important. In summary, participants reported valuing professional experience slightly more than
professional development, and substantially more than formal study.
Table 13
The Importance of Qualifications for Teaching Ethics in Educational
Administration and Leadership Programs
1 (Not Very Important)
2
3
4
5 (Very Important)
Total Respondents
Professional
Professional
Formal study Administrative development in
of Ethics
Experience
Ethics Education
N
%
N
%
N
%
2
3.5%
2
3.5%
3
5.2%
10 17.2%
4
6.9%
4
6.9%
19 32.8%
5
8.6%
14
24.1%
13 22.4% 16
27.6%
20
34.5%
14 24.1% 31
53.5%
17
29.3%
58
58
58
Connections with other faculty. Table 14 shows that 36.2% of the participants claimed
that they or their faculty colleagues work with faculty from other disciplines to provide students
with learning or research opportunities in the area of administrative or leadership ethics. The
type of work in which participants and their colleagues have engaged with faculty from other
disciplines were on dissertation advisory committees and projects relating to health and criminal
issues. Participants also pointed out their interdisciplinary engagements with faculties from other
departments such as religion, business, psychology, counseling, and law.
Table 14
19
Responses to Whether Participants’ Faculties Work with Faculty from Other
Disciplines to Provide Students with Learning or Research Opportunities in the
Area of Administrative or Leadership Ethics
Yes
No
Total Respondents
21
37
58
36.2%
63.8%
Summary of Preliminary Findings from Survey of Program Administrators
Less than a decade ago Beck and Murphy (1997) reported that slightly over half the
programs for preparing educational administrators gave “somewhat” or “a great deal” of
attention to the study of ethics. In these preliminary findings from our survey of program
administrators that we conducted during the fall and winter, 2005-2006, we have learned that the
ethical dimension of leadership is considered much more important than a decade ago. With 58
participants responding, our survey indicated that 87% now give ethics “somewhat” or “a great
deal” of attention. Moreover, 91% of the program administrators in our survey reported that they
consider formal study of ethics important. However, most programs (69.4%) preferred to
integrate the study of ethics into existing courses rather than offering a separate and distinctive
course in ethics (7.4%). Another notable observation regarding the prominence that ethics is
gaining centers on scholarship. Program administrators reported that over half of their students
(53.5%) had investigated topics in ethics in major research papers, theses, or dissertations. In
addition, a very notable 74.1% of the participants reported that they had engaged in some form of
scholarship involving the study of ethics (e.g., articles, conference papers, workshops, etc.).
In those instances where ethics was not included in administrator preparation programs,
reasons varied widely. Although, the leading reasons given were that the existing curriculum
20
was too full (12.1%) with mandated content or that appropriate expertise in ethics was not
available among faculties (7.2%). Upon looking further into the extent of faculty expertise, we
learned that most program administrators consider professional experience the most important
qualification for teaching ethics (81.1% considered experience important or very important),
followed by formal study in ethics (66.5% considered experience important or very important).
In summary, the study of ethics in administrator preparation programs is gaining more
prominence in comparison to a decade ago. More programs include instruction specific to the
study of ethics in educational administration, and more students and faculty are engaged in
scholarship that focuses on ethics. In the next section we report findings from our survey of
faculty who teach courses that contain the formal study of ethics, and in particular we direct our
attention to the design and delivery of instruction in ethics.
Presentation of Data: Survey of Faculty
This section reports the findings that stemmed from the Ethics Education Survey was
provided to graduate instructors involved with ethics education. There were 61 participants to
this survey. Because of the anonymity of survey and the natural potential for dual roles (i.e.,
department head or director as well as being an instructor of an ethics education course – there
may have been individuals who completed both surveys. This second survey contained four
major parts, with each section having sub-questions. The first section centered on the provision
of curriculum and instruction in administrative ethics. The second section focused on personneloriented question, while the third section asked participants to consider teaching and learning
methods. Section four focused on research on administrative/leadership ethics.
Ethics learning opportunities. Table 15 shows the extent to which responding graduate
instructors believed their departments or units offered learning opportunities concerned with
21
ethics. From Table 15, it is observed that 18.3% of the participants indicated that “very little”
was the extent to which their departments or units offered learning opportunities concerned with
ethics, 50% responded “somewhat,” while the remaining 31.7% reported that their departments
offered a “great deal.” None of the participants indicated that their departments do not offer
learning opportunities concerned with ethics.
Table 15
Extent that Departments Offer Learning Opportunities Concerned with Ethics.
Not at all
Very little
Somewhat
A great deal
Total Respondents
N
0
11
30
19
60
%
0
18.3%
50.0%
31.7%
Satisfaction level for ethics education. Table 16 expresses the extent to which graduate
instructors are satisfied with their departments’ offerings of learning opportunities concerned
with ethics. It is observed that 10% of the participants were “very satisfied,” 43.3% responded
“satisfied,” while 16.7% reported “neutral.” On the other hand, 16.7% indicated that they were
dissatisfied with their departments’ offerings of learning opportunities concerned with ethics, and
the remaining 13.3% were “very dissatisfied.” In summary, a total of 53.3% of the participants
were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their departments’ offerings.
Table 16
Extent that Participants are Satisfied with Ethics Learning Opportunities
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
N
6
26
10
%
10.0%
43.3%
16.7%
22
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Total
Respondents
10
8
16.7%
13.3%
60
Availability of ethics education by programs. Table 17 shows the availability of specific
courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in the preparation
programs of participants. We observed that 51.0% of the participants indicated that there were
specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their
certificate preparation programs. Excluding the non-applicable responses, 60.5% of the
participants reported that there were specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative
or leadership ethics in their certificate preparation programs.
With respect to diploma programs, 24.4% reported that there were specific courses or
modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their diploma preparation
programs. Excluding the non-applicable responses, 52.4% of the participants reported that their
departments offered specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership
ethics in the diploma preparation programs.
The responses on the master’s programs show that 65.5% had specific courses or
modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics.
Also from Table 17, 65.4% of the participants reported that there were specific courses or
modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in their Ed.D. preparation
programs. Excluding the non-applicable responses, the percentage of those who indicated that
there were specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics in
their Ed.D programs was 77.3%. The responses on Ph.D. programs show that 37.0% indicated
23
that there were specific courses or modules on the subject of administrative or leadership ethics
in their Ph.D. preparation programs.
Some of the participants indicated that they do offer specific ethics courses or modules in
their departments, while others pointed out that ethics is integrated into some other courses. “We
do not offer courses with specific title of ‘ethics’ but include ethics content in a range of
educational administration and leadership courses.” It was also pointed out that teaching ethics in
its embedded courses, to an extent, depends on the professor. “Each professor covers ethics at
his/her discretion. We do not have any specific requirements. I cover it a lot in my policy and
law courses and to a lesser degree in my other classes.” Another respondent wrote, “The issue of
ethic is implicit in many courses (e.g., moral leadership, critical theory …..), and in courses that
deal with social gap. Yet it is not handled directly, as there is no specific course in that respect.”
Table 17
Availability of Courses or Modules on Ethics in Administrator Preparation
Programs
Certificate
Non
Applicable
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
8
26
17
51
15.7%
51.0%
33.3%
Diploma
24
11
10
45
53.3%
24.4%
22.2%
Masters
1
38
19
58
Ed.D.
1.7%
65.5%
32.8%
8
34
10
52
Ph.D.
15.4%
65.4%
19.2%
16
17
13
34.8%
37.0%
28.3%
46
Importance of types of qualifications for teaching ethics. Table 18 shows how
participants rated the importance of qualifications for teaching ethics in a typical educational
administration and leadership programs. It is observed that 53.3% of the participants rated formal
24
study of ethics on the two top-most levels of importance (4 and 5 levels), while about 18.3%
rated formal study of ethics on the two least levels of importance.
On professional administrative experience as a qualification for the teaching of ethics in a
typical educational administration and leadership programs, about 45% of the participants
reported that it was very important, while about 75% of the participants rated it on the two topmost levels of importance (4 and 5 scales).
We noted that 61.7% of the participants placed professional development in ethics
education on the two top-most scales as a qualification for the for teaching ethics in a typical
educational administration and leadership programs.
We see that 53.3% of the participants rated formal study of ethics in the two top-most
levels as a qualification for the teaching of ethics, 75% for professional administrative
experience, while professional development in ethics education was 61.6%. On the other hand,
18.3% rated formal study of ethics on two least scales (1 and 2 scales). 16.7% placed
professional development in ethics education on the same levels, while only 10% rated
professional administrative experience on the two least levels of importance.
Table 18
Importance of Qualifications for Teaching Ethics in a Typical Educational
Administration and Leadership Programs
25
.(Not Very Important) 1
2
3
4
(Very Important) 5
Total Respondents
Professional
Professional
administrative development in
Formal study
of ethics
experience
ethics education
4
6.7%
1
1.7%
4
10.0%
7
11.7%
5
8.3%
4
6.7%
17
28.3%
9
15.0% 12
21.7%
23
38.3% 18
30.0% 20
33.3%
9
15.0% 27
45.0% 17
28.3%
60
60
57
Involvement in ethics education by years of involvement. Table 19 shows time periods
that participants had been involved in teaching courses in the area of ethics education. We
observe that the greatest percentage of participants, 37.9%, indicated that they had been involved
with teaching courses in the area of ethics for less than five years, 36.2% reported that they have
been involved for between 5-10 years, 10.3% for between 11-15 years, and 8.6% reported that
their involvement had been for between 16-20 years.
In a follow up question, we asked the participants about their major specialty in teaching,
writing, and research besides ethics, most participants indicated that ethics was not their major
specialty. Among the areas indicated by participants were leadership, law, policy, curriculum
administration, administration, catholic education, planning, finance, organizational theory,
principalship, research, social justice, organizational culture, politics of education, and
superintendency to name a few.
Enjoyment of ethics education. We also asked participants about what they enjoyed
most about teaching ethics to people in educational leadership programs. As expected,
participants offered different remarks. One participant wrote, “Teaching ethics from a theoretical
perspective, and from that, having students determine the connections between their personal and
26
professional ethics.” Another stated, “I enjoy exploring where ethical ideas originate. How an
individual ethics impact how they treat and relate to those around them.”
Also in response to the question of what participants enjoy most about teaching ethics to
people in educational leadership programs, one noted, “The opportunity to make a major
contribution to their (students) development as individuals, professionals, and citizens –
introducing students to a whole new paradigm orientation that can significantly extend the utility
of their existing meta-organizers.” Another wrote, “Challenging our thinking! Uncovering the
real ethical issues that get buried in the economic and efficiency issues.” Additional comments
included, “providing diverse perspectives,” “reflection on present and past practices,” and “the
interest expressed by students in the topic.”
Table 19
How Long Participants Have Been Involved with Teaching Courses in Ethics
Less than 5 years
5-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
More than 20 years
Total Respondents
N
22
21
6
5
4
58
%
37.9%
36.2%
10.3%
8.6%
6.9%
Approaches used to facilitate ethics education. Table 20 shows participants opinion on
the most commonly used approaches to facilitate administrative or leadership ethics
courses/modules. The greatest percentage of the responses, 70.5%, indicated that participants
adopted the mixture of case study and principle-based approaches. While 13.1% marked case
studies, 8.2% reported ‘consideration and application of principles to situations,’ and 3.3%
27
indicated that they adopt another approach. Other approaches used to facilitate ethics
courses/modules included discussion of major critical theories and personal narrative.
In a follow up question, participants provided a variety of approaches which included
case studies, use of reflective activities, role playing, discussion of real-life situations, discussion
of major theories, and use of guest speakers that can talk about real ethical issues.
Table 20
Approaches to Facilitate Administrative or Leadership Ethics Courses/Modules
Case studies
Consideration and application of principles to situations
Mixture of case study and principle-based approaches
Another approach
Non applicable
Total Respondents
N
8
5
43
2
3
61
%
13.1%
8.2%
70.5%
3.3%
4.9%
Methods of instruction in ethics education. Table 21 shows the methods of teaching
leadership ethics that had generally been used in participants’ course(s). About 16.5% of the
responses indicated the use of lectures which had been followed by or interspersed with
discussion. We observe that 19.8% reported seminar or discussion groups, 17.30% reported
directed reading, and 14.8% have adopted the use of group projects. In is interesting to note that
14.4% of the participants reported students presentation, 9.7% use research papers. Seminar or
discussion groups seem to be the most commonly adopted method, followed by directed reading.
Research papers seem to be the least adopted method of teaching and learning in area of
leadership ethics. Participants also identified other methods of teaching and learning such as
aesthetic representation, case studies, ethics audit, games and simulations, ethical platforms,
28
journals, personal thinking, site interview with administrators, personal reflection, and personal
critical thinking.
In response to our question asking for an indication of themes and contents that have
resonated well with students in their learning about ethics, participants offered many themes,
such as: professionalism, dying places, ethical dilemma, equity and opportunity, diversity and
ethical relationship. Also noted were “Doing what the public wants or doing what’s right,”
foundationalism vs. relativism, human resources issues, use of paradigm, fairness and honesty in
teachers’ evaluation, justice, issues of ethics in finance, servant leadership, politics, and moral
compromise.
Participants are most enthusiastic about some renowned authors and most participants
pointed out that they had used a variety of source materials. A respondent wrote, “This one is
hard. I have variously used just about every one of the main folks out there – Starratt, Fullan,
Rebore, Maxcy, Kidder and others. None of these is really adequate for a variety of reason. I find
the most useful things are not so much from the ethics of school Admin world.” Nevertheless,
names such as Starratt, Shappiro, Stefkovich, Kidder, Perrow, Sergiovanni, Begley, and Beck
dominate participants’ lists of major authors. On major writers and/or researchers in the field of
applied and professional ethics (as pertains to educational leaders), a respondent noted, “While
I’ve read some who write in the field, and there are many who address the subject (more in
articles than in books). I prefer to rely on major writers in general as opposed to those in the
discipline.” Another respondent wrote, “I have used a range of individuals within and outside the
field … As a result, I have not presented to students individuals as major writers. Rather, I have
dealt with them as individuals providing different lenses and/or taking different stances towards
ethical analysis and ethical and moral leadership.” Participants however, identified both the
29
classic and recent writers in the field. Among the major classic writers identified by participants
were Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Jeremy Bentham, Stuart Mill, John Dewey, and
David Hume.
Table 21
The Methods of Teaching Ethics Used in Participants’ Course(s)
Lectures followed by or
interspersed with discussion
Seminar or discussion groups
Directed reading
Group projects
Student presentations
Research paper
Other
Not applicable
Total Responses (more than one
permitted)
N
%
39
47
41
35
34
23
15
3
16.5%
19.8%
17.3%
14.8%
14.6%
9.7%
6.3%
1.3%
237
Graduate student scholarship in ethics. Table 22 shows that a lesser percentage of the
participants, 25.9%, indicated that they had students who have undertaken theses or dissertations
related to ethics in the last three years.
Table 22
Responses on Whether Participants have Students Who Have Undertaken Major
Research Papers, Theses, or Dissertations Related to Ethics in the Last Three Years
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
N
15
43
58
%
25.9%
74.1%
30
Faculty scholarship in ethics education. Table 23 shows that 42.4% of the participants
claimed that they have been involved in scholarly activity related to ethics in educational
leadership during the last three years. In a follow up question that asks the type scholarly
activities that participants have been engaged during the last three years, participants indicated
articles, books, research in ethical issues, conference papers, presentations, teaching, and
dissertation supervision as their areas of involvement.
Table 23
Responses to Whether Participants Have Engaged in Scholarly Activity Related to
Ethics in Educational Leadership in the Last Three Years
Yes
No
Total
Respondents
N
25
34
59
%
42.4%
57.6%
31
Summary of Preliminary Findings from Survey of Faculty
In summary, observations by faculty agreed with the program administrators regarding
ethics education in educational administration programs with two notable exceptions. Whereas
program administrators reported that approximately three fourths of the faculty had engaged in
some form of scholarship in ethics, less than half the faculty (42.4%) reported that they were
active in research on ethics. Similarly, when program administrators were asked if students had
engaged in research on ethics (e.g., major research papers, theses, or dissertations), over half
(53.3%) reported that students had. However, when asked the same question, faculty reported
that only a quarter (25.9%) of their students had undertaken major research papers, theses, or
dissertations. Our observation that program administrators overestimate the extent of ethics
scholarship in their programs in comparison to their faculties merits further exploration.
The central purpose of the follow-up survey with faculty who were instructors of courses
in ethics, or courses that had ethics modules contained in them, was to explore the design and
delivery of ethics education within educational administration programs. Case studies, or some
other form involving the application of principles to specific situations, emerged as the
overwhelming preference expressed by instructors. Over ninety percent of the faculty
responding indicated that they planned their courses in this fashion. However, when reporting
their instructional methods (e.g., lectures, directed readings, discussions, student presentations,
etc.) the responses were much more varied. The five leading methods – lecture interspersed with
discussion, seminar and discussion, directed reading, and student presentations – ranged from
19.8% to 14.6% respectively. Similarly, no consensus emerged regarding preferred textbooks.
In summary, the survey of faculty who teach ethics in educational administration
programs confirmed observations by program administrators that interest in ethics continues to
32
grow. A slight majority (53%) were satisfied with the extent that ethics was being emphasized in
their programs, and participants’ comments revealed a high level of interest by students. A
strong majority of instructors expressed a preference for course designs and that stress
applications, such as case studies.
Content Analysis of Syllabi
We conducted content analysis of syllabi that respondents submitted in order to gain
further understanding into the scope of ethics courses and instructional methodologies utilized by
instructors for ethics education. While nineteen syllabi were submitted by respondents, two of
the syllabi were designed for courses in counselor education. Therefore, a total of 17 syllabi in
educational leadership were available for analysis. Eight of the syllabi described courses
designed solely for ethics, while nine of the syllabi were designed for courses with other
emphases. In general, the content analysis confirmed the observations made from both the
survey of the department heads/programs administrators and the survey of faculty.
The courses designed solely as ethics courses did not present a consensus for textbooks,
as only two authors were identified for the primary texts in more than one course (Ciulla and
Strike, Haller, and Soltis). Analysis of topics, however, revealed some degree of consistency in
the topics that are covered in the courses. Most of the courses include a strong background in
ethical theory, with a variety of ethical theories represented. Six of the eight courses include
readings excerpted from Plato, Aristotle, Mill, and Kant. Jesus of Nazareth, Aquinas, Noddings,
and Rawls also were found among the required readings in more than one course. In addition to
ethical theory, the courses emphasize ethical issues that educational leaders are likely to
encounter. Surprisingly, only two of the eight course syllabi indicated that professional ethical
codes receive close attention. The prevailing instructional methodologies, in order of frequency,
33
were discussion of readings, case studies, and individual reports. The case study approach
appeared to be oriented toward ethical decision-making, with strong emphasis upon the process
of validating ethical claims for decisions.
The majority of the syllabi that were analyzed came from courses that were not designed
expressly as ethics courses; but rather, they included a module on ethics. Of the nine syllabi in
this category, the primary content of the courses varied widely (e.g., introduction to leadership,
human resources, decision-making, and policy studies). Close examination of the primary texts,
supplementary readings, and course bibliographies for these courses did not reveal any titles that
deal primarily with ethics, suggesting that the study of ethics in these courses is informal.
Moreover, the proportion of the course allotted to the study of ethics, in comparison to other
modules listed, was less than ten percent. Of these nine courses, three made reference to
“issues” and “decision-making;” however, none made specific mention of professional codes. In
brief, the courses containing modules on ethics appear to be designed to heighten awareness of
ethical issues and the importance of ethical behavior; but they do not provide rigorous instruction
in ethical theory or a process for making ethical decisions.
Discussion
A notable limitation of our findings stems from a disappointing response to our
international survey. The international sample size was too small to allow for a comparative
analysis. However, the total number of respondents was sufficient to draw some comparisons
between the status of programs in the mid-1990’s and today. In this relatively short span of time,
ethics education has become more prevalent. As noted in our overview of historical
perspectives, the moral dimension of leadership is now acknowledged by numerous authors
(Willower, 1988; Shapiro & Smith-Rosenberg, 1989; Hodgkinson, 1991; Slater, 1991; and
34
Sergiovanni, 1992) and the preparation of leaders for school communities encompasses more
than managerial skills. Coincidentally, this theoretical shift in the conception of educational
administration has been accompanied by widely reported breaches of public trust in business and
government. These two influences together – increasing acceptance of leadership as a moral act
and frequent examples of moral lapse among high-profile leaders – provide some explanation for
greater attention to ethics education in programs that prepare school leaders. Beyond mere
confirmation of an increase in attention, however, our investigation sought to add more insight
into how extensive was the ethics education that future school leaders are now receiving.
While we observed that more programs include ethics education now than in comparison
to the mid-1990’s, the curriculum design remains haphazard. Most ethics education is infused
into existing courses, thus instruction in ethical theories and models for ethical decision-making
remains spotty. Moreover, we were not able to observe any trends for instructional methods or
materials other than a strong preference for case studies.
Content analysis of syllabi revealed that the courses designed primarily as ethics courses
provide a wide spectrum of ethical theory and decision-making process. However, the study of
ethics was much more informal when it was infused into other courses, and it did not appear to
be informed by readings in ethics or professional codes of ethics. Given that most of the ethics
education in administrator preparation programs is infused into courses that deal primarily with
other subjects, this contrast – the study of the discipline of ethics on the one hand and the
awareness of ethical issues on the other – merits further study.
Participants in both phases of our survey voiced agreement that professional experience
was the most important qualification for teaching ethics in administrator preparation programs,
although a substantial proportion considered professional development important. This
35
observation suggests a desire by those who are teaching ethics, whether as a separate course or as
part of another course, to provide more than a cursory treatment of the subject. The fact that so
many faculty who are teaching ethics have little or no formal preparation to do so should
encourage professional organizations to facilitate resource centers and professional development
opportunities.
Since our report is preliminary we are hesitant to elaborate on our findings in the form of
conclusions. Rather, we are re-directing future data collection in those areas where our findings
indicate a need for further exploration. Specifically, we will continue efforts to collect data for
our international sample for comparative purposes. In addition, we will be collecting more
course syllabi from instructors who teach courses that claim to include ethics but are not
primarily about ethics.
Conclusion
We began this investigation into the status of ethics education in educational
administration with two objectives. First, we intended to update Beck and Murphy’s study of
1997; and second, we hoped to add an international perspective to our description. The study
utilized mixed methods, consisting of a survey conducted in two stages (first with program
administrators and second with faculty who teach ethics courses) and content analysis of syllabi
of courses that participants in the study volunteered to submit.
While we found that the inclusion of ethics education is more prevalent in comparison to
observations reported by Beck and Murphy (1997), in most programs the delivery is integrated
into other courses. Case studies and other practical applications were reported as the preferred
methods for instruction. Moreover, faculty preparation to teach ethics remains undefined.
36
Therefore, the observation that most educational administration programs include ethics
education must be viewed in the context of widely ranging approaches.
Since ethics education in educational administration programs occurs most often in
courses where it is ancillary, the follow-up to this preliminary investigation necessarily must
focus on content analysis of the syllabi for these courses as much as courses dedicated primarily
to ethics. In addition, the next stage this investigation will focus more sharply on the formal
preparation of faculty to teach ethics, as well as their continuing professional development in
professional ethics.
Educational leadership is, essentially, a moral act. We hope our continued investigation
into the ethical education of future leaders of school communities will assist faculty and other
mentors in facilitating this aspect of their professional education.
37
References
Beck, L.G., & Murphy, J. (1997). Ethics in educational leadership programs: Emerging models.
Columbia, MO: The University Council for Educational Administration.
Campbell, R.F., Fleming, T., Newell, L.J., & Bennion, J.W. (1987). A history of thought and
practice in educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
Culbertson, J. (1988). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In N. Boyan (Ed.) Handbook of
Research in Educational Administration. (pp. 2-26). New York: Longman.
Crowson, R.L., & McPherson, R.B. (1987). The legacy of the theory movement: Learning from
the new tradition. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.) Approach to Administrative
Training in Education (pp. 45-64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Elias, J.L. (1989). Moral education: Secular and religious. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.
Farquhar, R. (1981). Preparing educational administrators for ethical practice. The Alberta
Journal of Education Research, 27(2), 192-204.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Norton, M.S., & Levan, F.D. (1987). Doctoral studies of students in educational administration
programs in UCEA member institutions. Educational Considerations, 14(1), 21-24.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, J.P., & Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1988). The “other voices” in contemporary ethical
dilemmas: The value of the new scholarship on women in the teaching of ethics.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(2), 199-211.
Silver, P.F. (1978). Trends in program development. In P.F. Silver & D.W. Spuck (Eds.)
Preparatory Programs for Educational Administrators in the United States (pp. 178201). Columbia, MO: The University Council for Educational Administration.
Slater, R.O. (1991). On some recent developments in educational administration. Organizational
Theory Dialogue, 1, 18-21.
Tyack, D.B., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America,
1920-1980. New York: Basic Books.
Willower, D.J. (1988). Synthesis and projection. In N.J. Boyan (Ed.) Handbook of Research on
Educational Administration (pp. 729-747). New York: Longman.
38
Appendix A
Ethics Education Study
Dear Colleague:
You are invited to participate in an investigation being conducted by Dr. Keith Walker, Department of
Educational Administration, University of Saskatchewan, and Dr. James Green, Center for Research on Ethics
and Values, Azusa Pacific University. We are inviting the participation of leader educators (in educational
leadership and administration programmes from a number of countries around the world. This project is
intended to compliment the past work of Beck and Murphy (1994, 1997) and similar a survey by Walker
(1994). It will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
As part of this study, we are asking you to complete one of two questionnaires:
1.
For Heads or Chairs of Departments of Educational Leadership, Management and/or
Administration: Survey of the current status of ethics education in educational leadership,
management and administration preparation programs
http://intercom.virginia.edu/SurveySuite/Surveys/EthicsEducation
2.
For Educational Leader Educators, at graduate level: Survey of the approaches, strategies,
curriculum and issues used by leader educators to integrate or directly facilitate ethics education for
their graduate students
http://intercom.virginia.edu/SurveySuite/Surveys/GraduateEthicsEducationStudy
If you are willing to participate in this study, please indicate your consent by pasting the URL (below) into your
browser (or by double clicking the link), completing the survey and submitting it to us:
Responses to this survey will be analyzed using mixed methods for purposes of describing the current status of
ethics education in educational administration preparation programs in English speaking nations.
Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary, and if you choose not to participate you may ignore this email message.
If you choose to terminate your participation part-way through the survey, please do so by exiting the survey web site. Please note that once the
submit button has been engaged, it is not possible to withdraw responses. No personally deleterious affects are expected from your decision to
participate, as the researchers have not designed the survey to identify individual respondents. We do plan to report direct quotations and would
ask that you keep this in mind when responding (i.e., you may wish to avoid providing identifiable data). The anonymity/confidentiality of
respondents and their institutions will be preserved by the researchers.
We will provide participants with an executive summary of our findings through our web site page (currently in
construction but address is: http://www.usask.ca/education/leadership/) or upon request (please e-mail us or indicate
your interest and contact information on the survey and we will put you on our distribution list). Further
information on the project is also found on this web site. The findings from this study will also be distributed via
publications and presentations. We welcome your further comments or interaction by e-mail.
This research protocol was approved by the University of Saskatchewan's Research Ethics Board (REB) on January
14th, 2005 (renewed January 3, 2006) and the Azusa Pacific University IRB on June 15th, 2005. If you have any
questions regarding your rights as a participant these can be addressed to the University of Saskatchewan REB at 1306-966-2084 (long distance participants may call collect).
Thank you for your anticipated willingness to be involved in this study. Jim and Keith
Keith Walker, Ph.D.
James E. Green, Ph.D
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada
Keith.Walker@Usask.ca
Azusa Pacific University
Azusa, California
USA
jegreen@apu.edu
Leadership for Knowledge Communities
by
Professor Larry Sackney
Larry.Sackney@Usask.ca
&
Professor Keith Walker
Keith.Walker@Usask.ca
University of Saskatchewan
28 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
CANADA S7N 0W0
Much has been written about the need for both schools and leadership to be
different from what they are today if we are to meet the challenges of a knowledge
society. The impact of globalization, new technologies, and the need for a well-educated
society has put pressure on educators to improve opportunities for student learning.
Various restructuring attempts have met with minimal success. The traditional
worldview of schooling, based on a mechanistic model, has not been able to meet the
needs for this transformation. Instead, we need an ecological view of the natural, social,
and educator orders; a turn toward community; the social aspects of learning; a concern
for professional learning; an understanding of social innovation, self-organization and
complexity; sustainable innovation; social networks; and an awareness of learning in the
face of mystery—each holds the promise of creating a better understanding of what
works and what should be given attention in schools in the 21st century.
For many years, we have been disturbed by the focus in school systems on
production, activity, and achievement rather than on learning. This has been especially
evident with the advent of high stakes testing, which has permeated the educational
landscape. Our contention is that this environment does not result in sustainable and
improved student achievement. We, along with others, have advocated a turn toward
learning community theory based on ecological and complexity perspectives.
In this paper, we explore some of these notions with reference to the development
of learning community models and leadership. During the past four years, we have been
studying school learning communities and how these schools get their work done, how
they transfer knowledge, how they evolve, the nature of leadership, and how
communities of practice have been sustained. We begin the paper by advocating a
paradigm shift from the dominant mechanistic worldview to ecological and complexity
perspectives. We then describe the concepts of learning communities and communities
of practice as a prelude to our understanding of sustainability and capacity building. In
the second section of this paper we describe the leadership findings that resulted from our
research studies.
The Paradigm Shift
Our views of the needed paradigm shift have been especially influenced by the
writings of Capra (2002, 1996) and Bohm (1980, 1985). The new concepts in physics
have brought about a profound change in how we view current theories of matter; from
the mechanistic worldview of Descartes and Newton to a holistic, ecological, and
complex view of school organizations.
Ecological Perspectives on School Organizations
Webster’s dictionary defines ecology as “a branch of science concerned with the
interrelationship of organisms and their environments, especially manifested by natural
cycles and rhythms, community development and structure, interaction between different
kinds of organisms, geographic distributions, and population alterations.” Under this
definition ecology refers to the totality of patterns, connections, relationships,
interactions, and mutual influences that emerge among people and the forces that impinge
on them. Capra (2002) saw this as an elemental process of all living systems, including
education.
The new paradigm based on an ecological worldview, sees the world and
organizations as an integrated whole rather than dissociated collection of parts (Capra,
1996). According to Capra, ecological awareness “recognizes the fundamental
interdependence of phenomena and the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are all
embedded in (and ultimately dependent on) the cyclical processes of nature” (p. 6). From
an ecological perspective, the world is not a collection of isolated objects, but is a
network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and interdependent.
This shift in perceptions and ways of thinking is not easy. It requires an
expansion not only of our perceptions and ways of thinking, but also of our values. In
our Western culture we have overemphasized self-assertion as opposed to integration
values. While neither is inherently good or bad, what we need is a dynamic balance.
Capra argued for a paradigm shift that includes a shift in social organizations as
hierarchies to that of networks (p. 10).
The ecological perspective has become called “systemic” and the way of thinking
implies “systems thinking.” We use ecological and systems thinking interchangeably.
Systems thinking or ecological thinking views organizations as connections,
relationships, and contexts. These living systems, “are properties of the whole, which
none of the parts have” (p. 29). Our world is not a world of distinct parts and separate
events but, instead, a world of connections, interrelationships, interdependencies,
systems, and mutual influences. It is a world, according to Capra, that emerges naturally
as living beings respond meaningfully to environmental shifts that have caught their
attention. It is a world, according to Bohm (1980), that must be viewed holistically
because what appears to be separate and distinct at one level becomes unified at another
level.
The scientific view during the 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th century was the
world as a clockwork model; the decisive changes came during the past three decades
when scientists recognized that nature is “relentlessly nonlinear.” Capra (1996) stated,
2
“The exploration of nonlinear systems over the past decades has had a profound impact
on science as a whole, as it has forced us to reevaluate some very basic notions about the
relationships between a mathematical model and the phenomena it describes. One of
those notions concerns our understanding of simplicity and complexity” (p. 123).
In the nonlinear world—which includes most of the real world—chaotic
behaviour can give rise to ordered structures. The behaviour of chaotic systems is not
random but shows a deeper level of pattern order (p. 123). For the scientific world the
notion of chaos has resulted in the indeterminacy of particles at a given moment. Both
Capra and Bohm have linked ecological systems to complexity theory.
Complexity Perspectives on School Organizations
The study of organizational complexity is not a new pursuit. Etzioni (1961) used
the construct of compliance to show how different compliance structures demonstrate
differing organizational variables: goals, power, interactions, decision making,
communications, socialization, recruitment, distribution patterns, cohesion, leadership,
and relationships with participants (p. xv). It is our view that complexity theory and its
analogies provide a helpful lens through which to make sense of schools (Wheatley,
1992; Oshry, 1996).
In his book, Managing the Unknowable: Strategic Boundaries between Order
and Chaos in Organizations, Stacey (1992) challenged the mainstream values entailed in
developing strategic directions which allege to share success through “stability, harmony,
predictability, discipline, and consensus [stable equilibrium]” (p. xi). Alternatively, he
argued for strategic directions for organizations through bounded instability, creativity,
emergent development, healthy tension and multiple perspectives.
Stacey shunned the use of control and the “illusory goal of stable equilibrium” (p.
8), especially in the context of unknowable futures. He reminded his readers of the
decline of organizations that restrict their energies to initiation, repetition, to stick to the
knitting orientations for the sake of safe-keeping and stability. Like Crabb (2004), Stacey
repeated the message of system analysts who point to the linearity fallacy which
mistakenly ignores the complexity, distance and indeterminacy of cause and effect links
(Stacey, 1992, p. 11). Nonlinear feedback systems allow major outcomes to proceed
from incidental and disproportionately small causes. The movement from chaos to order,
instability to stability, without cause-and-effect links that can be controlled but where
order emerges from processes of self-organization, are the order of the day. Stacey
believes that organizational leaders are helplessly preoccupied with predictability and that
they do not sufficiently account for unstable dynamics. Likewise, Streatfield (2001)
contested the myth of simplistic control with his thesis that “the essential function of
managers cannot be simply to control the paradoxical movement of continuity and
transformation, of the known-unknown, because it is impossible for any participant to be
in control . . . . [M]anagers are simultaneously ‘in control’ and ‘not in control’” (pp. 130131).
Management and leadership, as “being in control” is “simply one pole in the
paradoxical experience” (Streatfield, p. 132). Lipman-Blumen (1996) claimed that it is
the leader’s role to “bring meaning and coherence to the confusion of life. The best
leaders teach us increasingly complex layers of meaning that help us to integrate the twin
3
dialectics, individual and societal, between self and other” (p. 333). She argued that
“connective leaders can help us to integrate the societal dialectic between diversity and
interdependence” by interpreting and resolving those parallel tensions (p. 338).
Stacey contended that to equate excellence and stability is problematic and that
the purported causes of instability (incompetence and ignorance) are overly simplistic.
He stated,
Scientists have called this combination of specific unpredictability and qualitative
pattern chaos, fractal or strange. Only when a system operates in this chaotic,
fractal, far-from-equilibrium state is it continually creative in the sense that as its
behavior is automatically fed back into the rule that generates it, different
outcomes are always produced. Equilibrium states are ones of predicable
repetition that by definition exclude continuing creativity, while chaos is a state of
endless variety that is creativity. The tension generated by being pulled in
contradictory directions, the paradox of control and freedom leads to such
bounded instability and creativity. (Stacey, 1992, p. 55)
Stacey, Griffin, and Shaw (2000) have written about the dynamic interplay
of stability and change, continuity and novelty, and decay and generation (p. 12),
and have outlined five causal frameworks which explain and distinguish various
teleologies (the final cause phenomenon): secular natural law teleology, rationalist
teleology, formative teleology, transformative teleology, and adaptionist teleology.
They provide these distinctives to counteract the “reductionist, mechanistic thinking
and present a more holistic perspective in which the whole is more than the sum of
the parts, with both the whole and the parts following iterative, non-linear laws . . . .
living system . . .” (p. 17).
According to natural law teleology, the movement is toward the perfect,
hidden order through timeless universal laws that seek to align by conformity
(Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2000, pp. 26, 49). In rationalist teleology (Kantian
orientation), the change is a consequence of human choice to realize reasoned goals
with ethical universals designed by autonomous humans and their operationalized
motivations (pp. 26, 49). In the formative teleology, there is some unfolding selforganization towards a stage-wise sense of the preferred final state, based on rules
and principles (pp. 26, 49). In transformative teleology, there is a perpetual,
spontaneous and paradoxical self-organization consisting of both continuity and
radical transformation towards the novel and its iterative variations (pp. 49, 52).
And in the adaptionist teleology, there is the struggle of “chance-based competitive
search for optimality” with weak self-organization moving gradually from a stable
to an environmental adaptive state (pp. 49-54).
These teleologies become ways to understand and distinguish causal
frameworks. Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000) characterized systems theories as
holding “that the internal dynamics of a system, the form of the system, play a
major role in determining its behavior” (p. 66). For these authors, an “organization
is a process of joint action in which patterns in that action are both repeated to
preserve continuity and stability and at the same time opened up to create the
possibility of transformation, the truly novel” (p. 83). They were concerned that
some strains of systems thinking tend to objectify human interaction as a system to
4
the exclusion of human freedom. They were interested in knowing how people get
their work done in spite of boundaries, constraints, and coping with the unknown.
Stacey et al. argued that “humans can identify leverage points and stay in control”;
whereas chaos theory models suggest that “long-term cannot be predicted, making
it impossible for humans to stay in control” (p. 91). They summarize the view that
“chaos theory shows how particular control parameters, determined outside the
system, cause its behavior to move toward a particular state space called an attractor
[global patterns of behavior displayed by a system]” (pp. 86-87).
Based on the above perspectives, we turn our attention to schools as learning
communities and places of communities of practice. These perspectives, it has been
argued, are compatible with learning community theory and practice (Mitchell &
Sackney, 2000; Walker & Sackney, in press).
Schools as Learning Communities
During the past number of year’s considerable research on learning
community characteristics have identified some commonly occurring
characteristics. The first characteristic is that learning communities have shared
vision, values, and goals (DuFour, 1996; Huffman & Hipp, 2003; Mitchell &
Sackney, 2000). This condition provides direction and alignment for educational
activity because it contains a compelling image of the type of learning environment
desired by the people in the school. The vision must be embedded in the hearts and
minds of people throughout the school, and this vision has to be shared and
understood by all in the learning community.
A second characteristic is that learning communities have a collaborative
work culture (Huffman & Hipp, 2003; Harris, 2002; Sackney et al., 2005). In this
type of culture, educators not only learn from one another, but they also enable the
development of “socially distributed knowledge, whereby individual knowledge
bases become part of the collective discourse and expand the professional capacity
of the entire team” (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000, p. 60).
The collaborative culture leads to a third characteristic and that is that
learning communities are places where collective learning and shared understanding
exist (DuFour & Eaker, 1996; Sackney et al., 2005). This type of environment
builds a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) where mutual obligations become
the basis of continued learning.
The generation of shared understandings and collective learning depends on
a fourth characteristic: a focus on reflective practice and experimentation (DuFour
& Eaker, 1996; Harris, 2002; Sackney et al., 2005). The development of a learning
community invites educators to constantly examine their practices, to seek out and
experiment with new methods, and to reflect on the outcomes of the
experimentation. Consequently, in such cultures one finds numerous action
research projects that result in a climate of ongoing renewal and improvement.
The presence of knowledge systems and data-based decision making is a
fifth characteristic (Conzemious & O’Neill, 2001; DuFour & Eaker, 1996; Sackney
5
et al., 2005). In learning community schools, data are collected on a wide array of
measures and converted into meaningful information so that teaching and learning
can be improved. Without data, improvement is virtually impossible.
A sixth characteristic is that learning communities are also communities of
leaders (Sackney & Mitchell, 2005; Speck, 1999). Such a configuration ensures
that there is collective learning and a shared construction of meaning. Within a
community of leaders, many people share the tasks that shape school direction,
construct meaningful knowledge, and model appropriate values and action.
Finally, in order for any learning community to survive and flourish, a
culture of high trust has to exist. If we are to bring profound improvement to a
school, trust is a critical factor. As Mitchell and Sackney (2000) state, “Without
trust, people divert their energy into self-protection and away from learning. Where
trust is lacking, people will not take the risks necessary to move the school forward”
(p. 49). Rosenholtz (1989), Hopkins (2001), and Stoll and Fink (1996) concluded
that dysfunctional school cultures prevent school improvement from occurring.
In summary, schools that operate as learning communities have a different
culture and different teaching and learning conditions than do traditional schools.
As Sergiovanni (2005) stated, “Learning communities have faith in the craft
knowledge and wisdom of those closest to the classroom. They are on constant
lookout for new learning opportunities as ways to expand what they know and can
do. They believe in collaboration and view learning as a professional obligation”
(p. 31, emphasis in the original). In conclusion, learning communities have
developed the capacity for learning to occur and this belief is engrained in everyone
who comes in contact with the school.
Communities of Practice in Schools
The collaborative culture of learning communities build environments of
professional and community practice. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) said
that “communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in
this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). They asserted that “over time
they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common
knowledge, practices and approaches” (p. 5). Wenger et al. indicated that “It is not
communities of practice themselves that are new, but the need for organizations to
become more intentional and systematic about managing knowledge and give this
age-old structure a new central role in the business” (p. 6).
Through the attention to the importance of social theory of learning, Wenger
(1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) viewed learning as both individual and social.
Communities of practice were viewed as being natural in organizations, and, if
fostered and cared for, they become building blocks where knowledge is gathered,
enriched, and discovered. Communities of practice provide high levels of added
value to the organization because they become areas of continuous stewardship and
application of knowledge.
According to Wenger (1998), a social theory of learning must integrate the
components necessary to characterize social participation as a process in learning
6
and knowing: Meaning (our ability to experience our life and the world as
meaningful); practice (the shared historical and social resources and perspectives
that can sustain mutual engagement); community (the social configuration in which
our enterprises action are defined as worth pursuing and our participation is
recognized as competence); identity (how learning changes who we are and creates
personal histories in the context of our communities). Consistent with the
ecological and complexity perspectives, communities of practice provide learning
spaces for participation among individuals, communities, and organizations.
Wenger’s interpretations of social theories of learning are based on four axes of
influence:
1. The axis of social structure and situated experience (which reflects
tension between the institutional and every day practice);
2. The axis of practice and identity (which reflects tension between social,
every day activities and individual markers of membership);
3. The axis of collectivity and subjectivity (which reflects tension between
what tends to be global and what tends to be the experience of
subjectivity); and
4. The axis of power and meaning (which reflects tension between
collective search for meaning and individual search for meaning).
Wenger contended that the design of a school’s learning architecture should
generate a combination of engagement (wherein physical and virtual spaces, joint
tasks, availability for help, boundary and various degree encounters, initiative,
accountability and tools); imagination (which provides orientation, meaning,
reflection, representations, patterns, comparisons, exploration, play and
simulations); and alignment (which is expressed as convergence, common focus,
cause, interest, coordination, methods, boundaries, jurisdiction, policies, processes
and conflict resolution).
In conclusion, school leaders need to give attention to and foster
participation in dynamic social learning that is characterized by engagement,
imagination, and alignment to the shared purposes of the learning community.
Concepts and Disciplines of Community
In thinking about building schools as communities, Sergiovanni (1996) has
used Tonnies (1957) concepts of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. According to
Sergiovanni, Tonnies argued that as society moves toward the gesellschaft state,
community values are replaced by contractual relationships. In gesellschaft,
rational will is the motivating force. Individuals decide to relate to each other
because they see some goal or benefit from the relationship, the emphasis is on the
"I". In gemeinschaft, natural will is the motivating force. Individuals relate to each
other because of intrinsic meaning and significance. The focus is on the "we." Our
contention is that if we are to build schools as learning communities, then we need
to foster more gemeinschaft notions, because trust is much more likely to exist in
gemeinschaft organizations (Walker, Shakotko, & Pullman, 1998). Gesellschaft
7
may offer efficiencies and scientific amenability, but not community. School
communities need to be seen as fragile ecosystems, comprised of a complex
network of relationships, bound in purpose toward learning – at individual and
social levels – in ways that last, improve and result in high quality outcomes for all.
Gemeinschaft communities are much more aligned to the eco-system features that
we believe are features of exemplary schools.
Sustainability and Capacity Building
Over the last decade, the literature has moved beyond Senge’s (1990) five
disciplines to notions of sustainability, capacity building, discourse, and social
networking as key elements of a learning community. We use a modified definition
of sustainability provided by Fullan (2005) and Hargreaves and Fink (2005). Fullan
defined sustainability as “the capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of
continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose” (p. ix).
Hargreaves and Fink, on the other hand, defined sustainability as “leadership and
improvement [that] preserves and develops deep learning for all that spreads and
lasts, in ways that do no harm to and indeed create positive benefit for others
around us, now and in the future” (p. 17). For these authors, sustainability means
more than whether something lasts. It also implies “how particular initiatives can
be developed without compromising the development of other initiatives in the
surrounding environment,” (p. 17) and the idea of sustainability is inherently moral.
But, for us, it also implies that when an initiative is implemented, the targeted
members continually learn from their experiences, and they continue to develop
capacity in what they are attempting to change. In our earlier work (Sackney,
Walker, & Hajnal, 1999, Hajnal, Walker & Sackney, 1998), we called this
institutionalization and routinization (words which betray the limitations of our
former mechanistic perspectives and biases).
Capacity building involves developing individual and collective ability such
that disposition, skills, knowledge, motivation, and resources are available for
future change and action. Where there is limited or no capacity, it is difficult to
bring about any change. When professional staff in schools have had positive
experience with change, they are more likely to engage in future change (Fullan,
2005). Where the disposition, skills, knowledge, motivation, and resources are
lacking, capacity for change is limited.
Schools operating under mechanistic or clockwork assumptions are not
organized to foster learning, but rather to cultivate compliance (see Etzioni, 1963).
The bell and timetable are two powerful organizing mechanisms, as are curriculum
guides and examinations. In these typified environments, teachers teach and
students are expected to master the content and then regurgitate the information on
an examination. We call this the transmissional mode of instruction.
Unfortunately, the traditional approach is not suitable nor sustainable for the
knowledge society. Hargreaves (2003) argued, “instead of fostering creativity and
ingenuity, more and more school systems have become obsessed with imposing and
micromanaging curricular uniformity” (p. 1). He contended that in a knowledge
society deep cognition, ingenuity and invention, and creativity and responsiveness
are the gold standard.
8
The transmissional mode operates from the assumptions of a deficit capacity
model (“half empty” way of viewing the world). According to this approach, if a
student can’t learn then he/she needs to be fixed. The capacity building model
(“half full” way of viewing the world), by contrast, takes a more sustainable view of
teaching and learning. It assumes that learning differences are not deficits but are
actually different pathways to learning and that different learning strategies may be
required. Earlier, Scheffler (1990) hoped to release us from the bonds of the myths
of fixed, harmonious, and valuable potentials. His concern was that embracing
these myths reduced the work of facilitating learning to imputing narrow
trajectories on all human potential and trivializing people by making realization of
potential merely a technological and efficiency question. The notions of
complexity and ecology tell us that these old “quick fix” perspectives are unworthy
and misleading approaches to our educational efforts.
Arguing against the fixed potentiality view, Scheffler claimed that “both
what people are and what they in fact turn out to be are contingent, to a calculable
extent, on human intention, both individual and social, bounded only by available
resources and the limits of ingenuity”(p. 11). We know that similar inputs do not
result in similar outcomes. Instead, we need to find social mechanisms to make
educational policies and implement practices that at once provide liberty to all but
do not disadvantage the least capable (those who are lower achievers). Scheffler
argued that the myth of uniformly valuable potential stipulates both positive and
negative potential valiances (incompatible and negative potential). It is not true that
everyone will make equal contributions to learning communities (or eventually to
society as a whole). Indeed, the educational ecosystem hosts diverse, complex, and
dynamic entities.
Communicative Interactions
The ecological perspective view stipulates that educational systems are not
merely naturally occurring phenomena but are constructed by human beings. The
complexity perspective adds that the constructions of human beings are not
predictable and that external forces jointly work with humans to cause situated
constructions. What this implies is that educational systems are personally and
collectively constructed reality, from which other realities are possible but not
necessarily predictable. As such, constructivist learning theory positions
knowledge as emerging from a dynamic interplay between personal and
interpersonal sense-making processes. Knowledge construction occurs within a
network of collective understandings and culturally derived limits. Constructed
knowledge connects back to the learners’ real world, it is meaningful within their
culture and experience, and is different for every learner.
Constructing educational learning systems from an ecological perspective
requires careful and persistent attention to the “processes and patterns of
organization of living systems” (Stacey, 2001, p. xvii). Stacey claimed that
meaning emerges from local communicative processes, along with freedom of
human choice and intention within “the conflicting constraints of power relations.
Knowing is, therefore, the process of communicative interaction” (p. 163). He
reiterated the transformative teleological position that “making sense of
9
organizational life requires attending to the ordinary, everyday communicative
interacting between people at their own local level of interaction . . . because it is in
this process that the future is being perpetually constructed as identity and
difference” (p. 163). Streatfield (2001) said that through communicative interaction
“members of an organization are perpetually creating its future . . .[by] creating the
movement of an organization . . . as patterns of interconnected actions characterized
by continuity and transformation . . .[and thereby] reproduce the identity of their
organization” (p. 130). Bhaktin (as cited in Stacey et al., 2000) argued that
all social phenomena are constructed in the ongoing dialogical
relationships between people. He stressed the multiplicity of
discourse, symbolizing practices and speech genres that are to be
found in any culture. Language in simultaneously structuring and
being structured by people so that individuals are not simply the
effects of social relations, nor are social relations simply the sum of
individuals. He stressed the unpredictable and unfinished nature of
dialogue and its capacity to produce the novel. (p. 174)
Communicative interactions are necessary for organizational
learning (or what we call learning communities) to occur. Koffman and
Senge (1993) described learning organizations as "spaces for generative
conversations and concerted action, where people can talk from their hearts
and connect with one another in the spirit of dialogue . . . [to create] a field
of alignment that produces tremendous power to invent new realities . . . and
to bring about these new realities in action" (p. 16). For learning to occur,
they contend that learning organizations must be grounded in three
foundations: a culture based on transcendent human values; a set of
practices for generative conversation and coordinated action; and a capacity
to see work and life intertwined (p. 11). Kim (1993) characterized
organizational learning as "dependent on individuals improving their mental
models" (p. 44). In other words, we must make explicit our views of the
world and work, and, in turn, understand others views. Individual
frameworks become embedded in the world view of the organization
(Hajnal et al., l998). In order to sustain and encourage learning, the leaders
need to be learners themselves (Argyris, 1993). Leaders can influence the
restructuring by modeling the desired learning behaviours and by valuing
the search for new ideas. In a similar vein, Sergiovanni (1996) argued for
leadership as pedagogy. "When leadership as pedagogy is practiced,
principals . . . exercise their stewardship responsibilities by committing
themselves to building, serving, caring for, and protecting the school and its
purposes" (p. xvi). Leadership as pedagogy calls the school staff to a higher
level of commitment, effort, and quality.
In creating quality communities of interaction, Senge (l995) argued that
learning communities must provide spaces for generative conversations and
concerted action. In them, language functions as a device for connection, invention,
and coordination. In communities, people talk from their hearts and connect with
10
one another in the spirit of dialogue. When people talk and listen to each other they
create a field of alignment that produces synergy to invent new realities and put
them into action. The synergy comes from the quality of relationships that result
from the dialogue.
Isaac (1999, p. 69) said there are four fragmented pathologies that create
barriers to individual and social relations: abstraction, idolatry, certainty, and
violence. He suggested that “paying attention to the details of our experiences” (p.
56) will help us to displace abstraction. Idolatry, which he understands to be the
problem of false or distorted memory, may be helped by appreciating the unfolding
patterns of reality (emerging from implicate order) and seeing potential (p. 63).
Isaac believes that certainty keeps us bound from reflecting and impairs our
awareness of gaps and making adjustments to the status quo. Finally, he cited the
violent tendency people have to be defensive and the propensity to impose our ways
and thinking on others with undue force. Instead, we need to understand the
principle of coherence (i.e., “we learn that things fit together in ways we could not
have understood or imagined,” p. 69). Dialogue, for Isaac, is “the profound
capacity to listen” (p. 83), to honour and respect the legitimacy of others (pp. 110,
111), to “suspend our opinion and the certainty that lies behind it (p. 134), and
expressing our authentic voice to transform circumstances (pp. 159-160).
In learning communities and communities of practice, there are pathologies
and structures that can and do hinder our actions and conversations from the ideals
of reflective and generative dialogue (Isaac, p. 261). Isaac called the leaders of
dialogue “convenors” because they help create the space for exchanges, facilitate
conversations and work to sponsor the positive aspects of individual and collective
“inner ecologies” (p. 301). This is accomplished by cultivating organizational and
system dialogue through democratic and energy producing networks. Cross and
Parker (2004), in describing their work with analysis of social networks, concluded
that “energy lives in a sweet spot in five dimensions of conversations or group
problem-solving sessions: a compelling goal, the possibility of contributing, a
strong sense of engagement, the perception of progress, and the belief that the idea
can succeed” (pp. 57-58). These authors, and others, believe that relational capital
is key to individual and organizational performance and that the role of the leader is
crucial to these community dynamics (Albrecht, 2006; Starratt, 2003; Arnett &
Arneson, 1999; Drath, 2001).
In this section we have distinguished between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft
expressions of schools as communities. We argued that school community
members will enhance the quality of their lives and learning together by being
mindful of sustainability factors, capacity building initiatives, and healthy patterns
of communication.
What We Have Seen in Exemplary Schools
In the sections to follow, we review some of our research findings from the
last number of years to provide some empirical insights to the conceptual and
perspectivist notions conveyed in the first section of this paper.
11
Early Insights from Our Research
In earlier studies (Sackney et al., 1998; Hajnal et al., 1999), we sought to see
whether school improvement initiatives could be institutionalized and, if so, how?
The basic idea was that if we could better understand the conditions under which
school improvement initiatives become institutionalized there would be obvious
benefits for students, professionals, communities, and taxpayers. As our study
progressed, we became more and more interested in the extent and manner in which
schools involved in a restructuring initiative exhibited elements of the learning
community. This then led us to see schools in more organic, holistic, and complex
ways.
Seven elements of pedagogical effectiveness stood out in all phases of our
research, particularly at the classroom level:
1. High expectations were held by students, parents, community and
professionals for student academic performance and social behaviour;
2. Productive learning environments were sought in all expressions of
effective learning communities;
3. A wide variety of teaching and learning strategies were used by teachers
to motivate and foster communication of ideas and processes;
4. Clear (talked about) teaching and learning goals were agreed to by
students, parents and teachers, for individuals, for classrooms of students
and teachers, and for school-level activities;
5. Student progress was monitored, fed-back, and appropriate educational
design decisions were made, based on the data;
6. Curriculum requirements, teaching and learning activities, and testing
were aligned with each other; and
7. There was a focus on academics at every turn in the life of the school.
School development was another element that emerged from our studies.
While others might call this organizational learning or community-building, we
were able to identify a number of indicators or elements that were common to
schools that were successful in institutionalizing school improvement initiatives.
The nine key elements appeared to be interconnected and expressed in many
different forms of school life:
1. Caring climate;
2. Shared vision and common superordinate values held by students,
parents and school staff;
3. Strong collaborative culture;
4. Systematic planning and evaluation of school activities and
improvement initiatives;
5. Constructive problem-solving;
6. Dialogue amongst parents, teachers and students with respect to quality
pedagogy;
7. Positive relations with those beyond the immediate school setting;
8. Shared decision-making, where results of decisions would pertain; and
12
9. Effective interpersonal communications, including a culture of working
through difficulties and conflicts.
Our research also pointed to a component that we have called “Ecological
Mastery.” These were attitudes and thinking processes displayed in common by
effective school communities:
1. Willing and creative learners; people who were constantly looking for or
making opportunities for developing their personal and professional
competence;
2. People who led by doing; not just saying;
3. Disposition among professional staff, but also including parents and
students, that the work of the school was a team effort and that each
person had roles essential to the collective success;
4. Disciplined attention to purpose and goals;
5. Demonstrated respect for persons, a transparency (what you see is what
you get), and an attitude that accepted people despite differences; and
6. Meaningful and timely support in terms of resources and/or
encouragement seemed to be always available for those taking initiatives
that would ultimately support the common good.
Symbiotic relationships also characterized effective schools. Generative
relationships amongst people were common to all the effective schools where we
saw learning communities existing. If, symbiosis has to do with the “habitual living
together of organisms of different species [and] usually refers to the relationship
benefiting at least one participant and harming none,” then we think this notion
offers a metaphor for learning communities. The qualities that characterized
symbiotic relationships in the learning communities that were linked and interconnected to the three other components in this framework (pedagogical
effectiveness, school development, ecological mastery) seemed to be central to or
essential to the life-blood of the community
Trust provided the synergy by which pedagogical effectiveness, school
development, and ecological mastery converged. Without trust, the other elements
are not possible. It seemed to be prized and was considered crucial to the
generative efforts of building community. Where trust was high, people served
others, as co-owners, in ways that mattered and that were sensitive to the larger
goals. In Etzioni’s (1996) terms, we saw voluntary order and bounded autonomy in
action.
Formal and informal leadership in the school tended to provide moral
purposes. These purposes included: education of children and providing for their
best interests, but also made room for schools to be sacred, safe places for imperfect
people. In learning community schools we saw evidence of the school as an
authentic and accepting community. Palmer (1998) reminded us that not only are
communities “outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace” but they are
“spaces in which the community of truth is practiced” (p. 90). Carter (1998, p. 280)
argued that “civility requires a commitment to live a common moral life” in the
13
context of community norms. As a result, “we must come into the presence of our
fellow human beings with a sense of awe and gratitude” (p. 281). Learning
communities can provide the moral purpose, and encourage members to build their
own capacities by showing the same civility and purpose in other systems.
Learning communities also serve as places for synchronicity. Following
Jung (1969), Jaworski (1998), and Senge (1990, 1995) each learning community we
observed experienced an “acausal connecting principle” –a “peculiar principle
active in the world so that things happen together somehow and behave as if they
were the same, and yet for us they are not” (Jung, p. vii). Perhaps this is another
way of saying that schools are complex and require that we use ecological ways of
understanding the phenomena of learning.
We view the elements of pedagogical effectiveness, school development,
and ecological mastery as interconnected. Each of the indicators of pedagogical
effectiveness is synergistically tied to other qualities of pedagogical effectiveness.
These elements build upon or erode each other. The same could be said for the
elements of ecological mastery and school development components. As these
elements connect, there is a synergistic effect that leads to the symbiotic
relationships in the schools. Where schools are stuck, we suggest “doing” the right
thing ought to be complimented by “being” the right sort of community.
As previously indicated, the learning community is a dynamic place where
people collaboratively seek out new information, resolve outstanding and emerging
problems, and engage in an active process of knowledge construction and
professional development. It also recognizes that organizational learning (a
process) and learning community (a metaphor) are closely intertwined.
Our Ongoing Research Findings
During the past four years we have been studying learning communities.
We have been particularly interested in the characteristics and models of learning
community schools, leadership, and how knowledge management works in such
schools. Some 140 schools from two provinces in Canada participated in various
phases of the study. We utilized a mixed methodology: surveys, interviews, focus
groups, participant observation, and document analyses. From the vast amount of
data we have been able to identify some principles and attributes that underlie
successful development and effective extension of learning communities (Mitchell
& Sackney, in press). In the first part we review some of the principles behind
learning community schools and in the second part we describe the attributes of
these schools.
Learning community principles. The first principle, deep respect, is the
foundation of all engagement and for all other principles. Deep respect positions
every member in the learning community as a valued participant in the life of the
school. This does not mean conflicts and differences never emerge, but dialogue
that results protects the dignity and self-respect of the other.
Collective responsibility, the second principle, encourages all staff members
to take responsibility for all students in the school. Collective responsibility
extends to parents and the community—the orientation is that it takes a whole
14
village to educate the child. It is the principle that compels individuals to
acknowledge their own mistakes, and to learn from the experience.
A third principle is the appreciation of diversity. Differences are viewed as
the core values of the school. This principle acknowledges the need for diverse
teaching styles and avenues of growth, thereby stretching the professional repertoire
beyond the usual, habitual, or comfortable practice.
A fourth principle, problem-solving orientation, is used to shape
engagement. Acting on this principle allows people to remain flexible and to
tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty that accompany extensive experimentation and
ongoing change. This is the principle that encourages people to ask questions about
the nature of their practice and the effects of their practice, and to create a climate
of continuous improvement in the classrooms and school-wide.
Finally, the fifth principle is positive role modeling. According to this
principle, each moment is viewed as a learning moment and it encourages everyone
to think about what they are learning at that moment. It also supports the
development of distributed leadership, which is necessary to develop a culture of
growth and development.
We contend that sustained engagement with an idea is critical for deep
change and leadership provides the coordination and coherence for teaching and
learning improvement.
When school staffs endorse the learning community theory their beliefs
tended to reflect their behaviours. We know that behaviour changes first and
beliefs second. In the learning community schools school staffs had made that
transition.
Learning community characteristics. A powerful influence on the way
people learn in high capacity learning community schools is the quality of
relationships that exist (Sackney & Mitchell, 2005; Sackney, Walker & Mitchell,
2005). When quality relationships existed among the learning community
participants, the members were more connected to the teaching and learning
activities. The interactions were of a higher quality, resulting in a systems thinking
perspective (Senge, 1990). Students were more socially, emotionally and
cognitively engaged in the school (Fredicks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
In high capacity learning community schools, the staff developed shared
understanding by focusing their classroom, hallway, and staffroom conversations
on teaching and learning, by sharing instructional strategies, by taking collective
responsibility for student learning, by focusing the school vision on student
learning, by encouraging innovation, and by taking generative leadership roles
aimed at enhancing student learning (Sackney et al., 2005). In these schools, we
observed a high level of energy, enthusiasm, and excitement—they felt fortunate to
be a part of an exciting educational enterprise.
It was common practice in these schools for teachers to reflect on their own
practice, to assess the value of educational alternatives, and to discuss professional
practice regularly. We observed intentional and systematic reflection about
managing knowledge meaning. Many of the teachers engaged in action research
and consistently looked for best practice in a given area. Moreover, there was a
tendency to use classroom and school-wide data for monitoring progress.
15
Organizational resources were adequate in the high capacity learning
community schools, including technological, curricular, library, facility, and
human. What was important was that the human resources were configured in such
a way as to maximize interaction and that resulted in high identity with the school.
Moreover, leadership was practiced in ways that empowered others to take action to
improve the teaching and learning function in the school.
Staff in high capacity learning community schools kept current on the latest
research on teaching and learning. When they encountered problems, they tended
to examine what research had to say about that particular issue. Staff were also
active learners and “communities of practice” were common (Wenger, 1998). In
this way, tacit knowledge was converted into explicit knowledge (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1996).
There were greater opportunities for staff, students and parents to learn.
There was explicit attention paid to the intended curriculum, the implemented
curriculum, and the attained curriculum (Marzano, 2003). Failed initiatives were
seen as learning opportunities and innovation was encouraged and supported.
Numerous opportunities were provided for students to learn through after school
programs, tutoring, mentoring, and collaborative efforts.
Interactive instruction was a common practice in these schools. When
curriculum has relevance for students, they are more likely to be motivated
(Watkins, 2005). Teachers in high capacity learning community schools tended to
peak students interest and abilities by making links to experiences found in the real
world or what we have called “authentic curricula” (Sackney et al., 2005).
Teachers created “open spaces for student learning” (Parker, 1998) by utilizing a
variety of ways of connecting with students and by making a greater attempt to find
out what motivated students to learn. They provided greater flexibility in student
projects and encouraged students to take on more learning risks.
Learner engagement was high in these schools. That is, emotional,
behavioural and cognitive engagement in these schools was higher compared to low
engagement capacity schools (Sackney et al., 2005). In the successful schools,
there was close monitoring of student homework, and parents were regularly
informed of student progress. We also noted student time on task to be higher in
learning community classrooms. Classes started on time and students were
monitored in their use of time.
In the high capacity learning community classrooms and schools, students
reported a feeling of “learning flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Participants
expressed a sense of accomplishment and a feeling of learning becoming easier and
more effective. There appeared to be a sense of community and coherence in the
teaching and learning practices in these schools.
In the high capacity learning community classrooms, there was a shift from
a focus on transmission to construction and co-construction (Watkins, 2005)
teaching approaches. In these classrooms more effort was expanded on student
sense making and providing students with learning choices. Furthermore, in these
classrooms we noted an increased opportunity for student voice and a diminishing
of the teacher voice.
16
These schools and classrooms exhibited high expectations for student
achievement and behaviour. Caring teachers expected students to do well and they
worked with students so that they could experience success. Further, teachers in
these schools did not give up on students. Instead, they provided a learning
environment that supported student learning success.
Another feature we noted in the high capacity learning classrooms and
schools were the networks of relationships. Social networks constituted a valuable
source for knowledge acquisition (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000). We found that the
strength of ties was influenced by the intensity of contact, and reciprocity of
influence. Ties were also influenced by the degree of similarity, in relation to
demographics, proximity, and affiliation. Strong ties provided safety,
predictability, and security. They helped to build an affective environment that
yielded belonging and trust. However, strong ties tended to contribute to a
conserving trend in schools. By contrast, weak ties provided information that the
individual or others in the network of strong ties did not have. We concluded that
both types of ties were necessary to enhance the knowledge processes.
Sustainable leadership. From our studies, we concluded that learning
communities are characterized by distributed leadership and by strong leadership
from the principal. The direct involvement of the principal is central to the
successful development of a culture and a set of systems that sustain a community
of learners. Without focused and continuous attention from the school principal, we
discovered that efforts to build a learning community flounder. By contrast, in
schools where the principals stay invested in the process, teaching and learning took
center place in the minds of school people (Mitchell, Sackney & Walker, 2004).
The principals’ involvement, we discovered, unfolds through the performance of
four functions: (a) Center, (b) Holder of the Vision, (c) Builder, and (d) Role
Model.
The center function places the school principal at the hub of school
operations and activities. It requires the principal to know the people in the school
and community, to know what is happening in the school on a daily basis, and to
know how teaching and learning are progressing for groups and for individuals.
While this appears to be an immense task, we found many of these principals were
deeply knowledgeable about the people, processes, and progress in their school.
In the high capacity learning community schools the principal’s hand was
visible in guiding the vision-building process and sustaining a vibrant, viable vision.
As one principal put it, “Somebody has to know where this ship is going, and if I
don’t, who does?” The substance of the school vision was student centered and the
school’s role was to provide the kind of education that helps all students to be
successful.
In most of the learning community schools we observed, the school
principals began by building structures that brought staff members together, such as
subject and grade teams for planning and decision making, and professional
learning teams connected to curriculum and instruction. These structures were used
as platforms for building common understandings about educational matters and
professional practice. Further, these principals stayed abreast of what was
happening in the various networks.
17
Although we saw many principals talking about learning communities, those
who were most successful in creating a learning community were those who served
as role models with respect to good teaching strategies, effective collegial
processes, respectful treatment of students, and using data as the basis for
improvement. The confluence of their words and actions showed staff, students,
and parents the types of values, principles, behaviors, dispositions, and discourses
that promote good teaching and learning.
Sustainable Leadership for Learning
The notion of deep ecology when applied to educational systems implies an
appreciation of dynamic connections, relationships, and mutual influences that
impinge on teaching and learning. Ecological and complexity perspectives requires
a shift in language so that meaning, patterns, purposes, influences, and
relationships become the primary terms and focus of conversations. Educators, for
example, might ask the question, “What does this learning experience mean to these
learners? How does it connect to their lives?” This type of language values the
learner and honors the deep connection between life and learning.
These shifts of perspective radically alter the focus from distinct parts of an
educational event or system to thinking about holistic representations. This shift in
focus acknowledges that individuals are not islands onto themselves and that people
mutually influence one another. These perspectives also acknowledge that shifts in
one part of the system cause disturbances in other parts of the system.
These perspectives also imply that shifts in language and focus must be
accompanied by fundamental perceptual changes. For educators, it requires a
perception of learning as the center of everything. For us, teaching and learning are
integrated processes, and it makes no sense to think of one without thinking of the
other. We argue that, if learning has not occurred, then teaching has not happened.
When teachers and students learn, one senses excitement rather than boredom. In
most schools, people work and study in isolation and the focus seems to be
production rather than about learning. The ecological and complexity perspectives
focus the attention on what the children and teachers are noticing and how they are
responding. The required perceptual shift is to recognize that, in spite of all the
rhetoric about learning, educators and students do not really see learning as a life
process that brings energy and excitement into their lives. Leaders in exemplary
schools sustain these kinds of behaviour and mind shifts.
Leadership provides the source of lateral capacity building. By providing
the connections and being mindful of communications and relationships with other
parts of the system, principals can enhance the knowledge capacity of their school
staff. We agree with Heifetz and Linsky (2002) that principals need to be present,
simultaneously, on the dance floor and on the balcony and that they must recognize
that the solution to improving teaching rests with the teachers. Principals, in our
view, must see the school community as a living, chaordic, and complex eco-system
(Hock, 1999).
Bateson (1973) had similarly discussed the challenges and dysfunctions of
our eco-mental systems when trying to convey understandings, persuade or
18
influence others to our way of thinking. He said the way that one person
“influences another are part of an ecology of ideas in their relationship, and part of
the larger ecological system within which the relationship exists”(p. 512). Sheridan
and Gutkin (2000) reminded us that school leaders are “part of the ecology within
which children, families, and schools function . . . . The field is intricately
embedded within changing ecologies (realities) that include multiple systems,
settings, and populations with which we are concerned”(p. 489). They stated, “we
must be reflective of, responsive to, and proactive toward the multiple and changing
systems within which we operate”(p. 489).
In “leaderful organizations” “more than one leader can operate at the same
time, so leaders willingly and naturally share power with others” (Raelin, 2003, p.
13). Not only is leadership concurrent, it is collective. He suggested that leadership
is plural and not solely dependent on one person – “everyone is participating in
leadership” (p. 15). In the leaderful organization “everyone counts and every
opinion and contribution sincerely matters” (p. 16). Furthermore, Raelin argued
that “compassionate leaders [not necessarily positional leaders] recognize that
values are intrinsically interconnected with leadership and that there is no higher
value than democratic participation . . . the endowment of participation extends to
the wider community affected by the actions of an organization”(p. 16). This is the
kind of leadership needed to build capacity for a learning community, and which we
found in our high capacity learning community schools.
In his discussion of the adaptive work of leadership, Heifetz (1994) said that
this work of leading is characterized by its efforts “to diminish the gap between the
values people stand for and the reality they face” (p. 22). It is not possible to
discern the gaps unless one is fully present with the people. This was an attribute
that differentiated high capacity learning community schools from low capacity
learning community schools. High capacity school leaders exhibited moral
purpose—that purpose was to ensure that all students could learn and that their
dignity was protected.
In high capacity learning community schools, the principals used distributed
leadership. They were the architects/designers of structures and processes for the
success of these schools. They were good at obtaining consensus around the school
goals and purposes, and on the desired school culture. They were also good at
building trust and quality working relationships. Interestingly, they did not take
credit for these accomplishments but rather saw the entire learning community
contributing to learning coherence. The intensive focus on student learning
provided the coherence around which other school priorities were established.
What does this mean for leaders to be working in the complex eco-systems
we call “schools?” They need to focus their energy on teaching and learning and
ensuring that there is coherence in what the school is trying to accomplish. One of
the first tasks is therefore to build a sense of shared vision and purpose. Another
task is to develop the culture that encourages learning at the individual,
interpersonal, and organizational levels. Principals and teacher leaders need to be
the lead learners and model the way. Schools, as learning communities and
communities of practice, need to develop cultures of collaboration and shared
responsibility, without reliance on the mechanistic tendencies and pathological
19
patterns, described in this paper. The development of an interactive, trustworthy,
healthy and supportive environment is crucial. Further, an expectation of
continuous improvement and ongoing stewardship of learning for every community
participant has to prevail. Unless this paradigm shift occurs student learning will be
stifled. We have argued that a mindfulness of the promise of ecological
perspectives, complexity theories related to change and stability, community
development; considerations of the social aspects of learning; a concern for
professional learning; an understanding of social innovation and self-organization;
attention to sustainable innovation; cognizance of social networks; and an
awareness of learning in the face of mystery— will assist leaders to co-create
sustainable innovation in exemplary schools.
Conclusion
In this paper we have argued for a paradigm shift, one based on ecological
and complexity theory perspectives, if we are to meet the challenges of teaching
and learning in the knowledge society and in our school communities. We have
also argued for a turn toward learning community and the creation of communities
of practice that pay attention to sustainable innovation and learning, that is based in
social networks, and an awareness of learning in the face of mystery – as meeting
the needs of the 21st century. In addition, we have found that learning community
schools can provide the type of learning situations where teaching and learning are
sustained at higher levels and sustaining leadership provides the vehicle for school
improvement.
In this paper we noted that successful school leaders kept two operating
principles in mind: They focused their actions on teaching and learning, and they
involved everyone who had a stake in a particular decision or initiative. They
helped construct a shared vision, provided spaces for conversations, insisted on a
student learning focus, encouraged other to take on leadership roles, encouraged
collaboration, and modeled learning for others. In addition, they posed question
and facilitated dialogue “that addresses the confounding issues of practice”
(Lambert, 1998). In essence, these leaders created environments where
interdependency, mutual obligations, and shared commitments revitalized and
energized people
References
Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of success. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Argyris, C. (1983). Productive and counterproductive reasoning processes. In S.
Srivasta (Ed.), The executive mind (pp. 25-57). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Arnett, R., & Arneson, P. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age: Community,
hope, and interpersonal relationships. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an ecology of mind. St. Albans: Paladin.
20
Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend dialogue with David Bohm.
London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge &
Keegan Paul.
Capra, F. (2002). Connections. NY: Anchor Books.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. NY: Anchor Books.
Carter, S. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. New
York: Basic Books.
Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2001). Building shared responsibility for student
learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Crabb, L. (20040. The pressure’s off: There’s a new way to live. Colorado Springs:
WaterBrook Press.
Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks:
Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology f discovery and
invention. NY: Harper Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. N.Y.:
Harper & Row.
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Etzioni, A. (1996). The new golden rule: Community and morality in a democratic
society. New York: Basic Books.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power,
involvement, and their correlates. New York: The Free Press.
Fredricks, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:
Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research,
74 (1), 59-103.
Hajnal, V., Walker, K., & Sackney, L. (1998). Leadership, organizational learning,
and selected factors relating to the institutionalization of school improvement
initiatives. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44 (l), 70-89.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in a knowledge society: Education in the age of
insecurity. NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2005). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Harris, A. (2002). School improvement. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the chaordic age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning
communities. Lanham, ML: Scarecrow Education.
Jaworski, J. (1996). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco:
21
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Jung, C.G. (1969)(translation by R.D.F.C. Hull). Syncronicity: An acausal
connecting principle. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan
Management Review, 35 (l), 37-50.
Koffman, F., & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of
learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2), 5-23.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Connective leadership: Managing in a change world.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (in press). Building schools, building people:
The school principal’s role in leading a learning community.
Journal of School Leadership.
Mitchell, C., Sackney, L., & Walker, K. (2004). Experiencing a learning
community. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian
Society for the Study of Education, Winnipeg, MB.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for
a learning community. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (1998). Learning about organizational learning. In K.
Leithwood & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Organizational Learning in Schools.
(pp. 177-203). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G.(1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Oshry, B. (1996). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organizational life.
San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers workplace: The social organization of schools.
NY: Longman.
Sackney, L., & Mitchell, C. (2005). Leadership for communities of leaders:
Developing capacity for a learning community. In H. Armstrong (Ed.),
Examining the Practice of School Administration in Canada (pp. 275-291).
Calgary: Detselig Press.
Sackney, L., Mitchell, C., & Walker, K. (2005, April). Building capacity for
learning communities: A case study of fifteen schools. A paper presented to
the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Sackney, L., Walker, K., & Hajnal, V. (1999). Principal and teacher perspective on
school improvement. Journal of Educational Management, 1 (1), 45-63.
Sackney, L., Hajnal, V., & Walker, K. (1998, January). Institutionalization and
school leadership: Successful and unsuccessful efforts. Paper presented at the
annual conference of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and
Improvement, Manchester, England.
22
Scheffler, I. (1990). On human potential. New York: Routledge.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. NY: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building community into schools. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Speck, M. (1999). The principalship: Building a learning community. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Stacey, R. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and
knowledge creation. New York: Routledge.
Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the unknowable: Strategic boundaries between order
and chaos in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Stacey, R., Griffin, D., Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad or
radical challenge to systems thinking? New York: Routledge.
Starratt, R. (2003). Centering educational administration: Cultivating meaning,
community, responsibility. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning [and it’s about time].
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Stoll, L., & Fink, L. (1996). Changing our schools. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Streatfield, P. (2001). The paradox of control in organizations. New York:
Routledge.
Walker, K., & Sackney, L. (in press). Anti-egoistic school leadership:
Ecologically-based value perspectives. In D. N. Aspin & J. D. Chapman
(Eds.), Values education and lifelong learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Walker, K., Shakotko, D., & Pullman, E. (1998, October). Toward a further
understanding of trust and trustworthiness. Paper presented to l998 Values
and Educational Leadership Conference, Toronto.
Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms as learning communities. London: Routledge.
Wenger, E., McDermott, C., & Snyder, B. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about
organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
23